Sure we can work together. Elect a pro-economy city council with "guts".
Pacifica Tribune, Letters-to-the-Editor, 4/11/12 "Can we work together?" by BJ Nathanson
Pacifica Tribune, Letters-to-the-Editor, 4/11/12 "Can we work together?" by BJ Nathanson
"Editor: First,
I want to congratulate all regarding our interim Council. We were in an
unusual emergency situation, and I think the most reasonable choices
were made. As to the issue of not having elected Ms. Jaquith, may
I remind you that this is for six months only, and that without her, a
lot of business is going to be delayed, to everyone's detriment.
 |
| "Broke and stupid, can you hear me now?" |
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that just as many people would oppose spending thousands of dollars that we don't have in order to call a special election in June, which would still result in several months of delay. Ms. Jaquith has been on the Council, she has been Mayor, and she has been active in a variety of community groups in this city for many years. I can't think of a better candidate, and I am thankful that she was willing to take this on.
Next, I'd like to address the apparent long-standing nature of politics here (as in many other places). It is adversarial; it can include name-calling, and a lot of complaining. One definition of being crazy is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result.
I'd like to present a challenge to all of us Pacificans -- ALL of us. Can we for six months agree to share our ideas constructively, and leave the blame-pointing aside? Just for six months. What do you imagine might come of that? We have got to fix this town together. We can't be enemies; we must be willing to work with each other in order to move forward. What is the problem with that? Well, I can dream."
Reference - "Om" definition. Merriam-Webster, or About.com"Yoga".
Posted by Kathy Meeh
48 comments:
I second BJ's comments. She is an iconoclast of Pacifica politics, not ideology driven and willing to tell it like she sees it.
You and BJ are well ahead of the evolutionary curve.
It's not clear if the intention is to mock BJ's sentiments with the picture caption and the "om" reference. If it is, then the mocker is a fool. BJ is probably the most principled planning commissioner Pacifica ever had.
Please also reprint the letter from Barbara Medina. It's a very "fair and balanced" (pardon the phrase) discussion of recent Pacifica politics.
http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_20367048/letters-editor
"If it is, then the mocker is a fool."
Your riddle to discover Anon 345. Last paragraph of the text: "We can't be enemies; we must be willing to work with each other in order to move forward." Om...
Anon 345, stay confused. Your comment is perfect for Pacifica progress communication, "...can you hear me now?"
Barbara Medina's wall of words was fair and balanced?
Haha, all she did is belittle the recall backers questioning their right to even have a recall.
She didn't belittle anyone. It was a very articulate, well-reasoned, heartfelt letter expressing the writer's opinion. Take it or leave it.
Read for content anon5:16. Barbara Medina didn't question anyone's right to stage a recall. That has never been at issue. And there is nothing derogatory in her remarks about anyone involved on either side of the recall. To the contrary, she is very even-handed and fair in her analysis and restrained in her suggestions. And that's exactly what one would expect from someone writing in support of compromise, reason and common sense.
BJ Nathanson's letter has been framed with some added-on nonsense, but BJ's letter is not nonsense.
Yes, BJ wrote a lovely letter-to-the-editor. We should "all work together". Factually that isn't happening, has not been happening for decades. Odds are it won't be happening for the next 6 months, and beyond. The city continues its multi-year spiral decline, the result of inept city council majority management. The realistic change agent needed to Fix Pacifica is a pro-economy city council with an actual vision and an action plan.
The article framing blocks (for the benefit of some anonymous comments):
A. On title "om", is the focus we would hope to achieve in "working together" (from the message of the LTE).
B. Picture with opinion caption: Try 1) pro-economy is yelling at anti-economy, because 2) anti-economy is not receptive. Thus with anti-economy, when it comes to significant economic development (city survival, benefits and advancement) the message "falls on deaf ears".
C. Comment above the article: The only way this city may achieve progress is to elect "a pro-economy city council".
Fair and Balanced like Bill O'Rielly.
