This is going far

[Egeides]

Ok... now think what you want of this but I wouldn't have thaught it was that far right now:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/16/miami_police/index.html

Comments? To me, it seems undemocratic to say the least. Excuses should be given or something, and some measures should be taken to give limits.

[Big D]

wtf :O

fools!

[NeoLogiX]

Is this America ? :O

....were nursing their injuries. But the cops wanted to deliver a final message to those still around. "Bye! Don't come back here!" shouted one. A pudgy officer gave the finger to an activist with a video camera. "Put that on your Web site," he said. "F*** you." ...

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/16/miami_police/index_np.html

[ken124578]

Somehow i think that website isn't completely unbiased and without propoganda...

[Egeides]

ken: This is a conclusion, but could you give arguments showing that what they bring is false? Salon.com is not exactly known for not having sources to back up their stuff: they won prizes as best net-newspaper, got interviews with well-known people, Salon is formed of people that were working at recognized newspapers but couldn't write certain things.

So back up your stuff. Again, I wonder what "propaganda" means for you. False = propaganda?

[ken124578]

Umm... n/m :-X

[Acriku]

Egeides, you showed the article, bring us the sources, despite their supposed reputation.

[Gobalopper]

I can't read the entire article because there is no way I'm paying for a subscription to Salon, sorry Egeides :), but do they interview anyone from the Miami police?

[Dante]

They're violent to people in other countries. It's about time people began to see what it's like.

[Egeides]

If I remember well, there is no need to get a subscription at Salon since you can read the article if you click on the "get a da pass" or something.

Acriku: Reputation is only what is expected, and this is true for the New-York Times to Mr.Joe. I don't have access to the sources more than you, but it is written that there's Democracy Now's journalist (was put naked and then the policemen turned and looked her...), an old man that was with his friends (and got arrested by the police when he was legally... walking), and so on.

This is like any article Acriku, journalists are supposed to check the sources. You can't expect worst from Salon in term of bringing information without sources than some other newspaper (basing on the NY Times and some others, I'd even say that those ones tend to be more incline to write what is credible sometimes).

Also, some of this is going in court now, and it's not the first time some people see their camera taken (even professional ones) or computers (very frequent) as proofs or soemthing.

[Acriku]

New York times had multiple accounts of bad sources, why can't any other journalist agency?

[Egeides]

Read me again and you will see that I believe that any agency can have bad sources. I was only mentioning, as a sideline, that this was appliable to the NY Times too.

[Acriku]

Actually I but skimmed your post, looking for an URL towards sources. Whatever reasoning you can provide, it still does not remove the burden of proof the journalists, and concurrently, the inheritance of the burden to you through the mentioning of this article.

[SurlyPIG]

Ok, so the police forces are a little more 'vindictive' since 9/11. So are the protesters. After a lull in the 'vindictiveness' of the type of people that most commonly protest, they came back in full force around the Iraq situation. They came back in greater number and greater frequency, creating more chances for 'police vindictiveness,' as this obviously unbiased professional puts it. ::) The protests have generally ended up leading to more violence and vandalism than before as well, so given these two things is it really that much of a surprise that we are seeing more incidents like this?

[Egeides]

Acriku: I would carry this burden if I would have said that I was showing all this as true. What I say is that this article exists, and Salon is not one of these newspapers done by amateurs with sometimes problematic sources. It's just as other newspapers.

ACE: No, since the people that were arrested and so on are not the violent ones here. And even if it was the case, I don,t think that to put a journalist naked and look at her is correct "because manifesters were violent". What is shown here is "free" repressiveness against some people that did nothing. What they are doing there is approved no where in the law, just as some things that were done during the 70s.

[Acriku]

Ok... now think what you want of this but I wouldn't have thaught it was that far right now:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/12/16/miami_police/index.html

Comments? To me, it seems undemocratic to say the least. Excuses should be given or something, and some measures should be taken to give limits.

You seem to repeatedly imply truth in the article. So where's your sources?

[Egeides]

You seem to believe that I constantly imply truth in the article, that's different Acriku...

My judgement is not that I can make a complete demonstration of this, and I never said it was the case. What I DID said is that when I see a newspaper as Salon, which got many professional reviews and I never heard they had any problem finding sources, I do not just say "it is certainly false". Not more than if it was coming from some other newspaper. I'm not saying I can demonstrate it and I said many times that it wasn't the case. What I'm saying is that this article is a good read and brings to think about it, brings some expecations since it's Salon. Expectancy is now knowledge. If you thaught I said I had a complete demonstration, I was misunderstood.

