Chronicles of a Slow News Day: May 28th, 2007

After taking Journalism at university, I can say I learned (among others) these two facts about the biz; 1) Dead air/space is like liquid death, and 2) There's not always something newsworthy to fill that space. The CNN Newsroom this morning was a prime example of that lesson coming to life in a sort of grim synergy.

Sergent Marries Girlfriend Over Phone

This is one of those stories where women watching go "aww!" This is also one of those stories that makes me wince. Here are two people who are so sickeningly in love that they lose all patience and sense. But the fact that they got married over the phone is hardly what bothers me. The fact that I know does. The fact that I turned to CNN and this is what they told me. Not only did they tell me this, they interviewed the two of them; the Sergent via satellite and the wife, appropriately enough, by phone. And you could tell that Melissa Long was just straining to make this interesting:

LONG: So tell me, Sergeant, you had been dating a of couple months. You were deployed to Iraq and you just couldn't stand the thought of not being together. How did you decide to get married over the phone?

K. CREEL: We had actually been talking about getting married. We had already been planning a wedding and everything for whenever I got back. And the more we talked about it, the more anxious we both got. And we figured the only way to do it quickly would be to see if we could get help from the state of Texas. And they were great.

LONG: OK. So, Tara, take me through the steps of the vows. Did you have an opportunity to get dressed up? Did you have rings? What type of vows did you have?

TARA CREEL: We actually did it over my lunch break from work. And we got a marriage license and we had someone stand in for him, a good family friend. And we went to the courthouse and had a judge marry us. And then I went back to work.

LONG: OK. Did you have a nice lunch at any point to celebrate this wonderful occasion?

"Did you have a nice lunch?" What is this shit? I expect this kind of hard-hitting investigative journalism from Live at 5, not from CNN. To hell with this lovey dovey hippy emasculated crap.

Ketchup Portraits




Remember how this was all over Youtube for about a day and a half a few months back? Well, now it's all over the news. How awesome! Something most of us have already seen a month ago and already got bored with, again! Only this time there's a crawl underneath it and we don't actually get to see the video for more than a second!

CNN is totally on to something. All the other media outlets are already catching up. Next week there will be an exposé on Star Wars Kid on MSNBC, and the New Yorker is doing a photojournalistic essay on GOATSE. I personally can't wait for the special TV movie "Canon Rock: The JerryC Story" to air on ABC!

There are just some things better left to the Internet, CNN and you other TV News Stations. Just because you're a slowly dying medium for news doesn't mean you can't die with some dignity.

Commando Mom Makes Kid's Birthday at Taxpayer's Expense

OCTAVIA MITCHELL, REPORTER, WCBD TV: Taylor Deal thought she was celebrating her 10th birthday without her mom. She also thought she was filming a greeting for her mom who was deployed in Iraq.

Well, she thought wrong, didn't she? First of all, what a lame lead-in, Octavia. "She thought this would happen" is just a roundabout way of saying "this other thing happened." We were taught in Journalism school to avoid campy cliches like that. And yet you're fucking CNN.

Secondly, the mother here (who did make it to the party, for all you waiting with baited breath), according to the stuff written under her in that header or whatever you call it, made a point to get home early. For her daughter's 10th Birthday. So that the little girl wouldn't feel bad. Right. This is a good lesson to teach a kid. "Whenever you want something, no matter how trivial, the world works to give you your way, including but not exclusive to the U.S. Military." It's a birthday. Get over yourself. You know what I did on my 20th birthday this year? I spent most of it alone, and then I had to go to see my mom in Oklahoma!, the hammiest of the Rodgers and Hammerstein plays. And she didn't have a single line in it. So I really went there for nothing. And I didn't even get a cake.

Though maybe this is the answer to getting the troops out of Iraq; they all claim they have a kid's birthday they cannot miss. Then maybe it'd be an interesting story. But it really, really isn't.

Memorial Day Grilling!

In this segment, I learned:

- May is "National BBQ Month"
- There were 17,000,000 grills shipped in the U.S. last year
- 66% of grilling is done by men
- BBQ experts agree, charcoal is the way to go
- I want to kill myself

Seriously, I hate myself for knowing these facts. Why did you fill space with this crap, CNN? This would barely be interesting on a Wikipedia page on Barbecue statistics. Hell, this probably isn't even worthy of the attention of the Census. Who but the BBQ industry cares about these numbers? Oh, and the BBQ expert (read: expert = lobbyist) even gave barbecue etiquette! Here's a gem or two:

LISOVICZ: Here's some etiquette for you. If you're invited to a cookout this Memorial Day, bring the potato salad or steak sauce, but don't touch the grill. The primary griller in the majority of households considers him or himself to be an average or above average cook, and you wouldn't want to step on that person's toes or ego.

