British pop singer M.I.A has sparked world wide criticism in the media over the video clip to her new song Born Free. The 9 minute video clip which depicts U.S authorities going house by house to round up all the red headed men for execution has even been banned on YouTube!

I'll be first to admit the video is over the top graphically violent, and honestly the song itself is none but a bunch of noise (maybe I'm just getting to old) but I don't think it deserves the sort of criticism it's getting if on the other hand we're going to say pop stars like Lady Gaga are allowed to have their extremely sexually explicit video clips and movies like Saw IV are allowed to exist. In fact if anything I'd have to say M.I.A's video clip is rather tame compared to any of the remade films Rob Zombie has done. And more over, M.I.A and ROMAIN GAVRAS were attempting to make a political statement with this video clip. Sure the clip does a clumsy job at making it's statement, but it quite clearly has hit people hard (otherwise it wouldn't have so much media attention) so one must assume it has at least partly fulfilled it's purpose.

Do I agree video clips like this should exist? No, of course not, but I disagree with video clips like those of Lady Gaga and movies like Rob Zombies remake of Halloween even more. None of this crap should exist, it's not art, it's not expressionism, it's not about complementing music or benefiting society. It's pornographic sexuality and violence for shear shock value and commercial gain. All of these types of videos should be banned, not just one video that has a bit of violence in it. I certainly don't think it's appropriate that I walk into a shop like Big-W and my children can see Lady Gaga half naked, dancing around like a whore on the LCD Tvs. We need to really take a long hard look in the mirror at the crap we're allowing Record companies to pump out and expose our children to.

Our video sharing website project that I announced last month is developing along nicely. The official launch date has now been set for May 15th 2010. The site is currently in beta trials so if you want to get in early and help test out the system just head on over to camzit.com and sign up. If you hurry and sign up for beta testing, you might even find you'll get a reward as a result.

I have been playing around for the last few months with different options for how to host videos I produce. The idea of hosting the videos directly on TJandSarah.com was the dominant thought for awhile there, but after looking further into solutions I am proud to announce I am currently developing a free video hosting service for everyone to use. The service will be launched by May 2010 and will be called CamzIT

More details will be announced as we get closer to the launch, including a specific launch date. Will this service rival YouTube, probably not; but you never know when it comes to the internet do you? At any rate that isn't the primary goal of this service, the goal instead is to deliver free video hosting for users with benefits that will be announced shortly.

The Australian Film and Television industry have lost a class action against West Australian ISP iiNet. The brief charged iiNet with authorising it's users to breach copyright laws by allowing them to use bit torrent software.

With common sense on his side Justice Dennis Cowdroy ruled that iiNet was not responsible for the breach of copyright. Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft who launched the action are of cause very upset with the decision with their spokesman Neil Gane stating
"It's very difficult for the movie industries to compete with a free alternative which is perpetrated by theft"

You're right Mr Gane it is difficult to continue to make billion dollar returns on movies you make when people can download them for free. But with movies like Avatar making 1 billion dollars at the box office in the first 3 days of it's US release I hardly think the industry is in any real danger. What the industry needs to understand is that regardless of what laws the bring in, someone will always be offering free copies of the latest movies. And people will continue to download them, and that isn't always a bad thing. Most of the time these downloaded copies are of poor quality, and certainly never anything approaching High Def.

If people want to see a movie in good quality, their only real choice is to purchase it. So the Movie and Television industry need to look at these downloads as a way for people to preview a movie by watching it in low quality, then if they like the movie they'll of course be much more likely to go out and buy it. That said however, the price of cinema tickets and DVDs certainly doesn't help the piracy issue. Honestly why pay $20 each to go see a movie at the cinema when you can download the movie for free?

Heck, even if you couldn't download it for free, there would still be an almost equally sized amount of people not going to see movies at the cinema simply because they don't want to pay the exorbitant prices. At the end of the day, movies were invented as the working mans pass time, they were meant to be affordable. But instead modern studios have increased prices to unbelievable levels and they're still going up. Here's a hint for the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, drop the prices and you'll immediately see more people buying your products legitimately.

