CNN vs. Fox News

I spent this afternoon flipping between CNN and Fox news to investigate the difference between how they relay information to the public. Immediately it is seen that CNN is obviously much more liberal in their stances, and that Fox has a right-wing, conservative slant on how they transmit their news. Upon watching several stories from both channels, I have found that they basically convey the same exact news stories, just in different ways. CNN puts a liberal spin on their news, and Fox leans the opposite way; however, they are communicating the same basic news stories to their audiences.

For example, both channels discussed the recent announcement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter to retire after the Court’s current term is over. The CNN news commentators who were discussing this topic seemed rather pleased that Souter decided to retire at a time when there was a Democrat president and Democrat-majority Senate. They maintained that there is no possible way we will get a Republican justice appointed to the court with conservative view points on controversial issues such as abortion. Fox news, on the other hand, reported this news in a negative fashion. The news reporter announced that Republicans are worried that there is too much Democrat power in the Senate, yet they are ready to put up a fight. CNN counter-acted this type of statement by stating that the President has the right to nominate whomever he likes to the bench.

Also, a topic of the news that was presented on both channels this afternoon was the issue of global warming. CNN had a small segment on ways to help contribute to the hault of global warming. Their suggestions included ideas such as using fluorescent light bulbs, inflating your car tires appropriately, changing the filter on your air conditioners, buying hybrid cars, insulating your water filter, along with several other ideas. Fox news, however, spent a few minutes announcing that a recent study has found that 33.3% of children fear that the earth will cease to exist, and a whopping 56% believe that the earth will be unpleasant for human existence within their lifetime. Fox news blamed Al Gore for this hysteria, and accused him of scaring the children with his bogus documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

President Obama’s job in the White House thus far was also a topic discussed on both channels. CNN commented how he is doing so many things so quick, and has a big agenda already compared with past presidents. The news reporter described this facet as “breath taking” and “stunning.” Fox news, as could be expected, completely had the opposite view on this. They maintained that the President is taking on way too many different tasks at once, or at least he says he is, and that it is absolutely ludicrous for him to think he will get everything done. The news reporter said that he should stop misleading the American people and pick one or two big issues to cover in his agenda, and just maybe he will be able to address those.

Over the years I have found that I like CNN’s coverage better than that of Fox news. At least now with a Democrat president in office, it feels like Fox news is bellyaching and complaining about the current state of affairs, instead of just impartially reporting the facts. There is no news channel more conservative than Fox, however there is a channel more liberal than CNN—MSNBC. This reason also leads me to believe that CNN is the more unbiased, fair and balanced news channel of the two, and is probably why I prefer objective over partisan coverage.

Response to a Classmate's blog post

A classmate of mine recently posted a blog about the controversial issue of gun control. Christy points out how Jersey City created an ordinance in 2006 limiting the number of guns an individual could buy to one per month; however, an appeals court overturned this law. The Supreme Court will soon hear the case and decide whether or not it is constitutional for a city to create such laws, since states already monitor the sale of handguns. Currently, New York is the only city with a limit on how many handguns one can purchase, limiting it to one every 90 days. If the Supreme Court sides with Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, Jersey City will be the second city in the United States to have laws restricting the number of guns sold to an individual.

I agree with Christy when she poses the question, “how many handguns does one really need?” If someone is buying several guns every single month, I see that as a reason to be alarmed. As Christy said, if handguns are being distributed for their original purpose of self defense, it seems ludicrous that someone would need countless different handguns to protect themselves. People who are buying numerous handguns every month raise sheer suspicion in my eyes, as they are most likely illegally selling and distributing them to those who are not able to purchase them, especially in urban cities where crime rates are high, such as Jersey City where the debate is taking place. The Jersey City mayor even stated himself that people with clean records are buying guns for gang members, and that this law is necessary to limit the amount of guns a single person can purchase each month.

Opponents of the law maintain that such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment, a right to bear arms. I see it differently, though. The law is not stopping the amount of guns that can be sold, it is merely limiting it per month. If you want to buy handgun for protection and self-defense, go buy one. The law is not stopping you. However, if you want to buy ten more of the same gun just a week later, that is where the law steps in. Opponents in urban cities should realize that this law is only helping to keep them safe. I agree wholeheartedly with them that every single person in the United States who is legally able, should be allowed to purchase a handgun for self defense, there is no question about that. However, I feel that cities—especially those of high-crime and violence—should be able to set their own laws limiting the number of guns sold per capita, per month. Who else knows the best way to protect a city more than its own mayor and council?

Christy ends her blogpost with a quote from Republican state senator Marcia Karrow who tried to legitimize her stance on how it is wrong to limit the sale of handguns by stating, “You can’t wear more than one pair of shoes at a time but lots of women have them,” she said.” I agree with Christy when she responded by saying it is completely inappropriate to compare lethal weapons to fashion accessories. This is like comparing apples to oranges. A wide array of shoes is totally normal, as there are specific shoes that go with specific settings—running, hiking, professional, formal. There are not, however, a wide array of settings that are appropriate for specific genres of handguns. You load the bullet, pull the trigger, and a shot is fired… every time. I believe that Karrow completely ruined her defense on this issue by making such a ridiculous comparison. In the end, I feel that it is appropriate for governments of high-crime and violence-prone urban cities to set their own standards for gun sales, as ultimately the law is keeping their cities much safer in the long-run.

