Penn Glee Club – The Star Spangled Banner

When one asks someone about ‘a capella’ music, the response typically relates back to either Ivy League glee clubs or the Folders commercials from the early 1990’s. And while many scoff at the boundless number of collegiate singers doing renditions of top 40 hits, the discourse around the world of a capella has changed radically.

A capella, at its inception could very much be defined as a folk music. Think about the Penn Glee Club. The group was founded 145 years ago, and still has songs in its repertoire from that day and age. More importantly though, songs such as ‘The Red and The Blue’ and ‘Drink a Highball’ are shared by a broader Penn community and have cultural significance to members of that community, which are typical aspects of folk music.

University of Pennsylvania’s Off the Beat – The Crowing

But the genre has grown far beyond the bounds of college campuses. In the early 1990’s, organizations such as the Recorded A Capella Review Board began writing elaborate criticism of penned arrangements and recorded a capella music, pulling it closer to the realm of art music. Further, as recorded a capella is increasingly able to mimic commercial music thanks to technoglogical advancements, the genre has begun receiving mass acceptance.

Glee – Don’t Stop Believing

This fall, NBC is launching “The Great American Sing-Off”, a primetime competition where a capella groups will perform pop hits weekly. In sum, the discourse around a capella is in flux. As the genre changes, it will be interesting to see where the discourse about a capella moves towards.

Lawrence Crane-Moscowitz

by Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.

Many of those in my now-loyal audience first became acquainted with my work by supporting me in the Community Marketing site’s Great Blog-Off contest a few months ago. A number of people have asked me to write a little case study about my (overwhelming) win in that test, which illustrates some basic principles everyone who writes for the Internet should keep in mind: Hook ‘Em With Headlines. Keep ‘Em There With Links. And Remember You’re Only As Strong As Your Fan Base.

I’ve been a heavy-volume print journalist most of my working life. But after a several-year sabbatical from the field, I returned to find the world of magazines in disarray, Big Media under fire from Little Media, and the Internet emerging as the place where a busy and educated audience of professionals tended to go for both news and features.

I was also dismayed to find that the current dominance of a few major search engines tends to exclude from Internet visibility anything written prior to 18 months ago or so. Magazines are particularly poorly represented. So the more than 3,000 print magazine articles I’d published over a 30-year period were virtually inaccessible, in Internet terms. I was suddenly a journalistic ghost, while Buffy the Siamese Cat, with 14,000 Twitter “publications,” was now a media superstar.

What to do? Well, with the help of my cousin the Internet guru, I first scanned in a selection of about 50 of my magazine articles and placed them in a little virtual portfolio on the Web. Then I wrote a couple of articles for Internet “aggregators,” but soon decided they were pretty much pimps, and I was a lady, not a Lady of the Night.

So I decided to create a Web presence of my own by publishing and administering my own blogsites and developing an audience in the Brave New Blogosphere. While this idea was germinating, I heard about the Great Blog-Off contest at a website called Community Marketing.

Marketing is not my area of expertise, although I’ve done a few stories on it over the years. (I’ve probably done a few stories on everything over the years.) But this contest was not designed for marketing writers only. It welcomed all bloggers who professed to be “thought leaders” on any kind of subject matter. I had been contemplating starting my Baby Boomers-The Angriest Generation series, which most of you now know about. (See the latest Index at http://wp.me/pxD3J-2a )

I signed up for the contest, describing myself as a “thought leader” on the subject of Baby Boomers. The owner of the site asked contestants – there were a couple of dozen originally, although some turned out to be not very active – to come up with punchy little descriptions of themselves, a few words that would make us memorable. I offered the following:

Dr. Ellen Brandt – “Sophisticated Rabble-Rouser”

About my professional background: I’m an Ivy League-educated Ph.D. cultural historian and the author of over 3,000 magazine articles. I’m now a professional in the senior services industry – the fastest-growing sector of this economy for the next 100 years or so – while also resuming my career as a heavy-volume journalist.

When I’m not working: I’m a mezzo soprano trained at Juilliard Prep when it was at 123rd and Claremont. I like lighthouses, carousels, and botanical gardens. And my Dog-Nephew Garcia, named after Jerry Garcia, was – honestly! – the inspiration for the Obamas getting a Portuguese water dog.

My Pre-Blog-Off Blogsite

Said punchy blurb was accompanied by a photo and the notation that I would be the contestant representing Boomers among a field of mostly Gen-Xers and Millennials.

The punchy blurbs were posted about ten days before the contest proper was to begin, at which time I contemplated what kind of strategy might set me apart from the field, help win me a loyal audience, and address the essential differences between a static print environment and this dynamic sphere which calls itself the Internet.

I decided to establish a “pre-Blog-Off blog” at WordPress, where I now house the blogs I publish. The site was called “Preparing for the Blog-Off” with the subhead “Seeing What Works.”

It basically consisted of the same page repeated ten times with different headlines. More about the headlines in a second. The main purpose of the page was to introduce readers to the Blog-Off, with an easy link to the contest embedded in the text.

I also said a little bit about my background and stated that I would be the contestant representing Content and Experience, as befitted a Baby Boomer. On the blogsite’s About page, I offered further links to my Linked In profile, about 50 examples of my print magazine articles, and a wide-ranging interview about my career. (See Why This Blog at http://wp.me/sycK6-about )

This adds up to a whole lot of links! Which illustrates one of those three principles successful website owners should keep in mind: Don’t keep your Readers on one static page, in which case they might as well be sitting at their kitchen table reading a newspaper. Keep your audience moving swiftly from link to link, offering them choices of what to read about next. Make your site a textual Treasure Hunt, with riches galore opening before their eyes.

Now For Those Headlines . . .

All I needed now was an interesting topic for the site, broad enough to warrant several blog entries over the two-week period of the contest, and compelling enough to attract a brand-new audience previously unfamiliar with my work.

The Blog-Off winner would be the contestant who attracted both the most comments and the most clicks – or page views – on the Community Marketing site. So I conceived the idea of a series of stories about attracting both page views and comments via the strength of one’s article headlines.

The series would be called “Thank You For Clicking!” and would be based on the experience early in my career within the world of those Headline Hotshots, the tabloid newspapers. (See “In An Economy and World Gone Haywire” http://wp.me/pycK6-v )

No one does headlines better than the tabloids. Their titles may amuse you, intrigue you, infuriate you, or have you scratching your head – but they are superb at drawing you in and getting you to read the accompanying stories.

Looking at this exercise as informative, as well as fun, I decided to use ten Faux Tabloid Headlines representing different kinds of typical tabloid stories, which I categorized as The Big Story, Plausible-But-Off, Purely Ridiculous, and What-the-Heck-Is-That-About? You can read about these tabloid story categories – and I certainly hope you will – in the four-part series of blogs which made up my composite entry in the Blog-Off.

Here are the ten Faux Tabloid Headlines:

Corpse Found in Internet Guru’s Gym Locker

Pet Hamsters May Spread Swine Flu

Each of these headlines was placed on a separate page at the “Preparing For the Blog-Off” site at Word Press, with the exact same text accompanying each one. In other words, the only element that differed page-to-page was the headline itself. A reader’s clicking on any particular page instead of another would demonstrate that the headline on that page attracted that reader in some way. I also encouraged readers to comment on why they clicked on that particular headline.

Please click on this link to see what the “Preparing For the Blog-Off” page looked like: http://wp.me/pycK6-2h I have used “7 Out of 10 Blog in the Nude” as an example.

Finding Your Fan Base

At this point I needed an audience to read my Blog-Off entries. Several of the younger entrants in the contest publically stated they’d be concentrating on their Twitter networks as potential bases of fans. But I wasn’t on Twitter yet, nor was I active on Face Book.

So I decided to focus my efforts on my Linked In network – considerably smaller then than it is now – and my 50 Linked In Groups.

Starting about two weeks before the Blog-Off’s official commencement, I began to post each of the ten Faux Tabloid Headlines in turn, with a link to the appropriate “Preparing” site page, first in the News sections, then in the Discussion sections, of my various Linked In Groups. I made sure each of the ten Faux Headlines appeared in News and Discussion threads an equal number of times, meaning that an approximately equal number of site visitors would have the opportunity to click – or not click – on each distinctive headline.

