This is a comment on the blog about Child Obesity, to be found at http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/03/childhood-obesity.html
I completely agree with her on this. It is the parent's fault, and it is very disturbing to see how many parents choose the easy way out and thus for example go to MacDonalds, instead of making a meal themselves. Feeding your children comes with the job, and with feeding I don't mean stuffing unhealthy food down their throats. And there should also be something as common sense. These parents should know it is not healthy for you to eat at MacDonalds all the time. Another thing I see many times: when I go to ASDA, I see children already eating (unhealthy) food their parents haven't even bought yet. Probably to keep them shut, the parents already give them some of the food they still have to pay for. The ones who don't get this special treatments, are probably the one crying and yelling all the time (annoying!). As a consequence, children are used to getting exactly what they want immediately. Talking about spoiled.. Another consequence is addiction. Unhealthy food is addictive, and especially when they start at such a young age it will be difficult for them to change to a healthier pattern when they get older. And of course there are the healthconcerning consequences. In one of my other blogs, I posted things about the new thin look that so many people try to obtain. It seems to me that many people aren't able to find the middle here: they are either obsessed with getting as thin as possible, or they are obsessed with food. The younger the children are when they are exposed to such things, the harder it will get for them to find a healty, normal way of life later.
Monday, 27 April 2009
Comment on Cyberstalking
Comment on the blog about cyberstalking: http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/04/cyber-stalking.html
The internet makes a lot of things possible. Good things and bad things. I am part of it, but I think it is quite remarkable that most of the people nowadays join some kind of internetsociety, publishing their public life as if it was worth nothing. Don't forget to change your profile to private! I really don't get the idea of Twitter: why on earth would you want everyone who has acces to the internet to know exactly what you are doing or thinking at possibly every moment of the day? And then having problems with the government wanting your fingerprints and the idea of a DNA register.
I don't think cyberstalking should be taken lightly. I can imagine how the write of the blog can justify her checking up on her ex's Facebookpage, and I would probably do the same, but I would not like it if someone did the same with me. I guess the reason why I would do it, is because I can. The option of anonymously checking up on people exists, so why not use it? My online dictionary comes in handy again and tells me that stalking is "To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement". So following someone online could be seen as stalking, too.
The internet makes a lot of things possible. Good things and bad things. I am part of it, but I think it is quite remarkable that most of the people nowadays join some kind of internetsociety, publishing their public life as if it was worth nothing. Don't forget to change your profile to private! I really don't get the idea of Twitter: why on earth would you want everyone who has acces to the internet to know exactly what you are doing or thinking at possibly every moment of the day? And then having problems with the government wanting your fingerprints and the idea of a DNA register.
I don't think cyberstalking should be taken lightly. I can imagine how the write of the blog can justify her checking up on her ex's Facebookpage, and I would probably do the same, but I would not like it if someone did the same with me. I guess the reason why I would do it, is because I can. The option of anonymously checking up on people exists, so why not use it? My online dictionary comes in handy again and tells me that stalking is "To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement". So following someone online could be seen as stalking, too.
Comment on Fast Food blog
This is a comment on a blog about fast food http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/03/fast-food.html
Whoa, shocking, 5p to make a burger? Even without thinking it through it doesn't sound healthy anymore! Luckily for me, I hate burger from fastfood restaurants. And I do think going to fastfood restaurants on a regular base is bad behaviour as well. When the employers start to recognize you, that's when you know you might have been going there too often. And it's not like you should do it for the price: eating in a pub of cooking yourself/having someone cook for you is cheaper most of the time. And personnally I think the food in fastfood restaurants doesn't even taste that good. The salad they give you doesn't taste like salad, the so called "cheese" they put on the cheese is hardly to be called cheese at all, and I wonder how much actual meat is in their burgers (instead of left over-parts of meat that they could only use for dogfood otherwise).
Whoa, shocking, 5p to make a burger? Even without thinking it through it doesn't sound healthy anymore! Luckily for me, I hate burger from fastfood restaurants. And I do think going to fastfood restaurants on a regular base is bad behaviour as well. When the employers start to recognize you, that's when you know you might have been going there too often. And it's not like you should do it for the price: eating in a pub of cooking yourself/having someone cook for you is cheaper most of the time. And personnally I think the food in fastfood restaurants doesn't even taste that good. The salad they give you doesn't taste like salad, the so called "cheese" they put on the cheese is hardly to be called cheese at all, and I wonder how much actual meat is in their burgers (instead of left over-parts of meat that they could only use for dogfood otherwise).
Comment on Loud Music blog
This is a comment on the blog on loud music, to be found at http://zen-bb.blogspot.com/2009/04/loud-music.html
I would like to add something to her blog. I agree with her on what she's saying, and would like to draw some attention to people who are listening to music from MP3s, Ipods and mobile phones, all with earplugs in. You would think this is a better option than those people playing their music out loud. However, I myself have experience it too many times that a person was listening to music with earplugs in, and I was able to hear all the music as well. Firstly, that can't be good for their ears. One step worse would be to deliberately stand in front of the stereo at a concert. Secondly, I don't want to hear their music! If I wanted to listen to music, I would have brought my own. Plus the music doesn't sound the way it was supposed to sound when you hear it this way, so even if it is a song that you like, it sounds nothing like it is supposed to. Annoying!
Thin, thinner, thinst
This seems particularly popular amongst celebrity females: being as thin as possible without passing out (or dying). I guess it could be seen as bodymodification? (since my lovely online dictionary says "Body modification (or body alteration) is the permanent or semi-permanent deliberate altering of the human body for non-medical reasons") I couldn't care less if those celebrities starve themselves or not, if it wasn't for the rolemodels they are supposed to be. They make the trend, and they know it. Nobody would think of wearing skinny jeans 5 years ago, and look at it know. Being stick-thin used to be something only the catwalkmodels were bothered with, but the last decade or so, more and more celebrities seem to go for this thin look. And this image of thin look has his effects on "normal" people, whereas many people, especially women, feel the pressure to look the same as those celebrity bobbleheads do. There is nothing wrong with trying to stay healthy and taking care of your body, but starving yourself to be as thin as your body will let you, that is bad. And think of all the lovely and delicious food you are missing out on???
Sunday, 26 April 2009
A comment on the blog Prisons
This is a comment on the post about Prisons, by Miss Demeanor. http://missdemeanor69.blogspot.com/2009/04/prisons.html
I already had the idea that prisoners didn't have the worst life possible. Reading about her experience only reinforced this idea. "[...] criminals got away with stuff and were treated as if they were in a cheap hotel; they have so many rights that they use to get staff over a barrel as it were, and they had TVs, video games, some had computer access, and just as I left free-view was installed into their cells. They had a constant supply of contraband, cigarettes, 'hooch' and drugs. " I am glad to see I am not the only one finding this ridiculous. In Holland, where I come from, it happens often that there are homeless people committing small crimes to have a safe night in prison. Even worse is that there are homeless people or even poor people coming from countries where living conditions are quite bad doing this. They commit crimes in Holland so their life, their life in prison in Holland that is, is better than it was for them back home. (of course, there is also the chance of being evicted after committing a crime).
