Who Wants to Paris’ New BFF?

I DO! Although this new reality tv show seems like a dumb idea, I know I would for sure like to be her new best friend. What could you lose? You’d be getting celebrity treatment, everything you could possibly want for free! You'd also get to meet so many famous people you couldn't dream of meeting and you could go to A-list celebrity parties! It would be the chance of a lifetime and who ever wins is going to be the luckiest girl ever. I do, on the other hand, think some of the "tasks" that they have to complete are stupid like picking up as many guys at a bar and bring them to a party, or look their best on roller coasters and pose, and Paris also brought the girls' worst enimies to the show to say why they are no longer BFF's. I really wish I could've been a contestant to be Paris' new BFF.

Here's Paris' theme song she sings for the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDaEEX48OhE

The Difference in Movie Ratings from Province to Province
Rating movies is up to the province/territory and there are 7 film rating boards in Canada, some provinces rating more than one. In Quebec, they only have the ratings G, PG13, and PG16. Does that therefore the teenagers that are 16 are able to go to adult related videos in a public movie theater?

General (G) Suitable for all ages.GuidelinesLanguage:Occasional use of words such as darn, damn, hell.Violence: Restrained portrayals of limited violence that may result in extremely limited bloodletting.Nudity:Casual, non-sexual nudity with no close-ups.Sexual Activity: Limited embracing, kissing in a loving context.Horror: Brief moments of mild horror in comedic, historic, or fantasy settings (for example, dragons, giants, wicked witches).Psychological Impact:Sensitive to treatments of scenes or situations related to a child's sense of security and well-being.

Parental Guidance (PG) Parental Guidance Advised.
GuidelinesLanguage: Limited use of stronger expletives and/or slurs and/or mild sexual references.Violence: Restrained portrayals of non-graphic violence, integral to the plot. The portrayals are not prolonged; there are no close-ups; bloodletting and/or tissue damage is limited.Nudity: Brief nudity in a non-sexual context, non-exploitative close-up.Sexual Activity: Embracing, kissing in a loving context; mild sexual innuendo.Horror: Exciting horror scenes and some grotesque images may be allowed in a fantasy or comedic context, but there will be no detailed and/or prolonged focus on gory images or suffering.Psychological Impact: Sensitive to treatments of scenes and situations that may cause adverse psychological impact on children. May include frightening or emotionally upsetting situations involving threats, injury, illness, family problems, or death to young people, family member and animals

(particularly pets).

14 Adult Accompaniment (14A) Persons younger than 14 years must be accompanied by an adult.GuidelinesLanguage: Coarse language and/or slurs directed to specific segments of society; sexual references. Infrequent strong, aggressive languageViolence: Portrayals of violence resulting in some bloodletting and/or tissue damage, which may or may not be fatal. Violence should be within the context of the film.Nudity: Full frontal nudity, non-detailed, brief, casual, non-close up, in a non-sexual situation.Sexual Activity: Kissing, petting, fondling, implied sexual activity; sexual innuendo.Horror: Occasional gory moments and some grotesque images, but these will not be detailed.Psychological Impact: Occasional upsetting scenes that will tend to be more frightening, intense, disturbing - particularly to younger viewers. More mature themes can be portrayed. Threats with some abusive dialogue may be considered.

18 Adult Accompaniment (18A) Persons younger than 18 years must be accompanied by an adult.GuidelinesLanguage: Very intense & aggressive coarse language &/or slurs or sexual references, usually accompanied by violence directed toward the person(s). Frequent sexual references.Violence: Frequent and/or prolonged portrayals of violence resulting in bloodletting and/or tissue damage. Limited instances of brief, visually explicit portrayals of violence.Nudity: Limited instances of brief, full frontal nudity in a sexual situation.Sexual Activity: Limited instances of brief simulated sexual activity.Horror: Gory or grotesque imagery may be more frequent or detailed, but will generally avoid prolonged focus.Psychological Impact: Frequent upsetting, disturbing or frightening scenes that may cause adverse psychological impact on some mature viewers.

Restricted (R) Restricted to persons 18 years of age or over.GuidelinesLanguage: No restriction.Violence: Visually explicit portrayals of violence, which may be characterized by extreme brutality, extreme bloodletting and extreme tissue damage. May include torture, horror, sexual violence.
Nudity: Full frontal nudity in a sexual situation.
Sexual Activity: Simulated sexual activity; limited instances of brief, non-violent explicit sexual activity.

Horror: Horrific themes, incidents and images will have a more prolonged or graphic focus and greater frequency.Psychological Impact: Scenes and situations may cause extreme adverse psychological impact. Could involve intense and compelling terror, acts of degradation, threats of violence, and continuous acts of non-extreme violence. Such situations could be accompanied by coarse, abusive, and degrading dialogue.

Whereas in Alberta...

General (G) General viewing. Suitable for viewing by all ages.

Parental Guidance (PG)Parental guidance is advised. Theme or content may not be suitable for all children.

14A Suitable for viewing by persons 14 years of age and older. Persons under 14 must be accompanied by an adult. May contain: violence, coarse language and/or sexually suggestive scenes.

18ASuitable for viewing by persons 18 years of age and older. Persons under 18 must be accompanied by an adult. May contain: explicit violence, frequent coarse language, sexual activity and/or horror.
Restricted (R)Admittance restricted to persons 18 years of age and over. Content not suitable for minors. Contains frequent use of sexual activity, brutal/graphic violence, intense horror and/or other disturbing content.

