Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
H1N1 pandemic
Back in April it was almost impossible to turn on the news without hearing about the new pandemic flu, H1N1, formerly known as swine flu. Prevention tips were all over the news, and every confirmed case was being talked about. The Center for Disease Control confirmed the flu as an outbreak and the flu was at the top of the news.
However, today it is going under the radar. People began to say it wasn't a major problem, and now it has become yesterday's news. Today, I couldn't find almost any mention of the flu on any of the blogs. Because of the fact that the news about it has been around for awhile, it seems the media no longer wants to cover it, not even the blogosphere. Today, H1N1 claimed its 12th victim nationally in Queens, New York. It looks as though it will get worse due to the fact that without sufficient coverage, people will likely not focus on the prevention techniques as much. For some time, RCDS students were being reminded to wash their hands in morning announcements, yet today, as H1N1 spreads to more places than ever, a full outbreak that our immune systems haven't been exposed to may occur, and the country may be blind to it thanks to the fact that it is not particularly interesting news.
However, today it is going under the radar. People began to say it wasn't a major problem, and now it has become yesterday's news. Today, I couldn't find almost any mention of the flu on any of the blogs. Because of the fact that the news about it has been around for awhile, it seems the media no longer wants to cover it, not even the blogosphere. Today, H1N1 claimed its 12th victim nationally in Queens, New York. It looks as though it will get worse due to the fact that without sufficient coverage, people will likely not focus on the prevention techniques as much. For some time, RCDS students were being reminded to wash their hands in morning announcements, yet today, as H1N1 spreads to more places than ever, a full outbreak that our immune systems haven't been exposed to may occur, and the country may be blind to it thanks to the fact that it is not particularly interesting news.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
The Republican Inner Battle
By far the biggest news story of today was former Pennsylvania Governor and almost McCain Vice Presidential nominee Tom Ridge continuing the feud within the republican party by calling Rush Limbaugh "shrill" in an appearance on CNN's State of the Union with John King.
This comes after a feud between Collin Powell and Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney. There are many different views on this feud out there, and it is being written about all over the blogs. Here are some of the things that the blogs are saying:
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein said that the feud is getting much worse now and that both sides here think that the other can ruin the Republican party's future. He said that Ridge is now clearly on Collin Powell's side of the feud. The Daily Kos' Plutonium Page said that Dick Cheney is the prince of darkness and that is great that smart Republicans like Ridge are going against him. Political Animal's Steve Benen felt that Ridge was part of the "smart Republicans" and that Ridge and Powell are moving the Republican party forward, while Limbaugh and Cheney are moving it back. Over at FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver said that no one will speak for the Republican party with this feud going on and that they currently don't have a "leader."
Finally, on CNN's own Political Ticker, two different bloggers offered opinions. Alex Mooney said that the Republicans should be fighting with the democrats, but this infighting is increasing nonetheless. Steve Brusk talked about how Collin Powell says he is still a Republican and that the party needs to move forward and not be divided and figure out what they truly stand for.
This is an issue that will certainly not go away and will be interesting to follow as it continues on.
This comes after a feud between Collin Powell and Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney. There are many different views on this feud out there, and it is being written about all over the blogs. Here are some of the things that the blogs are saying:
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein said that the feud is getting much worse now and that both sides here think that the other can ruin the Republican party's future. He said that Ridge is now clearly on Collin Powell's side of the feud. The Daily Kos' Plutonium Page said that Dick Cheney is the prince of darkness and that is great that smart Republicans like Ridge are going against him. Political Animal's Steve Benen felt that Ridge was part of the "smart Republicans" and that Ridge and Powell are moving the Republican party forward, while Limbaugh and Cheney are moving it back. Over at FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver said that no one will speak for the Republican party with this feud going on and that they currently don't have a "leader."