Prisons should be there to punish criminals. Of course, some crimes are more serious than others and maybe it would be an idea to keep a difference between these two and base living circumstances and privileges on the severity of the crime. And even though freedom and independence is taken away from prisoners, I don't think that prisons in Holland (and I guess in the UK it is the same) can be considered as a real punishment.
I already had the idea that prisoners didn't have the worst life possible. Reading about her experience only reinforced this idea. "[...] criminals got away with stuff and were treated as if they were in a cheap hotel; they have so many rights that they use to get staff over a barrel as it were, and they had TVs, video games, some had computer access, and just as I left free-view was installed into their cells. They had a constant supply of contraband, cigarettes, 'hooch' and drugs. " I am glad to see I am not the only one finding this ridiculous. In Holland, where I come from, it happens often that there are homeless people committing small crimes to have a safe night in prison. Even worse is that there are homeless people or even poor people coming from countries where living conditions are quite bad doing this. They commit crimes in Holland so their life, their life in prison in Holland that is, is better than it was for them back home. (of course, there is also the chance of being evicted after committing a crime).
Prisons should be there to punish criminals. Of course, some crimes are more serious than others and maybe it would be an idea to keep a difference between these two and base living circumstances and privileges on the severity of the crime. And even though freedom and independence is taken away from prisoners, I don't think that prisons in Holland (and I guess in the UK it is the same) can be considered as a real punishment.
Comment on the blog Downloading
This is a comment about a blog about downloading http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/04/downloading.html.
I agree with the writer of this blog. For years the prices of CDs, videos and DVDs have been outrageous. I remember paying 40 euros for a CD. I would listen to it several times, but after a few months it would just disappear in a big pile of old CDs. The best solution for 10 years back was to record song from the radio. However, cassette-tapes became rare and most (car)stereos didn't have a cassetteplayer anymore. So you were forced to buy CDs. Then there was Napster! (I don't know if this was actually on of the first downloadprogrammas that ever existed, but it was the first one I encountered with) It was perfect, you could download songs from tv's top 40 and after enjoying them for a few weeks you could delete them from your computer. For movies it was the same story: you recorded them from tv on videos. Of course you can still do that today with expensive dvdrecorders, but in what way is that so different from downloading a movie? Those actors and moviemakers make way too much money anyway, and enough people (including me) still provide income for them by going to the cinemas (which aren't too cheap either, if you compair the prices with 5 years back).
(I discussed Downloading in another blog, so you can read more about my opinion there. )
I agree with the writer of this blog. For years the prices of CDs, videos and DVDs have been outrageous. I remember paying 40 euros for a CD. I would listen to it several times, but after a few months it would just disappear in a big pile of old CDs. The best solution for 10 years back was to record song from the radio. However, cassette-tapes became rare and most (car)stereos didn't have a cassetteplayer anymore. So you were forced to buy CDs. Then there was Napster! (I don't know if this was actually on of the first downloadprogrammas that ever existed, but it was the first one I encountered with) It was perfect, you could download songs from tv's top 40 and after enjoying them for a few weeks you could delete them from your computer. For movies it was the same story: you recorded them from tv on videos. Of course you can still do that today with expensive dvdrecorders, but in what way is that so different from downloading a movie? Those actors and moviemakers make way too much money anyway, and enough people (including me) still provide income for them by going to the cinemas (which aren't too cheap either, if you compair the prices with 5 years back).
(I discussed Downloading in another blog, so you can read more about my opinion there. )
Comment on gay jokes
This is a comment on the blog about gay jokes http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/04/gay-jokes.html
The writer of this blog says she is against comedians making jokes about gay people. Although I haven't seen the actual video with the blog, I don't agree with her on this one.
By avoiding making jokes about gay people, I think you are avoiding and ignoring homosexuality. Comedians make jokes about everything and everyone, and ignoring a nowadays hot topic in my mind ignores homosexuality itself. Why leave them out as the target of a joke? Why joking about everybody and everyone, except the gay people? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people and I support homosexuality 100%. I just think you should be able to endure jokes about you/your community/your beliefs/etc without being immediately offended. I laugh about jokes that in a way make fun of certain people and I think that most of them are exaggerated to ridicule the people.
I guess the joke was quite offending, looking at the reaction of the writer of the blog. So to avoid any fights, I can not express my opinion about this topic too much without having watching the video. There are multiple comedians that in my eyes go TOO FAR and maybe this was one of them. What I am trying to say in this blog, is that people shouldn't feel too offended about being the target of a comedian's joke, and that I think it is a comedian's job to joke about hot topics to draw attention to them and create discussion.
The writer of this blog says she is against comedians making jokes about gay people. Although I haven't seen the actual video with the blog, I don't agree with her on this one.
By avoiding making jokes about gay people, I think you are avoiding and ignoring homosexuality. Comedians make jokes about everything and everyone, and ignoring a nowadays hot topic in my mind ignores homosexuality itself. Why leave them out as the target of a joke? Why joking about everybody and everyone, except the gay people? Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against gay people and I support homosexuality 100%. I just think you should be able to endure jokes about you/your community/your beliefs/etc without being immediately offended. I laugh about jokes that in a way make fun of certain people and I think that most of them are exaggerated to ridicule the people.
I guess the joke was quite offending, looking at the reaction of the writer of the blog. So to avoid any fights, I can not express my opinion about this topic too much without having watching the video. There are multiple comedians that in my eyes go TOO FAR and maybe this was one of them. What I am trying to say in this blog, is that people shouldn't feel too offended about being the target of a comedian's joke, and that I think it is a comedian's job to joke about hot topics to draw attention to them and create discussion.
Comment on blog Jade Goody
This a a comment on a blog about Jade Goody http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/04/jade-goody.html
Finally the media are giving this a bit of a rest; there still are tabloid talking about it but not as much as before.
I have to agree with the blogger that Jade Goody is not all that bad. Of course, at first nobody really liked here and she was the shame of the reality tv, but when she found out she was terminally ill she used this possibility to do right. Because of her (of whoever is behind this: I think there was a very smart person behind all of it) there has been a lot of attention drawn to cervical cancer and because of all the publicity she got, she was able to provide her sons with a normal future and giving them chances she never had.
Although I think it has to be sad that a dying woman was "bothered" with all this media attention untill the minute she died. If you look at the last pictures papparazzi snapped of her, I think this shows a lack of respect towards her and her family.
Finally the media are giving this a bit of a rest; there still are tabloid talking about it but not as much as before.
