Glee...racy scenes with nudity cause uproar! Parental guidance?



An uproar erupted this past week when racy images - featuring naked nubile young flesh and binge-drinking - spewed out over the broadcast airwaves in a promo promoting an upcoming episode of the popular night-time hit GLEE.

Has the ground-breaking bill-of-fare gone too far in its bid to snare ratings during the family hour?

Tune in tonight - and take a gander at the smutty material that may be corrupting the youth of today - according to a posse of critics.

Parental guidance suggested!

http://www.thetattler.biz/



Nudity required!

Google...hires staff to improve Chinese relations!



In a bold-faced effort to appease the Chinese - and lift a spectre of mistrust that currently hovers over relations with Officials in that Nation over censorship issues - global giant Google has increased its work force by twenty percent to better address government relationships.

Although google still maintains a license for operation and a structure to service users in China, their footing remains unstable, in the aftermath of a clash over google's high-flying style and launch of a host of services in that rapidly expanding market.

Meanwhile, the hiring of additional staff in the advertising sector, appears to be sending a signal from the Mountain View company offices that it's all business as usual.

A spokesperson at google has acknowledged a continuing effort to land advertising accounts in China in spite of the climate of uncertainty that presently prevails.

Can google crack the great wall?

http://www.thetattler.biz

COICA...Senators move for Internet blacklists! End to free speech on web!

A group of Senators with clout on both sides of the political fence are rallying to expand the Government's authority to censor the Internet.

The "Combating Online Infringement & Counterfeits Act" was slyly presented to law-makers in late September - and according to insiders on-the-hill - is ready to rock 'n roll.

First up on the agenda?

A hearing before the Judiciary Committee.

Opponents are crying foul on the grounds that U.S. Citizens may soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in the hapless ranks of those being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.

COICA, if enacted, would create two blacklists consisting of Internet domain names.

The Courts would be granted the power to add sites to the first COICA enforcementlist ; the Attorney General, control over a second.

Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list.

The entities would also receive immunity (and the presumed good favor of the government) if they also blocked domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity".

For example, any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

If you read between the lines, under current U.S. Law, pop culture sites like - YouTube - could be censored because US. Copyright holders like Viacom have argued that copyrighted material is central to their activity.

YouTube is perfectly legal - currently - as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about the Violation.

If COICA passes, critics are concerned that Viacom wouldn't need to prove "wrong-doing" by YouTube to shut the site down.

Lawyers would only have to persuade the courts that a significant number of people were using the "YouTube" web-site to infringe on copyrights.

Failing that road of pursuit, Viacom could petition the DOJ to put the social hub on the second blacklist, and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order.

According to opponents, ISPs have ample reason to abide by the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.

In the final analysis, COICA's passage may be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet.

Those who are opposed to that end scenario, therefore, need to sit up and take action.

http://www.thetattler.biz

WordPress...adios! Rinky-dink blog site rife with glitches! Violates Free Speech! Manned by idiots with no class...

A tome written with WordPress gang of losers in mind!

For the past few months, I have been dickering about whether to continue posting my blog entries at the WordPress web pages, due to frustrating problems that hinder the authoring process at the rinky-dink blogger outfit.

For starters, there are quite a few glitches which make the posting of an article a very time-consuming frustrating proposition.

For example, on occasion when I attempt to transfer a post from another site to WordPress, right-off-the-bat, the article publishes willy-nilly about the page without any rhyme or reason.

When I attempt to tackle the problem - by painstakingly lining up images and paragraphs manually - the precise edits often do not take.

So, I am forced to start the editing process once again, with the hope that the post will eventually publish in a coherent professisonal manner.

On occasion, I have been forced to edit at least six times, without coming close to the end result I am trying to achieve, from an artistic standpoint.

In the final analysis, more often than not, I am forced to settle for less than perfect.

Conseqeuntly - I worry that my credibility (and reputaton) as a writer, blogger, and artist are at risk.

The experience is especially upsetting since the fault lies with WordPress's cheap under-developed software that literally blows!

To make matters worse, WordPress does not have spell check at the site, either.

Duh!

So, bloggers are forced to copy the post into a program like "word" - effect the changes when necessary - then, painstakingly transfer the material back to the edit bay at WordPress.

It is wholly conceivable at this juncture, that when the post is published, the material will scramble on the page (due to incompatability problems) - and thus - require another  fresh edit (or two or three or...).

Damn!

To review a post (when considering a potential edit for a myriad of legitimate reasons) the blogger is also forced to wait three or four minutes for the article to be dredged up (from God knows where) before the editing process can commence.

