title
09/15/2008
My favorite landscape/still life artist, Mary Lou Molinaro, got an acknowledgement-shoutout-link from an art instruction site that published an image of one of her works, Crape Myrtles In Winter. They also linked to her Web site.
Since that group linked to her, I'll return the compliment. Click on the image left to visit them.
Andrea Mitchell
10/08/2008
I. Why does MSNBC think that Mrs. Alan Greenspan (Andrea Mitchell) deserves to be on my TeeVee machine? Don't want to get ugly here. I have empathy, knowing personally how skills diminish over time. However, the poor dear cannot get through a sentence without straining to organize her thoughts. Her frequent struggle to do so is distracting and tries my patience.
If the station wants to keep her on, they should do so only under the following conditions:
- Give her an Eric Severeid-like guest commentary that she can write out and read. Then all she has to do is look spontaneous saying "Good night, Walter".
- Under no circumstances allow anyone to ask her a question or require her to elaborate. Face it, she needs to avoid spontaneity unless it is simple or scripted for her and clearly visible on her monitor with large type.
- Never allow her to ask a question of anyone.
And while we are at it: Have you ever heard a disclaimer at the beginning of one of her appearances on your TeeVee machine acknowledging that she has been married to Alan Gressnpan for a decade or so? Just asking.
Anyway, if none of these conditions enumerated above are practical, then I'm sorry, retire the nice lady with some dignity before she hurts herself.
II. Why are Pat Buchanan and James Carville on my TeeVee machine, EVAH?
Rachel Maddow
10/14/2008
Nick Witnesses Dismemberment: Rachel Maddow Vs. David Frum
Could regular exposure to Rachel Maddow change what consumers expect of broadcast commentator/journalist celebrities? I ask because last night on my TeeVee machine I saw her deliver a spontaneous, professional ass whuppin' with no attached histrionics.
Under surprise attack from her guest, she maintained her composure and calmly counter-punched with a reasonable riposte. I can't imagine a better response.
Here is a link to a post, "Rachel Maddow Vs. David Frum", by Tristero at a site called "Hullabaloo". I offer you this because of Tristero's excellent commentary on it. This link is time-sensitive in that you may have trouble finding it if you wait too long. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
You can catch the Maddow/Frum interview at http://youtube.com/ by typing in maddow frum in the search box. Or, here is a specific link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRQzo27W4rA
Miscellany
10/31/2008
Four Days Left
VOTE.
Other than that, I got nothing.
______________________________________________________________
10/30/2008
Media Celeb Lead-ins
Are there some lead-ins upon which media celebs rely too often as a means of infusing interviews and commentaries with a false air of objectivity to challenging questions?
I'm thinking of things like: "Some people say . . .," "It has been reported . . .," "It has been said . . .," They usually follow that with something like "How do you respond?"
There are variants. When interviewing a subject, they often lead with the invitation to respond, as in:
"How do you respond to reports that you beat your wife senseless once a week and have eaten two of your nine illegitimate children?".
To show that I am above such wimpy vagueness, I'll name names here now: All of them, all the media celebs do it . . . according to what . . . you know, some people say. Kidding. I observe this daily from all sides.
Okay, I'll site one as best I can from a memory of long ago. The details are hazy now, so I have to be wimpily vague in calling her out. I recall Katie Couric putting someone on the spot with a made-up story that some political operative from one of the campaigns planted in a Drudge report. It was that first one, "Some people say . . .". And then, because the target did not push back, he/she had to squirm and take time to rebut a false story instead of stating his/her position on something important and true.
I remember thinking, "Push back. Challenge her. Force her to reveal those 'some people'. Something like:
Who, Katie? Who are the people saying that whom you seem to want to shield because you would not dare acknowledge that you are picking up a phony political screed from my opposition and furthering their phony narrative? Really, who, Dearie? Name names or be honest and make it clear that you, you are the one making an issue out of nothing. And let's hope this is the last time you try this phony bullshit on me, you twit."