Finally, on CNN's own Political Ticker, two different bloggers offered opinions. Alex Mooney said that the Republicans should be fighting with the democrats, but this infighting is increasing nonetheless. Steve Brusk talked about how Collin Powell says he is still a Republican and that the party needs to move forward and not be divided and figure out what they truly stand for.
This is an issue that will certainly not go away and will be interesting to follow as it continues on.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Falling of Michael Steele
In January, the Republicans elected Michael Steele to become the chair of the Republican National Committee. After getting crushed in the 2008 elections, the Republican party needed a new direction. Michael Steele was their choice, the first ever National Committee chair for the Republicans. However, he was not vetted thoroughly and has been on a down-hill slide every since being selected.
Many people credited the selection of Steele to being solely because of race. Larry Wilmore, senior black correspondent on The Daily Show, said it best, "The Republicans are just copying the democrats. When the democrats had Hillary Clinton, the Republicans said 'here's your women', and gave Sarah Palin. When the democrats had Obama, the Republicans said 'here's your black, he's more black!' Though Wilmore is on a comedy show, his point was serious. Steele has been wounded deeply now, and many of the wounds have been self-inflicted.
Steele first got under attack for calling Rush Limbaugh "an entertainer" and then apoligizing the next day, allowing the democrats to say Limbaugh and not Steele was the leader of the republican party. Then he got in major heat for saying abortion should be a "choice" for a woman. This went against a fundamental pro-life belief for many conservatives. Steele has since been in trouble for many remarks including recently saying Obama was not vetted enough. It seems clear which of the two has really been the one who was not vetted enough, as Republicans now are forced to try to dissociate from their party's committee chair.
Many people credited the selection of Steele to being solely because of race. Larry Wilmore, senior black correspondent on The Daily Show, said it best, "The Republicans are just copying the democrats. When the democrats had Hillary Clinton, the Republicans said 'here's your women', and gave Sarah Palin. When the democrats had Obama, the Republicans said 'here's your black, he's more black!' Though Wilmore is on a comedy show, his point was serious. Steele has been wounded deeply now, and many of the wounds have been self-inflicted.
Steele first got under attack for calling Rush Limbaugh "an entertainer" and then apoligizing the next day, allowing the democrats to say Limbaugh and not Steele was the leader of the republican party. Then he got in major heat for saying abortion should be a "choice" for a woman. This went against a fundamental pro-life belief for many conservatives. Steele has since been in trouble for many remarks including recently saying Obama was not vetted enough. It seems clear which of the two has really been the one who was not vetted enough, as Republicans now are forced to try to dissociate from their party's committee chair.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Chess Class Prizes System: In Need of a Change
Today, in these harsh economic times, chess can be a very profitable game. Tournaments such as the world open (300 dollar entry fee) give out prizes of about 400,000 dollars. These prizes are given out in a big division, but they are given out every 200 rating point groups. A chess rating is defined as a projection of how a player will do in a tournament. Rating goes up and down based on a player's result and the rating of a player's opponent. For example, if 2 players with the same rating play, the winner goes up 16 rating points. The prizes are given out so that the top finisher within a rating group gets a large sum of money. For example, the Under 2100 rating class prize is 30000 dollars at the World Open. This leads to players who are much stronger than 2100 intentionally losing games at smaller tournaments to get their rating below 2100 and then winning the big tournaments and the big money. Also, tournaments are set up so that the higher rated players have an easier road to victory. Therefore, a player with a lower rating has the odds stacked against them to get as many wins as a higher rated.
To stop this problem, I offer two solutions. For the sandbagging (bringing one's rating down) problem, there has already been a rule imposed that a person with a rating of 30 points or more over the prize section limit at some earlier time can only win 1/3 of the money. However this is not enough because 10,000 dollars is still a ton of money for someone to unfairly win. Therefore, a new rule should be implemented that is someone is 70 or more points above the section limit at some time they cannot win any money. This would decrease sandbaggers and make everyone's rating more accurate.
