Treasury Department approves $5 billion for GMAC

The Treasury Department has said that it would invest $5 million dollars in GMAC LLC and would loan as much as $1 billion to General Motors Corp. as part of its effort to aid the struggling U.S. auto industry. General Motors owns 49% of GMAC, which provides financing for auto dealerships and auto buyers. It has been hurt lately due to the week economy. GMAC request to be turned into a bank holding company was granted by Federal Reserve last week. They did this so they can tap into the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief program that was passed by Congress in October. The Treasury Department said it would loan money to General Motors so that it could participate in the $1.25 billion rights offering that is part of GMAC's transition to a bank holding company. The term sheet of the GMAC deal states that the Treasury Department will get preferred stock paying an annual dividend of 8 percent. This loan is completely different from the $17.4 billion that George W. Bush and Henry M. Paulson Jr. announced on December 19th.

Personally I am glad that they are getting this loan so they can stay in business, but will this work? If no one was buying their cars before why would they buy it now? I would hope that they will take a better approach with their cars then they did before if they want to stay in business because I dont think the government can keep bailing them out if it happens again.

Health Care That Puts a Computer on the Team

New York Times Article

In today's world, can computer memory surpass the capabilities of the human mind? This article suggests inputting all paper medical records into computer databases so that they can analyze what's best for the  patient? However, this also has many further implications like: the impact of the industry, laws discerning the privacy of medical records between patients and doctors, and ultimately the moral issue of whether computers should have more knowledge than people. Currently there is only one company with a feasible program that allows the computer to analyze the illness, prior medication used, the outcome of that patient and then compare it to other techniques. In a sense, it would be a huge warehouse of tests, and the computer would tell you which solution worked best. In this sense, a child could type in the symptoms, and prescribe the best medication. Moreover, because there is only one company with working software, this would create a monopoly in the industry. Also, the cost of the instrument hasn't convinced doctors that it is worth purchasing. Another problem with this is patient-doctor privacy. There are laws, like the privacy act, that secure your privacy as a patient in regards to giving out information about yourself. Currently, the computer database complies all information put into it. The article doesn't specify whether or not the doctors consulted with the patients or not before giving all information. Lastly, there is a moral issue or whether a computer should hold more knowledge than a person of a very high degree. Although everyone makes mistakes, should doctors be able to rely 100% on computers to be able to correct them 100% of the time? 

Cell Phones- How they got Started

We have been using Cell phones for years now, but does anyone know what the first one was like? I wanted a cell phone ever since i was at least nine years old. Though I am sure I probably was not born when the first one came out into the market. That is how old Cell Phones are, but the fact of the matter is from the first kind of phone to all the many ones there are now, no one can put there is down for two seconds. I am a victim of this, my phone is in my hand 24-7, just like everyone else who has one. The cell phone is not just a word we call the device we use to contact people as you can read about, by clicking the link. The thought that anyone could have come up with such a device to talk to someone no matter how far away they are is incredible. How these people even came up with such an idea sounds crazy or at least I'm sure the public did when they first brought it up. People such as Samuel Morse, who introduced the concept of wireless contection. Many others such as Martin Cooper. Who was raised in Chicago, went to the Institute of Technology in Illinois and got his degree in electrical engineering. Worked on the first portable handheld police radio. The first to make a cell phone using a cellular phone. The first cell phone was created in 1973. The first cell phone comercail didnt come out till 1989 as seen blow. Ever since we have created the first cell phone our lives changed and soon companys started, creating new and more cellphones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgBcGDO9WFk

NASCAR Merger

The horrible state of the economy has even begun showing up in the sports world. Teams are losing money and need to part ways with drivers or join with other teams to support themselves. Many teams have been merging lately because they need to do so to survive, including legendary Petty Enterprises. Co-owner Richard Petty had already sold control of the business to an investment firm in an effort to get enough money to remain competitive, but the situation didn't improve due to a worsening economy.

Since Petty retired in 1992, the team has been getting worse, and they haven't been to Victory Lane since 1999. They are talking about a merger with Gillett Evernham, which includes Kasey Kahne and Elliott Sadler. Teams are limited to four cars, and if the merger fails, Petty Enterprises may only have one car. Dale Earnhardt Inc. and Chip Ganassi Racing have already merged to stay comptetitve with stronger teams. Automakers' struggles in the economy worry NASCAR even more.

Former champion Bobby Labonte, who used to be part of Petty's team, said, "I can't remember a time when the sport's landscape looks as it does today," according to this article from The Chicago Tribune. It's sad and shocking that so many teams are struggling and that the economy is so drastically affecting sports.

Obama Is Named Time's Person of the Year

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/personoftheyear/article/
After just being elected president of the United States, Barack Obama is already getting much praise from important people. His impact on the US and the world has earned him the award 2008 Time Person of the Year. This could be not a surprise to many, but also could be a surprise to some. In my opinion he deserves this honor because the other candidates aren't as nearly strong and influential as Barack Obama. The runners-up were Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson, vice president nominee Sarah Palin, President of France Nicolas Sarkozy, and Olympics director Zhang Yimou. Barack Obama had clearly more impact on 2008 than these people because of how different a candidate he is. He strongly wants change for this country and this world. He realizes that we need to take baby steps to get to our ultimate goal of being a power house country again. Another reason why Obama is the right choice is being of how big of an impact it has on African-Americans and blacks in the world in general. It shows that this country can have a strong leader who is of a minority. The world is thrilled by this because he represents something new and fresh for the issues in our world. Overall though Barack Obama is without a doubt in my mind the Person of the Year and really starts off his campaign well. His leadership and the want to make this world better is why he deserves this honor.

