Peter H. Gleick: Celebrities and Bottled Water: Spoiled, Misinformed, or Just Plain Weird

The explosive growth in bottled water use by Americans, and indeed, much of the rest of the world, is due to many factors, including both unfounded and legitimate concerns about tap water, disappearing water fountains from our public spaces, misleading and false advertising, and a desire to emulate our famous (and infamous) public figures. We used to drink 1 gallon of bottled water a year, on average. Now it is nearly 30 gallons a year per person. These issues are all addressed in the book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water, along with the serious environmental and energy consequences of our bottled water use.

More and more, we are seeing celebrities drinking bottled water, carrying bottled water in public, or even hawking bottled water for a fee. It is hard to miss the huge advertising blitz with Jennifer Aniston for Smart Water, in a deal that is no doubt worth millions to her (I’ve heard one million, I’ve heard four million, I’ve heard stock options: does anyone actually know? A million dollars will drill more than 300 water wells in Africa).

Celebrities live in a different world, where they come to expect special treatment. Perhaps the weirdest expression of this is seen in the bottled water demands in contracts and riders that celebrities require when they perform, or speak, or otherwise appear in public. We’ve all heard about the recent demands of Sarah Palin for two bottles of “unopened still water” with “bendable straws” (on top of her demand for a specific kind of private jet on top of her $75,000 plus speaker fee). She’s not the only politician to be picky about bottled water. As Vice President, Dick Cheney insisted on 4-6 bottles of water in his room, along with two bottles of “Sparkling water (Calistoga or Perrier)” if his wife accompanied him. Of course, Cheney also required that “All televisions [in his hotel rooms] tuned to FOX News…” lest he accidently see other sources of news and information. Senator John Kerry wanted his bottled water “uncarbonated. Poland Spring preferred. No Evian.”

But there are lots more strange demands (thanks to the Smoking Gun for collecting and displaying a great collection of celebrity contracts and demands):

During his 2003 Poodle Hat Tour “Weird Al” Yankovic demanded bottled water in his dressing room but insisted that it NOT be Dasani water. In contrast, Kelly Clarkson insists that her water BE Dasani (though her band apparently wants Fiji Water).

AC/DC asked for both Evian and spring water (in addition to 3 oxygen tanks and 3 masks).

Mary J. Blige insists on Fiji water “absolutely, positively must be FIJI” at room temperature.

As part of the flight arrangements for Tiger Woods and his wife Elin Nordegren in 2004, the contract specified “Mr. Tiger Woods drinks liter bottles of Evian cold… Ms. Nordegren drinks Fiji room temperature…”

Christina Aguilera wants Arrowhead, along with L’Occitane vanilla-scented candles with matches, 4 black bath towels, and Veuve Clicquot champagne.

For a while, Madonna insisted on having bottles of special Kabbalah water at her photo shoots and appearances. She may still.

Other celebrity bottled water demands? Clay Aiken (“anything but Evian”); Brooks and Dunn (“spring water for the local crew; Evian or Napa… iced down for the artists”); Kris Allen (20 bottles of “SmartWater…No Dasani or Aquafina”); the Jonas Brothers (“6 bottles Vitaminwater (yellow, red, orange)”); Mariah Carey (mineral water so she and her dog can bathe in it. Oh, and she also wants bendy straws); Britney Spear’s 2000 tour insisted on dozens of bottles of Evian, though in 2005 she went through a Kabbalah phase when Madonna switched from Evian to Kabbalah.

And there are even some efforts by a few celebrities to be, at least a little, environmentally sensitive: In 2008, Pearl Jam asked for bottled water, but “preferably ETHOS water, no Aquafina, Dasani, or Evian.” Ethos Water is sold by Starbucks and some of the profits are given to help fund drinking water projects in developing countries. Sheryl Crow, who tries hard to be green, insisting on recyclable, biodegradable, and organic stuff, asks for backstage “watering stations,” with water that “must be sourced from a local spring water vendor,” though she also asks for Perrier water, owned by Nestle.

We want to know what celebrities are doing, who they are dating, and even what water they are drinking. And we want to imitate them: do what they do, eat what they eat, drink what they drink. If we’re going to look up to them as role models at all, wouldn’t it be nice if they were good ones?

Peter Gleick
Pacific Institute

Read more: "Weird Al" Yankovic, Britney Spears, Fiji Water, Madonna, Kelly Clarkson, Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession With Bottled Water, Dick Cheney, Sheryl Crow, Evian, Pearl Jam, Jennifer Aniston, John Kerry, Mariah Carey, Sarah Palin, Tiger Woods, Elin Nordegren, Christina Aguilera, Aquafina, Dasani, Bottled Water, Green News

Lady Gaga Hospitalized Repeatedly For Dangerous Dieting?

Internationally celebrated for her wildly original performances, Lady Gaga may have a wildly unoriginal habit: going hungry to look good onstage. A new biography penned by Maureen Callahan, ‘Poker Face: The Rise and Rise of Lady Gaga,’ reveals startling claims about the seemingly confident singer, according to RadarOnline.

Gaga’s former tour manager, David Ciemny, alleges in the book that the 24-year-old binged on junk food when not depriving herself of calories altogether. And he claims that in 2009 alone, the Grammy winner landed in the hospital six times while dieting to slim down. Not once, not twice, but six times last year.

Read more: Lady GaGa, Lady Gaga Diet, Celebrity Body, Entertainment News

Sunil Sharan: Enemy in Need can be Friend Indeed

Come hell or high water, India and Pakistan’s leaders continually nose-thumb one another. Each snub is met with a counter-snub; every kindness by suspicion and prickliness. Memories of ghosts past inspire cold shoulders today. Would the enemy crow about its magnanimity for all time to come? Might acceptance of help be construed by the other as weakness to be parlayed into future gain? Or, worst perhaps of all, would public opinion shift and make redundant much of the carefully-constructed paraphernalia of conflict?

Pakistan started getting inundated in late July. Only two weeks later, on August 13, with much of the country deluged, did India extend an offer of $5 million in aid. Predictably, Pakistan stonewalled. Both countries had swallowed pride before to accept assistance in kind after massive earthquakes, but taking pity money now was stooping just too low. And, funnily enough, the man who wrote the check, India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, did not once bother to commiserate with his neighbour in his Independence Day address two days later. Instead, like a stuck record, he once again cautioned Pakistan against fomenting terrorism in his country. For a man being hailed globally as a model of grace and humility, this was no shining moment.

Hackles raised, Pakistan dug in. Already paralyzed by bomb blasts, ground war, air strikes, a plane crash, and with a huge chunk of the country now deluged, was the country in any position to terrorize anyone? Moreover, its image in the West as the house of terror, a portrait etched to perfection by India, was already coming in the way of flood relief. A new imbroglio was thus created. Only a phone call from Manmohan Singh to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan and a nudge, oops, more like a shove, from the Americans were able to resolve it. Gilani acquiesced in the subcontinental fashion, wherein ‘yes’ is often mouthed when ‘no’ is actually meant, and seemingly sealed the deal by sending choice mangoes to Singh.

