About Blogging

njbubbster02: get this
njbubbster02: i just did an interview for some kid who’s a friend of one of justin’s friends.
njbubbster02: about blogging
njbubbster02: through email
Scourgie: weird
Scourgie: what did he ask?
njbubbster02: nothing substantial
njbubbster02: Please provide any personal information you feel I should know. (age, job title, etc) What benefits do you receive from your blog? (Why do you blog?) Your new blog mentions that your brother criticized your old blog’s political ranting and raving. Do you feel you accomplished anything by posting political commentary on your old site? The only people who seem to comment on your blog are close friends, why do you communicate with them via your blog rather than face to face, or even over the phone? Does your blog allow you to express thoughts you normally would not mention in face to face conversation? Thanks again, and feel free to comment on anything else you think could contribute to my story.
njbubbster02: apparently he found me through jacobi
njbubbster02: or vice versa
Scourgie: Was it a school project?
njbubbster02: i’m not really sure
njbubbster02: Hey Nick, Thanks for agreeing to a short online interview for curb magazine, a student publication of the UW School of Journalism. I’m writing an article on whether or not blogs are all they are hyped up to be. I interviewed Adam Jacobi and I want to get another perspective from someone within his “online group.” I’ve procrastinated, like I do on any school project, and have a deadline of tomorrow, so I’d appreciate it if you could answer the attached questions tonight. Please call or email me with any questiosn you have, and I thank you for helping shape my story. David Glisczinski
Scourgie: Ha! I bet it’s a j202 project.
njbubbster02: http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/j417/fall04/index.htm
njbubbster02: i’m thinking j417
Scourgie: I guess so.
Scourgie: I think that’s the magazine classe
njbubbster02: yeah.
njbubbster02: still. wierd.
njbubbster02: you want to see my answers to the interview?
Scourgie: Yes!
njbubbster02: so we can trash the article when it comes out? (jk)
Scourgie: I’m intruigued why you don’t call me on the phone and why i have to keep in touch thru your blog.
njbubbster02: i call!
njbubbster02: not as much as i should
Scourgie: hehe. I know. It just sounded like kind of a touchy question.
Scourgie: Like too onesided.
njbubbster02: like, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Scourgie: Why are you such a nerd that you only talk to your friends thru a blog? Are you intimidated by face to face conversation? Do you HATE people?
…..
Scourgie: I like how you say that you are really communicative to respond to his sassy question.
Scourgie: I can’t wait to see how he quotes you. You were really helpful.
njbubbster02: yeah.
Scourgie: It seems like he really read your blog though.
njbubbster02: i know
njbubbster02: its scarry
Scourgie: Maybe he’s a fanboy.
Scourgie: He should talk to me about how I read people’s blogs when I haven’t spoken to them in years, Leigh, Maylander, etc.
njbubbster02: jsut got a response
njbubbster02: Thanks for calling me out in interviewing you over email. As i wrote that question i thought of how hypocritical I was in asking it.
Scourgie: ha!
Scourgie: You should blog this! This conversation about your email interview about blogging would appear on your blog! ahh!
njbubbster02: talk about remediation.
Scourgie: A vicious cycle.

D’oh!: The problems of cross-cultural adaptation

On reading the news today, I stumbled across this little blurb: ‘The Simpsons’ Exported to Middle East — Minus Bacon, Beer.

What’s amazing to me is that someone actually thought this was a good idea. In order to sell The Simpsons over seas they have to remove most of the things that make the Simpson’s what they are: beer, bacon, Moe’s Taven, and in general, sinning as much and as many times as possible. We laugh at Homer and the rest of the Simpson’s characters because, as the article mentions, “they are distinctly American.” Many of the shows have explicit references to issues in American culture – to remove those takes the essence out of the show. Not to mention, the fact that the crazy schemeing and debauchery of Homer is what makes the show enjoyable. We laugh, because we know that its a reflection of American gone wrong.

Interestingly enough, I am also told that the Simpson’s does well in Great Britian and Germany without any adaptation. Even if those countries do not get the American references per se (although many German and British students have a better understanding of American History and current events than Americans do), they still can at least understand the slapstick humor and crazy scheme.

Leave the Simpson’s as they are. If not, then Homer’s just a non-alcoholic, soda drinking, terrible father. And I’m not quite sure why that’s funny.

Wisconsin Forensics Daily

I cannot believe that I forgot to make an announcement about Wisconsin Forensics Daily on my own corner of the web. Back in March I proposed that Wisconsin should create a “wi-debate.com.” That proposal was announced on my old blog and on cross-x.com. You can read a copy of that proposal here.

And now the hard work is done. Wisconsin Forensics Daily is a reality and is online. Here’s the text of the announcement strait from WFD:

After a summer of work, many email conversations, and a lot of help from Bill Batterman and Adam Jacobi, I am pleased to bring to everyone: Wisconsin Forensics Daily.

