Does the Huffington Post have all of the answers?

Newsweek’s article on the Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington ask a very interesting question: Has the Huffington Post figured out the future of journalism?
“The Huffington Post, attracted 24.3 million unique visitors last month, five times as much traffic as many new-media rivals, more than The Washington Post and USA Today, and nearly as many as The New York Times. HuffPo’s revenue this year will be about $30 -million—peanuts compared with the old-media dinosaurs, but way better than most digital competitors. And HuffPo has finally started to eke out a profit.”
The article mentions how Newsweek is/was for sale and how these traditional journalism outlets are bleeding cash. Their costs are too high, the product can no longer compete with the timeliness of Internet news and are incredibly bias and prejudiced in their reports.
So how and why is the Huffington Post so successful?
They cashed in and built a brand attracting the “Bush haters” and are reaping amazing benefits. The Huffington Post is very timely with their news and have a flashy, attractive website that is incredibly user friendly.
I and, DOB, share a similar mission statement: “HuffPo’s mission, Huffington says, is “to provide a platform for a really important national conversation.”

Read the rest of the article:  http://deskofbrian.com/2010/08/does-the-huffington-post-have-the-answers/

Star Wars Uncut and the Haters

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/pop-culture-other-topics/starwarsuncutthehaters

"Star Wars Uncut" http://starwarsuncut.com/ is a project to have fan film short segments from the original "Star Wars: A New Hope" film, splice them together with the original sound for....well, amusement.




From the site:

Hello!

You and 472 other people have the chance to recreate Star Wars: A
New Hope.
Below is the entire movie split up into 15 second clips.
Click on one of the scenes to claim it, film it, and upload it. You
can have up to three scenes!
When we're all done, we'll stitch it all together and watch the magic
happen.

You can watch some of the clips of the completed segments.



Star Wars: Uncut Trailer

The Huffington Post report that the film is set to premiere in Copenhagen describing it as "going to be awesome" touting the "Do it Yourself" charm.

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but it looks completely entertaining and a great time. So, with that said, cue the haters.

Sure I don't want to see another George Lucas incarnation of the "Star Wars" films, especially in 3-D. To Lucas I'd say: Let the legacy breathe and work on new material.

Recently however, the "Star Wars" hate squad stated the following on a local website:

I'll never understand the appeal of Star Wars beyond Lucas's ability to
sell the hell out of his brand for every last penny...

The world would be a better place had Star Wars never been made...In
my opinion its a gimmick movie but thats just my opinion...

I think the firs Star Wars wasnt made in mind as a marketing tool. in
fact it was so low budgeted that the studio nor the actors had much
faith in it. was it a gimmick? in a way. Lucas basically couldnt get
Lord Of The Rings or Flash Gordon (or was it Buck Rogers?) off the
ground and i think he knew that his claim to fame was American
Graffitti. so what did he do? easy make an old fashioned sci-fi film
that was one part Lord of the Rings (Obi Wans fate at the hands of Darth
Vader at the loading bay and Gandalfs demise at the hands of the Balrog
at the exit or Moria are exact.) and one part the sci-fi space operas
like Flash Gordon that the American Graffitti loving Baby Boomers used
to watch. that equals a hit. and it was. so maybe it was a gimmivk but
to me it was more of a calculated career move by Lucas.

Star Wars is over-rated, and it is a gimmick movie. Lucas does not have
an original idea in the movie, or in the series. I grew up with Star
Wars, though, so it is a part of my youth, and that is why I love it,
despite its flaws. Star Wars, not counting effects, would not do well if
it were released today.

My first viewing of Star Wars came when I was like...18 or something...I
had seen both Return Of The Jedi and Empire in the theaters when they
were re-released with the new and improved FX (barf!) and thought they
were ok...Its just...Considering the hype built around that movie it was
somewhat disappointing when I finally saw it...I'll always blame Lucas
for being the godfather of modern crappy movies...Or atleast the guy who
hooked it on steroids...

Maybe it's because I wasn't around for the hype surrounding the initial
releae of Star Wars, but the movie doesn't do much for me. I mean, I
like the bar scene as much as the next guy, but I've seen Star Wars
once, maybe twice and that's enough for me.

As I've also asserted: time and place. If you were a child during the "Star Wars" craze, you were consumed into the frenzy. It changed science fiction, it changed the toy industry, the marketing for films, merchandise in meals for kids - "Star Wars" really did change everything.
Gimmick?


I can understand the perspective in hindsight, but it was break through film with blue screen technology and model work that were unprecedented.


I really hope the "Fan Film" actually takes off and gets some sort of distribution because it really does seem like fun.


Seems like a better way to spend a few bucks than lining the pockets of an unrepentant, alcoholic drug addict dressed in a brightly colored iron suit playing a womanizing, alcoholic superhero.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/star-wars-uncut-fans-recr_n_536332.html?fbwall
Star Wars debate comments from:


http://www.crazedfanboy.com/npcr10/popculturereview523.php

Atleast I wasn't the only one...

Exposing your thoughts, feelings, and opinions to the world for scrutiny can prove to be difficult, if not, outright painful. One such occasion was the assertion that the current Health care Reform Bill is basically a Ponzi scheme. The angry replies bombarded my email after this blog post.

Steve Rosenbaum illustrates in a Huffinton Post article that we are already in a state of "pay it forward" in hopes that our health care will be there when we need it. Meanwhile, the art of denying claims and excluding high risk patients has infiltrated every insurance company and in my opinion, the leading offender: Medicare.

So what's the solution?

A bigger, broader, unconstitutional mandate to require health insurance in a massive bill that will not take effect for 3 years or more.

Rosenbaum presents these solutions:

Doctors Lead Care: Rosenbaum states "doctors seem to be the ones who have the least say in the system. They've got huge risks in insurance claims and their own legal exposure. At the same time, they appear to have less and less of a voice in decisions about how they treat their patients and how they can provide proper care."

Unfortunately it's important to note that the AMA and other organizations protect their own. The old 80/20 rule applies here: most of the abusers of the system and malpractice claims are a minority of repeat offenders.

I agree the physician needs to have more control of care without regard to "what is covered" or having to run unnecessary tests to "cover their behind"


Health Care Court: Rosenbaum suggests creating "a court that can mediate and rule on conflicts between patients and insurance companies"

Rosenbaum presents an argument laced with good intentions but isn't true TORT reform. "Medical Necessity" has been highjacked by Medicare's cost control panels and the recent Mammogram treatment program illustrates how the government will manuever to cut benefits.

Faith in the "record of precedent" within the legal system is admitting that there's a slippery slope of judgments and lawsuits. We'd be moving the problem through more red tape even though the premise sounds good at first.



Choices and Options: "While people may be against the 'public' option that sounds like health care provided by the post office or DMV, the reality is that private options are narrowing, not expanding."

Yes. Rosenbaum's assertion is accurate, but this reform bill will escalate the problem NOT fix it. The caps on premiums, pre-existing coverage requirements and other regulation will spell the death of many small carriers.

Rosenbaum scratches at the surface: catastrophic health care -- but we need to couple this focus with HSA (Health Spending Accounts) and enable more competition to allow interstate commerce to lower prices.


Whether arguing that the current plan is a "pay-it-forward" system or that the current bill is a large scale Ponzi scheme, one thing is clear: the system needs major changes.

As stated previously, this just isn't the bill to fix the problems. The bills in the Senate and the House are just precursors to a one-payer government controlled health care plan.
















http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-rosenbaum/health-care-ponzi-scheme_b_266588.html