Half in U.S. support legalizing marijuana use: poll
“Support for legalizing marijuana has been increasing over the past several years, rising to 50 percent today, the highest on record,” a summary of the poll said. Another 46 percent said marijuana should remain illegal.”If this current trend on legalizing marijuana continues, pressure may build to bring the nation’s laws into compliance with the people’s wishes,” the summary added.Gallup said support for legalization had crept up from just 12 percent in 1969 to 30 percent in 2000 and 40 percent in 2009. Last year, a Gallup survey found 70 percent of Americans favored making it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana to relieve pain and suffering.California in 1996 became the first state to decriminalize medical marijuana, and a number of other U.S. states have followed suit with their own statutes. Cannabis remains classified as an illegal narcotic under federal law.A separate national survey released last month showed that marijuana was increasingly becoming the drug of choice among young adults in the United States, with nearly seven percent of Americans aged 12 and older having used marijuana in 2010.The Gallup poll released on Monday showed that Democrats, at 57 percent, were more likely to support legalization than Republicans, only 35 percent of whom favored such a move. Men, at 55 percent, were also more likely to back legalization than women, at 46 percent.By geography, more than half of Americans in the West, Midwest and East supported legalization while in the South, 44 percent favored such a move.The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted October 6-9 with a random sample of 1,005 adults across the country. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Nikkei slips from 6-wk high, hurt by euro zone doubts
* Comments from Germany take wind out of equity rallyTOKYO, Oct 18 (Reuters) - Japan’s Nikkei share average fell
more than 1 percent on Tuesday from a six-week high hit the
previous day on concerns that Europe’s solution to its debt
crisis may not be as fast and comprehensive as some had hoped
for.Shares in Olympus , tumbled for a third day and have
lost 41 percent since its shock dismissal of its CEO, with the
camera and endoscope maker under pressure to disclose details of
payments to advisers in the buyout of a UK-based medical
equipment firm.Germany said on Monday that a summit of EU leaders next
Sunday would not produce a miracle cure for the euro zone’s
sovereign debt crisis, a warning that poured cold water on hopes
of a clear-cut solution to the debt’s crisis.”I’d say more than half of equity rally this month had been
driven by hopes of European policy steps. I thought the rally
would run out of steam after the EU summit but it came faster,”
said Soichiro Monji, chief strategist at Daiwa SB Investments.The Nikkei average fell 1.4 percent to 8,755.46,
while the broader Topix index lost 1.2 percent to
752.95.For now, support for the Nikkei is seen around 8,689, a 38.2
percent retracement of its rally to Monday’s six-week closing
high from its Oct. 5 low, and then at its 25-day moving average,
now around 8,650.Shares of exporters, which had benefited from optimism on
the euro zone’s debt crisis, underperformed the overall market.Machinery manufacturers fell 2.4 percent while
makers of electronics goods fell 2.2 percent and auto
stocks dropped 1.7 percent.Some of those manufacturers, such as Honda and Sony
, have also been hit by concerns over flood damage at
their factories in Thailand.Olympus continued to fall in heavy trade, briefly hitting a
new 2-1/2-year low of 1,455 yen as the company’s feud with
ousted Chief Executive Michael Woodford grows nastier.The company told investors on Monday that it may take legal
action against Woodford, accusing him of disclosing confidential
information in media interviews.Woodford in turn has accused the board of firing him for
probing allegations of improper payments related to
acquisitions, according to media reports.Investors are also focused on U.S. corporate earnings, with
the scorecard so far mixed at best.This week will see reports from Goldman Sachs , Bank
of America , Apple Inc and other prominent
companies.”Looking at U.S. corporate earning so far, I’m left with the
impression that even though EPS is coming in line with
expectations, the top line is weak at many companies. I expect
global shares to slip towards the end of month,” Monji said.
