Lifecasting

  Step aside, reality television.  There’s a new engine gathering steam on the Reality Turnpike, and it’s doing something that you never could.  Remember when movies like “The Truman Show” and “EdTV” were so fictional they were almost far-fetched?  Well, thanks to modern technology, those days are gone.

  As you may have seen on The Today Show Monday, 23-year-old Justin Kan is the internet’s newest sensation.  For 17 days now, he has been broadcasting every minute of his life on the web, and people are beginning to tune in.  The Yale physics and philosophy grad turned web entrepreneur walks around, day after day, with a camera strapped to his head, as webwatchers tune in by the thousands to see what Justin is up to now.

  It’s not always exciting—like the eight (or ten) hours a day that he spends sleeping, or the countless hours spent in front of his computer.  But the show, if you can bring yourself to call it that, has its moments.  Like when a viewer called 911 to report a stabbing in his apartment, prompting San Francisco police to burst in, guns drawn.  Another time they reported a fire.  In fact, the prank 911 calls have forced dispatchers to begin calling Kan’s apartment to confirm emergencies before sending any more officers out.  Not to be outdone, the pranksters ordered $63 worth of pizza and had it sent to his door.

  As more and more people tune in, his technical team (comprised of his two buddies) is working overtime to keep the site running.  I tuned in Tuesday morning, while Justin was still sleeping, and the video server was full.  After refreshing my browser a few times, I got the live video feed, and saw that more than 2,000 other people were watching him sleep.

  Whether or not this will be the wave of the future remains to be seen.  Some claim that it’s a silly idea, a passing fancy.  But the kid is smart, and he has already figured out how to turn this into money.  It all revolves around product placement.  Banners hang on the walls of his apartment, and as the popularity of the site grows, there is no question that more sponsors will line up to be a part of Justin’s world.

  As it stands, the programming is kind of dull.  But this is just the beginning, according to Paul Graham of Y Coordinator, the company that funded the project.  “Ultimately their plan is to have hundreds of people with these cameras.  Each would be a channel; viewers would watch whichever was the most interesting at that time,” Graham recently told the San Francisco Chronicle.  “With hundreds of people, there would always be something interesting.  So why would anyone switch on their TV?”

  It’s true.  This is reality TV taken to the next level.  And it’s difficult to judge it based on the quality of programming provided by this one “channel.”  “We want to find people far more charismatic and attractive than me to go out and do this,” Kan told the Chronicle.  If you let your imagination take over, you can begin to see how this could catch on.

  Take a little time this weekend to point your browser to www.justin.tv, and see for yourself what the future may look like.  And while you’re doing that, I’ll be buying up the domain name www.sanjaya.tv.

 -From Pulse
   April 5, 2007

Read more...

Rock ‘N’ Roll Retirement

  Watching television can tell you things about your parents that you may not have known.  The same is true about flipping through a magazine.  What you discover may surprise you when you begin paying close attention to the advertisements geared toward them and their generation.

  As baby boomers across the country reach retirement age, major American companies have been forced to rethink their marketing strategies, and redesign them to appeal to a different kind of retiree.  You have probably noticed it in the Fidelity Investments commercials, with the lava-lamp bubbles touting their 401k benefits and offering ideas for getting the most of you IRA, as Iron Butterfly’s “In-A-Gadda-DaVida” wails in the background.  The same company has also commissioned the use of Terry Jacks’ “Seasons In The Sun” for an ad, while Ameriprise Financial has hired Dennis Hopper, Mr. Easy Rider, to peddle their financial planning to former flower children.

  It feels strange to see the anthems and icons of the Sixties and Seventies being used to sell annuities and retirement planning.  But while it may seem to go against the very spirit of the music and the generation that produced it, we have to assume, on the evidence of its continued existence, that it must be working.

  Baby boomers are defined as the generation born between 1946 and 1964, conceived in the postwar reunions of soldiers returning home from World War II and Korea to their wives.  As a generation, they are known as free spirits—the children of the Sixties and Seventies who questioned authority, fought for civil rights, protested the war in Vietnam, and brought about the sexual revolution.  Of course these are generalizations, but they are strong ones, and are not without merit.  They have been used to characterize baby boomers since the McGovern campaign and, for better or worse, will live on as the legacy of their generation.

