What the Crowd Had to Say

So for my last crowd sourcing post i talked about two very important issues that are affecting a lot of people, at home and abroad. Now, given, these were somewhat of open ended questions asking students how they felt on not only the prohibiting of collective bargaining/striking in Wisconsin and Ohio, but also the recent uprisings across the Middle East region. While these may seem very disparate topics, I feel that they share the inherent common characteristics of democratic unrest.

Wisconsin has passes their proposed bill to prevent collective bargaining in the face of weeks of fervent and dedicated protesting to the bill.

“I think it is important for both an employee and an employer to have a mutual understanding and agreement on a job,” said Samantha Foltz. “By eliminating the collective bargaining rights, I think we are giving too much power to a company and silencing employees because they are not given the option to negotiate.”

I attended a Town Hall meeting that happened at UC not too long ago and this was   the sentiment of most of the people in attendance. Sydney Benter expressed similar views saying, “[My mother and boyfriend who are both teachers] work harder and sacrifice more of their time than any other people I know for their jobs. And they surely don't do it for the money. Yet, recently some are questioning whether educators, among many other public workers, are entitled to their benefits.”

I feel such a tie with this and the events in the Middle East. It is the struggle for being represented and having a say in the larger picture of things.

“I think watching all the uprisings happening around the world is just astonishing,” said Carly Behringer.  “All of the sudden, it seems that everyone is rebelling, which is not a bad thing at all! We are living in an incredibly interesting time period.”

Behringer also makes the point that the US government is mulling over the possibility of intervening in Lybia.

“I think we need to let their country sort everything out... We're already in two wars that I personally don't agree with, and I feel as though we need to stop trying to control every other country,” Behringer said.  

“As for the "invasion" of Libya, that's another story. If we were to run up in there guns blazing in the name of Democracy, that's one thing, but taking into account all the horrible and, well, criminal going on in Libya, giving some advice might not be a bad idea,” said Gin A. Ando.

“Committing combatants might be much, but, from what I'm hearing, Tripoli and places all over Libya need help,” Ando added.

These are very complex issues and without injecting too much of my opinion on the matter, I will have to strongly agree with the comment Behringer made: “I think it's great that people are protesting and voicing their opinions. It's important for people to speak up and exercise their right to free speech.”

It is hard to tell what may happen, especially in the case of Libya, but without a doubt, the movements in the Middle East are the result of some powerful, NONVIOLENT protest. I think that this is making a great impression to the western, hopefully shattering the perception that the Middle East can only attempt to solve conflicts by blowing something up. And with the news covering these events, I feel that the general buzz of protests is ringing in people’s ears, hopefully encouraging people to speak up and out against the things that do not agree with.

Some may say that this is encouraging unrest, I feel that if the avenues of democracy are not speaking the will of the people, then there is already unrest.

So, as most of you know, I made a post about the provisions of the patriot act that were not renewed. Well, not long after that post, the provisions were put to a second vote and they DID PASS. So for all those who oppose what it stands for or what it allows our government to do concerning our privacy, you may get a break next year when it goes up for renewal again.

Like the first time the renewals went up for vote, there isn't any real consensus in the general population about the PA. Many times you get answers somewhere along the lines of, "I understand why it was implemented, but I do find it silly to assure people that I am not supporting terrorists," as Samantha Foltz commented.

Many understand the reasoning behind hightened security, but feel the added pressures of making every single person a suspect. The security squeeze makes people who want some sort of preventative effort go into a limbo of what they believe is necessary and what is absurd.

"There are some reasons why the Patriot Act is necessary, but every time I go to open a bank account or apply for a job is it really necessary for me to fill out that paper confirming I'm not paying my wages to terrorist groups?" Said Adam Neyameyer. "Some things are a little crazy but I'm sure there are some provisions that have saved us from further attacks....I know that we need some of it to prevent further 9-11 type events from happening."

Nick Grever said, “While I believe the PA itself is outdated, we do need to insure our safety in some manner. Do I agree to wiretapping and other invasive modes of surveillance? No. But these methods aren't exactly new.”