You know why unwritten rules are unwritten? They're stupid. As is this whole BBQ nonsense. Get off of CNN and stay away from the Census.

Three Little Pigs

LONG: This is a story we've been wait for all morning. This is pretty ridiculous. It's an Oregon home, trashed because of them -- the culprits -- the piggies. Three of them, three little piggies. They're not little. Where's the owner? That's what police want to know. They say this home was in foreclosure and left to the pigs. Details from Scott Burton of our affiliate KGW.

The police want to know? I could see maybe why the police might have a healthy curiosity as to why this Shane Lovett guy would destroy his house and leave pigs in it. It's odd. But this story makes him sort of sound like he's on the FBI's most wanted list:

BURTON: Police still can't prove that Shane Lovett is behind all this but the three-foot tall letters on the side of his former home have given them a reason to look in his direction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe he signed it to let them know it was him.

BURTON: We tried to find Lovett at his new rental home this afternoon to ask him about it, but all we found this time was his last name. No sign of the 33-year-old. At last check police haven't caught up with him either. But according to Pat Bradshaw, he's been around.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yesterday afternoon, I saw him drive by.

Oh, Unidentified Male, we love your insightful musings. But why do the police want him? He broke his own house. Unless it's a rental house, which wasn't made very clear. But you'd think there'd be more pressing matters for the police to deal with. Like jaywalking.

And they talk about those "three little piggies" like they're so cute and it was fun for them. Yeah, how cute. Being locked in some ransacked shack without food or water for 72 hours before anyone noticed them dehydrated and covered in their own feces and surrounding debris. Fairy Tale fodder, that is.

Memorial Day Wreath Laying

To be fair, this was one of the more newsworthy things all day. Which is really sad. This happens every year. And yet these people have to act like it's a breaking news story. I'm sorry, but it's about as newsworthy as Christmas, Halloween and the Tuesday Surprise at your school's cafeteria. The whole time I literally was hoping someone would attempt to assassinate the president. I was like, "There are seven guys with guns right there! Please let one of them snap! They're wasting their ammo firing into the air!"

And yes, I'm aware that they were probably blanks. But can't a man dream?

That was all I could take. So this concludes our broadcast-ridiculing day.

- Silent G

Ad Nauseum: Above The Influence

I'm all for warning tweens and young adults about the ills of illegal narcotics; tokers are jokers, if I am not mistaken. But what I'm for is warning the youth generation of the actual dangers of substance abuse. What AboveTheInfluence.com does is not this.

These commercials don't so much deter kids from smoking pot as make the venture seem almost trivial. AboveTheInfluence.com doesn't seem to take it very seriously. They're all done in some pseudo-Squiggy style of art that I'm sure has some deep psychological point to it, and they come up with the most absurdly condescending arguments for not smoking pot that one could possibly entertain, and then some. Take for example this gem:

Not again, indeed.

Let us recap:

- They feel the need to point out the weed to us. Thank you Oppenheimer, we would have never figured that out without your helpful insight.

- Clearly his girlfriend is morally disgusted with her man's "Cannib-antics." "Not again," she moans. I wonder why she's even with him at this point; smoking pot is bad, and the ad makes it abundantly implied that this guy has no other good qualities. Fuck him, he smokes Mary Jane.

- At that precise moment, an alien lands and decides to make human/extraterrestrial contact with the first schmoes he comes across. Yes, because this is a common occurrence in the lives of those who use drugs.

- Our misguided youth is presented with a fantastic honor, namely representing all of Earth to Mort here. What does he do? Of course, offer him pot. I'm sure he thought it was a very nice gesture.

- The alien, in what could have been on some other planet (that didn't have its head up its collective ass) a supreme cultural insult, refused the young man's token of good will. "No thanks, I'm clean" he seems to say with his alien mannerisms. He's been on the planet for six seconds and can't even seem to walk in a straight line, and yet he's somehow above the local customs. Though to be fair, he does have interstellar travel down pat.