While the mangoes were no doubt delicious, the money itself was presumed to be rancid. Gilani’s government went into contortions. Well, like bitter medicine, it had to be taken, but how to imbibe it? Direct ingestion would churn the stomach too much. Finally the via media of the UN was suggested and accepted without fuss. This time round India loosened its purse-strings by upping the offer to $25 million, and Pakistan showed tact in not balking.

The India-Pakistan side-show had once again stolen the thunder from the main task at hand, to get the world to come to Pakistan’s aid quickly and generously. Reams of global newsprint and gobs of cyberspace instead focused on the countries’ visceral mutual dislike, which always seems to make for fascinating copy and against whose powers even force majeure withers away. Noted commentators on both sides got into the act. Oh, how low can we go to accept money soaked with Kashmiri blood? We must not allow them to grandstand before the world. To show how caring they are and how much better off Kashmir would be with them.

The other side pulled no punches either. The money would go to the Taliban, who in turn would storm in on horse-hoofs and balkanize India. This must surely be the most potent $5 million in history! Others cussed at the churlishness of the Pakistanis. Look at them, beggars affording to be choosers, and when we extend a hand, instead of grasping it gratefully, they slap it. All they think about is Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir.

All the while the lives and livelihoods of millions were being washed away. Helping Haiti had become somewhat de rigueur for the world. So many global celebrities got into the act that fundraisers were held as far away as India. But even a candle isn’t being lighted by the country, at least visibly, when it comes to Pakistan.

Granted that public giving in response to disasters is somewhat removed from the subcontinental psyche. What after all is the government for? But many Indians hail from across the border and ramble on and on about a shared heritage and pleasant memories. Wagah, the India-Pakistan border post, has no dearth of candle-lighters ushering in peace. Bear-hugs and lavish meals abound whenever cricket teams and fans cross over. But if a crisis of such magnitude doesn’t shake people’s apathy, of what good is all the faux amity?

Or, perhaps Indians have decided it best to shy away from all things Pakistani? If Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan could have brickbats rain on him for innocuous comments made in favor of Pakistan earlier this year, imagine what fate could befall on lesser people. Some of India’s Muslims must surely want to mobilize relief for what in many instances are families and friends in the proximate country. Bucking the majoritarian trend can often invite peril though.

Global warming is hot but its effects have remained so far in the speculative domain. Many experts are now talking about a causal link between climate change and the devastation wrought in Pakistan. Sure, the river Indus is long and mighty, but no less so are its counterparts in India, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra. Who can say where nature will go awry next?

While the UN plays an intermediary role, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is conspicuously missing in action. The body has been reduced to issuing banal statements once in a while. At best, it has served to bring India and Pakistan together when at their antagonistic worst. South Asia is no stranger to natural calamities. Why doesn’t SAARC establish a relief corpus to be funded by member countries and others? Much of the unseemliness witnessed recently would then be avoided. And, enemies in need might just be able to become friends.

Read more: Floods, Yousaf Raza Gilani, India, South Asia, War on Terror, Bollywood, Terrorism, Pakistan, United Nations, Angelina Jolie, Pakistan Floods, Taliban, Barack Obama, Kashmir, Haiti Earthquake, Manmohan Singh, Haiti, Haiti Earthquake Relief, Hillary Clinton, Un, Shah Rukh Khan, Saarc, Water, Hurricane Katrina, World News

Dr. Logan Levkoff: Sex Week Comes Under Fire: College Students Shouldn’t Talk About Sex

The latest attack on sex comes from Margaret Brooks, in her Chronicle of Higher Education article entitled, Sex Week Should Arouse Caution Most of All. Even the Washington Post picked up on the unnecessary hysteria.

But this time sexuality educators aren’t being chastised for their work with kindergarten students, we are being called out for our work on college campuses.

Seriously.

So let me be perfectly transparent. I am (and will continue to be) a Sex Week speaker. I have been a participant in Sex Week at Yale (both 2008 and 2010), Sex Week at Northeastern, as well as many other universities and colleges. I have lectured on a range of subjects, including The Sexual Double Standard and its Impact on Relationships, The Mysteries of the Female Orgasm, The Portrayal of Masturbation: Past and Present, and The Challenges and Opportunities of The Hook-Up Culture, just to name a few.

Brooks’ suggestion that Sex Week’s sole purpose is to sell sex toys and pornography is irresponsible and incorrect. But I suppose it shouldn’t come as a surprise. We live in a culture where sexuality is demonized. If you are curious about sex (or god forbid do “it”) you are labeled a “slut”. If you are a woman who is found to be carrying condoms in Washington, D.C. you may be arrested for prostitution. Is it any wonder that college students are begging to have an intellectual forum to discuss all the intricacies and nuances about sexuality in our culture? Where else except on a college campus can multiple groups with multiple needs be given a voice and a venue to discuss pressing issues?

We are all sexual beings; sex is neither a dirty nor bad word. Sexuality is a key component in literature, history, politics, religion, and pop culture. Perhaps some people don’t think that it is an important subject to talk about in a critical or intellectual forum. That’s your prerogative. However, if we had some intelligent forums to talk about the range of issues found in sexuality, we wouldn’t have such an overwhelming need to seek out this information in unhealthy ways. (That’s where Sex Week comes in — whether Brooks like it or not, it is an intelligent forum.)

But I am not in the aforementioned camp. I believe that sexuality is as important a subject as anything else, even more so.

My work on college campuses is meaningful, beneficial, and in the end, increases the overall well being and health of those who attend my lectures. And those audience members are the only ones I am accountable to. And on a health note: to suggest — as Brooks does — that there is a problem with giving out free condoms is unconscionable. Have we ever looked at the U.S. rates of STIs and HIV? Teen pregnancy? If students (especially those who are over the age of 18 and fully capable of making independent decisions about sex) want condoms, give them out!!!

As I book my year of college lectures (including Sex Weeks at a variety of campuses), I am disheartened by the juvenile hysteria brought about by Brooks, but confident that I (and others like me) will continue to do our work…and do it well.

