Voxie Sync Recording Index

Voxie Sync Recording Index

How To Establish Voice

1) SHOW DON'T TELL


2) I WRITE FOR MYSELF, MY FRIENDS AND MY PEERS, NOT MY PROFESSOR


3) SOUND LIKE I TALK


4) IF A SENTENCE SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT PROBABLY IS


5) RESEARCH


6) DON'T TRY TOO HARD


7) PRACTICE

Probate Court

It's known as Surrogate Court in New York State, but no matter where you are it's never a happy place. These courts deal with the distribution of someone's estate after they die.

Here's the process:

1) First you have to file a 10-page form. It's just about as fun to fill out as it looks. In the form you will encounter exciting terms as domicile and combined corporate verification, consent and designation. You do not just fill these sort of forms out, you will need to pay a lawyer to help you out. You will also need to pay a modest fee to apply for the form itself.

2) Once you have submitted the form, the probate court will go over it and verify that the all the information is correct. It's not as easy as just filing a form though. You'll need to appear before the probate court a couple of times and it will be a lengthy process.

3) Wills make this process a lot easier. If the deceased has left a will, the court will have to determine the validity of it and then distribute the assets once it is proved valid. If you haven't left a will then things get ugly. The money will first go to a spouse. If the spouse is deceased then it will go to the children of the deceased. If there are no children then it goes to brothers and sisters. This is where it gets ugly. Children will say that the no good spouse doesn't deserve it, brother will say the no good son shouldn't get a penny and so on and so forth.

Besides bickering family members, one of the biggest problems that can arise in Probate/Surrogate Court is the issue of intestacy. That's when someone dies with more debts than can cover there assets.

Lauren Pic

Legalized Racis........I Mean The Rockefeller Drug Laws

A set of laws enacted by one of the Tori Spellings of American politics, Nelson A. Rockefeller,
the Rockefeller Drug Laws have successfully taken non-violent criminals possessing moderate amounts of recreational drugs off the streets and jailed them for years.
In 1973, Rockefeller -- who sort of looks like a cleaned up version of Chicago Cubs broadcaster Harry Caray -- was in his final year as governor of New York State. Before he left, his administration enacted drug laws that were allegedly in place to help curtail drug related crime and take down drug kingpins, but somehow managed to accomplish the opposite.
At the time they were enacted, the laws made no distinction between marijuana, cocaine or heroin; selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of any of them would land one in jail for 15 years to life. Also, the law made no distinction between a first time offender and a career criminal. Pot was dropped from the equation in 1979.
In 79', the legislature also amended the law, raising the amount necessary to trigger the 15 to life penalty. But then, the mid 1980's came, and with it did the use of crack in the inner-cities. The government claimed they tried their best to curb crack use, but when PSAs from Pee-Wee Herman and Clint Eastwood didn't work, they had to take a different course of action.
In 1988 the amount of crack necessary to send one to jail for 15 plus years was reduced. If you were caught with 5 grams of crack, you would receive 5 years in prison. In order for the same penalty to be trigged with powdered cocaine, you would need 500 grams of the drug.
By 1997, the number of whites only made up 5.3% of the drug felon population while blacks and Latinos accounted for 94.2%. In 1996, blacks and Latinos made up only 23% of the states population but accounted for 85% of those indicted on felony drug charges.
Minority women were especially hit hard by these laws, as many children in inner cities were raised without mothers in the 1990's because of the Rockefeller Laws. In 1990, 61.2% of women jailed in New York State were convicted of drug offenses. Only 32.2% of men were incarcerated in the same year for on drug charges.
In 2004, the state legislature passed a small reform to the Rockefeller Laws, slightly reducing some sentencing and taking other small baby-steps in the right direction.
The real issue the state government continues to ignore is the effect that short, cost effective drug treatment has over imprisoning non-violent criminals.
A study by RAND's Drug Policy Research Center in 1997 concluded that effective drug treatment is 15 times more effective in curbing drug use than mandatory minimum sentencing. The same study showed that keeping an inmate in jail for one whole year costs $32,000 while the cost of an effective drug-free outpatient care program costs only $2,700 to $4,500 per person.
Think this doesn't effect SUNY students? Since 1989 -- ironically, the year after the necessary crack limits were lowered to jail offenders -- SUNY's annual funding from the state has dropped from $1.3 billion to $800 million. New York state now spends $1.7 billion annually on prisons, compared to the slightly less than $1 billion they spent in 1989.
Help rid our state of this outdated, costly and racist piece legislation that has ruined too many lives already.