Thankfully todays judgement by Justice Cowdroy is likely to be adopted in the US, EU and UK as we all share and model copyright law from each other. This means ISPs a likely to remain without blame for the piracy issue.

Links;

ABC News Article

As the year draws to a close we start to reflect on what that year has brought; and one can't reflect on such things without realising a considerable amount of the individuals privacy has been lost. So the question draws, will history hold 2009 as the year privacy was lost?

Facebook and Twitter and of course the Google machine have been the big violators of our privacy in 2009, gathering wads of data on us. This year Facebook made no less than 4 changes to their privacy policy, each one inching just that much more of your privacy away. As a result not only is everything you place on facebook up for documentation and collation with them, but so their privacy policy states, so is every other website you visit including how you interact with every site you visit.

Facebook also teamed up with Microsoft to place facebook on the Xbox 360, automatically updating your facebook status with what games, movies and music your using, as well as various other detailed information about them. Of course once the data is on facebook they file it away to make just that much more of an accurate picture of you. The world went twitter mad in 2009 as well, updating each other with their smallest, most tedious of actions. twitter itself; with a very facebook like privacy policy violated our privacy collating all the data we unwittingly delivered to them.

But it doesn't stop there, facebook took our twitter content and got us to stream it directly from twitter to them where the data could become facebooks to gather as well. And all the while the google machine gobbled up data from facebook, twitter and every other corner of the internet. Google's privacy policy shifted this year to allow for the collection of even more data. Your name, age, date of birth, the school you went to, your medical records, your likes and dislikes, your ex's, school grades, the games, movies and music you involve yourself with, your marital status, your credit rating, how much money you make, how much you paid for your house and how you paid for it...it's all their, publically viewable through google if you only know what to search for.

But where facebook collate each piece of our data as their policy allows for more collection, google play a more shifty game. For google the game plan is to creep through gathering more and more data, but to wait until the time is write to change the policy on collating the data.

But make no mistake, the time WILL come, after all Google are a targeted ads company, gathering data about you and collating it is what their business model is made up of. And with new services like Google's Public DNS and comments from Googles CEO Eric Schmidt on CNBC like

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

the stage is certainly set for a future where google know and collate EVERYTHING you do online. And what's more, knowing google; it will all most likely become publically available as well. The thought becomes even scarier when you consider that more and more devices are moving online.

The future see's devices like the Television and Radio, the telephone, the washer/drier and even the fridge all moving online. Even the video game console seems set to be replaced by a Set Top Box to link into a virtual unit. In this future one can expect your weekly shopping list, your phone calls and even how often you wash your clothes and how much water you use to added to the list of google indexed and publically available content. A wise man once said, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The big question now becomes, where do we go from here? Knowing what has happened to privacy through 2009 do we allow our privacy to further unravel or do we steal it back from the fingers of sleazy two faced advertising corps, back into our own control?

When did love become a commodity; exploitable for entertainment and profit? When did it become ok to exploit someone else's feelings in order to win a competition and some cash? And honestly, what sort of message are we sending our children by allowing such shows to be broadcast?

I'm not some hopeless romantic who is going to talk about true love and there being only 1 person for each of us. Truth is that isn't how love works. Indeed we are capable of loving anyone, if only we allow yourselves. But that doesn't make it right to exploit peoples feelings in order to make cheap popular television. In fact it is this point that makes it less condonable to exploit such emotion; for the basis of the show is to stick a bunch of people together in a house for so many weeks were by they fight for the love and affection of the bachelor or the bachelorette.

This very situation, of going in expecting to fall in love, of being in situations which open one up to falling in love, these are all designed to fit around the human psyche in such a way as to induce in every individual whom participates in the competition, strong feelings of love and affection. Sure a competitors pain and anguish ends for you the moment they leave the competition so you only get to witness a very small amount of it; but for the individuals whom participate the pain will surely last long passed the season finale.

We the viewer a cradled away from the heartache these shows produce, because lets face it, if you knew how much pain this show caused people would you really still watch it? And more over, would people enter to be in the next season? Shows like this are dangerous, because they show us, and especially our children, that it is ok to date multiple people at once. That it is ok to hurt people, and that you shouldn't feel bad or sorry for doing so. It removes empathy and sympathy from our social conscious.

