· · I · SAID · VIOLATED, · NOT · STOP

a recent article on cnet claims we are on the verge of the death of digital rights management, the stuff that stops you from playing sony playstation games on other consoles and from listening to iTunes tracks on other portable music players.

now i find most of the article a little hard to believe. i don't think that by the end of 2007 all information online will be free to be distributed, streamed and remixed. but he does make some interesting points about where things are heading.

the use of DRM has often been said to be anti-competitive, but primarily by (more often than not) left-wing internet groups such as the electronic frontier foundation. now it seems the cry foul over DRM is coming from the corporate content big-wigs themselves. the increasing discussion around non-protected mp3 files has seen a change of emphasis in some areas of the content industry. even so far as the article claiming, "...the music industry wants a strong competitor to the monster it created called iTunes." even though iTunes gave credibility to a market that users were sceptical of, its closed-door approach makes it difficult to compete with (as BigPond Music found out).

but of course, any would-be competitors would either have to sell music incompatible with the popular iPod (with a hefty marketshare) and concide to a reduced purchasing audience, or go forth and break apple's technical protection measures in order to break into the iTunes/iPod audience. we have seen such things before, but of course now under schedule 12 of copyright act given to us by the recent copyright amendments you may have committed a criminal offence.

it seems kind of ironic that now, in hinesight, the corporate 5 labels that went running to apple to get into iTunes and now having doubts about the long-term value of providing your music in a format exclusive to one music player. cnet outline five anti-DRM approachs coming up through some of the big players including Amazon, Myspace and Yahoo Music.

it will be interesting to see what will be the fate of DRM, but all i can really say to the lables is, you've made your own capitalist bed. now either remake it or lie in it.

well i went in to get a coffee, as i always do, and i talked to the kinda cute straight boy with short blonde hair, as i always do.

and when i was in there yesterday he asked me about my stretched ears. which i didn't have last time i saw in in 2006 and we had a chat and stuff, as we always do

anyway today when i go in he says to me "how are the ears today? still sore?"

and i was like, "well nah, not really"

he was like "you're only going to 10 mm aren't you?" and i said "yeah"

and the girl beside him says, "you should see how big my boyfriend's are"

then turns to the cute boy and says, "i'll introduce you to loz one day"

and i asked her if that was loz from westside tattoo (where lei and i go to get stuff done)

and she was like, "yeah, how do you know loz?"

and i replied saying that i had met him at mandy beaumont's birthday party in west end, where i was introduced to him by lei

anyway she was like, "yeah lei, she's awesome, how do you know her?"

and of course lei is my roommate

oh brisbane you are so small lol

so i got my ears stretched to 6mm

i read on bbc health on friday that according to two recent research studies, circumcision could "cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men" (pardon the pun). obviously being cut will never be more effective than using infection prevention devices such as condoms, but apparently in two trials involving 8000 men the instances of new HIV infections in heterosexual men reduced by roughly 50%.

national institutes of health director Dr Elias Zerhouni said: "Male circumcision performed safely in a medical environment complements other HIV prevention strategies and could lessen the burden of HIV/Aids, especially in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where, according to the 2006 estimates from UNAids, 2.8 million new infections occurred in a single year."

the claim is related to cells in the foreskin which "may be potential targets for HIV infection" but also on the reduced sensitivity of the skin under the foreskin after circumcision, reducing the likelihood of bleeding and thus exposure to potential infection.

interestingly the trials were halted because it was deemed "unethical not to offer circumcision in the men who were acting as controls," which throws into question an issue that this report has neglected to comment on. namely, the physcial and psychological effects of circumcision on men.

the foreskin has unique nerve receptors and stretch receptors totally roughly 1000. it is designed to protect the head which can maintain the intended thinness, texture and sensitivity. i don't really see any rational reason to remove it.

but equally, there is evidence that the removal of the foresking can and does have lasting traumatic effects, as well as physical ones. there's a good article from the lancet which notes that boys who are circumcised are more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. They say that "neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli."

