Paparazzi: Where Should The Privacy Line Be Drawn?

As you can see by the pattern of my publications here on SHC, I go through waves of thought and sometimes can be overcome with all the stuff floating around in my head. How do I overcome this? I write and tell you about it. I do this for a couple of reasons: Firstly, it is a great way of venting frustration or simply saying what I want and it is a great comfort to know that there are some of you who care to listen and even more encouraging when some of you feel the same way; and Secondly, because when I make my posts, it isn't long before I am swamped with opinions either agreeing or disagreeing with what I am saying and even sometimes there is a voice that provides a whole new perspective. Anyway, enough about that...

Something that has been wrecking my head, so to speak, is this whole notion of the Paparazzi and their constant ruining of the lives of celebrities. Firstly, I will not make this yet another "Look what happened to Princess Diana.." thing. Far more significant public figures have spoken out about that and I feel that they have done a great job, for the most part. But despite all of the complaints against the paparazzi, coupled with the paparazzi's reluctance to cooperate with these celebrities, there is an underlying constant that has yet to be solved. It is simply this, Where can we find a mutually beneficial harmony between both the paparazzi and celebrities?
I know what you are thinking, "The paparazzi are animals!", "They ruin lives", "They have no respect for peoples privacy". All of these are very valuable points. But before we make our case against the paparazzi, lets first look as some of the faults the celebrities make themselves...because there are some.
Let's create a hypothetical...if you are a celebrity, having trouble with your career, say...an actor? You are not landing roles of any merit, nor are you being noticed when you go out to clubs by "adoring fans"...who do you call upon to capture a moment that might land your name, EVER your picture, on TMZ or some other seedy, yet oddly popular publication? The answer: The paparazzi! For years now, hollywood/worldwide agents and managers have paid paparazzi under the table to ensure that particular people's faces are on the cover, or at least the pages, these crappy magazines...it is a step to fame...remember, there is no such this as bad press!!! In fact, the more bad press you get, the more popular you become! Take Britney...while I truly sympathise with the ordeals she has gone through, her constant featuring in various magazines under headlines as "Oops, she's done it again!", "She's driving crazy!" or my personal favorite "Clit-ney Spears caught with her pants off!" (yes, that one is a bit nasty, but it was nonetheless featured on several websites and blogs)...all of these have been the catalyst for her to relaunch her career and become once again, the princess of pop. One simply can't deny this. Kelsey Grammer, loves the paparazzi...except when he is being arrested for DUI...and embraces the spotlight because he knows that it will sell his Frasier DVD's and maybe an odd book here and there...cause let's face it, the 'respectable media' couldn't give a crap about his smug ass. Here is an example of how the paparazzi can be a tool and friend of celebs.

Ok, enough about can be good guys...on to the war against them...
I recently watched a video on Youtube, an interview with Halle Berry, on the Tavis Smiley Show. In the interview she spoke about how the paparazzi caused to have a fender-bender while, and get this, 3 MONTHS PREGNANT!!!. The Headlines the next day didn't say how it was the paparazzi's fault, but instead, published photos of her car being towed away (showing the not so bashed up side of the car) under the headline that implied that Berry was being towed away for illegally parking her vehicle. Now, I cannot verify if this was the case, but to be honest, I would take her word before the reputably dirty paparazzi. There are literally hundereds of examples of this sort of behaviour from the press.
If we examine Justin Timberlake's temprament with the paparazzi, he's pretty straight about it. He let's them know when to f**k off and has no scruples about slamming a camera out of their hand. And I think he is dead right!
Back to Britney...in all fairness, my heart genuinly goes out to her. She was going though some nasty stuff in her life, and did the paparazzi give a s**t? What do you think? I especially despise the way, they would pretend to be nice to her and, for example, LET her enter a petrol station to use the bathroom or buy some stuff and then, as soon as she left the building, would do everything short of assault her to get a pic. Just look at the pics of her (to which I will NOT provide a link to...you need to find those yourself, cause it would be disgusting to even give a gateway to see such an invasion of privacy) crying on a sidewalk, shaven head and barefoot. The videos of the ordeal, the paparazzi can be heard saying "give her space guys"...and "let her have a moment to herself"...she SAME guy holding the video camera is the person saying these things by the way...yet he is still rolling, recording her in floods of tears after she got upset. Firstly, who cares to watch this stuff? And secondly, who in their right mind would be sick enough to record it either via video or photo? I admittedly have watched some of the plethora of videos of paparazzi footage of various celebs...However, I do this not to see the celebs, but to listen in the abckground to the dogs that are the independent photographers.
But let's examine the recourse for celebs...there is none...well, they can always spend thousands of dollars to send decoys for the sheeparazzi to follow, but why should they have to? Are they not entitled to lead 'normal' lives?
George Clooney has, on several occasions, stated that there need to be restrictions places on the paparazzi. How can this be done? I don't think it can. The paparazzi will argue that it is censorship and impinging their right to freedom of speech etc. What are the alternatives for celebrities? To stay in their homes as recluse icons?
The thing is, I understand that there are fans out there that, because of the new access granted by the press to their favorite celebrities lives, feel that they know and are more involved in that person's life. It is a difficult dilemma. Difficult because celebrities surely appreciate that their fans have been given a taste for this new access and the supposed insight they gain into that celebrity's life increases popularity and sales which = more money. But there has to be a limit, at least I feel. Celebrities will never, at least in the forseeable future, escape the claws of the press. It is perhaps a disclaimer that everyone who wishes to become a celebrity should be aware of. Celebrity = abnormal life! But this is not the case for all celebrities. Just look at Matther McConaughey...he is in the press when he, sort of, wants to be. He is pretty cool about the whole thing. But I am sure that he knows that this is part of the fame game. But there are those not so capable. Those that are vulnerable. Those that can't, nor should they, deal with it. The onus is on the media. Simply, stop buying this crap from the paparazzi! Put them out of business. There is no information that can't be obtained from a sit down interview. It is respectable and builds a rapport between the press and celebrities. It also means that the stupid stuff celebrities do, is not highlighted in the press...because let's face it, we all have done some pretty dumb s**t. Why aren't our faces in the paper for it? Should they be? Maybe if every persons blooper reel of life was smeared across the papers, crime and basic stupidity levels would plummet? Maybe we would be mroe encouraged to cook at home, rather than eat out? LETS GET REAL!!! There has to be a balanced meduim. Laws. General (as we say here in Ireland) Cop-On!.
To invade someones private life does two major wrong: It makes trivial information something that is considered important; and it strips celebrities of having a 'Private Life'. Does anyone have the right to do that?

