Ovation Channel's Disgusting Sound
Someone at the Ovation Channel needs more than a slap around the ears for broadcasting Vittorio Grigolo's 'Dreams of Rome'. Vittorio would be infuriated too if he knew what was happening.
Ovation Channel aired this superb singer's concert tonight at 19:30. So what has angered me so much? The sound!
It was awful, muffled, pumping compression throughout. Such sound is impossible to listen to. No one with an ounce of good taste could put himself or herself through this abysmal sound, and I had to switch channels. I owed Vittorio that much. Ovation has done this before to Vittorio, but I didn't complain.
Many years ago, while working in television, I had cause to call an FCC (Final Control Centre) directly to blast them over a major blunder. One seldom bypasses the appropriate management channels, but stuffing up the sound on 'my' Shirley Bassey concert earned them enough demerit points to send them to hell. The issue was as simple as Dolby settings.
Audio in the broadcasting industry is not as simple as inserting a home CD. That is why highly-trained professionals are employed to do the work. Their jobs are to ensure that we get the highest available quality when we tune in.
If the fault lay with a DVD or tape, the Vittorio concert should not have been broadcast. The error should have been noted the first time around.
Why did the Ovation Channel not offer any apology? Somewhere in the mix, is pure, unjustifiable incompetence.
There can be no excuses, whatever the reason.
Absolutely shocking sound
Update:
I have been told that the problem lay with the source material provided by Universal. The matter is being dealt with, and perhaps we'll see a re-screening of Vittorio Grigolo's masterpiece show in the near future.
Selfish 60 Year-Old Mother
While she may have hit the news for her so-called "achievement", Frieda Birnbaum may be consider by many to be nothing less than a selfish old bitch, and I would agree.
Now I don't consider sixty as being old, but I do believe it's far too old to have children, for women and men. The 60 year-old American woman gave birth to twin boys on Tuesday 22 May 2007, the oldest woman to do so in the USA.
Now Frieda Birnbaum should be utterly ashamed of what she has done, but she obviously only considers her feelings. According to the New York Daily News, even her adult son Jason, and daughter Alana, "are appalled". "My mother is too old", Alana said. "I don't think she's thinking about the future - being 80 or 90 and having a kid." They're also concerned that they will end up taking care of the babies.
The physical and health issues are only one side of the argument. What I have not seen mentioned, is the psychological and emotional impact that having such an old mother would have on the kids later on.
It's enough that children have to deal with the age gap - mums and dads who don't relate to music trends, fashion, friends etc - without throwing into the mix an elderly, frail, old lady as mother. Children are often the targets of abuse and teasing while growing up. These twins will later have to deal with being taunted by their peers, as well as feeling embarassed because of their mother's age.
Frieda Birnbaum should understand all this, because she's a psychologist. I guess a degree doesn't buy you brains.
It became quite obvious to me, through the way she spoke in interviews, just how self-centred Frieda Birbnaum is. Everything was I..., I..., I.... She referred to now feeling complete. Goodness, she's already had three children. How more complete does she need to be, and at whose expense?
Frieda Birnbaum and her husband, Ken, a New York attorney, have been married for 38 years. The babies were delivered by Dr Abdulla al-Khan after Frieda underwent in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) on a trip to Cape Town last year.
Frieda Birnbaum with Dr Abdulla al-Khan
Open Letter to:
Malcom Speed (Chief Executive International Cricket Council)
cc: Brian Murgatroyd (Manager - Media and Communications)
Mr Speed
You have stated that "it is not the role of the ICC to make political judgments," and that its "role is to ensure that the game of cricket is played wherever possible".
Sir, this board has a greater moral responsibility to human rights than anything else. As humans, none of us can stand back and rub our hands of what is going on in Zimbabwe by claiming our duties lie elsewhere.
Pre-Apartheid South Africa was isolated from international cricket and other sports for 20 years. This situation is NO different, because the underlying moral purpose of those boycotts were not about black and white, but about the fight for human dignity and equality.
We all HAVE to stand together, in whatever way we can as individuals, to to try and end the suffering created by a monstrous baboon and his tyrannical regime.
Some may only be able to send letters or sign petitions. Others may be able to exert greater financial or political pressure.
Yours should now be to make a courageous stand to end any further international cricket games against Zimbabwe, once and for all, and this should remain in place until that murdering Robert Mugabe is no longer in office.
To ignore this, would be no different to what Ali Bacher did to satisfy himself and a minority, by circumventing what most people around the world wanted and expected.
Mr Speed, I can guarantee that upwards of seventy percent of Australians would be opposed to playing cricket against Zimbabwe. I don't think that I need to point out their reasons.
Boycotts will not change things in Zimbabwe overnight, but by hell you have to play your part too.
Labels: Human Rights
RNSH Attempt Illegal Detention
Mr Bede Thompson and Dr Margot Phillips of Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, attempted to hold 3 people against their will Wednesday night 3 May 2006.
A good friend of mine (my partner's nephew) went to the hospital of his volition on advice from a counsellor about some emotional issues. At the time he was stable, but like most of us, had issues that need addessing. He waited from around 2pm until about 9pm to see a doctor. After the consultation, two hospital personnel attempted to prevent him and his 2 family members from leaving. A major row erupted which resulted in my having to call 000 to get the police there on advise from my attorney.
After being asked whether or not the 'patient' was a danger to himself or the community, the doctor replied "NO! "The doctors were then advised that under the Mental Health Act of 1990, they had no right to detain the individual.
Police called to the scene included Constable Almond from Chatswood. The 3 were eventually released when they were told they had no legal basis for holding any of the three.
Section 9 (1) & (2) of the Mental Health Act states:
(1) A person is a mentally ill person if the person is suffering from mental illness and, owing to that illness, there are reasonable grounds for believing that care, treatment or control of the person is necessary:
- for the person’s own protection from serious harm, or
- for the protection of others from serious harm.
(2) In considering whether a person is a mentally ill person, the continuing condition of the person, including any likely deterioration in the person’s condition and the likely effects of any such deterioration, are to be taken into account.
One of my reasons for finally divulging this information is because another friend of mine has just experienced something similar, when security guards at Prince of Wales Hospital were sent after him for leaving the hospital after he received shocking service from nurses.
Labels: Public Health
