Yes We Chan!

I'd like to take some time out to talk about my alma mater.

Hofstra University hosted the 3rd and final presidential debate this evening. We were all very proud.

While the candidates were embarrassing themselves within the David S. Mack Arena, Hofstra itself was being embarrassed on live TV...by my friends.

You see, I was a part of a certain society at Hofstra, I don't know if I need to mention it's name...ok, it was called NONSENSE HUMOR MAGAZINE. We are in fact Hofstra's Only Intentional Humor Magazine.



Current members and Alumni alike (i.e. me) infiltrated the debate coverage tonight, creating fake posters and signs, and trying to get on MSNBC. Finally, after the debate, that goal was achieved.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27207488#27207680



If you look right behind Andrea Mitchell, you'll notice a few odd campaign signs in the background. They look like they could be Barack Obama signs...but not quite...you see, these signs were promoting a little known campaign. They were promoting the Presidential run of Jackie Chan.



In that screen shot you can clearly see two members holding up signs proclaiming a "Chan We Need" and "Chan"



There we have yet another "Chan" sign as well as one of our "I'm Apathetic" posters.



Finally in this one you see current editor Brendan Smyth showing his support for Bob Barr with his hand made sign.

During the commercial break the Obama campaign called and demanded that Nonsense take down the signs. Pussies.

We shall not be silenced! The campaign of Jackie Chan will go on! Let Jackie debate! Let Jackie debate!

It's not like he's the only candidate that wasn't born in this country.

So, this little Improve Everywhere-like idea was cut short by a candidate who couldn't take a joke...Nonsense still came out on top.

Chris Matthews took an issue of Nonsense and enjoyed it. He also signed a copy for an alumna.

Matthews's aid then asked what another sign one of our members was holding up meant. The sign in question said "I Scissored Sarah Palin". An explanation was given, and hilarity ensued.

There will of course be people who will complain about this act of comedy. Nothing unusual about that. When I was the Managing Editor of this magazine, someone complained every week. In it's 25 years of existence not a year went by without a controversy.

If we're not offending people we're not doing our jobs. Comedy is meant to upset the status quo. It's meant to challenge authority.

I love free speech.

I love Nonsense Humor Magazine.

And I'll love Hofstra University if they understand that.

Why I Still Read Pitchfork

I remember a time when I used to read Pitchforkmedia every day. I looked through all the news, and enjoyed reading the album reviews. That year was 2003.

I had just started working for the Hofstra Chronicle, writing album reviews for their entertainment section. My first reviews were very bland, and if they were by anyone else, I probably would never have even read them. I needed a better writing style, something that would attract attention. Enter Brent DiCrescenzo.

Brent DiCrescenzo broke every rule when it came to writing album reviews. He referred to himself throughout his reviews; he went on huge tangents that only paid off at the end; he told stories and made up characters in hopes of getting his audience to relate to his point-of-view better. He worshiped at the altar of Hunter S. Thompson just as often as he did Robert Christgau. He was very interesting to read, even if you didn't agree with what he was saying. Dare I claim that what he was writing for Pitchfork was in fact beyond criticism, but rather, art.

It wasn't just DiCrescenzo. Many of Pitchfork's stable of writers at the time were tryng new things with their reviews. I was a fan of Dominique Leone, Amanda Petrusich, Nick Sylvester, Mark Richardson, Douglas Wolk and of course Ryan Schreiber.

So, of course, I completely aped their styles, and as my former editor Taylor Long can tell you: people started reading my reviews. I know this, because I have the hate mail.

So, back to the point. That was 2003. Since then, Pitchfork has gone down in quality a great deal. DiCrescenzo left to pursue to another writing gig, Leone just released his first (excellent) full length LP, Petrusich just wrote a book I'm dying to read, and for the most part, the current crop of writers aren't nearly as experimental as the old ones (Scott Plagenhoef's continuous attempts aside). The biggest criticism Pitchfork gets these days (actually, I guess they've always gotten this criticism) is that they are pretentious and elitists. Their reviews reek of the arrogance that mars the line between being a taste-maker and just being Holier-than-thou.

And honestly, it's completely true. It's sad to see one of my influences that was so strong once, completely make themselves irrelevant.

So why do I still read it then? Well, I'm always on the look out for new music that I have yet to hear. I'm always trying to find stuff that I don't know yet. If the website provides me with these criteria, then I see no reason to abandon them. If I get something out of my reading, why is that bad? Today was a perfect example of why I still read Pitchfork.

Before today, I had never heard of Alton Ellis. Sadly, Ellis died recently, and Pitchfork ran their obituary and also a few song suggestions.

And my God, he is fantastic.

I've never really explored the genre of rocksteady that deep, but now, now I think I must because this song is terrific:


name="allowFullScreen" value="true">



That's all I ask from Pitchfork, recommend something to me that I might like, and I'll still glance over your site every day. Is that such a bad reason to still read the site? Am I wrong? Tell me.



And R.I.P Alton Ellis.

Bringing a gun to a music fight

In honor of Thanksgiving last week I wanted to do a post on the biggest turkey of all, Hillary Clinton, and analysis some of her campaign videos. But alas, my speakers were a little messed up (they're feeling much better now) and the post had to wait. I'll probably do it tomorrow or later today if I have time.

Instead, look at this:

Spinner has made a list of the top 20 songs about killing. Hey, pretty cool idea, sounds a little familiar though...hey, what the-- oh right, I did it already.

Ok, I'm being a little egotistical. I highly highly doubt Spinner looked at my list from a college newspaper 3 years ago. And I highly doubt I'm the first person to think of doing it (though I will say I had more balls than them because mine came out right around the anniversary of Columbine!). But just for shits and giggles, let's compare the lists.

Well, Spinner did 20 and I did 10. I had a hard time coming up with 10 songs that could fit the bill, so for 20...wow! And to boot, we only have 4 songs in common. (Stagger Lee, I Shot the Sheriff, Folsom Prison Blues, and Janie's Got a Gun). Spinner left some important ones off (see my list) and added a few that I either left off intentionally, (Stan, Maxwell's Silver Hammer) or completely forgot about and am hitting myself because of (Used to Love her, Nebraska)

And for God's sake why didn't I think of "Killing An Arab!" That song would have been perfect for my list...at the very least it would have been a better entry than "Janie's Got a Gun."

Well, no use crying about it now...at least I didn't forget the Boomtown Rats.




I still have bigger balls than them though