Keith. Olbermann. There are sooo many rants from that man that it's difficult to know where to begin. His rants, known as "Special Comments", were typically a thing of beauty for numerous reasons.
One of those reasons was they were impassioned. Keith didn't use the Special Comment format haphazardly nor frequently. It was something he'd created when there was something on his mind, and typically at the forefront of American or world current events, that was so important or maybe even just irritating him so much that he felt he should devote 10-15 minutes on that topic alone.
One of his most memorable Special Comments was one to which he devoted his entire news hour which was in regard to the then-proposed healthcare bill. This was near the end of the debate, of course, so the hour was needed, he felt, because there was still so much misinformation about what the bill would and would not do if it became the law of the land. The most moving part of it was when the absurd topic of "government death panels" arose. In the months leading up to that moment, Keith had been frequently absent from his show due to his father being gravely ill and in the hospital. Just weeks before the hour-long Special Comment on healthcare reform, his father died, which had an obvious effect on Olbermann (which is no surprise, of course). But he used that personal experience to explain the ridiculousness of the outright lie about "death panels", which were really nothing more than a provision in the bill which would require insurance providers to pay for doctor-patient consults regarding end-of-life care for themselves and/or their family. This was a meeting that Keith had had with his father's doctors while he was in the hospital and he broke down when explaining how those meetings made the last days of his father's life, for Keith, that much easier as he knew exactly what his father's wishes were regarding when to take him of life support and so on; it was one less burden to carry.
His rants were not only entertaining simply for the passion with which they were delivered, but also because he wasn't just spewing his opinion without factual evidence to back it up. I'm big on that. Of course, his opinion would sometimes move toward the boundary of true and false, but not often and when it did he would typically correct himself and apologize during the next show.
Keith would cite whatever sources he could to reaffirm his opinions, including newspaper articles, various polling group surveys, direct quotes from those who may be in his crosshairs, etc. If he was taking the time to deliver one of his Special Comments, then he took the time to make sure he wasn't just rambling unfounded, maniacal gibberish (like a certain, crazy, Faux News host whose name rhymes with Blenn Geck).
In fact, it was a Special Comment that initially hooked me on Countdown, though I can no longer remember the title of the Comment, nor the exact date. I only remember that he was dispelling whatever crazy myth about then-Senator Obama that the McCain campaign SHOULD have already dispelled itself.
So yeah, in lazy conclusion: I miss Keith Olbermann.
31 March 2011
17 March 2011
Class Post: Paragraphing
In Exit Through the Gift Shop, reclusive street artist Banksy tells the story of Thierry Guetta, a videographer who sets out to capture the world of street art. Through a series of unlikely events, Guetta becomes the subject — and a street artist, himself. Guetta became a well-known personality in the underground scene, "a world without any personalities," and served as a diarist for the movement. He parlayed his access, built on his reputation for trustworthiness, into meeting "the prize, which was the street artist Banksy — the uber-anonymous person in a world full of anonymous people." The subjects Guetta cast his camera on believed he was using the footage for a documentary, but that may never have been the case. Rather, Guetta seemed to use the story as a cover to further access to a world he found exhilarating. Guetta began creating his own street art, under the pseudonym Mr. Brainwash.
The film, nominated for an Academy Award in the documentary category, has confused reviewers and moviegoers alike, who doubt its authenticity. Banksy does not give interviews, so producer Jaimie D'Cruz joins NPR's Lynn Neary on his behalf. "Thierry," explains D'Cruz, "was obsessed by filming everything in his path." Guetta was related to a street artist, and through that connection he became embedded in the graffiti world. It's "a world populated almost exclusively by furtive men, working illegally and at night." Banksy found Guetta's story more intriguing than his own, so he took over the documentary and switched its focus — or so the story goes. Some believe Banksy invented Guetta's story, and that it's more of a creative movie than a documentary. D'Cruz dismisses the suspicion. "The truth is, the film is really a true story of something extraordinary that happened," he says. "We wouldn't be able to create something as extraordinary as the rise of Thierry Guetta ... We didn't have the intent, we didn't have the inclination to do that, to kind of stage a prank on the world.
