It seems that having over-zealous fans can be the reason of headaches and court dates. J.K. Rowling is in the spotlight again and she is none too happy about it.

She appeared in court Monday to speak out against a print version of a fan's Web site. A small Michigan publisher, RDR Books, was in the process of collaborating with the creator of this work called "The Harry Potter Lexicon."

Steven Vander Ark, the would-be author of this Harry Potter encyclopedia, is a school librarian who started this Website which has attracted millions of readers, as well as received praise from J.K. Rawling herself.

While she has used the site before to refresh her memory while in the midst of writing her books, she draws the line at someone else profitting from her life's work. She argues that this book will be nothing but a compilation of her work, with no attribution (or quotation marks) to her. What little will not be a regurgitated copy she finds to be "sloppy"and "lazy" and the Lexicon manuscript was "riddled with errors" and "derivative." Besides, she has planned to put together an encyclopedia for her fans; she feels she owes it to them.

Vander Ark says that his collection of information about the Harry Potter series would be filled with original work. "It would bring about insight into personalities of key characters, relationships among them, meanings of historical and literary allusions, and it would point out inconsisitencies and mistakes in the novels."

An attorney for RDR Books and executive director of the Fair Use Project at Stanford Law is arguing that "For hundreds of years, everybody has agreed that folks are free to write companion guides."

I must say that I tend to agree with J.K. Rowling. I think that I would be EXTREMELY protective of my work given the same situation. This series is probably like a child to her; she did go through many, many trials and tribulations to create the world of Harry Potter and friends.

She has a right to be protective of her life's endeavor. The aren't too many laws that are used to govern what goes on the Internet, and many fans have taken advantage of that. Some could even be making money from their websites. This, however, would move to the copyright world if it were to be put into print, and that would move onto a whole other playing field.

Besides, I think I would want to read an encyclopedia, or anything comparable to it, that came straight from the creator of this world. Who better to give explanations than J.K. Rowlings herself?

When presidential hopeful Clinton speaks to her audience about health care now, a fewer tears will flow.

Clinton, who uses the advocacy of health care as one of her platforms, has been asked to stop using a certain story as her shtick in getting her point across. This story, it seems, has partaken in a round-about game of "telephone."

The story is of a woman and her unborn child who is refused medical care due to lack of insurance. As a result, both the mother and child later die. The story is a little raw, but has been effective.

A sheriff was responsible for telling Clinton this story while she was campaigning in Ohio. Touched by it, she adopted this story as her platform mascot, of sorts, due to the overwhelming reception of these platform ideas that Clinton was representing.

It wasn't until the Washington Post released the name of the woman, Trina Bachtel, that the full truth started to unfold.

A local Ohio paper, The Daily Sentinel, also backed up this information the next day.

This prompted investigations from any hospitals or clinics involved, and spokespersons for these facilities were very quick to defend the integrity and reputations of the health care practices.

In a report from The New York Times, it was found that Batchel did indeed have insurance. The hospital had simply asked her to start paying an old hospital bill (from when she didn't have insurance) in the amount of $100 with each visit. Bachtel could not afford this, and therefore postponed receiving medical attention.

It was originally the lack of insurance that created Bachtel's barrier. Even though she had insurance at the time, the payments of $100 with each visit created the situation leading to this sad event.

I think that if I was using this example in my campaigns, I would want to check out the validity of the story, especially if I was using it to drive a point home. It just goes to show that media has an invaluable presence in America.

Yes, there are some things that go awry because media gets involved; but in an instance like this, it takes the media to get the truth out and make potential presidential candidates accountable for the veracity of words and allegories.

The news media really does have an incredible way of acting as a "checks and balances" system, and more often than naught.

The Chinese government, who normally has rigid political censorship for their local press and Chinese websites, freely allowed reporters to lash out in sharp critique of foreign press and the bias that is shown for Tibetans. Violent images of riots and looting allegedly incited by Tibetans against Han Chinese in Tibets capital, Lhasa, have also been encouraged and posted by Chinese bloggers.

Meanwhile, China has cut off any access to information from foreign press and networks who mention any of the riots in Tibet or the Dalai Lama; these include CNN, BBC, YouTube, and just recently added to the list is the New Yord Times.

The Chinese government has barred any foreign press to go to Tibet or any surrounding provinces. Reporters that did manage to get in were quickly kicked out. All of this was done AFTER their government pledged that foreign press would be given greater access and press freedoms in the country during the months leading up to the Olympics.

