The last of the Nine Old Men, the team of original Disney animators, died at the age of 95 today. Ollie Johnston died of natural causes while in a long term care facility. Beginning in 1946, Johnston worked as a directing animator in almost every film until retiring in 1978. He drew characters for Mickey Mouse short films as well as contributing to classics such as "Snow White," and "The Seven Dwarfs." His accomplishments include being the only animator being awarded a National Medal of the Arts in 2005 and having a documentary profiling he and fellow Disney animator Frank Thomas in 1995. He was also considered a mentor at Disney. Disney Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter said, "He taught me to always be aware of what a character is thinking, and we continue to make sure that every character we create at Pixar and Disney has a thought process and emotion that makes them come alive."
Seeing how much Disney has influenced television and movies, I am surprised that there was not more publicity about the last member of the team dying. I would have like to at least seen a brief television news report done. Even on the Disney Channel, I believe that there could have been some sort of report done in a way that young children would understand, to help them appreciate those who paved the way for the creators of shows and movies that they enjoy today. Maybe the Disney World and Disney Land locations will have some sort of themed celebration or ceremony.
Do you believe that te media could have covered Ollie Johnston's death in a better way or do you believe it was sufficient? What do you think could have been done to improve if you think it could have been better?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
A world of stress
Everyone has their passion and sometimes, a person's passion, could be the death of them. With the Internet bringing convenience and speed to everyone, people are able to work from their homes. Recently, two well known bloggers died and another survived a heart attack. Other bloggers suffer from weight loss, weight gain, and develop sleep disorders.
While there is no major "death by blogging" epidemic in place, it does call for raised eyebrows in the direction of a typical blogger's lifestyle.
The article states, "'I haven’t died yet,' said Michael Arrington, the founder and co-editor of TechCrunch, a popular technology blog. The site has brought in millions in advertising revenue, but there has been a hefty cost. Mr. Arrington says he has gained 30 pounds in the last three years, developed a severe sleeping disorder and turned his home into an office for him and four employees. 'At some point, I’ll have a nervous breakdown and be admitted to the hospital, or something else will happen.'"
Does being able to work from home still cause burdens for people? I believe it does, and at a serious price to pay. While society today is into instant gratification and flexibility to work when they please, a single second can make the difference.
The artilce says "'There’s no time ever — including when you’re sleeping — when you’re not worried about missing a story,' Mr. Arrington said."
That final quotation left me wondering, is what these people put themselves through healthy? Obviously it's not. The constant demands of putting out news in a timely manner is what is causing such serious side effects. We are always warned about participating in introverted activities such as television, video games, and Internet. It must be for our own benefit. I personally believe that people are aware of the strains that being under constant pressure can bring. So why not avoid it or at least minimize it? Is it because these bloggers want to make a successful career out of doing what they love? No amount of money can equal up to the value of one's health.
Do you think that these bloggers should become more aware of what can happen to them by living the lifestyles that they live? What do you think would be a good way to inform others?
While there is no major "death by blogging" epidemic in place, it does call for raised eyebrows in the direction of a typical blogger's lifestyle.
The article states, "'I haven’t died yet,' said Michael Arrington, the founder and co-editor of TechCrunch, a popular technology blog. The site has brought in millions in advertising revenue, but there has been a hefty cost. Mr. Arrington says he has gained 30 pounds in the last three years, developed a severe sleeping disorder and turned his home into an office for him and four employees. 'At some point, I’ll have a nervous breakdown and be admitted to the hospital, or something else will happen.'"
Does being able to work from home still cause burdens for people? I believe it does, and at a serious price to pay. While society today is into instant gratification and flexibility to work when they please, a single second can make the difference.
The artilce says "'There’s no time ever — including when you’re sleeping — when you’re not worried about missing a story,' Mr. Arrington said."
That final quotation left me wondering, is what these people put themselves through healthy? Obviously it's not. The constant demands of putting out news in a timely manner is what is causing such serious side effects. We are always warned about participating in introverted activities such as television, video games, and Internet. It must be for our own benefit. I personally believe that people are aware of the strains that being under constant pressure can bring. So why not avoid it or at least minimize it? Is it because these bloggers want to make a successful career out of doing what they love? No amount of money can equal up to the value of one's health.
