http://www.newstimes.com/ci_12041642
If this bill passes, it will be another step closer to legalizing marijuana. The bill will reduce the penalties for marijuana possession. Specifically, if you had between half an ounce to four ounces of marijuana, you would not be charged with possession of drugs. You could be ticketed for up to $250, but you would not go to jail or court. Predictably, the bill, which still has to pass the state Senate and House, is causing a lot of controversy. Governor Rell has all but threatened to veto the bill if it passes.
Personally, I think the bill is a bad idea. Just because if you have a half-ounce of marijuana you're less dangerous than a reckless driver doesn't mean that you must lower the charges on one of the crimes. The state is forgetting that owning drugs is illegal and has many consequences both on the users and the community. Increase in crime? Check. Higher rate of uninsured patients in hospitals? Check. More families on welfare? Check. Drugs are even contributing to the Mexican drug cartel war that is rapidly spreading over into our borders. As long as Americans keep getting hooked, these problems will continue. Decriminalizing marijuana is going to make the situation much worse.
Also, the News-Times article wasn't the best article in the world, either. It never actually states how much marijuana would be the limit, as it only says what the "Threshold" would be. Is a half-ounce the lower or upper limit for the penalty? If it is upper, then it isn't much of a penalty decrease but a lower threshold doesn't make sense. Also, the last 3 paragraphs about the senator who ate marijuana-laced brownies doesn't belong in the news article. The rest of the quotes were relevant and showed the controversy surrounding the bill, but the anecdote did nothing but leave the reader with a different idea after finishing the story. It would have been better if it was cut.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
A special election is special indeed
One of the last remaining House seats to be filled from the 2008 election is the seat of Kirsten Gillibrand, a representative who was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate after she was appointed Secretary of State. The special election, however, is being billed as a preview of the 2010 midterm elections. Because of this, the Democrat candidate has had advertisements with both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, while the Republican candidate got a lot of attention from the Republican National Committee. The race will not shift the balance of power in the House, or have much impact on American politics at all-- at least on paper. Instead, the race is getting so much attention because one candidate supported the Obama stimulus package, while the other one did not. Therefore, it is almost a referendum on the stimulus package, in a traditionally red district that swung to Obama in the last election to boot. Also, the Democratic candidate was a venture capitalist, while the Republican one is strongly against the controversial AIG bailouts. Although I like the way the author supported the blog (it was written more of as an article instead of a blog entry, except that it was opinionated), I disagree with his opinion that it should not receive all of the attention that it is getting. It will not change our landscape, but it will be a test to see how Obama and the Democrats are doing in their first hundred days. It will be interesting to see how this election turns out.
(Note: As of 4/1, the election is too close to call, and the absentee ballots, which have not been counted, will likely decide this election. Although it's a political drama, it's also a draw.)
(Note: As of 4/1, the election is too close to call, and the absentee ballots, which have not been counted, will likely decide this election. Although it's a political drama, it's also a draw.)
Monday, March 30, 2009
And then there was one... the end of Detroit?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/business/31auto.html
No, the Big Three aren't getting broken apart just yet. But this might be a headline at the end of next month. Today, President Obama announced that he would give more money to major auto companies GM and Chrysler, but only for a month. Then, unless changes are made at the companies, they will no longer get bailout money from the government.
Most of the focus has been on GM, who must undergo a massive reorganization to cut costs in their company. This will involve negotiating with the UAW (United Auto Workers) to cut health care and other worker benefits. GM has 60 days to do this. Until then, they will be kept afloat by money and tax cuts. Some of this reconstruction has already happened, as GM President Rick Wagoner "retired" (was fired) on the orders of the government. Of course, he got a $20 million bonus... AIG anyone? (On a side note, GM has already announced that in 2010, it will close its doors on three brands of cars, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn, to cut costs. Also, it spun off another car brand, Saab, which then declared bankruptcy in its native country of sweden.)
What's more interesting to me is that Chrysler, which is much smaller but still important to our economy, must find a company to merge with/get bought by in 30 days... or they will get cut off from government aid and likely go bankrupt. This is because, according to the US government, Chrysler cannot survive on its own. Chrysler has been in talks with FIAT in Italy to merge, but it's "not a done deal" yet. The government did not force GM to do this because it feels they can still survive and also help produce eco-friendly cars.
