"The D and D Show" Episode 6

Enjoy!!!

Rihanna should be sending out an SOS!!!

Throughout our time in the Media course, we have been studying the power of the media. We have studied how they have the ability to create news out of nothing, how they have the ability to influence almost every aspect of our daily lives, and how they create for us an enemy and an accompanying hero. The story of a young girl from Barbados is a story that shows all three of these Media powers, and how crazy the ride can get.


Robyn Rihanna Fenty, more commonly known as Rihanna, was born in the island country of Barbados on February 20, 1988. By the age of 15, she had already created a musical group with her school classmates, thus showing early signs of a promising career. She was also a member of the Barbados army cadets where her drill sergeant was popular Carib singer/songwriter Shontelle.

In 2003, record producer Evan Rogers was in Barbados. Friends of Rihanna took the oppurtunity to introduce Rihanna's musical group to him as they believed Rihanna could have had "what it takes". Evan Rogers says of that first encounter "the minute Rihanna walked into the room, it was like the other two girls didn't exist.". Throughout the next few months, Rihanna spent most of her time traveling back and forth from Barbados to Connecticut, in order to lay out the plans for her shot at stardom. At the age of 16, Rihanna left Barbados to stay in the U.S. and it was then that she released her hit-single "Pon de Replay". She was an instant success and in the following years she has released hit songs such as "SOS.", "Please Don't Stop the Music", "Shut Up and Drive", "Hate That I Love You", and "Umbrella".


However, as of late, Rihanna has been in the spotlight for much more than her vocal and musical talents. In fact, her music has hardly been up for any discussion as most media enterprises have chosen to focus in on problems occurring in her personal life. The first altercation took place between Rihanna and her then-boyfriend Chris Brown. On February 8, 2009, it has been claimed that Rihanna was physically abused by Chris Brown in a car before the 2009 Grammy Awards. As a result, her performance that night was cancelled, and questions surfaced, demanding the truth. Indeed, Chris Brown had turned himself in promptly after his abuse allegations, however, he also plead non-guilty to charges made against him in a court of law. Rather suspicious...

From the situation, many questions have arisen. The most obvious question is what actually happened on the day of February 8, 2009? This question's answer is probably the most unclear, as many stories have been released by both parties which contain confusing, unbelievable and conflicting information. Some sources have claimed that the violence occurred because of text messages Chris Brown had been receiving. Apparently, Chris Brown had been receiving text messages from another women and Rihanna finally confronted him about it. After Rihanna ousted Brown, a verbal battle ensued which eventually turned physical as it has been claimed that Rihanna was punched, strangled and bitten by Brown. Why was Brown in contact with another women in the first place? He and Rihanna had been in what looked like a loving, happy relationship for quite a long time. Perhaps Chris Brown was not actually happy with his situation and was seeking comfort in another women. Maybe due to the longevity of the relationship, Brown had become bored of Rihanna and was in search of someone more fun. Although many would probably ask the question "who would need anything more than Rihanna", the answer is simple; perhaps Rihanna is not very exciting, maybe even boring.

A second question that came up during the fiasco was "should Rihanna stand up and become an advocator against the physical abuse of women?". Although she was given a great opportunity to become the voice of help to physically abused women everywhere, Rihanna did not seize her chance. In the United States, 25% of women have reported to have been victims of "dating violence" at some point in their lives and so, essentially, Rihanna shattered the hopes of millions of women when she made the decision not to take any action and stand up for abuse victims. In fact, she essentially rubbed salt in the wounds of the victims by becoming entangled in an "on again, off again" status with Chris Brown following the domestic violence incident. Although, it now looks as though the two have permanently parted ways, the pain Rihanna caused people by "getting back together" with Brown, is undoubtedly still there. If one does not believe that Rihanna caused any sadness by "reconciling" with Brown, look at some of the quotes left on blogs displaying headlines such as "They're Back Together", "Reconciled", and so on...

"Does she come from an abusive family? She has now fallen into the cycle of the abused girlfriend. She believes he'll change. He won't. The next time will be worse, and it will continue to get worse until she's killed or nearly so, or he's hauled off to jail." Posted by: Carol | February 27, 2009 at 08:40 PM

"How sad.

She has no self esteem and no respect for herself.

I am no longer a fan of hers as she sent the wrong message to females everywhere.

She just made what this loser did, ok."Posted by: Jenna | February 27, 2009 at 09:04 PM

(for more comments, visit the link http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2009/02/rihanna-and-chr.html)

Putting the domestic abuse case aside, Rihanna has been making even more headlines with her newly found nude pictures. In May 2009, photos of a nude, for lack of a more politically correct word, black woman were released onto the internet. Although in the completely nude shots, one does not actually see the person's face, photos simultaneously released with them feature Rihanna's face. This fact led many people to the conclusion that the photos are indeed of Rihanna. From this incident, we also find questions arising.


A very early question is, are these photos actually of Rihanna? We might never know with the technology that exists today. Perhaps the photos were hacked off Rihanna's (or even Chris Browns) cell phones or computers. Maybe, the photos were accidently sent to the wrong person, and they took it upon themselves to spread the pictures to the world. Furthermore, maybe the pictures are not of Rihanna at all. In a world where photo manipulation is so easy and accessible, a skilled photoshop artist could have easily created the illusion that the person in the pictures is Rihanna. With today's complex technology, this question could possibly be the hardest one to answer.

A second question relating to the photographs is, who was responsible? As aforementioned, the photographs could have possibly been hacked by a person with no life. Honestly, don't people have other things to do than to disrupt people's lives by breaking into their personal life? Anyways, in response to his bad wrap due to the Rihanna violence controversy, perhaps Brown released these photos to get revenge on the Barbadian Princess! During the violence controversy, Chris Brown had been painted as America's bad guy, and as a result he lost sponsors and had his record sales drop tremendously. He may have wanted to get some revenge on Rihanna for her part in his demise. The preceeding theory is very plausible, as photos containing Chris Brown were simultaneously released with the Rihanna photos. Interestingly, the tables could just as easily be turned. Rihanna herself could have been seeking revenge on Brown and thus took it upon herself to release the photos. She maybe wanted to make Chris Brown jealous by reminding him that she is no longer his. By releasing "what was once his" to the world, he would not feel as special as he had once felt, as now everyone can "see" Rihanna.


As one can easily see, through the exposure of the Media, many wild and confusing incidents can arise. If we did not have entertainment mediums such as television, the internet, radio, etc., it is undoubtable that Rihanna would not have received as much exposure as she did. For most celebrities, it is safe to say that they are not satisfied with the Hollywood spotlight, and thus their personal lives must attract the spotlight as well. Personally, I do not believe that people should mix the world of reality with the world of entertainment. In my opinion, celebrities should just be for singing, acting, dancing etc., rather than for creating controversies and influencing the personal lives of people. However, since the Media has so much power, it is inevitable that these two worlds are going to constantly be overlapping, and so an intelligent person should have the knowledge to understand what is right and what is wrong, what is real and what is "make-believe".