I have to agree with the blogger that Jade Goody is not all that bad. Of course, at first nobody really liked here and she was the shame of the reality tv, but when she found out she was terminally ill she used this possibility to do right. Because of her (of whoever is behind this: I think there was a very smart person behind all of it) there has been a lot of attention drawn to cervical cancer and because of all the publicity she got, she was able to provide her sons with a normal future and giving them chances she never had.
Although I think it has to be sad that a dying woman was "bothered" with all this media attention untill the minute she died. If you look at the last pictures papparazzi snapped of her, I think this shows a lack of respect towards her and her family.
Miss USA contestant vs. Perez Hilton
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/04/22/perez-hilton-and-miss-usa-contestant-debate-gay-marriage/
This blog is about all the fuss surrounding Miss California's answer to the question of judge Perez Hilton (celebrity blogger). During the Miss USA pageant 2009 Perez Hilton asked Miss California Carrie Prejean the following question:
Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex-marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"
Prejean answered: "Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anyone out there, but that's how I was raised, and that's how I think it should be between a man and a woman." (source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum25-2009apr25,1,655478.column)
Carrie Prejean became runner-up in the beauty pageant. The same evening, Perez Hilton posted a videomessage on his blog saying that Carrie Prejean's answer was the worst in pageant history and he gave her several insulting words to think about. After that, all hell broke loose and several news channels, tv shows and newspapers have wasted minutes and words on it. Some of them agree with Perez Hilton and other think that there was nothing wrong with Carrie Prejean's answer (which of course makes him and the people on his side even more furious). Rumour has it that Miss California lost the contest because of her answer.
I have to stay in the middle here. I agree with Perez Hilton that a Miss USA should represent all of America and should try to give a politically correct answer, preferably staying in the middle of it and especially in this case not giving her opinion about this. Homosexuality is still a big issue in America and the land is divided by opinions about it. However, honesty is worth something as well and she does start off by saying that Americans are able to chose one or the other, but after that she speaks her mind too much. I think that if she would have spoken in favour of gay marriage, there would have been people compaining about it as well (since there are enough people who are supporting her statement against it now). There may even be a chance that if she had answered the question in a way that Perez Hilton afterwards said would have been better (http://perezhilton.com/2009-04-20-in-case-you-missed-it-98), she still would have had people speaking out against her answer. Basically, no answer would have been perfect, but the answer she chose may have been the worst. I think that there even is a chance that Perez Hilton asked this question to stirr the subject a bit more.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
Bullying
The url above links to a tragic story about an eleven-year-old boy who commited suicide because he could no longer stand the kids at school bullying him. One of the things they called him, was gay. The young boy was found by his mother and sister.
This is such a terrible story. I hope those bullies fill guilty for his death the rest of their life. I can not believe how far they went. Everybody makes fun at someone else's expense sometime, many comedians base their show on making fun of others. However, there is a limit. It would be a lousy excuse to say that the bullying children in this story weren't able to draw the line and didn't realize they were going to far. Children may be children, but at 11 I believe they should have been able to recognize when they were going too far.
When I was eleven, there was a kid in my school that was also bullied for being gay. Fortunately, there were enough children to stand up for him and I think most of the other kids just ignored the whole thing and by doing this, the bullies didn't have any succes and quit bullying the kid. So it didn't last long. Though I remember feeling bad for him and going against the bullies and telling them to shut up. And like I said, I was not the only one. How come none of other children stood up for the boy in the article?
I think there are more to blame in this story. The bullying kids, ofcourse. But I also blame society, for labelling gay people and creating the idea that this is something bad and in this way make it something to make fun of. And I don't think you can leave the parents of both parties out of this. The little boys parents knew about the problem, and although they went to the school about it, I don't think they should have stopped there. And the parents of the bullies can not be blamed totally, because they may not have known what their kids did in school, but they are partially to blame for the way they raised their kids. And then the school, that didn't do enough to stop the bullying. I think school and teachers should pay more attention to bullying in schools to prevent this kind of tragedies.
There will always be bullying. I think it's just nature, kids trying to create hierarchy, desperately making sure they will not end up at the bottom of the peck order themselves. There will always be followers, kids who don't really mean it too bad but are afraid to drop on that peck order. And there will always be kids who are the victim of bullying. Kids are cruel, you hear that often enough. However, bullying 'till someone commits suicide.. It's just too terrible to accept.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Iphone's Baby Shaker application
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8015876.stm
I was shocked when I ran into this article this morning. It said that Apple had an Iphone application that was "a game of quietening crying babies by shaking them". After parents whose children died or were permanently injured due to their babies being shaken protested outside of an Apple shop, Apple apologized "deeply" for it and has removed the application. You can see how the game works on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F8uHBI3_HI).
I decided to try and find some more articles about it. A lot of media are writing about it the last days, so there was plenty to find about it. BBC News tells more about the game (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8015839.stm). As it turns out, Apple put this game on Itunes Store on Monday. The purpose of the game was to shake the Iphone to quiet the baby that was drawn on the screen. When shaking the Iphone for a certain amount of time, "thick red Xs appeared over each eye of a baby drawn in black-and-white"(BBC News). On Wednesday the game was removed from the Itunes Store.
This website, http://www.appscout.com/2009/04/apples_baby_shaker_apology_nee.php, talks about the lack of a proper excuse why Apple let this game pass the approval proces. The description of the game on its own should have been enough not to approve this game. They end with "Apple needs to come clean, and soon".
What I don't understand is how this game was on the Itunes Store for two days! They must have had complaints about it the same day. This is even worse than the game where you have to catch the babies that Michael Jackson throws out the window. This is a serious subject, and children with the shaken impact syndrome suffer from inflicted head trauma. And did I mention that this game costs only 99 dollarcent? I can't believe how stupid the people at Apple must be that approved this game. Still waiting for a proper excuse from Apple..
Thursday, 23 April 2009
The whole "Susan Boyle" hype
There's a slight chance you haven't heard about this yet: a 47-year-old woman from Scotland who was gave a surprising performance at auditions for Britain's Got Talent. Don't get me wrong: I am happy for her and I think she is a good singer, but all of a sudden this woman has turned into a media hype.
She even has a wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Boyle) and has she become a "jump to" category on the website of famous blogger Perez Hilton. Looking at it from her side it must be a complete shock to go from a nobody to a worldwide celebrity in under a fortnight. Her video on Youtoube has been watched 93.5 million times.
She even has a wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Boyle) and has she become a "jump to" category on the website of famous blogger Perez Hilton. Looking at it from her side it must be a complete shock to go from a nobody to a worldwide celebrity in under a fortnight. Her video on Youtoube has been watched 93.5 million times.
