Geithner Makes People List?

Last week, Politico reported that five people close to President Obama will appear in People Magazine's annual of the 100 Most Beautiful people. For the issue, First Lady Michelle Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, and assistant chef Sam Kass will be featured in a section appropriately named, "Barack's Beauties."

Michelle Obama was no surprise. All media outlets have been enamored by her since Obama won the election, while constantly discussing her choice of clothing. Emanuel and Kass, after closely examining some photographs seem like they could perhaps be worthy of the list. Also, after looking at pictures of Desiree Rogers, she too seems worthy to me. However, the one that really puzzles me is Geithner. I, by no means, am saying he's an ugly guy but the 100 most beautiful? Really?

Well, Business Insider, might have the explanation for this decision. Turns out Tim's brother, Dave, is a People executive. I don't know what kind of influence Dave could have had on the choice to put Geithner on the list. Yet, there had to have been some.

Geoengineering to the Rescue

This is why I've never been too worried about global warming. Andrew C. Revkin, a blogger for New York Time's Dot Earth (a science-related, environmental blog), recently posted the rough draft of the A.M.S. Policy Statement on Geoengineering the Climate System. It is almost common knowlege now that many scientists believe global warming has the potential to cause catastrophic damage to the earth. This damage could come in the forms of rising sea levels, more intense rainfall, longer and more severe droughts, or ocean acidification. This statement lays out the possibilities of action that the American Meteorological Society could pursue if some of these projections ever begin to occur.
The A.M.S. gives three potential strategies for reducing the risks of climate change. The first two are somewhat obvious: reduce carbon emissions and simply, adapt. The third potential avenue for combating the effects of global warming is the one that caught my eye.

3) deliberately manipulate large-scale physical, chemical or biological aspects of the climate system to counteract the climate effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions (geoengineering the climate system)

Geoengineering may a be saviour. It may be the only viable option for preventing large-scale, natural disasters. And although scientists have yet to come up with a consensual plan where the benefit will outweigh the risk, geoengineering will certainly have a bright future. The ideas that come with geoengineering generally fall into three strategies:

1) managing atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., ocean fertilization and atmospheric carbon capture and sequestration)
2) cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight (e.g., putting reflective particles into the atmosphere, putting mirrors in space to reflect the sun’s energy, increasing surface reflectivity and altering the amount or characteristics of clouds)
3) moderating specific impacts of global warming (e.g., efforts to limit sea level rise by increasing land storage of water, protecting ice sheets or artificially enhancing mountain glaciers).

The interesting thing about these strategies is that they are all brand new, untested, and very risky. However, ideas such as shooting mirrors into space to reflect sunlight and artificially enhancing mountain glaciers fascinate me and make me wish they tried it today, regardless of the risks. President Obama, while campaigning, frequently said, "If we figured out how to put a man on the moon in 10 years, we can certainly figure out how to produce fuel efficient cars." I think the same logic works with geoengineering.

The Obamas Take a Stroll, Make News

I've never seen such a detailed report on what was just a simple, non-eventful, stroll on the lawn. Perhaps Christine Simmons of the AP was just desperate for a story. She writes:

So they began walking on the driveway of the White House South Lawn while holding hands. First they passed the West Wing, then their children's swing set. They kept walking, swinging their hands together.

She continues:

There were no Secret Service agents right behind them - the agents stood off, in one of the rare moments that the Obamas had private space outside the White House walls.

Then, the investigation gets juicy:

As the Obamas walked behind shrubbery and out of sight, the unscripted moment left reporters guessing where they were going. To the vegetable garden? The basketball court? No final word, but they eventually came back the same way from where they started, rounding out their 8-minute walk.