  It’s no mystery why advertisers are trying to get into the wallets of America’s largest demographic.  They are also the richest.  Historically, the 18-49 age group has been the sweet spot, if you will—the group with the largest disposable income.  But now, the nation’s 75 million baby boomers hold reign as the country’s most affluent segment.  They hold more than 75% of the country’s financial assets, and have an estimated $1 trillion of disposable income annually.  In essence, their spending power is simply too powerful for advertisers to ignore.

  Until recently, only about 10 percent of advertising dollars were spent on ads targeting the over-50 group.  And while that is starting to climb a little, it still isn’t anywhere near the levels that would be proportionate to the baby boomers’ spending power.

  The perception among advertisers is that boomers will redefine retirement.  Boomers will not go gently into their golden years; they will be more active, more adventurous, more independent, and generally just younger than previous generations of retirement age.

  Which means you can expect to see more Centrum commercials blaring Pink Floyd, more Cadillac ads rocking the Stones, and McCartney selling off his share of the Beatles’ catalog to be used in Titleist commercials.  Oh, and when that time comes, be on the lookout for more Rock and Roll retirement communities.  Mark my words.

-From Pulse
   March 29, 2007

Read more...

Rock Royalties

  Our story this week is one of rock gods who have gotten greedy and forgotten their roots.  It’s a sordid tale of hypocrisy, avarice, and a quest to keep the little man down.  Its very essence is antithetical to the spirit of Rock and Roll—or at least to what the spirit of Rock and Roll should be.

  It all began on January 15 and 16 of this year, when a Vail, CO, nightclub called 8150 brought in an all-female Led Zeppelin cover band from New York City named Lez Zeppelin.  It’s not clear from reports whether the band played both nights, but the legal fallout from the performance has Steven Kovacik, the club’s owner, ensnared in a lawsuit that will certainly have him thinking twice before booking another live band.

  Sometime in the subsequent month, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court against Kovacik—and the list of plaintiffs was a virtual who’s who of Rock and Roll royalty.  Listed as plaintiffs: the Van Halen Music Company, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones, and Patricia Bonham (widow of Zeppelin drummer John Bonham).  The suit alleges that Kovacik allowed covers of songs written by the plaintiffs to be performed in his nightclub without obtaining permission from the copyright holders or from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), an organization that oversees copyright licenses.  There are ten counts of copyright infringement cited in the suit—or ten cover songs played in those two days—and the plaintiffs are seeking damages ranging from $750 to $10,000 per song, plus attorney fees.

  Strictly from a legal standpoint, the suit is not without merit.  Technically speaking, musicians are required to obtain permission from, and pay royalties to, a songwriter every time a song is performed live before a paying audience.  However, that is seldom—or almost never—the case.  In most instances, cover performances are simply seen as a tribute to a band or musician’s Rock and Roll hero; it is generally seen as a tribute, the sincerest form of flattery, and no remuneration is expected. 

  And this is where the hypocrisy comes in.  Let’s take a little trip through the annals of rock history.  Let’s go back to the evening of June 21, 1966, in a London nightclub called The Marquee.  Jimmy Page is taking the stage for the first time with a band called The Yardbirds, a bluesy rock band with a few hits under their belt, a band that Eric Clapton has just left.  And maybe they perform a cover that night of an old blues tune by Muddy Waters or Howlin’ Wolf or Bo Diddley.  Do you think that they paid the songwriter anything for their performance that night?  Probably not.

  David Lee Roth was playing the Pasadena club circuit with the Van Halen brothers in 1973—of course, they were called Mammoth then.  They weren’t making a whole lot of money, but were building a reputation for being the hardest rocking cover band in the Los Angeles area.  That’s right, cover band.  Do you think they were paying The Kinks every time they covered “You Really Got Me” in a smoky club on the Sunset Strip?  Probably not.

  And that is why this lawsuit is so egregious, so preposterous.  It is an affront to the spirit of Rock and Roll.  And why Kovacik is being targeted, instead of the offending band(s), defies logic. I guess they must figure he has more money.

 -From Pulse
   March 22, 2007

Read more...

Read & Release

  Sunday morning started with nothing out of the ordinary—a cup of joe, a shower and a shave.  My dad was in town for the WAC Tournament, and we decided to grab some breakfast before he left.  As we walked into a popular Sunday morning brunch spot on Lohman, there, under the menu board, something caught my eye.  It was a book by Sharon Weinberger called “Imaginary Weapons,” and stuck to the dust jacket was a note that read, “I’m free!  I’m not lost!  Please pick me up, read me, and help me with my journey!”