I think one of the more interesting examples of this protection vs. rights views comes from Sydney Benter. She was very outspoken against the PA, but also commented on the airport scanners that would not be an issue if not for acts such as 9/11.

“While I think the Patriot Act is/was unconstitutional, I have no problem whatsoever with beefed-up security measures at airports.” Benter said. “I don't mind that a couple folks in a dark room see my body if it means that it's less likely that someone will be able to conceal a weapon. If the scans were copied and published with a name attached it would be a different story. But I'm willing to sacrifice a few moments of privacy for overall security. The Patriot Act is like a full-body scanner on steroids. A bit too invasive.

This is a very testy middle ground, but pretty reasonable in my own opinion. She is more than willing to cooperate with security measures but finds one of the principle doctrines of that security to be illegal, out of good taste, and a little too forceful. It really does not seem like the PA is in good standings all on its own. If anything people are just tolerating it.

But for some, the measures the government has taken after 9/11 have been rash, intrusive and unnecessary, like Carly Beringer.

“I think the Patriot Act is wrong and I do not agree with the invasive techniques the government uses to "protect us,” Behringer said. “They don't need to tap our phones to "protect" us or pat us down at the airport and feel our genitals to "protect" us. They are turning the American people into sheep, haha. And I feel like we are living in the book "1984." You have cameras watching you everywhere and an unconstitutional document that makes sure the government can bend almost any rule to investigate or incarcerate you.”

Valid points on the state of security. The PA blurs the line of what is necessary and what is not. There is a constant threat from an unseen and unidentifiable enemy that is supposedly lurking amongst us. It is a good reason to beef up funding for making the general population a bit more subservient and as in all states of crisis; it weeds out those who do not go right along with the status quo.

Finally, a point was made by Gin Ando that I thought was something that goes overlooked a lot during this discussion; why do you need to take such measures if lesser ones could have worked?

“It could, I suppose, be argued that the PA is a necessary evil to keep America safe and out of harm's way, why don't we just restructure our intelligence programs?” Ando said. “Richard Reid might have been stopped if the world just worked together. Secret intelligence being not-so-secret with each other.”

The United States intelligence network is vast and has more funding and power behind it than many of us realize. But the barriers between agencies and the sheer amount of info collected makes for a messy, inefficient, suspicious and even dangerously incompetent form of protection.

Thank you all for your wonderful comments, and thank you all for respecting one another’s opinions. I was really glad to see everyone express themselves as they did and I feel that we can learn from one another that way. Good work guys!

What I Have NOT Been Covering

I feel that it is fairly obvious that I have been avoiding some of the hottest topics that have been on the lips of almost everyone. It is partly due to my (not ridiculously) busy schedule, laziness and my aversion to falling into the fad that everyone is talking about (not exactly the best attribute for a journalist, I know). But I think that that there is no respectful way to avoid discussing some very important events that has been happening in the world.

First, on a local note, I would like to hear your guys' thoughts on the proposals to eliminate collective bargaining rights for workers. Both Wisconsin and Ohio have made national news for their controversial proposals to do away with this ability. I would like to see what you guys have to say about this one. Does this scare you? Do you feel that the effort is too weak and that it is the least we can do? Could you not care less, and why?

Not to toot The News Record's horn but there is some great coverage on this topic done by some of our fellow journalists here at UC. Take a look, tell me what you think and DO NOT be afraid to speak your mind. Be open and you may teach us all something.

And now on to the story that has been in the spotlight for sometime now. The Middle Eastern protests.
There has been 'uprisings' in more than just Egypt. Tunisia has overthrown their ruler,  President Zine
el-Abidine Ben Ali, Lebanon, Algeria, Iraq, and other nations have demonstrated in support of these countries in their times of trial.