And all of a sudden you hear famous people coming out of hiding to talk about miss Boyle. She has been on The Five Thirty Show, Good Morning America, Today, America Newsroom, Larry King, the Early Show (US) and has already been parodied on South Park. And then there are all the newspapers and magazines she has appeared in. Numerous artists, music producers and other celebrities have been talking about her, praising her, offering her all kinds of things. It all seems a bit much, doesn't it?
This all seems like a typical mediahype for this time. Something amazing happens, and it seems that everybody wants to be a part of it and everybody has to hear about it. And for what? There have been other talents in shows similar to Britain's Got Talent and what have happened to them? Once the hype blew over, everybody lost interest in them. For Miss Boyle's sake I hope this will not be the case for her, and even after the new thing about her will be gone, she will still have a carreer in sight.
This all seems like a typical mediahype for this time. Something amazing happens, and it seems that everybody wants to be a part of it and everybody has to hear about it. And for what? There have been other talents in shows similar to Britain's Got Talent and what have happened to them? Once the hype blew over, everybody lost interest in them. For Miss Boyle's sake I hope this will not be the case for her, and even after the new thing about her will be gone, she will still have a carreer in sight.
The weird thing about this is that she hasn't been discovered earlier. She had already recorded two song approximately ten years ago, but nothing game out of that.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Litter
Litter: small items of rubbish that has carelessly been dropped or left in public areas. According to the article (url above), "the amount of rubbish on the UK's beaches has reached its highest level ever". I don't really want to talk about beaches, since I don't live near one and hardly ever go see them. My inspiration is last night, when I hear people standing outside our building. They were laughing, drinking, having fun, but they were also smashing glasses to the ground. And this when there is a big container 2 steps away, where they could have thrown the glasses in.
Glasses aren't really on my mind either. I am surprises how clean it is in Wolverhampton, seeing that there aren't too many litterbins. This was even more extreme in London, where I was forced to walked around for 25 minutes with an empty cardboard Starbucks cup because I did not run into any litterbins. And still it wasn't extreme littered there (that is, the places where I walked by). However, if you take the train to Birmingham you will run into a completely different story. At one point, there is more rubbish than grass to be found next to the rails. I don't think the community has any plans to clean this up, since the amount of litter thas has been lying there since january hasn't changed.
Littering starts with little things like throwing you gum on the street instead of in a litterbin. Or throwing you cigaret on the ground and leave it there. Sometimes I catch myself doing something like that, but most of the times I try wait with throwing gum away 'till I find a litterbin. And I can tell you, it is really not that hard.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
teen pregnancies
After yesterday's comment on a blog that was about teenpregnancies, I felt I had a bit more to say. So I figured, why not write a blog about it myself?
First of all let me say that I am trying not to be judgmental. Many teenagers have the urge to express their love physcically of just have to urge to be physical with others, that's no big news. What does scare me is the age of the teenagers that are sexually active. Like that 13-year-old boy that recently became a father. When I was 13, my mind was on completely different things. On top of that teenagers seem to ignore preventives like condoms and birthcontrol when being sexually active.
And here is a glimpse at my feminist side: after hundreds of years, women are finally able to live their lifes instead of being born and raised just to become a mother at a young age. If you go back to the Greek, where girls where given away by their parents at the age of 12 to become mothers at 14, I would think it is a good thing that times have changed. And now all of a sudden girls across the country are willingly going back this? They probably aren't getting pregnant deliberately, but it wouldn't kill them to think about possible consequences and take action to prevent certain things. To me it doesn't really sound appealing to have 14 years of your own and already then start to spend the rest of your life taking care of your child. I would much rather live first, and then do that. How can you possibly raise a child properly when you haven't lived yourself long enough to pass on life experience? Sounds impossible.
Who is to blame for all this? The parents? The government? Society? It has become such a huge national problem that I don't think this can be fixed easily. A problem this size needs research to find a solution.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Comment to blog "the Hospital" by A Work In Progress
This is a comment on the blog to be found at http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/04/hospital.html
I had no idea something like that was going on. Teenagers carelessly getting pregnant receive money and accomodation? It's like rewarding them for their stupidity. I totally agree on A Work In Progress that it can be seen as bad behaviour that the government allow, and that there are some people who actually need that money badly. Why won't they take the money they give to these pregnant teenagers and spend it on informing (not yet pregnant) teenagers? I was quite shocked when I got here and I saw so many mothers walking around with their children who themselves were carrying a child. I thought that was more of an exaggerated idea the tv was trying to show. No wonder there are so many babies and young children screaming and yelling to their parents: their parents themselves are still children.
I had no idea something like that was going on. Teenagers carelessly getting pregnant receive money and accomodation? It's like rewarding them for their stupidity. I totally agree on A Work In Progress that it can be seen as bad behaviour that the government allow, and that there are some people who actually need that money badly. Why won't they take the money they give to these pregnant teenagers and spend it on informing (not yet pregnant) teenagers? I was quite shocked when I got here and I saw so many mothers walking around with their children who themselves were carrying a child. I thought that was more of an exaggerated idea the tv was trying to show. No wonder there are so many babies and young children screaming and yelling to their parents: their parents themselves are still children.
Cosmetic Surgery, Body Modification
It is such a pity how some people go to far with plastic surgery. Like Rupert Everett (see picture above). Did he really looked that bad in the first picture, considering he is almost 50 years old? After his (alleged) plastic surgery, he looks like a (young looking) 35-year old. A picture doesn't say it all here; I would love to see hem talk and use expressions on his face. The last one just to see if it is still possible.
This blog is about cosmetic surgery. There are of course cases where plastic surgery is helpful to restore someone's body or face, and I do not have any objections against that kind of plastic surgery. What I am talking about here is the tucking and ironing of skin, adding new chins or cheeks to a face and reconstructing eyes so they look like they're someone else's.
It seems like society's new obsession to all look exactly the same. Nobody can stand out anymore, and god forbid you would have any wrinkles as a result of aging. So...nobody can age? I prefer an earlier idea of aging: wrinkles show you that you have lived, that you have absorbed information, that you are wizer than the younger people who don't have any wrinkles yet. Why feel so ashamed when your face shows that you have lived? Is it not something to be proud of? There are too many people who die before reaching the age of 40, why should you cover up that you did when you should actually be celebrating it? And if you look at the example of Rupert Everett: he doesn't look like himself anymore. I don't even think he looks the same way he did when he was 35 and wrinkle-free. Is it really something worth achievable: looking like a completely different person? Not to mention the risks and the pain to get to that point. To me, what Rupert Everett did looks like a act of despair. Because you can only cover up so much in movies, and I suppose he was afraid he wouldn't be asked to play in a movie with a 50-year old face. It is sad that in a lot of movies you don't see real faces but just lies. What is wrong with a real face? I am not sure if he hasn't had any surgery, but I wouldn't mind if all 78-year old men would look like Sean Connery and not like Shia LeBeouf. Live up to your age and be proud that you got that far anyway!