Read more: Sex Week at Yale, Logan Levkoff, Relationships, College, Sex Education, Sexuality, Sex, Living News

Holly Cara Price: Rubbernecking: Project Runway Episode 6, “You Can Totally Wear That Again”

As we re-enter the wacky world of the Runway Projectors this week, we’re treated to Michael D in bed chirping “Good morning” followed by, “it’s like being trapped in hell.” Which reminds me I’ve been meaning to make note of the atlas housing arrangements, who is bunking with who and like that. So here’s how that shakes out at the moment:
– Michael D, Casanova, Mondo, and Christopher (can you imagine the trash talking here)
– April, Peach (who seem to be brothers from different mothers…so to speak)
– Ivy, Valerie, Gretchen (hell’s bells, this is a beeyotch fest)
– Andy, Michael C (there is literally NO ONE who likes Michael C, including Andy)

Casanova’s just content at the moment to have immunity from last week’s win. Michael C is smarting from the Under-The-Bus-Throwathon last week (to camera: “bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep them all”). Ivy’s still kissing Gretchen’s ass, but behind her back opining to Valerie that she thinks the Tim speech last week was good for G and provided a reality check. Valerie diplomatically says that G has a strong personality and she tends to fall into a leadership role without realizing it. Meanwhile Gretchen pouts to camera, “I’m not a manipulative person and it really, really hurt my feelings to have Tim say that to me. It kind of clouds my vision a little bit.”

Off to Runwayville for the word on the next challenge. Enter La Klum, who tells them that this week’s challenge is to re-invent the world’s ugliest bridesmaid dresses into a fashionable look for the women who wore them and were told, as all bridesmaids are, “you can totally wear that again.” Eleven women join Heidi onstage in their dresses, which range from icky to disgusting in both fabric choice and color. This is where I notice that Ivy has the most shrill, horrible laugh.

Bridesmaid Dresses from Hell
2010-09-05-bridesmaids.jpg

Since Casanova won last week he gets first choice so he goes for a tall, model-proportioned girl named Julia. Heidi opens the black bag of doom to select the next designer to choose, which turns out to be Mondo (on whom I admit to having a big schoolgirl crush right now even though he obviously plays for the other team). Mondo chooses a tanned Jersey girl, Amanda, because her dress is a rosy pink and he likes the color. It’s not until she sashays off the runway that we see that there’s a weird ugly white laced up panel in the back. Mondo: “Now I’m sweating.”

Of course the last girl standing is the zaftig Jacleen. Michael D gets her by default as his is the last name out of the bag. “It’s a date,” he quips. “Alright, can’t wait,” returns Jacleen gamely. Meanwhile you know no one chose her because they don’t have the first idea how to make clothes that aren’t for tall, lithe models.

Jacleen ready for her date with destiny
2010-09-05-jacleendatewithdestiny.jpg

Back to the workroom, where the dresses are placed on their dressforms at everyone’s space. Tim comes in and commiserates, “I have to tell you something, these are terrifying looking garments….what’s wrong with the bridesmaid dress industry, I ask you.” They get a 30-minute consultation with their new clients and then off to Mood with a budget of $50 to buy up to two yards of additional fabric. The caveat: they have to use most of the original dress in the design.

Christopher’s model has cold feet so a new victim has been chosen for him. April worries that her model is not open to her aesthetic and is too demanding. Michael C says it’s fun when you have a client you can relate to (at this point it’s probably fun to be able to relate to anyone since he’s in Cold Shoulderville – I feel bad for him). Peach gives her model runway walking lessons. Michael D talks about the challenges of designing for a woman “who’s a little more …um… voluptuous – it has the tendency to go really, really wrong.”

Tim is adorably 5th-grade-teacher-y as they go off to shop at Mood: “Yay! Follow me.”
During the shopping trip Michael D decides to buy upholstery fabric in order to get more yardage. It’s obvious he’s freaking about designing for a larger size woman, but he’s keeping it together for the cameras. “I don’t even want my girl’s size to be a conversation topic,” he says. “I think she has a wicked curvaceous body.”

For some reason this is the episode of do-rags. Valerie and Andy both sport one during their sewing day, see below
2010-09-05-doragcrew.jpg
and on the runway day Michael D wears one that makes him look like an extra in Gone With the Wind. Do you think I’m kidding? See for yourself.
2010-09-05-michaelddorag.jpg

Valerie thinks that Michael C will wow the judges, who all think they’re crazy for thinking he’s talentless. Here I have to ask; why do they hate on Michael C so badly? He doesn’t appear to be a vicious backstabbing beeyotch like G, or a conniving kiss ass like Ivy. But there is not one designer that’s on his side. Even Casanova, who gives him a friendly shove and says he’s talented, is all nodding assent when everyone starts to trash talk on him. Likewise Peach – the show’s mom figure – is down on Michael C. Is there something on the editing room floor we don’t know about?

Speaking of editing, in an attempt to make us believe that Gretchen is not the stone cold beeyotch we all know now she really is, we get to eavesdrop this week on her videocam call to her mother. G is homesick and her mom advises her you can do this, to stick with it, tremendous opportunity etc. “My mom is one of my best friends,” G tells us. The call reminds her that she needs to stay focused on her work. Meanwhile Christopher has stayed her little lap dog, he was “crushed” when Tim made those comments at the end of last week’s show. “There’s not a malicious bone in her body,” Christopher says.

Enter La Gunn for Check In Time. G looks apprehensive, like she is being made to pet a dog that bit her. Tim comes over to her station first and the background music waxes a bit overdramatic. Tim likes what she’s doing but says she needs to guard against something that could look too athletic. G thanks him for his august advice and carries on.

Tim points out to Michael D how much of an honor and a privilege it is to design for someone who’s not a size 6. “I’m excited about it, you don’t even know,” says Michael D in such a way that I know he’s lying his ass off. He’s considering covering the front with a black netting which Tim thinks looks like a great big oversized bra. This can’t end well.

2010-09-05-oversizebra.jpg

Mondo’s got a sixties mod thing going, “I’m actually crazy about it,” says Tim. (At this point I’m daydreaming about Mondo moving into my house when I make my first million and designing outfits for me full time).

Teen Heartthrob Time
2010-09-05-teenheartthrobtime.jpg

I’m a little over Valerie, who’s too much into ganging up against Michael C for my taste and who also seems to be going too far into BadTasteville with her garment this week. Tim tells her it’s looking as far away from fashion as one can get and “looking more like clothes” (the way he says the word clothes sounds like it’s synonymous with vomit).

Peach is struggling with an awful gauzy print she chose for the top above the green pencil skirt. She’s thinking of adding some peplum to the bottom, at which Tim audibly groans, but agrees she does need something to break it up. Valerie to camera: “it’s a very ruffly grandma print paisley dress.”

Christopher’s challenge is to make his girl’s fabric not look like curtains, which it actually does. Curtains hanging in Liberace’s mansion in Las Vegas. Tim likes the way Casanova’s look is going, “there’s something sporty about it….I like this blouson.” Casanova comes back with his now trademark comment: Ek-saaaak-lee, ek-sak-lee.” (Check out mashup below of “Exactly,” by Casanova, from the Project Runway website)

Curveball time! Tim makes an announcement that tomorrow will not be a runway day but instead there will be a designer showcase with hundreds of people attending. Valerie wants to know if they will be real people (as opposed to…?). The designers will present their models and designs to the guests, who will vote on their favorite outfits. This will factor into the next day’s judging.

