I am an atheist, but I will fight for free religious expression, including the right to wear the hijab or full body covering if they choose. However, Ahmed Rehab does not get to call me an Islamaphobe because I believe these are symbols of oppression. I am not a big fan of the Roman Catholic church,either, and its stance on women's reproductive rights, but I respect their right to hold the tenets of their faith. Respecting the right to choose, however, does not mean I have to respect the choice. Nomani is right and I am trying hard to resist the idea that Mr. Rehab is mansplaining.
From Newsweek: "Just a reminder to New York...Marco Rubio and Ron DeSantis (who was in Congress at the time) voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy," New York State Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou tweeted on Wednesday." So Florida's hypocritical governor who has been pleading for aid refused to help New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to put on their jalabeeb [when they go out]; this will make it more likely that they will be recognised [as chaste women] and will not be harassed. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Surah Al Ahzab, Verse 59
That is an inherently oppressive edict, which Mr. Rehab either does not understand or acknowledge. It is oppressive because it places the onus on women to regulate men's behavior. The responsibility for avoiding harassment is the responsibility of the *men* doing the harassing, not the women being harassed. Honestly, I don't find Mr. Rehab's "voice" to be "particularly thoughtful" at all; he comes across as arrogant and insulting in your interview.
The CWB Chicago Facebook posts have bothered me for some time. Eric, you write, “And straight crime reporting seldom delves into the ‘social circumstances’ that give rise to acts of violence, so it’s captious to cite that as a flaw.” But maybe that is a serious flaw of “straight crime reporting.” I tend to think that it is. Reporting on crime without reporting on the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the particular breakdown in social order promotes an “us and them” mentality, the view that there are “good people” and “bad people.” One often hears people against reasonable gun control measures talk about “a good guy with a gun,” or say “criminals” don’t obey gun control laws. It’s as if there are two kinds of people: us, the law-abiding, and them, the criminals. People with this mindset tend to imagine the criminals as people of color. I’ve spent over 40 years working in the justice system as a criminal defense attorney and civil rights lawyer. What I’ve learned is that the vast majority of criminal defendants are “people like us” who made bad mistakes often as a result of terribly difficult stresses in their lives. There is no “us and them.” There is only “us.” Your recent essay about Marilyn Lemak shows me that, on some level, you see that. Crime reporting which ignores the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the breakdown, promotes the “us and them” mindset, which, in turn, promotes racism, which is unhealthy for our culture and society.
The "Museum" of Ice Cream is an utter joke. There is one small room that has some very pedestrian historical artifacts/photos of old-timey ice cream paraphernalia. It's nothing but a VERY expensive Instagram site for people to take photos of their (little) kids in colorful (pink) backgrounds. There are a few rooms of "activities" that are geared towards the 10 and under crowd (a couple of holes of miniature golf, etc.). It's a huge waste of money, and I am shocked that it has lasted as long as it has (a few months).
I can't speak for CWBChicago and I wish they provided a better answer to your 'why not interview' question. But I can imagine the thinking. Anyone that is routinely presenting on the internet and social media can expect a torrent of abuse and threats, so why would they want to offer any personal information. They also know that opposing activists of many stripes will feel no restraint on protesting at their homes or attacking their private information or 'doxing' them. If CWB people consider themselves part of a persecuted minority then they might have even more concerns. They may also feel that exposing information about themselves will generate spurious and distracting attacks on their motives and goals, which would take away from the information they provide. Greenberg provides a perfect example, claiming they are rich white guys and so obviously racists while providing zero evidence that the site provides inaccurate or misleading information. They may still be concerned about reprisals from the CPD or from gangs or alderpersons. Finally, many activists think of themselves as the guardians of accountability and therefore not the targets of others that would use the notion of accountability as a cudgel against them. They do not think of themselves as traditional journalists, they are people exposing the facts that are hidden by others.
I'm glad the McCormack Foundation made the grants and generally agree with you. However, based on the behavior of faculty and administrators, I would not have included NU Medill School of Journalism. Better to have found a journalism school that adheres more closely to objectivity, reliability, and fairness.
