So there's another drug scandal in the world of baseball - surprise surprise. What is it with baseball players and performance-enhancing substances? How is that no other sport is so riddled with drug abuse as the one that requires probably the least physical exertion (sorry, baseball fans, but running around the bases doesn't quite amount to the cardio workout involved in a basketball or soccer game).
Anyway, this time it's Manny Ramirez of the Dodgers who's busted. According to The New York Times, he wasn't using steroids but a prescription drug for personal health reasons that violated the MLB's substance policy. He'll be out until July 3rd and will lose one-third of his salary. Boo-hoo - he'll only get $16 million this year.
As for the article itself, Michael S. Schmidt did a pretty good job. It's short, sweet, and to the point - how it should be. The way Schmidt presented the information also did not create any bias towards or against Ramirez, which isn't easy in this case. People generally think that he either got a rough break for an honest mistake while players like Mark McGuire, Alex Rodriguez, and Barry Bonds got off without a suspension pre-2004, or they're of the opinion that his "personal health problem" isn't legit and that he's been trying to trick the system with a prescription drug. Either way, both sides are pretty charged, and Schmidt does a good job walking the line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/sports/baseball/08ramirez.html?_r=1&hp
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Flu Deja Vu
So I was reading the news today and was thinking "Hmm... where have I heard this before..." when I realized, oh yeah, just a few years ago we were all freaking out about bird flu. First birds, now pigs. What's next?
So anyway, the United States government declared a public health emergency over the currently spreading swine flu. So far, 20 cases have been confirmed in the US, and scientists are expecting more. Declaring a public health emergency doesn't necessarily mean that there is one, though, just that we should prepare for it. Basically, it allows greater government response, freeing resources for diagnosis, prevention, and antiviral drugs. Basically, there's no need to panic, people... yet.
However, other countries are taking a more serious view, taking big steps such as quarantining sick travelers, screening all air travelers, and banning pork imports from Mexico, where the disease originated (even though there's no connection between the food and the disease).
I don't know how serious this disease is going to get, but maybe the US government should be even a little more concerned. After all, President Obama's health secretary and nomination for the FDA have not even been approved by the Senate yet. And even though only 8 people had confirmed cases of the swine flu in Queens, 100 kids got sick at St. Francis Preparatory School there. And scientists don't really know if our current antiviral medications - Tamiflu and Relenza are actually effective. Who knows, maybe we should be screening all travelers from Mexico, instead of just taking interest in those that appear sick.
As an article, I was sort of satisfied with the story. It did present a lot of important information, but it wasn't necessarily concise. A lot of the quotes that were used were unnecessary, and the reporter used phrases like "global pandemic" - which, if you know what pandemic means, is completely redundant. I would have found it interesting if the reporter talked about the comparison between the swine flu and the bird flu, or talked about how people become infected with the swine flu. I understand that wasn't the angle that she was taking, but had she been more concise with the information she did present, there would've been ample room to insert a little blurb about the other aspects of the story.
U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/world/27flu.html?_r=1&hp
So anyway, the United States government declared a public health emergency over the currently spreading swine flu. So far, 20 cases have been confirmed in the US, and scientists are expecting more. Declaring a public health emergency doesn't necessarily mean that there is one, though, just that we should prepare for it. Basically, it allows greater government response, freeing resources for diagnosis, prevention, and antiviral drugs. Basically, there's no need to panic, people... yet.
However, other countries are taking a more serious view, taking big steps such as quarantining sick travelers, screening all air travelers, and banning pork imports from Mexico, where the disease originated (even though there's no connection between the food and the disease).
I don't know how serious this disease is going to get, but maybe the US government should be even a little more concerned. After all, President Obama's health secretary and nomination for the FDA have not even been approved by the Senate yet. And even though only 8 people had confirmed cases of the swine flu in Queens, 100 kids got sick at St. Francis Preparatory School there. And scientists don't really know if our current antiviral medications - Tamiflu and Relenza are actually effective. Who knows, maybe we should be screening all travelers from Mexico, instead of just taking interest in those that appear sick.
