I spent five hours in one of the Newhouse editing rooms today. Five hours. That's 300 minutes. It also brings the total editing time of this project to 16 hours. And the film/video itself is only six minutes long. That should tell you something about the overall tediousness of the editing process.
On the plus side, it's DONE! I now possess the only existing copy of "Against the Wind," a profile of Syracuse musician Gary Frenay. The big premiere will take place on Tuesday afternoon, when it's shown in front of my TRF 255 class for grading and critique. I'm a bit nervous, but I'm also really excited.
You see, I've been doing this stuff for years. I've only been a TV/Radio/Film major since last year, but I've been making videos and messing around with cameras since I was 14 years old. Again, if any of you ever wondered why I'm studying film when I write so much about politics, maybe you understand now.
Getting back on topic, I really think this documentary is the best video I've ever been a part of. It's so...perfect! We had some technical problems (like when our director of photography forgot to give Gary a microphone), and one tripod/camera combination screwed up a sequence of otherwise good shots, but the final product is amazing. Maybe I'll upload it to the blog at some point. It really is an unbelievable piece of work.
The Chimps are wearing costumes. Again. And they've been out in the hall screaming for the better part of an hour. Some girl with a beer in her hand blocked the path to my room as I was trying to carry back a delicious slice of snack bar pizza. I can't take this.
On a positive note, I did see a rather creative costume: A guy wearing regular clothes, with a sign around his neck that said "nudist on strike."
Syracuse vs. UConn, today at 1:30 PM in the Carrier Dome! That means I'm in for another day where I get to wake up at 7 AM, then spend about 5-7 non-consecutive hours playing snare drum. Yay. Also, UConn is bringing their marching band for some reason, so there should be some interesting drumline interaction.
Now, there's apparently some kind of rivalry between SU and UConn, even though the football teams have never played each other before. I've already explained how I feel about sports rivalries. However, as a member of the marching band, I'm required to support the team. Therefore...
UCONN, USUCK!
Heh heh.
UPDATE
SU: 42
UConn: 30
Yay.
By the way, UConn's football team may not be that good, but their marching band is awesome. I counted at least nine snare drums (our drumline has seven snares). That's all you need to know.
My dorm is full of people in Halloween costumes. I feel it's my duty to inform them of two things:
1. You're in college, not kindergarten.
2. It's October 29th, you idiots.
This wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't have to get up at 7:15 tomorrow morning (more on that later). I know these friggin' chimps aren't going to let me sleep.
Incidentally, I will refer to the people on my floor (excluding my roommate and one RA) as "The Chimps" from now on.
(Cynicism is fun)
Who said the following?
It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important.
If you guessed Michael Moore, you're wrong. Go here for the answer.
Holy crap. Fellow film students, we need to talk. We need to talk about professionalism. You see, I just had to listen to 19 of you give incredibly amateurish presentations of your ideas. 19 people. Pitching their ideas for five-minute fiction films. And it was all something like this:
"Like, um, my film is, like, about this, like, guy, and, like, he, like, breaks up with his, like, girlfriend, and, um, you know, like, he, like, does all this, like, stuff, and..."
HOLY CRAP! Do you realize how immature and unprofessional it sounds when you do this? If you go to a producer and pitch your idea, and every other word is "like," it's probably not going to get accepted. Haven't you ever taken a public speaking course? It's fine to talk like that in casual conversation, since it's become almost automatic at this point, but when you're in a formal setting and you're trying to convey your idea to someone, you have to sound sure of yourself.
I have a technique for pitches, and I think it works pretty well: Just convince yourself that you have the greatest idea in history. It will make a huge difference. I didn't actually like my last few ideas, but I pretended that they were brilliant so I could sell them better. You don't sit there and go, "Well, like, I thought I could, like, do something like this, and, like, maybe it won't work, and, like, it's kind of dumb..."
If you're selling the idea, you have to make it sound good, and you must be very careful about word choice. I don't even want to think about what's going to happen to these people when they get into the film industry and try to propose ideas in such an immature way.
...What? You weren't expecting political blogging, were you? That's not all I exist for, you ingrates!
Heh heh. My blog is the #1 search result (out of 1,110,000) for intelligent thoughts.
I don't know if I should be happy or afraid, actually.
How does this waste of space even remember to blink?
If you were expecting a fisking...tough luck. I've still got filmmaker stuff to do.
(Don't worry; It'll be worth it in a few years when I join the effort to take back the Left Coast from the neolibs)
Okay, so the fourth and final TRF production this semester is a 5-minute fiction piece. I have to come up with an idea by tomorrow so I can pitch it to the class. As with the other projects, this one comes with a prompt that sets certain boundaries. Check out the requirements for the fiction proposal:
The story should be about one interesting main character who is facing some sort of crisis - internal or external.
Oh, that narrows it down. It only describes the plot of almost every film ever made.
Forcing ideas is hard.
Does anybody know how to build a machine that stops time? Because that's about the only way I'll be able to do everything I need to do in the next 2 weeks.
UPDATE
By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm too busy to post just about anything other than this crap. I don't like the fact that the most stressful 2 weeks of my life also happen to include the most important presidential election of my lifetime, but...hey, priorities, man. Don't expect a lot of punditry until mid-November. And even then, I may take a total hiatus. We'll see.
...We'll see.