Do you think that these bloggers should become more aware of what can happen to them by living the lifestyles that they live? What do you think would be a good way to inform others?
Monday, March 24, 2008
He's my baby's daddy!
The actor/comedian Mike Epps known for his roles in How High, Next Friday and Friday After Next, now has a paternity suit being filed against him. The woman, whose name has not been released, states that the only reason she is going public with the suit is because her calls and e-mails had gone unanswered.
The article states, "'We are not asking for the moon, we are just asking him to take a paternity test,' the woman's lawyer Randy Kessler told TMZ. 'Once the tests are completed and paternity is confirmed, hopefully, Mr. Epps will do the right thing and begin to provide for his child.'"
The actor/comedian has been married since 2006. He and his wife have no children together.
With the story being so new, there are not many details available. One thing I have noticed is that many celebrities get involved in affairs or one night stands and don't want to face the consequences. Either they don't claim the child as their own or they wont pay child support. An example of this scenario would be Sean "P. Diddy" Combs with long time girlfriend Kim Porter.
Other times, the women put the accusations on celebrities to get some extra money.
If Mike Epps follows through with the paternity test and the results come back positive, I believe that he would take responsibility for his child. If he hadn't said anything to his wife by now about the situation, this could cause some problems in their marriage. I know if I am placed in the situation, I would rather know about it ahead of time to avoid the marital complications. While trust may be gone, at least the honesty was there to admit the truth and perhaps have it worked out.
My question for you is, do you think Mike Epps will take responsibility for his child if the results are in the woman's favor? What do you think the woman's real motive is? Meaning, do you think she just wants the extra money or does she truly believe that Mike Epps is the father?
The article states, "'We are not asking for the moon, we are just asking him to take a paternity test,' the woman's lawyer Randy Kessler told TMZ. 'Once the tests are completed and paternity is confirmed, hopefully, Mr. Epps will do the right thing and begin to provide for his child.'"
The actor/comedian has been married since 2006. He and his wife have no children together.
With the story being so new, there are not many details available. One thing I have noticed is that many celebrities get involved in affairs or one night stands and don't want to face the consequences. Either they don't claim the child as their own or they wont pay child support. An example of this scenario would be Sean "P. Diddy" Combs with long time girlfriend Kim Porter.
Other times, the women put the accusations on celebrities to get some extra money.
If Mike Epps follows through with the paternity test and the results come back positive, I believe that he would take responsibility for his child. If he hadn't said anything to his wife by now about the situation, this could cause some problems in their marriage. I know if I am placed in the situation, I would rather know about it ahead of time to avoid the marital complications. While trust may be gone, at least the honesty was there to admit the truth and perhaps have it worked out.
My question for you is, do you think Mike Epps will take responsibility for his child if the results are in the woman's favor? What do you think the woman's real motive is? Meaning, do you think she just wants the extra money or does she truly believe that Mike Epps is the father?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
ALERT ALERT!! IT'S THE CONSUMER REPORT.
It's true what they say about old age. Things tend to become a little more fiesty. This is the case as well with the magazine Consumer Report. The magazine is known for delivering news on which products are actually useful and which ones aren't. After 70 years, Consumer Report has decided to advertise as well. This isn't your typical advertisement however, these ads warn against purchasing a particular product.
One particular advertisement is for purchasing extended warranties on new cars. "The ads warn against buying extended warranties on new cars, saying, 'Pushover on board.' They will begin to appear Monday on car-buying Web sites like Caranddriver.com and Edmunds.com, and a full-page version is scheduled to appear Tuesday in USA Today."
For the first time ever, a survey of consumers who purchased extended warranties with about 8,000 participants was conducted. It was noted that while the extended warranties cost about $1,000, the estimated cost for repairs during the warranty length was only $700. That is an extra $300 spent that could be used on somethinig else! There are two sides to every story though and car dealers disagree with the findings.