Now we are seeing more of the same in Libya, where the civilians are seeing some very aggressive retaliation from the 'security' forces there. So my question is, What does all this revolution mean. And not only for those countries, but for us as well. Is this a long brewing sign that peoples of the Middle East are sick of patriarical, theocratic rule? What does this mean for the ridiculously high gas prices we've seen lately? Do you think that our constant presence in the Middle East has cause a ripple effect of instability? Do you think that any of these revolutions will take a turn for the worse, opening doors for organized groups to cease power and take countries into violent or tyranical directions? Do you feel that these are great strides for nonviolent protests and that real democray will be the fruit of these times? Do you feel that America has any hand in these revolutionary protests as we did in Iran with our propaganda campaign and establishing a figure head in the 1953 cout?

Now, I understand that these geopolitical hypotheticals can get complex, so feel free to speak on whatever aspect you feel like. Thanks people!

Agent Commenteurs: What people said about police undercover in peaceful protests

I want to thank you guys for the great feedback. The comments you guys left on this post were interesting. I love seeing the reactions you guys have to these situations presented on the blog. As journalists, it is usually not our place to tell our opinion to the world, but to rather try desperately to present the facts, whatever they may be. For most, a situation like this is an awkward one to have to analyze, and thus why I wanted to hear from my peers, those that will hopefully make a living in the news industry.

Elise Lotz said:
"Provocateurs could cause two very different situations. They could be placed in a peaceful protest and cause people to get out of hand, just so that they have a reason to take people into custody to end a movement. Or, the protesters can simply keep their composure and not let the situation get out of hand.
Any result that can come of a situation with placed provocateurs is in the hands of the people"

I can completely agree with this statement. Law enforcement can act as protection, not only for the protesters, but for the law of the land. They really can be the first line of defence against those who disagree with the demonstrators (Brother Mika anyone?).

But with the undercover garb and covering of the face... their benevolent intentions become a little less obvious. Although, it is understandable why they would want police to be immersed within the crowd. You can prevent potentially volitile situations, aprehend those that would be starting riotous behavior, continue the drug war, etc.

Nick Grever of Undergroundpulse said:
"These provocateurs a definitely a disturbing concept, but to dissect the issue, all I can think of is the line: "Don't poke the bear." Yea, these provocateurs may be around to start riotous behavior, and that is horrible, but the protesters must make sure they maintain decorum and not devolved into riots themselves.

And, in the first video, it seems like they're purposefully getting agitated about the three men. I understand their anger, but they're only falling into the trap the provocateurs are setting."

Stated beautifully. If these truely are agent provocateurs, then getting all worked up is kind of what they want. It is important for peacefull protesters to do just that, remain peacful. Although that is kind of easy to say when your eating Cheerios in your undiees while blogging, you have to have a cool head when you are out in the field. As you see in the videos, they are the ones with the weapons and the armor.

Gin Ando said:
" Starting fights with "peaceful protests" (I put that in quotes because I don't really know how peaceful something with hundreds of thousands of people can really be... well, maybe nondisruptive is the word I'm looking for.) and causing Tahrir Square to turn into, basically, a ring of Molotov cocktail fire.

The provocateurs are a scary thing. I know for a fact. I interviewed Paul Erb, who was at the G20 protests and he was saying anarchists basically undermined the entire protest and turned the event into something the media likened into a riot or some such. It's a shame, really, that they get tagged in people just looking to break a window and get a free TV or just looking to start a fight."

I have the pleasure of knowing Paul Erb and was lucky enough to have gotten to work with him in activist organizations. When speaking about these sort of occurances, it is always interesting to notice that the business districts that the anarchists smash up and terrorize are never filled with cops with shields and the cars that are set on fire do not get put out. There is photo-op time for that, but when the peaceful, unmasked protesters make thier way to the parks half an hour later, thats the time to break it up

I try to stay as unbiased as I can, though i feel it is fairly obvious that I am concerned about these events or why would I bother. Thank you for your wonderful comments to everyone who posted.

Let Me Hear Your Thoughts!

