How is Berea University in Kentucky managing to profit while all other higher education institutes in the nation are suffering huge cut-backs? Making tuition free, that's how.
Indeed, at Berea students don't pay a single dollar to earn a four year degree. Instead, they work 10 or more hours a week at a campus or service job, and make $3.80 per hour doing so. While Berea had to lay off 30 employees, or 5% of their staff, they still remain committed to free education and will not stop this unique public service.
These kind of innovative ideas for higher education are exactly what we need in this country. Instead of relying on public-funding, they run entirely on endowments and donations - an admittedly difficult balance but they've found a way to manage. Stories like these are very inspiring; in a time where the economy is in a recession and business across the world are losing vast portions of their wealth, "thinking outside the box" lead Berea to manage to profit instead of lose money. How many other kinds of business can change their business methods from the conventional to the innovative, and make profit while those around them fail? Berea serves as an example, that by opening our minds we can gain insight. This is a lesson that everyone could stand to learn from.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Post #19 - Assignment #15: Good Night and Good Luck
Good Night and Good Luck was certainly an interesting movie, albeit a bit slow at times. If anything, it proved that George Clooney can do more than just act (he directed the movie as well as starred in it). The entire film is shot in black & white, which added to the tone of the film and reminded the audience of the era in which the film is set.
A predominant theme, perhaps the predominant theme of the film was that of media responsibility, and told the tale of legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow's fight against Senator McCarthey's wild fear mongering during Cold War. The story sent a message that the media's job is more than just to entertain the masses, but rather to act as a public watchdog for the common good. Edward R. Murrow realized that television has the potential to inform and educate the public, and his spirit was alive in this film.
After a bit of web searching, I discovered some interesting things about the production of this film. For one, George Clooney was paid a total of $3 during the production of Good Night and Good Luck, $1 each for writing, directing, and acting in the film. Furthermore, he was denied insurance during the film due to injuries sustained during the making of Syriana shortly before GN&GL, so he mortgaged his Los Angeles home to make his film.
Overall, I'd recommend the movie to friends, primarily due to its factual foundation and the message of media responsibility it told. Edward R. Murrow was correct in his assessment that the media should act as a tool rather than as an opiate, and we as Americans have a lot to learn from this.
A predominant theme, perhaps the predominant theme of the film was that of media responsibility, and told the tale of legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow's fight against Senator McCarthey's wild fear mongering during Cold War. The story sent a message that the media's job is more than just to entertain the masses, but rather to act as a public watchdog for the common good. Edward R. Murrow realized that television has the potential to inform and educate the public, and his spirit was alive in this film.
After a bit of web searching, I discovered some interesting things about the production of this film. For one, George Clooney was paid a total of $3 during the production of Good Night and Good Luck, $1 each for writing, directing, and acting in the film. Furthermore, he was denied insurance during the film due to injuries sustained during the making of Syriana shortly before GN&GL, so he mortgaged his Los Angeles home to make his film.
Overall, I'd recommend the movie to friends, primarily due to its factual foundation and the message of media responsibility it told. Edward R. Murrow was correct in his assessment that the media should act as a tool rather than as an opiate, and we as Americans have a lot to learn from this.
Post #18 - Assignment #1: NBC Nightly News
After watching the NBC news at 6:30 the other day, the stories were ordered like this:
-H1N1 Virus Outbreak: The H1N1 Virus was continuing to spread, but it's virulence is suspected to be weaker than previously thought. Development of the vaccine a focal point of this report.
-Obama announces Justice Souter's retirement. NBC then went on to speculate as to who will replace the late-60's Justice, and showed some of the candidates. NBC believes it will be a hispanic woman who replaces Souter before the next Supreme Court term in October.
-Flooding in the American Midwest. Heavy rain and winds cause hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. Fortunately, trailers float.
-Cuba-US relationship warming up. Discussion on the possibility of lifting the embargo.
-Chrysler Bankruptcy Hearing
-FDA Recall on Hydroxycut.
-Pakistani troops clash with militants near Afghan border. 16 militants and 2 Pakistani soldiers fatally wounded.
-Crime rates in urban areas rising as economy weakens.
I thought the NBC news was informative, but the stories were a little out of order. I thought there should be more coverage of our wars abroad, because Americans tend to forget that we have citizens fighting and dying over there and the news programs aren't interested in publicizing this.
Also, someone who has read previous posts of mine would know that I believe the H1N1 Virus is being massively over-hyped, and is not nearly as big a deal as the media is making it out to be. Therefore, I thought it inappropriate to begin the news with a report on this topic. Other than that, I thought the ordering was not too out of line.
-H1N1 Virus Outbreak: The H1N1 Virus was continuing to spread, but it's virulence is suspected to be weaker than previously thought. Development of the vaccine a focal point of this report.
-Obama announces Justice Souter's retirement. NBC then went on to speculate as to who will replace the late-60's Justice, and showed some of the candidates. NBC believes it will be a hispanic woman who replaces Souter before the next Supreme Court term in October.
-Flooding in the American Midwest. Heavy rain and winds cause hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. Fortunately, trailers float.
-Cuba-US relationship warming up. Discussion on the possibility of lifting the embargo.
-Chrysler Bankruptcy Hearing
-FDA Recall on Hydroxycut.
-Pakistani troops clash with militants near Afghan border. 16 militants and 2 Pakistani soldiers fatally wounded.
-Crime rates in urban areas rising as economy weakens.
I thought the NBC news was informative, but the stories were a little out of order. I thought there should be more coverage of our wars abroad, because Americans tend to forget that we have citizens fighting and dying over there and the news programs aren't interested in publicizing this.
Also, someone who has read previous posts of mine would know that I believe the H1N1 Virus is being massively over-hyped, and is not nearly as big a deal as the media is making it out to be. Therefore, I thought it inappropriate to begin the news with a report on this topic. Other than that, I thought the ordering was not too out of line.
Post #17 - Assignment #8: Sean Hannity
Needless to say, there are ignorant morons on either side of the political spectrum. These are the type of people who impede productive political debate with insults, fear-mongering, and wild speculation, and Sean Hannity is just this kind of person. He single-handedly makes the entire conservative ideology look bad, and is "part of the problem" in America.
Below, I have attached a clip from an episode of his show, in which he tries to state that Barack Obama is anti-American, racist, and an anti-semite. His co-ancher, also a conservative but not a complete jackass, refutes this argument with common sense.
I really wish that people like Sean Hannity weren't given the airtime that they're given. It fuels the fire of political disparity, and divides the nation against itself. The brand of inflammatory BS that spews from his mouth on a daily basis makes me want to burn his house down.