The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if the collusion could be more transparent:
- Political operative plants story in Drudge or one of the other politically-oriented publications
- Drudge salivates and runs it in banner headlines
- Major media celeb picks it up and pushes it onto the prime time news hour
- Other major media types dutifully pile on
- Subject has to further the narrative by defending, denying, refuting, giving his/her opponent the coveted news cycle victory for two or three days
- All media celebs are off the hook and not compelled to do the work of real journalists.
Nice arrangement, isn't it? Why is there so little push back to this obvious tactic? How hard is it to just say something like, "Who?" before launching a defense and enabling the opposition in their path?
_______________________________________________________
10/29/2008
What's Up With The Stripes And Polka Dot Combos?
Do none of the guy media celebs have spouses or S.O.s who check them over for pattern congruency before they leave the house? C'mon, a broad striped suit with a polka dot tie on a news program broadcast to millions of people? I'm talking to you, Keith Olberman; you, David Shuster; you, David Gregory. I never got away with that stuff when I had to wear suit and tie, and I only spoke to a handful of people daily. Did the rules change during the time I have been telecommuting, or are these guys above the rules?
My wife and I speculate that broadcasters seem to get no fashion advice from someone with taste. How can they be so focused on image and yet dress themselves with no fashion sense?
Rachel Maddow, I'm talking to you now. Here are some easy-to-follow rules that will give you that bit of an appearance edge to match your commentary excellence:
- If you must wear a suit that mimics what the power guys wear, don't button the jacket the way they do. No, not figure-flattering, Dear.
- Better, skip the power suit and go girlie. Yes, feminize with dresses, skirts. Choose to stand out and go the opposite direction from the herd. And besides, pants suits don't work for all figures. Sorry, life ain't fair.
- And the hair. Yes, I know self-identity is important, and I'm glad you are proud of who you are, but most of us don't care anymore. You are naturally pretty and engaging and you seem to have thick hair; work it, Girl.
_______________________________________________________
10/29/2008
Feel The Pity
Come on, People! Isn't picking on Elizabeth Hasselbeck somewhat equivalent to pulling the wings off of butterflies? Grow up.
Here is what should happen with this poor girl:
- Her agent should get her off of that "View" program and get her onto something like Sesame Street.
- Her grandparents should get her in a group hug, kiss away her tears, and take her out for an ice-cream.
- The rest of you should leave her ahloooooooooone.
_______________________________________________________
10/27/2008
Nick Resolves Image File Issue
O.K. I got through that one and I am nearly finished with the project that has been occupying the largest portion of my conscious moments. We released this already to one client, but fortunately they have all the documentation they need. I'll be able to meet my self-imposed deadline on this project, but this one has been difficult.
This morning I did have to move my 2:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. espresso break to 11:00 a.m.. Now, I am facing a long afternoon.
_______________________________________________________
10/26/2008
Nick Nods
It is 1:00 p.m. and I've been having trouble with an animated image that I need for the release upon which I am struggling. Because I did not sleep well last night, I'm drooping. I support moving the 2:00 p.m. espresso break to 1:00 p.m. and invite all of you to join me. And besides that, I got nothing. See you at the Tassimo.
Eight days left. VOTE.
_______________________________________________________
10/25/2008
Musings About An Anomaly At Fox
My news and politics addiction leads me to a consideration of Shepard Smith. Yes, driven by my heightened current focus on politics and news, I occasionally allow Fox News to appear on my TeeVee machine. Well, that is one easy click away from Andrea Mitchell and obnoxious, intolerable commercials, both of which annoy me.
Ole Shep has an interesting voice and speech pattern. Sometimes, I wonder if he has either just awakened, or if he has been up all night handling a crisis. It's a morning, sometimes-phlegmy, deep voice. In addition, his eyelids droop a bit, adding to the effect.