George W. Bush now has one more vote in Pennsylvania. Assuming my absentee ballot gets counted.
Here's a fun activity to brighten up your morning:
Step 1: Click this link.
Step 2: Read the post.
Step 3: Read the comments on that post.
Step 4: Join me in a moment of silence as we remember a time when people could recognize satire that wasn't explicity identified as such.
I can't believe some of these people are on my side. I can only hope that the comments themselves are satire, and it's all just a huge inside joke.
/wishful thinking
UPDATE
More reasons to doubt humanity here.
It's times like these that almost make me want to start drinking...
Break out the Swiss Cake Rolls. I'll be back...sometime in the next month. I hope.
In case anyone was wondering, Pennsylvania has a really, really awkward absentee ballot. It's like...the size of a freakin' poster. It also seems like the instructions were written by John Kerry. Check out two excerpts from the same sheet of paper:
PLEASE ENCLOSE A PHOTOCOPY OF ONE OF THE ABOVE LISTED FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION WITH YOUR ABSENTEE BALLOT
Please DO NOT enclose your identification in the secrecy envelope or the outer envelope. Please provide your identification separate from the Absentee Ballot materials you send to the County Board of Elections.
So...should I enclose it or not?
You know you chose the right major when you can work for hours and it doesn't seem like work.
I love filmmaking.
Tape logs are evil.
(Expect a lot of filmblogging over the next week)
UPDATE
Just for fun, here's an audio clip (mp3 format) taken while we were recording room tone in Gary Frenay's living room. The voice you hear is me in the background as I'm looking out the front window:
It was a freakin' black squirrel, man!
NOTE: This post was written at approximately 11 AM
UPDATE: You might want to start some discussion on this post, because I'm going to be doing filmmaker-type things for most of the weekend.
Okay, for some reason, I can't get to my blog right now, so I'm writing this post with TextEdit. Because I'm dedicated to delivering semi-intelligent commentary as often as possible, even if I can't put it online right away.
Anyway, this is related to the letters I posted about earlier. It seems our friends at the New York Times, along with their sycophants readers, are engaging in blatant hypocrisy about the use of terror threats as a political tool. This is going to be a long post, but I don't have to be anywhere for the next 3 hours, so...why not?
First, we have this editorial from today's opinion page. It's anonymous, of course. Just like most of the media's sources:
Chiller TheaterAs the election draws near, the Bush campaign grows ever more irresponsible in its effort to scare Americans into believing that voting for John Kerry will bring on another terrorist attack. In Ohio on Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney said Mr. Kerry was incapable of understanding, much less acting on, the specter of terrorists' creeping into our cities with nuclear bombs "to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."
Is this not legitimate criticism? It seems pretty irresponsible to claim that questioning John Kerry's understanding of terrorism is the same as telling people that his election will lead to an attack, but in any case, why shouldn't Cheney say something like this? If Senator F**kup hasn't demonstrated that he can win the War on Terror, someone should point it out.
Attorney General John Ashcroft was back in Washington, meanwhile, suggesting that God had spared America from an attack since 9/11 because President Bush's team was assisting "the hand of Providence."
Way to use out-of-context half-quotes to support your stereotype of Ashcroft as a fundamentalist zealot. Very clever.
Politicians like to tell scary tales about their opponents; the Republicans have been complaining that Mr. Kerry keeps accusing Mr. Bush of secretly planning to reinstate the draft.
Probably because Kerry has done that, you idiot.
But what the Bush campaign is doing is far more serious and can't be dismissed as a particularly ridiculous bit of political theater.
"Mommy, the mean Republicans are fighting back! That's not fair!"
The Republicans' habit of suggesting that a vote for Mr. Kerry is a vote for the terrorists - a notion that drew an embarrassing endorsement from President Vladimir Putin this week - is a reminder of the reckless way this administration has squandered the public trust on public safety.
Show me one instance of anybody in the administration saying that "a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism," and maybe I'll take you seriously. But I already know you won't be able to.
Mr. Ashcroft and Tom Ridge, the secretary of Homeland Security, have turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.
Why don't you just come out and say "Republicans can't do anything right?" It's ridiculous and naïve to write off all terror warnings as political tools. As we'll see a little later, it's also hypocritical.
And Mr. Cheney is even more discredited.
NOTE: "Discredited" means "we don't agree with him." You have to keep in mind that liberals see their opinions as the truth, and all other opinions as lies.
The vice president hyped the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction long after it had been debunked within the government.
John Kerry "hyped" the same intelligence at the same time, but I don't see you tearing him apart for it.
He still draws a fictional link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda...
News flash: There was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Even the 9/11 Witch Hunt admitted as much.
...and he was the first major figure in Mr. Bush's campaign to turn the fearmongering about Mr. Kerry into a campaign staple.
NOTE #2: "Fearmongering" means "saying bad things about Democrats."
There is a real danger in having leaders so lacking in credibility on this vital issue: if they ever deliver a real warning, it could be discounted by a large segment of the population, and that could really put hundreds of thousands of lives at risk.
Here's a great example of hypocrisy: The author decides early on that any terror warning is just "fearmongering," then claims that a "real" warning would be discounted because of the administration's lack of credibility.
Here's something to think about, @sshat: If people don't believe a "real" warning to be genuine, maybe it's because of self-righteous pricks like you who refuse to accept anything a Republican says.