"The D and D Show" Episode 5 (FOX/DIXIE CHICKS/JESSICA LYNCH)

Enjoy!!!

Works Cited:

"Jessica Lynch" 28 April 2004. Online Image. Wikipedia.com. 4 June 2009.
"Fox News" No Date. Online Image. Wikipedia.com. 4 June 2009.
"Rupert Murdoch" 2007. Online Image. Wikipedia.com. 4 June 2009.
"Dixie Chicks" 25 November 2009. Online Image. Images.Google.ca. 4 June 2009.
"Silly Tractor" No Date. Online Image. Spendability.com. 4 June 2009.
"Fox News" FoxNews.com. 4 June 2009.
"The Dixie Chicks"DixieChicks.com. 4 June 2009.
"Jessica Lynch"Wikipedia.com. 4 June 2009. 29 May 2009

"The D and D Show" Episode 4 Part 2

"The D and D Show" Episode 4 Part 1

"The D and D Show" Episode 3

Enjoy!!!

References:
"2009 swine flu outbreak" Wikipedia.com. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
"H1N1 Flu"Cdc.gov/H1N1flu/. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
"What is swine flu?"Telegraph.co.uk. 02 May 2009. 02 May 2009
Mulholland, Angela. "Should we be worried about 'swine flu'?"CTV.ca. 02 May 2009. 28 April 2009
"Pig Farmer" 12 June 2007. Online Image. Beeractivist.wordpress.com. 02 May 2009.
"Polar Bear" No Date. Online Image. MP3.com. 02 May 2009.
"Scary Pig" No Date. Online Image. aFunVampire.com. 02 May 2009.

The Wonderful World of Ethnic Diversity

Over the last unit in Media Studies, we studied the topic of "Ethnic Diversity". Ethnicity is defined as "Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language.", and Diversity is defined as "a point of difference". In a nutshell, Ethnic Diversity basically means the customs, qualities and history that make racial groups unique from one another. Ethnic diversity is very important because it makes the world a more interesting and exciting place. To think of a world where everyone is a carbon copy of each other and all did the same things would be quite boring. It is thanks to Ethnic diversity that variety occurs in the world and humans are able to experience many great things and not lead a one-dimensional life. One that can appreciate and understand many cultures and Ethnic traditions will enjoy life more.

However, as much as Ethnic Diversity can be a good thing, it also can create a lot of problems. Since Ethnic diversity creates so much "culture" and differences, it is impossible to understand and know something about each culture. It is then when people start relying on a tool known as "Stereotyping" to make judgements and limit the personal investigation one has to do on particular Ethnic groups and their culture. Stereotyping is defined as "a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group". By stereotyping, one is assuming that all people of a particular Ethnic group are the same and there are no differences between individuals in the group. A perfect example in the real world is the stereotype that all Native Americans wear headdresses. In the "American" world, when Native images are created or displayed, the person depicted is often shown to be sporting some sort of headdress. Historically, headdresses were generally used for ceremonial purposes or by the dominant members of ancient tribes and thus very few people wore the headdresses regularly. Although the true information is very easy to find out, human beings tend to be lazy and do not actually go and do their own research of the subject themselves. Therefore, they take the easy route out and acquire their knowledge from the Native American stereotype that "Indians wear Headdresses". Stereotyping can then create a lot of inaccuracies which can lead an individual away from knowing the truth.

Many minority groups feel that they are often being misrepresented and misunderstood by majority groups. In the world of Entertainment for example, it is much easier to show a stereotyped image of a particular group rather than giving the audience an accurate portrayal. Since many individuals rely on stereotypes, it would confuse the majority of an audience to display a group of individuals accurately. A perfect example of a group of people misunderstood because of the Media are Arabs and Muslims. An Arab person is essentially anyone who comes from the Middle East and since the Islam religion is in a high concentration in that area, the words Muslim and Arab have now become somewhat interchangeable for many people. In Hollywood and the real world, Arabs are often portrayed as being terrorists and villains. Because of major media events such as "9/11", an entire race/ethnic group of people have all been stereotyped to be cold-blooded, heartless killers. Western Media is constantly creating an "Us VS Them" mentality, attempting to turn the Western citizens against the Arabs and create them into the "Enemy". The Media hopes to turn them into the Western Enemy so that the Western world blames the Arabic people for problems, rather than blaming other Western people. It is entirely unfair to demoralize an entire group of people because of what a very small number of people from that group did. For people with any common sense, will not fall into believing the stereotypes and blame an entire group of people for the problems.

Also in our Ethnic Diversity unit we focused on the topic of Racial Representation in Media products, specifically Television. In one of our assignments, we were assigned a genre of television programming and we were to watch 10 hours worth of television total (as a group). While watching the programming, we were to record the ethnicity of any person we saw on the program and record what profession they were portrayed to have had. Our group was assigned the genre of "Situational Comedy" and one can best describe a "Sitcom" by saying that they are a comedic dramatization of people in their day-to-day lives. Our group viewed shows such as Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond and the King of Queens, and it was interesting to see how the Racial Representations on these shows compared to the Population Percentages in the real world.

The 2003 US Demographics showed the population of the United States as being:

66.2% White
12.9% Black
15.2% Latino/Hispanic
4.7% Asian/ Pacific Islander
1.0% American Indian/ Alaska Native

While the 2006 Canadian Demographics showed the population of Canada as being:

79.8% White
2.23% Black
0.97% Latin/Hispanic
5.62% Asian
3.67% Aboriginal
1.35% Arab
6.39% Other

Our studies found the Racial Representation on Live-Action Sitcoms to be:

81.55% White
11.6% Black
2.28% Latino/Hispanic
2.81% Asian/Pacific Islander
0.70% Aboriginal
0.53% Arab/Middle Eastern
0.53% Pakistani/Indian

While the a study by an organization known as Children Now found the Racial Representation on television to be:

73% White
16% Black
6.5% Latino/Hispanic
3% Asian/ Pacific Islander

0.5% Arab/Middle Eastern
0.4% Pakistani/Indian
0.7% Other

As one can see, for the most part television has a predominantly "White" look to it. The majority of characters are "white" just as the majority of people are "white". However, we can see that in Sitcoms, white characters are being over represented in those series. Perhaps one might take it as if someone is trying to say that "white" people are funnier. However, a logical person hopefully can understand that this is indeed not the case.

While reviewing the representation of other groups, one can see that many of them are under represented. Latino people, for example, are extremely underrepresented on television. While the US population is about 15% Latino, on television, Latino characters are only found 6.5% (less than half of their racial representation in the US). By reviewing this comparison, one might conclude that the Media is trying to tell us that Latinos are less important. By representing these people less than they actually can be seen in the real world, television producers are creating a world that does not accurately represent the real world. Television networks should remember that in order to create a great show, they must be able to gain a large audience. By misrepresenting and under-representing people, those individuals might not want to watch the show, and in turn will make the shows less successful than it could have been. In order to create successful entertainment, more emphasis should be put on accurately portraying the real world. Stations such as FOX that are proactively trying to create a more accurate television world should be saluted as they are raising the bar in order to create justice and equality for everyone.