As an article, I was sort of satisfied with the story. It did present a lot of important information, but it wasn't necessarily concise. A lot of the quotes that were used were unnecessary, and the reporter used phrases like "global pandemic" - which, if you know what pandemic means, is completely redundant. I would have found it interesting if the reporter talked about the comparison between the swine flu and the bird flu, or talked about how people become infected with the swine flu. I understand that wasn't the angle that she was taking, but had she been more concise with the information she did present, there would've been ample room to insert a little blurb about the other aspects of the story.
U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/world/27flu.html?_r=1&hp
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Loving the Hatred
So sometimes reviews can get a little stale, especially ones that tear down something that the general public seems to like. If a reporter is overly critical and the reader disagrees with his/her opinion, the article can easily come off as an unreasonable, ranting tirade. Virginia Heffernan, on the other hand, attacks one of the most beloved new devices – the iPhone – in a way that instead of putting off readers, makes them laugh.
Heffernan’s article is successful because it’s hilarious. Just like in satire, people are more accepting to potentially offensive messages if they’re laughing. So Heffernan’s witty use of sophisticated adjectives, personification, and metaphors describing her hated iPhone lend themselves perfectly to her piece. I mean, as soon as you call a phone, “Refined, introverted, mysteriously chilled,” as Heffernan does in her second sentence, you’ve hooked the reader to see what the heck you’re talking about.
Maybe Heffernan goes a little extreme in her tirade, but that’s kind of the point. I doubt that she was actually “fighting rage” at four in the morning, as she said she was, but it just makes the article that much funnier. I especially enjoyed the exchange between Heffernan and the AT&T saleswoman in which the iPhone is compared to a newborn baby. Priceless.
The thing is, through the laughter, some of what Heffernan says truly rings through. I agree with the fact that the keypad on the iPhone is hard to use (I don’t personally own one, and my fingers are pretty clumsy I guess), and Heffernan’s whole bit about thinking with her thumbs as opposed to her forefinger had me in stitches. So did the way she characterized the iPhone’s word suggestions as bossy and insincere.
Overall, the article was a laugh, and a refreshing one. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?em
Heffernan’s article is successful because it’s hilarious. Just like in satire, people are more accepting to potentially offensive messages if they’re laughing. So Heffernan’s witty use of sophisticated adjectives, personification, and metaphors describing her hated iPhone lend themselves perfectly to her piece. I mean, as soon as you call a phone, “Refined, introverted, mysteriously chilled,” as Heffernan does in her second sentence, you’ve hooked the reader to see what the heck you’re talking about.
Maybe Heffernan goes a little extreme in her tirade, but that’s kind of the point. I doubt that she was actually “fighting rage” at four in the morning, as she said she was, but it just makes the article that much funnier. I especially enjoyed the exchange between Heffernan and the AT&T saleswoman in which the iPhone is compared to a newborn baby. Priceless.
The thing is, through the laughter, some of what Heffernan says truly rings through. I agree with the fact that the keypad on the iPhone is hard to use (I don’t personally own one, and my fingers are pretty clumsy I guess), and Heffernan’s whole bit about thinking with her thumbs as opposed to her forefinger had me in stitches. So did the way she characterized the iPhone’s word suggestions as bossy and insincere.
Overall, the article was a laugh, and a refreshing one. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?em
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
School strip search?
I was absolutely horrified when I read this article in the New York Times today. Never have I been so shocked or disgusted with a school district in my life.
Savana Redding, a now nineteen-year-old girl, was strip searched in by two school officials in eighth grade when she was suspected of carrying prescription strength ibuprofen, which would have violated the school's zero toleration drug policy. She was thirteen years old. Thirteen years old and asked to strip search. In her middle school. Thirteen years old.
That just blows my mind. My sister is turning thirteen this year. I can't even imagine the NMS nurse and secretary searching her body for drugs. That sounds more like a prison than a public school to me.
Savana had apparently been somewhere in between "nerdy" and "preppy" in eighth grade, and when one of her former friends who had turned "goth" was caught with the pills, she blamed Savana for providing them. The school nurse and secretary subsequently required her to strip to her underwear, pull out her bra and move it side to side, and open her legs to pull out her underwear.
Now, Savana's case against the school board is rising to the Supreme Court; it will be presented on April 21st.
