Colbert US Speed Skating

In late November the Dutch bank that sponsored the U.S. speed skating team went bankrupt. With the Olympics just a few months away, the team was in desperate need of a new sponsor. Within days Stephen Colbert invited the president of U.S. speed skating on his show and signed on as the head sponsor of the team in front of his entire audience. The teams new sponsorship has invoked alot of mixed reactions. The majority of the team say they are happy about the money and attention the Colbert Nation is bringing to U.S. speed skating. Others however, are not pleased at all. Many sports news reports fear foreign viewers will make negative assumptions about U.S. speed skating because of Colbert's outrageous behavior. Short track American speed skater Shawni Davis says about Colbert, "He's a jerk. Put that in the paper". I personally think it's great that Colbert is sponsoring U.S. speed skating. They wins more medals than any other U.S. team at the winter Olympics, and still they are only minimally covered. Colbert's ecstatic enthusiasm and support for the team will undoubtedly attract viewers at come race time in Vancouver. What do you think? Good? Bad? or anything else. POST!

domestic violence

Every day in Business class we start off with a topic of the day. Last Tuesday the topic was a radio talk show that discussed whether or not it was ok for Tiger's wife to beat on him. The male host said that it was not ok for Elin Woods to scratch Tiger's face and chase him down with a golf club. Arguing that, had the roles been reversed, Tiger would get a prison sentence. Shortly after proposing this argument a female caller rang in saying that a woman has every right to hit her husband/boyfriend if he cheats on her. Our class started to debate whether or not it was ok for a woman to hit a man in that situation and vice versa. The typical supports were brought up: it is never ok to hit a woman, but a man could cause more damage, women can't inflict serious injury, ect. I wasn't really swayed by anyone. Like most I have always believed that a man hitting a woman is never justifiable (unless she's crazy and trying to kill you or something) and a woman hitting a man isn't that big a deal. Then I remembered a story my gym teacher told my class last year during our domestic violence unit. Her male friend was dating a woman who appeared quite pleasant to public eye. However, in the confines of her home she beat her boyfriend. My teacher would see bruises on him but never expected that a woman was hitting him.
Later that day we watched Minority Report in class. I recognize that the scenario in the movie could not occur in real life, but it still reminded me of the domestic violence discussion we had in Business. I was really bummed for the guy in the movie. He was clearly trying his best to make his wife happy but she still proceeded to cheat on him in his own home. I get that it's not ok to stab people with scissors, but I think it really sucks that a woman's betrayal will always go unpunished while a husband will be sent to jail if he merely hits his wife with and open hand (Once again, I am 100% against domestic violence) What do you think? Is the current system fair? Is it ok for women to hit men? ->What if they cheat? Were Elin Woods' actions acceptable? -> Does the public embarrassment she is suffering count for anything? Or any other comments

Post!

Dan Esty on Colbert 11/30 (East Anglia Emails)

Last Monday I was watching The Colbert Report. The first guest to come on was Dan Esty, the Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. He discussed the emails from East Anglia University's (britsh college) climate center that were obtained by computer hackers and posted online about two weeks ago. These emails contained evidence of a decline in global temperatures. Dan Esty states on The Colbert Report (<--worth watching!) that although it was wrong for the climate experts to withhold/alter data showing a decline in global temperatures, their intention was good. He explains that the scientists recognized that the data could have been over simplified by the media and used to support the theory that global warming is a myth.
I don't think that altering data showing a decline in global temperatures was the right thing to do, but I definitely understand the logic of the East Anglia scientists. What do you think? Was it ok for these scientists to alter data showing a drop in global temperatures? Was their fear that the media would over simplify the data understandable? Does it justify their lie? What should these scientists have done?

Post!