So where will it stop? Were will we draw the line in reality TV? At what point will we picket the networks for airing their "reality" rubbish? Just because it has the word real in the title, doesn't make it so. Think about it, when was the last time you got locked up in a multi-million dollar mansion with 25 hot guys or girls all competing to be with you? When did you last get to go on loads of awesome out of this world dates? If these people met under normal circumstances, the likelihood of them feeling anything for each other isn't incredibly high. For an animal that is already completely insane, does humanity need to drift further down the rabbit path by drifting into a bigger fantasy about what love show be like?

Last nights episode of "are you smarter than a 5th grader" on Channel TEN had Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister of Education Julia Gillard as the contestant. True she is donating all the proceeds of her win to charity but what is she really trying to win? It should come as no surprise I'm sure that the real prize she is after is a higher approval rating.

You have a government who are really starting to show their true colours and the Australian are beginning to turn. Stunts like this show just how desperate they are becoming. What is most disturbing is that Julia Gillard is the FEDERAL minister for EDUCATION and yet is having difficulty answering 5th grade or lower questions. Should the minister responsible for funding our schools, not have an education which surpasses them?

I mean surely the minister responsible for signing off on state run curriculum should understand what that curriculum is? Or is this a case of the blind leading the blind? And if so, are we honestly going to stand for that? Is it honestly any wonder that Mr Rudd is such an anal control freak with ministers as brain dead as Ms Gillard on the front bench? I can totally see why he would write out what they're allowed to say in front of the media, else this government would have been seen for the bunch of brain dead nit wits they truly are.

Political clout, nor public approval should be won by way of game show. While elections may be about popularity, politics is about leadership and truly representing the voice of the people. When will politicians learn that if they just do those 2 things effectively the popularity will form itself. Look at Sir Joe, he got those right and ended up being the longest serving prime in Queensland AND even though dead now is still remembered fondly.

In short, a game show isn't a polling station, it's not something you should be using to try and sell your new policy or get yourself re-elected. It's entertainment for which I should be able to sit and relax. It was a poor decision on Channel TENs part to accept Ms Gillard on the show, lets hope they don't make such a mistake again.

The consumption of goods and services, even when they are unneeded and sometimes even completely useless to us has steadily increased since the 1940s. As media has encroached ever more into our daily lives, so forth has advertising. The first major revolution in advertising came with the introduction of Television.

Suddenly with a television or a "TV", advertisers found a direct route into our living rooms. By linking their ads to popular TV shows or personalities, advertisers caught us while we had those warm fuzzy feelings associated with something we like. In doing so, we then associated their products and brands with those same warm fuzzy feelings. And so was born the age of the consumer, and we were set on a path which would have implications for social structure, mental health and even the environment.

With this new found power to creep into our homes, advertisers managed to con us into some pretty dodgy deals over the years. But as the years have moved on from the introduction of television, so has legislation and indeed the consumer. When advertising first appeared on TV, merely being associated with a program or personality was enough to send thousands running for the nearest stockist. As immunity to this approach grew, advertisers changed tactics, instead listing on the neat things the product can do or how great it will taste. We were shown fake images and told things which boarder on fraud. Again, the consumer changed, and so did the advertisers tactic.

Today, we find ads which instead of insisting a product is brilliant, we're simply told it will make us "cool", more popular or happier. These claims again are of course untrue and it is again only a matter of time before the consumer becomes impartial to such advertising campaigns and things have to change once more. But no matter how these ads are delivered, the core message is always there, and has been since the word go. It is the core message which ultimately drives consumerism; that being one needs all this "stuff" to be happy. That your life will somehow go unfulfilled without these products, and you will struggle to ever find happiness. Indeed we know this to be a complete and utter lie, and yet still the mass population fall for it.

In sheep like behavior, the mass population simply follow directions and purchase what they're told to. But indeed this is having the opposite effect than had been intended. There is much evidence to show consumerism actually decreases fulfillment and happiness, for it is simply an incarnation of materialism. Through consumerism we are fostering an "I" society; that is to say, a society focused inwardless in selfish need to make their own pile of "stuff" larger. We have a society which has over complicated itself in the aid of gathering said "stuff". Think about it, we go to work daily, to earn enough money to buy the never ending conveyor belt of "new stuff". We do this without thought or wonder, indeed like a trained monkey we feel happy about doing it.