It is stated in the article, "Kenneth Weine, a vice president of Consumers Union, said the ad campaign is a way to further the group’s mission, 'to make the market a better and safer place for consumers.'"
I believe te advertising method is a great idea, especially for a topic like cars. Many people don't know much about cars or how to purchase a good one, or even a good deal. By warning that the warranties may not be all they are cracked up to be can save people a lot of money.
My question for you is this, do you view these advertisements as something that could benefit people in the long run? Also, do you think the extended warranty is worth the extra money?
One particular advertisement is for purchasing extended warranties on new cars. "The ads warn against buying extended warranties on new cars, saying, 'Pushover on board.' They will begin to appear Monday on car-buying Web sites like Caranddriver.com and Edmunds.com, and a full-page version is scheduled to appear Tuesday in USA Today."
For the first time ever, a survey of consumers who purchased extended warranties with about 8,000 participants was conducted. It was noted that while the extended warranties cost about $1,000, the estimated cost for repairs during the warranty length was only $700. That is an extra $300 spent that could be used on somethinig else! There are two sides to every story though and car dealers disagree with the findings.
It is stated in the article, "Kenneth Weine, a vice president of Consumers Union, said the ad campaign is a way to further the group’s mission, 'to make the market a better and safer place for consumers.'"
I believe te advertising method is a great idea, especially for a topic like cars. Many people don't know much about cars or how to purchase a good one, or even a good deal. By warning that the warranties may not be all they are cracked up to be can save people a lot of money.
My question for you is this, do you view these advertisements as something that could benefit people in the long run? Also, do you think the extended warranty is worth the extra money?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Nintendo and Nazis
Nintendo has become a household name that traditionally brings happy thoughts. Video games have been turned into a bonding experience within families. This time however, one game stirs controversy. Imagination Is the Only Escape, is the title of a video game that Luc Bernard, 21, has developed in the U.K. The theme of the game is to show how Nazis tortured children during the Holocaust. "It casts players in the role of a young boy in eastern France during the German occupation who seeks escape from real-life horror through a fantasy world," the article states.
Alten8, the company that is liscenced to create games for Nintendo U.K., is in the process of releasing another game by Bernard. This title deals with global warming.
The United States will not see this title in toy stores or retail stores however. While Bernard says that the game is supposed to be educational, where is the limit drawn? “There will be no on-screen violence in this product. I don’t see war as a game. I don’t find that amusing," says Bernard.
The article doesn't mention the reason why the United States has no plans to release the game but I believe the reason is because the concept is very twisted. Young children play these video games, and while he says there is no violence present, how else does one illustrate the way children were tortured? I think it can be very damaging to the psyche, especially of a young child, and there is nothing entertaining about that.
What is your opinion of the video game? Why do you think the United States is not releasing the game?
Alten8, the company that is liscenced to create games for Nintendo U.K., is in the process of releasing another game by Bernard. This title deals with global warming.
The United States will not see this title in toy stores or retail stores however. While Bernard says that the game is supposed to be educational, where is the limit drawn? “There will be no on-screen violence in this product. I don’t see war as a game. I don’t find that amusing," says Bernard.
The article doesn't mention the reason why the United States has no plans to release the game but I believe the reason is because the concept is very twisted. Young children play these video games, and while he says there is no violence present, how else does one illustrate the way children were tortured? I think it can be very damaging to the psyche, especially of a young child, and there is nothing entertaining about that.
What is your opinion of the video game? Why do you think the United States is not releasing the game?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
ESPN Branching into Films
While partnering with the Walt Disney Studio and Creative Artists Agency, the company that dominates sports on television, ESPN, is taking sports to the movie screen. The films would have a sports theme. This new expansion includes a hiring of 30 filmmakers that will produce one-hour mini-movies. The mini-movies are set to air in September 2009.
“We see this as a new way to reach sports fans and engage them,” said Keith Clinkscales, ESPN’s senior vice president for content development.
The owner of ESPN is Walt Disney; Disney will be the financial provider for the films or from outside investors.
