Today, as I was skimming through AOL’s top stories I came across a story which suggested that my beloved Law & Order is getting the ax. This is devastating news to me, because I LOVE ME SOME LAW & ORDER! I don’t usually watch TV, but nothing, I mean NOTHING, can pull me away from an episode of this show. No matter how many times I’ve seem the same re-run, I can not get away. The show is entering its 19th season and has essentially been around my entire life, but I honestly can not imagine TV without it. Come to think of it, if Law & Order didn’t exist I’d probably save a lot of money on electricity. So tonight,  I will light a little candle for Law &  Order and pray that it doesn’t become just another distant memory.

Wow! Not even Sesame Street is safe when it comes to those conservatives. Conservative bloggers are now accusing the CHILDRENS’ show of exhibiting a liberal bias. The accusations come after PBS re-ran a 2 year old skit which conservatives believe was meant as  a blow to them. In the skit, Oscar the Grouch is a reporter for the Grouch News Network (GNN). At one point, the skit takes a jab at POX News which a supposed female viewer calls the “trashy” news network.

I don’t understand why people are upset about this. I’m pretty sure your toddler doesn’t understand what the hell is going on, just like I’m also sure your child won’t remember the skit two seconds after it ends. People need to get a grip. I can see why an adult would get upset, but why are you watching Sesame Street in the first place? Get it together! This one skit will not alter your child’s future political views, I promise you. Your kid probably doesn’t know the difference between his hand and his foot, so I’m 100% sure he won’t be able to tell the difference between CNN (GNN) and FOX (POX). There are plenty of adults who can’t.

 You’re kid doesn’t get it, so relax.

Playboy magazine is facing some hard times. According to the company CEO the magazine will have to take “bold steps” to make ends meet. It appears the magazine has been facing profit losses for a while now. As I read this I thought: “How times have changed.” Playboy magazine debuted in 1953 with a Marilyn Monroe photo spread, which irreversibly altered the lives of both Monroe and magazine founder Hugh Hefner. Upon reading about Playboy’s misfortunes, I couldn’t help but wonder: “What the hell could be bolder than Playboy magazine?” Nakedness is ALWAYS controversial.

It appears Playboy enterprises was referring to something completely different when they spoke of  taking “bold steps.” Mediaweek reports that the company will cut its guaranteed circulation by 38% beginning January 2010 and that it will combine its January and February issues. The company hopes these moves will help it save money… but, it’s not all about saving money; it’s about MAKING money. How does Playboy plan to do that? You might ask. Well, the CEO says the company is looking into print-digital combo sales, social networking, and mobile partnerships to get things started. Do you think this’ll work? I don’t. My reasoning is as follows: Playboy magazine was a tremendous success for such a long time because it gave people (men in particular) the opportunity to see racy images of beautiful women that they could not find anywhere else.  The internet has changed this. Now, racy images of both women and men are only a click away. The internet can provide an endless supply of not only soft-core but hard-corn pornography for FREE; something which Playboy magazine will never be able to do. Playboy magazine can provide readers with pictures for a fee; the internet can provide users with not only pictures, but video of people performing sexual acts for free.  There is no point of comparison. Then again, the magazine has survived this long, so who knows?

A multitude of blogs are buzzing today about a new device called TwitterPeek. The device, which can ONLY be used to send and receive Twitter updates has already gone on sale in the U.S. It will cost the user $99 to purchase  and $7.95 every month thereafter to be able to actually receive and send tweets. Many of you may be asking yourselves “What is the point of  this, exactly?” (I know I was). According to the developers, the device is aimed at Twitter users who do not have smartphones and who (apparently) cannot go a couple of hours without it. I don’t think this will be a success  for Twitter, since many, many, many people have smartphones and those who don’t, usually have phones that have internet service. I really don’t see why anyone would buy this, but crazier things have happened. We’ll just have to wait and see.

As we all know, print is on life support (so sad) and Esquire magazine hopes that 3-D will help reverse the death sentence that hangs over the medium. On November 16th, the magazine will premiere its high-tech 3-D experiment (which they call ‘augmented reality’) in hopes that people will respond by going out and purchasing more mags. You’re probably asking yourself  “am I going to have to wear those annoying 3-D glasses?” The answer to that, my friends, is no, BUT some of you might find the experiment a bit annoying nonetheless.

When I saw the headline “Esquire looks to energize print with 3-D animation” I thought to myself “Ooooh! How fabulous!” I held this thought until… I read what I would have to do to actually  see the 3-D animation.  I’d have to go out and buy the mag,  come home, hold it up to my imaginary Webcam and wait for the magic to happen. I’d much rather wear the 3-D glasses, I figure the magazine would bring them and allow me to enjoy the 3-D-ness (I know this is not a word, but humor me)  right away. I don’t like waiting. I also don’t like the fact that I’d need to find or buy a webcam to see an ad for some company trying to sell me more crap. I have enough of that and I’m currently trying to get rid of more, thank you. I don’t mean to sound unencouraging, but if the medium is dying, why would you apply a pre-requisite for people to be able to see your high-tech extravaganza? I need a webcam to see this, are you serious? I think its a bit presumptious to assume that all your readers/subscribers have a webcam at their disposal. What about those that don’t? They’ll miss out despite having paid the money and that’s not fair.

If Esquire magazine is really trying to resuscitate print, as they claim, I think they should try to be more inclusive; meaning not making it so that some readers are left out because they don’t have a webcam. The goal is to get more people to read or buy the mag, not to keep them away by setting pre-requisites.