  It’s possible that you have seen these wayward books laying on coffee shop tables and park benches around town—different titles, each touting its freeness in its own way, and each directing its finder to a website called BookCrossing.com.

  Like a kid who found a treasure map tucked into a knotty tree in his backyard, I was intrigued.  After breakfast I went home, logged on to BookCrossing.com, and looked up my new book.  It had been “released” that same morning—exactly where I found it—by an avid BookCrossing member who has left 159 books lying around the City of Crosses.

  Book Crossing is, in its unique way, a social networking site for people who share one common belief: books should be shared, not owned.  More than half a million members around the world, from Ireland to Iceland, Angola to Vietnam, are leaving books in conspicuous places to be found by other interested readers.  I was startled to learn that New Mexico has almost 2,000 active Book Crossing members, and Las Cruces has more than 200.

  The site deserves a few moments of any book-lover’s attention, as there are only a few features that I’ll be able to tell you about.  The most interesting is the ability to track every book that has passed through a user’s hands…forever.  Sure, books go missing.  Someone finds it and doesn’t record it.  But curiosity gets the best of most people, who end up at BookCrossing.com to see—as I did—what tales the treasure they now possess has to tell.

  The most fun feature of the site allows users to go hunting for books left around their city by other Book Crossing members.  For example, 14 books have been “released” in Las Cruces in the last month, with no record of having been claimed, according to the site.  From coffee shops and convenience stores to the NMSU Recital Hall, there are books “in the wild” that are waiting to be found.  If you’re looking for a way to pass a Saturday, you may want to go hunting for a few that pique your interest.  Or take a few books off your shelf at home, register them at BookCrossing.com, and plant them around town to be found by someone else.

  And perhaps the best part is that it’s completely free.  Book Crossing doesn’t charge for anything except for the optional bookplates, bookmarks and sticky notes that you can include in books that you release.  But the site also includes free, downloadable “.pdf files” that allow you to print your own.

  If you love books, and believe in karma—even just a little—BookCrossing.com is a site you’re gonna love.

-From Pulse
   March 15, 2007

Read more...

Freeing Bobby Brown

  It’s odd, in 2007, to write about someone who hasn’t been musically relevant in more than a decade.  But in today’s world of paparazzi and reality TV, when the most popular pastime is watching stars fall and celebrity marriages crumble, a story on the sordid world of Bobby Brown doesn’t seem so out of place.

  Brown seems to be developing a new habit.  For the second time this year, he was arrested in Massachusetts last Sunday (2/25) for failure to pay child support while watching his daughter’s cheerleading competition.  Déjà vu.

  But this is where it gets interesting.  After spending three days in the county clink, Bobby was sprung by a Washington, D.C. radio station—of course, there were some strings attached.  Clear Channel-owned WIHT, Hot 99.5, agreed to put up more than $19,000 to get the “My Prerogative” singer-turned-reality-TV-star out of lockup.  In exchange, Bobby would work for the station for a week, guest-hosting various shows.  Station morning host Kane told the radio trade mag FMQB, “We have $19,150 to give to Bobby Brown to pay the child support he owes, which is why he’s still locked up and which is why he has no friends, and a wife that doesn’t love him.  We’re willing to do this in return for him hanging out with us for a week and helping out with the community.”  During Brown’s stay in Washington, the station offered to put him up in a nice hotel, provide him car service, and “treat him like a king…because he is Bobby Brown.”

  While the whole thing smelled like a publicity stunt, Kane said there was more to it.  “We’re trying to put this all in a positive light, not just for the media attention, but we’re helping his kids because we want them to be okay and have the money.  And we’d love to have him in DC to help out the local community and prove he’s a good guy and all he need[s] is a chance.”

  But after Bobby was free, the bottom dropped out.  In a phone interview on Kane’s show Friday morning, Brown claimed that there had been a misunderstanding, and furthermore, that the station had not bailed him out.  “You paid me some chips to be on your radio station. That’s how it was,” Brown said to Kane.  Kane responded, “We didn’t pay to get you on the radio station, we paid to get you out of jail.”  Brown then claimed that he was already out of jail when the station money came through—a statement that, when pressed on the issue, Brown conceded was not true.