Again, a precious waste of man hours, for sure!

The automatic image and video clip installer often malfunctions, too, which means the photograph, drawing, or film clip must be diligently inserted by hand instead.

Nothwithstanding these glaring snafus, it should be noted for the record, that WordPress is assaulted daily by spam (which is annoying constant to deal with as well).

Although a blogger may install spam-blocker software for free - a multitude of comments and requests for legitimate links that I am anxious to receive - are scooped up and lumped in with the spam, too.

So, the glitch requires that I sift through all the data that has been blocked to ensure I don't miss a communication I may be interested in receiving (and/or posting) at the Pop Culture site I author.

For months, in spite of the frustrations, I hung in there because of my  loyal readers who apparently have gotten a tad addicted to my blog and its daily musings (judging by the traffic).

Then, another ugly problem reared its ugly head, which prompted me to call it quits.

In recent weeks, WordPress violated bloggers' rights to free speech - when they blocked the publishing of posts by a posse of intelligent upstarts (without legal notice or right to due process) whose opinions they disagreed with - until they managed to coerce the authors into penning the same kind of irrelvant old crap their nerdy (untalented) house-writers were inclined to vomit out daily ad nauseam

Well, that was the final straw, in my estimation.

I drive traffic to the WordPress site daily.

If those losers at that rinky-dink blog site think they're going  to censore me - or any of my post pals at the WordPress website - they are sorely mistaken.

In fact, at this point, they'd have to pay me big bucks to make any future creative contribution to their site - which essentially sucks big time - at this juncture.

So, Amigos - and die-hard fans at WordPress - take note.

If you want to peruse any of the scintillating new material, you'll have to cruise over to:

http://www.ijulian.blogspot.com/

or

http://www.julianayrs.com/

Of course, my articles are also posted daily at Zimbio (and promoted vigorously by the site owners), I am happy to report).

Yup!

Some folks recognize when they're blessed, unlike some other bozzos, who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons!

Deity WordPress gooks pay homage to daily!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Federal Trade Commission...seeks stricter content guidelines on web! Young audiences targeted...

Uncut Director's Editions on Internet concerns FTC!

The FTC recently cautioned that entertainment companies need to restrict violent content which may be accessible to young children who access the Internet without parental controls in check.

The Government agency (which recently expanded its reach into the World-Wide-Web) noted for the record recently- that while a handful of film and video-game companies have been more mindful of establishing a ratings system that is effective in this regard - more effort needed be made to self-police the industry-at-large..

The FTC alleges that parents have a difficult time monitoring content since there is a proliferation of unrated (director's cut versions) films on the Internet that are difficult to weed out among the mainstream fodder that is less worrisome.

According to the FTC, one of out every three parents, is unaware of the existence of these "uncut" releases spinning out-of-control on the blogosphere - and elsewhere on the net - unmonitored (or even identified for the most part).

In response to the criticism, a spokesperson at the Motion Picture Association of America (a ratings forum in the film industry arena) assured concerned FTC officials - and parents alike - that they are committed to ensuring that films are marketed truthfully  with the ultimate aim of providing parents with concise information about content so that educated decisions may be made about film choices for their young ones.

On the heels of that issue, the content watchdog duly noted that PG-13 movies were also aco ncern.

Apparently, youths under thirteen years of age are screening the films on the sly on the Internet without adult supervision.

One has to wonder if the FTC's concerns about explicit content in music biz product wasn't perhaps triggered by the recent brouhaha over Adam Lambert's raunchy live! performance on the American Music Awards just a scant few weeks ago.

Enquiring minds want to know!

Adam Lambert risque stage conduct rankled some!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Adam Lambert...ABC cancels GMA slot amidst swirl of controversy! Pop Idol Act too "hot" to handle...

Double standards for femme fatales!

One of the local dailies captioned the cheeky dalliance with potentially x-rated material  "Risque Business"

Meanwhile, the tongues of office workers wagged at water coolers around the country non-stop to a fever pitch.

At issue was Adam Lambert's in-your-face (literally!) American Music Awards stage performance - in which Fox TV's darling Pop Idol - grabbed his crotch suggestively at one climatic moment (then, planted a juicy kiss on a surprised male musician the next).

The impromptu spontaneous (there weren't any rehearsals?) stabs at notoriety - subsequently - triggered a shi*-load of negative e-mail and a barrage of irate phone calls to the network's switchboard from amrchair prudes in the heartland (and elsewhere, no doubt).