Compound Interest In My Own Words (Round 2)

Moneychimp.com

I finally gave in to the second website that comes when you Google "compound interest." I'm terrible with numbers. I tried searching through all the others that came up, desperately trying to come with a definition and an understanding of what compound interest is.

So I gave up.

I tried my hardest to avoid using one of the 1,500 online compound interest calculators, but I couldn't. Turns out that I was just overthinking. I kept convincing myself that there was this crazy concept I wasn't getting, a missing equation I couldn't possibly understand or maybe I just wasn't carrying the one over to the next column.

According to Moneychimp.com, if you invest $1000 over three years with four percent interest that compounds annually you end up with $1,124.

After several hours of excruciating financial breakdowns, calculators and pie charts I realized that you only need to know 5th grade math to execute this equation and I decide to break it down.

The first year, you invest $1000. 4% of $1000 is $40. Your total over the first year is $1,040.

The second year your money is invested, you take the $1,040 you earned the first year, and add 4% of that. 4% of $1,040 is $41.60. Add $1,040 and $41.60 together and you get $1,081.60, your total for the first two years.

The third year your money is invested you start with that $1,081.60 and, once again, add 4% of that to the total. 4% of $1,081.60 is $43.26. Add that $43.26 to the $1,081.60 and you get.....

....$1,124.86!!!

So easy a moneychimp can do it.

How an Idea Becomes a Law

How an idea becomes a law in New York State is a lengthy process, so let me somehow try to sum it up in a few paragraphs. Lets say there's a large group of concerned citizens out there who want, I don't know.......free ice cream on Mondays.
First you a need a whole lot of people who would want free ice cream on Mondays and they'd need to have a pretty good reason for it.

So, let's pretend that a recent research study conducted by the State Health Department shows that the more people eat ice cream, the happier they are. You and a couple hundred, maybe thousand, of your fellow supporters argue that since there is scientific proof that ice cream makes everyone happier, there should be free ice cream on Mondays for everyone. You argue that, if everyone who works or goes to school receives free ice cream every Monday then they're less likely to be upset about going back to work or school after every weekend is over, thus increasing work place productivity and grades.
You and your fellow supporters contact your local senator. You write or email a report to this local senator that's several pages thick, arguing why New York State would be a more productive if everyone simply received free ice cream on Mondays. After some deep thought, and recognizing the lack of campaign contributions from the local ice cream workers' unions, your senator is convinced this is a good idea for a law. The senator now turns your idea into a bill, the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008."
Your senator now proposes the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008," before the State Legislature. Once everyone in the legislature familiarizes themselves with the proposal, it is sent to what's called an "appropriate committee." The committee weighs the pros, cons, costs and overall effect the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008," will have if enacted. A public hearing is also called in most cases so the politicians can gather information on what the public thinks of the bill. Oddly enough, in an election year what the public thinks about a bill may be more important to the politicians than what they actually think about the bill.
Now the appropriate committee has agreed on the actual written format of the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008." The bill is presented to the rest of the State Senate and then to the State Assembly. You and your friends may as well get comfortable, because in New York State the process of having the majority of either side of either branch come to a consensus may take quite a long time............
.......18 months later and the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008" has been passed!!! Now the only obstacle is Governor Patterson, who has 10 days to veto the bill. Having a sweet tooth himself, Governor Patterson decides not to veto it, despite numerous threats from the executives of Haggan-Das, Ben and Jerry's, Cold Stone Creamery and the local chapter of the United Waffle-Cone Manufacturers of America. Free ice cream for everyone!

Myself In Seven Words

If I had to sum up my life in seven words, it would be:


Where did all the time go? Damn...

Compound Interest In My Own Words

Here's a short story to explain what compound interest is to those who may not be familiar with the term. The story will revolve around the interaction between two characters; Gary the Gambler and Larry the Loanshark.

Gary the Gambler lives in Anytown, USA and has made a nice living as a insurance representative. Gary is married with three children and doesn't drink, smoke, or use drugs.

But Gary has a vice, he likes to gamble.

Larry the Loanshark works in "Waste Managment." He moonlights as a bookie taking friendly wagers on sporting events. Larry also provides loans to those who are not approved by a bank or or who prefer not to use one. Larry charges a slightly higher rate of interest than most banks will. Our government calls this usury, but Larry likes to think of it as a public service for the less fortunate. Often times, the people who cannot pay Larry on the wagers they lose will take out a loan with Larry, a convenient way for Larry to kill two birds with one stone.