Recently, Hannity's punching bag Alan Colmes left the show, and he was no better. He was the "token liberal" that Hannity could lay into and abuse on air, and make the left look ridiculous. Alan Colmes, a very small-minded individual with not a whole lot to say, was unable to defend his point of view, and therefore was consistantly slapped down by Hannity's torrent of illogical arguments and hate-filled rhetoric.
Moral of the story? Shows like this are bad for the country in my opinion. Sean Hannity should be shot out of a cannon into the Atlantic Ocean, and his show should be replaced by a show hosted by an intelligent conservative who can make a fair argument rather than spread lies and hate to Americans via their TV screen.
Below, I have attached a clip from an episode of his show, in which he tries to state that Barack Obama is anti-American, racist, and an anti-semite. His co-ancher, also a conservative but not a complete jackass, refutes this argument with common sense.
I really wish that people like Sean Hannity weren't given the airtime that they're given. It fuels the fire of political disparity, and divides the nation against itself. The brand of inflammatory BS that spews from his mouth on a daily basis makes me want to burn his house down.
Recently, Hannity's punching bag Alan Colmes left the show, and he was no better. He was the "token liberal" that Hannity could lay into and abuse on air, and make the left look ridiculous. Alan Colmes, a very small-minded individual with not a whole lot to say, was unable to defend his point of view, and therefore was consistantly slapped down by Hannity's torrent of illogical arguments and hate-filled rhetoric.
Moral of the story? Shows like this are bad for the country in my opinion. Sean Hannity should be shot out of a cannon into the Atlantic Ocean, and his show should be replaced by a show hosted by an intelligent conservative who can make a fair argument rather than spread lies and hate to Americans via their TV screen.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Post #16 - Assignment #9: NPR has a hopeful outlook on the future of the H1N1 Virus
In a recent report on the National Public Radio, there was a very hopeful air about the future of the H1N1 Virus that has had the world in fear. (I refuse to refer to it as the "swine flu" because it did not come from pigs, nor is it transferred from pig to human.) Indeed, NPR announced that the flu virus did not have genes from the deadly 1918 strain, and shows fewer signs of deadly virulence than the previous influenza viruses that developed into epidemics had. If this is the case, then H1N1 is significantly less likely to develop into an extremely fatal version of the virus, and if it does have that potential than at very list it will take more time to mutate, giving disease control organizations more time to develop a vaccine.
In another hopeful note, NPR claims that the progress toward this vaccine is already well on its way, and the first stage, isolating the virus, is already complete - just days into the outbreak. Now, bioresearchers will attempt to manipulate the virus's genes and make it weak enough to be killed by the immune system before it incubates, but strong enough to survive the process of the vaccination. Once this is done, the adapted H1N1 virus will be passed along to manufacturers, who will begin to mass produce and distribute the vaccine after clinical trials are done.
"We have no doubt that making a successful vaccine is possible within a relatively short period of time," says a member of the World Health Organization who has begun research toward finding said vaccine.
This all sounds great. However, I will point out, like I stated in a previous post, that I do not believe this virus to be anything more than the standard seasonal flu, and I believe it will go away in a relatively short amount of time without causing too much damage. A vast majority of the cases of H1N1 infection have been very mild, and only the very young, the elderly, and individuals with a compromised immune system need be concerned - just like any other influenza virus.
In another hopeful note, NPR claims that the progress toward this vaccine is already well on its way, and the first stage, isolating the virus, is already complete - just days into the outbreak. Now, bioresearchers will attempt to manipulate the virus's genes and make it weak enough to be killed by the immune system before it incubates, but strong enough to survive the process of the vaccination. Once this is done, the adapted H1N1 virus will be passed along to manufacturers, who will begin to mass produce and distribute the vaccine after clinical trials are done.
"We have no doubt that making a successful vaccine is possible within a relatively short period of time," says a member of the World Health Organization who has begun research toward finding said vaccine.
This all sounds great. However, I will point out, like I stated in a previous post, that I do not believe this virus to be anything more than the standard seasonal flu, and I believe it will go away in a relatively short amount of time without causing too much damage. A vast majority of the cases of H1N1 infection have been very mild, and only the very young, the elderly, and individuals with a compromised immune system need be concerned - just like any other influenza virus.
Post #15 - Obama hopes to replace Souter by October
Today Obama stated that he would like to replace Souter by the start of the Supreme Court's next term in October, and he would like to replace him with someone who shares the President's "respect for constitutional values." (Also, in reference to my previous post, the writer of this story in the Associated Press made a point of quoting Obama as saying "him or her" in regards to who he will fill the seat with. What gives?)
Souter is relatively young by Supreme Court standards, with Ruth Bader Ginsberg in her mid-70's and Justice Stevens reaching almost his 90th year. Ginsberg has stated that she will continue to serve on the bench into her 80's, despite a recent bout with pancreatic cancer.
Also, Arlen Specter, who recently jumped ship from the Republicans and joined the Dems, said a surprisingly enlightened thing when he announced that he would like to see more ethnic and gender diversity on the Supreme Court. I never thought I'd agree with the man on a topic of civil liberty, but he's right. I am forced to wonder if he is just pandering for votes though...
I am happy for Souter that he is leaving the Court. He has long been on record as someone who hates Washington D.C., stating that "I have the world's best job in the world's worst city". He will depart home to his "beloved" New Hampshire, and kick up his feet after many long years on the bench. Good for him. I am eager to see who Obama will replace him with.
Souter was one of the four dissenters in the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, and has come to be known as a reliably liberal vote on the Supreme Court. I hope to see Obama replace him with an individual of similar ideological makeup, because a balanced Supreme Court is essential in this country, and the Supreme Court is one justice away from being staunchly conservative. Surely Obama and the Democrat dominated Senate will not confirm an individual who is far to the right, but if Souter was replaced by a conservative we would see a Court dominated by this ideology, and the Supreme Court should never be strictly conservative or liberal.
Souter is relatively young by Supreme Court standards, with Ruth Bader Ginsberg in her mid-70's and Justice Stevens reaching almost his 90th year. Ginsberg has stated that she will continue to serve on the bench into her 80's, despite a recent bout with pancreatic cancer.
Also, Arlen Specter, who recently jumped ship from the Republicans and joined the Dems, said a surprisingly enlightened thing when he announced that he would like to see more ethnic and gender diversity on the Supreme Court. I never thought I'd agree with the man on a topic of civil liberty, but he's right. I am forced to wonder if he is just pandering for votes though...
I am happy for Souter that he is leaving the Court. He has long been on record as someone who hates Washington D.C., stating that "I have the world's best job in the world's worst city". He will depart home to his "beloved" New Hampshire, and kick up his feet after many long years on the bench. Good for him. I am eager to see who Obama will replace him with.
