Before the Republican National Convention, police raids in the Twin Cities are taking another whack at democracy and justice.
Some important points–five raids, five arrests, though one would presume they’ve found more than one person at each site. No charges. Yes, that was five arrests, and NO CHARGES FILED according to the report linked. But the “reporter” didn’t feel that deserved further comment, so you might have missed it.
Lots of weapons and stuff supposedly found–but not enough evidence to charge anyone with anything. “Police say” but don’t back it up in any way.
And what does “journalist” blond pretty face ask? “If [the anarchists] are against the war, why are they willing to use violence?” Is that the only question you have about this situation, Miss Pretty Face?
Note the police haven’t found any members of this group they’re looking for. But they’ve used the search to harass troublemakers who had the temerity to film at the last RNC.
And hey. Harassing beatnik hippie unpatriotic freaks who don’t support the government is always a worthy goal, no?
I don’t understand why it is necessary to insult/criticize her for being blonde and/or pretty. It really takes away from YOUR credibility in your criticism of her. If you have issues with how she does her job, fine. Insult and criticize all you like. But pointing out people’s physical features when taking them to task is pathetic and childish. Not to mention probably sour grapes. What next, are you going to judge people for being white or short? For having crooked teeth? For being fat? For having scars? For being flat-chested? Next time, focus on intellect (or lack of, if you like) and leave people’s physical appearance out of it. It’s 2008 and we should be past that by now.
SHOULD be past it, certainly. But since she’s got the job and it’s not for her intellect/impartiality/journalism skills/critical thinking (pick one or all), I’d say we’re not. Damned right I’m sour that they hired her instead of a competent journalist.
You could have said all you wanted to say without mentioning anything about the attractiveness of her face or the color of her hair. Just because she is blond and has a pretty face doesn’t relate at all to whether or not she possesses the necessary skills to do her job. It’s as bad as those that won’t vote for Obama because of his race. “SHOULD be past it, certainly […] I’d say we’re not,” you write. I’d say most of us are, thankfully. Your words would have had more impact if you’d left the physical attack out of the post.
I’m not implying that her appearance affects her ability to do her job–or that her mind should be judged by her looks. I’m saying she wouldn’t HAVE that job if it weren’t for her appearance, because it’s certainly not for her skills. That’s why I quoted her–to point out the obvious lack of journalistic ability. I could poke fun at the guy, too, if you’d like–he certainly didn’t make much attempt to cover both sides of the issue. But I’d thought that was the job of the questioning journalist–to bring out /important/ points not already covered. Her choosing to maneuver him into explaining that “anarchist” means “doesn’t want any government” was a waste of an excellent opportunity to bring balance to the story. She completely deserves to have people wondering why she has that job. Look up the station–http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCCO-TV They’re big enough, old enough, and professional enough–I think it’s fair to expect better than lopsided, careless coverage.
As for my “attack” affecting the impact of my post–are the words “blond” and “pretty,” however you may feel about them, really enough to distract you from “arrested,” “no charges filed,” “transferred from one law enforcement center to another,” and “not enough evidence to charge anyone?”