They also state that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain."

plus the foreskin experiences sensations of its own. in a way cutting it off is giving the boy worse sex.

author and (perhpas the most well known) blogger today cory doctorow recently published an article on forbes.com entitled giving it away, which detailed his experiences of releasing e-books of his novels for free under creative commons licences.

he talks about publishing down and out in the magic kingdom under a creative commons licence that allowed his readers to distribute it non-commercially far and wide. and why would somone do such a thing? surely he's not making much money from it? why would someone pay for something they can get for free? an interesting paradox.

to this line of questioning doctorow replies, "most people who download the book don't end up buying it, but they wouldn’t have bought it in any event, so I haven’t lost any sales, I’ve just won an audience." as he says in the forbes article, some people will substitute a real world book for a free e-book (= lost sales), but this is a minority. "but a much larger minority treat the e-book as an enticement to buy the printed book. they're gained sales. as long as gained sales outnumber lost sales, i'm ahead of the game. after all, distributing nearly a million copies of my book has cost me nothing."

and the likelihood of ebooks killing paper books is crazy. "Most people aren't and will never be readers – but the people who are readers will be readers forever, and they are positively pervy for paper."

doctorow's book was downloaded from his site 30,000 in the first day, with no restrictions on how many other people got copies from the people who downloaded directly from the site. three years and six hardcopy printings later and the download count has topped 700,000. not to mention being translated into a swag of languages, adopted for software projects and two audio adaptations.

there are lots of arguments around how and why information and content should be free. i agree that some thing – government information, content created using government funding, key research and scientific data, content designed to stimulate discussion and debate – should be free for anyone to (re)use and engage with. now claim it to be the rhetoric of (what doctorow calls) "patchouli-scented info-hippies" if you like, but there is an economic argument for it as well. more proprietary content that arguably does not have to be free can certainly pick up the advantages of being easily reproducable and distributable while still retaining ownership in the content.

to illustrate, doctorow's publisher tor, the largest science fiction publisher, could recognise the value. they knew their market, one that is driven by organised fandom who "treat books as markers of identity and as cultural artifacts of great import. They evangelize the books they love, form subcultures around them, cite them in political arguments, sometimes they even rearrange their lives and jobs around them."

they also know that science fiction readers tend to be tech-savvy so digital distribution is not new to them, and becomes a mere extension of their social network, a way of sharing content with their friends.

besides, piracy proves people care about and want your stuff. if they want it, give it to them. as mark peche says, you can make a lot of money on the spin-off products: tshirts, hats, mugs, mousepads, pens whatever.

of course there is no empirical way to prove open licensing your work will guarantee a bigger audience and more sales, but it does have the advantages of getting it out to a large number of people, thus utilising the social capital that moves around social and/or digital networks. comparing the sales of doctorow's books to other writers similar stages in their careers doctorow has far outsold his colleagues.

i got accepted to brightest young minds conference set for run next year. they are getting together 100 of the brightest young thinkers from around australia together in sydney and i will be one of them ^_^

ccSalon


creative commons australia (CCau) invites you to its first ccSalon, a showcase of the creative commons in australia.

the ccSalon is a public exhibition/performance/expo of how artists are using creative commons licences and material worldwide. the ccau event features creative commons licensed material by a range of australian artists, including a live audio/visual mash up including music by collapsicon and hybrid arts music ensemble collusion with music and visuals by andrew garton of toysatellite.

garton will be drawing on cc content by other australia creators including animation duo blackbrow, photographer frollop, the community convergent newsroom, a new leaf media and footage from engage media and a swag of australian flickr photographers.

The ccSalon will also and include a share your wares, a hands on space for people to experience the diversity of CC licensed content. If you're interested in including anything in that hands-on event, please get in contact with us.


The CCau ccSalon will be held from 6pm on 29 November 2006 at the Block, QUT Creative Industries Precinct, corner of Musk Ave and Kelvin Grove Rd, Kelvin Grove, Brisbane. Free entry, all welcome.

ccSalon is a public event. For further information, please contact Elliott Bledsoe or Jessica Coates or you can phone us on (07) 3138 9597.

You can also access the full program for the Salon by clicking on the attachment below.


creativecommons.org.au/ccSalon








creative block by luke roberts, licensed under a creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike licence v2.0
http://flickr.com/photos/lukeroberts/292148887/in/pool-ccsalon/
if you too want to reuse our ad, you can find the source file at http://creativecommons.org.au/ccsalonfiles

i am going to both the press screenings for like minds being run by dendy cinemas here in brisbane! i am so excited! this is the kind of film way worth seeing a million times! so dark and sophisticated, i truely love it!

i am also interviewing the director, gregory read

but i will also (hopefully) be interviewing both lead actors, eddie redmayne and tom sturridge!!