The purpose of the new venture is to face recent challenges in its core operations. ESPN already has successful empire in magazines, Internet, and an array of cable television channels. Another approach to face the challenges ESPN operators are facing is by hiring sports journalists from magazines and newspapers.
One issue that ESPN needs to avoid is messing up the relationship with sports leagues. This already occured previously with the NFL and the show "Playmakers." The show featured steroid use and hiding cocain by the football players.
While this is a great move, part of me thinks that there are enough sports films out there already. The majority of them have the same plot line. I do think it would have been interesting to see Space Jam produced again by the makers at ESPN.
Do you think movies will be a successful route for ESPN? Do you think they will be able to avoid the problem of messing up their ties with sports leagues?
“We see this as a new way to reach sports fans and engage them,” said Keith Clinkscales, ESPN’s senior vice president for content development.
The owner of ESPN is Walt Disney; Disney will be the financial provider for the films or from outside investors.
The purpose of the new venture is to face recent challenges in its core operations. ESPN already has successful empire in magazines, Internet, and an array of cable television channels. Another approach to face the challenges ESPN operators are facing is by hiring sports journalists from magazines and newspapers.
One issue that ESPN needs to avoid is messing up the relationship with sports leagues. This already occured previously with the NFL and the show "Playmakers." The show featured steroid use and hiding cocain by the football players.
While this is a great move, part of me thinks that there are enough sports films out there already. The majority of them have the same plot line. I do think it would have been interesting to see Space Jam produced again by the makers at ESPN.
Do you think movies will be a successful route for ESPN? Do you think they will be able to avoid the problem of messing up their ties with sports leagues?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
YouTube Blackout
This past Sunday, the popular website YouTube experienced a blackout. The higher forces in Pakistan redirected all access to the website when it was dicovered that a video clip attacking Islam was posted. Government officials in Pakistan became worried that the clip might create unrest among its Muslim population.
Two major mistakes were made however during the process of denying access to the website which caused a blackout worldwide. The first being Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, the country's Internet provider, created a dummy route to the YouTube website. This resulted in viewers being sent to a black hole instead. The next error happened when Pakistan Telecom announced the dummy route to PCCW, a telecommunications partner based in Hong Kong. From there, PCCW accepted the dummy route for YouTube and sent it to other Internet providers worldwide.
The incident escalated because there were now two routes that conflicted with one another that lead to YouTube. The online protocol, Border Gateway Protocal, favors longer routing addresses because they are said to be more specific. This time however, it resulted in leading 97 major Internet providers and thousands of smaller providers to the dummy route.
It took about two hours for the problem to be corrected. It was mentioned that the only way the time for correcting problems like the one on Suday would increase is for more incidents to occur.
Since then, the video has been removed from the website and access is allowed again.
This is not the first time that a country has blocked access to YouTube for some reason or another. It has happened in China, Morrocco, and Turkey.
Craig Aaron, communications director at Free Press, is worried that blocking access to websites in entire countries might hinder free speech online. What do you think?
On one hand, I do believe that necessary precautions should be taken to keep the peace in a country. On the other hand, I see where Aaron is coming from. It is a granted liberty-freedom of speech. Restricting access somewhat denies this right. While it still may be viewable in other parts of the world online, what difference does it make if the people that need to see it the most can't? Do you think there could be another method for preventing mayhem?
Two major mistakes were made however during the process of denying access to the website which caused a blackout worldwide. The first being Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, the country's Internet provider, created a dummy route to the YouTube website. This resulted in viewers being sent to a black hole instead. The next error happened when Pakistan Telecom announced the dummy route to PCCW, a telecommunications partner based in Hong Kong. From there, PCCW accepted the dummy route for YouTube and sent it to other Internet providers worldwide.
The incident escalated because there were now two routes that conflicted with one another that lead to YouTube. The online protocol, Border Gateway Protocal, favors longer routing addresses because they are said to be more specific. This time however, it resulted in leading 97 major Internet providers and thousands of smaller providers to the dummy route.
It took about two hours for the problem to be corrected. It was mentioned that the only way the time for correcting problems like the one on Suday would increase is for more incidents to occur.