I agree with Mr. Rehab. The current events in Iran are an example of undemocratic, authoritarian government. The reason for the deployment of rules of conformity in authoritarian regimes is to control the population. Any resistance to the dictates and rules of the government creates a long-term risk to the power, authority, and control of the regime. Which particular rules are broken is irrelevant, as are the motives of the rule breakers. The rule breakers may believe that they are loyal and reliable citizens in full support of the government and country in all other respects. But they fail to realize that authoritarians know the risk of ANY deviations that are tolerated. If the beatings, demonstrations, and repression were due to any other cause would anyone question that cause? If the trigger had been free speech, would we ask if the notion of free speech was tainted?
I have always agreed with Eric on the value of an appropriate apology. I am an atheist. If I find myself at the Pearly Gates after my death, I will say: "Yikes! I was so wrong, my sincere apologies. Might you still have a reasonably pleasant corner for me here? I am still hoping I was right about the 'no hell' thing".
The winning politically themed tweet of the week by The Volatile Mermaid @OhNoSheTwidn’t makes some interesting points, but here are few enhancements: “I’m not a gun enthusiast, but I would never interfere with anyone else’s choice to own a firearm”, or “I’m not a conservative, but I would never approve of mob action to stop conservatives from speaking on college campuses or anywhere else”. She could also more accurately phrase the first item in her diatribe by saying “I’m not wealthy or privileged, but I believe I should work extra hard to help cover the debts of those who are”. Welcome to It REALLY Isn’t Always About You 101.
I really enjoy your discussions on issues like the one about hijabs and government. I found myself ultimately agreeing with Mr Rehab but I am and will always be uncomfortable with hijabs, Catholic orders that veil nuns and Orthodox Jewish law that cover the hair of married women. Maybe it is because my hair has never been my crowning glory but….I it is a common theme of major religions that men must be protected from women. That is silly and insulting.
CWB Chicago remains true to its mission of reporting criminality in the city of Chicago that is under reported either by oversight or intentionally by the mainstream media. The ruling political and city establishment has a vested interest in attempting to minimize the surge in violent crime afflicting Chicago and Cook County.
The level of vitriol directed toward CWB Chicago, and the editors desire for anonymity are directly related. Despite the fact that I have not seen anyone challenge the facts and the crime statistics reported by CWB Chicago, there is palpable anger by many, virtually all on the progressive left, for them doing so. Given the left's penchant for loud demonstrations at people's personal residences, verbally assaulting them when they are out dining, etc, it is very easy to understand why these editors do not want their information out there.
Complaints about racism in CWB Chicago are meritless. Reporting that black offenders commit violent crime in disportionate numbers is simply stating a fact. For those who wish to challenge this, I refer them to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports published annually. In the crime tables where the ethnicity of the perpetrator is known, black perpetrators commit over 50% of homicides and over 50% of robberies nationally in recent years despite representing only 13.4% of the population. Similarly, the Public Safety Committee of the very leftward City Council of my hometown of Minneapolis recently commissioned an outside firm to study the effects of gun violence on people of color through the first half of 2022. The black population of Minneapolis is 19%, and the headline was that blacks represent 69% of all violent crime victims in the city. No question that blacks are indeed disproportionately the victims of violent crime everywhere . But, hidden further in the report was the more startling statistic that 89% of the shooters in the first half of 2022 are black.
These are not racist statements, but simply statements of documented fact. Discussion and debate over why this is and how to best address it is totally valid, but it does not change the facts no matter how uncomfortable they are or contrary to a desired political narrative. But I believe that is the basis of much of the criticism directed toward CWB Chicago.
If anyone is looking for a more transparent, to a fault, source on live Chicago crime - try following James Hawthorne aka J-Hustle aka #GNN on Facebook.
“Answer your critics and defend your work, not through anonymous social media accounts but in person. Come out from the shadows.
“The interview invitation still stands.” --Zorn
After reading the 10/4/22 article on CWBChicago where Eric confronts them for a lack of transparency and accountability in their reporting on crime in Chicago -- as a journalist he is acrimoniously bashed by them in reply. To me, Eric’s confrontation seems reasonable, especially with respect to public interest and verity in reporting, and it is an indignity to vilify him simply for his position on the issue. To me, denouncing him seems not only wrong on principle, but it is obviously a form of verbal abuse.
