And the prize for live-tweeting the demise of Osama, and thus, once again, demonstrating that there’s nothing like Twitter for covering this sort of event goes to…
His tweet stream since the event is pretty fascinating – showing how quickly the coverage of these events now moves from the coverage of the event to the coverage of the coverage.
Aaron Sorkin wrote the West Wing. For that the world owes him much. He also wrote Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip – which had brilliant potential, but died because it didn’t have Tina Fey. And 30 Rock did. And they were essentially about the same thing – a team of TV staffers writing for a variety show. It’s a shame, because 30 Rock is numerically half as awesome as Studio 60. But 30 Rock won, and Aaron Sorkin made a brilliantly self-aware and kind of meta cameo on 30 Rock. Here it is.
I just spent the weekend at Y-Net – a great camp for Queensland Christians interested and involved in youth and children’s ministry. It reminded me (when I wasn’t cooking or making coffee) that finding good videos on YouTube is probably just as important as finding the dross I normally dig up.
I quite enjoyed this one – though I’m not sure how well it translates to the Australian market.
Also good, and powerfully compelling, is this Brian Head Welch testimony, he’s the ex-guitarist of the band Korn.
We need more grungy Australian Christians with sordid pasts.
Anybody got a good video I should add to my collection of good videos? Snakes in the bathtub and Friday parodies won’t cut it this time… (though if you have something like that, send it to me…)
So, I go away for a weekend and suddenly Barack Obama is in the box seat to take the presidency again next year. It’s been a good week for Obama (and for West Wing fans). First he put Trump, the Republican’s current darling (for some reasoning as bizarre as the man’s hair) in centre stage on the birther issue by finally presenting the full-form of his birth certificate, killing a conspiracy that could only really thrive in America and in the age of the Internet, then he made him the butt of a couple of cracker one liners at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner this week.
The Press Dinner speech was probably proof enough that Obama is a man to be reckoned with when in campaign mode. Feel free to skip through the minute or so of Hulk Hogan’s “Real American” theme song…
“And I know just the guy to do it -– Donald Trump is here tonight! (Laughter and applause.) Now, I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. (Laughter.) And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter –- like, did we fake the moon landing? (Laughter.) What really happened in Roswell? (Laughter.) And where are Biggie and Tupac? (Laughter and applause.)
But all kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. (Laughter.) For example — no, seriously, just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice — (laughter) — at the steakhouse, the men’s cooking team cooking did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. And there was a lot of blame to go around. But you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. And so ultimately, you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf. (Laughter.) You fired Gary Busey. (Laughter.) And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night. (Laughter and applause.) Well handled, sir. (Laughter.) Well handled.”
This is why journalists love him, and it’s why the opportunity to give compelling speech after compelling speech is going to leave the Republicans scratching their heads if they go with the likes of Trump or Palin – or a Trump/Palin dream ticket. From a speaking/speechwriting perspective – the shortness of his sentences is something to behold. They do all they have to. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This punchiness carries over, though the mood changes, when he turns to serious subject matter – like today’s announcement that Osama is finished. Bin Laden’s exit will no doubt rekindle Obama’s place in the polls. Which for me was the most fascinating part of this speech. His branding of the event as a result of his leadership.
The imagery here seems a little cliched “cloudless September sky”… “black smoke billowing up” but it carries so much of his retelling of the narrative that it’s poignant rather than cliched.
It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory — hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction.
And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.
Obama’s speech today was a corker – and must have been the result of some pretty quick work by his speechwriting team (and he doubtless still works them over pretty thoroughly himself) – it was laden with imagery. Pathos. Gravitas. And a presidential authority that Trump will never muster. It was a triumph of poise over bluster. And one wonders if Trump would feel more at home waving placards with the scare-mongering revellers on the street than pointedly praising the work of Pakistan and describing Osama as an enemy of Islam.
The contrast Obama deliberately seems to create between himself and Osama was both powerful and purposeful – not just to shut up those right-winged idiots who think he’s a muslim with terrorist sympathies. Here’s the three paragraphs where he makes it clear this was “his” achievement.
“And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.”
Then, he subtly shifts the narrative to a contrast between his own symbolic leadership and Bin Laden’s…
“For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda…
…As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
Bin Laden is an enemy of peace and human dignity, Obama a friend of peace and human dignity.
Bin Laden plots against America, Obama seeks to unite it.
Bin Laden was a fan of wholesale destruction, Obama pinpoints rather than generalises.
And how do you move from a defining moment of one’s personal leadership to an election campaign without sounding like you’re a cynical news-coverage grabbing power junkie? You talk about unity (with a few mentions of your Republican predecessor). You talk about how good your country is. And you take them back to where it all began – the constitution.
“And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.
The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.
Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Some very useful photography tips, not just food photography tips, from Serious Eats here (there’s a Serious Eats cook book coming out at the end of the year – fantastic news, it’s available for pre-order on Amazon
).