The ex-bridesmaids come in for a fitting. Michael C was on the fence about the lace top that his model wanted but decided she’s right and he’s going to add it. Peach is “in a little bit of a Peach panic” because she made a cutting error on the skirt and doesn’t have enough fabric left to fix it. She knows she’ll be in the bottom but thinks (hopes) there are worse garments this week. She doesn’t know if real people will like the dress because she herself doesn’t like it. (Gretchen to her roomies: Peach might be “caught up with”)

At the showcase each of them has a small stage where their client stands in the redesigned outfit next to a photo of what it looked like before. There’s also a tip jar people will put buttons into if they like the garment. Tim advises them to “engage” and “seduce” the guests.

The crowd ends up loving Michael C and Mondo’s looks. Michael D gets one button. G tells the folks that the bib like top she made is all handpainted and the look is versatile – could be worn with jeans and a blazer or could be office appropriate. I honestly question her taste level. Plus, as Michael C points out, there is serious side boobage going on.

He’s not kidding
2010-09-05-sideboobage.jpg

Ivy has it in her mind that Michael C is poisoning people against her and telling them she’s the bitch of the show. Is it me or is there more bitchiness than usual this season?

Gretchen feeds into Ivy’s paranoia by telling her that Michael C is trying to figure out how to break her. When Andy asks Michael C if he was telling people not to vote for Ivy, Michael flat out denies it. “I would never ever do that.” He decides he’s going to talk to her about it. Ivy says she’s not going to confront him so she can conserve her energy and focus on getting to the end of the competition. When he does confront her the next day she brushes it off.

The morning of the runway show, Peach is feeling more confident because of the public’s reaction to her dress although she’s in a snit because the skirt still needs to be finished. As they all run around finishing up their garments and making revisions here and there, Tim comes in to reel off the product placements (my favorite: “use the Piperlime accessory wall very thoughtfully.”)

Runway Showtime. Our guest judge this week is Cynthia Rowley, who as it happens just launched a collection of bridesmaid dresses, quel coincidence. Casanova’s gone quite debonair in a vest, white shirt, and tie with a natty chapeau. April’s hair is down for once, which looks much better, kind of Gwen Stefani-ish. Peach is in my least favorite of her looks, the shopping mall looking pink sweater with the tiny eyeglasses all over it. Michael D’s sporting the Butterfly McQueen do-rag. Andy’s got a brand new Mohawk. As Cynthia Rowley is announced, Gretchen waves, clearly thrilled, and gives her a geeky fist pump.

2010-09-05-geekyfistpump.jpg

It’s time for the show. Mondo‘s way pleased with his look, “the bridesmaid’s dress was a catastrophe, this dress is a miracle.” My thoughts? This boy is a freaking genius. This is so so cute. I love the hair because it’s very retro sixties (the judges don’t as you’ll see). She looks like she just walked off the set of Hullabaloo. Along with our model looks this week I’m going to give you the before of their garments, except for Christopher, who had no before photo.

2010-09-05-mondoamandabefore.jpg
2010-09-05-mondofinal.jpg

Ivy‘s a little concerned over the fit of her model’s pants. For my money, this is a pretty good transformation of an ugly bridesmaid’s gown.

2010-09-05-ivylaurabefore.jpg
2010-09-05-ivyfinal.jpg

Valerie thinks her model looks great but Nina has that knitted brow look like what was she thinking – and this is not a look you ever want NG to have. I am hard pressed to believe that talented Valerie did this, it’s so unattractive.

2010-09-05-valeirelenabefore.jpg
2010-09-05-valeriefinal.jpg

Gretchen‘s model has a weird twotone bib top and the skirt looks like it was burnt with an iron, plus the thigh high boots. I’m starting to realize G has an unhealthy fascination with high boots.

2010-09-05-gretchenlateefahbefore.jpg
2010-09-05-gretchfinal.jpg

Peach sees her model coming down the runway and expresses, “…I think for the love of God and all that’s holy what did I do to this girl.” Peach doesn’t look at the judges because she’s afraid of the look on MK’s face. Oh, triple ick. The skirt is wayyyyy too short. And the top…well, let’s let the shredding take place by the experts. One thing I have to say though, bra straps along with the halter top…not so much.

2010-09-05-peacherikabefore.jpg
2010-09-05-pechfinal.jpg

Andy‘s having second thoughts on his outfit, the shorts needed to be shorter perhaps but he feels the overall look is really good, really strong. Michael D: “She’s going to take your husband away.” To me, this looks so so boring. Far from a clubbing outfit which is what Tim said in the workroom, more like she’s going to do laundry on a summer afternoon on the lower east side. Am I crazy?

2010-09-05-andykimbefore.jpg
2010-09-05-andyfinal.jpg

As his girl walks down the runway, Michael C is looking only at Nina’s face. “She looks at my dress and she puts the little card over her head and I was like, OHMYGOD IT’S TOO SHORT, I’m dying inside, that’s it, I’m going home.” I admit I’m impressed by this dress, especially made by someone the other designers keep saying has no talent.

2010-09-05-micahelbrookebefore.jpg
2010-09-05-michaelcfinal.jpg

Christopher‘s girl walks the plank. G tells him it’s really well made which must be her way of being nice or something. I think he did an admirable job with a flouncy dress that looked like curtains.

2010-09-05-chrisfinal.jpg

Michael D‘s model is next. The hair up looks too severe. She looks matronly. Not a look you would ever want to have, least of all on a runway. Heidi looks frankly puzzled. Michael D: “If they send me home they send me home. I’m not going to cry.” Jacleen deserved better.

2010-09-05-michaeldjackleenbefore.jpg
2010-09-05-michaeldfinal.jpg

Casanova likes his model’s look. He thinks making a dress from a dress is expected – but to make motorcycle pants from a bridesmaid’s dress is unexpected. I like this look, the colors are cute, and I really like the half boots he chose for the model to wear.

2010-09-05-casajuliabefore.jpg
2010-09-05-casafinal.jpg

April is totally thrilled by her model, who walks like she knows her way around a runway. “Oh my God, she’s so fierce.” I haven’t been very impressed by April, in fact was surprised she made it this far, but she did well with this.

2010-09-05-aprilchristinabefore.jpg
2010-09-05-aprilfinal.jpg

April, Ivy, Andy, Gretchen, and Casanova are declared safe and go off to the dishing area to dish on who’s on the top and who’s on the bottom. It’s another Michael C hatefest. April thinks he’s in the bottom. G says there are construction issues with his dress – “you can’t do a zipper, a swoop, lace and satin – COME ON!” Ivy says he’s kind of all over the place. April and Casanova just nod along.