Class Post: Dove Commercial
This was certainly not what I was expecting to see when I clicked the link. However, I found it extremely interesting nonetheless.
It's fascinating to see just how much "tweaking" is done to a model just to make her "beautiful." It seems a bit of false advertising on the behalf of Fasel since I highly doubt the foundation makeup they are advertising on that billboard comes with the tools to lengthen one's neck and, evidently, eliminate one's shoulders, but that's probably why I don't get paid the big bucks to make women feel shitty about not looking like the Photoshopped women in magazines and on billboards; I tend to point out little hypocrisies like how all that work is done to make an already attractive woman "more" attractive in order to try to convince other women that they can look like her...even though she doesn't actually look like "her".
Anyway, I think the model's facial expression (none) really tells the story. Granted, it's not conducive to proper makeup application if your model is giggling and smiling like a dunce the whole time, but it would seem to indicate that during all that work either no one spoke to her or no one had the creativity to crack even one half-assed joke to make her crack a smile.
Of course, the irony that this little film was produced by Dove, a company that hocks its products to women using pictures of other, unbelievably gorgeous women (really unbelievably after watching the video on YouTube...) isn't lost on me.
While the message of the Dove commercial is to imply that they would never sink to the level of Fasel when it comes to their models, there's this strange little voice within me quietly screaming "Bullshit!".
Just a quick glance at Dove's website brings you face-to-face with a beautiful young woman who, if we're too believe Dove, has had nothing more than a cursory application of some light makeup...her ridiculously shiny hair was clearly a result of her frequent use of Dove's incredible products.
That the film's director, Yael Staav, seems to ignore the irony mentioned above and discusses the work as though she's saved the world also irritates me a bit. Perhaps because I'm a little tired and haven't felt well for most of this week I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I can't have much respect for Staav when she makes this film for Dove. On it's own, and despite the Dove connection, the ad is very revealing and has a great message, but I feel like the corporate connection to another company that makes its money off of a prescribed notion of female beauty tarnishes the message.
Or maybe I'm just a cynic...
It's fascinating to see just how much "tweaking" is done to a model just to make her "beautiful." It seems a bit of false advertising on the behalf of Fasel since I highly doubt the foundation makeup they are advertising on that billboard comes with the tools to lengthen one's neck and, evidently, eliminate one's shoulders, but that's probably why I don't get paid the big bucks to make women feel shitty about not looking like the Photoshopped women in magazines and on billboards; I tend to point out little hypocrisies like how all that work is done to make an already attractive woman "more" attractive in order to try to convince other women that they can look like her...even though she doesn't actually look like "her".
Anyway, I think the model's facial expression (none) really tells the story. Granted, it's not conducive to proper makeup application if your model is giggling and smiling like a dunce the whole time, but it would seem to indicate that during all that work either no one spoke to her or no one had the creativity to crack even one half-assed joke to make her crack a smile.
Of course, the irony that this little film was produced by Dove, a company that hocks its products to women using pictures of other, unbelievably gorgeous women (really unbelievably after watching the video on YouTube...) isn't lost on me.
While the message of the Dove commercial is to imply that they would never sink to the level of Fasel when it comes to their models, there's this strange little voice within me quietly screaming "Bullshit!".
Just a quick glance at Dove's website brings you face-to-face with a beautiful young woman who, if we're too believe Dove, has had nothing more than a cursory application of some light makeup...her ridiculously shiny hair was clearly a result of her frequent use of Dove's incredible products.
That the film's director, Yael Staav, seems to ignore the irony mentioned above and discusses the work as though she's saved the world also irritates me a bit. Perhaps because I'm a little tired and haven't felt well for most of this week I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I can't have much respect for Staav when she makes this film for Dove. On it's own, and despite the Dove connection, the ad is very revealing and has a great message, but I feel like the corporate connection to another company that makes its money off of a prescribed notion of female beauty tarnishes the message.
Or maybe I'm just a cynic...