Readers who did choose to click were encouraged to make comments about why they chose the headline they did. Many got into the spirit of this exercise and made comments which were sophisticated, insightful, and often quite funny.

It was also soon very clear who my own “fan base” tended to be: over-35; equally divided between female and male; well-educated; and with professional, managerial, or creative careers.

I’m quite happy with that audience. And, in fact, many of those who first “found” me and my work via the Blog-Off are now friends and members of my network.

A quick note about my Baby Boomers series: I intended to introduce the first of my Baby Boomers-The Angriest Generation articles towards the end of the Blog-Off contest. But I collected so much material from the Faux Tabloid Headlines exercise – most of which turned out to be genuinely interesting, as well as humorous – I decided to stick with that “mini-series,” consisting of four separate “Thank You For Clicking!” results stories, as my composite Blog-Off entry.

Here are links to the four stories in the series:

Thank You For Clicking! Part One: Corpse Found In Internet Guru’s Gym Locker http://wp.me/pycK6-2i

Thank You For Clicking! Part Four: New Reality Show To Feature Laid-Off Bankers, Lawyers http://wp.me/pycK6-2o

I urge you to read these stories in sequence, after looking at the Introductory page from the “Preparing For the Blog-Off” site, linked above.

This sequence of four Thank You For Clicking! results articles made up my Blog-Off entry. They were posted on the Community Marketing site at about three-day intervals over the two-week course of the contest. Other active competitors also posted about four stories on average, with three to five blogs being the typical range per contestant.

When the results were tallied, my articles garnered about twice as many page views on the Community Marketing site as my nearest competitor. But the number of page views on the “Preparing for the Blog-Off” site itself was over double that amount, meaning my total views overall, counting both sites, was between six and seven times as great as the next-nearest contestant.

Tell Me What You Think

The series of Thank You For Clicking! stories also did extremely well in terms of reader commentary, which I believe is one of the essential components of successful Internet-based publishing.

Internet gurus tell us that a comment-to-click ratio of 1-2 percent is the average among publishers across the Web. Adding together the approximately 200 comments the Thank You! series received at the Community Marketing site, my Linked In Groups, and the “Preparing For the Blog-Off” site, these articles had a comment-to-click ratio of almost 4 percent, considered an excellent showing.

The comment-to-page view ratio on the “Preparing” site alone, where I – and not other managers – had complete control of the blog and its content was similar, with close to 100 comments from readers, out of 2700 page views in a three-week period.

I am including a selection of original Reader comments from the Community Marketing site and the “Preparing” blogsite as an appendix to this case study. To see them, please click here: http://wp.me/pycK6-2q and http://wp.me/pycK6-2r

The superb reader response demonstrates how enthusiastic – and witty – an audience I was fortunate enough to make an acquaintance with during the course of the Blog-Off contest.

There were a few detractors. If you’ve read my serious humor piece about Malice on the Web, you’ll remember a small cadre of loonies at a couple of Linked In media groups – including a PR man! – who thought anything whatsoever to do with tabloids was just too undignified for Internet discourse. (See “Vultures and Stiletto Heels” http://wp.me/pycK6-5 )

But most readers loved the premise of the Faux Tabloid Headline experiment and understood that it was not only entertaining, but also told us some interesting things about which kinds of headlines readers respond to viscerally and why.

Even coming from a heavy-volume print background, it was essential for me – as it is for every writer and publisher – to discover just who my Internet “fan base” might be and how I could best appeal to them in future Web publications.

My gratifying win in the Blog-Off contest allowed me to do that.

Soon afterwards, I launched my Baby Boomers-The Angriest Generation series. (See http://wp.me/pxD3J-2V ) And “Tell Me What You Think,” a catch phrase I used throughout the Blog-Off, became the subtitle of my EllenInteractive site, a cornucopia of diverse stories designed to elicit above-average reader response. (For instance, see “The World is Divided,” a key question story which received well over 100 comments: http://wp.me/pycK6-n )

I’m now moving on to additional Internet publishing projects:

Media Revolution, a subseries of EllenInteractive, talks about how the entire media sector is undergoing a sea change of enormous proportions and how we must prepare for it. (See “Is Big Brother Here-And Is He An Algorithm?” http://wp.me/pycK6-1Y )

Romance After Fifty is a series on dating and relationships I’m developing with a Baby Boomer matchmaker. (See “A Chance for Romance” http://wp.me/pxD3J-R )

A Little Knowledge will look at Internet security and cloud computing from the perspective of an audience which is well-educated and has used computers for years, but which lacks information on some of the serious recent developments that are changing the Web as we speak.

And The Rest of US - pun intended – is a new blogsite I’m launching about and for political Centrists.

So there have been many interesting developments built upon the foundation of my Blog-Off win.

I invite my brilliant, sophisticated, and in-every-way-perfect audience to join with me in these new projects and others to come.

Any success I have is due to you!

It is up to you the readers to decide this one.

Each of the College Football Coaches in Philadelphia have done an exemplary job this season.  Al Golden at Temple, Andy Talley at Villanova, and Al Bagnoli at Penn are nominated for awards for the jobs they have done this season.  And they were deserved.

Who did the best job?

Al Golden?

Andy Talley?

Al Bagnoli?

Tell me who and tell me why? 

Quotes from Post Game Press Conference

Penn Guard Zack Rosen – on back to back close losses

“It’s frustrating. Anytime you lose games where you’re in it, and you’re in it, and you’re in it, and you drop a lead, it’s tough.  The tight ones hurt.  Double overtime and this was close the whole way, it hurts.  We got to keep pushing forward.  What are you going to do?  Stop playing, put your head down?  You just keep going.  We’ve got a lot of games left.”

Penn Coach Glen Miller on the play of Drexel’s Jamie Harris

“He was the difference from an offensive standpoint for Drexel.”

Penn Coach Glen Miller on how things went against Penn

“It was a grind out game and you’ve got to hit your shots when you get good ones, and you can’t turn the ball over 18 times.  We battle and we will keep on battling, and hopefully we will get better.”

Drexel Guard Jamie Harris on how much it meant to beat Penn

It definitely means a lot because we are friends with these guys (Penn players), we see them a lot.  It’s friendly trash talking sometimes, and it gives us our confidence.  Not that we lost it but we played in a lot of tough games and the results came out not in our favor.  It gives us a little boost and now  carry it over and take it to the next game.”

Drexel Coach Bruiser on beating Penn three in a row

“That means we’re playing them a lot.  It’s good.  Everybody always asks me about playing the schools from Philadelphia.  I think we got to the point were I expect it.  This is a tough game because our guys and their guys live with each other in the fall and the spring getting each other ready for the season.  There is no surprize, everybody knows what the other guy can do.  That’s what makes this game tough.  We’ve got to be able to win a game like that.”

Drexel Coach Bruiser Flint on beating other Philadelphia teams

“We’ve been beating the other city teams over the last few years.  I don’t think people have been paying attention to that.  I always tell everybody that we were the last team to beat Villanova in Philadelphia.”

Drexel Coach Bruiser Flint on Drexel and the Big Five

I’m a Big Fiver, and it’s always going to be the Big Five.  We do play each other now.  We play teams like that in our conference, we’re supposed to be a good team in our conference.  We’ve got to be able to beat a Saint Joe’s, or a Temple, or a Penn.  We are going to play teams like that in our conference.  That makes a difference.  I always say one thing, although Saint Joe’s is coming to the DAC next year.  I hope Penn will come to the DAC, that would be a miracle. If I can get two Philly teams, two Big Five teams to come to the DAC in one year? Oh my goodness, they’d blow up 33rd Street.”

Turning Point of the Game

The beginning of the 2nd half turned the game in Drexel’s favor.  Penn closed a 10 point gap to 6 at the end of the first half.  Drexel came out in the second half by scoring 8 of the first 10 points to gain a 34 – 22 advantage.  This put them in front forcing Penn to continually play from behind.  The Quakers would make a run, but never overtook Drexel.

Key Run of the Game

Penn got to within 2 at 37 – 35 on a Rob Belcore layup with 10:52 remaining in the game.  Drexel responded with a 12 – 3 run and during that span they held Penn scoreless for a span of four and a half minutes.  Penn Guard Zack Rosen made a layup and was fouled ( he missed the foul shot) with 8:17 to play.  They did not score again until Mike Howlett hit 1 of 2 free throws with 3:47 left.  Drexel Guard Jamie Harris started the run hitting a jump shot at the 9:35 mark, and another at 7:56.  He also had an assist on a basket by Forward Evan Neisler with 6:56 to play to making the score 45 – 38.