Second, prizes should be determined by performance rating, not score. Because higher rateds face easier opponents than lower rated within a section, performance rating should determine the winners. Performance rating is the rating that a player performed equal to at a given tournament. This way the players who played the best would get the prize they deserve and the deck would not be stacked against lower rateds because the amount of points scored (which is likely lower for them) would no longer be a factor
To stop this problem, I offer two solutions. For the sandbagging (bringing one's rating down) problem, there has already been a rule imposed that a person with a rating of 30 points or more over the prize section limit at some earlier time can only win 1/3 of the money. However this is not enough because 10,000 dollars is still a ton of money for someone to unfairly win. Therefore, a new rule should be implemented that is someone is 70 or more points above the section limit at some time they cannot win any money. This would decrease sandbaggers and make everyone's rating more accurate.
Second, prizes should be determined by performance rating, not score. Because higher rateds face easier opponents than lower rated within a section, performance rating should determine the winners. Performance rating is the rating that a player performed equal to at a given tournament. This way the players who played the best would get the prize they deserve and the deck would not be stacked against lower rateds because the amount of points scored (which is likely lower for them) would no longer be a factor
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Computers in Chess
One of the top issues in the chess community today is the use of computers in chess. For the first 1000 years of the game, computers did not exist. Analysis was purely with a board and pieces. Famously, Frank Marshall sat in his house for 5 years in the early 1900s, only to come out and reveal the Marshall Gambit and win the United States Championship. Computers really came into the chess scene in around the 1950s, when the first digital computers were emerging. In the 1990s computers began to actually be a challenge to the top humans. Deep Thought premiered in 1988 with a rating of 2551. However, top humans had ratings of around 2800 and were still able to beat the computer. In 1996 the top supercomputer, Deep Blue faced off against world champion Garry Kasparov. Deep Blue beat kasparov 3.5-2.5, becoming the first computer ever to beat a human world champion.
Kasparov then claimed that a computer could not make some of the moves that Deep Blue made because "he knew how computers thought." He then tried to sue its operators saying one of the humans made the winning move and not the computer itself. Computers such as "Junior" and "Fritz" began to be sold in public and were able to at least draw with world champions. People suddenly were able to have the analysis of a world champion in their house. However there were many reprocussions.
Suddenly people were able to simply memorize computer moves. There were no more instancies of people like Frank Marshall figuring out new lines when computers could analyse 40 moves per second. Many people began to protest that these computers took away the "art" of chess because people could now just memorize moves. After every game, almost every player goes home and plugs the game into their computer to see where they made mistakes. This is considered a major money saver because it takes away some of the need for private coaching. Nonetheless, nowadays computers are a major part of chess that are here to stay. They currently out rate the world champion by over 700 rating points. They now have beaten every world champion since Karparov.
Kasparov then claimed that a computer could not make some of the moves that Deep Blue made because "he knew how computers thought." He then tried to sue its operators saying one of the humans made the winning move and not the computer itself. Computers such as "Junior" and "Fritz" began to be sold in public and were able to at least draw with world champions. People suddenly were able to have the analysis of a world champion in their house. However there were many reprocussions.
Suddenly people were able to simply memorize computer moves. There were no more instancies of people like Frank Marshall figuring out new lines when computers could analyse 40 moves per second. Many people began to protest that these computers took away the "art" of chess because people could now just memorize moves. After every game, almost every player goes home and plugs the game into their computer to see where they made mistakes. This is considered a major money saver because it takes away some of the need for private coaching. Nonetheless, nowadays computers are a major part of chess that are here to stay. They currently out rate the world champion by over 700 rating points. They now have beaten every world champion since Karparov.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Health Insurance Reform
Today, clearly Health Insurance reform in the United States is needed. From the 47 million uninsured to the 2.4 trillion dollars spent per capita, it is clear that there are many problems with the system. The uninsured can be broken down into 25% "by choice," 20% who qualify for government problems, and 55% who cannot afford health care and do not qualify for government programs. The biggest problems with all of these can amount to cost. Calling the uninsured "by choice," is a misconception. The term refers to those who make 50,000 dollars per year or more and do not have have insurance. However, a 9,000 per person premium is still a significant portion of someone's annual. Therefore, it is likely that cost has an affect on those who are uninsured "by choice." The 20% who do qualify are an interesting question, though cost is likely also a key factor. Those on most government plans still have to pay some premium. Therefore, it is likely that people in this group also are affected by the cost of insurance. The other 55% solely cite costs in a Harvard Medical School Study.
