Spanish Telenova Tops English Broadcasts (i.e. so what & get used to it!)

Whoever wrote this "Hollywood Reporter" article...needs to have her head fixed. Philiana Ng - came off as thoroughly ignorant in just a few sentences, which truly indicates the power of the written word.

Ms. Ng's article is as follows:

The Spanish-language soap topped Univision and English-language broadcast networks in the adults 18-34 demo in its time period Tuesday.

"It's not a good sign when a Spanish-language soap tops English-language broadcast networks.

That's what happened Tuesday night at 10 p.m. with Telemundo's La Reina del Sur. The program was No. 1 in its time slot in the adults 18-49 and 18-34 demographics, according to Nielsen. In the latter demo, La Reina topped CBS, ABC, NBC and Univision in the period.

La Reina drew 2.9 million viewers and roughly 1.93 million were in the ad-favored 18-49 demo. For Monday and Tuesday's telecasts, La Reina has averaged 1.89 million in the demo, up 7 percent from its premiere week.

In adults 18-34, La Reina had its best ratings to date with 1.13 million."

Ms. Ng...what makes you think (note that I am a lady and will not use the words that I think actually express her ignorance) that a Spanish-language broadcast topping mainstream-American television during the same hour is a bad thing? What about that fact is scandalous, dark, outrageous, or indicative of a larger trend of anything other than the fact that the US now has more Spanish-speakers than any other country, lead only by Mexico? We all know, thanks to our friend Nielsen, that people aren't watching the news at that hour anyway - the top-rated news program  (ABC"s "Nightline") doesn't air until 11:30! That can lead us to believe that Americans are probably watching reruns of "The Nanny" (I still love that show, b the way) or "Bad Girls Club" at that hour...and so Ms. Ng's underscoring point that Spanish-language programming is dangerously outranking local 10:00pm news broadcasts (that relatively few watch) is absolutely ridiculous.

Alternately, even if her point is "I can't believe a Spanish soap opera garnered that type of acclaim," she is still thoroughly in the wrong. Let's not go into lengths about "The Bachelor" finale which aired last night...the results of which have been riding the airwaves since the second the shows ending credits played out on our nation's television screen (well, not mine..I will NOT watch that show!). Last year's finale of the very same show drew 15 million viewers...so why don't you make a crack about that, Ms. Ng and draw some telling conclusions about American culture from that figure!

My point is that the Spanish-speaking population in the United States is quickly becoming the mainstream. Our tastes, our language, our needs & wants will all begin to play into the national conciousness. We can watch novelas and watch Nightline, all in the same evening. Play smart & get with the program - literally - ...and leave your opinion out of it when reporting news, Ms. Ng.

waves & destruction

Big news this morning about a deadly earthquake which hit the northern coast of Japan and is now hitting Hawaii in the form of a tsunami. Obama's going to deliver a presser at 11:15am, and Japanese officials have estimated between 200-300 casualties thus far (with added reports of missing trains & boats).

Great chart which places this event within the proper context (courtesy ABC News):

Large Quakes since 1900

	Location	Date	Magnitude
1.	Chile	1960 05 22	9.5
2.	Prince William Sound, Alaska	1964 03 28	9.2
3.	Off the West Coast of Northern Sumatra	2004 12 26	9.1
4.	Kamchatka	1952 11 04	9.0
	TODAY’S QUAKE		8.9
5.	Offshore Maule, Chile	2010 02 27	8.8
6.	Off the Coast of Ecuador	1906 01 31	8.8
7.	Rat Islands, Alaska	1965 02 04	8.7
8.	Northern Sumatra, Indonesia	2005 03 28	8.6
9.	Assam - Tibet	1950 08 15	8.6
10.	Andreanof Islands, Alaska	1957 03 09	8.6
11.	Southern Sumatra, Indonesia	2007 09 12	8.5
12.	Banda Sea, Indonesia	1938 02 01	8.5
13.	Kamchatka	1923 02 03	8.5
14.	Chile-Argentina Border	1922 11 11	8.5
15.	Kuril Islands	1963 10 13	8.5

politics & debt, Chicago-style (hot peppers not included)

I literally shrieked when I read the headline "Emanuel Elected Chicago Mayor" - politics aside, I cannot believe he was tapped to win by Mayor Daley. Since when did it become ok to bestow another with the consequences of your bad economic policies? 1billion dollars of debt and less than a 50% public high
school graduation rate? OMG indeed. I definitely need to read more about Emanuel's campaign - what were his selling/talking points? Was it just the sway of popular opinion through the Obama & Daley connection which won him the vote? For years now we've known Emanuel as one of the forces behind our nation's newest president, but I have a feeling we're all going to get to know him soon....

EMANUEL ELECTED CHICAGO MAYOR

Wall Street Journal
By KEVIN HELLIKER

CHICAGO—Voters in overwhelming numbers on Tuesday elected Rahm Emanuel to be the first new mayor of Chicago in 22 years.