The costs of which are our sanity and the environment we live in. For the many of us incapable of buying the "coolest" new toy, we feel less of a person, incomplete, after all that is the message the advertisers would have us believe. These feelings can lead to depression, anxiety, body dysmorphia, even obsessive compulsive behavior. We are bombarded to buy ever more "stuff", to the point that obesity has hit epidemic proportions. It is strange to think, but the very thing that keeps capitalist economies running could, through over indulgence, break the economy all together.

But perhaps before that even occurs, our environment is at the brink of collapse through pollution caused by consumerism. Our waste has caused the environment to wither and die. The only solution for which is to cease our consumer behavior, and removed the products from which, from our society. But, human behavior what it is, I can hardly see that happening. Greed runs rampant in this modern capitalist world. If you are what you buy, then truly, what are you?

--edit--
Part 2 in this series will appear on Friday the 21st of August 2009. I apologise for any confusion

Digital TV; the government and the networks are plastering it as this wondrous thing. But realistically it isn't all that great. Sure I have a few more channels, and if you're lucky enough to own an LCD TV capable of 1080p then it looks a bit better, but at the end of the day, digital isn't that great. None the less, ABC Business News reported last night that by 2013 the government will have spent 63 MILLION dollars of tax payer money on advertising the digital switch over to you.

That is to say, some of the money the government collects from the pay YOU EARNED is then used to advertise a system which is being forced upon you; which in turn means you now have to spend some more of your hard earned cash to buy new television equipment. All for a system which lets face it isn't really going to benefit you much of a lot, but is certainly going to make a few rich men, even richer. Yep, great use of tax money there.

But this is only one example of gross amounts of tax payer money being used to advertise government programs, or what otherwise should be referred to as government public service announcements. What ever happened to the original idea that when it came to such announcements, the government would have free air time? Back in the days when swearing on TV could cost you your broadcast license, and the evening news actually reported the facts instead of meaningless gossip.

Spending such copious amounts of tax payer money on trying to get us on their side is just ludicrous. Sure free-to-air television stations are businesses too, and of course they rely on advertising revenue to make a profit. But responsible and reasonable legislation which would allow the government free advertising space on any network, say 3 times per hour, per network as a condition of holding a broadcast license would free up so much tax payer funds. Heck, there may even be enough for a tax break in there.

And going back to my original example, why are the government even advertising it in the first place? This is a situation where the television networks lobbied the government in the late 90s to allow for not only digital transmission, but the ability to cease analog transmission. This was granted. This is not a government fueled program, it is a free-to-air network collaborative program to improve their bottom lines, simple as that. So why should tax payers be fitting the bill, when they should be advertising their own damn program.

Consumerism. Marketing teams and companies alike would have us believe it will make us happier; that it will somehow improve and fulfill our lives. But deep down I think we all know that is an outright lie. Yet for some oddity, some of us, nay most of us, get sucked into the game. We consume at ever greater rates, products and services which fill us with empty promises of better, more exciting lives. Of more friends, a better job, more sex appeal, the list goes on..

Why do we do it to ourselves? What tricks are used on us? And is this limited to just adults? How much of a consumer whore have you truly become? These are just some of the questions I hope to explore in this multi-part series on consumerism. Expect the first addition to be released 6pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (GMT+10).

It is rare that I come across a modern day movie that I like, but french film À la folie... pas du tout (He loves me, he loves me not) certainly makes the cut. It is a movie that is well thought out, leaving plot holes tiny and scarce. The clever script is taken to another level both with insightful direction and divine acting on behalf of the lead roles.

À la folie... pas du tout tells the story of waitress/student Angélique whom is madly inlove with Cardiologist Loïc and plans to run off with him. Almost needless to say Loïc is married, and his wife is pregnant with their first child. Add to the mix, student doctor David whom himself has fallen for Angélique and you have a mature paletted thriller. The exploration of Angélique's erotomania indeed takes this film to another level.