Video Example

Courthouse and FedEx Bombing Conspirer Brought to Justice

Ella Louise Sanders, a 59 year old woman, pleaded guilty to bombing a federal courthouse and FedEx building. The explosion of the courthouse spread potentially dangerous debris around a two block radius. Fortunately, in both of these bizarre incidents, no one was harmed. From what her attorney coined “misguided vandalism” her maximum sentence will be up to 30 years in prison. She also informed police with information that she worked with others to create and plant the bombs.

What I cannot believe about this whole situation is that she believes she’s committed an act of vandalism. In no way would anyone in their right mind consider bombing a building let alone a government building. Another thing I found hard to understand was how her attorney got away with terming her inexcusable acts as “misguided vandalism”. This is terrorism. An explosion that causes debris to reach a distance of two blocks is in no way vandalism. Spray painting on signs is vandalism. There is not a fine line between the two. Finally, having admitted to working with others to create and plant the bombs, hopefully she will cooperate with the police and bring the other conspirers to justice.

Wal-Mart Death

A Wal-Mart employee, Jdimytai Damour, died on November 28th, Black Friday in Long Island, NY. With about 2,000 costumers waiting anxiously in line, Damour unlocked the doors and was trampled by all the costumers. This is shocking to see. On a day that is suppose to bring happiness to a family ends up brining nothing but sadness and mourn. The Father, confused and trying to make sense of his sons death, expresses his feelings. I can't imagine having a child and loosing him/her on the day where families get together and enjoy the holidays. It shows how humans can be so cruel and will do anything to get what they want. I am still in shock; I don't understand how one can not notice a person underneath them. Other workers tried helping Damour, but they too were pushed around and trampled over. Bruce Both, president of the United Food and Commercial Wokers Union Local 1500 * said that, "This incident was avoidable." He questioned what safety precautions Wal-Mart took for a large crowd. He blames Wal-Mart for Damour death because they should of been prepared for a large group and should of had safety barriers around the store. I agree with Both; Wal-Mart spends a lot of money to advertise their big sales, and what gets a person's attention better than a 50% off sale? Wal-Mart should of known a big crowd was headed their way, and they should of taken serious precautions to avoid injuries or death in this case. Like Director of Special Projects for Local 1500 Patrick Purcell said, "If the safety of their customers and workers was a top priority, then this never would have happened." Wal-Mart should take responsibility for their actions and do something to prevent it. One thing, I think, Wal-Mart should do is install automatic doors, so that this situation would never occur again. UFCW Local 1500 demanded that a full investigation from Federal Safety Agency and Nassau County Prosecutor to ensure justice and safety to the family members and other employees. UFCW have been hard critics toward Wal-Mart because they believe it is one of the largest retailer that offer low wage and poor health care for its workers. They don't believe what Wal-Mart does it right. To further help their side, they also show other problems and police incidents Wal-Mart has in the past. On top of this death, UFCW state the Wal-Mart stock their products made in Chinese factories and causes American factories to shut down. "Wal-Mart gets ahead, middle class gets left behind," there are two videos that better explain why Wal-Marts extraordinary prices actually hurt American workers.

• Waldemart
• Wal-Mart
  

To conclude, i believe that this was a form of negligence, also known as a civil wrong. It's a tort that results in one person carelessly injuring another.

• Duty of care
• Breach of Duty
• Proximate cause

Wal-Mart was not careful enough than a reasonable person or store should be. Safety of the costumer and workers should be first.



* UFCW Local 1500 is a labor union (group of people/workers that join together to reach a common goal in areas such as wages, hours, and working conditions). More general information can be found here.

Murderer Pardoned

During the year of 1995, a farmer in Charlestown, Missouri named Leslie Owen Collier had a coyote issue. The wild turkeys that inhabited the area were being hunted by the coyotes in the area. Collier's solution was to set out pesticide-filled hamburger meat patties for the coyotes to eat. His plan was successful, as he killed seven coyotes. The consequences though outweighed the rewards in this case. The dead coyote carcasses were eaten by bald eagles and other birds as well, who in turn were poisoned and died. In total, three bald eagles lay dead.
As the United States National Bird, the bald eagle is protected against being hunted. Collier's actoins were considered to be illegal. After pleading guilty, he did not go to jail, but was put on probation for two years and was ordered to give up his weapons (which was devestating to the long time hunter). The worst part was that he was now considered a convicted felon.
Even worse was Collier's interactions with others in the community. "For a while, you think people kind of look at you different," Collier said to the Chicago Sun Times. But many in Collier's community felt that the punishment was too severe for the actions. One of his supporters was state representative Lanie Black. Black and other Collier supporters wrote many letters asking for a pardon. Several months ago, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway responded, asking for the full story. On November 24, 2008, Collier was officially pardoned by President Bush. He was one of only 171 pardons (14 that day) granted by Bush, the fewest of any president that served two terms that recently served. After hearing of the pardoning, Collier "almost broke into tears." He was extatic to hear he was forgiven for a mistake he will surely never make again.

To me, it was illogical that Collier was ever even convicted of anyting. It was negligent, that's true. But honestly, how could he predict the damage that he caused? It was clear that his intentions were different than his results and the fact that he was convicted was very strange. Another strange thing was the pardonees that Bush chose. Generally harder on environmental criminals, Bush is usually hostile towards the environmental situations. He also pardoned a felon convicted of dumping hazardous materials. This man also only received prohibation, which is generally considered a light penalty for a president to pardon. I don't necessarily agree with the label that was placed on the pardoned convicts. For them, their lives have been restored for mistakes that I am sure they will never make again. To me, these were necessary pardons that made guilty-consciences feel better.

