Is Obama Falling Out of Comedic Graces?

Leibovich, Mark. "Another Fine Mess."10 October 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/weekinreview/11leibovich.html?_r=1&ref=television. 11 October 2009

In an article analyzing how Obama has been made fun of over the last year or so, Mark Leibovich of the New York Times admits that the fun-poking is still rather mild. He comments that the jibes were initially about his funny ears, and lack of bowling skills, but have now moved on to his lack of action. He is, "after all, in the midst of his oft-invoked “full plate” of supposedly “defining moments” in his presidency — a “defining” decision on Afghanistan, “defining” legislative battle on health care, among other “defining” things." The writer postulates that Obama really hasn't done anything yet. He is supposedly "defining" things, but not actually taking action. And getting a Nobel Peace Prize for it; a new gem for the comedians to joke about. President Obama seems to be taking this new barrage of friendly insults well, a quality that has served him well in the past with the media. When he was first elected president he went on both the David Letterman and Jay Leno shows, showing that he does, at least, acknowledge their existence and legitimacy as a media source. And so should we.

In the aftermath of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama's insults from comedians have become progressively worse. Frankly, I agree with the comedians. What has he done? To me, a naive, biased, sheltered boy from Provo, Utah, it seems like Obama was awarded the prize because there was a lack of other candidates for the award this year. Why else would he get it? I believe "Establishing hope" was what the head of the Peace Prize committee said. I feel like every past winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is getting slapped in the face with an unqualified candidate receiving the award, and comedians ought to take this fact to town. Maybe if they harp on it enough, people will really start to wonder why he got it instead of blindly praising Obama for providing hope. Call me a pessimist, but I'm not any more hopeful now than I was nine months ago.

Apple Owns Music Biz

Burrows, Peter. "Apps Trump Tunes at Apple". Newsweek. 9/17/2009. 9/27/09. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148034485959.htm?chan=magazine+channel_new+business

In this article, Burrows points out some extremely interesting facts about Apple's control over the media. Companies are practically begging Apple to create apps to boost sales, spread knowledge, and create a new source of income. As companies become more reliant on Apple, Apple becomes less reliant on them. One example Burrows gives is related to the music industry. The music industry relies on Apple to sell 90% of its music downloads. While this is a huge part of apple, the majority of its focus is now being moved to creation of apps and games.

I am an Apple person. I have an iPod, iPhone, and a Mac computer. Since I've had these these Apple products, there is no way I would ever want to go back to their now archaic predecessors. This same phenomenon is occurring throughout the nation and world. People love how user friendly and aesthetically pleasing Apple products are, plus Apple's use of advertising to attract the younger, more hip generation helps. Their commercials featuring a young, good looking man (a Mac) talking to an older, geeky looking man (a PC) were what first turned me on to their products. I guess deep down, my desire to be cool was what drove me to be a Mac. What this article addresses is Apple's near monopoly on the music industry and the fact that in the future, the music industry will matter increasingly less to the corporation. While I love Mac, I'm all for a new company rising up and challenging Apple for the lead in music sales. Competition creates innovation, and everyone loves fancy new gadgets.

One Small Step for Man, One Giant Lie to Mankind?

"Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked." The Onion. 31 August 2009. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

In this article, a writer pokes fun at a conspiracy theorist who thinks he has proven that the famous NASA lunar landing in 1969 was faked. He thinks, and passionately attempts to persuade others that it was just a huge scam put on by the United States media to beat out the Russians and show how powerful our country is. It is his belief that Neil Armstrong, along with the rest of the country, and world, were duped into thinking that the lunar module had landed on the moon because of a few camera tricks and clever prop usage. Somehow mainstream media tricked basically everyone into thinking this landing happened, except one library clerk's assistant who is a self-proclaimed "engineering buff." (And obviously has too much time on his hands..)

This article is a testament to how the media can blow up one man's outlandish opinion of something, put it on a national scale, and catapult him into celebrity status. Although this article is making fun of him, doubtless others are joining his cause, and people will believe him because it's the only side of the story they will see. People who weren't alive to see the lunar landing probably don't have that strong of an opinion about it. This one thing could be the grain of rice that tips their ever so volatile scale toward the insane. I'm sick of how the media glorifies the insane, the murderers, the rapists, and the overall scum of the earth. Watching the news is basically finding out who was killed, what politician had the latest affair, and whose house was broken into. I wish the kid who befriended a shy kid at his school or a politician who was faithful to his family made the news. We all know our world is becoming increasingly corrupt, but I don't like hearing about it day in and day out. This might seem a little extreme for a guy who doesn't believe man has been to the moon, but it all falls under the umbrella of the media giving attention to the crazies. Keep it sane America.  

Who Am I Listening To?

"Rapper Not Entirely Sure Who Else Is On This Track." The Onion. 4 August 2009. http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/rapper_not_entirely_sure

This article satirizes a fictionalized problem in the recording studio. While in a recording session, Lil Wayne gets confused because of all the other recording artists recording along with him. He knows a few of them, but after they finish the track he asks them all to clearly state their name and intentions into the microphone. 

This obviously never happened, but it's not too far off of what I feel. My iPod is a mess of literally hundreds of artists featuring artists. For instance, just to name a few of  the spinoffs of one artist as they appear on my iPod: 

 Nelly,

 Nelly & Ali &Big Gipp & Paul Wall,

 Nelly & Ali & Gube Thug,

 Nelly & Cedric the Entertainer,

 Nelly & Christina Aguilera,

 Nelly & Citu Spud, 

These are six of the twenty-five that I have, and I don't even have all of them! It clutters up my iPod, and instead of listening to the one main recording artist, you have to individually go through all the different artists and select each desired song. In my opinion, the official artist name should only refer to the main artist. Each featured artist ought to appear on the name of the song, not as a completely different artist couple. The featured artists probably see this as a way of getting their lesser known name out there, but nobody seriously looks at the never ending list that accompanies each and every hip hop artist's name. From one fed up music connoisseur to the music world- Come on, quit being ridiculous.