As one can see, our unit in Ethnic Diversity was a mind opening experience. One could see how misrepresented and underrepresented some groups of people are that we might not have noticed before. In order to create a peaceful world, without problems, we should try to accurately portray and represent all people. Everyone was created as equals and to treat people as lessers is wrong. Perhaps if more people open their eyes and understand just how inaccurate the world can be, we can work towards solving and fixing our problems.

References:
"diversity." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 03 May. 2009. .
"ethnicity." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 03 May 2009.
Children Now"Fall Colors" Publications.ChildrenNow.org. 1 May 2009. 2004
"Doug" No Date. Online Image. Zerflin.com. 02 May 2009.

Another Disney Princess Heading Away from "Happy Ever After"

When one thinks of a "Disney Princess", one's mind is immediately flooded with images of childhood characters such as Cinderella, Snow White and Belle. These individuals were young ladies who were presented and sold to the audience as "Positive Rolemodels for the younger generation" and managed to capture the attention and awe of many younger viewers. These characters had the complete backing of the Disney franchise and managed to bring in a lot of money for Disney.


In a lot of ways young stars such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan could also be thought of as Disney Princesses when they were younger. In their prime, these two individuals were on top of the world. With Britney Spears a member of the "Mickey Mouse Club" and Lindsay Lohan gaining fame through the remake, hit movie "The Parent Trap", these "Disney Princesses" were destined to fulfill all their hopes and dreams. They were generating large profits for Disney and were looked upon with adoring eyes by adults and young audiences alike. However, for the real life "Disney Princesses", their stories did not end "happily ever after". For Britney Spears, "crotch shots", marriage and head-shavings put her out of the character "Positive role model" and into a character that many people found to be controversial. A similar situation also occurred for Lindsay Lohan that also put her out of the "Rolemodel" position. Bouts with rehab, hanging out with the wrong crowd and carwrecks quickly lost the respect of adults and prevented young audiences from being allowed to watch and follow her career. Although the role of "Disney Princess" may seem glamorous and majestic at first, one has to be cautious so that they do not fall into the trap!

One young teen sensation that could be argued to have "fallen into the trap" is Miley Cyrus, formerly known as Destiny Hope Cyrus and known to most of the world as "Hannah Montana". Being the daughter of One-Hit Wonder Billy Cyrus (from the Achey Breaky Heart Fame), Miley was destined to have some superstar blood flowing through her veins. At the tender age of 12, Disney picked her up, put her in her own show and she has been on top of the world ever since. From photoshoots, to movies, to successful concert tours, Miley has done a lot of things in the past 5 years of her life of which most people could never have dreamed.

Playing the part of "Disney Princess", Miley has been surrounded by much controversy. One of the lesser known controversial rumours surrounding her was that she was pregnant. In September of 2007, an internet image of Miley was circulating, stating that she was having a "Meltdown" and that she had confirmed being pregnant. The image originally was found in a J-14 Magazine article that talked about Miley's eating habits. However, controversy arised when an outside party edited the image and fabricated a story to go along with it. Although the truth about the image has now been unveiled, it was the first sign that Miley's future might not be so "Smiley".

Following the pregnancy rumours came a long line of controversies associated with pictures being taken of Miley Cyrus. In April 2008, Miley took part in a photoshoot led by acclaimed photographer Annie Leibovitz. In the photos, Miley appeared to have been nude, covered only by a white sheet. These photos received quite the reaction from many individuals as they thought Miley was too young to be displaying herself in such a way. Many fingers were pointed at who was to blame and the most common culprits were Disney, Billy Ray Cyrus and Miley Cyrus herself. Since the controversy, Miley has apologized stating that "(She) never intended for any of this to happen and (she) apologizse to (her) fans who (she) care(s) so deeply about." She apologized... let's move on.

Many personal and "self-taken"photographs of Miley have been circulating and occurring throughout the Media for the past number of years. Most of these pictures are considered to be controversial as most of them tend to be self-taken and show Miley in Bikini's, wet t-shirts and undergarments or performing questionable actions. Although the pictures of Miley in sexual attire are far more common, one photo not showing Miley in this manner has gained far more attention than the rest.

In February 2009, a picture began circulating of Miley Cyrus with her making "asian eyes". Although she claims that she was "simply making a goofy face", many people, such as The OCA (a group that helps with the advancement of social, political and economic aspects of Asian Pacific American), took great offense to the gesture.

In my opinion, I feel that many people have too much free time on their hands. In regards to the Vanity Fair Photoshoot pictures, I find many of the "anti-photo" individuals very contradictory. Many of them claim that the photos shouldn't be shown to the general public, as they are bad for the younger generation to see. Why then, do they publish the picture everywhere anyone could ever see it? Yes, they want to raise awareness about the picture, but by displaying it everywhere, the individuals are basically saying that it is "alright" to show the picture. If they never want anyone to see the photos, they should not publish the photo themselves, as by doing so they become hypocritical. In that they perpetuate the very image that they find so offensive.


In regards to the "asian eyes" photo, I believe that it has been blown out of proportion. Yes, Miley was making a suggestive facial expression, but to automatically assume that she was making an asian face is rather unintelligent. Sure, the asian person in the photo was the only one not participating in the gesture and yes, one member was displaying an even more stereotypically asian expression (Squinty eyes, along with a covered mouth and peace sign), but it is not a good decision to automatically start bashing Miley. The individuals upset with Miley were not present at the time the photograph was taken and so they are in no position to go hounding Miley for what she "has done". People need to hear the full story before they start judging others, because when people jump to conclusions too quickly, controversies occur, often creating problems that aren't necessary.

One thing that I want people like the OCA to realize is that they are trying to accomplish some good. They shouldn't abandon that goal just because some teenagers took one controversial picture. There are 7 people in that photograph and an entire race of human-beings is not going to become corrupt because of it. They should stay focused on the big picture, rather than trying to zoom in on a minute situation. Racial equality and diversity is important and if organizations such as the OCA want to change the world, they should stop "nit-picking" at small things such as the Miley photo and look at what is happening in the real world, not the world of Hollywood.

Is Miley, the 21st century "Disney Princess" headed towards the same untimely fate as those who have come before her? Perhaps when more fabricated controversies arise, society will see how Miley handles herself and the criticism and backlash associated with controversial media topics. Let us hope that as Miley matures her decisions and choices also become more mature so that she does not become another Britney or Lindsay. It will only be a matter of time before we can see if Miley will follow in the foot steps of those who came before her, or if she will live "happily ever after".


