Paula Zahn's Divine Proportions
 

http://evolutionoftruth.com/images/zahnface.jpg
Paula Zahn's beautiful face is heating up
the anchor wars, and the news.

She's hot, and her credibility adds to her sexiness
... not vice versa.

Throwaway opinions:

The "Divine Proportions" site: I'd send that webmaster to http://www.losingmyreligion.com/ .

The Paula Zahn controversy: unflattering in almost every way to CNN, who should try to take the high road against Fox. See, the already-ridiculous Fox is apparently trying to corner the market on "newsbabes".

See, I believe that the era of bad news in general has got to go. Instead of beautiful news readers, we need smart people who understand what they're reading, and thus can communicate it effectively. Anchors who are actually in control.

And if they're smart enough to have a bias, they're also wise enough to understand how and why NOT to apply it. They say Cronkite was a flaming liberal all those years - well how much a credit is it that this wasn't really all that apparent?

So are you saying that you'd rather have Greta van Sustren read you the dailies than Rebecca Romijn-Stamos? yecch!

I couldnt help but think of the scene in Broadcast News (love that movie!) when the terrific Albert Brooks character finally gets his chance to anchor and literally melts. There is an definite performance aspect in broadcast communication that has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding content. Now if you can find the lucky combination... There's divine proportion. Paula? not really. She strikes me as one step right of Joan Lunden selling hand cream.

Yes, yes I would, if the information is important. If it's nonsense news, then it doesn't matter how good someone is at communicating. But if the information is important things that I need to know, I'd rather have someone smart and dumpy.

Of course, 95% of the news is nonsense news. But I think that, too, will change. Certainly in September 90% of the news was NOT nonsense.

Blowmee, if you're looking for good looking ladies to bring you the news, you can always check out Naked News. :)

I was so frustrated in the immediate post WTC days- I sought out BBC, CBC and Jim Lehrer. Cut the crap and just tell me what's happening. The whole idea to create/cast/spin Geraldo Rivera as intrepid war correspondant makes me shiver in disgust. Why not send Springer? He really knows how to rev 'em up for the camera.

<b>Sycamore</b> -- I used to watch "Headline News" because Jane Russell is <i>HOT</i>, but then she quit. Now I stick to Naked News and MarketWrap Unwrapped :)
On a side note, the women of Naked News were featured in Playboy a few months ago. Anyone else catch that? I wasn't too impressed. Then again, they were plastered between Bunnies, which makes for a tough comparison.

Warch--I agree. I read a lot of BBC and CBC after 9/11. I don't hit it as much as I should now, although I listen to CBC radio on occasion.

The whole Rivera thing is a FARCE. He was finally becoming "credible" on NBC...now he's pissing it away again.

Truth be told, the Naked News ladies aren't bad, but aren't spectacular. The black gal on there is pretty good looking, although I haven't seen her naked.

I don't know how Playboy does it. They always find very nice looking ladies...and they're tasteful.

THIS is the woman that recent news story/controversy was all about? I've never seen her before and she's, well, bland looking. Maybe it's just the photo, maybe it's the unnaturally white, bleached teeth... I dunno, I wouldn't call her ugly but "sexy" is stretching it. :)

Pete

There's good explanations of Paula's face's golden sections on the linked webpage.

Interestingly, the page seems to be one element of a website supporting some form of creationism (i.e. we're all here by divine design, as evidenced by the golden ratio in our heads.) It was neat to see such an argument based not on bible thumping, but math.

I think I've watched the news once since 9/11. I caught Jim Lehr who I think does a fair job of emulating Walter. TV news is great for showing the scope of disaster, an exiciting car chase, or creating public images of our political masters but when news is paired down to fit the format the information is too predigested.

How opposite we are Griff: I have CNN on in the background as I write this. If I'm not careful here I'll accidentally resurrect the Xugumad exchange from the other month, but I use it as the modern equivalent of background music. The big value of the electronic media, I believe, is that it gets us information really fast.

CNN varies between incredible news and soap operas. In the same hour, while I watch, I'll learn how the Pentagon is interrogating Al Qaeda prisoners - and then watch a half-hour of the rink rage trial, which is just a non-news soap-opera event.

RIGHT NOW they say that FBI analysis of Richard Reid's shoe bomb shows that it was actually an incredibly sophisticated bomb, containing two different explosive agents. This indicates, they say, that this is evidence that the terror network may be more sophisticated than originally thought who can manufacture explosives beyond the capabilities of airport screening. Now that's information I want to know.

But they follow it with news of the Beamer birth, which is just sentimental fluff.

I'm too easily mesmerized by bright lights and shiny things, one reason I stay away from malls. I can't have the tube on, its too distracting, I lose focus. I suppose there is a form of intelligence there, which I haven't developed, but maybe its not something I need. If you are my opposite, I guess that makes you the evil Kirk. ;)

Well I like to be distracted and mesmerized throughout my day, so it's just a style thing.

Unfortunately, it's information that's not particularly trustworthy. Two different explosive agents? That's an idea Nobel used way back when. And it's used in all firearm ammunition. Not particularly sophisticated by today's standards. The problem is the news people don't know this, so they assume that no one else does.