We don't need Mr. Cheney to tell us what everyone, including Mr. Kerry, already knows: the threat of terrorism is real, including from nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and defending against it is the government's gravest responsibility.
So why, exactly, is it wrong for Cheney to point out Kerry's weakness in that area? Oh, right, because it might make people vote for Bush, and Bush is t3h 3v1L.
Part of that responsibility lies in taking action.
Do I even need to point out the irony here?
Although Mr. Bush is running largely on this issue, his administration has not provided enough money for important security programs like safeguarding the nation's ports. And it has squandered resources on half-baked cases against people who posed no real threat and on a war in Iraq that has actually increased the risk of terrorism.
WAIT JUST A FOTHERMUCKING MINUTE, YOU SON OF A BIRCH!
You just spent several paragraphs claiming that Vice President Cheney isn't allowed to suggest that a Kerry presidency will make us less safe, then you claimed that President Bush has made us less safe (using the standard Kerry talking points, no less).
...How can they not see the hypocrisy? How can they be so ignorant? HOW?!
But another big part of the government's role is to maintain the highest possible level of credibility. Turning our fears about a terrorist attack into just another campaign commercial undermines this trust and make us all more vulnerable.
There it is again! "Telling people that Kerry would make us more vulnerable to terrorism is wrong, because it makes us more vulnerable to terrorism." What a load of crap.
There's even more where that came from. Click the extended entry...
Like I said earlier, the letters contain this same idea. Allow me to quote a few:
Letter #1With heightened security alerts at calculated intervals that render ordinary citizens powerless, and the Bush administration's suggestion that there might be another, deadlier terrorist attack, many people will vote for Mr. Bush out of sheer panic.
There's that "pre-set terror warnings" meme again. I'm starting to think that all liberals share a single brain located somewhere in California. On another note, how do the warnings "render ordinary citizens powerless" if ordinary citizens are constantly writing asinine letters complaining about them? I guess our intellectual superiors on the left don't consider themselves "ordinary citizens."
Letter #2The Bush-Cheney campaign has offered nothing but fearmongering for this entire election season.
Whereas their critics have offered nothing but hyperbole.
Letter #3William Safire was correct to point out that the Kerry campaign is using scare tactics to sway voters. But he was only half right, because the Bush campaign is doing exactly the same thing.
For example, the day before Mr. Safire's column was published, Dick Cheney once again conjured the specter of nuclear terrorism to frighten people out of voting for John Kerry. The conclusion to be drawn from all this is not that one candidate engages in more fearmongering than the other. Sadly, terrorists have successfully terrorized us, and we are therefore not winning the struggle against them.
Notice, again, the fact that they see no problem claiming that we're less safe. It's only bad when people suggest that Kerry wouldn't help.
Letter #4Since 9/11, Mr. Bush and company have used scare tactics to remind Americans of the terrible times we live in, presumably not because we've all forgotten, but because Mr. Bush believes that this is the way to win votes on Election Day.
Remember the continuous heightening and lowering of the terror alert? What about Tom Ridge's news conferences, from which Americans learned nothing besides the message: Be scared, but not too scared because President Bush will protect you?
Once again, we have an example of someone who doesn't believe the warnings to be real, but still thinks they're scaring people into voting for Bush. This is ridiculous.
Now, I want to address one more topic: The fearless liberal crusaders for truth have been strangely silent when people on their side have made claims that go beyond anything Cheney or the rest of the administration have said. You want examples? Keep reading.
John Kerry, in the first presidential debate:
Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he's been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide. The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice.
Where were these useful idiots when Kerry was blaming Bush for terrorist threats? He hasn't just questioned Bush's ability to lead; He flat-out suggested that Bush has caused terrorism to prosper. Is that not a more serious offense?
What else can Google come up with? Oh, here's a good one: Kerry in the second debate:
This president rushed to war, pushed our allies aside. And Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of Osama bin Laden.
Once again, Senator F**kup said that Bush has actually put us at risk, and the media said nothing.
Kerry's running mate isn't much better. Take, for example, a quote from the vice-presidential debate:
The vice president just said that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago. North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet.
Hmmm...not only does he claim that Iran is more dangerous; He blames Cheney for it. And yet, it's still wrong for Cheney to say that Kerry would make us less secure. Interesting...
What's that? You say there's more? How about Senator Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy (the conservative senator from Massachusetts) in his speech to the DNC:
Instead of making America more secure, they have made us less so. They have made it harder to win the real war on terrorism, the war against Al Qaeda.
Yet again, a Democrat accused Bush of making us less safe, and the left was silent. Aren't double standards fun?
But wait a minute, there's even more! Ladies and gentlemen, presenting Al Gore:
...instead of making it better, [Bush] has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies...The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States.
That seems like the most forceful quote yet. But...the left said nothing.
I think I have a perfect idea for the new Democratic Party slogan:
Democrats: We have no problem with fearmongering, as long as it helps our guy win.
F**king morons.
Look at a couple excerpts from today's letters and see if you notice what I did:
Vice President Dick Cheney is quoted as raising the specter of a nuclear terrorist attack on an American city and suggesting that John Kerry would not be strong enough to prevent such an attack...
Dick Cheney once again conjured the specter of nuclear terrorism to frighten people out of voting for John Kerry.
