You're probably better off watching the video before reading this – but, you know, do what you want. This video started off as an innocent little idea of mine on election night. Now, months later, it has metamorphosed into a whole Sunday afternoon's worth of ball ache. Converting the video into something that iMovie would go anywhere near took up most of the time. During its long journey the original speech video (all 30 minutes of it) was at various times an .flv file, an .avi file, a corrupt .mov file, an .m4v file, an .mp4 file and then finally a working .mov file. The sides are chopped off and the quality is awful but I don't care anymore. Also (to continue this little paragraph of geeky complaining), getting the audio to sound stadiumy was not straightforward. GarageBand has a reverb option but this and all the other effects seem to do pretty much nothing at all. Some tugging at a graphic equaliser at least let me put the bass up good and high and this sort of achieved what I wanted.
The video converting thing that worked in the end was called ffmpegx By The Way.
Enjoy!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
First Teenage Dirtbag in the Whitehouse
Friday, March 27, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Blog Roll
I've got a blog (roll)! I've got a blog (roll)! Rudy rudy schploody rudy blog (roll) blog (roll) blog (roll), I've got a blaw-og (roll).
Maybe a bad idea; now you can bypass me entirely and go straight to my sources. It wouldn't let me add this Jesse Armstrong link for some reason.
Maybe a bad idea; now you can bypass me entirely and go straight to my sources. It wouldn't let me add this Jesse Armstrong link for some reason.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Repulsed of Foulstopia
Here's an article from the sports section of my university's newspaper last week:
THE HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN QUESTION
By Matt Nixon, Sports Editor
SCOTLAND HAVE been a thorn in the side of the home nations for too long; it is time for this to be addressed. They beat England in the Six Nations last year for God’s sake. Scotland’s sporting sovereignty needs to be rescinded.
After the infamous West Lothian question – in which Scottish MP Tam Dalyell pointed out that he could vote with merry abandon in Westminster on issues that were only being proposed for England – Scotland have frankly been taking the piss. And now it’s sport’s turn to suffer.
The idea of a Great Britain football team is one that has been mooted for a long time. It’s a nice idea, especially as we head towards London 2012, when we will compete as Great Britain, as per every Olympics. But the idea is always shot down by Scotland. They fear for their national football union’s sovereignty, and refuse point-blank to consider the concept of such a team in case it is the first step towards outlawing Scotland as an entity. Never mind devolution. Never mind the Scottish Parliament. Don’t those measures suggest that really the majority of people are quite happy to let Scotland be, and certainly don’t fancy storming Edinburgh to reassert proper Westminster rule on the recalcitrant Jocks?
Well now is the time to say, quite frankly, f*ck off Scotland. Which players does Wee Jock McVitie at the SFA think Great Britain would want anyway? Craig Gordon, currently being kept out of the Sunderland side by a Hungarian goatherd? You could say that this is the sporting West Lothian question – the Heart of Midlothian question, if you will – Scotland pissing in England’s porridge (NOT “porage”, if any tartan-clad illiterates from Scott’s Oats are reading) because they know it wouldn’t affect them in the least as their players would never get picked.
For a while, England fans that wanted to hedge their bets mooted the idea – nobody wanted a Great Britain team, they just wanted England with Ryan Giggs. Or going back further, George Best. Or John Charles. Rarely in history has there been a side other than England capable of dominating a Home Nations Select XI. But though it would be forced, of course, and artificial, a team picked from all the home nations, with a limit on players from each side would be a nice gesture of solidarity, especially since sport is at its best as a means for unison rather than division, particularly when it comes to the Olympics.
I can almost hear the cry from across the border: “Alright then you arrogant English, we’ll take back Chris Hoy and his medals! Ha! See how you like that!” Well, OK. Build him your own Velodrome then. With any luck it’ll go the same way as the Scottish Parliament building.
Dear Student Direct,
I am emailing to complain about the column on page 30 of the 9th March issue of Student Direct.
This article (and I use the term loosely) is a blatant and, indeed, self-satisfied prejudiced. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing I have become sickeningly used to reading in the this uninspiring waste of paper. What makes this even worse, however, is that Matt Nixon's main issue with Scotland is that they won't do what the English say. He seemingly believes that English sports persons are inherently better that Scottish ones, for no other reason than that they are English. In addition to this, he uses the term "home nations" to mean England itself, as if this were the only nation worth bothering about.
I am English myself and have no connections with Scotland, but I find this column offensive to say the least. It is obvious that if this sort of trash is allowed to be printed in the newspaper (again note the stretching of the meaning of this word to its limits) once, then I am sure it will be again, whether it is aimed at Scotland, Wales, Ireland or any other country.
Yours
A very disgusted Simon Rookyard
Dear Student Direct,
To form a Great Britain football team for the 2012 Olympics would be a nakedly political move. It would not be "a heartwarming gesture of solidarity" for the SNP and its supporters who are sufficiently numerous to mean that Scotland has a SNP government.