I am an atheist, but I will fight for free religious expression, including the right to wear the hijab or full body covering if they choose. However, Ahmed Rehab does not get to call me an Islamaphobe because I believe these are symbols of oppression. I am not a big fan of the Roman Catholic church,either, and its stance on women's reproductive rights, but I respect their right to hold the tenets of their faith. Respecting the right to choose, however, does not mean I have to respect the choice. Nomani is right and I am trying hard to resist the idea that Mr. Rehab is mansplaining.
From Newsweek: "Just a reminder to New York...Marco Rubio and Ron DeSantis (who was in Congress at the time) voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy," New York State Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou tweeted on Wednesday." So Florida's hypocritical governor who has been pleading for aid refused to help New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere.
"O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, to put on their jalabeeb [when they go out]; this will make it more likely that they will be recognised [as chaste women] and will not be harassed. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
Surah Al Ahzab, Verse 59
That is an inherently oppressive edict, which Mr. Rehab either does not understand or acknowledge. It is oppressive because it places the onus on women to regulate men's behavior. The responsibility for avoiding harassment is the responsibility of the *men* doing the harassing, not the women being harassed. Honestly, I don't find Mr. Rehab's "voice" to be "particularly thoughtful" at all; he comes across as arrogant and insulting in your interview.
The CWB Chicago Facebook posts have bothered me for some time. Eric, you write, “And straight crime reporting seldom delves into the ‘social circumstances’ that give rise to acts of violence, so it’s captious to cite that as a flaw.” But maybe that is a serious flaw of “straight crime reporting.” I tend to think that it is. Reporting on crime without reporting on the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the particular breakdown in social order promotes an “us and them” mentality, the view that there are “good people” and “bad people.” One often hears people against reasonable gun control measures talk about “a good guy with a gun,” or say “criminals” don’t obey gun control laws. It’s as if there are two kinds of people: us, the law-abiding, and them, the criminals. People with this mindset tend to imagine the criminals as people of color. I’ve spent over 40 years working in the justice system as a criminal defense attorney and civil rights lawyer. What I’ve learned is that the vast majority of criminal defendants are “people like us” who made bad mistakes often as a result of terribly difficult stresses in their lives. There is no “us and them.” There is only “us.” Your recent essay about Marilyn Lemak shows me that, on some level, you see that. Crime reporting which ignores the factors, social and otherwise, that led to the breakdown, promotes the “us and them” mindset, which, in turn, promotes racism, which is unhealthy for our culture and society.
The "Museum" of Ice Cream is an utter joke. There is one small room that has some very pedestrian historical artifacts/photos of old-timey ice cream paraphernalia. It's nothing but a VERY expensive Instagram site for people to take photos of their (little) kids in colorful (pink) backgrounds. There are a few rooms of "activities" that are geared towards the 10 and under crowd (a couple of holes of miniature golf, etc.). It's a huge waste of money, and I am shocked that it has lasted as long as it has (a few months).
I can't speak for CWBChicago and I wish they provided a better answer to your 'why not interview' question. But I can imagine the thinking. Anyone that is routinely presenting on the internet and social media can expect a torrent of abuse and threats, so why would they want to offer any personal information. They also know that opposing activists of many stripes will feel no restraint on protesting at their homes or attacking their private information or 'doxing' them. If CWB people consider themselves part of a persecuted minority then they might have even more concerns. They may also feel that exposing information about themselves will generate spurious and distracting attacks on their motives and goals, which would take away from the information they provide. Greenberg provides a perfect example, claiming they are rich white guys and so obviously racists while providing zero evidence that the site provides inaccurate or misleading information. They may still be concerned about reprisals from the CPD or from gangs or alderpersons. Finally, many activists think of themselves as the guardians of accountability and therefore not the targets of others that would use the notion of accountability as a cudgel against them. They do not think of themselves as traditional journalists, they are people exposing the facts that are hidden by others.
I'm glad the McCormack Foundation made the grants and generally agree with you. However, based on the behavior of faculty and administrators, I would not have included NU Medill School of Journalism. Better to have found a journalism school that adheres more closely to objectivity, reliability, and fairness.