Targets Big Mistake

Target was punished for making one of the most elementary mistakes a business can make: falsely accusing the customer. Rita Cantrell of Greenville, South Carolina was accused by Target as being a "shhoplifter" trying to pass out conterfeit cash. The $100 bill actually was legitimate, just somewhat dated. Cantrell was unable to purchase from two Target stores using the bill. Before studying more into the situation, Target emailed dozens surrounding businesses that Cantrell tried to use a conterfeit bill and should be on the lookout for her in their stores.
As the story goes, Cantrell was a customer at a local Target when she went to pay for her merchandise with a $100 bill. The employees working their shifts questioned the authenticity of the bill. The question in review was about how the bill was a 1974 series bill, allegedly. An email was then produced and sent to a group called the Carolina Organized Retail Theft Task Force by a Target employee. The content in the email was that Cantrell tried to use a contrerfeit bill and that she had shoplifted. This email was sent to 31 members of the group. These members included local, state, and federal enforcements, mails, department stores to grocery stores and home-improvement stores.
Cantrell then filed a complaint to the courts. She complained that Target's emails were "wrongdoings." Target claims that the email was sent only to another loss-prevention worker at another local department store. The emails led the US Secret Service to question Cantrell while she was at work at a Belk's department store in Greenville. They reviewed the bill (an old 1974 series bill) and concluded that she performed no wrongdoings.
The case went to court, where the jury awarded Cantrell $100,000 in damages and punished Target with a $3 million fine to be paid to Cantrell.

My opinion on the entire situation is that Target made an elementary mistake and should suffer the losses that they incurred. First off, the single most important thing about being in a business in which selling is the key, customer service is crucial. Falsely accusing a woman of stealing is about as wrong as could be. Not only was it wrong to make the accusation, but it was even more wrong to send emails to other stores and enforcement agencies alerting them of a "shoplifter." This defamation is going to cost a very popular company a lot of money and very poor publicity. When I personally worked in a store, the first thing I was taught was that the customer is always right. Never assume anything about the customer that you are not 100% sure of. These important lessons were not instilled into the Target employees. Now, the company is going to have to recover from their losses.

The Global Gag rule

The global gag rule.
Probably 3/4 of our school population doesn't even know what the the global gag rule is, even though it causes suffering to thousands of victims a year. African countries are the worst hit. Some countries that are negatively affected include Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Uganda.


The global gag rule ensures that "no U.S. family planning assistance can be provided to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to: perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country" (actual definition). In other words, a family planning assistance program/clinic can't give ANY form of assistance that supports abortion. The clinic can't even MENTION the word abortion. That is why the law was named the "gag rule" because it literally "gags" family planning clinics from even talking about abortion. It was re-implemented by George W. Bush on his first day of office in January 2001.
This law is responsible for many deaths a year. Even though the law was designed to decrease the frequency of abortions, it has skyrocketed the number of unsafe abortions. Women are defaulting to unsafe methods and performing abortions on THEMSELVES because clinics won't help them out. Some medical workers calculate that the death toll so far is in the thousands. This law is also arguably the root cause of overpopulation in indigenous populations. Women and men alike are not educated on safe-sex practices. They don't use condoms, take birth pills, or utilize any other birth control mechanisms that the United States and other privileged countries have. Overpopulation is causing a multitude of problems such as pollution and environmental destruction. For instance, many citizens have to cut down forests to create room for people to live in. Furthermore, overpopulation creates energy shortages and Africans have to cut down trees to have firewood to generate heat and light.

--- That is a picture of an African woman carrying firewood. Some may wonder why these clinics even abide by this rule. If clinics are supposed to help citizens, why would they harm them by not providing the needed assistance? The answer is money. The rule also mandates that the clinics who don't abide by this rule will lose all the funding they receive from the USAID (United States Agency For International Development). If clinics fail to abide by this rule, they lose every single penny they receive from the United States. Without the funding, they can't operate or function cohesively because they need money to pay for workers and medical supplies. These clinics are placed in an awful position because whether or not they decide to abide by the rule, deaths become an inevitable result (either from the patient dying because she couldn't receive proper abortion services or from patients not receiving proper aid because clinics don't have money).
Other international donors have attempted to fill in the monetary gap. These donors include France, Great Britain, and even Cuba. Some multilateral institutions that have given some money are the European Union, the United Nations Children's Fund, and the World Health Organization. The largest donor of African health assistance so far has been France, who channels a lot of assistance through UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). However, the money is directed towards helping children with HIV/AIDS, not abortion services. A lot of countries are hesitant to provide money for abortion services because they realize that the United States is adamantly against abortion and doesn't want to hurt ties by creating tension with one of the world's biggest superpowers. France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy has been especially committed to developing a strong relationship with the United States, and he would not detriment the relationship by doing something the United States would not want.


Some, however, resent the United States for imposing such an inhumane law against those who have no resources or means to retaliate. There has been no clear justification provided for this action. It just seems like Bush is trying to impose his own Christian ideals without any justification. Just because believes abortion shouldn't be allowed, why should people have to suffer? Why should we risk lives just to prove a point? AND WHY DO WE HAVE TO IMPOSE SUCH AN AWFUL RULE ON THOSE WHO DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RESOURCES TO FIGHT BACK? These questions have never been answered.
It's time for change, and thankfully Barack Obama is ready to make that change. He has promised to repeal this law and increase family planning assistance to indigenous countries. This change is change for the better. Think about how the negatively the United States would be impacted if abortion was illegal. Better yet, think about how that would affect our school. Those who are sexually active won't have any means to protect themselves from getting pregnant or sexually transmitted diseases because contraceptives might be banned as well. Then, when girls do get pregnant, they won't have the ability to get an abortion. It's time for the Bush administration to be, well, gagged.

Here's a video to sum it all up --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wrmweSdGg
---JUST IN CASE.

911 is for emergencies only!

All across the country more and more fake 911 calls are being made. Almost all of the people making these calls have been caught or arrested. The punishments for making fake calls are extremely severe. You could end up in jail for up to a year. This YouTube video shows a real life situation with someone being arrested for fake calls to 911.

