Dowling: Mediated

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Please remove your shoes, and your outfit while you're at it

If you traveled in the air recently, I'm sure you've come across these full body scanners they're using now. This is an extremely controversial topic, as the country is basically split 50/50 for and against this new form of security. It's either get felt up by a Transportation Security Agent or have your naked body visible to a monitor in a remote location. Some have protested the heightened security precautions, but that's up to them. The issue here is trust. Recently, a Florida courthouse leaked 100 body scans onto the internet taken by U.S. Marshall's that were very revealing. Similar body scans are taken at airport security checkpoints, which raises concern for some travelers. The TSA says it does not save images taken by the body scanner, in fact they're deleted shortly after you're finished, even if they find something suspicious.

So far, no news stories have come up that would jeopardize this statement. With that being said, some people are still skeptical and simply do not trust our government. They probably think that the government always lies to us, so why wouldn't they now? Or they believe that if U.S. Marshall's in Florida can do it, why can't the TSA? It's the travelers judgment call I suppose, but I would probably choose whichever security method is quicker, as the airport is no place to delay. Hopefully those 100 are the only and last ones that will ever end up online because no one deserves to have their civil rights violated to such a degree where their naked body ends up on the internet. Another equally controversial sub-story is the exemption of children to this new security. Some people don't want their children to be scanned or felt up because they're too young. I feel children should not be exempt because the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are animals and will not hesitate to strap a bomb to a kid in order to take a plane out of the sky. To ensure continued security in the air, I'm for these new "close" and "thorough" security upgrades.

NFL tackling rules, should the rules be changed?

The National Football League announced Tuesday it will immediately begin suspending players for “egregious and elevated hits” that violate rules, particularly those involving helmets.

In the past, players were either fined or ejected for illegal hits. But after the series of recent flagrant tackles last Sunday, several of which resulted in concussions, the NFL ramped up the punishment.

Among the hits getting attention last weekend: —The Eagles' DeSean Jackson and the Falcons' Dunta Robinson were knocked out of their game after a frightening collision in which Robinson launched himself head first to make a tackle. Both sustained concussions.

—Ravens tight end Todd Heap took a vicious hit from Patriots safety Brandon Meriweather that Heap called "one of those hits that shouldn't happen."

—The Steelers' James Harrison sidelined two Browns players with head injuries after jarring hits. (FOX news)

Now, it seems to me like everyone is concerned about NFL players there is no doubt about that, but mostly they are concerned about the next generation of football players, the kids. Over time it has been proven that Athletes, more precisely, professional football players, have a shorter life expectancy mostly because they are prone to problems with memory, focus and concentration, and early signs of Alzheimer’s and dementia. Due to hard hits to the head, neck, and spine football players endure many concussions in their careers, as well as joint and muscle problems. This is a risk that all football players take when they decide to play the game. Football is a contact sport, a collision sport. In fact, it would appear that the popularity of this sport is mainly because of the brutality of it. A “real mans sport” so to speak. Having said this, It has been made apparent to some (why it has only hit them now I’m not too sure, pun intended) that the game is too brutal. Now it is all over ESPN that the NFL wants to go ahead and change the tackling rules to thus avoid more unnecessary injuries. There are so many things wrong with this I don’t even know where to start, but I’m going to try. First of all, we are more than half way through the season (several concussions in), this would have been a good thing to discuss after the first NFL player was paralyzed for the rest of his life not several there after. Second of all the rules are fine just the way they are, the problem is with in the way that they are being enforced (hardly at all). If the supposed illegal contacts/hits were taken more seriously by implementing punishment such as fines and suspension of players without pay, I believe the players would tread a little more lightly. Not to mention the fact that most if not all players would be relieved that they were a little safer on the field knowing what was at stake for all players. Third of all changing the rules at this point in history may change the entire game and the way that people know it today. Many may feel as though they are taking away from the sport by changing it. Not to mention the money the NFL may lose due to the fines the players and corporation will receive as well as the amount of time these players may see off the field. Is this changing of the rules a good thing intended to better protect our athletes, or just a way for the NFL to try and make themselves feel better about being one of the most brutal and sometimes maybe even fatal sport around?

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/20/nfl-tackling-rules-step-right-direction/

Maybe Jay Z had a point when he made his recent hit “Death of Auto-tune”, These days the pitch corrector seems to be the death of all real music artists, or is it?