Key Stat of the Game

Drexel scoring 20 points off turnovers compared to 6 for Penn.  Drexel Coach Bruiser Flint was happy because the stat showed that Drexel not only played good defense, but that they made the breakaway and fast break layups.  This was not always the case for Drexel this season.

Key Player of the Game

For Drexel

Guard Jamie Harris was the difference in the game.  He led all scorers  with 22 points as Harris hit 8 of 14 shots and 6 of 8 free throws.  Harris seemed to be the player who controlled the game for Drexel during the runs that the Dragons used to get and maintain their leads.

For Penn

Guard Zack Rosen was the leading scorer for Penn with 13 points.  He shot only 3 of 8 from the field, but he did get to the foul line making 7 of 8 free throws.  Rosen also handed out 4 assists.

Point At Which The Game Was Decided

Drexel’s 12 – 3 run when Penn cut the lead to 37 – 35 with 10:52 remaining put Drexel up by 11 with 4:40 left to play.  Penn would get no closer than 8 points after that run.

Other Items of Note

There were no made 3 point shots in this game.  Penn was 0 – 8 and Drexel was 0 – 11.  This stopped the Drexel streak at 520 games having made at least one made 3 point shot.  The last time Drexel failed to make a 3 was on February 14, 1992 in a game against Vermont.

Drexel out-scored Penn 42 – 30 in Points in the Paint. Penn had more turnovers 18 – 12.  Drexel won the Hustle Stats having 4 Blocked Shots and 8 Steals compared to Penn having 0 Blocked Shots and 5 Steals.

Drexel Forward Evan Neisler scored 10 points and had 10 rebounds, 8 were offensive rebounds. Guard Gerald Colds scored 10 points and was the Drexel assist leader with 3.

Penn Forward Mike Howlett  recorded his second straight double-double scoring 10 points and grabbing 13 boards.  Forward Jack Eggleston also had a double-double, 10 points and 11 rebounds.  Guard Darren Smith Penn’s scoring leader got just 4 points on 1 – 6 shooting and 2 – 2 from the foul line.

Written By:  Glenn Papazian

University of Pennsylvania Quakers  vs. Drexel Dragons 

The Palestra, Philadelphia, PA

November 24, 2009

Preview

Both teams look for their first win of the season as Drexel comes into the Palestra to meet the University of Pennsylvania in the ultimate neighborhood rivalry.  Both campuses border each other as Penn and Drexel meet for the 22nd time.  Going into the game Penn holds a 15 – 6 series edge, but Drexel has won the last two games.

Two seasons ago Drexel took  at 67 – 59 decision on Penn’s home floor.  Last year Drexel won 66 – 64 at the DAC.

Drexel is coming off three tough defeats; 77 – 67 in overtime to Saint Joseph’s, 76 – 69  at Niagara, and a 58 – 56 heart breaker at Rutgers.  Guard Jamie Harris leads Drexel scoring 12.3 per game.  Forward Evan Neisler averages 8 rebounds.  Forward Leon Spencer will miss the game with a broken wrist, and he is out indefinitely as surgery is required.

Penn lost at Penn State and Villanova.  Their first home game was Saturday.  Penn lost to Delaware 97 – 94 in double overtime.  Guard Zack Rosen had a career high 25 points in the game, and he averages 13.3 per game.  Forward Mike Howlett is averaging 8.7 rebounds.  In the Delaware game he had his first career double-double with 14 points and 14 rebounds.  Penn is missing Forward Andreas Schreiber and Guard Tyler Bernardini due to injury.

Another Ivy League vs. CAA contest.  It’s a Philly game.  Who gets their first win and West Philly bragging rights?

1st Half

There was not a lot of offense to start the game.  Penn lead 4 – 2 at the 15:41 mark.  At that time both Penn and Drexel missed 5 shots each, and both teams had one made basket, Jack Eggleston for Penn and Gerald Colds for Drexel.

Points were going to be at a premium.  Drexel got back to back baskets from Guards Jamie Harris and a fast break layup from Chris Fauch giving them a 3 point lead, 10 – 7, with 11:45 to play.  Until the Fauch layup 2 points was the largest lead for either side.  Penn was stuck on 7 since 13:04.  In that span the Quakers had 4 missed shots and 3 turnovers. Forward Conor Turley ended the scoreless streak with a free throw at the 7:55 mark. 

Finally, a run.  The score was tied at 10 when Drexel went on an 8 – 0 run taking an 18 – 10 lead with 5:31 to go in the half.  The lead would grow to 10 points, the last time at 26 – 16 with 1:55 remaining.  Penn Guard Zack Rosen hit a short jumper with less than a second left to make the score 26 – 20 at the half.

 The first half can be summarized thusly. Penn shot miserably and did not take care of the ball.  Drexel was a bit better.  Penn shot 31.8% (7 – 22)and made no threes. The Quakers had 10 turnovers.  Drexel made 12 of 25 field goal attempts for 48% with no threes.  The Dragons had 7 turnovers.  The key stat of the half was Drexel scoring 12 points off turnovers compared to only 2 for Penn.

Drexel Guard Jamie Harris lead all scorers with 8 points, Gerald Coles added 6.  For Penn Forward Jack Eggleston scored 6 points and pulled down 5 rebounds.

This game had yet to be decided.

2nd Half

Drexel got a spurt to start the 2nd half.  A 6 – 0 run gave the Dragons a 32 – 20 lead.  Penn missed their first 5 shots of the half.  Penn finally got back to back baskets from Mike Howlett and Jack Eggleston to get to within 8 at 34 – 26 with 15:52 remaining.  The gap shrunk to 3 as Penn added 5 more points on a Rob Belcore jumper and a traditional three-point play by Mike Howlett.  With 11:09 to play the score was Drexel 36 Penn 33.  Penn got to within 2 with 10:52 to play.  Drexel’s Jamie Harris started to heat up. His basket at 7:56 gave Drexel a 43  – 38 lead.  Drexel was going to run the offense through Harris.  Penn committed back to back turnovers that proved to be costly as Drexel went ahead 47 – 38 with 5:55 on the clock.  Mike Howlett hit a free throw that ended the Quakers scoreless streak that lasted four and a half minutes.   

Penn played hard.  The desire was there, but the shooting touch was not.  Drexel had enough offense and defense when they needed it to stay in font and earn a 58 – 49 win, their first of the season, and the 3rd straight against the neighbors.

Summary

Jamie Harris led all scorers with 22 points shooting 8 – 14 form the field and 6 -8 from the free throw line.  This is a career high in points for Harris.  Evan Neisler had 10 points and 10 rebounds.  For Penn Zack Rosen scored 13 points, and Mike Howlett recorded his second consecutive double-double with 10 points and 10 rebounds.

Drexel shot 44.4% for the game, Penn 35.4%  Penn committed 18 turnovers compared to 12 for Drexel.

Neither team made a 3 point shot in this game going a combined 0 – 19.  Drexel’s streak of 520 straight games with at least one three has come to an end.

Drexel moves on to play Vermont in The Legends Classic on November 27.  Penn will get some time off as their next game is at Navy on December 4.

Drexel gets their first win of the season and is now 1 -3.  Penn is still looking for a victory as they drop to 0 – 4. 

Final Score:  Drexel 58 Penn 49.

Written By:  Glenn Papazian

by Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.

Whether you’re an experienced journalist, a novice blogger – or a print publication moving to the Web – don’t overestimate your audience’s tolerance for boring ho-hum titles, nor underestimate your need to rope them in with phrases that attract, entice – and possibly titillate.

This four-part story is my official entry in The Community Marketing site’s Great Blog-Off competition. It details the results – so far – of a little experiment begun about ten days ago.

I wanted to prepare my diverse and enthusiastic network of connections on Linked-In – and their networks of friends and followers on social networks around the Internet and around the world – for the coming Blog-Off, telling them what was about to occur and why they should be tuning in.

At the same time, I hoped to see what sorts of eye-catching, funny, or downright titillating article titles Internet viewers might find most appealing, statistically recording numbers of views and numbers of interactive comments for ten different Faux Tabloid Headlines, all fairly typical of what you might actually see on your newsstand or at your supermarket checkout counter.

