"The Reconstruction of American Journalism"

I don't no if anybody will have time to read through this before class, but if you can at least give it a good skim:

"The Reconstruction of American Journalism"

I found this link on the TPN page as I was going over it today. It touches upon a lot of the issues pertinent to what we are currently discussing and attempting to collectively organize. The suggestions at the end of the article as to how to fund journalism in the future are particularly worth discussing in class.

So it looks like the Post Gazette reporter arrested during the G-20 got off. Let's hope over students can say the same...

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09287/1005358-100.stm

Personal Fallout Over Andrew Sullivan's Address

This relates to class, but not the G20. Seriously, if anyone doesn't think it belongs on this blog, let me know somehow and I'll take it off.

As I mentioned in class, I shared a link to Andrew Sullivan's article with my father on his facebook wall. Today I had an emotionally agitating conversation about it. The other person involved is my father's, best friend's, son. All three of his friend's sons served in Iraq and my dad sent them a lot of mail and support while they were there. I've grown up knowing them too, although all of the sons are several years older than I am, so we haven't had much in common. Still, I see the man I'm debating with several times a year, which is why I was very surprised that this escalated so quickly.

I think the stakes were high on both sides of the argument, and I admit that my first response to his post was a bit inflammatory. Here it is, I've only used his initials and resisted the temptation to edit my typos:

Ellen (to my father)
"This article is written by a conservative journalist who (I think) very
fairly evaluates the Bush administration's use of torture and urges the
former president to take some sort of action.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/bush-torture"

C.B.
"President Bush,
You don't know me, so I'll appologize for the personal tone of this letter.
I voted for you in 2004, and I'm damn proud of it. I didn't agree with all of your domestic policies, in fact, some of them piss me off, but you were spot on in your foreign policy. I respect the hell out of you for your backbone, and I wish our current president had one just like yours. I understand the need to kill those that would kill us, before they kill us. I know that you had intelligence that said that Iraq had WMDs, and that you acted in good faith. I also understand that Saddam Hussein was one ruthless mofo who killed many thousands of his own people with chemical weapons, and tortured countless others in ways that would make water-boarding look like pattycake. But no worries Mr. President, I'm sure the American people will one day grow up and stop trying to burn you for doing what you thought (and I agree with you) was right.

Thanks, and God Bless"

Ellen
"'I'm sure the American people will grow up and stop trying to burn you for doing what you thought was right.'"

It's pretty easy to state a personal opinion. It's harder to make a reasoned argument based on specific evidence from many first hand sources and multiple definitions of torture, including ones that president Bush has stated that he subscribes to.

I don't know if you actually read the whole article, but I would care more about your opinion if you had some convincing reasons why Saddam, killing and torturing Iraqis is somehow worse than Bush killing and torturing Iraqis."

C.B.
"My published opinions are always based on a degree of factual knowledge, and usually firsthand at that. (Can I help it if MSNBC doesn't cover it?) Whereas you have cut and pasted a link, I have written of my own violation, which lends itself to my argument being the more considered. I have no desire to banty words with such an impertinent and heavily opinionated young Lady such as yourself. My original letter to Pres. Bush was posted for the benefit of your esteemed father, as 'evidenced' by it being on his page, because, as I'm sure you'll agree, it is always better to present two sides of an argument, rather than one.
I'm sure you will forgive me for my dismissive tone.
Best regards,
[see above]"

Ellen
"First of all, I do appreciate your service to your country and respect your decision to follow what you believed to be right, and to stand by it. However, I don't think that gives you a monopoly on the truth of the situation. The link I posted includes the testimony of several soldiers who served in Iraq and probably had similar experiences to yours, but came to different conclusions as humans are apt to do in any situation.

I never expressed any opinion on the topic of torture, the war or anything other than what constitutes a valid argument. I was sharing an article that I found to be interesting with my father, so that we could discuss it rather than yelling at each other. Granted my tone truthfully betrayed my shock at your statement.

Of course anything posted in a public forum is open to criticism, so we both have that right. I'm surprised and offended to hear you calling me "an impertinent and heavily opinionated young lady" when you yourself have expressed an extremely controversial opinion that human rights violations are justified as a matter of national security and the people making those calls are above responsibility. The "young lady" is extremely cutting, and, as I'm sure you intended it to be (I withhold my forgiveness), extremely dismissive."

C.B.
"Very well. I appreciate your commitment to your argument."

END

That got really mean, very quickly. And though I stand by what I said, I feel kind of sick about it all. The worst part is, what happens when I run into this guy again? Without facebook we would have gone our whole lives never caring or giving a second thought to the other's politics. Even if we both had very vocal views online, the chance of our paths intersecting would still be slim. Through social networking (and I'm not even friends with C.B. on facebook) we now have an extremely antagonistic, public relationship that can be viewed by all of our family and friends.

A Different Perspective

I thought I'd offer a different perspective on the Oakland events during the G-20. I saw this posted on facebook on Monday, September 28 by one of my facebook friends and couldn't help but be convinced by it. I personally went home during the G-20. I know Pitt decided not to close the University, but I made the decision that I would rather avoid the situation entirely. My friend that posted this decided to stay. He did not get arrested or teargassed or anything. He wrote that:

I was on campus early in the evening. When I heard the message along the lines
of "This has been deemed an unlawful gathering. If you do not clear the area you
may be subject to police force which may include gas, arrest, etc..." being
blared from an armored police van, I returned to my apartment and stayed there
all night. If you wanted to be outside in such a dangerous and confusing
situation, then it was your own responsibility for assessing the risks at which
you put yourself. Was I robbed of my right to freely roam campus that night? Yes.
Was it the police? No. It was the eruption of violence and disobedience from the
protesters.