Vibewire is looking for Australia's next generation of public thinkers to contribute to Interface, our annual magazine anthology of new writing on contemporary social, political and cultural issues.

If you're aged between 16 and 30 and have something innovative, insightful and engaging to say, we want to hear from you.

Send us a proposal of no more than 500 words (shorter is fine) outlining your idea, why it's important and why you're the best person to write about it.

Selected entries will be developed into longer, 1000-3000 word essays, articles and stories with the guidance of some of the country's leading young writers.

The scope of what you can write about is almost limitless - just keep it interesting. Submissions will be evaluated on originality, broad public appeal and expression by a panel of judges including Julianne Schultz (Griffith Review), Tony Moore (Pluto Press), Julia Baird (Sydney Morning Herald) and Vibewire's Rachel Hills and Tom Dawkins.

Submissions close Monday November 20, at 5pm EST. For more information on the project, what we're looking for and how to submit, go to the interface website

This project is possible due to the support of the Foundation for Young Australians and the Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

the lights in all the cities have now gone
restless hearts and minds are moving on
baby take the best escape for all
dunno if i'm coming back for more

came across this article talking about the victorian anti-homophobia policy and i have to say, despite the outcrys of family groups (which was going to happen anyway), i hail the victorian education department for taking the step to create a homophobia-focused policy. for a long time schools have bundled homophobia under blanket anti-harassment policies which failed to address the severity and frequency of sexuality-based bullying (note: this is not discounting the need to address other grounds for prejudice).

angela conway from australian family association victoria, like many of the other family organisations, reads the policy objective to "create and continually model a school environment that respects and celebrates diversity" as ""celebrate" homosexuailty in the classroom"; but it certainly doesn't say hail the queers to me!

equally, the family organisations seem to have determined at what age people determine sexual identity. i for one am not willing to definitively make such a call (i am not going ot get into the whole nature/nurture debate) so i would like to know what made them decide that "Younger kids are not worried or thinking about various sexual orientations."

conway also argues that "by highlighting sexuality, [the victorian education department will] encourage bullying." sounds like an excuse to keep progressive understandings of sexuality out of schools to me. in reading, writing and homophobia, an article i wrote last year in response to homophobia against a friend of mine, i argued the complete reverse to conway's claim.

[before i re-examine that argument, i want to point out, as i do in the article, that this is a male-orientated argument. i do not wish to undermine the frequency or effect of female-to-female homophobia in schools, but i can only speak on what i know]

in my mind, homophobia policy tends to be reactive, failing to address why homophobia is perpetrated in the first place. it is not always just about sexuality. often it is about gender identity as well. mainly because in schools hegemonic forms of masculinity are cultivated with an implicity culture of compulsory heterosexuality, and anyone who questions or stands in direct opposition to it (the subordinate masculinities (boys who do not exert the masculine 'ideal')) automatically become a target, regardless of their true sexuality. and why? because for the hegemonic straight boys, it becomes necessary to assert their masculinity, and therefore their heteronormativity, and to do so in a visual and oppressive way.

young men, particularly young straight men, need to understand that their gender and/or sexual identities are perfectly legitimate. that in order to exert their identity they do not need to control all other forms of masculine identity in the school yard. we need to reiterate to them the fact that one gender – namely hegemonic masculinity – does not need to subordinate all other alternative genders in order to legitimise itself. an more indepth understanding of masculinity and sexuality mayl help breaking down barriers which legitimise, in the students’ minds, grounds for harassment based on difference. if children can understand that identity is a personal thing, and that in order to feel secure in their own identity they do not need to subordinate other identities it will reduce the ground on which difference can be made an issue, and severely reduce the grounds for discrimination.

mark latham thinks we should all be "men" (what ever that is). his lecturing comes about because aparently releasing conga line of suckholes grants him authority to decide what masculinity is for australia (nay the world). it seems, in the latham rhetoric, that mates and good blokes are an endangered species. i say, so what? especially if you take head of the predictions of the gore effect sweeping the globe which warn of over a million species earmarked as "to be extinct" in the next 50 years. i say "blokes" is one species the planet could maybe do without.