Souter was one of the four dissenters in the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, and has come to be known as a reliably liberal vote on the Supreme Court. I hope to see Obama replace him with an individual of similar ideological makeup, because a balanced Supreme Court is essential in this country, and the Supreme Court is one justice away from being staunchly conservative. Surely Obama and the Democrat dominated Senate will not confirm an individual who is far to the right, but if Souter was replaced by a conservative we would see a Court dominated by this ideology, and the Supreme Court should never be strictly conservative or liberal.
Post #14 - Assignment #12: Why I Love Feminists
Feminism is a relatively young doctrine of social thought, and it is one that I would label as "progressive". Like anything, feminism can be radicalized and that is when it gets a bad name, but feminism at its core is a good thing. We as human beings need feminism, because women like anyone else need to be treated as equals. In many ways women can be viewed as the superior sex; after all, a village with 99 men and 1 women would soon die off, whereas a village with 99 women and 1 man would result in the next generation, and one very tired man.
However, the reason I love modern, American feminists is because of blogs like this. They always manage to search in every minutae of American culture and come up with petty, minor oversights linking certain individuals or publications to sexism. In this blog, the feminist writer points out that when women play ultimate frisbee, the New York Times files it under "Fashion & Culture: Fitness", but when men play ultimate frisbee it is filed under "Sports". Is this an example of inherent sexism in the writers of the New York Times? Could be. Who really cares where its filed? Its frisbee. Can we please put the petty bickering aside? The world has enough problems, we don't need to make mountains out of the proverbial molehills.
However, the reason I love modern, American feminists is because of blogs like this. They always manage to search in every minutae of American culture and come up with petty, minor oversights linking certain individuals or publications to sexism. In this blog, the feminist writer points out that when women play ultimate frisbee, the New York Times files it under "Fashion & Culture: Fitness", but when men play ultimate frisbee it is filed under "Sports". Is this an example of inherent sexism in the writers of the New York Times? Could be. Who really cares where its filed? Its frisbee. Can we please put the petty bickering aside? The world has enough problems, we don't need to make mountains out of the proverbial molehills.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Post #13 - Assignment# 6: World Health Organization raises Pandemic Alert to its second highest level
In the world's latest step toward the apocalypse, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement that a "pandemic is imminent" and raised the pandemic alert level to its second highest possible level - the highest level presumably being the sighting of one of the four horsemen. As of this afternoon, the swine flu has been spotted in nine countries and the death toll is in the hundreds. This, of course, coming at a time when health organizations have been receiving cuts due to the crippling economy, and are now being forced to brace for the flu outbreak with fewer resources than ever before.
The New York Times wrote that, as of today, there have been 91 confirmed cases of the swine flu in the U.S., up from 66 as of yesterday. 51 of these cases were in New York, with California and Texas being runners-up for the "most residents you can catch a deadly flu virus from" award.
While this all may seem very apocalyptical to some, I will point out that the flu (the regular flu, I mean) does claim the lives of young children and the elderly, and there is no reason to believe the H1N1 Virus (swine flu) is any more dangerous than the regular flu. In fact, if this flu virus does develop into a particularly lethal strain, it would be better to catch it now and build an immunity rather than catch it in a few months when it could be fatal.
If you would like to find information about how you too can partake in the latest pandemic fad, the New York Times online was kind enough to provide an interactive website that allows you to see where the H1N1 virus has been confirmed, and where it is likely to spread.
Personally, I am not too worried about the swine flu. Right now there is speculation running rampant as people fear something they do not know much about, and the fact of the matter is that the current strain is not particularly dangerous. The trouble comes from this strain mutating into one that can evade the human immune system, which is entirely possible, but about as likely as any virus engaging in this sort of mutation. Since the world population is not constantly under pressure from pandemic outbreaks, we can ascertain that this is not very likely. Possible, but unlikely.
Wash your hands, avoid contact with sick people, and wait for this all to blow over. Cheers.
The New York Times wrote that, as of today, there have been 91 confirmed cases of the swine flu in the U.S., up from 66 as of yesterday. 51 of these cases were in New York, with California and Texas being runners-up for the "most residents you can catch a deadly flu virus from" award.
While this all may seem very apocalyptical to some, I will point out that the flu (the regular flu, I mean) does claim the lives of young children and the elderly, and there is no reason to believe the H1N1 Virus (swine flu) is any more dangerous than the regular flu. In fact, if this flu virus does develop into a particularly lethal strain, it would be better to catch it now and build an immunity rather than catch it in a few months when it could be fatal.
If you would like to find information about how you too can partake in the latest pandemic fad, the New York Times online was kind enough to provide an interactive website that allows you to see where the H1N1 virus has been confirmed, and where it is likely to spread.
Personally, I am not too worried about the swine flu. Right now there is speculation running rampant as people fear something they do not know much about, and the fact of the matter is that the current strain is not particularly dangerous. The trouble comes from this strain mutating into one that can evade the human immune system, which is entirely possible, but about as likely as any virus engaging in this sort of mutation. Since the world population is not constantly under pressure from pandemic outbreaks, we can ascertain that this is not very likely. Possible, but unlikely.
Wash your hands, avoid contact with sick people, and wait for this all to blow over. Cheers.
Post #12: What's the deal with Arlen Specter?
Seriously, what's the deal with Arlen Specter? In an interview about his decision to switch from the GOP to the Democratic Party (below), he stated that his reason for doing so was because "it is difficult to win the Pennsylvania primaries as a Republican." Seems like somewhat of a petty reason to switch parties? Shorty after that, the Senator said "I don't play the party game. The Republicans are just the lesser of 2 evils and I don't want to get along with Liberals or reach out to them." That sounds an awful lot like playing the party game! Now its not that I'm not used to seeing politicians contradict themselves, I can't remember the last time I saw someone contradict themselves in one breath.
However, I must speculate as to the effects of this switch. Specter's party change was due to his desire to keep his Senate seat, as he does not believe he would keep it if he did not join the Dems. Does his switch stop there? Certainly, voters are not so stupid that they would re-elect him on this merit alone, but they would rather watch and see how his voting record is affected. In order for Specter to make his switch worthwhile, he will need to vote more liberally to convince voters to keep him in office. If this is the case, the Democrats are closer to a Democratic supermajority than anyone could have expected. The question at hand is which of his positions will change in addition to his party label. While it is unlikely he will change his position on EFCA (after all, the only thing worse than flip-flopping once is flip-flopping out then flipping back), the odds are reasonably high he will switch positions on a number of other issues, specifically ones having to do with labor unions in Pennsylvania, because they are some of his main constituents.
Either way, Specter's future in the Senate seems shaky, and he will need to pander to his voters if he hopes to keep his seat. I wonder if any more Republicans will jump ship and follow suit with Specter?