16 March 2011
Class Post
1. Street art: is it legal? Illegal? Art? Graffiti? What is the difference between art and graffiti?
Personally, I feel that street art is art. It's an expression of a person's creativity after all (as opposed to graffiti like spray painting your name on a train). As for its legality, it's widely known to be frowned upon by the authorities, but I think that's really the reason it even exists. There's no reason street artists couldn't put their works onto canvas or another, approved medium. The thrill comes from the excitement of scaling a building or a billboard in the middle of the night and putting your artwork onto someone else's property.
2. Is Guetta/Mr. Brainwash a “real” street artist? An artist at all? Why or why not?
No. Absolutely not. He didn't create any of his "art", he merely hired a team of people to make screen prints of Elvis with a toy gun or he flicked some paint onto a copy of the Mona Lisa and called it art. He's simply a tool, a poser, and in it for the money. If he hadn't been able to make any money with his "art", then I bet he'd have never had another screen print made again.
3. Do you think Banksy “takes over” Guetta’s film? If so, do you think he has the right to do so? If you don’t think Banksy took over the film, what in the content or approach makes you think so?
I think Banksy takes over the film about mid-way through, officially, when the story turns to Guetta's own "art". Of course, after seeing the snippet of seizure-inducing film that was the original documentary, I'd argue that Banksy was truly the mastermind of the entire film. Guetta captured the video, of course, but it's all just random video of random people with no meaning until someone with true talent and vision, such as Banksy, edits the film and gives it a logical order that makes sense.
4. Why do you think Banksy makes the choice to assume production of the film? It’s clear he doesn’t like what Guetta produces, but given his supposed deep interest in anonymity, why do you think he decides to assume the role of director? (think about the “real” reason, not just that he didn’t like Guetta’s flim)
I think it's pretty obvious that Banksy took over production of the film as Guetta had NO CLUE how to make a film and had he been allowed to release the visual diarrhea that was his original cut, then the story that Banksy wanted told would have been lost. That was why Bansky even associated with Guetta in the first place: The idea of someone telling the story of street artists, using real footage of those very artists to show that they aren't a bunch of ragtag criminals spray painting buildings, was intriguing to Banksy so he allowed himself to be filmed and his work to be shown along with all the other artists.
5. Is Banksy a friend of Guetta? Why or why not?
I don't think Banksy cares much for Guetta any longer. They may have been friends in the beginning, but after the way Guetta exploited Banksy and the other artists for his own personal gain, Banksy seems to have lost any respect he may have once had for the guy.
6. The Disneyland debacle: thoughts, opinions? What do you think Banksy's goal was behind this "stunt"? Is it more than a stunt? Does it make a statement, or was it just a stupid id
I think the point behind the Disneyland stunt was to make a statement about how disconnected we are as a civilization. While we go to sunny California to enjoy the day in the Magic Kingdom, our government is capturing those we suspect of being terrorists, transporting them to a prison facility in Cuba where they are detained indefinitely, and even tortured and treated as less than human...all so we can feel safe on the train ride. Banksy, in my opinion, was doing his part to remind us of the sorts of things we've become complicit in allowing our elected officials to do.
7. How is Guetta successful in his art show? How does he fail?
Well, he had a big turnout and made a lot of money, but his failure far outweighs those successes. I'm sure he would disagree, but what he was doing had nothing to do with art, or expression, it was all about making money and exploiting the true street artists and the stupidity of the people who came to his show having no clue what real art is.
8. What do you think of Mr. Brainwash's fans -- the people who line up outside the door to see his opening? Do you imagine that, if they saw this documentary, their feelings about his work would change?
I think most of them are clueless. They saw "Banksy" and "Shepard Fairey" and the names of other true street artists who gave Guetta a half-hearted endorsement and lined up en masse simply because they thought it would be the trendy thing to do. For those in those lines who actually understand the point of actual art, I'm sure they were disappointed after they saw the exhibit and I'm positive they'd be sure to avoid such lines after seeing the documentary.
