Probate Court

This is that wonderful time of the week where I do my best to explain something to you that I don't know too much about. This week I am talking of course about probate court. What is it? Why is it important? Why should I care? Well I don't know the answer to any of these questions right now, so work with me. Here is one definition I found on Google.


"A specialized court or division of a state trial court that considers only cases concerning the distribution of deceased persons' estate. Called "surrogate court" in New York and several other states, this court normally examines the authenticity of a will -- or if a person dies intestate, figures out who receives her property under state law. It then oversees a procedure to pay the deceased person's debts and to distribute her assets to the proper inheritors. See probate."
(http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/50CD84AF-3723-4A94-8639E92A63253990/alpha/P/)

Here's another:

"The court that deals with adoptions, estates, wills, trusts, guardianships, conservatorships and civil commitments."
(http://www.oberholtzerlaw.com/legterm.htm)

OK so I think we have a pretty good idea of what's going on here. Probate court is a place where very important things about peoples lives are decided. The main purpose of this court is to handle a dead person's estate. They will examine the contents of a person's will, or if they die intestate, or without a will, they figure out what to do with the dead guy's stuff. These probate judges must have a ton of power right. They step in on issues that can not be resolved in any other way. Dead people cannot quite vocalize where they want their assets to go, and disputes over children usually get very messy and cannot be easily solved by the parties involved. This type of court is very important because these issues are very important. Many judges merely keep courtroom order and handout sentences. These judges literally take peoples lives in their hands on a daily basis. They must have the utmost integrity because questionable people with such power can do very bad things. I'll leave you with the mission statement from the Massachussetts Probate Court, to show you what they're going for.

" To deliver timely justice to the public by providing equal access to a fair, equitable and efficient forum to resolve family and probate legal matters and to assist and protect all individuals, families and children in an impartial and respectful manner."

Pendulum - Slam

The Next President of the United States of America, Barack Obama

WOW.


I am not one to sit here and tell you that change is coming. I have no idea if change is coming. I'm pretty sure Obama himself isn't too sure if change is really coming. I think one thing that people really need to understand is that fresh blood in the oval office and a new, blue congress will not be able to collectively snap their fingers and fix a badly broken economy.

Both of the speeches that were made on Tuesday night were absolutely amazing. I must admit that I was a little disappointed that the race wasn't a little closer, because spoken like a true sports fan, there's nothing like watching it come right down to the wire. It was the speeches, from both candidates, that made the night worthwhile. I was so impressed with the speech that John McCain delivered Tuesday night. One aspect of the campaign that bothered me a lot was when Obama supporters started to label John McCain as evil. I understand that millions of people believed in Barack Obama, but bringing it to that level was, in my opinion, very wrong. John McCain is truly an American hero, and he is a man that we should all give our utmost respect to. He urged his party members in that quiet hall, and across the nation, that now is the time to unify as Americans, under the leadership of Barack Obama. John McCain's speech Tuesday night was one of my favorites ever.

John McCain held a small "victory" party in Arizona to "thank all of this best supporters." As my good friend Jeremy, who I was watching this with while working at D.P. Dough put it, "The dude who throws the best party always wins." And damn, was he right about that. Millions of people were in Chicago to catch a glimpse of the new President-elect. To be totally honest, I wish I was there. I will always remember watching that speech Tuesday night, on that little TV in the corner of the store. Chills ran up and down my spine with each Yes We Can. Now, keep in mind, I am a sucker for this kind of thing. That is really why I am so excited about Obama as president. I already have January 20th, 2009 marked off in my date book for his inauguration speech.

Barack Obama is not our savior. He is a man, just like you or I. I want to urge anyone who reads this blog that we must stand behind him through bad times as well as good. He is our man now, for the next four years at least.

For the past eight or so months we have been a nation of reds and blues. Now we must move forward, united under the red, white, and blue. I have always believed in the greatness of America, and now it is facing one of its toughest challenges ever. I gave him my vote, and now I am willing to put all my faith in Barack Obama to lead us back to the nation we all know we can be.

