|
|
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 |
Dennis Miller's brain fries on air
My goodness, Dennis is looking more and more pathetic. So sad. 4:42:43 PM       |
|
|
Monday, March 22, 2004 |
|
Stuart vs Miller Like many of you, I'm a big fan of the Daily Show. And like NJ, I sometimes get my news there first. The first fifteen minutes are always great, but I usually tune out of the interviews. Occasionally, Jon can get some serious political guest, someone who is actually involved in the political scene. These interviews are always more interesting.
I've also been trying to give Dennis Miller a try. Whooof... the show is struggling to find itself. After only a few weeks, they zagged hard and added a live studio audience. Now, Dennis is struggling to remember how to work an audience, and it shows. Dennis is also painfully republican, the kind that can't clear their eyes long enough to admit that there has been some questionable behavior in the Bush II administration. (I'll need to take some notes to find a specific example. Ping me if I go to long).
Anyway, my point here is that Jon writes/delivers really good political satire, whereas Dennis is a better interviewer. Stuart does a better job of pointing out the conflicting statements among politicians of all stripes, while Dennis is getting some serious guests and asking them politically topical questions. Now if these two pieces could be put into one show...
I think the ratings speak for themselves, though. Jon is clearly on top in this matchup. And unfortunately, I think Miller is going to have a hard time establishing himself. When he first started advertising for his show, the GOP was looking strong, the Demos had their hat presupposed on a crazy Dean, and it seemed like a great time for CNBC to take on the right-wing Fox. Now, however, after Dean gave us permission to be mad enough to nominate Kerry, Dennis finds himself ill-prepared to answer legitimate challenges from the left.
For instance, his punchline to the Clarke allegations runs the line of "Well, you weren't a very good counter-terrorist, were you?", alluding that Clarke himself failed to stop 9/11. This completely ignores all the facts coming out and takes that blind defensive position that occasionally makes Dennis look apathetic. If only he could aim his superior intellect at all politicians, he'd take Jon in a heartbeat. 10:00:52 PM       |
|
|
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 |
|
another earthquake? did I just feel the building swish? damnit, I did feel an earthquake, a 4.x in the northbay near Clear Lake! I hate how 'loose' this building in Redwood City feels. :-( 12:39:39 PM       |
|
|
Thursday, February 12, 2004 |
|
Amazing West Wing resouce Paulette might find this interesting...
Neat! 2:25:19 PM       |
|
trompe l'chalk Wow, very cool. He even draws it knowing the perspective of the camera taking the picture. I guess this guy's been around awhile, but I'd never seen his stuff: amazing trompe l'oeil sidewalk chalk paintings. Yes, they're actually flat. 2:08:05 PM       |
|
|
Sunday, February 8, 2004 |
The Daily FallacyThe Daily Fallacy takes online news articles (opinion, editorial, letters, etc.) and exposes fallacious argumentation. Registered users can respond to commentary. (This is my own blog) [Blogroots] This sounds very cool. I remember thinking about something like this when I was taking my Philosophy class at UoPhx. 11:13:21 PM       |
|
|
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 |
|
Interesting TiVO landmark.... In case you missed it...
7:23:55 PM       |
|
|
Monday, January 19, 2004 |
|
Book Review - The Tipping Point The book "The Tipping Point", by Malcolm Gladwell, has been out for a while. I just finished reading it, took me about a week... ah, the benefits of no more school! Here's some notes. Gladwell tries to describe the tipping point mechanisms of social epidemics, such as word-of-mouth marketing, fashion fads, and crime waves. As he sees it, there are basically four rules to social epidemics:
As with most books, these are interesting points to ponder. His case study on teen smoking didn't quite connect for me, though, and was poorly related to a teen suicide epidemic in the remote island nation of Micronesia. In his after-word, he addresses this ill-formed comparison, and makes a stronger identification of the rash of Columbine-like incidents in schools across the U.S. (It seems to me that the Law of the Few and the Stickiness Factor have little influence on this epidemic, and that we must focus our attention on the broken windows.)
Gladwell also addresses the impact that the Internet has, with all its new communications channels, on social epidemics. His argument is that many of these channels are being overloaded, and once again, we must resort to personal connections in order to filter useful and wanted information. I think we're seeing this now with the faltering of email under the burden of spam, and perhaps with the rise of weblogs as personal broadcasts.
Finally, Gladwell offers a very compelling case study. A nurse in San Diego wanted to spread the word about diabetes, but found traditional forums lacking. So, she turned to beauty salons. She took the beauticians, who are often natural connectors, and turned them into mavens. She also seized on the captive environment of a beauty salon, where women spend anywhere from 2 to 8 hours at a time.
All in all, a good read. The key takeaway for me is that an epidemic doesn't need to follow all of these laws to spread, but rather, focusing on any one of these laws can have a significant impact on the rise or fall of an epidemic. (I'm also reading Electric Meme and Crossing the Chasm... I suspect there's going to be a lot of overlap here :-) 11:13:47 PM       |
|
Creative Class - flocking elsewhere? This one is for Paulette:
10:04:33 PM       |

[