Instapundit

I recently came across a blog whose author is a University of Tennessee law professor named Greg Reynolds. His blog, called "Instapundit," gives visitors all of the days breaking news stories as they happen by providing links to the original sources. He also provides visitors with links to other blogs when they post something he feels is relevant.
It is a format very similar to the Drudge Report, done by Matt Drudge. Like Drudge, Reynolds gives a succinct blurb, usually opinionated, that serves as the link to the real story. I like the fact that you can be on the site and understand whats going on even if you never leave it. However, if you are like me and sometimes do this, you are usually subject to only one side of the story. To fully grasp all aspects of each story, clicking the link is commonly necessary.
I also like the clean and simple look Instapundit has. Your not overwhelmed by ads or flashiness. It's a very straightforward site with good links and it's clarity pleases me.
One critique I would have of Reynolds would be the uniformity of each story. They're all formatted the exact same way, regardless of importance. An aspect of the Drudge Report I really like is that Drudge will make one story the feature story, loud and clear. What he feels is the most important issue of the moment, will take the top of the page and be in much larger font and is usually accompanied with a clever picture. This aspect definitely makes me curious as to which story will make it up there each time I visit. Perhaps, adding something like this could enhance Instapundit

Middleman's Got it Wrong

I just took a look at a recent blog post by middleman3. In the post, middleman accuses the show "Girls Next Door" of having negative impacts on younger girls. He says that the three women on the show are portrayed as "sex objects" and not as "real human beings." Furthermore, middleman argues that the show highlights their "stupidity" and is constantly focusing on their gaffes.
First off, the girls may come across as "sex objects" to middleman but I think he is forgetting what profession they are in. They are models who get photographed naked, sex objects is exactly what they are! This is a profession that these women chose voluntarily. This type of criticism shouldn't exist because the overlying premise of the show is to promote Playboy.
Also the "stupidity" that middleman talks of is simply there to provide entertainment. No one would watch the show if it were only three women who never laughed at themselves.
You also need to question how real this "reality" show really is. These girls obviously know when the camera crew is filming and people will always act differently when they know they're being watched or filmed, especially when they're trying to attract an audience. Making assumptions about people based only on what they see on television is akin to judging a book by its cover.

The Girls Next Door

The first thing that comes to my mind after watching an episode of "The Girls Next Door" is that Hugh Hefner has got to be the luckiest guy in America. Besides living in this beautiful, grandiose, Los Angeles mansion and being worth tons of money, Hefner is blessed with having three gorgeous "girlfriends" at the same time. The trio of Holly, Kendra, and Bridget, who are the focus of the show, would make any straight man envious of Hefner. However, these three women are seen by some to have a negative impact on the socialization of younger girls.
Now, obviously I'm not a girl a cannot possibly talk empathetically about the effects this show potentially has on young girls. Yet, I am one who believes that this show, which sole purpose is entertainment and promotion of Playboy, probably should not be ridiculed the way it is. I do not see the negative aspects of the show that some do and do not think that the show is only good for corrupting young, female minds.
If the argument is, the girls on the show dress way too provocatively, it is because they are in Playboy magazine. Their talent is being hot and they're going to show off that talent. I feel younger girls will always be trying to imitate models, whether they see them on Girls Next Door or elsewhere. Should we ban the entire fashion industry as well?
Furthermore, young girls probably shouldn't be watching this show in the first place. The target audience for the show is young adult males who clearly are not watching the show for educational value.