Two different letters. Containing the exact same opinion. Using almost the exact same words. And they printed both of them.
...I'll have more NYT opinion page goodness later this morning, but I must sleep now.
I am no longer in a horrible mood. Thanks.
Earplugs are one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of inventions.
I would take liberals a lot more seriously if they criticized Bush for things he's actually done, rather than crapping out lies and flinging them at him.
I'm having a really horrible week right now, so I need comments. Positive ones. They don't have to be about anything in particular. Just let me know you're out there, or that this blog somehow makes a difference in your lives, or something.
Seriously, this entire week freakin' sucks. The weather, schoolwork, band, the people I live with...everything sucks. Help me out here.
I've decided to root for the Red Sox in the next game. Why? Because if the Yankees had won the last game, there wouldn't be a Game 7, and I wouldn't have to listen to the chimps anymore. But now, I have to put up with clapping and screaming for another night.
Thanks a lot, douchebags.
I have a few rare moments of free time, so I figured I'd fisk a couple letters from the New York Times. I realize that this is like shooting fish in a barrel...or, more accurately, shooting dead whales in an empty swimming pool...but it's fun, and that's all that matters. Also, these are about Kedwards' use of the "Dick Cheney's daughter is gay" technique, which I haven't really covered yet. Let's begin:
In his Oct. 18 column, "The Lowest Blow," William Safire misses the mark.
Pot, kettle, etc. etc.
He correctly decries the use of someone's personal life for political advantage but overlooks the complete hypocrisy of the Republican reaction to Senator John Kerry's comments about Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary during the last presidential debate.
Well, it's pretty easy to miss something when it doesn't exist. I might as well call you an idiot for not noticing the rabid unicorns in your basement.
A party that pushes state amendments banning gay marriage in an effort to get homophobic voters to the polls on Election Day is in no position to complain when another candidate makes a similar appeal to prejudice.
Non-sequiturs ahoy! I'm glad that you're so skilled at getting into the heads of Republicans, since you've apparently decided that the only reason to oppose gay marriage is "homophobia." After all, everyone knows that two men or two women should be able to marry, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot! The constant denial that opposing viewpoints can be valid is one of my main problems with modern liberalism.
Seriously, just look at that last paragraph for a second. This person refuses to believe that principled opposition to same-sex marriage exists. It can only be the result of "homophobia" or "appeals to prejudice." I do. not. understand. how people can think like this. It just doesn't make sense.
I'll skip the rest of that one and move on to letter #2:
The Kerry campaign may indeed have made Mary Cheney's private life the centerpiece of its answer to the question of same-sex marriage, as William Safire suggests.
It may have, yes. Brilliant deduction.
Yet surely the assault on the private lives of gay Americans was begun by none other than President Bush, who has made his support for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage part of his re-election effort.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Look, moron, nobody is making an "assault on the private lives of gay Americans." In fact, the "private lives" of gays aren't being targeted at all. People are free to form whatever private relationships they want, but government marriage is a public institution, and same-sex marriage would constitute a federal endorsement of their personal behavior. Can you see the difference? The only "assault" is the one coming from the courts when they pretend to be part of the legislative branch.
John Kerry and John Edwards have simply given the target of that assault a human face.
Hmmm...let's look, for example, at what Kerry said:
I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.
That's not "giving the target a human face." It's called "putting words in someone's mouth." Has Kerry talked to Mary Cheney? No. But he presumes to speak for her, which reveals a callous elitism on the part of Senator F**kup.
He could've easily said, "...if you were to talk to any homosexual," rather than specifically mentioning Dick Cheney's daughter. Or, he could've spoken to a homosexual and gotten a genuine quote. But instead, he chose to specifically mention Mary Cheney, whom he has never talked to.
Let's compare, just for the sake of clarity.
Bush opposes same-sex marriage for a variety of reasons he has outlined several times, but insists that he still believes in tolerance and respect.
Kerry/Edwards, without being prompted to do so, bring up Cheney's daughter in a discussion of same-sex marriage, then claim to know how she thinks.
Which of these do you consider an "assault," SIT readers?
NS: Long day ahead. I'll be back at like...Friday.
...Oh, snap!
(I dare you to read that editorial and then tell me that's not the first thing that pops into your head.)
I still have 5 Gmail invites. They're totally free. How could you not want one? All cool people have Gmail. Don't you want to be cool like me? You know you do. Who wouldn't want to be like me?
...SOMEBODY TAKE THESE FRIGGIN' THINGS!
There are so many political topics I could write about now. Unfortunately, I don't have time. But most of you have been reading the blog long enough that you know what I'm able to write when I get the opportunity, so...just pretend that there's a brilliant essay here.
On a related note, the next 2-3 weeks are going to burn me out, both physically and mentally. I have to edit a 5 minute documentary, memorize 2 songs, and take tests in all 4 of my classes, along with all the reading and assignments that go along with that stuff. Don't expect much posting until after the election.
So, who else is looking forward to Thanksgiving?
Is the freaking World Series over yet? I can't take much more clapping and yelling in the hallways. It's like I'm living with a bunch of chimps.
I think I'm actually starting to forget what free time is like. In about an hour, I'm meeting my TRF group and heading to Gary Frenay's house to interview him and his family, then we're all going to the Sherwood Inn in Skaneateles to watch/record the Frenay and Lenin performance.