This is why I am going to start an experiment. I call out all people, regular folks and celebrities alike. To post the names and if possible photos of the paparazzi in their areas. Let's see how they like it! If they so much as pee on the side of the road waiting for "Angelina and Brad to leave their CA home" I want to know about it!. If they wait outside a McDonalds in a beat up TransAm, I want pictures of it! If they are following Britney to The Ivy, I want a video camera in their face, so I can see their reactions. We will post them and we will expose them. And I really hope they get mad! I welcome whatever they have to say, threaten us with! Let's do this and f**k them! Maybe then they will understand just how harmful their 'profession' is for the lives of others.

$

Homophobia: The New Racism? Do People Just Need to Hate Someone?

This is a post from the TalkPoliticsNow Blog. I just thought I should post it here too. The subject matter is something that's still bothering me. Take a look and send your comments. I look forward to reading them - S

Maybe I am going crazy, but lately I am getting the feeling that since Barack Obama was elected, there seems to have been a general acceptance that we are starting to win the war against racism…at least in the Western world (I can’t speak for the rest of the world, that would not be fair). However, in the wake of this seemingly ending battle, it appears the the world is being confronted with a new critically important social dilemma; the debate over gay-marriage. Since Californians voted “Yes” to repealling the laws permitting homosexuals to wed, there has been a discussion on almot all major American and some minor international outlets. Why all of a sudden have people jumped the “anti-gay bandwagon”?

I have been reluctant to give my opinion on gay marraige in the past, because I feel that people should keep their feelings about such things to themselve, for fear of impinging the feelings of others. However, now I feel that I need to throw in my two pennies…
Firstly, I am not the worlds greatest believer in marriage of any kind…for two reasons: it has become a contract; and in the unfortunate event of it ending, it turns into a asset/money-grabbing ordeal. Basically…I feel that unless you are 100% positive that it is something that you want to do, or else very stupid, you should not do it.
In a previous entry, I posted a link to Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment…and I, as I rarely do, agree with him. Marriage is a matter of love. To add my own note; love is something that is hard to destroy…even infidelity has a hard time killing love between two people. But that’s just my opinion.

Getting back to my point. This current war against the LGBTG community is thrust into the spotlight as the new debacle in the world. Between anti-gay rights activists who say “it’s not natural”, to evangelical christians who say “it isn’t what God intended”…it appears that people simply need to hate an ‘other’.
For these people who judge and ridicule the LGBTG community, I have two questions: What did they do to you? And, what real harm do you think will come from allowing members of the LGBTG community to share the same happiness as you enjoy?
I find great difficulty in understand people who believe that just because one man wants to make an official statement of his love for another man, or that two women wish to do the same with eachother, that this is a bad thing. And take god out of the picture for a moment, please. I need to be spared the “the bible says..” or “Jesus said…” because I don’t buy into that.

I don’t believe that a person doing something that makes them happy, which does not physically or emotionally harm another human, can be seen as a bad thing. Why deny people the right to be happy and why deny them the right to make an official gesture of their happiness?
Now that we seem to be overcoming, to a degree, racism (finally)…are we just designed to hate some people? Do we, the majority, have to have victims that allow us to feel good about ourselves? Do we need to overpower a group of people as a means of increasing the social status of our own? And is it part of the human condition, to make ourselves happy by making others unhappy? Is it such that we need to make up for the loss of having ethnic groups to belittle and deny equality?

Suicide: Can It Ever Be Justified? If So, How?