Adult (A)Admittance restricted to persons 18 years and older. Content not suitable for minors. Contains predominantly sexually explicit activity.
In Ontario we allowed many more acts to be seen but why is that? Is it maybe that the people here start maturing here at a younger age than in Alberta? Who knows?

Trucker Hats: Ashton vs. Justin

One simple question: Why? Why wear them in the first place? They are the ugliest thing ever and say one thing “Trailer Trash”. Justin states that “I keep hearing Ashton Kutcher say how he was responsible for trucker caps. I’ve heard him make that statement before,” Yet JT says he has been wearing them since he was 17, and his friend started the ‘trend’. Anyways why would celebrities want to wear cheap, ugly looking hats that were worn by truckers in the ‘70’s anyways? The first thing that comes to mind when I think of truckers are dirty, disgusting, smelly and just plain gross. So Mr. Kutcher and Mr. Sexyback don’t expect to be beating off women with a stick while wearing one of these uhm ‘fashionable’ hats. Even though they are both very good looking, those hats aren't doing anything in their favour.

Still obsessed with Sarah Palin?

During the US presidential election, the world was obsessed with not the running presidents, but the one and only Sarah Palin. From her glasses to her many family issues, she was all over the magazines, t.v., and internet. But why? Why did everyone care where she shopped or why it was okay for her teenage daughter to be pregnant and getting married? (btw why was it okay for her to be pregnant, yet Jaime Lynn Spears was attacked and put down every day for being pregnant at 16). Mrs. Palin went on a $150,00 shopping spree when her country she’s competing to represent is in economic distress. And frankly, she should be a candidate for What not to Wear because she does not know what looks good on her. She blames the talk about her wardrobe on a “double standard”. In a two-part interview with ET's Mary Hart airing Thursday and Friday, Palin says "There is a kind of this double-standard that's going on. I don't hear the guys being talked about their wardrobe." And when asked about yelling “Kill Him” at a debate for campaigns, she simply replied “I haven't heard anybody scream 'Kill him' at a rally.” Sureee she hasn’t... http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20235099_5,00.html

To see videos of McCain lovers yelling "Kill Him" and Sarah Palin saying nothing ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-FEF7WB9So&NR=1

Poor Nicole
Mrs. Nicole Ritchie, now married to Hillary Duff’s former man Joel Madden, just can’t get rid of those nagging paparazzi. Maybe she thought ditching ex bff Paris Hilton would get rid of most of the paparazzi, but her thoughts were wrong. They were all over her run in with drugs and DUI’s. After she became sober they found something new to pick on... her fluctuating weight. First she was very skinny at a mere 97 pounds before getting pregnant with her little girl Harlow Winter Kate Madden. During the pregnancy she was looking like a ‘normal’ human being, not even looking pregnant, but still looking her best. To this day although she isn’t the biggest in the crowd, she is looking a lot better. Who knows what the paps will pick on her for next.

Copyright Blog: Universal Sues Myspace For Infringement

Universal is suing Myspace for allowing users to upload and download songs and music videos. Isn’t that what Myspace is used for? Users being able to find new artists that they may like and are able to listen to the musician’s music? I do that almost everyday and it’s the reason why I even have a Myspace account, I’m even doing it as I write this blog. For a while Myspace was popular for contacting and meeting new people, but now it’s mostly back to its main purpose, listening to new musicians. The suit also includes MySpace’s corporate higher level, The News Corporation,

because apparently they’re also the reason why Universal is suing for the exploitation of the copyrighted material.

(notice how even the logo has heads lis-
tening to music?)

The Law suit, filed in Las Angeles on November 17,2006, is seen as part of universals scheme to test the federal law’s “safe harbour” that internet companies are supposed to follow and complete procedures to filter copyrighted work by the makers. As of now, the law requires sites to be removed after being notified by the copyright holder. But why would the musicians make a Myspace and post music in the first place if they don’t want people to be able to upload or download it. To me, that makes no sense. Myspace would have to pay Universal $1,50,000 US as damages for each music or video posted on the highly active website with over 100 million users.

Earlier in the year, Universal also threatened to sue You-Tube for the same thing before it was sued to Google for 1.65 billion. And two months prior to the Myspace law suit they filed related companies that allow video sharing, Grouper Networks and Bolt. Seems to me like Universal is bored, and just wants something to do.

Myspace said in a statement that the are “closely apprised of our industry-leading efforts to protect creators’ rights and its unfortunate they decided to file this unnecessary and meritless litigation.” And “We provide users with tools to share their own work – we do not induce, encourage, or condone copyright violation in any way.” And they make a good point saying this. Myspace even stated the day before the law suit that they were planning to organize a new tool that would allow copyright owners to flag videos posted by users without authorization; and then they would remove the ones that become flagged. Universal even has a deal to distribute music by artists who are signed to a label run by Myspace themselves. Why would universal want to sue someone that they have a deal with?

Universals argument in the litigation is that unauthorized copies of music and videos from U2 and Jay-Z were easily available, although unreleased to the public. They also said that their “goal is not to inhibit the creation of these communities, but to ensure that our rights and those of our artists are recognized.”

Anthony Berman, a San Francisco lawyer, said that Universal’s case was intended to press Myspace into a profitable licensing deal with them rather than a real court fight. “It’s less about piracy. It’s a lot about control.”

The big bad scary univeral that doesn't
have anything else to do but sue other
companies. Tisk Tisk.