NBC Nightly News vs. Daily Show

Recently, I watched an episode of NBC's Nightly News and evaluated it's rundown of stories. The news topics were read by the anchor and were usually followed by on-site reporting by serious journalists. The news coverage NBC put out was entirely their own, meaning all reporting was done by the network's own employees. The reporting was objective, lacking interpretation, as well as any entertainment value. Bored with this type of news coverage and seeking something a bit more stimulating, I just watched the most recent episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central.
Quite frankly, the name of the network this "news" broadcast is on should tell you all you need to know. Everything NBC's news coverage lacked, the Daily Show had. The show gives the viewer colorful commentary and comedic value while mocking the traditional news broadcasts of MSNBC, CNN, and FOX. However, everything the Daily Show lacked, NBC Nightly News had. Abesnt from the Daily Show was original reporting (aside from a spoof report on scientists who are attempting to recreate the Big Bang), objective coverage, and serious soundbites from politicians responding to the current events. This shouldn't be a surprise, as the basic premise of the show is to provide laughs with a bit of news coverage mixed in between the comedy.
Overall, the Daily Show is directed towards a completely different audience than the NBC news coverage. The show is there to provide a break from traditional news and to examine the aspects of the established news networks that could be viewed as humorous, like CNN's John King and his "magic board" for example, which I've always found to be rather comical myself.
However, there were some common points to both news shows. Both shows did start with stories on swine flu; NBC talking about the decreasing tensions surounding the disease and Jon Stewart making jokes about how CNN and it's medical reporter, Sanjay Gupta reported the story. They also both talked about President Obama's first 100 days in office. But again, the resembling topics covered are where the similarities end.
After watching both types of news coverage, I can say that choosing one or the other comes down, simply, to what you're looking for in a news show. If your goal is to become educated on the day's events then NBC Nightly News is what you should be watching. But, if you'd rather watch a comedian highlighting all the flops and gaffes provided by the traditionalists, which is probably the only thing I would be seeking had I not chosen political science for my major, then tune in to the Daily Show.

Global Recession Not Affecting Armored Car Sales in Brazil

Visit the New York Times website right now and you will immediately see, because it is the top story, that the sales of armored cars in Brazil has not at all been affected by the global recession. In fact, sales for these ridiculously safe automobiles have been surging. Once a possession owned only by the Brazilian upper-class, armored cars have found their way to middle-class car owners as well, largely due to an elevated concern of crime and a tax-cut for the auto industry provided by government officials.
On record, crime in Brazil has been decreasing. However, the economic recession in the country is predicted to continue spiraling downward which has most experts agreeing that a spike in criminal activity is likely. So, combine fear with cheaper cars and you get a booming armored cars market. (These companies don't build armored cars from scratch. Rather, they just put the "armor" on regular cars, i.e. bulletproof glass.)
This story definitely surprised me. I had no idea some Brazilian cities were such hot spots for assaults, carjackings, roadside kidnappings, and gang-warfare, especially to the extent that people feel the need to drive around in bulletproof cars. I thought only the President of the United States needed an armored car. Craig Bavington, who owns a tourist agency in Sao Paulo, is quoted in the article saying "It is not a question of if you are going to be assaulted, it is when it is going to happen." Pretty amazing, I always thought of Brazil as a happy place where everyone is constantly playing soccer. I guess I'm just happy I don't need bulletproof glass for my Altima.
All in all, however, it is a bit sad that the factor leading to all these profits in the auto industry is ultimately, a heightened fear of being mugged. But, whenever there is high demand for a product, regardless of how that demand originates, suppliers are going to supply goods and profit off of whatever they can.

NBC Nightly News

NBC Nightly News 6:30pm rundown:

1) The first topic covered by NBC was, you guessed it, the latest on swine flu. This time however, the reporter gave us a more mild, optimistic outlook on the disease that, as I've said before, has been wrongfully frightening everyone for the past couple of weeks. Supposedly, the disease isn't as dangerous as we first believed (big shocker). The other good news was there still have not been any new deaths, the count still remains at one.

2) NBC then covered swine flu as it relates to Mexico, the country where this disease spread from. The Mexicans are also more optimistic than they have been but they continue to wear those goofy masks and spray down the subways.

3) Coverage then moved to Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meeting where CEO Warren Buffett was answering questions from equity holders and making comments on the economy. Buffett has got to be one of the only people in America that everyone listens to and agrees with when it comes to market talk. It makes sense though, he is a self-made billionaire who just recently became the richest man in the world, and is generally thought of as the best business investor there is.

4) A brief report on a federal investigation into the campaign fundraising of John Edwards followed the Buffett news. Edwards, who had recently been outed by the National Enquirer for having an affair, was allegedly involved in some questionable fundraising practices. First time I've gotten John Edwards news in awhile.