  When Kane brought up the notion that Bobby would be working for the station for a week, Brown began waffling, and Kane became irritated.  “I thought we agreed—and our agreement was in writing, that you’re gonna come and you’re gonna be an employee of this radio station.”  Brown replied, “No, that wasn’t our agreement,” and hung up on the morning host.

  Later that day, the station announced that an agreement was made with Brown, that the original “work for bail” deal was off, and that Brown would be returning the money.  “We feel that there are better things that we can do with the money locally,” said Kane.

  Once again, as in the “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” Boston bomb scare, we come back to the price of publicity.  At the end of the day, Hot 99.5 got a week’s worth of free publicity, and the troubled singer can go back to “Being Bobby Brown.”

-From Pulse
   March 8, 2007

Read more...

FreeFest

  A few weeks ago, a major announcement was made that could forever change the world of summer music festivals, an announcement that could, indeed, bring the notion of exorbitantly-priced concert tickets to its knees.  And it came from Sharon Osbourne, of all people.

  On February 6, at a press conference at the Concert Industry Consortium in L.A., Sharon announced that, instead of raising ticket prices for Ozzfest again this year, she will raise the price of corporate sponsorships and offer the tickets to fans for free.  That’s right, free.

  In her statement, she said that “for the last few years, ticket prices have steadily climbed as artists demand more and more money for summer tours.  We want everybody to make money, but we also want kids to be able to afford to come out and have an incredible experience.”  In a subsequent interview she did with “The Mercury News,” Ozzfest had no choice but to reinvent the summer-touring wheel.  “We were putting offers to all these bands we wanted to tour with and they were coming back to us with exorbitant prices that would have meant we had to put the ticket prices up, which I won’t do.  They want $300,000 plus to do an hour’s work onstage.  I’m just not doing it.  Last year nearly destroyed us, paying, paying, paying, and we just can’t do it again.”

  One of the bands for which last year’s Ozzfest paid through the nose was System of a Down, who got $325,000 per show.  “They’re taking four years off, we paid them so much,” says Osbourne, “and we’re still working.  I’m not doing that again.”

  She claims that if Ozzfest continued this year in the traditional model, “we would have no choice but to raise ticket prices again this year.  We’re reaching the same point we did years ago when kids no longer wanted to pay for overpriced CDs.  As a result, they found alternative ways of getting music.  That’s what’s happening with summer touring in this country.  It’s out-pricing itself.” 

  While this year’s headliner, Ozzy, has agreed to do the show for free, it remains unclear how many other bands will get on-board.  Sharon remains optimistic.  “We know there aren’t any major headlining acts that would tour all summer for nothing, but we’re confident we can turn some of the genre’s biggest bands on to what we’re doing.  They could come out and play a date or two.”

  On the surface, Sharon’s motive seems almost saintly.  But a magazine called “College Music Journal” suggests there may be more to it than meets the eye.  In a recent article, CMJ claims that last year’s Ozzfest lost $1.5 million.  Any concert promoter will tell you that relying on ticket sales is a nerve-racking gamble, with the odds against you.  CMJ implies that Sharon, Ozzy, and the tour’s producer, LiveNation, may be trying to get the money for the show up-front from corporate sponsors, instead of relying on the fickle fans. 

  Even if that’s so, one fact overshadows everything else.  It’s free.

  This year’s Ozzfest (or Freefest, as it has been dubbed) kicks of on July 7 in Los Angeles.  Further tour dates have not yet been announced, but the cities have.  Near here: Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver and Dallas.  Rock fans should keep checking www.ozzfest.com for details on how to get your free tickets.

 -From Pulse
   March 1, 2007

Read more...

Subject: Dear John

  For two and a half years I’ve been writing this column.  Some weeks, the topics are hard to come by; nothing seems to be happening.  Other times, I have an idea weeks in advance.  And then there are the columns that seem to write themselves.  There are long weekends when Britney Spears freaks out, checks herself into rehab, then checks out and shaves her head. 

  Regrettably, that is an issue that I’ll have to pass up—or save for another day—because I had already planned a follow-up on last week’s column about online dating. 

  Last week, I told you about the surprisingly high odds of finding your soulmate electronically, through online dating.  But with Valentine’s Day behind us, many of you may be looking for a way to break up with your one-time Valentine.  (It’s no secret that many of us have held it together just long enough to make it through Valentine’s Day, so that we don’t have to spend it alone.  Oh, and for the goodies too!)  But now, maybe it’s time to cut them loose.