The other part of the story that I can't wrap my head around is that the school is continuing to fight her. As Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said, "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights." Savana's case won in that court, which ruled that the school officials had violated her Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, so the fact that it's now going to the Supreme Court means that the school appealed the jurisdiction to the higher court.
The school district says that because abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications is on the rise among 12- and 13-year-olds, the search was “not excessively intrusive in light of Redding’s age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.” Maybe that gave them better cause to search her than just the fact that another tween girl accused her of possessing drugs (I mean, how credible is an accusation from one thirteen-year-old girl if it's directed at a friend with whom she had a falling-out?), but the abuse of these medications among tweens does not make the search any less intrusive. In fact, "in light of Redding's age and sex," I think the search was more intrusive - thirteen is when puberty's starting, when being strip-searched would probably be most scarring. The school nurse, one of the two women who conducted the search, said Savana "never appeared apprehensive or embarrassed," which is total bs. So the girl hid her terror and emotions because she was listening to what her school officials told her to do. These are the people that she's supposed to trust, that she's supposed to follow. The fact that she managed to keep her head down and hold back her tears doesn't mean that the search was any less traumatizing. She transferred to another school and developed stomach ulcers, for goodness' sake! These people should not be allowed to work around little kids!
The last court case involving student's Fourth Amendment rights in public schools was 1985's New Jersey v T.L.O. The article references the case, but I wish it had named it so that those interested could've easily looked it up (I just happened to know because I just wrote a scholarship involving it). That case ruled that school officials don't need probable cause to search students, but they do need reasonable in suspecting that said searches will indeed uncover incriminating evidence. Not only do I think that Savana's Fourth Amendment rights were violated - what reasonable teacher would suspect a 13-yr-old with no disciplinary record to have hidden ibuprofen beneath her clothing? - but she was denied her Fifth Amendment rights, too. The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." and in its execution there are two parts - substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process basically deals with whether the word of law itself is fair, and procedural due process addresses whether a law's enforcement is executed fairly. The school's zero tolerance drug policy is fine, but clearly the procedural due process of its execution in Savana's case was nonexistent.
First of all, I want to point out that the headline, "Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy" probably draws in 500x more readers just because it has the words "strip-search" and "school" in the same sentence. Nice move, Adam Liptak. I do have to admit that the reporting of the story is slanted towards Savana, but in this situation, I think it would be near impossible to write an unbiased article as a human being with any ounce of compassion. By starting out with the sentence, "Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on — black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt — the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade," Adam Liptak forces the reader to put themselves in the shoes (or clothes) of the violated girl, an introduction that immediately calls for sympathy towards her. It's definitely an effective way to catch an audience, and in a delicate story like this, Liptak is probably safer writing an article biased towards Savana (after all, hasn't the poor girl been through enough trauma without unsympathetic press coverage?). However, graphically describing the strip search and the clothes Savana had to remove indicates a deliberate choice of Liptak's to prioritize the support for Savana above the straight, dry reporting of a sensitive subject. Savana and those on "her side" are quoted much more than the school board's side, but to Liptak's credit, the Superintendent of Schools Mark R. Tregaskes did not respond to Liptak's messages. At least he was given the opportunity to speak for himself.
Another important thing that Liptak brings up, which fills in some opposition a little more clearly, is that Supreme Court cases set precedents - major precedents. Its rulings have the strength of law. Professor Richard Arum at NYU is quoted, "Do we really want to encourage cases where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
It is a good point - if Savana can get money now, other kids could sue for money from public schools for less traumatic incidents. Even if they wouldn't win, defense in court is expensive, an I'm pretty sure America's public schools can't afford that. But, as Arum said, this could potentially be an issue when "people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances". I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Savana's strip search wasn't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all
Savana Redding, a now nineteen-year-old girl, was strip searched in by two school officials in eighth grade when she was suspected of carrying prescription strength ibuprofen, which would have violated the school's zero toleration drug policy. She was thirteen years old. Thirteen years old and asked to strip search. In her middle school. Thirteen years old.
That just blows my mind. My sister is turning thirteen this year. I can't even imagine the NMS nurse and secretary searching her body for drugs. That sounds more like a prison than a public school to me.