My personal opinion is that I can expect from Salon sources that are just as good as other newspapers, and better than the NY Times (with what happened recently) and some others. This is not my final answer, and I do not have any time to go to the US Ambassy to ask how to get the documents from courts, police and so on.

[Acriku]

I'm sure many people had expectations of New York Times as well. The point is, you brought it as truth, and even asked somebody else to back their stuff up from calling it propaganda, so you need to back your stuff up as well.

The thing is, you put too much stock into a news journalist agency. You assume too many things from Salon, and I'm telling you that, so you can become skeptical.

[Wolf]

All news is biased, my friend. I am not saying that their bias is political, no, not always. In Salon's case it is, but it is also biased in another way. They need to create a sensation to get people to read their site. What could be more sensational to the modern day of the college kid liberal than a Kent-state type police beatdown? Think about it, if Salon is such a "paper for the common man" "news source for the seekers of the truth", why do they force you to subscribe? Isn't that somewhat-super-corporate-CEO-where's-the-money? I'm not saying it is, but you have to understand that ALL PAPERS THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED AND EVER WILL EXIST *want* people to read them. That is what papers are for, and they will do that anyway they can. It is a matter of their existence.

As for American becoming a fascist state... is that what you really think? I know Dust Scout wants to believe it. Luckily, America is so un-fascist and so politically free that he can go to any website he wants and say anything he wants about whatever he feels like talking about. Fuck Bush. Uh oh, I'm screwed now! Sorry guys, but you can reach me in the gulag!

Miami is a single incident. I do not recall ANYTHING of this nature in the New York, Chicago, LA, or Washington MASS PROTESTS. In fact, what I *do* recall (I read this in the NYT and had it later confirmed in WSJ and CNN) is that protesters were in an environment in which they felt compelled to act in ways to incite the police into creating a scene, so they could get their message across. Protesters were being trained that "if you ever get caught, remember to shout out your soundbyte to the media!". Excuse me, but is this not going a little too far? Some protesters took it beyond the line of reason, and began getting into trouble so they could shout to the media.

I'm going to play devil's advocate now, so, if you think I'm being Republican, or liberal, that's too bad. You don't really know me, and I consider myself quite independent. However, here's a little treat from the oppostion;

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/protest-nyc.php

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/video/protest-sf.php

Though, police do occasionally get pumped up enough that they begin commiting acts of brutality. Well, they're human too. Just like the protesters, both are scared, both have a job to do, and both are charged with emotion.

[SurlyPIG]

ACE: No, since the people that were arrested and so on are not the violent ones here. And even if it was the case, I don,t think that to put a journalist naked and look at her is correct "because manifesters were violent". What is shown here is "free" repressiveness against some people that did nothing. What they are doing there is approved no where in the law, just as some things that were done during the 70s.

Well how do YOU know the protesters weren't violent. Unless the paid portion of the article goes into explicit and supported detail of the sequence of events (lmao ;D) then I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on there...at least, not a confirmed leg. Who really knows why the police were "vindictive" on that particular day. Perhaps they'd recieved violent threats, perhaps they'd been tipped off about a violent plan, or perhaps they were simply responding to violent protesters.

And if the police really are being too "vindictive" without cause, is there anybody to blame but the police? I mean it's not as if Dick Cheny called up the Miami police and said, "Hey fellas, rough up and detain the protesters this Thursday," or something. Perhaps the article is correct in describing an inevitable trend, but it seems more to imply that there is a conscious effort behind the increased "vindictiveness."

[Egeides]

Acriku: If someone ELSE says "It is propaganda", he's supposed to be able to say me what is "propaganda". I really have a crusade against this term used about anywhere and everywhere. I will repeat it: I do not bring it as truth. I was misunderstoof if it seemed so. I am bringing it as a source of news. Is it so incredible that I bring some news and am surprised about it?!

ACE: There is plenty of information in the article saying that the context where the arrested people were was unviolent. It seems like you ask more proves from some sources than some others or otherwise you would discredit everything by asking that much. A bunch of "maybe" they forgot to mention this or that is only maybes.

Wofwiz: Agreed, but it still doesn,t show they didn't used their sources right here. And I also agree that there are some excesses on both sides, like the Black Block and those who seems to see manifestations as social meetings. But anyway, what they bring here is hitting pretty hard if it is not exagerated.

Really, basing myself on what happened in the 1960-70s, I wouldn't be surprised to see excesses from the police side. It happened, so why wouldn't it happen again in a proper climate?