I’m just saying……

When I was in highschool my bestfriend’s mother suggested that we buy scooters and ride behind the bus to get to school. She said it would be “cheaper and much more exciting”. We took this as a joke, of course.  We thought “what a nut this lady is!”  Well, it appears that my bestfriend’s mother is smarter than we thought. In a recent article, the New York Times reported that more and more Americans are getting out of their cars and jumping on scooters. Gas prices are high and the scooter (which can give you up to 7o miles per gallon) will definitely give you a bigger bang for your buck. There are many more benefits to the scooter: it allows one to dodge traffic, you can park it almost anywhere, and its a-hell-of-a-lot more fun than your dingy SUV.

As it turns out, scooters may also turn out to be much more environmentally friendly than your afore mentioned SUV. As we all know, hybrid cars can be very expensive, but an electric scooter? Not so much. I checked out prices at urbanscooter.com and they have scooters on sale beginning at $450, which is pretty sweet. Electric scooters help to reduce greenhouse gases, which are global warming pollutants. We should all buy one!

My reasoning is simple. I know of many people who drive their cars to go to the store (which is many times not that far from their homes to begin with) and God only knows what harm they are doing to the environment in that short trip. I personally believe that people should walk as much as they can. Its good for your heart and if your heart is healthy, there’s a good chance the rest of you will be doing just fine, but I digress. I figure, people using electric scooters instead of cars = less emissions = happy world. Think about it. I’m not suggesting that people make a drastic change in their lives, just a tiny one. After all, many of us would spend $450 dollars on a Wii or a cellphone or whatever, so why not something that will actually help the world? THINK ABOUT IT.

According to recent reports the Arctic Ocean may have to change its name soon. Studies show that the Arctic Ocean will be largely ice free in the summer within a decade.  This drastic change will harm all of us. As CNN reports ” Arctic ice helps regulate and temper the climate in many other parts of the world. The less ice there is, the more dramatic the impact. Huge sheets of ice reflect solar radiation, keeping our planet cool. When that ice melts, huge expanses of darker, open ocean water absorb the heat instead, warming things up.” Can you imagine? UVA/ UVB rays galore! No me gusta….

Something else that I don’t like is the apparent effect that this is having on polar bears, which as we all know, reside in the arctic. Apparently ice melting = not so happy polar bears. Polar bears depend on the ice for all of their essential behaviors and as the ice deteriorates so too does the polar bears’ quality of life. Studies dating back to 2006 report that polar bears are starving, drowning and even resorting to cannibalism because they don’t have access to their usual foods. This is so sad, especially considering the fact that polar bears are an endangered species (scientists say that 2/3 of the world’s polar bears will have disappeared by 2050). I think this should be a call to action for all of us. We need to find ways to, if not reverse, then prevent (further) damage to the world. Polar bears do not have control over global warming, but we CAN make a difference. There are many ways in which we can STOP global warming. I think we should all get involved. Let’s do this! If not for ourselves, then for the cute and fuzzy polar bears.

This summer was cold.  No. Seriously.  It was cold. I was one of those who complained about having had no summer. “The vacation was too short!” I complained, because it really didn’t feel like summer (except for those two weeks right before the beginning of the school. Annoying). The majority of my friends, on the other hand, were elated by the fact that this summer wasn’t hot. I was outraged! “This is UNNATURAL”, I thought and as it turns out I was right.

This morning I discovered a very interesting article on the Environmental News Network’s Website. The article suggests that although temperatures have been abnormally low, global warming remains a very real threat (make no mistake, it is here). According to the report, low temperatures (which one would think would be a good way to measure our status in the fight against global warming)  are not the barometer by which to gauge the combined global land and ocean surface temperatures. The National Climatic Data Center released reports stating that temperatures this September were the second highest on record.  Shocking, ain’t it?…… I am no expert, but for some reason this does not sound good to me. The effects of global warming are nothing to joke about and although one would think that by now people would “get” how important it is to work with the world instead of against it, it appears that this is not the case. Recent reports suggest that many people feel as though the low temperatures are proof that global warming is a myth. The new data comes to show us that it isn’t. Stop being stupid and help the world. How much proof do you need?! After all, its better to have believed and later find out that it didn’t exist, than to find out that it exists when its too late.

New information  has surfaced and as it turns out these numbers may not be very accurate. The original three-year study involved 16,400 Thai men and women. Of these, 8,200 received the vaccine and 8,200 received a placebo. According to the New York Times of those who received the vaccine only 51 became infected. This sounds like great progress, but, the report continues to say that only 74 of those receiving a placebo became infected. This would imply that the placebo is almost as effective as the vaccine.

What sense does that make?  Doesn’t it imply that  if you thought you got the vaccine you were almost as likely  NOT to get the virus as if you actually did get the vaccine? Furthermore, I’d like to know who the people being used as subjects for these tests are and what exactly constitutes these tests. Are the people given the vaccine and being told to go sleep around or are they actually being exposed to the virus by those conducting the tests? I ask this because, if the latter isn’t the case then (in my opinion) there is no validity in the study. How do you keep track of all 16,400 people and how would you know if they’re behavior would even put them at risk of contracting the disease? Also I’d like to know if, those that DID contract the disease were aware of who they caught it from. I think this is far more important than even the vaccine at this point. For if they knew who they caught the disease from then measures could be taken to stop the spread of the disease and to get help for the individual(s) who is infected (especially if said individual is unaware). This could save many lives.

I think more data on this study should be released because I’m really not understanding what’s going on (I don’t think) . Also I feel very distrustful of the people who released the supposed results of this study in the first place. If they embellished the truth then, whose to say they won’t do the same again?