Response to the Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

Yesterday I listened to the Rush Limbaugh radio show for the first time. I found his commentary to be more conservative than what I am used to listening to; however he did have some solid points that I could agree with. One part of the show that I found to be quite interesting and a little absurd was when a listener called in describing a press conference with President Obama that he had watched on tv and Limbaugh’s response to the caller. The caller described how a representative of the television channel BET asked the president how he was going to remedy the problem of the 50% unemployment rate among African American males in New York and the sky-high drop out rate with his new stimulus package. He went on to explain how the President completely dodged the question and instead talked about health care and energy. Rush Limbaugh’s response to this statement is what surprised me the most.

Limbaugh replied to the caller by saying that the reason Obama ditched the answer to the question is because he has no answer at all…because he isn’t even working on the unemployment problem. Rush maintained that the American education system is designed to educate Americans and not have anyone drop out. He explained that the education system is a mess, and unemployment rates are high, and that it is going to stay that way until a capable Republican president enters office who is willing to work on the problems. Limbaugh went on to say that they have been claiming to be trying to fix the unemployment and drop out rates for as long as he has been alive, but instead they keep going up. He remarked that they aren’t really doing anything to fix the problem and Obama is just another Democrat sweeping the problems under the rug.

This, Limbaugh explained, is why Obama dodged the question on education and unemployment, and instead talked about health care and energy. He demanded that the problems have only gotten worse in the last three months and that the reason is because the Americans who are being affected by unemployment are voting Democrat, and that they have been all their lives in hopes of an actual change taking place one day. These people are making a big mistake, Limbaugh insisted, and nothing will get better for them until they elect a Republican to fix their problems, especially people in urban areas such as New York City. Rush Limbaugh ended his argument by asserting that the reason these problems are not getting fixed is either because President Obama does not know how to fix it, or he just doesn’t want to.

I cannot say that I agreed with this portion of his radio show. It seems a little ignorant on Limbaugh’s part to be making such bold claims about an entire ideology of Presidents. I believe that Obama IS trying to fix the unemployment and drop out problems in America, but this is by no means an easy task. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should try walking in the president’s shoes for a day and try to remedy the problem himself before making such radical claims about his true agenda on these very difficult issues.

Comparing the Daily Show with the 6:30 network news

Last night I watched the encore episode of the Daily Show from Obama’s 100th day in office. The half-hour long episode consisted of three main discussion topics: Arlen Specter dropping the GOP, a spoof of a “senior black correspondent” evaluating Obama’s progress thus far, and an interview with Doris Kearns Goodwin, a presidential historian.

The discussion of Arlen Specter switching from the Republican side to join the Democrats was covered in just as much detail as was seen on the 6:30 network news. Both programs explained how this means that the Democrats will gain the majority of control over the House and Senate, most likely making the party filibuster-proof. One thing that Jon Stewart said that I hadn’t seen on the network news, however, was his belief that Arlen Specter switched parties merely to get re-elected. He noted how Arlen told reports he switched sides “out of principle,” but Stewart doesn’t buy this and denounced the notion by maintaining that he switched only so that the Democrats would elect him to serve again. Besides that tidbit, the information that was presented on both the Daily Show and the network news seemed to be equal in their content and degree of factual information.

The second segment of the episode featured a satire of a “senior black correspondent” evaluating President’s Obama’s success so far on a scale made up of slang vernacular. He maintained that the stimulus bill is “off the heazy fo sheazy”. The comedian also noted that the closing of Guantanamo Bay was “aight” because it stands for everything America has done wrong in this war on terror. This type of discussion certainly would never appear on the 6:30 network news; however that obviously wasn’t Daily Show writers’ intentions. This type of dialogue is purely for comedy-sake and to get a laugh out of viewers, however the issues that that were discussed are of the same genre of issues that are discussed on standard network news programs.

The last part of the Daily Show included an interview with presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Goodwin discussed the status of President Obama thus far on his 100th day in office. She stated that Obama is doing a good job so far, and described him as being calm, steady, and thick-skinned. She went on to say that he doesn’t get rattled very easily and has more confidence than most of the presidents who have led our nation. This type of commentary also appears on the standard network news, although it would have a different spin depending on if you’re watching CNN or Fox news. Goodwin also mentioned that President Obama is trying to maintain some sense of normalcy in his life, and that he still gets freaked out when everyone stands up for him upon walking into a room.

Upon comparing the news presented in the Daily Show with that of the 6:30 network news, it appears that both programs cover basically the same exact news, just in different ways. While the network news tends to do so in a more traditional manner, it is clear that John Stewart purposely puts a humorous tilt on all of his information, thus making it more entertaining and enjoyable to viewers. As an avid viewer of CNN, I always find it refreshing to watch the Daily Show and get a little humor with my news. I wouldn’t say that the network news covers stories in any more detail than the Daily Show does, as they both offer basically the same length and depth of information in their news coverage.

5:00 Local News on NBC

I have just finished watching the 5:00 local news on NBC. Out of the several short stories that were covered, very few were actually political (political in the sense of referencing government leaders, Congress, etc.) However, just because the majority of the stories weren’t political per say, it doesn’t mean that they lacked the element of politics all together, as there are policies and public procedures built into the framework of several of the stories that were covered. The stories, as they were presented in order, are as follows:

-Swine flu coverage: confirmed cases of the disease have been reported in New Jersey. Joe Biden made a comment about how he wouldn’t advise his own family to travel in confined spaces, such as on airplanes or subways; and Bloomberg counteracted his remark, as he has been urging people to still use public transportation. Also, it was noted that there is no evidence that dogs or cats can contract the swine flu.

-Ailing auto industry: Obama’s new plan for Chrysler to file bankruptcy was announced, as he believes this will produce roughly 30,000 new jobs for American workers as Chrysler will merge with Italian car industry, Fiat.

-Wall street news on stock market reports of the Dow and Nasdeq daily results.