Since then, the video has been removed from the website and access is allowed again.
This is not the first time that a country has blocked access to YouTube for some reason or another. It has happened in China, Morrocco, and Turkey.
Craig Aaron, communications director at Free Press, is worried that blocking access to websites in entire countries might hinder free speech online. What do you think?
On one hand, I do believe that necessary precautions should be taken to keep the peace in a country. On the other hand, I see where Aaron is coming from. It is a granted liberty-freedom of speech. Restricting access somewhat denies this right. While it still may be viewable in other parts of the world online, what difference does it make if the people that need to see it the most can't? Do you think there could be another method for preventing mayhem?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Lindsay Lohan in the Nude
Last week, Lindsay Lohan posed nude in order to recreate the famous photo shoot of Marilyn Monroe. The star of "Mean Girls" and "Freaky Friday" took the pictures which appear in this week's issue of New York magazine. The original photo shoot of Monroe was done in 1962 in California at Hotel Bel-Air by Bert Stern. Following in the footsteps of the legend, Lohan posed in see through scarves and jewelry. Stern stated that Lohan was "a natural, not at all squeemish." Lohan obviously couldn't pass up an opportunity to recreate such magic! Opportunities like that do not come around everyday. A follow up article about Lohan's mother, Dina says, "She's always loved Marilyn," Dina said. "For Christmas, my girlfriends even gave her a Marilyn cookie jar. I think there's a sadness that Lindsay feels for Marilyn. Lindsay really saw it as a gift back to someone."
Lindsay admitted to the industry ultimately destroying a celebrity after mention of her ins and outs of rehab for cocaine and alcohol last year.
While barbituates were the cause of death for Monroe just weeks after the famous shoot seems kind of ironic for Lohan to recreate. With both Lohan and Monroe being into alcohol, Stern said that Lohan didn't have any on the set.
I have not seen anything about this until now, nor have I heard anyone talking about it. I believe the media covered it very professionally. Her mother's acceptance of the shoot was very mature as well. Once the word really hits the streets, I think the issues will be selling out quickly. With this type of story, the more publicity the shoot gets, the more negative it appears. I am glad the story was handled this way.
While the first nude shoot was innocent enough and even an honor to do, do you believe that this will open the doors for Lohan to do more nude work?
After this, for some reason I can just picture Lohan doing sex tapes because she is still young. The first taste of the "adult business" might steer her in the wrong direction. She is already following the celebrity pattern of drugs, alcohol, and rehab. The next step is sex tapes, just like many others.
It was mentioned that the shoot was tasteful, do you believe that it will win any awards?
I believe that it is possible, especially with the history of the photo shoot.
Lindsay admitted to the industry ultimately destroying a celebrity after mention of her ins and outs of rehab for cocaine and alcohol last year.
While barbituates were the cause of death for Monroe just weeks after the famous shoot seems kind of ironic for Lohan to recreate. With both Lohan and Monroe being into alcohol, Stern said that Lohan didn't have any on the set.
I have not seen anything about this until now, nor have I heard anyone talking about it. I believe the media covered it very professionally. Her mother's acceptance of the shoot was very mature as well. Once the word really hits the streets, I think the issues will be selling out quickly. With this type of story, the more publicity the shoot gets, the more negative it appears. I am glad the story was handled this way.
While the first nude shoot was innocent enough and even an honor to do, do you believe that this will open the doors for Lohan to do more nude work?
After this, for some reason I can just picture Lohan doing sex tapes because she is still young. The first taste of the "adult business" might steer her in the wrong direction. She is already following the celebrity pattern of drugs, alcohol, and rehab. The next step is sex tapes, just like many others.
It was mentioned that the shoot was tasteful, do you believe that it will win any awards?
I believe that it is possible, especially with the history of the photo shoot.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thriller, 25 years later
It was 25 years ago when Michael Jackson's Thriller arrived on the music scene and thrust Michael into solo pop stardom. Today marks the release of Thriller 25, an up-to-date version of the classic album with appearances from today's mega-stars Kanye West, Fergie, will.i.am, and Akon. A special dvd is also included in the release featuring the videos for Billie Jean, Thriller, Beat It and a special performance from the NBC special Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever. Michael Jackson continues to blow up radio airwaves and now the question is, can this album be as big of a success as the original?