Another issue with 911 is people calling for non emergencies. This is an example of a woman calling 911 from Burger King because she received the wrong order.

These types of calls are taking up emergency phone lines, and could be preventing a serious call from getting through. These calls cost tax payers millions of dollars. Here are a bunch of people calling 911 who obviously do not know the meaning of an emergency:

Over 45 percent of the more than 8 million cell phone calls to 911 each year are for non-emergencies. Sometimes it could go up to 80 percent! Don Aaron, a spokesman for the Nashville Metro police, said it’s called “joyriding.” “It’s a joy call to 911,” Aaron said. “What they don’t understand is that the call takers at 911 take these calls very seriously. The police department takes them very seriously.”
While looking into non emergency 911 calls I came across an article talking about how people call 911 for medical advice! They say they do not need an ambulance yet, but they ask what should they do? Police believe people are trying to avoid costly medical bills due to lack of health insurance. Unfortunately 911 does not give out medical advice, so all those cheap people will have to pay their medical bills.
There are also people who call because they are not sure whether their situation would be considered an emergency. This blog I found is talking about this issue. The blogger talks about how people call 911 to much for little things. They also talk about how when someone calls 911, they do not think of the consequences that come with it. Most people do not know that it is illegal to call 911 for a non- emergency. I found another blog by a woman named, Michele Ellson. She talked about how where she lives, they are going to start charging everyone for these calls and hopefully it will get the message across to people, and the number of these outrageous calls will decrease.
I think this whole issues is ridiculous. Why would anyone call 911 for a non-emergency? Whenever i need police assistance I always calls the non-emergency number. When I was little I learned how serious 911 was and how it should only be used for real emergencies. I used to randomly call 911 and hang up when I was really little because I thought it was funny. A policeman had to come to my house and explain to me the dangers of making those kind of calls. Anyone who makes unnecessary calls to 911 needs some serious intervention.

Walmart takes brain damaged woman's money

Debbie Shank's life changed when she got into a car accident. When a semi-truck smashed into the side of Debbie's mini van she was changed forever. Although she can remember things before the accident, she no longer has any short term memory. Before the accident Debbie was one of Walmart's employees, stocking shelves. While she was working there she signed up for the health and benefits plan so her and her family were covered. The trucking company gave her over $400,000 to cover medical bills. Suddenly that would be taken all away, what Debbie didn't real in the plan was that if any employee collected money from and injury walmart was entitled to that money. Because Walmart is taking that money, the Shanks are financially struggling to overcome this tragedy. Debbie's husband Jim even had to devorice Debbie last year so that she would get more money from medicaid. When walmart took the Shanks to court they won. Now, Jim Shank is trying to take this to the supreme court.I think that considering walmart made billions of dollars lat year, they could let the shanks keep money. They obviously need this money much more then the huge company. I understand that walmart are fully in their rights to this money, but they could have made special circumstances. This blog shows a video of this story by CNN. $400,000 could help the Shanks a lot more than the billions that walmart raked in every year.  

Lisa Madigan wants Supreme Court to Oust Blagojevich

On December 11th, 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was charged with attempting to sell a senate seat. President elect Barack Obama left his senate seat in attempt at the white house, and now Governor Blajogevich was going to give the seat to the highest bidder. Now, Lisa Madigan has called on the Illinois Supreme court to temporarily remove Blagojevich from office. He would still have the power to pick the senator, even though he is formerly charged. Blagojevich has no intentions of resigning, and the Illinois Supreme court can remove him from power if they vote for it.

There are two sides to this issue:

They should vote him out- YES, it is imperative that he is to be stripped of power immediately. We cannot let any more corruption into our government, and if he does appoint a new senator, we can assume that that senator will be as corrupt as Mr. Blagojevich. The Illinois supreme court has the power, and they should temporarily remove him of power.

They should NOT vote him out- YES, he is innocent until proven guilty. According to him, he has nothing to hide. We can not just go ousting government officials until they have been tried in a court of law. He has been charged, not found guilty. We MUST remember this.

After viewing both sides of this heated debate, it is honestly, and finally, up to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide what to do with him. You can either temporarily remove him of power, or you can let him be until he is found guilty. Either decision has reprocussions.

Children Protection From Online Exploitation

On October 14, 2008 Governor Rod Blagojevich signed a bill to protect children from online exploitation. The bill prohibits an adult to sent a minor a public transportation ticket without a lawful reason. It also prohibits known sex offenders from communicating with a minor on the internet. Also, it require computer technicians to report any child pornography that they find while doing their jobs. The bill increased the conditions of supervision for sex offenders, and tightens the definition of what child pornography is. Under this new law, if an adult uses the internet to communicate with a minor for sexual purposes, they can be sent to jail for 1-3 years.

I think that this bill is a very important thing to have. In addition to the tremendous amount of information the internet provides for people, it is a scary and dangerous place, especially for children who aren't taught the dangers of the internet. I think that in addition to this bill, we should also make sure that all children are aware of the dangers involved in talking to strangers on the internet and to use extreme caution. 

I agree with a blog that I found while researching this topic. The blogger states that the most efficient way to protect your children from sexual predators on the internet is to do so in the same way you teach them to stay away from strangers. She says it's no different online. You should instill the values in your children to know right from wrong and make sure they understand the dangers in talking to people you do not know. 

Final Fantasy sparks New Law in Illinois

Final Fantasy Sparks New Law in Illinois

Alex Edward's, son of a Illinois politician, tried to cancel his subscription of a online game called Final Fantasy XI. After getting bored of this online game Alex proceeded to try and cancel his subscription. Except in the process of canceling his subscription, he found how hard it was. No phone number for consumer service was easily found but luckily his parents final got the number from their credit card statements. After holding for a hour and a half on hold before some one answered the phone.

