A Memphis woman called 911 last week because she heard a tapping on her window. This would not seem like an emergency, except she had been robbed earlier that night (at gunpoint) and surrendered her keys and car to the man. So when she heard someone trying to get into her house she called 911, expecting help to be there quickly. However, overcome with exhaustion, the operator fell asleep in the middle of the call. You can hear the tape at http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=61531. He started snoring after a long silence in the call. This woman is scared for her life, has already been held at gunpoint, and this guy is sleeping. Shocked? You shouldn't be, this is not the first time. It has happened multiple times this year already. Maybe it is a rarity to get a 911 call late at night, but there are certain jobs that require immediate alertness at unpredictable moments. This is one of those. To fall asleep on the job as a 911 dispatcher is pathetic. You'd think he would almost be indictable on criminal charges. Nope. Issue a public apology? Not a word. Fired? Not even. He was placed on a one-week leave of absence. And what happened to her? Luckily nothing. She called another 911 agency and got help.
Recently by Chris Nelson
"It's more like pissing out of my ass than anything else." -Hank Moody on blogging (Californication)
Does anyone else feel this way? That blogging is nothing more than bitching and moaning (which I am about to do) and calling it journalism (which I don't). I mean this entire class is blogging just as an assignment. Granted it is not as professional as some blogs might be, but it is ultimately the same thing. People are paid to put their Op Ed online, daily, in less formal writing than it would be in a newspaper. I think of blogging as a glorified myspace entry or mass e-mail. Even the word blog contributes to its image as a less-than-serious form of writing. It's not a word! Actually, it is in Webster's, alongside crunk, ginormous, and smackdown (those literally were added to Webster's). Thankfully, all of those words still have a dotted red line underneath them. But back to the point, what else do we do on here besides bitch and moan? Maybe once every ten posts there will be an actual news story, but they are almost always viewed subjectively. The fact that comments are posted in response to articles practically makes the whole process devoid of objectivity. Is that not what we're taught journalists are supposed to strive for? I love the internet, it has revolutionized life as we know it. But ultimately it is just as detrimental to society as it is beneficial. Here is another quote from Californication. The quote is overly dramatic, but it is not without some validity.
"We have all this amazing technology and yet computers have turned into basically four figure wank machines. The internet was supposed to set us free, democratize us, but all it's really given us is Howard Dean's aborted candidacy and 24 hour a day access to kiddie porn. People... they don't write anymore, they blog. Instead of talking, they text, no punctuation, no grammar: LOL this and LMFAO that. You know, it just seems to me it's just a bunch of stupid people pseudo-communicating with a bunch of other stupid people in a proto-language that resembles more what cavemen used to speak than the King's English."
Recently, there has been quite a bit of concern that a chemical in the polycarbonate (hard-plastic) used in Nalgene bottles (among other things) poses a serious health threat. Exposure in the womb of the chemical Bisphenol A is purportedly found to raise the risk of certain cancers, hamper fertility and could contribute to childhood behavioral problems such as hyperactivity. This is extremely troubling to those who own, and frequently use, a polycarbonate water bottle. The term Nalgene is used in the same way Kleenex is, just to describe the item, not the brand. This means that regardless of whether you have an off brand polycarbonate water bottle, the risk remains. There is supposedly a number in the recyclable symbol on the bottom of these bottles, but my water bottle has no such number. Also, the water bottles they were passing out for Earth Day in front of Stauffer Flint, have no number either. I believe the numbers that indicate Bisphenol A are 6 and 7, but I might be wrong about that. However, is Bisphenol A as big of a threat as it seems? In 2004, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that ninety-five percent of Americans had Bisphenol A in their urine. This is not shocking to the plastic industry, as they openly admit that Bisphenol A seeps into the water and food (it is also commonly found in canned and bottled foods). They say that to incur health risks, 1,300 pounds of the food/water found in these bottles would have to be ingested daily. Not weekly, not monthly, not over a lifetime... daily. Think these numbers might be biased? They aren't set forth by the plastics industry, they're set forth by the EPA. So for everyone who just put their Nalgene away after hearing the risks, don't throw that bottle away just yet. Unless you're drinking 650 bottles a day.
"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator." -Pope Benedict XIV
The Pope has come to America for a six-day visit. This is the first time America has welcomed a pope to the country since September 11, 2001. This is also Pope Benedict XIV's first trip to America. During his flight to America the pope declared that he is ashamed of the sex scandal that has blanketed the Catholic faith in the news over the past few years.
Over 25 local, state, and federal agencies will be protecting the pope during his stay in America. He will also travel in the "popemobile" while making his way around Washington. While there have been no direct threats on Pope Benedict XIV, a March audio message from Osama Bin Laden mentioned the pontiff, according to the FBI.
While in America, it is expected that Benedict will address the sex scandal within the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church's relationship with other religions, the war in Iraq, and the upcoming presidential election.
Here is the link to the video of the attack: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2aFQARjIChA
I'm sure you have all heard by now about the six teenage girls in Lakeland, Florida that attacked another girl. They filmed the attack and had two boys standing lookout outside the house. All of this was put together to garnish YouTube fame. All eight are facing felony battery and false imprisonment charges.
With 17 seconds left one of the girls is heard saying, "There's only 17 seconds left, make it good." Some of the girls joked about the attack in their holding cells. One girl wanted to know if she would be out by the next day for cheerleading practice. One girl giggled when her bail was set. One of the accused girls' mother made defensive comments saying the victim had it coming and taunted the girls via MySpace.