I am very surprised that I didn't hear more about this release prior to today. With a legend as big as Michael Jackson, I would think that there would have been major advertisements on television announcing the upcoming release. Either way, I will go get a copy for myself!
The question that I ask is this, in what way(s) would you have liked to see the new release promoted? Are you surprised by the way this delux edition was released? Do you think he will have the same success with this album?
I am very surprised that I didn't hear more about this release prior to today. With a legend as big as Michael Jackson, I would think that there would have been major advertisements on television announcing the upcoming release. Either way, I will go get a copy for myself!
The question that I ask is this, in what way(s) would you have liked to see the new release promoted? Are you surprised by the way this delux edition was released? Do you think he will have the same success with this album?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Autopsy Rules "Accidental Death"
Well known rapper Chad "Pimp C" Butler was found dead in his hotel on December 4, 2007 with body already decomposing when it was found. The autopsy was released on February 4, 2008 and it stated that the cause of death was accidental. Influences included cough syrup and sleep apnea, a disease which causes people to stop breathing for up to 30 seconds at a time while sleeping. It is strange because the cause of death is very ironic. He often rapped about codeine and promethazine in his song and was most recognizable for the 2000's hit "Sippin on Some Sizzurp." Sizzurp is syrup, often used as a narcotic in the south. He was one half of the pioneering group UGK from Texas.
Do you believe that Pimp C should have been under extensive medical care if he was battling sleep apnea or do you think he was aware of this condition? If he was aware, do you think he should have been taking a different prescription than what was given (since the cough syrup was perscription strength), or do you believe that he was using the medicine as a means of getting high?
I think that if he was medically diagnosed with sleep apnea, he should have been under closer watch, especially someone of a celebrity status that can afford to have a nurse around. It is a possibility that he could really have overdosed accidentally. I say this because the demands of touring and recording could have caused a mild sickness that he was trying to cure without seeking medical attention.
Do you believe that Pimp C should have been under extensive medical care if he was battling sleep apnea or do you think he was aware of this condition? If he was aware, do you think he should have been taking a different prescription than what was given (since the cough syrup was perscription strength), or do you believe that he was using the medicine as a means of getting high?
I think that if he was medically diagnosed with sleep apnea, he should have been under closer watch, especially someone of a celebrity status that can afford to have a nurse around. It is a possibility that he could really have overdosed accidentally. I say this because the demands of touring and recording could have caused a mild sickness that he was trying to cure without seeking medical attention.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Game shows=big money
Ever since "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" aired on television screens years ago, just about everyone is taking a shot at making everyday people a little bit richer. Even before that were shows like "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy." Now, game show hosts are doing this with a little twist which sounds like it could be easy enough! Contestants on The Moment of Truth get their chance at some easy cash by simply telling the truth. All they have to do is answer questions truthfully! The trick is that the questions progressively get harder and harder based on the amount of money competing for. There are about 50-70 questions asked first while doing a polygraph test before the show is taped. During the taping however, 21 of those questions are chosen and their responses are compared to the polygraph results from earlier. The pressure comes in to lie when the contestant's family is sitting right across from them.
I admit, I just had to be home to watch the premier of the show last Wednesday at 9:00 and the questions ranged from mild to wild. They included, "Have you delayed having children because you don't know if you will be with your wife forever," and even "Have you ever had sex with someone on the first date?" Keep in mind, this is in front of family!
The question that I ask is, does it seem like people will do anything these days for some quick cash? And has America become a country that is dominated by the need for money? Do you believe that people just do it for publicity?
Personally, I believe that it all boils down to wanting fast cash. It is part of the reason why peole result to gambling, playing the lottery, stripping, and becoming drug dealers. In order to be seen as successful, people of our country feel that they must have a certain worth to their name. As far as publicity goes, I don't think that is the case. People just like to try their luck. Those who want publicity all go on shows like Flavor of Love, I Love New York, and Rock of Love.