The cost of health insurance has doubled in the past 10 years. It is the leading factor of uninsurance. The United States is the #1 in amount spent on health insuirance in the world per capita. The costs doubled in the past 10 years, while inflation only grew 30%. One of the main reasons for higher costs is profit (14% of what people are charged.
While these are both huge problems, the system is quite hard to fix. A universal plan would be very hard to fund. People could be mandated to join a plan, but that could be horrible to those who cannot afford insurance and are currently uninsured. A universal plan, such as Senator Clinton's proposal where taxes pay for plans would require a massive tax increase in an economic crisis, and it is proven to lead to much longer wait times in other countries with these systems. The plan of having everyone pay premiums to the government and the government take the 14% used for profit and use it to fund the insured, but that is not decreasing the cost and if the trend of people not able to afford insurance continues, the funding would go away as the number of people who need funding increased as people could not afford health insurance.
President Obama's proposal is not without its flaws as well. It talks of great results, but its specifics in acheiving these results are very expensive. Obama proposes a subsidy on a sliding scale, but this would come at a massive price to provide this to so many americans. His plan would require a tax increase of some kind on the rich (about 4% needed), which although they can afford this tax is sort of spreading the wealth. He also mandates businesses to purchase health care which could hurt them financially
Health Insurance is clearly in need of reform, but every plan has its strings attached. It is impossible to have a perfect system and while universal plans fix the uninsured problem, they worsen the cost one. Obama's plan is probably the best one out there in terms of funding, but it definetely has its flaws. This issue will still be a major issue many years from now, but hopefully Obama's plan can at least cut costs of insurance and the number of uninsured.
The cost of health insurance has doubled in the past 10 years. It is the leading factor of uninsurance. The United States is the #1 in amount spent on health insuirance in the world per capita. The costs doubled in the past 10 years, while inflation only grew 30%. One of the main reasons for higher costs is profit (14% of what people are charged.
While these are both huge problems, the system is quite hard to fix. A universal plan would be very hard to fund. People could be mandated to join a plan, but that could be horrible to those who cannot afford insurance and are currently uninsured. A universal plan, such as Senator Clinton's proposal where taxes pay for plans would require a massive tax increase in an economic crisis, and it is proven to lead to much longer wait times in other countries with these systems. The plan of having everyone pay premiums to the government and the government take the 14% used for profit and use it to fund the insured, but that is not decreasing the cost and if the trend of people not able to afford insurance continues, the funding would go away as the number of people who need funding increased as people could not afford health insurance.
President Obama's proposal is not without its flaws as well. It talks of great results, but its specifics in acheiving these results are very expensive. Obama proposes a subsidy on a sliding scale, but this would come at a massive price to provide this to so many americans. His plan would require a tax increase of some kind on the rich (about 4% needed), which although they can afford this tax is sort of spreading the wealth. He also mandates businesses to purchase health care which could hurt them financially
Health Insurance is clearly in need of reform, but every plan has its strings attached. It is impossible to have a perfect system and while universal plans fix the uninsured problem, they worsen the cost one. Obama's plan is probably the best one out there in terms of funding, but it definetely has its flaws. This issue will still be a major issue many years from now, but hopefully Obama's plan can at least cut costs of insurance and the number of uninsured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