This is just as bad, if not worse, than the third graders plot to attack their teacher. The victim is reported to have vision and hearing loss, though it is not expected to be permanent. The girls lured her into the house, only one of them in sight, the rest hiding in a back room. Then one girl slammed the victim's head against the wall, knocking her unconscious. When she awoke all six girls were surrounding her and one or two proceeded to beat her.
There are also claims that the victim was bragging, at work, that she was going over to the house to get in a fight. This seems unlikely, because when the girls challenged her to fight back she showed no desire whatsoever to get into a physical altercation (of course this might be because there are six girls around her). The whole situation is completely disgusting. The girls are being tried as adults (or the prosecution is at least attempting to do so) and face up to life in prison. I don't know about life in prison, though I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but these girls need to be made an example of. Not just the girls, but the boys too. I don't know what I think the boys should be convicted of, as they neither held the girl inside against her will, nor beat her. However, they knew both were going on and intentionally aided the girls. I think all of these kids (and the third graders mentioned earlier) should be dealt with very sternly. These children are all very vicious and cruel and need to be punished accordingly.
Also, I just found out two teachers were attacked in a high school in Baltimore. The attack was also caught on a student's cell phone. Apparently that's the proper response, whipping out your cell phone.
Below you will find a link to a story that recently ran in the UDK yesterday about a State House bill that passed on March 28th.
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/apr/02/guns_dont_kill_people_recent_house_bill_does/?opinion
The House's version of the bill allows citizens to legally own machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and suppressors. The State Senate's version of the bill does not allow for citizen ownership of automatic weapons (i.e., machine guns), suppressors, or sawed-off shotguns. The House's version of the bill passed with a 105-18 vote. The final version of the bill will be settled after the two houses come together to negotiate the terms.
Suppressors are currently legal in over 30 states, so this is not a revolutionary bill by any means. However, their negative connotation in society comes mostly from movies. They are portrayed as devices that nearly eliminate the noise of firing a gun. Actually, depending on the gun, ammo, and surroundings, a "silenced" weapon can still audible from a considerable distance. Suppressors are also useful in the sense that they reduce recoil and increase accuracy. The fact that they reduce recoil makes them a great advantage when hunting.
Sawed-off shotguns are shotguns with a shorter gun barrel. This allows the shotgun to fire at a wider angle, with about the same power. More importantly, it makes them more concealable. This is a major concern, especially with greater media focus on school shootings (also mall, church, and other shootings). They became infamous in my mind after the Columbine massacre, in which two sawed-off shotguns were used. I see no reason to allow non-police officers to possess sawed-off shotguns. However, I am not so knowledgeable on the subject other than what I have already said.
Finally, machine guns do not need to be legal. I don't see any practical use of these, and this is the only one of the three topics that Stewart (the author of the article) agreed with. Why? What could you possibly need a machine gun for? Is hunting not easy enough with a high-powered scope on your rifle that could kill a deer from 500 yards away? Do you want to take out an entire herd instead of just one animal? Do you want to take out an entire class instead of just one person? I see no practicality in legalizing automatic weapons.
This article was ass-backwards and I can't imagine what inspired him to think that silencers should be considered more dangerous than machine guns. He goes on to ramble about how he is probably being described as a "leftist Castro wanna-be," how silencers would be a good idea if guns cooked burritos, and reminding us that we don't live in the movie "Evil Dead." He never even mentions that this bill isn't in effect, it isn't even in its final draft. This is a perfect reason why Op-Eds should be prefaced by the facts that are so often overlooked by non-reporters.
Yesterday in class we talked about what constitutes someone earning the title of "journalist." The debate was ultimately laid to rest, with Professor Benson's criteria of simply graduating with a journalism degree as the final word. However, I find this unsatisfactory and would like to explain why.
I don't think that you can call someone a journalist just because they earn a degree. Why? Because you can get a Journalism degree in your spare nights from a 1-800 university. Also, I find it hard to believe that very many of us would feel comfortable answering the question "Are you a journalist?" with "Yes" the day we graduate. There is certainly some merit to graduating with a journalism degree. However, if someone graduates from KU with a geology degree it doesn't mean they're a geologist as they walk down the hill. It's not like they're going to stop half way down and start checking the stratification of the rocks underneath the ground. A friend of mine just got a job at a law firm in Kansas City. He graduated from the School of Journalism, but you would not say he is a journalist. You might think, yeah but you would call him an attorney because he graduated from the School of Law. But, you wouldn't call him an attorney if he used his law degree to become a sports agent. My point is that it is not your training that defines you, but rather what you do.
I think that a high school newspaper editor is more of a journalist than a KU graduate with a journalism degree who can't find a job and is getting high with White Owl, waiting for his parents find him a connection. Wouldn't you agree?
Webster's defines a journalist as "a person engaged in journalism." I have a list of five, fairly different people below who all practice journalism without a journalism degree. Some are more recognizable than others. Say what you will about how they are "pundits" and not "journalists." However, if we have learned that a pundit is basically a journalist who puts their own spin on the news, who puts their own angle on the news AND that there is no such thing as completely objective journalism, then who can be called a journalist?
I encourage everyone to look these names up and see whether you think they should be considered journalists for what they have done or just people spinning the news for the lack of a certificate.
Robert Fisk - BA in English and Classics & PhD in Political Science - worked in the journalism field since 1972
Thomas Friedman - BA in Mediterranean Studies & Master of Philosophy degree in Modern Middle East - worked in the journalism field since 1979
Keith Olbermann - BS in Communication Arts - worked in journalism field since 1981
Stone Phillips - BA in Philosophy - worked in the journalism field since 1978
Stuart Scott - BA in Speech Communication - worked in the journalism field since 1988