Yeah, you all wish you had my life. Don't deny it.
UPDATE (11:50 PM)
...Wow. When you shoot on location with 2 other people, and said location takes 25 minutes to drive to, and those 25 minutes are filled by conversation, you learn way more about those people than you ever wanted to know.
Wow.
Seriously, will someone please take these Gmail accounts off my hands? I'm going to start randomly e-mailing them to people if I still have them in a couple days.
(By the way, I didn't post much on Friday because I actually had free time, and I wanted to spend it doing as little as humanly possible.)
Wind + rain = Syracuse in October.
I have 5 Gmail invites left. Get 'em while you still can! Just leave a comment or send me an e-mail, and you can be the owner of a free Gmail account.
You know you want it. Don't deny your feelings.
I'm continually amazed by the number of marijuana users I work with. It's just...mind-boggling.
My psychology professor talked about cognitive dissonance today. As an example of this, she said something like, "Bush needs to convince himself that he's a good leader, but he knows that Iraq isn't going very well."
At least come up with something creative if you're going to put Kool-Aid in your coffee.
UPDATE
Also, my TRF professor thinks that the questions in last night's debate were...wait for it...biased against Kerry.
Do these people even inhabit the same planet as us?
I still have Gmail invites. I'd prefer to give them to people who don't run their comments through Babelfish. It makes 'em sound like Hannibal Lecter.
(Okay, so I didn't know which character said the "it puts the lotion on its skin" line. I haven't seen the friggin' movie, all right? It happens)
(See comments of previous Gmail post for explanation)
WHY DOES KERRY KEEP ANSWERING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION? THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS, YOU DOUCHEBAG!!!
Senator F**kup just can't stand not to have the last word, can he?
By the way, I thought Bush was losing, but he's making a comeback now. This should be interesting.
UPDATE
"I believe the right of choice is a Constitutional right."
You're a sick, sick man, Senator Kerry. Apparently you forgot about another right. You know, that little thing called "life."
F**ktard.
UPDATE
Kerry says "gut" too much.
UPDATE
To paraphrase Kerry...
"Discrimination is a problem in our country, and that's why I support discrimination."
This man is an idiot.
UPDATE
Worst. Moderator. EVER.
UPDATE
FINAL THOUGHTS:
The debate was a draw. However, if John Kerry set out tonight with the intention of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a despicable excuse for a human being, then...well, mission accomplished.
And I stand by my previous statement that this moderator was terrible.
UPDATE
Maybe I should explain why I think it was a draw.
President Bush had a chance to destroy John Kerry tonight. There were so many lines he could've responded to, but he chose instead to keep relying on talking points, such as "freedom is on the march." He had his moments, and he definitely won a few rounds, but I expected a lot more than I got.
Kerry, on the other hand, practically had the entire debate handed to him on a silver platter by Bob fothermucking Schieffer, but he still failed to outline any real plans besides "I'll do better than Bush." Also, he answered questions he wasn't supposed to be answering, he didn't come across as interested in anything but winning the election (it's important to care about the American people, and Bush seems a lot more genuine), and many of his responses were, in a word, slimy.
Neither candidate impressed me, so it's a draw. But I'm still voting for Bush, because tonight, Kerry proved that he is not fit to hold any public office, let alone the most important one in the world.
Citing a Constitutional right to abortion...I think I'm going to be physically ill.
I bet that I can predict the first 5 words of John F**kup Kerry's response to every question in tonight's debate. Ready?
"I have a plan, but..."
Seriously, just watch. He'll start every answer like this. It's either that or "When I was in Vietnam..." But he seems to have gotten that under control.
It seems Gmail has decided to give me 6 invites.
Anybody want 'em?
We're at war, and there's an election coming up in less than a month. You're really taking this meaningless rivalry BS too seriously. Now stop yelling and clapping like idiots and polluting my personal space with your lack of perspective.
I've mentioned that I think sports rivalries are ridiculous, right?
The documentary I proposed for my production class didn't get picked (which is a good thing, because I had a horrible, horrible idea), so instead, I'm working with 2 other people to make a 5 minute documentary about Gary Frenay, a semi-famous musician who just happens to be attending SU right now. You can check out some samples of his music here and here.
I just thought I'd use this space to remind everyone of how truly awesome Syracuse is. This thing is going to be great.
Oh, by the way, I'm officially the editor for this project, which means that I'm going to be incredibly busy by the middle of next week. Editing is fun, but it's also really, really, really, really time consuming. As in "4 hours a day, 3 days in a row, assuming nothing breaks."
That is all.
I just read the following comment on Trying to Grok:
If Bush in particular and conservatives in general want to stop the comparison most people make betweem them and Nazis, all they really have do do is stop acting like Nazis.
I wish I had time to write a long rant about how mind-numbingly stupid that sentence is, but I have to sleep at some point, so here's my commentary...
You have no idea what you're talking about. You are delusional with hatred, you have no sense of history, and you probably don't even know what "Nazi" means. People like you are the reason I have no faith in humanity. Remove your vacant skull from your hindquarters and get some perspective, you freakin' tard.
Okay, that's enough of that.
