Posts by InternationalObserver
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I stopped going to Zoo's when they took the pants off the Chimpanzees. I mean really, who needs to see that?
-
heh heh ... you're not alone Damian. Chez Pazienza has also decided he can't do it anymore, although that decision was surely helped by CNN firing him after they discovered he blogged on Huffington Post. A few teasers from his blog:
During my last couple of years as a television news producer, I watched ... the media in general do anything within reason to scare the hell out of the American public -- to convince people that they were about to be infected by the bird flu, poisoned by the food supply, or eaten by sharks. I marveled at our elevation of the death of Anna Nicole Smith to near-mythic status and our willingness to let the airwaves be taken hostage by every permutation of opportunistic degenerate from a crying judge to a Hollywood hanger-on with an emo haircut. I watched qualified, passionate people worked nearly to death while mindless talking heads were coddled. I listened to Lou Dobbs play the loud-mouthed fascist demagogue, Nancy Grace fake ratings-baiting indignation, and Glenn Beck essentially do nightly stand-up -- and that's not even taking into account the 24/7 Vaudeville act over at Fox News. I watched The Daily Show laugh not at our mistakes but at our intentional absurdity.
---
And then she reminded me that in the past year-and-a-half, nearly 20 mid to high-level people have left American Morning; many of them quit with no other job to go to -- they just wanted out of the business. That speaks goddamned volumes, not simply about the show but about the state of the entire profession.
---
I asked for the "official grounds" for my dismissal, figuring the information might be important later. At first they repeated the line about not writing anything outside of CNN without permission, but HR then made a surprising comment: "It's also, you know, the nature of what you've been writing."And right there I knew that CNN's concern wasn't so much that I had been writing as what I'd been writing.
Did this guy steal your future, or is he just living in a parallel universe? (He also did a stint in College Radio). Consider yourself lucky Damain, Chez ended up with a tumour.
-
Okay folks, if you've got an hour to spare (and if you haven't, I recommend finding the time) here is the Style Wars documentary that was filmed 25 years ago about the NYC graffiti scene.
I've just finished watching it again and it has so many amazing threads running thru it I'm not even going to bother saying anything more. Just watch and enjoy!
(NB: some of you may need to eat your words regarding 'but is it art?')
(PS: I was going to put it on the video page but that is for kiwi videos. If RB thinks this qualifies [it was for kiwi kids the equivalent of Moses coming down from the mountain with 2 stone tablets] then he can repost) -
do you not remember this government floating the idea of lowering the age of sexual consent to 12? After a public outcry they quickly dropped the idea. When you consider the increase in underage prostitutes I think the term paedophile friendly government is justified.
Chuck, I think it was Phil Goff who floated the idea - but he was raising it as a discussion point. He was quickly shot down, but at least he got the idea discussed. But the caveat is that he was (as I recall) proposing some sort of amendment to the Age of Consent that would allow sex between 12-16 y.o.'s. In a minority of occasions this does happen, and under current law a 15 y.o. boy should be prosecuted for having sex with his 15 y.o. GF, even if she consented. I don't believe that Goff was proposing the law should allow 28 y.o. losers to have sex with impressionable 12 y.o.'s.
When you consider the increase in underage prostitutes I think the term paedophile friendly government is justified.
The law does not allow for underage prostitutes and no-one is in favour of it. Anyone having sex with an underage prostitute will be prosecuted vigorously if caught. I doubt the courts will accept "I thought she was 18 m'lud" as a defence.
this paedophile friendly government passed legislation
before anyone shoots down Chuck on this, they should see for themselves the little known legislation passed by the Government in secrecy last April 1st:
__"Working for Paedo's"__ -
Thanks IO I believe it was Beat Street
Yeah, but the Beat Street plot (vis a vis the train graf) was heavily 'inspired by the Style Wars doco:
FYI: February 10, 2008
Style Wars Director DiesDirector of the legendary hip-hop documentary Style Wars, Tony Silver, died last weekend after battling an irreversible brain condition for several years.
Shot in New York City in the early '80s and originally airing on PBS in 1983, his documentary is considered to be the first film about hip-hop culture. While the 70 minutes covers rap and breakdancing, its main focus is on graffiti, which at the time was viewed by some as a groundbreaking art form. Style Wars shows an altered urban landscape and serves as a snapshot of life here in the early '80s, with a "cast" ranging from Mayor Koch to renowned graffiti taggers to the Rock Steady Crew to subway maintenance workers.
-
I forget the name but there was that movie where they bombed the trains in the stealth of night.
Wild Style
Beat Street
Style Wars (this is the PBS doco they screened on NZTV in the 80s that got kiwi kids started) -
Some good discussion points people!
Make them go around and clean it all up and apologise to everyone in the neighbourhood and have the grannies tell them off, and then fix up the playground and build a new swing set.
A good idea, but you know they'll also come back and tagg the sh1t out of the swing set later don't you?
A big fine and a criminal conviction? That's going no where.
Agreed. It hasn't worked for 'boy racers'.
But being surer of being caught? That I think would make a difference. It's scary and embarrassing.
Agreed.