References:

"Lindsay Lohan"Wikipedia.com. 29 April 2009. 28 April 2009
"Britney Spears"Wikipedia.com. 29 April 2009. 28 April 2009 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_spears>
"Disney Princess"Wikipedia.com 29 April 2009. 29 April 2009
"Billy Ray Cyrus"Wikipedia.com. 29 April 2009. 26 April 2009
"Cyrus Defends Herself in 'Racist' Photo Fracas"ABCNews.go.com. 30 April 2009. 5 February 2009
"Asian Eyes Miley" 6 February 2009. Online Image. TheWB.com. 29 April 2009.
"Disney Princesses" No Date. Online Image. Sandersartstudio.com. 29 April 2009.
"Lindsay Lohan" 25 March 2009. Online Image. celeb9.com. 29 April 2009.
"Underwear Miley" 30 November 2009. Online Image. athensboy.com 29 April 2009.

2009 Stanley Cup Playoff Predictions Round 1!!!

Tell me who you think will win the first round match-ups!!!

The D and D Show!!!! Episode 2!!!

Enjoy!!!

References:

"9/11, New York" 11 September 2001. Online Image. Politicalbase.com. 16 April 2009.
"Terrorist" No Date. Online Image.Causes-of-terrorism.net. 16 April 2009.
"Hijacked Van" No Date. Online Image. Russianspy.org. 16 April 2009.
"Terrorist" 27 March 2009. Online Image. Mr.MillCity.com. 16 April 2009.
"Threatening Melbourne" 12 September 2005. Online Image. theage.com.au. 16 April 2009.
"Child Terrorists" 7 February 2008. Online Image. theage.com.au. 16 April 2009.
"Politician" 25 February 2009. Online Image. EarlyEdCoverage.com. 16 April 2009.
"Chinese Man" No Date. Online Image. Yemyint88.net. 16 April 2009.
"Muslim Man" No Date. Online Image. Muslima.com. 16 April 2009.
"Black Man" No Date. Online Image. BigSoccer.com. 16 April 2009.
"David Duke" No Date. Online Image. Wikipedia.com. 16 April 2009.

THE D AND D SHOW!!!! Episode 1!!!

The First Episode!!! Enjoy!!!




References:

"media." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 08 Apr. 2009. .

Tallim, Jane "What is Media Literacy?"Media Awareness Network.com. 7 April 2009.

Satirical or Childish?

The Subject: (Please view the video)


Although the program on which this situation took place is satirical (satire being defined as "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit."), these individuals crossed the line between funny and controversial. It is one thing to poke fun at something, however, it is unacceptable to ignorantly attack an entire nation. The people on the show obviously forgot to do their homework as they were entirely wrong and misguided on a number of things they spoke about.

The first bizarre thing they did was make fun of the Lieutenant-General's name, stating that it was an "unusual name for a man". The Lieutenant-Generals name is Andrew Leslie. What is so strange about that? In fact, the name Andrew was the 11th most popular baby name in the United States in 2006. If they were ridiculing Andrew Leslie because they thought that both names were his first name, they should stop being so ignorant. If you are going to do a show on international television, shouldn't you do your research and get all the facts straight? Besides, even if they were making fun of "Leslie" being a first name, they are forgetting that Leslie is also a male name. Examples include Leslie Roberts, Leslie Nielsen, Leslie Moonves and Bob Hope (who's birth name is Leslie).

The second unintelligent point they joked about was in regards to Canada needing to take a military break. They joked that "the Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants". Although it is not clearly stated, the host could have been implying homosexual related behaviour. By stating that the Canadian military personnel are "gay" (not that Homosexuality is a bad thing.), it is a very unintelligent thing to say. It is obvious that not every person in the Canadian Military is gay and even if they were, why would that be funny? Homosexuals have just as much right to do as they want as Heterosexuals. We don't laugh when people are playing football or watching a fight on TV and so why do we laugh at Yoga or painting?

A third uncalled for statement that occurred on the show was that the host, Greg Gutfeld, asked if Canada would get away with taking a military break if they didn't share a border with the United States. It is a stupid question to ask as Canada chose to take part and aid in the war, therefore they are also able to decide when they need to leave the war. Canada is a free country and is perfectly capable of making their own decisions.

A fourth ignorant comment made in the video involved a guest talking about the Canadian Police force. It was ignorant to begin with as the segment was about the Canadian military, not the Police force. However, the ignorance did not end there. The guest then goes on to state that all the police in Canada ride around on horses. Horses in the Canadian police force (The RCMP or "Mounties specifically) are traditional and are used currently in parades and ceremonies. Canada has police cars too. They also go on to boast about how they have bulletproof vests while Canadian Police members wear red jackets (the ones associated with the Mounted Police). Once again, these coats are traditional to the RCMP and not all police officers in Canada wear them. Canadians have also had the technology known as "the bullet proof vest" for approximately the same amount of time as Americans.

A final unintelligent comment was made by the female guest on "Red Eye". She goes on to make the stereotypical joke that all of Canada is cold. Honestly? Does it really take a professional to come up with that? Why are people like that getting paid to say these childish, ignorant things. People make such lame jokes about Canada when they are in kindergarden and in fact, parts of Canada are more southern than certain parts of America.

These previous examples were only a few examples taken out of a handful of ignorant, primitive and childish things the host and guests said on the show. What is society coming to when people such as they are getting the privilage to say whatever they want on international television? With people saying irrational comments on television, they only create further controversy. Such controversy will in turn only lead to more problems in the world that then need to be added to a long list of "things to fix in this world".


References:

"100 Most Popular Baby Names of 2006"Babycenter.com.5 April 2009.
"Leslie"Wikipedia.com.5 April 2009. 30 March 2009
"RCMP"RCMP.ca. 5 April 2009. 3 March 2009
"Canadian Stereotypes, a Weblist Inspired by Ridgewalker"Rateitall.com 5 April 2009. 3 April 2007
"Red Eye" No Date. Online Image. Hulu.com. 5 April 2009.
"Non-Horse Riding/Mountie Police Officers" No Date. Online Image. Wikipedia.com 5 April 2009.
"Leslie Nielsen" No Date. Online Image. LazyKracker.com. 5 April 2009.

Oh My God, It's Primus!!!

When many people grow up, they become stressed and worried about the everyday occurances that happen in their lives. Some people manage to overcome these stresses while others become so overwhelmed that they take their own lives. In fact, the National Institute of Mental Health in the U.S. says that out of 100,000 from the ages of 20-24, 12.5 people commit suicide. One might say "Big deal, that's 12 people!". However, that person is forgetting that in the United States, there are millions of people between those ages, and so the number becomes much more substantial. A few guys that did not let the stresses of everyday life get to them were the members of the band known as Primus.

Primus has been around since 1984 and they know how to blend professional talent and skill with a sense of humour in order not to become overwhelmed by the realities of everyday life. All the members of the band display a high level of musicianship and thus it is obvious that they have all invested a great deal of time to develop such talents. However, with all the time they spent practising, they stayed true to themselves and did not allow themselves to get overwhelmed. They took what was important to them in life (ie. having fun) and found a way to blend these things in to their professional working lives. By watching the video, one can understand my point...



