A shocking expirence

The past several weeks our editorial department has been working on a package of stories to gain a better understanding of the Taser, people’s thoughts on it, and whether or not the weapon is being abused.

Last Thursday, with the help of Middletown Police Chief Keith Reismiller and Officer Scott Yoder, I gave everyone in the Press And Journal office an early Christmas present: I allowed myself to be Tasered on camera.

My first experience with a Taser was definitely a shocking one.

Not only did I get to do cool things such as sit through training videos watching other people get Tased, but I even was allowed to fire a Taser at a training target. And just like every police officer that goes through the training, I too was Tased.
I was subjected to 50,000 volts surging through my muscles for five seconds – the five longest seconds in my life – and if it was not for the two South Central EMTs holding my arms firmly, I would have been on the floor.

When the probes penetrated my skin, every muscle in my body tightened up instantly. I could barely move. In fact, if you view the video of my Tasering, the only thing I did was stand on the tips of my toes. [The video will be posted on the Press And Journal Web site].

The training course and the research I’ve done assured me the Taser did exactly what it was supposed to do: make me less of a threat so I could be arrested. I definitely did not want to try to fight Yoder and be exposed to another five seconds.

Was I nervous?
Sure, I don’t think anyone wouldn’t be, especially after the national media reported on the deaths that have occurred from Tasers the past few months. The only side effect of my Tasering was soreness in my muscles. Hours later it felt like I put in a full day at the gym. Other than that, I was fine.

Going through this experience – not just getting Tasered, but talking to police chiefs and officers – gave me not only a better understanding of the device but of what a police officer experiences out on the street. Most of the time the officers don’t know the person they are arresting. For all they know, the person could be a psychopathic murderer. He or she might be Little Bo Peep, but police don’t know.

Officers told me their stories; they Tasered someone lying on the ground when the suspect wouldn’t put his hands behind his back. Why? Because the officer didn’t know if the suspect was lying on a weapon.

Highspire Chief John McHale and Middletown’s Yoder both summed up their goal. It is to do their job effectively, efficiently, safely, and make sure they go home to their family at night.

People sometimes complain that officers are Taser-happy because they are constantly firing or drawing their Tasers.

Every chief or officer I talked to said they sometimes have drawn their Taser simply as a visual deterrent, because it is likely to make the suspect back down.

I don’t believe the police want to Taser people; but they do when they become aggressive, combative, and refuse to be arrested. One deterrent to officers using Tasers is that there’s a lot of paper work that needs to be filled out after an incident. Also, if an officer abuses the Taser, he or she could be sued, along with the Taser instructor.

Let’s face it: Most Taser incidents in Middletown occur when the person is intoxicated. Throw in the occasional balloon vendor-style Tasering and everyone is angry with the police.

Many officers explained it to me this way: “It only takes one [really bad] cop to give the department a bad name.”

Click on the link to view videos of P&J staff going through Taser training. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PressJournal

Dream needs to be adjusted to environment

Published in the Press And Journal

The American Dream means different things to different people. One person may see it as having the opportunity to vote. Another may believe having the right to practice any religion they choose to be the American Dream.

I think it is fair to say that most people see the American Dream as owning a piece of land and house they can call their own. But is it possible that the American Dream is actually destroying America?

What drives Americans to want their own piece of land to call their own?

Land ownership is a status symbol – perhaps the longest standing status symbol. During the Middle Ages the poor lived in cities and the rich lived in the country on vast estates. In the 1950s the middle and upper classes moved out of the cities and into the suburbs. If a family had enough money to move into the suburbs they had enough money to own a car so they could drive to their job in the city or to the grocery store. How could a dream like this be dangerous?

Well, if everyone in America – all 300-plus million of us – wants to have a house and piece of land to call his or her own, what would be left after everything was divvied up?

Take a drive in any direction and you will see development; whether it’s a new shopping center or a new housing development, one thing is certain, farmland is being consumed.

In Bethel Township, Lebanon County, 90 acres of farmland has one of two fates: rezoning to commercial so that a 1,000,000 square foot warehouse can be built or having 200 homes built on the land.

Citizens have turned out with support for both sides. One group argues the warehouse will create unnecessary traffic, pollution and cause harm to the citizens of the township. The other group argues the warehouse will generate enough money in school taxes to keep tax rates down for everyone else. That group also believes 200 more single-family homes will overburden the school district.

No matter what the board decides it appears the farmland will be lost.

