Agreeing to Disagree

In the article, Iran Vows to Expand its Nuclear Program by Thomas Erdbrink of The Post, reports Iran's intentions to build 10 more nuclear enrichment plants. Enrichment plants are used to increase to amount of radioactive material. Iran has never followed the rules of nuclear conduct laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN security council. Some Iranian parliamentary officials feel that Iran has been more than cooperative and should instead cut international discussions on the subject. However, this is unlikely. By increasing nuclear enrichment plants, there are growing fears that Iran will not use their uranium exclusively for nuclear energy. It could possibly be used for production of nuclear weapons. Even though President Ahmadinejad said he would dramatically increase nuclear power output, the claim is hard to believe. Iran has never been completely successful at developing their nuclear program. Construction for the Natanz nuclear program began eight years ago, but the plant has yet to be operational. All-in-all with Iran pushing for less restriction and Western powers pushing for more conformity, the two sides can only compromise at the moment.

The Article was very well reported and had an elegant flow that allowed the story to grow and progress. It was a nice touch by Erdbrink to end the story one compromise. It was a nice way to look at an alternate perspective to the story that was mainly focused on the disagreements of the two sides. The Lead was very clear and to-the-point; it also included the possible repercussions of this new development.

MJ Frenzy Spreading

In an earlier entry, I discussed an article about the booming California cannabis dispensaries. California is the leading state for legal Cannabis growth and distribution. In the article, At This School, It's Marijuana in Every Class by Tamar Lewin of the NY Times, marijuanna is seen as a possible solution to Michigan's economic depression. With distribution and growth now legal in the state, one developing school is taking full advantage of the situation. Of course there are limits to the state's flexibility. For example, one must be a certified recipient for medical marijuana and have designated provider. The school has been educating a very diverse group of people from various backgrounds on the science behind cannabis growth and preparation. This school is meant to produce a group of people who are capable of distributing Cannabis in a proper way. The school itself isn't any Harvard. In fact, it is limited to a few suburban houses, but the concept is intriguing to many people.

The article was decently written. The lead was catchy and entertaining while still fulfilling its informative purpose. The body contained sufficient detail about the school itself. However, there should have been more detail on the future of the school. How is enrollment? Will it be expanding? The ending was very rough. The last sentence was a quote by a student who said,"...And then I suddenly thought, hey, I really am going to grow medical marijuana.” Wow. Did the student give this statement stoned? The story wasn't very professional and the idea of the school didn't seem to be taken too seriously by the reporter.

Eye-opening story, but mediocre reporting

The article, Trying to Explain a Drop in Infant Mortality by Erik Eckholm of the NY Times, explains the very interesting distribution of infant mortality rates with respect to maternal happiness as the baby is developing. Eckholm gives us the story of Ta-Shai Pendleton's two unfortunate infant deaths while living in a very poor region of Madison, Wisconsin. The story then develops as she moves to a better community in Madison and finally gives birth to a healthy baby girl. Her story heartwarming, but it is not uncommon, especially in the poorer black counties that have a higher infant mortality rate per thousand compared to the white community. Doctors are not entirely sure what effect that environment has on the developing fetus, but they do believe it is connected to the happiness and well-being of the mother. There are greater physical stresses that pregnant mothers have to deal with in the poorer counties. This in turn affects the developing baby. Members of the community, like visiting nurses and supportive church groups, that help pregnant mothers in tough situations may be increasing the babies survivability by aiding the mother.

The article as a whole was okay. I found the topic interesting, not very surprising , but interesting. I think that Eckholm did not report the story as firmly as he should. I'm not saying that he should completely proclaim that babies are dying because mothers are in stressful situations, but he should recognize that there is a connection and there are statistics and examples to support the argument. Of course there are exceptions, but they shouldn't overpower the overall story.

Gun Violence Escalating?

Gun violence seems to be popping up in the news more and more. In an article out of the NY Times, four police officers were ambushed while eating at a coffee shop near Tacoma, Washington. This was very surprising in an area that is usually characterized by its low crime rate. In fact, the organized police squad in the area is only about a decade old. This development is still very new and the suspect(s) have not been taken into custody. Officially, the reason for the ambush hasn't been confirmed, but some officers are already saying that the attack was an act of revenge. No other comment was given as to what the suspects were avenging. Although the four officers were shot and killed, three men and a woman were also hit, but they survived the ordeal. After the attack, the suspect fled on foot and officers are continuing their search for him.