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Illegally downloading
This blog is based on the recent event where "four men [were found] guilty of promoting copyright infringement by running Pirate Bay, the world's biggest free file-sharing website, and sentenced each to a year in prison".
To be honoust, I used Pirate Bay. Used and not use, because I have the feeling they are really tracking my movements here ate university halls when I'm on the internet, and I'm not looking forward to getting a fine. I had no idea something like this would happen, I always had the impression that the people behind Pirate Bay knew what they were doing and wouldn't get caught for it. Otherwise, why would they run such a popular site without getting caught earlier?
Enough about that, I'm no law student and want to talk about downloading. It seems to me that almost everybody (of a certain age, the older people get, less likely it get's that they're doing it) is downloading nowadays. If not movies, then definetely songs. Sure, people still buy cd's, but if you are interested in hearing just one song it is silly to spend that much money on a whole cd for just one track. And yes, you can buy one song online, but I think still most people download.
But what is the difference from 10 years earlier? I remember myself recording songs from the radio on a tape. And when a friend of mine had a cd I liked, I copied songs to a tape as well. How is that different from downloading a song from the internet? You are still "stealing" it from a different source. I'm not sure if it was legal to record songs on tape earlier, but in my eyes it is about the same. The only difference is that with the radio-recording, you would have to wait untill you're favourite song came by, and with downloading you can get to that song immediately.
Besides, if you look at the idiotic amounts of money that the singing celebrities have nowadays, I do not want to contribute to that. So what if they have to work an extra year to be able to buy that expensive car, other people have to work and save as well!
Friday, 17 April 2009
Stealing
The following news article gave me an idea to write this blog about:
The story in the article is quite extreme, fore a malaysian man gets sentenced to 25 weeks of jail for stealing 80 women's panties. Let's not get into his crazy mind and try to explain him, but I just wanted to write this blog about the difference between big thefts and small ones.
For example:iIs it ok to take a glass from a pub? I'm not sure how it works here in England, but where I come from most people have stolen from a pub. If not a glass, then a candle, ashtray or coaster (not those disposable ones, although taking them could be seen as stealing as well). And I have witnessed more than one person stealing a Starbucks mug. The glasses, mugs and other "small" objects probably don't cost the pub/company too much, and stealing these from them probably won't bring down their sales that much. Still, stealing is stealing. Right? But most people don't seem to worry about these kind of thefts, and don't seem to judge the thieves.
So where do you draw the line? When are thefts "small" and neglectibale, and when will everybody agree on something not being ok. How big a theft does it have to be? You can also think about the reason to steal, when is it less of a crime (e.g. when someone is starving and steals food). But let's not get too carried away and follow this ethical road, and try to keep it simple. In my opinion, stealing is stealing. Sometimes it may feel less bad for yourself, but it is stealing anyway.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Body modification
The picture posted above is an extreme version of body mofidication. It may scare some people, but is was the women's own choice and right to do this to herself.
I personally think that body modification isn't bad behaviour. You should be able to do what you want with your body, as long as it doesn't affect others. Offending tattoos should be considered as bad behaviour when others, and especially those who are offended by it, can see it. Piercings are an individual's own choice. I myself have 3 piercings, all 3 in my ears. I spend a lot of time thinking about it before getting them, and I believe that is very important. Ok, you can easily get rid of you piercings and with most piercings you won't even see a scar afterwards, but it is still something that needs some thinking. Nowadays you see a lot of young people walking around with piercings and tattoos. Those tattoos won't go away! They are there for life. You can try to get them removed, but usually you will still see some "left-overs" from the tattoo. Getting a tattoo when you are young will have consequences. Your taste, believes and ideas will definately change before reaching maturity. And even after you can still change completely. Wouldn't it be sad if you got an tattoo at 14 and regret it the rest of you adult life? And then there is still the skin-problem. Your skin will lose flexibility when you get older, and some tattoos will look completely different 30 years after getting them. I think that untill a child reaches 18, it is the parents who are responsible for their actions, and it is them who should be giving approval before their child gets an tattoo or piercing. After that, just do what you want :)
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
cannabis possesion
This blog is a reaction to the arrest of the 19-year old actor Jamie Wylett. He is best known for his role as Vincent Crabbe in the Harry Potter sequels, and was arrested after police discovered £2,000 worth of cannabis in his mother's house.
That is a lot of cannabis. I think there is one question that keeps rizing in my blogs about bad behaviour: why?? This actor probably earned a lot of money already with his role in Harry Potter movies, so why risk getting caught? Maybe he is highly addicted and needs it for himself, or maybe he just wants to show off to his friends. Anyway, it's a stupid and unneccesarily risky thing to keep (so much) cannabis in your house. No, not your house: your mother's house. I think it is a good think he got caught and will be punished for it. Ok, he is "just" 19, but that doesn't mean he should be able to get away with this stupid behaviour. He must have known that there is a law against it, and he did it anyway. So I say: let him pay. And no special treatment because he is a (sort of) celebrity. In fact, I am against all those special treatments for celebrities. They should be punished equally because they are supposed to be rolemodels.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Exposing yourself
It happened to a friend of mine just a few weeks ago: without expecting anything like this, she walked homewards, passing a church (yes, it happened in front of a church). When she looked to the right, she suddenly spotted a man. A naked man, that is, holding his trenchcoat open en exposing himself completely to her. Fortunately, she wasn't all that shocked and merely bursted into laughter, but it is a bit odd thing to do, isn't it? My friend said that this man was just standing there, not saying anything, without any expression on his face, just holding his coat open. What could have driven him to do this? I have seen in happening with drunk people, but there are enough people in the world who soberly feel the urge to show other people their nakedness. So... why? Is it about the shock they create, is it a proof of their confidence, what drives them? Nowadays you can put anything you like on the internet, so I suggest that those exposers try to keep it on the internet and off the streets.
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Skipping lectures
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404687/University-students-skip-lectures-thrown-out.html
It's an odd thing that as weeks pass by, less and less students attend the lectures. This isn't a typical thing for Wolverhampton, because in my hometown in the Netherlands the same phenomenon seems to be growing in popularity. I try to attend every lecture, if only for the reason to show respect towards the lecturer. Besides, what some students tend to forget, is that not every important thing said during the lecture will be put online. Because I think that's the cause of all this. Students know that the lecture will be online for them to look at, so they don't bother to go to the lecture anymore. I'm not saying that the lecture should be removed from the internet because this is very handy for essays en exams, but it does seem to feed the absence of students. Something else some students are forgetting, is that the most important things will be announced in the weeks before the essay deadline/exam, so these should be the lectures to attend. Personally I don't care if people do or do not want to go to the lecture, as long as they don't ask stupid questions about things that have been explained during the lecture.