  It seems to be fairly common nowadays to use text messaging to tell that not-so-special someone that it’s over—which brings us back to Britney.  It has been reported that Britney told K-Fed that it was over in a text message he received last November while he was taping an interview for Canadian television.  In fact, a recent survey commissioned by cell-phone maker Samsung Telecommunications America found that 11 percent of Americans think that it’s okay to break up with someone using a text message.

  With the advances in technology, the traditional “Dear John” letter has also undergone a transition and entered the technological sphere.  In these modern times, hearing “you’ve got mail” could mean “I never want to see you again,” as “Dear John” letters have been replaced with “Dear John” e-mails. 

  But if you don’t want to do your own dirty work—whether by cell phone or e-mail—there are dozens of online sites devoted to helping you jettison that dead weight, and doing it with all of the dignity and respect your soon-to-be-ex may or may not deserve. 

  You may want to try the Breakup Butler, which will e-mail an audio message to the object of your rejection, alerting them that your love affair is, unfortunately, over.  It claims to be a “kind, gentle, proper breakup,” but only if “they can get past the fact that you’re using a dumb/impersonal/cowardly web service like this to deliver the message.”  If you would rather the message be unkind, the site offers a not-so-nice message delivered in a female voice.  The service is completely free, and can be found at www.breakingupiseasytodo.com.

  There are literally dozens of other sites that will deliver the message for you in any way you could imagine, but if you don’t want to get into a situation where you’ll have to be breaking up down the road, you may want to check out the rejection hotline at www.rejectionhotline.com.  The site offers fake phone numbers—in more than 80 area codes—that you can give to strangers who come onto you in bars.  When the number is dialed, the caller hears a recorded message that lets them know that you’re not interested.  (FYI, New  Mexico’s rejection hotline number is 505-310-2496.)

  With Valentine’s Day in the past, perhaps it’s time to close the door on that floundering relationship.  Log on and break up!

-From Pulse
   February 22, 2007

Read more...

Lookin’ For Love

  So, yesterday was the most romantic day of the year.  Valentine’s Day is a day for couples, a day for jewelry and roses and candlelight dinners.  It’s a day when the love two people share in their hearts spreads to their pocketbooks and finds material representation.  Love is in the air, and $100 bouquets of flowers are in bloom—on every office desk, every kitchen table, everywhere you look.  For singles, nothing is more monumentally depressing than seeing pink, heart-shaped boxes of chocolate everywhere.

  If you are a member of the Lonely Hearts Club who has vowed to have just spent your last Valentine’s Day alone, there is hope.  Two weeks ago, the global market research firm Synovate released their results of a recent survey, and they are shocking.  The survey seems to suggest that it might be time to swallow your pride, ignore the stigma, and try to find love online. 

  Synovate surveyed more than 4,000 people from eight different countries, including the United States, and found that very few people do online dating.  But for the ones who have tried it, it works very well.  Only 15% of Americans have ever used the Internet to find love.  But of that 15%, however, more than 2 out of 5 (42%) claim to have met their spouse or life partner online.

  In an effort to better understand online daters, the survey asked those who had used an online personal ad or dating service what attracted them to other users.  Of the American respondents, only 27% said it was “their picture or how they look.”  39% said it was their “personality in their written description,” while 33% said they “met basic criteria such as hobbies, statistics, etc.” 

  But there is still that 85% who haven’t tried online dating, and there are a few reasons for that.  30% said they wouldn’t because it could be dangerous, 42% say they would just rather see someone in person first, and 22% just don’t think the Internet should be used for dating.  Oh yeah, and then there is the social stigma attached to online romance.  More than one-third of the people who aren’t online daters believe that “only desperate people” go to the Internet to find their love connection.

  The safety issue is certainly a valid concern.  A separate study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that online daters generally had good experiences, but 57% believe that “a lot of people who use online dating lie about their marital status.”  That is reinforced by Synovate’s findings.  84% of Americans believe that people are dishonest in their online dating profiles.  If you want to try online dating, but are concerned about safety, all of the online dating sites offer simple rules that can help keep you out of harm’s way.  And compared to going home with some stranger you met in a bar, how dangerous is it?

  I actually know two people, both women, who found their soul mates online.  One is a girl I went to high school with, and one is a lady I work with.  Both married their online love, and remain married today.  Of course, there may be more I don’t know about.  If you are single and looking, why not ask the couples you know how they met?  You may be surprised how many began as broadband love connections.

