Repeat of the tweet: "@kevinpollak: just watched "Mission X",I donated as producer, ur listed n twitter publicity.Heard of 'The 1 Second Film'? [link]"
This wouldn't fit in a tweet and I didn't want to send dozens of tweets.
Dave (writer/director/producer/star) of "Mission X" sent me a copy as part of my producer package and I just have gotten around to watching it.
"The 1 Second Film" is a collaborative effort, non-profit. It is also using crowd source funding. People can join the crew free on the website www.the1secondfilm.com or donate at different levels of Producer. So far there are over 14,000 producers.
The 1 second is animation of paintings and the credits will include a feature-length documentary of the making of the project.
Currently Stephen Colbert is the highest ranking publicist with 148 referrals. We can't let that stand can we?
You can check the page out and see the celebrity producers and you can probably ask a lot of them personally to verify that they are involved.
Over $500 is tax-deductible but few donate that much. The minimum is only $1 !!!
I'm not sure how to list me as referral if you do get involved but here's my profile on the film's website http://the1secondfilm.com/crew/16964. You'll have to go to the main page to join.
It would mean a lot to Nirvan (creator/director/producer...) if you would join in the fun. (He doesn't know I'm doing this.)
Sorry to bother you and thank you if you took the time to read this,
Mr. Channing Humphries
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Primary election
I did not vote in the Alabama primary election June 1, 2010. Shame on me, right.
The idea that a single vote "counts" is rather self-important. Even with the Republican primary for US Congressional District 5 tally within 200 votes, one vote would not have made a difference.
However, consider the recount that one candidate is paying about 1/5 of $1M to execute. Last I heard he was losing ground. So far though, if the same amount of votes were errors in his favor, the outcome of the primary still would not change. It does beg to question the accuracy of voting all across the country.
If everyone who felt as I did, that their vote didn't "count" had gone to vote, the turnout would have been overwhelming. Would the election have been more expensive?
More importantly, would the outcome have been better? That would be hard to guess. Hindsight is often 20/20 but a lot more voters would have been less informed about the candidates. Possibly the most convincing, high budget campaign would win instead of a candidate whose record speaks for itself. It too often does anyway.
The candidates themselves paint a broad picture of a platform and let the audiences fill in the blanks of what it means to them. This way they sway a lot more voters, having different views of what the candidate stands for.
They also know their audiences and change the rhetoric even if ever so slightly to ring bells on specific talking points for a specific audience, even if it is just as non-specific as their platform as discussed elsewhere.
So as the majority sits back and says, "I didn't vote for him" while the elected candidate makes whatever level of disaster, we're left wondering if it could have been better if everyone had voted whether fully informed or not.
The idea that a single vote "counts" is rather self-important. Even with the Republican primary for US Congressional District 5 tally within 200 votes, one vote would not have made a difference.
However, consider the recount that one candidate is paying about 1/5 of $1M to execute. Last I heard he was losing ground. So far though, if the same amount of votes were errors in his favor, the outcome of the primary still would not change. It does beg to question the accuracy of voting all across the country.
If everyone who felt as I did, that their vote didn't "count" had gone to vote, the turnout would have been overwhelming. Would the election have been more expensive?
More importantly, would the outcome have been better? That would be hard to guess. Hindsight is often 20/20 but a lot more voters would have been less informed about the candidates. Possibly the most convincing, high budget campaign would win instead of a candidate whose record speaks for itself. It too often does anyway.
The candidates themselves paint a broad picture of a platform and let the audiences fill in the blanks of what it means to them. This way they sway a lot more voters, having different views of what the candidate stands for.
They also know their audiences and change the rhetoric even if ever so slightly to ring bells on specific talking points for a specific audience, even if it is just as non-specific as their platform as discussed elsewhere.
So as the majority sits back and says, "I didn't vote for him" while the elected candidate makes whatever level of disaster, we're left wondering if it could have been better if everyone had voted whether fully informed or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