9. Whose film is this? And WHY is it called “Exit Through the Gift Shop”?
Back to this point of whose film this is, the title, I think, tells us who the true author was: Banksy. The title is about the commercialization of street art and the rise of people like Guetta who get into street art simply to make money. Guetta would never have been clever enough to come up with a title like this.
10. One common speculation/consistent theme in reviews of the film questioned its authenticity: was the film simply an elaborate hoax? A ruse on Banksy’s part? Or did Guetta really evolve into “Mr. Brainwash” seemingly overnight? What do YOU think?
That's a tough one, actually. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the entire film was another piece by Banksy meant to convey a message. Maybe the whole thing with Guetta coming off as a total waste of space was all an act to demonstrate the differences between true artists like Banksy and Fairey and sellouts like Guetta.
11. With the ending/outcome -- Guetta selling a bunch of art (or "art" depending on your opinion), making a ridiculous amount of money, the new hype about street art, its popularity, etc. -- what statement is being made about the art world? about the media? About street art and street artists?
Seems like the overall theme was that street art is becoming just as commercialized as any other product, despite its much more honorable beginnings. But, that seems to be the trend of the world and, frankly, is needed to keep creativity alive and well. If street art becomes too commercial, too accepted, then the thrill is gone. So, those in it for the thrill, not the money, will find a new way to express themselves and find the high they used to get from street art.
Personally, I feel that street art is art. It's an expression of a person's creativity after all (as opposed to graffiti like spray painting your name on a train). As for its legality, it's widely known to be frowned upon by the authorities, but I think that's really the reason it even exists. There's no reason street artists couldn't put their works onto canvas or another, approved medium. The thrill comes from the excitement of scaling a building or a billboard in the middle of the night and putting your artwork onto someone else's property.
2. Is Guetta/Mr. Brainwash a “real” street artist? An artist at all? Why or why not?
No. Absolutely not. He didn't create any of his "art", he merely hired a team of people to make screen prints of Elvis with a toy gun or he flicked some paint onto a copy of the Mona Lisa and called it art. He's simply a tool, a poser, and in it for the money. If he hadn't been able to make any money with his "art", then I bet he'd have never had another screen print made again.
3. Do you think Banksy “takes over” Guetta’s film? If so, do you think he has the right to do so? If you don’t think Banksy took over the film, what in the content or approach makes you think so?
I think Banksy takes over the film about mid-way through, officially, when the story turns to Guetta's own "art". Of course, after seeing the snippet of seizure-inducing film that was the original documentary, I'd argue that Banksy was truly the mastermind of the entire film. Guetta captured the video, of course, but it's all just random video of random people with no meaning until someone with true talent and vision, such as Banksy, edits the film and gives it a logical order that makes sense.
4. Why do you think Banksy makes the choice to assume production of the film? It’s clear he doesn’t like what Guetta produces, but given his supposed deep interest in anonymity, why do you think he decides to assume the role of director? (think about the “real” reason, not just that he didn’t like Guetta’s flim)
I think it's pretty obvious that Banksy took over production of the film as Guetta had NO CLUE how to make a film and had he been allowed to release the visual diarrhea that was his original cut, then the story that Banksy wanted told would have been lost. That was why Bansky even associated with Guetta in the first place: The idea of someone telling the story of street artists, using real footage of those very artists to show that they aren't a bunch of ragtag criminals spray painting buildings, was intriguing to Banksy so he allowed himself to be filmed and his work to be shown along with all the other artists.
5. Is Banksy a friend of Guetta? Why or why not?
I don't think Banksy cares much for Guetta any longer. They may have been friends in the beginning, but after the way Guetta exploited Banksy and the other artists for his own personal gain, Banksy seems to have lost any respect he may have once had for the guy.
6. The Disneyland debacle: thoughts, opinions? What do you think Banksy's goal was behind this "stunt"? Is it more than a stunt? Does it make a statement, or was it just a stupid id
I think the point behind the Disneyland stunt was to make a statement about how disconnected we are as a civilization. While we go to sunny California to enjoy the day in the Magic Kingdom, our government is capturing those we suspect of being terrorists, transporting them to a prison facility in Cuba where they are detained indefinitely, and even tortured and treated as less than human...all so we can feel safe on the train ride. Banksy, in my opinion, was doing his part to remind us of the sorts of things we've become complicit in allowing our elected officials to do.