When people don't pay Larry, he becomes agitated. After several weeks of non-payment Larry sometimes has to take matters into his own hands. To prevent this from happening as much as possible, Larry the Loanshark charges his clients 25% of what is owed to him already every week they don't pay -- referred to as interest.

Larry then adds that interest to the money -- referred to more commonly as the principal. When Larry adds the interest to the money owed, he is compounding the interest to what is owed to him, hence the term "compound interest". This is not to be confused with "pounding" which is what Larry will often do to someone's kneecaps if they refuse to pay him.

Lets flash forward to week 5 of the NFL season. Gary the Gambler is on the phone trying to figure out how he owes Larry the Loanshark so much damn money. After all, it was only a couple of friendly wagers.

"30 grand!" screams Gary. "How is that possible! It just started with a $1000 bet only a month ago. Please come on, give me another week, please Larry! I'm good for it, I promise. How did it get this high anyway."

"Why compound interest of course, Gary. I told you, I charge 25 points (a term for 25% in the underground business world) a week whenever you don't pay. It's not something I enjoy doing Gary, but it needs to be done."

Here's how it came to be:

-Week 1. Gary the Gambler bets $1000 on the Indianpolis Colts. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay up. Now, Gary owes the $1000 plus 25% of that to Larry the Loanshark or $1250.

-Week 2. Gary thinks to himself, "I can make this up quick," and puts $2000 on the Cincinnatti Bengals. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay up. Now, Gary owes the $1250 from last week plus the $2000 from this week, totaling $3250. Now add on the 25% compound interest and Gary owes $4062.50.

-Week 3. Gary thinks he can make it back again. He bets $5000 on the New England Patriots. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay. Now Gary owes another $5000, totaling $9062.50. Add the 25% compound interest and Gary now owes $11,328.13.

-Week 4. Gary, once again, tries to make up for lost ground. He bets another $5000 on the Denver Broncos. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay. Now Gary owes a total of $16,328.13 before adding the compound interest. Once added, Gary now owes $20,410.16.

-Week 5. Gary is getting desperate. He puts $10,000 on the Buffalo Bills. "A sure thing," Gary tells himself. "After all, the Bills are undeafted and the Cardinals haven't won anything in years. The Cardinals win 41-17. This brings us to today, as Gary now owes $30,410.16. If he chooses not to pay, Gary the Gambler will owe another $7,602.54 in interest for next week.

Larry the Loanshark is growing impatient and demands some money. Gary the Gambler tries to explain that he could not get a 3rd mortgage on his home because of the sub-prime crisis, couples with a deflating economy. Larry doesn't care and Gary has to sell his car and boat to make payment.

If only someone had explained to Gary the dangers of gambling and the concept of compound interest.

"To Lede or Not to Lede?"....Unfortunately for Journalists There Is No Option

A lede is probably the hardest aspect of writing for a prospective journalist to adjust to. When writing papers throughout high school, you're brainwashed the old A, B, C, D formula when writing an assignment.
But a news piece is not an assignment, it's more like a story, and a journalist has to learn to become a storyteller. Like a story, a news piece has a beginning a middle and an end. The lede is the introduction. It sets the tone for the piece and tries to establish the main idea or point of the article.
The hardest part in adjusting to writing ledes versus a traditional English paper introduction is often getting to the point. There should be no fluff or lengthy segways. Review what you're writing about, the notes you've taken and start with the main idea of the article right away.
For example, if you were covering the upcoming presidential debate, and McCain or Obama said something like, "If elected the first thing I will do is ruthlessly invade Canada," hopefully you start your story off with that. You wouldn't begin the article by saying what color shirt each candidate was wearing. When taking notes or interviewing a good journalist always will be searching for the lede.
Other times, you want to use the most shocking or eye-catching part of the story, even if it isn't the whole story. An example from "All the New; Writing and Reporting for Convergent Media," on page 103 illustrates this. In a piece from the New York Times, Ian Urbina starts his story about shelters for gay youths by writing, "One girl said she started living on the streets after her mother beat her for dressing like a boy."
It doesn't reveal what the story is about. The lede catches the readers eye and grabs them in. You immediately want to read more; what happened, who is this girl, why was she dressing like a man, And how is this story going to end?
The lede's most important function is being able to get the readers attention and set a pace for the story ahead. There are several ways to construct a lede and a prospective journalist will only get better with practice. Summarizing an entire article in 3 lines isn't necessary, but catching the reader's attention and prepping them for the rest of the piece is essential.

