12.13.2007
The Spaces Issue... and a video we like
The December issue is out and scattered around campus and downtown. Check it out and let us know what you think. In the meantime, we came across a video by Annie Leonard, which sums up some of the points raised in the Spaces issue. The Story of Stuff is a collaborative visual effort of two decades worth of research put together by Leonard and funded through Sustainability Funders (The Funders Workgroup for Sustainable Production and Consumption) and Tides Foundation. A 20-minute, digitalized film that highlights the cause-and-effect of our crazy, consumer-based global market, The Story of Stuff will not only have you rethinking the means in which you dispose of your garbage, but also rationalizing whether it's necessity or habit that leads you to yearn to purchase the newest gadget on the market.
12.05.2007
War, TV and Hip-Hop: A Buzzsaw Spectacular at the Lost Dog
UPDATE: Canceled due to snow. Will be reschedule for spring semester.
Thursday, Dec. 13, Buzzsaw presents perhaps our greatest event ever. Screenings, live music, free food, and give-a-ways - all in one glorious, pre-finals evening at the Lost Dog Café.
War, TV, and Hip-Hop is a mixed media party taking a second look at three pillars of contemporary American life.
First, “The War Tapes” brings us a perspective on the war in Iraq that is free from embedded anchors, commercial sponsors, and motion graphics. A long-form documentary shot by three soldiers working in collaboration with award-winning documentarians.
Second, a screening aimed spreading awareness about two new media initiatives that want to expand their pool of active producers, not boost ratings by recruiting passive viewers. On the national level, Current TV integrates viewer created content into roughly one-third of its cable broadcasts and is looking for more. At the local level, Buzzsaw Haircut is launching a new digital video component called Buzzsaw TV. Buzzsaw TV will function both as a production unit and as an outlet for locally produced video work to be featured in a video blog, screening events, and an annual DVD release.
Finally, Kidz in the Hall bring us their acclaimed brand of politically conscious hip-hop with an aim to make us rethink the formula for the catchy rap music we’ve grown used to. Co-signed by Just Blaze, 3H (50 cent, Kanye West), and Matty C (Originator of Unsigned Hype) the Kidz debut album, “School Was My Hustle” was rated 3.5 by Scratch Magazine.
Here's the schedule:
5:30 PM: The War Tapes (Sponsored by Campus Progress)
7:00 PM Megg Farrell (Folk Rock / Hawaiian / Blues)
7:30 PM The Tundra Toes (Indie / Country / Tropical)
8:00 PM Current TV Screening
9:00 PM Buzzsaw TV Launch Party
10:00 PM Kidz in the Hall (Sponsored by Buzzsaw Haircut and Imprint Magazine. Free give-a-ways from Homegrown Skateshop.)
Lost Dog Café, downtown Ithaca. Doors open at 5:30 PM. 18 to enter, 21 to drink. No cover until 10pm.
The Iowa Derby for Donkeys
The presidential candidate field tends to start off overly saturated. Luckily, America has the Iowa caucuses to narrow down the field for the rest of the country. In many cases, a poor outcome in Iowa can mean the end of a campaign for a candidate. In the 2004 caucuses, Democratic front-runner Howard Dean finished in a dismal third place and then went on to give his infamous "I Have A Scream" speech. Nearly a month later, he dropped out of the race and endorsed John Kerry.
The 2008 Iowa Caucuses are almost a month away, and there is still a great amount of uncertainty regarding the results. If Obama doesn't win Iowa, he really won't have much of a shot winning the nomination. But despite Clinton doing very well in the polls, I think Obama may have a very good shot at winning Iowa.
Here is a brief rundown of how the Democratic Iowa Caucuses work:
Voters have to select their candidate in the first round of voting. If their candidate gets less than 15 percent of the vote then they are not considered a viable candidate and those voters must select someone who is viable.
Several weeks ago, The New York Times released poll results. In Iowa, Clinton was ahead of Obama 25 percent to 22 percent. However, when voters were asked who their second choice was, Obama beat Clinton 24 percent to 16 percent. This could put Obama ahead of Clinton in the second and final round of voting and make him the winner in Iowa.