- The girl loves this guy. So of course she flies away with him, to some sort of Space Make-Out Point I would presume. Never mind the guy. Never mind their relationship in any way. No, he smokes pot and the alien doesn't. This is enough to inspire within her nethers romantic feelings for a member of a different species. And yet I can't land a date to save my life.

All their ads are to some degree or another similar to this one. Many of them seem to include this judgmental little shit of a dog. Just an aside, I would probably retort, "Fuck you, you're a dog. You lick your own ass" (FYI, that comeback is appropriate to any scenario where a dog verbally suggests that he is better than you).

These ads bug me, but they are not the only anti-substance ones that do. Many of the commercials in this same vein just overdo it. Back in SMUt I addressed, in my very first Ad Nauseum entry, Stupid.ca, which was an anti-smoking agency that ran an ad campaign in incongruity. The point was to show how much more likely it was to die of smoking than it was to die of some other malady, such as hunting accidents, consuming antifreeze, or bathing with a toaster. Well, if I may wax poetic for a moment, duh. Of course smoking kills more people than bathtub electrocution. Millions of people smoke, but it is very rare for someone to be compelled, while bathing, to consume a bagel. Sure, Antifreeze has fewer deadly chemicals than cigarettes, but there's enough of that one chemical in, say, a bowl of the stuff to kill one instantly.

My point is that if we're going to scare kids into not touching drugs, we should do it with an air of truth. Let us not insult their intelligence. I would think there are enough reasons not to use heroine that we needn't make up any new ones.

And you know, if you have to make up tall tales about aliens and antifreeze and emotionally distant dogs in order to convince people not to use it, and there are no legitimate reasons to avoid it, maybe it's a message that doesn't need to be said. I have no interest in drugs, but if I did, I'd have no qualms about using pot. It's chemically non-addictive, its effects are mild, and its death potential is nill. It's probably a less dangerous depressant than alcohol is. Its only real danger is that it is currently illegal. This whole movement stinks of those anal-retentive Christian Right do-gooders who can't offer anything else to society than complaint.

Kids will be kids. They are going to experiment, the consequences be damned. And the psychology of young people tends to favor the activities authority figures condemn. "Fuck you, you're not the boss of me!" That sort of thing. It seems to me that in trying to vilify things like smoking pot, especially with these brain-dead commercials like the ones from AboveTheInfluence.com, they have only succeeded in making the drug even more appealing. Anything this lame had to come from squares who don't know how to have a good time, the hip cats will say. To be cool, we'd better do the opposite, Daddy-O!

- Silent G

Swedile at the Movies: Spider-Man 3

This is my first entry in a new ongoing series of mine, Swedile at the Movies. Before I get into the meat and potatoes, I should first address the grading system I shall be using. And that system is...

The Official 'Batman & Robin' Movie Gradation Scale!

This rather ingenious format is based entirely in a film's comparison to the 1997 blockbuster abortion, "Batman & Robin" (also known colloquially as "Batman on Ice!"). "Batman & Robin" was an exceptionally bad film, I think we can all safely agree. How the BRMGS works is it scores, out of 4, how close to quality a film is to this wretched affront to cinema; a lower numerical score out of four means a better movie. Let me break it down for you:

0/4 - An excellent film. Either has no flaws whatsoever, or any conceivable flaws the compulsive nitpicker may find are so minuscule that it does not detract from the inherent awesomeness that is the film. A movie you are generally compelled to purchase or, in the case of Cyber Pirates, download. Some films I place in this category include: Spider-Man 2, King Kong (2005), Casino Royale.

1/4 - Not a perfect film, but for all intents and purposes a good one. While generally quality stuff, there are some unavoidable issues that simply takes away from its awesomeness. One may buy this, but only when they had the money on hand. Films include: Spider-Man, V for Vendetta.

2/4 - Decent to mediocre. While not a particularly bad film, there's noting exceptionally noteworthy about it. It is not a film you would use either of the following to describe: "Oh dude, you HAVE to see this film!"; "Avoid this thing like the fucking PLAGUE!" Some films include: Daredevil, Shrek 2.

3/4 - This is where we start hitting "bad film" territory. It's essentially the polar opposite of a 1/4; An overall bad film, with a few diamonds in the rough. You'd not pay to see these, but if they were on TV and you had nothing better to do, you may watch it. Films: Fantastic Four, X-Men: The Last Stand.