The article was very straightforward, but as I mentioned before, it did not include a reason for why anyone would need an act of revenge. I am going to assume that this information was not disclosed by the police as it pertains to an open investigation. The Lead was strong and catchy. Nothing grabs attention better than a good revenge/ambush story and it was a good move to include this motive in the opening statement. The reporters that covered the story, William Yardley and Joseph Berger, should have also mentioned something about the other instances of gun violence in recent history.

Umm...what's your point?

The European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN as it is more commonly known, is one of the most foremost scientific centers in the world. It is also the home to the largest piece of scientific equipment on the planet, the Large Hadron Collider. The purpose of the Collider is evident in its name. It sends protons through a 17-mile proton racetrack in the hopes that a pair will eventually collide. According to the article, A Blast at Last at Particle Collider in the NY Times, scientists finally were able to see the product of their investment. The particle collider actually collided protons. The Hadron Collider was always operational, but never before had scientists actually succeeded in colliding protons. The collisions occurred only three days after sending the protons through the Collider. Scientists toasted this speedy development with champagne. It was originally anticipated to take much longer than three days. Proton collisions occurred immediately following the Big Bang.

This article summarized a very scientific process excellently, but what it failed to mention is THE POINT. Why should people care about this study? The article did allude to the Big Bang and how particle collisions were an immediate product of the Big Bang, but it failed to mention the importance. Off the top of my head, I would assume that creationism would be a big issue. How do you make life? There is so much to know based on the products of this study and the article completely missed it.

Good Article, but why the specific focus?

With the Fort Hood Massacre still present in many people's minds, it almost seems like these deadly outbursts by individuals are spreading to the most remote regions of the country. In the article, Police Identify Gunman in Deadly Saipan Rampage in the NY Times, a Chinese national recently killed and injured men, women, and children on the small island of Saipan. The man has been identified as Li Zhongren, an immigrant that lived and worked in a shooting range. In the massacre, two adults and two children were killed, one girl was critically injured, and within the group of Korean tourists that he also fired at, eight were wounded. Zhongren then turned the gun on himself. He was found at a WWII memorial site, by the cliff line where Japanese soldiers committed suicide to evade capture by American soldiers. Police are still investigating, but they believe Zhongeren's outburst was due to personal and financial

difficulties.

The article was very straightforward. For a follow-up article, the lead was strong and concise. This article is a good example of the international cooperation required to attain a story like this. There were contributing reporters from Honolulu, Korea, and Saipan. All their information combined was necessary to get this story. However, I did have one problem with the article. Towards the end, the story seemed to focus on one particular person, but his story was thrown in after a good concluding statement. If it were up to me, I don't think I would include any portion about one particular person. Although he was critically injured, there were others hurt in the incident as well, and the people that were killed seemed to be lumped together.

Semi-Right, Semi-Wrong

Many economists gave the stimulus package wary looks. There was opposition from many republicans who questioned whether infusing the economy with a jolt of cash would spur it from its demise. Although the US economy isn't exactly the gold standard it once was, it is better off than it would have been had the stimulus package not been introduced. According to the article New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as a Worthy Step by Jackie Calmes and Michael Cooper of the NY Times, unemployment still remains high, higher than the Obama administration originally predicted, but in the big picture the economy is growing. Many analysts actually believe that the package may have been too small. The Obama administration's biggest mistake was probably overestimating the extent of economic development. Their original optimism is probably the source of why so many cannot see the improvement. Nevertheless, it is working to an extent.

The article was very well written and excellently cited. It included sources by Harvard economists, contributors to financial magazines, and by the group responsible for announcing whether the recession is over or not. It was thorough, and gave insight for both sides of the story. Calmes and Cooper used the lead to ease into the story. It was a good way to present two sides of the story- the side for adding more money to the package and the side against the stimulus package altogether. However, it took time to get to the actual focus of the article- that the stimulus package is working. The focus is the important part; the rest we have all heard in countless other articles in countless other papers.