Solar power is energy that comes from the Earth’s Sun. When scientists and ecologists speak about harnessing solar energy, they talk about finding technologies that collect solar rays and store that energy, converting it for use in heating homes and energizing the batteries which power everything from cars to flashlights. You might be wondering what “solar rays” are.

What Are Solar Rays?

The Sun produces solar rays through the process of nuclear fusion. The same process which explodes hydrogen bombs also power the vast energies of the stars. Only a tiny fraction of the heat and light put off by the Sun ever hits Earth, but if we could build technologies to harness the solar rays that do reach Earth’s surface, the human race could solve all of our energy needs.

In fact, the Sun already is the source of virtually all of the energy stored on the planet (besides the tiny amount of energy from other stars). This energy is stored in the form of the coal, oil, and natural gas we burn, as well as the calories found in the plants and animals we eat.

The problem is that collecting the energy stored in fossil fuels like coal and petroleum requires whole industries, while the burning of these fossil fuels to release the energy stored creates massive amounts of air and environmental pollution. To be able to catch solar rays and convert it into clean, efficient energy is a much better proposition.

Why Isn’t Solar Power Used More?

So you might be asking why our civilization doesn’t ditch fossil fuels and switch entirely to solar powered technologies. We don’t have the technological advancement yet to harness solar energies as cheaply as we can mine for coal and drill for oil and natural gas. That’s only going to happen when methods of capturing ultraviolet rays and powering our cities and transportation systems get cheaper, or the scarcity of our fossil fuels drive up prices so high that solar power because a feasible alternative.

You might ask why governments and private interests invest so much in perfecting solar power technology, if it’s more expensive than oil. Good investments in technology pay off over time, even if they don’t at first. The materials used to build and implement solar technology is too expensive right now, but working every day scientists and engineers work with those materials is another day closer to finder cheaper ways to produce them. Consider the rapid advances in aviation from the 1920s to the 1940s, as new and better materials–and better designs–came into usage.

Rapid Advances in Technology

As another example, look at the advances the “space race” and the lunar landings yielded. You might say that the space program is or was a waste of time, money, and resources, but exploring that little bit of space we’ve explored created much more rapid advances in satellite technology, telecommunications, and computer science. Every time you log onto your computer, every time you dial up on your cell phone, and every time you watch a sporting event live from the other side of the world, you are benefitting from the advances in technology made from public and private investments in technology.

So eventually, some genius is going to figure out a way to make solar power the cheapest energy science on the planet, and that will revolutionize the world economy, along with how we look (and cope) with a host of other social and geopolitical issues. Harnessing solar power and finding a cheaper, cleaner alternative to fossil fuels might happen tomorrow or next year, or it might be 20 years down the line, but it is going to happen–possibly before our supply of cheap oil runs out.

Solar Power in the Future

Who can say where the future of solar power lies? Science fiction writers have proposed technologies that seem outlandish by our scientific standards, such as the “Dyson sphere”, a technological sphere built around an entire star, so that a sci-fi civilization traps every single bit of light and stellar energy escaping from the star. I imagine our technologists will find less dramatic, more practical solutions to our energy crisis, but you can bet that harnessing “solar power” is going to be at the forefront of our energy solutions in the 21st century.

See also:

1. Solar Garden Lights
2. Solar Yard Lights
3. What Is Green Energy?
4. Are Light Bulbs Bad for the Environment?
5. What Are Windmills and How Do They Work?
6. Earth Day Coloring Pages
7. What Is Earth Day?
   

Google Voice is Google’s telecommunications service for U.S. residents (and U.S. residents only) which allows for PC-to-PC communications anywhere in the world, for PC-to-phone calls within North America (north of the US-Mexico border), and between Google Voice users and those with a Video Chat browser plug-in.

The Google Voice service allows for low-price international phone calls, while domestic phone calls to the contiguous 48 states, Alaska, Hawaii, and Canada are free. Other features offered by Google Voice include voicemail, call screening, unwanted call blocks, call history, voicemail message-to-text “voice transcription”, and conference call support.

How Does Google Voice Work?

To receive incoming calls and activate your Google Voice phone number, you must have a U.S. telephone service. You then can make voice calls over your personal computer using the Google Voice interface, quite similar to what exists on Google’s famous Gmail service. There’s even an option for video service on the PC-only calls, getting the world one step closer to the communicators from science fiction programs like Star Trek.

How Many People Use Google Voice?

Due to an FCC report that was filed by mistake, we learned that Google Voice had 1,400,000 users as of October 2009. That number is likely to have increased significantly in the 15 months since, given that the service had only been on-line for about 6 months at the time. According to the same FCC report, roughly 570,000 of the Google Voice users used their service every day of the week.

How Long Has Google Voice Been Around?

Google Voice began as a service called GrandCentral in 2005. Google bought Grand Central in 2007, but seemed to stop supporting the service, leading to many complaints by old-time users about lack of customer support by Google.

In March 2009, Google relaunched Grand Central and renamed it “Google Voice”. A few months later, in mid-September 2009, Google announced Grand Central’s services were shut down, and asked everyone to move over permanently to Google Voice. Improvements were made and features added to the new service.

Google Voice and Egyptian Protests

The power of a computer-based telecommunications service has been put to the test in the recent Egyptian protests against the government of longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. As the Mubarak government blocked traditional journalistic sources of news, Google and Twitter led a collection of western Internet and social media companies in helping the Egyptian people get their word out to the world.

According to Professor Dina Ibrahim of San Francisco State University, Google Voice has been key: “”It’s very difficult to get a complete picture however, Google Voice and other services have been incredibly helpful in terms of providing alternatives for people to get their message out there,” said Professor Ibrahim.

How Google Voice Affected Egyptian Protests

Hosni Mubarak has been the president of Egypt since 1981, after Egyptian army officers assassinated Anwar al Sadat for signing the 1979 Egyptian-Isreali Peace Treaty. Over the years, Mubarak has adhered to provisions of the treaty and been a strong supporter of the United States in the Middle East, but he’s also been a repressive military figure who has squelched democracy movements in his own country. He also has failed to strengthen the Egyptian economy over his nearly 30 years in office.

With one of the best-educated populations in the Middle East, but with 9 out 10 people under the age of 30 out of work, the Egyptian people took to the streets in protest in early 2011. Western journalists flocked to Egypt to report the story, which embarrassed the Mubarak government. Eventually, the Egyptian government used an old tactic of paying mercenary thugs to attack people in the street, and these “Mubarak partisans” began attacking journalists and reporters with cameras. Within days, this eliminated traditional journalistic broadcasting.

That’s where Google, and especially Google Voice, came in.

Google and Twitter put out word to collect 1,000 Egyptian-English translators to help their service. With these translators and their new telecommunications infrastructure in place, Egyptians were able to take to their computers and get the word out about what’s going on in Cairo and other cities themselves. Western journalists used Google Voice to get the word out.

At present, Hosni Mubarak has announced he won’t run for office again. There’s a sizable chance he’ll have to step down from office in the coming days, weeks, and months, as the story goes on and international pressure mounts to see democratic institutions put in place in Egypt. Whatever happens, the power of Google Voice to get around central government power and military power has been evidenced.

See also:

1. What Is Satellite Radio?
2. What Is a Pedometer?
3. What Is a MMORPG?
4. What Is Nicotine Gum?
5. What Is a Router Table?
6. What Is a Chair Lift?
7. What Is a Joovy Caboose Stroller?
   

He’s been called The Chosen One, highlighting the fact that he’s the “second coming” of Michael Jordan. You may know him as L-Train or King James. Whatever the moniker may be, LeBron James is the most exciting player in the NBA right now. Much like Jordan at the height of his career when James steps up to the microphone the entire world listens. Kobe Bryant may sell more jerseys (and win more championships) but LeBron James is the media darling.

That’s why news of James’ departure from Cleveland, the city that he’s called home since his NBA debut in 2003, is on heavy rotation on sports talk radio and cable television. Instead of spending the off season reporting the ins and outs of why King James and company failed to pull off yet another championship season, sports journalists are speculating wildly about James’ free agency status.

Order More Than a Game featuring Lebron James on Amazon

Where will LeBron James play roundball next season? There are two main answers to that question. Will James follow his heart or his wallet?

1. LeBron James Will Stay in Cleveland

If you miss the good old days of sports when players stuck with one or two teams over their entire career you may take comfort in the fact that many sports junkies are suggesting that LeBron James will play at least one more season for the Cleveland Cavaliers. Wild reports from Cleveland indicate that city officials and big wigs have offered James everything from free beer for life from a local microbrewery to a personal visit from Betty White (emphasis on the personal). Cleveland has fallen in love with James. It is not common to find a superstar athlete with a genetically freakish body that engages willingly and happily with the media and fans; more rare is that caliber of athlete who has some local connection to his team and seems content to play with them. Sure, there are those who say that James’ body language over the last two or three seasons indicates a “devil may care” attitude about his team, but Cleveland fans had little to smile about before James put on his red and gold #23 jersey.

Enough romance, what are the facts behind the thought that James may stay a Cavalier? For starters, the Cavs front office worked hard to secure the best available coach. The hiring of Byron Scott this offseason indicates the Cavaliers willingness to bend to James’ will. James has said many times that he’d like to play for a former player — Byron Scott fits that bill. Tensions between LeBron and his former coach (Mike Brown, a student of one of the most successful coaches in NBA history Gregg Poppovich) have been rising since the Cavs blew their first legitimate shot at a championship in the 2006 / 2007 season. Since Mike Brown was fired after his team turned in the best record in the league two year’s running, some people say that the firing of Brown was a direct result of James dissatisfaction with his team’s performance. The fact that the Cavs organization would hire and fire coaches at will based on James’ wishes indicates to many that LeBron has it made in Ohio.

2. LeBron James Will Play in New York

A report on James’ meeting last week with the New York Knicks is making the rounds on social media sites. In various articles and commentaries from around the world, people are freaking out about the Knick’s courting of King James. According to inside sources, the Knicks showed LeBron James a marketing plan that would put $1,000,000,000 in his pocket over the course of the next few years . . . should he sign with the Knicks of course. Put together by a room full of marketing wizards (and perhaps a couple of long nights with the bottle), the report on James’ possible earnings as the star of the New York sports scene suggests he could make a billion dollars. We’ve heard of big contracts in sports, but nothing with that many zeroes. Call me crazy, but the devil himself could dangle a billion dollars in front of me and I’d play small forward in hell.

Speculation about James wanting to play in New York comes from common sense. While Cleveland has entered the NBA spotlight since James’ signing seven years ago, it is still a relatively small Midwestern town. The big money in the NBA is in big-market towns. There are exceptions to every rule (including LeBron James who makes about $20 million a year) but for players chasing top dollar, markets like LA and New York are payday Mecca. Pay attention to the tone of those journalists who swear that James will end up in NYC — most of them are indicating that this is a player who doesn’t care about winning championships, only about signing checks. Whether or not you believe this, you’ve got to admit the instant appeal of those nine zeroes.

Are there other potential landing spots for LeBron James? Undoubtedly. Any team with enough money to pay him has been in contact with the King himself, and James has made visits with several teams though he has only technically been a free agent for a couple of weeks. There’s a lot of noise being made over the Nets — if there was ever a team that could use an injection of Vitamin L it is the lowly New Jersey Nets, and the high profile purchase of the Nets by a Russian billionaire (in cahoots with James’ friend, rapper Jay-Z) has really added fuel to the fire.

Speculation drives sports journalism. We don’t know what we know until we find out what we should have seen coming. The hiring of Byron Scott in Cleveland could be a sign that LeBron is still calling the shots for the Cavs, a situation that such a young player would be foolish to give up. Still, big paychecks and even bigger media markets are capable of starrying the eyes of even the most committed young superstar.

See also: Fantasy Basketball Leagues

Glenn Beck is a conservative talk radio show host, author and tv commentator on FoxNews.

While Glenn Beck had been for years a solid second-tier radio personality in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh, with a show on CNN and Headline News and his nationally syndicated Glenn Beck Program on the radio waves, it was the move to Fox News and the airing of the Glenn Beck Show that made Beck a household name.

On a cable channel known for outrageous characters and wild-eyed opinions, Glenn Beck soon stood out from the crowd with his blend of sarcasm, social commentary and over-the-top antics.

In a short time, Glenn Beck has become the most talked-about Fox News analyst and commentator. Beck has pushed aside Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and made the two of them seem reasonable by comparison. In fact, Glenn Beck has been so outside the box of conservative comment that many Republican leaders have felt the need to denounce Beck or distance from his comments.

That being said, Glenn Beck has edged his way into the political discussion and his comments can’t be ignored. Like my aunt said, “CNN is a dirty word in our house. I listen to Glenn Beck, because he always speaks the truth.” (Let me give an explanation: I live in Texas.)

Glenn Beck Profile

Glenn Beck was born in the state of Washington in 1964, where he was raised Roman Catholic and attended Catholic school. When he was 13, Glenn Beck won a contest that allowed him to appear on the radio as a disc-jockey. Beck would work his entire life in the radio business, though this job would take him around the country.

During that time, Glenn Beck knew his share of tragedy.

When he was 15, Glenn Beck’s mother died in a drowning incident. There was speculation by the Coast Guard that the drowning might have been a suicide, but authorities on the scene stated that it was a classic drowning case.

After Glenn Beck married his first wife, their oldest daughter was born with cerebral palsy. That marriage ended after 9 years due to Glenn Beck’s troubles with substance abuse (alcohol, weed).

Meanwhile, Beck had been slowly working his way through the radio industry. Glenn Beck left Washington at the age of 18 to work at a radio station in Provo, Utah, but left after a year, because he felt out of place. From there, he moved to Washington D.C., where he met his first wife, who was also in radio.

By 1996, Glenn Beck was working at a station in New Haven, Connecticut, and taking classes at nearby Yale University, partly on the recommendation of Senator Joe Lieberman. Glenn Beck too one theology course, but dropped out almost immediately.

When Glenn Beck remarried in 1999, he took his wife’s faith and joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Beck family continues to reside in Connecticut (New Canaan) to this day. By 2002, Glenn Beck had founded his own media production company, Mercury Radio Arts, which produces his radio show, publishes his online content and his books, and manages the schedule for his speaking appearances.

It was around that time when Glenn Beck became known to a much wider audience, first through his syndicated radio show, then through his appearances on television. These days, Glenn Beck makes an estimated $23 million a year on his various endeavours.

Glenn Beck on CNN

Glenn Beck worked on CNN from the spring of 2006 until the fall of 2008 and his show was a success, despite being a lonely conservative voice on a left-of-center network. Beck had the 2nd highest rated show on CNN Headline News and posted his best-ever audience the month he signed to join FoxNews. His CNN producer had left for Fox a year earlier, so it was probably only a matter of time before the move happened.

While at CNN, Glenn Beck significantly toned down his performance. Though he was known to occasionally voice outrageous opinions that were likely to alienate the progressives, moderates and independents prone to watch CNN, one could watch the Glenn Beck show and come away thinking he was a fairly mainstream conservative commentator. That all changed when the television personality left CNN for FoxNews.

Glenn Beck on FoxNews

Since Glenn Beck moved to Fox to take over the 5pm slot from John Gibson, he has positioned himself as FoxNews’s most outspoken contributor. These days, Beck is the favorite target of The Daily Show, liberal bloggers and administration officials trying to tie the conservative talk show hosts to the mainstream Republican Party.

With the G.O.P. suffering an identity crisis after controlling all three branches of government for the first time since the 1920′s, with similar results, the conservative movement seems void of too many serious leaders in office. Men like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck have become the voices of Conservative America, and the Democrats seem happy to point out how crazy the G.O.P. sounds these days. This makes Glenn Beck a lightning rod for liberal commentators.

At the same time, Glenn Beck’s new higher profile on the “Fair and Balanced” station has made him fabulously wealthy, as he raked in $23 million last year from his tv and radio contracts, his books and speaking tours. So you might ask yourself, “Who is Glenn Beck, that he’s become such a notable figure in American politics?”

That’s hard to answer.

Glenn Beck might be a voice of American liberty as the Obama Administration tries to bring a new era of regulation and taxation (generally called “socialism”) to the United States. Or Glenn Beck might be a flamboyant entertainer who uses rhetoric and publicity stunts to sell books and gain listeners or viewers.

Or Glenn Beck might be a right-wing radical with a desire to incite those who will listen to him to undermine the U.S. government, justifying this behavior by the assumption that only conservatives love their country. Or maybe Glenn Beck is a religious fanatic who somehow conflates Christianity with American nationalism and justifies hate by assuming anyone against him is against God and country.

Or maybe Glenn Beck is some combination of the interpretations above. We report, you decide. We include facts below to let you decide for yourself.

Glenn Beck Beliefs

• Is a Mormon
• Believes in the Right To Bear Arms
• Pushes for Increased Border Security
• Pro-Life
• Pro Death Penalty
• Against Euthanasia
• Believes in Free Speech
• Believes in a Libertarian View of Free Market Capitalism

Glenn Beck Books

Since 2007, Glenn Beck has became a prolific author, producing 8 books in that time. The Christmas Sweater is meant to be a modern Christmas story with a message and, these days, Glenn Beck is touring the country telling the story himself, like a modern day Mark Twain or Charles Dickens (which is kind of cool).

The story itself is a great deal darker and less uplifting that I would have hoped, so fair warning, for those wanting to read an uplifting Christmas tale. Glenn Beck claims the book is 90% autobiographical. Though little that happens in The Christmas Sweater appears to have happened to Glenn Beck in real life, he may be telling the truth, assuming Glenn Beck had a dream where the Christmas sweater story happened.

Read The Christmas Sweater yourself to form your own opinion.

• The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland (2007)
• An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems (2007)
• The Christmas Sweater (2008)
• An Unlikely Mormon: The Conversion Story of Glenn Beck (2008)
• The Christmas Sweater: A Picture Book (2009)
• America’s March to Socialism: Why We’re One Step Closer to Giant Missile Parades (2009)
• Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government (2009)
• Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government (2009)

Glenn Beck Quotes

Following are some of the more infamous Glenn Beck quotes and comments, though it’s hard to compile anything close to a complete list, given that Beck is daily commenting on America and his act gets more outrageous all the time. While reading these, keep in mind this is a man who professes to have a deep Christian faith (of the Mormon persuasion).

“When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.”

“The only [Katrina victims] we’re seeing on television are the scumbags.”

“I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.”

“The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be “‘What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?’”

“I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. … No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure.” –responding to the question “What would people do for $50 million?”

Glenn Beck Quotes Accusing Americans of Fascism

Glenn Beck also has a series of quotations about his political opponents, denouncing them as Fascists or Nazis.

Keep in mind that the definition of a traditional Fascist is an extreme nationalist who wants an aggressive foreign policy to bring civilization to the less cultured nations, who wants to outlaw the trade unions and other workers’ causes at home and who wants an alliance between the business elite and the government (“syndicates”, as they were called) to control the various industries of the nation, to better control the economy by limiting competition between firms and limiting the bargaining power of individual citizens or workers groups to the detriment of the working classes of that nation, in order to unite towards one goal: the national will (usually war potential).

Many Fascist governments, from Hitler to Mussolini to the Spanish Falange, sought legitimacy through alliances with religious figures (generally the Pope). Fascists also tended to confuse the differences between socialism and communism, assuming one was the same as the other.

When you’re reading these accusations, ask yourself whether Glenn Beck’s politics or the liberals’ politics are more in line with Fascist beliefs.

“So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research. … Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. … The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening.”

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization…And you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did. That’s what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].”

“Everyone is Hitler, except for me!”

Glenn Beck Quotes – Maybe It’s an Act

But you know, maybe Glenn Beck is just an entertainer who uses politics to entertain, like John Stewart or Steven Colbert. If you want evidence that’s the truth, read a few of the Glenn Beck quotes below.

“You can get rich making fun of me. I know. I’ve made lots of money making fun of me.”

“Life is what you make of it. There’s always fun and laughs right under your nose if you’re willing to open your eyes to see it.”

Or maybe Glenn Beck is a man of his word and he’s practicing the right to free speech in the greatest sense of the tradition. Free speech isn’t about protecting the thing we all agree with; free speech is about protecting all speech, including the speech we find offensive or crazy. To show Glenn Beck isn’t a hypocrite when it comes to this issue, here’s a quote you might find interesting.

“The thing I can say about Ted Kennedy is, at least he never flinched on what he believed in, and that’s the way America…the thing you need to take away from Ted Kennedy is, he stood up, and never flinched. Americans need to stand up and, without flinching, without fear, be a lion, and stand up for what they believe in. I didn’t agree with anything he believed him, but I admired [him]. Absolutely. That’s what this country is all about. Stand up for what you believe in.”

“All men are created equal. It is what you do from there that makes the difference. We are all free agents in life. We make our own decisions. We control our own destiny.”

Glenn Beck Opinion

Here’s my opinion about Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is a conservative with heavy libertarian ideas, like many conservatives from the Western half of America, and he believes he’s exercising his right to free speech. A large part of Glenn Beck’s act is to get enough attention to sell books and make a lot of money, and if he can affect the political discourse, that’s a big bonus, too. Believing in America as the Land of Opportunity and believing in his right to free speech, Glenn Beck likely assumes there’s no harm in what he does, and he probably assumes he’s doing some good.

I disagree, of course.

Glenn Beck’s theories about race, socialism and the motives of the progressives in this country are half-baked, and he has the platform to influence millions of Americans who, like my aunt, think Glenn Beck speaks “only the truth”.

Given that many people refuse to listen to two sides of a debate, that kind of cloistered thinking, where one only listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and only reads their books, leads to a form of self-inflicted brainwashing.

After a while, listening to Glenn Beck try to convince you that Barack Obama wants to turn America into a fascist state doesn’t sound so crazy after all.

So when you ask “Who is Glenn Beck,” I would say that Glenn Beck is a lot of things: some bad and some not-so-bad. One thing the two of us agree on is that he has every right to speak his mind on the state of American society and politics. At the same time, I have every right to say Glenn Beck is full of it and that his presence does more harm than good to America.

Related Posts

What is Minimum Wage?
Should CBS Fire David Letterman?
3 Annoying News Stories That Just Won’t Die
Barney Frank Wants You To Smoke Marijuana
Is the Economic Stimulus Package Helping Our Country?

Acid rain is a rainfall that is unnaturally acidic in nature, usually caused by the inclusion of nitric and sulfuric acids from the emissions of chemicals from industrial plants in the region.

When nitrous oxides and sulfur oxide are pumped into the atmosphere, those chemical compounds react with oxygen and water in the air, creating clouds that contain nitric acid and sulfuric acid. The next time it rains, the rain water will come down as “acid rain”.

Most acid rain is produced from gases released by the burning of fossil fuels. Roughly 2/3rds of the acid rain in the United States is produced by the burning of coal in industrial plants. This is why acid rain appears in regions that are heavily industrialized with coal-burning plants.

History of Acid Rain

Acid rain was first discovered in 1852, roughly a 60 to 70 after the Industrial Revolution began in England and during the period that is now known as the Second Industrial Revolution (1850), when industrialization picked up pace in advanced countries. This discovery noted a mere mention and the phenomenon was not studied for over a century, when the much heavier industrialization of the 20th century began to create more common and more widespread instances of acid rain.

Scientists in the 1960′s and 1970′s began to notice the acidic rainfall in industrial regions, as well as lakes that contained no life. With studies of the effects of acid rain, environmentalists and ecologists began to note the aquatic life of lakes saturated with acid rain died from unsafe living conditions: they were killed by the increasing levels of acid in the water.

The U.S. Congress authorized a 10-year study of acid rain in 1980. By the 1990′s, it was determined that some 5%-6% of American lakes do not sustain life due to the appearance of acidic rain.

This was followed by emissions laws to reduce CO2 and other compounds which cause acid rain. Since that time, emissions laws have been passed in 28 US states. As a result, acid rain has been reduced by roughly 65% in the most affected regions.

Does Acid Rain Harm Humans?

Studies have shown that acid rain is likely to cause harm human beings. When fine particles of something harmful to the human body enter the air and eventual enter the human body, they can cause diseases like cancer. People breathing air in areas where acid rain occurs are more likely to get cancer and other diseases.