I used to hear boasting about how awesome a particular tag was.
Yes. Judging tags/pieces predated Dancing With The Stars: they were rated on (Wild)style, degree of difficulty, execution, and public appeal!
Most of the tagging that I see about the place seems to have been done with a wide permanent marker.
True. And for the really cool fat ones Whitcoulls make you wait a week before they give it to you. Even me, and I'm old.
-
I don't know whether current penalties and chances of getting caught are the same as when I was a teenager (80s) or not. That would be very relevant to this debate, I think.
That was in my long post originally but I edited it out for brevity. 20 years ago I was never caught, so one could argue that little has changed. But back then we knew we could be caught and if we did we would be in a lot of trouble. Nowadays? Nothing really happens if you're caught.
I'm not proposing that we lock up 12-14 y.o. kids, but I do feel they need to see/feel the consequences of their actions. Painting out tags is good, but something stronger is presumably necessary for habitual offenders.
20 years ago tagging was nowhere near as prevalent as it is today, and I have to wonder if that's because it's gone on relatively unchecked.
[FYI - before anyone accuses me of being a hypocrite: I was never a tagger, I did (as part of a crew) whole walls. As I've said before, tagging is just pissing on a lamp-post to mark your territory.]
-
let's look at the story Lyndon linked to above:
Since graffiti prevention co-ordinator Bruce Wood started last October there has been a decrease in the amount of tagging and an increase in the number of prosecutions for willful damage.
Whilst one story does not a summer make, I'd suggest that the Shore kids have realised that since someone is prosecuting taggers, maybe it's not worth the risk.
But it's also possible they're just tagging somewhere else now .... maybe we should expend taxpayers money on an 18 month study to determine which factors are at play and whether a model can be produced that might achieve positive outcomes in other regions? This presumes that the North Shore outcome is positive. Someone should also check to see if a decrease in tagging has led to an increase in decreasing self esteem amongst youth.
-
Oh my lawd what a lot of liberal twaddle! This is going to be a long post, so for the benefit of those tuning out already let me start with The Solution. Everyone who thinks 'tagging isn't that bad and we shouldn't be labeling these kids as criminals' can erect a sign on their fence saying "Tagging OK Here!". The government can issue these signs to anyone who wants one, and kids can be free to tag those 'authorised' walls as they please. And to protect the rest of us, the Government can pass a law imposing severe penalties on anyone who tags an unauthorised wall (or requests an Official Sign and puts it on a wall other than their own).
It's as simple as that. If you think tagging is OK then you should stick up a sign letting the local kids know it's okay on your wall.
Ah, but some of you don't want your walls tagged -- you're not saying 'it's okay', you just think that these are poor mistunderstood kids with not a lot going on for them and they have esteem issues and surely there is a better way of handling the problem than making them 'criminals'.
Okay, let me school ya with a little knowledge (he says, trying to remember the street lingo from last century when he used to run with a crowd that were familiar with spray cans):
Kids tag walls because they can. They do it for the same reason they used to steal wheel trims (anyone old enough to remember that?) or pinch milk money. They do it because they are bored, there's nothing else to do (not true, but organised sport/youth groups are Not.Cool.), and it's exciting! And because they can (I can't emphasize that enough). They are not interested in doing proper graffiti 'murals' because that is too hard and they are lazy kids who just want to be 'famous' by throwing up their scawl wherever they can.
The reality is that they are not famous at all, and probably only 20 people 'know' their tag. How do they 'know'? - because at school little Johnny 'WastR' is telling all his chums how he went out last nite and tagged the whole of X Street and then went all the way down Y Avenue , and even climbed onto the awning at Z Superette and tagged that too and if you catch the #234 Bus you'll see them all.
Okay, so you already knew that they were deluding themselves in thinking they're 'famous' when we all know they're not. Your point is 'why make them criminals?' Because it is a crime and if kids learn that there are no consequences then we will have anarchy. Stop laughing, I'm serious. I know from my own 'crew' that the majority will outgrow it and lead 'normal' 'productive' lives. But a minority will 'go off the rails' because they've learnt 'anything goes'.
You can argue that these kids who 'go off the rails' would have done so anyway but surely it's better to catch them young before they progress to more serious crimes? That's the 'Broken Window' philosophy, which is a debate in itself. But I agree with the thrust of it - the kids know what they're doing is illegal but they don't care because there are no consequences.
No-one disagrees with the "It's Not OK" Family Violence campaign, so why is it so hard to accept the idea that these kids should be told it's not okay to tag other people property? Because if you don't teach that then some will think it's okay to steal your property, or give you a beat down in the street just to prove to their 'boyz' how 'Gangsta' they are.
To which you respond 'we've always had petty thieving, and public assaults'. At which point I give up arguing and refer you to The Solution above. And I can guarantee that anyone who puts up a sign saying It's OK To Tag My Fence will take it down soon after, complaining to all and sundry that you tried to do something positive for the kids but they ruined it for everyone by tagging your house as well.
Why did they tag your house? Because everyone else has tagged your fence and they wanted to be seen, to be noticed, to be 'famous'.