5) Then there was a story on saving the orangutangs in Indonesia. Not gonna lie, I went to grab something to eat when this one came on. zero interest.

6) Finally, NBC's Nightly News concluded with a story on a lending company that has been giving poor women in New York a chance at starting their own businesses. The company provides loans to less fortunate women but women who are in the workplace. The reporter said that the company gave out a total of $1,000,000 in loans last year and received 99% of them back. Most interesting about this piece was the fact that this company only provides loans for women who are struggling. Their reason: women are more likely to pay them back.


Overall, the order of the news stories was in a pretty predictable lineup. Swine flu, while not a huge concern for me, has still riveted news networks and I didn't expect that to change. To be honest, I didn't really have a whole lot of concern for any of the stories reported tonight. They probably could've done without the story on the monkeys. And, the reasoning by the lending company to only provide loans for women probably makes sense, I've owed a friend $30 for about two weeks now and I don't know if I feel like paying him back anytime soon.

Feministe: Sex Ed

On the popular feminist blog Feministe, a visitor will be given news stories with a spin that will somehow usually support women's rights. It is a blog where the main target audience is women so it is not a surprise that I do frequent these sites. However, after recently visiting this blog, a recent blog post, "You Learn Something New Everyday," made sense to me.
The topic of the post was sex education. In it, the author known as Cara, provided a link to the new platform of WhyNow?, a leader in providing abstinence-only education. Cara then basically rips the platform apart and accuses it of being out of touch with reality.
Her arguments did make sense to me. The reality is that teenagers do have sex and that it probably will not lead to the end of the world. Telling kids that sex is evil and should never be practiced premaritally, does not, and will not, stop kids from doing it. The focus of the education should be on practicing it safely rather than ignoring the fact that it is actually happening. If the fact that teenagers are having sex isn't realized then the education will fail to teach kids how to practice it safely, which needs to be the key issue.

The Environmental Blog

Not surprisingly, if you visit The Environmental Blog you'll get exactly what you expect: a collection of news stories that all relate to an environmental topic. Personally, I do not visit these types of sites frequently. However, they do provide relevant information on all these environment.
The most recent post on The Environmental Blog is titled "Mercury Levels Still on the Rise" and it highlights the rising levels of mercury in our water and air. The rising levels in our water directly affects the quality of seafood that comes from that water. Since the 1990s, the levels of mercury in water samples has increased 30%.
It doesn't seem that the author really wants to scare the reader yet the statistics given may do so. Rather, the focus seems to be on informing the public of these findings and how they may affect us. The author also uses the oppurtunity to encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stay on their toes and address the problem.
While these numbers may scare some, they certainly will not keep me from eating seafood.

Olympia Snowe: Hinting at Exit Also?

Olympia Snowe, Republican Senator from Maine, recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled, We Didn't Have to Lose Arlen Specter. In it, as the title presumes, the senator recalls former Republican senator Jim Jeffords leaving for the Democrats in 2001, and the absent response by Republicans to shape up and prevent it from happening again. Senator Snowe emphasizes that the GOP cannot succeed by shrinking ideologically, outcasting moderates by saying they aren't "true" Republicans. She makes it clear that for the party to flourish, it needs both moderates and conservatives to work together in making policy. Snowe also stressed lessons learned from Ronald Reagan:
"We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty. As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”
But with all the hope Senator Snowe expressed in her op-ed for an expansion of the Republican Party, I sensed, overall, an underlying sentiment that maybe she too was soon to leave the GOP in favor of the Democratic Party. Throughout the piece, she seemed very sympathetic towards Senator Specter while giving off a "I don't blame him" type of attitude. She compared being a moderate Republican, which she is herself, to a contestant on "Survivor" saying, "you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe." Senator Snowe, with the Republican Arlen Specter and fellow Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins, were the only three Republicans to vote for President Obama's stimulus package. It truly does not seem too unlikely that Senator Snowe may follow Senator Specter to the Democratic Party. It would help if Senator Snowe was up for reelection this upcoming summer in a state with an increasingly uneasy climate for Republicans, like Specter, but Snowe seemed to express that she would feel at home in the Democratic Party.