Today I watched a T.V. Programme...yes, I know, I reverted to the idiot box for over an hour of entertainment to cure my curiosity of what appeases the needs of the ever-dwindling population of our continuosly ailing planet. Interestingly, I stumbled upon a documentary entitled "Right to Die" on Sky RealLives. This was perhaps the most shocking diary I have ever watched in my entire, yet short, life. The topic was about assisted suicide and people rights to seek it when they feel that they need/want it. To provide some background to the show...
There were three candidates; a middle-aged man, from the United States although living in the UK, and an elderly couple, living in Canada. The middle-aged man was suffereing from Motor Neuron Disease and was gradually becoming more and more paralysed. He was refusing to allow his disease to render him, as he called it, to exist living in a tomb. The elderly couple were somewhat different. The pair, both Greek originally, sought to leave their eartly existence together. The husband was an individual who had suffered over four heart attacks, each leaving him more and more disabled. His wife however, was in perfect health. All three candidates wished to have their demise legally assisted rather than taking matters into their own hands.
The documentary was fairly self explanitory, the candidates were all seeking medical approval from a groups called Dignitas who plan and carry out the proposed assisted suicides, usually in Switzerland. And the documentary would show the world first intentionally recorded death as the final act of the film The entire ordeal, I use this word because it was personally the most difficult and sad thing I have ever seen in my life and regret doing so, was most disturbing.
Whatever about the show itself and its minor affects on me, it is something that, while I would noe encourage anyone to watch it, made me spend the rest of the evening thinking about where I stand on the issue of assisted suicide. I find myself juggling the moral code for which I have personally manifested throughout my life. This has occured because now I ask myself "Is suicide ok? And if so, when and underwhat circumstances?"
I have had friends over the years who have, due to various circumstances, taken their own lives, more often than not, fairly gruesomely. I had one friend who was a closet sufferer of manic depression who hung herself. Another friend also hung herself for reasons which will never be known. A friend, with whom I once went to college with, stopped taking his heart medication because he wished to lead a "normal life" knowing that he would eventually and quickly succumb to his disease. His death was not technically a suicide but he was well aware of the fact that neglecting to take his medication would result in his death quite quickly, he died at his computer, while having an argument with someone online, of a heart attack. More recently, an acquaintance of mine purposly drove into a river to escape the demons in his own life. The thing is, I have never sympathised with their actions, although I understand what may make them feel that they have no alternative but to take their own live. This is something that is hard to explain, I am aware of that.
Now, while I will never condone actions such as these, I feel I have my reasons. I believe that suicide is simply an easy escape that is primarily selfish and unfair...and not for the person themselves. But for their families, to be alerted by a policeman or a phonecall from a friend of such a tragedy leaves the family members with no immediate sense of understanding nor does it afford them a chance to help. For want of a better phrase, I feel suicide, in its traditional sense, is cowardly.
However, when the notion of assisted suicide, such as was documented in "Right to Die", entered my mind. This is where my own moral journey begins. If we examine the documentary, each of the candidates had informed their families of their intention to sanction their own death. Each family member had both the opportunity to reason with the prospective candidates as well as possess the chance to "say goodbye". I also find it different because each candidate had thoroughly thought it through and had clearly though that this was the optimum course of action. This still doesn't mean that I feel they are right to do what they wished to do. But as an alternative to the cowardly and unfair methods previously used by suicide 'victims', it seems reasonable to me that a person who wishes to conduct such an act, may be entitled to do so. My question is now, under what circumstances is it acceptable to allow someone to be able to make this decision?
If we again refer to the documentary, each of the candidates was subject to meetings with a psychologist. The intention of this was to evaluate the reasons for these candidates wishing to die. In the case of the man with MND, the psychologist granted him permission to seek assistance in his suicide on the basis that the man felt that being trapped in his body with no ability to communicate or act freely was a fate worse than death. For the elderly couple however, while the psychologist sympathised with the reasons of the husband, did not belive that the wifes reasons were acceptable. And while I still reserve judgement on the reasons of the two gentlemen, I would stand behind the verdict regarding the elderly woman. The strangest thing is, I find, that to have flexibility and believe in a persons right to end their own life, brings to mind considerations for other potent subjects such as abortion, drug taking and even prostitution.
If a woman carrying a child that has been concieved due either to her own health, incest, rape or simply lack of knowledge due to her age or mental capacity wishes to terminate her pregnancy, personally I feel she has the right to do so. If, on the other hand, she is pregnanant due to simply being careless, I feel she does not have the right to end her unborn childs life and should take responsibility for her and her sexual partners actions, as of course should her sexual partner.
In terms of drug taking, I believe is a person is aware of the effects, both mental and physical, of drugs. They should not be told that they cannot do it. I also believe that in this case, it is not the job of the state to care for these people if they develop problems from their actions. However if they are taken into the world of drugs either at a young age and become troubled by them due to innocence or are mentally incapable of seeing the issues that can arise from drug taking, they should be taken under the wing of the state and cared for. Also, there to prevent these things from occuring, there should be in place measures to minimise the potential of these occurences.
Prostitution is much simpler. While I believe that is should not be criminalised, there should be heavy regulations by the state to ensure that it is both a safe and proper proceeding. There should be regular health checks of prostitutes, as well as a registrar listing the names and addresses of a states working people. There should also be increased efforts to eliminate the number men and women drawn into the world of prostitution through the sex slave trade, this would also enable the state to rid the world of child prostitution. As well as this, we must remember, that while prostitution is seen as a profession resorted to as an act of financial desperation by troubled people, there are those who enjoy it and do it for both the love of money and the love of sex. In otherwords, it can be a victimless endeavor.
However with suicide, this is not such an easy dichotomy. I still consider the affects that prostitution has on the families of those who choose to die. But with that in mind, I understand that there are familial concerns with the three aforementioned topics. It makes for a very difficult debate. Where can we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is wrong? Moreover, who are we to decide the actions of another human being, especially when that human beings actions are not necessarily physically or mentally affecting the health of another persons? Finally, if we conclude that all of these actions have, at the very least, some profound mental affects on their families and friends, to what point do we reason and say to ourselves "well...that's all well and good for the families, but what about the individuals seeking to do these thing?...where do we take into account their wishes?". Where, if possible, do we balance both sets of feelings and who do we side with?
This is something that I can simple not answer. I pass the torch to you and let you give your views. Maybe you can enlighten me with your opinions because I am at a serious crossroads in my own moral journey. This is by far, the most stressing debate I have ever had with myself and it is making me uncomfortable to even begin to take a side. It would be easy to simply not take a side, but I feel that there must be an answer somewhere...or is there?

