SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (3874)7/27/2003 10:08:41 PM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793622
 
John,
On August 12, I am scheduled to give a 90 minute lecture at Virginia Wesleyan College.

Three questions.

1. Can you get me into the teachers' union?

2. The projected class size is 200+. Who should I complain to?

3. When do I get a raise?
unclewest



To: JohnM who wrote (3874)7/27/2003 10:26:50 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793622
 
Here are the annual incarceration Stats. Nothing real new, but it is hard to find these figures at times. Two things stick out. The five fold difference in black/white incarceration, and the number of people in for Drugs. I wonder how many of these drug crimes were victimless, vs being pled down from violent crimes.

Study Finds 2.6% Increase in U.S. Prison Population
By FOX BUTTERFIELD - NEW YORK TIMES

The nation's prison population grew 2.6 percent last year, the largest increase since 1999, according to a study by the Justice Department.

The jump came despite a small decline in serious crime in 2002. It also came when a growing number of states facing large budget deficits have begun trying to reduce prison costs by easing tough sentencing laws passed in the 1990's, thereby decreasing the number of inmates.

"The key finding in the report is this growth, which is somewhat surprising in its size after several years of relative stability in the prison population," said Allen J. Beck, an author of the report. Mr. Beck is the chief prison demographer for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the statistical arm of the Justice Department, which releases an annual study of the number of people incarcerated in the United States.

At the end of 2002, there were 2,166,260 Americans in local jails, state and federal prisons and juvenile detention facilities, the report found.

Another important finding was that 10.4 percent of black men ages 25 to 29, or 442,300 people, were in prison last year. By comparison, 2.4 percent of Hispanic men and 1.2 percent of white men in the same age group were in prison.

The report, which was released yesterday, found that this large racial disparity had not increased in the past decade. But Marc Mauer, the assistant director of the Sentencing Project, a prison change research and advocacy group, said that with the number of young black men in prison remaining so high, "the ripple effect on their communities, and on the next generation of kids growing up with their fathers in prison, will certainly be with us for at least a generation."

Mr. Beck, Mr. Mauer and other experts said the growth in the prison population last year, despite the efforts by some states to reduce the number of inmates, was a result of the continuing effect of draconian sentencing laws passed in the 1990's when the states could afford to build more prisons and politicians competed to sound tough on crime.

Mr. Beck said increases in inmates in several of the largest states contributed to most of the national increase. Those states included California, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania, he said. In Florida, he said, local judges used their discretion under the tougher laws to sentence more people convicted of felonies to prison rather than probation or some other program.

Alfred Blumstein, a leading criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University, said it was not illogical for the prison population to go up even when the crime rate goes down.

For one thing, Professor Blumstein said, some crimes considered victimless are not counted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual report on the crime rate, including drug crimes, gun possession crimes and immigration offenses.

Another reason, Professor Blumstein said, was that it has become increasingly clear from statistical research that "there is no reason that the prison count and the crime rate have to be consistent." The crime rate measures the amount of crime people are suffering from, he said, while the prison count is a measure of how severely society chooses to deal with crime, which varies from time to time.

Mr. Beck said he did not believe the sizeable increase in the prison population last year was the start of a trend back to the big increases of the 1980's and 1990's, when the number of incarcerated Americans quadrupled. States do not have the money to build more prisons now, he said, and the push by a number of states to reduce inmate populations will have some effect on the numbers.

Among the states that have eased sentencing laws in the past year are Michigan, which scrapped mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, and Kansas, Texas and Washington. Several states, including Kansas and California, have new laws mandating drug treatment rather than prison for nonviolent drug offenses.

Although many advocates of prison change have blamed drug arrests for the significant growth in the prison population, the report found violent crimes responsible for 64 percent of the increase in the number of men in state prisons from 1995 to 2001. Violent crimes also accounted for 49 percent of the increase in the number of women in state prisons in those years. Professor Blumstein said that figure was unusual because women have generally been convicted of drug and property crimes.

In total, 49 percent of inmates in state prisons last year were serving time for violent crimes, the report said. Twenty percent were serving time for drug offenses, 19 percent for property crimes, and 11 percent for public-order offenses, like drunken driving, parole violations and contempt of court.

But in the federal prison system, which with 163,528 inmates is now larger than any state system, 48 percent of the growth in the number of prisoners from 1995 to 2001 was accounted for by drug crimes and only 9 percent by violent crimes.

The number of inmates in federal prisons for gun crimes increased by 68 percent from 1995 to 2001, as Congress, President Bill Clinton and President Bush pushed to federalize some illegal gun possession cases.

In addition to 1.4 million Americans in state and federal prisons in 2002, 665,475 people were in local and county jails and 110,284 were in juvenile facilities, the report said.

California had the largest number of inmates, with 162,317 followed closely by Texas, with 162,003.