Furthermore, I take exception to some of the language that this article was couched in. Does the phrase "fuck off Scotland" have a place in a newspaper that claims to be representative of all University of Manchester students? Scottish students here may be relatively few in number but nevertheless we are here. It is surprising to see this Kelvin MacKenzie-style vitriol in Student Direct.
Incidentally, the people at Scott's Porage Oats chose a vernacular spelling not because they are "tartan-clad illiterates" but in order to give their brand a superficially authentic feel.
Yours faithfully,
[Fouls]
Now, what do yous make of all this? I was pleased that this other guy also wrote in; he uses less temperate language than I do and I think the two letters complimented each other nicely on the letters page. I decided to avoid using the word "offended" or any of its variants mainly because I recently listened to Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens talking about the pointlessness of pathetic people who make their business to be offended. It's a good tip, I think.
I don't know Matt Nixon but in visiting the Student Direct website to find this article I discovered that he won the Guardian Student Sports Writer of the Year Award last year.
I should add that the main reason for this post is plump up the blog with absolutely anything I write. Probably, I'll soon be publishing all of my emails off Amazon and that sort of thing. Anything to avoid last year's nine month hiatus.
But the other reason is to see what my readers think about this. Should I have been angrier? Should this guy be sacked? Did I misread the article and it was actually perfectly friendly about Scotland (a fear that I had after I sent off that letter)? It would be nice to get some comments on this. In particular, comments that incite the organising of lynch mobs etc.
THE HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN QUESTION
By Matt Nixon, Sports Editor
SCOTLAND HAVE been a thorn in the side of the home nations for too long; it is time for this to be addressed. They beat England in the Six Nations last year for God’s sake. Scotland’s sporting sovereignty needs to be rescinded.
After the infamous West Lothian question – in which Scottish MP Tam Dalyell pointed out that he could vote with merry abandon in Westminster on issues that were only being proposed for England – Scotland have frankly been taking the piss. And now it’s sport’s turn to suffer.
The idea of a Great Britain football team is one that has been mooted for a long time. It’s a nice idea, especially as we head towards London 2012, when we will compete as Great Britain, as per every Olympics. But the idea is always shot down by Scotland. They fear for their national football union’s sovereignty, and refuse point-blank to consider the concept of such a team in case it is the first step towards outlawing Scotland as an entity. Never mind devolution. Never mind the Scottish Parliament. Don’t those measures suggest that really the majority of people are quite happy to let Scotland be, and certainly don’t fancy storming Edinburgh to reassert proper Westminster rule on the recalcitrant Jocks?
Well now is the time to say, quite frankly, f*ck off Scotland. Which players does Wee Jock McVitie at the SFA think Great Britain would want anyway? Craig Gordon, currently being kept out of the Sunderland side by a Hungarian goatherd? You could say that this is the sporting West Lothian question – the Heart of Midlothian question, if you will – Scotland pissing in England’s porridge (NOT “porage”, if any tartan-clad illiterates from Scott’s Oats are reading) because they know it wouldn’t affect them in the least as their players would never get picked.
For a while, England fans that wanted to hedge their bets mooted the idea – nobody wanted a Great Britain team, they just wanted England with Ryan Giggs. Or going back further, George Best. Or John Charles. Rarely in history has there been a side other than England capable of dominating a Home Nations Select XI. But though it would be forced, of course, and artificial, a team picked from all the home nations, with a limit on players from each side would be a nice gesture of solidarity, especially since sport is at its best as a means for unison rather than division, particularly when it comes to the Olympics.
I can almost hear the cry from across the border: “Alright then you arrogant English, we’ll take back Chris Hoy and his medals! Ha! See how you like that!” Well, OK. Build him your own Velodrome then. With any luck it’ll go the same way as the Scottish Parliament building.
***
And here's a couple of letters of complaint about that article in this week's edition (the second one is from me):
Dear Student Direct,
I am emailing to complain about the column on page 30 of the 9th March issue of Student Direct.
This article (and I use the term loosely) is a blatant and, indeed, self-satisfied prejudiced. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing I have become sickeningly used to reading in the this uninspiring waste of paper. What makes this even worse, however, is that Matt Nixon's main issue with Scotland is that they won't do what the English say. He seemingly believes that English sports persons are inherently better that Scottish ones, for no other reason than that they are English. In addition to this, he uses the term "home nations" to mean England itself, as if this were the only nation worth bothering about.
I am English myself and have no connections with Scotland, but I find this column offensive to say the least. It is obvious that if this sort of trash is allowed to be printed in the newspaper (again note the stretching of the meaning of this word to its limits) once, then I am sure it will be again, whether it is aimed at Scotland, Wales, Ireland or any other country.
Yours
A very disgusted Simon Rookyard
Dear Student Direct,
To form a Great Britain football team for the 2012 Olympics would be a nakedly political move. It would not be "a heartwarming gesture of solidarity" for the SNP and its supporters who are sufficiently numerous to mean that Scotland has a SNP government.