Left on the runway are Michael C, Peach, Mondo, Valerie, Christopher, and Michael D. The judges start on – I mean with – Michael D. MK comes out with another great Korsism: “I actually think you went from bridesmaid to Bat Mitzvah.” Heidi says it looked better before. Nina says that the fabric is unfortunate, “it looks like mosquito netting from here, plus you can see every single detail that went wrong.” Cynthia says she thinks she sees that he was going for a kind of retro Mad Men idea but it didn’t work. The model, Jacleen, says she thinks it’s really fun and it feels way more comfortable than the original dress.

Christopher is next. MK says it feels like two dresses were glued together, he likes the top and the bias at the waist, but the bottom doesn’t work. Nina likes the top but feels the bottom is too short. Heidi finds it sexy and still very elegant. Cynthia is the biggest champion – “it feels like the bridesmaid’s dress was ripped apart and deconstructed…it’s beautiful…it’s perfect.”

Peach, oy vey gevolt. MK starts by saying, “I think her hair is gorgeous…” Peach gushes, “isn’t it beautiful?” Michael Kors finishes, “…but that’s all I think looks gorgeous. The shredding commences. “The top is a Holly Hobbie halter, there’s nothing sexy about it at all, I don’t think that the avocado dinner napkins tucked in at her hip are doing anything for you…She’s young and cool and you’re trying to make her look like she’s at the church Bring-A-Pot-Dinner.” Peach says she felt it was really chopping Erika without the peplum, to which MK argues that she has an avocado goiter. OUCH. Erika gamely thinks the outfit is fun, to which MK asks if she saw herself in a three-way mirror (she says yes). Heidi likes the racer back, but says the ruffle on the bottom looks like a bedskirt. Nina chimes in that the color is “boring” and the design “just looks weird and old.” Cynthia thinks fashion “should look effortless and this looks oddly uptight.” Peach admits she got lost. Heidi asks Erika if she feels sexy, Erika responds that she feels comfortable. “That means no,” laughs Heidi.

Let’s take a closer look at those avocado dinner napkins. Oh, ish.
2010-09-05-avocadodinnernapkins.jpg

Mondo is next. Nina likes the asymmetry, streamlined, modern. Cynthia says it’s a good transformation, sleek and cool. Her only issue is that Amanda’s hair looks like a style she would have worn with the original bridesmaid’s dress. MK loves the pink strip at the shoulder, both feminine and tough: “It’s a hot dress on a hot girl.”

Valerie takes some serious hits for her look. She starts to explain that she wanted to do color blocking to give the illusion of bringing Lena in. MK says that color blocking can do great things for your body but “the way this is color blocked it’s like you turned her into nursing grandmother chest.” Nina says the top is lopsided, “you’ve made her look shorter and broader than she is.” Cynthia adds the straps look a little Fredericks of Hollywood. Heidi’s one remark is that she didn’t hate it as much as everyone else.

Michael C is last. Heidi says it’s really edgy and really hip. Hard but still sexy and feminine. She loves the lace on top. MK says his styling is spot on, “you took a very bland bridesmaid’s dress and you gave her a cocktail dress that in fact looks very expensive.” Cynthia calls it’s “ultra sophisticated” and loves that it’s almost at that too-short length “where it’s exciting.” Nina loves the mix of the lace, the satin, the detail of the velvet bow in the back.

The judges dispatch everyone to the dishing area while they make their final decisions. Peach tells the group that her dress was “her gift to everyone here because you guys are safe.” Michael D says the judges thought his outfit looked cheap and that he made Jacleen look worse, “but Michael here…they loved his.” Michael C, who had been sitting quietly, admits that they loved the lace, the back, the little bow, the paneling. Everyone looks like they just smelled something really bad.

Back in JudgeLand, their top three are Michael C, Mondo and Christopher. Heidi liked the bustier and the one shoulder of Christopher’s dress. Cynthia is impressed with how effortless the faux organza drape on the top looked. As for Mondo, they all agree the transformation of his dress was astounding. Heidi: “he made a modern, hot dress.” Nina adds, “but the hair and makeup were the Jersey Shore. MK: “Snooki and the Flintstones.” As for Michael C, they seem to take special delight in the fact that the whole group trashed him severely last week for not knowing how to sew. MK says that dress had that perfect balance, the sleeve and higher neckline balanced the shorter hemline. It was a “phenomenal transformation” from the original dress.

The bottom three are Valerie, Michael D, and Peach. MK calls Valerie’s “a really bad tennis dress gone wrong.” Cynthia calls it “a kinda weird cartoon character.” Michael D, they all agree, made the model look so much worse than the original dress. Peach’s dress looked “homesewn” (Heidi), “totally over-designed” (Nina). MK says “she has the sewing and tailoring skills – it’s the taste level that I’m worried about.”

How about some peplum?
2010-09-05-peplum.jpg

As the six of them file back out to face the music, barely after the door closes on them, Gretchen flips out. “What show are we on???? I feel like I don’t even know why I’m here, man! I had to bite my tongue.” Andy says he feels like they’re spinning him in five circles. I mean, I’ve heard of sore losers, but this is beyond ridiculous!

Michael C is the winner. He is so excited he jumps up and down and immediately goes to hug Valerie, who’s standing next to him, forgetting in his excitement that she hates him as much as the rest of them do. This means he has immunity for the next challenge. He’s teary-eyed and goes back to the dishing area.

When Michael C comes into the room and announces that he won, everyone looks dismayed. Ivy (in a bitchy voice): “of course you did.” Gretchen, frowning, tells the camera “it’s frustrating because craftsmanship isn’t as acknowledged as I had hoped it to be.” Yes, we can’t all make a garment that looks like an iron burnt it in several places.

Reaction Shots to Michael C’s win
2010-09-05-aprilreaction.jpg
2010-09-05-ivyreaction.jpg
2010-09-05-andyandgfacetomichaelcwin.jpg

Casanova’s the only one who admits he respects Michael C as a designer. Wow. So much vitriol. It’s just like being in junior high school where the popular kids freeze out one unlucky kid. Mondo’s next to come back as safe and second runner up. When he comes in there’s a chorus of well wishing. Christopher’s next as third runner up, another chorus of gladness from the dishing area.

Valerie escapes from the bottom three as safe. Peach and Michael D are the bottom two. Michael D narrowly escapes, he’d better thank his lucky stars for that avocado peplum. Peach – out. She graciously thanks the judges, saying, “thank you, I’ve had the time of my life.” She goes back to say goodbye to the troops: “Who’s gonna be the fairy dragmother?”

Everyone is sad, and even I have to admit a tear comes to my eye, even though I couldn’t understand why Peach kept slithering through week after week (simple answer, there were worse trainwrecks – but the writing was on the wall). She’s such a nice lady – that’s the truth. Tim comes in to bid a fond farewell: “You’re a gem and we’re going to miss you a lot.” There’s nary a dry eye in the room.