Rockefeller Drug Laws

Way back in the spring of 1973, New York State Legislators passed a set of very strict laws to wage war on drugs. These laws are commonly referred to as the "Rockefeller Drug Laws", named after Governor Nelson Rockefeller. These laws were created to severely punish the people who were dealing large amounts of drugs, and contributing to the growing decay of society. These laws made the possession of a fairly decent amount of narcotics have the same penalty for a second degree murder. Up to 25 years in prison! These laws also made the punishments for very small amounts of drugs very strict, usually including jailtime. These were the people who were getting arrested under these laws, not the so called "kingpins". The Rockefeller laws gave New York the toughest drug laws in the nation. Oh great that will cure New York's drug problem, phew. This acts as a deterrent and nobody does drugs anymore. Glad that's settled.

Come on, you didn't believe me did you? You know what these laws have led to?

"As of 2008, approximately 14,000 people are locked up for drug offenses in New York State prisons, representing nearly 38% of the prison population and costing New Yorkers hundreds of millions of dollars every year."
(http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/rockefellerd/)

Hundreds of millions of dollars. Every Year. Good use of tax money? I don't personally think so.

These laws take all discretion away from judges. The law states that it is the what drug was possessed, and how much of it, that dictates the penalty for the crime. This meant that any first time offender could face the same penalty than a dealer or life long junkie. No matter how you feel about drugs, you can't possibly think that's fair.

"The Rockefeller Drug Laws restrict the ability of judges to divert people using drugs into community-based programs, like drug treatment, which has proven to be far more effective and cheaper than prison at reducing drug use and abuse. Mandatory minimums give prosecutors unbalanced power over people charged with drug offenses. Unlike decisions made by judges, prosecutors' decisions under mandatory minimum sentencing structures are not subject to judicial oversight.
(http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/rockefellerd/)

Come on, really!? Restricts the ability of judges to divert people to community based programs.

Oh here's Johnny Firstoffense. He has never been arrested before. His father and mother were brutally murdered last fall. Johnny became deeply depressed and started to use heroin. Johnny was arrested for possession of a very large amount of heroin. Well, because of good ol' Nelly Rockefeller I can't try and help this poor kid by sending him to therapy or rehab. What the hell, 25 years in the slammer will straighten him out right?

Wrong. Johnny Firstoffense becomes Johnny Hardenedcriminal after about three months in prison. When he is released, if he ever is, he will not be able to get a job, or ever get his life back on track. He will most likely become a junkie again his first day back on the street.

Drugs are bad. Period. These laws though, are worse. There are a lot of reasons that people do drugs, and taking away the discretion of a judge is downright un-American. Drug users need to be treated, and assimilated back into society, not just thrown into jail.

(picture: South Park, Comedy Central...come on you've seen it before)

Something to Think About

Ok, so Coca-Cola is not allowed to air a TV commercial saying that if you drink just one bottle of coke your I.Q. will be raised by over 50 pts. They can't air a commercial saying that because it isn't true. Thats fair. The wonderful people at the John McCain campaign though can air a TV commercial sayin that Barack Obama "rewards his friends with your tax dollars", even though that is a wildly untrue statement. Here is factcheck.org's explanation of why that is untrue if you were wondering:

"The ad claims that Obama supporter and Chicago real estate developer Allison Davis received $20 million in taxpayer money. That's false. Davis didn't get this money. Instead, the federal grant went to the Chicago Housing Authority, replacing money it had already put forward for a mixed-income housing project on which Davis was a developer. The grant didn't go to Davis, nor did it help him pocket any additional funds."

"The ad says Obama gave Tony Rezko $14 million of taxpayer money. That's misleading. It's true the housing project Rezko was working on cost $14 million in taxpayer cash. Rezko and his partner netted $855,000 in fees."

Heres my point: Why is it illegal for a company to lie about their product, but completely legal for a politician to lie about themselves or their opponents? I am not just throwing McCain under the bus here, factcheck.org also points out all of the misleading and falsified facts in Obama ads as well. So here's what I'm proposing: there should be a committee, maybe even led by factcheck.org (no, I am not getting paid for advertising, I just respect the work that they do) that each campaign has to submit their TV ads to before they go on the air. This would be a completely bipartisan committee that would only have the public's interest in mind. This would mean that every ad that you would see on TV would only have real facts, not gross exaggerations and misleading quotes out of context. I'm done hearing all the garbage. Politicians should be held up to the standards that we all are.