Savana had apparently been somewhere in between "nerdy" and "preppy" in eighth grade, and when one of her former friends who had turned "goth" was caught with the pills, she blamed Savana for providing them. The school nurse and secretary subsequently required her to strip to her underwear, pull out her bra and move it side to side, and open her legs to pull out her underwear.
Now, Savana's case against the school board is rising to the Supreme Court; it will be presented on April 21st.
The other part of the story that I can't wrap my head around is that the school is continuing to fight her. As Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco said, "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights." Savana's case won in that court, which ruled that the school officials had violated her Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches, so the fact that it's now going to the Supreme Court means that the school appealed the jurisdiction to the higher court.
The school district says that because abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications is on the rise among 12- and 13-year-olds, the search was “not excessively intrusive in light of Redding’s age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.” Maybe that gave them better cause to search her than just the fact that another tween girl accused her of possessing drugs (I mean, how credible is an accusation from one thirteen-year-old girl if it's directed at a friend with whom she had a falling-out?), but the abuse of these medications among tweens does not make the search any less intrusive. In fact, "in light of Redding's age and sex," I think the search was more intrusive - thirteen is when puberty's starting, when being strip-searched would probably be most scarring. The school nurse, one of the two women who conducted the search, said Savana "never appeared apprehensive or embarrassed," which is total bs. So the girl hid her terror and emotions because she was listening to what her school officials told her to do. These are the people that she's supposed to trust, that she's supposed to follow. The fact that she managed to keep her head down and hold back her tears doesn't mean that the search was any less traumatizing. She transferred to another school and developed stomach ulcers, for goodness' sake! These people should not be allowed to work around little kids!
The last court case involving student's Fourth Amendment rights in public schools was 1985's New Jersey v T.L.O. The article references the case, but I wish it had named it so that those interested could've easily looked it up (I just happened to know because I just wrote a scholarship involving it). That case ruled that school officials don't need probable cause to search students, but they do need reasonable in suspecting that said searches will indeed uncover incriminating evidence. Not only do I think that Savana's Fourth Amendment rights were violated - what reasonable teacher would suspect a 13-yr-old with no disciplinary record to have hidden ibuprofen beneath her clothing? - but she was denied her Fifth Amendment rights, too. The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." and in its execution there are two parts - substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process basically deals with whether the word of law itself is fair, and procedural due process addresses whether a law's enforcement is executed fairly. The school's zero tolerance drug policy is fine, but clearly the procedural due process of its execution in Savana's case was nonexistent.
First of all, I want to point out that the headline, "Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy" probably draws in 500x more readers just because it has the words "strip-search" and "school" in the same sentence. Nice move, Adam Liptak. I do have to admit that the reporting of the story is slanted towards Savana, but in this situation, I think it would be near impossible to write an unbiased article as a human being with any ounce of compassion. By starting out with the sentence, "Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on — black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt — the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade," Adam Liptak forces the reader to put themselves in the shoes (or clothes) of the violated girl, an introduction that immediately calls for sympathy towards her. It's definitely an effective way to catch an audience, and in a delicate story like this, Liptak is probably safer writing an article biased towards Savana (after all, hasn't the poor girl been through enough trauma without unsympathetic press coverage?). However, graphically describing the strip search and the clothes Savana had to remove indicates a deliberate choice of Liptak's to prioritize the support for Savana above the straight, dry reporting of a sensitive subject. Savana and those on "her side" are quoted much more than the school board's side, but to Liptak's credit, the Superintendent of Schools Mark R. Tregaskes did not respond to Liptak's messages. At least he was given the opportunity to speak for himself.
Another important thing that Liptak brings up, which fills in some opposition a little more clearly, is that Supreme Court cases set precedents - major precedents. Its rulings have the strength of law. Professor Richard Arum at NYU is quoted, "Do we really want to encourage cases where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
It is a good point - if Savana can get money now, other kids could sue for money from public schools for less traumatic incidents. Even if they wouldn't win, defense in court is expensive, an I'm pretty sure America's public schools can't afford that. But, as Arum said, this could potentially be an issue when "people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances". I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Savana's strip search wasn't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Making pot legal - for the citizens or the state?
The article I'm responding to is incredibly short; I heard this story on the radio this morning and just wanted to comment more on the content of the news, rather than the style of the reporting.
