Thoughts and Comments: 

June 03 2015

I
II
III
IV
V
VI

Blog Post #6: Banned- BMO Field Adventures feat. the Selfie Stick

June 03, 2015

"Hey, Kola? Dzeko? Kompany? Can I get a selfie?" 

sel·fie

ˈselfē/

noun

informal

1. a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and shared via social media.

   "occasional selfies are acceptable, but posting a new picture of yourself everyday isn't necessary"

1. (via Google)

   
   

Ah, selfies. The newest and most popular form of pictures nowadays. Selfies have become such a natural thing in society these days. I see people taking selfies in the most random places, its quite strange yet normal at the same time. But of course, whats a selfie without a selfie stick? 

Recently, on Tuesday May 26th, I payed a visit to BMO Field to watch the English Premier League team Manchester City's open practice ahead of their game versus Toronto FC on Wednesday May 27th. I remember waiting in line fifteen minutes prior to the gates opening, excited to see a bunch of my favourite players for the outstanding price of zero dollars! At 5:30, the gates opened and the line was moving forward. I remember my cousin's bag being checked for a water bottle, and a certain question we got asked by the security woman. 

Do you have a selfie stick? 

I wanted to laugh when the women asked us that question. Do I have a selfie stick? Why would I have a selfie stick? And why would it even be a problem if I supposedly did have a selfie stick? These questions ran through my mind as I stepped into the familiar stadium and took my seat. Whats so wrong with carrying a selfie stick? Its very efficient for group selfies, I thought. 

I dismissed the idea quickly, enjoying seeing 2010 World Cup winners like David Silva and Jesús Navas warming up on the pitch. It was also amazing to see Belgian international and captain Vincent Kompany, and French international Samir Nasri, and so many more great players. EPL top goal scorer Sergio "Kun" Aguero was missing, but overall I had a great time and took lots of selfies with my cousin. 

When the practice ended, I was still stunned that I saw these players for free. I was replaying the whole situation in my mind, when the selfie stick wandered back into my mind. I decided to ask my cousin why that lady asked us that. We went to a game back in October at BMO Field; we never got asked if we had one, and I'm pretty sure those things existed back then. She responded with the topic of safety. 

I was kind of confused when she said that. What were people going to do? Throw the selfie stick at the players? Apparently, the answer is yes. The selfie stick is seen as a weapon. EPL team Tottenham Hotspur were the first team to ban selfie sticks from White Hart Lane, followed by third place Arsenal banning them from the Emirates Stadium. BMO Field, home of Toronto FC, joined in too. Its quite dumb that people would use a selfie stick as a weapon. They're practically asking to get arrested! 

But not all people use these sticks as a weapon, in fact, I've never even heard a case about someone doing so. 

Selfie sticks add enjoyment to a situation and help us capture our memories better. I think that its reasonable for places like stadiums to ban selfie sticks from being used. Its clear that they're just trying to protect the public and the players from this stick that can potentially be used as a weapon, but it seriously hasn't done harm to society, so it really shouldn't be banned. 

But what do you think? Be sure to leave your view on things down in the comments! 

Blog Post #5: Communication Gone Wild 

June 03, 2015

In an ever developing society, technology is bound to grow and become more advanced. With technology like Siri and self-driving cars, should we be relieved of this helpful technology, or scared out of our minds? 

Technology is a powerful thing, and the changes it brings has such a huge impact of society. We have things like Siri that answer our questions when we ask. Need to know the weather? Siri is there with your answer in a couple of seconds. Need to make a call? Siri can do that too! Or maybe you want to know the current score for that game you can't watch because you're stuck doing units. Ask Siri and you shall receive. Things like Siri and Google Voice are things that come in handy when we have our hands full, which is quite useful. It makes it quite efficient for communicators to, well, communicate. 

Advanced intelligence is a powerful thing. We can access things on the internet just by reciting a simple word to things like Siri and Microsoft Cortana. Its quite scary, if you think about it. This artificial women knows more than an average human does! If we've established things like Siri and Cortana already, imagine what technology will be like in a few years. Imagine what else these voice activated apps can do! I mean, they can already reserve you a table at a restaurant if you ask them to. Advanced intelligence is so amazing yet scary in the same way. 