Besides, damage to the ecosystem has harmful effects on human society. Fish are a major link in many food chains. If fish are needlessly killed, it can have a damaging effect on the entire food chain. When enough of the wrong kind of fish die, that can make the price of fish and fish products increase. When even more die, it can damage the food supply for all kinds of animals, including humans.

Where Is Acid Rain Worst?

The New England states were the ones that first noticed acid rain, but their ecosystems have improved in recent decades. New York State is heavily affected by acid rain. Other U.S. states also are affected, as is southeastern Canada.

Southeastern China and Taiwan are also affected by acid rain. Scandinavian countries have suffered from acid rain. Other places that might become trouble areas are Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the western portions of South Africa, West Africa, Sri Lanka and Southern India.

Countries where the need to develop quickly overrides environmental concerns are where acid rain is most likely to appear in the future.

Related Posts

Bill Gates: Hurricane Killer?
What is Freecycle.org?
What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?
The World’s Best Places To Live in 2009
What is Earth Day?

“Minimum wage” is the lowest minimum wage that an employer may pay to a worker in montly, daily and especially hourly wages. Theoretically, workers are not allowed to legally sell their services for less than the minimum wage, either.

The idea behind a legal minimum wage is to establish a standard of living so that less skilled workers do not live in poverty in the United States.

Opponents of minimum wage dispute whether this is what happens with the minimum wage, claiming a legal minimum wage leads to unemployment of younger, inexperienced, handicapped or less skilled workers, since a company or employer doesn’t want to pay these workers less than they’re worth.

Therefore, they claim that the minimum wage helps more skilled workers, while actually harming less skilled workers.

Those against this line of argument would claim that people cannot live if they earn below a certain wage. These people would argue that the people who benefit the most is management or “business interests”, as they benefit from cheap labor at an exploitative rate.

Since there is evidence to support either side of the argument, it might be that the minimum wage laws are not an either/or proposition, but help many, while hurting others.

All “western” civilized nation and 90% of worldwide nations have minimum wage laws, in an attempt to prevent a class of “working poor” or poverty-stricken workers. Australia and New Zealand were the first nations to enact minimum wage legislation, in the late 19th century.

What Is the Current Minimum Wage?

Currently, the national minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour. In the United Kingdom, the current minimum wage is £5.80, which is actually higher than the U.S. minimum wage, due to the strength of the U.K. pound. The state of Washington in the U.S. has its own minimum wage law of $8.55.

Even in regions that have no fixed minimum wage, other pressures establish an unofficial minimum wage. Public opinion about extortionate wages may force a corporation to set their wages at what are considered acceptable levels. The appearance of labor union or workers union might exert an upward pressure on wages in that area, while even the threat of unionizing workers might pressure an employer to keep wages high enough to maintain a contented workforce.

Multinational corporations located in so-called Third World countries might be pressured to pay wages more in line with what they would pay workers in more developed countries by governments or media coverage.

Do Minimum Wage Laws Work?

There have been endless arguments and debates about whether the minimum wage laws do what they are supposed to do. The fact that 90% of the governments in the world mandate some kind of minimum wage indicates that a vast majority of the world’s leaders at least think the minimum wage laws help and not hurt a society.

Opponents of minimum wage laws would argue that the acceptance of minimum wage in the most economically powerful countries in those countries to pressure governments in the less developed nations to accept minimum wage laws.

Studies have shown that a minimum wage law generally does not increase unemployement, as it is claimed to do. Minimum wage laws also put more money into the hands of those with the least money, so they spend their entire paycheck.

This, in turn, helps drive the economy, since all this wage money is put back into the consumer economy. Also, it’s mentioned that a minimum wage law tends to help a government’s budget, since the government doesn’t have to use as many funds to pay for services for the less fortunate.

Most of us know that a person would have a hard time living in America making two dollars an hour or four dollars an hour, so it’s probably a good idea to have a certain minimum wage in effect. Raising the minimum wage might be inflationary in an of itself, but raising the minimum wage helps some of the poorest among us to keep up with the price of inflation.

Barney Frank Wants You to Smoke Marijuana

There are currently two pretty major pieces of legislation before the Federal government related to marijuana. From the political right comes a motion by an Illinois congressman named Mark Kirk. Kirk wants to make the sale of a particularly potent new strain of marijuana (known as “kush”) punishable by fines up to $1 million and a prison term up to 25 years long. I went to college, and I’ve been to my share of parties after those heady years at University, and I’m a bit familiar with this “kush” strain — yes, it is much stronger than your dad’s stash, and the stuff is so popular people willingly pay as much as $600 for a single ounce of it. Put into perspective, an ounce of low grade marijuana can go for as little as $45 or $50 in my home state.

At the same time as Kirk’s fearmongering boost to the “War on Drugs”, Congressman Barney Frank (D – Massachusetts) produced the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009. This bill is the big time version of many college NORML group’s biggest complaints about marijuana related legislation — Frank is attempting to add a little sanity to the debate about marijuana.

Currently, all forms of pot are classified as Schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substances under federal law. What does Schedule 1 mean? For starters, it makes the possession of weed worse than that of morphine, cocaine, amphetamine, or PCP. That’s right — having a bag of ganja on you when you get pulled over is “worse” in the eyes of the law than illicit possession of morphine.

In fact, if you were to get caught with a single joint, you could face a fine of $1,000 and up to a year in prison. Last year, about 800,000 American citizens faced this penalty, clogging up our prisons and our justice system. Meanwhile, pot dealers are stacking cash and laughing at a Federal government that can’t figure out how to make money off those of us who want to smoke a little reefer.

This is the Federal government whose opinions on the economy can have a serious impact on our lives. Ask the millions of people without work how good our Federal government is at economics. Ask millions of Americans who have lost their homes.

Frank’s point appears to be that the Federal government should mind its own business when it comes to responsible adults who wish to use marijuana. Frank has been quoted as saying that the government should stop treating marijuana users as criminals — think of the number of people who go out every night to use another intoxicating drug (alcohol), on which they pay taxes and have to follow certain restrictions from the government. Why shouldn’t marijuana smokers be able to do the same thing?

Wouldn’t a debt ridden state like California profit pretty heftily from the sale of marijuana? What about our national deficit — couldn’t potheads smoke a nice dent into that number?

Thirteen US states have made major moves toward decriminalizing pot. There’s a proposal in Colorado to reduce the fine for simple possession of marijuana to $1, payable with the ease of a traffic ticket. In certain states, like California and New Mexico, people with certain medical conditions (from cancer to work related stress) can receive “reccomendations” from their physician to legally procure medical marijuana. I’ve heard of some counties in California where police look the other way when it comes to pot. The point is that the country’s policy towards marijuana is changing on a state by state basis. So what’s holding up the Congress from making some kind of change?

According to Frank and other colleagues interested in reducing the government’s involvement with marijuana, the problem at the Federal level is a “cultural lag”. Senators and members of the House are afraid of being seen as “soft on drugs”, though many (in private) will apparently admit that they don’t see the use of marijuana as a terrible thing. Often, the argument I hear from people about why marijuana politics don’t need changing is — “Nobody gets arrested for it anyway!” but the opposite is true. Hundreds of thousands of citizens are arrested every year for simple possession of weed.

Frank’s bill is bi-partisan in an era when almost nothing else is. Frank and a fellow Democrat have joined forces with two Republicans to propose some big changes to this country’s policy on marijuana. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul is one of the Republicans — Dana Rohrabacher (from California) is the other.

Frank has plenty of opposition to contend with — much of it in the form of Mark Souder, comngressman from Indiana, who is the poster child for the drug war. Souder (and others who feel the way he does) makes what is known as the “public-square” argument against drugs and other vice — that argument says that the Federal government should keep things like prostitution and drugs off the streets in order to “promote a higher level of morality and civic order”.

The title of this article is obviously a joke. Barney Frank is not actually encouraging people to get high any more than he is suggesting that the government should tax and regulate drugs. Frank’s bill stops far short of the kind of talk going on in California right now, where members of that state’s government see marijuana as a way out of their financial troubles. In fact, Frank’s bill doesn’t suggest any changes to individual state’s legislation.

While Barney Frank is not usually one to take baby steps towards a larger goal, he seems to believe that changes to this country’s attitude toward soft drugs like marijuana will come a tiny bit at a time.

When will changes to our country’s war on potheads arrive? Probably not any time soon. For the time being when you get high you’ll still have to look both ways, feel the twinges of paranoia, and hide your pipes and bongs from your landlord. But stay tuned, because when issues start popping up at the national level, progress usually follows.

Is the economic stimulus package helping the economy?

Just six months after Congress enacted the largest economic stimulus plan in history of the United States, analysts and government officials agree that the desperate measure seems to have contributed in a major way to what most economic brains are calling a “budding recovery”. Don’t pencil in Obama in 2012 just yet — apparently there are significant concerns about a steadily rising unemployment rate and what the impact of the economic stimulus may be to the ever increasing federal budget deficit.

While President Obama and his staff are still under fire for what critics are calling “unrestrained spending” (and in the face of poll data suggesting that Americans are at best ambivalent about the real impact of Obama’s stimulus plan) the cabinet and other officials are attempting to point out the highlights of the stimulus — for instance, claiming that Obama’s stimulus package may have been the single instrument of recovery.

For his part, Vice President Biden made a speech on Thursday highlighting the impact on our economy of the now $787 billion economic stimulus spending package. “The Recovery Act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy and changing the conversation about the economy in this country,” Biden said at the bipartisan Brookings Institution. He went on to say that “Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.” Snappy language that should stick in people’s heads for some time to come.

With congressional Republicans on the attack (even in the face of evidence proving that Obama’s plan is working) many citizens are still doubtful that any success has occured, even though economists are in agreement that the package has in fact performed a significant role in staving off a depression, and probably even getting us out of a nasty recession. On the other hand, those same economists seem uncertain about how big that impact has been and whether or not it will last.

One major economic consulting firm, IHS, estimates that the economic stimulus package has increased the 2009 gross domestic product by about 1 percent over what it otherwise would have been. That one percent benefit has mainly come during the second half of the year. That same firm has forecast that Obama’s economic stimulus package will result in the creation of about 2 million more jobs than we would have seen at the end of 2010.

Don’t get too excited — even as the economy shows some signs of improving, labor markets and unemployment numbers are still depressed. Unemployment sits at 9.4 percent, though it missed the double digit mark many feared. Just hours before Vice President Biden spoke, the Labor Department released information that another 570,000 people filed their new unemployment claims just last week. This number has been consistent from week to week.

Who will host the 2016 Summer Olympics?

The 2016 Summer Olympics, known officially as the Games of the XXXI Olympiad, are in the planning stages. Many cities initially lined up to make a bid at hosting the games but only four remain.

Initially, 26 cities expressed some kind of interest in playing host to the games. Below is a breakdown of some of those cities and how their bids fell apart:

Bangkok, Thailand expressed much enthusiasm for hosting an Olympiad after Thailand’s excellent performance in the 2004 Olympic Games — but Thailand officials decided that an application for the 2010 Youth Games would better suit their abilities. They then lost the bid for the Youth Games to Singapore.

San Diego, California and Tijuana, Mexico discussed making a joint bid for the 2016 games, but discussions fizzled. No future plans for Olympics bids have been discussed.

Cape Town and Durban, South Africa both expressed interest. It is unclear if those countries Olympic officials ended the bid or if the Olympic committee rejected their plans.

Delhi, India was all set to enter a full fledged bid, but in April of 2007 that country announced it would bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics instead, probably wanting more preparation time.

Dubai, of the United Arab Emirates, was also set to make a serious bid for the games, but decided against placing such a bid, preferring to focus on future Olympic games.

Fukuoka and Sapporo, Japan were eliminated by the Japanese Olympic Committe, with the intention of focusing their time and money on Tokyo’s bid.

Houston, Texas and Philadelphia were eliminated by the United States Olympic Committee in favor of three larger cities. San Francisco then withdrew its bid when that city lost its Olympic Stadium funding. Eventually, Los Angeles lost out to Chicago for the country’s bid.

Montreal and Toronto, Canada abandoned their plans for a bid for the Olympic Games in 2016 after Vancouver won the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics. Toronto is still considering an application for the 2020 Summer Olympic Games or the 2024 Summer Olympics if the 2020 bid falls through.

The following four cities are the finalists for landing the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Chicago, Illinois, USA

Chicago’s plan is to use 15 existing sports venues plus one new building (already drawn up and funded). In the meantime they would build six new permanent Olympic venues, such as the Olympic Stadium and swimming arena, which would later be scaled down for future use. The city is also planning to incorporate the use of nine temporary venues in their Olympic plans — venues that would be scrapped after the Olympics.

The International Olympic Committee said that Chicago’s financing proposal represents a serious risk for that city’s bid. The city of Chicago has set a $750 million financial cap on the necessary guarantees to secure an Olympic games — that cap would cover any potential shortfalls in the Olympic organizing budget. It is still unclear what about that financial plan is risky for the potential Olympic bid, but their budget has been called “ambitious but achievable.” Chicago still has to generate nearly $2 billion in revenue from sponsors before the time of the games.

Chicago’s bid puts a heavy financial burden on that city’s Olympic organizing committee to deliver the necessary infrastructure and “temporary venues”, although if any city can pull it off, its the city of the big shoulders.

On a positive note, the IOC praised Chicago’s “thorough planning and . . . full understanding of the complexity” of any Olympic plan. The IOC found their plan to place temporary arenas in public parks “unique” and praised the city for thinking outside the box. Unfortunately, on a negative note, the IOC says that relying on “temporary and scaled down venues”  will increase risks for that city’s ability to deliver a successful set of Olympic games.

The IOC also has doubts about Chicago’s public transportation — and the city’s ability to control the kind of traffic that the Olympics brings. The most dangerous area for congestion during a potential Olympics? The area around McCormick Place.

As for security during the games, the United States has stepped up to ensure the IOC that they would take “full financial and operational responsibility” for securing the city during the Olympics. The IOC warmed to this plan over time, but still want to see a clear description of exactly what this means for the city and the games.

Chicago’s bid isn’t as strong as it could be — for one thing, nearly 4 percent of the city’s population is “strongly opposed” to the games being hosted in the Second City. The IOC ranks Chicago’s bid as “third overall” out of the four remaining cities.

Madrid, Spain

Madrid can boast the strongest public backing in the IOC Olympic host polls, with a solid 84.9 percent of residents fully supporting that city’s bid and only around 2 percent strongly opposed. The citizens of Madrid seem excited by the notion of their city hosting the Olympic games. The IOC ranks Madrid’s bid for the Games as second overall.

However, the Madrid bid team has suffered somewhat after the IOC determined that city’s organizing committee did not fully understand the responsibilities a city has when planning an event as complex as the Summer Olympics.

Madrid’s Olympic concept is seriously compact and appears to be quite efficient for large crowds. A full 23 of the 33 planned venues are in place and two more venues are already being built. This is a city serious about its Olympic bid. The areas where Madrid’s Olympic construction are lacking — the Olympic Stadium itself as well as the venues for rowing, flat water canoeing and open water swimming.

All but two of their planned competition venues will be accessible by public transit, and are within 6.2 miles of the city’s center. The shooting venue is planned for an area just outside the 6 mile radius zone, while sailing is 224 miles away in Valencia. That city plans to build its own athletes village to cut down on travel needs.

According to the IOC, Madrid’s organizing committee is “confused” at best, and that Madrid’s management structure is weak. Weakness in management usually results in financial challenges for a host city, and the IOC doesn’t look too kindly on a city that can’t financially handle an Olympic bid.

The finances for Madrid’s bid are well structured, with several national, regional and city governments stepping up to provide what the IOC calls “strong” financial support. This funding would be in place to cover any potential shortfalls in the city’s organizing budget.

The city of Madrid has been praised for its plan for use of the buildings after the Games. The city of Madrid would fully own the athletes’ village after the Games, and the media center would be used for social programs and housing after the Games.

Two major problems that stand in the way of Madrid’s bid? The IOC thinks that Spanish anti-doping laws lack the stiffness necessary to comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency code. Calling this issue of “utmost importance” to Madrid’s bid,  the IOC made it clear that without some change to the anti doping laws, the bid would fall through.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Rio is in last place out of the four bids still on the table for the 2016 Games. Part of the problem for Rio de Janeiro is their lacking public support in the IOC polling date. A full 83 percent of residents do favor of the bid, but a rather hefty 4 percent of those polled are strongly opposed.

Like Madrid, the governments of Rio and Brazil have guaranteed the ability to finance the Olympic infrastructure costs and cover any obstacles in the organizing budget.

Rio’s venue plan would fit in well with their ongoing and expensive urban regeneration plans. Rio is working hard to revamp their infrastructure and public image, especially along the city’s waterways. This reconstruction is fully funded by the government of Brazil, to the tune of $240 billion. The IOC has said that reconstruction in Rio de Janeiro will certainly accelerate the delivery of the Olympic Games, but that the city needs “careful management and monitoring” of their reconstruction projects.

Brazil will play host to the World Cup in soccer in 2014, and this will certainl speed up the delivery on much needed infrastructure in Rio de Janeiro, however, the idea of hosting the world’s two largest sports events inside of two years presents a serious challenge in terms of marketing and communications.

Rio faces a shortage of hotel accomodations for visitors both for the World Cup and for a potential Olympic Games. The city plans to build four villages and use six cruise ships to house people for the Games.

Public safety and crime levels in Brazil are a major concern, so Rio has spent time attempting to engage local communities in various social revamping and sports programs.

Overall, Rio doesn’t appear to have what it takes to secure an Olympic bid. High crime rates, difficult geography, and questions about Brazil’s ability to host two major sports events inside of 24 months will probably keep Brazil out of the running for the 2016 Games.

Tokyo, Japan

The frontrunner for the 2016 Games appears to be Tokyo, Japan — even though only 55 percent of that city’s residents support their bid for the Games, and as many as 8 percent of the population lists itself as “strongly opposed”.

There is plenty of praise and criticism for Tokyo’s bid, and the lines of thought on their bid follow the same themes as other cities — for instance, finances are secure but public support is pretty low.

The government of Tokyo has guaranteed the finances for the games and set aside a huge $3.7 billion reserve fund. National and city governments have guaranteed to finance infrastructure changes the IOC deems necessary, and also to cover any potential shortfall in the organizing budget.

The bid aims to highlight the sucess of Tokyo’s hosting of the 1964 Summer Games. Tokyo’s plan is to create a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable’ Olympic project.

The IOC has high praise for Tokyo’s plan to minimize athlete’s travel times, calling Tokyo’s venue plan “very efficient”. All but the shooting events would take place within 5 miles of the city’s center. Unfortunately, the IOC sees a “lack of clarity” on Tokyo’s claims that most venues are ready right now. Some venues that Tokyo lists as “existing” are actually closer to the “need to be built” phase.

Tokyo also faces questions about their ability to control traffic, and in a country composed of tiny islands like Japan there is the usual concern about the size of land area available to develop the Olympic Village.

How has the health care debate changed?

I was in line for a flu shot this morning, after reading over the weekend about the possibility of the worst flu season in forty years, thinking about health care.

I know I’m not the only one. You can’t turn on the news without getting slapped in the face by a pundit or a Senator with an opinion. It struck me, as the nurse slid the needle into my shoulder, that any flu crisis this fall could act as a magnifying glass for one of the two sides in this fight. Should there be mistakes made by doctors, long lines for vaccinations, millions of people hospitalized, or (God forbid) a large number of swine flu related deaths, the Democrats stance that health care in America needs to be revamped will be bolstered. On the other hand, should the flu crisis simply not happen, or should America be as well prepared as possible when the crisis starts, Republicans won’t have to worry about the new face of the health debate. It was just a thought.

Back in the real world, I started to gather quotes and new reports on the health care debate. After all, President Obama’s been on vacation for a week. It’s time to look at the new face of the health care debate — and to reflect on what the debate means in a world without Senator Kennedy.

It seems that Republicans are kicking off up their new offensive just in tirm for our lawmakers to gather back in Washington, D.C. after their summer break. As the date of legislative commencement gets closer, the Democrats have thrown their hat into the ring as well, attempting to come up with new means by which they can gain the support of Americans.

We’ve all heard by now that Senator Ted Kennedy made health care overhaul the “cause of his life” right up to the very end, and we expected Democrats to evoke his memory in order to advance their agenda and pass new health care reform legislation. There has been conjecture that Democrats will put Kennedy’s name on the bill, in memory of the Senator who fought hard for this reform.

Speaking in Toronto, President Bill Clinton had this to say about Kennedy’s passing — “I hope that his lifetime dream — that America finally will follow Canada and every other advanced nation in the world in providing affordable health care to all of our people — will pass.” Clinton had high praise for the Canadian health care system, HealthCanada, though many critics feel that their system of universal coverage wouldn’t quite work in our country.

Let it be said, for once and for all, that Senator Kennedy was in favor of a universal health coverage system, much like HealthCanada, and was one of the first to suggest that health insurance be made a requirement for all Americans. Democrats say Kennedy’s death should help push the health care debate in a direction that favors the outcomes they’re looking for — the debate in Washington is quite divided both between parties and among them. Within the Democratic party there is much disagreement — some more conservative Democrats are seriously opposed to some of the more leftist measures proposed by the President and his cabinet, and they want “clarity” in terms of how the government would pay for this major overhaul.

Others against the President’s health care proposals say that they disagree with the way Obama’s message has been presented, and that the Democrat’s talking points need to change even as Americans are growing increasingly suspicious of health care reform. For example, Former Sen. Tom Daschle said the White House and Democrats need to do work on making the issue of health care reform a kind of “moral imperative” for the country, to make the case that without this reform, our quality of life will decrease.

Daschle said the Republican party has demonstrated an “organizational strength” that he does not see from the side of the Democrats. Personally, I think he’s referring to the dispensation that occurs among right wingers, who tune into Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other condensed sources to find out how they should feel about an issue. But I suppose Daschle’s point still holds some truth — the political left needs to do a better job of boiling the issue down to its major themes, points that “really motivate and have emotional value” in the words of Tom Daschle.

It isn’t just the Democrats who are being unrealistic. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on Monday that ” . . . there is no need for an overhaul of the entire health care system” going so far as to call the U.S. health care system the “best in the world”. Who’s being unrealistic now, Republicans?

How is college life contributing to the spread of swine flu?

The H1N1 or “swine flu” has spread to hundreds of college students in the first few weeks of their new college life. Why is this happening?

Apparently, doctors blame fraternity and sorority parties as well as sports practices and dorm living. In layman’s terms, college is making kids sick.

This new evidence lends credence to the notion that the swine flu virus is in a period of resurgence.

The United States is experiencing the rate of influenza infection since the spread of the 1968 “Hong Kong flu” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. College officials from around the nation said they are operating buses to transport sick students — other schools are putting students in “isolation dorms” or even installing vaccination drive-through programs.

Another part of the problem — college age students are typically the least likely group of people to decide to get vaccination shots, maybe due to an “It won’t happen to me” attitude. This is a huge problem, as people 25 years old or younger are far more susceptible to the virulent H1N1 strain.

Those of you who went to college understand — stuff a few hundred 18 to 21 year olds in a tiny, mildewed, smoky basement in an ancient fraternity house, and you have the perfect breeding ground for the spread of disease.

One of the worst infections rates so far is at Mississippi State University, located in Starkville, Mississippi. That college is reporting more than 250 infections and cases of flu like symptoms since this past July 15. Another bad spot for swine flu infection, The University of Kansas (in Lawrence) reports more than 100 sick students currently infected with H1N1. Similar numbers can be found at The University of Tennessee in Knoxville, which estimates 100 students showing flu symptoms (at a minimum) since their classes started this past August 19.

During a typical flu season, which lasts from November through March, colleges provide vaccines at campus health clinics and may recommend that students wash their hands more, cover their coughs, and use anti bacterial soap multiple times per day — unfortunately, these messages are often ignored by college students. This year, with the number of infections from H1N1 and other flu strains already starting to skyrocket, schools are apparently increasing their efforts. Most schools are giving seasonal flu shots already (more than a month ahead of time) and posting hand sanitizer dispensers and flu safety posters across campus.

The outbreaks of flu are unusual for this time of year and the Centers for Disease Control and Protection are saying it could take a few weeks for doctors and scientists to predict if these frat house swin flu clusters could turn into more widespread outbreaks across the country.