That Reid bomb was about 10 oz of C4 equivalent explosive - or about the same amount that destroyed PanAm 007 over Scotland. C4 type explosive is well controlled, difficult to manufacture, and is rumored to have been purchased on the street in Netherlands. On the street? Whats going on here? What has that pretty face at the top to say about this?

And just so that the pretty face does not distract you - what happened to and where did all that C4 come from in the Philly Bus Terminal? More silence and a pretty face so we might forget? Or did we forget?

The two substances they mentioned were not C4. They did say that one of the substances was something they had to cook up. By now some more info should be available... hang on...

Here's the sentence from CNN:

An FBI analysis of the shoes showed the bombs were made of two explosives -- a military explosive called PETN and a homemade explosive called TATP. Experts said they have not previously seen that combination.

I'm sure there will be many other unanswered questions. The one that still has my head spinning: the first Anthrax target was American Media where the editor's wife was the landlady for two of the 9/11 terrorists. Coincidence? That's what they say.

I'm having an online affair ...

with Paula Zahn's email bot. :)

PETN has both military and commercial uses. The interesting thing about TATP IMO is that it's not a nitrate-based explosive -- which means those "sniffers" won't detect it.

You really CAN buy anything in the Netherlands? :)

tw, the majority of C4/Semtex sued today is manufactured in Checelovakia of all places, and is pretty easy to get hold of. For refrence i found that out in a discussion of this with an ex-MI5 IRA counter-intel officer (exceedingly cool guy, flicking though all his photos is a rather interesting experience)

Its intersting its not nitrate, nearly all high-grade exploisives are nitrate based. Good old potassium nitrate, endless hours of fun with that stuff.

Semtex (and I thought it started with 'C') is a Checkoslovakian product. C4 is American. Semtex was easier to obtain during the Cold War. Today, it is not (suppose to be) easily obtained.

C4/Semtex and other equivalents are not easily manufactured. Nitrate based explosives are easy, but not as destructive in 10 oz quantities. It is why such 'military' explosives are suppose to be tightly controlled. Which again asks about the silence - a bag full of C4 in the Philadelphia Bus Terminal. Why the silence?

Now tw, do you mean: Why have we not heard about where the C4 came from?

I know what I wonder about that is:

why haven't I heard a damn thing about that since it happened?

That's pretty fucked up, no doubt. And they really oughta be telling us things like "Well, it's highly likely it'll happen again" or "It's unlikely" or whatnot. I tell you what - being a frequent metro rider, I have thought many a time about how easy it would be for someone to take out a metro train. That is an unnerving thought.

Cemtex....i think you're right, i've never really sutided/worked with anything like them, so i've got buggar all idea, although i thought they were of a similar chemical structure. As for availability, an organisation like Al Queda could easily obtain it, they have the money, and no doubt the contacts. In the last year alone there have been over 100 captures of illegal RADIOACTIVE material, ranging from midly radioactive powder to weapons grade stuff in Turkey, think about that.

It's already been done in Tokyo.

My suspicions on the C4 here in Philadelphia:

1--Nobody really knows how the hell it got there. Too embarrassing to say anything like that.

2--They know how it got there, but they are still investigating, and do not want to compromise the investigation.

3--They know, but won't tell us due to national security issues.

No one has blown up a metro train, though. The nerve gas was definitely pretty nasty, however.

But yeah. One could walk onto there with a backpack full of C4 during rush hour, wait until the train was approaching the next metro stop (Metro Center, anyone?) and BAM!

Let's just hope it never happens.

Subway, underground, tube or metro (whatever these systems are called in various countries) bombings have taken place in London and Paris in recent years. I won't post all the links here.

... as you may be contacted by the Secret Service for posting such material. After all, we know they read k5...

That's why I'm really careful about exactly what I say here. I would never blow anyone up or anything like that, but I don't want them thinking I might - a visit, at work, by 2 SS agents does not look good at all.

Screw them. Aside from the DMCA-censored material, I'll post what I like as there's no law against it. Always did. Do we live in the United States or an authoritarian society? And if the latter, shouldn't we make them prove it(as they have with the DMCA) before shutting up?

if we're afraid of John Ashcroft ... then the terrorists have won.

I agree with you, except for one thing: I'm not willing to even <b>risk</b> my job just so I can say some things that aren't even necessary (like details on how to best take out a metro train, for example). I'm all about free speech, and I say what I like. It just so happens that in this case, I'd rather not say something that could end up costing me time and possibly my job (after SS agents show up at my job site, ask to speak with me in private for an hour or two, etc). I'd just rather not risk the hassle.

Fox's Greta Looks Betta

I thought it was her lips, not her eyes, that needed a make-over. :rolleyes:

I always thought she was kinda cute, but I think it was more the way she talked. hehe. :whofarted

are you kidding? Greta has definitely got a butter face!!
Not to sound like an entire ass (maybe 35%), I thought she was semi-retarded the first time I caught her legal show on CNN years ago. yikes!

My only comment on the looks vs. ability newsanchor debate is inspired by a good Don Henley song.

"We got the bubble-headed bleach blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye"

gross

and she's going to her 30th high school reunion to gloat? about what exactly?

i didn't even have to click on the link to guess what you're talking about...

greta van susteren? i read about it in the paper. she looks so totally UNLIKE herself, it's horrible. she never wore enhancing makeup before and now she did some surgery AND wears makeup? ugh.

Click on this image for more cartoons