However, I must speculate as to the effects of this switch. Specter's party change was due to his desire to keep his Senate seat, as he does not believe he would keep it if he did not join the Dems. Does his switch stop there? Certainly, voters are not so stupid that they would re-elect him on this merit alone, but they would rather watch and see how his voting record is affected. In order for Specter to make his switch worthwhile, he will need to vote more liberally to convince voters to keep him in office. If this is the case, the Democrats are closer to a Democratic supermajority than anyone could have expected. The question at hand is which of his positions will change in addition to his party label. While it is unlikely he will change his position on EFCA (after all, the only thing worse than flip-flopping once is flip-flopping out then flipping back), the odds are reasonably high he will switch positions on a number of other issues, specifically ones having to do with labor unions in Pennsylvania, because they are some of his main constituents.
Either way, Specter's future in the Senate seems shaky, and he will need to pander to his voters if he hopes to keep his seat. I wonder if any more Republicans will jump ship and follow suit with Specter?
Post #11 - Assignment #4: Daily Show vs. Network News
I couldn't help but think of the time Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and Tucker Carlson attempted to ridicule his approach at news when I compared Fox News to the Daily Show today. On Crossfire, Stewart tried to get it through Carlson's thick head that he did not claim to be a "real" news anchor, nor was he trying to report on the real news. He repeated time and again that his was a comedy show, not a news program - Carlson didn't understand this, much like he probably does not understand evolution.
Indeed, the stark differences between the Daily Show and network news are innumerable. However, I was lucky enough to see the two programs share a topic - the swine flu that has been spotted around the globe. Fox made a huge deal of it, and included a number of talking heads speculating about the possibility of the swine flu becoming a pandemic if the virus mutates (all of whom were staunch conservatives who undoubtedly refute the theory of evolution, but do not hesitate to declare that the virus has the potential to mutate into something more adaptable. Does that seem like a paradox to you, too?). Stewart's show seemed to consider the swine flu much less of a threat, labeling it as "Snoutbreak 2009" and suggesting that, since the virus has genes from human, pig, and avian sources, it could have resulted from a man making love to a turkey club with bacon.
Attempting to compare the Daily Show to a real network news program is like comparing John Kerry to a human being. While Kerry may appear to be human, he lacks many of the things that essentially make someone human - just like the Daily Show lacks a number of things that would make it a real network news program. But again, Stewart does not claim to host a network news show, his show is comedy, not news. This doesn't stop people from taking it as seriously as a news program, though..
Indeed, the stark differences between the Daily Show and network news are innumerable. However, I was lucky enough to see the two programs share a topic - the swine flu that has been spotted around the globe. Fox made a huge deal of it, and included a number of talking heads speculating about the possibility of the swine flu becoming a pandemic if the virus mutates (all of whom were staunch conservatives who undoubtedly refute the theory of evolution, but do not hesitate to declare that the virus has the potential to mutate into something more adaptable. Does that seem like a paradox to you, too?). Stewart's show seemed to consider the swine flu much less of a threat, labeling it as "Snoutbreak 2009" and suggesting that, since the virus has genes from human, pig, and avian sources, it could have resulted from a man making love to a turkey club with bacon.
Attempting to compare the Daily Show to a real network news program is like comparing John Kerry to a human being. While Kerry may appear to be human, he lacks many of the things that essentially make someone human - just like the Daily Show lacks a number of things that would make it a real network news program. But again, Stewart does not claim to host a network news show, his show is comedy, not news. This doesn't stop people from taking it as seriously as a news program, though..
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Post #10 - Assignment #11: EPA Releases "Top 50 Buyers of Green Energy"
An environmental blog appropriately titled "treehugger.com" recently posted a review of the EPA's report on the top 50 buyers of green energy in the U.S., and everyone on it deserves a hats off. The list includes everything from some of the biggest conglomerates in the nation to local city governments, and some of them are impressive and surprising. It is good to see so much of a trend toward the use of green energy.
Some of the notable groups on the list include Intel for the #1 spot (for the 2nd year in a row), which bought up 1,301,200,000 kWh of wind power per year, powering just under 50% of its entire operation. Pepsi Co. purchased 1,144,773,154 kWh of green energy, which powered 100% of its operation. While it's impressive that PepsiCo. managed to power ALL of its operation with green energy, they still produce millions of plastic bottles yearly, so PepsiCo. is not quite a 100% green company. Dell purchased over 500 million kWh of biogas, solar, and wind power, which interestingly provides enough energy to run 158% of its operation. This means that they buy MORE green energy than they need. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I can't decide if its admirable that they used so much of their revenue to purchase green energy, or if its shameful that they bought more than they needed. If the surplus energy is not returned to the power grid, it could be an enormous waste of energy.
Also interesting is the city of Houston, TX, which runs on almost 25% green energy. Higher education also made an appearance on the list, with both NYU and the entire California State University system powered by 100% green energy. Finally, the EPA itself came in 14th place for most green energy purchased.
I am glad that the EPA publishes these kinds of reports, and I hope that they continue to do so and publicize it vigorously. The more credit these companies get for using green energy the better, and hopefully more energy-users will follow suit.
Some of the notable groups on the list include Intel for the #1 spot (for the 2nd year in a row), which bought up 1,301,200,000 kWh of wind power per year, powering just under 50% of its entire operation. Pepsi Co. purchased 1,144,773,154 kWh of green energy, which powered 100% of its operation. While it's impressive that PepsiCo. managed to power ALL of its operation with green energy, they still produce millions of plastic bottles yearly, so PepsiCo. is not quite a 100% green company. Dell purchased over 500 million kWh of biogas, solar, and wind power, which interestingly provides enough energy to run 158% of its operation. This means that they buy MORE green energy than they need. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I can't decide if its admirable that they used so much of their revenue to purchase green energy, or if its shameful that they bought more than they needed. If the surplus energy is not returned to the power grid, it could be an enormous waste of energy.
Also interesting is the city of Houston, TX, which runs on almost 25% green energy. Higher education also made an appearance on the list, with both NYU and the entire California State University system powered by 100% green energy. Finally, the EPA itself came in 14th place for most green energy purchased.
I am glad that the EPA publishes these kinds of reports, and I hope that they continue to do so and publicize it vigorously. The more credit these companies get for using green energy the better, and hopefully more energy-users will follow suit.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Post #9 - Assignment #10: Blog Analysis
I started reading fivethirtyeight.com during the 2008 Presidential campaigns. During this time it was an electoral projection website run by a baseball statistician, and offered numerous posts about polling analysis, state-by-state discussion, and many other things a political junkie might find appealing. Political junkies aren't the only ones who might enjoy the blog's content, as anyone with an affinity for statistics might appreciate 538's scientific approach. Nate Silver, one of the blog's writers, was known for accurately predicting who would end up in baseball's playoffs, and astonishingly predicted the 2008 Presidential race to the exact electoral vote, if my memory serves me correctly. He even provided live coverage of the debates, discussing things such as CNN's favorship gauges and polls before/after each debate.
