TailOverTeaKettle.com

Speaking of YouTube - for your viewing pleasure, here’s a behind-the-scenes look at The Neal Boortz Show - Behind the Mouth.

              

I’m not a YouTube expert, but there has been an interesting conspiracy theory exercise going on with respect to the video blog entries of “lonelygirl15“.

New York Magazine says “One cute teen’s online diary is probably a hoax. It’s also the birth of a new art form.” Is it a viral marketing campaign (ala Snakes on a Plane) or a faux documentary or an alternate reality game? Even the LA Times has their crack reporting staff chasing leads. As they pointed out, “The video is being analyzed from more angles and disciplines than the Zapruder film was ever subjected to.”

I am no expert in the field of video blogging. I can’t comment on the clues or production values or other conspiracy clues. I think that the videos are most likely a production for the simple reason that if somehow this “controversy” brewed up in response to a real high-school girl’s video posts, she would mention it and react to it.

But regardless of the ultimate purpose of these video, they have showed an interesting application for YouTube. Kind of a soap opera for teens, and certainly has been very popular, at least from the point of view of page views and the passionate debate of the commenters. (Of course, we’ll know that it’s a really popular genre when the copycat stories follow!)

The birth of blogging has been a very interesting phenomenon. It’s clearly something that has evolved and maturerd over the last several years, but it seems like it is destined to stay around as a form of writing. Honestly, I can not quite see the poposed extentions of technology applied to blogs such as moblogging (blogging via mobile phone), audio blogging (now really turning into podcasting), and video blogging.

It’s interesting that a faux video blog is turning out to generate more interest than a legitimate one.

              

Apparently Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will not be getting married soon. According to gossip reports today:

Brad Pitt says that he and Angelina Jolie will get married – when all couples can legally wed.

“Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able,” the actor tells Esquire magazine for its October issue.

Of course, the couple are already living in domestic bliss with their three children, Shiloh, who was born in May, Maddox, 5, and Zahara, 1.

It’s not that he’s afraid of commitment or anything like that… you see apparently Jennifer Aniston just didn’t care enough for the marital rights of same-sex couples, Polygamist “family units”, and man-with-horse couples. (Well, he did say he wants to support everyone else who wants to be married… didn’t he?).

What a joker.

              

Just take a look at this AP “news story” by Erin Texeira: Republicans’ comments may hurt at polls. Now this is not commentary… it’s what passes for political reporting in 2006.

First, the text rehases the comments by Burns & Allen (not the comedy team, but the Senators) about the “little Guatemalan man” and “macaca.”

But the comments by Burns and Allen have garnered heavy attention as their party is trying to improve its showing among minorities.

These particular statements (and they are a reach) gain such heavy attention because they are reported in heavy rotation (such as repeatedly on the front page of the Washington Post), while others are buried. The story did acknowledge Andrew Young’s recent rant about urban shop owners, but no mention of the host of other Democrats who have made similar statements (re: Hilary Clinton referring to Ghandi as a gas station attendant in St. Louis, Biden making a crack about Indian store clerks, etc.)

It’s one thing to have a dislike for a particular person. Even for something that they said. I can understand that. But other than that, why would anyone asssociate any of these comments, even if you found them offensive, to be indictative of the entire party? And that’s equally true for Democrats as well as Republicans. Rather, isn’t it still in your best interest, regardless of race, to look at the policies of the opposing candidates and vote accordingly? Otherwise, you need to reject Democrats just as equally as Republicans leaving no one to actually vote for!

Anyway, we are also treated to a quote from Michael K. Fauntroy. Don’t know him? Well you can check out his blog at http://www.michaelfauntroy.com/2006/07/_and_you_wonder.html which includes this point: “House Republicans slapped African Americans in the face again and, given the history of this country that required the implementation of the Voting Rights Act in the first place, poured political salt in wounds that haven’t healed. Along with the controversial 2000 and 2004 presidential elections that clearly disenfranchised Black voters and the GOPs standing among African Americans, the GOP proves, yet again, that it just doesn’t get it with regard to Black voters.” I guess he hasn’t formed an opinion on this yet. (Oh by the way, he has a book coming out. Kind of like quoting Pat Buchanan in an article about immigration).