Basically California State Assemblyman (unlike Connecticut, California has assemblymen rather than state senators or representatives) Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco, proposed a bill yesterday that would legalize marijuana in the state of California.
The bill's not for the potheads, though, it's a money maker.
You see, if the bill were to be passed, citizens would have to be 21 to purchase marijuana (similar to the sale of alcohol)... and they would pay a tax of $50 per ounce. Ammiano estimated that this could raise more that $1.3 billion for the state of California.
Personally, I think this bill is irresponsible and unethical. Maybe I'm reading into this the wrong way, but to me, Ammiano is saying, "Well, we need some money for the state. Why don't we open the doors to a lucrative market, and then just make sure we get a profit off of it. The citizens? Who cares if they'll harm their health or get into other drugs. They'll be high - they won't mind."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11766760
Basically California State Assemblyman (unlike Connecticut, California has assemblymen rather than state senators or representatives) Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco, proposed a bill yesterday that would legalize marijuana in the state of California.
The bill's not for the potheads, though, it's a money maker.
You see, if the bill were to be passed, citizens would have to be 21 to purchase marijuana (similar to the sale of alcohol)... and they would pay a tax of $50 per ounce. Ammiano estimated that this could raise more that $1.3 billion for the state of California.
Personally, I think this bill is irresponsible and unethical. Maybe I'm reading into this the wrong way, but to me, Ammiano is saying, "Well, we need some money for the state. Why don't we open the doors to a lucrative market, and then just make sure we get a profit off of it. The citizens? Who cares if they'll harm their health or get into other drugs. They'll be high - they won't mind."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11766760
Friday, January 30, 2009
Soldier Suicide - Searching for a better way out?
After taking a look at "typical" America (especially if it was at a town like Newtown, CT), one probably wouldn't immediately guess that we're a country involved in multiple wars. Sure, we hear the news reports, but we don't really know what's going on. Sure, we hear about the casualties, and sure, we regret them, but on a day to day basis, the wars we're fighting don't affect us at home to the extent that some of our past fights have.
Maybe that's part of the reason why so many soldiers are seeking suicide.
According to a report by the U.S. Army released on Thursday, suicide levels in the Army have steadily increased over the last four years, reaching the highest level in three decades. In 2008, at least 128 soldiers took their own lives (possibly 143 - 15 deaths are still under investigation), and for the first time since the Vietnam War, the Army suicide rate (now 20.2%) has exceeded the civilian suicide rate (19.2%). 30% of the suicides took place in deployment, 35% after deployment, and 35% without deployment.
Honestly, the extent of suicide in the army doesn't shock me. If the soldiers in the Middle East share the opinions of many Americans do back home, they probably feel like they're fighting a hopeless fight. The general lack of support for the war can't be encouraging either. With alternatives like death on the battlefield, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol abuse, and family problems, suicide probably seems appealing to soldiers who've lost friends and comrades, or who dread the whole ordeal.
It was reported in the article that Pete Geren, secretary of the Army, said the Army was trying to increase measures to prevent future suicides. They're hiring more general practitioners, mental health care providers, and are planning a "stand-down" day to address recognizing and treating suicidal behavior. Honestly, though, there's only so much the Army itself can do. I mean, war is a depressing thing, and you can't force people to seek help. And as Lizett Alvarez, the author of the article, pointed out, "... a warrior culture that discorages treatment persists."
Needless to say, this is a tough topic to report on. As a news story, Alvarez did a good job in getting the important facts across, early in the article, without personal commentary. But it seemed to me that in her efforts to remain objective in reporting facts without drawing conclusions, her language was a little choppy. Naturally, the story will never read as smoothly as a feature article on a topic such as this, which would probably interview family members or soldiers themselves to look at a more personal side of the issue. But Alvarez's transitions between paragraphs and ideas were unnecessarily abrupt (for example, inserting statistics about marriage status of suicide victims and 2007 suicide statistics in unseemly places), even given the nature of her article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30suicide.html?_r=1&ref=us
Maybe that's part of the reason why so many soldiers are seeking suicide.