Louisiana had the highest rate of incarceration, with 794 inmates per 100,000 residents. Maine and Minnesota tied for the lowest incarceration rate, with 141 inmates per 100,000 residents.
nytimes.com



To: JohnM who wrote (3874)7/28/2003 3:53:06 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793622
 
Congress is running over Powell like a Mack truck. But he is right, IMO.

New Rules, Old Rhetoric
By MICHAEL K. POWELL - OP ED - NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON

As the debate about media ownership has moved to Congress during the last two months, the tone of the rhetoric has grown increasingly shrill. One member of Congress said the Federal Communications Commission's June 2 decision to modernize media ownership rules would produce "an orgy of mergers and acquisitions," while another said the new rules could create a new generation of Citizen Kanes.

A key portion of the F.C.C.'s decision would allow one company to own broadcast stations reaching up to 45 percent of the national market, an increase from the current cap of 35 percent. Last week the House approved a $37 billion measure to finance several federal agencies, which also included a provision to restore the 35 percent limit. Yet there is a distressing lack of consensus, and even some basic misunderstandings, over exactly what problem Congress is trying to solve.

There is no doubt that this debate about the role of the media in America is important. It involves not only the core values of the First Amendment, but also issues like how much we value diversity of viewpoints and to what extent the government should promote competition and encourage local control of television.

Whether changing the ownership cap will address these concerns is another question. If the problem is lack of diversity among the media, then the fact is that the United States has the most diverse media marketplace in the world. There are more media outlets, owners, variety and diversity now than at any point in our nation's history. Moreover, our nation's media landscape will not become significantly more concentrated as a result of changes to the F.C.C. rules.

Some say the problem is media concentration, and point out that only five companies control 80 percent of what we see and hear. In reality, those five companies own only 25 percent of more than 300 broadcast, satellite and cable channels, but because of their popularity, 80 percent of the viewing audience chooses to watch them. Popularity is not synonymous with monopoly. A competitive media marketplace must be our fundamental goal, but do we really want government to regulate what is popular?

Others claim that ownership limits are necessary because TV has too much sex or too much violence, is too bland or too provocative. Is television news coverage too liberal, as the National Rifle Association maintains, or too conservative, as critics of networks like Fox say?

The importance of this debate requires accurate facts about the marketplace and clarity from the government about what it is doing. Such an approach helps distinguish legitimate concerns about media concentration from more worrisome efforts to use the government hammer to shape future viewpoints or punish viewpoints expressed in the past.

Much of the pressure to restrict ownership, I fear, is motivated not by worries about concentration, but by a desire to affect content. And some proposals to reduce concentration risk having government promote or suppress particular viewpoints.

The solution proposed by some in Congress is to rescind the ownership cap and restore the status quo. These are the same ownership rules that governed during the time of widespread public discontent with television. It is hard to see how the status quo will produce the results some in Congress say they want.

Keeping the national ownership cap on television stations at 35 percent is also a rule previously struck down by the courts. Moreover, many cable channels ? with whom broadcast stations compete for viewers ? often reach more than 80 percent of the viewing audience.

Some argue that the cap is necessary to limit concentration. Yet not one of the four major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) owns more than 3 percent of the nation's television stations. The national cap is not what is preventing greater concentration.

More critically, the national cap does not limit the number of stations one can own in a local market. Fortunately, the F.C.C. maintains strong local ownership restrictions that limit the number of stations one can own in a single market. It is important to consider the rules comprehensively, as the F.C.C. has done, and not piecemeal.

In any case, the national cap does not limit the number of stations one can own; it limits only the number of people one can reach. If a company owns a handful of stations in populous markets like New York or Los Angeles, it will bump into the cap quickly. But if the stations are in smaller markets, it can own many more.

This oddity is why so-called local affiliate groups own many more stations nationally than the networks. Fox Network, for example, is over the 35 percent cap with 35 stations, but Sinclair Broadcasting is well under the cap (at 14 percent) with 56 stations. One can see why many local broadcast groups support the national cap ? it allows them to own more stations than the networks. It does not prevent a company with headquarters in Atlanta from owning stations in Muncie, Ind., no matter what numerical limit is drawn. Such has been the case for decades.

At the same time, the current debate has ignored a disturbing trend the new rules will do much to abate: the movement of high-quality content from free over-the-air broadcast television to cable and satellite.

It is difficult to see exactly how setting a lower cap will improve television. Already, most top sports programming has fled to cable and satellite. Quality prime-time viewing, long the strong suit of free television, has begun to erode, as demonstrated by HBO's 109 Emmy nominations this year. Indeed, for the first time ever, cable surpassed free TV in prime-time viewing share last year. If they can reach more of the market, broadcasters will be able to better compete with cable and satellite.

All of this demonstrates that media ownership is no easy issue. When striving to promote the public interest, we must also honor the values of the First Amendment. That's why, following the 1996 mandate of Congress, the F.C.C. armed itself with the facts and spent an exhaustive amount of time and resources to strike this constitutionally important balance. Let's have a national debate, but let's keep it in focus.

Michael K. Powell is chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.