After the election, fivethirtyeight could no longer do electoral projection, so it became a political blog that analyzes things such as Congressional seat races and the political situation in specific places. It is certainly an interesting read, and the writers try to be objective in their approach, preferring math and statistics to bias and spin. The posts are fleshed out and thoughtfully written, and I consider it to be one of the better political blogs out there in cyberspace at the moment.
I wonder if fivethirtyeight will still exist in 2012, when the next Presidential election will occur. It will certainly be interesting to read Nate's point of view and in-depth analysis on the next big election.
After the election, fivethirtyeight could no longer do electoral projection, so it became a political blog that analyzes things such as Congressional seat races and the political situation in specific places. It is certainly an interesting read, and the writers try to be objective in their approach, preferring math and statistics to bias and spin. The posts are fleshed out and thoughtfully written, and I consider it to be one of the better political blogs out there in cyberspace at the moment.
I wonder if fivethirtyeight will still exist in 2012, when the next Presidential election will occur. It will certainly be interesting to read Nate's point of view and in-depth analysis on the next big election.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Post #8 - Re: "American Democracy is not the Italian Democracy"
In a recent blogpost, my classmate Maria discussed the meaning of the word "democracy", as well as some other words, abroad. She notes that the people in the Middle East do not know the word democracy as a principle, but rather as a practice. In other words, they associate democracy with American democracy (perhaps because we export it to them), the land of capitalism and free enterprise. She goes on to discuss the two-party system we have in this country, comparing it to that of Italy, her home country. Some of her points are very valid, and I would like to build upon them.
A two party system is, by definition, bound for failure. It sets up the country for indecision and a government embattled against itself, rather than one that can be productive and work as one, unified force. In Italy, as well as many other countries, democracy comes in a different package - there are multiple parties competing for votes, and competing for power. This is how a democracy should be; with multiple parties to choose from, citizens can associate themselves with a party that has most in common with their own values, rather than a choice between two parties which most people have little in common with.
In addition to the two-party system being bound for failure, so is the combination between a Republic and capitalism (the situation we have in America). Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous, despite what many may believe. Indeed, a capitalist democracy leaves itself exposed to corruption, and creates a scenario where corporate interests are held above public interests because there is money to be had. In addition, it gives the "haves" a huge advantage over the "have-nots" - these days, wealthy individuals are the only ones who have any chance of getting into politics. Without wealth to fall back on during a political campaign, an individual would need to have a vast, successful fundraising campaign as well.
Overall, I found Maria's analysis of these turbulent times interesting, considering her point of view as an Italian citizen studying in America. The points she raised were valid and evidently well-thought out, and her subtle-yet-powerful use of profanity in a homework assignment was the icing on the cake.
Widespread corruption in government, an over-extended military, and vastly overinflated capital - do you know what these things have in common? If you said that these are the things that caused the fall of the Roman Empire, you'd be correct.
You didn't think I was talking about America, did you?
A two party system is, by definition, bound for failure. It sets up the country for indecision and a government embattled against itself, rather than one that can be productive and work as one, unified force. In Italy, as well as many other countries, democracy comes in a different package - there are multiple parties competing for votes, and competing for power. This is how a democracy should be; with multiple parties to choose from, citizens can associate themselves with a party that has most in common with their own values, rather than a choice between two parties which most people have little in common with.
In addition to the two-party system being bound for failure, so is the combination between a Republic and capitalism (the situation we have in America). Capitalism and democracy are not synonymous, despite what many may believe. Indeed, a capitalist democracy leaves itself exposed to corruption, and creates a scenario where corporate interests are held above public interests because there is money to be had. In addition, it gives the "haves" a huge advantage over the "have-nots" - these days, wealthy individuals are the only ones who have any chance of getting into politics. Without wealth to fall back on during a political campaign, an individual would need to have a vast, successful fundraising campaign as well.
Overall, I found Maria's analysis of these turbulent times interesting, considering her point of view as an Italian citizen studying in America. The points she raised were valid and evidently well-thought out, and her subtle-yet-powerful use of profanity in a homework assignment was the icing on the cake.
Widespread corruption in government, an over-extended military, and vastly overinflated capital - do you know what these things have in common? If you said that these are the things that caused the fall of the Roman Empire, you'd be correct.
You didn't think I was talking about America, did you?
Post #7 - Obama's Campaign Promises on Education
While on the campaign trail, politicians usually promise more than they deliver in office. That is why, when Obama announced that, if elected, he would work on re-vamping an outdated and inefficient college loan system, I was doubtful that such a thing would ever happen. However, our President did not go back on his word in this regard. Recently, Obama repeated his campaign proposal that he would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan program, which costs taxpayers no less than $15 million a day. Economic analysts predict this would save the country $48 billion over ten years, money that could be used for student aid. In addition to eliminating this program, Obama proposed a change in the standard tax forms - he suggested that there simply be a box to check on one's tax form, to declare that you would like to apply for financial aid. This would make the application system for financial aid much easier (something that anyone who has filled one out would be grateful for), as well as save money in the process.
It is refreshing to see a President deliver on so many promises made on the campaign trail. I hope for the sake of this country he can succeed with the rest of them.
It is refreshing to see a President deliver on so many promises made on the campaign trail. I hope for the sake of this country he can succeed with the rest of them.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Post #6 -- Re: Assignment #3 -- Local News Analysis
After watching the local news on a monday night in the beautiful Pearl River, NY, I can't say I was very surprised as to the content. The news that night included things such as information on the school budget next year, the stats of a recent Gaelic Football game (Pearl River supports the largest Youth Gaelic Football league in the nation), and a segment about the way the poor economy is affecting the economy of New York. There were a few moments where the subject matter became somewhat political, but these moments were few and far between. The local news became the most political in a brief spot about the stimulus package and how it will affect Pearl River's business, but this vague and passing reference to the world outside "the Town of Friendly People" was about as political as it got.
In my opinion a little more political content couldn't hurt, but local news may not be the medium for this sort of content. (The few) individuals who watch local news aren't watching it to learn what Barack Obama is doing or about recent legislature going through Congress, they watch to learn about property taxes in New York or about the New York education system. Of course, as somewhat of a political junkie I would be lying if I said it wouldn't be more interesting with some more political content..
The local news was somewhat entertaining, but it is certainly not entertaining enough to keep my attention if I did not have to watch it for this assignment. The only interesting bits were things I could relate to, such as the peice about the Gaelic Football (many, many Pearl River kids play in this league) or the few political segments. I was somewhat surprised that I did not see a single "shock value" segment of the news -- this night, they did not air anything about any fires, crime, or war stories, which seemed atypical of news programs.