Obama’s Victory Holds Great Significance for People Everywhere: Why?

The sun had set here in Ireland on the day of hearing that Barack Obama had been elected as the next President of the United States. When I heard the news I was hysterical, amazed, delighted, moved, and somewhat confused. As I learned from MSNBC’s coverage that Obama had won, I had to verify this claim by changing to all the other news stations so as to avoid any conflict such as that which occurred some years back…I think you know which election I am talking about.

But, I was indeed perplexed soon after Obama was declared the winner; this was because I could not understand why there was a cheering coming from outside my window. This afternoon I clicked on the Huff Post website, as is becoming a 20 per day habit it seems, and saw pictures from all corners of the globe, of people elated after hearing the news of Obama’s election triumph. As I turned on the television, I saw footage of peoples reactions around the world: in London, there was a party in Hyde Park; Jakarta, street parties; Nigeria, a national holiday; Denmark, what might as well be a national holiday; and here in Ireland, people were talking and toasting Obama’s win all day long. This for some reason struck a chord with me, though not in a bad way, because I could not understand the significance that this election outcome has had for these people all over the world.

If we remove the context of the fact that the U.S. president is arguably the most powerful person in the world; why is this election so important? I spoke earlier with a friend of mine who is a U.S. citizen studying in Africa and I asked this question. She said that his victory was a victory for minorities all over the world. I concede that this is in itself as valid an answer as any. But, I was still not satisfied. Throughout the campaign, all parties involved, be it Obama, McCain or third party influences have been incredibly disciplined with regards raising the issue of race. This is truly admirable as it is a display of the integrity of equality in all its contexts. Today the headlines say things such as “Obama, the first black president” etc. Sherri Shepard on The View cried in what was a moving testament to what ‘Black America’ has achieved throughout its turbulent, and often tragic, history. But it still didn’t explain why so many people whether black or white, Asian or Hispanic, Irish or British, were so happy at the historic achievement of Barack Obama...
...And then it hit me, like a bat hits a baseball so hard that you know the ball is heading out of the park; it’s all of these things, but most of all, it is what Obama has represented. The very mantra of his campaign, the five and four letter words that have been the symbols of what the man, elected to lead the free world in its next chapter, has embedded in the minds of millions, perhaps billions, of people around the world: "Change" and "Hope".


There are people in my University who have met Barack Obama, some of whom I have met, who have told me that when he enters a room, he is so confident about his message that he has a presence that immediately engulfs you like flames of comfort and mutual trust. His message of hope and change are so grass-roots, so bold, and so fitting for the moment, that there isn’t a soul on this earth who can’t relate those two words into the context of their own life. One does not have to be from the United States, or be an African American to find appeal in what Barack Obama represents. Nor, do they have to be deeply or personally effected by the reforms he plans to implement when he becomes the so-called leader of the free world. But I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a person out there that has heard him speak, read his books, or simply learned what his message is, that can’t relate to his cause. Arguably all of us, in one way or another, are dissatisfied with our governments and administrations.

These two words, “Hope” and “Change”, while they may be two of the smaller words in the dictionary, are certainly, now and forever, two of the most powerful words we will ever hear or speak. Barack Obama learned early on in his career as a community organiser, later as a Senator, and now as President-elect, that the ability to capture the minds and hearts of the people, does not involve using same-old campaign strategy, rhetoric and one-liners, but the audacity to break down all the jargon to a level so that even a child could appreciate and understand it.
I now completely understand why people around the world are so proud of Barack Obama. He has empowered them to seek from their governments, what the American people, by electing Obama, have sought from theirs; an opportunity for change.