pic:http://cache.valleywag.com/assets/resources/2008/03/obama_mccain_boxing.jpg

Investigative Reporting

I must say that I did a very poor job as a reporter during last Tuesday's class. To be completely honest, I did not feel all that well. In the past, there would have been no way that I could've made it to class at 10:15 feeling like that. I did make it to class though, but I was not prepared to be the quickest, smartest, and obviously most modest reporter in the class. It was lucky for me that we didn't have to write a formal article about our visitors, because if we did I wouldn't have any quotes to use. The reason that I am bringing this up is because we had two very interesting visitors speak with us, and I can't even tell you their names. They were investigative reporters for a newspaper in Belville, Illinois,(the only piece of information that I did write down) and gave our class an inside look at their lives and their jobs. I am disappointed in myself at my laziness during that visit, but I do feel that I learned a few valuable things in the process.

These reporters brought to our attention certain cases that they have been following over the past few years involving the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Through their investigations, they found over 50 cases of neglect and poor practice by this agency that led to many children's death. The two won prizes and have recieved enormous amounts of praise for their thorough work in uncovering these tragic cases. The reporters then provided us with therapy session records from a current case that they are keeping an eye on. This case was about a very young girl who told a therapist that her daddy "puts his finger in my butt" and "makes me kiss him where he pee-pees." I apologize for putting those quotes in here, I struggled with the decision. These are the things that investigative reporters come across all the time. They then asked the class what we would do with this case. Is it a story that needs to be written about? This brings up a very important conflict in the realm of investigative journalism. These reporters recieved high acclaim for uncovering the cases of over 50 dead children. The fact of the matter is, these children were already dead. Is it really a reporters job to try and prevent crime from happening? If a reporter got a hold of this information and printed something about this man sexually assaulting his daughter, whether true or not, their jobs are in serious danger. This story should never be written by a reporter unless there is unquestioning, authoriatative evidence that this crime has in fact been committed. So then there's the answer right, easy as pie.

Well, not any kind of pie I want to be eating. Put yourself in the shoes of one of these investigative reporters. You spend six months of your life going through the evidence and talking to families of dead children. You have heard so many first hand accounts of the horrible things that have happened under the watch of the DCFS, which you know is a very flawed agency. Now you come across the case of this innocent little girl, who may or may not be in danger. What are you going to do? I don't know what the answer is to be honest. Part of me believes that this isn't a story until something horrible happens to that little girl. You can't print anything about the case until there is hard evidence. A possible option may be to contact the DCFS, and tell them that you are watching the specifics of this case and possibly even threaten them to be thorough.

The place of an investigative journalist is usually to point out the horrible things that people are capable of doing. These two reporters are starting to get caught up in the possibility in prevention of these atrocities. Maybe it is out of their line of responsibility. Or maybe they're the only people who can prevent things like this from happening. The world is filled with terrible people. Terrible people who are capable of doing terrible things. When there are children who get caught up with these people it tends to be the most tragic.

There was one question that was boiling in my head during their visit that I wussied out of asking. I am sure when my professor reads this she will scold me in her head for not asking it. This is what I was dying to ask them:

When you came across these horrible cases what was the first thing that popped into your mind? Was it "Oh my god we need to help these children? Or was it "Cha Ching! This is the best story i've had in years, call up the editor, we're gonna sell some papers!"

I think the real reason that I didn't ask it is because I knew that the answer would be some combination of both, and the fact that I asked it may hint to them that I assumed that they didn't care about these children. This is partly true, but I think it's an important question to ask. Are investigative journalists out to save the world from evil, or are they there to make a buck?

News Article - Brazilian Class Visit

Who is the President of Brazil? If they didn't know, you probably don't either.

Sergio Viera, a journalism student from Sao Paulo, Brazil, described in detail what he thought of American politics, the American president and the American economy to a journalism class at the University at Albany. In return, not a single American student could name his country's president.

When Professor Rosemary Armao posed the question from the back of the room, more than 20 students looked down at their notebooks. Then, when asked by one of the Brazilian professors if they even knew what the capital city of Brazil was, one student slowly raised her hand.

What does this say about American youth? Does this mean that they are ignorant about what's going on in the world? Brazil is one of the largest nations on earth, both geographically and in population. Was this blatant ignorance a slap in the face to the Brazilian students? Not as far as they were concerned.