Need I say more?





References:

"Suicide in the U.S.: Statistics and Prevention"National Institute of Mental Health. 4 April 2009. 5 February 2009

"Primus"Wikipedia.com. 4 April 2009. April 3 2009

Primus"Wynona's Big Brown Beaver"Youtube.com. 4 April 2009. 16 July 2007

An Economical and Logical Advertisement Choice!

As our world is currently in a state of Economical recession, money can be a touchy subject. People are trying to make cut backs from their usual expenses and are looking for bargains on anything from clothes to food (such as the 18 cent wings fellow blogger "DaveyWavey" referred to). Although I could probably give my two cents as to many different ways you can save money during the economic crisis, I am going to aim my focus on one topic specifically; advertisement.

Example 1. Meet Nanerpus



I would like to extend a round of applause to the creators of "Nanerpus" (correct spelling unknown) for a multitude of reasons. The first round of applause I would like to give is to Denny's itself. Denny's, although not as popular as resteraunts such as Applebee's, Outback Steakhouse or Red Lobster, actually holds one of the highest standards in food service. During an investigation made by NBC Dateline entitled "Dirty Dining", the top 10 most popular family and casual dining restaraunts were investigated. Health inspection records taken during the 15 months before the interview were collected and recorded by NBC investigators. Out of all the eateries investigated during the process, Denny was on top of the pack for many different categories. Denny's was found to have had the fewest violations out of every resteraunt investigated in the survey. In fact, the amount of violations were so few that Denny's averaged less than 1 violation per resteraunt,quite an accomplishment! A curious point as well is that Denny's operates 24 hours a day, except when they are required to shutdown (ie. certain holidays) by Law. For Denny's to keep up such high standards with so little down time is quite the commendable feat.

My second "props" to Denny's is for the pure genious of the commercial. Yes, the commercial is childish and not elaborate, but isn't is just as affective as the most complex commercials? People aren't necessarily going to remember the message or point of a complex commercial as they will most likely become caught up with the elaborateness of the commercial. By the viewer not being able to remember who or what the commercial was about, the creators deliver a "goose egg" of epic proportions. A commercial is supposed to stick in your mind and remind you about what the commercial was about and who created the advertisement. A veiwer is likely to remember the humourous banana-octopus hybrid known as "Nanerpus" and that he brought promises of free food at Denny's on Tuesday! A dancing, singing "Nanerpus" is not going to leave a veiwers mind and so he will always remember that "Denny's is a fun place to be at!". Also, by using the banana in the commercial, whenever a person sees a banana they will remember "Banana...Nanerpus...Denny's!". Quite the effective advertisement!

By not having an excessively elaborate commercial, it also makes the commercial very cost effective! This is my third "Kudos" to the commercial and its creators as the commercial comes at a time of financial crisis. In this commercial, featured is a 1) Banana, 2) Googley Eyes, 3) Pancakes, 4)String, 5)A plate and 6) a Orange background . I believe that any person would be able to visit their local grocery or convenience store and pick up all the materials needed to make this commercial for under 20 dollars. For an advertiser to create such an effective commercial for such little money, it is quite an impressive feat. It is even more impressive when you compare the next-to-nothing cost of $20 for this commercial to the cost required to make the allegedly "most expensive commercial ever" (WHERE WHAT HOW WHY claims it to have cost $6 million to create. See Example 2), you cannot help but to give a standing ovation to the creators of "Nanerpus". To anyone stating that "That commercial was effective. No one really payed attention to it!", I provide this fact. The "Free Grand Slam" giveaway advertised in the commercial became a monumental moment in history. Sources claim that approximately 2 million people attended the giveaway and thus would give Denny the record of "Most visited Resteraunt in one business day since 2003". Can the non-believer claim such a monumental accomplishment? I rest my case.

Example 2.


In a time of great economic crisis, we can only look to commercials such as "Nanerpus" to learn how to create cost effective and "point" effective commercials such as the "Nanerpus" commercial. Businesses will be able to cut down advertisement costs which, theoretically, should also lower the cost of eating in the restaurants, which will make customers very happy. Kudos to you "Nanerpus"! Perhaps you are an early step in the right direction for society in order to fix the economic crisis!


References

"Denny's"Wikipedia.com. 31 March, 2009. 31 March, 2009
"What is the most expensive commercial to this date?"WHERE WHAT HOW WHY.com. 31 March, 2009.

How dare he mess with Musical Royalty?

Throughout our copyright unit we have been focusing on various cases that have dealt with the issue of copyright infringement quite differently. For me, one incident has stuck out more than other; the Queen/Vanilla Ice case. I have been drawn to this case in particular due to being a huge Queen fan myself. I have Queen shirts, CD's and DVD's and I have nothing but the utmost respect for them and their music. Of course, though, I am not the only Queen fan! I am sure if you asked anyone who sings "We Will Rock You" or "We Are the Champions" they would be able to tell you that Queen sings those songs. By being one of the best known musical acts in history, a lot of attention was brought to the dealings with copyright infringement when Queen encountered copyright issues.

In 1981, Queen met up with David Bowie in Montreux, Switzerland, in order to collaborate on a new song. The end result was the song now known as "Under Pressure". This song was later included on the Queen album known as “Hot Space” and became one of the band's best known signature songs. Not only did it become an anthem for many, but it managed to reach the Number #1 spot in UK Singles and was named the song #31 on VH1's 100 Greatest Songs of the 80's!

Less than 10 years later, a young rapper known as Vanilla Ice came onto the music scene. In 1990 the song "Ice Ice Baby" was released and created a large amount of controversy. The reason for such an uproar was because Vanilla Ice had sampled Queen's instantly recognizable bass-line without permission. To create an even bigger uproar, Vanilla Ice did not even credit Queen or David Bowie for the sample that was used. Our note called "Fair Use (U.S.A.) and Fair Dealing (Canada)" clearly states that no more than 30 seconds of a song can be used from another artist without their permission. As timed by myself, Vanilla uses approximately 1 minute and 24 seconds worth of Queen/Bowie material. This amount of time is almost 3 times as much as one can use legally and as a result Vanilla Ice could have, potentially, been in a lot of trouble.

Although this case was later settled out of court and Queen were eventually paid royalties, this case, to me, is very important. I, myself, am a musician and I have nothing but respect and praise for musicians like Queen. They had staying power. They could sell records. They could perform shows. They could create hits. They could play their instruments and these are the types of people that should get recognition. What bothers me is when artists such as Vanilla Ice STEAL talented artists’ material in order to get noticed or make money.