CBS-NY 11pm Local News

Tonight's local news coverage began with the story on everyones' minds recently: swine flu. Naturally, CBS New York led off by informing the tristate audience of the most recent local school closings and giving the up to the minute case numbers in the area. The focus then turned to the national picture where the 160 nationwide swine flu cases were recognized. National then turned to global attention, with CBS letting us know that there are now 16 nations worldwide who have reported cases of swine flu.
Next on the news agenda was completion of the first 100 days in office for President Obama, an artificial milestone that all media has decided to legitimize. The focus of this report was the Republican scorecard of the first 100 days. Not surprisingly, Republicans haven't been too supportive of the Democratic president so far. They continue to point to Obama's ambitious spending plans as the wrong direction for America but this is expected.
From Republicans assessing the progress of President Obama, news coverage turned to focus on the GOP's comeback plan. The Democratic party, which now holds 59 seats in the Senate, one away from a filibuster-proof majority (which will likely happen once the courts decide the Al Franken case), have clearly become the dominant party, holding both the presidency and Congress. It has obviously been a tough climate for Republicans recently and it has left them looking for ways to rebound.
The Chrysler bankruptcy then took centerstage as well as new reforms in the credit card industry. Both news stories had mentions of what government was planning to accomplish with both struggling entities. Politicians, naturally, sided with the people and pledged to work in the public's best interest.
All major news stories covered tonight by CBS had something in common. They all had a political response from government officials. This goes back to the idea that the media need the press and the press need the media. It is a love-hate relationship because the politicians love being in front of the camera but the media love it when politicians goof up. People watching the news want to know that their democratically elected officials are responding to the issues facing their areas.
Unfortunately, this edition of the local news lacked any real entertainment (WARNING: youtube link may contain some explicit language). The anchors merely read the teleprompter and never moved away from it. There was no interpretation or discussion of the news stories like they do on most cable news programs but this allows the audience to formulate their own opinions.

Swine Flu: Why the Panic?

The story that has dominated public interest for the past couple of weeks has been the emergence of the swine flu. Cable news programs, newspapers, and blogs have all been completely enamored by this story. Not because it is one of the biggest threats to all people everywhere, like they make it out to be, but because it is the "hot," "new" story that audiences can not seem to get enough of and will continue to consume.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention lists that the regular influenza kills an estimated 36,000 people every year and is 8th place on the American kill list, behind such notorious killers as cancer, heart disease, and stroke. However, news networks fail to mention these glaring statistics when they discuss swine flu. The New York Times reported that swine flu has produced a measly 160 cases in America and has yielded only one death but you'd never know it listening to recent news coverage. All of this points to an issue discussed in class, that news stories simply need to be "new" for people to pay attention. The regular flu is almost an afterthought in people's minds. 36,000 deaths a year but the media is worked into hysteria over a sickness that has caused one death. It doesn't seem to make sense.

And with the heightened sense of public interest on the topic, public schools have been closed, sporting events have been held behind closed doors, and politicians have voiced their opinions while scaring the public even more. Public schools in many districts nationwide have closed because of swine flu fears, including all 144 schools in the Fort Worth, TX school district. In Mexico this past weekend, all professional soccer matches were held without fans. These stories only add to a hype that has been way overblown. And, when you have Vice President Joe Biden on the Today Show warning people not to fly in planes, or ride in subways to avoid the disease, it only pours more gasoline onto an already blazing fire.

All in all, I believe the recent swine flu mania has been blown way out of proportion. While I still feel it is a legitimate news story worthy of some attention, I do not believe it is healthy for people to be faced with swine flu being front page news every single day. The reality is that it this disease is still lightyears away from being something we should be legitimately afraid of. We must realize that it is the news companies' objective to highlight new phenomenons and to report them as if we must pay attention to them and keep coming back for new updates. Let me know when swine flu is responsible for 36,000 deaths and then I might be concerned.