For example, here's an assignment. You're a journalist and are asked to cover the following taping of this local news broadcast. Which one of the following choices would result in the most popular and effective lede? (Remember, what is the biggest story here?)

A) Bill O'Reilly's fantastic color schemes coupled with his wax-figurine like hair style.
B) The ever problematic relationship between tele-prompters and newscasters.
C) Bill O'Reilly is %$@*ing crazy.
D) The cut off Sting's newest album.

Change in Readers

Thomas Washington's piece, "Searchers, not readers, on overload," poses an interesting question. It seems to be common knowledge that people do not read as much as they did 15-20 years ago.
But Washington argues that this is not entirely a negative progression. People actually read more than they ever have each day, it's just in bits and pieces. Washington quotes Pulitzer-Prize winning biographer Stacy Schiff as saying, "Surely we have never read, or written so many words a day. Yet increasingly we deal in atomized bits of information, the hors d'oeuvres of education."
The question would be, is it satisfactory that we're only eating the appetizers and not the main course?
I'd argue that the internet -- Google in particular -- has broadened our capabilities to the point where we need to accept this as fact, whether it's good or not. Our choices for reading at the click of a mouse have increased exponentially over the past several years and by nature we have become searchers, not readers.
There is almost no chance that we can avert young readers from scanning over more information rather than finding the deeper meaning of printed words, so we should focus on making sure they read pieces that are constructive. Less gossip and more news. Hopefully that is not just a pipe dream.


The most noticeable spawn from this age of attention defect driven news consumption may be blogs. People not only like to read news pieces that are more opinionated -- possibly towards their own views -- but ones that they can get instantaneously. Perhaps they can even comment their own sentiments immediately, via the comment/reaction section that exists on most blogs. And has the proliferation of blogs effectively killed traditional print journalism.

Here is a spirited debate between Buzz Bissinger, the award winning author of "Friday Night Lights, and Will Leitch, the founder of Deadspin.com, a popular online sports blog with multiple contributors. It's an interesting round-table on whether or not the inevitable shift towards blog-esque news coverage is positive or detrimental to the evolving business of journalism. I'm not sure why Cleveland Browns wide-receiver was even there. His agent might as well have been there as he really offers nothing of substance to the debate. It's a little lengthy and contains some profanity, but is well worth viewing for anyone who blogs or is interested in journalism.

What's A Weblog?

I don't read blogs that much. Actually, to be more accurate, I don't read blogs at all. So being asked to define and recommend "a good one" is sort of like asking a vegan how they like their porterhouse cooked.
There's a few reasons why I don't read blogs. First, everyone of them seems to have the same amateurish look with the same fonts and cheesy color schemes. I'm not against amateur journalism at all - being, well, an amateur journalist myself - but for some reason I just would rather read actual columns and articles. Second, I they always seem to lengthy and poorly formatted. I have a short attention span and typically lose interest by the 350th word of a 100 word entry. Maybe I just don't give blogs a chance, and that's something I need to change. Or, maybe I'm not missing out on much.
I guess I'd define a blog as an personal online journal or diary, except it's different from the one that you hid from your parents and siblings because you want people to read it. A blog is entertainment. People write about whatever they want, whenever they want, however they choose to write it.
As far as recommending a blog, I think I just found a pretty decent one. Michael Lombardi is a former National Football League front office executive, with over 20 years of experience. He knows the ins and outs of how the business is ran and keeps a running blog on the website "The National Football League Post." Lombardi possess a wealth of access and knowledge of the game and expresses his own original opinions in a candid and coherent manner.

Here's a link
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/blogs/notesfromlombardi/

Alicia Shepard Quote

National Public Radio's resident ombudsman, Alicia Shepard knows a thing or two about the craft of interviewing. Shepard interviewed over 100 people close to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein while undertaking extensive research for her book, "Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadows of Watergate."
According to Shepard, a successful journalist must always remember that, "A good interview is merely a good conversation."