The class from Mackenzie University in Sao Paulo seemed way more interested in speaking about America, its wonders and its problems, than they were about their own country. They told the class that the current economic crises that have been plaguing America have had a trickle down effect on their country.

If this class was a representative sample of what the youth of Brazil was like, any American would be highly impressed, and possibly even slightly intimidated. These students spoke fluent English, and had a clear knowledge and curiosity about the world, and its affairs.

This was not a representative sample of the Brazilian youth however. Angela Schaun, one of the Brazilian professors said, "In Brazil, there's more of a difference in people in society...a bigger gap between rich and poor." This is when Armao interjected once again from the back of the room to push her students to never let a statement go unquestioned.

"You say there's a gap, so which are you, are you rich or are you poor?" Armao called out to the unsuspecting Brazilian crew. This question shocked students, both American and Brazilian. With the silence growing one of the Brazilian students, Pedro Sorrentino, simply said, "We're not the Rockefellers, but we can afford to come here."

They may not be Rockefellers, but they do represent the most privileged class in Brazilian society and of all the places in the world to study, they chose to study here. Aside from the obvious point that a trip to America is quite cheap these days, due to the feeble American dollar, Viera said, "What brought us here were the American elections."

The class was not very shy in saying who they would vote for if they had the chance. Sorrentino said, "I would vote for Barack Obama...I don't fit at all with the republicans." The entire class seemed to agree. "Obama runs for a new future, and he has the courage to talk about new things...we have to have courage." said Professor Schaun.

This Brazilian class sees something in Barack Obama that they have seen for years in a man they lovingly refer to as "Lula." Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a man who could not be named by the average American, is the President of Brazil. Lula came from a poor upbringing, and has led the Brazilian people into one of its greatest periods, a period that is being threatened by the prospect of an American economic collapse. One of the Brazilian professors, Marcia Detoni, may have said it best. "A worker can come into power, just like a black man can become president. It shows that things are changing. We are moving step by step."

David Caliguiri

This, My Friends, is How a Federal Law is made.

I sit here tonight, in the dungeon of Herkimer hall on Colonial Quad, at the wonderful University at Albany. "Its Friday night! Why in the world would you be there instead of consuming your weight in alcohol and pizza like the rest of the UAlbany population?" you shout back at me in horror, most likely as you read this with a hangover from the escapades of your own Friday night madness. Well faithful readers, there comes a point in one's college career that you must pick where you have your fun. For instance, next Thursday, six days from now, is my 21st birthday. "Now you're talking!" You shout back at your computer screen. Well the reason that I am here on a Friday night, approaching 11pm, is because I just have too much darn work to do. I have a paper due in Visual Culture on Wednesday, a paper due in my history class the following Monday, not to mention I had to write a news story by midnight tonight. I'm sure you all will be delightfully pleased to hear that my story is finished (which will be posted here on this blog in a matter of days, once the dreaded GRADE is handed down from the power that be) and now I can move on to my papers right! Well no, thats wrong. Instead I look down at my daily planner, and like a woman who just won't quit chewing my ear off, (I should be careful almost every person who actually reads this is a woman) she tells me I have one more assignment that I have forgotten. "BLOG: HOW A FEDERAL LAW IS MADE" is what she yelled at me, taunting and judging, as she always does. I remember the days when I didn't have a daily planner, ah the good old days. Those were also the days where if I wasn't intoxicated at this point on a Friday night I was either violently ill, or...well just violently ill. Those were also the days that my GPA was as low as my drive to succeed. So nowadays I must listen to my daily planner's constant whining and complaining, "You have this due at midnight, you can't do that when will you finish the paper?" She is a cruel lady, but she has my best interests at heart. So with that being said, and without further ado, here is How A Federal Law Is Made, by me.



