Current Event (Rob Sesso)

NFL Comissioner Looking To Extend Regular Season
Commissioner Roger Goddell is looking to propose a deal to NFL owners to extend the regular season to 17 or even 18 games. In order to do so, the league would have to cut the preseason short or not have one at all. The fans do not derive much satisfaction from such preseason games, and this would be an opportunity to increase revenue in spite of the poor economic times. From an economic standpoint, the NFL would be able to make more money from extra games and possibly be able to retain more employees as a result. On the other side of the coin, the players would demand more money for the additional games that are being played, and they would have to risk injury in addition to the 16 game strenuous season that is currently in place. There are two sides here -- basically the owners and the players. The additional compensation could be a problem that slows the negotiation process between the owners and the players association whose collective bargaining agreement expires after the 2010 season. This is something not quite set in stone, and there are foreseeable roadblocks that could curtail such negotiations. Goddell thinks that this would be a chance to keep the NFL out of debt and garner the interest of fans. It might also help the NFL generate global interest.

Here are some article to spark your opinion on the issue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSTRE52P40L20090326
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_10310155

Some questions for thought:
Is this a plausible idea for the NFL moving forward?
What kind of effect could this have on the NFL as a whole?
Are the players being put at a disadvantage in this situation?
Do you think that this is a good idea with respect to the economy?

Current Event (Week 11 - Jim Faklis)

This Media Clip is an interview with the President of the NCAA, Myles Brand. In this short interview, he addresses the importance of the student athlete and how universities should treat these people as students first rather than athletes. Also, this clip briefly examines commercialism of the NCAA. Commercialism has become somewhat more apparent intercollegiate athletics in the past few years, but Myles Brand hopes that this does not dictate how the NCAA will be portrayed in the future.  It should be noted that this is only one side of the issues. The other side of this issue deals with the NCAA and how these student athletes should have the opportunity to receive some type of financial gains or benefits from the performances they put out on the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O59vEd7o8_s

Obama questions viability of GM, Chrysler

According to MSNBC.com President Barack Obama refused further long-term federal bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler. President Obama believes that more concessions are needed from unions, creditors and others before they could be approved. According to cnn. com "The federal government will give GM "adequate working capital" over the next 60 days to work in conjunction with the administration in developing a better recovery plan, Obama said." He also granted Chrysler a 30 day period to complete a merger between Chrsyler and Italian auto maker Fiat. There are two sides to this argument. Some people believe that there is no place for the government in the auto industry, while others believe the government should continue to give the industry more money to bail them out.

Below are the links to the two articles I have sited, along with the video of President Obama's speech:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29944834/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/30/obama.autos/index.html

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29957543#29957543

Do you think that the plan outlined in the articles or speech can solve the problem? Do you have any suggestions for what should be done?

Do you think that the government has too much control over the struggling auto industry?

Spring Break Warnings

With spring break coming up, it is important for students traveling south of the border to understand the risks involved. It is always important to use common sense and stay away from shady areas, but this year drug violence in Mexico has caused the U.S. Department of State as well as many Colleges and Universities to issue warnings and travel alerts. According to Foxnews.com, the five main drug cartels in Mexico are involved in an increasingly violent war with each other and with Mexican military and police personnel over drug smuggling routes near the border. Although tourists have not specifically been targeted, there have been innocent victims caught in the crossfire.

According to the Travel Alert issued by the U.S. State Department, there have been large firefights throughout the country, but mainly in the north closer to the border. Cities of particular concern are Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez, which has seen over 1800 drug-related murders since January 2008. However, there has been drug violence in resort towns such as Acapulco and Cancun, both popular vacation spots. Violent warnings have been sent by the cartels such as dumping headless bodies in the streets. Although the State Department has not gone so far as to warn spring-breakers not to travel to Mexico, they are urging people to use common sense. They don't expect Americans to be targeted and it is generally believed that resorts will remain safe.


This clip from CBS News talks about some of the dangers spring break travelers may face this year in Mexco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXa-BqB79ZQ

Has the current increase in violence in Mexico caused any of you to alter your spring break plans? Are any of you going to Mexico? If so, where, and what precautions will you take to stay safe? How do you think Mexican and American authorities should handle this? Would you let your children go?

Dora The Explorer Controversy- Angela Ingrassia Week 7

The popular children's toy "Dora the Explorer" has sparked controversy over her new image. Mom's across the nation are upset with the new doll's image that has been rumored to be "too sexy" for young girls.  One source called her "Dora the Streetwalker" and another headline said that she was "turned into a tramp".  She has a new shape, long legs, and flowing hair and looks similar to a miniature Barbie. 

However, Mattel and Nickelodeon, the maker of the doll and the station the show is aired on, say that the doll is just a more "grown up version" of Dora. Dora, invented in the late 1990's, has had to grow up with some of her fans, since they relate to her.  Therefore, unlike the original dora, this image is geared more towards girls from 5 years to 8 years. Along with the new doll, a new series will be featured on Nickelodeon entitled "Go Diego Go".  But not to fear, the new show will be aired along side with the old Dora. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4-v90mK4

What do you think? Should Mattel back off? Should it raise the target age for the new Dora? Or should parents accept that culture is changing, and the new Dora is a peek of what future cartoons will look like for kids?

The following clip below is from a  Fox news airing on the doll.