ok enough of my hardline propaganderism. i don't really advocate the mass kulling of all hegemonic masculine men, but i hardly think that men as a category ar nothing but "nervous wrecks, metrosexual knobs and toss-bags". why is it that masculinity constantly needs to be cast in such a way. this alleged masculinity crisis 'making all our ol' boys nothing but bleeding poofters' (as someone i know said) is not a crisis at all. can't people see that bloke-like masculinity is only one way of identifying with 'being a man.' why do i need a white, middle-class, (ex-)ruling class wanker telling me how to be a man.

i'm also a little put of by some of the content in the book. for all the claim of mateship, in particular with joel fitzgibbon and julia gillard, latham details lots of talk about parliamentary tussling and power struggles, breaking of taxi-drivers' arms and watching pole dancers when a colleague committed suicide. is this the kind of behaviour latham attributes to being mates?

mind you it should also be noted that apparently latham has thrown mateship out the window; not responding to either pollie in recent times, in particular around this latest political slug-fest. fitzgibbon has "...tried to ring..." and "Gillard hasn't heard from Latham for months." for all his waffling about mateship, is he to be our role model?

i am currently reading thomas paine's rights of man: a biograhy by christopher hitchens for the program, and in the introduction it refers to a parody of the american ditty 'My Country, 'tis of thee' which starts:


God save great Thomas Paine,
His 'Rights of Man' explain
To every soul.
He makes the blind to see
What dupes and slaves they be,
And points out liberty
From pole to pole.
( rest of hymnCollapse )




but onto a criticism of mather's criticism: for all that joseph mather is criticising the claims to power and to oppressiveness of theocracies and claims to power via (alleged) divine sovereignty in the name of kings, his hymn sacralises the concepts of democracy, liberty and freedom. he attributes their value with a higher set of moral values (or jus naturale), which, has its roots (in one ideological school anyway) in religion (ie they are the laws given us by our God). his belief that democracy hails to a higher order, particularly an ordained one, is evidenced by the statement that the "good Lord" will save us from the hypocrisy of an aristocracy. clearly identity politics hadn't come about yet.

he holds paine up as if a messiah (well at least metaphorically) when he says, "He makes the blind to see" which is a miraculous ability often attributed with Jesus (mind you he does qualify this by saying that paine makes them see "What dupes and slaves they be"). equally, in the first stanza he says, "God save great Thomas Paine", which is a blessing bestowed upon monarchs (think 'God save the Queen').

and finally, the final lines in the final stanza - "Satan may lead the van, / And do the worse he can / Paine and his 'Rights of Man' / Shall be my song" - implies that democracy will prevail over 'evil' in a way that seems similar to beliefs that god's word will prevail. equally, the ideologically opposed icon to Satan is God, and in this stanza mather opposes the "bad" rule of religion and kings to the "good" rule of Paine and 'Rights of Man' (the link is then emphasised by the pairing of the despots with Satan).

his idea of planting liberty "through the universe" can be equated with the idea of universal law (which for some is seen as another way of describing natural law, although i argue it is more a hybrid of the traditional view of natural law and utilitarianism). even the reference to "Liberty's Tree" could be construed as a reference to the trees of Eden (but i guess the question is, is liberty the tree of life or the tree of knowledge?)

it is interesting that he also uses the phrase in the second stanza that those who are devout to Church and King "deserve to swing" which i take to mean deserve to be hung? it seems that people should die for not believing in democracy, which is a criticism he has of oppressive practices under theocracy.




and now, about the book itself: the discussion of freedom and the principles behind 'Rights of Man' that the book sets out to do is interestingly tarnished by the dedication which reads:


"Dedicated by permission to President Jalal Talabani: first elected president of the Republic of Iraq; sworn foe of fascism and theocracy; leader of a national revolution and a people's army. In the hope that his long struggle will be successful, and will inspire emulation."


americans seem obsessed with the idea that democracy is the only path to freedom (regardless of how oppressive their push to force other peoples around the world to take up the democratic ideology and system). with all the (mis)information around the "war on iraq/terrorism" practically all of the fifth stanza applies to george bush.

in a similar way to mather's inadvertent re-imbuing of democracy and (religious) morality, hitchens also imbues his biography and discussion of freedom with (an american ideological) morality.