Since the tragedy of 9/11, America has been under examination, pressure, and surveillance. Since the threat of terrorism has ushered in a new era Homeland Security and a global war against whatever my fall under the elusive definitions of ‘terrorism’. There is no binding definition of what terrorism is. Terrorism is, however, generally understood as a political tactic that uses violence, coercion, or the threat of against non-combatant citizens.

In October 2001, 45 days after the massive attack in New York, when American jaws across the nation still rang with from the unimaginable blow of 9/11, congress passed a bill entitled Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. Otherwise known as the USA PATRIOT Act, cheesy right? Either way, this act gave the government substantially more power than it had before for the purposes of tracking down and stopping terrorists. With this power, the governments able to do some things that were controversial on grounds of legality. I hope most of this is old news for most of you.

This act has been in steady use for past decade. Makes you feel old to think about it, but ten years with agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and even local police given the duty of being the frontline against shadowy threats that are covert and supposedly all around at all times.

Cut to Jack Bower torturing a detainee.

The Patriot Act (which I will refer to as ‘the PA’, not on any moral grounds but because of it being irredeemably corny and to save space) was legislation that permitted what would normally be, and are still considered by many, as violations of civil liberties.  Allowed to wiretap anyone at any time, look up bank records under suspicion, and to even be able to come into your house under section 215. And the PA has been used in criminal cases that do not involve any terrorism, but rather peaceful protests.

The PA has rode on the backs on ten of the most paranoid years since the Red Scare, but its end date is marked for Feb. 28 of this year. So it has come up for discussion and thus why it has found its way on to my blog. The push for renewal has even been backed by President Obama this time last year. But this year it is not going so smoothly for the domestic surveillance initiative.

Feb. 9 the Unites States House of Representatives DID NOT renew the desired provisions of the act. With the vote tally being 277-148, the bill did not receive the 2/3 vote necessary to be reinstated. And the most surprising, 26 republicans voted against it. Many of which were ‘tea party leaning’. So what does this mean for the ‘tea party leaning’ republicans to be taking a stand that they share with many liberal democrats who opposed the PA from the beginning. Does this say to those dems and progressives that these republicans hold similar believes as they do? Does it say that Obama is out of touch with those self-described progressives? Is this the tea party being strict opposition to anything that Obama is remotely ok with or is this some horrible coordination on the part of republicans? What are your thoughts.

P.S.- What are your opinions on the Patriot Act in general?  

How to Foil the Opposition

The conflicts of the modern political environment is rich with strategic semantics, sabotage and coercion. Looking to the East, Egypt is the setting for the latest uprising of the masses against a powerful ruling party. For the past week, the people of Egypt have demanded change in their undemocratic governing body. Their protests have echoes throughout the world. With these protests there have been the usual reports of theft, looting and general destruction.

But there are reports coming out of the north African nation of agent provocateurs. 

I would like to take time to examine the practice of releasing agent provocateurs into crowds of protesters and what those implications are of having  a power structure that encourages such uses of thier police/military.

Here are a couple of examples of this practice, not in some country on some other continent, but here in America with our own police:

This is at the 2009 G20 meeting in Pittsburgh.

This is another video taken in Montebello.

Although these examples are not blatantly proven to cases of provoking riotous behavior, I feel that it is pretty obvious what is going on here. I would like to hear from you guys what is you opinion. Not only on the possibility of agent provocateurs, but what it means that American, Canadian, many countries use this technique to undermine the peaceful efforts of those that oppose the policies or administrations over them.

Happy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day!!!!

Attached above is a video that shows a side of Dr. King that is rarely discussed and understood. This compilation of speeches depicts the legendary civil rights leader and humanitarian and his stance on the Vietnam War. His messages are haunting and all too relevant for the current state of American foreign policy.

As a diligent fighter for the poor and the unrepresented, King was a man of virtue and morality. We should be so blessed that he is a part of our history. Take your free Monday and make it a day ON rather than a day-off to honor the service and sacrifice of this pacifist, father, citizen, reverend, civil rights and antiwar activist.