Based on my few encounters, I conclude the following:
- Stands out from his right-wing loon colleagues on that station in that he is far less ideological
- Seems willing to offer quick, short counterpoint to the Rovian screeds that permeate the air and enter the pores of the ranters who surround him
- Makes it clear that he is his own man and neither an opposition punching bag prop, nor a Murdoch mouthpiece (i.e., seems quite willing to push back against loony mouthings from either the right or left fringes)
- Projects an irresistible, bullshit-intolerance attitude
- Has a casual and spontaneous delivery with a touch of effective humor, especially when he sees the irony in a news piece, which he conveys with ease
I think he believes that it is his job to inform with clear language. Imagine.
_______________________________________________________
10/24/2008
An Insight Into Insight
With my first cup of morning coffee at my side, my routine perusal of the Huffingtonpost is much the same as the good start to the day that others get from the morning newspaper. I just get it electronically on a monitor. Yes, it is a political context that fits my own viewpoint and reinforces it and keeps me safely within the confines of my comfort zone, comfort that I need given that morning often comes so early. However, it is also a relaxing and useful way to enjoy and assess the skill or lack of skill of many writers employing the evolving blogosphere language. I've enjoyed this so much, I'm starting to test myself by trying to block out the name of the author of a particular post and see if I can guess who it is by identifying the writing style. In my several attempts, I've not guessed one correctly. I might give up the effort.
This morning I encountered a post, again in a political context, that provided me with an intriguing "look inward" question easily applicable outside of the political context: "What are you pretending not to know?"
The authors were exploring the co-dependence of relationships in which one partner is an addict and the other deals with personal life-experience trauma. They highlight the mutual denial of the addiction and the trauma and emphasize how dependent each is on the other person's willingness and ability to deny.
I'm not including an attribution or a link here because I don't approve of "clinicians" who publicly shred the marriage of a celebrity couple with long distance, seen-only-from-the-TeeVee machine analysis. Despicable malpractice, really. Respectable blogs should not cover sleaze. Bad on you, Huffingtonpost. However, the central question of the post is intriguing.
So, how about it: What are the campaign operatives and surrogates allowed on my TeeVee machine pretending not to know?
What are you pretending not to know?
_______________________________________________________
10/23/2008
A Verbal, Runaway, High-speed Bulldozer
Chris Matthews is the only media celeb appearing on my TeeVee machine who can make me feel sorry for Nancy Pfotenhauer, one of McCain's political operatives. What a going over. Your YouTube link here . . ..
What was it like in the household of Mr. and Mrs. Matthews when they were raising Chris in an era before Ritalin, Zoloft, Zanac, and the modest popularity of Transcendental Meditation? I suppose some tranquilizers were available, but what endurance his parents and siblings must have had. Think about an evening at their dinner table. 
He can be a rather skilled and interesting wordsmith when he is not spontaneously plowing his way through and obscuring his guests' sentences. When he is reading the words he has written off the monitor with some level of calm, he is quite interesting. He brings a long history of political lore with him to the screen including several years as an aide to one of my all time political heroes, Tip O'Neill. He also has that Philadelphia, Irish humor and charm thing going for him.
However, get yourself into that calm place in your day before you let him on your TeeVee machine. A glass of wine usually helps me endure his spittle spray assaults.
_______________________________________________________
10/23/2008
Ponder This
Does morning have to occur so damned early?
_______________________________________________________
10/22/2008
A Man Who Communicates His Interest In Ships
My friend, Chip Carter, who owns North Bay Cabinets in Vallejo, CA, is a very good writer. His narratives flow smoothly and logically, and he imbues his sentences with enthusiasm. . . .
Join me at Chip's page, which I have cleverly titled Chip Carter, The Mariner. You can see the link to the left under the Home page link.
_______________________________________________________
10/21/2008
Why We Lean
Do you sometimes marvel at the bias transparency of media celebs who use descriptive clues to introduce and categorize persons they are about to quote, paraphrase, introduce, or discuss? "Leans", for example. Some celebrities must believe that everyone leans right or left and he/she must use that to influence our opinion of the subject's position before we hear it, making it coincide with what is commonly accepted. See, it takes no further exploration or consideration or journalistic effort; just regurgitate the given label, knowing your gullible viewers will accept it, and move on.