The University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, started a “flu bus” to transport sick students from residence halls to health services. With a large campus, the university wants to avoid infections spreading on public transportation, said Robert Winfield, Michigan’s chief health officer and director of the university health service.

Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, reports that 25 of their football players have been or are sick this month. For its part, Duke has reserved an off-campus apartment building with about 30 beds to house and isolate students who may have a high risk for being harmed by flu.

Amherst College, in Amherst, Massachusetts, has two residence halls kept empty this fall to isolate potential swine flu patients, and has even agreed to house infected students from four other local colleges and schools.

Oklahoma State University, in Stillwater, lists 75 students as “swine flue” patients in the past three weeks alone. Oklahoma State spokespersons readily admit that many of these cases ave been attributed to students attending sorority rush before the school year officially started.

The University of Arizona in Tucson is planning what may become a regular sight at college campuses — a swine flu drive-through clinic for flu shots, set to open later in September. The campus has akleady seen 25 cases in the few weeks since students returned to school.

For most campuses, seasonal flu shots have arrived or will soon be arriving. A separate vaccine for swine flu, which doctors say may require two or three shots given over a three-week period, won’t be ready until the middle of October, according to the CDC. That late date may be too late for students, whose semesters end around December. Will the sinw flu vaccine arrive in time to cut down on outbreaks among a student population? Not to mention this is a population with little to no natural immunity.

For those not in the know, a Sorority’s “rush” period may be especially conducive to spreading flu because women pledging for a sorority spend a long time together in close contact.

Good news for students — most colleges are asking professors and school function groups to be lenient about student absences. Colleges don’t want sick students going to class to keep up their grade, especially in the middle of a pandemic. Sick students are being told to stay home, and doctor’s notes are usually not being required to justify student absences. This info came down from the CDC, so your professors and parents won’t think you’re making this up.

Most college campuses have stopped attempting to test students for H1N1 and are tracking the number of students showing flu and swin flu like symptoms instead. The CDC continues to sample patients randomly at certain hospitals and clinics in order to make an attept to track the size and location of outbreaks.

Will the swine flu vaccine be ready in time?

Amid reports that suggest that millions of Americans could be “hospitalized” in the coming flu season due to the convergence of swine flu and more traditional influenzas — some bad news.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, swine flu vaccine won’t be available to anyone in America until the middle (or end) of October, probably too late for the earliest onset of swine flu and more traditional flu cases.

In fact, news today suggests that President Barack Obama’s science advisers are begging the President and his cabinet to act now to ensure that H1N1 vaccines are available weeks before projections suggest. The new head of the CDC in America has responded to the President’s advisers saying that regardless what actions the President takes, swine flu vaccines will be unavailable until the already announced time — mid October. All this is playing out against reports that the swine flu will coincide with other influenza strains, setting off forecasts for the worst flu season in decades.

Though the scientists responsible for creating the H1N1 vaccine are not going to be able to deliver in a manner that doctors and other researchers want, they are still rushing through their work, raising fears among many doctors that the kind of imperfect testing necessary to rush a vaccine through will have a negative impact on the eventual drug. These imperfect tests mean that the creators of the vaccine won’t know enough about the drug to properly dose and vaccinate us. Already, the rush to create a vaccine has slowed attempts to take stock of H1n1 — precise numbers on how many people will probably be infected are impossible to come up with thanks to concentration on the vaccine rather than the virus itself.

So swine flu is the “number one” priority for the CDC — just not the right kind of priority.

Doctors willing to speak out against the CDC’s practices suggest that the vaccine should be available by the middle of September. These same medical experts say that the government should be taking advantage of the pandemic H1N1 to improve the overall surveillance of influenza, using the swine flu outbreak to improve our practices and to prevent future pandemics.

The five companies who are currently making swine flu vaccine for the U.S. market (AstraZeneca’s MedImmune unit, CSL Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Novartis AG and Sanofi-Aventis SA) are running tests to determine if people will need one or multiple doses of that vaccine in order to be fully protected.

Did the government go too far in pursuing steroid users in Major League Baseball?

Three of baseball’s biggest stars (Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, and David Ortiz) have been outed in the past couple of seasons after investigators from the Federal government seized a list containing the names of players testing positive for steroids and other performance enhancers. These “leaks” have had something of a negative impact on the careers of these players, most notably Manny Ramirez who recently completely a 50 game suspension for his actions related to performance enhancing drugs. Those players who didn’t face these kinds of strict suspensions have felt the pain in other ways — loss of endorsements, a tarnish on their records, and negative reactions from former fans.

Unfortunately for those investigators, a Federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Wednesday that the seizure of that list of 104 players who tested positive for doping was illegal. While this ruling can’t do anything for players who’ve already faced harsh penalties, it may protect the remaining 101 players on the list whose names haven’t been released.

The seizure of the list took place way back in 2004, meaning there’s been plenty of time for further leaks. We may still see the complete list of cheaters, or we may not. Either way, players whose identities are improperly leaked from the “dope list” may now have grounds for action, or at least a safety net against the announcement of their names.

Federal agents who raided a Long Beach company in 2004 did have the right to search for information about a specific list of 10 players — a search warrant that named 10 players whose drug test results they had the legal right to obtain. This search warrant was part of the Federal investigation into the actions of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or BALCO, in Burlingame, California. Where these agents crossed the line, according to the San Francisco appeals court, was in their seizure of the complete list of 104 players who tested positive for steroids. These tests results are related to a drug test given in 2003.

The test was conducted by Major League Baseball, but the names were supposed to remain private and out of the public realm. In the past year or so, reports of the identities of various players have been leaked to the media. In a 9-2 ruling, a virtual judicial landslide, the San Francisco appeals court agrees that the Federal government should only have been allowed to go after the specific 10 players on their list.

A spreadsheet at Comprehensive Drug Testing, the company handling the test for baseball, contained the entire list of players and was seized, illegally, by the government. When the Federal agents saw the spreadsheet at CDT, the agents responded quickly, ordering and obtaining the necessary search warrants to take it with them. The agents went a step further, downloading the entire computer memory and taking it with them. This, says the appeals court, was where they broke the law.

What will Ted Kennedy’s legacy be?

Edward M. Kennedy was something of a fluke.

He was the only Kennedy to outright lose a run at the Presidency of the United States. At age 48 (older then than any of his brothers lived to be), he came in second in a two man race for the Democratic nomination. That was 1980, and unbeknownst to anyone the Reagan years loomed ahead. Many have wondered how the course of American history would be different if Kennedy had won the nomination — not Kennedy. He was always looking toward the future, unwilling to linger in the past.

Edward M. Kennedy, known best as Ted, lived nearly thirty more years, active in politics all the while, before succumbing to a brain tumor late Tuesday evening at the age of 77.

Kennedy was well known for championing a wide range of causes during his lengthy Senate career. Able and willing to speak on topics as diverse as immigration reform, education, and the rights of the mentally and physically handicapped, he is probably best known for his efforts to reform the health care industry. The irony of his death while health care reform has finally become the largest issue in American politics is not lost on anyone.

As far back as the Nixon administration, Kennedy worked with both Democratic and Republican presidents and politicans, both while in the congressional majority and the minority, in an attempt to get universal health care coverage for all Americans. Though Ted never reached that goal, he continued to labor toward improving health care coverage, and was well known for reaching across the aisle to pass a series of tiny measures that moved us toward better health care.

Kennedy seemed to have his greatest success while in the political minority — think of the 1990s. Back then, President Bill Clinton’s attempts to push a plan for universal health care faltered, and Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress. Seemed like a dark time for a Democratic senator, but not for Ted. Senator Kennedy took the defeat in stride, continuing to work for health care reform, creating and passing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996. This act was instrumental in helping people maintain their health insurance after changing jobs, while also improving the confidentiality of all health records. In that same year, Kennedy’s Mental Health Parity Act made mental health payments by insurance companies equal to payments for all other illnesses. Then, In 1997, Senator Kennedy was the lead player in the oush for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which represented the largest expansion of government controlled health insurance coverage in the United States in over thirty years.

Unfortunately for Senator Kennedy, his battle with cancer kept him from actively participating in the current raging debate over health care reform under the new Obama administration. Kennedy had been completely unable to go to Washington and use his hefty political skill to affect any compromise that might have been able to keep the Democrat’s initial legislative plans on track. As Senator Kennedy’s condition grew worse, it was obvious to all involved that the fight with cancer would keep Kennedy from taking part in any floor votes. This means that Kennedy’s last official political act was a request (made just last week) to allow a successor to be appointed to his seat in the Senate as an interim Senator.

Senator Kennedy’s seat will most likely remain empty for up to six months while preparations for a special election to fill his vacant spot can be made. The Democrats will be missing that crucial 60th Senate vote if their efforts to form a bipartisan coalition or compromise fall through.

Senator Edward Kennedy, who had been only an occasional presence in government over the past year and a half due to his illness, has left behind a lengthy political legacy and a Senate seat so difficult to fill you can hear the echo. What remains to be seen is any impact that the death of Kennedy might have on what became his signature political fight — health care reform.

Let’s hope that his empty Senate seat will serve as a silent witness to the power of compromise, the value of health care reform, and the need for political discourse in a country wracked by disagreement.

What are the Obamas doing on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard?

The President of the United States (and family) deserves a little time off. Has there been a President whose every move was followed as closely as the 44th? And what about his family — from the covers of fashion magazines to the back page of gossip rags, Michelle Obama and family have been in the news at times more than the President himself. Every President gets a chance to take a breather (some, like George W. Bush, take that chance as often as possible) and this is no different for the Obamas who are currently vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard.

Today there will be rounds of golf shared by the President and First Lady (along with a few friends). More golf is scheduled throughout the week, as is some serious reading time — the President allegedly brought “a pile of books” with him on his vacation. The Martha’s Vineyard trip isn’t all fun and games — President Obama took a little time to get some work done, renominating the chief of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke. However, the name of the game this week is relaxation.

Besides a ton of tennis, golf, and relaxing by the shore, Obama will entertain a briefing from the National Security Council. Even though President Obama will be hearing plenty from his advisors while staying at the island resort this week, there is no doubt that the vacation is about relaxing.

On Monday, as an example, the president worked ou in the morning, played golf with the first lady and friends, and enjoyed a quiet dinner at his vacation home. Today, President Obama is hitting the links yet again, this time at the Minks Meadow Golf Club. That hammock visible from the air, nestled between two trees on the 28 acre Blue Heron Farm where the Obamas are staying? The President will likely unwind while reading several books including David McCullough’s lengthy book on John Adams, and the popular book by Tom Friedman — “Hot, Flat and Crowded”. President Obama is doing all this while busy redesigning the American healthcare system. I don’t know about you, but I barely have time to read the comics on Sunday.

White House staffers joined the Obamas on this vacation, most of them no doubt hoping for a light work week. Unfortunately, they work for one of the hardest working men in politics, and have spent a ton of time communicating with the press about Obama’s vacation, more so than vacationing themselves.

Plenty of questions have been tossed their way as speculation about the Obama’s activities grew over the weekend. Will the President play golf with Tiger Woods? According to staffers, Tiger is indeed “fun to play with,” but the staffer rejected the rumor. Other rumors included word about a fundraising dinner and the possibility that Obama would be attending a fancy society wedding. Staffers say these rumors are just that — rumors.

According to some reports, a Presidential security team showed up at Senator Edward Kennedy’s home in Hyannis Port on Cape Cod, near enough to Obama’s vacation destination to create rumors. Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton wns the zinger award this week, suggesting that — ” . . . if Secret Service agents were there they probably heard . . . they have great lobster rolls out there and they were probably just checking them out.”

Martha’s Vineyard was a popular vacation spot of President Bill Clinton, well known in that area for showing up unannounced around town to gladhand, kiss babies, and appear before the press. Famously, Clinton liked to stop for ice cream on Circuit Avenue in Martha’s Vineyard. To add fuel to the fire, Bill Clinton popped up for a round of golf in Martha’s Vineyard just before Obama showed up, rekindling residents of the Vineyard’s memories of a President more accessible than we’ve become accustomed to in recent years.

Staffers say that though there’s not a shortage of invitations for the Obamas, they won’t be attending many highly publicized events. The President seems to need this break. The White House even decided against holding a welcoming ceremony for the President’s arrival on Sunday, though his aides claimed that the cancellation was due to fear’s of incoming bad weather from Hurricane Bill. Staffers suggest that President Obama may make a few appearances later in the week, but thanks to his “loose” vacation schedule he hasn’t really planned to attend any major events.

Let’s just consider this trip a time for the President to relax and be with his family. After 7 months under the microscope, it may be time for the President to take a deep breath.

Is the economy recovering from recession?

The state of the economy has become a kind of cliche lately, with most people bored of discussions of recession and stock market ups and downs. In fact, the economic downturn has been a buzz word for so long that comedians and talk show hosts are starting to turn their focus elsewhere — there’s simply not much material left to cover.

More news is popping up this week about the state of our nation’s finances. On Tuesday the White House and the Congressional Budget Office are set to release a series of new numbers related to the federal budget deficit and the relative health of the American economy. This is a big deal mostly because the Congressional Budget Office is considered the most non partisan of bodies related to budget reporting. The CBO is expected to release a slightly different estimate from the White House, but reportedly the numbers aren’t far enough apart to make a difference. The US national debt is reportedly around $12 trillion and climbing steadily.

President Obama and his cabinet have already released some preliminary numbers related to this year’s budget gap — $1.5 trillion or so. This number is down slightly from an earlier White house projection of nearly $2 trillion. As they say in Washington, a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there . . .

Back to the task at hand, how will these new economic forecasts play out? What impact will they have?

President Obama has made one thing clear — he does not intend to follow in the footsteps of previous Presidents who offered big tax cuts for Americans. The new economic data offered by Washington indicates that tax cuts for the wealthy may be even more unlikely. Those tax cuts, set to expire at year’s end, are stealing about $600 billion a year from the government and giving it to the American people. Think Obama is going to let that easy source of money slip away? No chance, not when he is forced to release news of some serious budget shortfalls in his first year in office.

Expect the usual rhetoric from Obama’s opponents on the political right — removing tax cuts will get Limbaugh and company complaining that our economic growth is in jeopardy down the road.

A good sign for the majority of us — Congress and the Executive branch will likely shield the poor from tax increases during these tough times. In fact, no matter how bad the coming economic forecast is, we aren’t likely to see a tax increase for anyone who doesn’t have a full-time job. Congress is set to provide another one-year quick fix for the Alternative Minimum Tax, a controversial option originally aimed at the upper classes. Because of inflation, the middle class is now within the range of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and Congress will make whatever repairs are necessary to protect the middle class, even though this protection costs the government about $50 to $70 billion a year.

Another move we might see from Congress — actions to squeeze whatever savings are possible from Social Security. Because this is a fairly unpopular idea, expect our elected officials to create a somewhat anonymous “commission” to do the dirty work for them. For several years now, members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) have been trying to form just such a commission to look into the Social Security retirement program (as well as Medicare and Medicaid) for any chance at savings. What’s happening is that the population of the United States is aging and putting a huge drain on the Federal treasury — costing America as much as $55 trillion over the next three generations. This week’s White House and CBO economic reports, which will most likely forecast massive deficits for years and years to come, will pretty much give Congress the go ahead to form the commission necessary to find some savings. Oh, by the way, this commission will most likely suggest a few tax increases while they’re at it.

Another nasty side effect of new economic indications will be a big hit to President Barack Obama’s health care reform plans. Opponents of Obama’s plan say that while the American economy is in a state of recession (and now that we know that budget deficits are at record levels) the time couldn’t be worse for Washington to go after yet another expensive, unneccessary, and unconstitutional program.

President Obama for his part (and many of his fellow Democrats in Congress) have said time and again that any reform bill related to healthcare will be forced to “pay for itself”. How would this work? By claiming that the program will reduce the cost of the Medicare program or by raising taxes on the working Americans, Obama could fund the beginning of his sweeping health care reform. His critics, of course, indicate that raising revenue by these means should help America reduce the deficit and not be spent to expand available health insurance coverage.

If the economy should rebound, and many economists are suggesting that this is the case, President Obama and the Democratic led Congress will most likely attempt to hold back on defense spending to show America that they have some semblance of financial responsibility. However, if the economy keeps up its stagnant pace, we should see liberals start to push hard and heavy for another round of economic stimulus, regardless of the numbers from CBO and the President’s Office of Management and Budget.

How did hacker Albert Gonzales steal over 130 million credit cards?

Recently, the US government announced the capture of one of the web’s most wanted hackers. Albert Gonzales, a Cuban American, is accused of running what is believed to be the largest credit card scam in history. Unfortunately for corporate America and law enforcement nationwide, the questions and trouble didn’t end when handcuffs went around Gonzales’ wrists.

Major US businesses and cops from Miami to Seattle are trying to come up with answers today — how did a single man perpetrate this widespread scam right under their noses? it isn’t like what Gonzales did took particular skill. In fact, law enforcement officials are focusing on just how easy it can be to hack people’s credit card details. Apparently, it is not difficult for even the most wet behind the ears hacker to break into a coporations files and have their way with customer’s data. This arrest in Miami puts corporations on the spot — what will they do to ensure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again?

Albert Gonzalez, a 28 year old native of Miami, had been acting as an informant for the US Secret Service. After an arrest six years ago, Gonzales got out of trouble by agreeing to act as a kind of whistleblower, ratting out and keeping tabs on his fellow hackers. Gonzales was charged with conspiracy in his effort to steal the details of over a hundred million credit cards. Gonzale’s complete charge sheet went over, in detail, the lengthy and complicated online crime history of Gonzales.

According to Federal prosecuters, the alleged credit card fraud was acted out through the use of systems that can penetrate computer networks, look for and retrieve credit card data, and send this information for storage in servers spread across the US and Europe.

Computer security experts point out that this process (allegedly thought up and perpetrated by Gonzalez and two other accused hackers from eastern Europe) is very simple in hacker terms, making the real question one about the failure of corporate America to properly defend their computer systems and client information.

Gonzales’ charge sheet indicates that the hacker, along with two other men who lived in or near Russia, inserted a bit of “structured query language” into the computer systems of companies like Heartland. You may not have heard of Heartland but your wallet has — they are one of the largest credit and debit card payment processing companies in the world. The three hackers allegedly activated this code sometime in the middle of December 2007. “Structured query language” is a computer programming system that is designed to organize data so it can be accessed and managed easily.

Over the course of his criminal career, Albert Gonzalez used at least three internet aliases: ‘segvec’, ‘soupnazi’ and ‘j4guar17′.

Other companies that Gonzales allegedly attacked with his malware include Hannaford Brothers (a supermarket chain identified by Gonzales as ‘particularly vulnerable’) and 7-Eleven.

The charge sheet indicates further that Gonzalez would “identify potential corporate victims, by, among other methods, reviewing a list of Fortune 500 companies”. Gonzales may have been using very basic hacker techniques, but his research was top notch. Gonzales is alleged to have “traveled to retail stores of potential corporate victims” in order to identify what sorts of payment processing systems were used in their checkout process and also, less important, to try and wrap his head around the ways in which a company may be vulnerable.

If he is convicted, Albert Gonzalez faces a maximum charge of 25 years in jail. This will be nothing new for the Cuban-American hacker — Gonzales has been held in jail after his arrest last year in New York for allegedly hacking into a national restaurant chain’s computer system.

We do not know what Gonzales did with the information he stole. Gonzales has not yet been charged with any crime related to unlawful use of the credit card data he stole. The assumption is that Gonzales sold the 130 million pieces of credit card info to another source in an attempt to distance himself from the crime. If that is the case, then we may not have yet seen.the full effects of his cyber attack, and that the real impact of the stolen information may only show up in time. Yes, Gonzales earned money as part of his scam, but since no charges related to illicit credit card use exist, we must assume the money came from another source.

Albert Gonzalez, was raised in Coral Gables, Florida near Miami. He attended school in both Coral Gables and Miami. Gonzales was convicted of credit card theft in 2003 but agreed to hand over information on fellow hackers and track them for the Secret Service. Unfortunately for law enforcement, Gonzales continued his criminal career while playing patsy for the Feds.

Before he was busted last year, Gonzales put together a fortune of over $1.5 million. Gonzales was allegedly a big spender, throwing himself a $75,000 birthday party. An anecdote appears in Wired magazine about Gonzales — “He had so much cash he bought a money counter and complained that when it broke down he had to manually count $340,000 in $20 bills.” Not a problem most of us would complain about.

Gonzales’ trial is due to begin in September 2009.

Is Gardasil safe?

Gardasil is a somewhat controversial vaccine. Gardasil promises to protect girls and young women from cervical cancer. Why is this drug considered controversial? Because Gardasil doesn’t actually protect against “cervical cancer” — rather, it is a vaccination against the most common types of Human papilloma virus, or HPV. HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, by some reports the most common STD in America, that can cause many symptoms, the deadliest of which is cervical cancer.

You can see where this is going. Many people suggest that an education in abstinence (and the practice of abstinence itself) is the best way to protect young women from the dangers of HPV and cervical cancer. Still others (like myself) remember what it was like to be a teenager, a time when even the most steadfast of convictions was easy to overlook in the moment.

Regardless of how you feel morally about Gardasil, you have to admit that a vaccine that could prevent certain forms of cancer is a good thing. And we got even better news about Gardasil today.

A government report released today suggests that Gardasil has a record of safety in line or better than other vaccines already in wide public use. As with any drug, some serious complications and side effects have occurred from Gardasil (including at least 20 deaths and two cases of Lou Gehrig’s disease) but the evidence suggests that none of these incidents were directly related to use of the vaccine. In fact, the most common complications after a woman receives a vaccination with Gardasil are fainting episodes. There is some suggestion that Gardasil leads to an increased risk for blood clots, but the study released today suggests that these incidents are related more to the use of oral contraceptives and a high level of obesity in teen girls.

Seven million girls and young women have been given Gardasil since it was approved, making it difficult to prove that health effects in this population were caused by the vaccine itself.

Dr. Barbara A. Slade, a medical officer with the Centers for Disease Control and one of the authors of the study, had this to say: “We feel confident recommending people get the vaccine; the benefits still outweigh the risks. This is the most complete picture we have.”

The Gardasil vaccine was approved for girls and young women ages 9 to 26 and is now recommended as part of a vaccination routine for girls aged 11 and 12.

The study on the adverse effects of Gardasil analyzed nearly 13,000 reports of side effects that occurred after immunization with the HPV vaccine between June 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008. During this period, more than 23 million doses of vaccine were distributed to doctors and clinics. Sounds like a big number of vaccinations until you realize that Gardasil requires three doses over time. Final tally — over 7 million girls have been vaccinated.

The new government report says that there are an average of 53 adverse sid effect events for every 100,000 doses of vaccine distributed. Fainting occurred most frequently, though doctors are not entirely sure why 8 girls out of 100,000 that were vaccinated have been fainting. Probably it has something to do with the second most common side effect from Gardasil — dizziness. 7.5 per 100,000 girls reported dizziness after receiving the vaccine.

To determine that Gardasil is safe, reports of side effects were compared with the same reports from the use of other vaccines given to similar populations of girls around the same age. Out of the total number of reports, just 6.2 percent, or 772 total reports, were considered ‘serious events” by the CDC, including 32 reports of death after vaccination, though only 20 of the deaths could be verified. Of the 20 verified deaths, 14 of the deceased had only received the HPV vaccine, while others had received multiple vaccines. The average age of the girls who died was 18 — a high number considering the age the vaccine is normally started at. The causes of death in these cases varied widely. Two were due to diabetic conditions, one case related to prescription drug abuse, a case of meningitis, one case of juvenile Lou Gehrig’s disease, three severe pulmonary embolisms, six cardiac incidents, and two deaths related to pre existing seizure disorders.

The widely different causes of death make it difficult for anyone to determine if Gardasil is the underlying cause, or even if the vaccine played a role at all.

When will digital music sales overcome CDs?

I’m guilty.

In this era, where digital seems to dominate every other format, I am still a sucker for purchasing a physical CD. Something about holding the album art in my hand, turning the shiny music disc over and over, sliding the device into the drive — I just don’t get the same satisfaction from a digital download. Call me a Luddite, call me what you will. I just can’t accept that I may never own a physical piece of music again. This is the same attitude that keeps me from joining the eReader revolution . . . at least until that particular technology improves.