Yes We Can

The Importance of Being Idle

One of the things that I have always both hated and admired are people who can live by a 'routine' every single day of their lives. When I say people who live by routines, I mean the people who ritualistically wake up at the same time every day, go downstairs or down the hall, have a shower, go to the kitchen eat breakfast, brush their teeth, make coffee for their short commute to work with the same amount of milk and sugar. They go to work, greet the same people every morning, chat about the same things during their lunch break, usually eat the same food every lunchtime, go back to work, get in their car/train/bus, read the same paper. All this from Monday to Friday. These same people at the weekends, go to the same bar, drink the same drinks and socialise with the same people and talk about the same few things. What interests me about these people is that very few seem to read books, they watch TV though. The same programmes every day/week at the same time and god forbid they miss their scheduled programming at all...that would be a disaster. I personally cannot live by routines...while I may appear to, I have always flourished when being completely ambitionless for the day. If I sit down to go online, I usually have no agenda. I sit, think, write a little, check my messages and then procrastinate from living life by having a 'surf' of the wonders of the internet. More often than not, I find myself searching in job sections for that perfect career. The one where I can work from home at my computer and get paid handsomly.
Every no and then I sit back and think about this. Should one have goals in life? I maintain that I myself do indeed have goals. However, while I realise that some things are just not meant to be, for example, I know that I will probably never be a rockstar like I had planned when I was 16. Nor will I be that Pulitzer prize winning journalist (although I like to think one day that I could take a stab at it). When I think about all this I start to wonder, what is the point in having goals? And when we have goals, should they be "realistic"? If so, why? I doubt we need fear criticism ringing bells similar to John McEnroe's courtside lament; "You Cannot Be Serious?".
Last week, I met a girl who said to in some respect rocked my world. While not in a sexual way, although she was very attractive, she told me without provocation that she wanted to start a PhD in Biochemistry. Now, I know you are thinking "and?", but there is a reason for my being baffled. This was a girl of about 21 years old, who had studied endlessly throughout second level and had just completed a Bachelors Degree...she never lost focus. She went on to tell me that she has always wanted a career in academia, since she was 15. She said she was the youngest of 5, all of her brothers and sisters had been through University under the guidance of one parent. Now, while the achievement of this girl is in itself remarkable and incredibly admirable, what stuck me more was thinking afterwards "how was it for her mother?". Can you imagine being a single mother of 5, thats right, FIVE children? Getting up every morning, going to work. Then, coming home to cook your kids dinner and going back out to do a few more hours work whenever you can to earn a few quid to make Christmas or a birthday that little bit more special for your children.
This girl obviously get her 'routinism' and drive from her mother. She will undoubtedly go on to be amongst the best in her field of work.
A few days ago, I met the same girl again. she told me that she had just recieved a letter of acceptance from the University and was about to begin her PhD in September. They told her that she was going to recieve funding of €32,000 per year for three years and on top of that, her expenses e.g. accomodation and other living costs, would be covered. So basically, she would be getting paid €32k per year to study. However, her eyes were somewhat pinkish and watered. And she didn't seem to be too pleased with her accomplishment. She went on to say that her mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer that morning just minutes before she heard the news about her daughters PhD acceptance.
What does one conclude when hearing a something like this? If we as humans have a purpose on this little planet of ours, IT can't be simply to work all of your life scraping by to make sure your kids have can do the same. While it is indeed crucial that we raise our children to be stand up individuals and hope that they have IT better than we did; that can't be IT? There must be...should be, a point in our lives when we can stop and look back at all the hard work we have done and say "now is MY time to enjoy IT". There must be a moment when we pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on a job well done. Otherwise, what's the point? I am aware that this sounds extremely existential and very cynical, but I for one would not be satisfied with life if I had picked in the mine only to find a steel wall at the end. Some might say "that's life","the 'Lord' works in mysterious ways or even "Lifes a bitch". If life is a bitch, it should be adherent and us the dominators. We can't just let it pass us by and end it in regret.
I think about these things, and it reminds me of Jack Kerouac's book, "On The Road". He travels all over the United States with his friend Neal Cassady, living life to the fullest on a pocket full of lint and a head full of notions of experience. Not too long after the success of the book made him an icon, he succumb to alcoholism and eventually died from it. While many theorise that it was people getting his 'message' wrong, I believe that it was his anger of never truly experiencing IT. He had spoken about IT throughout the book and tell us that IT is out there and we have to grab IT by the horns and wrestle it to the ground and make IT ours. "We can't go any further. There is no more land", I would argue with this and say "Sure, there is no more land...let's get a boat and row to IT". I would hope that Kerouac would answer in the famous words uttered by the famous drug baron Howard Marks in his follow up book "Senor Nice", "Sure...I'll go to Panama".

So, for now...

Social Networking...Is privacy becoming a thing of the past?

Yesterday, as I was checking my e-mail before the 'great post-last exam session' with my now former colleagues, I saw a message that caught my eye. I couldn't recall recieving one like this before. It was an update from YouTube.com, telling me that "friends" of mine had updated ther profiles and added videos to their pages. While the e-mail itself was not of much interest, what was, was thinking about the likes of Bebo, MySpace, Uber and even Facebook. It seems as though, the more that one participates in these websites, the more they give up their privacy. By adding pictures of last weeks drinking session, or making arrangements to meet friends via wall posts, it seems that 'privacy' and the idea of having a 'private life' is becoming a distant memory.
In many ways, the same can be said for mobile phones. While I myself am quite, and sadly, reliant on my mobile as a means of contacting people, I am aware that by having the blasted thing in my pocket, I am unable to truly release. Think back say, 10 or 15 years ago, when hardy anyone had a phone. Wasn't that fun? Being able to go for a walk and know that the longer you are away from people the more privacy you had. Is it just me, or does going to meet someone in person seem like a chore nowadays? We can always just message eachother on Bebo/Facebook...or at a stretch, call on the phone. Sadly, this is the attitude that many people are unknowingly adopting.
I spoke to a friend the other day, in person no less, who said to me that he "couldn't be bothered to call his friends to invite them to his birthday celebrations", instead he planned to send a 'thread' on Facebook and that way they could tick the appropriate box on the invite. He said that going to all the hassle of ringing people was a pain in the ass. I though to myself, "how ridiculous". We are not becoming a world when even calling someone is deemed an effort!
What baffles me more, is trying to predict how we will communicate in the future. Will we just not talk to eachother anymore, thus rendering language futile? Maybe people won't leave their homes; satellite link-ups at weddings, funerals and child-births? Indeed the information superhighway is a long and interesting road however, is where it appears to be leading that nice of a place? I don't think so.