Farm groups turning to Web to burnish image
But he still makes time to tweet.Whether it’s touting the benefits of a new fertilizer, sharing photos of a newborn calf, debating genetically modified crops or discussing modern-day hog farming, a growing legion of farmers and ranchers like Grimm are increasingly turning to Facebook, Twitter, and personal web blogs to try to connect with consumers, educators and others about agriculture.”We all eat,” said 37-year-old Grimm, who helps run the 18-month-old AgChat Foundation, teaching other farmers how to use online social media to tell their stories to a sometimes skeptical public.”Food is important to everybody but very few people produce that food,” he said. “We farmers need to connect with consumers … whether it’s a mom in New York or a teacher in Chicago.”Calling themselves “agvocates,” these tech-savvy farmers and their supporters are hoping their efforts counter images of animal abuse, environmental damage and health problems that have become associated with industrial agricultural practices.”There are lots of perceptions about what I do. I would like to have a voice in that perception,” said 31-year-old Mike Haley, who keeps his Twitter followers up to date as he plants soft red winter wheat on his Ohio farm.The fight for hearts and minds in agriculture on the Web is also being taken up by agribusiness in a big way.A new organization backed by some of the most powerful corporate names in agriculture hopes to swing public opinion with a mix of social media and conventional marketing methods.The U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), which boasts Monsanto, the world’s largest seed technology company, and DuPont, one of the world’s biggest chemical and seed producers, as members, has a multi-year agenda.The aim is to address consumer attitudes and opinions about food production by farmers, ranchers and their suppliers.”We’ve sensed some concerns … about what is going on about food safety and food quality,” said communications director Ken Colombini at the National Corn Growers Association.DuPont, which has contributed $500,000 to the effort, said the need for such a dialogue was “glaringly obvious.”“There is a growing disconnect,” said Bill Even, DuPont senior manager of biotech and regulatory affairs. “People have lost touch with modern agriculture. This isn’t an event. It is more of a process, more of a movement.”With more than 50 national, regional and state agriculture groups as members and a projected budget above $11 million, USFRA has hired a veteran marketing expert as general manager and begun national advertising and marketing efforts.Last month the group debuted an online “Food Dialogues” townhall-style discussion and website project, and the group has a list of bloggers and others seen as influential voices targeted for the ongoing campaign.A recent sampling of some of the queries posted to a USFRA Food Dialogue website covered a gamut of issues, from a request that USFRA members disclose the amount of government subsidies they receive to complaints about “factory farms.”There were posts relaying concerns about nitrogen fertilizer run-off affecting the Gulf Coast and waterways, worries about antibiotics and hormones given to livestock, a question about funny-looking carrot sticks, and even one query from someone seeking the “best method to build a grain drill.”The organization acknowledges up front the animosity obvious in many of the postings about farming. “When did agriculture become a dirty word?”it asks on its website.For some critics, agriculture is not the problem, but the practices of certain players are.The fact that some of the key players in USFRA are opposed to food labeling proposals, yet are saying they want to communicate more openly with consumers, particularly rankles.”They want to tell consumers how their food is produced, well, let’s really tell consumers how their food is produced,” said National Organic Coalition Director Liana Hoodes.”It’s great to have a dialogue,” Hoodes said. “We hope it will be an honest dialogue.”
WL Ross & Co cuts fund-raising target-WSJ
U.S. billionaire Wilbur Ross founded the private-equity
firm which he sold to Invesco in 2006. WL Ross & Co
could not be reached immediately for comment.WSJ said that Wilbur Ross declined to comment on fund
raising efforts.
