Lawrinson Bookstore:

7:25 p.m.: I picked up this shift to earn some more money, so now I’m sitting bored in a comfortable office chair, ringing up the occasional underclassman that wanders in to get his or her Pepperoni Bagel Bites or energy drink. No shopping sprees of $40+ yet tonight (there’s always some student who’s quick to buy a ridiculous amount of sodium-saturated junk food and overpriced SU merchandise) but one girl is toting around a shopping basket so there’s potential.

7:30 p.m.: No dice. She just got what could be a pseudo-healthy dinner for two: Two Lean Cuisines, two pints of rainbow Sherbet, two Starbucks fraps and a pack of gum. I wonder if people know that I’m recording what they’re buying, and leaving you to make judgments of their person and/or character via those selections.

Things on my mind at the moment: the economy & congress’ bailout plan, new always sunny at josh’s with a bottle of bully hill wine, Chuck’s after, Urban Outfitters, Luna bars

Out of my Outbox

Boost: Vacations are a great way to get away from work and stress.
Downgrade: Away from internet and American (or any English-speaking) press, you lose complete grasp of what is going in the world.

Ash brought to my attention the exchange between AP's Ron Fouriner and Karl Rove, Bush's chief advisor, and wanted to know my take on the situation.

Here's the e-mail I sent her:

It's hard, being human and all, to completely de-attach from natural conversational inclinations as a journalist. I feel like the best interviewers are those who are able to conduct an interview in such a way that the interviewee feels as though they are talking to one of their closest friends. After all, any interview is basically just a conversation.

So, it's hard. You want to have some give-and-take. No one likes a conversation that's completely one-sided. Sure, people love to hear themselves talk but I personally like some feedback; it kind of affirm the person is listening to what I'm saying and that they understand.

In this situation, I feel like the journalist wasn't wrong in answering Rove's question, but he was wrong in how much he admitted. I think there's a range of what's appropriate and not, as there is with anything. There are somethings that are just TMI, and I think the journalist entered this realm.

Thoughts?

Good things come in three, Tough decisions come in two

Sometimes one idea is duplicated, and the result is so much like the former that is hard to determine which one is better. Here are some things that conveniently emerged at the same time and that I have taken the liberty to crown the better part of the pair.

Boyband Hearthrobs Who Didn't Age Well but Attempted a Comeback a Decade Later Anyways: New Kids on The Block vs Menudo

Why?: that is the question I need to ask twice (naturally). 1. Why in god's name would grown men think it's okay to sing "I was like, "hey, girl, can I get your number"/I remember what you told me too, /"Don't call after ten"/But you know that I did, /'Cause I couldn't stop thinkin' 'bout you."? The slang and content in it's entirety is beyond inappropriate. 2. Why did the music industry really think pop-listeners wanted more boy bands? That's so 20th century; I want catchy pop-emo ("Shake It" by Metro Station is such a good guilty pleasure) and badly-lyricized R&B (Have you heard the new LL Cool J? See me in the club.)
The NKOTB site says, "New Kids On The Block — five now fully-grown men who forever defined what the modern boy band would look and sound like — are back together for the very first time in nearly a decade and a half, and currently hard at work on their first new album since 1994." That may be the most embarrassing introduction I have ever read in my life. "Five fully-grown men who forever defined what the modern boy band would like and sound like"… sounds more like five fully-grown mean who can't escape their boy band mold and figured "don't fight it, embrace it." I'd probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes.

There's no real competition here. Menudo wins by a landslide. I still do not know why these boys' manager wanted to market the group as Menudo when they could have very well given them a fresh, new name. Any chance to cultivate Menudo fans of the 1980s into listeners of the new crew was lost when those same girls ditched their TeenBeats and neon scrunchies for real jobs to support their children and husband.

Winner: Menudo

Who's Got the Magic Stick: The Illusionist vs The Prestige

I love magic and anything set pre-1950, so when I heard about the release of The Illusionist and The Prestige in 2006, I thought I had just hit the jackpot.

Both casts were pretty spectacular. The Illusionist had Ed Norton and Jessica Beal and The Prestige snagged Christian Bale and Scarlett Johansson. I'd have to say that the Prestige's cast just seems to be a downgraded version to the Illusionist's. That's not just my immense love for Norton talking, but I do have to admit I lost some respect for Johansson once she released her own album.