While I certainly don't enjoy social networking sites, I hypocritically possess several pages on different networks. There are indeed benefits; messaging distant relatives, playhing stupid games etc. One thing about these sites, is that I realise they are incredibly dangerous. I read an article posted on Kevin Smiths blog about a girl in the United States who committed suicide due to taunting and bullying she recieved on MySpace. To synosise, Megan Meier, a 16 year old from Florida, after months of pleading with her parents, was allowed to register a MySpace account. Her parents didn't want her to have one because they felt that she would become vulnerable to creeps of the internet. Anyway, While on MySpace she became friends with a boy and after a while the boy started telling her that he had heard that she was a horrible person and that she would be better off dead. She took that literally and commited suicide in her bedroom by hanging herself in her wardrobe. After weeks of investigation her parents recieved an anonymous phonecall from a girl who informed them that the boy never actually existed. Instead the parents of a friend of Megan's had set up the account because they wanted to "have fun" with Megan, who had recently 'de-friended' their daughter. Can you imagine that? How sick does someone have to be to do this? While we can expect kids to do things like this, we can hardly fathom the idea that an adult, let alone two - parents, would do this to a young girl and her family.
This isn't the only example, there are dozens of examples of internet-bullying related suicides as well as suicide pacts that have emerged in the news as a result of Social Networking. More recently in Wales, several teenagers killed themselves as part of a suicide pact they started for kicks it seems.
I suppose in many ways that these serve as cases-in-point regarding the privacy/safety demise brought on by the internet. Social Networking is a revolution which can't be taken lightly. It has more or less killed them both. I realise that I am being a hypocrite and that my having social networking spaces on various sites exhibits how I, myself, have been sucked into the realm of the internet buzz. However, I think that while these sites are useful, they are dangerous in ways that we can only just imagine. The perverse nature of these sites, while not necessarily repulsive, is indeed a shocking at times. What will be interesting, as I said before, will be seeing what the future has in store for the world of G-Rated exhibitionism.

Well, that's all for now. Remember to check out the 1 Second Film website. Nirvan Mullick has contacted me and has said that all of you who participate will get producer credits during the 90 minute post-movie end credits/making of documentary and also they are planning to set up Imdb profiles, however, I am not sure how they are planning to do it. I assume they will have a 1 Second Film page and list off the producers appropriately. Check It Out!!
Also, for those of you who are, like me, avid film buffs, if you haven't seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall, do just that. Russell Brand is excellent in it but sadly, his script could have been expanded.
And finally, speaking of Russell Brand, download the podcast on the BBC Radio 2 Website. It is hysterical, and for the neigh-sayers who dislike Russell's on-stage persona, you will change your minds about him, I guarantee it.

Right, I'm outta here

Sarah Marshall not easily forgotten...

On the eve of my final BA exam, I did what every studious individual does...I procrastinated!. By about midday, as you might expect, my tobacco supply was running at a level less than sufficient, but alas, I hadn't the necessary motivation to nip down the shop and buy a packet of my beloved B&H (other ciggies are available). So, I was in desperate need to take my mind off of my favorite vice. I decided to watch a movie, this was under the impression that I would eventually feel the guilt of loitering my chair and bedroom and go for a short stroll to an siopa, therefore I watched a film. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, to be precise. To be honest, I enjoy Nick Stoller's films, but was unsure as to how the acting talents of Russell Brand would fit Stoller's genre of cinema. Needless to say, I was baffled like you would imagine a swan would be after laying a strikingly large egg. The movie started out somwehat forward, less than 6 minutes into the film and we had already seen a happy Peter (Jason Segel) turn into a fully frontal nude and broken hearted shell of a man as well as this we saw Aldios Snow's Infant Sorrow hit video "We've got to do something", despite this, the movie looked like a bit of a bomb. Without ruining the movie for anyone, I would simply say that the film, in retrospect, was probably the best comedy to have been released so far this year. Segel and Mila Kunis were especially funny whereas Kristen Bell was a little hollow. Although, one can only suspect that this was how Stoller had planned.

The real pleasant surprises came from the somewhat minor roles of Jonah Hill (who plays a waiter in worship of Snow and becomes the most amazingly funny suck up I have ever witnessed) and Russell Brand. In fairness, Brand in many respects steals the show. While Segel, the lead actor was, as one might expect, brilliant, Brand was beyond superb. His delivery of lines and famous nomenclature left me in awe of the endless talents this man seems to possess. For those who have seen the film, I am sure you will agree that the catchphrase for the summer shall be "I was going to do it, but then I just kept on living my life" , I find it a line that will remain as one of the great Stoller classic phrases...you know what i'm talking about. Most of the truly funny stuff that occurs in the film is very subtle, however one does not need to watch this film twice to be rendered hysterical at times.
Since I finished watching this movie, I have spoken with three friends, all avid moviegoers, who all agree that potentially this film could become a cult classic in the ranks of There's Something About Mary and Superbad. While Segel and Hill will undoubtedly be seen in the near future in other movies from their repertior, Brand will hopefully not allow the glitz of Hollywood suck him into second rate gratuitous comic roles such as the path that Ben Stiller has fallen down. Let's hope he sticks to his newly grown roots and capitalises on his ability to make quirky so-called post-teen grossout comedies as appealling as ever.