7. How is Guetta successful in his art show? How does he fail?
Well, he had a big turnout and made a lot of money, but his failure far outweighs those successes. I'm sure he would disagree, but what he was doing had nothing to do with art, or expression, it was all about making money and exploiting the true street artists and the stupidity of the people who came to his show having no clue what real art is.
8. What do you think of Mr. Brainwash's fans -- the people who line up outside the door to see his opening? Do you imagine that, if they saw this documentary, their feelings about his work would change?
I think most of them are clueless. They saw "Banksy" and "Shepard Fairey" and the names of other true street artists who gave Guetta a half-hearted endorsement and lined up en masse simply because they thought it would be the trendy thing to do. For those in those lines who actually understand the point of actual art, I'm sure they were disappointed after they saw the exhibit and I'm positive they'd be sure to avoid such lines after seeing the documentary.
9. Whose film is this? And WHY is it called “Exit Through the Gift Shop”?
Back to this point of whose film this is, the title, I think, tells us who the true author was: Banksy. The title is about the commercialization of street art and the rise of people like Guetta who get into street art simply to make money. Guetta would never have been clever enough to come up with a title like this.
10. One common speculation/consistent theme in reviews of the film questioned its authenticity: was the film simply an elaborate hoax? A ruse on Banksy’s part? Or did Guetta really evolve into “Mr. Brainwash” seemingly overnight? What do YOU think?
That's a tough one, actually. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the entire film was another piece by Banksy meant to convey a message. Maybe the whole thing with Guetta coming off as a total waste of space was all an act to demonstrate the differences between true artists like Banksy and Fairey and sellouts like Guetta.
11. With the ending/outcome -- Guetta selling a bunch of art (or "art" depending on your opinion), making a ridiculous amount of money, the new hype about street art, its popularity, etc. -- what statement is being made about the art world? about the media? About street art and street artists?
Seems like the overall theme was that street art is becoming just as commercialized as any other product, despite its much more honorable beginnings. But, that seems to be the trend of the world and, frankly, is needed to keep creativity alive and well. If street art becomes too commercial, too accepted, then the thrill is gone. So, those in it for the thrill, not the money, will find a new way to express themselves and find the high they used to get from street art.
03 March 2011
NOTE: Class-required Post
Truth-tellers and troublemakers in film? It seems like this would be an easy post to bang out, but I'm drawing a blank. I've seen my fair share of movies, but I guess I haven't ever really considered the truth-telling vs. troublemaking aspect of said characters before.
I suppose Michael Moore comes to mind as both a truth-teller and troublemaker with his films. He usually does a pretty good job of exposing the truth with factual information as its proof, which has had him deemed troublesome by those entities which his films may skewer. Of course, he's also stretched the truth on more than one occasion in his films in order to further his points of view on a topic, which makes him troublesome in my book.
It's not always easy, it's not always fun, and it may not always end the way you expected or wanted it to end, but seeking out the truth must be done as honestly as possible if you really want to further a cause. You lose credibility by stretching the truth (usually to near its breaking point) and that only serves to damage the credibility of your particular cause.
As for fictional characters, I'm drawing a total blank. So, screw it, let's just talk about Star Wars.
There's a gaggle of truth-tellers and troublemakers throughout the course of those six films, so I'm sure I can name at least one in the few moments I have left here...
Yoda vs. Sidious.
Yoda was certainly a truth-teller of the films. He told it as it was and rarely minced words with those with whom he interacted, be it a child student, an older Jedi, or a member of the Senate.
Sidious, on the other hand, was very much a troublemaker. His entire character's story arc was predicated upon how well he was able to lie and manipulate others into inadvertently advancing his schemes. He lied to Anakin on a constant basis in order to confuse him and make him question his own beliefs, he lied to the Senate as a whole regarding just about everything he ever told it, and he lied to the Jedi right up until the end of Episode 3.