1st Amendment

The First Amendment is what many would call the foundation of our basic rights and freedoms. It has a profound affect on all of our lives, even though it was written over 200 years ago. It's the first part of the Bill of Rights and guarantees us freedom of speech, the freedom to practice any religion we want and the right to peacefully assemble. There have been many court cases challenging what the exact meaning of these rights are, especially concerning freedom of speech.

Here's what the rest of the Bill of Rights guarantees us:


Second Amendment- Right to Bear Arms

This is the one right that has led to the overwhelming, useless and deadly amount of firearms that poison many streets in America. It's also the lone piece of legislation that the NRA and every other gun-nut in this country hides behind whenever we have a school-shooting. Inevitably movies, music and video games are blamed, but guns are still designed to kill people. Unfortunately this amendment has yet to be revised despite the advent of automatic weapons and their mass production that did not exist 200 years ago.

Perhaps the ramifications of this amendment are best captured by two of our generation's finest actors -- Brian Austin-Green and Douglas Emerson -- in this 1991 clip from "Beverly Hills 90210," a quintessential piece of Americana. In this touching yet spectacularly unrealistic and over-the-top scene, the show's producers are faced with the timeless question that every Hollywood producer is forced to tackle; how to eliminate a useless cast member while addressing one of the hot button social issues of the moment. I know! Gun control!!!



Third Amendment- Right to Not Quarter Soldiers in Homes Without Owner's Consent

This was introduced to keep British soldiers from crashing in American homes during the American Revolution - I think? - and is completely irrelevant and undoubtedly collecting dust wherever it is stored.


Fourth Amendment- Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

This amendment keeps the government from kicking down your door and rummaging through your closet, but apparently not from randomly wire-tapping our phones calls. The Patriot Act trumps this one.


Fifth Amendment- Right to Due Process

This amendment basically gives us all the right to a fair trial. It also gives each state the power of eminent domain, meaning they can seize private property if they have a decent reason and give you enough money for it. Also included is the double jeopardy law, meaning you can't be tried for the same crime twice and is also responsible for the dreadful 1999 Tommie Lee-Jones movie of the same name.


Sixth Amendment- Right To A Speedy Trial

Basically an addition to the fifth amendment, saying that not only are we all entitled to a fair trial, but the courts can't hold it up just to keep you on trial for a crime. Most cases don't even go to court now anyway.


Seventh Amendment- Right to Jury Trial in Certain Civil Trials

This one seems outdated, it guarantees jury trial in federal civil court cases. Such cases are as extinct as Andrew McCarthy's career.


Eighth Amendment- Right Against Cruel or Unusual Punishment

Pretty self-explanatory. I understand what cruel punishment would be, but what would be unusual punishment? Having to listen to this for 48 straight hours?


Ninth Amendment- Enumerated Rights

Basically, the ninth amendment is a warning. It's a little vague however. The amendment says that there are right that may exist that are not mentioned in the constitution, and that those rights cannot be violated simply because they're not listed.

Tenth Amendment- State's Rights

This Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government only has power that is listed in the constitution, all other right are for states and individuals. It doesn't mean you or your governor can do whatever you or he/she wants, just that any laws the states wish to enact have to be within the confines of the constitution and must pass through each states own legal system. It's much more complicated than what I just typed, but that's pretty much the basis of it. Actually now that I read more about this Amendment, I'm not sure what it means exactly.

Kelly Cramer Lede

This would be my potential lede after listening to Kelly Cramer and asking her questions:


So, you just inherited a couple million and you want to go mingle with your newfound, super-elite brethren in their favorite pastime.
Invest in some fencing gear? No way.
Join the nearest equestrian club? Try again.
Round up some thoroughbreds and start a good old fashion polo match, right? Not even close.
According to former Village Voice writer, Kelly Cramer, "Litigation is the new sport of kings." Cramer should know. Over the span of six months she unearthed the secretive, nefarious and as Cramer found out, occasionally incestuous world of high finance in her feature piece, "Daddy's Little Girl."

McCain Quote

I thought the most interesting and thought provoking quote from John McCain's acceptance speech was, "We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans."

Some things to think about:

1) If what we're doing in Iraq right now is considered "unleashing" our initiative, I sincerely hope our next president is not John McCain.

2) We all have varying degrees of creativity inside of us. Some of it is positive, constructive and should be shared by everyone. But some of it is what is causing American youths to be raised with little motivation, no attention span and a mortal fear of participating in outdoor activities. Will iPhones and Nintendo Wiis really help the progress of teenagers in Taiwan?