Lower Susquehanna River Keeper Michael Helfrich explained to me that development has been one of the factors contributing to the high rates of nitrogen and phosphorous in the Chesapeake Bay, causing it to be polluted.

Helfrich explained how trees along the Susquehanna River are able to filter out some of the nitrogen and phosphorous naturally, but as development comes to sites along the river, the trees are cut down and never replaced.

Helfrich says farmland is also a place to dispose of waste from sewer treatment plants.

What can be done to stop the loss of farmland? Build up, not out, Helfrich says. It makes sense.

In Europe, many towns are self-sustaining communities. There are no Wal-Marts or other superstores. Stores that build in the towns do not take up massive amounts of land looking to serve thousands of people as shopping centers do in America. Instead, the stores located in a European town focus on servicing that town; it does not take up vast amounts of land to build a store.

If America keeps expanding at the rate it is, there will be nothing left for the American Dream.

Jeremy Long is a staff reporter for the Press and Journal. He graduated from Lebanon Valley College with a degree in historical communications.

War with Iran?

Could we really be on the brink of another war — with Iran?

The Bush administration has not openly threatened a military strike against Iran, but Bush has said of a need to avoid “World War III,” and Vice President Cheney said the United States would “not stand by” while Iran continued its nuclear program. “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said, The Washington Post reported.

Seeing how Iran has been adamant about building nuclear reactors it looks like the Bush administration is itching for another war.

Okay I’ll be the first to admit that Iran isn’t the best nomination for country of the year; with the suspected sponsorship of terrorism, but can we really even fight — much less afford another war?

Taking a chapter out of the history books Hitler fought a war on three and eventually four fronts — guess what — it didn’t work out too well for him.

Now another factor into a potential war with Iran would be the escalating oil prices.

“If war breaks out, anticipate that all hell will break loose in the oil markets,” said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, a District oil consulting firm, according to the Post.

What is scary is the comment Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made about Bush the other day.

“[Bush] committed to a diplomatic course on Iran,” she added that U.S. patience is “not limitless, and allies need to know that.”

Last time I heard the Bush administration was on a “diplomatic course” that was with Iraq and next thing I knew I was watching night vision shots of troops plowing through sand mounds.

Could Iran really be next?

Better Late Than Never

When I first heard of the Sept. 16 shooting in Iraq that Blackwater USA was involved in I thought little of it. I knew Blackwater USA was a security contractor, well more mercenary than contractor, and have been involved in a lot of fighting in Iraq.

When I read that eight civilians had been killed during Blackwater’s firefight, I wasn’t’ surprised either.

The thing that caught my eye was that the Iraqi government had banned Blackwater from operating anymore in Iraq, although it was understandable.

At the time, the details were unclear and Blackwater officials said they were attacked and returned fire. The Iraqi government said Blackwater came upon a traffic jam and opened fire.

As weeks passed the details became clear.

The shooting started when Blackwater guards were evacuating senior American officials after an explosion occurred near the place where they were meeting, a New York Times article reported.

Some officials questioned Blackwater’s decision to pull the American officials out of the secure compound.

Blackwater appeared to be responsible for the shooting that lead to 11 Iraqi civilians being killed.

I became quite angry when I learned a Blackwater employee was responsible for killing a bodyguard for one of Iraq’s vice presidents on Christmas Eve last year, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. The Blackwater employee was drinking in the Green Zone and tired to enter an area where Iraqi officials lived, the report said.

What happened to the employee?

He was fired, but left Iraq without being prosecuted, the report said.

I couldn’t believe something like that could happen, until I read a Times article on Blackwater the next day.

In 2004 L. Paul Bremer III, who was the top official of the American occupation authority, signed an order that exempted all United States personnel from Iraqi law.
Also, these contractors do not fall under U.S. laws because they are not U.S. government employees or soldiers -- they are civilian contractors.

What justification is there behind something like that?

Correct me if I’m wrong but our brave men and women fought died for Iraq to be free, to become a democracy, yet when our soldiers are there we are impervious to Iraqi law? How is that a democracy? Maybe my teachers in school did a horrible job teaching me but I thought one of the founding principles of this great country was “justice for all,” a principle that our soldiers are dying for over in another country.

And this order that Bremer signed what does that teach our personal, “Do whatever you want. Don’t worry about the consequences.”

There are a number of American laws that could be applied to contractors overseas and in wartime. Also, the Department of Defense enacted a measure that would bring contractors under military law but has yet to put into effect the rules needed to do so.