If any of you don't want to wade through the cesspool of attempted thought that is the latest Paul Krugman column, I'll summarize it for you:
George W. Bush often says things that aren't 100% true. This is because he is a liar and a terrible president. John Kerry also says things that aren't 100% true. This is because he tends to be careless with his words and doesn't always say what he means to say. If anyone calls John Kerry a liar, it's the fault of the right wing hate machine.
There. What would you do without me?
CD: Did you see that Christopher Reeve died?
NS: I heard.
(long silence)
NS: ...About time.
Sometimes, I worry about people.
I didn't post today. You've probably noticed that. I do have a good reason: I was out doing things. Important things that could alter the fate of the universe itself.
...Actually, I was at the TV station. Today was the premiere of the brand new sketch comedy show, "Null and Void." It's similar to the old version of Syracuse Live, which I still work for in its new documentary format, but it's now shot entirely outside the studio, and is dedicated to sketches.
It's. Unbelievably. Funny. These guys are good. And I'm going to be part of it.
You see, right before the premiere, I volunteered to be a writer for the show. I had already worked with most of the cast members/writers last semester on Syracuse Live (more on that here and here; I still can't believe I agreed to be a lounge pirate), so I didn't have to go through any awkward introductions. It went something like this (the following is not even close to verbatim):
JOSH (head writer): Hey man, how have you been?
CD: Not bad. You know, I was going to work with you guys on the new show, but I haven't heard anything from you.
JOSH: Really? What's your e-mail address? I'll add you to the listserv.
CD: Okay. Thanks.
I wish everything in life could be that simple.
Anyway, I now work for 2 shows at HillTV. I must be frickin' insane. This should be a good thing in the end, though. Maybe if I spend enough time around comedy writers, I'll be able to expand my sense of humor beyond satire and monkeys. Plus, I might still get a chance to write the Stuffed Animal Liberation Front sketch.
I have almost 4 hours before I have to be back at the Dome, so I'll offer some more thoughts on last night's debate.
First of all, like I said before, I think Bush won. He was animated, he was in control, and he actually said some of the things we've all been waiting months to hear him say. Also, Kerry looked a lot more withdrawn, and he was the one smirking and scowling this time. The botox must have worn off.
Kerry revealed a lot more about the way he looks at the world last night. The main thing I noticed is that he appealed to authority way too often. "Here's a Republican who agrees with me...I know Chris Reeve...These generals support me..." etc. This tells you a lot about how Kerry thinks: It's not as important to be right as it is to be popular.
You could tell that he was using that approach. Instead of explaining why his policies would be the right thing to do, he kept rattling off names of people who agree with him. Well, you know what? NOBODY CARES! I don't want to hear about who supports you; I want to hear why you think you would be a better president. Principle is more important than popularity, as Bush explained. Once again, Kerry has proven that he relies on the opinions of others rather than his own convictions.
Also, as I'm sure you know by now, Kerry had a "plan" for every issue, but he never explained those plans. I even went to his website and looked at the so-called plan for the War on Terror. It's the same thing: Lots of ideas, but no explanation of how he's going to pull it off. He wants to get more allies on our side, end our dependence on foreign oil, strengthen our military, and use all the force we have at our disposal. But he NEVER EXPLAINS WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO. That's not a plan; It's just mindless pandering.
Kerry was also off topic quite a lot. I really think the moderator should've cut him off. He kept answering the previous question, despite the fact that it was specifically against the rules to do that. I understand how frustrating it is when you can't get the last word, but the rules are there for a reason. If he can't follow them, he shouldn't have agreed to them.
Now, as for Bush, he was a lot more impressive. He dominated the foreign policy portion of the debate. I know some people think that he seemed too angry during the first few minutes, but that's a good thing! Kerry kept talking about his "plan" while insulting our allies and calling the war a failure, so I'd expect Bush to have an emotional reaction. If he just robotically recited talking points like Kerry, I'd start to question his sincerity.
After the first hour, I think both candidates just wanted to leave. They were repeating themselves more, and they seemed to suddenly lose their ability to speak. 90 minute debates really don't work. A lot of people say that Bush was better on domestic policy, but I think he started falling apart near the end. He could've ended a lot stronger than he did. People are more likely to remember the second half, so it's important to stay on top of things the whole time. Neither candidate managed to do so, which works in Bush's favor in the long run.
That's about it for me. Plenty of other sites have more detailed posts about this.
I may actually have time to expand on my debate thoughts later, since Syracuse vs. Florida State isn't happening until 7 PM, but right now, I should get some sleep, so I'll offer a quick observation:
Debate 1: Bush gets criticized for saying "hard work" too much.
Debate 2: Kerry says he has a "plan" for everything.
Can we get through the third debate without one candidate doing this? It really gets irritating after a while.
Oh, and if you haven't figured it out by now, I'm calling the debate a victory for Bush. Even the MSM can't spin this one for Senator F**k Up.
I don't think I need to blog about the debate, because Bush and Kerry both said the exact. same. things. they. always. say.
However, here's some personal stuff related to the subject: At the beginning of the debate, someone came by and started writing something pro-Kerry on one of the Bush signs on our door (I think he said he was trying to write "Kerry, bitches," but I didn't catch all of it). However, NS heard him, opened the door, and caught him in the act, which pretty much scared the crap out of him. We had a brief discussion about why we support Bush, and he said that he didn't even know why he was writing pro-Kerry stuff, since he doesn't like either candidate. He also said he wanted to get together sometime and talk about politics. Weird. I just told NS that he should've used the situation more to his advantage. After he caught him, he could've said "Go make me a sandwich! I own you now!" He was probably frightened enough to do it.