-Bernie Madoff’s business sale was analyzed today, and it was found that he obviously overstated his personal income on purpose by several million dollars.

-Four people were killed in the Netherlands today after an attempted attack was made on the Queen and royal family.

-Brady Green of Georgia was found guilty on charges of stalking Tyra Banks.

-Reports have been made that Alex Rodriguez, a.k.a. “A-Rod,” also used steroids during high school while playing for his school’s team.

-A serious tornado took place in Kansas, causing major destruction.

-Several horses were rescued after a flood in Texas, and none of them died.

-(Weather Report # 1)

-The Department of Transportation took down an old bridge in Stony Point today that was unsafe.

-Red Bank Medical Center is stressing the notion that early detection for breast cancer is key; and in an attempt to draw attention to the issue, they have painted various parts of the town pink and have renamed it “Pink Bank” for the week.

-There was a partial building collapse in Tribeca today. Facts of the building, including the failure to maintain it, and the citizens’ reactions to it were discussed.
-A 64 year old woman was arrested for adopting 10 children and abusing/starving them.

-Lacey Peterson (a woman who was murdered along with her unborn son Connor, by her husband Scott)’s parents decided to drop the case today in which her husband would receive the death penalty. The Supreme Court will review her request.

-In Cape May, a ship sunk and only one out of the seven crew members survived. Investigations are underway to figure out the cause of the tragedy.

-Rescued captain of the ship “Alabama” is calling for the U.S. Congress to create a legislative plan to protect ships from pirates.

-The Swiss made a huge donation to New York City’s September 11th memorial fund.

-Many people have been fraudulently bending US metro card in order to scam the scanning-machine and get free rides. One main was just sentenced to two years in jail for extensively tampering with metro cards.

-How to avoid germs at the gym was discussed. It was stated that merely wiping down machines after use isn’t enough.

-Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd was interviewed today about Vice President Joe Biden’s comments about the dangers of traveling in confined spaces. He stated that the White House had to backtrack and work to explain Biden’s comments and define what he meant to actually say.

-Actress Christina Applegate recently underwent reconstructive surgery after undergoing treatment for breast cancer. She will appear on the front cover of People magazine.

-New York’s Botanical Garden now had dozens of different types of tulips in bloom, driving photographers and tulip fanatics crazy. The recent Dutch tulip craze in Holland was also discussed.

-(Weather Report # 2)

-A dog and a goat, named Thelma and Louise, have become the best of friends at an animal shelter in New York. Shelter employees are hoping that the two are adopted together.

-Betty Gordon, who has written the movies “Variety” and “Handsome Harry” for the Tribeca Film Festival was discussed, as well as her inspiration for the movies.

Again, it is evident that the majority of these stories aren’t really politically-based, however in several of the stories, there are underlying elements of public policy that were discussed. For the most part though, most of these stories lacked serious political content.

White House Apologizes for Airplane Photo Shoot that Scared New Yorkers Today

A daunting White House photo shoot took place today… only it was in the sky. An extremely low-flying Boeing 747, which functions as Air Force One when the president is on board, was seen flying above the Manhattan skyline, accompanied by two F-16 planes fluttering nearby. The scene instilled panic and fear in many New Yorkers, as it closely resembled the low-flying planes that panned the sky during September 11th. This unannounced sighting terrified people so much, that many offices in New York and New Jersey began evacuating their buildings. Witnesses called up 9-1-1, exclaiming that the 747 plane was circling over the Upper New York Bay and the Statue of Liberty before flying up the Hudson River.

Director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, apologized to citizens today, explaining that he had approved the photo shoot over New York, and took complete responsibility for his lack of poor judgment in his decision. He maintained that government officials took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey of the photo shoot, however he acknowledged that it is apparent that the scene caused major confusion and disruption in the public. President Obama responded by stating that he was furious when learning about the flight over the tri-state area, and that he was never told about the photo shoot. He called the situation ridiculous, and full of poor judgment on the officials’ parts who were responsible for it. Government officials commented that Obama was indeed overcome with anger that the incident took place and unnecessarily scared so many New Yorkers.

So why did the Aviation Department think it was a good idea to have a publicly-unannounced low-flying photo shoot right over Ground Zero? I wish I had an answer for you. This just shows the complete lack of judgment that even the most well-educated and top-tier officials of the most powerful nation in the world can possess. I hope the public’s reaction has taught the government an important lesson and that they never let another slipup like this take place again. The terror and panic that Americans feel when seeing a plane that low flying overhead is something that should never have to be felt for a second time in this nation.

Collection of Benjamin Franklin's Letters Found

A collection of letters written by, to, and about Benjamin Franklin has been discovered by an American professor doing research in London, and has just been shared with a large audience for the first time. Alan Houston is a professor at the University of California at San Diego, and he stumbled upon the series of letters on his very last day of his very last research trip, at the very last hours before the library closed. Lucky? I’d say he hit the jackpot with this one.

These letters offer solid information into the early days of U.S. history, over 250 years ago, that were previously unnoted by historians. The 47 letters that were found deal with Benjamin Franklin’s success in dealing with a British army general named Edward Braddock, during the time that he lived in London. The newly-discovered letters were hand-written copies that were filed under the copyist’s name instead of Franklin’s, which is why they have been overlooked by historians for hundreds of years. When interviewed about his astonishing discovery, Houston stated, “I swear, I just about shot through the ceiling I was so excited. It's like finding a treasure chest.” A great big job-well-done goes out to Professor Houston.