And when he and Yoda finally had their duel, it was the ultimate meeting of truth vs. trouble in the history of film. That's right. The entire history of film.
Ok, well, I've exercised my nerd muscle enough for one afternoon.
I suppose Michael Moore comes to mind as both a truth-teller and troublemaker with his films. He usually does a pretty good job of exposing the truth with factual information as its proof, which has had him deemed troublesome by those entities which his films may skewer. Of course, he's also stretched the truth on more than one occasion in his films in order to further his points of view on a topic, which makes him troublesome in my book.
It's not always easy, it's not always fun, and it may not always end the way you expected or wanted it to end, but seeking out the truth must be done as honestly as possible if you really want to further a cause. You lose credibility by stretching the truth (usually to near its breaking point) and that only serves to damage the credibility of your particular cause.
As for fictional characters, I'm drawing a total blank. So, screw it, let's just talk about Star Wars.
There's a gaggle of truth-tellers and troublemakers throughout the course of those six films, so I'm sure I can name at least one in the few moments I have left here...
Yoda vs. Sidious.
Yoda was certainly a truth-teller of the films. He told it as it was and rarely minced words with those with whom he interacted, be it a child student, an older Jedi, or a member of the Senate.
Sidious, on the other hand, was very much a troublemaker. His entire character's story arc was predicated upon how well he was able to lie and manipulate others into inadvertently advancing his schemes. He lied to Anakin on a constant basis in order to confuse him and make him question his own beliefs, he lied to the Senate as a whole regarding just about everything he ever told it, and he lied to the Jedi right up until the end of Episode 3.
And when he and Yoda finally had their duel, it was the ultimate meeting of truth vs. trouble in the history of film. That's right. The entire history of film.
Ok, well, I've exercised my nerd muscle enough for one afternoon.
08 February 2011
*NOTE: Class Required Post Incoming.
There is a plethora of interesting people walking around this world who would be excellent subjects for profiling. I'm not entirely sure who I will ultimately settle upon, but I do know that I have a lot of candidates, both those I enjoy and those I detest, swirling within my brain.
Candidate the First: Rachel Maddow. I know. I know. The news people again. I'm probably far more concerned with news personalities than I should be, but they tend to dovetail well with my love of politics.
Rachel is actually a supremely interesting person who is exponentially smarter than I think the general public gives her credit for. Watching her show will give you the impression that she's a very intelligent woman, but that's really just scratching the surface. I shan't act as though I know all there is to know about her, but I am thinking about her many scholastic achievements of which I've read about in the past and if what I'm recalling is accurate, then it might surprise a lot of people..especially once they learn that she used to be a bike messenger in New York. Anyway, I wish more political personalities would be brave enough to come on her show for an interview (especially the really cocky ones who never do REAL interviews, but softball interviews; John Boehner, Eric Cantor, etc.) as watching Rachel demolish them would be infinitely entertaining.
Candidate the Second: Dr Michio Kaku. There. NOT a politics or news person. Dr. Kaku is an astrophysicist who does what many in his field seem unable to do: Make astrophysics fun and entertaining for the common person. He usually manages to do so without losing too much of the real science behind what he's explaining, either, which is doubly-impressive. Also, he gave me hope that a real, working lightsaber could theoretically be constructed in my lifetime. Always a bonus in terms of people deserving of profiling.
Candidate the Third: Glenn Beck. Yeah. I think profiling this man would be interesting if for no other reason then I haven't leapt into any rabbit holes in a long time and, frankly, I'm overdue. I'm not entirely sure if I could properly profile a man who traded in his hold on reality for a handful of paranoid beans years ago, but if worse comes to worse, I could do what he tends to do when talking about other people: Make shit up. But in all seriousness, forcing myself to objectively profile a man that has demonstrated a very high level of lunacy bordering on psychosis would not only be a fun challenge, but could help me understand why he is the way he is (besides the money).