Come to find out, I’m not alone. CDs are still the most common method for consumers in the United States to enjoy their music. In short — CDs rule the music market.

But not for long. Sure, CDs still account for well over sixty percent of all music sold in the first six months of 2009. There is new information today that suggests that digital downloads of music files are quickly gaining speed. This according to a report released this week by a research group that charts music and other sales — the NPD Group.

The trend goes something like this. Digital music sales increase between 15 percent and 20 percent every year. Meanwhile, CD sales drop at just about an equal pace, between 13 percent and 18 percent a year. It is only a matter of time before purchasing that must have album on a plastic disc will be a thing of the past, an old fashioned attempt to get in touch with a part of my past. Much like the vinyl collectors of the past ten years or so, I may have to trudge to a low lit store full of hipsters and snobs to get my fix of 90s-era alternative music. At least, on CD.

The “tipping point”, as NPD likes to put it, will come in 2010.

Russ Crupnick, the vice president of the NPD Group who concentrates his work on analysis of the entertainment industry, says that 2009 and 2010 will represent “a dead heat” between sales of music in digital formats and the sales numbers for CDs. NPD is amazed by the spped that digital music sales have become a real competitor with CD format. NPD reports that digital sales represented only one out of every five songs sold just two years ago. I think most people believe that CDs died out as a reliable format long ago. The truth is that CDs are still the most common audio format, though “the assumption is that [CD sales died out] . . . five years ago,” said Russ Crupnick.

In fact, the numbers are much closer, at least here in America. According to NPD’s research, there are still 250% more people who buy CDs regularly as those who buy digital music. NPD predicts that by 2011, digital sales will far outreach CD sales.

In 2008, digital music sales totalled nearly $2 billion, a healthy number for sure. By the same measure, CDs and other physical units of music represents nearly $9 billion in sales, these numbers according to the Recording Industry Association of America. That’s a huge disparity between two numbers that most people thought were much closer. While over $9 billion in sales sounds remarkable for a format that most people were ready to bury, remember that CD sales are dropping $1 billion a year or more.

The face of the leading music retailers are changing too. Gone are the days when my friends and I would load up the car, head to Circuit City or Best Buy or any of the big box stores and load up on new released. Now, the number on music retailer is Apple’s iTunes service. Music downloads from iTunes make up more than a quarter of all music sales in the United States. This number is up from 20 percent in 2008 and just 14 percent in 2007. With digital sales galloping ahead and CD sales falling by the wayside, it doesn’t take a consumer group to tell you that digital will soon far outclass CDs in terms of sales.

The bottom line is this — American consumers are buying more and more of their music online. Some industry analysts suggest that customers are illegally purchasing as much as 10 times more music through peer to peer Web presences and other illegal sources. If the recording industry was somehow to turn those illegal purchases into legal ones, digital purchases would far outweight physical CD sales.

The move to digital music has had a wide range of other impacts on the music industry — the biggest in my opinion is the fact that most online shoppers aren’t likely to buy entire albums, preferring to cherry pick the singles they want. This limits the artistic impact of a musician or band’s release, and limits the income that retailers make off music.

Who is in danger fom Hurricane Bill?

Just two weeks ago, we brought you a story about the strangely calm Atlantic hurricane season. As part of that story, we reported that tropical weather analysts had lowered their Atlantic hurricane expectations yet again. Also part of that story, a memory of 1992 — when a ridiculously quiet hurricane season was punctuated by the very destructive forces of Hurricane Andrew in Florida. We also predicted that a major storm was brewing off the coast of Africa, and that people living in areas affected by hurricanes shouldn’t let the weak early season fool them into complacence.

We were right.

We now have three active storms in the Atlantic — Hurricane Bill building up steam just east of the Lesser Antilles, weakening but still dangerous Tropical Depression Ana near Puerto Rico, and the remnants of Tropical Depression Claudette lingering over the Florida Panhandle region.

The first hurricane of the season, Bill, is gathering force far from the American coast over the Atlantic Ocean. Bill’s movements place it on a track potentially leading to Bermuda and the surrounding islands before this weekend. It is important to remember, though, that 3 and 5 day tracks are mere predictions from meteorologists. When was the last time you trusted a meteorologist’s opinion with your home, your valuables, your family, or even your own life? People living along the Gulf Coast and the Eastern seaboard of the United States should pay particular attention to Bill’s behavior over the next couple of days.

Hurricane Bill is now expected to become “a major storm” over the next 48 hours. That notation (“a major storm”) generally means a hurricane with sustained winds topping 110 miles per hour. Hurricane Bill has already become a Category 2 hurricane as of Monday — that indicates that Bill’s sustained winds are thrashing about at 100 mph. Hurricane Bill is now expected to strengthen further, becoming a Category Three hurricane by early Wednesday.

As of this writing Bill was centered 810 miles east of the Leeward Islands. Bill is now moving west-northwest at around 17 mph. Hurricane Bill is a large system, about 300 miles across. This widens the scope of potential victims to the point that an island like Bermuda could be hit hard by Bill even if the surrounding Atlantic island avoid a direct hit.

Unfortunately, as with any tropical event, it is difficult to tell people the one thing they want to know. Where will Bill go? That can’t be said for certain, but meteorologists on the whole do not believe the storm will reach the U.S. mainland.

Making things even more difficult, weather forecasters only provide five-day cones for the potential path of hurricanes. In fact, forecasters admit having difficulty making sensible projections of storms’ paths further than 72 hours or three days. Why? Mostly because storms change direction at short notice, often altering their course overnight while most people tracking them from home are asleep.

There is bad news about Hurricane Bill — because of warm ocean water and very little “wind shear” (a force that can weaken or even destroy storms), Bill is in perfect position to continue to strengthen. The last time a storm that earned a Category Three ranking hit U.S. soil was in 2005, when Hurricane Wilma hit and caused an estimated $20 billion in damage.

So this year’s Atlantic hurricane season is beginning to get interesting. With Hurricane Bill strengthening and threatening, the arrival of (admittedly weakening) Tropical Storm Claudette on the Florida coast, and the formation of Tropical Storm Ana late last week, the slow start to this year’s storm season is over.

By this time last year, six named storms (including two big hurricanes — Bertha and Dolly) had already formed and threatened to cause damage.

Why is the swine flu vaccine creating controversy?

Flu season is approaching, and fear is riding along. Many people are aware that the H1N1 virus could re-emerge with a vengeance once the time for seasonal flu is upon us. Thankfully, a vaccine is currently being tested for potential release before “traditional” flu and the H1N1 virus or “swine flu” have a chance to hit us with a double whammy.

However, there are still other people who are afraid of the vaccine itself. In fact, fears surrounding the swine flu vaccine are growing by the day. First we heard from groups concerned that there may not be enough of the vaccine to go around (some estimates put the total number of ready vaccines at the start of flue season somewhere around 60 million doses, a far cry from what is needed) — now, people are pointing to the 1976 swine flu epidemic, also treated with a vaccine. The problem then? After receving vaccinations, hundreds of people came down with Guillain-Barre syndrome allegedly related to that vaccine.

I say allegedly because nothing has ever been proven. Sure, the illnesses lent bad publicity to the creators of that vaccine, and the program was halted only after an estimated 40 million Americans received the vaccine, but no scientific proof exists to link the 70s era swine flu vaccine and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Regardless of any medical “proof”, many people are remembering what happened over 30 years ago and voicing their concerns about what might happen with the current round of planned vaccinations. Also, there’s a new buzz word in the game of vaccine fear — “adjuvant”. What is “adjuvant”, and why are people angry about its addition to the proposed swine flu vaccine?

An adjuvant is “something that allows the immune system to respond with higher levels of effectiveness,” according to the pharmaceutical company Aventis Pasteur. Basically, an adjuvant is an additive that could eventually lower the amount of vaccine needed per person, opening up the door for more individual doses to be available.

Consumers are most likely concerned about adjuvants because they haven’t heard of them before. However, adjuvants (which are mostly made of different forms of aluminum) are already in use in the United States, and if you’ve had a vaccine in the past twenty years, you’ve already been in contact with them. Adjuvants are currently used in vaccinations for everything from hepatitis A and B, to diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines.

According to researchers working on the new swine flu vaccine, the adjuvant in the current incarnation of H1N1 vaccine would be a water-oil mixture.

The first run of drug trials on the new swine flu vaccine will use a form without adjuvants — the reason why is unclear — but later trials of the vaccine will use an adjuvanted form, but only if deemed necessary. This is also a point of contention for many people, who worry that testing a vaccine that isn’t identical to the vaccine that will be released is dangerous and pointless. The reason why unadjuvanted forms are being tested is simple. To the medical community, it is unneccessary to test a vaccine ingredient that has already been in use in this country for decades.

Consumers, having never really heard of adjuvants, are assuming this is a new addition to vaccines.

The hope for adjuvant use is simple — in the future, vaccines with adjuvants will require much smaller doses while giving patients an even better immune response. Less of a drug to get a better result means higher profits for vaccine manufacturers and better results for patients, not to mention more individual vaccine doses available for clinical use. The ability of the medical community to stretch this year’s supply of swine flu vaccine is a major issue. Fears about a shortage of swine flu vaccine could be put to rest if the doses could be split in two — that would bring the reported number of available doses at flu season’s outset to 120 million. The short answer on adjuvants — they will give a patient a better immune response while increasing the likelihood that all patients who need the vaccine will get it.

An example of how an adjuvant works — a bird flu vaccine is being tested in Asia. This vaccine is made up of 90 micrograms of an antigen (the ingredient that gives a patient an immune response) that could be reduced to as little as 3 micrograms in the presence of an adjuvant. This is allowing the manufacturer to split what was once a single dose into 24 usable doses of vaccine.

The flu vaccine that most of us get every year requires about 15 micrograms of antigen. Imagine a vaccine containing an adjuvant that could bring that number down to about 1 or 3 micrograms. With a smaller dose, there is less chance for complications and more vaccine to go around.

Still, it is difficult to look past the fact that vaccines have a history of safety concerns in this country, some legit concerns mixed up with the standard American paranoid response. For instance, when news broke that no flu vaccine ever used in the United States has contained an adjuvant up to this point, people immediately questioned the need for adjuvants this time around.

The simple answer is this — adjuvants weren’t used in flu vaccines because adjuvants weren’t necessary. Flu vaccines in America work well — doctors see a great immune response from the products already on the market. The addition of an adjuvant to a vaccine that didn’t need it would have been a wasteful and costly decision, and that cost would have passed down to you and me, the consumers.

If adjuvants are going to be used in this year’s swine flu vaccine, they will probably be used mostly for adults and the elderly — groups where the additives have been tested. In other words, children’s vaccines would not come with adjuvant, mostly because adjuvants haven’t been tested in children.

Why is the stock market struggling again?

For the second straight trading session in a row, stocks on Wall Street slumped considerably. From the Dow Jones Industrial Average to the Nasdaq composite, numbers were lower across the board. Is this a new downward trend for a market that appeared to be recovering?

According to market analysts, recent losses are due to a loss of confidence among consumers. Companies are nervous that these consumers and their lack of confidence will put even more pressure on an economy that is barely crawling out of a recession. We’ve had five or six months of steady advancement in the stock market, and nervous consumers at this late date doesn’t make anyone feel good about their economic future.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost a total of 186 points, or 2% of its volume. This was actually a gentle landing for a market that dropped as much as 204 points during the day’s trading. The S&P 500 index fell an even greater amount than the DJIA, ending 24 points lower than its beginning, or a total loss of 2.4% of volume.

These new low numbers mean that both market indicators closed after today’s trading at 4 week lows. The Nasdaq composite index was an even greater loser than either other indexes. The Nasdaq fell 55 points or 2.8% of total volume to end at a one month low.

In the last four to five weeks, the S&P 500 index had gained over 15% of its index. Some will say that a pullback in value is evident after such a lengthy run of positives, but a dip to a one month low wasn’t expected. Thankfully, most market analysts are suggesting that this brief dip is not a signal of things to come, but a bump in the road. The current financial markets in America have seen growth in stock value and in industrial sectors, so the pullback from a few months of high values won’t be so much a crash as, well, a pullback.

As of last Thursday, the Dow was at a nine-month high and the Nasdaq and S&P 500 were at 10-month highs, bolstering some economists prediction that the worst of the recession was behind us.

The bad news started rolling in last week after a consumer sentiment report last Friday that was far worse than had been predicted. After months of news that the economy was stabilizing, any blip on the radar is newsworthy, just don’t expect this current hiccough to be permanent.

There’s a bit of voodoo at play in the system. Wall Street keeps something called a VIX index — technically this is known as the “CBOE Volatility index”. It is basically a single digit representation of consumer fear. This index has soared as much as 18% in the last week — so traders should have expected this downturn.

Already, some sectors are stabilizing — namely housing and manufacturing. There is still a very weak labor market to contend with, and consistently higher oil and gas prices are helping raise that consumer fear index.

The stock market declines that went down on Monday were what are known as “broad-based” losses — to put this in layman’s terms, 28 of the 30 stocks that Wall Street uses to compile the Dow Jones Industrial Average faced losses. This means losses are being posted across all sectors of financial markets.

Who was recently honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom?

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is considered one of the highest awards given to civilians in the United States — the other being the Congressional Gold Medal. The Presidential Medal of Freedom itself is a decoration handed out by the President of the United States. The medal is meant as a major recognition on the part of the President to recognize citizens who have “made an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” The award is not limited to United States citizens.

This past Wednesday August 12, 2009, the East Room of the White House was the site for the presentation of 14 Presidential medals — a number greater than the number of living award recipients. President Obama was making a big point by handing out awards to people he called “Agents of Change” — a long list including sports figures, scientists, and grassroots organizers. The people given awards this year are all top of the line members of their field, be it the arts, sports, science, or humanities.

Said President Obama in his kickoff to the ceremony — “The true test of a person’s life is what we do for one another.” This was President Obama’s first official awards ceremony.

All but one of the 14 living honorees were in attendance, meaning this event was packed with big names from around the world. Some of the past award winners are actor Sidney Poitier, , former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and performer Chita Rivera. Senator Edward Kennedy was the only one absent — he has a good excuse. The Senator is battling brain cancer and just lost his sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver the day before the ceremony. His daughter, Kara Kennedy, was at the ceremony to accept the award from President Obama on his behalf.

Obama pointed out time and again that this year’s recipients were chosen because they are “agents of change” — a term that Obama uses to mean that their various deeds and accomplishments helped the world become a better place. A lofty description, but a worthy one.

The other recipients were famous British physicist Stephen Hawking, Nancy Goodman Brinker (who founded the breast cancer grass roots organization Susan G. Komen for the Cure), Muhammad Yunus, an activist who founded the Grameen Bank to provide microloans to the poor in his native country of Bangladesh, Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, who was an anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, Pedro José Greer Jr., a Miami doctor who spends his time with the poor and homeless citizens in Miami, former tennis pro Billie Jean King (the first openly gay athlete after her very public coming out in 1981), the first female President of Ireland Mary Robinson, the Reverend Joseph Lowery, who was a major figure in the civil rights movement in the 1950s, and human gene specialist Janet Davison Rowley, the first scientist to discover the cause of Leukemia and many other cancers.

President Obama went on to say that “These extraordinary men and women remind us that excellence is not beyond our abilities … we each have it in our power to fulfill dreams.”

Here are some further quotes by Obama about some specific honorees –

Of Sydney Poitier, who became the first black man to win an Academy Award for best actor in 1963, Obama said he “not only entertained but enlightened … using the power of the silver screen to bring us closer together.”

One of the honorees, a Plains Indian known as Joe Medicine Crow, became the only award recipient of the night to make a public statement. Joe Medicine Crow, in full native feathered headdress and regalia, waited until the Medal was presented to him to shout “I am highly honored!” Joe Medicine Crow is the last living war chief of the Plains Indians. Rather than engaging in battle, his way is to maintain the history and culture of Native America.

Speaking of Dolores Rivera, Obama made a point of introducing the Puerto Rican woman by her given name — Dolores Conchita Figueroa del Rivero — so he could drive home a point. Obama mentioned that the Tony award winning performer “knows adversity comes with a difficult name.” Cue the laugh track — if anyone has had “name trouble” this past year it has been Barack Hussein Obama.

Two posthumous honors were handed out — one for Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in America who was famously shot and killed in 1978, and the late U.S. congressman Jack Kemp.

What sports are being considered for addition to the Olympics?

There are pretty strict rules about what sports get added to the Olympic program. Without going into too much detail about how new sports are added to the roster of games, the basic criteria are as follows: a new Olympic sport or discipline must be “widely practiced”. This means that a men’s sport must be played in at least 75 countries across at least four continents. For women’s sports, the number’s a bit lower — at least 40 countries participating on at least three continents.

For the 2016 Olympic Games, there is some exciting news about potential new disciplines. Soon, the International Olympic Committee will consider a short list of seven sports for inclusion. The sports under consideration are golf, rugby sevens (a smaller squad), baseball, softball, squash, karate, and roller sports. The 15 member board of the IOC is planning to submit two of these sports for full ratification by the 106-member IOC at their assembly in Copenhagen this October.

Golf and rugby sevens are the most likely sports to receive full support fo rinclusion.

An IOC board member had this to say about the new additions — “It will be a long and difficult discussion. I think there will be different opinions. We hope to be able to make a unanimous decision, but it will be hard to find a common denominator.”

While it is exciting to think of Tiger Woods and other young golf phenoms going for gold against the world’s best players, don’t buy your 2016 tickets just yet — every sport on the list has a long way to go. The first step — representatives of these seven sports made lengthy presentations to the IOC board this past June in Switzerland, the home of the IOC. These representatives have kept up their lobbying right up until this week, when a panel of IOC members will make their initial vote.

Though the majority opinion holds that golf and rugby sevens are well in the lead, other IOC members speaking anonymously suggest that softball has an equally good chance of being added to the Games. Still other board members left the door wide open, suggesting that anything is possible in the world of the Olympics negotiations.

Additions for 2016 aren’t the only big debate this week — the IOC board is also making rulings on some big changes for the 2012 London games. Debate is heated over the addition of women’s boxing, a new event in swimming (the 50 meter spring), mixed doubles in tennis, BMX freestyle bike events under the umbrella of cycling, and a new format for the modern pentathlon with an eye toward shortening the event for television coverage.

One of the big issues with the addition of gold is whether golf’s biggest names and brightest stars (already multimillionaires) would step up to compete in the Olympic Games. Professional golfers have a hefty schedule of majors and other tour events, not to mention international team competitions like the Davis Cup. To this end, a couple of big name players (specifically Annika Sorenstam and Colin Montgomerie) testified before the IOC in June that the world’s top players would certainly consider the Olympics “as important as a major”. The lack of celebrities has been an issue for other failing Olympic sports in the past, most notably baseball.

There is good news for gold — the game was played at the 1900 Paris Olympics and 1904 St. Louis Games. Where there is a precedent for a sport there is hope. Golf’s supporters say that bringing the game back into the Olympics would encourage the growth of golf worldwide. Why is that? In many countries around the world, a sport can only receive government funding and major attention if it is an “Olympic sport”.

Tiger Woods, probably the biggest sports name in the world, made his own plea for the addition of gold to the 2016 games, appearing in a video presentation to the IOC making a case for the sports to be added to the Olympics. Woods was asked by a reported yesterday if he would play Olympic golf –

“If I’m not retired by then, yeah,” said Woods, who will be just 40 years old in 2016.

The big argument for golf is that it is a global sport, played all over the planet (and even once on the moon).

Golf would be played in the Olympics much like it is played outside of the Games — a 72-hole stroke-play competition for men and one for women, with 60 players in each group. Another proposed rule to increase star’s participation — the top 15 players in the world rankings would earn an automatic spot in the tournament, and all major professional tournaments and tours would halth their schedules or remake them in order to avoid a conflict.

The case for rugby may be a bit more difficult — rugby is not a global game in the sense that golf is. Rugby has a precedent in the Olympics as well, in fact that game has been played even more recently than Olympic gold — at the 1924 Olympics rugby was played in a much longer “rugby fifteens” format. Rugby sevens would make the game faster and more interesting (and easier to follow) for sports fans.

Still, the issue remains undecided for now. Though the smaller group of IOC members has basically decided on golf and rugby sevens, it is entirely possible that a majority of IOC members will resist the recommendations, as they tend to resist any and all change to the Olympic format.

Why has President Obama changed his message on health care reform?

The Honeymoon is over for President Barack Obama — actually, it may have been over for a couple of months now. With most of his approval ratings peaking or starting to drop off, the President and his Cabinet have begun reworking their overall message on health care reform. The big question now is this — can Obama and company win over Americans who already have insurance? Those of us that have little or no insurance coverage are quick to jump on the Obama bandwagon. How can Obama change the minds of those already covered adequately?

Critics of the president’s health care overhaul (and there are plenty) have organized a mass disruption of the President’s town hall meetings. Like it or not, this disruption has had some kind of effect, though the jury’s still out on what exactly that effect is. If you’re like me, you see the disruptions as the last ditch efforts of a dying party to take on a popular President’s major domestic policy — though others see the yelling and anger as a national display of dissidence. Either way, the White House has been forced to go on the defensive. There’s more disruption on the horizon, by the way — President Obama is set to appear on a string on television programs this week according to Robert Gibbs, press secretary. You better believe there will be more “civil” disobedience.

Nationwide polls are starting to show that Americans who have adequate health coverage are very skeptical of the mostly Democratic proposals to expand health care coverage to the millions with inadequate support. Obama’s plan to use town hall meetings in the always contentious state of New Hampshire will highlight how his proposals will affect workers whose employers currently provide their health insurance — a big chunk of the dissident puzzle.

When asked what President Obama would do if confronted by a rabble rouser, Robert Gibbs said “I think what the president will do is turn to that person and probably ask them to be civilized and give them an answer to their question.”

This would probably be the best move for Obama, who already appears to be a man not easily shaken in circumstances such as this. Remember that the town hall tradition is a long one in America — a tradition meant to inform people so they can make a personal decision about an upcoming change in policy. President Obama tends to shine when interacting with the public, and this town hall style meeting will likely be another example of his poise.

At the upcoming town hall in New Hampshire, President Obama will highlight his proposal to protect individuals from questionable insurance company practices. The biggest issue on his agenda is informing people about his program to keep insurance companies from denying individuals health coverage because of pre existing conditions.

Other town hall meetings are in the planning stages across the country. During a town hall in Montana at the end of this week, the President is scheduled to talk about how his plan would block companies from dropping an individual’s coverage when that person becomes ill. In Colorado, next week, the President will talk about the Democrats’ plan to put a stop to the unfairly high cost of coverage in certain areas of the country.

To support the President, the Democratic National Committee purchased air time across the country to run an ad that effectively asks the question “What’s in it for you?” White House officials reported that the ad started running Monday night in Washington and on cable — as of Tuesday the ad is running in states that Obama plans to visit, including New Hampshire and Colorado.

Major concerns over Obama’s proposal are causing heated debate in meetings and on conservative radio shows. The main impact of this dissent is that Obama’s approval numbers have drooped a bit. Is this a true threat to the President’s best known domestic policy idea? We have yet to see. But what we do know is that while Congress is in a month long recess this August, members of the House and Senate are being bombarded with questions from their constituents — people who are worried about the many divisive issues that hit the Congress just before recess. In other words, people are getting involved.

To calm citizen’s fears, Prsident Obama will spend Congress’ recess month stumping for his health overhaul for Americans, concentrating especially on the benefits of his plan for those people already adequately covered by health insurance. By starting in New Hampshire, Obama is making a strong statement. 90 percent of New Hampshire residents report being “adequately covered” by their current insurance plan.

A crowd of nearly 2,000 people is expected for today’s event in the already Democratic leaning state of New Hampshire. Of that crowd, more than half were granted admission based on a random lottery, a tactic Obama has already used to his advantage in other states, but related to less divisive issues. The lottery style admission process may be a danerous move in a state with a history of political activism like New Hampshire.

Outside of the site for the New Hampshire town hall, a handful of political groups will stage a counter rally. The makeup of these groups has been called into question by Obama and company. In fact, an Obama aide sent an email out to Obama supporters in New Hampshire, asking pro Obama groups to counter the protestors, saying that these groups are actually “organized by Washington insiders, insurance companies and well-financed special interests who don’t go a day without spreading lies and stirring up fear.” The White House is not exactly playing a clean game here, either.