I applaud the tough stance Obama is taking against the car companies. It would be disastrous if either of them failed, but we don't want them to make the same mistakes they made in the past. Forcing them to fix their problems or fail is a good ultimatum (to paraphrase the article). I just hope there are no nasty surprises, such as millions in bonuses that are secretly paid to the executives who made the bad decisions (such as with AIG and Merril Lynch). That's why I'm a little concerned about Mr. Wagoner's bonus, although I'm a little more accepting of it because he was basically scapegoated so the company could receive more money. Obama is finally beginning to put into use the reforms he promised during last year's campaign season.
No, the Big Three aren't getting broken apart just yet. But this might be a headline at the end of next month. Today, President Obama announced that he would give more money to major auto companies GM and Chrysler, but only for a month. Then, unless changes are made at the companies, they will no longer get bailout money from the government.
Most of the focus has been on GM, who must undergo a massive reorganization to cut costs in their company. This will involve negotiating with the UAW (United Auto Workers) to cut health care and other worker benefits. GM has 60 days to do this. Until then, they will be kept afloat by money and tax cuts. Some of this reconstruction has already happened, as GM President Rick Wagoner "retired" (was fired) on the orders of the government. Of course, he got a $20 million bonus... AIG anyone? (On a side note, GM has already announced that in 2010, it will close its doors on three brands of cars, Pontiac, Hummer, and Saturn, to cut costs. Also, it spun off another car brand, Saab, which then declared bankruptcy in its native country of sweden.)
What's more interesting to me is that Chrysler, which is much smaller but still important to our economy, must find a company to merge with/get bought by in 30 days... or they will get cut off from government aid and likely go bankrupt. This is because, according to the US government, Chrysler cannot survive on its own. Chrysler has been in talks with FIAT in Italy to merge, but it's "not a done deal" yet. The government did not force GM to do this because it feels they can still survive and also help produce eco-friendly cars.
I applaud the tough stance Obama is taking against the car companies. It would be disastrous if either of them failed, but we don't want them to make the same mistakes they made in the past. Forcing them to fix their problems or fail is a good ultimatum (to paraphrase the article). I just hope there are no nasty surprises, such as millions in bonuses that are secretly paid to the executives who made the bad decisions (such as with AIG and Merril Lynch). That's why I'm a little concerned about Mr. Wagoner's bonus, although I'm a little more accepting of it because he was basically scapegoated so the company could receive more money. Obama is finally beginning to put into use the reforms he promised during last year's campaign season.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The recession and Journalism: when a newspaper becomes the story
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Last Thursday, the reporters at The Rocky Mountain News in Denver were assigned to cover a local story about a company that was forced to close due to the weak economy. Nothing new, right?
Not exactly. The company that was going out of business was The Rocky Mountain News itself. It was shut down by it parent company after it failed to find a buyer for the paper. This leaves Denver with only one major paper, The Denver Post.
The recession is putting a strain on papers for many reasons. The primary one isn't lack of readership, but rather lack of advertising, which accounts for most of the revenue of a paper. Many businesses have been forced to cut advertising to either save money or if they go bankrupt.
Another reason, mentioned in the video on the paper's website, is that many people are getting their news from other sources, primarily websites and blogs. These sources, especially blogs, might provide the reader with more "personalized" news, or stories written in a less formal tone that the reader can connect to. However, blogs also present a biased view of stories, which might lead to a reader only viewing stories that fit his or her opinion. This is a problem, although personally I don't think the existence of opinionated blogs affected the newspaper as much as the lack of advertising. Proof of this is that on the paper's website, many of the reporters and columnists had blogs of their own!
Many newspapers have had to cut back in this economy. The New York Times merged its sports and local sections into its national and world sections. The Christian Science Monitor stopped printing altogether and now only exists online. Even our local newspaper was cut down from three to two sections a few months ago.
Until the economy improves, the newspaper business will be in trouble. Hopefully, though, no more major papers will be forced to close.
Monday, January 26, 2009
A change of pace
OK, I've been focusing on news/political stories recently, so it's time for a change. I fist heard this story on a radio news report, and decided to check them out online.
Story link: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?postversion=2009012615
This story focuses on the stock market day. Normally, if 71,400 jobs are lost in a day, the stock would be sharply lower. However, the Dow Jones stocks "gained 100 points" in early trading and then "were still up modestly heading into the close". Home Depot, which announced that 2% of its workforce and the closing of its Expo Design Center stores, went up in value. Meanwhile, Pfizer, who bought rival Wyeth today, went down by 10%. These should have been the opposite. As the bloglike article states, "Wha?"