All in all, my brief foray into the world of local news was slightly interesting, but I think I will keep my next visit even more brief.
In my opinion a little more political content couldn't hurt, but local news may not be the medium for this sort of content. (The few) individuals who watch local news aren't watching it to learn what Barack Obama is doing or about recent legislature going through Congress, they watch to learn about property taxes in New York or about the New York education system. Of course, as somewhat of a political junkie I would be lying if I said it wouldn't be more interesting with some more political content..
The local news was somewhat entertaining, but it is certainly not entertaining enough to keep my attention if I did not have to watch it for this assignment. The only interesting bits were things I could relate to, such as the peice about the Gaelic Football (many, many Pearl River kids play in this league) or the few political segments. I was somewhat surprised that I did not see a single "shock value" segment of the news -- this night, they did not air anything about any fires, crime, or war stories, which seemed atypical of news programs.
All in all, my brief foray into the world of local news was slightly interesting, but I think I will keep my next visit even more brief.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Post #5 - Pakistan and You
In a recent news article released by the Associated Press, the journalist writes that "a growing number of U.S. intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials have concluded that there's little hope of preventing nuclear-armed Pakistan from disintegrating into fiefdoms controlled by Islamist warlords and terrorists, posing the a greater threat to the U.S. than Afghanistan's terrorist haven did before 9/11." As many of you already know, Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation and, at the moment, one of the more America-friendly nations in the region (despite U.S. air strikes on their soil). However, the possibility of this nation breaking down into warlord-run fiefdoms is a growing concern, and has the potential to be a real disaster in these already turbulent times.
Indeed, a Pentagon advisor who chose to remain anonymous so he may speak freely said that he believes Pakistan is moving toward a situation where the extremists control virtually all of the countryside and the government controls only the urban centers," he continued. "If you look out 10 years, I think the government will be overrun by Islamic militants."
I am forced to wonder what Obama will do about this. Having run on a platform of peace and non-conflict, America's President has a difficult choice ahead of him. If these experts are correct in their assessment, a "Talabanized Pakistan" will be a reality in a decade. The plausibility of this scenario is made even more so when we consider Pakistan's weak civilian government, which seems unwilling to cooperate on the issues that divide their nation. Pakistan is plagued with sectarian hatred, ineffective police, a broken court system, widespread corruption, endemic poverty, and a deepening financial crisis, and all of these things only fuel the violence and non-cooperation in this war-torn, poverty stricken nation.
Preventing Pakistan from radicalizing may be another heavy burden on Obama's already full agenda. If these experts are correct in their assessment of the situation, a nuclear-armed, warlord-run Pakistan makes the situation in Afghanistan look merry. Is it just me, or does it feel like the world is stuck in an ever-going episode of "The Twilight Zone"?
Indeed, a Pentagon advisor who chose to remain anonymous so he may speak freely said that he believes Pakistan is moving toward a situation where the extremists control virtually all of the countryside and the government controls only the urban centers," he continued. "If you look out 10 years, I think the government will be overrun by Islamic militants."
I am forced to wonder what Obama will do about this. Having run on a platform of peace and non-conflict, America's President has a difficult choice ahead of him. If these experts are correct in their assessment, a "Talabanized Pakistan" will be a reality in a decade. The plausibility of this scenario is made even more so when we consider Pakistan's weak civilian government, which seems unwilling to cooperate on the issues that divide their nation. Pakistan is plagued with sectarian hatred, ineffective police, a broken court system, widespread corruption, endemic poverty, and a deepening financial crisis, and all of these things only fuel the violence and non-cooperation in this war-torn, poverty stricken nation.
Preventing Pakistan from radicalizing may be another heavy burden on Obama's already full agenda. If these experts are correct in their assessment of the situation, a nuclear-armed, warlord-run Pakistan makes the situation in Afghanistan look merry. Is it just me, or does it feel like the world is stuck in an ever-going episode of "The Twilight Zone"?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Post #4 - Re: Assignment #7 - Socialization of Girls through the Media
Today, there are hundreds of shows on TV, each with their own message, their own bias, their own interpretation. The question at hand is this: do shows like Girls Next Door or America's Next Top Model have a significant impact on the socialization of girls in modern America? Needless to say, until there is an empirical study done, any speculation as to the answer to this question is pure opinion. However, speculate I shall.
In these shows, women are seen traipsing about in skimpy outfits desperately seeking the approval of their superiors or the other individuals in the show. Of course, these women are of an extremely rare minority of empty-headed bimbos that exist in this country, but some have suggested that young girls could feel pressured to look and behave in this way in order to be accepted in society. So therefore, the further question we must ask to analyze our original thesis is this: do girls really believe that shows like this set the standard in America? Proving any direct impact is just short of impossible, because the counterpoints are nearly infinite. If these shows impact the way girls dress and behave, why would they have any more impact than Gray's Anatomy or Lost?
I do not believe that it is the skimpy clothes that the women of Girls Next Door wear that influences American girls, but rather the inanely stupid behavior depicted on these shows that is the real danger. In order to create shows like these, TV executives find the pettiest, dumbest, most egocentric people in the country because those are the kind of people who will create the most drama on the show (go figure). These are individuals who are uneducated and lack any sort of culture other than the kind found growing on a loaf of old bread, and yet they are the ones that our younger generations will watch and in some cases admire. It is because of this that I believe that shows like these have a slightly negative impact -- but I would never advocate removing them from television. To do so would go against everything America stands for in terms of inherent human freedom.
The threat of our children (and even some adults) becoming dumber by watching this type of low-brow television is evident, but the biggest problem that shows like these have is their impact abroad. Individuals from nations overseas see these shows and believe that they are the standard of American behavior, and do not understand that the people in these shows are the worst of the worst that we can dredge up. That, my friends, is partially how the many American stereotypes are formed abroad - Americans are dumb, egocentric, lazy, and competitive. American men are simple and brutish, and the women are slutty and airheaded.
That sound like America to you? Sound's like VH1 to me.
Cheers.
In these shows, women are seen traipsing about in skimpy outfits desperately seeking the approval of their superiors or the other individuals in the show. Of course, these women are of an extremely rare minority of empty-headed bimbos that exist in this country, but some have suggested that young girls could feel pressured to look and behave in this way in order to be accepted in society. So therefore, the further question we must ask to analyze our original thesis is this: do girls really believe that shows like this set the standard in America? Proving any direct impact is just short of impossible, because the counterpoints are nearly infinite. If these shows impact the way girls dress and behave, why would they have any more impact than Gray's Anatomy or Lost?