We even get treated to Katrina lore. (Perception is reality, I guess).

But to top it off, we have a quote from Donna Brazile, of all people:

“Republicans are sending mixed messages to people of color, in particular African-Americans and Hispanics. On one hand they would like us to come into the big tent. But once you get in you will see the unwelcome mat remains on the inside.”

Nice - a Democratic strategist throwing out a slogan in a story about Republican Party… nothing like being fair and balanced.

If the AP would like to write a story about minority voting patterns, then that’s fine. If they would like to research exactly why African-American voters overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, then fine.

But this ’story’ seems amaturish even for a DNC Press Release.

              

After all of the hoopla over photoshopped images being distributed by Reuters, other questions about the mysterious “Green Helmet” man who appears in many ‘massacre’ photos and has been scene directing camera shots, comes an interesting twist. Newsbusters reports that one of the AP stringers also gets quoted regularly and there identifies himself not as a photographer, but rather as a Red Cross volunteer. See AP Stringer Was Lebanese Red Cross Volunteer at Qana 1 & 2 for all the details.

              

It’s sad to hear about Mel Gibson’s arrest for DUI over the weekend, and apparently his tirade against all things Jewish during the traffic stop did take place (Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic remarks cited in official police report).

I don’t know what Mel really thinks or believes, but he will now have to live with the consequences of his statements, whatever that might be. (Of course it is Hollywood, so I’m not sure there are any real consequences there!)

But the worst part about this to me, is that it brings up the faux-controversy about whether the Passion of the Christ, or the story of the crucifiction in general, is actually anti-Semitic. From that same “news” story:

This is not the first time Gibson has faced accusations of anti-Semitism. Gibson produced, directed and financed “The Passion of the Christ,” which some Jewish leaders said cast Jews as the killers of Jesus. Days before “Passion” was released, Gibson’s father, Hutton Gibson, was quoted as saying the Holocaust was mostly “fiction.”

Elsewhere, it seems that Gibson’s personal statements already being seen as proof of this (h/t to NewsBusters):

“Michael Musto, The Village Voice: “Unfortunately, no, because he works alone, anyway. He doesn’t work with anybody else, and his audience is already deeply anti-Semitic, so they’re deeply proud of him after this.”

Nice. I’m assuming that Mr. Musto is referring to the audience of Passion of the Christ, not Braveheart or Lethal Weapon.

Anti-Semitic comments should be rightfully condemned. However, being Christian and therefore believing in the crucification story is not synonymous with being anti-Semitic. Reducing the crucification story to something as trite as “Jews killed Christ” shows a complete lack of understanding.

Let’s not promote that mistakened thinking again, regardless of Mel Gibson’s beliefs or drunken utterances.

              

Headline from today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution (print edition): “Coke Secrets Plot Foiled.”

They are reporting that an employee is accused of offering secrets to rival Pepsi, who turned it over to the FBI who then conducted a sting operation as they attempted to pass stolen intellectual property for cash.

Said Pepsi spokesman Dave DeCecco: “We only did what any responsible company would do. Competition can sometimes be fierce, but it also must be fair and legal.”

I guess no one at the NY Times has been reached for comment on the matter. I’m sure that they will soon be publishing the Coca Cola formulations on the front page under the public’s right to know. Besides, how secret is it anyway… “hundreds if not thousands” of people drink Coke products every day!

“One man’s breach of security is another man’s public relations…”

              

Interesting characterization on reactions to the Da Vinci Code movie in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Listen to the lead in from the story (Some Christians shun, others co-opt ‘Da Vinci’, 14 May 2006) - emphasis mine:

Outrage over “The Da Vinci Code” has spurred some Christian leaders, including the Vatican, to call for a boycott. But its blockbuster success has also triggered some idiosyncratic responses from Christian leaders who say the book’s popularity and the marketing maelstrom around it simply can’t be ignored.