4/4 - There's no avoiding it. This is a bad film. Hope as you may, there's just no reason that you should watch this film. If you're in the theatre and you realize that you're watching a 4, leave right then and there. Just walk out and ask for your money back. You would have to be exceptionally bored or an exceptionally self-loathing individual to watch a film like this again, even for free. Hell, even if they paid you. Films: Hulk, Snakes on a Plane, Batman Forever.

Notice how "Batman & Robin" is not placed anywhere among the list above. That is because there is a special category, one devoted to only the most abysmal pictures...

5/4 - A movie that is not only bad, it is detrimental to your health to watch it. You can tell when you have a 5/4 when you experience physical pain while watching it, not unlike heartbreak. You come out of a film like this a different person than when you began; any innocence you've had is lost. The only permissible reasons to watch a film like this a second time are as follows: For the purposes of a cruel, cynical review; for scientific study; to reaffirm your hatred of the film; for the use of ritualistic suicide. Other than that, one should sooner give up their lives than watch it. This is where Batman & Robin place, which is interesting in that by being 5 out of 4 Batman & Robins, the film is essentially worse than itself.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's get to the review. Ladies and Gentlemen, Spider-Man 3:

Story: The story is really rather good, at least if you're already into comics. The Venom Saga is told, with a few tweaks, very true to the comic book origins. Anyone who likes Venom will not be disappointed. Harry's story of vengeance and taking up the mantle of his father to kill his friend is also well-written, arguably one of the strongest aspects of the film. And Sandman's story, while not exactly canonical, isn't horrible; it's just not exceptional. I'm bored with sympathetic villains. Maybe that's why I liked Venom. The love story in this film is annoying as it was in the first two, but it's even worse in the third installment. Mary Jane comes off as a needy, whiny bitch who causes most of her own problems. But generally, the story is solid.

Action: Dude, this film has it. With three super-powered baddies mincing around, there is a battle essentially around every corner. The final fight itself is exceptional. If you're going to see a film like this solely for the visual stimuli, then this is for you.

Music: I love Danny Elfman. I find he somehow imbues his music with exactly the right emotion you're supposed to feel, and it's a shame he and Raimi couldn't get along. Christopher Young, his replacement, isn't nearly as capable. His conducting of the original Spider-Man theme somehow lacks that soul that Elfman could grant it. And much of his new stuff was also unimpressive, though not bad per se. But I gotta say; I love the Symbiote Spider-Man theme. That just rocks. I want it on my MP3 player. But this still taken into account, it doesn't hold a candle to Elfman.

Comedy: J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. Need I say more?

SFX: The CGI in this film is, how can I put it...a mixed bag. Some things, like Sandman and Venom are handled quite well. While elsewhere, namely Spidey, they give you CGI actors who just don't look real. They look cartoony and kinda doughy. The texture's often off. You can tell when it's a guy in a suit or a computerized stunt double. Still, not bad overall.

Acting: Most actors in this piece are exceptional; Tobey Maguire, James Franco, J.K. Simmons, and especially Topher Grace. These people need to win awards for their acting sometime, somewhere, for some film. Then you have Kirsten Dunst. She's not a great actress. And frankly, I didn't totally believe Thomas Haden Church as Sandman. He's not a horrible actor, sure, and he certainly looks the part. But he just couldn't get passed that haughty southern California accent of his, making him sound less like a gritty New York career criminal supervillain and more like some yuppie from Beverly Hills.

Directing: I'm a sucker for good directing. I think that the director ultimately establishes the mood of the picture, the feel you get when you watch it. And that is all important. And as much as I love Sam Raimi, and as much as there were excellent aspects of this film directorially-speaking, I gotta say... this was not Raimi's strongest work. He simply had too much on his plate for a 2h19m film to tie it all together completely coherently. It's not a total train wreck, but he's really lazy with transitions. He also doesn't make things perfectly clear plot-wise. I had to watch it twice before the plot made a bit more sense. And God-be-buggered, he devoted WAY too much time to Peter and MJ. The aspect of Peter's love life is important to the mythos, but give it a break, man! It's really depressing just watching Kirsten Dunst whine about her career for a third of the film. Nobody gives a damn about Mary Jane. They wanna see Peter kicking ass. He's totally got to have a personal life, but this is Spider-Man 3, not Mary Jane Loves Spider-Man 3 (That's an actual monthly title, look it up).