I do not believe that it is the skimpy clothes that the women of Girls Next Door wear that influences American girls, but rather the inanely stupid behavior depicted on these shows that is the real danger. In order to create shows like these, TV executives find the pettiest, dumbest, most egocentric people in the country because those are the kind of people who will create the most drama on the show (go figure). These are individuals who are uneducated and lack any sort of culture other than the kind found growing on a loaf of old bread, and yet they are the ones that our younger generations will watch and in some cases admire. It is because of this that I believe that shows like these have a slightly negative impact -- but I would never advocate removing them from television. To do so would go against everything America stands for in terms of inherent human freedom.
The threat of our children (and even some adults) becoming dumber by watching this type of low-brow television is evident, but the biggest problem that shows like these have is their impact abroad. Individuals from nations overseas see these shows and believe that they are the standard of American behavior, and do not understand that the people in these shows are the worst of the worst that we can dredge up. That, my friends, is partially how the many American stereotypes are formed abroad - Americans are dumb, egocentric, lazy, and competitive. American men are simple and brutish, and the women are slutty and airheaded.
That sound like America to you? Sound's like VH1 to me.
Cheers.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Post #3 - Re: Assignment #2 - Fox News and CNN Comparison
After watching CNN and Fox News' coverage on the same day, the differences between them are abundantly clear - but the similarities are evident as well, in an almost eerie sort of way. While the two news networks are diametrically opposed in terms of their ideological lean, the fact that they both have their own agenda that they are vigorously working toward is obvious. Both try to act as if they are the voice of the "middle-ground", although Fox News' claim to be "fair and balanced" is absurd.
Personally, I was suprised that the two networks put so much emphasis on the theatrical side of their news delivery. By this I mean that neither were trying to give "just the news," but instead were playing to the audiences heart strings by serving up stories intended to stir emotion from their viewers. CNN covered a fire in Philadelphia, not-so-subtly reminding the audience that this could happen in any home or apartment building "even near you." Directly after this, with the appearance that they did not even consider adding some sort of segway, they discussed how one can get the most flavor out of their raviola a vodka. They transitioned from this into a heartfelt tale about how a boy from Michigan worked with his school to raise money for disabled children, finally ending this circus of the bizarre news with a tragic tale about a home-invasion, where some maniac broke into a woman's house and assaulted her. Needless to say, CNN is not concerned with any sort of theme, it seemed as if they were throwing anything they could out there to get some sort of emotional response.
Fox News - the only word I could use to describe this is "ridiculous". CNN, of course, is ridiculous in its own right, but Fox has no shame. Fox will make outlandish claims about public figures or skew stories to the point that its not even the same story anymore, and they do so with a confident gusto that only Fox could pull off. A few times in the half hour I watched this Twilight Zone-esque version of something someone actually calls "news", I couldn't help but bust out laughing at some of the thing's the pundits and anchors suggested. Fox started off by reminding the audience that America was in a recession, and even had someone they referred to as an expert (expert of what I don't know) say that it is even worse than the Great Depression. They furthered this point by claiming that Obama might be in league with the corrupt businessmen who helped cause this, and that the President stands to gain if the country's economy collapses. It is not what they say that is so hilarious, but the way they say it. Fox airs these completely absurd statements with a self-righteous swagger, as if they couldn't be more sure that Obama is "out to get us." And we wonder why there is so much partisan bickering in this country...
Unfortunately, I was not lucky enough to see CNN and Fox cover the same story, so I didn't get a taste of this sort of direct comparison. However, the personality of the two networks is so strong that I could most likely make a pretty accurate guess about how each of the networks would have covered one another's stories. I can't say which one I like better - I suppose I'd prefer CNN if I wanted to watch a random slew of stories, each more random than the last. On the other hand, when I feel like watching someone say something that is pure speculation as if it was fact, and do so with a straight face that only eight years of home schooling can provide, I would switch over to the more "fair and balanced" of the two networks.
If I learned anything from watching these two embarassments to our freedoms, it is that there is no objective news anymore. Of course, I would love to see objective news over partisan news, but such a thing does not exist in this day and age. Today, it is a theatre of the absurd, with each network vying to get the best ratings by any means possible. If this means outright lying about public figures or airing the most insane stories and spinning them in every direction imaginable, then "so be it" is the network approach.
But really, would we even watch objective news if it was on? Compared to the rollercoaster-like style of today's news networks, such a program would probably lose its viewers to Bill O' Reilly in a matter of minutes, to watch his old song and dance.
Personally, I was suprised that the two networks put so much emphasis on the theatrical side of their news delivery. By this I mean that neither were trying to give "just the news," but instead were playing to the audiences heart strings by serving up stories intended to stir emotion from their viewers. CNN covered a fire in Philadelphia, not-so-subtly reminding the audience that this could happen in any home or apartment building "even near you." Directly after this, with the appearance that they did not even consider adding some sort of segway, they discussed how one can get the most flavor out of their raviola a vodka. They transitioned from this into a heartfelt tale about how a boy from Michigan worked with his school to raise money for disabled children, finally ending this circus of the bizarre news with a tragic tale about a home-invasion, where some maniac broke into a woman's house and assaulted her. Needless to say, CNN is not concerned with any sort of theme, it seemed as if they were throwing anything they could out there to get some sort of emotional response.
Fox News - the only word I could use to describe this is "ridiculous". CNN, of course, is ridiculous in its own right, but Fox has no shame. Fox will make outlandish claims about public figures or skew stories to the point that its not even the same story anymore, and they do so with a confident gusto that only Fox could pull off. A few times in the half hour I watched this Twilight Zone-esque version of something someone actually calls "news", I couldn't help but bust out laughing at some of the thing's the pundits and anchors suggested. Fox started off by reminding the audience that America was in a recession, and even had someone they referred to as an expert (expert of what I don't know) say that it is even worse than the Great Depression. They furthered this point by claiming that Obama might be in league with the corrupt businessmen who helped cause this, and that the President stands to gain if the country's economy collapses. It is not what they say that is so hilarious, but the way they say it. Fox airs these completely absurd statements with a self-righteous swagger, as if they couldn't be more sure that Obama is "out to get us." And we wonder why there is so much partisan bickering in this country...
Unfortunately, I was not lucky enough to see CNN and Fox cover the same story, so I didn't get a taste of this sort of direct comparison. However, the personality of the two networks is so strong that I could most likely make a pretty accurate guess about how each of the networks would have covered one another's stories. I can't say which one I like better - I suppose I'd prefer CNN if I wanted to watch a random slew of stories, each more random than the last. On the other hand, when I feel like watching someone say something that is pure speculation as if it was fact, and do so with a straight face that only eight years of home schooling can provide, I would switch over to the more "fair and balanced" of the two networks.