I set up a Word Press blog called “Preparing For the Blog-Off,” consisting of ten reiterations of the exact same one-page post, with the ten different Faux Tabloid Headlines attached as titles. The post outlined the experiment’s parameters, talked about the more serious – or at least more somber – blogs I expect to write later in the competition, and urged viewers to leave comments and suggestions about the “test” titles in particular and the Blog-Off in general.

The reiterated post linked in its body to the Community Marketing Blog and the Blog-Off site, while under About, I placed links to some information about me: my Linked-In Profile; 50 examples of my magazine articles; and a wide-ranging interview with and about me.

I will maintain this temporary “Preparing for the Blog-Off” site throughout the Blog-Off competition and probably a bit beyond its end. If you haven’t seen it yet and would like to, please click on: (Link to original site, now disabled.)

Ten Little Titles And How They Drew

I posted the ten different Faux Tabloid Headlines used in this experiment, plus links to the “Preparing For the Blog-Off” blog, in the News sections – and a few times in the Discussions sections – of the 50 Linked-In Groups to which I currently belong, as well as at the top of my Linked-In Profile page. Because of my background and interests, my Linked-In Groups represent an interesting mix of members from my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania; the rest of the Ivy League; my sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma; senior services; finance; media; Internet research and E-marketing; Baby Boomers; and politics.

I also sent a note about the Blog-Off to the 1000-plus members of my Linked-In connections network, urging them to look at the “Preparing For the Blog-Off” blogsite and to leave comments and suggestions, if they were so inclined. I divided these notes to my network into ten groups corresponding to the ten different Headlines, so I could vary the Headline links fairly and without bias.

Here, in order of popularity, measured by the absolute number of page views they drew, are the ten Faux Tabloid Headlines designed to bring readers to the site:

(Out of 2,134 views as of 3 PM Eastern time 05/24/09, representing 7 days of viewing)

Corpse Found in Internet Guru’s Gym Locker 515 or 24.1 percent
Kinky Sex, Chocolate Truffles, Adorable Puppies 409 or 19.2 percent
Thailand Swallowed By Giant Clam 199 or 9.3 percent
New Reality Show To Feature Laid-Off Bankers, Lawyers 181 or 8.5 percent
Women Want Men Who Smell Like Fresh Peaches 114 or 5.3 percent
7 Out of 10 Blog In the Nude 105 or 4.9 percent
Swimming Pool Features Underwater Computer 94 or 4.4 percent
Are You a Cheetah or a Crocodile? 79 or 3.7 percent
Transvestite Running for Mayor 65 or 3.1 percent
Pet Hamsters May Spread Swine Flu 48 or 2.3 percent

The “Preparing for the Blog-Off” blog attracted nearly 90 comments at the site itself, a superb comment-per-view ratio of 1 in 24, as opposed to the normal 1 in 100 – 1 in 50 range.

I monitored and deleted about 1/3 of these comments, however, not because they were negative – I received no negative comments on the site itself – but because they were badly worded or potentially embarrassing to the posters themselves. I didn’t want anyone among my acquaintance to look at his/her comment later, say “Oh, No! Did I actually say that?” and be humiliated for decades to come!

That left the site with 60 posted comments, most on the comparative “click-inspiring” value of the alternating ten Faux Tabloid Headlines. That’s a view-to-comment ratio of 1 in 36, still considerably above the normal Internet site ratio.

The next part of this series will discuss why I – and viewers – believed certain types of Headlines might have gotten more viewer clicks than others.

For Part Two, Kinky Sex, Chocolate Truffles, Adorable Puppies, go to: http://wp.me/pycK6-2l

To return to “Corpses, Mollusks, and Kinky Sex-How I Won the Blog-Off,” go to: http://wp.me/pycK6-2s

Taek Jho Low is a graduate of the Wharton School of Business, which is part of the University of Pennsylvania.

Wharton was founded in 1881 and since then has been a center for cutting edge education and research. Not confined to the ivy-league campus located in Philadelphia, Wharton has expanded its reach to other campuses across the United States and in France.

Within the heart of San Francisco the Wharton School is found on the top floor of the Folger Building smack in the center of this great city’s business and financial district. Wharton occupies 20,000 square feet of innovative, state of the art educational space. Three thousand miles may separate Wharton San Francisco from the mother ship in Philadelphia, but high-speed, cutting edge communication technology connects the schools instantly to each other and to the rest of the world.

Delaware Blue Hens vs. University of Pennsylvania Quakers

The Palestra

November 21, 2009

Preview

Penn has its first home game of their season as the 0 – 2 Quakers host the Delaware Blue Hens who are also looking for their first win of the season.   Penn  has lost to Penn State and Villanova while Delaware has been beaten by Temple and Bucknell.

Darren Smith, Guard, leads Penn with a 12 per game average.  Forward Jack Eggleston averages 11.  For Delaware Guard Jawan Carter average 17 for Delaware. 

Both teams look for victory number one.

1st Half

A good start for Penn as Jack Eggelston and Rob Belcore stoked Penn to a 20 – 8 lead off steals, fast breaks and 3’s.  Guard Rob Belcore had 7 points and Jack Eggelston 5 at the 12:30 mark.  The lead would grow to 18 points at 26 – 8 after Darren Smith hit back to back 3’s forcing a Delaware timeout with 11:37 remaining.  Penn’s outside shooters were open and had time to shoot.  Their shots were going in.

Delaware would get back into the game closing the gap to 32 – 24 with 7:33 to go.  Blue Hen Guard Alphonso Dawson lead he charge scoring 9 points during the run.  The game would get a bit more physical.  Jawan Carter was silent up to this point but he hit two 3 point shots to get Delaware to within 7 ( 39 – 32) at the 4:42 mark.

Penn took a 50 – 40 lead at halftime.  That is a lot of points for Penn who scored  55 at Penn State and 65 at Villanova for the game.

Zack Rosen led Penn with 12 points (5-5 at the foul line) while Forward Mike Howlett chipped in 11 (4-4 form the field).  Delaware Guard Alphonso Dawson led all scorers with 18 points (6-9 and 3-4 from 3) and Jawan Carter scored 12 (6-6 from the foul line).  Penn shot 58.3% from the field and hit 6 of 11 threes.  Delaware shot 39.3% and hit 5 of 13 threes.  Penn out rebounded Delaware 19 – 12.  The fouls were the big statistic in the half as Delaware committed 15 fouls, Penn had 13.  The game got physical and the officials needed to keep control.  It did not help the flow of the game as Penn went to the foul line 21 times (making 16) and Delaware shot 16 free throws (making 13).  Penn had the lead in “hustle stats” with 3 blocks and 5 steals.  Delaware had 1 blocked shot and 4 steals.  Penn had 7 turnovers to 6 for Delaware.

What will the pace of the second half look like?  How many may foul out?

2nd Half

The second half started with no discernable flow, just a continuation of fouls and 3’s.  Delaware was committing more fouls.  At the 11:50 mark the Blue hens had 8 team fouls to 3 for Penn. 

The lead for Penn was 9 at the 15:  46 mark after Jawan Carter made 3 free throws for Delaware.  Penn answered by scoring 8 of the next 10 points to go ahead 67 – 52 with 11:50 to play. Penn Forward Jack Eggleston scored 6 of 8 Penn points during that run.  Delaware would not go away as they scored the next 6 forcing a Penn timeout.  The score was Penn 67 Delaware 58 with 9:58 to play.

 With 8:45 remaining in the half Penn Guard Zack Rosen committed his 4th foul, a key loss for Penn who led 69 – 60.  Rosen returned to make 2 foul shots, then went back to the bench at the 5:59 mark with Penn ahead 77 – 69.  Delaware would respond with a 3 by Alphonso Dawson and a drive by D.J. Boney to get back to 77 – 74.  Rosen returned to the game, and Jack Eggleston made a 3 to give Penn an 80 – 74 lead with 4:11 to go.  Jawan Carter made a 3 and with 2:29 to go it was Penn 80 Delaware 77.  With 1:09 on the game clock Penn’s Darren Smith went to the basket, but was called for a charge giving Delaware the ball in a 1 possession game.  D.J. Boney hit a 3 with 43.9 seconds to tie the game at 80.  Zack Rosen went to the basket on Penn’s next trip.  His layup with 12.6 seconds put Penn ahead by 2.  Delaware went for the win as Jawan Carter put up a 3.  He missed, but Forward Hakim McCullar tapped in the miss at the buzzer to force overtime.