I agree with Mr. Rehab. The current events in Iran are an example of undemocratic, authoritarian government. The reason for the deployment of rules of conformity in authoritarian regimes is to control the population. Any resistance to the dictates and rules of the government creates a long-term risk to the power, authority, and control of the regime. Which particular rules are broken is irrelevant, as are the motives of the rule breakers. The rule breakers may believe that they are loyal and reliable citizens in full support of the government and country in all other respects. But they fail to realize that authoritarians know the risk of ANY deviations that are tolerated. If the beatings, demonstrations, and repression were due to any other cause would anyone question that cause? If the trigger had been free speech, would we ask if the notion of free speech was tainted?
I have always agreed with Eric on the value of an appropriate apology. I am an atheist. If I find myself at the Pearly Gates after my death, I will say: "Yikes! I was so wrong, my sincere apologies. Might you still have a reasonably pleasant corner for me here? I am still hoping I was right about the 'no hell' thing".
The winning politically themed tweet of the week by The Volatile Mermaid @OhNoSheTwidn’t makes some interesting points, but here are few enhancements: “I’m not a gun enthusiast, but I would never interfere with anyone else’s choice to own a firearm”, or “I’m not a conservative, but I would never approve of mob action to stop conservatives from speaking on college campuses or anywhere else”. She could also more accurately phrase the first item in her diatribe by saying “I’m not wealthy or privileged, but I believe I should work extra hard to help cover the debts of those who are”. Welcome to It REALLY Isn’t Always About You 101.
I don’t get the “now do gasoline prices” suggestion.
I really enjoy your discussions on issues like the one about hijabs and government. I found myself ultimately agreeing with Mr Rehab but I am and will always be uncomfortable with hijabs, Catholic orders that veil nuns and Orthodox Jewish law that cover the hair of married women. Maybe it is because my hair has never been my crowning glory but….I it is a common theme of major religions that men must be protected from women. That is silly and insulting.
CWB Chicago remains true to its mission of reporting criminality in the city of Chicago that is under reported either by oversight or intentionally by the mainstream media. The ruling political and city establishment has a vested interest in attempting to minimize the surge in violent crime afflicting Chicago and Cook County.
The level of vitriol directed toward CWB Chicago, and the editors desire for anonymity are directly related. Despite the fact that I have not seen anyone challenge the facts and the crime statistics reported by CWB Chicago, there is palpable anger by many, virtually all on the progressive left, for them doing so. Given the left's penchant for loud demonstrations at people's personal residences, verbally assaulting them when they are out dining, etc, it is very easy to understand why these editors do not want their information out there.
Complaints about racism in CWB Chicago are meritless. Reporting that black offenders commit violent crime in disportionate numbers is simply stating a fact. For those who wish to challenge this, I refer them to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports published annually. In the crime tables where the ethnicity of the perpetrator is known, black perpetrators commit over 50% of homicides and over 50% of robberies nationally in recent years despite representing only 13.4% of the population. Similarly, the Public Safety Committee of the very leftward City Council of my hometown of Minneapolis recently commissioned an outside firm to study the effects of gun violence on people of color through the first half of 2022. The black population of Minneapolis is 19%, and the headline was that blacks represent 69% of all violent crime victims in the city. No question that blacks are indeed disproportionately the victims of violent crime everywhere . But, hidden further in the report was the more startling statistic that 89% of the shooters in the first half of 2022 are black.
These are not racist statements, but simply statements of documented fact. Discussion and debate over why this is and how to best address it is totally valid, but it does not change the facts no matter how uncomfortable they are or contrary to a desired political narrative. But I believe that is the basis of much of the criticism directed toward CWB Chicago.
If anyone is looking for a more transparent, to a fault, source on live Chicago crime - try following James Hawthorne aka J-Hustle aka #GNN on Facebook.
Warning - he does overshare.
I like both of your dubious proposals for new media outlets: a catalog of hospital deaths and traffic accidents - IF they were neutral and thorough.
“Answer your critics and defend your work, not through anonymous social media accounts but in person. Come out from the shadows.
“The interview invitation still stands.” --Zorn
After reading the 10/4/22 article on CWBChicago where Eric confronts them for a lack of transparency and accountability in their reporting on crime in Chicago -- as a journalist he is acrimoniously bashed by them in reply. To me, Eric’s confrontation seems reasonable, especially with respect to public interest and verity in reporting, and it is an indignity to vilify him simply for his position on the issue. To me, denouncing him seems not only wrong on principle, but it is obviously a form of verbal abuse.