Barbara Medina said:
"It seems a better use of their time to support a candidate" (rather than recall)
"The recall are a small minority, majority of Pacifica does not support it"
But the environment is our economy
I have no problem with people commenting on my letter, but I was not consulted regarding reprinting it with someone else's framing. I did not say "om" and I did not say anything about what kind of council we should have. This is a distortion of my letter and I do not condone it.
Next time, please write your own letter instead of hijacking mine. Thank you.
what was that? again , please.
Oh BJ, have you read those letters/comments?
No wonder they hijacked yours.
IMO, way over reaction, BJ. The LTE is a public document without text alteration that I re-posted with opinion and satirical picture, not unusual for me or this blog. Its possible that what I said is even similar to your unofficial opinion when you stepped-aside from the Planning Commission. And BTW, you were very good, smart and efficient there!
"Can we all work together?" Good luck, no track record for that except on neutral or few economic issues that ultimately were not attacked. Promote the "we can work together" idea? "Feels good", but sounds like the "fooled you" city council and friends anti-economic diversion programs we bought-into for the past 10 years.
Ian (4/12, 2:36pm), BTW using the framework of your Wavelength "not against them, for them" slogan: "we're not against the environment, we're for a prosperous city economy". Not sure what your reference to iconoclast is, but ideology or eco-ideology (really Nimbyism) has been a multiple year compounded threat to the balanced financial and social health of this city. Fix that, and we may be able to move on to a better Pacifica, ala BJ's wish for all of us.
Anon 149, yep what we do is mostly "hijack" (re-post) public articles of interest, and comment. Sometimes a comment may occur on the article. Most of the time comments occur in the comment section. Hopefully some intelligence occurs. Its a blog.
"We should all get along"
Does anyone else find it ironic that BJ is going off on Kathy?
BJ did not "go off" on Kathy. She said she did not condone the distortion of her letter and she politely said "please" and "thank you."
Do the editors of Pacifica get the permission of publishers before they cut and paste the articles that appear in their publications?
Many of these outfits could use the traffic that you're diverting from their sites. Rather than reprint the work that they've done whole-cloth, why not just a short recap and link out to the article onthe host site?
Stealing someone else's work to publish on your own blog is pretty rude and most likely a vilolation of copyright.
The Tribune's site allows for comment posting, so why not go there to comment rather than ripping off their content?
A letter to the Editor is not "work" , it's a public airing of your view. Once out in public it is fair game and not the property of either the paper or the writer.
"Many of these outfits could use the traffic that you're diverting from their sites"
That's actually a good point. Personally, I always try to display the first few paragraphs of an article, and then provide a link to the original source.
If someone else is paying to produce content, it's only fair we should send people over to that site.
I don't see anything wrong with reprinting a letter to the editor of the Pacifica Tribune, as circulation is so withered that new eyes will see it here.
And Steve's idea of linking to the site is fair as well.
I must say that Ms. Medina's letter misinterpreted what I said in a previous letter. She cited every critical letter written recently to the Trib, as if there's something wrong with critical letters.
"I do not believe that all our politicians are being dishonest," she wrote, in reference to what I had to say. That's not what I said. I have pointed out the end results of the cumulative actions of politicians and top city staffers, and the public can come to their own conclusions.
Sure, elected officials can "believe(d) they were right.", but it doesn't mean we have to give up the right to oppose their actions.
I think more scrutiny, a lot more, is the answer to informing the public.
A letter to the Editor is not "work" , it's a public airing of your view. Once out in public it is fair game and not the property of either the paper or the writer.
This is incorrect.
The author of this comment should pull up 17 USC 101 and refer to the definition of "literary works" therein.
The author of a letter to the editor is the holder of copyright and doesn't transfer except under the terms of service of whatever paper receives the letter. The author of such a letter has not abdicated his/her rights with a public airing of the letter and certainly has not transferred their rights to unaffiliated third-party websites such as Fix Pacifica to reprint.
Personally, I believe it's poor form to reprint entire articles and to keep material online even after the author (and copyright holder) has expressed that they wished you didn't.
Personally I don't care about blog traffic elsewhere. And source links are provided on blog articles here, which may encourage readers to view various news and information sources directly. Anonymous 502, since we post various individual articles (mostly from news sources) your "diverting traffic" comment ultimately leads to "direct source comment" Doing that is not of value to those who are interested in this blog as a central communication source.
