Letters: Trump’s insecurity fuels Portland military deployment
Trump’s insecurity fuels Portland military deployment
Can you imagine being so insecure that you order the military to occupy Portland, Oregon? That’s Donald Trump and his cabinet.
Portland, the city of hipsters and cafes that pioneered vegan desserts, bespoke lattes, and habanero ice cream.
Portland, the city where competitive pinball resurfaced alongside a vibrant microbrewery culture.
Portland, a city noted for its diverse religious membership.
Portland, the city of fountains, a gigantic independent bookstore, rose gardens, and a Japanese Garden where you can take in a view of distant Mount Hood.
Portland, the first city in America to draft a complete climate acton plan and commit to doing its part to limit global warming by investing in efficient buildings and renewable energy, public transportation, bicycling infrastructure, local food, and extending its urban forests, all while ensuring a high quality of life.
Portland, a safe city that doesn’t even crack the top 100 in murder, rape, aggravated assault, or robbery.
Look, Portland is not for everyone. “Portlandia” didn’t come from nothing. But it’s a place where many people can be who they are. If you don’t like it, don’t go. If you do like it, go. Seriously, just let people live their lives.
But that’s the problem. Trump doesn’t want people to live their lives.
Peter Buck, State College
Defamation vs. free speech
I had never heard the name Charlie Kirk until after he had been shot dead. During the intense and varied media frenzy that followed his death, I decided to Google “defamation vs free speech,” and was rewarded with an abundance of information, and impressively, most of it was consistent.
The University of Milwaukee stated, “Defamation occurs if you make a false statement of fact about someone else that harms that person’s reputation. Such speech is not protected by the First Amendment. ... If you make a false statement of fact about a public official or a public figure, more First Amendment protection applies to ensure that people are not afraid to talk about public issues. According to New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), defamation against public officials or public figures also requires that the party making the statement used ‘actual malice,’ meaning the false statement was made ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’”
In my opinion, reckless disregard of facts is the very essence of clickbait and the status quo of much of late night television. It exemplifies shoddy journalism. I believe it goes unchecked because it generates huge profits. It is media designed to create an emotional response that is geared toward those who are looking for a reason to justify being hateful based on how they feel about a person, group or situation without the benefit of accurate information. It harms everyone involved; it’s a classic lose-lose situation.
Della Chuderewicz, State College
Penn State’s ‘outrageous’ WPSU decision
Although central PA presents rolling green hills and open farmland to enjoy, it would be isolated from many other appealing things if not for Penn State. Besides a world renowned education and some good football (supported by faithful fans), it offers other very important services. An immense variety of programming, seven days a week, is enjoyed by 515,000 TV viewers and 450,000 radio listeners, which we support monetarily twice a year to keep them going. This is not a small number. How terrible that a literal handful of people, behind closed doors, with no public input, has decided unilaterally to throw away WPSU radio and television!
We don’t have the option to switch to another PBS facility in Happy Valley. There isn’t one. To hear that an offer to keep WPSU going was turned down because it wasn’t a business benefit for PSU is outrageous.
Penn State prides itself on being a cut above its rivals. For all of us, take the high road and keep WPSU radio and TV on the air.
Mary Ann Meader, State College