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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