What is Google’s new search engine technology?

Google’s ubiquitous search engine, a feature of the Internet that many businesses depend on for revenue, is getting a bit of a makeover. Or, to put it more plainly, a shot of caffeine. In a major announcement late last week, Google decided to show the world a bit of the “next gen” search functions it has been hard at work on for the past few months.

Soon we’ll have a web preview of the new search system and design, known in the industry as “Caffeine”. Google said the new code will help the company “push the envelope on size, indexing speed, accuracy, comprehensiveness and other dimensions.”

Why would Google make a move like this? If you’ve been reading the AskDeb blog this summer, you know we’ve been closely following the “search engine wars” — Google’s strong lead is now challenged by the beginnings of an intertwined relationship between Microsoft and Yahoo, a courtship that is growing stronger by the day. Google, the giant in the world of Internet queries, has decided to revamp its most basic component, the web search.

What will be different about Google searches? According to Google, most people won’t notice any changes. Apparently, the new “caffeine” shot will be a mostly “under the hood” upgrade. Even so, Google realized they just have to do something to whet the appetites of curious web developers and Google search fanatics — Google’s decided to release a kind of preview of the system, partially to respond to their fan’s demands, partially to get some feedback before they go live with Caffeine.

The user interface will stay the same. In fact, Google could implement Caffeine this instant and you wouldn’t notice a difference, unless of course your web business depends on Google for traffic. Those types of businesses may be the hardest hit by the new system.

Google has been quick to squash the idea that it is administering this high dose of Caffeine in order to “keep up with the Joneses”. Emphasizing that Caffeine is “the next generation” in search engine tech, Google reps have been careful to avoid saying the words “Microsoft” or “Yahoo”.

The biggest difference that users will see with Caffeine is that the implementation of the new technology could change how your Internet-based company ranks in Google search results. There are many businesses that quite literally live and die based on Google generated traffic, making the switch from decaf a pretty big deal.

Google’s billiant suggestion for companies wondering how to deal with the Caffeine rush is for them to “change their search engine optimization to protect their Google ranking.” Because you hadn’t thought of that yet.

The question on many web developer’s minds — will Caffeine will be more or less responsive to the actions of search engine optimization experts? How will Caffeine affect a business’ chances of landing on the coveted first page of Google results for keyword searches? Also, when should web developers react? This very instant is certainly too early to alter your SEO tactics, but you don’t want to wait too long and lose crucial time at the top of your client’s searches.

A few more choice quotes from Google that are making the rounds this morning:

“For the last several months, a large team of Googlers has been working on a secret project: a next-generation architecture for Google’s web search,” two engineers wrote in the company’s official blog.

“It’s the first step in a process that will let us push the envelope on size, indexing speed, accuracy, comprehensiveness and other dimensions. The new infrastructure sits ‘under the hood’ of Google’s search engine, which means that most users won’t notice a difference in search results. But web developers and power searchers might notice a few differences, so we’re opening up a web developer preview to collect feedback.”

“Right now, we only want feedback on the differences between Google’s current search results and our new system. We’re also interested in higher-level feedback (‘These types of sites seem to rank better or worse in the new system’) in addition to ‘This specific site should or shouldn’t rank for this query.’ Engineers will be reading the feedback, but we won’t have the cycles to send replies.”

If you want to participate in the revisions made to Caffeine and the new Google search engine, check out the test of Caffeine at http://www2.sandbox.google.com

To give Google the feedback they’re look for, perform a search using the Caffeine test site. Directly on the search results page there is a link (at the bottom of the page) that reads “Dissatisfied? Help us improve.” When you click on that link, you’ll have the option of typing your feedback directly into a text box. Make sure you use the word “Caffeine” somewhere in the post to highlight that your feedback is directly related to the revamp.

What was the Pittsburgh Shooter’s motive?

The man that police say entered a fitness center in Pittsburgh, turned off the lights and opened fire has a name — George Sodini.

A systems analyst who was well known for his hatred of women, Sodini left behind plenty of written material to tell law enforcement authorities the story of his crime from development to action. Pieces of his diatribes about his personal life and his plans to get even with women are slowly but surely creeping onto the Internet.

In fact, Sodini kept a private blog to record his thoughts in the months leading up to his first (failed) attempt and the most recent deadly and succesful spree.

Sodini rants about his mother, a woman he refers to as both “vicious” and “vindictive”. The otherwise mild systems analyst also whines about his “despair” over his “inability to attract women”. In this sense, Sodini fits the classic mold of a misogynist.

Sodini has a very high opinion of himsef to go along with his ill will for women, writing in his blog — “I actually look good. I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne – yet 30 million women rejected me ….”

Many people are blaming this crime on pure sexism. That may sound strange in today’s world, but gender bias doesn’t look the way it did a hundred or even fifty years ago. A movement for gender equality has made some progress — we no longer see women banned from certain academic careers, and can you say WNBA — but true misogyny doesn’t make its face so well known. According to crime experts, gender bias is alive and well in America.

Sodini seems to fit a nasty pattern of male criminal — the kind who express serious hatred towards any and every woman. In fact, the very idea or image of a woman can send this type of misogynist into emotional overdrive. Sodini appears to have taken out his frustration on a number of female scapegoats. While crimes like this are not exactly common in America, the idea of misogyny is nothing new. According to popular lore, the oldest poem in existence is written in Greek — its title? “Woman”. The poem is a diatribe against all things female.

Why does misogyny still exist? How could a man like Sodini feel the way he does in the twenty-first century? Sociologists explain misogyny like this — women are very much considered caregivers. They are the main caretakers for our entire lives. When you have a system set up whereby one gender is responsible for something like nurturing and caregiving, the possibility for blame and intrigue both go through the roof. It is this strange mixture of worship and hatred that can create a killer just waiting in the wings for his chance to go off. In fact, writing in his violent and angry blog, Sodini punctuates this theory by calling his own mother “the Boss above all other Bosses.”

He goes on to say that his mother “actually thinks she’s normal. Her way and only her way with no flexibility toward everyone in the household. A power and control thing.”

I don’t think we’d be jumping to any conclusions by saying that Sodini’s problems with women start with the one that gave him life.

Then there’s the other angle Sodini points out — rejection or lack of recognition from women. Some men, who may be predisposed to violence or anger, become irrational after facing a series of rejections, even ones in their own mind. When a woman rejected Sodini, in his mind she was making a comment about his masculinity, attacking his sense of self. Most of us guys just shrug and move on.

Sodini was obviously a rejected male — complaining about the “millions” of women who rejected him, and constantly referred to himself as “Never married”.

Clearly Sodini had a ton of hatred towards women. Reading the details of his blog and his other written materials, it is clear that Sodini was a timebomb — he was going to commit this terrible act (eventually) and there was nothing that could get in his way. on committing this act, and nothing was going to stop him.

The attack went something like this.

Sodini planned for months to walk into his suburban Pittsburgh health club, turn off the lights, and open fire into a crowd of women. He even “stalked” the club at odd times, hoping to find a time when a women’s fitness group was meeting, figuring his chances for killing women were higher during a female only events.

George Sodini walked into his club Tuesday night with four guns. He would eventually use three of them in the attack.

Sodini had entered the club twice that day already — perhaps the crowd in the gym at those times was not to his liking, not filled with enough women, so Sodini left and came back. The third time, Sodini found his perfect set of victims — a dance class full of females, and killed three women, wounding nine others before killing himself.

Sodini’s neighbors described the 48 year old, an employee for a law firm’s finance department, “anti-social”. Sodini’s own blog vetted this fact, setting out the trails and tribulations of a sad loner. The blog even listed his date of death as Aug. 4, 2009.

Sodini allegedly had not a single girlfriend after the year 1984, and had gone without a date since May of 2008. In his blog, Sodini confesses to being completely without sex for almost twenty years.

Listen to some more of his raving — “Women just don’t like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the US (my estimate) and I cannot find one. Death Lives!”

Police say that Sodini fired as many as 52 shots before turning the gun on himself and committing suicide. “He walked right into the room where the shootings occurred as if he knew exactly where he was going,” Allegheny County police Superintendent Charles Moffatt said. “I think he went in with the idea of doing what he did.”

The three female victims who died in the attack were Elizabeth Gannon, 49, of Pittsburgh, Heidi Overmier, 46, of Carnegie, and Jody Billingsley, 38, of Mount Lebanon.

Law enforcement officials had some difficulty identifying the victims at first, due to their workout clothes and lack of identification.

Why was Chris Brown’s sentencing delayed?

Pop star Chris Brown has been in court this week to learn his punishment for assaulting his former girlfriend, pop star Rihanna just hours before the Grammy awards this past winter. The whole saga played out in the media and in gossip magazines, and we still see stories about a possible “reunion” between Brown and Rihanna, months after the initial event. This is a story that people love to hate.

The judge in his case, Superior Court Judge Patricia Schnegg, decided to postpone his sentencing on Wednesday in order to fully determine that his punishment (violently assaulting his girlfriend) would include “some physical labor such as road cleanup”.

The Los Angeles Superior Court judge rescheduled the sentencing for August 27 to give court employees the time necessary to arrange Brown’s community service sentence. Chris Brown, who is only 20 years old, will have to get his hands plenty dirty as punishment that is part of a plea deal he made in June on a single assault charge.

The delay also will give the court time to determine if Chris Brown can carry out the community service in his home state or if he must do the service in Los Angeles.

Chris Brown has fully admitted attacking Rihanna just a few hours before they were set to perform live at the Grammy Awards. Brown is expected to receive as much as five years’ probation and a full six months of physical community service.

Specifically, Judge Patricia Schnegg made it clear that she wants Brown to “remove graffiti or clear roadsides”. Brown requested to serve the sentence in Virginia, which will probably be less embarassing for him than the mean streets of Los Angeles — papparazzi know where to find you on road detail.

An LA detective reported that Chris Brown attacked Rihanna in his car after she looked through his cell phone and found an incriminating text message from another woman. Brown then tried to push or pull Rihanna out of the vehicle before deciding to punch her right there in the car. The photos leaked to the Internet of the aftermath are really brutal, showing bumps, bruises, black eyes, and even bite marks on Rihanna’s face.

Rihanna called her assistant and told her to call police, at which point Chris Brown allegedly told her he would kill her if she did that. It is after the death threat that he bit her ear.

The police report that Rihanna filed noted that the young pop star had blood in her mouth and marks that indicated she was choked.

Earlier this month, Chris Brown made a public apology for his crime and for his behavior. He didn’t take the man’s way out, choosing instead to appear on a video on his website, in which Brown claims he is “truly, truly sorry”. Brown added that what he did was “unacceptable”.

Many advocacy groups are calling for harsher punishment for the R&B singer. They say that probation and community service are too light of a punishment for a domestic assault case, and point out that Brown’s fame shouldn’t get in the way of justice.

We won’t know Brown’s final sentence until near the end of the summer.

Why are Russian submarines patrolling the United States coast?

If reading that headline gave you an 80s flashback, you’re not alone. People are surprised to find out that two Russian attack submarines have been spotted this week within a stone’s throw, submarine-wise, of the United States. The sighting of the two nuclear subs represents the first major sighting of Russian submarines since the days of the Cold War

The Pentagon has confirmed — two Russian attack submarines have been “patrolling the waters” off the East Coast of the United States in the past week, including one submarine that came as close as 200 miles offshore. Although Pentagon officials (who have been monitoring the sub’s movements) didn’t consider the sub’s presence as a threat, one senior military official said the patrols were “unusual”. We have to remember that Russia today is not the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago. Their navy is weak, and there haven’t been submarine missions like this in decades.

The Pentagon has determined that the sub’s presence is not “provocative”, and officials were quick to point out that both nuclear subs stayed in “international waters” during the entirety of their partrol.

This story “broke” early this week when the sightings were reported via an online edition of the New York Times.

For those with a short memory, or who were born after the Cold War, these patrols were once quite normal. In fact, during the course of the Cold War, submarines from both the U.S. and the Soviet Union made regular patrols in the North Atlantic. It was a kind of game — an elaborate burlesque show of naval capability in which both sides showed off their skills at tracking and targeting rival positions. The patrols in the North Atlantic were also meant to indicate to the other side that both sides would be ready in case of war.

The same senior military official quoted saying that the patrols are not an act of aggression released the following info on the Russian boats — both vessels are nuclear powered “Akula class” submarines. These are the same subs that were used during the hottest part of the Cold War to track NATO ships. “Akula class” subs would likely have been the first line of a Russian offensive had that war gone fully hot. “Akula class” boats have the ability to attack with both torpedoes and missiles. While we refer to them as “nuclear subs”, don’t be alarmed — this class of sub only relies of nuclear energy for its power. It takes much larger ballistic missile firing submarines to launch nuclear weapons.

There are a few unconfirmed aspects of the New York Times story — for instance, the Times reported that one of the pair of submarines most recent move was to put in port in Cuba. The Pentagon specifically mentioned that there is no confirmation of that fact, and that the US military instead believes that submarine hung back near the coast of Greenland.

So why are the Russians sending out nuclear submarines now? The fact that we’re even asking that question may give us the answer. The Russian navy is the laughingstock of powerful navies — after the Cold War, Russia couldn’t support the kind of military force they’d built up, and many programs were scrapped. The recent showy submarine patrols are just the latest in a series of military operations by the Russians designed to show that they’re not dead in the water.

Last year, for instance, a Russian long range strategic bomber came out of nowhere and “buzzed” the U.S. aircraft carrier Nimitz and its escorts while that particular strike group was making a regular patrol of the Pacific Ocean. Two years ago, the British Royal Air Force went so far as to scramble fighters in order to intercept Russian strategic bombers that were flying patrols a bit too close to UK territorial air space.

An American naval expert quoted in the New York TImes article said it was “probably 15 years since Russia had put two nuclear subs in such proximity to their former Cold War rivals.”

This morning, the Russian military establishment finally responded to the news. An unnamed Russian official says patrols in international waters are “routine”, and that there was no need for “hysteria”. Another senior Russian general has shrugged off Washington’s concerns, according to the New York Times, saying it was “business as usual” for Moscow to keep its navy in shape. The specific quote — “I don’t know if it’s news to anyone,” Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia’s deputy chief of general staff, said. “The navy should not stay idle at its moorings.”

In 2007, Russia (which is ready to play a more serious role on the world stage) resumed Cold War era flights of nuclear ready bombers across the Atlantic Ocean. Consider this movement into the ocean part of the plan. Russia relies heavily on its so called “nuclear triad” — land based missiles, nuclear submarines and strategic bombers.

Before anyone panics, remember — the submarines have not taken any “provocative action” besides their mere presence, and that presence is in international waters.

What are the predictions for this year’s hurricane season?

Researchers have been scaling back their estimates on the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season since it started earlier this summer. Past seasons have seen violent storms form seemingly from the very beginning of the potential window for hurricanes — but this year has been terribly quiet.

Too quiet, in fact, for some. Even as I’m writing this, there is an area of interest in the Atlantic ocean — an area of showers and thunderstorms off the Cape Verde islands that shows some potential for turning into a tropical storm within the next few days.

The Colorado State University storm research team, probably the most trusted set of analysts for tropicl activity, has officially reduced its own 2009 Atlantic hurricane season forecast, predicting that only 10 tropical storms will appear in the Atlantic, and that only four of those storms are likely to strengthen into hurricanes.

Interestingly enough, after a string of years featuring nasty storms (Katrina, Rita, Ike, etc) this year is the slowest start to any Atlantic hurricane season since 1992.

The Colorado State forecasting team, founded by famous storm researcher William Gray, made a prediction earlier this summer that the season would see 11 tropical storms, including five hurricanes. While today’s reduction to 10 storms and 4 hurricanes may seem like a small difference, imagine if that one storm lost had been a killer like Katrina.

Tuesday’s forecast revision by Colorado State researchers suggests that only two of the hurricanes would reach the all important “major” status of Category 3 or higher. At Category 3, hurricanes contain sustained winds of over 110 miles per hour. This is the level at which hurricanes begin to do major damage.

Tuesday’s change in the forceast is the third time already this season that Colorado State’s hurricane forecast has been reduced due to sea surface temperatures dipping lower than expected. It is not all that common for the mostly tropical Atlantic Ocean to cool down this much during hurricane season. Some suggest that the development of El Nino conditions in the eastern Pacific may have something to do with the forecast change as well. El Nino is a weather system that cuases the occasional warming of Pacific sea waters that acts to dampen Atlantic hurricane activity by increasing a force known as “wind shear” — wind shear is a severe difference in conflicting wind speeds at differing altitudes. These wind shear forces appear to destroy cyclones at an atmospheric level.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. government agency in charge of reports on the climate, said in early July that the eastern Pacific had demonstrated El Nino conditions. This meant trouble for the Colorado State researchers who predicted last December that this hurricane season would produce 14 storms, seven of which would reach full hurricane strength. The forecast dropped to 13 storms, including six hurricanes, in April, then again to 12 and 5 this summer.

Strangely enough, the first two months of the current Atlantic season (June and July) have not produced any tropical storms or hurricanes. The season runs through November 30th, but most of the activity in the Atlantic happens long before then. Historically, according to Colorado State researchers, the busiest part of the season is from late August to mid-October.

What does this slow start mean for those who live in the path of potential hurricanes? Going back to the fact this season has been incredibly slow — the last hurricane season that started this slowly was in 1992, the year of Hurricane Andrew.

I don’t say that to scare people, but to remind people that a slow start doesn’t mean a slow ending. “El Nino” is certainly putting a chokehold on the Atlantic storm season, but weather forecasters are now pointing to dry desert air from the Sahara as a potential storm slowing factor.

Those of you in the path of tropical storms and hurricanes, consider yourselves lucky — you’ve been given an extra two months to get ready for this hurricane season. Make sure you are stocked with supplies in case of emergency, and that you have an evacuation plan set with your family and friends.

Why was NFL star Plaxico Burress indicted?

There seems to be no end to the “star athlete as criminal” news this summer. Late in 2008, star NFL receiver Plaxico Burress accidentally discharged a weapon in a New York City night club, injuring himself and frightening the club’s patrons. He (and his fellow player Antonio Pierce, who drove him to the hospital and allegedly helped hide the gun) was arrested on gun charges, and New York law enforcement officials soon made it clear that Burress was facing serious trouble. You see, New York takes their gun law quite seriously.

On Monday, August 3, a grand jury indicted the former Giants receiver on two seperate counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count of reckless endangerment — three charges for effectively shooting himself and ending his football career. The craziest part — Burress faces a minimum 3 1/2 years in prison if he is convicted. This seems like a stiff penalty for a guy who put a bullet in his own leg, especially considering what happened (or didn’t happen) to Donte Stallworth after that NFL player killed a person while driving drunk — and got less than 30 days in jail for it.

More player controversy is not what this league needed.

Giants linebacker, and Burress’ alleged partner in crime Antonio Pierce, was not indicted and will not face charges or any suspension from the NFL.

Antonio Pierce, just 30 years old, was at the Latin Quarter club with Plaxico Burress, who is not much older at 31, when Buress allegedly misfired a pistol he carried in the front waistband of his jeans and shot himself in the right thigh. Plax’s friend helped “arrange” for someone to remove Burress’ gun and the gun’s magazine from the crime scene, sending them over to Antonio Pierce’s home. Pierce then had the gun returned back to Plaxico Burress’ home the day after the incident, which is where the gun was when police recovered it. The big problem here is that Plaxico Burress is not licensed to own or carry a firearm in either New York or New Jersey, the state where he lives.

Shortly after Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau announced the grand jury’s decision, an NFL spokesman said: “In light of today’s grand jury decision, we see no basis for a suspension of Antonio Pierce.”

Burress faces a maximum prison sentence of 15 years on the two counts of criminal weapon possession, which is a class C violent felony. The one time big name football player also faces a maximum one year prison term on the endangerment charge, which is a lesser crime — a class A misdemeanor. There is curently no date set for Plaxico Burress’ arraignment in New York State Supreme Court. His attorney released a brief statement late yesterday, saying that he himself “doesn’t expect the trial to begin until spring”.

Reading the statement a little deeper, we find this gem from Plax’s attorney — “Although disappointed, we are not surprised, as the facts of this case have not been in dispute since the date of the incident. When you have the mayor and the district attorney both publicly demanding a maximum prison sentence, it was perhaps too much to hope for the grand jury to conduct a sympathetic review of the unique facts of this sad case.”

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before — but why should superstar athletes be held to any lighter standard when they commit crimes? These people, like it or not, are role models for a certain segment of the population, and now that it seems the entirety of the NFL has a mugshot, some (like me) believe it’s time that these players stepped up and held down that role.

Put simply — Plaxico Burress, who just happens to be a star athlete and something of a celeb, will be headed to prison like any person who carries an illegal weapon in New York. Burress’ actions show little regard for public safety — and why would a star athlete need a pistol anyway? Can’t he hire a bodyguard like the rest of the celebrity world?

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the grand jury that decided yesterday to charge Plaxico Burress to the fullest extent that the law allowed. Think of it this way — if you or I hit a person while driving drunk, or shot off an illegal weapon in a night club, or ran dog fighting ring, what would happen to us? Who would be there to give us a soft landing? No one — and these players should face the full penalties available to the courts just like the rest of us. For Burress, the future looks bleak — and that isn’t something I’ll celebrate. Burress was a joy to watch, whether he was catching passes or answering media questions. Unfortunately for the one time Giants receiver, he will likely spend at least the next two seasons in a cell, and after he gets out (in his mid thirties) who knows if any team will have him?

I hope that Burress can see a silver lining here. Every day that he spends in prison watching his old teammates play on television, he’ll act as a kind of warning to those considering carrying illicit weapons. Like Michael Vick before him, Burress could become a warning of “what could happen” to teenagers across the country.

There were so many bad decisions on the night of November 29, 2008 — the first poor choice was when Burress decided to cross the state line from New Jersey into New York with an illegal .40-caliber pistol. Another bad decision — bringing the gun into the night club and hiding it in such a way that it would go off accidentally. The last bad choice — Antonio Pierce deciding to hide the weapon for his teammate and friend.

Surprisingly, the grand jusry gave the gun hiding Antonio Pierce a “get out of jail free” card — was it because Pierce eventually cooperated? Did Pierce cut a plea bargain? We don’t know yet. According to legal analysts, the grand jury likely saw Pierce as a victim of Plaxico Burress’ reckless behavior. Count your lucky stars, Pierce.

The jury also chose not to indict a security guard who transported Burress’ gun out of the club and into Pierce’s car — hospital staff, who were in trouble for failing to notify police of the shooting incident as required by law — also got off without so much as a slap on the wrist. The security worker for the night club merely exhibited “bad judgment” according to the grad jury panel, and the hospital staff? They committed a major screw up, but the grand jury could not find anything to charge them with.

Burress could still strike some kind of plea bargain himself, but according to NYC chief assistant district attorney Mark Dwyer this is unlikely, as the best bargain Burress would get is a year or 18 months off the charge he’s already been indicted for, still sidelining him for the next two NFL seasons. Burress is unlikely to bargain for a gift he doesn’t really want.

Both Plaxico Burress and Antonio Pierce testified before the grand jury last week. Only Antonio Pierce succeeded at making his case, as his lengthy two day court appearance may have been the final straw that cleared him of any charges. Some writers have indicated that if Antonio Pierce had not testified in front of the panel, he would have been indicted along with Plax.

Antonio Pierce, for his part, is sweating this one out at Giants training camp in Albany. Plaxico Burress’ decision to testify, unlike Pierce, may have hurt his case, and kept him from the chance of earning an acquittal if he goes to trial. Plaxico Burress is now locked into a specific story and timeline of events which takes away his defense attorney’s ability to plead his case. Testifying before the grand jury? Pierce, win — Burress, lose.

Why is the Cash for Clunkers program controversial?

After writing about the so called “Cash for Clunkers” program a few weeks ago when it was announced, I was stunned to find out that there was a contingent of people who were against the program. Some people are using it to make a case against the entire Obama administration and their economic policies — still others point to this piece of legislation as unneccessary government subsidizing. As usual, both sides have valid points.

You know about the “Cash for Clunkers” program if you’ve had the news on the past week or so — the Federal government has decided to hand out vouchers of different amounts to people for trading in their old or inefficient cars for newer models with better gas mileage. It is a sort of “fleet modernization” that is unparalleled in American history.

