Or, are we being given yet another device to hype ouselves and who we think we are.

Considering this, maybe the first decade of the 21st Century is all about propelling one’s image. What is missing is the need to create awareness of the importance of community and helping others. Maybe mobile blogging can help identify causes. All we need is respondents who blog back with solutions.

Over the weekend I was fortunate to interview a wonderful scholar. He implied or one could say that I gleaned from him the importance of making a stand. As a Sikh we need to ensure that we are defending the defense-less.

On a day when the Olympic torch was lit to embark on its journey to Beijing, it was interrupted. Protesters from media rights group, ‘Reporters Without Borders’ broke through the cordon of 1,000 police officers in Olympia as China’s envoy spoke.

China’s occupation in Tibet is clearly negative. Its influences in Dafur and Burma all point towards apathy. I recently viewed a documentary (Unreported World) where I witnessed how China is desperate for resources in Africa, incidentally driven by the West’s desire / demand for cheap consumer goods. The programme (Unreported World) suggested that China is walking away from ensuring that workers are not exploited.

The BBC also reported that, The head of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Jacques Rogge, has defended the decision to hold the Games in China saying:

The major political leaders don’t want a boycott.

In his speech during the ceremony, Mr Rogge said the Olympic torch relay and the Games should take place in a peaceful environment.

The torch is the link between all athletes and citizens of this world; between all of us who believe in Olympism and the virtue of sport. It has the force to unite humanity and to stand for harmony.

Today China has an opportunity to show that it can change its political stance. Is unity for humanity only achievable on a platform of athletic competition? I looked up the word ‘Olympism’. Its Ancient definition is in the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, who encouraged people to develop their physical, moral, intellectual, cultural and artistic qualities harmoniously. Modern Olympism promotes a way of life based on:

• The balanced development of the body, will and mind
• The joy found in effort
• The educational value of being a good role model
• Respect for universal ethics including tolerance, generosity, unity, friendship, non-discrimination and respect for others.

The Goal of Olympism is described as the use of sport to promote the balanced development of people as an essential step in building a peaceful society that places a high value on human dignity.

In one sense Olympism is confined to sport influencing change.

Where are the obligations for the country that is hosting the games. If they (any Olympic host) do not believe or respect the Olympic ideals how can the participants respect the associated country?

Before it becomes too late, China needs to adhere to the Olympic ideals of peace and understanding. Right now we all know that the games are important to China. Post games what aspect of influence will remain from the rest of the world?

We all need to make a stand and encourage dialogue for change, especially where there is a clear demonstration of apathy from either the host or any participating country. I am confident that the more of us that talk about the ideals of peace and unity the greater the potential that someone will listen and lives will be changed.

For example, take a look at the following two videos (for text readers, head for http://www.saviarora.com) :

The first is the original film edited and directed by Aaron Platt. (It is actually the music video for Apologize by One Republic, the same band who has written Bleeding Love, a seven week UK number one single by Leona Lewis, winner of last year’s X-Factor. The second is involving probably a lower budget production cost model but in my view creating a great impact.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have always been a fan of using technology that is more accessible, i.e.: Creating a similar affect but at the fraction of the cost is in my view an innovation. Maybe this praise of the, ‘underdog’ is a kind of backlash against extravagance!? Or, is it my desire to avoid waste. The real reason is probably a sense of hope and anti-celebrity. This assumes that whatever one produces, whether it is commercially or for personal pleasure it is done in a humble manner.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that YouTube with all its value in bringing people together has both a positive and negative aspect. From a positive perspective it is a platform for self-expression, hot news and reminiscing – Yes, I watched an old episode of Monkey Magic the other night organized into 4 different 20 minute segments! YouTube’s negativity is the compulsion for fame. One hears of the crazy individuals who have posted items before creating havoc in a shooting spree! In addition, female exploitation is terrible.

In terms of available content, if you ignore the silly videos, every week there is more content being uploaded. A few years back I completed a project for a Video-to-video phone company. They were adamant that video calls would be the next big thing. At this stage of our mobile communications path, this is still not the case. Generally, people prefer text messages or voice calls. Maybe it is not possible from a practical perspective.