According to a report by the U.S. Army released on Thursday, suicide levels in the Army have steadily increased over the last four years, reaching the highest level in three decades. In 2008, at least 128 soldiers took their own lives (possibly 143 - 15 deaths are still under investigation), and for the first time since the Vietnam War, the Army suicide rate (now 20.2%) has exceeded the civilian suicide rate (19.2%). 30% of the suicides took place in deployment, 35% after deployment, and 35% without deployment.
Honestly, the extent of suicide in the army doesn't shock me. If the soldiers in the Middle East share the opinions of many Americans do back home, they probably feel like they're fighting a hopeless fight. The general lack of support for the war can't be encouraging either. With alternatives like death on the battlefield, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol abuse, and family problems, suicide probably seems appealing to soldiers who've lost friends and comrades, or who dread the whole ordeal.
It was reported in the article that Pete Geren, secretary of the Army, said the Army was trying to increase measures to prevent future suicides. They're hiring more general practitioners, mental health care providers, and are planning a "stand-down" day to address recognizing and treating suicidal behavior. Honestly, though, there's only so much the Army itself can do. I mean, war is a depressing thing, and you can't force people to seek help. And as Lizett Alvarez, the author of the article, pointed out, "... a warrior culture that discorages treatment persists."
Needless to say, this is a tough topic to report on. As a news story, Alvarez did a good job in getting the important facts across, early in the article, without personal commentary. But it seemed to me that in her efforts to remain objective in reporting facts without drawing conclusions, her language was a little choppy. Naturally, the story will never read as smoothly as a feature article on a topic such as this, which would probably interview family members or soldiers themselves to look at a more personal side of the issue. But Alvarez's transitions between paragraphs and ideas were unnecessarily abrupt (for example, inserting statistics about marriage status of suicide victims and 2007 suicide statistics in unseemly places), even given the nature of her article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/30suicide.html?_r=1&ref=us
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
So on Monday, the Senate agreed to seat Roland Burris, who was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat.
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Senate's decision. They decided to seat Burris after reviewing "new credentials presented today" and because he agreed to testify against Blagojevich in his impeachment. I'm curious to know what new credentials were presented to justify his appointment. What could the man have done in the past month or so that would be significant enough for the Senate to review it and decide to seat him?
Also, I'm not an expert on Blagojevich's impeachment, but if Burris was connected enough with him to make a valuable testimony against him, wouldn't that also imply that he is guilty of participating in the corrupt exchange? I guess the Senate doesn't have any constitutional right to fill Obama's vacancy, and they would have to wait until the next governor of Illinois was sworn in to get a new senator. And, after all, he's one man of 100 - it's not the absolute end of the world to have a senator you don't agree with represent you. Accepting Burris was probably the most practical option, even if not everyone is happy about it.
Personally, I think the Blagojevich scandal should prompt the states to amend their state constitutions, or Congress to amend the US Constitution, and establish that Senate vacancies be filled by some sort of vote. Putting that much power of appointment in the hands of an individual obviously is putting too much faith in his/her moral conscience, and is a problem that needs to be remedied.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/burris.senate/index.html?section=cnn_latest
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Senate's decision. They decided to seat Burris after reviewing "new credentials presented today" and because he agreed to testify against Blagojevich in his impeachment. I'm curious to know what new credentials were presented to justify his appointment. What could the man have done in the past month or so that would be significant enough for the Senate to review it and decide to seat him?
Also, I'm not an expert on Blagojevich's impeachment, but if Burris was connected enough with him to make a valuable testimony against him, wouldn't that also imply that he is guilty of participating in the corrupt exchange? I guess the Senate doesn't have any constitutional right to fill Obama's vacancy, and they would have to wait until the next governor of Illinois was sworn in to get a new senator. And, after all, he's one man of 100 - it's not the absolute end of the world to have a senator you don't agree with represent you. Accepting Burris was probably the most practical option, even if not everyone is happy about it.
Personally, I think the Blagojevich scandal should prompt the states to amend their state constitutions, or Congress to amend the US Constitution, and establish that Senate vacancies be filled by some sort of vote. Putting that much power of appointment in the hands of an individual obviously is putting too much faith in his/her moral conscience, and is a problem that needs to be remedied.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/12/burris.senate/index.html?section=cnn_latest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