Say "YES!" to the Lisbon Treaty; Why should you?

The Lisbon Treaty has come under much scrutiny over the last few months; despite the lack of media attention it should have recieved in the months running up to the upcoming referendum in June. The lack of attention, one could suggest, is due to the Referendum Commission we have here in Ireland; which states that advertising of a referendum can only be undertaken by the State 4 weeks prior to an referendum - this of course is ridiculous - if the issue were something more threatening to the so-called secular state we live in e.g. homosexual marriage, abortion, divorce...there would surely be ample television and radio commentary as well as government 'information seminars' occuring for up to a year before the referendum.
Despite this setback, many people feel that sovereighty and the 'Irish Identity' are at risk and that if we were to vote Yes to the treaty that we would further diminish our nation which we fought so hard for. For the nay-sayers, sorry, but this is not the case. You need to remember that Ireland joined the EU (EC/EEC) in 1973, along with Greece etc. When we did this, we automatically gave away the most sovereignty and independence we were ever going to give. The ridiculous thing is, is that many of the people standing on their soap boxes 'telling' you, not asking you, to say NO, don't actualy know the full implications of the Lisbon Treaty. They argue that Ireland's role in EU desicion making will be further diminished because of our small population size, this is incorrect. The Lisbon Treaty stipulates many things, the least being an increase in the already significant democratic deficit. Ireland's role, like the role of all EU member states will change slightly. The European Commission will decrease from 27 members to 18 members, but on a rotation basis. That is, each country will have representation but in a cycle. ALL members of the EU will forsake a role in the commission for a term. It will allow for every country, even those newer states like Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, to have an equal say in the decions made by the EU. Nay-sayers also say that the voting process in the EU will change for the worse and that the role of the Irish people will shrink...simply untrue; the Lisbon Treaty clearly indicates that the role of National governments will increase, in fact, they will be consulted about policy before it even reached the consideration of the European Commission and theCouncil of Ministers. This is a good thing! Why? Because it means that if a country's people do not like the proposed law, it will be rethought and resubmitted to the National governments for reconsideration. Our role as people and members of the EU will be increased. As well as this, the double-majority or QMV will be used in more areas of the EU decision making process, this means that no longer will big powerhouses such as Germany, the UK, France, be able to implement their agendas. Decisions will be absed on a large majority. Therefore, in order for a decision to be made,at least 65% of votes must be in favour of change. The Veto is slowly being disposed of, which is better because although it will mean that there will be some decisions that Ireland won't like, it also means that in order for drastic change to be made, it will only occur if represented by the combined interests of all member states.
Perhaps the biggest argument regarding the Lisbon Treaty is the establishment of an EU External Relations Force...In otherwords, an EU military. People object to this in Ireland because they believe that it will jeopardize Ireland's neutrality. If you believe this, you are quite simply an idiot! If you believe this, you really don't understand Ireland's neutrality stance or the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. We can only enter into battle/war under 2 (TWO) conditions. The first being if Ireland came under attack. The second reason goes a little like this...Here in Ireland we have what is called a Triple-Lock system regarding our neutrality. In otherwords, Ireland CANNOT enter the theatre of war without the joint-agreement of the Irish Government, the Oireachtais and the United Nations. Therefore, if the EUEAF were to send troops into Turkey for example, they could not recruit Irish soldiers without an agreement from all three of the aforementioned bodies. Also, the Lisbon Treaty states VERY clearly, that NO country will be obliged to participate in EU External Relations Force activity. There is NO way Ireland can be forced to lift it's neutral perspective whatsoever. Simply NONE. So, if you hear someone say "The Lisbon Treaty is BAD because it means that there will be an EU army and Ireland will have to participate", do yourself and them a favour and slap them on the back of the head and say "READ THE FUCKING PROPOSAL YOU MORON!" because they are wrong. There are lots of other proposals in the Lisbon Treaty (12 all together) but these are the ones that people say jeopardize Ireland's sovereignty and neutrality. Whatever the outcome of the Referendum, and whatever your vote may be, don't be a fool. If you Vote "NO" because you think the apparently bad Lisbon Treaty threatens Ireland, you are stupid. If you have other reasons, please share them with me. If you Vote "YES", nice one!

Anyway, that's all for now.
Voting "YES",

The One Second Film (http://the1secondfilm.com)