The letters deal with Franklin’s interactions with General Braddock, who was sent to Pennsylvania in 1755 to fight and defeat the French at Fort Duquesne, which is now modern-day Pittsburgh. This specific fight was part of the French and British battle for power over the western lands during the colonial period in America. When Franklin was sent to London in 1757, he brought this collection of letters with him as a type of resume-booster and proof of his political value to Great Britain. Benjamin Franklin has referred to this collection of letters in his autobiography as his “quire book” and despite heavy searching, it was never found, until now.

The fact that the letters were filed under a copyist’s name for all these years raises the question in many historians’ minds as to whether or not there are more undiscovered letters of early historical figures laying around on a shelf somewhere just waiting to be found. This miraculous discovery has set the movement for larger research to take place in examining old documents written by copyists, to see if they too offer insight into previously unknown historical events. Who knows, maybe there are some secrets to the early days of America’s success just sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting dust.

Recent Study has Found that Half of All American Adults Have Changed Religion

A recent study has found that more than half of all American adults have changed their religion at least once in their lifetime. According to a survey conducted last year by the “Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life,” 1 in every 4 American adults has switched their religion at some point in their life. It was also found that more than 4 in every 10 American adults are no longer members of the religion they were brought up in; and about 1 in every 10 changed religions and then went back to the original religion they were born into. Furthermore, according to this new study, only 47% (less than half) of American adults have never changed religions.

So what does this mean? Well for one thing, it means that in today’s society there are plenty of push factors causing a large number of Americans to stray away from the religions that they were raised in and embrace new ones. A researcher at the Pew Forum named Gregory Smith commented, “You’re seeing the free market at work. If people are dissatisfied, they will leave. And if they see something they like better, they will join it.” This certainly seems to be the case in the United States.

Researchers have found that the main reasons why people switch religions are because they marry someone of a different faith, or because they move to a new community where one religion is more prominent and accepted. Secondary reasons include the fact that some people just don’t like their ministers or pastors and what they are preaching, and decide that they agree with the teachings of a different church more. However, there are countless reasons as to why people change religions and it is difficult to generalize an entire phenomenon.

Some people have even changed religions more times than can be counted on one hand, although this number is much smaller in comparison to the norm of religion-switching. Also interesting to point out, this article noted that in the 19th century, there was also a huge amount of religion-switching and establishing of new denominations of religions taking place. So is all of this changing of religion a good thing or a bad thing? It is hard to say, but I wouldn’t say it is entirely a bad thing. People are continually gaining access to more and more information, and in a sense it is reassuring to know that we, as Americans, are not losing our initial interest and belief in faith. As long as Americans aren’t trading in their religions as impulsively as we do our used cars at lease dealerships, I don’t see any real reason to be alarmed. With enough research and investigation into new religions, I think Americans should be adequately informed to decide whether or not new religions are right for them personally. Again, as long as religions don’t become the new trend, such as the fad of trading in used ipods on e-bay for newer ones, I don’t see the new data results as an immediate reason to be worried about the direction of our society…do you?

Mia Farrow's Hunger Strike in an Effort to Help Darfur

Tonight’s guest star on Larry King Live will be actress, singer, and former fashion model Mia Farrow. She will be speaking to tonight’s audience to inform them of her recent pledge to go on a hunger strike in retaliation and outrage to the world for not jumping in and helping the suffering people of Darfur. Today is her first day of fasting, and she says that she hopes to last at least three weeks surviving on nothing but water.

As a humanitarian worker and UNICEF’s Goodwill Ambassador, I can understand her unwavering passion; but as one human being I cannot see her logic. Of course this is an extremely devout and sincere action on her part, and I offer her much kudos for her strong will, I just don’t believe that the hunger strike of one person would be enough to change the current agendas of world leaders across the globe.

The fact that she is willing to risk her own life in order to send a message to the world is an extremely brave act and I applaude her tremendously for it, I just don’t think the impact will be enough to have a lasting effect on the world. She is urging all citizens of the world to join her in fasting, even if only for one day, and when she no longer has the strength to continue her fight, she hopes someone else will take her place until there is a change. Perhaps if enough people join her in this hunger strike, and die for the cause, just maybe that is when government officials will begin recognizing the dire need to get involved in the devastated region of Darfur and help the suffering people. I would like to believe that the power of the people, through such a courageous and staunch strike, could be enough to change the current state of affairs in their fight to help the suffering people in Africa, I am just not sure if this is possible. I wish her, and all of her followers, all the best of luck; and I hope that with enough attention drawn on the issue, the suffering victims in Darfur will soon obtain the help they so undeniably need and deserve.

Review of Sean Hannity's Show on Fox

I just watched tonight’s new episode of Hannity on the Fox channel. To start off, I should note that I never really watch Fox news so I was totally taken by surprise at the completely opposite view of President Obama that was portrayed compared with the news coverage I am used to hearing on CNN. The biggest issue of the night on Hannity’s show was the disagreement that has been surfacing regarding whether or not Nancy Pelosi and other key Democratic representatives were aware of the fact that water boarding and other similar torturous interrogation techniques have been used against suspected terrorists under the Bush administration. Pelosi adamantly declared that she and the other representatives were absolutely never notified of such interrogation techniques going on. Republican representative Pete Hoekstra, a guest speaker on tonight’s episode, however revealed that the CIA released several memos outlining the torture techniques, and that the U.S. representatives were told several times during congressional briefings that were held on the interrogation techniques, and that these briefings were very descriptive and precisely detailed of the tactics that were being used.