However, both Obama and Clinton should be looking out for John Edwards. He has a lot of support in Iowa and is pretty much neck and neck with the other two front-runners in Iowa. Edwards is also popular as a second-choice candidate. But if he wins Iowa, he still has a long battle ahead of him. He has spent a lot of time and money in that state and there have been questions regarding his ability to campaign in the following primaries. Yet a win there could also bring in the money that he needs.
Generally speaking, the winner of Iowa wins the nomination. Of course, this isn't always the case. For instance, Bill Clinton lost the Iowa caucus in 1992 to Tom Harkin and he went on to win the presidency. This upcoming caucus could also fall under that category. An Obama or Edwards victory in Iowa with a Clinton nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August. It could be 1992 all over again.
The 2008 Iowa Caucuses are almost a month away, and there is still a great amount of uncertainty regarding the results. If Obama doesn't win Iowa, he really won't have much of a shot winning the nomination. But despite Clinton doing very well in the polls, I think Obama may have a very good shot at winning Iowa.
Here is a brief rundown of how the Democratic Iowa Caucuses work:
Voters have to select their candidate in the first round of voting. If their candidate gets less than 15 percent of the vote then they are not considered a viable candidate and those voters must select someone who is viable.
Several weeks ago, The New York Times released poll results. In Iowa, Clinton was ahead of Obama 25 percent to 22 percent. However, when voters were asked who their second choice was, Obama beat Clinton 24 percent to 16 percent. This could put Obama ahead of Clinton in the second and final round of voting and make him the winner in Iowa.
However, both Obama and Clinton should be looking out for John Edwards. He has a lot of support in Iowa and is pretty much neck and neck with the other two front-runners in Iowa. Edwards is also popular as a second-choice candidate. But if he wins Iowa, he still has a long battle ahead of him. He has spent a lot of time and money in that state and there have been questions regarding his ability to campaign in the following primaries. Yet a win there could also bring in the money that he needs.
Generally speaking, the winner of Iowa wins the nomination. Of course, this isn't always the case. For instance, Bill Clinton lost the Iowa caucus in 1992 to Tom Harkin and he went on to win the presidency. This upcoming caucus could also fall under that category. An Obama or Edwards victory in Iowa with a Clinton nomination at the Democratic National Convention in August. It could be 1992 all over again.
10.21.2007
Truthiness in '08
Can't even describe how stoked I am to be able to write about Presidential Candidate Stephen Colbert. Colbert announced his candidacy on October 16th's episode of The Colbert Report; he already has corporate campaign sponsorship from Doritos -- very, very savvy, Doritos -- and the Donorschoose.org Straw Poll has Colbert as the top choice for President, with Obama second and Mike Gravel third. In other words, the man is not screwing around.
Colbert's bid for War Chief was covered intrepidly here by the Chicago Tribune. Obviously, the good people at the Tribune are not taking this seriously, and I think they damn well should be. The video clip compares Colbert to other joke candidates in the past -- at least I hope to every God conceived by humanity that the "Supreme Vermin" campaign was a joke -- and was apparently trying to demonstrate with their beat-on-the-street interviews that nobody really cares about Colbert.
Not so, says I.
For starters, maybe the clip would have been a little less biased if the reporter had not, presumably, staked herself out in front of the local AARP offices, and perhaps tried to interview a few people who weren't old enough to remember Lincoln's campaign; I have the utmost respect for the elderly, but I think it might have been a bit difficult to get an accurate read on society's pulse from the people featured in the clip -- considering they barely seemed to have pulses themselves.
Next: I'm not sure if it's willful denial or simple ignorance, but the Tribune seems to know as much about Colbert as did the poor schmuck who infamously set him loose at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner--which is not much.
There are two lessons that everybody -- everybody -- in the media business should have learned from that massacre. First, Stephen Colbert is not some brainless jester with nothing to do but crack jokes: the man has an agenda. Second, he has the logistical means to carry out that agenda: unless the Correspondents' Dinner was a massive, epic, once-in-a-century fluke, Colbert obviously knows people who know people, and in politics, that's most of what you need. Third -- and I hate to sound sexist, but I know of no better metaphor -- the man has bulletproof cajones. My God, what must he have been thinking at that dinner: he stands up from his seat, walks past the President of the United States of America, moves to the podium not ten feet away, looks out at a sea of dignitaries and politicians, takes a deep breath -- and commences to unload a righteous hellfire barrage of thinly-veiled criticism, aimed at practically every breathing creature in the room, including -- especially -- the Most Powerful Man in the World, who is no doubt wishing he could give the word for the Secret Service to empty every weapon they have into Colbert's bespectacled frame and dump his body in the Potomac River. It was epic. It was Biblical. It damn near brings tears to my eyes every time I think about it. And if that is what Colbert is capable of -- if nothing else -- then nobody, not even the Tribune, had better be taking him lightly.