And sew it goes!

Check out the Michael C video diary for this episode in which he tells us how he really feels about everyone hating on him, from the official Project Runway site.

If you’re digging my recaps, check out my new Tumblelog

Project Runway airs Thursday nights at 9pm ET on Lifetime TV

Read more: Reality TV, April Johnston, Piperlime, Peach Carr, Project Runway, Entertainment, Nina Garcia, Valerie Mayen, Rubbernecking, Heidi Klum, Style News, Hullabaloo, Ivy Higa, Lifetime TV, Cynthia Rowley, Andy South, Michael Drummond, Michael Kors, Gretchen Jones, Tim Gunn, Bridesmaid Dresses, Casanova, Mondo Guerra, Michael Costello, Christopher Collins, Peplum, Do-Rags, TV Recaps, Entertainment News

Lady Gaga Hospitalized Repeatedly For Dangerous Dieting?

Internationally celebrated for her wildly original performances, Lady Gaga may have a wildly unoriginal habit: going hungry to look good onstage. A new biography penned by Maureen Callahan, ‘Poker Face: The Rise and Rise of Lady Gaga,’ reveals startling claims about the seemingly confident singer, according to RadarOnline.

Gaga’s former tour manager, David Ciemny, alleges in the book that the 24-year-old binged on junk food when not depriving herself of calories altogether. And he claims that in 2009 alone, the Grammy winner landed in the hospital six times while dieting to slim down. Not once, not twice, but six times last year.

Read more: Lady GaGa, Lady Gaga Diet, Celebrity Body, Entertainment News

Sunil Sharan: Enemy in Need can be Friend Indeed

Come hell or high water, India and Pakistan’s leaders continually nose-thumb one another. Each snub is met with a counter-snub; every kindness by suspicion and prickliness. Memories of ghosts past inspire cold shoulders today. Would the enemy crow about its magnanimity for all time to come? Might acceptance of help be construed by the other as weakness to be parlayed into future gain? Or, worst perhaps of all, would public opinion shift and make redundant much of the carefully-constructed paraphernalia of conflict?

Pakistan started getting inundated in late July. Only two weeks later, on August 13, with much of the country deluged, did India extend an offer of $5 million in aid. Predictably, Pakistan stonewalled. Both countries had swallowed pride before to accept assistance in kind after massive earthquakes, but taking pity money now was stooping just too low. And, funnily enough, the man who wrote the check, India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, did not once bother to commiserate with his neighbour in his Independence Day address two days later. Instead, like a stuck record, he once again cautioned Pakistan against fomenting terrorism in his country. For a man being hailed globally as a model of grace and humility, this was no shining moment.

Hackles raised, Pakistan dug in. Already paralyzed by bomb blasts, ground war, air strikes, a plane crash, and with a huge chunk of the country now deluged, was the country in any position to terrorize anyone? Moreover, its image in the West as the house of terror, a portrait etched to perfection by India, was already coming in the way of flood relief. A new imbroglio was thus created. Only a phone call from Manmohan Singh to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan and a nudge, oops, more like a shove, from the Americans were able to resolve it. Gilani acquiesced in the subcontinental fashion, wherein ‘yes’ is often mouthed when ‘no’ is actually meant, and seemingly sealed the deal by sending choice mangoes to Singh.

While the mangoes were no doubt delicious, the money itself was presumed to be rancid. Gilani’s government went into contortions. Well, like bitter medicine, it had to be taken, but how to imbibe it? Direct ingestion would churn the stomach too much. Finally the via media of the UN was suggested and accepted without fuss. This time round India loosened its purse-strings by upping the offer to $25 million, and Pakistan showed tact in not balking.

The India-Pakistan side-show had once again stolen the thunder from the main task at hand, to get the world to come to Pakistan’s aid quickly and generously. Reams of global newsprint and gobs of cyberspace instead focused on the countries’ visceral mutual dislike, which always seems to make for fascinating copy and against whose powers even force majeure withers away. Noted commentators on both sides got into the act. Oh, how low can we go to accept money soaked with Kashmiri blood? We must not allow them to grandstand before the world. To show how caring they are and how much better off Kashmir would be with them.

The other side pulled no punches either. The money would go to the Taliban, who in turn would storm in on horse-hoofs and balkanize India. This must surely be the most potent $5 million in history! Others cussed at the churlishness of the Pakistanis. Look at them, beggars affording to be choosers, and when we extend a hand, instead of grasping it gratefully, they slap it. All they think about is Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir.

All the while the lives and livelihoods of millions were being washed away. Helping Haiti had become somewhat de rigueur for the world. So many global celebrities got into the act that fundraisers were held as far away as India. But even a candle isn’t being lighted by the country, at least visibly, when it comes to Pakistan.

Granted that public giving in response to disasters is somewhat removed from the subcontinental psyche. What after all is the government for? But many Indians hail from across the border and ramble on and on about a shared heritage and pleasant memories. Wagah, the India-Pakistan border post, has no dearth of candle-lighters ushering in peace. Bear-hugs and lavish meals abound whenever cricket teams and fans cross over. But if a crisis of such magnitude doesn’t shake people’s apathy, of what good is all the faux amity?

Or, perhaps Indians have decided it best to shy away from all things Pakistani? If Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan could have brickbats rain on him for innocuous comments made in favor of Pakistan earlier this year, imagine what fate could befall on lesser people. Some of India’s Muslims must surely want to mobilize relief for what in many instances are families and friends in the proximate country. Bucking the majoritarian trend can often invite peril though.

Global warming is hot but its effects have remained so far in the speculative domain. Many experts are now talking about a causal link between climate change and the devastation wrought in Pakistan. Sure, the river Indus is long and mighty, but no less so are its counterparts in India, the Ganges and the Brahmaputra. Who can say where nature will go awry next?

While the UN plays an intermediary role, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is conspicuously missing in action. The body has been reduced to issuing banal statements once in a while. At best, it has served to bring India and Pakistan together when at their antagonistic worst. South Asia is no stranger to natural calamities. Why doesn’t SAARC establish a relief corpus to be funded by member countries and others? Much of the unseemliness witnessed recently would then be avoided. And, enemies in need might just be able to become friends.