With technology only advancing, the way we think about communication will most definitely change. Will we find it scary as advanced intelligence will be able to the same things we can do? Or will we still find it efficient? I mean, we already have self-driving cars. But is that really a good thing? What if theres a malfunction with the design and the car crashes? I personally think we should fear this ever-so-growing technology. A lot of car models are actually being recalled nowadays due to malfunctions and errors in the designs. 

But on the other side of things, this technology is so useful and efficient! So question: Is this advanced intelligence absolutely amazing or scary? I think its a bit of both. 

What do you think, though? Leave a comment down below! 

Blog Post #4: Can a Truck Make You More Handsome? 

June 03, 2015

According to a bunch of random people, including children and guys with beards, truck guys are superior to car guys. Chevrolet launched this commercial in order to persuade men to buy their trucks because, apparently, they make you more handsome, dependable, rugged, etc. 

Ok, so I won't lie; this commercial made me laugh. 

According to the children, the truck guy looks more "Ba-bam!" According to the rich housewives, the car guy is the guy who your "mom wants you to marry", while the truck guy is "the one you'll ditch him for and runaway with". The reactions were pretty funny, getting a good laugh out of me. 

Ok, but, on personal level, I don't really care that much about cars; as long as it gets me to the location I'm good. But I guess 'young single women' seem to have a different view... Apparently this truck guy is 'sexier'. How? I don't know! I think that its the fact that the car guy was standing next to your basic average car. I'm pretty sure if that car guy was standing next to a Lamborghini, Maserati, or Ferrari, the truck man would've been in the dust! Which brings us exactly to what this post is about; how can a truck/car make you a better person? Ok, fine; it would be kind of cool if a guy owned a Lamborghini, but it doesn't necessarily mean hes more dependable or handsome. 

We all know that if this commercial was about women instead of men, social media would be fired up. Women seem to get more attention when it comes to stereotypes. Men, not so much. Its weird to hear this come from a girl, but hey; men have feelings too! By calling a car guy less 'rugged' than truck guys, its like calling a more lean girl less 'attractive' than a girl on the slim side. Despite making a pretty and funny convincing ad, Chevrolet has managed to make a commercial that catergorizes men based on what type of car they drive. 

Burger King launched an ad in which they said basically said you're only a true man when you eat a burger. Apparently if a guy is vegan, it makes him less of a man. I find these commercials so ignorant. They are disrespectful in every single way. I am not surprised that many people oppose these commercials because they are stereotypical commercials, including myself. But what about you? 

Have your say in the comments! 

Blog Post #3: Rusty Fred Strikes Again 

May 28, 2015

According to the parents of the child in this article, shaving their child's hair to resemble an aging elderly is a 'creative' way of disciplining him for getting bad grades. The barber then proceeded to share the picture on Instagram, where tons of people can view the picture. 

But is this really a 'creative' way to discipline a child, or is it just plain cruel?

Personally, I believe this is harsh. To shame a child by embarrassing him on social media is utterly wrong to me. I get it; he got bad grades. But to put him through so much embarrassment on social media, and the embarrassment he probably faced at school, is just cruel; not creative. There are better ways to discipline a child; like taking away TV privileges or something along that category. This shame shaving isn't a good way to discipline your child, let alone a creative way. 

12 year-old Rushawn was punished by this so-called creative way of disciplining your child. He must have went through so much embarrassment at school because of his 'Benjamin Button' cut. Though he handled the situation quite well, other kids can most definitely react in a different way. Going through embarrassment like that could ruin a child's attitude towards learning, school, and interacting with people. On the other hand, other kids could be more rebellious after getting an embarrassing haircut like this one. Not every child will handle the situation like Rushawn, and therefore I think that this is most definitely not a creative way of disciplining a child. 

The above picture is an example of another kid being a victim of this disrespectful discipline, done by the same barber. Seriously? You make kids sad for a living? Thats low. I think that this shame shaving is so tragic and this barber needs to go reevaluate his career.    

But what do you think? Agree with my opinion? Disagree? Be sure to leave a comment! 