From the knowledge acquired from our note titled "Fair Use (U.S.A.) & Fair Dealing (Canada)" I gained further knowledge on copyright. Our note mentions that if an artist wishes to use another person's material, they must first acquire permission to do so by the artist or the song's rights owner. Although permission may be given to an artist, I believe that a true artist should be able to create their own material. In my opinion, an over-use of sampling reflects on the artist’s abilities. By not being able to compose original music, it shows that they are untalented and incapable of creating a hit using their own knowledge and skills. It is a known fact that sampling occurs almost exclusively in Hip Hop/Rap/Dance music. For me, there is nothing "Hip" about this music. None of these artists are true musicians. Artists such as Diddy or Jay-Z who rely on using other people's material to create a hit or, as quoted by Benedict.com "...to provide a feel, mood, or atmosphere; generally the same as the original", I see as unoriginal, untalented “wannabe” artists. If they are "masters of music" as they claim to be, why can't they produce hits simply by using original music? Queen did it. It's artists like Queen who deserve respect for their fame as they remained true to themselves by only creating original music and relying on their own knowledge, abilities and talents.

If anyone challenges my view that Rap and Hip Hop artists are untalented, take a look at the facts. On Benedict.com, the majority of copyright infringement cases involve a Rap/HipHop/Club/Dance/Whatever-they-call-themselves artist. This fact shows you that sampling is predominantly done in that genre of music.

I am sorry if you disagree with my views, but you need to face the facts. Sampling, in my opinion, is corrupt and shows a lack of talent. Why should untalented people get “on top” in a business in which it is so difficult to succeed?


Citations

“Under Pressure”Wikipedia.com. 2 March 2009. 6 March 2009

“Hot Space”Wikipedia.com. 2 March 2009. 28 February 2009

“Vanilla Ice”Wikipedia.com. 2 March 2009. 7 March 2009

“Ice Ice Baby”Wikipedia.com. 2 March 2009. 7 March 2009

“Diddy”Wikipedia.com. 2 March 2009. 4 March 2009

“Jay-Z”Wikipedia.com/2 March 2009. 7 March 2009

“Copyright Website”Benedict.com. 2 March 2009.

"Hot Space"Online Image. Queen Collector. 8 March 2009

"Vanilla Ice"Online Image. Daily Mail. 8 March 2009

"Thumbs Down"Online Image. Going Green. 8 March 2009

Puley, Aaron "Fair Use (U.S.A.) & Fair Dealing (Canada)".Media Studies-Copyright. 9 March 2009. 2007

Pickin' Chicken!

Anyone a fan of senseless, easy going, no brain comedies? I know I am! I can admit that I am a huge fan of shows such as Family Guy, South Park and Robot Chicken and I don't feel there is anything wrong with liking these shows. Most of the time all these shows do is provide a humourous perspective of something going on in the world and don't we all need a good laugh? With all the stresses we face in day-to-day life, do we really need to go straight home and watch shows about the economy on tv? If that's what tickles your fancy then by all mean, continue watching the Economy Channel (if there is one), but I know that for me, nothing relieves stress more than watching the antics of Peter Griffin, Eric Cartman or watching the mindless gaggle of Robot Chicken.

However, Robot Chicken is one show that I have a slight problem with. Yes, I know that the production of the show through action figures makes it super original, and yes Seth Green [1] is a man of many talents (voices Chris from Family Guy, played Mitch Miller on That 70's Show and created Robot Chicken). However, my problem with it is the amount of unnecessary violence that can sometimes occur on the show. Now, I am not someone who thinks that any portrayal of violence is a sin and the people responsible for it should be punished, that's not me. I just think that when I see 5 different skits in a row that feature nothing but the Robot Chicken characters punching, fighting, slicing, stabbing... etc., I think that's a little too much.


The reason I feel that this violence should be reduced and the Robot Chicken writers should focus more on word/situation comedy rather than, I guess you could call it "violence comedy", is because I know for a fact that not everyone has the ability to process something that is "right" from "wrong". A casual viewer without the processing ability might tune in to watch Robot Chicken and see scene after scene of action figure slaughter. Since this person doesn't understand that this type of behaviour is only used for comic effect, they might take the hint that "Oh, it's ok to start killing my co-workers!" [2] (see video). As a result of too many people not being able to tell what's "right" from "wrong" we will end up with more problems than those that would have occurred without the episode.

[2]


Any skeptics may say "Oh that's just silly, no one would actually take something as silly as a television show that seriously!". In my opinion, I think that the skeptics can be seen as ignorant. Take the Columbine Massacre for example [3] . The two young men responsible for the shootings were highly influenced by the video game "Doom". Yes, I am aware that this is a video game, not a television show, but they can be seen as parallels. As the two boys were stimulated by the excessive and graphic violent portrayed in the game, the two boys begin to forget that this type of violence should only be found in fiction. As a result of the influence the game had on the boys, they took it to the next level, and as a result, 15 people were killed and 24 more were injured. Those were 39 people that would not have been hurt or lost their lives if the game was less violent or ceased to exist altogether.


My point, being that Robot Chicken could be a little less violent, is valid. Seth Green has proven to us time after time that he can be funny without putting one at harm. How did he succeed on a fun loving show such as "That 70's Show?"? It was because he could be funny without having to become controversial. He has what it takes to write or create something that produces little to no harm and so I hope he can incorporate more of these types of sketches into his creations.

The point of this blog is not to put down Robot Chicken or the video game Doom. I am simply suggesting that people who cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality should become aware that what they are watching should never be replicated in the real world. If we all can leave make believe in our minds or on the television sets, we will be fine. However, until we ALL know the difference, it wouldn't hurt for the writers and creators to turn down the violence a notch.

[1] "Seth Green" IMDb.com. 23 February 2009.
[3] "Columbine High School massacre" Wikipedia. 24 February 2009. 24 February 2009

A Brit Too Much...

For the past decade, the world has been obsessed with Britney Spears. Whether it be through her high times, which include winning 34 Awards during her first year on the scene, including Best New Artist on the AOL awards, 4 different billboard awards and a Much Music award for best international artist [1], to name a few, to her low times which include parenting issues, head shaving and crotch shots, society just seems to want more and more from this celebrity. How is it that we can possibly know so much about Britney? There surely aren't enough professional photographers and journalists in the world that can devote so much of their time to one subject. The answer... the Paparazzi!

The term Paparazzi can be defined as " a freelance photographer, esp. one who takes candid pictures of celebrities for publication", however, that definition neglects to include the fact that many of these photographers are dangerous, criminal and bad for us as a society. The job of a paparazzi is to get an embarrassing and even sometimes life changing photographs of a celebrity and sell them to tabloid style magazines. Isn't this something we should be concerned about? Selling someone else's troubles and putting them in the public eye for everyone to see, and for what? The only good that comes out of this situation is the income for the photographer who snapped the shot. It's certainly not helping our society who seem to have less and less respect for others as the years go by. Infact, the largest amount of money ever made on a Britney picture was $10,000 to the original buyer, which then was sold approximately 200-300 times![2] Isn't it ridiculous to think that these people, who's only goal in life is to take pictures of those who are just trying to live their life, are making more money than people creating devices that will help our global climate or even people creating things such as air planes and space shuttles? I think it's a little unfair to say the least.