I don't completely remember either of the films, and some parts from both run together (can you blame me?), but I'm pretty positive that I was extremely disappointed with The Illusionist. The Prestige had more of an interesting story, which was about two rivals that competed to be the best magician on the market at that time. The Illusionist was more of a love story, a weak one with some kind of unbelievable twist.

Winner: The Prestige (Don't take it personal, Ed. I still love you.)

Young, Smooth and Oh-so Fine: Chris Brown vs Ne-Yo

I grapple with this battle on a constant basis, so much so that I hate to really even sit down and make myself pick between these boys. Barely legal and angel voices.. does there really have to be a winner? Can't I just have both?When I used to have a cellphone with the capacity to visit GetItNow and download actual ringtones, "My Sounds" folder was pretty much split evenly with Chris Brown and NeYo realtones. The two heartthrobs came onto the music scene at relatively the same time, but they often released singles at different times. I had the luxury of switching between their songs as they were released instead of having to choose which song was better.

So let's break down the eye-candy into three categories: cuteness, songs and dance.First up, Chris Brown. He's a dime; I'm going for 10 out of 10 on cuteness. Not only does he have a perfect complexion and great smile but he was dancing in an oversized shirt modeled after the first C. Brown, Charlie Brown, in his video "Yo." Charm and wit earns you a perfect score; take note boys. As for NeYo, he's pretty good looking, but he only scales an 8 on my meter. On to songs, Chris Brown has good a good selection. I'm loving his use of electronics in his latest single "Forever," and I loved "Kiss Kiss." But if I never hear "Run It" again, I'll die happy. Ne-Yo is some stiff competition for Mr. Brown. "Sexy Love" might have stayed as my ringtone so long that I'm convinced my friends now associate that song with me from hearing it so often. I still love "Because of You" even though I'm pretty sure it has been on the radio for probably a year now; I don't think I'll ever get sick of it. Ne-Yo wins the song portion. Last but not least, dance. I love to dance so my man is going to have to either have sick moves, or at least a decent two-step. Chris Brown is fantastic, just watch any of his videos. Ne-Yo dances but I don't think his stage presence can compare.

Winner: Chris Brown

Disagree? Can you think of other competing pairs? Who wins out? Leave a comment!

"You've got to be bloggin me!"

In Web Writing class, we've been discussing blogs endlessly. Hours have been spent outlining the basics of blogging: how does blogging differ from traditional newspaper writing style (is there that much of a difference?), is the future of journalism in blogs (really?), what separates personal online diaries (my professor likes to call them "sex diaries") from quality journalism when both media are considered blogs?

I understand the fascination the media industry has with these online forums. Blogs truly do allow anyone with an internet connection to assume the role as a story-teller and share their experiences with the world. But is that really a dangerous thing?

Sure, people claim that blogs are not as creditable as, and are certainly more opinionated than, any news you would find in a print newspaper, but I do not think that ruins the fate of journalism. People are able to recognize if a blog is a legitimate source of information or not. If anything, blogs are assumed to be opinionated and simply aggregates of news drawn from other creditable sources. I almost have to be proven wrong or shown a legitimate affiliation with a creditable media outlet before I absorb any information from a blog as pure, unbiased fact.

I think it is unfortunate that many people think readers or the average person would not be able to recognize the difference between a blog and newspaper. Blogs, by definition, are just personal narratives. Newspapers have complicated things by adding blogs to areas that were otherwise off-limits to columnists.

To me, a blog is basically a column, only given the added option to be biased or fair in judgment. Some blogs do offer expert advice, almost like a online forum outfitted with expertise for a certain niche. Other blogs assume the traditional role of being just an online op-ed resource.

As newspapers move online and more multimedia is integrated into coverage, I do not think of blogs as a threat to journalism, but that is only if they are considered to extras, synonymous to sidebars or graphs.

The danger lies with the potential for readers to only subscribe to blogs and allow traditional, unbiased news reporting die out. In that instance, an average person would have to read three times the amount of news, via blogs with different perspectives, just to have a reasonably level understanding of the world; And, people already do not read the one newspaper delivered to their doorstep and plastered on their computer screen.

After a month-long hiatus, I have decided to blog because I have just had a revelation.

I always look back to high school and think of carefree times. I always seem to forget the 6:00 a.m. wake-ups and extremely short weekends. Or the stress of work, schoolwork, SATs, sports and getting into my dream college.

But, from what I do remember fondly, two things are absent. I feel as though these two things have worked their way into being a vital part of my current daily life, but I cannot determine if it is for better or worse.