 -From Pulse
   February 15, 2007

Read more...

Aqua Teen Hunger Farce

  By now you probably have heard about the marketing stunt that brought the fair city of Boston to its knees last week. 

  It all started last Wednesday morning, when a guerilla ad campaign for the Cartoon Network’s show, “Aqua Teen Hunger Force,” was perceived as a citywide bomb threat.  A city worker notified police after spotting the first device Wednesday morning.  It appeared to be a circuit board bearing the image of a cartoon character giving the finger to passersby.  By 1 p.m., emergency operators were getting calls reporting more sightings of the mysterious devices—devices that, when you really looked closely, kind of looked like a Lite-Brite.  Remember Lite-Brites?  The ‘80s toy with backlit colored pegs that could be arranged to look like a fish or frog or a fairy?  Could the terrorists really be so cruel as to turn our own toys against us?

  Soon the city was locked down.  Highways and rivers, public transportation, businesses and bridges were closed for investigation.  Pandemonium ensued.  For hours, the city was at the mercy of bomb squad officers and the Department of Homeland Security.

  And then they realized what they were dealing with.  The “suspicious devices” were just flashing signs designed to generate a buzz for the upcoming “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” feature film, which is scheduled for release on March 23.  Two men placed them around the city, nearly two weeks earlier.  Peter Berdovsky, 27, and Sean Stevens, 28, were reportedly paid $500 for their part in the campaign.  Both were later arrested and charged with planting a hoax device and disorderly conduct, charges to which they both pleaded not guilty.

  In a press conference on the courthouse steps following their arraignment, the two contributed a little more to the circus atmosphere that had engulfed the city.  On the advice of their attorney, they refused to answer questions about their role in the melee.  Instead, they offered to answer reporters’ questions about another burning issue.  “What we really want to talk about today—it’s kind of important to some people—is haircuts of the 1970s,” said Berdovsky.  When reporters refused to cooperate, the two feigned indignation. It was like a scene from Monty Python.

  Nine of the devices were found in Boston, a crime for which Turner Broadcasting, parent company to the Cartoon Network, agreed to pay the city $2 million.  The company took out full-page ads in the Boston newspapers on Friday, apologizing for the bomb scare and conceding that their actions were careless and irresponsible.  (It should be noted that Turner Broadcasting is owned by Ted Turner, who was once married to “Hanoi Jane” Fonda, a communist and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq.  This “coincidence” is something that the Liberal Media is reluctant to point out.)

  Many say that Turner should’ve known better than to try a campaign like this in a “post-9/11 world.”  But why, in a post-9/11 world, does it take 12 hours and $500,000 to determine that these things WERE NOT bombs?  And why did it take two weeks for Boston officials to find them?  And Boston wasn’t the only city “under attack.”  The campaign was carried out in 9 other large American cities.  In New York, 41 were found.  Philly had 56.  Are those cities less prepared than Boston?  Or more reasonable?

  In a world where companies are paying $2.5 million for a 30-second Super Bowl commercial, Turner got a week’s worth of 24-hour news for about the same price.  Now that’s cheap advertising.

 -From Pulse
   February 8, 2007

Read more...

Exposed

  She seems to be everywhere.  If there’s a Hollywood party, she’s there.  If there’s a red carpet rolled out somewhere, she’s on it.  If a single starlet should be chosen as the poster child of the jet-set crowd, it should be her.  She is famous because of her last name; she is famous because of her extravagant lifestyle.  And sadly, she personifies success and fuels the aspirations of today’s youth.

  This week, a new website made headlines by exposing the most private details of Paris Hilton’s personal life.  And it’s not pretty.

  How does a person like Paris end up in a situation like this, with so much of her private life posted online for the world to see?  Well, according to legal documents filed by the heiress this week, it was all because of a misunderstanding.  It started two years ago, after a burglary caused Paris and her sister, Nicky, to move from one L.A. mansion to another.  Paris and Nicky put a lot of their belonging in a storage unit—a storage unit that Paris claims the moving company was supposed to pay for.  When the storage company didn’t receive payment, they tried, unsuccessfully, to contact the heiress to collect the $208 she owed.  Eventually, the contents of the unit were put up for auction and sold for $2,775.  The buyers, realizing whose stuff they had purchased, turned around and sold it stuff to an Internet entrepreneur for $10 million—for a profit of $9,997,225.