Blog Post #2: Haters Gonna'... Tweet? 

March 07, 2015

twit·ter

ˈtwidər/

make a posting on the social media website Twitter.

"many active bloggers are twittering more and more these days"

 via Google

tweet

twēt/

make a posting on the social media website Twitter.

"she talks about her own life, but she's just as likely to tweet about budget cuts and Keynesian economics"

 via Google

Twitter; a social media website that many of us have joined. I personally do not have twitter, but I have seen many indirect and direct tweets to know that I don't exactly want to make an account. I guess those kind of tweets come with being a high school student; not everyone likes each other and thats ok. We are not forced to like everyone we meet, but that doesn't mean we log into twitter and tweet some harsh things about them directly or indirectly. This is wrong on many levels, and I'm sure the creators of Twitter did not intend for their website to be used like this. 

Direct hate tweets are utterly wrong. Online hate is a crime, and people aren't exactly helping their case by mentioning the person in their tweet. Its just more evidence that they, indeed, are a perpetrator of online hate/bullying. They're just showing that they're can't even say this to the persons face. Indirect tweets are wrong too. When someone tweets indirectly, they're just proving that they don't have the courage to even tweet the person, let alone say it to their face!

So, what is Twitter doing about this? Twitter already allows users to block other users, and Twitter also suspends accounts. Is that enough, though? People get their accounts back in their hands in a few days and they still go back to online hate. 

Some people are too scared to speak up about this: they're scared that the person who sent the hate will "come after them" or "ruin they're lives once they get the chance". What are authorities doing about this? Shouldn't they be monitoring accounts? Don't they realize that some people are to scared to report these incidents?

I don't have Twitter and I know that its not all about hate. But I do know the people who do hate should go read a book or something. Do something more useful with their life, you feel? 

How do you feel about people hating on others on Twitter, or any social media site? Do you agree with my opinions, don't agree? Leave a comment about what you think! 

Blog Post #1: Kanye vs Paparazzi

March 07, 2015

Nowadays, celebrity and paparazzi fights are happening more often. Iggy Azalea, a new female rap artist, was photographed when she was grocery shopping. But, who do we think of when we hear "Celebrity versus paparazzi!" headlines on shows like etalk, ET Canada, or even the news? Do we think of Iggy, Beyonce, Miley, or Kim Kardashian? No.

We think of Kanye West.

At some point in your life, you must have heard at least one incident in which West attacked the paparazzi. Journeying back to 2008, when the famous rapper smashed a photographers camera at the airport with the help of his bodyguard. Did I mention they were both arrested for vandalism and held on bail for $20,000?

Can we blame him, though? Imagine a camera following you around everywhere you go; some crazy ones even hiding in the bush in front of your house. Some even trying to sneak into your house. I personally would hate that; but unfortunately, that comes along with the "becoming-a-celebrity" package.

Lets face it; they asked for it. You can't be famous and expect nobody to be all up in your business. Those two just don't go together. They knew this was coming, so we shouldn't put the all the blame on the paparazzi. Yes, they [paparazzi] should respect ones privacy. Yes, they should know when to stop. Yes, they should probably go do some thing better with their life but, the celebrities asked for it. 

Think about this though; we can rant about the paparazzi being so disrespectful for so many days, but at the end of the day they're still a major source that keeps us up to date with pop culture and we probably wouldn't be updated without them.

So, who's right and who's wrong? Simple: both are right and wrong.

The paparazzi are wrong in invading someones privacy, but the celebrities also knew this was coming their way. Honestly, the celebrities should be use to this by now if they've been in the music or acting industry for a while now. They shouldn't be attacking paparazzi because at the end of the day, thats still abuse. But then again, the paparazzi and press should know their limits. They shouldn't be standing in front of the celebs house; that could be considered stalking in some cases.

In conclusion, there is somewhere in between when it comes to celebrities and paparazzi. They're both right and wrong in their actions. The paparazzi are just doing their jobs, but they should know their limits. As for the celebrities, we all have a right to privacy but they should know better than to attack the paparazzi. 

Do you agree with my opinion? Leave a comment and tell me your thoughts!