At the end of regulation the score was 82 – 82.

Overtime

Penn’s Zack Rosen’s 3 and Delaware making 1 of 4 free throws gave Penn an 85 – 83 lead at the 2:09 mark.  To this time the Blue Hens had yet to hit a basket in the overtime, but Penn had only one basket, the Rosen 3.   Each team continued to miss free throws.  With 6.8 seconds remaining Penn’s Zack Rosen fouled Delaware Guard D.J. Boney.  Rosen fouled out on the play.  Boney converted both free throws, Penn missed a shot at the buzzer.

At the end of the first overtime the score was tied at 87.

Double Overtime

Penn would have to play the rest of the game without point guard Zack Rosen and Rob Belcore.  Both teams continued to play a game of attrition.  Delaware took the lead with 55 seconds left on a Malcolm Hawkins basket.  On Penn’s next possession Forward Mike Howlett was called for a travel.  Delaware would make 3 of 6 foul shots to put the game away that really was not decided until the final horn sounded.

Delaware Guard Jawan carter led all scorers with 35 points.  He shot 6 – 13 from the field and 4 – 10 3 point field goals.  However, he was an outstanding 19 – 26 from the free throw line.  Alphonso Dawson contributed 28 (10-16 FG, 5-7 3 FG, 3-3 FT).  Also scoring in double figures was Malcolm Hawkins who had 12.  Delaware shot 45.3% for the game and made 10 of 25 3 point shots.

Zack Rosen led Penn with 25 points (6-12 FG, 3-6 3FG, 10-11 FT).  3 other Penn players scored in double figures;  Jack Eggleston scored 19, Darren Smith contributed 17, and Mike Howlett chipped in with 14.  Penn shot 45.5% for the game, 35.7%  from 3.

The key stat was free throw shooting.  Delaware was 29 – 42 while Penn was 34 – 50.  Each team had ample opportunities to put this game away from the free throw line, but did not.  In overtime Penn made 2 of 6 free throws. Forward Dan Monckton missed 2 with 17.8 seconds left.  In the second overtime Penn was a meager 3 of 8.  Delaware  was slightly better.  In the last 1:16 of the first overtime period they shot 4 of 6 as Jawan Carter made 3 of 4 and D.J. Boney made 2 to send the game into double overtime.  In that second overtime Delaware made 6 of 10 free throws.

Delaware gets their first win of the season as they are 1 – 2.  They prepare for a game at Siena on November 24. 

Penn drops to 0 – 3 with their next game on November 24 at home against Drexel.

Written by:  Glenn Papazian   

“Drinking three or more cups of coffee daily lowers the risk of liver disease progression for patients with chronic hepatitis C, researchers say.”

CLICK HERE for the full story

MedPage Today® provides physicians and ‘expert patients’ real-time coverage of breaking medical news and the top stories in health and medicine.
Our content is reviewed and accredited by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Office of Continuing Medical Education (OCME).
At MedPage Today, we are Putting Breaking Medical News into Practice®.

University of Pennsylvania Quakers vs. Cornell Big Red

Franklin Field, Philadelphia, PA

November 21, 2009

In the fifth-most played rivalry in college football, Penn leads the overall series with 66 wins in the last 115 meetings.  A Penn victory in this game would give the Quakers its 14th Ivy League title, the 7th outright title under Coach Al Bagnoli.  No coach has ever won 7 outright Ivy titles.

Penn is shooting for their 8th straight win, and will mark the team’s first unbeaten Ivy season since 2003.  Bagnoli has never shared an Ivy League title.  They will go 8 – 2 with a win, and 7 – 0 in Ivy play.

To gain the victory Penn will look to its defense which is tops in the nation.  The Quaker defense is ranked first in the FCS allowing just under 230 yards  and 10 points per game.  They lead the Ivy in nearly every defensive statistical category – pass or run.

The winner gets the Trustees Cup awarded to the winner of this game.  Penn has won the Cup 9 times previously.  This game is Senior Day at Penn.

1st Quarter

Penn took advantage of a blocked punt and recovery by Linebacker Erik Rask.  That set the ball up at the Cornell 3.  On the next play Running Back Lyle Marsh scored on a 3 yard touchdown run.  Adding the extra point Penn to  a 7 -0 lead with 10:32 to go in the quarter.

After taking a punt at their own 29, Penn went on a 13 play 65 yard drive resulting in a 23 yard field goal by Kicker Andrew Samson at 3:49 to make the score Penn 10 Cornell 0.  The key play in the drive was a 29 yard run by Wide Receiver Bradford Blackmon.  He fumbled, but recovered to give Penn a 1st down at the Cornell 19.  Penn got a 1st and goal at the 9, but advanced no further and had to settle for the field goal.

Penn dominated the 1st quarter statistics out gaining Cornell 129 – 32 offensive yards.  Penn had 8 1st downs to just 1 for Cornell, and converted 3 of 5 Third-Downs.  The Penn defense limited Cornell to 5 passing yards and 27 rushing yards, 21 yards came on a rush by Cornell Running Back Ben Moody.

Score and the end of the first quarter,  Penn 10 Cornell 0

2nd Quarter

Penn mounted a 2nd quarter drive from their 38 yard line getting to Cornell 26.  Kicker Andrew Samson attempted a 45 yard field goal, but was wide left.  Penn was turned away.

 With 4:40 to play Penn got the ball back at the Cornell 45 thanks to a short punt.  Quarterback Keiffer Garton capped a 5 play 45 yard drive with a 7 yard touchdown run.  Samson added the extra point.  With 1:51 left until halftime Penn led 17 – 0.  In the scoring drive Garton ran the ball 3 times for 26 yards.

Penn ended the half with an 8 play 39 yard drive in 1 :15 as Kicker Andrew Samson was good with a 46 yard field goal, and the Quakers went into the locker room with a 20 – 0 advantage.  The defense was pitching a shutout with one half away from the out-right Ivy League Championship.

Cornell punted 7 times in the first half.  The Big Red was held to 28 total offensive yards, 17 rushing and 11 passing.  Running Back Ben Moody had one more rushing yard than the Cornell offense.  Penn gained 244 offensive yards, 129 rushing and 115 passing.  Running Back Lyle Marsh ran the ball 8 times for 36 yards and a touchdown.  Quarterback Keiffer Garton gained 40 yards on 5 rushes,  and he scored the other touchdown.

Score at halftime Penn 20 Cornell 0.

3rd Quarter

 Cornell took the opening kickoff and went 3 and out punting for the 8th time in the game.  Penn got the ball on their own 37 yard line at the 13:12 mark.  Penn went to the power running game gaining yardage and killing the clock.  Quarterback Keiffer Garton ran the ball 4 times for 25 yards.  Running Back Matt Hamscher also had 4 attempts gaining 17 yards.  Wide Receiver Bradford Blackmon had an end around for 12 yards.  The 10 play 63 yard drive culminated with a 9 yard touchdown pass from Keiffer Garton to Luke Nawrocki with 7:37 remaining.  Penn increased their lead to 27 – 0.

Cornell had their best chance to score as Rashad Campbell returned the kick off to the Penn 6 yard line.  The next play Running Back Randy Barbour lost 3 yards,  On 2nd down Quarterback Ben Ganter’s pass was caught out-of-bounds.  Ben Moody was stopped for no gain on 3rd down, and Cornell was hit with a 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty placing the ball at the Penn 24.  The 4th down play saw Ganter sacked and Penn got the ball on downs temporarily preserving the shutout.

The Quakers started the ensuing drive at the 27.  The first play was a 20 yard completion from Garton to Wide Receiver Kyle Derham.  The 8th play was a  25 yard touchdown pass from Garton to Derham.  Each play in between was a running play as Penn put another touchdown on the scoreboard making it 34 – 0 with 1:51 in the third quarter.

 Penn continued with the statistical advantage with 386 total yards of offense to just 31 yards on 33 plays for Cornell.  Keiffer Garton rushed for 76 yards, Lyle Marsh had 53 and one rushing touchdown fro each player.  Garton was 5-7 passing for 81 yards and 2 touchdowns.