i was getting ready to post an abridged version of the first voiceworks sex column waiting for sparky (which i will still do) but thought i would jump onto myspace first and there, on my login home page was an advert for manhunt.net, an online gay and bisexual male profiling website facilitating hook ups. now, there is some dubiousness around myspace placing such an ad, given that there are a large number of members on the site which are under the age of consent, but that aside, it seems quite interesting (and progressive) for a mainstream site (in the sense that it is owned by news corp limited) to run ads of a gay nature.

i wonder if these are targeted ads to people identifying as gay or bi?

here is an abridged version of the first voiceworks sex column waiting for sparky from the SUPERFUNHAPPY issue:

The point of this inaugural column is simple: boys are scared of sex toys. Now, I know that this is a massive generalisation, and while we’re generalising I am going to also say that for a society that seems to be so ‘sexed’ – think about the rhetoric around sex in advertising, sexual ‘liberation’, sex classes in secondary schooling, even think Big Brother controversy – we certainly have a conservative attitude towards “marital aides”, and men especially so.

( read the rest hereCollapse )

If you're in Brisbane you can get Voiceworks from the Queensland Art Gallery store and Rockinghorse Records. Check the voiceworks site for other stockists, contribution details and info about the project.

so i am on this website called linked in which is "an online network of ...experienced professionals from around the world..." i got a message from someone on it today asking if i would like to go out on a date with them sometime.

must be the myspace for business people :P

(if you're on it, feel free to link to me)

ok so i haven't been keeping you guys in the loop. i am now the sex columnist for voiceworks, sorry for not telling you all. well the first column is published: waiting for sparky is in the SUPERFUNHAPPY issue.

anyway, i am currently working on column 2 for the zero issue. i am writing zero sex, looking at celibacy and abstinence and how they fit into our contemporary understanding of sexuality. so what are your thoughts?

why is the entire world going crazy right now? disputing roommates, kissing neighbours, emo cutting, burst ear drums and death of "aussie icons". the planets are clearly not aligned, which is understandable given they ditched pluto.

walking up berwick street this morning on my way back from the vibewire office a cloud of white bean bag balls came streaming down the street. made me feel like i was in a monochromatic version of the bravia tv ad. was random.

well the roommate issue has resolved itself

after the tragic demise of one of the main characters on the mc at the season finale, the first *new* episode introduces three new characters, jordan, matt and kieran.

jordan is a kinda cute indie rocker looking guy with persuasions along the black metal and punk streams. he's a huge him fan, which makes lay very happy, although tests of faith and loyalty did ensue. he is very considerate, amusingly so. for example i asked my friend jack to get another bottle of wine from the kitchen and he jumped up and went to get it. so i then asked him to get my dinner too. lol. i said that he didn't have to do everything for us just because we decided he could move in and he said, "well i figured i should be considerate for the first few weeks." now lay and i intend to hold him to that :D i think jordan will take the upstairs bed room.

matt and kieran are a couple. matt is 20 and kieran is 17 and they just returned to brisbane from wellington. they are both very sweet boys and are cute together, even if they were doing the whole akward do let them see we're together thing. it made me smile cos our house is by far queer friendly. anyway, they are probably going to take the downstairs bedroom.

all three of them are nice and seem to be very cool. mind you it will be interested to a) live with a couple and b) live with all boys (but lay of course) when i am so used to living with all girls. we'll see how we go

but now i intend to redeem that.

i'm at the gym this morning and i'm jogging my little legs off and my iPod goes flat! goddam it!! so i am forced to listen to the r 'n' b stuff that fitness first has on. anyway, not a huge fan so i wasn't very impressed but anyway, this advert comes on the flat screens in front of me [and i will address the issue of advertising at fitness first in a moment - see below] advertising nivea visage's aqua sensation product. now of course there are all the usual issues of the 'beauty state' and 'everyone must be beautiful' shit that advertising rams down our throats, but there is something about this particular ad that made me much angrier; the soundtrack was le tigre! i can't think of many other things that are as ideologically divided as the beauty drive and feminist pop.

le tigre – who are absolutely awesome live and i would highly recommend should you get the chance to see them ever - are feminist pop musicians using their music to deal with issues facing women as well as queer issues. how does that fit with skin care? i mean, i wonder if nivea read le tigre's faqs before making the decision to use the track. eg:

"WHAT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU: THE MUSIC OR THE POLITICS?
This question drives us crazy! The music is not separate from our political ideas and we really can't choose one or the other. We don't think that art or music can replace political activism, but we think it can be an important part of a culture of resistance so that social change feels possible. We want to make great music that radical people can recognize their values in, because that is what we ourselves crave."