Read more: Floods, Yousaf Raza Gilani, India, South Asia, War on Terror, Bollywood, Terrorism, Pakistan, United Nations, Angelina Jolie, Pakistan Floods, Taliban, Barack Obama, Kashmir, Haiti Earthquake, Manmohan Singh, Haiti, Haiti Earthquake Relief, Hillary Clinton, Un, Shah Rukh Khan, Saarc, Water, Hurricane Katrina, World News

Peter H. Gleick: Celebrities and Bottled Water: Spoiled, Misinformed, or Just Plain Weird

The explosive growth in bottled water use by Americans, and indeed, much of the rest of the world, is due to many factors, including both unfounded and legitimate concerns about tap water, disappearing water fountains from our public spaces, misleading and false advertising, and a desire to emulate our famous (and infamous) public figures. We used to drink 1 gallon of bottled water a year, on average. Now it is nearly 30 gallons a year per person. These issues are all addressed in the book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water, along with the serious environmental and energy consequences of our bottled water use.

More and more, we are seeing celebrities drinking bottled water, carrying bottled water in public, or even hawking bottled water for a fee. It is hard to miss the huge advertising blitz with Jennifer Aniston for Smart Water, in a deal that is no doubt worth millions to her (I’ve heard one million, I’ve heard four million, I’ve heard stock options: does anyone actually know? A million dollars will drill more than 300 water wells in Africa).

Celebrities live in a different world, where they come to expect special treatment. Perhaps the weirdest expression of this is seen in the bottled water demands in contracts and riders that celebrities require when they perform, or speak, or otherwise appear in public. We’ve all heard about the recent demands of Sarah Palin for two bottles of “unopened still water” with “bendable straws” (on top of her demand for a specific kind of private jet on top of her $75,000 plus speaker fee). She’s not the only politician to be picky about bottled water. As Vice President, Dick Cheney insisted on 4-6 bottles of water in his room, along with two bottles of “Sparkling water (Calistoga or Perrier)” if his wife accompanied him. Of course, Cheney also required that “All televisions [in his hotel rooms] tuned to FOX News…” lest he accidently see other sources of news and information. Senator John Kerry wanted his bottled water “uncarbonated. Poland Spring preferred. No Evian.”

But there are lots more strange demands (thanks to the Smoking Gun for collecting and displaying a great collection of celebrity contracts and demands):

During his 2003 Poodle Hat Tour “Weird Al” Yankovic demanded bottled water in his dressing room but insisted that it NOT be Dasani water. In contrast, Kelly Clarkson insists that her water BE Dasani (though her band apparently wants Fiji Water).

AC/DC asked for both Evian and spring water (in addition to 3 oxygen tanks and 3 masks).

Mary J. Blige insists on Fiji water “absolutely, positively must be FIJI” at room temperature.

As part of the flight arrangements for Tiger Woods and his wife Elin Nordegren in 2004, the contract specified “Mr. Tiger Woods drinks liter bottles of Evian cold… Ms. Nordegren drinks Fiji room temperature…”

Christina Aguilera wants Arrowhead, along with L’Occitane vanilla-scented candles with matches, 4 black bath towels, and Veuve Clicquot champagne.

For a while, Madonna insisted on having bottles of special Kabbalah water at her photo shoots and appearances. She may still.

Other celebrity bottled water demands? Clay Aiken (“anything but Evian”); Brooks and Dunn (“spring water for the local crew; Evian or Napa… iced down for the artists”); Kris Allen (20 bottles of “SmartWater…No Dasani or Aquafina”); the Jonas Brothers (“6 bottles Vitaminwater (yellow, red, orange)”); Mariah Carey (mineral water so she and her dog can bathe in it. Oh, and she also wants bendy straws); Britney Spear’s 2000 tour insisted on dozens of bottles of Evian, though in 2005 she went through a Kabbalah phase when Madonna switched from Evian to Kabbalah.

And there are even some efforts by a few celebrities to be, at least a little, environmentally sensitive: In 2008, Pearl Jam asked for bottled water, but “preferably ETHOS water, no Aquafina, Dasani, or Evian.” Ethos Water is sold by Starbucks and some of the profits are given to help fund drinking water projects in developing countries. Sheryl Crow, who tries hard to be green, insisting on recyclable, biodegradable, and organic stuff, asks for backstage “watering stations,” with water that “must be sourced from a local spring water vendor,” though she also asks for Perrier water, owned by Nestle.

We want to know what celebrities are doing, who they are dating, and even what water they are drinking. And we want to imitate them: do what they do, eat what they eat, drink what they drink. If we’re going to look up to them as role models at all, wouldn’t it be nice if they were good ones?

Peter Gleick
Pacific Institute

Read more: "Weird Al" Yankovic, Britney Spears, Fiji Water, Madonna, Kelly Clarkson, Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession With Bottled Water, Dick Cheney, Sheryl Crow, Evian, Pearl Jam, Jennifer Aniston, John Kerry, Mariah Carey, Sarah Palin, Tiger Woods, Elin Nordegren, Christina Aguilera, Aquafina, Dasani, Bottled Water, Green News

Mariana Caplan, Ph.D.: Is Guru a Four-Letter Word?: The Need for Discernment on the Spiritual Path

The can of worms is open. Opening up the question on my last blog of “How To Find a Spiritual Teacher,” or whether we need a teacher at all, tends to incite even the most dormant of creatures. We have strong reactions, powerful opinions and oftentimes righteous convictions regarding this topic, as was seen from the many and varied, but never lukewarm responses to my last post. In fact, when I toured an early version of my book in 2002, there were two uprisings in bookstores where I spoke — one in Manhattan and the other in Barcelona. In both cases, the movement was to incite the crowd to see that spiritual authority comes from within! I have absolutely no problem with this approach, nor with those who deeply feel the need for a teacher, or those who are confused, but why so much energy?

Is Guru a 4-Letter Word?

I have spent time with gurus who are living proof that “guru” can be a four-letter word. Nobody has asked me to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid, but I have been offered plenty of other substances. And most of the other crimes of power and passion one hears about in relation to purported gurus have been perpetrated upon me and people I know. After 17 years of experience on four continents and 10 years of research in the field, I am both personally and professionally all too familiar with the kinds of shocking abuses of power that have been committed in the name of spirituality. Yet I cannot denounce spiritual teachers in general, any more than I can denounce all men simply because I have had some less than desirable lovers.

I have learned that when one writes or speaks publicly on this topic, four potential positions can be expected: 1) The strong assertion that the guru and the source of all spiritual authority comes from within, and that people who seek from without are essentially deluded. This group speaks the loudest and the strongest, usually with a slight edge of disdain towards those who have or want teachers; 2) The people who have a particular guru and not only think that the Guru Road is the only destination in town, but more specifically that their guru’s home is the center of the universe. They want the world to join their guru’s mission because they sincerely believe that the world would be a better place if this was so; 3) One step down from this are those who believe that we need a teacher, but that it need not be their teacher. This group is less likely to proselytize their perspective; 4) Those who are either questioning whether they need a teacher, or are looking for a teacher but cannot locate one — this group is humble, open, curious. If we look at the responses to my previous blog, we see all of these perspectives represented with their predicted intensity.