I bet you were all expecting something very formal and prepared. Well no actually I'm just going to wing it, just like I did with that dreadful compound interest post. Here's how it goes here in America: There are two houses of Congress, The House of Representatives, and the Senate. The Senate has two members from each state, 100 members total. The amount of representatives that a state has in the House is decided by its population. Anyone who has taken the most basic form of social studies in this country should know that, if you don't shame on you. A law can come to be by the proposal of one of these four items. A bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, and a simple resolution. For the purposes of this blog I will speak about bills, because they are the most frequently used. Now, there are two types of bills: public bills, which can affect anyone in society, and private bills, which affects a specific individual or group. How is a bill first proposed you ask? Well, bills can be proposed in a number of ways. The most common way is when it is proposed by a member of the House or of the Senate. It is also very common that a bill is proposed by the public, through the means of a petition, a right granted to Americans in the First Amendment. Another way that a bill can be proposed is through "executive communication." This is when a specific government agency, or more likely the president himself, proposes a bill to one of the legislative bodies. This was most recently seen in President Bush's bailout proposal. Another common example of this is a proposal of a federal budget by a new president. So now you know how it is proposed, lets find out how it is passed, and turned into a law.

The first step of this process is consideration by a committee. This is when the person proposing the bill can hold hearings and collect evidence about the matter of the bill. Next, after possible revisions by the committee, the bill reaches the floor of the first house. This may be the House, or it may be the Senate, both have equal legislative powers, and it usually doesn't matter which goes first. There is one exception to that. I have not come across if this is an actual law, or if this is simply due to tradition, but bills referring to revenue, taxes and such, must originate in the House. Other than that, both houses have exactly equal powers.

After a bill is passed by majority rule through the House and the Senate, it is passed to the desk of the president. If the president signs the bill, a law has been made. If the president decides not to sign it, he can use his power of executive veto. After a veto, the president sends the bill back to Congress with his objections and or suggestions. The House and the Senate can override the President's veto if they vote it back through with a 2/3 majority in each house. I would assume that in many cases, the President would not want to oppose a bill that is so strongly approved in both houses. I do not know the history of the presidential veto or how many times it has happened, maybe that is for another blog post. you know what, better yet, how about you look it up for yourself eh?

picture: http://67degrees.com/images/bill.jpg

thats the website where I found it, but I should actually give credit to where credit is really due, and that is to the wonderful people who used to make, or still do I have no idea, School House Rock. If you really want to know how a bill is made, you should go to you tube and watch the School House Rock video about it, where this picture is from.

Another Debate?!

Last debate tonight...Is anyone else as excited as I am? Well, I'm sure most of you are just as excited as I am, which for your information, is not very excited at all. I was very excited to watch the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. I was even more excited to watch the insta-classic, clash of the titans debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Both of those anticipated events were tragic disappointments as far as I am concerned. What the hell was I expecting? Did I really think that the candidates would go toe to toe and discuss and argue on stage things that I would find interesting and exciting? The truth is, I don't have any freaking idea what either of those clowns are saying up there, and after about twenty minutes, I could care less. I've heard the same cliche, stock phrases spewed over and over again. What I enjoy way more than the debates themselves, are the emails I receive from factcheck.org that inform me on all of the things that these guys are saying that are complete and total BS. If you have read previous posts in this blog, you probably know that I tend to lean slightly to the left. I think that has more to do with the foul smell coming from the right, rather than a strong allegiance with the left. I do not leave Obama out of these criticisms. He has spewed just as much bologna as McCain has during the first two debates. I also believe that he has said more things of purpose than McCain has. Either way, my real point is that these debates suck. I don't really know why exactly, but they're borderline impossible to watch. They agree and agree and then they disagree, what about? Oh whoops I must have missed that. I'm very excited to get out and vote on Nov. 4th. Mostly because all of this garbage can stop being thrown around in front of my face.

Do YOU know who the president of Brazil is?

I had a very interesting and exciting opportunity in my journalism class this morning. A journalism class from Sao Paulo, Brazil came in and spoke with us. We started off with a press conference, with the Brazilian students and teachers answering our questions. The press conference was very boring for the most part, discussing politics and the economy. At one point, Professor Armao interjected and said, "You guys know everything about the American President, do any of you have ANY idea who the president of Brazil is?" An uncomfortable silence followed because not a single person in the class, myself included, had any clue whatsoever. What does that mean? Well I'm not too sure if it means that Americans are egotistical and self-centered, but it certainly seemed that way during that long awkward silence. Who is the President of Brazil? Well I hit the net to find out.