Monday, 30 March 2009
Watching too much television
http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=13925337
An average human probably won't be watching tv non stop for 72 hours, as the recordholder in the news item did. But since tv's have been common in most households, the amount of hours that a person watches it per day have increased. This of course has to do with
So far, no official proof has been found that watching a lot of television is bad for your health. There are reports that when young children watch tv it can cause asthma (http://latestnews.virginmedia.com/news/health/2009/03/03/child_asthma_danger_watching_tv), help causing obesity (http://www.askamum.co.uk/News/Search-Results/Current-news/Children-who-watch-TV-are-fatter/) and there are more diseases linked to this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/apr/24/childrensservices.medicineandhealth). For the parents, it is quite convenient that their child sits in front on the tv and doesn't have to be entertained by them anymore. Great way to spend quality time with your kid.
But not only (young) children watch too much tv. There are so many people who are complaining that the time is going to fast nowadays. No wonder, if you spend your free 2 hours watching television. Those two hours will go by very quickly, when spending it watching tv from a lazy couch. It really is a pity, because there is so much more to do when the tv is shut down. People weren't complaining that they had nothing to do, back when there was no tv (for everybody). The amount of channels and programmes make it hard to resist, of course. But it is just a matter of getting used to new habits, after a week or two it is very likely that living with less tv is perfectly realizible.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Speeding
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Speeding-Driver-Was-Racing-To-Bid-On-eBay_18703.html
Speeding - very tempting. I think everyone who drives a car regularly is now and then temped to drive just a little bit faster than allowed. Because you are in a hurry, you're not paying attention to your speed, you're annoyed by a car in front of you, because you want to show off, etc. Or just because you can, if there is no or little traffic on the road and you're driving somewhere you don't have to worry about being caught. Bad, bad, bad. You should obey the rules, obey the law and obey the speeding limit. This speeding limit is there for a reason, to protect other people and to protect yourself. The worst speeders are those who drive recklessly and in a built-up area, without considering other people who are participating in traffic. It's a miracle you don't see too many accidents during a day, if you count the speeding cars in built-up areas.
However, sometimes I think the speeding limit is rubbish. Safe and quiet roads, without any danger of hurting yourself or other people with ridiculously low speeding limits. And why? Whoever put it there has to be tempted to speed himself when driving that road. It makes no sense! So, to sum it up: everybody speeds sometimes, but when you do you, make sure you're not endangering others (I don't care about endangering yourself; that's your own responsibility).
Saturday, 28 March 2009
Loud music
http://www.andalusiastarnews.com/news/2009/jan/07/drivers-loud-music-can-be-infuriating/
My room is next to a parking lot, and it actually happens several times a day -probably more, since I am not in my room 24/7- that I am bothered with loud music coming from a car. Even worse is that some of these cars just stay there for several minutes (one even up to 40 minutes), with their music turned up VERY loud.
Two options: windows open or closed.
Windows open:
1) why on earth would you open your windows already, it's not THAT warm
2) why on earth would you opens your windows when you are listening to music; is it an urge to share your music, are you proud of the music you're listening to (why??), you want to be noticed?
Windows close:
1) why on earth would you put your music up that loud that people outside can hear it?
2) what did you do to your speakers that it is possible for people outside to feel the ground move because of the bass of your music
And why not classical music, something that is not so annoying to listen to?
Friday, 27 March 2009
Obesity
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/03March/Pages/Obesityincreasesdeathrisk.aspx
According to the Guardian, obese people die up to 10 years early. It's the same with smoking: people now it will harm their health, but they won't stop living the way they do. It hard to understand why people don't untertake any measures when their weight reaches a certain amount. It's not healthy, it's not comfortable, it's (most of the time) depressing. Why can't people stop themselves?
Obesity is an addiction. It is hard to quit, but it is possible. Unfortunately, many obese people don't seem to care enough to get professional help. And if you're gonna use the excuse "it will cost me money" than you have to think about all the money you will save not buying loads of (unhealthy) food. It really seems to be a trend: people can't say no, people can't control themselves, they want something and they want it immediately, they have to satisfy themselves immediately. They don't even stop to take a second and think about it.
Just because it is hard to quit your habit, doesn't mean you shouldn't even give it a try.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Talking and texting during the lecture
Inspired by the remark the teacher made today and the following link: http://news.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/0,39029678,39194697,00.htm
Although it is sometimes very tempting to speak to your neighbour during lectures (gossip, dayactivities, remark about something that happened during the lecture), it musn't be forgotten that you are not the only one in the classroom. It can be very annoying if people keep talking and talking, without shutting up and it's even worse when they're giggling or laughing. Everyone probably does it, but it is quite disrespectful towards the teacher and very disturbing to all people present in the classroom. If you have news to tell and you are afraid to forget about it -because why else can't you wait 'till after the lecture-, just write a note to remind yourself. If sometimes comes to mind that has to be told instantly, whisper instead of shout.
The same goes for mobile phones. How lonely do you feel if you have to check your mobile every 5 minutes, send multiple messages during class and worst of all: don't turn of the sound.
Many students will probably see this as nagging, but during some lectures it is difficult enough to follow the teacher without being distracted by other students. You'll find out when there is something you find interesting yourself and people keep yapping all over it. So maybe you could try to think of others for a change.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Urinating
http://www.northwaleschronicle.co.uk/news/BREAKING-NEWS--Anger-at.5084806.jp
Something you are bound to run into after a night on the razzle is men urinating in public. I do not only think it is very unrespectful to urinate against properties that aren't yours and are not supposed to be urinated on, but I also think it isn't so nice for the people walking by. And of course there are the consequences of doing this (think of all the phonebooths you've entered that had a distinctive smell), that public urinating people don't even think about. Is it really that hard to wait untill you find a bathroom? Probably 95% of the time this deed is performed by men. Naturally, a reason for this can be found in the difference of ease between men and women that it takes to do this, but if a women would really want to urinate in public, she would be able to do so. Still, most of the people you run into that are urinating in public, are men. And then us women always get the blame of having a small bladder and having to go to the bathroom all the time. Why can't they hold it a bit longer then? Is it something to prove masculinity, or -when doing it in a group- is it bonding? Finally, after centuries without, there is a proper drainsystem and there are enough toilets for everyone, even public toilets, and somehow so many men still turn to medieval or even to be called beastly actions. They're not dogs, are they? I have heard stories of people in India urinating on the ground, but their reason to do so is because they haven't got a decent drainsystem. Apparently, there is something to it, because it is almost impossible to walk the streets on a night out without running into urinating men, or without being confronted with the smell of urine. So, why do so many men do this?