This effort, on behalf of the Chinese government, is the clearest sign yet that it's concerned the Tibet unrest and antigovernment protests of Darfur could disrupt this year's summer Olympics that will be held in Beijing, China.

China continues to condradict itself. Their government is blocking foreign media for fear of biased reporting, yet has no problems with allowing their people to create biased blogs and journalism. Extremely hypocritical if you ask me.

There is greatness in growing up in a democratic society. Freedom of speech and thought are values journalist adhere to (here in the U.S.) in order not to be biased. This creed of honest and fair reporting helps the public to see both sides with a more clearly stated purpose. It breaks situations down for people into digestible pieces, helping them to make more informed decisions (even in opinion.)

If the Chinese don't get their act together, I believe that their decision will indeed have an effect on the atmosphere of the Olympic Games. Foreign journalist like freedom of press and the Chinese government begrudging this and aborting their pledge will not fair their image well.

Besides, aren't the Olympics a symbol of peace between nations? Don't nations bid for this years in advance? I would think, even if just as a ruse, the government might have tried to temporarily stifle and appease until after the Games were over.

That's what a great nation like the United States would probably do. Goodness, but I do love this country.

Derrick Ashong, 32, was just supposed to drop his friend off at the primary Democratic debate at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood on January 31; his serendipitous last minute decision to stay and rally for Obama proved to be one that many will not soon forget.

While rallying for his favorite candidate, Ashong was being pummelled by an unrelenting reporter asking for the reasoning in which he was supporting Obama. The reporter was caught off guard when Ashong actually had some intelligent and legitimate reasons to back up his decision.

Not looking like the typical political junky, Ashong is an entrepreneurial band member, actor, public speaker and hopeful business tycoon looking to put together a media business called Take Back the Mic, which is an effort to use niche marketing to bring music and other media to a global market.

Coincidentally, this impromptu interview (which initially gained him six minutes of television fame that is currently thriving on YouTube, along with an additional five minutes of encore time that was requested from his viewers who now total over 1 million) demonstrated the exact power of viral marketing that he hopes to use for his company and band.

A lot of political analysts think that Obama's image that is perceived by younger generations of voters is much like Ashong's...very hip, trendy and rock-and-roll. Having someone like Ashong certainly helps to reach out to and marry the two worlds of politics and pop culture.

I think it is wonderful so many different types of people that represent our blended culture know what is going on and have a fantastic opinion based on facts, not just emotion. I feel it is working to involve youth in one of the most incredible (and undoubtedly historical) times in US politics.

I remember when MTV was getting onto the young ones through means of commercials, imploring them to vote. Now, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person of legal age who can't wait to vote. It makes me feel a little more secure in knowing that more people are taking a vested interest in our country's future.

The media's love affair surrounding the contention of this year's presidential candidates is growing cold. The attention that was once lavished upon all of the country's potential leaders has waned considerably since fall of last year.

In lieu of election coverage, some of the major television networks like NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX opted to stay with their regularly scheduled programs or substituted the spot with can-miss shows.

A former president of NBC News, Lawrence K. Grossman, is of the opinion that "Networks have pretty much left the field."

So when CBS yearns to get a presidential debate with Katie Couric in the mix, does it make sense that they would run a reality t.v. show, a re-run of NCIS, and a show that very few people have heard of? This would have been a very good opportunity for the network to let Couric earn her $15 million-a-year by covering a live running coverage of the political showdowns between Obama and Clinton.

Of course, when ABC actually covered 3 hours of Super Tuesday during the primetime slot, they "got clobbered" because of it. Some people attribute this to the up-to-date information that is so easily accessable through other mediums.

There are so many other cable stations that have the ability to specialize in these events without a decrease in ratings, such as MSNBC, CNN and FOX news channels. It makes the demand of coverage from the original political heavy-hitters (ABC,NBC and CBS) virtually obselete.

I think that a great majority of Americans are probably rejoicing (whether silently or jubilantly) that alternate stations have started to take over these political sagas. Personally, by the time November rolls around, I am very tired of hearing the squabbles between candidates. It gets to be overwhelming. Sometimes, I just want to hear the local news and nothing else.

Besides, right now I am a little jaded by the fact that my vote in the Florida Primary didn't count. Why am I paying attention to what they have to say now? I was diligent in following the platforms early on, making certain to base my vote (again, the one that didn't count) on studied information, to no avail.
.
Like I said, I am a little jaded. I do understand the importance of educating yourself and knowing what a candidate stands for. I do listen and learn, but it is nice to know that I can always turn to a news station on cable that is likely to have running coverage. I think that it helps maintain a bit of sanity to all the couch potatoes who are a-political. (Bless them)

Much to the chagrin of the well-seasoned SNL writer, James Downey, America pays heed to his satiric comedy he churns out as a political barometer for those who are not prone to be politically savy.