To a member of the Paparazzi, to know where Britney is at all times is a must have "skill" or as someone could also argue, you must be a great stalker. Britney takes up approximately 50% of the Paparazzi's time [2], which is incredible to think that if you add Brad Pitt, Jennifer Anniston, Angelina Jolie, Paul McCartney, Bono and Christina Aguilera, the coverage combined on those stars isn't even close to the amount of attention Britney Spears receives. Why, though, is Britney so popular? My opinion, along with many other experts in the field, is that the reason Britney is so popular is due to the fact that "the public demise of an individual has never been so public.". This certainly is true when you think of everything Britney has been through in the past little while.

After her initial rise to stardom through her first album "... Baby One More Time", she has gone on to... 1) Kiss Madonna (the first hint that she was kind of wacky), 2) Get married (and divorced within 2 days), 3) Get married... Again (to Kevin Federline of all people), 4) Become a mother (which seemed to make her "fat", or so the Paparazzi wanted us to think), 5) Become a bad parent (meh, this could be a pretty accurate statement), 6) Become a parent again... (oh boy...), 7)Get Divorced (announced to the world live on Canada's own Much Music), 8) Attack People with Umbrellas (Why not something a little more lethal? she has the money to buy anything), 9) DATED A PAPARAZZI! (sheesh), 10) Went to rehab, and the list goes on an on. One may ask "how do we know Britney did all this?". It's because of our society's disgusting habit of wanting dirt on famous people and the fact that Paparazzi will do anything to give us what we want. When Britney wanted to be with kids, she was followed every second, and when she messed up, she was immediately a bad mother? But really is she that different from everyone else? I am sure others have mishandled their children in the past, but because it wasn't made up to be a huge media event, they aren't "bad parents" such as Britney.

In my opinion, the Paparazzi, along with millions of people across the world, have taken the "let's expose a celebrity for our own benefit" thing a little too far. A prime example occurred during Britney's comeback appearance at the 2007 MTV Music Awards. Britney, who obviously was not the same Britney that originally came to our attention, was planned to perform a "Comeback" performance after years of being highly criticized in the media. Perhaps it wasn't Britney's best decision, as immediately after her performance, the Paparazzi and other media vocalists had something to say. Many people were talking about her dancing and lip-syncing, which couldn't be argued as being "a good performance". However, I think that the biggest problem that existed was the fact that people were making fun of Britney's weight. Of course she's not a skinny as she was when she was 19 years old. Do people forget that she's been through a lot of things in the past 10 years? Do people forget she's had 2 kids? One blogger by the name of "nastybugger" on celebuzz posted "... and almost a year is PLENTY of time for a 25-year old to lose the baby weight. women older than her have managed to lose the weight in a couple of months. it's all about discipline, of which brit doesn't have much." [3]. Why does this individual care if Britney isn't at her prime fitness? How does it affect his life day-to-day? Does he go to school and say "I am not doing my homework today because Britney looks fat and it upsets me?", because that is pretty much the kind of statement his comments imply. Does this individual not realize that there are much bigger problems in the world? Does he forget that in America approximately 26.6% of adults are obese [4], meaning that in the average 4 person family you'll have someone who's obese and perhaps these are much bigger issues than his apparent hang-up on Britney's extra baby weight.

This topic is what is wrong with the world. People don't care about REAL issues, such as things like obesity. The Paparazzi have molded our brains to think that whatever celebrities are doing is more important than things that ultimately affect us. They do this to us because they know that as long as we make a big deal about these celebrities, the longer they'll make money. This manipulation is what's wrong with society. We listen to these people, and forget about the real things in life. In my opinion, actors belong in movies, singers belong on albums and in concert, athletes belong on sports fields and if it's anyone who should be in magazines, it's models, because that's their job. But that's my opinion and I also think that if it was more peoples' opinion we would be able to stop the media's control of our minds and as a society, we would become better off.

To create some hope, we have begun to see a lot of celebrities starting to voice their opinions about the paparazzi and the media. Artists such as Xzibit ("Paparazzi") and Lindsay Lohan ("Rumors") have wrote songs dislaying the apparent displeasure they have for the paparazzi and negative media centres. However, I feel that these songs would be more affective if their corresponding video actually had more to do with the Paparazzi they are singing about. In Lindsay's video we see her provacitively dancing and in Xzibit's song we see him on a beach... umm... what do these videos have to do with their distaste for the Paparazzi? In my opinion, if these artists wish to be taken seriously, they should start by making accompanying videos that relate to the topic of their song. Luckily for these artists, a new law called The "Britney Law" may come into affect and help them restore their former privacy. A 20-yard "safe bubble" will be put around any celebrity and if a member of the paparazzi comes within this bubble to take a photograph, authorities will seize all money made from the photograph. In my opinion, I do not think that this law will be effective as the paparazzi would still risk being caught and charged by police. It is too easy nowadays to slip something by the police and from the Rihanna photo leak this Friday [5], we can see that the police itself might not be a reliable mediator. Besides, even if the profits from a photo do get stolen, the individual who snapped the shot is still very likely to get paid under the table for their work somewhere down the road. LA Police Chief William Bratton gives a very realistic opinion on the "Britney Law" as he says "What we need is Britney Spears to stay home instead of traipsing all over town. That would solve the problem.” Makes sense to me." [6].

Not only do celebrities voice their opinion through song aimed at the paparazzi, some celebrities have been able to find ways to live a "normal" life. Why do we hear so much "gossip" about Paris Hilton? It's because she wants to be heard and seen. Why don't we hear anything particularly negative about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie? This is because they have found ways to avoid the paparazzi's photographic eye in order to give their children a normal life. When asked about the kinds of places she frequents in order to avoid the camera's eye, Angelina Jolie replied, "Usually, places where there are other parents with children are okay - other parents are much more respectful of our privacy than many people because they understand what it’s like just to want to be with your kids. Parents are much kinder to us than some other members of the public" [7]. These celebrities deserve a lot of credit for making an attempt to lead a private life and should be praised for doing all they can to create a better life for their children. They never asked for their lives to become someone else's news and so in order to keep it this way they are stepping up to the challenge of remaining private. These are the types of people that should be respected and kept out of the negative limelight.

The feelings of sympathy we can feel for Brad and Angelina cannot exactly be felt towards Britney Spears. We have seen that she likes to put on a performance for the Paparazzi (as seen in the documentary "Britney: Speared By the Paps")[2]. Britney has treated the paparazzi like puppies, put on a show for them by purchasing strange and bizarre items (most notably a stuffed donkey) and to cap it all off, she dated a paparazzi. Can we really feel sorry for someone who invites their enemy into their home? Perhaps she pulled a Trojan Horse and accidently invited a paparazzi member, a nemesist of hers, into her home but knowing Britney, we can be certain that this even occurred as a plan to keep her name in the public view. People such as Britney who evidently want to be seen and heard deserve what they are getting as they have really done nothing to fight against it. How can they complain about being followed until they begin to take steps away from the public eye?