Wisconsin Forensics Daily is your source for news and culture regarding Wisconsin Debate and Forensics.

Wisconsin Forensics Daily is an independent website devoted to covering all that is Debate and Forensics in Wisconsin. We are not affiliated with the WFCA, the WDCA, or the WHSFA. Wisconsin Forensics Daily does not seek to replace those organizations or the uses of their websites. Similarly, we are not attempting to replace other debate community websites like VBD, lddebate.org, or cross-x.com. Rather, we are attempting to foster community development in Wisconsin debate and forensics across geographic, economic, and philosophic differences. In doing so, we will report on all the forensics and debate events across the state of Wisconsin that we can.

And we are attempting to proceed with our coverage and commentary in a journalistic fashion. Pieces will be written by members of the Debate and Forensics community who can not only offer information, but also provide insight into what it means to be involved in debate and forensics in the state of Wisconsin.

As such, we will be more than simply a blog, but hopefully an interactive magazine. As one can see, each entry has the capacity to evolve into a controlled discussion focused on the written entry. I think this format will allow for an improved online discussion and foster a larger sense of community. Moreover, this will provide one central space for all of those involved in Wisconsin debate and forensics to interact.

I also hope that we can provide a space where all members can interact. Not just simply students or only coaches, but a forum that allows all members to be involved. Accordingly, we will have news, information, and commentary for coaches, judges, and students. And the neatest feature: We will be reporting live, from some tournaments, so that parents and friends at home may receive an up-to-the minute update on how your child is doing.

I invite everyone to surf-on by.

Sincerely,

Nick Bubb

Editor-in-Chief
Wisconsin Forensics Daily
http://www.wiforensics.com

OS X is the Greatest Thing Ever

Yesterday I had an hour to spend in between my last class and the John Podesta lecture, and so I went to College Library to use their computers. And, apparently, they just got a lab full of brand new G5 iMacs. So I decided to play around, give that I was doing some work on apples in order to tabulate last weekends tournament.

These are the greatest things ever.

McGarry in Humanities?

Today I went to a lecture/talk put on by Pi Sigma Alpha, the Political Science Honors society. Strangely enough I have never considered it all that important to be a member of PSA, but today made me rethink that decisions. After all, I already like most of the faculty members and most of my classmates.

All of that aside, the talk was by John Podesta. John Podesta was Clinton’s Chief of Staff. Yes, that’s right. I met the real Leo McGarry. Interestingly enough, he’s also met John Spencer, who plays Leo McGarry. Answering the “West Wing” question last, he commented that the show was accurate in that it both accurately reflected some of the issues confronted by the President, as well as, the belief among the people that work in the West Wing that they really are making people’s lives better. (and in comparison to the current administration he couldn’t get by without mentioning, “whether or not they actually are helping. And as much as I think they’re abandoning fact and reason.”)

There were a few laughs at “What was the best and worst piece of advice you gave President Clinton?” Though the answers weren’t all that interesting. What I find interesting is that all of the pictures in tomorrow’s Cardinal and Herald will probably have a picture of him answering my question. Which was on the necessity of using moral language, in light of his description of the administration as “morally bankrupt.” He thought I was equating morality with religion. I wasn’t, but if I was, his response would have been exactly what I predicted.

The most disturbing thing to me was that the talk didn’t actually make me think in a new way at all. The lecture was about what it means to be a progressive… Except, I’m pretty sure I knew what the term has meant historically and currently anyway.

I did however come up with some new ideas that I would like to explore though. Unfortunately, none of these related to politics. And even worse, all of them related to debate and forensics.

Semester Long Project is on….

So, for most of the afternoon today I’ve been delaying writing a paper that I have to do for my Com Arts 262 Class. Sometimes I find that when I get into a procrastination mood, it’s very hard to get out of it. Especially when I cannot find anything to do while I procrastinate. And then I get bored.

Yes, it’s a hard life being a college student.

Anyway. This is just the first in a series of papers that we have to do. By the way, the class is the Theory and Argumentation in Debate. I think that if I cannot get an A in this class that I probably should give up coaching. There are a number of related stories that come for this class so far, which all stem from the fact that most of the material I have already seen: either in debate or in a previous class with the professor.

So, my semester long project is on the recent takings clause case, Kelo et. al. v. City of New London, issued just last term by the United States Supreme Court. I hope that most of you have heard about this case. Long story short about the case: condemning someone’s house is okay, so long as the act of taking the house has a clear public purpose. Unfortionately, this decision really received some bad press. Because most of the public is unfamiliar with even the concept of legal precendent, much less that this decision was well established in decisions by the United States’ Supreme Court. Apparently it was pretty shocking for people to hear that you could lose your house, if they state could show that a public purpose was involved. Except that instead of merely showing, that purpose does have to be involved.

I think that this is a great subject, only because that I cannot seem to make up my mind whether I agree with the decision or not. I am ranting, so I will quote Mike Meyers and end the post. Discuss amongst yourselves.