The answer to the Dow Jones question is a combination of the Pfizer buyout of Wyeth, the announcement that a British bank would post a profit in 2008 despite the crisis (which sent all of the bank stocks up), and the fact that existing home sales rose 6.5% in December. This may be hope that part of the economy is stabilizing, but the job cuts and layoffs signal a lot more economic trouble ahead. Many experts in the article stated that the rally was sure to be temporary.
About the article itself, it was very well-written. The most important information was at the top, followed by facts/statistics with analysis, and finally quotes by economists. The article was very well-written and unbiased for a blog (which it appears to be). Good job CNN/Fortune!
Story link: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/markets/thebuzz/index.htm?postversion=2009012615
This story focuses on the stock market day. Normally, if 71,400 jobs are lost in a day, the stock would be sharply lower. However, the Dow Jones stocks "gained 100 points" in early trading and then "were still up modestly heading into the close". Home Depot, which announced that 2% of its workforce and the closing of its Expo Design Center stores, went up in value. Meanwhile, Pfizer, who bought rival Wyeth today, went down by 10%. These should have been the opposite. As the bloglike article states, "Wha?"
The answer to the Dow Jones question is a combination of the Pfizer buyout of Wyeth, the announcement that a British bank would post a profit in 2008 despite the crisis (which sent all of the bank stocks up), and the fact that existing home sales rose 6.5% in December. This may be hope that part of the economy is stabilizing, but the job cuts and layoffs signal a lot more economic trouble ahead. Many experts in the article stated that the rally was sure to be temporary.
About the article itself, it was very well-written. The most important information was at the top, followed by facts/statistics with analysis, and finally quotes by economists. The article was very well-written and unbiased for a blog (which it appears to be). Good job CNN/Fortune!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Yet another political scandal...
I went in the NY Times website to find an article about blundering Blagojevich's news conference today. Instead, the front-page article is about the former head of the state Senate in New York and his indictment on corruption charges. The article itself was short and concise; it went right to the main points about the indictment. It also gave the background information that Joe Bruno wasn't just another greedy politician, he was the "de facto head of the Republican Party in New York after Gov. George Pataki had left." I remember an essay written in Time Magazine (I think) stating that in the recent past, the public was enthralled by scandals such as with Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards (I won't use the actual term because I don't want our school filter to block us again...). Now, though, the scandals have changed to involve money, bribery, and other corruption. Joe Bruno is the latest in the ranks that include Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich, and even Caroline Kennedy, not to mention the multiple CEO's who have been paid lavish bonuses right before their companies went bankrupt. The reason the essay claimed this shift was happening was because of the bad economy, people are more interested in money crooks than in sleazy crooks. I had hoped that this wouldn't extend into Obama's administration, but his Treasury Secretary pick Timothy Geitner didn't pay his taxes for several years. Wow. They say he can fix the economy, or else he probably wouldn't have been approved in the first place. Well, until the next politician falls from power for want of money...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/24bruno.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/24bruno.html
Friday, January 16, 2009
Ethics question from The New York Times
http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/language-and-disabilities/#more-625
The top part of this blog deals with the issue of using terms such as "disabled" and "blind" as adjectives or adverbs, not nouns. They also recommend placing this term after the words
"people with...". So, using phrases such as "the disabled" or even "disabled people" can lead to generalization and labeling, which may cause an interpretation of bias. Going back to semantics, it would be appropriate to either use phrases such as "people with disabilities," or be more specific, such as "visually-impaired people" or "paralysis victims." However, saying "The government wants to provide more funding for disabled people" is less cumbersome to say than "The government wants to provide more funding for people with disabilities." I agree with not using "the disabled," but think that using "disabled people" would be acceptable.
The top part of this blog deals with the issue of using terms such as "disabled" and "blind" as adjectives or adverbs, not nouns. They also recommend placing this term after the words
"people with...". So, using phrases such as "the disabled" or even "disabled people" can lead to generalization and labeling, which may cause an interpretation of bias. Going back to semantics, it would be appropriate to either use phrases such as "people with disabilities," or be more specific, such as "visually-impaired people" or "paralysis victims." However, saying "The government wants to provide more funding for disabled people" is less cumbersome to say than "The government wants to provide more funding for people with disabilities." I agree with not using "the disabled," but think that using "disabled people" would be acceptable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)