Sean Hannity boldly stated that this is Day 94 of the U.S. being less safe, and that Obama is systematically weakening our nation’s security. He then revealed that President Obama told interviewers that, “Nothing would be gained from looking back” and is in a sense, sending mixed messages and contradictions regarding his policy on how to deal with the situation. He maintained that Obama is flip-flopping over the question of whether or not the Bush administration should be punished. He had Dick Morris on as a guest speaker, who was a key advisor to President Clinton. Dick Morris, too, argued that Obama is flip-flopping from what his viewpoints were during the campaign. He maintained that Obama is giving aid to all of our enemies, and that the way to be popular with the new administration is to be an enemy to the United States. Dick Morris then got into the positive results of wire tapping under the Bush administration, and the success in which it was able to save the Brooklyn Bridge from terrorists who were trying to knock it down. He discussed how thanks to the wiretaps, the government was able to locate the terrorists who were trying to blow up the bridge, and found detailed sketches of how to do so upon raiding their apartment—a line that Morris also used when I heard him talk here at Ramapo College last Spring, and I’m still not quite sure if I buy it; perhaps he needs some new lines to help prove his case. Nonetheless, Dick Morris adamantly maintained that the key Democrats knew very well about the advanced interrogation techniques that were being used. And so the debates rages on.

Hannity then focused in on Republican representative, Lincoln Diaz Balart, who recently attacked President Obama’s foreign policy tactics. Diaz Balart publicly pointed out that Obama’s recent actions and contact with our enemy Cuba have paved the way to making Fidel Castro happy—something he believes that is not good for the welfare of America. With these news reports, it is apparent that Sean Hannity is not a big fan of President Obama or his policies. I enjoyed watching this show to gain a different perspective on how many Americans view the current administration, although I am not sure if I agree 100% with all that was said on tonight’s episode. I must admit, however, that watching tonight’s episode really opened up my eyes to possibilities that I had never before given much thought to or took the time to listen to. Sean Hannity is a smart guy and I can admit that he did have some solid points tonight that are worthy of being investigated further.

Review of "The Girls Next Door"

I just watched an episode of the Girls Next Door quite fittingly titled “Girl Crazy” in which the Playboy Corporation began its 55th annual playmate search. The show opens with a huge group of 300 girls lined up outside of the Playboy Mansion waiting to audition for their shot at becoming the year’s centerfold. Once they were admitted into the tryout room, they had to pose for photographs wearing only lingerie, or even less than that. They were photographed by complete strangers, in hopes of winning the big prize of doing this over and over again, even more exposed, for a huge audience of even more strangers. It is also worthy to note that this was only the beginning of the tryout period, as audition dates were set up in several other major cities throughout the country, which several hundred, if not thousand more girls would attend. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The answer is definitely the latter.

The type of scandalous behavior portrayed by the females in this VH1 television show only helps to lower the status of women in today’s society. Millions of young girls watch this show everyday, as repeats of it seem to be aired continuously. Television is one of the main agents of socialization among people of all ages, especially young children in their formative years. If young girls are continually watching older females, who are probably role models to them, act in such outrageous manners, they too are going to think that this is how all women should be viewed and will follow in their footsteps.

This episode quite vividly makes it clear that shows such as these, which VH1 seems to be airing a lot of lately, are only hurting society in the long run by negatively contributing to the overall impact on the socialization of girls. Aside from the scandalous behavior displayed by the females trying out for the centerfold part, this episode also poorly depicts women in other ways. One part of the episode shows two of Hugh Hefner’s girlfriends (there’s a negative portrayal in itself) going shopping in the most distasteful of clothing stores and acting completely ditzy in their conversations with each other. This, too, only negatively contributes to the mental development of girls, as they see their role models buying the most revealing of clothing and sounding ever so unintelligent.

Taking a break from their shopping spree, the two women grabbed lunch at a nearby Hooters. While there, they noticed a girl eating lunch who looked like she would be a great contestant for the centerfold, so they went up to her and tried to recruit her to try out. It turns out she actually had just tried out the day before…and her mom was actually a centerfold for Playboy some decades earlier. This just shows how stereotypical the appearance of women in today’s society is—the playmates didn’t even know this girl had tried out for the centerfold position and were trying to recruit her based solely on her looks while eating in a restaurant. This doesn’t say much for the intellect of the playmates, while saying everything at the same time. Based on the accounts of this episode, I think it is safe to say that this show, and all others that are like it, are only helping to further lower the status of and appearance of women in today’s society. Overall rating: fail.

ABC 6:30 News

I just watched the 6:30 Sunday night news on ABC. The first, (and main) story that was reported was the Swine Flu outbreak that is going on. Out of a 30 minute time slot, this news coverage took up 20 minutes of the total time. The segment began by explaining the facts of the outbreak and where they are found to be taking place (which are noted in my last blog post). The reporters noted that the largest cluster of cases is in New York City, where 8 school children in Queens have been diagnosed with the disease, and mayor Bloomberg has decided to close the school until further notice. It was also noted that a few students from the school traveled to Cancun, Mexico over Spring Break, which is where the disease probably came from. This segment also offered advice to viewers incase they are feeling symptoms of the flu, and also spent some time focused on an ABC correspondent who was stationed in Mexico City, reporting on the atmosphere in the city.

The second story, which lasted approximately only a minute or two, was about a professor from the University of Georgia who is suspected of committing triple homicide and killing his wife and two others at a movie theater.

The third story that was reported lasted roughly 7-8 minutes and focused on a conflict taking place in Pakistan. An ABC news reporter was stationed in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, and discussed the problem of Taliban members roaming the country’s streets freely, and fully armed. The Taliban have been walking the streets while carrying various weapons, which greatly frightens Pakistan’s citizens. They are fearful of the Taliban and many have not been coming out of their homes, which in turn is hurting the country’s economy. Pakistan’s government tried to negotiate with the Taliban by promising to incorporate some of their wishes into law, in return for them to lay down their weapons; however, the Taliban did not follow through with their side of the bargain. Security and government officials are trying harder and harder to handle the situation.