Initially, the Parents Television Council (the strongest vocal opponent in the wake of the controversy) appeared to be attacking the out & proud Diva, who some contend crossed the line (and bounds of decency).

But, in a release issued to the press hours later, PTC was inclined to condemn the Network, the advertisers, and the scheming producers (Dick Clark Productions)  for broadcasting a show in the family hour which they asserted was "tasteless" and "vulgar"  in the final analysis.

A director of communications for the watchdog group underscored that their criticisms were levelled at the performance (and the intrinsic nature of it) and not Lambert, or the song, per se.

I agree wholeheartedly that Networks should be mindful in respect to content in the bill-of-fare that is broadcast over the airwaves when viewers are tuning in during the family hour.

For good reason!

Kids are mimickers.

Once they catch sight of a pop icon thrusting their crotch into the face of another performer, they're likely to assume that the behaviour is "OK", and proceed to act out the scenario with fellow toddlers in the playground at the crack of dawn the following day.

Ouch!

ABC was quick on the uptake.

In a terse press statement, they noted that they were canceling a previously-slated performance by Lambert which was to air on "GMA" in the near future.

This response to viewer complaints dove-tailed nicely with prior assurances that they were not aware of the content that was initially planned by Lambert et al.

"ABC had seen Lambert in rehearsals and knew some of what he had planned, but not the extent," according to an AP report.

Notwithstanding, in any civilized society, care must be taken to ensure that debauchery is not allowed to creep in unchecked, take hold - and ultimately - corrupt our youth.

I applaud the efforts of organizations such as the Parents TV Council for taking a stand on the issues.

In other quarters, the controversial fiasco turned out to have a silver lining, though.

When ABC dropped Lambert with a big thud on their back doorstep, CBS rushed in with welcoming arms, and signed the newly-minted Pop Star for a gig on their not-so-picky open-to-controversy network.

Uh-huh!

Scandal begets ratings, big time!

Just ask Dave Letterman.

In response to all the media hoopla - and viewer outrage - Lambert was surprisingly apologetic.

"They gotta do what they gotta do."


"It's too bad, I think that there were a lot of fans who were excited to come see me," he added somewhat poignantly.

Just maybe, Lambert needs to don a bustier and net stockings to get some respect.

After all, some critics have labelled ABC TV's actions as hypocritical.

"The network applies different standards to sexual posturing depending on whether the performer is male or female," one commentator astutedy noted for the record.

Pop Icons like Madonna, Janet Jackson, and Lady Gaga get away with murder in prime time, one internet surfer lamented in a blog post last night, in so many words.

For once, dudes have yet to break through the glass ceiling, in that topsy-turvy show-biz arena!


Scintillating Lambert splintered the heck out of it this week at the AMA's , that's for bloody - ooops! - bl**dy sure!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Anonymous blog comments...to post or not to post?

Well, when you first start up your blog, you face one dilemma right off the bat.

Do you accept comments across the board without censorship?

In view of the fact there are a staggering number of wackos out there - spewing a lot of psycho babble as they surf the Internet daily - for me the answer to the question was an easy one to come to grips with.

Then, the issue of "anonymous" comments surfaces.

There are many good reasons why an individual may be inclined to post a comment anonymously.

It is wholly possible the person is a celebrity or in the public eye and they want to make a contribution to the dialogue without throwing the spotlight on themselves.

Okey-dokey!

On the other hand, setting up an account (at Blogspot, for instance) with requisite - e-mail contact address, background info, and profile shot - may be a bit of a pain in the butt (and too time-consuming) for some.

In that event - if the "anonymous" author makes an intelligent comment or worthwhile contribution to the discussion topic - I am inclined to "publish".

But, when it comes to "anonymous" comments that take pot shots at personalities mentioned in a post, or that go into a vitriolic rant about some political or social issue, I am inclined to "reject" the remarks.

For good reason!

My blog is not a forum for cowards who seek to assassinate the character of public figures while they remain out of harm's way anonymously.

Nor is it a launching pad for those with a "secret agenda" either!

Once I start to peruse such a missive, and determine the nature of its misguided focus, I just hit the old "reject" button.

In fact, the comment remains not only "unread", but does even see the light of day!

The bar is set pretty high for those who seek to make the "cut" at the Tattler.

But, my standards are reasonable under the circumstances.

For example, in spite of the fact I am inclined to pen and post daily - and make a few outrageous remarks on occasion sure to rankle a few - at least my mug shot (and legal name captioned above) squarely identify me.

Brooke Shields once said,

"I make no excuses."

Nor do I.

Frankly, it's liberating!

As George Bernard Shaw once said,

"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated."