Mass Comm Week begins today

For Dara Quackenbush, Mass Comm Week is going so according to plan that she’s actually a tad nervous.

“It’s almost scary,” said Quackenbush, chair of Mass Comm Week. “I’m waiting for the shoe to drop.”

Mass Comm Week begins today with CNN International anchor Ralista Vassileva as its headline speaker on Wednesday. Vassileva has covered the Bosnian War, Middle East conflicts and a slew of international stories.

“She was on the air during CNN’s coverage of the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina, the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s transition to democracy, Northern Ireland’s peace agreement, the fall of Indonesia's President Suharto and East Timor’s struggle for independence,” according to the CNN Web site.

Vassileva was invited to Texas State after one of the professors saw her on TV, went on the CNN Web site and e-mailed her, Quackenbush said.

Quackenbush said she’s looking forward to hearing Vassileva.

“I hope there will be a seat for me,” she said. “I want to sit in on as many (events) as possible.”

The event will also feature more than 50 experts in the mass communication field and distinguished Texas State alumni. The topics include online journalism, putting “bling” in your resume, covering war, interactive advertising and event planning. The speakers attend the event voluntarily, Quackenbush said, but some have travel expenses.

Quackenbush said San Marcos’ location makes it an ideal place to have an event like Mass Comm Week, since the group can invite people from Austin and San Antonio.

“I wish students would take more advantage of Austin and San Antonio,” she said. “I think there’s a lot of opportunity in both places.”

She compared San Marcos to other college towns, like Lubbock and College Station, which don’t have as much nearby opportunity for a diverse amount of speakers.

Quackenbush said she hopes Mass Comm Week opens doors for more students.

“I just want them to spark their interest and think of possibilities they want to do in their careers,” Quackenbush said.

This is Quackenbush’s first year as chair of the Mass Comm Week committee, which was comprisesd of about six other professors and instructors. The group began full-fledged planning in September, she said, with some of the planning beginning in the spring semester. Other faculty and staff helped as well, she said, and even her public relations students got in on some of the projects.

Let off some steam, Old Main.

This is rediculous all-around

My feelings are that this is obviously illegal, but the music industry is repeatedly wrong to go after people like they do. As Thomas argues, the damages are excessive but this only makes me think she was lying earlier when she said someone else was using her IP address to file-share. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions: not the person stealing music, and not the industry for being money-hungry and over-pricing its product.

I also have beef with the expert the RIAA brought in for the original trial. Dr. Doug Jacobson, a computer engineering professor at Iowa State University, spoke about the impossibility that the songs were merely ripped from a CD. Thomas' defense correctly points out that he may have been biased, given that the company Jacobson founded, Palisade Systems, deals with personal technology and data security. As a journalist I have real problem bringing someone that has commercial ties to something, even if it is their area of expertise.

Overall I would think that Jammie Thomas is guilty, but should not be punished as severely as she is. There really isn't a good guy in this whole thing, and there won't be until, by some miracle, the recording industry stops trying to suck our wallets dry. Even iTunes isn't perfect; a dollar a song is still to high (buy all tracks for a 13-song album and you're right back where we started), and if you don't use iTunes software or an iPod it's not the most convenient thing in the world. Like the Long Tail article we read earlier, there is a breaking point where people will pay to get convenience over a free product, and for me its not $.99.

RIAA v. Thomas

With the Thomas case, I believe it is in the news, because the outrageousness of the facts is what is going to start conversations going in the digital music industry about the 'make availabe' argument. Thomas' fine of $222, 000 for copyright violation is unconstitutional, because she is the only one being prosecuted. I think that one woman should not be the example that the recording industry wants to make. The RIAA should find a way to control the sharing/downloading industry themselves.

The thing that I do like is that the copyright laws are being more defined, so they can be followed. Prosecuting Thomas right now is like prosecuting people 20 years ago for making mix tapes and giving them to your friends. Technically, copying cassettes and then giving it away was distributing the music without going through the artist or record industry.

I don't think the case was proven against her as much as the jurors knew little about the case. Also, the point has been made that file sharing occurs unknowingly across the internet. The reasoning of the court is too broad. If Thomas is rightfully convicted, then other file-sharers should be attacked for creating the programs and distributing the information .

Surely Not ALL Publicity is Good Publicity

In the first music downloading lawsuit to make it to trial, Jamie Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she illegally downloaded and placed in her Kazaa shared folder. While Thomas was found guilty of violation of copyright laws, the fact that a single mother who makes about $36,000 a year is being made to pay $222,000 to the RIAA is a crime in itself.

It seems that the RIAA, in trying to send out the message that piracy will not be overlooked and that copyright infringers will be punised to the full extent of the law, have instead sent out the message that it is not a case of Virgin v. Thomas, but more of the Record Industry v. the people.

For the RIAA you have to wonder, how much is all this bad publicity really worth? $220,000?? All the RIAA has managed to do is further isolate their own customers, and despite winning the case, have painted themselves out to be the badguys. No one is rooting for the multibillion dollar industry bullying grocery money out of the pockets of single mothers. Perhaps before embarking on the countless lawsuits they have filed against file sharers the RIAA should have consulted with thier public relations department. Hell, maybe they should have consulted with Metallica and asked how well making themselves the poster boys for the record industry's campaign against music sharing is working out for them. Probably not well. In the long run, you end up angering and isolating your own clientele.

Anyone can help contribute to Jamie's cause by donating to her website freejammie.com. So far Thomas has already raised $13,000.

Thomas has also filed an appeal, but because she is up against the RIAA's deep pockets, she might want to launch a site devoted to funding what I'm sure will be costly legal fees.

Why Go After the Little Guy?

I think the case of the RIAA suing Jammie Thomas in a digital copyright suit is baffling. With the ease of use of some of these file sharing programs, sometimes you're sharing files without even knowing it.

Many times when you start up the program, the default settings have you sharing certain folders that may or may not have music on them that you legally bought. A computer user who wasn't sure what they were doing could be illegally sharing music without knowing it.

In my opinion the RIAA should be going after these software companies who make the file sharing software. Obviously Napster was a target of the RIAA and Lars Ulrich, why should Kazaa, Limewire, and Ares get off the hook so easily?

Of course with the downfall of one program is only going to add to the rise of another. But there are a lot less software companies than there are file sharers out there. And there's a much better chance that the software companies can afford something in the neighborhood of $220,000 than can an individual person.

But screw it, that wouldn't be as much fun for the RIAA would it?

Maybe they'll give her a payment plan: Why would a 36K a year mom take on the RIAA (and vice versa)?

I recently read that some people think groups with anti-copyright agendas might be leading Jammie Thomas down the road she has recently found herself on.

A story on c|net’s News.com nailed why some might be suspicious:

“The question came up last week shortly after Thomas was ordered by a federal
jury to pay the record industry more than $220,000 for violating copyright law.
Why would a 30-year-old mother of two, who makes $36,000 a year, want to go
toe-to-toe with the recording industry.”- Greg Sandoval, news.com.

Although it really doesn’t make any sense, Thomas is going it alone. She’s claiming that no one is telling her what to do in this case; she insists this was her idea, what she wanted to do.

I’m not buying it, especially since the article said that her appeal is going to be supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) via a “friend-of-the-court” brief.

All in all I don’t know who I agree with in the case. I mean, upwards of $200,000 for downloading songs? That seems a bit steep. But at the same time, I do not support file sharing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve downloaded music, hell I still do sometimes, but I download one song here or there, rather than entire albums, and if the RIAA looked at what I’d downloaded, they’d laugh.

I download one-hit-wonder kind of stuff, I have “Informer” by Snow; “Land down under” by Men at Work; and “Rock me Amadeus” by Falco.

My point is even if I was going to be an honest consumer and buy three different albums just for three different songs; I probably couldn’t find two of the three albums. That is what I use file sharing for.

Other than that, I think file sharing is wrong. I’m sorry if you cant afford the album, but guess what, radio is still free.

Really....Are you freakin' kidding me?

Poor little Jaimie Thomas, a single mother of two, now has to give her first born as a payment for her charge of copy right infringement. The RIAA is accepting the child as collateral until Thomas can cough up the $222,000 she owes them for the 24 songs she allegedly pirated from the internet.

Ok so she doesn't have to hand over the kid, but $222,000? Really? I just can't even believe it....for 24 songs? are you sure? According to Wired magazine the RIAA could have nicked her for up to $3.6 million in damages....OMG what is the world coming to? again I ask for 24 songs!?!?

The best part is that this case set legal precedent (oh you know, that means it's what they do for all cases of this nature like...forEVER). The RIAA was not even responsible for proving that Thomas' computer even had the file sharing program on it at the time they investigate...nor did they have to prove that it was actually Thomas at the keyboard at the time. And on top of that the RIAA does not have to show that anyone actually downloaded the songs, just that Thomas made them available (which could have just meant she accidentally checked the box that said "share online")...You might think, "Nooooo, this kind of thing doesn't happen in AMERICA! Our government loves us and wouldn't let that happen..." Well I don't know about you friend, but it's looking more likely that I'm moving to Canada!

Oh Oh, but guess what's funny. Thomas isn't paying! Ha Ha! According to the RIAA Thomas "continues to avoid responsibility for her actions." Hmm...or maybe she doesn't have $222,000 siting around at her apartment! Of course Thomas will appeal saying that the damages were "unconstitutionally excessive."

All I have to say is YEA, JAMMIE THOMAS! STICK IT TO THE MAN!! WOOOHOOO! LET'S START A REVOLUTION! YEAAA... I'm going to Canada...see you kids later.

Bills, Bills, Bills

How ironic is it that Jammie Thomas of Brainerd, Minnesota is going to end up paying $9,250 for the Destiny’s Child song, “Bills, Bills, Bills”?

Personally, I’ve never even heard the song but I can’t imagine it’s worth that kind of cash – though Guns N Roses’ "Welcome to the Jungle" might come close.

I kid though and it’s not nice to make fun of thieves paying the price for their decisions. Anyway, that’s the way the record industry would have us all see her and all those nice old ladies whose grandchildren were sharing music on the very same computers they didn’t even know how to turn on.

But, who are they kidding? No one actually buys into all of that record company b.s. I guess except for those 12 Minnesota jurors who threw the book at Thomas.

Thomas isn’t taking this all lying down, though. She’s got her website, Free Jamie, up and running. She’s also blogging daily on her MySpace Blog about how she’s going to appeal the decision and reports that she had as of Saturday at 11:09 a.m. raised $13,909.26, that’s almost enough to pay for two of those 24 songs and about a third of her annual pay according to her website.

She’s even got a YouTube video up now.

Perhaps the best way to sum up the completely diverse and often times idiotic public perception on this highly controversial issues is to simply quote a couple of the many juxtaposing comments from YouTube:

Maverick092588 said, “hahahhaha, you lost! you're a f****** loser! hahahahaha, f*** you, you're poor now! hahahahahhaha, i hope you and your kids starve.”

Meanwhile, Skyler2dope says, “F*** THE RIAA.”

As if it all wasn’t ironic and interesting enough before she’s also now touting ways to legally find music online, with a little thing called Project Playlist, and even purports to have read the, “copyright and legal disclaimers” this time.

Either way I guess the RIAA wins. They’ve surely got some people pretty worried, others are on their side and finally others will do the “smart” thing and settle out of court.

Music Piracy

The Recording Industry Association of America is singing a tune of pettiness and vindictiveness by chasing after Jammie Thomas, a so-called music pirate.

Because Thomas made a few dozen music files accessible to other users online through her Kazaa account, she has now become the new poster child for file sharing in a lawsuit that she has recently said she will appeal.

The RIAA’s attempt to silence these online pirates will lead to people feeling more animosity and detachment toward the music industry. They’re the big music conglomerate that can afford to lose a few bucks; Thomas is the single mother with a $36,000 annual salary to fork over $220,000. This can’t be good PR for a megalithic trade company.

It’s a tough call how to solve the issue of illegal music downloading. The legal attacks toward Thomas makes the RIAA look petty and vindictive. But how do we ensure musicians are paid? Artists do make money through other means than record sales. There are concerts and merchandise, and more people in the music industry are turning toward product promotions and crossing into other fields.

What really is the point of the recording industry? Do they serve any purpose for modern artists and their audience? Who does the music belong to: the artist, the company or the purchaser? Radiohead’s decision to sell downloads of their newly released album “In Rainbows” on their Web site may prove the RIAA worthless. They will probably set a precedent for many bands to come.

Are record labels and distributors even an integral part of the music-making and

MySpace is the not-so-new distribution miracle for any artist wanting to break into this scene. An artist from San Marcos can create a promotional page just as easily as the White Stripes or 50 Cent. An artist can create a Web site and sell downloads of their songs via iTunes or Amazon.com.

Record labels also used to be more involved in the creation and evolution of the song and album. But that was at least pre-21st century. Now, record labels and the RIAA seem to devote much of their time to frivolous lawsuits toward people who have much less money that them.

This isn’t the only attempt by the RIAA to go after file sharing. On Dec. 21, the organization filed an unsuccessful lawsuit for a Russian-owned and run Web site called AllOF MP3.com. The RIAA asked for $1.65 trillion in damages and came to that conclusion be multiplying 11 million songs with statutory damages of $150,000 per song. But the RIAA could not obtain jurisdiction over a foreign site. Then, there was Napster.

But in the end, the RIAA couldn’t possibly see people like Thomas as the thief in this situation. You could argue the recording industry’s profits from artist’s albums are the bigger boondoggle than Thomas sharing a few songs over the Internet.

I'll stop downloading illegally when you stop ripping off artists

Jammie Thomas broke the law. She downloaded music that she didn't pay for and allowed others to access it via Kazaa.

But I can't blame her.

The RIAA won its case last week against Thomas, who was sued for downloading 24 music files illegally. Thomas alleges in her testimony her IP address was spoofed, and she downloaded nothing. I'm no Internet wizard and don't know if that can actually happen, but it does seem far-fetched. Either way, Thomas is proceeding with an appeal.

Personally, I think the RIAA is responsible for the lack of progress in the digital media market. They're too busy suing people who download illegally instead of strategizing how they are going to move away from the outdated CD-format. After the trial was over, Michael Hegg, a juror in Thomas' trial, said in an interview the jury wanted to send a message to everyone that downloading was illegal by charging Thomas a hefty fine of $220,000. Well, here's the truth: People are still downloading music illegally at this very second and they won't stop.

RIAA lawsuits produce no real winners. Yes, the industry gets its money and whether they distribute that back to artists is questionable, but they end up alienating consumers. People say it all the time, "I'll buy the album if I can listen to it first." So we download music, it may be crappy or it may be good and whether we decide to buy the album or not, the crappy music remains on our hard drives or iPods taking up crappy space. Notice how it's major labels doing all the suing because they know no one wants to buy their artists' crappy music.

Maybe the RIAA is upset the indie labels and artists are the only ones benefitting from file-sharing and downloading. Indie artists may not make much when it comes to album sales, but they rake money in other ways such as touring and merch sales. That's why major label artists have to stick to their make-a-hit formula and monotony prevails on radio. They are trying to capitalize without doing any of the work. Things have changed and the industry just needs to get with it.

I'll go download some crappy music now and wait for the RIAA to call.

I couldn't resist posting the above comic (courtesy of Toothpaste for Dinner) after reading about Jammie Thomas. Why doesn't the Recording Industry Association of America realize their tactics concerning fair use are not worthwhile? By suing Thomas, a 30-year-old mother of two, they have put the nail in the proverbial coffin of completely demonizing themselves.

This seemingly-soulless group that represents record labels has attempted to stop illegal file-sharing in a round-about and fruitless way. Rather than taking a positive approach to the situation, they have been on the offensive since day 1. Suing unfortunate soul after unfortunate soul, the RIAA has done nothing more than throw gasoline onto the bonfire that is the debate of media fair use.

A Wired blog article does a good job of balancing out the facts of the case. Thomas' income wouldn't be so sad if the RIAA hadn't been awarded so much of her money. She makes $36,000 a year, and for the 24 songs the RIAA sued for, they were awarded $220,000. I cannot believe a jury would sentence someone to this hefty fine for downloading intangible computer files for her personal use. She was not profiting from the sale of any materials downloaded through the p2p program Kazaa.

The Wired piece continues by explaining Thomas actually had 1,702 downloaded files, but the RIAA chose to only sue for 24. This was surprisingly lenient, but not enough. Thomas should have ceased once the RIAA contacted her, but she decided to keep downloading files. The old adage "everyone else is doing it" is a weak argument. Under the current (albeit flawed) guidelines, one is only allowed to have digital copies of songs they already purchased in a tangible form. Downloading copious games, movies and songs you do not own is illegal, plain and simple.

In an Information Week article, Thomas said she plans to appeal the decision. I wish her good luck in her ever-lasting fight. Under current guidelines and laws, she'll need it.

We are in a new time requiring new laws and actions against illegal downloads. In my opinion, file sharing should not be illegal. Apple's iTunes has already capitalized on the emergence of .mp3s. By selling songs at marginal costs, it is a win-win situation. This is something the RIAA should keep in mind.

Bullshit

Excuse me for being so frank, but after hearing about Jammie Thomas' trial against the RIAA (truly a David and Goliath-type tale), that was the only word that came to mind.

Jammie Thomas is a 30-year-old mother of two who makes $36,000 per year. She was found guilty on October 4 of violating copyright on 24 songs by providing them for download from her Kazaa account. Thomas denied ever using file-sharing software. However, her Kazaa user name, "tereastarr" has long been attached to Thomas. (In fact, it's her MySpace user id)

The verdict would have Thomas pay up $220,000; quite a sum considering her financial standing. It didn't take jurors long to deliberate on the appropriate sum. Thomas could have been fined anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song. Jurors settled on $9,250. Juror Lisa Reinke said, "You go too low, it's not going to stop the illegal downloading of music. People are going to think, 'I could do this, I could go through federal court and get off cheap.'"

REALLY?! You really think people would have sat there and thought that $750 per song made it affordable? (24 songs at $750 each would still have been $18,000.) The jury was FAR too harsh in their judgment.

Thomas has since said she would appeal the verdict, an uphill battle considering the support and financial clout of the RIAA. Even still, I cannot say if her efforts are heroic or dumb. Yes, it sucks to pay for music that's out there for free, but at the same time I wouldn't want someone stealing work I had done, either. Yes, most of the money goes to record companies, but it's the principle of the matter. They cannot be bypassed.

Even still, the amount the court ordered Thomas to pay is ridiculous.

People can help support Jammie by donating to her site, FreeJammie. As of the 13th of October, over $13,000 had already been donated.

Who will be the next example?

I don’t think that I am alone when I say that I truly feel for Jammie Thomas. She is being punished for something that almost everyone does and it’s just not fair. Why the RIAA felt the need to fine her $222,000 which is about $9,250 per song can only be chalked up to one simple factor, greed. This is not a matter of wrong or right. It is one of ugly, avarice.

Jammie Thomas is a single mother of two who makes about $36,000 a year. Where in the hell is she supposed to obtain the funds for this ludicrous lawsuit? The RIAA doesn’t need the money that is for certain. Ms. Thomas is just one of the few that is being made an example of, which is really unfortunate for her as well as her children, who will no doubt suffer a great deal from this.
When dealing with the sticky subject of downloading music you have to ask yourself this: "Is what I’m doing really wrong." It is one of the many moral dilemmas where you are wrong in the eyes of the law but not necessarily wrong in the bigger picture. Who suffers from downloading music and file sharing? The record labels? The artists? If you think that artists are suffering because people are downloading their music instead of buying their c.d. you are wrong. Artists make a majority of their money through merchandise, touring, and endorsements not through their stupid c.d.s anyway. I really don’t think that any of these people’s children are going to go hungry because too many people are illegally downloading their music. Maybe their dogs will just have to wait until next year to get that second $8,000 dog house. Boo-hoo life is rough sometimes.

As for the record labels represented by the RIAA most of you misrepresent your clients anyway and take more than your fair share of their hard earned profits. The money that you will suck out of the pockets of average people who make a modest income, is probably the equivalent to the change found in the bottom of your expensive, luxury cars. You should be ashamed of your greediness. Music is for everyone to enjoy and sue whomever you like, we will find a way to listen.

You can kill an ant, but not the whole colony...

Yea, even as I write this blog I am on the edge of my seat. I don’t want anyone reading this and coming after me, but if it’s all for the story I will persist.

When we talked about Jammie Thomas’ case this past Tuesday I was shocked, to say the least. I personally believe it ridiculous to have anyone pay that ludicrous amount of money just for making something available to someone else. Can’t it be said that anytime we give a gift or share something with others we are basically committing a felony because we are going against some copyright? It’s definitely a tricky topic.

As I read through the most recent updates about this case, one of the jurors was quoted in an AP article saying that there were some members on the jury who wanted the $222,000 to be higher; not only that, but in that same article it said that most of the jurors had admitted to downloading some program or byte at some point or other. How superficial and hypocritical can these ‘citizens’ get? They seem like those people who take any tiny amount of power and blow it up as big as possible, I’d like to see how they felt about this type of situation if the tables were turned and they were the one having to cough up the elephant-wad of cash.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to give bias-free a positive view towards the penalty they gave Thomas; there’s just no way, especially since it was for a total of 24 songs up for debate. I download songs galore and I do do it illegally…I’ll admit it, but at the same time, who doesn’t? If access is available and it is so easy to find, how can anyone possibly say it’s unjustly for that one?

I think of it like this: if I walked through a valley that was filled with freshly bloomed daisies and was told to pick only one and would have to pay for it, I honestly would walk away, find my own flowers or skim from the sides. It’s not worth it when I can just go and get what I want elsewhere.

For those of you who want to fight the system with me and who want to enjoy what you want when you want, I’m going to give you one of the best presents you could ask for: for movies go to ovguide.com, for music download limewire and for free music whenever go to mp3shits.com.

Companies can sue to their pockets are empty, but they are NEVER going to stop everyone from doing it. Killing one ant has never killed the colony…unless it’s the queen, but that doesn’t count.

Tale of tailgating

Every time the football team suits up and heads onto Jim Wacker field, it happens. Hours (sometimes days) before games begin, parking lot nomads set up temporary homes and fuel their bodies for the oncoming sporting event (by gorging on beer and food). The name of the game is tailgating, and if you're not at Bobcat Stadium parking lot pre-game, you're not a true football fan.

The Texas State vs. McNeese State matchup featured both usual and unusual sights for a San Marcos game day.

The staples of cops issuing MIPs, drunken barbecue "artists," (whose equally drunk friends ate what can best be described as E. Coli and Salmonella-infested meats) insane lines for the portable toilets and footballs sailing through the air and into crowds of people were all present Saturday.

However, everything was not the same. During my four and a half years as a Bobcat, I have never seen such a presence of a visiting team's fans. The Cowboys' traveling fans were just as visible as the Bobcats', leading to some humorous and sometimes tense showdowns. Both parking lots were near capacity, and the crowd was quenching its thirst (caused by the hellish heat).
Two RVs were parked within 50 feet of each other, and opposing fans drove them. Thankfully, the competition was kept friendly and the pre-game celebrations went off smoothly. I actually had a few interactions with Cowboys fans, and they proved to be polite people.

The game ended up being pretty lopsided, with the Cowboys decimating Texas State in front of the home crowd, 41 — 20. Here's to the next home game, where we all can go out, drink some beer and eat delicious (hopefully fully-cooked) food.

Alcohol Awareness for UTSA students

On Monday October 8th I attended a presentation about alcohol awareness at UTSA. The presentation was sponsored by Greek Life and was mandatory for all fraternity and sorority members to attend. My boyfriend happens to be in a fraternity at UTSA so I decided to tag along. The speaker that night was alcohol and drug awareness counselor Mike Green.

Mike Green is a very seasoned public speaker having spoken at more than 1,000 colleges around the country. At the very beginning of his presentation he gave a short biography about himself. Mike attended the University of Connecticut and was a star football player there. However, it was during his time in college that Mike became addicted to alcohol. After college Mike played for the Philadelphia Eagles for two years. After that he spent many years as a college football coach. Throughout his football and coaching career Mike struggled with alcoholism. It took him 20 years of ritualistic abuse to kick the habit. It was after his 2 decade bout with alcoholism that Mike decided to speak to the college community about being able to identify unhealthy drinking habits in hopes of preventing them from becoming alcoholics.

What was surprising about Mike’s presentation was that he didn’t advocate abstinence altogether, but in using moderation when deciding to drink. He illustrated several stories he had heard throughout his speaking career about tragic alcohol related incidents. What made these stories different was that none of the people mentioned were raging alcoholics; they just got way to drunk on one occasion and it totally changed their lives.

Mike never said it was not alright to drink he just gave guidelines on how to do it responsibly. He explained how much alcohol is in a beer, shot, wineglass, and an MD 20/20. He also explained the importance of spotters, people who are sober and watch out for their intoxicated friends.

The real difference about Mike’s presentation was how down to earth he was. He integrated profanity and college humor so seamlessly into the presentation that it was hardly offensive and came off very genuine. However, Mike Green's presentation was not all humor based, Mike hit pretty close to home when he revealed that he was diagnosed with throat cancer as a result of his alcoholism. After revealing this, the tone of the presentation was changed, and students now listened very intently.

Overall it was an excellent presentation. The subject of alcohol abuse has been beaten to death, but Mike made the presentation both enjoyable and engaging.

Al Gore at the Frank Erwin Center

On October 1, a crowd of young and old swept into the Frank Erwin Center in Austin to listen to Al Gore's presentation on the world's climate crisis. The audience was supportive and encouraging, hanging onto every word of the former vice president.

Though it's been over a year since An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's documentary and campaign film, was released, people are still passionate and aware about the issue.

Gore's presentation was just like that in An Inconvenient Truth, with some new information and slides added. He spoke about the causes of global warming, who was to blame, what could happen if the crisis continues, and how to end it.

Gore's presentation and language evoked several emotions. At times, laughter:

I'm Al Gore, I used to be the next president of the United States of America.
[laughter and applause from audience]
I don't find that particularly funny.

At others, reflection:

You see that pale, blue dot? That's us. Everything that has ever happened in all of human history, has happened on that pixel. All the triumphs and all the tragedies, all the wars all the famines, all the major advances... it's our only home. And that is what is at stake, our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization.

And yet at others, inspiring:

Future generations may well have occasion to ask themselves, "What were our parents thinking? Why didn't they wake up when they had a chance?" We have to hear that question from them, now.

After the presentation, Gore answered a few questions that had been previously submitted by the audience. At this point, one man started yelling protests, insisting that Gore was a fraud. Though I couldn't see where he was, from the scuffling sounds I assume that other audience members silenced him quickly.

Just before Gore left the stage, someone yelled out, "Gore for President!" The former vice president smiled and said simply, "I'm not planning on it..."

Myself and Amy Lee, before leaving for the presentation.

Reel Woman, Real Goals

The first Monday of every month the film group known as Reel Women gather to discuss the current month's agenda.

Reel Women, led by executive director Sherry Mills, is a non-profit organization that provides local support for women of all experience levels in the film and video industry. The monthly goal for Reel Women is to make their prescence in the community known, so women can fully compete in the Austin/Third Coast film industry.

Reel Women meetings are conducted for the 10-member board of directors to plan out the the meeting mixers and work in contention for the group to lobby behind.

The mixers are a place for women of the industry to gather in a social setting to meet members of the film and video community. For the current week, the host of the mixer is Deena Kalai, voted on by the board members. As mixer host, Deena is expected to organize, advertise and schedule a speaker for the event.

Other topics of the day included ways to involve more women with their group. As a whole the organization still felt under-represented in the Austin film community.

"I came to Reel Women when I first moved to Austin as a place to meet people when I didn't know anyone," said Ballard. "I knew that I wanted to work with film, and they welcomed me into their board right away."

Cheers were given to Elise Ballard for her recent success with the documentary, "Lord of the Weens" based on the Buda dog races held annually.

"We want this to be a place where women can come and help each other out," said Mills. "The industry in Austin has so much going on that it could be hard to get a film like Elise's screened without the support of an organization like this."

Another topic of discussion for the weekly meeting was the Reel Women promotional video compiled by the board members for the review of their executive director, Sherry Mills.

At the end of the 2-hour meeting, the group gathers around a small laptop to watch and critique the video.

Sherry Mills graciously thanks the members for their attendace. The casual meeting ends like a night out with girlfriends, and the members stagger out one by one, until next time.

Four day school weeks are bad? At least San Marcos roads are getting better.

“Mic check,” said an anonymous technician in room 3-14 of the student center. It was 7:20 in the evening, a scant 10 minutes before the Associated Student Government (ASG) meeting was set to begin, and I was the only other person in the room. “Mic check,” the technician repeated a few more times. The sound was fading in and out, he seemed to be having trouble getting the microphone set up.

“Can you hear it alright?”

I could hear it perfectly, which is what I told him. Another 10 “mic checks” was his reply. This time the sound didn't fade.

He pointed at a closet and asked, “If the sound goes out during the meeting can you let the people up here know there's a backup microphone in this closet?”

Great...I wanted to sit in here unnoticed while I wrote, and before I had anything to write about a new responsibility was being handed off to me. “Yeah, if the mic goes out during the meeting I'll let them know,” I said, though I knew I wouldn't.

Around 7:30 people started to show up, senators of the ASG. A group sat down together, forming a cluster in the aisle in front of me. They talked about their weekends, what they had done and who they had seen. Then, they talked about legislation to be discussed at the coming meeting. Suddenly, I was glad I arrived early.

“Everyone knows these four day school weeks aren't working,” said one of the women. “Local businesses are calling and complaining about losing business.”

Chartwell's, the food service company used by Texas State University, has reported a $7,000 loss on Thursdays and Fridays compared to this time last year. The University does receive a commission from the sales Chartwell's makes, but with tuition on the rise...every semester...and more and more fees popping up out of nowhere, I'm sure the school can take that financial hit. And even if the rumors that local, not to mention private businesses are losing money...well, since when did the earnings of local businesses receive even an infinitesimal say in when students should or should not attend classes...or any student centered issue for that matter (HEB wants to sell more beer...Friday classes are back)?

- - -

The reason I went to the ASG meeting was to listen to a presentation made by guest speaker Gaylord Bose. Bose is a member of the San Marcos City Council, and he was there announcing plans to improve transportation in San Marcos.

The traffic congestion problem has been a popular topic of conversation recently. In the last month I have had or overheard many conversation about how overwhelming San Marcos traffic is, specifically the poorly synchronized traffic lights. Beginning at 10 a.m. and lasting through 6:30 p.m. getting anywhere in town is an exercise in patience. A driver is lucky if they hit all green lights on a drive through most cities. A San Marcos driver can hitting every traffic light red, a lucky driver is one who isn't behind countless other cars stopped at the same light.

The primary cause of the endless traffic is bad timing. Traffic lights in most cities are set to change at certain intervals depending the distance between each traffic light and the speed limit. This allows for better traffic flow, as the timing of each light depends on the one before it.

This has not been the case in San Marcos...until now. Bose said during his presentation, “We're having the traffic lights synchronized, so driving around town you won't be hitting all the red lights and traffic won't be as much of a problem.” I nominate the double light at I-35 and Aquarena Springs Drive to be the first to change. Driving through that intersection is a despicable chore.

Bose also spoke about recent and future road closures. The reason behind the Sessoms street closure is a new city wide plan to build sidewalks along both sides of every main road, in addition to bike paths (again, on every main road). No information was given regarding how long this process will take, but Bose did say that the next major road closure would be Commanche.

The final improvement Bose spoke of was a commuter rail. “We're putting in a commuter rail from here [San Marcos] to Austin,” said Bose. “And there will be plenty of parking, so you won't have to worry about finding a parking space or getting a ticket if you park in the wrong spot.” Bose did not comment on when construction is expected to begin, how much the project would cost or where the funding would come from.