Not Always So
If there is anything I have learned over 20 years of study, practice and research on the spiritual path, it is the truth of the teaching propagated by Zen master Shunru Suzuki of “not always so.” There is not one clear-cut road of beliefs and practices to suit all human beings. There are well-trodden paths and religions that have proven to be helpful to many people in indescribable and irreplaceable ways. Yet whether we practice in one of these traditions or find our unique path through the labyrinth of life, we each walk the path differently, in a way that only the inimitability of each of our beings can do — our “unique self.”

I now understand that there are as many unique paths to spiritual unfolding as there are human beings. I remember when Llewellyn Vaughan-Lee, my Sufi “uncle,” and Huff Po blogger, told me this. I was a die hard seeker in my twenties. Although in theory it made sense, inside I secretly believed, “But my path is the best path, or at least one of the very best, and there is a best way to follow my path.” Now, almost two decades later, it is clear to me that each human being follows a unique trajectory in relationship to spirit, truth or God.

The Need for Discernment on the Spiritual Path
Spiritual discernment, called viveka khy?tir in Sanskrit, is said to be the “crowning wisdom” on the spiritual path.

The Yoga S?tras of PataƱjali say that the cultivation of discernment is so powerful that it has the capacity to destroy ignorance and address the very source of suffering. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, to discern is “to recognize or identify as separate and distinct.” Discrimination, its synonym, “stresses the power to distinguish and select what is true or appropriate or excellent.” Those who possess spiritual discernment have learned this skill in relationship to spiritual matters, and they can consistently make intelligent, balanced and excellent choices in their lives and in relationship to their spiritual development. Their eyes are wide open and they see clearly.

Viveka khy?tir is believed to be such a powerful tool that it has the capacity to pierce all levels of the physical, psychological, energetic and subtle bodies of the human being. In “Light on the Yoga S?tras of Patanjali,” B. K. S. Iyengar explains that through this unbroken flow of discriminating awareness, the spiritual practitioner “conquers his body, controls his energy, retrains the movements of the mind, and develops sound judgment, from which he acts rightly and becomes luminous. From this luminosity he develops total awareness of the very core of his being, achieves supreme knowledge and surrenders his self to the Supreme Soul.”

I believe that more potent than any of our current spiritual convictions — which if we observe closely and honestly within ourselves over many years, we discover, do in fact change no matter how certain we were of what we believed — is the capacity for discernment. The degree to which our discernment is refined is the extent to which we can move through the complexities of the spiritual marketplace and the deepening of spiritual life with effectiveness and wisdom. We make radiant choices that serve others in smaller and larger ways, and become part of the evolutionary and healing force in life, instead of what George Bernard Shaw calls, “a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making me happy.”

Read more: Yoga, Religion, Gurus, Psychology, Spirituality, Happiness, Leadership, Spiritual, Spiritual Power, Living News

Aaron Shapiro: Lose Your Privacy

I was getting worried, because about two months had gone by without the words “Facebook” and “privacy” appearing in almost every technology article in my RSS feed. But then, Facebook was nice enough to launch Places, giving the blogosphere a whole new reason to include “Facebook” and “privacy” in every tech piece. The world is back to normal; everyone’s talking about Facebook and privacy again.

Concern over privacy is a topic that has reared its head with frequency as we’ve become increasingly reliant on digital technologies. Back in 1999, Scott McNealy then CEO of Sun Microsystems famously said, “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it,” in the midst of a brouhaha over personally identifiable information on Intel Pentium III chips. Then in 2003, it was the new accessibility of public information, like court records, that made the headlines. It seems quaint, but even Facebook’s initial launch of the newsfeed sparked big privacy concerns.

Business interests have always had powerful economic incentives to end our privacy. Behavioral targeting is only the latest evolution of direct marketing techniques that rely on knowing as much as possible about an individual and delivering relevant marketing messages to that person. But the ugly truth is that behavioral targeting wouldn’t fill the coffers of corporate America if consumers didn’t like it. When ads are well targeted, consumers click on them more and better respond to the marketing messages. Instinctively, I may not like the idea that a publisher knows I’m in the market for a new car, but I’m sure happy when I see an ad for a car that seems interesting to me. It may seem creepy that Google tailors ads based on what I search for and what’s in my email, but that doesn’t stop me from reading and clicking on the text ads. As soon as an advertisement is relevant and the information is useful to my life, it’s no longer an advertisement. It’s the convenient delivery of information. Our erosion of privacy makes this possible.

The same can be said for the erosion of privacy with respect to information people can access online about me. I may not like the idea that my friends can “check me in” when I’m with a group of friends, but Facebook Places sure is useful when I want to find where my buddies are hanging out. It may be jarring that people can tag my identity in photographs, but being able to quickly see who is in what picture is quite useful. Some people may still not like that their court records, home records, political donations and other personal files are now available at the click of the mouse — unless they’re evaluating a home for purchase or want to see who is funding a political candidate. A personal example: I make my calendar widely available to my colleagues at HUGE. The benefit: I spend no time managing my calendar.

A transparent society delivers levels of information and service that were never before possible and are highly desirable. The price is a loss of privacy. And it’s a trade people are getting more comfortable making. After all, we’ve been consistently moving toward transparency, not away from it, in spite of the semi-annual privacy debate. This spring Facebook didn’t change the level of privacy it offers, it just made the settings easier to personalize. And as younger generations grow up, the privacy flap will simply no longer exist because people will be used to living in a transparent world. The feeling of vulnerability caused by the worry, “people know everything about me,” will go away. The fear of embarrassing information getting out will become meaningless. We all do crazy things at parties and make gaffes, and it will all be recorded. We’ll all be on the same level playing field. Societal norms will eventually shift so today’s bad behavior will become tomorrow’s collective shrug, just as Lucy Ricardo’s pregnancy on I Love Lucy was once so shocking the word “pregnancy” could not be used.

The only real cause for concern in a truly transparent society are security and safety issues: identity theft, people harming my kids, people robbing my home. But I have faith that technology will inevitably solve these issues.

And so, to those still worried about their own privacy, I would make a suggestion: stop using features that benefit from transparency and start a movement to get everyone else do the same thing. It’s the only way to truly stop the privacy erosion tide. But my guess is that after a day without Google, Google Maps, Facebook, FourSquare, Amazon, and every ad-supported content site, you may conclude that losing a little privacy isn’t so bad.

And so, as today’s privacy debate fades away and we look forward to the next round of Web innovation/privacy outrage (could it be for Google Me?), remember this: when the loss-of-privacy outrage dies, we’ll likely be left with a new set of services we’ll all love.

This story was originally published on FastCompany.com. Read more of Aaron’s insights at Notes on Digital.

Read more: Google, Business, Facebook, Privacy, Scott Mcnealy, Green Technology, Intel, Places, Google Maps, Advertising, Amazon, Foursquare, Technology News