The article goes on to explain that rather than boycotting the movie, some pastors are encouraging people to see the movie in order to learn more about it and also using the publicity to promote a traditional view of Christianity. I found the choice of words “co-opt” and “idiosyncratic”. While I personally don’t have any interest in watching this film, I think that it’s strange to infer that it would be peculiar to suggest such a thing.

While I believe that the book and movie are wrong about the ideas they suggest, it certainly does not mean that one can not learn more about their faith by undestanding these ideas and why they were made.

And as I said yesterday, if you want to learn much more about the Gnostic claims should visit Mark D. Roberts’ writings The Da Vinci Opportunity, How the Popularity of The Da Vinci Code Book and Movie Can Be Helpful to Christians and Others.

The was also an interesting poll included with the artcile. The question:

Do you feel that watching a movie, even if its premise conflicts with your general beliefs, enriches your understanding of the world? And the choices:

1. Yes, it never hurts to look at the world from another point of view, even if its artful propoganda. (31%)
2. No, just as I may not watch, say, a violent movie, I may not want to see a misguided viewpoint. (18%)
3. What, me worry? After all - it’s just a movie — lighten up. (51%)

Actually, I think that a Christian can give any of the answers to the poll and be right. Using this as a way to understand more about your faith can be a good exercise. Deciding that you don’t want to enrich and encourage those who write and promote a story like this is a fair statement to make. And of course, it’s only just a movie.

But I don’t think it’s really fair to simply “lighten up” and ignore this altogether. Popular culture does heavily influence people. It can be a good intellecual exercise to use this book and movie as a context to learn more about true Christianity. But my concern is with the mass audiences who will not go through that process of education and understanding. They may hear the words of the fictional historian Teabing in the movie and treat his words as facts, not imagination. It may just be a movie, but it does carry a message. A sad one.

In the Da Vinci Code world, the wonderful characters attempt solve a mystery and deny the deity of Jesus. And wouldn’t we all really be the losers in that case?

              

Lately I’ve seen a commercial a few times that has me confused. A little girl dressed in an aardvark costume is upset, apparently because she had a small part in the school play. But when Mom & Dad show her the video, she realizes how important she is because her singing is load and clear on the close-up video.

That’s a nice story. (Cue the soft focus). Building your child’s self esteem through a camcorder accessory. Anyway, apparently the Sony HandyCam which now has an optional Bluetooth microphone so that you can capture audio far from the camera. (Of course, the parents still couldn’t have been too far away if the Bluetooth connection was working).

But when they showed the video, it looked like the kid had a huge silver box pinned to her aardvark costume. It’s great Mom & Dad managed to capture her audio (and the exclusion of all other) on their recording… but it’s still pretty obtrusive to have to carry that box around!

I see that the rig costs $199. Wow… you must really want remote audio badly to pay that!

What a price for this self esteem…

              

Watching Tom Hanks making the rounds of the chat shows means that the movie release of the Da Vinci Code is about to be here, and it will probably be certain to generate huge business.

I will not be watching this movie. Not because I don’t like a good story. And not because I am intolerate. But because this story makes a mockery out of a truth that’s too important to twist.

Writing a book needs a good plot, to be sure. If I were an author, it sure might seem tempting to concoct a story out of the characters in the Bible. And if you’re going to do that… you might as well start with Jesus! It’s going to get a good reaction.

I find it so silly to read about the plagiarism lawsuit which claimed that Brown’s book was a copyright infringement for retelling the same basic theory from another 1982 “non-fiction” book. But that lawsuit was laughable. This same “theory” is a heresy has been around for centuries. Just because it’s old and just because it has been retold in an entertaining way by a successful author does not make it any more true. And in this case, knowing the truth really does matter more than telling an entertaining story.

You must read: Mark D. Roberts: The Da Vinci Opportunity, How the Popularity of The Da Vinci Code Book and Movie Can Be Helpful to Christians and Others.

So go to the movie if you must. But this is not really a good story at all. But as Charlie’s Soapbox point’s out: Some of these stories are old. Some are new. But all misleading and having one thing in common; they all question the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Don’t be tempted to do so by the Da Vinci Code.