His name is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, but is lovingly known by Brazilian people as "Lula." He was born on October 27, 1945 in Caetes, Pernambuco. He was elected to office on his birthday in 2002, re-elected in 2006, and will be serving his current term until 2011. He is the founder of the party that is currently in power, The Workers Party. According to BBC news, four years ago he became the first left-wing contender to hold the country's highest office in nearly half a century, following a landslide victory. He has also promised to boost economic growth and reduce inequality to put the country on track to reach the ranks of developed nations. Lula was raised and lived in poverty, and now holds the most respected position in the nation.

For Sale: A Blog...Never Read.

The blog assignment that was assigned for this week's class was to write a novel about yourself using only seven words. This assignment was inspired by Ernest Hemingway's very famous six word novel:

"For sale: baby shoes, never used."

Now why our gracious leader and friend we call professor decided to have us write seven words instead of six is beyond me. I'm starting to believe that I must have written down the assignment incorrectly. Yet, since my notebook says: "blog: me in 7 words," and that is the only thing I have to go by, seven words it is. How could I possibly boil myself down into seven words? I have been living on this rock of an planet for almost 21 years and my feelings, emotions, actions, and values would be enough to fill an entire volume (a volume that will one day be written for your information, my faithful readers). Seven words?! Come on, teach, how in the world can I do that? I've been sitting here at this computer for only ten minutes or so, and I've already written a whole bunch of words. This seven word assignment has plagued me for the better part of a week now. Nothing interesting came to my mind for way too long.

I was sitting in my broadcast journalism class today, waiting for the professor to start the class, looking through my little planner considering my upcoming assignments (which may or may not have included this blog you are reading). At first I started to get a little freaked out. When the hell am I going to have time to do all this stuff> I have five very rigorous classes, while working 12 hours a week at WAMC and almost 20 a week at DP Dough, delivering calzones to the hungry of UAlbany. It was at this moment when I knew what my seven word novel would be. I can go on describing to you exactly what I mean by it, but like Hemingway, I'm going to let the words speak for themselves:


"Just tell me when, and it's done."

-David Scott Caliguiri

Lets Sling some Mud

Who ever said that the campaign trail was a friendly place? Not any person who has ever run for president, thats for damn sure. Here we are, just under a month until judgment day and all we are hearing about now is what kind of underhanded criminals that Barack Obama is, or has been associated with. William Ayers is a name that has popped up in almost every article about the election over the past week. I have to be completely honest here, I don't really know all that much about who William Ayers is, other than the fact that he is very radical, and some say he is connected with terrorist activity. I also don't really know the facts about Mr. Ayers' relationship with Obama, whether it exists or it is a mudslinging campaign ploy. What I am here to discuss is that I am not all too concerned with every single person that Barack Obama has worked with or come into contact with over his political career. If Barack Obama had a friendly lunch with a man who three years later raped and murdered an innocent person, would that mean that Obama was in some way connected? Would that mean that he has or will ever rape or murder someone?

The latest remarks made by Sarah Palin have been countless attacks on Obama's ties with certain questionable individuals. First it was this Ayers character, and now its the two Fannie Mac executives. Then she has the audacity to make a remark like this:

"For a campaign that says it's all about the future, our opponents spend a lot of time talking about the past," she said. "They look to the past because that's where you find blame. We look to the future because that's where you find solutions." (this was taken from the Washinton Post.)

Excuse me, Mrs. Governor, if you are so intent on discussing the future, how about YOU stop looking towards Mr. Obama's past. Now I do understand that I have not listened to these speeches in their entirety, and the papers always focus on the most controversial angles. It just frustrates me to see Sarah Palin criticize Obama for criticizing McCain's past voting records, all the while she can't shut up about Bill Ayers.

I am an aspiring journalist, and gosh darn it I am doing my best to stay partial here. I have done everything in my power to take what each candidate is saying, weigh it evenly, and evaluate it myself. I just find it so damn hard to do when it comes to Sarah Palin. Everything she says seems to me like an unwarranted, unsubstantiated personal attack, with complete disregard to the issues. When she was first nominated, I thought she was a genius strategy. She is a feisty woman who turned the GOP upside down. I thought she was a perfect fit. Since then though, I am starting to think that she will be the eventual demise of the John McCain campaign. I believe that for the most part, people do not take her seriously, and certainly can not envision her in a position of executive.