It goes beyond that. Not only does Colbert have an impressive pair of...
...values, he has an army backing him up. The "Colbert Nation" commands a substantial chunk of that delicious 18-to-24 age demographic, and many of them are rabidly loyal to Colbert: they almost got a bridge named after him, for God's sake. They'll carry him as close to the White House as he wants to go.
Everybody's always lamenting how college kids never participate in politics: what are they going to do if Colbert allows himself to win in the primaries? I know it's practically impossible, but it's worth wondering: what would happen if the 18-24s turned out in record numbers in 2008 and handed Colbert the popular vote? What would that say about our political system? Is it really that impossible?
I have the utmost respect for Colbert, but I hope to God this madness stops soon: if the rest of the world realizes it's possible for a comedian to be voted President of the United States, every nation of people who can hold so much as a tree branch will be scrambling to invade us. Canadians armed with chainsaws and broken maple syrup bottles will swarm over the northern border. Migrant workers turned sleeper-cell invaders will raise the Mexican flag over the entire Southwest. Greenlanders riding polar bears will conquer New England. Ithaca itself will surely be subjugated by gravity-defying Buddhist monks from Namgyal Monastery a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Mark my words: if Colbert succeeds, the nation will burn.
Colbert's bid for War Chief was covered intrepidly here by the Chicago Tribune. Obviously, the good people at the Tribune are not taking this seriously, and I think they damn well should be. The video clip compares Colbert to other joke candidates in the past -- at least I hope to every God conceived by humanity that the "Supreme Vermin" campaign was a joke -- and was apparently trying to demonstrate with their beat-on-the-street interviews that nobody really cares about Colbert.
Not so, says I.
For starters, maybe the clip would have been a little less biased if the reporter had not, presumably, staked herself out in front of the local AARP offices, and perhaps tried to interview a few people who weren't old enough to remember Lincoln's campaign; I have the utmost respect for the elderly, but I think it might have been a bit difficult to get an accurate read on society's pulse from the people featured in the clip -- considering they barely seemed to have pulses themselves.
Next: I'm not sure if it's willful denial or simple ignorance, but the Tribune seems to know as much about Colbert as did the poor schmuck who infamously set him loose at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner--which is not much.
There are two lessons that everybody -- everybody -- in the media business should have learned from that massacre. First, Stephen Colbert is not some brainless jester with nothing to do but crack jokes: the man has an agenda. Second, he has the logistical means to carry out that agenda: unless the Correspondents' Dinner was a massive, epic, once-in-a-century fluke, Colbert obviously knows people who know people, and in politics, that's most of what you need. Third -- and I hate to sound sexist, but I know of no better metaphor -- the man has bulletproof cajones. My God, what must he have been thinking at that dinner: he stands up from his seat, walks past the President of the United States of America, moves to the podium not ten feet away, looks out at a sea of dignitaries and politicians, takes a deep breath -- and commences to unload a righteous hellfire barrage of thinly-veiled criticism, aimed at practically every breathing creature in the room, including -- especially -- the Most Powerful Man in the World, who is no doubt wishing he could give the word for the Secret Service to empty every weapon they have into Colbert's bespectacled frame and dump his body in the Potomac River. It was epic. It was Biblical. It damn near brings tears to my eyes every time I think about it. And if that is what Colbert is capable of -- if nothing else -- then nobody, not even the Tribune, had better be taking him lightly.
It goes beyond that. Not only does Colbert have an impressive pair of...
...values, he has an army backing him up. The "Colbert Nation" commands a substantial chunk of that delicious 18-to-24 age demographic, and many of them are rabidly loyal to Colbert: they almost got a bridge named after him, for God's sake. They'll carry him as close to the White House as he wants to go.