Apple must show patents valid in Samsung case: judge
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh made the comments in a court hearing on Thursday, but has yet to rule on Apple’s request to bar some Galaxy products from being sold in the United States.Apple and Samsung are engaged in a bruising legal battle that includes more than 20 cases in 10 countries as the two jostle for the top spot in the smartphone and tablet markets.Earlier on Thursday, an Australian court slapped a temporary ban on the sale of Samsung’s latest computer tablet in that country.Apple sued Samsung in the United States in April, saying the South Korean company’s Galaxy line of mobile phones and tablets “slavishly” copies the iPhone and iPad.Apple then filed a request in July to bar some Samsung products from U.S. sale, including the Galaxy S 4G smartphone and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.Mobile providers Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA have opposed Apple’s request, arguing that a ban on Galaxy products would cut into holiday sales.Apple must show both that Samsung infringed its patents and that its patents are valid under the law.Samsung attorney Kathleen Sullivan argued that in order to defeat an injunction bid, Samsung need only show that it has raised strong enough questions about the validity of Apple’s patents.”We think we’ve clearly raised substantial questions,” Sullivan said at the hearing on Thursday in a San Jose, California federal court.Apple attorney Harold McElhinny said Apple’s product design is far superior to previous tablets, so Apple’s patents should not be invalidated by designs that came before.”It was the design that made the difference,” McElhinny said.Koh frequently remarked on the similarity between each company’s tablets. At one point during the hearing, she held one black glass tablet in each hand above her head, and asked Sullivan if she could identify which company produced which.”Not at this distance your honor,” said Sullivan, who stood at a podium roughly ten feet away.”Can any of Samsung’s lawyers tell me which one is Samsung and which one is Apple?” Koh asked. A moment later, one of the lawyers supplied the right answer.Additionally, at the hearing Koh said she would deny Apple’s request for an injunction based on one of Apple’s so-called “utility” patents.She did not say whether she would grant the injunction based on three other Apple “design” patents.Koh characterized her thoughts on the utility patent as “tentative” but said she would issue a formal order “fairly promptly.”“It took a long time to make that distinction,” Koh said.After the hearing, Samsung spokesman Kim Titus said Apple’s injunction request is “groundless.”Apple spokeswoman Kristen Huguet said, “It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad … This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, 11-1846.
The challenges for media, 30 years after my hostage ordeal
Thirty years ago this Wednesday, I was sitting, chain smoking, in the basement of a children’s needlework school in Kensington, London. It was a few doors away from the Iranian Embassy, which for six days had been under siege as six Iranian dissidents held two dozen hostages captive. Five days earlier, on April 30th, I had been released from the embassy after suffering what the hostage-takers, and myself, thought was a heart attack, though it was probably self-induced through terror and self survival.
The needlework school had another function that day – it was the HQ for the police and military preparing to break the siege. I had been summoned there to assist in the hostage negotiations, though as I arrived the Iranians dumped one dead hostage onto the street. They had shot him in the head and threatened to shoot another within the hour.
Within minutes members of Britain’s Special Air Services (SAS) were given orders to storm the embassy and break the siege. They did so in 43 minutes, rescuing all but one of the hostages and shooting dead five of the six dissidents. The sixth later stood trial at the Old Bailey and was jailed for life.
It was history in the making. The SAS’s finest hour. All covered live on television (though, remarkably, the interruption of regular programming – a John Wayne western on one channel, the final of a snooker contest on the other – was considered a bold move on the part of the programmers, subject to much criticism from viewers in the days after.)
Three weeks later, on June 1st, 1980, CNN was launched and a revolution in continuous news began. As a former hostage, and a newsman for more than 40 years, I am conflicted.
How would the modern-day media cover a siege such as the 1980 one? How would the relentless, frequently breathless and opinionated media of 2010 report on the delicate, terrifying negotiations that went on 30 years ago this week?
There was at least one television set inside the Iranian embassy, though for some reason it was not working. There was a radio – and the hostages and their captors sat around it like attentive children, sobbing, laughing and occasionally arguing as broadcasts were made. The slightest error or nuanced report was a cause for distress.
These were pre-Internet days. No texts by phone – telephone pagers were considered state of the art. No Facebook, no Flickr, and absolutely no Twitter.
As a journalist that seems terrible. As a former hostage I am not so sure.
What might have been the outcome if insensitive, speculative or just plain bad reportage had been provided and available to the hostage takers? Supposing clandestine filming of the preparations to break the siege had been transmitted on the BBC, CNN or Fox?
Experience tells me there is no such thing as a complete news blackout. The very best intentions by responsible media organizations can be confounded either by screw-ups or by commentators sitting outside what used to be a cozy circle. And social media contributors have their own take on information flow – mostly innocent chatter, sometimes rabid or with a fixed agenda.
It’s a good time for media outlets to plan for the next siege. And to determine, in advance, what their response might be.
It’s also a good time to reflect on our reporting of the victims of terrorist acts. My ordeal was a brief one, though sufficient to write my Last Will and Testament and leave me with long-lasting after-effects. It ended my ambition to be a dashing war correspondent and started me thinking about the effects of trauma on members of the media.
Thirty years on, responsible media organizations –Reuters, AP, the BBC, CNN and others – take for granted the duty of care they have for their own staff. Other media organizations might care to examine their own consciences.