What can we expect from Britney as she grows older? Most recently, at the 2008 MTV Video Awards reviewers such as Perez Hilton and People Magazine Senior Editor Julie Dam, praised her appearance. "Last night was really good in that she looked amazing but didn't perform, because she didn't need to perform last night," Dam said. "It would have been asking too much. She showed up, looked good, accepted her awards, gave brief speeches, thanked God and her kids and, at the end, [manager] Larry Rudolph and her label, which is definitely setting the table for the future."[8]. As these signs are very encouraging that we may see a more proper Britney in the future, we cannot be sure what the future holds. In my opinion I hope she changes so that the world can once again focus on important issues, issues that will affect everyone, not just Britney and her following. Hopefully as a result of a more laidback Britney we can see a decline in Paparazzi, which would create a safer world for all those who live around the inhabitants of celebrities. What will the future hold? I guess we'll have to wait until "she's done it again" to see how society and the paparazzi will respond.

[1}"List of Awards received by Britney Spears"Wikipedia.com. 23 February 2009. 21 February 2009

[2] Directed by Pop Banyard. “Britney: Speared by the Paps” Sky 1. 21 February 2009. 19 March 2008. Documentary.

[3] “Britney Spears' 'Gimme More' VMA Performance” Celebuzz.com. 22 February 2009. September 10, 2007

[4] “Obesity in the United States” Wikipedia 22 February 2009. 22 February 2009.

[5] "TMZ posts photo it claims is a beaten Rihanna". MSN.Com. 23 February 2009. 20 February 2009

[6] Wiehl, Lis. “If Passed, “Britney Law” May End Paparazzi Stalking Tactics”Fox News 23 February 2009. 06 March 2008

[7] Sherry. “Brad and Angelina-the kids and the paparazzi”B5Media 23 February 2009. 15 October 2008.

[8] Kaufman, Gil. Vineyard, Jennifer. “Britney Spears' VMA Appearance A Solid First Step, Experts Say”MTV.com 23 February, 2009. 8 September 2008.

"paparazzi." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 23 Feb. 2009. .


“Britney Spears” Wikipedia 23 February 2009. 23 February 2009

Xzibit “Paparazzi “Paparazzi Lyrics” AzLyrics February 23 2009.

Rooney, Cory. Jackson, Tarryle. Jackson, Tito. Lohan, Lindsay. “Rumors” Azlyrics February 23 2009.

"Britney at 2008 MTV Video Awards" 7 Sept 2008. Online Image. The Insider. 23 February 2009.

"Britney Performing at 2007 MTV Video Awards" 12 Sept 2008. Online Image. Salon.com. 23 February 2009.

"Brad and Angelina with Shiloh" No Date. Online Image. Celeb9.com. 23 February 2009.

"Obese Person" No Date. Online Image. DietsinReview.com. 23 February 2009.

"Young Britney Spears" No Date. Online Image. SodaHead.com. 23 February 2009.

Welcome Home Mats!

GO LEAFS GO!

For anyone who follows hockey, especially Leafs hockey, Saturday Feb 21st 2009 was a night to remember. It was so special due to the fact that former Leafs captain Mats Sundin returned with the Vancouver Canucks for the first time to face his old team. Mats had played 13 seasons (the same as his number) with the Toronto Maple Leafs and in that time managed to become the highest scorer in Leafs history with 989 points in the 981 games he played for the franchise. For anyone who can do math, that means he averaged over a point a game. That is quite an accomplishment.

I guess I should stop living in the past and focus on Saturday night's game. In the week leading up to the game, the return of Sundin was the only thing they talked about. They said it was the game to watch as it would be full of emotion due to the mixed feelings between the fans and Mats Sundin. A common topic discussed by many hockey analysts was the question about the fans reaction when Mats Sundin would step on the ice. One of CBC's commentators Don Cherry said he thought that "he will get a standing ovation" and he was right. Although the Leafs faithful booed Sundin when he touched the puck (as they do with many former players), he received a standing ovation as a medley of Sundin was shown overhead on the Leafs "Jumbotron" early in the game. As a result of the overwhelming appreciation by the Leafs, Mats Sundin became very emotional and the game was delayed for a few minutes as Mats regained his composure.

The game was very well played by the Leafs in my opinion and it really showed how much talent the Leafs have. If they could play like they did against Vancouver, in every game they played, they would be a very serious Stanley Cup contender. Vesa Toskala played a magnificent game as he had not played for a week and wanted to prove he was the Leafs main man between the pipes. Toskala has been under critisism throughout his career with the Leafs and with his stellar performance on this Saturday night, he proved to a lot of people that he is very capable. He played out of his net in order to cut down the angles and stood up more often to take up more net room, instead of reacting too quickly and going down, and as a result giving the shooter a lot of room to bury the puck.


After regulation time was over, the game was tied 2-2. For anyone not really into hockey, after regulation time expires the game goes into a 5:00 minuter overtime period. If after that overtime period the game is still tied, it goes into a shootout where each team can pick three shooters. For the Maple Leafs, Jason Blake, Niklas Hagman and Mikhail Grabovski were chosen and for the Vancouver Canucks Paval Demitra, Kyle Wellwood and ,of course, Mats Sundin were named the shooters. Jason Blake was up first and his shot was stopped by the Canuck's Roberto Luongo off the right pad. First up for the Canucks was shooter Paval Demitra who easily scored on the right side of Vesa Toskala. Second to shoot for the Maple Leafs was Niklas Hagman, whose attempt mimicked the one by Jason Blake who shot just a few minutes before. The second shooter for Vancouver also was a former Leaf. However, Kyle Wellwood's shot was less than enthusiastic and trickled past the net. Young rookie Mikhail Grabovski was up third for the Leafs and he scored a perfect goal as he fooled the All-Star Luongo, thus tying the overtime. Of course, it was going to be Mats Sundin, the former pride of Leafs Nation, the man who had more records for the Leafs than anyone else. Mats was about to either win over his new team, or break the hearts of his old team. Being a professional athlete, he had to do what he had to do. With great speed and power, Mats came in on Toskala and scored a beauty, leading the Canucks to victory and making his visit back to Toronto a great one to remember.

In response to the boos exhibited by the crowd at parts of the game, I thought they were being unreasonable. Had they forgotten all the things Mats had done for that franchise over the past 13 years? Surely they couldn't have forgotten that quickly? Perhaps it is just a way of the fans showing that the Leafs fans are the most religious fans in the world as they tend to boo other former players when they come to town, such as Bryan McCabe of the Florida Panthers. I thought Mats played a tremendous game which reflected his stellar play when he donned a Leafs jersey. Mats will be missed as his time with the Leafs will get farther and farther away from the present. As a Leafs fan, I will never forget Mats, as I, along with an entire generation of Leafs fans, grew up watching and cheering him on every Saturday night. To you Mats, thanks for the memories.