FINAL SCORE:

1/4

This movie could have been excellent. Even with the business of the rogue's gallery, this film could have easily been totally awesome, to the same level of Spider-Man 2. But for whatever reason, the execution was lazy and somewhat convoluted, the music was sub par, and the CGI wasn't as good as it had been. Too many key players to the first two left the third. But despite these problems, the film is still worth seeing. Great acting, great villains, great action, and even a great story, even if it is a bit cluttered. I highly suggest you see it if you're into the genre, or even if you aren't. You won't leave the theatre feeling like you were ripped off, but you also won't leave feeling completely satisfied. 'Nuff said.

- Silent G

Ad Nauseum: HeadOn

Everyone knows it. Everyone has had the slogan ingrained deep within their psyche. "HeadOn, apply directly to the forehead," repeated ad nauseum (pardon the pun). I am certain that anyone who has seen the commercial absolutely loathes it and finds it perhaps the most annoying advertisement ever.

And that is why it is so ingenious.

"What? You're praising an ad?" No, no I am not; it infuriates me as much the next guy. However, even evil geniuses are still geniuses, and the people at Miralus Healthcare are certainly evil. But their ad campaign is a psychological masterpiece, even if it can be considered psychological warfare.

They start with the infamous ad, where they simply repeat the slogan thrice. They never really bother to explain what it's for, they just tell you where to put it. The ad seemed almost unreal; promoting a topical wax designed entirely for the forehead. But it did what it needed to; it got people talking about the brand, whether they intended to purchase it or not. It planted the seed.

Months later, their ads were interrupted by, seemingly, one of us. They rant and rave about how horrible their annoying commercial is. With the most horrible acting and sense of timing in delivery, one could even believe that they were just random people pulled from the street corner. "HeadOn, I HATE(!) your commercial. But I LOVE your product!" The company PAID people to tell others they HATED the commercial! How bold! But what an interesting strategy. First they take a few months to air the most obnoxious advertisements known to man, then they produce metacommercials wherein they decry the previous incarnation. There's a sort of sinister genius in this that one has to respect.

Of course, HeadOn is even more hilarious in that it's essentially useless. They have HeadOn, for the forehead, and ActivOn...for everywhere else. "Apply directly where it hurts," the ad suggests (thankfully without repeating). Well, if in the odd case your forehead is killing you, couldn't you apply ActivOn to the forehead? To have a separate product for a specific part of the body that arguably does not often experience pain seems superfluous.

Though to be fair, ActivOn is supposedly a muscle and joint relaxant, whereas HeadOn is meant for headaches. But just how effective is it in that goal? Not very, according to Wikipedia:

Chemical analysis has shown that the product consists almost entirely of wax.
The two listed active ingredients, white bryony (a type of vine) and potassium
dichromate, are diluted to .000001 PPM and 1 PPM respectively. This amount of
dilution is so great that the product is arguably a placebo.

Not only is it stupid, it's not even medicine! Users of HeadOn are essentially applying candles directly to the forehead!

In the end, HeadOn and its sister drugs are featured in some of the most annoying and infuriating ads known to television. But one has to stand in awe of their moxy; they've found a way to get people to buy glue sticks that don't do anything that you're supposed to rub on your face. Either that means the makers of HeadOn are devious psychoanalytical geniuses, or that society at large is just really stupid. And while I'm a pessimist, I hold out enough hope for mankind to give him credit in this regard; he can't possibly be that stupid.

- Silent G

[noun, adjective, verb] - A word lacking an official definition

Never let it be said that I don't occasionally cave to peer pressure.

Since my friend Alex Colgan began his own blog (http://alexcolgan.blogspot.com/), I thought I may try my own hand at it. It might be nice, as opposed to making expansive rants, to write small bursts of indignation towards society as a whole as I go about my day. Many of my previously unrecorded thoughts that were just too small to devote a 2000-word treatise to may now be read by you, the general public. Or more likely just people I know.

One thing I can't stop doing of course is my Ad Nauseum series from SMUt (http://www.smutsite.tk/). However, they will now probably be one post per ad, as opposed to several connected by some theme. My experiences with a fundamentalist christian named Scott Zimmerman who, for the better part of a year, has been trying to convert me (unsuccessfully I might add) will also likely be addressed.

Well, this is it; I've entered the Blogosphere. Wikinomics suggests this is the wave of the future. May as well hop on the bandwagon now before they invent the flying bandwagon.

- Silent G