On Oct. 4 the House passed a bill that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts, the Washington Post reported.

I’m relieved that the government finally realized allowing private security firms to run around lawlessly was a bad decision. I’m just upset that it took three years to realize that it was a bad idea.

Is the "new" media a good thing?

While I have always had my doubts that the new type of media (citizen reporting, 24 hour networks, etc.) may have its downfalls, the positives would always outweigh the bad. It was not until the past week or two that I have realized that the media is failing to do its job.

With the constant coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, the coverage of the trial (which had decided who gets custody of Smith's body), and the coverage of Britney Spears shaving her head, it has just been too much. Events such as Al-Qaeda becoming reorganized in Pakistan and Iran not complying with UN's request to stop enriching uranium have slipped from the headlines.

One of the jobs of the media is to be a watchdog for the people. Over the past months there have been several salmonella out breaks in food processing plants and all the media did was warn people that it was happening. No investigative reports. No hard hitting interviews. At least from what I saw.

At a job interview, a man told me that the future of newspapers was in the local news. He continued to say that if people want to hear about what is going on in the world they can turn on CNN or FoxNews, watch it for a few minutes and get their fill of national and world news.
What he said is correct and wrong at the same time. He is correct in saying that after watching only a few minutes of CNN or FoxNews a person can get a good idea of what is going on in the world that day (mainly becuase the 24 hour networks only run a few stories a day over and over again). He is wrong because the couple of stories that the networks chose to show are not a complete picture of what is going on in the world. I can guarantee that no network had a story on the genocide in Darfur since around September. The BBC has had several stories (on their website) the past couple of months pertaining to troop levels and the ongoing negotiations between the Sudanese government and the UN. But who is to blame for the public's lack of interest in national and global news, unless it pertains to stars (not the ones in space)?

My proposal is unless the 24 hour networks do not start doing their job, acutally start informing people of the world around them, that they should be disbanded. Then sign control of those networks to MTV so we can watch countless hours of teenage reality television. But seriously, maybe the news media needs to take a step back and look at its roots. Look back to when there wasn't a constant need to fill 24 hours, a time when journalists took pride in their work and did a service to the people. I'm talking about the "muckrakers" and the Woodwards and Bernsteins of journalism.

Landmine Video

This public service announcement was aired only for a few days in the United States last year. The reason it was pulled from the air was because people found it too traumatizing.
I agree that it is a very unpleasant scene, but it's only depicting what people in mine-laden counties have to deal with day after day. A farmer who plows his field [in a mine-laden countryl] hits a mine. He could lose a leg or even worse -- his life. Children playing in a field are often subject to the same fate. But what can be done to stop this?
People need to care. This commerical is one way to do that. It was the perfect commerical to get people to care. After it was aired, it made many people upset. But people once again chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on in the world.
The United States, one of the largest mine producing nations, needs to sign the internataional mine-ban treaty. This treaty is designed to stop the use, development, production, stockpile and transfer of anti-personel mines, and to stop assisting or encouraging individuals, private companies, the military, or non-state parties in violating the treaty.
Several organzations are already working to clear the world of land mines. For more information check out www.landmines.org and www.mineaction.org

Again the American Media Fails (Atleast the 24 Hour Networks)

Today when I turned my television to CNN I was surprised to see that Anna Nicole Smith had passed away during the day. While she is a celebrity and in America celebrities do command a lot of our attention it was no surprise that CNN was devoting coverage to her untimly death. I did not have a problem with the American media covering her death. What I did have a problem with is this.
Larry King had already decided to devote an hour of his program to Smith. A entire hour. 60 minutes to hear about "life-saving efforts as family and friends reflect on her life."
What angers me is that her death is taking attention away from other important news worthy events. For example, Two Palestinian Factions Signed a deal today. This story will slip from the spot light due to the death of Smith. The New York Times website and BBCNews.com are the only two sites that do not have Smith's death as their lead. (the "other sites" are CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Another example of a story that is not very important in the grand scheme of things is the apparent breakdown of Capt. Lisa Nowak who drove over 900 miles to confront a woman who was dating the same man that Nowak was. While this story was interesting and odd (mainly because of the diaper Nowak wore on her drive) what was the significance of it? By letting the American people know of this distraught astronaut what was the point? Did this story command that much attention because of the fact that Nowak was a astronaut?