This picture shows the lag of customer service.

This has led to the proposal of he new Illinois state law that forces online gaming service providers to have a simple way for consumers to cancel their services online, without the need to mail a form or contact customer service over a phone line. Also the company most provide instructions on how to cancel the online subscription. If a online company fails to give an easy cancellation then they will be

Picture of game that Alex played

There have been many discussions about this new law, and many have said that they to had trouble canceling this game or another online game. They bloggers say that this is a big step for online gaming experience. Many other bloggers are now protesting that this new law should be nationally recognized and expanded to incorporate companies like XM, Rhapsody, and all other online subscriptions.

"I Believe" License Plates Create Controversy

It all started in South Carolina where a group of advocates, who fight for seperation of church and state, filed a federal law suit. The plates, which are shown on the left, contain a stained glass window with a cross in front that states, "I Believe." A diverse group of people who were behalf in the suit were two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor and a rabbi in South Carolina, along with the Hindu American Foundation. The bill states that it goes against the First Amendment. While quickly passing the Legislature, there was no need for a signature by Gov. Mark Sanford because the license plate creators are owned by a private group owned by the state.

Where this idea came from? The idea of "I Believe" started in Florida where it failed. Rev. Robert Knight of Charleston says, "As an evangelical Christian, I don't think civil religion enhances the Christian religion. It compromises it," Knight said. "That's the fundamental irony. It's very shallow from a Christian standpoint." I think that this discriminates on all religions. License plates represent the state your from and should include all religions if the plate is passed. I agree with this blog that I found, the license plates are unconstitutional. It ruins people's freedom of speech, and makes them look like they follow the Christian faith. Even though there are so many different religons in the world it's ashame we can't show them all.

Vermont Man: Cheap and Proud of It

He's a man known by many nicknames as the cheapest man in America. Vermont's Roy Haynes is 55 years old, he has no debt, no mortgage and no car payments. He doesn't have a real job, but he earns about $15,000 a year. Even Haynes marriage was cheap. The entire wedding cost $70, and he stopped by McDonald's on the way home. The neighbors threw rice at him after the serimony so, Haynes' swept it up and cooked it for dinner. Roy is also some kind romantic guy he would bring a nice bouquet of roses from funeral home after they were discarded. It's a rare occasion when Haynes actually spends money for food. Haynes, the best things in life are free

"I can only go to the same place twice -- the first time to eat, the second time to apologize." Said Lisa Roy wife.

"He sees that there's a leftover at somebody else's table he'll ask and want to take that food home," Lisa Haynes said. "Sometimes I'd like to kill him when he takes home other people's food."

">

Online Advertisement Law

http://www.lawyermarketing.com/CM/Products/Products29.asp

http://www.business.gov/guides/advertising/online/

We all probably have heard about advertisement law, but even if some of you haven't it still sounds pretty clear. All ads go through a big process, and must be based on a standard criteria. For example, the company os a business which provides the advertisement should be responsible for the content. The advertisement should not use discrimination and so on.There is also a federal company which controls all advertisements in the media.
But what about the Online Advertisement? How can government control it's content and verify the information in ads? There was also an old cartoon in the New Yorker, which showed two dogs in front of a computer, and had the caption "On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog." The inherent anonymity of the Internet has fostered a number of shady advertising and marketing practices, such as e-mail spam. That is why over the last couple of years, federal and state governments have passed additional advertising laws that protect consumer privacy. These ensure fair and truthful advertising practices online. So, if you plan to advertise online -whether you're buying ads on search engines or direct marketing through e-mail - you'll need to understand some basic rules.
Dot Com Disclosures : Information about Online Advertising
This fact describes information businesses should consider as they develop online ads to ensure that they comply with the law.
CAN-SPAM Act : Requirements for Businesses.
This acs establishes requirements for those who send commercial email, spells out penalties for spammers and companies whose products are advertised in spam if they violate the law, and gives consumers the right to ask e-mailers to stop spamming them. Commercial e-mail messages must include notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation, an opt-out notice, and a valid postal address of the sender. CAN-SPAM also prohibits falsification of transmission information and deceptive subject headings. The Act creates criminal prohibitions against those who knowingly transmit spam through others' computers without authorization. Also, the Federal Trade Commission may pursue individuals who knowingly hire others to send deceptive spam.
"Remove Me" Responses and Responsibilities
Claims that you make in any advertisement for your products or services, including those sent by email, must be truthful. This means that you must honor any promises you make to remove consumers from email mailing lists.

And the main idea, which seems very important to me, is that if you believe that you've been a victim of deceptive advertising, you might be tempted to take the company or individual that wronged you to court.

DUI'S

Second Blog post:

DUI’s are very common in America. About 17,419 people die because of alcohol related crashes.http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/dui/statistics.htmlPersonally I think that this is a sad statistic because I feel as if people should know this is a common problem so wouldn’t you think out of common sense they would they to better themselves and others and stay safe? When you are arrested for a DUI it is considered a felony. Unfortunately the people who case the accidents do not even suffer. What happens a lot is the victim (other person in the crash) suffers a lot. When looking around for information about DUI’s you realizes that is such a huge topic that many people like to blog about it. Not only that but it is a great way to see people talk about it and we can all learn from what other people say, because some of the people who blog it are even people who had once suffered from someone involving a DUI. http://wordpress.com/tag/dui-statistics/ . Just in case you do not know DUI means driving under the influence. You should never drink and drive. Young teens especially need to be careful since they always seem to find the parties with the most booze. And remember always try to spread your knowledge because one day you may save a life just by making the right decision.