THEN, 5 minutes after the debate ended, someone else came by and ripped down the sign. This resulted in me replacing it with an identical sign, and putting up a brand new one, bringing the total to 3. Bwahaha. What's even funnier is that as I was taping up the new one, someone came by and said "Oh, man, they're putting up more signs already!" I think we've found the culprit.
On a positive note, if the morons are resorting to vandalism, it means Bush may have won the debate. But in any case, if this happens again, I may have to put up the Ashcroft sign.
This comment thread and the links within contain some good ghost stories. I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I love ghost stories. I don't actually believe that people can come back from the dead (although I do believe in the supernatural in a certain sense), but I love the stories anyway. Maybe I'll link to more stuff like this as we get closer to Halloween.
...Also, the reason I'm linking to reading material is that I'm going to be drumming for much of the next 2 days. Homecoming parade tomorrow, football game Saturday. College is hard.
In the meantime, do any of you have ghost stories? I'd be interested to hear 'em.
Um...did my site just go down for about 4 hours? Along with all the other MuNu sites?
I hope Pixy didn't get eaten by mice again.
You know, it's really hard to write a treatment for a documentary that hasn't been approved. It's fine for fiction, because you're using actors and pre-determined shots. But when you make a documentary, you have to get real people and do interviews and things, and you don't actually know what's going to end up on screen until you've shot it. How am I supposed to write a detailed description of something that doesn't exist yet?
...Maybe I should ask Michael Moore. He doesn't seem to let reality get in the way.
legality of shaving another person's feet in california
...I don't even want to think about why someone would be looking for that. Something about it just sounds wrong.
Or maybe I just have hobbits visiting my blog. Yeah, that must be it.
UPDATE
Amazingly, I got a better term a few minutes ago:
"sex toys" "since I was young"
...Have I mentioned lately that I don't understand people?
You know, John Edwards is known for saying that there are "2 Americas," but based on last night's debate, he apparently sees 1.5. The 1 consists of "the American people," and the .5 consists of corporations and businesses. Look at a direct quote from the debate:
They had a choice on allowing prescription drugs into this country from Canada, of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.They had a choice on negotiating discounts in the Medicare prescription drug bill of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies.
They had a choice on the patients' bill of rights, allowing people to make their own health care decisions and not having insurance companies make them, be with the American people, be with the big insurance companies.
They're with the insurance companies.
John Kerry and I will always fight for the American people.
Just look at that for a second. Notice that Edwards draws a clear distinction between drug and insurance companies and "the American people."
I don't get it.
Are those companies not financed and run by Americans? Do they not do business in America? What aspect of drug and insurance companies makes them different in the eyes of Waffles Jr.? They're composed of American people, so why should they not be considered part of that group?
Kerry/Edwards: Because financial success is un-American.
Dang it, Dubya, why couldn't you be more like this when you had the chance to address Senator F**k Up directly?
"My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal. I'm a compassionate conservative," Bush said. "My opponent wants to empower government. I want to use government to empower people.""The senator is proposing higher taxes on more than 900,000 small business owners," Bush continued. "My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes. And that's the kind of promise a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps."
PLEASE tell me he's going to bring this up in the next debate.
The president said, "My opponent's endless back-and-forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the War on Terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous."Regarding the battle against terrorists, Bush said, "Senator Kerry approaches the war with a September the 10th mindset ... that any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. That was the mindset of the 1990s, while Al Qaeda was planning the attacks on America. After September the 11th, our object in the War on Terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy."
WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT LAST THURSDAY?!
Oh, well, at least he's saying it now.
I'm not "live" blogging the VP debate, but I'm watching it right now, and I'll tell you that my respect for Dick Cheney just went up by about 500%. He is destroying Edwards. It looks like Waffles Jr. is going to cry any second. Me and NS have both said "oh snap" more than once. Which should give you some idea of how lame we are, but that's beside the point.
Try not to drop your @ss after Cheney hands it to you, Edwards.
UPDATE
Wow. WOW. Just...wow. I almost feel sorry for Edwards. Cheney shot down every one of his talking points. Sometimes before he even had a chance to spout them.
Why can't Bush be that good at debates? The election would be over by now if he could do that.
UPDATE THE SECOND
Heh. Go here and scroll down. Ichiban=NS (and NS=my roommate, if you somehow forgot). Good stuff.
Sometimes, I really don't understand people. I had an 8:30 class this morning, but I didn't really bother to see what the weather was like, so I headed outside wearing windpants and a t-shirt.
Well, as it turns out, it was about 45 degrees outside. Maybe colder. But it didn't really bother me that much, especially considering what it's like around here in the winter. However, I was looking around at some other people, and way too many of them were bundled up or otherwise overdressed, and a couple later complained about how cold it was.
Uh, what? It's freakin' Syracuse! If you can't handle 45 degrees, you're going to be curled up in the corner of your room in the fetal position when it gets down to -12 like it did last January. And that's not even counting the wind chill and snow.
Am I the only person who isn't bothered by temperatures below 50 degrees? What a bunch of wussbags.
Have I mentioned that Kerry and Edwards are both freaking idiots?