4th Quarter

Penn took over on downs with 12:26 remaining at the Cornell 42 yard line.  They drove to the Cornell 10.  With 5:50 to play Kicker Trevor Charlston was wide left on a 28 yard field goal attempt giving the all back to Cornell.  On their drive a 17 yard pass completion from Ben Ganter to Wide Receiver Shane Savage was good for a first down.  It was Cornell’s second 1st down of the game.  The drive continued as Cornell got to the Penn 14.  On 4th and 1 Running Back Ben Moody was denied the 1st down losing 2 yards.  Pen got the ball back with 1:09 to go.

They had their shutout, the Trustee’s Cup and the Ivy League Championship Trophy.

Summary

Penn out-gained Cornell 418 – 110.  Cornell had just 30 yards rushing and 80 yards through the air.  The Penn Defense keeps another team under 100 yards rushing.  Cornell had just 4 first downs in the game compared to Penn’s 26.  The Cornell quarterbacks were sacked 4 times.

Penn Quarterback Keiffer Garton threw 2 touchdown passes and scored 1 on the ground.  He gained 76 yards rushing.  Wide Receiver Kyle Derham caught 6 passes for 89 yards and 1 touchdown.  The Defense had 9 tackles that resulted in 33 lost yards for Cornell.  The special teams blocked a punt, their 5th of the season.

Penn goes 8 – 2 on the season.  That is the most wins for Penn in a season since 2004 and their first unbeaten Ivy League season since 2003.

Penn’s Defense allowed just one rushing touchdown all season and only allowed two offensive touchdowns over the team’s last 22 quarters of play.  They recorded a sack in each of the last 15 games.  The Defense and 5 first half shutouts this season.  They had 5 second half shutouts and didn’t allow any 4th Quarter points over the last 6 games.

The most meaningful note is this. 

The University of Pennsylvania 2009 Undefeated Ivy League Champions.

Final Score Penn 34 Cornell 0.

Written by:   Glenn Papazian 

This article is unlike the other articles in obvious regards and perhaps needs some preface. It is a response to the recent development out of the University of Pennsylvania, wherein scientists have been able to create a silicon-silk based device that could be affixed with LEDs, effectively turning the skin into a screen. A tattoo capable of being changed or turned off, capable of functionally displaying information from medical monitors or connectivity devices: it holds some amazing implications for the coming generation. The position of this article, due to my upbringing, takes the Judaic perspective, which has traditionally forbidden tattooing. Due to the nature of this article, which is somewhat academic in a very niche sort of way (though attempted to be accessible and meant for lay-theologian-types), I include this preface and suggest perhaps a different article if biblical exegesis isn’t your thing.

After the jump, for your consideration, is the piece in its entirety.

“Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” – Leviticus 19:28

The Judaic Law against tattooing was formulated by this source sentiment, written at a time when the act was exclusively a cultist rite of passage that indelibly associated itself with a particular clan/deity; the statement affirming the first Commandment given to the Hebrews (completely ignoring for the moment the utilization of ritual scarification via the Commandment of circumcision). Makkot 20a[1] discusses the semantics of this statement: the sages of the Mishna differentiate between scarification and the application of ink into wounds, claiming that if one is done but not the other, then the person with the markings is not culpable for punishment. Rabbi Simeon son of Judah proclaimed in the name of a former rabbi, Simeon, that the only culpable act for tattooing is printing the name of God.[2] There continue discussions as to whether that includes the true names of God or if the names of idols would also cull punishment[3], which seems somewhat circular when the passage is pretty clear in referencing the 10 Commandments (e.g. “You shall have no other gods before Me”) and putting another god’s name on you would seem sort of…well, heretical.

What might amy of this this have to do with the technology tag? Well, it has everything to do with technology. As Phillips will soon introduce to the world, tattooing will take on an entirely different dimension when LEDs are placed sub-dermally, allowing one to toggle one’s tattoo into different designs or entirely off at a whim. Sure, applying this device purely for cosmetic purposes would undoubtedly deal some halakhic questions, but then there are other applications for this technology, beyond being the coolest tattoo ever.

These devices are silicon and silk implants, physical objects surgically inserted into the body, initially being used for medical applications. And the text of Leviticus reads “You shall not make any cuttings for the dead,” but one can do anything to save a life[5] and how many lives would be saved by a digital registry implanted in the skin of one’s medical records, of a built-in glucose meter, a display for respiration, of temperature, of blood pressure. The ramifications for good are too great to be denied, these will be a great boon to health maintenance (for everyone who can afford one).

But what about the commercial applications? Is it okay for the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish communities to use such devices? Once implanted for the medical application – it could surely could be utilized for the latter purpose too; is this a violation of the ancient code that speaks of printing and markings for the dead? Would even the Name of God be considered “in print,” when it can be argued that a digital representation of anything is not considered “written?”[4]

To imprecisely transcribe Maimonides in Misneh Torah, The Laws of Idolatry, 12:11, regardless of the intent (speaking of the former practice exclusively for idolatry, and even if it is fashionable {or life-saving?}), it is forbidden for a Torah Observant Jew to have markings on the skin. Would not the trivialities that could be produced from this subcutaneous transplant be accountable to this position? Just because it is possible, does that mean that it should be done? The Orthodox Union released this announcement in 2002 in regards to cloning, which could definitively be applied to stem cells, and presumably this issue:

The Torah commands us to treat and cure the ill and to defeat disease wherever possible; to do this is to be the Creator’s partner in safeguarding the created. The traditional Jewish perspective thus emphasizes that maximizing the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life.[...] [I]f cloning technology research advances our ability to heal humans with greater success, it ought to be pursued [...][6]

I suppose the real questions I’m really trying to ask is whether or not I could show it to my mother (may she rest in peace) or would it have killed her? Would she have ever known? Could this device have saved her life if she had it measuring her blood’s potassium level?

Undoubtedly there is much to be considered here from the the Torah Observant Jew’s perspective, and there are sure to be opinions on both side of the spectrum. Personally, I am of the opinion that the subcutaneous Electronic Tattoo will be a major benefit to health care, both personally and to practitioners, and when they become available, I intend to get one.

[1]Babylonian Talmud, trans. MICHAEL L. RODKINSON; Chapter III, Pg. 47
[2](sic)
[3]Torah Academy of Bergen County, Student Publication
[4]Rabbi Reuven Ibragimov, discussion 2005.
[5]Leviticus 19:16, King James Version
[6]CLONING RESEARCH, JEWISH TRADITION & PUBLIC POLICY; A JOINT STATEMENT by the UNION of ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS of AMERICA and the RABBINICAL COUNCIL of AMERICA, OU.org

This article is unlike the other articles in obvious reasons, and perhaps needs some preface. It is a response to the recent development out of the University of Pennsylvania, wherein scientists have been able to create a silicon-silk based device that could be affixed with LEDs, effectively turning the skin into a screen. A tattoo capable of being changed or turned off, capable of functionally displaying information from medical monitors or connectivity devices: it holds some amazing implications for the coming generation. The position of this article, due to my upbringing, takes the Judaic perspective, which has traditionally forbidden tattooing. Due to the nature of this article, which is academic in a very niche sort of way (though attempted to be accessible and meant for lay-theologian-types), I include this preface and suggest perhaps a different article if biblical exegesis isn’t your thing.

After the jump, for your consideration, is the piece in its entirety.

“Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” – Leviticus 19:28

The Judaic Law against tattooing was formulated by this source sentiment, written at a time when the act was exclusively a cultist rite of passage that indelibly associated itself with a particular clan/deity; the statement affirming the first Commandment given to the Hebrews (completely ignoring for the moment the utilization of ritual scarification via the Commandment of circumcision). Makkot 20a[1] discusses the semantics of this statement: the sages of the Mishna differentiate between scarification and the application of ink into wounds, claiming that if one is done but not the other, then the person with the markings is not culpable for punishment. Rabbi Simeon son of Judah proclaimed in the name of a former rabbi, Simeon, that the only culpable act for tattooing is printing the name of God.[2] There continue discussions as to whether that includes the true names of God or if the names of idols would also cull punishment[3], which seems somewhat circular when the passage is pretty clear in referencing the 10 Commandments (e.g. “You shall have no other gods before Me”) and putting another god’s name on you would seem sort of…well, heretical.