What is interesting is that people are still recording video albeit using increasingly better mobile phone technology but instead of sending recordings to each other, they are using video upload sites, like YouTube to broadcast them.

Therefore, the future of television and what we watch will be changing for the better. This is good news as on TV, especially in the UK is still obsessed with Reality TV programmes. They still rule, I counted 9 on terrestrial channels last week!

We now have an opportunity to enjoy entertainment that we the public create. We maybe a long way off from quality formatted programmes. NB Traditional media outlets know that this change is coming, especially when it comes to exposing truth.

I also wonder if the media will still retain editorial control. The risk of losing control is the potential loss of advertising revenue and targeted markets! Is Television only about money, I guess it really is!

I wonder sometimes if Facebook is just a case of a fad or the development of another evolution in the world of online communication. Remember Friends Reunited? They are still around and have also innovated further. I guess the question to really ask is if it such technology brings people closer together?
Facebook is a great tool to connect and reconnect with people we know or have known. There is potentially the fear of rejection if they do not wish to engage with you any more. There is also the potential for your personal profile to be restricted or running an application within the system called, ‘Top friends’!

Of course there those that strongly resist its charm, don’t believe that they need it and many others who are techno phobic. Does this mean that we are creating a society that will have multiple levels of Information Technology competence and dependency. Certainly, Facebook like Instant Messenger (MSN, Yahoo) can be addictive. In addition, there are some users that believe that it is all about competition, i.e.: How many friends they can accumulate. I’m surprised that at this stage that know one is chasing specific people online!
In addition, some employers have begun to restrict its use in the workplace.

Ultimately, it can be peer pressure that bring some online. Or, businesses that believe that it can add to a customer experience. I’ve heard some people, Facebook opponents, suggest the following:

* It was always a student thing!
* How sad that you have to use it!

With regard to the latter, serious users will appreciate that Facebook is not the only social networking site but a potentially an extension to everyday living.
In this context it can be a potentially, ‘excluding technology’, i.e.: a system that prevents people from engaging with each other.

Facebook also makes a huge assumption that it is easy to share, video, audio and picture. The latter, appears to be the most popular form of content that is shared today. For example, over 8 million pictures are uploaded to Facebook daily.

So what is next in the world of online communication.
There is the potential that networks that are purpose built, private and even more exclusive could develop.
Ironic, in the context that a technology that has the potential to bring people together can also be divisive in keeping humanity apart!

Today, more than ever we need people to connect with each other.
I just realised that today is Sept 11th and as I am writing this, it was 6 years ago that we witnessed the awful Twin Towers attack. It is one of those events that automatically makes people remember where they were and what they were doing. It was two years before I started blogging (I wrote my first online journal in Oct 2003) or blogging was even heard of. Online tools can help people share their experiences and most of all potentially bring out the best in people!

If you get a chance, check out, ‘Facebook not for close friendships’ research results…

The video is gr8 fun too…

Click here to view the embedded video.

As the programme approaches the final showdown, the remaining hopefuls are treated to being coached by an established band or artist, then singing their songs in front of a live studio audience and let us not forget the public eagerly waiting at home to sms / text their votes (at a cost!).

This week it was the turn of Bon Jovi. Both Jon and the band’s keyboardist primed a number for each budding starlet. A particular favourite of mine is Blaze of Glory, from the film Young Guns. I love Jazz and Soul music and Soft rock. I believed that I had the song on tape somewhere but whilst shopping at Asda the next day I managed to find a wonderful CD compilation entitled: The Best of Bon Jovi – Crossroad. On the way home in the car I slide the newly acquired CD into my car stereo and clicked forward to track 9.

Later in the evening I considered that I had not seen the accompanying video for years. The first place I thought I could try and find it was, yes you’ve guessed it – YouTube. After a few seconds of searching there it was. I sat back and reminisced.

The video can be seen at my website: Amazingly, since the video was loaded almost a year ago it has been viewed 360,524 times!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Why the long story about a single track?

I wondered about the power that we all have. Firstly, to be entertained, and then to be able to locate product and own it. Finally, to go online and find additional references and resources to further fuel my enjoyment.

