Citing tweets

CNN: Hugh Hefner: Crystal Harris lied about our sex life

I think this is the first time I've seen an article's citations/links consist mostly of tweets.  I guess this is what we're heading towards...

Our priorities are a bit messed up

Ever since I joined Twitter, I find myself getting more and more news from there.  I subscribe to Al Jazeera, the UN, other political organizations and NGOs, and 'randoms' (i.e. people/organizations not associated with news and/or politics).  Needless to say, information travels fast on there.

I first found out about the attacks in Norway via Twitter, with Neil Gaiman commenting that #Oslo and #Norway seemed to not be news in the US.  Curious, I went to CNN to find out more (and I'm still trying to keep up with all the news there).  Both columns on the front page, which I would conflate to the 'above the fold' section of a broadsheet newspaper, were full of stories on the Oslo attacks, with live feeds, videos, iReports, and staff-produced articles.

Today, also on Twitter (because that's what I find myself doing with my near-unemployed life), I find out that Amy Winehouse died.  For New York at least, the trends are all about her and other celebrities that died young, including the disturbing hashtag #27club (apparently lots of celebrities died at 27).  Norway is still trending, but it's 9th on the list of 10 top trends for the region and the only one about yesterday's tragedy.  CNN also is following this.  Their left-side, smaller column is still full of information about Norway.  The large, front-and-center column, however, is all about Amy Winehouse.  The newspulse, which shows the top stories, lists stories about her as being #1 and #3 (moving up from the #4 spot that it was at no less than 10 minutes ago).  The main article is listed as 'Breaking News.'

Time for me to get a little insensitive here (as some people will think).  Amy Winehouse was a world-famous, talented singer with a loooooooooooooong history of drug problems.  Pretty much every story about her career has always talked about her drug problems, and quite honestly, most stories about her weren't about her career (3 guesses what they were actually about).  It is sad that she died; she held a lot of promise.  But considering her lifestyle, it is not exactly 'breaking news' that she died.  Someone who continues to abuse their body like that for years with no signs of wanting help is going to die much sooner rather than later.  This is like being shocked that Steve Irwin was killed by a dangerous animal (although granted, I was shocked it wasn't by crocodile).  When you live a certain lifestyle, the consequences are pretty much set in stone.  You expect these things to happen.

In contrast, there was a real tragedy in Norway.  The death toll from the two attacks already stands at 92, with 85 of them being from an attack at a youth camp.  While details are still coming in, this already stands as a deeply violent and tragic event that may have implications in the current global culture of terror.  The same article states the suspect may be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist fighting against a multicultural society.  Studying this event can help us rethink the concept of terror and terrorism in an ever-changing world, and also, particularly in the US, think about our own country's right-wing violent fundamentalist groups that could pose a serious threat to the nation in coming years.

But no.  What's more important than shaping the global discourse on terrorism is a dead celebrity whose death was wholly expected.  Sad, yes, but nobody can say they were truly surprised by this.  When will we get out of this sick fascination with the famous and their self-destructive tendencies and start paying attention to the things that can actually have a real impact on our own lives?  We need to get our priorities straight, and also learn to leave people alone (because I'm pretty sure there's a lesson to be learned about paparazzi-hounding in the Winehouse story).  It's all tragic and serious, but it's important.  Americans can't be content to ignore the rest of the world, because whether we like it or not, we've already seen the rest of the world is coming to us.

They mean well, but....

Care2: Bigger AT&T = Less Choice, Higher Prices!

Somehow along the way, I got subscribed to updates from a petition site, Care2.  This latest one is against AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile, which I find silly for a multitude of reasons.  At the very least, T-Mobile phones are now using AT&T cell phone towers (which explains why when I was camping this week all of us on Verizon had crap service but everyone on AT&T and T-Mobile could actually get reception), which is good news for T-Mobile customers.

While the petition states such issues such as AT&T poised to be the largest cell phone company with this acquisition and forcing higher rates of service on (former) T-Mobile customers, the e-mail sheds a bit of a different light such as less competition (implying that AT&T is heading towards monopoly):

A merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would give AT&T control of more American's cell phones than any other company, allowing them to more easily take out the rest of the competition.

Competition between companies creates innovation in new products, better service and lower rates. Without it, American consumers would be at the whim of the corporation in charge.

As consumers, we have to stand up to giants like AT&T. T-Mobile already charges less than AT&T and T-Mobile customers will see a major hike in prices if the merger is allowed to go through.

Yes, these are valid issues in some respect.  However, let me outline the reasons why I don't think there needs to be a petition at all.

1.  "...The FCC is seriously considering allowing AT&T to swallow competitor T-Mobile, and control more Americans' cell phones than any other company."
   Yes, AT&T will most likely gain the largest market share with the acquisition, according to 2010 data.  For the first 3 months of 2010, Verizon held 31.1%, AT&T had 25.2%, and T-Mobile held around 12% of the market share.*  Combining AT&T and T-Mobile with these numbers gives them 37.2% of the market share, a 6% increase over Verizon.
   