THE ONE SECOND FILM

While perusing the web; imdb, facebook, bebo, wikipedia and youtube to mention a few, I ended up on the biography page of one Jonah Hill (the chubby dude from Superbad). I reached the 'Filmography' section to find that he was involved in a project called the "1 Second Film"...like I was, you are probably thinking "what the fuck is that?"...I checked it out.
When I went to www.the1secondfilm.com, I saw that this film was a novel incarnation. The idea is that the movie itself would last 1 second but the credits would last up to 90 minutes. The reason behind this is that it is not sponsored as 99% of films by a studio, it is in aid of Charity and the producers (those who fund the movie) are a huge list of contributors. The best parts; anyone can participate and you will get credited as a producer...therefore, if the film were to win say....an Oscar, or a BAFTA, or a Sundance Award or even the Palme dOr at Cannes for production, you the producer would get credited and subsequently be legally entitled to credit yourself with an award nod or win. So what's the catch? There is none...the director and organisers of the film are promising full credentials for every single contributor and you will get a credit for as little as $1/€0.65ish and the amount you can donate/invest, I understand is unlimited. If there is a catch, it is that all profits, that is 100% (minus the overheads, of course).
There are three different levels of donation; $1 - $9.99 gets you Associate Producer Credits, $10 - $99.99 gets you (1st) Producer Credits (these are the ones who get the Oscars, when you see them announce "And the Oscar for Best Production of a Motion Picture goes too..."), and finally for $100+ you will recieve Executive Producer Credits (Again, like (1st) Producer Credits, you would technically win the Oscar too).

So, in tribute to my own ego, I decided to donate $19.84 (in line with the year of my birth and obviously the greatest year ever) and will be credited with Producer creditentials during the end credits of the movie...Imagine, me, a producer of a Independant/potentially Hollywood movie...it's pretty cool. Anyway, if you decide to take a look at the site, type "one (or 1) second film" in the search bar and click "I'm feeling lucky", you will be taken directly to the site. I know about 10 people in the University here who have already joined and I think it is a cool opportunity to do something nice (even though you can spend less than a packet of chewing gum) and boost your ego or whatever floats your boat.

That's all for now,
Peace,


Once again the website is: http://www.the1secondfilm.com - Please check it out and please take part, it's an opportunity NOT to be missed!

See latest stories on Yahoo! News

"Steaksauce"

I am not the worlds biggest advocate of watching television...it sometimes acts as a distraction from watching the world around you, eventually leading to alienation from reality. Programmes from "Eastenders", "Hollyoaks", "Coronation St." to "Cribs", "The Fabulous Life..", "My Super Sweet 16" - paint a false depiction of what the world is really like on the grander scale. But, a little over three months ago, I stumbled on this programme called "How I Met Your Mother" (before you leave a comment saying "dude thats an old show"...I am aware of that). I was blown away by the fact that the whole idea of the show is out of the box compared to normal sitcoms. There aren't overwhelmingly predictible plot lines or romantic overtones to the same extent as "Friends" and other shows. It rings bells in the tone of "Frasier" and (as much as I hate the show) "Everybody Loves Raymond". You can watch an episode from any part of the season and feel like you have watched everything up to it.
Anyway, to the point of this blog post! I was watching an episode, don't ask me which one it was cause I can't remember, and the character "Barney" invented something called the "Lemon Law". He invents the term, uses it on a girl and eventually hears it said back to him by another girl a couple of days later. The phrase caught on in NYC pop culture. I thought this was hysterical because it shows that the show is obviously written by smart people, one of whom may have even studied sociology, because there are theories regarding Consumer Culture...trust me, you are all aware of them. Think of fashion designers, and their power over buyers. You the buyer doesnt pick what is 'hot' this season, the powerful designers and fashion magazines do. The result is, people will buy their stuff cause it is said to be 'in'.
So, back to the Lemon Law, after watching this show, I laughed at how possible it would be to make something popular with little or no effort. So I 'borrowed' a phrase used in 'Mother' and decided I would test this out in my hometown. It is a small place with just over 3,000 people. The term is 'Steak Sauce', meaning awesome, great, really cool, brilliant etc. etc. The emptimology (not sure if I spelled that correctly) comes from, I believe, some American steak sauce called "A1", which in context means awesome, very good, A1 grade etc. In my local bar, I put this to the test, I was careful about how often I used it, I didn't want to get too much attention over it...and have people think I am a psycho with a learning disability. So I chose my subjects wisely, people who I knew would either find relevance in the term or would at least just accept the phrase as meaning 'good'. I think in total, I used the term about 9 or 10 times and decided to leave it there and forget about it for a few days. Next thing I know, I was in the city nearest to me, Limerick, and was in a cafe with some friends. I ordered the coffee, went to the cafe bar to pay. Paid, and gave the waitress a tip, a foreign girl whom I have never met before. I think I gave her a €5 tip and she replied "Steak Sauce, thanks!". I was in a mild form of shock. I never actually believed that it would take off to the extent that I would hear it from a foreign waitress in a place miles from where I live. It was awesome....I mean Steak Sauce...say as it may sound, this to me was a very important ratification of how susceptible people are to influence.
If you have any stories like this, pleace leave a comment. Remember to be nice and keep the bad language to a minimum, comments are open to all but if there are too many "anon" entries filled with swearing, I will limit comments to registered members of the blog....not that I have any yet.
Peace

First Submission

Hey everyone,

This blog is kind of strange in that it won't deal with any specific category of item. We are just a group that likes to rant and rave and maybe even provoke discussion from time to time. If there is an issue that hits a nerve, We have a tendancy to think long and hard about it, the hard part is that there aren't many people willing to discuss 'some' of the issues at hand. So, as this is the first of what we hope is many blogs, we just wanted to let you all know that we hope you will find what we discuss in the future is both interesting and worth writing about. If you have any suggestions about what should be mentioned, dont hesitate to send us a message and/or make a comment.

Looking forward to hearing from you in the future,
Slan libh,

Smokinghotcoffee