The Fall of Plaxico Burress

On November 29th New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress accidentally shot him self in the leg while at a night club. Burress now faces charges of criminal possession of a weapon, a charge he pleaded not guilty to. Now the question is what happens to Burress. Well, the Giants suspended him and put him on the injured reserve list for the rest of the season. Burress is now demanding the remainder of his contract and other things that were guaranteed to him. Now from a legal stand point there are many things that must come into play. But from a personally stand point, I don’t care. Burress should be given nothing. This man makes millions of dollars a year and he decided to carry a hand gun, which is already illegal, and then shoots himself. He shouldn’t be given anything just based on pure stupidity. He broke many laws and many contracts but the consensus of most other bloggers is; give him nothing! This I could not agree more with. Release him from your team and give him nothing. Let the law and police deal with this incident

Limewire law

Is limewire legal or ILLEGAL?

Limewire is a program that you are able to share files over the internet, to actually play them on your computer. File-sharing however is ILLEGAL, so for that matter limewire is too.


http://www.computerforum.com/50220-limewire-illegal.html
Limewire is a huge problem to the music industry because with limewire you can get almost every song in the world. Who needs albums and other expensive cd's when you can download music fast and easy, and then transfer it on ur iPod all for free.

http://news.cnet.com/RIAA-settles-with-12-year-old-girl/2100-1027_3-5073717.html

In New York 2003, a 12 year old girl was caught sharing files off limewire. She was going to be charged a lot of money for the amount of music that was tranfered from peer-to-peer. They dropped the charge to being only $2000 and dropped the case.

I think that this law is stupid because no matter what people are still going to use it, police can't go around to every single house that has it and arrest them. For one thing it is easy to just uninstall the program, and it would be a waste of time for the cop. Also if the person is caught the charge is way to high, a 12 year old girl being charged $2000! That's crazy. I think this law should be dropped, the only thing is that the music industry would just fall.

Michael Jackson's Trial

Molestation is to force unwanted sexual attentions on somebody, especially a child or a physically weaker adult. Michael Jackson was accused of molesting a 13 year old bow two years ago when they were sleeping alone together in his bed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara. The jury acquitted him on all 10 counts. 

Jackson is found not guilty of all ten counts against him: conspiracy, child molestation, and giving alcohol to a minor. Blogger Bryan Lavietes said, "MJ was virtually emotionless as the verdicts were read. Halfway through, he folded his hands in front of his face, as if to create a resting spot for his chin. The king of pop is a free man."

My opinion on this whole subject is obviously completely negative. Yes, he might have been the king of pop once, and his name will live on, but right now he is not the king of pop. He is viewed to the public as a messed up child molester. Many pop stars go off track a little bit. For example, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and many more. But they eventually got their life straightened out and got back on track. Michael Jackson has completely crossed the line. He hasn't just gone a little off track, he's gone very far off the track. Not only did he destroy his appearance, but he ruined his popularity image. I think this case was ridiculous. I don't understand that after sharing a bed with a 13 year old boy, the boy claiming he was molested, and Jackson being a little crazy as it is, he was found not guilty. I personally think he was announced not guilty of these charges because people favor him because of his past. Michael Jackson might have gotten away with this one, but next time something happens- and I am presuming there will be a next time- he should be charged and face the appropriate consequences.

Michael Jackson Trial Video

By Ali M.

Steve Gordon Talks About Napster Lawsuit

In an interview with Steve Gordon, a former Sony lawyer, he explains how Napster negatively affected our society when it was first introduced. He states that, at the time, Sony offered songs for listening purposes only (that means you can only listen to it on your desktop) for a small fee per song. At a conference in New York, they were introduced to a program called Napster, which offered songs for free and you were able to do whatever you wanted with a song (burn it to a CD, put it on your mp3 player, etc.). Instead of negotiating with Napster creator Shawn Fanning, Sony decided to sue Fanning for all of the illegal flaws Napster had.

Although music piracy can have its negative effects on artists in the music business, it also aids in the breakthrough of undiscovered bands. This is what really attracted Napster supporters, and mainly the bands that supported this software. Some bands find it hard to get their name out in the world because companies will not sign them, bars and concert halls will not hire them, or the band is from a small town which has no significance to the rest of the world. With a database for freely sharing music, an undiscovered band is able to post their music at no charge for other listeners to come across. This way, an undiscovered band from a small town can get their name out to the public which attracts the attention of managers looking to sign bands as well as managers of bars and concert halls for performances.
How did people respond to Napster's lawsuit?

The public had mixed opinions about Napster being sued by Sony. Peter Fox, the kid with the backpack above, supported Napster file-sharing networks allowing free downloads whereas this blogger responded that they agreed with Sony suing napster, but they thought the money should only go to artists instead of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). Why they think money should go to only artists facinates me. The companies representing the artists are the ones suing Napster. Therefore, they need to take a percentage of the money earned from the lawsuit in order to use it as a remedy to repair the losses they suffered from Napster allowing free file-sharing of their copyrighted songs. Then the recording industries will distribute what is left to the artists. Everyone needs to make a profit somehow, even the companies that help artists get discovered.

I'm aware that using a database for file-sharing helps artists and traveling musicians get discovered easier than by selling CDs, but the music being downloaded is frequently downloaded in excess. As the artist gets discovered and becomes famous, their music is going to be posted more and more frequently on illegal file-sharing databases. Soon enough it will get out of hand and there is nothing the artist can do about it. I do believe that Sony did the right thing by suing Napster.

This video explains the rise and fall of Napster:

Illinois Governor Blagojevich Arrested

Governor Blagojevich allegedly attempted to sell or trade the U.S. Senate seat left open by President-Elect Barack Obama in exchange for "financial benefits". He is also accused of taking bribes in the form of "campaign contributions" for other official actions.

The Illinois Governer was arrested the Morning of Tuesday December 9th. 