   However, a lot has happened in the cell phone world since 2010.  One of the main things that can potentially have an impact on AT&T's market share is the recent (February 10, 2011) release of the iPhone on Verizon.**  Considering AT&T's notoriously horrible service that even this petition cites, this has the great potential to cause many people to migrate services, as many iPhone supporters signed AT&T contracts simply because they were the only carrier that the iPhone was available on.  Soon after the iPhone came out on Verizon, some friends ran a small test of the carriers, looking at 3G and call connection speed.  Verizon won both times.
   
   I feel that The Oatmeal best summed up this in his 'State of the Web' comic from Winter 2010.  (Seriously, go check it out).  With much better service, how many iPhone devotees will continue to stay with AT&T?***
   
2. "A merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would give AT&T control of more American's [sic] cell phones than any other company, allowing them to more easily take out the rest of the competition."
   
   Citing the percentages above, when the next largest company after the merger only controls 6% less of the market share than you do, not including the fact that neither control over (or even close to) 50% of the market share, I think this is a bit of a scare tactic.  After the merger, there will be AT&T, but there will also still be Verizon, Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Metro PCS, and a number of other companies that still have a solid number of customers.  If Verizon and AT&T merged, that would be a huge issue as they would control nearly 70% of the market share.  However, as both companies are operating strongly I don't see that as even a remote possibility.  The only thing I think anyone would be in danger of is a two-company system in which Verizon and AT&T buy up all the remaining companies and just compete between themselves.
   
   Even on this, another point has to be taken into consideration.  Both AT&T and Verizon have eliminated their unlimited data plans, along with a host of other carriers.  For people not grandfathered in on their contracts with an unlimited plan, I can foresee them moving to one of the other, smaller carriers that still provides that service.  This has the opportunity to create more diverse competition, not less of it.
   
3.  "T-Mobile already charges less than AT&T and T-Mobile customers will see a major hike in prices if the merger is allowed to go through."
   This has the potential to be a valid point.  AT&T, once the acquisition is finalized, will control all contracts and will most likely do away with any low pricing that T-Mobile currently offers.  However, T-Mobile has already stated that even after the acquisition is finalized, their customers will be allowed to finish out their contracts with no price increases.****  As I have stated before, after that, customers that are unsatisfied have the option to switch carriers.  While T-Mobile is relatively inexpensive compared to AT&T, so are other companies.

Yes, there are some potential negatives to come out of this merger.  T-Mobile customers may have a rate increase after their contracts expire, and AT&T's service in most aspects pretty much sucks.  However, the beauty of the free market (which I think will be one of the few times I use that phrase) is that if customers don't like something, they can make a statement with their money.  Don't like AT&T?  Move to one of the countless other mobile phone carriers in the country, and take your money elsewhere.  It may be a pain to search for that perfect cell phone company, but I seriously doubt that this acquisition is the harbinger of doom that the Care2 people seem to be implying it is.

*PPCGeeks: Wireless Market Share by Carrier & Devices; May 7, 2010.
**Fox News: Verizon Finally Unveils iPhone; January 11, 2011.
***Full disclaimer: I am totally devoted to Verizon, having been a customer since approximately middle school.  I have also heard a lot of AT&T customers complain about their service.  It's kind of how I am with Hewlett-Packard vs. Dell (hint: never buy a Dell!).
****T-Mobile: Q&A: More Information About AT&T Acquisition of T-Mobile USA; March 20, 2011.

Pirates are dumb

CNN: Pirates target the Maersk Alabama again

Really, pirates?  Did you not see that bad-ass sniper action that happened when you guys held the Maersk Alabama's captain hostage a couple of years ago?  Because I'm pretty sure the U.S. government would have no problems doing that again.

I may actually start liking the Pope now...

CNN: Pope says condoms may be OK in some circumstances

Seriously breaking news.  According to this CNN article, the Pope has recently stated that condom use may be permissible in cases where they can prevent against sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS.  As a Catholic and a human rights advocate, this is seriously the best news I've heard in relation to both [combined] in a long time.  This issue has been one of the most frustrating things in relation to the AIDS crisis in Africa in particular.  The Pope has such a wide-reaching influence even among non-Catholics that the Church's stance on condom use has been very detrimental to efforts to combat the disease.

Of course, this permission does not include anything to deal with preventing pregnancy, which is understandable considering the Church's view on procreation.  However, I feel that this is an important step in the Church towards a human rights-oriented worldview.  For me, my religion and my human rights views are very tightly combined, but the issue of condoms has been a particularly unfortunate point in this.  I'm definitely glad that these can now be more tightly reconciled.