  The man who paid $10 million for Paris’ property—6,000 square feet of it, to be precise—catalogued, itemized, digitized and uploaded every last piece of it, and for about $40, looky-loos can peruse every morsel for 60 days.  Or until the Hilton lawyers get their way and the site is taken down. 

  The items are shocking, even by Paris Hilton standards, and are not suitable for young eyes or the easily offended.  Paris seems to enjoy being naked, judging from the abundance of photos and video.  She likes doing drugs, too.  One video shows her and her “billionaire-buddies” snorting cocaine—and A LOT of it—off of a friend’s chest.  Another shows her smoking a pipe while extolling the virtues of marijuana.  Paris’ passport, driver’s license, medical records, address book, love letters, and journals are also available.  In essence, her life just became an open book.

  And so much for denying a relationship with Girls-Gone-Wild-creator Joe Francis.  Video footage of the two, as well as footage, captured by Francis, of Paris in a bubble bath, is available for all to see on the new website. 

  As I took the site’s free tour, I began to analyze my own curiosity.  Truth be told, I began psychoanalyzing myself.  What drives our curiosity about people like Paris?  It’s more than voyeurism.  There’s something about seeing these filthy rich pop-culture icons living dangerously and carelessly, compromising their own integrity, and self-destructing.  I don’t get any gratification from it, but it’s interesting.  It’s baffling, almost incomprehensible.  People like Paris seem to have it all, but lack responsibility, integrity, and accountability.

  I guess it makes me appreciate the life I have a little bit more. 

 -From Pulse
   February 1, 2007

Read more...

Be Wary of False Idols

  With the new season of American Idol underway—What is this, season six?  With the sixth season of American Idol afoot, life around the water-cooler is back to normal.  Actually, it’s a little better than normal, with the god-awful, two-hour audition specials that seem to air every other night.  We have a bumper crop of talentless nobodies to gossip about, instead of the usual one or two talentless nobodies (and hotel heiresses) that normally occupy our brains’ gossip centers.

  It’s only natural that everybody is talking about American Idol, since almost everybody is watching it.  During last Tuesday’s season premiere, 15 percent of the country tuned in—not 15 percent of those with TV’s—15 percent of everyone.  According to the Nielsen numbers, the last 30 minutes of Idol had almost twice as many viewers as the shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CW—combined.  Tuesday’s Minneapolis-based auditions drew about a million more viewers than did the season five finale last May, Taylor Hicks’ Idol crowning.

  This season, there has been a lot of talk about a perceived heightened cruelty of the judges.  Simon Cowell, who has never sugar-coated anything, has been taking flak from critics, fans and Rosie O’Donnell alike for claiming that one pop-eyed contestant looked like a “bush baby.”  Cowell is anything but apologetic for his remarks.  On Saturday, he told the Television Critics Association, essentially, that he is just brutally honest, and adding, “If you don’t want to hear that, don’t show up.”  

  But the situation is a little stickier than that.  There were two standout recipients of the judges’ insults.  Jonathan Jayne, 21, and Kenneth Briggs, 23, met in line at the Seattle auditions and became fast friends.  When the time came for them to audition, they were both pretty bad.  Jonathan sang “God Bless America” while Randy Jackson chuckled.  Then his new friend Kenneth stepped into the spotlight and performed “Tearing Up My Heart.”  That’s when Simon told him the looked like a “bush baby.”  Jonathan later told a reporter for Access Hollywood and the Free Republic that, while he was upset that Randy was giggling during his audition, he was really upset by Simon’s remarks to Kenneth.  "They treated him horribly,” he said.  “I just didn't like what they said about him. That really made me kind of ticked off that they were treating him like that."

  Now there is speculation that Jonathan is developmentally disabled.  If this is the case, can we, as viewers, condone their exploitation?  I understand the desire to drive ratings, but where is the line?

  I’ve always enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) Simon’s criticism of the fully able, yet untalented, would-be contestants.  But it seems to me that we have to hold the producers accountable for the product that eventually reaches the airwaves—in other words, what makes the cut.  And I’m not alone.  Many bloggers and posters on AI message boards are claiming that last Tuesday’s show was uncomfortable to watch.

  It would be interesting to study the psychological motives that drive people to watch American Idol.  Because, let’s face it, we don’t usually watch because we appreciate great singers and want to see all of the contestants succeed.

 -From Pulse
   January 25, 2007

Read more...