President Elect Barack Obama denies that he has had any discussions with Governor Blagojevich, but knew evidence has come out that Obama may be lying about this. On November 5 the state of Illinois issued a press release saying the two men did, infact, talk about filling Obama's vacant Senate seat, as shown here.

Barack Obama is now calling for Blagojevich to step down as governor of Illinois, but the Governor is more than unwilling to resign his post. 

Video: Obama calls for Blagojevich's resignation 

One senatorial candidate named "Candidate 5" is now speculated to be Jesse Jackson Jr. "Candidate 5" is shown to have offered up to $1 Million to Blagojevich to name him the new Illinois Senator. Governor Blagojevich was more than happy to take the bribe as long as he was provided with "something tangible upfront". 

If Blagojevich is convicted, he will be the fourth Illinois Governor to be convicted of a federal crime. 

Tribune Company Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Yesterday, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Tribune Company filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Yesterday morning, before the bankruptcy was officially announced,reported on the situation:



Last December, Sam Zell, Chairman of the Tribune Company, seemed confident of his situation when he bought the Tribune Company for 8.3 billion dollars . According to The Wall Street Journal, the Tribune Co. is now 12.9 billion dollars in debt with listed assets of 7.6 billion dollars, not including the Chicago Cubs. Zell hopes to sell the Cubs soon in order to gain some much needed money. Buyers, however, are hard to find in these tough economic times. The economy as well as the internet has played a major role in the downfall of newspapers. The Wall Street Journal reports that newspaper companies have been steadily losing money due to the availability of news online. Bloomberg News, a highly acclaimed news source, reports that Zell originally bought the Tribune Co. because he was “sick and tired of everybody talking about and commiserating about the end of newspapers.” Sam Zell has recently been forced to cut jobs and redesign The Chicago Tribune to make it smaller and cheaper to produce. Despite filing for bankruptcy, Zell is reassuring his employees, "We're doing everything we can to get from here to there. Our employees are not the reason our revenue is down the way it is" (The Wall Street Journal).Zell has done the right thing by filing for bankruptcy.

I don't believe his acquisition of the Tribune Co. attributed to its current financial state. The company, in general, has been in trouble for many years. Bloggers on the Law Blog at WSJ.com feel similarly to me. One blogger points out that the Tribune Co. did not have many other "attractive" buyers at the time Sam Zell bought the company. Another Blogger feels that without Zell, less jobs would be lost and less debt would be accumulated; but admits that the Tribune Co. would not be "fourishing" without Zell.

Below is a map of the wide territory the Tribune Company covers through its newspapers and television stations as of September 2008.

Rising Star or Future Convict, Gregg Gillis

Gregg Gillis, who goes by the stage name of Girl Talk, was a normal college student at Case Western Reserve University when he started "splicing" songs together. He started making "mashup songs" in his spare time with his laptop. He soon gained popularity for his mashes and started playing local shows. His popularity spread through the internet (youtube) and free song downloads. Gillis has recently released his fourth album, and the best part is that you can download online for however much you choose to pay.

The issue with his music is that it is not original. He takes portions of other famous songs and puts them together to make his own songs, none of which is originally recorded by him. For example in his 2006 album, Night Ripper, he used more than 250 clips from different songs from 167 different artists. He put songs such as The Notorious B.I.G. song "Juicy" to a beat of Elton John's "Tiny Dancer". Although you may think it may be violating copyright laws, it is not. Many people say that he stays legal by following the fair use guidelines. He does this because his samples are very short and often sound very little like the actual song. Gillis stays legal by following these guidelines in every one of his songs.

I believe that he is a very talented musician. In fact Gillis has won numerous awards including #22 album of the year according to rolling stones magazine. Although he does not play an instrument he uses talent to put songs together with other tracks that end up sounding better than the originals. His music is something different in a time of a lot of music sounding the same. Musicians should be honored rather than angry that they are featured in his songs because it is not only giving there music more publicity but also a different sound for them that they may like try out some day. Girl Talk will be a big name in all of the clubs and will continue to appear all over the music scene. You can check his music and download his new album, Feed the Animals, on hismyspace or or listen to any song on you tube.

youtube can get you in trouble!!!

The pride and joy of so many teenagers was under scrutiny in 2007. Youtube/Google was sued by one of the largest businesses; Viacom. Viacom claimed that the users were copyrighting music and videos on Youtube. They claimed that is violates DMCA or Digital Millennium Copy write Act of 1998. Google refuted these remarks saying that they have "Google and You Tube respect the importance of intellectual property rights, and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA, but go well above and beyond what the law requires". Viacom claimed that 150,000 copy written clips were up on Youtube and have been viewed 1.5 billion times. This same thing has happened before. Napster had problems with this law also and they were shut down. As for Viacom-Youtube case it went to the Supreme Court. Youtube then put up notifications asking if you are violating there policy of copyright infringement. This is why today we have to check that little box at the end of certain documents. So that way they are not liable for what is copy written on there website. They even make it easy for someone to claim that something is copy written. They put it right on there website. They will never really go after every single person who ever used Youtube because the list is too big. As one blogger said "Face it, You tube is a library for video. People don't sue libraries." another person commented back "You tube engages in massive copyright infringement. They profit from people viewing copyrighted material. They deny any responsibility to the copyright holders. In their own way, they're as arrogant as the music thieves were." so obviously there are two sides to this matter. For use in schools the teachers should make sure that there students are not going over any time limits for music and videos.
I think that Youtube is one of the greatest eventions our nation has come upon. It has brought this generations of kids a lot closer and lets them see what other student in our nation and even in other nations are thinking. It allows students to pick up and learn from other people and do something that they enjoy. If a student wanted to pick up movie editing there are about 20 full videos on how to use each program. It brings us together with the hope that it will make us stronger. Whenever I am thinking of buying something I always go on Youtube to see if it is worth it. I am careful to not watch the videos the companies put up for advertisment. Yes, you can get introuble from using Youtube improperly but the chances of that are very slim. Youtube is a way for every person to express themselves.