Audrey Tautou plays Angélique exquisitely with her odd, but innocent look barely hinting at the world that lives inside her mind. The film is of course in french and thus subtitled, but I hope that will not put you off this masterful work. It plays in two halfs, first telling things as Angélique see's them, then once more from the perspectives of everyone else. Writer/Director Laetitia Colombani has certainly out done herself with this film, it will jerk your heart strings then send you on a white knuckle ride.

Links;

IMDB
Cinephilia

Channel 7 continues televisions fine tradition of copycatting shows that work; running ideas into the ground until no one is interested in watching them anymore. With the overwhelming success of Channel TEN's "Master Chef Australia", Channel 7 have announced a casting call for "My Kitchen Rules".

Their casting website states

"This new series will travel the country to find Australia’s best home-cooking team. In a unique twist, the teams-of-two in MY KITCHEN RULES will do battle from their own kitchens in each State.

contestants will also be required to turn their home into a restaurant for one night for their pressure test. Of course this is assuming you'll somehow be able to get some sort of agreement from your local council and your neighbors.

The show sounds very much as the same old, same old from Channel 7, just with it being a cooking competition instead of a renovation, building or gardening competition. It's very uninspired, but given it's from Channel 7 can we really expect anything more?

Links;
Casting Site
Channel 7
ABC News Story

As we head ever closer to the Digital TV switch, consumer demand for lower cost LCD televisions has born a reduction in prices and I predict it's only going to get better. This week Big-W announced a price drop of $200AUD on their Sanyo 40" LCD 1080p televisions, now retailing for $996AUD it's capable of receiving and viewing True HD Digital TV all for under a grand.

Previously to get a TV of that size, for that price you had to buy Plasma, but as we all know Plasma is a poor investment as the gas runs out within 6 years and you're just left with a rather expensive paper weight. We are finally seeing the beginnings of a reduction in LCD prices such that the average Joe Blow can enjoy the technology previously only available to the wealthy or debt inclined.

In an economy which is springing back to life again after a government induced downturn, the timing for LCD prices to drop couldn't be better. And I predict it's only going to get better as we draw closer to the deadline. Over the next 12 or so months, as Digital TV take up increases and the Movie studio's push Blu-Ray expect the price of LCD TVs to drop in general another 2-3 hundred dollars if not more.

This will put the average 40" LCD TV at around $800AUD, which is a very reasonable price and inside the budgets of the average Australian (even if they do have to lay-by it). As the pushers of these new technologies get evermore desperate to upgrade everyone, expect some good things to come.

So you're hooked on them. These shows like Biggest Loser, Master Chef and So you think you can dance, where you get to see real people go through life, uncensored and unscripted right? A fly on the wall of someones journey right? Wrong!

A distorted, planned version of events is what we are given. What we don't see between the cut scenes are the things which would dash all illusions of any reality taking place on film. The true reality is what we are denied. But the fact of the matter is reality wouldn't sell. Would you honestly chose to watch someone standing around doing nothing? Would you tune your TV into that nightly?

Reality TV shows have to be rigged, it's what gives them their energy, their spark, their interest factor. If it was left to be a random winner there would be great risks that the characters people identify with would be voted out; and that spells poor ratings. You have to understand that a TV show is all about ratings, the more people who watch it the more a TV station can charge advertisers to place ads during the show, which ultimately means the Station makes more money.

TV Stations aren't their for your entertainment so much as they are a business. The business model for a Free to air TV station is much the same as a modern day Social Networking site, in that their product is you. They give you something for free (in this case, entertainment through TV programs) and sell your viewing to advertisers. The cheaper the TV show, the more profit they then make.

Enter reality tv shows, where you don't have to fork out for a cast, or an overly large production crew. In fact, it all gets done pretty budget indeed. Channel 10 is living off the profits from Reality TV, that's why they pump them out, one after another. And to keep you interested, they have no choice but to rig it, to design the outcome and partially script it. It keeps the characters you love in the game, so you'll watch it for longer, hopefully to the very end.