What might amy of this this have to do with the technology tag? Well, it has everything to do with technology. As Phillips will soon introduce to the world, tattooing will take on an entirely different dimension when LEDs are placed sub-dermally, allowing one to toggle one’s tattoo into different designs or entirely off at a whim. Sure, applying this device purely for cosmetic purposes would undoubtedly deal some halakhic questions, but then there are other applications for this technology, beyond being the coolest tattoo ever.

These devices are silicon and silk implants, physical objects surgically inserted into the body, initially being used for medical applications. And the text reads “You shall not make any cuttings for the dead,” but one can do anything to save a life[5] and how many lives would be saved by a digital registry implanted in the skin of one’s medical records, of a built-in glucose meter, a display for respiration, of temperature, of blood pressure. The ramifications for good are too great to be denied, these will be a great boon to health maintenance (for everyone who can afford one).

But what about the commercial applications? Is it okay for the Orthodox and Conservative Jewish communities to use such devices? If taken in for the medical application – surely it could be utilized for the latter purpose too, is this a violation of the ancient code that speaks of printing and markings for the dead? Would even the Name of God be considered “in print,” when it can be argued whether a digital representation of anything is considered “written?”[4]

To imprecisely transcribe Maimonides in Misneh Torah, The Laws of Idolatry, 12:11, regardless of the intent (speaking of the former practice exclusively for idolatry, and even if it is fashionable {or life-saving?}), it is forbidden for a Torah Observant Jew to have markings on the skin. Would not the trivialities that could be produced from this subcutaneous transplant be accountable to this position?

I suppose the questions I’m really trying to ask is whether or not I could show it to my mother (may she rest in peace) or would it have killed her? Would she have ever known? Could this device have saved her life if she had it measuring her blood’s potassium level?

[1]Babylonian Talmud, trans. MICHAEL L. RODKINSON; Chapter III, Pg. 47
[2](sic)
[3]Torah Academy of Bergen County, Student Publication
[4]Rabbi Reuven Ibragimov, discussion 2005.
[5]Leviticus 19:16, King James Version

Some would like to know, what, when, where, and how Hustlers are made. Well in Hustlenomics we discuss the complete lifestyle of the hustler. In this particular segment we discuss some of the more traditional institutions of America’s go-getters. Normally our lessons would come from some more unorthodox form of education deriving from experience and personal observation. In this study we allow insight on elite universities for those that this information would be ideal. Our moms and dads would love for us to go to school get a good education, go to a four year college like, Howard, UCLA, University of Florida, or some other modest university. I intend to focus on where the world’s biggest ballers got their education. Not at all sleeping on the colleges mentioned or insinuated, this is just a way for the academically inclined to shoot a little higher on their education harpoon.

Harvard tops the list by spewing out 54 of the world’s top ballers. With the most billionaires sporting Harvard’s graduation garments this training ground for the mecca don is unmatched. Harvard has graduated billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Sumner Redstone, David Rockefeller, Sr. and William Randolph Hearst III. Bill Gates is on the list of drop outs. Bill also holds the title of the richest man in the world, so even Harvard’s drop outs ball harder than other universities’ superlatives.

Running a not-so-close second is California’s Stanford University with 25 top go-getters. Alumni from this producer of fine business people include veteran ballers like Charles Schwab.

At 3rd place with 18 Billionaires that have graced the podium (down from 27 a year ago) the University of Pennsylvania is on the list.

Columbia University is pulling a close 4th place with 16 Billionaires on its roster tied with the world famous Yale University.

With all of this said. For the young wanna-be hustler coming up in middle school or highschool, these colleges can and will get you in the running for top notch hustling. Getting the A plus on your report card all the way down is a good start but still will not get you in to these elite institutions. Extracurricular activities, student organizations, public and community services, and taking on the most strenuous courses with the top grades and reviews is the way to go. Balling isn’t just on the street, but in the board rooms. Try running the world and not just your block. Build a network with some of Americas most affluent youth when attending these schools and stay connected. You want to make the top list on Hustlenomics? Then take my advice and make it easier for yourself or learn the hard way like most of the hustlers we highlight. It’s your decision and yours only. You are the architect of your own success or demise. Take responsibility and go get it!

Buffett!!!

In 1939, Jean applied and was accepted as a student at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work.  Along with course work, Penn’s School of Social Work prepared its future social workers with extensive training in fieldwork.  For the first two years of graduate study, Jean traveled by train to Richmond to work as a caseworker with foster children waiting for placement in adoptive homes at the Virginia Children’s Home Society.

Villanova 103 Penn 65 – College Basketball

Key State in the Game

Shooting Percentage showed that Villanova was the better team in this game.  They shot 58.7% for the game and 52.4% in 3 Point shooting.,  In the first half Villanova shot 58.1% and 59.4% in the second half.  For the game Villanova made 37 of 63 attempts (11 of 21 three-point shots).  10 Villanova players scored.  Conversely, Penn would shoot 34.5 (20 of 58) and made only 9 of 32 three-point shots.  In the first half Penn shot a woeful 7 of 27 for 25.9%. Villanova’s defense would not let Penn settle in, and the percentage reflect that.  Penn needed to shoot well and hope Villanova did not.  That did not happen. 

Turning Point of the Game / Key Run of the Game

This came early.  Penn lead 5 – 4 on Guard Darren Smith’s 3 at the 18:18 mark.  Villanova quickly responded by scoring 16 straight points to go ahead 20 – 5.  In the run Villanova converted 5 consecutive 3 point shots.  Guard Corey Stokes scored 6 and Guard Malik Wayns had 5 in that stretch that ended when Penn Forward Rob Belcore hit a 3 with 12:49 in the half. 

Key Players in the Game

For Villanova

Two bench players added a big spark for Villanova making big plays.  Forward Taylor King scored 14 points shooting 5 – 7 and was 2 – 3 in three-point shooting.  Guard Malik Wayns went 6 – 10, and 3 -6 three-point attempts.  King had 7 rebounds, 4 offensive.  

For Penn

Guard Darren Smith scored 21 points leading all scorers.  He was 6 – 15 from the field, made 4 – 9 three-point shots, and made 5 of 6 free throws.

Point Where the Game Was Decided 

Over the last 8:51 of the first half Villanova had a 25 – 13 lead.  That lead ballooned to a 55 – 25 halftime lead.  8 Villanova players scored during that stretch.  If Penn was thinking of a miracle comeback or maybe that Villanova lost interest, those thoughts were put to rest when Villanova came out and scored the first 7 points of the second half.

What Else? 

Villanova Coach Jay Wright did not call a timeout in the game.

Written By:  Glenn Papazian

People who think they are being wiretapped by the cops could disable the taps by sending a stream of text messages or making numerous VOIP calls to overwhelm the system’s thin bandwidth, researchers in Pennsylvania postulate.

The researchers say they’ve found a vulnerability in U.S. law enforcement wiretaps, if only theoretical, that would allow a surveillance target to thwart the authorities by launching what amounts to a denial-of-service (DoS) attack against the connection between the phone company switches and law enforcement.

The University of Pennsylvania researchers found the flaw after examining the telecommunication industry standard ANSI Standard J-STD-025, which addresses the transmission of wiretapped data from telecom switches to authorities, according to IDG News Service. Under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or Calea, telecoms are required to design their network architecture to make it easy for authorities to tap calls transmitted over digitally switched phone networks.

But the researchers, who describe their findings in a paper (.pdf), found that the standard allows for very little bandwidth for the transmission of data about phone calls, which can be overwhelmed in a DoS attack. When a wiretap is enabled, the phone company’s switch establishes a 64-Kbps Call Data Channel to send data about the call to law enforcement. That paltry channel can be flooded if a target of the wiretap sends dozens of simultaneous SMS messages or makes numerous VOIP phone calls “without significant degradation of service to the targets’ actual traffic.”

As a result, the researchers say, law enforcement could lose records of whom a target called and when. The attack could also prevent the content of calls from being accurately monitored or recorded.

The researchers tested their theory with a program they wrote that connected to a server over Sprint’s 3G wireless network 40 times per second. The attack could also work with seven VOIP calls or 42 SMS messages sent per second, they say, but have not tested it on a real-world system.

“Because it’s a black-box system, we don’t know for sure” if the attack will work on a real system, one of the researchers told IDG.

