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.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