In the end, I do believe it will be the economic climate of this country today that will be the deciding factor in an Obama victory, even with Sarah Palin accusing Obama of using the crisis for his own political gain. I hope the American people can see through that claim. Barack Obama has said again and again that he is not interested in personal shots and mudslinging, and he wants to stick to the issues. Some say this is because he is afraid of what people digging in his past may find. I say this is is because he knows what hes doing, and knows full well that in a toe to toe battle on the issues, he can come out on top.

Dancing with the Politicians

There's nothing like debating what happened during a debate right? The anticipation for last night's VP debate from St. Louis was huge and it was certainly more watched then the previous week's debate from two guys named John and Barack. Who are they? Well if you forgot those are the two men who are running for PRESIDENT of the United States of America. Oh right, you remember them now. This epic debate really brought me back to the classic 2000 VP debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman...what you don't remember it? Oh thats probably because NOBODY DOES. Did anyone even watch it? Did it even really happen? Well I just googled it, and yes, there was a VP debate in 2000. Maybe I just missed it because I was only thirteen, and definitely more interested in the Yankees trouncing the Mets in the subway series, winning their fourth world series in five years. What about the classic Cheney/Edwards debate of '04, puhleease, nobody in America watched that either. If they did, they probably don't remember it. Early reports show that this debate last night received a 45.1 rating on the Nielsen scale, while last week's debate only received a 33.1. What the hell does that mean? Well to me, it means a heck of a lot more people were watching last night. The New York Times reported that if these numbers hold up throughout the day, this will be the most watched debate ever. Let me reiterate that for emphasis, just as Joe Biden did frequently last night, THE MOST WATCHED DEBATE EVER. Why in the world would this debate be the most watched debate ever?

Here's my best answer: Well it isn't because of Joe Biden. Its because of SARAH PALIN. We love her, we despise her, we want to be her, and we want to nail her. She is everything we love and hate about American politics. She's beautiful, she's sassy, she's inexperienced, she's courageous. She stood up in front of almost half of the American people last night and gave a six-term senator the business, with a wink and a condescending tone.

I just screened the phone calls for Vox Pop, WAMC's daily call in show. Today's topic shockingly was the VP debate. One caller said that Sarah Palin was unbelievable, and she was shocked at how amazing she did. The very next caller said this exact quote, "Sarah Palin is an embarrassment to the women of America." People called in about her winking, her flirting and her inability to answer pointed questions. There weren't too many calls about the issues, the what? THE ISSUES.

What the hell are the issues anyway? Bailout, gay marriage, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan among many others. Do these two campaigns take opposing stands on all of these issues? NO. Instead they cordially agree on almost everything, all the while bickering about minute details that will most likely have no effect on the future of the American experience. There is one issue that the two campaigns tend to differ on, and that is taxes. Obama's tax plan has been clearly stated to the American public numerous times, while the details of McCain's plan has eluded me over these first two debates. These candidates have to start talking more about what they are going to do, start answering questions, and stop dancing around the podium like they're on DANCING WITH THE POLITICIANS. (I guess the words "politician" and "star" really have no difference in today's world.)

If you are interested in knowing what kind of phony boloney(i know its bologna, but that doesn't look like it rhymes on paper,) these candidates are spewing in their public appearances I urge you to go to www.factcheck.org . This is a wonderful site that filters out the true from the false, and the real meat of the issue from the "bologna."

Is Sarah Palin a politician? Or is she a celebrity? Is there a difference? Should there be a difference? I'll leave you with this one point. Sarah Palin makes you feel warm and cozy about how she is just like you. She is a hockey mom from main street America, who knows what the American worker is going through, and I really can't deny that claim. One caller on Vox pop today said something that really stuck with me:

"I want my executives to be smarter than I am."

Don't we all?

Why am I even writing this? Its not like anyone can read anymore!