The next story, which was probably reported in less than a minute, was on pirate attacks of an Italian cruise ship called “The Melody”, however the report lasted only a few seconds long so I’m unsure of the exact details of the situation.

The final story that took up the remaining few moments of the show was about suspended NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s dogs. It has been two years since Michael Vick was found to be running an illegal dog fighting circle, and now several of his dogs are doing much better. Usually when this type of situation occurs, the abused dogs are put down, however animal organizations pushed to rehabilitate Vick’s dogs. Now, many of them are being adopted into new homes.

I feel that these stories were correctly ordered according to importance. Of course the majority of the time went to informing the public about the new Swine Flu outbreak, which is very important for the health and safety of our nation. The next main story that took up more than just a few minutes was the Taliban conflict taking place in Pakistan. I believe this order is appropriate because although this problem of Pakistan’s is indeed very important, it is not the most directly pressing issue for American citizens at this very moment. The other small stories seemed to just be time fillers, and therefore it is appropriate that the majority of them were put towards the end of the news segment.

Story on Front Page of Traditional Newspaper - - Swine Flu Outbreak

The front page of the New York Times today published an article entitled, “U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu”. U.S. health officials announced this morning that there is a public health emergency taking place, due to several cases of the swine flu that have been surfacing. There have been 20 confirmed cases of it in the United States, and several more are expected to be seen as investigation takes place to track the path of the outbreak. Eight cases have been confirmed in New York, seven in California, two in Kansas, two in Texas, and one in Ohio; and it is believed that these cases very closely resemble the swine flu outbreak that took place in Mexico recently, killing over 80 people and infecting over 1,300 individuals.

Although there is certainly reason to be alarmed, officials are telling Americans not to panic as most of the cases that have been found in the United States are mild ones, claiming no lives and causing only one victim to be hospitalized. Nevertheless, the emergency declaration that has been followed is standard operating procedure, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in order to be prepared if and when the disease does turn drastically dire. More severe cases are expected to be surfacing, so the procedures that the Centers for Disease Control are practicing are definitely a good thing.

Accordingly, other governments all throughout the globe are preparing themselves for the outbreak, in the event that it enters their land as well. There are reports of possible cases existing in quite a few countries, including Canada, New Zealand, China, Spain, and Russia; and concerns of a possible global pandemic are beginning to be alarmed. Security measures are being taken to monitor travelers from Mexico coming into the United States for any signs of the disease. Some countries have even banned imports from Mexico to enter their boarders, in the event that the products contain traces of the disease.

In this two-page article, the New York Times has sufficiently covered the several aspects associated with this possible-pandemic, and it is popping up on news stations and media coverage all throughout the mainstream media. Hopefully all of this coverage will end in enough measures being taken to prevent the disease from infecting even more victims, and from becoming even more severe in its side-effects.

Op-Ed article -- "Accountability in Schools""

In an op-ed article from the New York Times entitled “Accountability in Schools,” the author discusses the problems of education dollars not being spent the way in which they there were intended in high-poverty school districts, and how the Obama Administration plans to remedy the problem. The new stimulus package provides an additional $13 billion boost to Title I of the package— the federal program that was designed to provide additional spending for students attending schools in poor areas, and who are thus disadvantaged when compared to the general student public.

Under the guidelines set forth by the new administration’s Department of Education, all fifty states are now required to provide clearer and more precise accounts of how they are spending their education dollars. Title I was designed to provide additional educational spending in areas of low income. However, state and local governments have often dodged their duty of providing this extra aid to high-poverty schools, and instead have spent the money to fill in the gaps of their own general budgets.

What the author believes is even worse than this unmoral act, is the fact that many school districts use the additional aid of the Title I money to increase spending at wealthy and affluent schools to increase their political pull, as well as appearance. These shady districts cover up their foul play by writing their financial accounts of how the money was spent in confusing and unclear manners—an action which the Obama Administration is now trying to end. It is now the duty of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, to set the record straight in each of the fifty states and make sure they understand what is meant by the new guidelines of clear financial account reports, and will have each state report its “per-pupil expenditures” for each and every one of its schools.

The author of this article also believes that the most important tactic in ending the dishonest and fraudulent actions of school districts is it to have them follow the new strict standard of educational financial reporting, and make sure that they are no longer allowed to exist with “sloppy bookkeeping that masks teacher salary differences in high poverty versus low poverty schools.” I agree with this notion, as it is very important that the true salary of the teachers is reported, so that children of high-poverty schools are not continually being taught by less qualified teachers, who are thus making lower salaries. It is extremely unfair to the poorer students, who are victims of incompetent and deceitful school officials taking away their full potential, to have to suffer because their extra aid was dispersed to different outlets by sneaky school officials. It is imperative that untruthful school districts change their ways at once, so that all children will have the same opportunities for a proficient education, and a successful future. I hope that this article will help to shed some light on this callous phenomenon that has been taking place, and that the Obama Administration’s new stimulus package will help to mend the wounds that past actions of untruthful educational monetary reports have caused.

"Good Night and Good Luck" Review

The movie “Good Night and Good Luck,” staring George Clooney, offers an excellent depiction of the true story in which CBS news helped to bring down Senator McCarthy for his bogus accusations of Communist activity among US military and government employees. Under the leadership of Ed Murrow, CBS succeeded in revealing the falsehoods and deception behind Senator McCarthy’s claims. Despite pressure not to fuel the fire and stir up even more chaos, the CBS network does what they believe is right so that Americans can have true reports of the news. Eventually, Ed Murrow’s show was cancelled, but it wasn’t with regret. He succeeded in shedding light on the true story, and he ends the movie with a remarkable speech in which he stresses the importance of television reporters providing their audience with the truth, not just the trendy information of the time that corporations want them to hear.