Should not the discussion or narrative alone supply sufficient evidence about the person or his topic without the narrator telling us what we should expect and accept? Is it just me, or do you sometimes want to push back against the obvious motive behind the label? Isn't the narrator purposely blunting the subjects assertions or real position on issues. Doesn't he/she really want to devalue whatever the subject might say on some issue?
Are we really all compelled to lean? Can we not stand or sit erect? If we stand or sit erect, and therefore, do not lean, are we centrists, mavericks, nonconformists, or ones who cannot take a stand on anything? Or, do we just fall outside of the convenient narrative of the media celeb who has managed to dodge the actual hard work of a real journalist?
When someone, a broadcast or newsprint or blogosphere celebrity, uses that descriptor, is it ever worthwhile to wonder about the motivation of the narrator/writer in alerting us or setting us up? Do you ever wonder about other labels and the motivation of people using them? Just asking.
_______________________________________________________
10/21/2008
Paul Begala and James Carville Drive Me Crazy
However, this is some rather good writing, and I celebrate that wherever I encounter it. They wrote this jointly. I suppose then that one could say this is an example of joint writing, which might suggest that some hallucinogen generated it. Coleridge, Blake, Burroughs, Bukowski all had some success with that. I'm considering it.
I got this from a Huffingtonpost item today. I know this violates my mostly observed rule about excluding politics from my blog, but even Republicans have to accept that the coming political shift is inevitable. I'm including it for it's effective use of point and counterpoint. Anyway, I promise not to make this blog overly reflective of my personal political preferences. Here you go:
The Republican Party is atomizing, and each faction must participate in Project BLAME. The neocons may want to blame the theocons. The economic conservatives will likely blame the big spenders. The conflagration will be so multi-dimensional we'll need a program to sort out the players. They will need to answer fundamental questions: What does it mean to be a Republican? Do Republicans support laissez-faire or nationalized banking? Do Republicans support a balanced budget or half-trillion-dollar deficits? Do Republicans want a "humble foreign policy" like George W. Bush, or preventive war against countries that pose no threat, like, umm, George W. Bush? Are Republicans the party of limited government or a vast Medicare prescription drug
benefit? Are they wary of Big Brother or eager to expand warrantless wiretaps? Do they support Christian values or torture? Are they the party that believes that cutting-edge technology can shoot a missile out of the sky or the party that believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth simultaneously?
Paul Begala and James Carville via the Huffingtonpost, 10/21/2008
_______________________________________________________
10/21/2008
Bucky Paper Stronger Than Steel
Saw this on one of my blogs recently. Sounds as though this is years away from commercial use, but researchers at Florida State University have advanced the development of this ultra thin, super strength material that presumably could replace steel in manufacturing processes. It seems likely that this could result in substantial savings in energy consumption. Here is your link http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/buckypaper-revolutionary_n_136286.html
_______________________________________________________
10/20/2008
Fading Punch Words
Are some words losing their punch? Ideology, trickle down, for example. Join me for a discussion at the Forums page.
_______________________________________________________
10/15/2008
Nick Ponders A Likely Change In Our Popular Discourse
I wonder if the national political shift we are about to experience will accelerate a change in our popular discourse as television and talk radio celebrities have presented it to us over the past decade. Will the prevalent attack tone resonate as widely among us as it has? Does the coming change in the administration and legislature portend a change in the manner, tone, and content of information/propaganda from what has been largely ideological to the more cerebral and pragmatic? Is there a cause and effect there?
I ask because, leaving ideologies aside, the two candidates for national office have distinctive communication styles that differ from the outgoing administration.
If you want to engage in a discussion on this topic, travel over to a new feature at Nick's Place, The Forum.
Please add something to the discussion, even just a word or two or more. It is easy, really. Click on the "Forums" link in the menu at the left, then click on the topic. You will have to register the first time and then you can participate in this and all future topics. By registering you can submit your own topics and respond to whatever has been posted there.