Monday, November 24, 2008

Outtakes from the Guff'ner's interview

You may have already seen the Sarah Palin Turkey Shoot - the Q&A session that was held at the turkey farm where the Guff'ner pardoned a turkey in standard White House fashion. Long story short, after the ceremony, the farm workers resumed their normal activities while the Guff'ner continued to answer questions for the press. As a result, Sarah winds up on YouTube casually talking about politics while a worker procedes to slaughter and drain birds behind her.

Intellectual heavyweights such as Slate's Bill Smee criticized the Guff'ner for this. It would be nice and easy to dismiss him as an idiot, but he produced this wonderful video that is too good to not share. So I'll show the vid, then point out his idiocy.


Outtakes from the Guff'ner's Turkey Shoot interview

OK, now that we've had our fun, let's get down to reality.

The Guff'ner is granting an interview. She is facing the camera. It is quite unlikely that she picked that spot when the, ahem, machinery in the background was actually in use. She does not have the standard-issue international-celebrity entourage that some politicians carry around with them, so there is no over-excited under-employed film major hanging around framing spots. The press starts asking questions, she answers.

If you look verrrrry carefully, you will notice that the Guff'ner is facing the camera. At no time does she turn her head towards the worker behind her. The camera, on the other hand, is facing the Guff'ner and the worker.

Of all the people involved, those that know that a bespectacled and besweatered worker is sticking turkeys into a chipper-shredded are a) the worker, b) the camera operator, and c) the interviewer. The turkey-mauler is just doing his job; he does not appear to be involved in media relations. So when you get down to it, the only people that are sufficiently qualified to determine that the Guff'ner is in an awkward situation and aware of the same are the people conducting the interview.

Usually camera operators look into the camera to see what they are filming. It helps to ensure that some of the minor details -- like whether the camera is pointing at the subject, is upright, is in focus, and is actually recording -- are not missed. In fact, camera operators have been known to alert their subjects when there is a problem with the shot. In this case, it's obvious no such warning was issued.

You could try to posit that the camera operator wasn't paying attention to the actions behind the Guff'ner, but there is one small problem ...the camera operator has moved the camera so that the Guff'ner is not the center of the image. She is standing to the left of the focal point. The camera was moved for the purpose of getting the turkey-shredder into the shot.

This was not the act of a rogue ex-vice presidential candidate, this was the act of a rogue cameraperson.

Mr. Smee, if you happen to come across my blog while Googling yourself late at night, please note that there is a significant difference between being caught doing something stupid and being set-up so it appears that you are doing something stupid. While the Guff'ner has had her stupid moments, this is clearly not on her.

Oh, and the fact that you didn't realize this was a set-up doesn't speak highly to your qualifications.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Politricks

I finally figured it out.

I finally discovered, after all this time, the fundamental difference between the two major-party campaigns ... and it only took two years!

Each candidate has come out and stated what he would do with taxes, health care policy, foreign policy, and so on. But both candidates have also come out with cheap shots and bold-faced lies about their opponents. Both have also lied about themselves.

In short, this "most historic election of all time" has been pretty much politics as usual.

But there is a huge difference between the candidates that only becomes evident when you realize what all of this campaigning has really been about. Each man is asking every one of us to go into a little curtained-off makeshift closet and pull his lever.

This is nothing new ... men young and old have been asking for this throughout history. And men have often come up with grandiose plans to get people to pull their levers, often talking a big game or being less-than-truthful in the process.

(Yes, I know I took this in an inappropriate direction, but bear with me.)

Let's be honest, when the campaigning is over and the realities of Washington set in, whichever one of these clowns gets elected today is going to wind up screwing you. If you take a moment to embrace the nature of this particular metaphor - immature as it may be - you realize something profound. By voting for either one, you are doing something for them that helps them far more than it will help you. And when it's all over, you won't feel respected the way you thought you might.

The big difference between these campaigns is Obama has been able to say just the right things (or the wrong things in just the right way ... wink, wink, nudge, nudge) to make the average voter feel excited about getting a chance to run behind a curtain and pull his lever. At the same time, McCain has taken a far less sexy approach that has reminded too many voters of why their mothers told them not to talk to strangers. At this point in the campaign, to the average voter he seems smarmier, more desperate. Almost creepy.

After all this time, all these ads, all these interviews, world tours, SNL appearances, debates ... after all that, it comes down to perception. And so today we go to the polls to decide which come-on line got us best.

Today it's "Yes, I can respect you in the morning" versus "hey, kids, I've got some tax breaks for you in the back of my van."