I wondered how easy it was for me to fulfill my desire to remember the past by feeling good about an old song and then spending £6 for a compilation CD. I did not think twice about gaining that good feeling.

For today’s consumer, researcher, student or collaborative initiative, technological innovation continues to drive both personal motivation and the economy.

Is this power a force for good ? Potentially, yes – especially if initiatives such as: http://www.keepachildalive.org/  make a difference – KEEP A CHILD ALIVE is an urgent response to the AIDS pandemic ravaging Africa. It aims to help by raising funds for urgently required medication. The website also talks about how Anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment has transformed the lives of people with AIDS in the West, returning them from sickness to health. But less than 5% of children with AIDS have access to these life-saving drugs. It encourages the site visitor to help by donating.

Maybe if we were all taught to feel good about giving or contributing to the world as part of our daily life, for example, apportioning some of our earnings with tax breaks to help or even looking at how we twin our cities across the world (developed to developing) – we would make the world a better place. If 360,524 people have seen the Bon Jovi video for a good feeling, imagine how much potential motivation for ‘good’ that totals.

This week the press went crazy over a statement made by John Straw (Leader of the House of Commons (UK)):

I was not tempted at all to call this article, ‘behind the veil’ as I considered that it would be inapproriate.
Over the last week the national press have become very close to the issue of the veil and muslim women.

The issues that came to mind were:

1. What is the history of the veil?
2. Do we really know enough about what muslim women that adhere to it actually feel/experience?
3. Does the whole issue not skim or link to feminist arguements about self expression ?
4. There appears to be little mention of the element of modesty deployed by other religions, for example items worm by Nuns or Monks?
5. Although there are different types of veils, do we really understand its adoption or applicability, especially in the context of Islam being followed in different cultures and regions?
6. What did Jack Straw actually mean by requesting? What about when he worked with the blind minister David Blunkett ?
7. Why has this come to ahead as an issue right now? Especially as there appears to be a press frenzy on yet another topic concerning muslims?
8. What is the impact on a multicultural society?
9. Is religious education extensive enough in todays schools?
10. Is there a risk of complicating this issue and potentially confusing it with other religions, i.e:
It appears that the veil is not essential whereas in other religions items are be spirtually essential, for example Turbans for Sikhs is a completely different issue.

With regard to the latter point I was disturbed by the attempted link to Turbans in simply the title / sub-headline of a Sunday Times (UK) article. This link is incorrect.

As a society we now collectively enter this debate with further confusion added by the implication by some of the potential impact that this issue can have on possibly contributing to the separation of society.
Suddenly we all seem to have forgotten diversity.

Disturbance continues to haunt me as I read over the weekend from a passing tabloid headline that ’97% of those polled wish to ban the veil’. Who are these 97% ? What do they really think? Does it not make you wonder that if someone smiles at you, is the smile geniuine? If they (?) have issues with the veil what else do they have issues with?

Another justication point made has been the expression by some about the need of an open debate with the need to consider what is ‘acceptable’. Again, I’m confused.

Take the British occupation of India. If we consider that in the early days of occupation, many British settlers, ‘went native’ – until it was deemed during the latter part of the Victorian era to be unacceptable.

Interestingly, India still suffers from some complexes..

* Childeren from rich households speak English as they deem it to be ‘advanced’
* Some of the best schools are considered to be Catholic based

Regardless of the issue of ‘to veil or not to veil’, there is a danger that a lack of understanding about people and their cultures can lead to mischief by some to instigate agitation.

This lack of education is ripe. Take for example, the ignorant attack on a Gurdwara (Sikh Temple) just after the 7/7 attacks in London. Let us make it clear, any attack on any religious place of worship is a crime.
We certainly do not want the media to establish an environment of civil war!

This whole issue raises the point that due consideration should be given to the sensitivities of others. A private discussion or request is often better than complicating and concerning people with confusing statements. This is not to say that there is not a place to debate such issues. In the case of the veil, it appears to relate to personal choice rather than religious essentials. Those that represent muslims from a policy / religious guidance perspective should be consulted – instead of sensationalism there needs to be sensible dialogue.

The current situation reveals a possible hidden sentiment which could potentially create a dangerous aura of paranoia.