First, a positive sign for the American economy — nearly half of the vehicles sold to this date under the “Cash for Clunkers” buyer incentive program put money in the coffers of General Motors Co, Ford Motor Co and Chrysler. That’s right — the big three automakers performed way above average among people purchasing a new car with the government incentive money.

Other information about how the “Clunker” program has fared so far — small passenger cars accounted for 60 percent of the nearly 90,00 sales during the first week of the program, this according to numbers reported to the government by various retail dealers through this past Saturday. It is a good sign that Americans are looking smaller in terms of their vehicles — smaller cars are generally more fuel efficient. So far, the top selling car among buyers using the incentive program is the Ford Focus.

This represents the first major assessment of how the program is working out at the consumer level. Remember that some consumers are offered a voucher of $4,500 to trade in those clunker vehicles for more efficient models. It is good news that Americans are putting their faith back in American cars. And remember when everyone on Capitol Hill was shouting about those “big 3″ manufacturers being a major piece of the American economy? Guess what — the program’s working for them.

According to Obama administration officials, the “Cash for Clunkers” incentive will prove to be a major economic stimulator during a nasty recession. Those some officials are putting heavy pressure on the Senate to approve a proposed $2 billion extension of the program by the end of this week. Without the additional money, says Obama and company, the program will die on the vine. Obama’s already won half of the battle — the House of Representatives voted in support of the extension package late last Friday. We’ll have to wait to hear what the Senate thinks about an extension — that chamber won’t consider the extension measure until the middle of this week.

Those who oppose the “Clunkers” program think of it as another form of the bank bailouts that caused so much controversy last year. You can tell them until you’re blue in the face that “Cash for Clunkers” isn’t anywhere near as expensive a program for the taxpayers, but they will cling to their “subsidization” argument. $1 billion might sound like a huge incentive program, but the payouts to financial institutions amounted to $2.5 trillion and climbing. These same detractors will admit that the program has caused renewed auto sales and put people in the doors of dealerships. They’ll admit that the timing of the incentive program was perfect for struggling auto manufacturers.

What they’ll also tell you is that some recent analysis made of the program by non partisan economics forecaster suggests that the program will have no noticeable impact on the actual number of car sales. In other words, these were car sales that didn’t depend on the voucher — rather, these vouchers hit some consumers when they needed it most, when their older less fuel efficient cars needed replacing anyway.

The “Cash for Clunkers” program is also being cited as a perfect example of the Obama administration’s lack of understanding about the economy — critics say that “Cash for Clunkers” borrows money from one source in order to stimulate a bit of economic activity — and even worse, that this stimulation “borrows growth” from the economic future. In short, critics of “Clunkers” warn that your future tax hikes will pay for your current “new car voucher”.

Did Michael Vick deserve a conditional reinstatement?

A couple of years after a conviction on animal cruelty charges related to dog fighting, one time NFL star Michael Vick has been “conditionally” reinstated to the professional football league by its commissioner Roger Goodell. Analysts were split on exactly what would happen to Vick, a quarterback with enough talent for three or four players. Some insisted he would be let back into the league immediately, having served a full two year suspension. Still others expected that Vick would never play football again, at least not for the NFL.

It turns out both camps were wrong. Though some people will quickly call Vick’s “conditional reinstatement” an error, arguing that Michael Vick should face more severe action from the league, still others are already lining up to point out what they feel is an obvious case of double jeopardy. For example, one prominent sportswriter is already on the record saying that Vick’s additional give game suspension is like “kicking a dead horse” — a line that makes me wonder if said writer could have possible come up with a less tasteful metaphor. You see, some people think that the additional five games added to Vick’s two year suspension (keeping him off any NFL field until the sixth game of the upcoming season at least) is addint insult to injury. “He’s already done the time,” they’ll say, and they may be right. But Vick’s crime was more than a petty crime — it has been charged that Vick personally abused dogs.

For his part, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did what he has long promised he would do — look for actions over words. Besides just adding the first five games of the upcoming 2009 season to the length of Michael Vick’s suspension, Goodell promises that he’ll be watching Vick’s behavior, intimating that Vick will be on the shortest of leashes. Though he did conditionally reinstate Vick to the NFL, there is, as always, a caveat: “only actions matter”. Goodell has made it clear that Vick’s words will not be neough to act as a true “rehabilitation”. In my opinion, that is about the only way Goodell could have handled the Michael Vick situation. Goodell is taking time to watch Vick, judge the man by his deeds, and not fall back on listening to Vick’s promises.

This is not a crime that happened ages ago — in fact, Michael Vick’s nearly two year prison sentence ended last week (last week!) when his house arrest was ended. Who can be rehabilitated in a week — what person charged with cruelty to animals can change his or her ways in just a couple of years? If Goodell didn’t add a little “insult” to Vick’s “injury”, it would be absurd. Goodell would basically be saying “Okay, you’ve paid your dues, one week was enough, strap on your helmet.”

From the angle of Michael Vick’s supporters — and there are plenty — Vick has paid a very steep price for his dog fighting crimes. He missed two seasons (or so) of NFL football, and lost out on millions of dollars in contract money and endorsements, some of which he’ll never get back, and the rest of which he’ll have to PAY back, in cash. Vick’s supporters, for the most part, agree that his inhumane treatment of animals was disgusting and that his crime shouldn’t be minimized, but they argue that the man has already paid that debt and should be allowed back in the game ASAP.

There is another angle for Michael Vick and his crowd of yeasayers. Compare Vick’s sentence and penalties to those of other NFL athletes who have committed equal (or even more serious) crimes. Take the case of Leonard Little for example. After he left a friend’s birthday party (with a blood alcohol level of 0.19 percent) in 1998, Little crashed into the car of Susan Gutweiler, killing her instantly. For his crime, which amounts to murder, Leonard Little received just 90 days in jail. Now, we can argue about the value of a dog versus the value of a human, but a two year prison sentence for cruelty to animals versus a 90 day jail sentence for killing a human is downright laughable. Even this year, we heard the results of the case against Donte’ Stallworth, also guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Stallworth received around 20 days in jail — even less than Little — and settled with the family of the deceased for an unknown amount of cash. So sometimes the criminal justice system doesn’t make sense. I still think that misses the point of Vick’s case.

Michael Vick’s crime was premeditated — he knew what he was doing to these animals, and continued to do it until he was caught. You could say that Vick would still be choke slamming dogs and pitting house pets against trained fighting dogs if he hadn’t been busted. Vehicular manslaughter, though terrible, is not as premeditated a crime as the creation and maintenance of a dog fighting ring.

I guarantee you, the Vick debate will rage on for a few months until his first game — then, if he keeps his nose clean — we’ll all go back to thinking of Mike Vick the amazing quarterback. No matter what side if the debate you’re on, one fact that you can’t deny is that Vick hasn’t yet done enough to prove to the league that he’s mentally able to play the game of football. To determine when Vick is truly “rehabilitated”, the NFL needs to take some time to track Vick’s actions and make sure they’re in line with his vocalizations of remorse.

Roger Goodell has been nothing but consistent in his comments and opinions about Michael Vick and the dog fighting situation. The commissioner has never said anything but this — that he wants to see “real remorse” on Vick’s part before he is welcome back to the league. The problem for Goodell is and has always been that he’s selling a product, and Michael Vick simply makes that product more profitable.

Michael Vick may be out of the slammer, but he has clearly not done what the NFL wants him to do inorder to be fully reinstated.

What is Obama cutting from the Federal budget?

There’s an old saying in our nation’s capital — “$1 billion here, $1 billion there”. This is supposed to be a joke about the large amounts of money that our Federal government deals with on a daily basis, and is meant to give the common man a chuckle. However, in the case of President Obama’s recent budget cut decisions, it just isn’t true.

When President Obama organized his Cabinet, he let them know that he expected them to come up with $100 million in budget savings, and to do it pronto. Sure, $100 million pales in comparison to $1 billion, but as my mama taught me, every little bit counts.

President Obama’s Cabinet has finally delivered what the President wants. $100 million in budget cuts have been whispered to Obama, and now he’s sharing them with the country. Okay, so we’re not talking about an amount of money that will fix the economy or give back hundreds of thousands of jobs, but President Barack Obama’s budget cuts are a delivery on two promises. The first — a promise he made to his country, to his fellow citizens. The second promise — that Obama wouldn’t ask anything of us that he wouldn’t do himself. More on that last promise later. First, the cuts.

Most government agencies have agreed to go “paperless” in most cases, saving an untold amount in paper and copy machine costs. Don’t laugh — the estimate for this savings alone is over $90,000 per agency. Similarly, the Treasury Department has decided to shred classified materials (and to recycle them) instead of following their usual protocol and burning them through an outside agency. This small change will recapture about $40,000 per year.

Over at the Justice Department, the government will save an astounding $4 million in the next year by making their travel arrangements online (like the rest of us) instead of using travel agents. That’s a huge amount of savings for just one change — and by the way, who uses a travel agent anymore? Apparently, our government does.

In a move that echoes changes most of us are making in our own home, the Air Force agreed to install around 3,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs. This will reportedly reduce the Air Force’s electricity costs by about $36,000 a year.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture is cutting some overseas meetings and conferences (including a fancy trip to Australia), and the Department of Commerce did away with a plan to make over $140,000 in office renovations, saying that the changes were not “necessary to their operation”. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is shifting some expenses, including the maintenance and eventual disposal of temporary housing from Hurrican Katrina (120,000 housing units in all) — these changes will now be made by a private outfit. This move will save the government around $4 million in operating costs.

What is the biggest single change of them all? The Air Force isn’t just changing light bulbs — they’re saving $52 million by switching over to commercial jet fuel. The standard procedur for fuel in an Air Force jet is something known as “JP-8″. It doesn’t even there — the Air Force is cutting back a total of $18 million by transporting more soldiers per chartered airplane when they take leave. I figure they can sit the relative comfort of coach like the rest of us, but that probably won’t be a popular opinion.

The press release about the budget cuts came down the line late Monday evening with a surprisingly small amount of news coverage or fanfare. Most likely, the health care reform is clouding the news horizon, or the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Either way, few people have heard the specifics of Obama’s cuts. And yes, Obama’s pledge to make cuts to the budget equals something near $1 for every $10,000 of his now $1 trillion budget — but he is delivering on a promise, and the angriest Birth Certificate conspiracy theory Republican can’t deny that. The budget, approved this past March, is now just a bit smaller.

Opponents of the President and his budget have been quick to compare the $100 million cut with “cutting a single foot-long submarine sandwich from the budget of a person making $60,000 a year”. Is it a strange analogy? Yes, but that doesn’t make it any less effective. After all, Americans are known for their predilection for food.

Don’t forget that the actual tally for cuts is $102 million for the year 2009, as well as an additional $165 million more in savings 2010. So, he’s cutting two sub sandwiches.

The President clearly believes that small savings add up to make a big difference. All comparisons to submarine sandwiches aside, these kinds of small changes reflect what the Federal government has been asking us to do for some years now — change little things to create big savings in energy costs. Think of these cuts as Obama practicing what he has so sternly been preaching.

By making these cuts, Obama has done exactly what he needed — fulfilled a couple of major promises he and his staff made to the American people. It may be easier for the rest of us to tighten our belts when we see our President doing the same.

Are mercury dental fillings safe?

Mercury is well known as one of the most dangerous metals on earth. One of only four metals that are in liquid form at room temperature, mercury (also known as quicksilver) is a poison that can cause sickness and even death. So how does it make sense that we get mercury-based fillings in our teeth?

Though people have been petitioning the government for answers for years, a definitive answer has only recently been offered by the FDA.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced this week that the silver colored dental fillings containing mercury are safe for patients. This is good news for most of us, as we are all likely to have a mercury based filling or two in our mouth. This decision by the FDA is a reversal from an earlier caution they relased to doctors and dentists against the use of mercury for medical purposes in specific types of patients, most notably pregnant women and children under the age of 16.

In the statement released Tuesday, the FDA had this to say — “While elemental mercury has been associated with adverse health effects at high exposures, the levels released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients.” The report cites an agency wide review of about 200 scientific studies published in the last couple of years.

Millions of us have mercury fillings used to patch cavities in our teeth. The FDA said it certainly does not recommend any patients have their fillings removed.

The fillings, which are silver in color, are also known as ‘amalgams” in dental parlance. The filling itself is not 100 percent mercury, but is actually a combination of many metals including mercury. Mercury has been linked to brain and kidney damage when it is absorbed into the body at high levels. The FDA has basically reported this week that fillings don’t have enough mercury to do real harm.

In 2006, a group calling itself Moms Against Mercury sued the FDA (along with three other groups) to have mercury amalgams removed from the U.S. market. Early in 2007, an FDA panel reported that most people would not be harmed by the small amount of mercury, but that more information was needed. In fact, that same panel recommended that mercury based fillings not be used on children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people particularly sensitive to mercury.

The dangeorus little metal, whether found in medicine, vaccines, fillings, or food, has generated a ton of controversy in recent years. Many consumer groups say that the fillings can “trigger” a variety of serious health problems including Alzheimer’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Some parents are refusing to vaccinate their children out of fear of mercury, and even more people are avoiding consuming fish because of rumors of high mercury levels.

But in the FDA’s final regulations on mercury issued this week as part of an earlier legal settlement, the government group stated that the fillings arre now considered “only a moderate risk”. The FDA will clear the air more in the coming weeks by issuing specific details about the risks and benefits of mercury products. These products will also now carry warnings on their labels — warnings doctors will use to inform patients who have mercury allergies or other specific health concerns.

The problem with mercury and other heavy metals is our lack of knowledge. Sure, we know a ton about what exposure to these metals can do, but serious questions still exist about what chronic low-level exposure over the course of a lifetime does to our bodies. According to the FDA’s new release, there is no “causal link” between mercury amalgam fillings and chronic health problems. While some are relieved by this statement, there are still questions from consumer advocacy group, and Moms Against Mercury is still not convinced.

Moms Against Mercury President Amy Carson is on the record saying she is “disappointed in the FDA’s reversal”. Her group filed yet another petition with the FDA as soon as the announcement was made, calling for a ban on mercury fillings yet again. While I’m not sure what Moms Against Mercury knows that the FDA doesn’t, it is impressive that they’re sticking to their guns.

Over the past 20 years, the FDA reports that they’ve only heard about 140 reports of problems with the fillings, or patients who may have suffered problems from the fillings.

The FDA’s decision could have a serious impact on the businesses that manufacture metal fillings. These groups, such as Dentsply International Inc and Kerr, saw their stock prices soar on the news. For now, the dental manufacturing industry is applauding the decision. Shares of Dentsply closed up than 21 cents to rest at $30.80 per share on the Nasdaq.

According to the American Dental Association (ADA), 30 percent of fillings given to patients are contain mercury, though a growing number of patients ar echoosing tooth-colored natural options such as resin composites. Even more alternative products exist outside of resin — these include porcelain, glass cement, or even gold. The problem with these fillings? They are much more expensive and far less durable.

Are tanning beds a cancer risk?

International cancer experts have determined, once and for all, that the use of tanning beds and any other device that transmits any kind of ultraviolet or UV radiation do cause cancer. How have they done this? By moving up tanning beds, sun lamps, and similar devices to “the highest risk category”, the same as very dangerous poisons, such as mustard gas.

The new classification for these devices is more than just a symbolic gesture. It means that there is now medical support for the belief that tanning beds and UV rays definitely cause cancer in humans, just as tobacco smoke, and the hepatitis B virus do — two other things listed in the “highest risk category”. It also means that worldwide bans on these devices are being considered.

This information was handed down by the International Agency for Cancer Research (known as IARC). This group is the World Health Organization’s cancer study wing and is based in Lyon, France. The announcement on the updated cancer risk level for tanning beds appeared in a piece of research published this week in the online branch of the medical journal Lancet Oncology. Before this announcement, the IARC determined that tanning beds and other UV delivery devices were “probably carcinogenic to humans”. This has been changed to “definitively carcinogenic to humans”.

Doctors who support the move believe this announcement will increase already tight pressure on the tanning bed industry to regulate the use of UV delivery devices. This isn’t more of the so called “Nanny State” — there is hard evidence that the link between tanning beds and skin cancer is incredibly high. This announcement is just the latest in a long string of similar charges made in medical journals.

As expected, representatives from the tanning bed industry have been quick to state that there is no proof that there is a link between the “responsible use of tanning beds and skin cancer”. Sure, if you ignore the last ten years of medical science.

The IARC is made up of cancer experts charged with making recommendations related to cancer to the World Health Organization. This is not some group of people set to profit from the collapse of tanning.

The IARC made this decision after a lengthy review of scientific research which determined that the risk of melanoma — which is the deadliest form of skin cancer in humans — was increased by an average of 75% in people who use tanning beds regularly before the age of 30. The link to age is also interesting, and presents a worse picture for tanning salons everywhere — the tanning industry will now be painted as “giving our kids cancer”. Not usually a good sign for any business.

An additional risk of a very scary cancer was found through the us of tanning beds. The recent IARC declaration is not the only group to notice that there is much greater risk for a teenager to develop melanoma of the eye if that person uses a tanning device. Take your pick — melanoma of the eye or slightly paler skin?

Cancer Research UK, a huge charity group dedicated to cancer awareness, already made a warning earlier this year that even average use of tanning beds or sun lamps is mostly responsible for the rising number of people worldwide being diagnosed with melanoma. In fact, that number jumped to over 10,000 a year in Great Britain alone for the first time this year. Over the last three decades, melanoma rates in the UK have quadrupled and then some. In 1977, for instance, there were 3.4 cases of melanoma per 100,000 people. In 2006, that number was nearly 15 per 100,000.

The British government will be one of the first to act to protect its citizens. There is already a proposal in Great Britain to ban the use of tanning devices in people under the age of 18. A ban on tanning beds has already taken place in Scotland. The representatives we quoted earlier have weighed in on this topic, and they agree that a ban on people under the age of 16 is negotiable, but they make the argument, again, that “there is no scientific evidence for a ban on people aged 17 or 18″.

The fact is this — now that we know that exposure to UV rays of all kinds (A, B, or C) creates a huge risk of getting cancer, the responsible thing to do is to avoid tanning beds for cosmetic purposes. In fact, there is no health benefit to tanning, and armed with the knowledge that cancer is a distinct possibility, it is the opinion of many in the medical community that these devices should be banned worldwide.

Is texting while driving dangerous?

Surprisingly, the issue of cell phone usage while driving is a divisive issue. Ask a crowded room how they feel about laws banning the use of handheld cell phones for calling, texting, or any other use, and you’re likely to split the room. On one hand, there are people who will always favor less legislation or “small government”. Those on the other side of the issue feel that it is sometimes the government’s duty to regulate issues related to safety. We’ve all used our phones at inappropriate times — in class, during a movie, and so on — but how many of us are willing to justify the use of a handheld cell phone while we’re driving?

Another study into the relative safety of handheld cell phone usage while driving was released this week. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute weighed in on the issue that is creating legislation from Texas to Maine. This study looked into texting specifically, leaving out any info on the dangers of talking on a cellphone. Not surprisingly, this study concludes much the same as similar inqueries that driving while texting on a cell phone or smartphone simply isn’t safe. In fact, according to the VTTI, texting makes a driver as much as 23 times more likely to be involved in a car crash than drivers who are not texting. Sure, some of you are reading this wondering why we needed yet another study to prove what seems obvious — but there are still plenty of people who gripe about anti cell phone laws. In my state, the fine for using a handheld cell phone while driving is $1,000 minimum. That’s enough to keep me from using my phone while the car’s in motion, and I’m guessing other drivers on the road feel the same way.

The report from Virginia Tech makes a conclusion that can’t be misinterpreted — driving while texting should be banned, everywhere, and that any cell phone use in cars should be banned for inexperienced drivers. Apparently, texting is more dangerous than talking, which seems obvious enough. Looking down at the screen and the keys while typing seems much more dangerous that simply holding a phone to your face and talking. But since this study didn’t look into cellphone chat, and instead focused on texting, it is difficult to fully buy into their conclusion.

Still, the Virginia Tech report comes less than a week after very similar conclusions were made in a report orchestrated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That report, which was a hefty 266 pages, came from information that was compiled 7 years ago, in late 2002. This information was kept out of the public’s hands until two as yet unknown consumer advocacy groups filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain the information. The data recommends, without a doubt, that drivers should be banned from using cell phones in moving vehicles, and there’s a twist. While most states, including my own, allow hands free cell phone use, the study by the NHTSA suggests that even hands free listening devices are a dangerous distraction.

I’m going to tip my hand here — I hate cell phone use in cars. Has there ever been a study that proved that texting or talking on a cell phone improves your driving skills? Does it even make sense that adding yet another distraction to our vehicles (besides the radio, friends, fast food in your lap, etc) would have anything but a negative impact on one’s driving ability?

Put simply — driving while texting is a huge problem, especially for those of us in high traffic areas. This practice needs to be completely banned — to save lives and keep our insurance premiums down, etc.

Another suggestion of mine (and several advocacy groups) — young or inexperienced drivers are distracted enough without the addition of cell phones. I know when I first got my license, I was barely conscious of things around me, and it took a couple of years behind the wheel before I learned the confidence I now feel necessary to get on the road. In short, young drivers should be explicitly banned from using cell phones, maybe until the age of 21. Have you ever seen someone under the age of 21 that wasn’t completely consumed by their cellphone, PDA, or smartphone? If anyone needs an immediate ban on all cell phone use it is these inexperienced road warriors.

I wonder how many studies like those released just in the past week we need to learn about before we force our government to do something about the distraction of driving while texting?

Keep the roads safe for everyone — if you must send a text or make a call while you’re on the road, it won’t take but a few seconds to pull off, park the car, and get it done while you’re not hurtling down the highway.

What is the iTablet?

The iTablet is Apple’s next attempt to shake up the entertainment industry — this time with a kind of revamp of some older Mac technology.

Apple’s cult hit Newton was a kind of early PDA. It was hugely popular among a percentage of the population, but is a well known flop in the computing industry. This time around, Apple is introducing a device, known for now as the iTablet, that is portable and lets its users download movies, play games, and read digital books. According to insiders, more and more pieces of entertainment are being marketed with multimedia trappings — think of CDs released with digital booklets, or movies that come with trivia games, etc.

This new iTablet device will likely be hitting stores sooner than you think. Tech analysts have been discussing an Apple tablet device since a reference at an Apple conference in 2004 sparked rumors about a return to the Newton. Many of these bloggers are now suggesting that the iTablet could see a launch in the early part of 2010.

The iTablet will be a touch screen internet ready gadget that aims to do what Microsoft failed — compete with Amazon’s Kindle, SOny’s Reader and another device that Barnes & Noble is set to release. The iTablet, which will be similar to an iPod Touch device according to insiders, is expected to have a 10 inch screen. Some writers have suggested that the new iTablet product would be just another extension of Apple’s massive iPod line — a holding that owns more than 70 percent of the American digital music market — due to the iPod’s recent loss of market share. In fact, just last week, Apple announced that iPod sales were sagging between 7 percent and 8 percent. Tech writers say that the iTablet product could breathe new life into the iPod line or fill a specific niche in Apple’s product line.

So why is Apple pouncing on an even more modern way of delivering content? Besides expected losses from the still widespread online piracy of music, the recording and film industries have taken a huge hit in the bankbook from the standard behavior changes found in all consumers — this iteration of entertainment consumers are moving away from traditional means of ownership. In layman’s terms, no one’s really buying albums and movies anymore, at least not from the usual places. In 2007, sales of download singles rose 27 percent while sales of physical CDs and albums dropped a massive 25 percent this according to the RIAA. One potential bright spot for musicians interested in making more than just singles — downloaded albums rose 34 percent.

In an effort to push back against this trend, record industry types and film studios are hunting desperately for new ways to get people to buy their products. Part of what they’re doing is revamping the product — the most recent album I bought (digitally) came with a beautiful digital “booklet” and a video of an interview with the band. This kind of material not only generates the all important industry “buzz”, but it also creates a need for different kinds of devices to enjoy them. For instance, I can’t enjoy the digital video that came with the album unless I’m using a music player that plays video, and even then I can’t leaf through the digital booklet unless I have a device that can read that sort of file, and on and on.