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Kids
This movie by Larry Clark from 1995 shows a short period of the lives of a few teenagers in New York. One of the main characters, Terry, sees it as his goal to deflower as many virgins as he can. He is very persuasive and successful in this, and isn't afraid to get to the younger girls. He believes that this is the best way to have safe sex. One of the girls he deflowered, Jennie, finds out she has HIV. And the only one she has had sex with is Terry. During the movie you see her trying to find Terry as well as other youngsters having encounters with violence, drugs, alcohol and sex.
This movie could be seen as a warning to parents. "This is what your child could be doing!" Children as young as 10 are seen drinking alcohol and using drugs in this movie. It may not be the best way to warn parents, because the question is if the movie could really reach the parents. It is really something parents would watch? It may all seem a bit over the top, but this is actually how some children live nowadays (and back in 1995 as well). Especially children from a poor environment has a chance to get stuck in these kind of lives involving drugs, alchohol and sex, all at a very young age. There are people who ignore it or don't believe it, but the truth can be found in facts and newspapers. For example, the young boy Alfie Patten, who turned a father at 13. And take a look at all the teenpregnancies.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Comment on Sian's blog
Comment on the blog http://theurbanfoxbeingbad.blogspot.com/2009/02/smoking.html
- Smoking -
I totally agree on her about the smoker's bad behaviour to smoke in front of other people, causing them to smell like smoke and not to mention exposing them to the danger of second hand smoking (something that she does not speak of by the way). It is ridiculous that they cannot think of other people when lighting a cigarette and even more so that they seem uncapable of not smoking for several hours. I know many chocolate addicts, and although is sometimes is hard for them, they are perfectly capable of not eating chocolate for several days. Of course, nicotine is a worse addiction than chocolate, but people have craves for chocolate as well as for cigarettes. Just try to be strong and don't grab a cigarette the instant you the thought of smoking one crosses the mind. And they probably don't smell the stench of smoke that surrounds them, but why can't they keep in mind that other people do? It's not more than normal than to think about others.
I do think that it has to be remembered that nicotine can cause a serious addiction and that it is not easy for people to simply quit. However, there is plenty of help for this these days and most importantly: they have a brain, so they should be able to think of others before lighting a cigarette.
- Smoking -
I totally agree on her about the smoker's bad behaviour to smoke in front of other people, causing them to smell like smoke and not to mention exposing them to the danger of second hand smoking (something that she does not speak of by the way). It is ridiculous that they cannot think of other people when lighting a cigarette and even more so that they seem uncapable of not smoking for several hours. I know many chocolate addicts, and although is sometimes is hard for them, they are perfectly capable of not eating chocolate for several days. Of course, nicotine is a worse addiction than chocolate, but people have craves for chocolate as well as for cigarettes. Just try to be strong and don't grab a cigarette the instant you the thought of smoking one crosses the mind. And they probably don't smell the stench of smoke that surrounds them, but why can't they keep in mind that other people do? It's not more than normal than to think about others.
I do think that it has to be remembered that nicotine can cause a serious addiction and that it is not easy for people to simply quit. However, there is plenty of help for this these days and most importantly: they have a brain, so they should be able to think of others before lighting a cigarette.
Paparazzi violence
This blog is based on the following newsitem:
"Kanye West charged for scuffle with paparazzi"
http://entertainment.oneindia.in/music/international/2009/kanye-charged-190309.html
"Kanye West charged for scuffle with paparazzi"
http://entertainment.oneindia.in/music/international/2009/kanye-charged-190309.html
After being followed by paparazzi, rapper Kanye West lost it and has now been chared with misdemeanour vandalism, battery and grand theft.
Violence against paparazzi isn't something that everyone will have an experience with in their life. First of all, you have to be interesting enough to be followed by paparazzi. Secondly, there have to be a lot and obnoxious paparazzi present. And thirdly, there has to be a reason for you to act violent against them.
Of course, violence is never a good thing. However, I can imagine how one could lose it, if you look at the way paparazzi try to invade celebrities personal life. For example, can you imagine running into this when you're on your way out:
Monday, 16 March 2009
Cursing
There are some people who just go to far. For example, televisionchef Gordon Ramsay (http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/gordon-ramsay-constant-cursing-causes-australian-senate-inquiry-7315.php). He is probably most known for his cursing and swearing, which often leaves other people in tears. Is it really that necessary? Maybe he is just incapable of using sentences without a curseword in it? Or maybe it's all just for the show and he is infact a very nice and tender man, who only uses proper English. In many cases, it is really unnessecary for him to curse, and still he does. Unfortunately, some people don't have the excuse of "doing it for the show", but actually do this in real life. Just listen to the people around you. How many times will you hear cursewords around you in one day? And it's not even the young people (who always get the blame, as usual): old(er) people curse as well.
Of course, sometimes it's just plain funny when someone curses, but that's usually because of the event that caused the person to swear or the words that are used.
Since I myself have had numerous occasions which led to me cursing, I too am guilty of this bad behaviour. I do not consider myself to be a verbally violent, frustrated or angry person, but sometimes it's hard to avoid cursing. For example, when you hit your big toe on something hard or when your favorite footballteam loses, it is difficult to express your sudden and extreme feelings without cursing. That's not so bad, is it? Do, however, try to keep it down a bit.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Smoking
When I went to the supermarket this week, I ran into a quit-smoking stand. If you type in "smoking" on Google, on the first page alone you will find several results that direct you to a quit-smoking website. More and more countries print warning messages and/or images on the cigaret boxes. You can't get around the fact that it's dangerous to the smoker and people around, but still there are so many people that smoke.
In my eyes, the worst thing about smoking is the fact that it bothers other people. I myself have several friends who smoke regularly, but they will not smoke when I am in their presence without asking me if I'm ok with it, and I think this is very good of them. They know that it is bad for them but they are not yet willing to quit smoking, but they do think about other people when they smoke. These are the kind of smokers I have absolutely no problem with (beside the fact that I don't want them to do anything that's bad for their health, but that's their own decision).
However, some smokers only think about themselves. They don't seem to care that people around them also have to inhale the smoke, listen to sentences interrupted by inhaling and exhaling smoke, wear clothes that will end up smelling like ashtrays, etc.. If you want to expose yourself to higher risk of all types of cancer, be my guest. But don't do this without thinking about the people around you.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Sex scandal
This blog is a respons to the following news:
Sex scandal pop star Edison Chen appears in Hong Kong court
(this article can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/hongkong/4799506/Sex-scandal-pop-star-Edison-Chen-appears-in-Hong-Kong-court.html)
"Over 1,000 photographs of Mr Chen, 28, entertaining a variety of Hong Kong's female celebrities were leaked onto the web in January last year, causing a sensation in China. [...]"
Mr Chen, a sex-offender! The question is: was he really being bad? He, as it was put properly by the press, "entertained" a variety of women, but is that to be considered as being bad? Lust, of course, is one of the seven deadly sins. But if this is something to go to court for, probably a lot of people would be in trouble right now. Most likely half of the students would be in jail and there wouldn't be so many children being born every day.