Downey has been responsible for creating alot of the idiosyncrasies we have well come to know. He is credited with defining the candidates before they define themselves. His send-up of the 2000 debate between Al Gore and Bush is best known for the coining of the Bushian malapropism "stategery" (which many people give Bush himself credit for.)

Downey, apparently, is at it again; this time with a nod from Hillary Rodham Clinton. In one of the recent SNL skits, Clinton and Obama were being pitted against each other in a debate. As Clinton was being attacked by all those surrounding her, Obama was asked if he was comfortable or needed another pillow.

Clinton jumped at the opportunity to use this as a way to say, "See, even SNL thinks it isn't a fair playing ground." Even though Downey does agree with that fact, he didn't mean the skit as an endorsement for the Clinton campaign.

He writes comedy that makes fun of the hottest political topics. Some things make people laugh because they are funny. With other things, Downey says, the effect is: "Hey that's right. That makes sense."

Downey does not now, nor ever has, set out to make his skits influence political views and opinions of the public. Sometimes he might articulate ideas that are vaguely out there that have not yet been stated in a comedy form.

Whether Downey wants to admit it, a great majority of America is influenced by what they see on television. Comedy or not, it holds something of value to individuals who might be riding the fence (in a political sense.) Points are made about character and policies, even if these things aren't in the best of light.

For those couch potatoes who don't want to research the platforms of candidates, shows like SNL give them a vague enough idea (or so they think) of what they think the candidates stand for. It's kind of like a T.V. version of "Politics for Dummies."

Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard biologist who spearheaded this project, a website cataloging all of the known species in the world will soon become available as early as February 28, 2008.

It has been attempted before and failed, but that was due to the lack of the availability of the technological setup in the past; we do not have such a dilema today.

This Book of All Species collection, or the Encyclopedia of Life as it is often referred to, will have the capability of condensing one page of information about each species know to man (right now that count is up to 1.8 million species, ranging from the blue-footed booby to the oyster mushroom.)

There will also be room for the list to grow the already 30, 000 pages to make room for the other 1.77 million species still left to be discovered.

Even though some biologist (like Daniel Brooks of the University of Toronto) have their doubts, other biologist remain hopeful that this will become a success.

The experts working on the project are streamlining the options on the website that might help scientists and nonscientists with pinpointing research on a particular species, or even different areas of the world that contain species you need to watch out for.

I think that it is an excellent tool of knowledge for anyone. This system will help to simply, and dare I say it, revolutionize the way that we gather necessary information for travel to foreign countries, among other things.

If there is a danger of any vermin in a particular location of the world, one would be able to streamline the necessary information through a personalized field guide on the website. You put in the location in which you are visiting, and out the vital knowledge comes.

What a brilliant idea. I truly hope that they are successful in their efforts to bring our world that much closer to the public.

The Show Must Go On...Maybe?

The unfortunate and untimely death of Heath Ledger has fortified bonds between some of Hollywood's top talent.

Johnny Depp, Collin Farrell and Jude Law are stepping forward to offer their assistance in finishing the last film that Ledger will ever appear in...well, maybe.

Ledger, who died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs, was in the midst of filming a Terry Gilliam fantasy film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.

The film's future has been in limbo since Ledger's unfortunate demise in late January. The trio of Hollywood's elite (Depp, Farrell and Law) are banding together with the three musketeer ethos, "all for one". They are tag-teaming together in an effort to play alternate versions (incarnations, if you will) of Ledger's character, "Tony".

There has not been a solution decided upon for the dilema of whether to recast, shoot around Ledger's absence, or cancel the movie altogether.

The whole reason that the independent film was able to secure a $30 million budget was strictly based upon the fact that Ledger's name was attached to it.

Depp feels an obligation to Gilliam to get this film completed due to his experience in 2000; the film that the two were working on had to be scrapped because of extenuating circumstances. Depp doesn't want to see a repeat of this occurence.

Normally, I wouldn't pay heed to the hype of Hollywood; however, I think that the character shown by three random Hollywood pseudo-icons is noteworthy.

It is refreshing to see genuine concern for the well-being and prosperity of a fellow peer. I am not talking about a financial prosperity, but one that belongs to the humanity of the situation.