"Isn't it ironic"-- Anonymous 442, I agree with your assessment of the response from "BJ". (Of course, there's a slight chance "BJ" is someone else and an Anonymous). But just to be fair, IMO one 4/11/12 LTE article must be sacrificed. So I vote for that one LTE to be the 1000 word opinion from Barbara Medina. Some of you are already sad, so look for it here.
Chris that is your opinion only. 17 USC 101 says nothing about letters to the editor rights being retained by the writer or the paper that printed it.
There is nothing wrong with a blog site reprinting a letter to the editor. After all, the authors intent is to get their opinion out.
Sorry but you are wrong Chris.
A person who makes a public speech may be quoted word for word with no copyright claims. A letter to the editor falls within this definition and any reporting of their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
The MOST reprinted Letter To The Editor in history
http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/
"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?
"I don't see anything wrong with reprinting a letter to the editor of the Pacifica Tribune, as circulation is so withered that new eyes will see it here." ... And "I think more scrutiny, a lot more, is the answer to informing the public."
Lionel, I think what you said above must be correct. And, I agree that several of Ms. Medina's 4/11/12 LTE comments were irresponsible, uninformed and incorrect. There was a certain cringe factor in the political comment she ascribed to you. Of course, on that "hit list" you were in good company.
Chris 734, I'm not finding relevant detail to the 17 USC 101 (US copyright office, Title 17, Chapter 1) "letters to the editor" as a "literary work" reference. And, without an applied for copyright, such local Letters probably do not qualify.
Also, I think reproducing these LTEs is valueable. Example, the information on Maureen Lennon's conflict with the city and lawsuit was sparce, but we were able to pull up most of an LTE posted by Steve on this blog, and one excellent article from Lionel on Riptide. Some of us used to save old Pacifica Tribune newspapers, but longer do (way too much paper). FMV its unfortunate that newspaper companies are not saving these older LTEs, for whatever reason.
There's nothing wrong with it Kathy. In fact you're performing a public service. Some people are just trying to keep you quiet.
Sorry but you are wrong Chris.
A person who makes a public speech may be quoted word for word with no copyright claims. A letter to the editor falls within this definition and any reporting of their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment.
I am not.
A speech (or other "public performance") is treated much differently within a separate section under Title 17 and if you were familiar with copyright law, you would know this.
There is no substantive difference between an author who pens a letter to the editor, an author who pens a news item for the same paper, or an author who writes a book that they'd like the public to read: if you reprint their material without their permission, you have violated copyright.
Also, many strange things (like telephone directories) have been found to enjoy copyright protection, but you won't see them specifically mentioned in the USC -- the definition of "literary works" is purposefully very broad to cover all sorts of things.
Really, this sort of thing is Copyright 101 level stuff and if someone asks that you not reprint their material, you should comply if for no other reason than out of politeness -- but the law is on their side as well.
Swing and a miss Chris.
Chris, don't expect reason and fairness from this blog or it's managers. While I agree with your position regarding reprinting of articles and LTE without the authors consent, the cost of remedy is great, Steve and Kathy know this, meaning these copy right violations will continue even when the original writer objects. BTW of all the infractions/libel and defamation this site and it's managers are guilty of, reprinting a LTE is probably the least of them.
BJ didn't like the opinion of her fellow commissioners so she up and quit with no notice in a fit of pique(no one missed her). She said: "We can't be enemies; we must be willing to work with each other in order to move forward. What is the problem with that?" The problem is it's hard to have a dialogue with an empty chair!
BJ, you really aren't the one to be lecturing about getting along, move on with your life.
Todd, you've got to admit that you're one of the most frequent bomb tossers in Pacifica. Given that fact, perhaps you shouldn't be such a delicate flower when others return the favor.
Kathy The picture and caption are the antipathy of B.J's letter.
Her stated goal is for people to work together to solve or problems an you come up with a picture that shows one person shouting at another that they are stupid.
I don't wonder why B.J. is put out with you.