Potential demise #1: Facebook.
I didn't even hear about the site until summer before freshman year of college. I had bumped into my friend Hillary in the parking lot of CVS and we were talking about our college plans.
"Have you signed up for your facebook yet?"
"What's that?"
"Oh! You have to once you get your school e-mail so we can keep in touch."
And I did just that.
It was great. I was able look at pictures from all my high school friends' universities and check out events going on at SU.
But nowadays facebook is a bad habit I just can't kick. I waste so much time and brainpower just aimlessly navigating among my friends' profiles, pictures, applications. More bluntly, facebook-stalking.

Potential demise #2: sugar
Mmmm. So delicious. Cookies, candy, anything that pretty much tastes too good to be true. Sure it tastes good for that minute you're eating it, but is it really worth it? Sugar crashes suck, making you feel unhealthy, lazy, thirsty and just plain horrible.

With both of these things I can't help but ask, why do I do this to myself?
It's silly to rash and claim to completely abandon any consumption of Facebook or sugar, but how much better would I feel if the two were dramatically reduced from my media & food diet, respectively.

But it's worth a try. Don't take it personally if I don't respond as quick on facebook, or refuse an offer to split any sort of dessert or candy with you.

I stepped down the cement stairs that were slightly damp from the flurries Syracuse had been getting. Twilight hung in the air. I had just missed the sun, but its presence lingered. Snow fell lightly like glitter, illuminated by the headlights of passing cars. My ears were warmed by love and mathematics as I walked down the college neighborhood sidewalk, hopping to avoid puddles and muddy cracks.

SUper Tuesday

Sen. Barack Obama’s appeal to the younger generation did not appear to be strong enough to beat out Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New York state primary, as she led the Illinois senator by 23 percent an hour after the polls closed Tuesday night, according to CNN.com.

SU Students for Barack Obama, a Syracuse University student group that tried to spread the senator’s message of change to undergrads, concluded their primary season campaign yesterday at 9 p.m., but their advertising was not a success with some students.

"I only saw one rally and didn't know they were groups on campus," said senior David Vassallo. “I'm more an anti-Hillary person and I knew more than the Obama supporters at the rally. It's only effective if they knew what they were talking about."

The Syracuse campus student chapter of the Obama for America campaign was directed by sophomore Marshall Spevak and held events such as the Jan. 31 rally on the quad and promotions at SU men’s basketball games.

Its Facebook group has 60 members, but only 10 students participated in more than one of the group’s events, said Spevak.

“We've been trying to be more visible—holding up signs and cheering,” he said. “I hope a lot of students vote, but I don't even want to speculate numbers. I wouldn’t even dare to guess.”

Despite working alongside the city of Syracuse’s Obama campaign, Spevak said the campus group targeted students and that students were very welcoming to their message.

“Obama really engaged the youth,” said the political science major, who is originally from Cherry Hill, N.J. and voted by absentee ballot for Obama. “I've talked to so many students across campus who are enthusiastic for voting.”

Junior Rita Aidoo, from Bronx, N.Y., did not know about Spevak’s group and decided to vote for Obama without influence from any campus groups.

“I'm only really interested in health care so I don't think anything would have changed that,” she said.

Freshman De'Marcus Woods said that campus groups could potentially swing students who did not have a specific interest in policy or a grasp on politics.

"I think people are stuck in between,” Woods said. “I don't think people really know and if groups can open their eyes and explain how a candidate can affect their lives, you never know.”

The Democratic primary race’s top candidates were whittled down to Obama and Clinton after Sen. John Edwards’ withdrew on Jan. 30. Clinton’s campaign focuses on health care reform, strengthening the middle class and ending the war on Iraq, whereas Obama champions a broader theme of change, according to their websites.

Spevak stayed at the Obama Headquarters, 3000 Erie Blvd. East, all day Tuesday, only leaving to campaign with signs at busy intersections during rush hour. No representatives from the student group were scheduled to visit the polling places in the SU area, he said.

Sandra Frio, of Syracuse, worked at one of the SU polling sites in Goldstein Student Center, 401 Skytop Road, until 9 last night. The poll opened at 11:30 a.m. Polling was also held at the Whitman School of Management, 721 University Ave.

She said she was surprised with the voter turnout within the first hour of operation.

"We're hoping a lot of students come,” said Frio, who has worked in the same ward through out all of her time staffing election sites. “I'm very hopeful to think that the young students are interested in their future."