Furthermore, I take exception to some of the language that this article was couched in. Does the phrase "fuck off Scotland" have a place in a newspaper that claims to be representative of all University of Manchester students? Scottish students here may be relatively few in number but nevertheless we are here. It is surprising to see this Kelvin MacKenzie-style vitriol in Student Direct.
Incidentally, the people at Scott's Porage Oats chose a vernacular spelling not because they are "tartan-clad illiterates" but in order to give their brand a superficially authentic feel.
Yours faithfully,
[Fouls]
***
Now, what do yous make of all this? I was pleased that this other guy also wrote in; he uses less temperate language than I do and I think the two letters complimented each other nicely on the letters page. I decided to avoid using the word "offended" or any of its variants mainly because I recently listened to Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens talking about the pointlessness of pathetic people who make their business to be offended. It's a good tip, I think.
I don't know Matt Nixon but in visiting the Student Direct website to find this article I discovered that he won the Guardian Student Sports Writer of the Year Award last year.
I should add that the main reason for this post is plump up the blog with absolutely anything I write. Probably, I'll soon be publishing all of my emails off Amazon and that sort of thing. Anything to avoid last year's nine month hiatus.
But the other reason is to see what my readers think about this. Should I have been angrier? Should this guy be sacked? Did I misread the article and it was actually perfectly friendly about Scotland (a fear that I had after I sent off that letter)? It would be nice to get some comments on this. In particular, comments that incite the organising of lynch mobs etc.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Introducing Rembrandt Semi-Fishe P.I.
My name is Rembrandt Semi-Fishe and I am a sleuth, P.I., dangerman. I go where wise men never go and where angels fear to tread. The other day I spotted this image on Fouls' wall. What did it mean? Who was this man and what was his significance? I had to know. The tag line runs, "A journey brings us face to face with ourselves." Code?
In the spirit of my fearless forebears I riffled through Fouls' documents and came across his private diaries along with this interesting entry:
"The Twentieth of Octobre Two Thousand and Eighte. Mine walle is much beautyfied by its new adornemente of Mikhail Gorbachev with Louis Vuitton bag. O wherefore Gorbachev doth embrace vacuously brand-oriented face of Westerne capytalism? The bounty on the after dinner speaker circuit doth dry up methinks. Shalle I blog about this in time? Perhapes guis-ed under one of the silly character names that spilleth recently from mine braine..."
It was time to put the old Semi-Fishe investigatory skills into action: I typed "mikhail gorbachev louis vuitton" into Google. In fine Semi-Fishe tradition my first line of enquiry was the top hit... bingo! But more questions: my honed sleuthing nose had uncovered more mysteries. The top hit was an article from a publication called the New York Times. Now, as a P.I., I peel my eyes twice a day but these guys must do it four or five times a day because they had spotted something that I had not. The little booklet poking out of the bag in the picture has some Russian writing on it. These cunning coves had translated it: "“The Murder of Litvinenko: They Wanted to Give Up the Suspect for $7,000.” Intriguing... who was this Litvinenko? And what was a "suspect"? The adventure wasn't over; next stop Dictionary.com...
Monday, March 09, 2009
The South Bank Show: Fouls
While reading a review of the film New in Town just now I had an idea about how to conduct myself in interviews in the future. The reviewer wonders why Renée Zellweger "agrees to appear in such dross". Reading this elicited this little fantasy in my head:
Interviewer: [sycophantic, nervous] Looking back at your career, the films you have appeared in have been uniformly brilliant. I mean, ha!, most of the great actors have produced a couple of stinkers; it's just good form!
Me: [reclining, entirely failing to suppress a little grin while taking a smug sip of water] I've been lucky. My friends in this industry just do good work. I mean, I think, for a lot of people, for a lot of actors, they have these obligations to other people in the business, you know, to be polite or whatever. So, you know, a lot of the time when people get accused of selling out or doing it for the money or whatever it's really just out of a... out of wanting to avoid rudeness. I just work with talented people; they give me these great scripts and I know I can trust the producer and, you know, the director's a visionary [complacent chortle] and we just make the movie and I've never had to worry about pissing anyone off or anything.
Interviewer: [sycophantic, nervous] Looking back at your career, the films you have appeared in have been uniformly brilliant. I mean, ha!, most of the great actors have produced a couple of stinkers; it's just good form!
Me: [reclining, entirely failing to suppress a little grin while taking a smug sip of water] I've been lucky. My friends in this industry just do good work. I mean, I think, for a lot of people, for a lot of actors, they have these obligations to other people in the business, you know, to be polite or whatever. So, you know, a lot of the time when people get accused of selling out or doing it for the money or whatever it's really just out of a... out of wanting to avoid rudeness. I just work with talented people; they give me these great scripts and I know I can trust the producer and, you know, the director's a visionary [complacent chortle] and we just make the movie and I've never had to worry about pissing anyone off or anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)