The "three musketeers" want to help with a project they know was of importance to their fallen friend, Ledger. They also want to ensure that the integrity of what was important to him remains in tact.

The fact that Depp felt an obligation to stand up for an independent film maker (who most likely doesn't have the deep pockets of other incorporated film makers) makes me feel that maybe Tinseltown does have a heart, after all.

With the emergence of off-air reporters (young reporters that do not appear on television) growing daily, politicians are finding it hard to get a break, since almost every candid moment is caught on video. Medias like YouTube allow for instantaneous feeds and updates that are making every moment of this years presidential campaign a public affair.

These off-air reporters, or embeds, are hired as a cost-efficient alternative to expensive media team operations. They are hired by networks to follow candidates across the country filing video and blog posts as they go.

As a result, it has changed the dynamics of this year's election by holding candidates accountable for all of the unplugged and unscripted moments of folly and faux pas. These moments have become part of the narrative of the election. The campaigns are well aware of just how much these moments caught on video can magnify a mistake or attach a permanent stigma to canidate.

Networks are increasingly going to this type of journalism because there is an expanded coverage with little cost. The information gathered that would have ended up on the news floor years ago, due to too much content, is now available in the form of blogs and video clips making it a more informative form of media.

Due to the imbiquitous camcorders and immediate Internet access, the candidates are facing potential pitfalls. In years past (without the presence of video cameras or cell phones that record), if an off-comment was said by a candidate, it might have taken up a sentence or two in the newspaper; but now with our instant access and blogs, the same scenario (if caught in front of video cameras) can be seen in its entirity over and over again.

All I can say is that I will never run for president. God knows that I embarass myself enough when I'm aware people are looking at me; who knows what I am capable of without that awareness.

It kind of reminds me of a "Big Brother is watching" scenario that so many people claim to be against. I suppose, though, that if you are putting yourself in the public eye (to become our president, no less) ,you should expect extreme scrutiny. I do feel bad for them because it seems they get crucified for being human. After all, no one is innocent of all things.

Like I said, I will never run for president. I am way too human to do it.

Does Media Dictate Biased Views?

The topic of media bias has become one of the hottest topics these days, according to reporter Steven D. Levitt.

According to his research, studies have been performed to see just how media bias operates, and if it rings true. Levitt found two men, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo, who estimated how left-wing or right-wing media outlets are based upon what research by think tanks they identify with or mention in their stories.

Groseclose and Milyo came to the conclusion that most of the media has a liberal bias, the exception being Fox News, which they cast right of center.

The terminology and descriptions used by the different media sources tend to show what side of politics the source is on. For example, phrases that Democrats use to describe an issue like the "Estate Tax" or "War on Iraq" are different than the "Death Tax" or "War on Terror" phrases used by Republicans.

If attention is paid to these details, then the reader can see which slant a media source gravitates towards.

The research of Groseclose and Milyo also pointed out that this slant is mostly dependent upon what type of audience the media is catering to (northern or southern states, democratic or republican.)

I agree 100 percent with Levitt. There has been, is, and always will be bias in the media. As long as people are allowed to think for themselves, differences of opinion will exist.

I believe a large part of this stems from the way this country was first set up.

In the south, plantations and farms were supported by a completely different functioning economy, never mind the slavery issue. There was typically only the extrememly wealthy or the very poor that made up the economy, and who do you think made political decisions? If your answer was the rich, you are correct. The south's views slanted toward a conservative view, and tends to remain so to this day.

In the north, a diamond-shaped economy thrived (the majority of the communities were middle class; the top narrowed with the wealthy, as did the bottom with the lower income families.) There was no need for slavery, and their economy was supported by and relied upon a great many people in the middle class. It was this majority that formed the structure of government and rule. They were progressive thinkers which made them more liberal in political structure.

In my opinion, it is this very reason for our current political diversity today. Traditions drive convictions, and emotion is a powerful catalyst in deciding political futures.

Media sources might want to remain fair and unbiased, but a person would be hard-pressed to find one that truly was.

The New Face of Reading

For centuries devout book readers have used the tried-and-true method of paper and ink to comprehend the world around us, but all of that is about to change.

The digitization of personal book collections is on the horizon. Following the music industries example of the iPod generation, some company (perhaps Amazon) will devise a combination of software and hardware that will make purchasing your favorite digital book as easy as downloading your favorite song.

Amazon has come up with their first iteration of the e-book reader, Kindle. This promising technology, that weighs ten ounces, holds more than 200 full-length books and has the ability to display blogs, newpapers and magazines. The Kindle also has the ability to play MP3 files and it can be loaded wirelessly through the high-speed EVDO network from Sprint.