If I learned anything from watching these two embarassments to our freedoms, it is that there is no objective news anymore. Of course, I would love to see objective news over partisan news, but such a thing does not exist in this day and age. Today, it is a theatre of the absurd, with each network vying to get the best ratings by any means possible. If this means outright lying about public figures or airing the most insane stories and spinning them in every direction imaginable, then "so be it" is the network approach.
But really, would we even watch objective news if it was on? Compared to the rollercoaster-like style of today's news networks, such a program would probably lose its viewers to Bill O' Reilly in a matter of minutes, to watch his old song and dance.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Post #2 - Re: Assignment #5 - Op-Ed Critique
In a recent New York times op-ed piece written by David Brooks, the writer slams the G.O.P. for their actions (or lack of actions, really) amid the recent economic turmoil. He claims that the Republicans in power should be "think[ing] through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand" rather than pointing fingers, calling names, and "repeat[ing] the familiar talking points."
Mr. Brooks' words hold true. Rather than cooperating with the new administration, or suggesting alternative methods to resolving our economic crisis, the Republicans of late have been vetoing nearly every bill that the Dems suggest. John Boehner, the house minority leader and owner of a very unfortunate last name, has even called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. After nearly a decade of recklessly wasteful spending, the Republicans have called for a "rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate." Doesn't it seem hypocritical that the Grand Old Party involves itself in hedonistic spending while it controls the White House, and then condemns spending of any kind once their opposition comes to power?
All in all, Brooks' editorial provided an interesting point-of-view to the embattled economy and state of the nation. I found his peice to be written well, and, although it is hard to discern whether he is a Dem angry at the Reps or a Rep angry at his own party, he suggested some insightful actions that the Republicans could take to improve both their standing in the eyes of the nation and the nation's ability to move forward through our fiscal crisis.
In times like these, we need cooperation. While such a thing may be nearly impossible in a two-party Democratic Republic like we have, it is important now more than ever before in recent history that we work together toward a common goal. Hopefully, the two parties can stop sabotaging one another long enough to take some collective steps forward. Until then, we must do what we can do educate ourselves about the issues and have an informed, intelligent debate - something I am not sure most people can do these days.
Mr. Brooks' words hold true. Rather than cooperating with the new administration, or suggesting alternative methods to resolving our economic crisis, the Republicans of late have been vetoing nearly every bill that the Dems suggest. John Boehner, the house minority leader and owner of a very unfortunate last name, has even called for a federal spending freeze for the rest of the year. After nearly a decade of recklessly wasteful spending, the Republicans have called for a "rigid fiscal straitjacket at the one moment in the past 70 years when it is completely inappropriate." Doesn't it seem hypocritical that the Grand Old Party involves itself in hedonistic spending while it controls the White House, and then condemns spending of any kind once their opposition comes to power?
All in all, Brooks' editorial provided an interesting point-of-view to the embattled economy and state of the nation. I found his peice to be written well, and, although it is hard to discern whether he is a Dem angry at the Reps or a Rep angry at his own party, he suggested some insightful actions that the Republicans could take to improve both their standing in the eyes of the nation and the nation's ability to move forward through our fiscal crisis.
In times like these, we need cooperation. While such a thing may be nearly impossible in a two-party Democratic Republic like we have, it is important now more than ever before in recent history that we work together toward a common goal. Hopefully, the two parties can stop sabotaging one another long enough to take some collective steps forward. Until then, we must do what we can do educate ourselves about the issues and have an informed, intelligent debate - something I am not sure most people can do these days.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
If you have a little free time...
I recommend that you check out these photos taken by photojournalist Callie Shell. She is a personal friend of Obama's, and has known him since he was a lowly State Senator of Illinois. There are some very rare pics in here, you see a side of the Prez that you never get to see.
Definitly worth checking out and reading the captions, if you've got a little free time.
-Lane
Definitly worth checking out and reading the captions, if you've got a little free time.
-Lane
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Post #1 - NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey, February 2009
In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey released at the end of February, there is a vast amount of interesting information pertaining to the way most Americans' feel the country is headed. The survey can be found here (assuming I linked it right). As usual with statistics such as these, the most interesting bits of info can be found when we compare the tables within.
Question 6 asks the individuals in the sample to rate their feelings toward various public figures on a Lickert scale ranging from "Very Positive" to "Very Negative". When the sample of 100 was asked to rate Barack Obama, we see a clear, positively skewed distribution, meaning that over time (from October 2006 to February 2009) the individuals polled were found to be more favorable to Obama over time. Furthermore, the democratic party is at its highest favorability in over a year, Michelle Obama is only topped by her husband in terms of favorability, and Hilary Clinton is experiencing her highest favorability since, get this, 2004. Surprising when we consider that her favorability is higher now than it was when she was a Presidential candidate!
Needless to say, it is a great time to be a Democrat in power right now. That being said, what if we compare this to responses asking voters who they blame for the country's economic problems?
Right now 8% of respondents said that Obama was "mostly responsable" for the poor economy and 6% blame him in part. We can assume, however, that the longer the recession lasts, the more likely voters will be to blame the President's actions (or lack thereof).In a graph created by Nate Silver, an American statistician and political analyst, he translates these numbers into a more easily-readable format, comparing them with a related question asking voters when they expect the recession to end.
As can be seen by the figure to the right, Obama crosses the 50% blame threshold around the 18 month mark, meaning that in September 2010 more people will hold Obama accountable for the economy than believe he inherited the problem.
Certainly this is good news for our President, because the American public seems to have quite low expectations of the economy, and very high enthusiasm for Obama's presidency, meaning that the President has a relatively long time to make big steps toward solving America's economic crisis before we start pointing the finger of blame at him.
This does raise some questions, however. For example, how will this affect the midterm elections? The Dems could lose a fair share of House and Senate seats in 2010 if the voters are slow to notice any economic improvement. Furthermore, the question above asks when Americans will start blaming B.O., but will this remain the case after a few month of more economic hardship?
Only time will tell.
Or perhaps my next post will?
Who knows.
Until next time, blogosphere.
-Lane
Thursday, February 19, 2009
First Post!
Hello Blogosphere!
For the project of our Politics and the Media class at Ramapo College of NJ, I have created "The Daily Blunt", bringing you the news in only its most blunt form. None of that BS that you'll get in other blogs, this is pure, unadulterated blogging at its finest.
Stay tuned for more updates from your humble narrator!
-Lane
For the project of our Politics and the Media class at Ramapo College of NJ, I have created "The Daily Blunt", bringing you the news in only its most blunt form. None of that BS that you'll get in other blogs, this is pure, unadulterated blogging at its finest.
Stay tuned for more updates from your humble narrator!
-Lane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