and where exactly is the radical values in nivea visage skin care products? what is political and/or resistancy about being guilted into using skin care products to feed the body beautiful and youth fetish of society? i wonder what exactly drew nivea to feminist pop music, and whether they can also see the tragic irony of this strange courtship.

what ever happened to the moral right of integrity i wonder?



on the issue of advertising at fitness first, to be honest i hate it. firstly, when i am sweaty and unappealing and working out i really don't want to see ads for pest extermination and noodles companies, or restaurants and television shows either. the world is jam packed with enough advertising material, i really don't need/want it when i'm hunched over, groaning and sweating!

secondly, as a paying member of any organisation, i really resent being sold off to advertisers when i am paying to be there! surely the fact that i have opted to pay to be in a space to work out would imply i am not interested in buying products at that very moment. makes me wonder what fitness first consider their core business; individual fitness or selling advertising space to a captive audience that they have guilted into being there by playing off society's 'too fat' and 'too lazy' mentality.

along the bottom of the screen it says something like 'audiences all day long' or something to that effect! i can't believe that they are openly refering to their members as an audience, especially in front of that audience!


ps i really have to stop letting people take photos of me trashed!



me with ben on brunswick street mall





x-posted on vibewire blog + myspace blog

saw something that nearly made me cry today. was walking past universal in the valley and they had what looked like a canterbury football jersey or polo shirt or whatever which has 'maxwell deamon' written on the front! like what the?! what does a bowie/iggy pop inspired, gorgeous, bisexual glam-rocker have to do with universal?

last nite i watched little black book with carla. it was one of the worst films i have ever seen in all time! in all time!! crappy, crappy acting. and a story line as weak as pissing in a bucket of water.

anyway, despite being the crappiest film ever made, there was one really interesting part of the film:

WARNING SHOULD YOU WANT TO ACTUALLY SEE THE FILM (AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I CAN THINK OF ANY POSSIBLE REASON WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO BUT STILL) DO NOT READ FURTHER, IT WILL RUIN THE MOVIE

ok so stacy (brittany murphy) gets tempted by her own insecurities and by her new workmates (barb (holly hunter) and ira (kevin sussman)) at a jerry springer style 'reality' tv show to look thru her boyfriend derek's (ron livingstone) palm pilot when he leaves it at home while away on a trip. in her snooping she comes across info about past girlfriends which don't seem to be so past. recent calls, picnic dates, photographs; all since stacy and derek had gotten together.

on barb’s advice, she sets about meeting them, finding out what she can about derek and his past relationships. and as she messes about making up lies and manipulating three of his past girlfriends she becomes more and more drawn into their lives, in particular that of derek's love-of-his-life joyce (julianne nicholson).

the four women become entangled until eventually stacy tricks the three woman into coming into the studio for different reasons.

anyway, in the meantime at work the studio is preparing for the yearly live episode and barb is chosen to produce. you soon find out why barb was pushing stacy to delve deeper into derek’s past. at the eleventh hour before the live show a confused and self-obsessed stacy finds herself thrust on stage where, amidst the line of chairs and the game-show-host line of comments and questioning, stacy realises that barb has sold her out and turned her little situation into the live show!

now before you start on your 'barb’s a fucking bitch' rant let me explain why i really loved this part of the film. as the chaos and emotions let fly, what i really liked was how barb handled this. she truly was the producer. she wanted to create truely spontaneous reality television. she brings in each of the women, and derek, but when you think the backstabbing can go no further barb does the most brilliant and unthinkable thing; she turns the attention onto the washed-up show host and onto the head producer. the behind-back deals, the intentional character assassination, the undermining, all of it. barb, who is standing on a table in the control centre calling out demands, has but one aim: to expose o the world the true realities of such tv shows and their production. she delightfully choreographs the public gutting of a popular tv show as cameras and people and accusations go flying in all directions. and of course she gets into the fray herself, coming back stage to greet a camera-tailed barb.

and the line that makes it all worth it is her response to being told by a collegue she "will be fired for this": "how can i top this anyway?"

the concept was fantastic. she manipulated everyone for the sake of destablising the boundaries between reality and tv reality. she wanted to turn the camera's eye onto those on stage as much as those behind it.