The movie takes place during the early days of broadcast journalism; therefore there was no precedent from which to sculpt their actions. Ed Murrow and CBS news acted righteous and morally in their struggle to reveal the truth to Americans, despite the backlash they knew they would receive. They helped to define the role of media and broadcast journalism in a newly-developing society, and made it clear that media should act as a watchdog on government officials so that they cannot abuse their power and provide viewers with inaccurate accounts of the news. This movie offers a very important message of how media broadcasters should act honorably in their actions and always, no matter the penalty, fight for the truth. I think this is a very important message for media correspondents nationwide, and its lesson should be honored and followed by news reporters all throughout society so that the public is always provided with true and accurate information from which to formulate their own views and opinions.

Huffington Post Reaction - - CNN in Third Place for First Time

I have just read the Huffington Post blog for the first time. I found its content to be very interesting and relevant to almost every genre of news that is reported. There is a handy side bar that refreshes itself every few seconds with the most up-to-date and frequently-visited Huffington Post blog posts. The whole website is arranged in a very organized and well-structured manner. It is easy to find posts about a wide array of hot issues, as they are laid out logically all throughout the page. There is even an extensive list of links to relevant news sources, columnists, and blogs at the bottom of the page. One blog post from the Huffington Post that I clicked on, I found to be most interesting and relevant to this class.

The Huffington Post reported that CNN has slipped to third place in prime time TV news ratings, for the first time since its establishment almost thirty years ago. CNN is trailing behind Fox News and MSNBC. This slight slip in CNN’s daily views has begun ever since the peak of the 2008 presidential election. Since Fox is very right-wing, conservative news, and MSNBC is obviously extremely liberal, it appears that perhaps the reason behind this recent slip has to do with people preferring very strong opinion-based news reports, rather than middle-of-the road, unbiased accounts of the news.

With the current state of the economy in shambles and a brand new face in the oval office making the nation’s most critical decisions, it seems that viewers are looking to strong viewpoints and opinions from which to base their own positions. Extremely opinionated news reporters, from either the right or left side, are setting the ground for viewers to reach conclusions by following their lead. Perhaps this lends itself to the notion that during the most uncertain and shaky of times, people by nature, form groups and need a leader to help make tough decisions for them—or in this case, make general stances and viewpoints that television viewers can then join.

CNN's ratings are only up 1% from March 2008, while Fox's ratings have jumped 30%, and MSNBC’s ratings have improved 24%. These cable news statistics, however, help CNN in a sense by showing that they really are the straight news with no bias, no bull. It shows that CNN news reports rely on fact, rather than opinion and ideological followings. CNN has always prided itself on being the real news network, and this is basically what these recent statistical findings are solidifying, despite the network’s slight slip in numbers due to the innate instincts of the human mind. When a story surfaces that is big or catastrophic, perhaps that is when CNN’s numbers will soar again, as viewers will turn to them for the most accurate and unbiased account of the news. What do you think?

Environmental Blog- - City Bicycle Lanes

The Environmentalblog.org posted a blog post entitled “City Bicycle Lanes” which describes the innovative new bicycle lanes set up on city streets throughout the Netherlands. As pictured above, these bicycle-only lanes are reddish-clay colored and are the same width as the regular car lanes which are parallel to them. There is plenty of room for bicyclists to park and lock up their bikes along the bike lanes, as well. This groundbreaking setup is a great idea both environmentally and economically. It allows individuals to hop on their bikes and ride wherever they like, at whatever speeds they like, without having to worry about filling up their cars with gasoline and waiting in traffic.

As more and more people in the Netherlands begin relying on their bicycles for daily commutes, instead of on traditional gas-guzzling means of transportation, the air quality in the region will certainly improve. Gasoline is full of pollutants which are released into the atmosphere through exhaust pipes on cars and trucks. Also, gasoline that is leaked onto paved roads flows into nearby grass and fields, and the result is polluted runoff flowing into our rivers and streams. Cutting down on the amount of cars and trucks on city roadways is an environmentally-friendly tactic, and the Netherlands has introduced their method in a profound, new way.

Of course, riding bicycles to work everyday also has a positive impact in the economic sense. It is much cheaper to ride a bike to work than it is to spend money on soaring gas prices, or pay public transportation fare. Not to mention, it is a great source of exercise and is healthy for the human body.

I think it would be very beneficial if this idea was brought home to the United States. Of course there are some county roads in the US with bicycle lanes; however they are nowhere near as well set-up as the ones found in the Netherlands. We need to bring this idea, or at least some of its positive attributes, to our own city roads. I researched the setup of county roads in New Jersey and found that quite a few of our most traveled county routes do in fact have bicycles lanes painted on the side, however they are not very safe, and are not very commonly traveled. In the Netherlands, they separate bicycle lanes altogether from the regular lanes for cars and trucks. Making a separate bicycle lane parallel to the regular roadway, with a median in-between, would prove to be the safest and most effective means of transportation for cyclists. This way, cars would not be able to hit bicyclists at all, even by a slight swerve or veer of the steering wheel.

Many of New Jersey’s roads don’t even have the abovementioned system of bicycle lanes being painted on roadways. A friend of mine was riding his bicycle down a crowded city street, and a woman who was parked in her car on the side of the road opened up her car door just as my friend was riding past. With no time to stop, his bike crashed into the woman’s car door and he flew over the car, landing himself in an ambulance ride to the hospital. It is very important for local and state governments to take the steps necessary to preventing this kind of bicycle accident, as well as all kinds, from taking place. Most bicycling accidents on city roads can be easily avoided by incorporating new and improved systems of bicycling lanes, such as the innovative new idea introduced overseas in the Netherlands.