Everybody's always lamenting how college kids never participate in politics: what are they going to do if Colbert allows himself to win in the primaries? I know it's practically impossible, but it's worth wondering: what would happen if the 18-24s turned out in record numbers in 2008 and handed Colbert the popular vote? What would that say about our political system? Is it really that impossible?
I have the utmost respect for Colbert, but I hope to God this madness stops soon: if the rest of the world realizes it's possible for a comedian to be voted President of the United States, every nation of people who can hold so much as a tree branch will be scrambling to invade us. Canadians armed with chainsaws and broken maple syrup bottles will swarm over the northern border. Migrant workers turned sleeper-cell invaders will raise the Mexican flag over the entire Southwest. Greenlanders riding polar bears will conquer New England. Ithaca itself will surely be subjugated by gravity-defying Buddhist monks from Namgyal Monastery a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Mark my words: if Colbert succeeds, the nation will burn.
10.08.2007
Bitches and Hoes, or Women & Prostitutes?
In the gym I see your ass up on the Stairmaster
But you got it on level two bitch go a little faster
Look girl, I ain’t gonna lie, I'll tell you how I feel
They should handcuff your big ass to the treadmill – 50 Cent – Fat Bitches
Since I was little, my parents have given me many of my beliefs. Two of the ones that are most important to me are my love of music and a positive self-image / self-respect. Today, however, those two parts of my life are clashing. It seems that everywhere I look (or listen), “bitches” and “hoes” are dancing around men who seem to only care about sex. For example, "I’m sick of using technology, why don't you come sit on top of me" [50 cent ft Justin Timberlake - ayo technology]. Isn’t there a slightly nicer way to ask a girl to have sex with you? And God FORBID a woman has a normal body shape. For example, Britney Spears in the VMA’s this year. I’m not condoning her horrendous performance, but in no way shape or form was she overweight. If anything, she looked healthy. So girls see healthy women being called fat bitches and lose their self-esteem and stop eating. But that’s not okay either. Because then they’re anorexic whores who are talked about by everyone from Perez Hilton to CNN. How are girls that are exposed to pop culture supposed to feel good about themselves? Granted, there are songs that promote positive self-image like Mika’s “Big Girls.” But there aren’t nearly enough. I’m all for freedom of speech, but personally, I don't see the need for "bitches" and “hoes” to be in songs. I understand some artists want to be "shocking" and "outrageous" to gain more fans. But does Ludacris really need to yell out "move, bitch; get out the way"? Can’t he just say “excuse me miss, I need to pass by you”? All I’m saying is there should be some sort of happy medium that artists can reach without being misogynistic and sounding like sexual pigs. I don't know, maybe I just need some "sexual healing."
But you got it on level two bitch go a little faster
Look girl, I ain’t gonna lie, I'll tell you how I feel
They should handcuff your big ass to the treadmill – 50 Cent – Fat Bitches
Since I was little, my parents have given me many of my beliefs. Two of the ones that are most important to me are my love of music and a positive self-image / self-respect. Today, however, those two parts of my life are clashing. It seems that everywhere I look (or listen), “bitches” and “hoes” are dancing around men who seem to only care about sex. For example, "I’m sick of using technology, why don't you come sit on top of me" [50 cent ft Justin Timberlake - ayo technology]. Isn’t there a slightly nicer way to ask a girl to have sex with you? And God FORBID a woman has a normal body shape. For example, Britney Spears in the VMA’s this year. I’m not condoning her horrendous performance, but in no way shape or form was she overweight. If anything, she looked healthy. So girls see healthy women being called fat bitches and lose their self-esteem and stop eating. But that’s not okay either. Because then they’re anorexic whores who are talked about by everyone from Perez Hilton to CNN. How are girls that are exposed to pop culture supposed to feel good about themselves? Granted, there are songs that promote positive self-image like Mika’s “Big Girls.” But there aren’t nearly enough. I’m all for freedom of speech, but personally, I don't see the need for "bitches" and “hoes” to be in songs. I understand some artists want to be "shocking" and "outrageous" to gain more fans. But does Ludacris really need to yell out "move, bitch; get out the way"? Can’t he just say “excuse me miss, I need to pass by you”? All I’m saying is there should be some sort of happy medium that artists can reach without being misogynistic and sounding like sexual pigs. I don't know, maybe I just need some "sexual healing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