Expect Apple’s new iTablet device to be polarizing — remember, when the iPod came out there were plenty of people willing to line up against it, for whatever reason. If Apple can build on the parts of the Newton that were succesful, while drawing in some new customers to the world of PDAs and portable display units, the iTablet is a sure winner.

Additional related articles:

• What Is Wireless Internet Access?
• What Is Computer Software?
• What Is a Hard Drive?
• What Is a Software Patch?
• What is an External Hard Drive?

Terrorists in North Carolina?

According to the FBI and several major news outlets, seven people were charged today with “conspiring to provide material support to terrorists” and “conspiring to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad”. The press release, issued by David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, and other FBI agents name the following people as part of the case:

Dylan Boyd, 22, U.S. citizen, resident of North Carolina
Mohammad Omar Aly Hassan, 22, U.S. citizen, resident of North Carolina
Ziyad Yaghi, 21, U.S. citizen, resident of North Carolina
Daniel Patrick Boyd, 39, U.S. citizen, resident of North Carolina
Hysen Sherifi, 24, Kosovo citizen, legal permanent resident located in North Carolina
Anes Subasic, 33, U.S. citizen, resident of North Carolina
Zakariya Boyd, 20, U.S. citizen, resident of North Carolina

The defendants in the case were arrested Monday morning, July 27, 2009, at various locations by the FBI with the cooperation of other law enforcement agencies. The defendants all made their first court appearances today, in the federal court building in Raleigh, N.C.

Probably the scariest part of the indictment are the weapons charges. The indictment alleges that Daniel Boyd obtained a variety of weapons in the pursuit of his terrorist conspiracy, including a Bushmaster M4A3 rifle, an ETA M16 V System C-MAG, and a Ruger mini 14 long gun. But it gets worse.

The indictment further alleges that Boyd purchased a Mossburg 100 ATR .270 rifle, a Llama Camanche III .357 revolver, a Century Arms AK Sporter 7.62 X 39 rifle, a Ruger mini 30 7.62 X 39 rifle, an Ishmash SAGA .308 rifle, a Century Arms Polish Tantal 5.45 X 39 rifle, a Century Arms C91 rifle .308, a Century Arms M70B1 7.62 X 34 rifle, a Ruger mini 14 5.56 rifle, and a Smith & Wesson MP15 .223 rifle. The list of weapons obtained is not quite finished. According to the indictment, in February 2009 Daniel Boyd and his son, Dylan Boyd, sold a Beretta 9 mm handgun and ammunition to a convicted felon.

The indictment unsealed and issued today suggests that Daniel Boyd was trained at terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that he is in fact a “veteran” of these camps, and has conspired with other citizens in America over the past three years to “recruit and help” young men travel overseas in order to learn how to kill.

Given the amount and firepower of the weapons allegedly involved in the conspiracy (and the extreme nature of the charges against the men), expect this case to take a while to develop.

All of the defendants named above are charged with “conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists”, as well as a charge of “conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim and injure persons abroad”. In addition, some of the suspects (namely Daniel Boyd, Hysen Sherifi and Zakariya Boyd) will face a charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence on top of the other charges. Daniel Boyd and Dylan Boyd will also face one charge each of selling a firearm to a convicted felon based on evidence gathered in the case. To wrap up the charges, Daniel Boyd will also face a felony charge of receiving a firearm through interstate commerce as well as two charges of making false statements in a terrorism investigation. Some of these guys, if convicted, won’t be free for quite some time.

The FBI is trying to make a point with these arrests and the severity of the chargest — that terrorists and those who support their efforts are not just people living in a cave in the desert half a world away, or people confined to a remote hideout in the Middle East, but that people right her ein America are involved in illegal terrorist related activity.

This investigation is notable because of the amount of cooperation between different law enforcement agencies. Federal, state and local cops worked together for the entire length of the investigation. This new amount of law enforcement partnership is possible because of the the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Back to the indictment — allegedly, during the years between 1989 and 1992, Daniel Boyd traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to be trained “military-style” in terrorist tactics — according to the indictment, this training was for the purpose of participating in a violent jihad. The indictment further suggests that Daniel Boyd actually participated in terrorist activities in Afghanistan in the early 1990s.

Each one of the defendants named faces what amounts to a life imprisonment if they are convicted of the charges of conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad — in fact, that charge comes with a mandatory life sentence in prison. In addition, the charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists carries a maximum 15-year sentence. The further charges of receiving a firearm through interstate commerce and selling a firearm to a convicted felon carry a 10-year sentence apiece. The charge of making false statements in a terrorism investigation carries with it a mandatory eight year sentence, and finally, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence will get you a five-year sentence minimum.

Please keep in mind that any indictment is just a collection of allegations, and that all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

What caused the recent stock boom?

The major U.S. stock index scores kept up the recent winning trend today, and have now risen to their highest levels in recent months. The up trend is caused by many factors, not the least of which is an unexpected number of quarterly results beating their estimates and a trickling upward in the home sales data.

That’s right — good news from the real estate market. Stocks are booming on news that existing home sales rose for the third consecutive month as reported from June. This boost in confidence for the stock market put to bed any previous qualms about the market. Some were saying this boom was based solely on those better than expected quarterly results, and that more evidence was needed that the economy may be turning around. For those skeptics, the new home sales numbers seems to have been the final straw.

The Dow Jones industrial average also hit a high mark, breaking through the 9,000 point for the first time since early January, this also a result of the National Association of Realtors announcing that sales of pre owned homes were 3.6% higher in June at 4.89 million annualized units, up from 4.72 million units in May. The new figures from the home market indicate a growth that is quicker annually than predicted by market analysts. With a projection for 4.84 million units in June, the analysts were under by almost 50,000 homes. This lifted shareholder’s hopes that the housing market may be heading in the direction of a gradual recovery.

On Thursday June 23, the Dow Jones industrial average gained 182. 43 points, or 2.1%, to jump to a volume of 9,063.69. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index added 22.17, or 2.3%, to close at $976.24, and the Nasdaq Composite Index shot up by 46.47, or 2.4% of its volume, to close at 1,972.85, all during a Thursday afternoon trading session.

Some stand out stocks include 3M, whose shares enjoyed heavy buying traffic on Thursday — the stock’s value closed up by $3.93, or 6.1% volume, to end at $68.60. 3M is a highly diversified tech company who recent press conference indicated that swine flu (or H1N1) fears helped sales of their respiratory masks, proving that H1N1 is having some major social and economic results. Overall though, 3M blames their good streak on “greater demand for consumer electronics”.

The recent boom in stock values is largely influence by the announcements of several companies who indicated they made more money than expected. The Dow is now up nearly 40 percent from low marks in early March of 2009. Ford Motor Co., AT&T Inc., and the aforementioned 3M Co. are just a few of the assets that have recently reported earnings that beat analysts’ expectations.

It is good to see all financial markets trending upward — it isn’t just the New York Stock Exchange, but also the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 who are also showing growth, with each one up over 2 percent today from previous highs.

Many analysts are slow to give credit to any one factor for the recent up trend in the stock market. Many say that the recent gains can be attributed not juts to companies beating their earnings estimates, but to investors coming back into the market because they don’t want to miss what is perceived as a rally, and the public’s perception that the economy is starting to recover, slowly but surely.

Another indicator of what might be causing a market boom — the tech heavy Nasdaq Composite Index, which was already on an 11-day winning streak coming into Thursday’s action, was up over 2%, helped analysts say by major gains in two of its high-profile funds following business’ quarterly reports. One major holding, EBay, was up by 10% after the online auctioneer announced that current quarter results would top analyst estimates. Interestingly enough, it was EBay’s rival, online retailer Amazon.com, that also bolstered the Nasdaq’s winning streak — Amazon gained 5.5% after announcing a surprising to all (including the CEO) profit increase. It didn’t hurt that Amazon also recently acquired major online shoe retailer Zappos.com. So is it tech stocks that are leading the financial boom right now?

Not necessarily — just look at shares of SanDisk, which plunged 13% in a day after the computer chip maker announced strong recent profits but what some analysts saw as “a disappointing outlook”. Recently, most stock analysts have downgraded the value of SanDisk to a neutral or average rating, with one reviewer saying: “Top-line weakness raises concerns about the demand environment and we believe partially reflects weaker consumer spending.” It seems that investors are still wary about tech stocks after the boom and crash in the late 90s / early 2000s.

What other sectors won big recently in the stock market? Health care, for one. Bristol-Myers announced their better than expected results (beginning to sound like a broken record?) and announced a plan to buy the much smaller Medarex company for $2.4 billion. Bristol-Myers shares were up a solid 1.6% on the day, while Medarex was the big winner, up 89%. Another health care company that did good for themselves — Wyeth, whose earnings also beat expectations. That pushed the value of the drugmaker’s shares up a full 1%.

Investors may also have responded to President Barack Obama’s press conference Wednesday evening regarding proposed health care legislation. If this is the case, they seem to have reacted positively — traders are notoriously nervous about any big moves by the Commander in Chief, and traders have been nervous about Obama’s health care package, whether it would face any major delays, if the plan could effectively control costs, if the plan would leave customers room for choice, etc.

Whatever the reason, the market is turning back into a solid investment. Part of the mini boom we’re experiencing could just be people returning to the market because their confidence has been restored.

How was ESPN reporter Erin Andrews filmed while undressing?

It has become one of the hottest search terms of the year — millions of people entering Erin Andrews name into web crawlers looking for a video that is shocking, disturbing, and downright wrong.

Erin Andrews was filmed in various states of undress, without her knowledge, in hotel rooms recently. The video, which appears to have been filmed in at least two different locations, is available on the web for viewing. However, you have to understand that this woman is going through hell — use the Golden Rule here, people, and don’t look for it.

One big question about the incident — how did someone manage to film her without her knowing in a private hotel room?

The clips of Andrews, who is 31 and a beautiful statuesque blonde, were posted online last last week and the web searches for the video have topped Google’s search trend list for four days running. Erin Andrews has developed quite a cult following since she began working at ESPN in 2004.

The video is made up of rather grainy images shot through what looks like a man made hole in the wall. In the video, Andrews is undressing and appearing nude in an unknown hotel room. Her behavior indicates that she is completely unaware that she is being filmed. Private investigators interviewed by sources all over the country all say the same thing — that the suspects responsible for the illegal taping worked closely with her — close enough to have access to her room.

Erin Andrews, for her part, has sworn to press criminal charges and sue the as yet anonymous peeping tom who posted the video of her (shot through a hotel room peephole of all things) on the Internet for anyone to view. Investigators go on to say that the mystery will eventually be solved. According to those same private investigators, the criminals left behind enough clues to get themselves busted.

Several clips of Erin Andrews, along with similar videos of other unsuspecting women, were posted on the web by someone using the screenname Goblazers1.

One sports analyst has already done Erin Andrews a small favor by digitally “tracing” the videos in question to fairly specific locations in Montgomery, Alabama and Buffalo, N.Y.. The friend of Andrews used available technology that can pinpoint where a video is shot using details from the video.

There’s nothing dirty or outlandish the thing’s Andrews is doing in the clips — she is brushing her hair, ironing her shirt and pants, looking at her body in the mirror — but the reason it has become so popular is that Erin Andrews is the lust object of so many Americans. You could say that Andrews’ illegal tape is the Pamela Anderson sex video of 2009.

It is a shame that so many people in our nation have spent this work week looking desperately around the Internet for the video. Multiple variations of “Erin Andrews peephole video” have popped up all over Google’s trends analysis.

One thing we can all take from this is that our privacy may not be so private. According to experts, very little technology is needed to pull something like this off — a hole as small as an eraser and a cheap camera is all that stands in the way of you and your privacy.

AskDeb.com will stay on top of the story and provide more details as they arrive.

Why was Henry Louis Gates arrested?

Recently, Harvard professor and the director of Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research was arrested while “breaking in” to his own home.

The backlash from this event has brought up issues of race and ethnicity that many thought buried for years. Even President Barack Obama has found his way into the controversy — it doesn’t help that he is a friend of Henry Louis Gates or that he is the first African-American president. Obama spoke out about the arrest of America’s most prominent black scholar, and in doing so Obama accused the local police that arrested Gates of “acting stupidly”. What’s the story on Gates’ arrest?

Proessor Henry Louis Gates was arrested last Thursday night as he was breaking into his own home. The 58-year-old, a friend of President Obama and probably the best known black scholar in the country, was seen by a neighborhood resident as he and his driver were trying to to pry open the broken front door of his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The bystander, seeing a couple of black men prying a door open in a rather affluent neighborhood, called the police. Within minutes, a uniformed white officer arrived. By then, Mr Gates was inside his home on the phone with the Harvard Real Estate office to report the faulty front door.

According to Mr. Gates (in his first televised interview since the arrest — with CNN) he told the officer: “This is my house. I’m a Harvard professor. I live here.” When that wasn’t enough or the officer, Mr. Gates showed the officer his Harvard University identification card and his driver’s license. When the officer still didn’t respond the way Mr. Gates would expect, Mr. Gates asked the police officer for his name and badge number — a request which the officer decided not to comply with.

Gates: “He didn’t say anything. I said, ’Why are you not responding to me?’ Are you not responding to me because you’re a white police officer and I’m a black man?”

The officer then requested that Mr. Gates step outside of his home — which Gates did. Gates was surprised when he was handcuffed, especially considering that Mr. Gates is handicapped and requires the use of a cane. Eventually, he was handcuffed in a more comfortable position, was arrested, and spent four hours in police custody before being released. A charge against him of “tumultuous behaviour” was later dropped and the police want nothing to do with the controversy now surrounding Gates and his arrest.

Even as President Obama spelled out the case against the police officers and argued that this arrest is “a sign” of the country’s continuing racial divide, Obama joked that he might face an even worse fate if he ever tried to break his way back into the White House. “Here, I’d be shot,” said Obama, part joke, part serious.

Mr. Gates was named by Time magazine in 1997 as one of the 25 most influential people in the United States. For a man of his stature to be handcuffed and taken to a police station for breaking into his own home is simply despicable. Gates is now considering legal action against the Cambridge police. In his interview with CNN, Mr. Gates spoke of the vulnerability of black men, the fact that all people of color and all poor people look like suspects to certain law enforcement officers.

Mr. Gates has already heard apologies from the mayor of Cambridge, Denise Simmons, and the Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick — both of whom are black. Interestingly enough, the white officer involved, Sergeant James Crowley, has refused to apologize to Mr. Gates. In fact, Cambridge police are insisting that Mr. Gates was personally responsible for his arrest because he overreacted and shouted at the policeman. I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen many people shout at police and not end up in handcuffs.

The President, while angry and upset by the case, did acknowledge his friendship with Mr. Gates may be coloring his reaction, and also admitted that he did not know the full facts of the case. But he went on to say this about this case — “I think it’s fair to say: number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three – what I think we know separate and apart from this incident – is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that’s just a fact.”

How is the new swine flu vaccine going to be tested?

U.S. health officials announced this morning that trials of the experimental new H1N1 swine flu vaccine will start in August. The trials will take place at eight different university medical centers and some university clinics within the next thirty days. The first two vaccines to be tested are made by two pharmaceutical giants — vaccines made by Sanofi Aventis and CSL Limited will get the first tests.

This vaccine is in rush mode because of the impending flu season, which experts think could give us a resurgance of H1N1 cases. After all, a normal influenza season can be downright deadly, much less on that includes a strain of flu virus that is deadly and already resistant to most on the market flu medicines.

The first round of tests will be given to adults, for safet’y sake. According to the University of Maryland (the leading site for the vaccine trials) the tests will very quickly begin in children, once their efficacy and safety have been determined. Dr. Karen Kotloff of the University of Maryland, who is at the head of one of the drug trials, did not say much to the media, though Dr. Kotloff assured reporters that she has been “told that there is sufficient vaccine in existence to perform the studies”, and that people shouldn’t worry that the drug, though expensive to make, will be available only to the rich, as rumors have suggested.

Although some vaccine manufacturers have complained that the H1N1 vaccine is not especially easy to make, this may be a necessary hit to take in financial terms. The H1N1 virus is relatively unknown, has already shown itself to be deadly, and has been declared a pandemic by the World Heatlh Organization.

The trials of the two new vaccines, scheduled tentatively to begin on August 10th, have already been swamped by people willing to volunteer, perhaps out of fear. In fact, according to Dr. Kotloff, there is “a great amount of interest” from people who are willing to risk a few side effects for free vaccination against the deadly ‘swine flu’.

H1N1 has caused the first true influenza pandemic of the 21st century. The virus spread around the globe in a manner of a few weeks, eventually infecting millions of people.

The reason H1N1 is so dangerous? It appears to behave very differently from traditional ‘seasonal’ flu — H1N1 causes very severe sickness, both gastrointestinal and respiratory, in young adults and older children, a strange focus group for a virus. On top of those two targeted groups, there are the traditional flu prone groups to worry about — pregnant women and people with asthma and diabetes and the elderly. “Swine flu” also appears to cause serious disease in obese individuals, although only small scale studies have confirmed this or provided any date, and strangely enough, other studies suggest that the elderly may have some natural immunity against it, strange considering that most of the population has no natural immunity to H1N1.

The first studies will look at dosing issues — the makers of these drugs want to know just how much of a dose of H1N1 vaccine will protect a patient without injuring them or causing serious side effects. For Sanofi-Aventis, this means determing if one or two 15 microgram doses of H1N1 vaccine are needed. The drug made by CSL will be testing at the 30 microgram dose level. The difference in dose size could be a big win for Sanofi-Aventis — when less of a vaccine is required to protect people from illness, more doses can be manufactured and distributed.

Unfortunately, we still have no idea just how many doses of either vaccine will be manufactured.

Other facets of the vaccine research involve examining the safety of each vaccine and any potential immune system response in adults and children. The study will be done concurrently with a study of the ability of the H1N1 vaccine to mix well with the traditional seasonal flu vaccine — the pharamaceutical industry wants to know if people will need both, just one, etc.

“As soon as early information from those studies indicates that these vaccines are safe for adults, similar trials in healthy children, aged 6 months to 17 years old, will start.” So said an official from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which will oversee the trials.

Global and national health officials have said that H1N1 vaccination campaigns should begin no later than this coming October.

What charges will Ben Roethlisberger face?

Ben Roethlisberger’s lawyer spent all day yesterday with any news source he could find denying adamantly any of the allegations that have been made against the Steelers quarterback. Big Ben, as Roethlisberger is known, is one of several men who have been named in a lawsuit by a woman accusing the men of sexually assaulting or contributing to her sexual assault last summer.

Roethlisberger, whose rise to fame in the NFL is the stuff of legend, has cancelled a news conference that was scheduled for today, perhaps to circle the wagons and have his team of publicists figure out how to deal with the accusation.

The woman making the accusation was working as an “executive casino host” at Harrah’s in Lake Tahoe, California last July when she claims that Roethlisberger struck up a friendly conversation at her desk during a celebrity tournament. According to the lawsuit, the woman’s claim is that Roethlisberger charmed her into his penthouse hotel suit and raped her the next night.

Roethlisberger’s lawyer, David Cornwell, had this to say about the accusation — “Ben has never sexually assaulted anyone. The timing of the lawsuit and the absence of a criminal complaint and a criminal investigation are the most compelling evidence of the absence of any criminal conduct. If an investigation is commenced, Ben will cooperate fully and Ben will be fully exonerated.’’

You read that right — there was no criminal complaint and police are saying there will be no criminal investigation. This gives the woman’s case about as much weight as your neighbor’s opinion about the BCS.

The lawsuit levied against Roethlisberger and others seeks a minimum award of $440,000 in damages from the quarterback, another $50,000 minimum in damages from the Harrah’s staff and officials, and an as yet unspecified amount of “punitive damages”. As explanation for why she didn’t file a criminal complaint, the accuser says she didn’t file that all important criminal complaint with police because she feared Harrah’s would side with Roethlisberger and she would lose her job.

Details are starting to leak about about the alleged rape as the lawsuit’s paperwork leaks to the media. The woman claims she “went to Roethlisberger’s room to address a problem he reported with his television”. Allegedly, as she turned to leave, Roethlisberger physically blocked her exit and began to make sexual advances, which she claims she rejected.

“But instead of stopping,’’ these words taken directly from the law suit filings, Roethlisberger “held her against her will and physically moved the plaintiff and pushed her onto his bed’’ where he proceeded to rape her. The lawsuit adds to the punitive and other damage claims by insisting that the accuser suffered mentally, requiring hospitalization for treatment for depression and other mental illnesses after the alleged attack last summer.

One of the most common questions about the ongoing Ben Roethlisberger situation is why his accuser didn’t ever file a criminal complaint against Roethlisberger and the other men, opting instead to wait for a civil suit. A jaded individual might suggest that in civil court there is less requirements in terms of evidence and proof.

The answer we’ve heard from the woman, through her lawyer, doesn’t hold much water. If she felt she would be fired by Harrah’s for coming out against Roethlisberger when it happened, why would she wait only one year? Allegedly, the woman is still employed by the casino and would face similar persecution to the kind she feared last year. It just doesn’t hold much water.

What colleges earn their graduates the most money?

We’ve all heard the numbers — people with college degrees earn a ton more money than those who do not graduate from college. Also, the more degrees you earn the more money you’re worth. However, some schools seem to graduate students with higher salaries. It could be because employers are looking for specific names on resumes, or it could be that one college prepares students for the real world more than another. Whatever the reason, we now know what schools graduates earn the most money.

PayScale, a financial analysis website, spent the last couple of years collecting info from college grads about their jobs, their starting salaries, and the average mid-career salaries and put together a couple of charts ranking the ten highest median graduate salaries and ten highest initial salaries by school.

If you were expecting Harvard or Yale to top the list, you’ll be disappointed. Not even the powerhouse Massachusetts Institute of Technology took top honors. No, that spot belongs to Dartmouth College. Gradutes of Dartmouth programs report the highest median mid-career salary — an average of $129,000. As for the school whose graduates earn the average highest starting salary, that honor goes to little known Loma Linda University, a private school where graduates first year of salaray averages over $71,000.

There are a few weaknesses in the study that need to be discussed. because PayScale asked people to report their own salary information, without any kind of verification, the study may end up being about which campus graduates more people willing to lie about their salary. The study’s pool of respondents is not at all randomized — in fact, the pool is self selected and the statistics are reported by the study participants online and voluntarily. PayScale also went in a weird direction in terms of the limit of degrees earned — the study only counts the salaries of individuals with just a bachelor’s degree — lawyers, doctors, and other professionals who require post Graduate degrees are completely left out.

PayScale claims they did the study this way to show the high return one could earn from a single investment — whereas earning a Master’s or PhD requires hefty additional expense and investment of time.

Alright, so what we’re looking at here is a study of the potential return on an investment for a Bachelor’s degree. Here are the top ten colleges in both categories — highest median mid-career salary (first table) and median starting salary (second table):

1. Dartmouth College – $129,000

2. MIT – $126,000

3. Harvard University – $126,000

4. Harvey Mudd College – $125,000

5. Stanford University – $124,000

6. Princeton University – $124,000

7. Colgate University – $122,000

8. University of Notre Dame – $121,000

9. Yale University – $120,000

10. University of Pennsylvania – $118,000

—————————————

1. Loma Linda University – $71,400

2. MIT – $71,100

3. Harvey Mudd College – $71,000

4. CIT (California Institute of Technology) – $69,700

5. Stanford – $67,500

6. Carnegie-Mellon University – $65,300

7. Princeton University – $65,000

8. Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn – $62,700

9. Renssalear Polytechnic Institute – $62,500

10. Rose Hulman Institute of Technology – $61,100

The lesson here is — tell your kids to be engineers. Engineers make tons of money, as reflected by the massive amounts of engineering schools represented inthe above tables. Especially promising for engineering students is the second table. Besides Loma Linda (which is a Seventh-day Adventist medical school in southern California), there are basically only engineering schools on the list of top starting salaries of graduates, with maybe three Ivy League schools thrown in. If you want to make good money right out of college, study Engineering.

Before you get obsessed over your next school choice, and before you die your fifth grader’s hair Stanford red, you might want to consider that this study is not exactly a one stop shop for how a school choice can impact sucess in life. The important thing is that you or your child attend college somewhere — not necessarily at one of these “top ten” schools. A college degree is what will earn a person more money over time, not necessarily a college degree from MIT or Carnegie-Mellon. There are many factors to take into account when choosing a college, and the results of this study shouldn’t be one of them.