Auto-tune, is a voice/pitch corrector made to help singers get that perfect sound they are looking for (that is, what you hear on every music station today). Made by Andy Hildebrand in late 1996, this Instrument was first used for the, oh so irritating, “Believe” By Cher in 1998. This was not the way that Hildebrand had intended it to be used, "I never figured anyone in their right mind would want to do that," he said. Like most of the trends brought about by Cher this “abuse” of auto-tune soon died out, until another artist by the name of t-pain, figured out a way to use auto-tune to jump start his career in 2003. "It just worked for my voice," says T-Pain. "And there wasn't anyone else doing it." (Time magazine)

The point is, that this device, this “auto-tune” is making it so that now, not only do you not have to be able to dance and sing to your own music, but you can make it appear as though you can, to the untrained eye. I know what you’re probably thinking, Well that would mean that damn near anyone could do this whole entertainment thing. Has it really come to this? I would like to think not but the evidence is in the pudding. You probably couldn’t find one single artist today that could tell you that they didn’t use it, and if they did, chances are, they are lying. So is this sudden obsession with auto-tune a good thing or a bad thing? And most of all, Is this something that is now permanently part of the music industry or just another passing fad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui86peQZ74s&feature=related

WIZARD OF REMAKE

Why, oh why is the movie industry obsessed with remaking things? Do we honestly need another Wizard of Oz? Really? Is the first one not creepy enough?

I don’t understand how any classic, such as The Wizard of Oz, can be remade…it’s called a classic for a reason! There is no more Judy Garland and honestly there is no actress that could ever replace her, but I am curious to see who they cast as Dorothy. And what are they going to do for the Munchkins? Animation, maybe? I’m thinking Tim Burton’s Oompa Loompas' in Charlie and the Chocloate Factory. Imagine: Tim Burton directing the new Wizard of Oz, wouldn’t that be a sight to see! And it is rumored that the remake of the The Wizard of Oz is going to be using the same exact original script! Now that’s just asking for trouble. Are they just going to change the clothes or something? What exactly are they going to “remake?”

And this just in: The Great Gatsby is also being redone! Surprise, surprise. Let’s take a classic book and completely ruin it on screen (all of the movie attempts have failed miserably). The book is fabulous, the movie not so much…but a new rendition staring Leonardo Dicaprio as Jay Gatsby, Toby Maguire as Nick Carraway, and Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan? That’s kind of scary.

I don’t know why but something about this whole “remake” business bothers me. Once I see a movie, I’m good. I don’t need to see a sequel, or a new version, or a remake. Just leave it alone, I say. And I’d like to know why there are less and less original and new ideas coming to screen. There is a slew of comic books coming to screen and book adaptations, but where are all the completely made from scratch movies? Is originality that scarce in Hollywood? As a lover of movies, I’d much rather go see an independent film shown only in select theatres than a huge blockbuster hit that is most likely derived from some type of already published media.

So Hollywood, please, please, please start adopting creativity and originality into your future movies!

Smile for the camera

This woman must have been listening in on our recent lectures. While the issue at hand here wasn't catching a violent act on video, it was still illegal. She didn't catch the actual exposure on film, but she got the suspects face at least. The story can be found here. And if this video is going to be used as evidence, judging by the woman's reaction, I'm sure the actual act probably didn't need to be caught on video.

This story just came out yesterday when a woman was flashed in a New York City subway car and someone else caught the results on video. In a situation like this, I wouldn't necessarily intervene but if it escalated for whatever reason, the camera probably should've been put away to help mediate the situation. Also, they say that she shouldn't have reacted the way she did if the subway car was empty. Maybe she flipped out because she knew she was being filmed? Who knows. An indecent person like that is unpredictable, so maybe it was a good thing that she called his bluff in a packed subway car instead of an empty one.

Even the New York Times had come to the dark side!