[Wolf]

You guys should head over to the brain-terminal.com, at the site it has this video of protesters roughing HIM up. So much for being vindictive, eh?

This is how I see it. Once someone becomes too emotionally involved in an issue, stance, or ideal, they have violated that ideal. Because, with emotion, the important thing becomes NOT fighting for the ideal, but making sure that YOU are right, above all else. Making something personally emotional is to do harm to that ideal, for you have become committed to defending it when it is not the truth, or you may very well violate the ideal itself to make sure that *you* are correct. You will twist information, you will lie, you will imply, or you will simply attack the character of those who oppose you. Once you have become emotionally inseparable from an issue, you WILL attack those who disagree with you. I have seen the "protester" do this on many occasions, just as I have seen the warhawk. At www.brain-terminal.com, it shows how ANGRY the protesters got when this conservative guy showed up with a camera and began interviewing people. They swore at him, attacked his character, hit his camera, and tried to push him to the ground. Once you become emotionally charged with an issue, it is PERSONALLY PAINFUL to have someone disagree with you, and when that happens, you WILL lash out at them. This is what I see has happened to both sides, and I believe that the only real debates can come from those NOT emotionally charged. People who scream that Bush is an evil bastard or that Saddam is an evil bastard are all fools. If you say Bush is infringing on Constitutional rights because of his detainment of prisoners without trial at Gitmo, or that Saddam is a tyrannical dictator for killing political opponents and racial clensing, THEN I would say that you are informed.

A degree of passion is necessary, yes, I grant this. Otherwise, how can you care? However, with EVERY SINGLE stance, position, ideal, and argument you make, you MUST accept the psosibility that you are WRONG. Accept the possibility that others know more, or that others have been where you have not, and have a degree of wisdom above you. If you do NOT take into account YOUR OWN fallability, then you are as insane, blind, and misinformed as everyone else, including some of your opponents. Distance yourself somewhat, do NOT make an issue your life and livlihood, otherwise, you will fight for it as if it is, and you will violate it or violate your other values to do so. It is not the right thing to do.

In America, we have the right to speak our minds, but, because of becoming over-emotional with regard to our opinions, we have reformed this right of speech. I do not know if you feel the way I do, but I sense an undercurrent of "we have the right to BE CORRECT", not, "we have the right to speak". If the latter were the truth rather than the former, why, then, are people attacked, sworn at, and disrespected when they disagree? We, as a generation, have selfishly modified our rights into the de facto right of "the right to be right". As confusing as it sounds, I can tell you that it is something that will destroy us sooner or later, for it creates misunderstanding among all of the hatred and emotional damage. When the combination of emotional, personal commitment, misunderstanding, and a literal hate for those who disagree with you, we have the foundations of war. A real war. A war of annihilation. To destroy those who disagree.

[Egeides]

Wolfwiz: You said nothing that meant that the demonstrators in the case I showed were wrong... you're talking about some other people. I'm not silly enough to believe "protesters = good people, others = bad". What I'm saying is that this article was written, and it's talking about a journalist was was put naked in front of a policeman, people that were arrested for stopping the justice (by not giving something to a policeman because it was not his), etc. I'm not talking about protesters somewhere else, I already know it can go bad...

And I do not believe that I have an automatic lie-switch that goes on because I believe into soemthing. I believe that some get irrational though, on both sides. Personally, I want my passion not to be invested in a specific cause, but in truth itself. If my information changes, I want to adapt to truth, as much as possible.

[Wolf]

I didn't say that they were was anything similar between your newspaper and the protestors. (smiles) I'm just keeping you on track, Egeides. Don't worry, we don't disagree on anything. I pretty much agree with what you said, only, I'm not sure what you meant about the lie-switch... perhaps you could clarify. I'd rather not post a response pulled out of my hat.

P.S. Isn't public nudity against the law? If that is true, then why is there a problem with police arresting a naked journalist?

[Egeides]

About the journalist, it happened at the police building. The police asked the journalist to get naked and said she probably wouldn't get her clothes back. She asked him to get out of the room. He simply turned around, and she undressed. Just after, he turned face to her and looked at her. It seems I'm the only one that read the article :P You need to click on that link for a day pass, just below the article...

What I meant by the switch is that some tend to say that from the moment you believe in something, you aren't able to speak about it because you'll be biased: a "switch" is turned on making you lie. The funniest thing is that sometimes these same persons answer to those that too AWAY from the subject that they don't know what they're talking about. So basically: any human is necessarily biased or incompetent deending if he,s close or away from the subject :-X