It's a formula which seems to work for Channel 10 as well, with some 5 million people tuning in to see the Master Chef final, a record for a non-sporting program shown on Australian television. So sure, watch these shows, but please don't be under any delusions they are really real, they are just the same as any other show on TV. They are their for your entertainment, so your attention span can be sold off to the highest bidder.

A while ago I asked the question, is master chef rigged. I think now we have an answer and it's a resounding yes. An under talented IT consultant named "Julie" has taken out the title, despite constantly being up for elimination through-out the show. While she clearly has some cooking abilities, they are limited to those required for the home and not commercial cooking.

There where a few others whom where obviously far more deserving of the top prize, and yet someone whom should have been eliminated in the first few weeks won the competition. And one can only speculate that it is all for ratings and the advertising profits which follow them, as Master Chef was channel tens most watched show, EVER.

But none of the contestants ever showed anything like the abilities of a Master chef. Some like Chris where superb cooks, but not chefs by any means. It takes several years to become a qualified chef, so perhaps the show should have been named Master Cook Australia instead?

Either way the ultimate winner of the show should never have been Julie. As recent as the second finale she was completely stuffing up her dish, being that she was ultimately unable to even complete the task! At THAT level of competition being unable to complete the task on it's own should be grounds for removal from the competition. Not to mention her pastry was to thick and under cooked. This is the person who is now "Australia's Master Chef" ? Someone whom still can't get a basic pastry right?

Not to mention the amount of sweat that drops off the woman (and into the food) when she cooks, it's disgusting. Seriously isn't that a health hazard? You certainly wouldn't catch me eating her food. All of this points to a show which was rigged, playing to the audiences commonalities. I guess the average working woman must been the major proportion of the 2.8 Million viewers watching the show, and they must have related to Julie the most in focus groups. Go Figure.

Last night I watched a Documentary on Dominick Dunne entitled "Celebrity: Dominick Dunne" and he struck me as an idiot. For those whom have no idea whom Dominick Dunne is, he is a writer for Vanity Fair magazine whom writes about the judicial system and celebrities in trouble. The thing about Dominick is that he always presumes they are guilty.

The man has undoubtedly had a hard, but impressive life. Some of the things he has done most of us can only dream about, but that gives him no excuse to slander others. Nor does the fact that O.J Simpson most probably killed his daughter, give him an excuse to decide all celebrities are bad. His articles are almost always filled with rumors, lies and fiction but that never stops him entertaining them as fact.

He is also a man whom has turned on some of his celebrity friends when they have landed in hot water. His own son has nothing positive to say about the man, and quite obviously despises him. While Dominick maintains they have a great relationship. Where will the lies end Dominick? Where?

Links;

Wikipedia
Celebrity: Dominick Dunne (Video)

Much beloved children's character Bob the Builder has released new rave track "Big Fish, Little Fish". The Music Video was screened on ABC 2 today as party of the children's line up. With lines like "now we'll show you how to really dance" I can't help but wonder if Bob the Builder is trying to encourage the Pills culture?

Check out the full music video here, and comment on what you think. From an Adult point of view, I reckon it's pretty amusing. But as a parent, I certainly don't like the idea of my children being stuck in front of this and learning from it. Lift your game Bob the Builder.

For those of you who don't know Master Chef Australia is a show weekends at 7 on Channel 10. Contestants "battle" it out in the kitchen to become "Australia's first master chef". Exactly what that means given they have no formal qualifications is unclear but yeah Sarah forces us to watch it so that's what we watch.

Has anyone else noticed, or is it just me but it seems as though they rig the show. When they have their "challenges" one on one with an actual chef and they apparently have their plates as a "mystery" so the "judges don't know who cooked what" the contests is always plate number 1 and the chef is always plate number 2?

It always seems to be the same, which deletes any possibility of the judges not knowing who cooked what. In fact, their comments always seem to follow the same structure. Plate one (1) gets slight praise but ultimately is criticized, where as plate two (2) gets slight criticism but ultimately is praised.

This pattern has been true for the one time that I have ever seen them make a contestant plate two (2) and the chef plate one (1). And this is the one time ever that a contestant has won the challenge and made it through to the finals. So there you go, check it out next time you see Master Chef. Something certainly seems fishy.