Candidate the IV: Colin Meloy. Venturing into the world of music, I am interested to know more than I do about the lead singer of The Decemberists, one of my favorite bands. Granted, I'm not entirely sure if he falls under the title of either truth-telling or troublemaker, but I'm sure some cursory readings of bios and a trip through the Google could settle that within a few minutes. His music and his lyrics aren't your typical pop tune lyrical abortions...which stands to reason as you don't get labelled an "indie" band with Taylor Swift lyrics. Colin just strikes as likely being a very interesting guy to profile and learn some more about.
Candidate Cinco: There presently is no fifth candidate. Suddenly, I find myself leaning towards profiling Glenn "Goldline" Beck. I need to try to exorcise the snarky remarks about Admiral Batshit (because, let's face it, he's elevated himself well beyond the rank of Captain) here and now in the hope that they won't find their way in to my paper. At the same time, I'm too opinionated, especially regarding those with whom I disagree, and I know that my concern will be that by profiling Lonesome Rhodes some might view it as my agreeing with the maniacal things he says...
We shall see...
Candidate the First: Rachel Maddow. I know. I know. The news people again. I'm probably far more concerned with news personalities than I should be, but they tend to dovetail well with my love of politics.
Rachel is actually a supremely interesting person who is exponentially smarter than I think the general public gives her credit for. Watching her show will give you the impression that she's a very intelligent woman, but that's really just scratching the surface. I shan't act as though I know all there is to know about her, but I am thinking about her many scholastic achievements of which I've read about in the past and if what I'm recalling is accurate, then it might surprise a lot of people..especially once they learn that she used to be a bike messenger in New York. Anyway, I wish more political personalities would be brave enough to come on her show for an interview (especially the really cocky ones who never do REAL interviews, but softball interviews; John Boehner, Eric Cantor, etc.) as watching Rachel demolish them would be infinitely entertaining.
Candidate the Second: Dr Michio Kaku. There. NOT a politics or news person. Dr. Kaku is an astrophysicist who does what many in his field seem unable to do: Make astrophysics fun and entertaining for the common person. He usually manages to do so without losing too much of the real science behind what he's explaining, either, which is doubly-impressive. Also, he gave me hope that a real, working lightsaber could theoretically be constructed in my lifetime. Always a bonus in terms of people deserving of profiling.
Candidate the Third: Glenn Beck. Yeah. I think profiling this man would be interesting if for no other reason then I haven't leapt into any rabbit holes in a long time and, frankly, I'm overdue. I'm not entirely sure if I could properly profile a man who traded in his hold on reality for a handful of paranoid beans years ago, but if worse comes to worse, I could do what he tends to do when talking about other people: Make shit up. But in all seriousness, forcing myself to objectively profile a man that has demonstrated a very high level of lunacy bordering on psychosis would not only be a fun challenge, but could help me understand why he is the way he is (besides the money).
Candidate the IV: Colin Meloy. Venturing into the world of music, I am interested to know more than I do about the lead singer of The Decemberists, one of my favorite bands. Granted, I'm not entirely sure if he falls under the title of either truth-telling or troublemaker, but I'm sure some cursory readings of bios and a trip through the Google could settle that within a few minutes. His music and his lyrics aren't your typical pop tune lyrical abortions...which stands to reason as you don't get labelled an "indie" band with Taylor Swift lyrics. Colin just strikes as likely being a very interesting guy to profile and learn some more about.
Candidate Cinco: There presently is no fifth candidate. Suddenly, I find myself leaning towards profiling Glenn "Goldline" Beck. I need to try to exorcise the snarky remarks about Admiral Batshit (because, let's face it, he's elevated himself well beyond the rank of Captain) here and now in the hope that they won't find their way in to my paper. At the same time, I'm too opinionated, especially regarding those with whom I disagree, and I know that my concern will be that by profiling Lonesome Rhodes some might view it as my agreeing with the maniacal things he says...
We shall see...
01 February 2011
Keith is Gone...For Now. But There's Still Rachel Maddow. Thankfully.
It's late (or early if we want to get into semantics) so I'll just post the link and let you see for yourself. I'll get around to addressing this when I'm actually awake rather than in a walking-coma.
Rachel Maddow: 1. Faux News: 0
Rachel Maddow: 1. Faux News: 0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)