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) (clip of a speech): "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."
I'm eagerly awaiting the media's condemnation of these hateful scare tactics, as well as complaints from groups representing the mentally ill.
...Hey, why do I hear crickets?
Okay, so I'm clicking around the blogosphere, trying to get caught up on all the stories I missed while I was drumming the Orange[men] to victory yesterday, and I'm seeing a trend: A lot of right-wing bloggers seem to be giving up the fight all of a sudden.
I don't feel like providing specific links, but if you've been reading blogs lately, you know what I mean. Some polls are showing Kerry back in the lead, he supposedly "won" the debate, and confidence in Bush is down. Apparently, some bloggers see this as a reason to doubt Bush's ability to win the election. I tend to agree in some respects, but let's break it down.
First, the polls. They're showing Kerry in the lead, fulfilling the Democrats' need for a "comeback." But think about it for a second. The media are obviously biased toward Senator F**k Up. Their pre-determined narrative calls for a late comeback and subsequent victory. Is anyone surprised that he's now in the lead? Remember the CBS document fiasco? The coining of "fake but accurate?" What if the media are purposely skewing their polls in favor of Kerry, but justifying it by telling themselves that, since he won the debate, voters now favor him over Bush? Doesn't this make anyone else a little suspicious?
Also, I question the ability of these polls to predict the outcome of the election. They supposedly polled "undecided debate viewers" for some of them, but how many people actually watch the debates? I did, but I already know I'm voting for Bush. The votes are probably influenced more by post-debate spin than anything else. That's where the media come in. They're making sure people know that Kerry "won," and that he's seen as "more presidential" than Bush. Unfortunately, image matters a lot, so that isn't good news for Bush supporters.
HOWEVER, this is the 21st century. We've got ways of getting information out there without relying on the Old Media for assistance. I'm doing it right now by typing this blog post. We, the people, need to shift the focus from image back to facts. And on facts, Bush clearly won the debate. Kerry contradicted himself multiple times, he shot himself in the foot with his moronic "global test" rhetoric, and he still hasn't explained how he's going to get his so-called "allies" on our side. Think about it. If they're our allies, why aren't they with us now? Why is he insulting our true allies by calling them a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed?" The man is an idiot.
Speaking of facts, there are some good ones coming out today. A visit to Blogs for Bush will get you started. First, there's the revelation that Kerry may have violated debate rules by bringing notes with him to the podium. In addition, Kerry's brilliant idea of giving nuclear fuel to Iran has been rejected. I hope he has a backup plan in mind.
There's a lot more, too. Look at Kerry's words in the debate, and try to explain where he stands. You can't. The war in Iraq was a mistake, but we needed to disarm Saddam, but Bush did it the wrong way, but Kerry voted for it, and it's wrong not to fund our troops, even though Kerry voted against the $87 billion in funding, etc. FACTS. KILL. KERRY'S. MESSAGE.
That's why it's important to focus on facts. We have the power to respond to Kerry's lies and distortions. We don't have to rely on Bush and his...well, horrible public speaking abilities. We can help him out by exposing the idiocy of John Kerry's policy proposals. It may not influence a huge number of people, but it's better than standing on the sidelines and watching Bush stare off into space while Kerry flip-flops before our eyes.
Don't give up. This country was founded on the idea that people can control their own destiny. It was also founded on the idea that people can pick their own leaders, but that doesn't begin and end on Election Day. Voting is important, but it's a good idea to make sure people know what they're getting when they choose a candidate. That's why it's so great to live in this period of history. We have the power to change people's minds by using technology to our advantage. If we focus on facts, we can chip away at Kerry's polished exterior and reveal his hollow center. Besides, whining and victimization are best left to liberals. Republicans believe in changing the world, not blaming everyone else for its problems.
Remember, if you decide that Bush doesn't have a chance of winning, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead, use it to your advantage. Persuade an undecided voter to help Bush take the lead. Explain why Kerry would put us in danger, and mention that he's pulling ahead in the polls. If you know someone who might vote for Bush, but doesn't really care about voting, change his or her mind by referring back to the last election. A few votes can make a big difference.
I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I am doing what I can. This blog is my main way of influencing opinion, but since only a few people read it, I'd like to do more elsewhere. I'm obviously voting for Bush, I have a couple Bush signs on my door, and whenever possible, I try to help change opinions in everyday conversation. I'm also seriously considering joining the Syracuse College Republicans, even though I can't make it to their meetings until next semester. But I am trying. And everyone else can do something, even if it isn't much.
This is not over.
Syracuse vs. Rutgers, today at 12:06 PM.
This translates to marching band practice from 7:30 to 9:30 AM, followed by a brief break, then another 5 hours of almost constant drumming. I'll probably be delirious with hunger and exhaustion by the time I'm done (I'll be doing all this on the energy from two Pop-Tarts, two bagels, and a can of Slim-Fast), so don't expect anything huge.
I do have something else planned for next week, but I really should go to sleep now, since practice starts in 6 and a half hours. I'll go into detail another day.
In the meantime, you're free to use this as an open thread, but since most of those have been catastrophic failures, I'm not expecting much.
Later.
Stop putting your audio files in WMA form, dang it! Those of us with Macs don't get to listen to them when you do that. There is absolutely no reason to put sound files in any format besides mp3. None.
That's all I have to say.