Hopefully with these recent statements work towards containing the AIDS crisis not only in Africa but worldwide can flourish and expand.  This is just great, excellent news and I hope that eventually it becomes official Vatican policy.

The odd, odd world of sports

CNN: Finalist dies at world sauna championships
CNN: Snoring to success in Spain's first national siesta competition

Two equally interesting 'sports'-related stories on CNN.  First, a Russian finalist at the world sauna championships died in early August.  The second discusses the national siesta competition in Spain, which took place in a shopping mall in Spain.

On the first story- WTF?  How is 'sauna' a sport?  In my opinion, it sounds like the dumbest possible event ever.  Let's all sit in a steaming hot room and see who can last the longest!  Except you know why saunas have warning labels on them?  Because you could DIE.  Yeah, I'm gonna go right ahead and risk my life for something that is completely meaningless.  The article said the deceased appeared to be suffering from skin burns.  Kids, let this be a lesson to you- DON'T sit in saunas for extended periods of time.  It's dangerous.

The second story, while at first seems kind of funny, actually goes into the possible extinction of the siesta in Spain.  The contest organizers, it explains, are trying to save the tradition which is being pushed out by the desire to compete better on the global market.  While I first laughed, it is very valid.  Studies (I know they're out there, I just don't have where they are) have shown that napping in the middle of the day actually boosts productivity.  I think the Spanish have always been on to something with the siesta, and it's the rest of the world that's falling behind.  Of course economics could always prove me wrong, but I know at least I get super tired and sleepy around mid-day, which makes me pretty much useless at work after that point.  A siesta would pep me back up and keep me going.

So, in closing, you go, Spain!  Viva la siesta!

(And Finland, knock it off with the sauna crap already)

Supersize nation

MSNBC: Report says school food making kids unfit to serve

There's a group of retired military officers saying that school lunches are making kids obese, and therefore reducing the number of people that would actually be able to pass a military health exam in order to enlist.  The article also mentioned that many service members are now being discharged for weight problems.  Ironically, the military is the same group that helped institute the school lunch program to begin with.

Despite the silliness of the headline (really, most headlines lately are absolutely ridiculous-sounding), they do make a valid point.  Obesity really is detrimental to our national defense. If we end up having a nation of overweight people who either physically can't exercise or are too lazy to exercise, the country as we know it is going to go down the shitter pretty quickly.  Imagine: an overweight police officer trying to chase down some young criminal.  Granted, if they're both overweight I suppose they'd be easily matched, but chances are the young person's going to be smaller, more agile, and quicker than someone with 40 or 50 extra pounds on their frame.  Another scenario: a firefighter wheezing under the weight of his equipment.  These people now would never be allowed in those services, but if our country consists mostly of those who are overweight, those are going to be the only people left to fill those roles.

Between this new report, Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity, and television shows tackling the problems in school lunches, I hope that some effective measures will finally take place.  Thinking back to my school days, many of the lunches were not the most nutritious.  Throughout high school, I ate pizza most days simply because there either were no other options or the options available looked disgusting.  A few times they would offer vegetables, but I couldn't stand eating them.  The corn was way too watery and really funny-tasting.  The beans were simply a rubbery, atrocious mess.  Any meat they offered was processed- chicken patties and those weird ground-up meat concoctions that were molded into the shape of ribs. [1]  I think part of the problem is the standardized lunch system in public schools.  We used one company, Sysco, which sent their food in huge vats.  Clearly, the company's focus seemed to be on mass quantities of food, forsaking the quality of that same food.

The article also discussed healthier options in vending machines, something that I think gets missed a lot.  At my high school, I think the district did a good job restricting options.  We had a milk vending machine (yes, milk) as well as one that I believe sold Nestea and other similar drinks.  If I remember correctly, there was also one that sold chips, which you could also get in the cafeteria itself.  Soda was one thing not sold there. [2]  According to people around school (so, pretty much hearsay as it was in high school), Coca-Cola offered a huge project to the school district that would provide massive renovations and remodeling, plus laptops for every student.  In exchange, the district would put Coca-Cola vending machines in the schools.  In an amazing show of doing the right thing, the district turned it down (Liverpool, however, did take Coca-Cola up on the offer- they have a pretty amazing school now, but at what cost?).  When we've got corporations interfering in schools, there's a huge problem.

Quite honestly, with all the people advocating for healthier school lunches, if anyone can get it done it's the military.  I'm glad they're on board with combating childhood obesity, regardless of the reason.  As defense spending is an exorbitant amount of our national budget, it is clear that the government sets a high importance on the military.  If they say something should be done for their benefit, it will get done.

__________________________________
[1] To tell the truth, those two were actually my favorite lunches (besides West Genny pizza day).  Sad that mystery meat can taste that good.
[2] The sale of soda in schools has been a huge issue in this obesity battle due to the general unhealthiness of soda.