I take a lot of food photos, more coffee photos though… for my coffee blog. Here are my tips.
1. Buy an iPhone.
2. Download Instagram.
3. Take a photo of your food with Instagram from a cool angle.
4. Choose a filter.
There is often a dissonance between what a company wants its brand to be and what its brand actually is. Your logo is not your brand. Your brand is what people think of you when they see your logo…
Infographics and data visualisations are such powerful communication tools. And it turns out you don’t need a graphic design degree, or even necessarily a computer, to produce them…
My sister and my brother-in-law are locked in a continuous debate about which of the two of them is funnier. My sister maintains that her humour is “art humour” – creative, spontaneous, quick and witty. My brother-in-law is more a science man. He understands how humour works and sets up jokes five lines in advance in normal conversation. They have created an “art funny” and “science funny” dichotomy.
This Venn Diagram could be the secret to understanding what makes funny funny.
There may be many types of humor, maybe as many kinds as there are variations in laughter, guffaws, hoots, and chortles. But [researcher, Peter] McGraw doesn’t think so. He has devised a simple, Grand Unified Theory of humor—in his words, “a parsimonious account of what makes things funny.” McGraw calls it the benign violation theory, and he insists that it can explain the function of every imaginable type of humor. And not just what makes things funny, but why certain things aren’t funny. “My theory also explains nervous laughter, racist or sexist jokes, and toilet humor,” he told his fellow humor researchers.
Coming up with an essential description of comedy isn’t just an intellectual exercise. If the BVT actually is an unerring predictor of what’s funny, it could be invaluable. It could have warned Groupon that its Super Bowl ad making light of Tibetan injustices would bomb. The Love Guru could’ve been axed before production began. Podium banter at the Oscars could be less excruciating. If someone could crack the humor code, they could get very rich. Or at least tenure.
And dare I say there may be less awkward pauses for laughter in sermons (even if I use humour in a sermon I never pause – just because there’s nothing worse than a pause and no laugh (it just beats out a laugh with no pause).
McGraw and Caleb Warren, a doctoral student, presented their elegantly simple formulation in the August 2010 issue of the journal Psychological Science. Their paper, “Benign Violations: Making Immoral Behavior Funny,” cited scores of philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists (as well as Mel Brooks and Carol Burnett).
Their theory is that the results of humour – laughter and amusement – come as a result of violations that are simultaneously seen as benign. Examples of “violations” include breaches of personal dignity, linguistic norms, social norms, and even moral norms. These violations must not pose a threat to the audience or their worldview.
I like this little sketch that went with the article too:
What do you think – is there any humour that falls outside of the “benign” category? I guess the outer limits of black humour might. Which may explain why some people don’t find it funny – benign is relative.
I love this story. Partly because it’s about zombies. I haven’t written about zombies for a long time. Partly because it’s one of those advertising placement stories that is almost too good to be true.
The word to indicate that you are in agreement, or to signify the affirmative, is “yes” not “yer” and “yep” is ok at a pinch. Maybe. If you need to rhyme your indication of the affirmative with “pep”.
These three words use the same number of letters. Why not just get it right.
I’ve been thinking a little, in the last couple of days, about how one changes a paradigm in public opinion, be it in society as a whole, or in a particular community or subset of the population.
My experience in framing a narrative around an issue to move people towards a desired outcome is that you pick a message that resonates with people (a reason to change your mind – based on analysing the situation and identifying needs/wants), and you repeat that message from every available platform. Any platform. Whenever you can. Even taking opportunities that don’t look related and making them related. Until your message gets traction. If it’s a good message it will stick, and you’ll start hearing other people repeating your views until it hits some sort of tipping point (if you’re a Malcolm Gladwell fan) where people believe they’ve come up with a position using their own common sense.
There are shortcuts you can take to get a message across. But they involve a price, usually some harm to the party advocating the position and some collateral damage. Which brings me to possibly my favourite scene from Four Lions, where the most extreme extremist is advocating picking an unlikely terrorism target, the mosque, in order to radicalise the moderates. There’s a language warning on this clip.
This sort of strategy is pretty stupid – but sometimes you’ll look like you’re bombing the mosque (doing something self destructive and stupid) when you’re representing, or presenting, an issue that is controversial and goes against the mainstream. That’s not always the case though. Sometimes changing, or challenging, the “orthodox” position gets a silent majority on side, sometimes pointing out error can bring change (like Wilberforce did), other times it’s worth just taking a stand on principle and paying the price.
The first rule of Type Club is you do not make posters about Type Club.
The second rule of Type Club is you do NOT make posters about Type Club.
If someone says stop, goes limp, taps out, the critique is over.
Two typefaces at most in a composition.
One project at a time.
No Comic Sans, no Papyrus.
Sketching will go on as long as is has to.
If this is your first night at Type Club, you have to Type.