Tinseltown has many sides. Today and yesterday I was confronted with two of them. The first is the sad one.
Yesterday the legendary Nichelle Nichols has left us at the age of 89. Legendary as Nyota Uhura in the original Star Trek series and 6 movies. Now, people leave us all the time. This stands out that no matter where I looked Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, America, Australia, Canada, you name it they have it in the news, and no negativity anywhere. Twitter flowed over with messages of sorrow, love and in some cases heartbreak. Actors, producers, directors from all walks of life and cinema. It was overwhelming the impact she has had on people. She had it on me as well, but I always saw myself as a nerdy sci-fi outcast. She touched the hearts of millions and they are all speaking out words of hope, words of sorrow, words of love and words of admiration. To be honest, I have not seen such a positive wave ever before, that realisation gives us that even as she leaves us, she leaves us with a gift. We are all connected to one another through the actions of Nyota Uhura. That is not a bad legacy to have, not at all. We salute you Nichelle, and perhaps we will all say hello again on the other side when we get there. Until then be with the stars until we meet again.
The other side
The other side is one that is another side of the media. The one I do not like that much, but in this case it is the Dutch NOS who (at https://nos.nl/l/2439005) claims that Taylor Swift is the biggest famous polluter. Is that so? Well it is according to a British Marketing firm. Can we have the name of those wankers please? You see, we might howl at some, but these wanking idiots (as I personally see them) are debatable in their view. “Between January and July, the singer’s plane took off 170 times, which amounts to 15.9 full days of flying. The emissions of the device thus amounted to about 8,000 tons of CO2, more than a thousand times the emissions of an average citizen per year.” So how exactly was that calculated?
You see Dassault Aviation (the people behind the Falcon 7X) give us “Falcons have fuel consumption levels that are 30 to 50% lower than competing aircraft and the lowest CO2 emissions in the market.” Then we see the stage “Between January and July, the singer’s plane took off 170 times, which amounts to 15.9 full days of flying”, so can we see the list of these 170 times? Dates, hours flown you get it, the list will give us more and I believe that a marketing firm has certain needs, needs to hide other stuff, or illuminate other stuff and usually illumination comes with exaggerated inaccuracies. So were all the flights set to the planes actual numbers? And the idea that Floyd Mayweather and Jay-Z are the numbers two and three might be right, might not be. You see, we are given “According to them, Swift regularly lends the aircraft and is therefore not personally responsible for all 170 flight movements and the associated emissions.” This might be true, but that is not the case. These people are forced into different modes of transportation because the fucking media wont give them a break, harassing these people EVERY moment they can for the digital clicks (one of a few reasons). It angers me as we seem to hold places like Celebrity Jets like gospel all whilst the data is never clearly vetted and I get the impression that the news is even worse. So whilst Taylor Swift has one plane, Donald Trump has the Trump Force One which is a Boeing 757, and he never made the list? I reckon that the Boeing 757 gives off a lot more pollution than the Falcon 7x. And the quick reference towards the British department of Transport? Do they keep lists of all the planes? Is Trump Force One there too? All questions that come to mind and all questions that have impact. How do you hold Taylor Swift accountable whilst you do nothing on the harassing media 24:7. As I see it, she might not have a choice and whilst we are at it. When we consider Rolling Stone magazine, was that vetted? If so what dit Taylor Swift actually use? All questions no answered. It makes me wonder what that marketing whatever was doing? This was about something else. Just like Matt McGrath (BBC) and his plane issues, all whilst 50% of all pollution damage comes from 1% of the facilities. 147 in total and they still haven’t closely looked at that. They were very intent of ignoring that EEA report, why is that? So a little message for the media. Do your job properly or become an uber driver.