On the other hand: 1,000 photos is quite a lot. Makes you wonder how long this took him, or if he had just one very busy night (or day). So it has to be said: he must have been extremely lusty. And of course, if there were any other items of the "being bad list" involved in this case, that would make it more likely to be categorized as "bad behaviour". Questions rise... Did he have a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife, did any of the involved ladies had a relationship (which would make him less or more guilty in that adultery? I'm not going to go into this for now), were there any animals harmed while making the photos, did he lie to anyone about his intentions, are all the women involved 18+ and how bad are the photos for that matter??
What must not be forgotten here, is how those pictures became public. According to the source, "[a] computer technician named Ho-Chun Sze has been charged with stealing the photographs from Mr Chen's computer while servicing the machine and releasing them." Wouldn't stealing, breaking someone's trust, probably lying about it, invading someone's privacy, trying to make money out of someone else's private stuff and probably more, be considered a worse case of being bad, worse than a case of (severe) lust?
Something else to take into consideration: we're talking China here. China thinks this was so bad of Mr Chen, that he has to come to court. China is very different from the UK (or from my homecountry, for that matter), and that makes it a bit more difficult for me to judge this whole scandal. If there is any country we consider to be "civilized" these days, when actually being very bad (human rights, they way they treat their food -when it's still alive-, etcetera), it's China. So maybe you can say that China is a lot different from (Western) Europe, and maybe this kind of "scandal" wouldn't have been considered this bad and going to court when happening in the UK but it actually is normal for China? (un)Fortunately, I don't know too much of the British Court System (could be the fact that I'm Dutch) so I cannot make any statements on this. It would definately have been the headline of the gossipmagazines here, but a court-case..? I can't really tell.
However, when you are famous, you are likely to become a rolemodel. Most of the time a rolemodel for younger people. If you would ask any parent, they would say this isn't exactly the best example of how to behave and being good, but rather of being bad. So in that point of view it is probably bad behaviour we're talking here (she said, carefully..).
But then there's the other side of being famous. Ok, he probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to do nasty things with multiple famous women when he wasn't famous, but let's pretend he would have. If he was just a regular Chinese guy and this would have come out, would everybody have had a negative opinion about it, would it have made the guinness book of world records or would nobody have cared?
I cannot give a real conclusion here, since I've never had the urge to do something similar to what Mr Chen has been charged for (no, really) and maybe he had some real good reasons to do so. So I'll just end this blog with: more details please.
Sex scandal pop star Edison Chen appears in Hong Kong court
(this article can be found at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/hongkong/4799506/Sex-scandal-pop-star-Edison-Chen-appears-in-Hong-Kong-court.html)
"Over 1,000 photographs of Mr Chen, 28, entertaining a variety of Hong Kong's female celebrities were leaked onto the web in January last year, causing a sensation in China. [...]"
Mr Chen, a sex-offender! The question is: was he really being bad? He, as it was put properly by the press, "entertained" a variety of women, but is that to be considered as being bad? Lust, of course, is one of the seven deadly sins. But if this is something to go to court for, probably a lot of people would be in trouble right now. Most likely half of the students would be in jail and there wouldn't be so many children being born every day.
On the other hand: 1,000 photos is quite a lot. Makes you wonder how long this took him, or if he had just one very busy night (or day). So it has to be said: he must have been extremely lusty. And of course, if there were any other items of the "being bad list" involved in this case, that would make it more likely to be categorized as "bad behaviour". Questions rise... Did he have a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife, did any of the involved ladies had a relationship (which would make him less or more guilty in that adultery? I'm not going to go into this for now), were there any animals harmed while making the photos, did he lie to anyone about his intentions, are all the women involved 18+ and how bad are the photos for that matter??
What must not be forgotten here, is how those pictures became public. According to the source, "[a] computer technician named Ho-Chun Sze has been charged with stealing the photographs from Mr Chen's computer while servicing the machine and releasing them." Wouldn't stealing, breaking someone's trust, probably lying about it, invading someone's privacy, trying to make money out of someone else's private stuff and probably more, be considered a worse case of being bad, worse than a case of (severe) lust?
Something else to take into consideration: we're talking China here. China thinks this was so bad of Mr Chen, that he has to come to court. China is very different from the UK (or from my homecountry, for that matter), and that makes it a bit more difficult for me to judge this whole scandal. If there is any country we consider to be "civilized" these days, when actually being very bad (human rights, they way they treat their food -when it's still alive-, etcetera), it's China. So maybe you can say that China is a lot different from (Western) Europe, and maybe this kind of "scandal" wouldn't have been considered this bad and going to court when happening in the UK but it actually is normal for China? (un)Fortunately, I don't know too much of the British Court System (could be the fact that I'm Dutch) so I cannot make any statements on this. It would definately have been the headline of the gossipmagazines here, but a court-case..? I can't really tell.
However, when you are famous, you are likely to become a rolemodel. Most of the time a rolemodel for younger people. If you would ask any parent, they would say this isn't exactly the best example of how to behave and being good, but rather of being bad. So in that point of view it is probably bad behaviour we're talking here (she said, carefully..).
But then there's the other side of being famous. Ok, he probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to do nasty things with multiple famous women when he wasn't famous, but let's pretend he would have. If he was just a regular Chinese guy and this would have come out, would everybody have had a negative opinion about it, would it have made the guinness book of world records or would nobody have cared?
I cannot give a real conclusion here, since I've never had the urge to do something similar to what Mr Chen has been charged for (no, really) and maybe he had some real good reasons to do so. So I'll just end this blog with: more details please.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Suggestions for week 12
Suggestions for Being Bad - week 12
In our module guide, there is a page dedicated to the Indicative Schedule (weekly programme). However; week 12 is still to be arranged and it's up to the students to show their creativity and come up with an idea to do that week. The question that raises here: is this common for this course, or did one of the guest speakers cancel?
So what could we do?
- We could take a closer look at football hooligans. Is it just enthusiasm or are they being bad? And where does enthusiasm end and being bad begins?
That's it for the moment. It's hard to stay focussed while people are asking questions about how to start a blog and stuff. When other ideas come to mind, I will post them in next blogs.
In our module guide, there is a page dedicated to the Indicative Schedule (weekly programme). However; week 12 is still to be arranged and it's up to the students to show their creativity and come up with an idea to do that week. The question that raises here: is this common for this course, or did one of the guest speakers cancel?
So what could we do?
- We could take a closer look at football hooligans. Is it just enthusiasm or are they being bad? And where does enthusiasm end and being bad begins?
That's it for the moment. It's hard to stay focussed while people are asking questions about how to start a blog and stuff. When other ideas come to mind, I will post them in next blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)