According to Matt Blaze, UPenn professor of computer science and information and co-author of the paper, the vulnerability would apply equally to the FBI’s DCSnet, which is an always-on surveillance network connecting the FBI’s high-tech wiretapping facilities.

“[T]he Calea vulnerabilities are at the link between each telco switch and the collection function,” Blaze explained in an e-mail to Threat Level, “while DCSnet is a distribution system internal to the FBI after the collection function.”

See also:

• Inside DCSNet, the FBI’s Nationwide Eavesdropping Network
• Weaknesses in CALEA Wiretaps

This is the first video projected turned in for Audio Visual News Gathering at Temple University, fall 2009. A team of four students, including myself, produced this video.

Actor Denzel Washington was playing the role of proud father as he cheered on his son  Malcolm’s first game with the University of Pennsylvania basketball team.

The 5-foot-9 Malcolm Washington is a walk-on guard at Penn. He did not play in Penn’s 70-55 loss.

The  AP reports that Washington went “virtually unnoticed in the Jordan Center crowd,”and didn’t want to respond to any reporter’s questions before the game, waving this arms and nodding in the direction of the Penn bench.

 Washington is in central Pennsylvania  filming the movie “Unstoppable”.

The 5-foot-9 Malcolm Washington(b. April 10, 1991) has a twin sister named Olivia, and he was named in honor of Malcom X, which was a significant role for Denzel Washington.

Malcom has an older brother John David (b. July 28, 1984), who signed a football contract with the St. Louis Rams in May 2006 after playing college football at Morehouse college in Atlanta, Georgia.

Being Denzel Washington’s son probably brings a lot of unwanted attention from people who want to be associated with the mega star, but if Malcolm is anything like his older brother John David, he will be able to excel on his own right, as he is a polite and self-sufficient young man.

All the reports that I have heard concerning Malcolm, is that he is very polite, personable, and has a strong work ethic. Denzel has a long-standing policy that he will not speak for his children,and is committed to being involved in supporting their athletic pursuits, just like most proud fathers.

I wish him well at his new college, and success in his role as a team member on his college basketball team.

Go Penn State!!!…and get with em’ Malcolm!!!

To learn more about the life and times of Denzel Washington, click on the source below…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denzel_Washington

Denzel Washington at son Malcolm's Penn State Basketball game

Celebrating 30 years of the Jerome Fisher Program in Management and Technology (M&T) at the University of Pennsylvania, the M&T 30 alumni event was held on Penn’s campus this weekend.   For the past 30 years, the program has combined two of Penn’s greatest assets into one educational experience: Penn Engineering and The Wharton School.  It has been a model for current Penn President Amy Gutmann’s wider program of integrating knowledge across the university.  Attendance was maxed out at 220 attendees, and unfortunately, some who waited until the last minute to register had to be turned away.  There were great speakers, food, and social events.  More at mt30.mandtalumni.com.

This is the first and opening post of TaekJhoLow.WordPress.com!

Taek Jho Low is a young Malaysian business leader whose online presence  is slowly being felt around the globe. As a result is is only natural that there be a dedicated site that focus on the past and current achievements and business activities that Jho Low is involved in.

This WordPress Blog will serve as a window onto the world of Taek Jho Low, consolidating the freshest online material as it appears as well as offering the inside scoops on many of the stories that will make the news.

For a peek at the life of a 28 year old Wharton School of Business graduate who has managed to gain success in the business place in his native Malaysia as well across the ocean, look no further than Taek Jho Low’s WordPress blog.

Mr. Taek Jho Low was appointed to the Board of UBG Berhad on the 19th of September, 2008.

It is both surprising and shocking to think that some of the best universities and colleges across the country do not have ROTC programs on their campuses. For those students that are interested in participating, they may do so by commuting to places that offer the programs. Sometimes, those commutes can be as long as two hours, which can prove to be especially problematic when some of the exercises and field trainings take place as early as 6:00am. Every year there is a small amount of students from the Ivy League system that are commissioned as Second Lieutenants upon their graduations. Those young men and women sacrifice an incredible amount of time and effort to complete their training to ultimately get the chance to serve their country as officers. It is interesting to think that there are individuals out there literally fighting for their chance to serve while obtaining a top notch education. Typically, these ROTC cadets have family ties to the military.

The Ivy League ROTC ban brings up a serious issue when it comes to attracting some of the best and brightest into military service. Although military service is by no means for everyone, it seems as if many of the college bound individuals are not that familiar with the opportunities that officership brings. The fact that some of the best universities don’t offer these program on their campuses can be seen as if they don’t believe a career path of an officer is the military as on the same stature as some of the occupations in the civilian world. Even though this may be far from the truth, at first glance it appears that way. This holds especially true for young men and women that don’t take a deeper look into military service.

In a recruiting environment where only about 30% of youth are eligible for military service, (to learn more http://majastevanovich.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/only-30-of-17-24-year-old-eligible-for-military-service/ ) the ROTC ban in some of the finer colleges does not help in attracting the 17-24 demographic to serve as officers. This poses a challenge for the military as they aim to educate youth about the opportunities officership offers. One of the ways has proven to be successful is the use of social media. A big reason why social media is effective is because youth are living in a digital world, they understand and relate to the messaging, and they are used to brands being interactive with them.

To all those ROTC students at schools where there are no programs, thank you for your dedication.

This is a very interesting article indeed… Up until the time I read it, I had figured that evolution always tended to go in the direction of refinement, betterment and adaptability. Now it seems that that is not always the case.

There’s a Speed Limit to the Pace of Evolution, Penn Biologists Say

PHILADELPHIA –- Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a theoretical model that informs the understanding of evolution and determines how quickly an organism will evolve using a catalogue of “evolutionary speed limits.” The model provides quantitative predictions for the speed of evolution on various “fitness landscapes,” the dynamic and varied conditions under which bacteria, viruses and even humans adapt.

A major conclusion of the work is that for some organisms, possibly including humans, continued evolution will not translate into ever-increasing fitness. Moreover, a population may accrue mutations at a constant rate –- a pattern long considered the hallmark of “neutral” or non-Darwinian evolution -– even when the mutations experience Darwinian selection.

…continued here…

For information about Pennsylvania University, please click here.

Villanova 21 Richmond 20

Villanova Coach Andy Talley on the win at Richmond

“The game pretty much went accordingly to what we expected coming in.  I thought both teams were very evenly matched and we were comfortable playing here because we thought we had a chance to get after (Richmond) if we could shut down their running game. We maybe had an opportunity to close it out earlier but Richmond is a very good team and they were everything we thought they would be.  We have a lot of respect for them.  They did a great job.  The game could have gone either way.”

Wide Receiver Brandyn Harvey on the game winning catch

“The play was designed to go to me.  (Whitney) saw me and I was open. I should probably have caught the pass with two hands.  Once I made the catch, I knew someone was behind me, but I just wanted to make sure I scored.”

Quarterback Chris Whitney on the game winning touchdown pass

“On 4th and 10 I didn’t have much choice, but we wanted to go to him.  We have counted on Brandyn all year.  I thought I might have overthrown it at first, but I am glad it worked out.”

Penn 42 Princeton 7

Penn Coach Al Bagnoli on Penn’s performance

“It was the best complete ame we played all year.  We were sound, we didn’t have a turnover, we capitalized on turnovers.  From top to bottom it was as a complete a game we played all year.”

Quarterback Kyle Olson on his performance

“The whole key was to try and manage (the game), and stay within yourself.  We were doing what we are capable of doing.”

Corner Back Chris Wynn on his interception return for a touchdown

” I just kept watching the quarterback.  I thought that the quarterback’s ball sailed on him, then the ball went right in my lap.”

Temple 34 Miami (Ohio) 32

Temple Coach Al Golden on getting more come from behind wins

“The look on everybody’s face was let’s get the ball and go.  Let’s go win.  They are competitive now.  They understand.  Just keep working hard and try to make plays at the end.  There is gong to be a bunch of these.  We got to keep working hard and try to come out on top.”

Kicker Brandon Mc Manus on his game winning kick

“That was the first ever of my career.  Bernard (Pierce) got us down there, and the snapper and the holder did a great job.  I had to keep my composure and stay calm.”

Defensive Lineman Andre Neblett on the significance of the winning streak and bowl eligibility

“It’s big.  We haven’t done it here in a long time.  I’ve been waiting for this opportunity for 3 years,  It means a lot for me and the team.”