other great writers on this topic are these people:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1775303.htm
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6166862.html
http://jolt.unc.edu/blog/2008/10/24/youtube-and-copyright-law
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44836/YouTube-Law-Suit-PressRelease
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7420955.stm

Privacy on the Web

A huge debate has gone relatively unnoticed in the world lately. I'm talking about the lack of privacy laws protecting the public against large corporations. Whenever you “Google” something, that information is immediately transferred and put into a personal profile. Companies claim they are not violating our privacy because we’re all identified by a number, we might be user 156653 or 7435375. Of course being a number does not help our anonymity. Our searches are often filled with personal information. And some have already picked up on that fact. Our searches are like fingerprints, I mean, who hasn’t Googled themselves, how many of us have typed in the address of a nearby theater when looking for show times. All this information adds up to a lot and can be easily tracked to that specific person who put in the searches.



Most people don’t realize that once they click on an advertising banner from a third party, that advertiser will place a “cookie” on their computer web server. From this point on that company is allowed to track the web sites a person has visited and what their E-mail address is.
Companies try to justify this blatant invasion of our privacy, by saying they only use it to make sure all those ad banners that pop up correspond with things that are relevant to us. Like if we typed in things about travel, we would get more travel advertisements. Like any good company Google and others say they are planning on making policies to limit the information they collect, and ease the consumer's concerns. Unfortunatly it can be really tempting for this companies to use all the information at their disposal to do what TV and other forms of advertising cannot, target individual customers. I personally don't beleive they will make enough policies to truly make sure we are protected.



So far lawmakers have opted to allow the companies to regulate themselves, mostly because congress does not know what they can do to solve the problem. Although there has been some basic outlines for how companies must go about collecting information, it really only targets those third party advertisers and still leaves our personal lives open for companies to exploit.



Until lawmakers finish making a cohesive set of laws that protect your privacy their are many steps that you take to ensure at least a bit of confidentiality.

First Delete all the cookies you already have, I guarantee it’s a lot.
Second Increase your privacy to restrict what type of companies can collect cookies on you.
Third check out some sources on your own on how to protect yourself
Finally write to your congressman, as depressing as this sounds the federal government is the only source capable of protecting our privacy.

2010 Exposes True NBA Player Intentions

While it is barely midway through the 2008-2009 NBA season, most NBA enthusiasts are impatiently waiting for the 2010-2011 off-season to role around. For those unaware of how free agency works, players sign contracts with limited life-span for a certain number of years and depending on their career, have the opportunity to sign extensions. When their contract is up, the player then either becomes a restricted or unrestricted free agent, depending on the contract wording. An unrestricted free agent is a player with the option to sign with any team, regardless of what their current team says; a restricted free agent is the same as an unrestricted, however the players' current team has the ability to match any offer made by other teams. Either way, the facts show that players generally tend to stay with their current team. In the past decade, only 9 high profile players switched teams through free agency.

Well why is the 2010 season different? Money. With the media industry's capabilities today, NBA All Stars do not base their entire signing on the allotted money in a given contract; advertising and personal marketing help skyrocket players' earnings. After the 2009-2010 season, at least 19 high profile NBA Stars will be up for free agency. These players include LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki, Tracy McGrady, Shaq, Dwyane Wade, Michael Redd and many more. While these are all respected players on their current squads, huge contracts may not be enough to keep each of these players.




Expert analyst Jalen Rose expands on the future of LeBron James and Chris Bosh.

LeBron James is the biggest name of the 2010 free agent market. He is currently a star on the Cleveland Caveliers, with many huge sponsors including huge companies such as Nike and will make above $157 million. LeBron has already alluded to the fact that he "may" be interested in the New York Knicks as a free agent. I bet you're confused as to why the arguably highest profile NBA player would want to be on a depleted New York Knick squad, but think about it logically. Where in the United States can you get better marketing and advertising than the Big Apple? The only two cities who can even compete are Chicago and Los Angeles, but neither of these teams have anywhere near the Salary Cap space to take on the money LeBron wants in his contract.

This is just one of LeBrons huge advertisements that he was able to attain in Cleveland, commercials depicting "The LeBrons." Unfortunately, this seems to not be enough marketing to keep him satisfied in Cleveland.

To be honest this whole issue is a matter of X's and O's. These stars are looking for a place to thrive in today's less-than-average economy. Each player is looking for the best location for themselves to make money, not even win basketball games. It's kind of pathetic that the NBA has come down to this, and has sacrificed its' integrity to satisfy the top players needs. Nobody can convince me that it is better for the NBA to have great players on terrible NBA teams in high marketing locations, rather than great players on decent teams in average advertising places. I guess we'll see in 2010 when decisions are made. Hopefully there will be some players who value their experience and winning like the only days, and not just money.

Obama's Citizenship Up For Debate

After doing much of my own research on the issue of Obama's citizenship, I came down to the following conclusion:

Obama is not a natural born citizen, because his father was not a US citizen. His father was a British subject, and because of that Obama was born a subject of the Crown and later became a citizen of Kenya and Indonesia, when adopted by Lolo Sotoro. Even if he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was old enough to pass US citizenship on to him, he would still only be a citizen-not a natural born citizen. Natural born status must exist at the moment of birth. It can not be earned, or received at a later date, or by a retroactive law.

Knowing this, we are now being told that Obama is qualified? Yes, he may be a citizen, though I doubt it, but he was never a natural born citizen, and can not be President, if we honor the Constitution.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

The 14th Amendment does not confer natural born citizen status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a Citizen, and only if he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was a Subject of the United Kingdom. A natural born citizen would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States.

So now that you know what I think, what do you think?