Why is it so difficult to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay?

President Barack Obama’s campaign promise to close the military base at Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office is certainly turning out to be easier promised than accomplished. The process of closing the base, and the detention center there, is quite complex due to the need to place inmates in the proper Federal facilities (which are already quite crowded), and this process is much more more complex to achieve than it was to simply announce during the campaign for the Presidency.

President Obama has organized a task force to make certain “recommendations”, and they have issued what has been described by the White House as “an interim report”, but the same group recommends an allowance of an additional six months to give Obama a full report on how to go about shutting down America’s most controversial prison.

The six-month extension to the recommendation (which was provided for in Obama’s initial executive order) will bring the President’s final report right up to the January 22nd deadline, which would be the anniversary of the President’s order for the camp to be closed. This does not mean that President Obama’s promise will not be kept — rather that Obama’s meeting of his target date could be a very close call. The reason for the closing is simple– Obama says that conditions for prisoners and other ethical concerns that arose from Guantanamo Bay (or Gitmo) have damaged the global standing and reputation of the United States.

This is not the only panel working on Gitmo for President Obama — a second group is examining specific interrogation techniques used at the base in the Caribbean to determine if torture took place there. That panel has at least another two months before their final report is due.

Part of the complication involving the base at Gitmo is the structure of deals made with potential terror suspects. The detainees at Gitmo are in a legal grey area — it is unknown if they should be treated as citizens or as enemy combatants. In fact, the outcome of Obama’s closing of Gitmo will have an impact on all future legal measures used to deal with terrorist suspects. What is clear is that what the American Civil Liberties Union wants will not happen — the ACLU wants all terror suspects detained at Gitmo to be given a fair trial in American courts.

So far, one thing is for sure — military tribunals to sentence terror suspects will continue as they did during the administration of President George W. Bush. How do we know this? Obama’s panel on Gitmo made this clear in their initial report — in fact, most of that first report is dedicated to the legal difficulties surrounding the detainees and how their military tribunals should take place.

One bright spot for groups like the ACLU, who want the detainees to face a fair trial, is that the panel on Gitmo has decided that the first choice for detainees will to be to take a case to a Federal criminal court if this is at all feasible. Decisions on detainees’ ability to stand trial as American citizens depends entirely on criteria laid out for the first time in an addendum to the initial report. Specifics of each case, such as “the nature of the offense” and the “protection of intelligence” will determine what sort of trial a specific detainee will be awarded.

What legal principle would allow certain detainees to enjoy a Federal trial? According to the report, “justice cannot be done… unless those who are accused of crimes are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that affords them a full and fair opportunity to contest the charges against them”. This is fairly comprehensible Legalese that has enflamed conservatives and die hards nationwide, people who want to see all terror suspects tried by militart tribunal.

The prison at Gitmo was opened after the attacks on September 11, 2001 — the US began rounding up terror suspects from around the world and detaining them, hoping to stem the flood of potential attacks or perhaps to discover more about the terror plot that unfolded that terible day.

As for the military tribunals that are sure to occue, President Obama and his cabinet broadly agree with the judicial reforms proposed by the Senate Armed Services Committee to the law that established the tribunals in the first place. Why did the President have to kowtow to the Senate? The Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that a Presidential order was not enough to set up a military tribunal. The reforms suggested by the SASC include a prohibition on the use of statements which may have been obtained by “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”, and a major caveat which requires the laws of war to be kept during sentencing. The report by Obama’s panel justifies the continued use of military commissions and tribunals — their argument? Only military tribunals are equipped to take into account the so called “battlefield truths” — factors in a case that may be impacted by the aforementioned rules of war.

Obama administration officials have constantly denied that the report on Gitmo and its closure is “bogged down” and in fact have said that they extended the deadline in order to achieve a more effective framework for the closure. We know even less about the specific work of the second team, the group focusing on interrogation and potential torture. In layman’s terms, we know that the second panel is asking whether the CIA can do its job effectively after the ban imposed by President Obama on certain methods, specifically any method not described in the Army Field Manual. The second panel is looking into if the CIA must use tactics identified as “torture” in order to effectively interrogate terror suspects.

Where will this month’s solar eclipse be visible?

This Wednesday, June 22, 2009, a large portion of the population of Earth is in for quite a show.

The longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century is about to take place — specifically, this Wednesday, with time around 2:35:21 UTC. This will be the longest totality event until June 13 2132, when none of us will be alive to view its beauty — hell, it is unlikely that any of our children will be around then.

There will be no other eclipse to rival its duration for over a hundred years. This huge eclipse will last a full 6 minutes and 39 seconds, and it will reach its maximum phase around 80 miles south of the Bonin Islands in the southeast of the nation of Japan.

The eclipse, which scientists have assigned a magnitude of 1.0799, will be visible from northern India, eastern Nepal, northern Bangladesh, Bhutan, the northern tip of Union of Myanmar, central China and the Pacific Ocean, including the Ryukyu Islands, Marshall Islands and Kiribati. The totality itself will be seen by citizens of Surat, Varanasi, Patna, Thimphu, Chengdu, Chongqing, Wuhan, Hangzhou and Shanghai. A wider swath of Asia will experience a partial eclipse event — this darkening of the sky will be noticeable in the much wider path of the moon’s shadow, covering most of southeast Asia and northeast Oceania.

The lengthiest and most accessible solar eclipse of the 21st century, for the majority of the population, will stretch over half of the globe. NASA is predicting that the path of the eclipse will cover all of India and Indonesia and most of China, as well as parts of the entirety of Eastern Asia and the islands of Japan and the Pacific Ocean. While no one in the Western hemisphere will be able to see the eclipse live, NASA has come up with a few cool ways for those of us not living in the East to experience this amazing phenomenon.

First, there’s an interactive map available online that uses Google Maps to track the path of the total eclipse, though the boundaries of various partial eclipse phenomena are much, much wider. The path for what is called “totality” (the area of the world that will experience a total solar eclipse) is notable mostly because it passes through or near huge population centers in Asia — metropolises like Shanghai and Mumbai. There are also plans to broadcast video of the eclipse both in video replay and in real time over the Internet. A team of scientists and tech enthusiasts from the University of Madrid (who would normally not be able to view the largest exclipse of any of our life times, as they are not in the path of the eclipse) have set up cameras and a web presence to display the events of the eclipse for the world to see.

As of this writing, the eclipse broadcast is accessible at this website (http://om.fi.upm.es/CiclopeAstro/?locale=en).

This eclipse is generating a lot of attention, and not only because it will be the largest and most visible of any of our lifetimes. The position and magnitude of this eclipse has some scientists (but mostly end of the world paranoids) predicting massive earthquakes and tsunamis off the coast of Japan — the theory is that the tidal pull created by such a solar event will rattle the tectonic plates in the area, which are notoriously picky about being shaken about.

Tourism is also a huge even for some cities in the path of the totality — there are reports that the very small and poor Indian village of Taregana is enjoying the massive increase in tourism and influx of cash that comes with the honor of being labelled the “ideal vantage point” for viewing a total eclipse. Naturally, Chinese scientists disagree that Taregana is the best spot for viewing the totality, claiming instead that parts of China are the best place to be. In actuality, the best spot to view the totality event is probably the island of Iwo Jima, since the maximum duration of eclipse won’t be anywhere near the mainland of Asia.

There won’t be an eclipse like this for another 12 decades — unless you’re planning on being unfrozen in a hundred years it is unlikely there will be a more engaging eclipse event in your lifetime. If that fact alone doesn’t send you into a state of reverie and awe, you’re unlikely to be excited by any solar or space event.

Who took home an Espy award in 2009?

Surprisingly, the biggest winner at the 2009 Espy awards (put on by cable sports channel ESPN) was one of sports’ most controversial figures.

Michael Phelps, in trouble recently for his off camera behavior (including the circulation of pictures of him smoking marijuana), won four awards in last night’s show in Los Angeles. In a year when it seemed there were dozens of men and women eligible for multiple prizes (think Manny Pacquiao, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, Serena Williams, Lorena Ochoa, Phil Jackson, Sidney Crosby, etc) Phelps snapped up all four awards for which he was nominated, including one group award for the US Men’s swimming team.

There were few surprises in last night’s event, hosted by veteran actor Samuel L. Jackson, ouside of Best Male Athlete going to Michael Phelps — many predicted Kobe Bryant had an easy route to victory. But even in Kobe’s best category — Best NBA Player — there was a bit of a shocker, as LeBron James walked away with the trophy. I assume that Kobe got shafted by the Espy’s because of the perception that the team he plays on is better than LeBron’s team, making LeBron’s game more of an uphill battle.

I was personally upset when Texas Tech’s Michael Crabtree didn’t win the award for best play (full disclosure: Tech is my alma mater) after a once in a lifetime last second catch and touchdown to beat Tech’s rival the University of Texas. However, since Texas Tech didn’t do much with the last minute win (and the winner for best play went to a Super Bowl winning touchdown pass by Ben Roethlisberger) I can understand why the votes fell where they did.

Below there’s a full list of the nominees and winners by category.

BEST MALE ATHLETE

Kobe Bryant, NBA
LeBron James, NBA
Jimmie Johnson, Auto Racing
Michael Phelps, Swimming ***WINNER***

BEST FEMALE ATHLETE

Natalie Coughlin, Swimming
Nastia Liukin, Gymnastics ***WINNER***
Maya Moore, NCAA Basketball
Candace Parker, WNBA
Serena Williams, Tennis

BEST CHAMPIONSHIP PERFORMANCE

Kobe Bryant, Los Angeles Lakers
Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies
Michael Phelps, Olympic Swimming ***WINNER***
Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh, Olympic Beach Volleyball

BEST BREAKTHROUGH ATHLETE

Shawn Johnson, Olympic Gymnastics
Evan Longoria, Tampa Bay Rays
Derrick Rose, Chicago Bulls
Matt Ryan, Atlanta Falcons ***WINNER***

BEST RECORD BREAKING PERFORMANCE

Usain Bolt, Olympic Sprinter
Larry Fitzgerald, Arizona Cardinals
Phil Jackson, Los Angeles Lakers
Michael Phelps, Olympic Swimmer ***WINNER***

BEST UPSET

Mine That Bird wins the Kentucky Derby
Oregon State stuns then #1 USC
Tampa Bay Rays win the American League Championship Series
US Soccer shocks Spain in the Confederations Cup semifinals ***WINNER***

BEST GAME

Federer vs. Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon Final
Steelers vs. Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII ***WINNER***
Syracuse vs. Connecticut in the Big East Tournament Quarterfinals

BEST MOMENT

Florida’s Tim Tebow’s speech
Helio Castroneves wins the Indy 500
US swim team wins thrilling finish in Olympic relay ***WINNER***

BEST PLAY

Ovechkin vs. Rangers
Pacquiao KO’s Hatton
Roethlisberger to Holmes Super Bowl Winning TD ***WINNER***
Texas Tech’s Michael Crabtree makes game-winning catch vs. Texas

BEST TEAM

Connecticut Women’s Basketball
Los Angeles Lakers ***WINNER***
North Carolina Men’s Basketball
Philadelphia Phillies
Pittsburgh Penguins
Pittsburgh Steelers

BEST COACH-MANAGER

Phil Jackson Los Angeles Lakers ***WINNER***
Geno Auriemma Connecticut Women’s Basketball
Dan Bylsma Pittsburgh Penguins
Joe Maddon Tampa Bay Rays
Mike Tomlin Pittsburgh Steelers

BEST SPORTS MOVIE

The Express: The Ernie Davis Story ***WINNER***
Sugar
The Wrestler

BEST MALE COLLEGE ATHLETE

Tim Tebow Florida Football ***WINNER***
Sam Bradford Oklahoma Football
Matt Gilroy Boston University Hockey
Blake Griffin Oklahoma Basketball
Stephen Strasburg San Diego State Baseball

BEST FEMALE COLLEGE ATHLETE

Maya Moore Connecticut Women’s Basketball ***WINNER***
Kerri Hanks Notre Dame Women’s Soccer
Courtney Kupets Georgia Gymnastics
Danielle Lawrie Washington Softball
Dana Vollmer California Swimming

BEST MALE ATHLETE WITH A DISABILITY

Jason Lester Ironman ***WINNER***
Jeremy Campbell Track and Field
Will Groulx Wheelchair Rugby
Oscar Pistorius Track and Field

BEST FEMALE ATHLETE WITH A DISABILITY

Erin Popovich Swimming ***WINNER***
Jessica Long Swimming
Maureen McKinnon-Tucker Sailing
Asya Miller Goalball

BEST MALE INTERNATIONAL ATHLETE

Usain Bolt Jamaica, Sprinter ***WINNER***
Pau Gasol Spain, Basketball
Lionel Messi Argentina, Soccer
Rafael Nadal Spain, Tennis
Cristiano Ronaldo Portugal, Soccer

BEST FEMALE INTERNATIONAL ATHLETE

Lorena Ochoa México, Golf ***WINNER***
Yelena Isinbayeva Russia, Pole Vault
Marta Brazil, Soccer
Stephanie Rice Australia, Swimming
Dinara Safina Russia, Tennis

BEST BASEBALL PLAYER

Albert Pujols St. Louis Cardinals ***WINNER***
Roy Halladay Toronto Blue Jays
Ryan Howard Philadelpia Phillies
Dustin Pedroia Boston Red Sox
Francisco Rodriguez Los Angeles Angels/New York Mets

BEST NBA PLAYER

LeBron James Cleveland Cavaliers ***WINNER***
Kobe Bryant Los Angeles Lakers
Dwight Howard Orlando Magic
Dwyane Wade Miami Heat

BEST WNBA PLAYER

Candace Parker Los Angeles Sparks ***WINNER***
Deanna Nolan Detroit Shock
Diana Taurasi Phoenix Mercury
Lindsay Whalen Connecticut Sun

BEST NFL PLAYER

Larry Fitzgerald Arizona Cardinals ***WINNER***
James Harrison Pittsburgh Steelers
Peyton Manning Indianapolis Colts
Adrian Peterson Minnesota Vikings
Kurt Warner Arizona Cardinals

BEST NHL PLAYER

Sidney Crosby Pittsburgh Penguins ***WINNER***
Pavel Datsyuk Detroit Red Wings
Evgeni Malkin Pittsburgh Penguins
Alexander Ovechkin Washington Capitals

BEST MLS PLAYER

Landon Donovan LA Galaxy ***WINNER***
Juan Pablo Angel New York Red Bulls
Jon Busch Chicago Fire
Kenny Cooper FC Dallas
Guillermo Barros Schletto Columbus Crew

BEST MALE ACTION SPORTS ATHLETE

Shaun White Snowboarding/Skateboarding ***WINNER***
Ryan Sheckler Skateboarding
Kelly Slater Surfing
James Stewart Motocross

BEST FEMALE ACTION SPORTS ATHLETE

Maya Gabeira Surfing ***WINNER***
Torah Bright Snowboarding
Sarah Burke Skiing
Ashley Fiolek Motocross

BEST BOWLER

Norm Duke ***WINNER***
Chris Barnes
Wes Malott

BEST DRIVER

Jimmie Johnson ***WINNER***
Helio Castroneves
Scott Dixon
Lewis Hamilton
Tony Schumacher

BEST FIGHTER

Manny Pacquiao Boxing ***WINNER***
Lyoto Machida MMA
Shane Mosley Boxing
Anderson Silva MMA

BEST MALE GOLFER

Tiger Woods ***WINNER***
Padraig Harrington
Phil Mickelson

BEST FEMALE GOLFER

Lorena Ochoa ***WINNER***
Paula Creamer
Suzann Pettersen

BEST JOCKEY

Calvin Borel ***WINNER***
Garrett Gomez
Mike Smith

BEST MALE TENNIS PLAYER

Roger Federer***WINNER***
Rafael Nadal

BEST FEMALE TENNIS PLAYER

Serena Williams***WINNER***
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Dinara Safina

UNDER ARMOUR ALL-AMERICA MOMENT

Andre Debose & Russell Shepard Football ***WINNER***
Jake Bernhardt Lacrosse
Tara Glover Softball
David Renfroe Baseball
Hannah Werth Volleyball

SPECIAL AWARDS

Arthur Ashe Courage Award: President Nelson Mandela
Jimmy V Award For Perseverance: Don Meyer, Northern State University coach
Best Comeback: Dara Torres, Olympic swimmer.

If you’re interested in MMA in particular, be sure to check out this MMA Odds site and also this MMA betting blog. And check out this site for more different MMA styles of fighting.

What is Congress doing about health care?

The United States Congress has increased their workload based on the expected overhaul of the $2.5 trillion healthcare industry. Congress is making good on their promise to the President to attempt to pass legislation in each chamber before the August congressional recess takes place.

The first rumblings of action from the Senate committees took place on Wednesday — the Senate started debates on its own versions of the healthcare overhaul, meanwhile House of Representatives’ Democrats are pushing legislation and debate on their approach. The White House released information Wednesday that confimed that the total cost of the health care plan would be about $1 trillion over the next decade.

So what’s next for health care reform in the US Congress?

Three committees in the House began their work this week, with each committee taking on the major issues in the single bill that is under the jurisdiction of that committee. Sound complicated? It is — but this is a complicated issue that must be taken one step at a time.

The House Ways and Means Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction over Medicare and the tax revenue needed to pay for healthcare and healthcare reform, began its debates early Thursday morning.

The House Energy and Commerce committee, especially its chairman Henry Waxman (who has been the main force behind changes in the insurance industry to expand coverage to all Americans) was starting work right as of this writing, Thursday afternoon.

The House Education and Labor Committee, which has jurisdiction over employee health benefits (a major facet of this bill) opened its debate early on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, two committees in the Senate are working on two separate bills that are expected to be put before the full Senate as one conjoined bill.

The Senate Health committee, probably the most important committee to this bill, has approved its version of the bill without the support of any Republicans. Their controversial version of the bill sets up a government run insurance program that would compete directly with private insurers. Their bill also requires almost all employers to provide some sort of insurance plan for their workers or face stiff government penalties. This plan also requires individuals to buy their own insurance, with government subsidy if necessary, much like the government requires auto insurance.

The Senate Finance Committee, which claims jurisdiction over Medicare and Medicaid as well as the taxes needed to fund the bill, is debating methods for the government to meet the estimated $1 trillion (over ten years) cost of their plan. Unfortunately, the committee (which reportedly hoped to work on the legislation as early as next week) has reported that that work on legislation is doubtful.

So, what happens after these committees report to the larger bodies of Congress?

Each chamber of the Congress has high hopes to pass their own version of the legislation before the August recess, as President Obama requested. While Democrats control a majority of seats in both chambers, including a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, this control by one party does not really guarantee that individual members of Congress will vote the way their leadership wants, potentially delaying action until after the August recess.

When Congress returns to work in September, there are reports that a small group of like minded members of Congress will meet to iron out differences between the different version of the healthcare bill that have (hopefully) been passed in the House and Senate. After this meeting, each chamber of Congress will vote on the “compromise bill”.

Lastly, if this compromised bill passes, President Barack Obama would find the legislation on his desk for his signature, making the bill into law. Obama has set an October goal for signing the bill — and if Congress makes good on their promise to hash things out by October, this just may happen.

Will Sonia Sotomayor be confirmed as the newest Supreme Court Justice?

Sonia Sotomayor has become a controversial figure during the past couple of months. In fact, ever since she was nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice David Souter, political pundits can talk of little else.

The conservative right want the concentration to be on her controversial “wise Latina” statement, a piece of her stump speech that indicates her belief that a Latina in America has had such a wide range of experience that she may be “more likely” to be a good judge than a caucasian. While not an overtly racist statement, it does indicate Sotomayor’s beliefs about her Latina heritage. Those on the left want the concentration to be on Sotomayor’s experience and record — over a decade on the court of appeals in New York, and an amazing life story that started in the projects of Brooklyn and will most likely end in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court.

Even Republican members of the House and Senata must admit that Sotomayor’s confirmation is highly likely. In fact, Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, made the hilarious but true statement during her confirmation that “unless [she] has a major breakdown [she] will be confirmed”. There’s simply very little for the Republicans to attack her on.

Sure, some remarks that came out of her past speeches have generated more questions and controversy during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings this past week — but these questions can do little more than (as one GOP senator put it) “bug the hell out of” Republicans. The fact is that Sotomayor has not shown a true racial bias during her time on the appeals court — she voted against people seeking recrimination for racial discrimination 90% of the time. In some ways, Sotomayor is a true red-blooded American hero, being almost single handedly responsible for saving baseball, the national pasttime. It was Sotomayor who brokered a deal in the mid 90s that put baseball players back on the diamong.

In fact, a major sign of of Sotomayor’s strength and political momentum broke this morning when Senate Republicans confirmed that they do not intend to filibuster her nomination on the Senate floor. A filibuster may not have prevented her nomination, but it could at least have slowed it down. Senate Republicans also indicated that the full Senate would vote on her nomination before breaking for the August recess — there had been talks of Republican boycott of the vote to confirm Sotomayor’s nomination.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated this morning (the fourth day of the hearing to confirm Obama’s pick for Supreme Court justice) that he would oppose any and all filibuster attempts on the Senate floor, and that he looked forward to a full Senate vote on Sotomayor. For once, it would appear that Republicans aren’t going to play the role of “party of No”.

“She is a good person, [with] a wonderful background,” Sessions told the news media, but he also expressed the standard Republican concern that Sotomayor will be “an activist for liberal causes on the Supreme Court.”

According to Graham, Sotomayor’s speeches are disturbing to conservatives because they suggest certain gender and ethnic bias. Republicans are concerned that Sotomayor will take those biases with her to the floor of the Supreme Court — most of her alleged preferences would work against the Republican agenda.

However, in the same breath, Graham pointed out that Sotomayor’s record as a judge has not been one of a radical liberal. Graham called her a centrist, though acknowledged that at times she has sided slightly with the left. Other Senate Republicans admit that her judicial rulings have been mainstream, and that her confirmation will most likely fly through the Senate.

Why do the personal opinions of Supreme Court justices matter so much? As many have pointed out during Sotomayor’s hearings, the Supreme Court has the ability to shape the political landscape of the country. Think of the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case that practically ended segregation in the nation’s schools — that was one case where the Supreme Court stepped up to do something that regular politicans simply didn’t have the guts to. While “Brown” ended up being a successful Supreme Court experiment, many on the political right are concerned that a similar political decision could be made by the court — but that this time, it could be disastrous. Issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, and other hot button topics will likely be decided on by the next session of the Supreme Court, and the conservatives want assurance that Sotomayor won’t use her political or ethnic bias to change the face of American politics. As Graham put it, “The personal views of Supreme Court justices matter because . . . [there is no] law book that tells you how to rule on contentious social issues such as same-sex marriage or whether there is a “fundamental” right to bear arms.” In other words, sometimes Supreme Court justices have to rely on their own beliefs. Republicans merely want to know what her beliefs are.

Sotomayor fought back. She stated that the Supreme Court spends considerable time on cases, including Second Amendment cases involving gun control. Her point is that Supreme Court justices don’t merely open a case, read the headline, decide how they feel, and then rule. Sotomayor then repeated that the Constitution and facts of the case would be the basis of her rulings.

In her response to one of Graham’s questions, Sotomayor had this to say about the role of the Supreme Court — “It does appear that the Supreme Court docket has lessened over time. Because of that, it does appear it has the capacity to take on more cases.”

According to Senator Arlen Specter, the Supreme Court decided 451 cases in 1886, with a total of 161 signed opinions in 1985. In the 2008-2009 session that ended recently, there were only 75 signed opinions. This was brought up because some Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee have complained that the Supreme Court in recent years has made de facto rulings on vital issues by simply refusing to hear them. Democrats don’t want the court to become a place where controversial issues go to die, which is perhaps why an opinionated and controversial woman like Sotomayor was nominated.

About that “wise Latina” comments — when committee Republicans brought the statement up once again, Sotomayor responded in kind.

“I regret that I have offended some people. I believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent to leave the impression that some have taken from my words.”

Regardless of what rogue Republicans may attempt, it looks as though our next Supreme Court justice will indeed be the wise Latina from Brooklyn.