Fairley recently newspapers have taken a different path. It seems that printing the actual paper is making them loose money and customers. With the iPad there is now a chance for newspapers to be players in a completely different field! The iPad generally attracts younger people and with the New York Times app now it allows the younger generation to read the newspaper in a way that there more accustom too. With the New York Times app the consumer will be able to find the top stories on business, sports etc…. and be able to choose from roughly 8 to 10 articles. Lance Whitney; a writer for CNET News wrote and article entitled New York Times prominent among media iPad apps states with the application “the app is free and supported by advertisers, but the Times said it’s planning a paid app that would offer more content”. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20001661-37.html). The article also says that USA today and The Wall Street journal are two other newspapers hopping on board. And magazines too such as Men’s Health and GQ have also learned that having an app is a great decision and can provide them with the tools to cater to a different age group. It’s a scary thought to me personally that everything is going to be online its hard cause we all mostly grew up watching others on the train or our parents at the kitchen table with there glasses, coffee and newspaper. Now we simply see and iPad..I mean hey! Newspapers and magazines know they have to conform to the “new hottest technology” or die. At least they don’t have electronic glasses or coffees so we can all hold on to that. But…than again you never know what the future is going to bring!

Is Reality T.V. Fake? Well, It's Already Gone Silicone

I hate to break it to you like a Kit Kat bar, but more often than not, reality television is either scripted or filmed in a particular way to make things seem differently than they are in actuality. It's kind of like professional wrestling. It may appear to the viewer that there are two oponents working against each other, but on the contrary, they are actually in cahoots! When it comes to reality television, many people find themselves pondering the idea of whether or not what they are witnessing is authentic. Hakuna matata because the answer has finally arrived! Is it fake? Well, from now on, just refer to reality television as Pamela Anderson because it's already gone silicone.

After a long day, all I want to do is kick back in my Lay-Z Boy recliner and wind down like a broken clock. My fidgeting fingers navigate their way across the numbers of the remote (except for the 3's and 8's because those numbers freak me out). I stumble upon Dr. 90210, which showcases a countless number of cosmetic surgeries on a neverceasing list of people who don't even need it. At the sight of the first tummy tuck, I gag and decide it's channel changing time. I find an episode of Bridezilla, and the only vow I will ever make is to never be like one of those monsters. Godzilla has nothing on them. Bridezillas are a species that would have all of Korea screaming longer than their mouths are actually moving. Just imagine if these two shows were to ever join forces. Oh, wait! You don't need to imagine because they've already collided.

Let's play a guessing game. I'll start you off with an easy one. What do you get when you cross a chicken with a bell? An alarm cluck. Now, for a tougher one: What do you get when you combine a boob job with an engagement? I have faith that you'll think of the answer. Dr. 902zilla? As a Grinch-like Jim Carrey would say, "Wrong-O!" You'd end up with a wonderful and completely sane new series known as Bridalplasty. A kind of name that really does say it all.

When I saw the commercial for this show, I couldn't help but think "Holy pickles. This is not really happening." As if it wasn't bad enough that Danielle Staub is having a spin off show, the reality television industry decides they also need to round up a bunch of psychotic brides-to-be and have them battle each other. Oh! Even more exciting and totally rational: the winner gets to be cut! Irony at its finest or no? It's official: E! executives may need to be institutionalized. I know there's that exclamation point after the E to let you know that it's a wild and rowdy channel (yes, some grammatical devices can talk to you), but have they completely gone Ty Pennington and loosened some screws?! I can see this whole thing going over really well with the public. [Insert Sarcasm Here]

Already, there has been tremendous back fat...oops! I mean backlash...about the upcoming series, and I must say, I strongly stand on that side of the opinion line as well. What is this show really going to unveil upon viewers? As we all are perfectly aware, the media loves to make women-young, old, and in between-unable to happily look at themselves in the mirror. This show is obviously a step in the right direction towards solving that problem. [More Sarcasm] I am more than concerned about how this is going to further affect women. I know there are plenty of shows out there that are just as terrible in that sense, but this one cuts right to the chase and augments its message to say "You cannot be fully loved until you are nipped and tucked to the point of virtual physical perfection."

The future brides have to savagely run wild like a pack of wildebeests hoping to acquire a new set of wildebreasts while the husbands are probably sitting back and clapping their hands in giddy excitement hoping for a cat fight. That was really stereotypical of me, right? Well, that's exactly what the show is, so I tried to get into the same mindset. The more important question I have is this: Are they fruit loops?! Who is going to honestly sit down to watch brides-to-be fighting like a herd of rhinos to win some free rhinoplasty? The apocolypse really must be approaching because I believed that the day I'd witness this kind of nonsense on my television screen would mark the end of the world. Hopefully, they at least show the wedding of the winning bride, just to see if she pops an implant at the alter. If I were her, I'd make sure the first dance is to "Thriller," so if her nose falls off, she can just say she was channeling the spirit of Michael Jackson.