This is not the first time that the news media has jumped on the so called bandwagon and covered events that will generate ratings thus producing more profits. But who is to blame? The media for listening to their audiences and covering "soft" news? Or is is the people who do not demand more substance in their news?

Sudan Not to Take Over AU

The other day it was determined that Sudan would not be taking over the chairmanship of the African Union (AU) due to the current situation in Darfur, according to The Washington Post and BBCNews.com. As many know the current situation in Darfur, a region in Sudan, is a systematic killing of the non-Baggara. The killing is being carried out by the janjaweed: a militia group recurited from the tribes of the Abbala. The Janjaweed are being backed by the Sudanese governement, under the leadership of President Omar al-Bashir. The Sudanese government has denied supporting the janjaweed.

As chairman of the AU, Sudan would be able to cut funding and support from the AU's peacekeeping mission in the Darfur region.

The UN is asking al-Bashir to allow a joint UN/AU peacekeeping force in Darfur. There are already 2,370 AU troops in Darfur; the UN is looking to send a peacekeeping force of 22,000. According to an article from The Washington Post, Sudanese Presidential adviser Majzoub al-Khalifa said there was a consensus on the first two stages of UN support for a 7,500 strong AU mission in Darfur; however, there was no agreement to deploy a hybrid force. A Sept. 25, 2006 report from PBS Online NewsHour reported that the AU troop level would reach 11,000.

The Sudanese government did agree to allow up to 1,000 UN support personnel to boost the struggling AU.

Many nations, including the United States, have called what is taking place in Darfur a genocide. However, these nations still fail to step up and put more pressure on al-Bashir and his government.

Seeing as how Sudan was passed over for the chairmanship because of the situation in Darfur, it should send a message to the rest of the world. Why is it so hard for the international community to step in? Yes, the UN can not go in without the consent of the government or an unanimous security council vote. Still there are other things that can be done; unfortunately they are only being done by NGOs and they are not being successful in ending this genocide. Only military intervention will end it.

Stopping a Genocide

By: Bill Rice and Jeremy Long


For the past couple of months we been trying to lead intelligent discussions, correcting people, and just downright arguing with people on several facebook discussion boards having to deal with the genocide going on in Darfur. These groups were created with the intent on spreading awareness but more often than not it brings in people who decide to post things such as "you people are dumb for supporting this cause. Nothing is going to stop it." Then there are the other people who post information in an attempt to educate the people in the group. And finally there are the people who have constructive debates which shed light on both sides of the issues. With that said we just wanted to vent on some things we have been noticing on these threads.

1) Darfur does not equal Iraq

Many times I have seen someone post "Everyone in this group opposes the war in Iraq but they want to send troops to Darfur. I bet you are going to oppose a war in Darfur." Or "Saddamdon't you support the war in Iraq?" We will admit that we oppose the war in Iraq; however, I would not oppose a troop deployment to Darfur. Reason being is that will be the only way to successfully stop a genocide. It would have to be a UN peacekeeping force or a NATO force. We would would also have agreed to sending troops to Iraq to stop the genocide back in the '80s when it was taking place. When the US invaded in 2003 it was to take Saddam out of power, not to stop a genocide.
These posters assume that anyone involved in the Save Darfu campaign are also people that are opposed to the Iraq War. This is not true. The Save Darfur campaign is nonpartisan and composed of Democrats and Republicans, and porbably some registered independents and third party memebers as well. The campaign to stop the genocide in Darfur has ntohing to do with Iraq.


2) Sending a military force to Darfur does not mean sending US troops.

If a NATO or UN force were to be deployed to Darfur it would be made up of troops from the international commuinty. These troops would most likely come from Belgium, France or some other European county. There are several UN peacekeeping missions going on in the world where there are no US troops deployed. Granted it is possible that some US troops could be deployed. The US could also find other ways to support a mission in Darfur. Sending supplies or providing logistical support for example to the African Union troops who are already there or to a UN/NATO force for example. The supporters of the Save Darfur campaign are calling for a multinational force whereas some of who were against Bush's rush to war in Iraq critiziced the President for his lack of an international support.

3) Saving Darfur is not an issue of trendiness

Many people have posted that supporting the Darfur groups is a way for people to be trendy. What is hard to comprehend is how somone could even make such an outlandish statement. For some reason people see celebrities like Goerge Clooney and college kids lending thier support to the campaign and they figure the "cool," nonconformist thing to do is criticize it as trendy. Not that the innocent men, women, and children matter here. What matters, apparently, is not conforming to the "trends."



.