Below is his facebook post. It received only two "likes" and 8 comments, several which argued against him. My guess is most of you won't agree with it, but like I said, I wanted to offer a different perspective on the whole event.

There has been a lot of buzz going around Pitt, Pittsburgh, and, sadly, the
entire country, about the police reaction to the "protests" this weekend. I am
absolutely sick of hearing about this nonsense, and I wish that people would
just take a deep breath and use their heads for once in their life.First of all,
the assembly was declared unlawful. Is the word "unlawful" unclear to anybody
else? Because it is perfectly clear to me. Unlawful - (adj.): NOT lawful:
illegal. You have the constitutional right to LAWFULLY assemble and petition our
government. Who decides if an assembly is lawful? YOU DO NOT. The police
declared the assembly to be unlawful. Meaning that if you remained in the group,
you are now breaking the law. What about this is difficult to understand?

Furthermore, WHAT WAS the POINT? At one point in the night, the crowd
just started chanting "We, the people, have the right to assemble." There was no
point. This disgusts me. Our forefathers gave us the right to assemble for what
purpose? Thats right, to get shit done. If our government decides to make a law
that 90% of the American population disagrees with, we have been given the
PRIVILEDGE to assemble and fight for our cause. THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE SHOULD NOT BE ABUSED TO PROVE A POINT. NONE of your rights should be abused to prove some point about how free you are. Your constitutional rights were created to ensure that you can live a life where you are able to achieve your goals and fulfil your dreams. The freedom of speech was NOT granted to you so that you can CLEARLY flaunt your rights just to cause unecessary controversy. Everyone
participating in this weekend's riots is, in my eyes, anti-patriotic. You have
taken what made this country a peaceful and amazing place to live, and used
those rights to purposely create conflict with the law enforcement.Also, the
phrase "police brutality" is being used. Brutality. BRUTALITY. Really. Brutality
is NOT being shoved with a night stick. It is NOT being gassed. It is NOT being
pepper sprayed. It is NOT being shoved with a plastic riot shield because you
are too stubborn to OBEY LAW ENFORCEMENT. BRUTALITY is a vicious use of physical force. If you were not hospitalized, you did not encounter anything BRUTAL.

Tazers, pepper spray, nightsticks, riot shields WERE DESIGNED as means of
non-brutal physical control. What EXACTLY do you propose that they do to
maintain physical control of a situation? They have to move you. If you don't
move, and are breaking the law, they have to move you. It is their job. You must
be physically moved. What is your solution? Cause right now, the tools the
police used to PHYSICALLY CONTROL the situation are the best tools available. If
you want to be controlled by a "Pillow-covered Comfy-shield 3000" then I suggest
you invent it. Furthermore, you should feel LUCKY that you live in a country
where you are not SHOT ON SPOT for such blatant disobedience of law
enforcement.Finally, the most irritating of all of my problems with this whole
event, is just the blatant disrespect for authority. Disrespect is a fucking
widespread epidemic in this country, and I blame the anti-spanking hippie
movement (both in schools and at home). The police of Pittsburgh were out there
risking their lives and you people don't give a FUCK. FUCK you. If you got a
problem with decisions made by a law enforcement OFFICIAL. FINE. Take it up with the city. Or the president. I don't care. But EACH OFFICER was doing nothing
besides THEIR JOB. To serve and protect...protect YOUR UNTHANKFULL ASS. They didn't each decide "Hey! Lets go gas as many kids as we can!" They were all just doing their job as best they could, taking orders FROM A SUPERIOR. Somebody told those officers to get out there and stand in a line and hold that line. Do you
think that 1000 individual riot police drove there by themselves and said "Shit!
999 other guys had the same idea!" No. They were put there by the city.The
officers did not have some personal beef with you, they were doing what they
were told to do. If you disagree with the declaration of an unlawful protest
that is fine, but to physically confront an officer is unfair, disrespectful,
and just disgraceful. These men and women have dangerous jobs. Do you think that
police officers are forced into their position? Do you think its easy? No. They
take this job because they love to protect the innocent. They're not trying to
hurt you. They put their lives at risk every day to enhance the quality of
yours. What thanks do you give them? Disrespect, disobediance, and you wave the
Bill of Rights in their face like it is a fucking weapon. We had 3 Pittsburgh
police shot and killed, in ONE day, this past year. I will never question an
officer and his use of force. Just think for a moment about what kind of shit
police offficers come across. Three of them were murdered responding to a
domestic call. YOU NEVER KNOW where the danger is going to come from. Some of
the protestors we demonstrating in violent ways, and you never know when other
people might get the same idea. You don't know who has a gun, a knife, a bomb,
ESPECIALLY in this scenario.....People from all over the world were here. There
was a large liklihood of any one of you rioters being a dangerous terrorist.And
just consider what was at stake here....the most important leaders in the world
were in town. Not miles away from the riot getting ready to erupt. Do you let
the group grow larger and larger, moving, destroying, getting more riled up? Or
do you protect the safety of the area that THE PRESIDENT is near, and put an end
to the excitement and make sure the situation is in control.I'd probably say
that the safety of the president is of high importance. Wouldn't you? Plus
leaders from around the world....and how does Pittsburgh look to the world if we
let a riot run free to engulf the city...I dunno man. You were all just looking
for a reason to riot. You were all looking for reasons to get mad at the police.
You were pushing your Constitutional rights to the edge just to get a
reaction....its all just fucked up, man.Leave it up to Americans to create so
much stress, controversy, and violence out of a simple thing: freedom.