Tom, the picture represents the current state of reality in Pacifica as previously stated 4/13, 3:08am. From that, item "B": "Picture with opinion caption: Try 1) pro-economy is yelling at anti-economy, because 2) anti-economy is not receptive. Thus with anti-economy, when it comes to significant economic development (city survival, benefits and advancement) the message "falls on deaf ears"."
Sure Ms. Meeh, and that message could have been conveyed with that image and your own text without hijacking BJ's LTE. You had other motives.
"Sure.. and that message could have been conveyed with that image and your own text.."
Conspiracy Anonymous (1227), what would those motives be, other than as stated?
Might try advancing the discussion-- how is it possible to achieve BJ's actual goal of working together without that goal being a sham? Now there's a motive.
This is an interesting discussion, and one that I haven't fully considered before now. I know that Chris has some legal training, and probably knows what he is talking about. It seems obvious that a link to an article from another site is fine, but a full reposting is another matter.
As for the framing of the letter, considering that 'hippy' is this site's go-to term to describe all that is wrong with this city, it's hard not to see the definition of Om as mocking the letter's message. And the picture of a woman yelling into a megaphone in a man's ear with the caption "Broke and stupid, can you hear me now?" is pretty much the opposite of the point of the letter. It's about as appropriate in this context as the Spinal Tap album cover for Smell the Glove:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSAumt6YF4
I'm not sure where to draw the line, but reprinting an entire letter without permission while simultaneously mocking it probably crosses that line. It's probably too late to take the picture down, (for one thing comments like this one would no longer make sense) but maybe this can lead to a FixPacifica posting policy that prevents this kind of issue in the future.
"Conspiracy", oh no Ms. Meeh. I'm sure what you did with BJ's letter was your individual effort.
Instead of republishing Tribune LTEs in whole on Fix Pacifica, it would be better to simply post a link to the original letter at the Tribune's website. Then if Kathy wanted to make a comment, she could add it to the comments section. I figure if people wanted their letters posted here, they would send them to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
In the past people would send me copies of their LTEs, and often I'd add little pictures to go along with it. Usually people didn't mind, but occasionally I'd get an angry or distressed email from the sender saying I was misrepresenting their message. So I stopped adding things to submissions.
"Instead of republishing Tribune LTEs in whole on Fix Pacifica, it would be better to simply post a link to the original letter at the Tribune's website."
Steve 214, sounds good, along with stunting articles. People, learn to read and open links. With an LTE link, you get all of them.
The flack over BJ's LTE is quite amazing to me, since the body of that text talks about adversarial city politics and even quotes the Einstein definition of "crazy". At the core of the issue is the inability of this city to move forward, and the inability of polarized factions to "hear" each other, hence inability to reason together.
Although requirements vary among newspapers, with a search I've found that what Steve is suggesting is the minimum federal copyright requirement. So, unless LTE's are directly submitted, or use of articles are approved in advance by the newspaper; or unless there is some other newspaper variation-- what Steve has suggested will be the general rule to follow going forward. However, there is no limit to the amount of opinion or paraphrasing which may accompany the newspaper link. FMV, what a drag that is, nothing like viewing the entire text when possible.
ian butler said...
"I know that Chris has some legal training,"
Funny thing about lawyers, 50% are wrong and 50% are right.
Chris is wrong on this one.
Whatever you decide is fine with me Kathy.
BTW this site is still the most open and fair blog IMO.
John Bayberry's Ripe Tide is a joke. Favoring their favorite sons and deleting comments because they are anonymous.
At least here both sides are given a chance to speak. And that's why this blog is much more popular.
childish
From some research today, it looks like any Letter to the Editor which is not copyrighted by the author of that Letter is respectfully "fair game". It seems the Letter may be posted in full here for discussion without commercial copyright concern from the newspaper. An article about these findings will be posted shortly.
And Hutch, thanks for your comment referring to this blog as "open and fair" (4/14, 10:26pm). Steve Sinai (blogmaster) deserves that credit.
The upside of what John Maybury on Riptide does, as a professional editor he improves text errors (that is if the comment is posted under an individuals name). The downsize is editing may change some content, and its possible that more comments are rejected as well.
Post a Comment