There are so many reasons to purchase one of these technological wonders; but there is a waiting list, even at the sale price of $399.

The e-book reader bares an exact likeness to the pages in a book, making it enjoyable to read; this was the general feeling the Kindle envoked from readers.

I think that it is high time a company has come up with this technology. I would love to have the availability of 200 books at the push of a button (or touch of a screen).

I would like to see a company offer school books as a purchase possibility. It would be nice to carry around ten ounces of knowledge instead of 20 pounds of bookbag.

Another thing, it will cut down on the depletion our natural resources. If books are offered online, I would much prefer to read a good book and save a tree at the same time.

I also think it might encourage younger, technical generations to start becoming avid readers. The appeal of reading will be modernized, and will hopefully start a chain reaction in schools.

A revolution is on the rise, and this is something that should advocate excitement for our world. Hopefully this will rekindle the sheer enjoyment of reading.

Symbol or Set-back?

Once again the media comes under fire for misuse of questionable imagery. The tension of this controversy belongs to none other than the editor of the reputable Golfweek magazine.

Dave Seanor, the now ex-editor of the magazine in question, gave the go-ahead to run the picture of a noose dangling in a haunting manner on the cover of Golfweek.

Oddly enough, the cover featuring the ominous image was to reference the hot water Kelly Tilghman (a host of the Golf Channel) was in. Tilghman was under fire for using "lynch" regarding how younger golfers could contend with Tiger Woods.

Seanor knew the image could be misconstrued, but he ran with it anyway. Regrettably, he made the wrong decision. He meant to use the visual of the noose as a way to describe the situation Tilghman was in, not as a racial overtone.

I feel extremely bad for Seanor. In media, it seems you must have tough skin with a gentle touch. Unfortunately, there is a thin line of what can be said connecting to other races.

There are so many questions that come into mind for me. I know that the noose is associated with lynchings, but what about the poor, innocent men and women of the Salem witch hunt? I had people in my family that were wrongly accused of being horse theives that were hung, so should I be offended by the image of the noose?

I understand what the connotation of the noose is supposed to mean, but when are we going to allow the 40-plus years of Civil Rights to kick in? We need to let the noose stand for something else.

It was a symbol of which hunts for a period of time after the Salem tragedy. It became a symbol of corporal punishment for thieves and train robbers; and, yes, the noose is associated with the oppression of our black nation, but now it is time to let it become something else. The more we keep the symbols in the light and ackwonledge them, the more dissensions between the nation will stick around.

We need to rethink the ways in which we want to view our future, and put them into effect. It starts with one action and can only continue with the next step taken towards it.

Amendment or Harassment?

Usage of the First Amendment came into question as William Krasnansky exercised civil disobedience against a court ordered decision to shut down his blog containing a fictional account of a failed marriage.

Maria Garrido, Krasnansky's estranged wife, rallied their divorce judge to nip his blog in the bud, citing it to be of a degrading and calumnious nature. Garrido voiced concerns that people might take Krasnansky's blog as a true account of her character and base their opinions of her on this blog.

There has been no formal hearing or trial regarding the blog, amounting to a prior restraint; therefore, Mr. Krasnansky feels no obligation to obey the court ordered closing of his blog.

I have read most of Krasnansky's blog, and I see no mention of names. He has put a disclaimer in his blog that it is a fictional account of a painful and tragic divorce. Under the First Amendment he should not be made to close his blog.

The female character might resemble some of the mannerisms and characteristics of his wife, but do not most authors, fictional or otherwise, draw off of the attributes and dispositions of the people surrounding them? When I was taking a course in creative writing, I certainly did. This is how most authors breath life into characters that allow us to identify with them.

This might also be his therapeutic avenue, the path of least destruction. Everyone has his or her own way of dealing and coping with mounting pain and pressure, perhaps this is his. Would not the judge rather him label a fictional character in a blog than make plans to off his soon-to-be ex?

And another thing that comes to mind is the irony of the whole situation. Garrido did not want people looking at his blog for fear that they might label her a cold and heartless monster. She made such an upheaval that it created national attention, focusing on the very thing she did not want people to see in the first place.

I cannot help but think that, perhaps, kharma is with those who deny it most.

This is a practice link to Buzz Machine.

Greetings and Salutations, my peeps!

Just wanted to say how gratifying it is to know that people actually have to read what goes on in my little head.
Good luck to you all, and Godspeed.