This article by Thomas Washington out of the Times Union really hit home for me. The article was titled, "Searchers, not readers, on overload." The main gist of the article was that the number of kids these days who read books regularly is decreasing steadily. Not only do I believe that this is a growing problem, but I have lived through this new Internet age, and am a prime example of these findings. Throughout my years in elementary school, middle school and high school, I hated reading. I would never have chose to read a book over watching TV or going on the internet. I remember in third grade my teacher gave out a "reading contract." This was a document that you had to sign saying what books you have been reading. This reading contract

used to give me freaking nightmares because I hated reading so much. I was in advanced english classes all through high school, and I barely ever finished the books that were assigned. I read half of Huck Finn before sparknoting the rest, and of course did very well on the test, (which of course is all that mattered to me). The summer before 11th grade I had to read the Great Gadsby and the Scarlett Letter and write a paper comparing them. I actually read the Great Gadsby in its entirety, but never even opened the Scarlett Letter for a second. I got an A on the paper. This brings me to the reason I did not read any more books in high school. PinkMonkey.com was brought to my attention when you had to start paying for Sparknotes. PinkMonkey was more indepth and almost always enough information for the test/paper. Thats how it was, when I got a book to read, instead of reading it I would let it sit on my desk gathering dust for a few weeks, then I would figure out how to know that book inside and out without reading a word of it. I was so good at this system no teacher ever knew the difference. Then I came to college. I played this little game freshmen year too. A's quickly turned to C's though, and my time faking to read books was over. Now, three years after that, I love to read. I get so much satisfaction from finishing a book. I still get that urge to turn on the TV or do something else while I'm reading though. I think this article brings up a very important problem in our society today. I think one way it can be solved is to take away all tests on reading in grade school. If teachers would spend more time talking about the books, and evaluating how well a student understands it, rather than just testing them on little pieces of information throughout the text, kids will be more likely to read the material. Kids in school have one agenda and one agenda only, and that's to get a good grade. Most kids aren't interested in learning, and to most its that letter grade that means everything.

picture: http://library.exeter.ac.uk/infoskills/images/pile_of_books.gif

A New Era of Journalism

A blog, short for web log, is a new type of Journalism that has grown out of the internet age. Merely twenty years ago, Journalists were bound to the newspaper, radio or television, and receiving jobs in those fields always required a high level of education. The main criticism of blogs today is that anyone can write them, and there is no way to verify the facts that they portray. This has started a new era of "citizen journalism" where anyone with a camera phone and an internet connection can be a Journalist and have their voice heard.

There are positive aspects of blogging though, they can do things that newspapers and radios could never dream of doing. They can interweave articles with streaming videos, graphics, and links to thousands of other sites that may be of interest. While the fact may be harder to come by in the growing age of Internet Journalism, the interactive nature that the news is being portrayed is changing the way we see the world.

So many people today are uninformed, they aren't reading the newspapers, and they aren't listening to the news on the radio. Blogging may very well be the future for an informed American citizen. In this age, reading, thinking and learning have given way to blogging, clicking and surfing. For a person who is against the institution of blogging i would ask, would you rather have a person who is informed by a blog, or not informed at all?

A Brand New Blog!

My name is David Caliguiri. I am a senior at the University at Albany. My major is history, but my minor is my current concentration, which is Journalism. I set up this blog for my intro to news writing class here at the University. What better of a time to get started into Journalism than the year of a Presidential Election. This being my first election that I can vote in, I narrowly missed the 2004 elections, I was only 17. This isn't just any election though, this will surely prove to be the most important election of my lifetime so far, and maybe even for the rest of it. Barack Obama stands under a slogan of "Yes We Can", as a black man with modest roots trying to change a conservative regime that has brought this nation into senseless war, and into one of the worst economic crises in our nations history, and it's only getting worse. As a Journalist, I will put my own beliefs and values aside when covering the news. On this blog though, you will hear what I have to say, and how I really feel. Barack Obama represents the direction this nation needs to head. I'll leave you with a poem that I wrote on the topic.

Can One Man Change the World?




Sometimes I wonder
what the world will be
like
with you
at the helm
of the most magnificent military machine
the world has ever known. Yet
you are not a soldier,
you are not a warrior.
your opponent on the other hand,
he is a man who is comfortable
with a shotgun
in his hand and his heel firmly pressed
on the back of your neck.

An avalanche
of smoldering red hot states are
looming overhead.
Though California and New York always keep a
cool blue, will it be
enough to
save you?

When you take your campaign to an inner-city
park, do you look at that little girl
on the swing and think of Ohio and Florida
and beg for her to swing
to the left?

You’re a black man trying to lead a white nation.

You’re a pacifist in a time of war.

You are nothing that they want,

yet everything we need.


One man can’t change


the world.