Only four months after resigning as President Obama's chief of staff in order to enter this city's mayoral race, Mr. Emanuel received 55% of the vote with 93% of the precincts reporting, more than the simple majority he needed to avoid a run-off campaign against second-place finisher Gery Chico, a long-time Chicago administrator who received 25% of the vote.

Indeed, Mr. Emanuel's vote far outnumbered the total of his six opponents, including former Democratic Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, who with most precincts reporting had garnered less than 10% of vote, despite being the leading African American candidate in a city whose population is about one-third black

Inside an Emanuel campaign party in Chicago's West Loop, an ebullient crowd cheered as a giant screen with rolling election results showed their candidate steamrolling toward victory. By 8 p.m. local time, with 84 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Emanuel was leading with 55 percent of the votes cast.

Standing in the center of the crowd was Ralph Schwartz, 83 years old, who sipped red wine to celebrate Mr. Emanuel's rising fortunes. "He has the force of personality and the knowledge to take on the sleeze in Chicago politics," Mr. Schwartz said. "The way he talks reminds me of how FDR faced down the Republicans when he was forcing through the New Deal."

By winning in such dominant fashion, Mr. Emanuel perpetuated the legacy of retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley, who has held a firm grip on the electorate in Chicago since taking office in 1989.
Mayor Daley didn't officially endorse any candidate. But the so-called machine that helped Mayor Daley stay in power for more than two decades got behind Mr. Emanuel early in the campaign, helping him jump to a commanding lead that recent polls placed at near 50%. A former congressman from Chicago, Mr. Emanuel is a long-time ally and friend of Mayor Daley's, and also a former high-ranking member of the Clinton Administration.

On Tuesday, Mr. Emanuel's margin jumped above 50% in part because of turnout that fell far below the more than 50% of Chicago's 1.4 million registered voters that election officials had predicted.

Instead, with 90% of the vote counted, turnout remained below 40%. Those who did show up to vote, said Chicago political observers, belonged to the so-called machine, benefiting Mr. Emanuel.

Mr. Emanuel campaigned aggressively, in recent weeks making 360 hand-shaking stops, often at public-transportation stations. His war chest of several million dollars also far surpassed that of his opponents. During a two-year break from politics before running for Congress, Mr. Emanuel earned more than $15 million working for the Chicago office of a Wall Street investment firm.

Yet for Mr. Emanuel, the toughest challenge lies ahead. He faces a city reeling from the recession and years of overspending. Chicago's projected budget shortfall is approaching $1 billion and public-employee pensions are underfunded by about $20 billion. The city's unemployment rate is 8.6%.

One of Mr. Daley's favorite tools for raising quick cash was privatizing public assets. But in the wake of the sale of the city's 40,000 parking meters—a deal that resulted in rates quadrupling—the public's tolerance for more privatization is next to nil.

Chicago also faces a depleted police force and a violent crime problem, particularly in the city's largely African-American South Side.

The city's public school system is also at a crossroads. Mr. Daley took over the school system in 1995 and test scores saw an initial bump, but they have flattened out in the last decade.

Chicago's high school graduation rate remains mired just above 50%.

—The Associated Press, Stephanie Banchero, Douglas Belkin and contributed to this article.

Find the article here, at WSJ.com

history as it happens

As a news junkie, this is the stuff I live for - chills & goosebumps as I watch my tv screen in my own corner of the world, watching history unfold as Mubarak has just stepped down from the presidency.

We'll wait - who will take over? It's a precarious situation - let's not echo the ills of history past, but hope that move will usher democracy & peace to that country.

My heart goes out to those people...who knows what will happen now? No president, VP...just tanks, mobs and an economy quickly sinking. What is more important - stability or democracy?

when being in "good shape" doesn't refer to treadmill time-

So here's an idea: what if the rich - you know, those people we love to hate and constantly bemoan when discussing tax rates - actually admitted they shold be paying more to Uncle Sam? Are there those among them who can attest to the rich being in pretty good shape right now with our current tax code?

That's exactly what Warren Buffet, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (and one of America's richest men) suggested in an interview with ABC News' Christiane Amanpour to be aired during Thanksgiving weekend. What a novel idea! Said Buffet, "I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

This Sunday's episode of "This Week" will be focused on The Giving Pledge, which is a major philanthropic effort spearheaded by Buffet, and Bill and Melinda Gates.

Buffet stated that tax rates for the lower and middle-bracket classes should be cut, but that taxes for the wealthy should be increased. Upon Amanpour's prompt that popular thinking dictates that tax cuts for the wealthy energizes business & capitalism, Buffet explained the following:

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

So what do you think? Should we keep the status quo (because oh yeah, that seems to be working)? What about tax increases for the rich and upper classes? What about minizing rates between classes, or eliminating taxes for those in lower income brackets altogether? Do you think that Buffet is implying that he supports the tax proposals that were recently submitted to Congress? And here's a novel thought - if Buffet so clearly thinks that he's being undertaxed, why doesn't he voluntarily donate to the IRS? Hmm....