I admit, I just had to be home to watch the premier of the show last Wednesday at 9:00 and the questions ranged from mild to wild. They included, "Have you delayed having children because you don't know if you will be with your wife forever," and even "Have you ever had sex with someone on the first date?" Keep in mind, this is in front of family!
The question that I ask is, does it seem like people will do anything these days for some quick cash? And has America become a country that is dominated by the need for money? Do you believe that people just do it for publicity?
Personally, I believe that it all boils down to wanting fast cash. It is part of the reason why peole result to gambling, playing the lottery, stripping, and becoming drug dealers. In order to be seen as successful, people of our country feel that they must have a certain worth to their name. As far as publicity goes, I don't think that is the case. People just like to try their luck. Those who want publicity all go on shows like Flavor of Love, I Love New York, and Rock of Love.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Celebrities, drugs, and home videos
Amy Winehouse has been accused of smoking crack in a video which was recorded in her home and posted online. The video can be seen here. It is believed to have been shot in her home in east London. During the video, Winehouse states that she just took six Valium pills. The singer from the UK has had a history of drug and alcohol addiction. With her well known song "Rehab," Winehouse belts with all her might that she is not going to rehab. Celebrities dealing with serious addictions is apparently not a new craze. The show Dr. Drew's Celebrity Rehab showcases many prominent celebrities trying to overcome their addictions. Perhaps Winehouse should check in there so what she won't feel so alone. Either way it goes, this is very depressing to see. Amy Winehouse is a young musician that has very recently crossed over to the United States. The irony of the situation is this: her proclamation that made her famous about not going to rehab is the same one that is going to potentially be her downfall!
The question is, why does this make the news? There are numerous people on drugs around the world everyday. What makes her situation any different?
The question is, why does this make the news? There are numerous people on drugs around the world everyday. What makes her situation any different?
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Myspace in the News
Well it seems like Myspace is back in the news again, this time however, it is for more positive reasons. Today (Monday) representatives from the social networking site Myspace have announced that they are working on making the site more safe for children. It was noted that in Pennsylvania, out of the 54 individuals that were arrested on child predator charges, 31 of them had Myspace profiles.
Myspace states that they are now making all profiles of users under the age of 18 private, as opposed to the previous 14-15 year olds. They also stated that they will respond faster to reports of inappropriate content. Eventually they plan to create an online community of some dort which will monitor the site. This will be comprised of non profit organizations as well as concerned individuals.
The question that I pose is this, while Myspace is making these attempts to change the networking site and make it more safe, will it really help? I believe that children will continue to post their images on the page and its really not a problem for a registered sexual predator to use an alias and create all false information in order to be allowed onto the site (since registered offenders profiles are automatically deleted). Also, to what extent do you believe parents should have a say so about their child's profile? Lastly, is Myspace in the right place to make all of these changes to the website and infringe on someone else's privacy?
Myspace states that they are now making all profiles of users under the age of 18 private, as opposed to the previous 14-15 year olds. They also stated that they will respond faster to reports of inappropriate content. Eventually they plan to create an online community of some dort which will monitor the site. This will be comprised of non profit organizations as well as concerned individuals.
The question that I pose is this, while Myspace is making these attempts to change the networking site and make it more safe, will it really help? I believe that children will continue to post their images on the page and its really not a problem for a registered sexual predator to use an alias and create all false information in order to be allowed onto the site (since registered offenders profiles are automatically deleted). Also, to what extent do you believe parents should have a say so about their child's profile? Lastly, is Myspace in the right place to make all of these changes to the website and infringe on someone else's privacy?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Bonjour le monde!
Bonjour le monde!! [[Hello world!!]] This probably going to be the extent of my french but I do know spanish so....yeah! Its about 9:00 AM and I'm usually asleep at this time but I had to create this blog for class. I will try my best to present an entertaining view on topics required to blog about. This is my grand entrance... worship me :0] Just kidding... sorta! Have a great day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)