Feminist Blog- - Womb Raiders

The feminist blog, Jezebel, wrote an interesting story today. The article addresses an issue that a group of infertile couples are now being faced with. Two major companies whose sole job it is to pair up couples who can’t have children with surrogate mothers, and to handle all financial payments dealing with the procedures, has recently stopped being able to pay both the surrogates and egg donors. The money that was originally paid to the companies was put into trusts that may soon cease to exist. One of these companies, SurroGenesis, extracted large sums of money from the infertile parents that has now been lost in the trusts. SurroGenesis’s starting fee is $12,000 and payment to surrogate mothers is at least an additional $18,000. All of this money has been lost, while countless surrogate mothers have already become pregnant from the medical procedure.

The major question here is what to do about the surrogates who are now pregnant with another couple’s child, and will not receive any payment for renting out their womb for nine months. It is a question of moral and ethics. Should these surrogates be able to get abortions now since they have lost their payment? Or should they still be forced to carry out the pregnancy without any sort of payment for their effort? Many hope that the surrogate women will act selflessly and still go through with the pregnancies without any sort of compensation. However, the main principle of the pro-choice school of thought is that it’s the woman’s body, and therefore the woman’s choice.

The author of this blog post is a pro-choicer and therefore concludes that it is the surrogate mother’s choice whether or not to get an abortion and terminate the pregnancy. According to an attorney involved in the case named Andrew Vozimer, it appears that, so far at least, none of the surrogate mothers who were screwed over by SurroGenesis have gotten abortions performed, or have indicated that they are planning to do so.

This is a very unfortunate incident. It is painful enough for couples to find out that they cannot procreate and bear children of their own, but to be brave enough to invest their faith and trust, along with huge sums of money, in a company to find them a surrogate, and then go bankrupt and lose everything, is far more troubling. I believe that SurroGenesis and the other major surrogate firm should be held accountable here and be forced to pay the surrogates and eggdonors. It should be their liability, as the couples and surrogates were nothing but innocent victims here. In regard to whether or not the surrogate mothers should be allowed to abort the babies and find a new job, I believe they should have this right—Just as an employee has a right to quit if their paychecks stop coming in the mail or their company is going bankrupt and is likely to fire them. However, I could only hope that the surrogate mothers are more thoughtful and compassionate than that and realize that the issue is far out the couple’s hands, and go along with the pregnancies anyway. Perhaps agreements could be worked on a case-to-case basis and the couples can find a way to help pay for the surrogate’s financial and medical needs in various ways.

YouTube video of Michael Crook on Hannity and Colmes

Have any of you heard of Michael Crook? Well if you haven’t you’re not missing much, but I thought it was worth sharing just to show that there are actually people like this out there. Michael Crook is a widely-known blogger and troll who prides himself on being one of the most hated people of the internet for speaking the “truth” about political and historical events. Often, he will write about devastating events taking place in the news, such as car crashes where teenagers have died, and makes fun of them for being “stupid children who can’t drive”. He is probably best known for his ridiculously negative views of the United States Army and his belief in the stupidity of all American soliders. He is also an avid denier of the Holocaust and claims that the death of 12 million people never even took place. Many people refer to him as the devil, which he may very well be—just look at those eyes.

Below is a you tube link of him getting schooled on Hannity and Colmes. Hannity tries to explain to him that if it weren’t for our troops fighting to defend the First Amendment, he wouldn’t even have the freedom of speech to write and say the ludicrous things he does. Crook started up a group called “Forsake Our Troops”, where he rejoices when a solider gets wounded. He claims that soldiers are overpaid and that they are “stupid scumbags” for ever joining the United States Army in the first place. On his own blog, Crook writes that “I briefly was in the US Army in 1999, but after getting to Fort Benning, it became apparent that we’d be expected to one day risk our lives for our country.” So he overplayed a minor heart condition and faked his way out of the army. Take a look for yourself at him getting blasted on Hannity and Colmes…

Is this Economic Slump Good for Marriage?

With this economic down slide, it is apparent that many businesses are closing, local stores are going bankrupt, and wallets are feeling much lighter than they have in previous months. However, there is one institution that is not feeling the backlash—marriage. Although a shaky economy could very well lead to more frustration in the household and act as a push-factor for divorce, CNN reports that 37% of recently polled attorneys have reported fewer claims for divorces being filed in the United States. Since divorce is such an expensive and money-guzzling process to go through, many couples are left with no choice but to remain in their current state of matrimony until the economy starts to shape up. With frustration and aggravation levels rising in many households, especially those who are struggling to make ends meet, divorce may be the most desired means as a way out. However, many couples cannot afford to go through the costly process, and thus are forced to remain together until some sort of economic upsurge.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Sure there’s the point that not automatically filing for divorce acts as a form of divorce mediation, and has the potential to prevent a significant percentage of divorces from ever taking place. However, this may not be entirely a good thing. What about all those households where domestic violence or abuse is taking place, and the women simply cannot afford to file for divorce and remove herself, and potentially her children, from the violent conditions? Yes, the current state of the economy is “good” for the divorce rate, as many cannot afford to go through the process, however; it has the potential to cause even more destruction in certain homes where divorce would normally be the best choice. Perhaps the Obama Administration should work on putting some sort of legislation into action which would lend struggling couples the money needed for divorce-- with very low interest rates built in so that the event the poorest of Americans could afford divorce in the most crucial of situations. What do you think?

My name is Laurie. I am a junior at Ramapo College of New Jersey, majoring in Political Science. This is my first post.