While many of you are out grilling and/or enjoying a nice fireworks display, take some time to think about all who have come before you. Well over one million people have given up their lives in the preservation of this great country since that history altering declaration made more than two hundred years ago.
While people in this country do not always agree, the noble ideas of our Founding Fathers continue to act as a beacon for which we strive. Freedom, Justice, Equality; these are not just words, they are goals that we have pursued since our creation.
In our quest we have unquestionably changed the course of human history. Democracy’s are on the march. When we started our journey there was only a handful of other democratic countries. Now, democracies are a majority. Free market capitalism has brought wealth to much of the world. A tiny fraction of our countless technological pursuits have seen mankind fly like the birds, land on the moon, and connect people all over the world with the simple mouse click. Today people live longer, healthier, happier lives.
Besides bringing an end to World Ware One, World War Two, and the Cold War, we have almost completely stamped out slavery, fascism, communism, and other extremist or oppressive ideologies. For the last century, all we have asked in return for our blood and treasure spent protecting the world is just enough land to bury our dead. Here at home, while we are not perfect, we are closer than ever to truly ridding ourselves of sexism, racial intolerance, religious bigotry, and other forms of discrimination.
Enjoy your burgers, hotdogs, chicken, or choice of veggie substitute. Be dazzled by the sparkling lights in the sky. Today is certainly a day worthy of celebration. Just be sure to take a minute to think about those to who we all owe a debt of gratitude.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Introduction - Andrew Berman
The Berman Post is not my first venture into the media world. I have already participated in at least seven news or media organizations. The first was my brief participation in Blind Brook's (my high school) newspaper, the Focus though not always under my real name.
After starting at Manhattanville (college), I joined the Touchstone, which was my second. When I joined it was the only college publication that came out more than once a year. Working for the Touchstone I advanced from a journalist, to the Business Editor/Manager, to the Assistant Editor (the number two spot, just under the Editor-in-Chief).
The Summer after my junior year I became an intern for The Heritage Foundation. More specifically, I was a Communications and Marketing intern. While their I had two articles published in my name, including one on Fox News, as a well as helping with a number of other published without my name.
While at Manhattanville I founded and was the Editor-in-Chief of the Right World View. After some unfortunate events (their is of course a much longer story here, but this is not the time or place) I no longer worked for the Touchstone. With my time freed up and then reinvested, I was able to turn the Right World View into the dominant Manhattanville publication surpassing the Touchstone in every quantifiable category with the sole exception of longevity. For a partial list, you can look at the Records and Accomplishments page. The Right World View continues to be a dominant force at Manhattanville.
Also while at Manhattanville, I ran the first, and only, Student Government Newsletter. This was from my position of Chair of the Finance Board (VP of Student Government).
After graduating from college, I briefly worked for Home Town Media Group, a local news paper.
Lastly (so far), I helped found the Cardozo Jurist, and took the position of Associate Executive Editor as a 1L (first year student) at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
All, or most of the articles that I have written for the various publications can be found in this blog. To find them you can look through the archives or click on the label "Imported Work".
Please note that where possible, I will usually copy the articles from the source, and as such they may be slightly modified from my original work.
Update: I became the Business Manager of the Cardozo Jurist in the first issue of the second year.
(Note: Not all the my Past Works have been imported yet; it is a continuing process.)
After starting at Manhattanville (college), I joined the Touchstone, which was my second. When I joined it was the only college publication that came out more than once a year. Working for the Touchstone I advanced from a journalist, to the Business Editor/Manager, to the Assistant Editor (the number two spot, just under the Editor-in-Chief).
The Summer after my junior year I became an intern for The Heritage Foundation. More specifically, I was a Communications and Marketing intern. While their I had two articles published in my name, including one on Fox News, as a well as helping with a number of other published without my name.
While at Manhattanville I founded and was the Editor-in-Chief of the Right World View. After some unfortunate events (their is of course a much longer story here, but this is not the time or place) I no longer worked for the Touchstone. With my time freed up and then reinvested, I was able to turn the Right World View into the dominant Manhattanville publication surpassing the Touchstone in every quantifiable category with the sole exception of longevity. For a partial list, you can look at the Records and Accomplishments page. The Right World View continues to be a dominant force at Manhattanville.
Also while at Manhattanville, I ran the first, and only, Student Government Newsletter. This was from my position of Chair of the Finance Board (VP of Student Government).
After graduating from college, I briefly worked for Home Town Media Group, a local news paper.
Lastly (so far), I helped found the Cardozo Jurist, and took the position of Associate Executive Editor as a 1L (first year student) at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
All, or most of the articles that I have written for the various publications can be found in this blog. To find them you can look through the archives or click on the label "Imported Work".
Please note that where possible, I will usually copy the articles from the source, and as such they may be slightly modified from my original work.
Update: I became the Business Manager of the Cardozo Jurist in the first issue of the second year.
(Note: Not all the my Past Works have been imported yet; it is a continuing process.)
Introducing the Berman Post
Welcome to the Berman Post. My name is Andrew Berman and I am the founder of this blog. While the Berman Post is not a niche blog, most of my posts will be focused on the news, advice, commentary, research, politics, technology, or random interesting musings. I may add some interesting quotes that I come up with as well. As other people join, if other people join, they will likely have their own focuses. These may overlap with others, or may not.
Please note that while this is the first Berman Post blog post, my older work is included with the correct dates. These older works will be clearly labeled "Imported Work" and have a time stamp of 12:01 AM; if their is more than one for the same day the time stamp will be 12:01 + 00:01 for each additional work. Articles or writings that I do outside the Berman Post will also be included where possible and appropriate using the same protocol.
If you would like to join the a Berman Post, email Join@BermanPost.com.
If you would like to submit a guest post, email your post to GuestPost@BermanPost.com.. Please be sure to include instructions with your email (sign real name, sign tag name, post email, post URL...). If no instructions are received with the email we will include both your name and email in the post. Also, if accepted, your guest post will be published as is; read unedited.
Disclaimer: The views of each writer reflect only the views of that writer, not on anyone one else affiliated with the Berman Post nor the site itself. This is also true for guest posts.
Please note that while this is the first Berman Post blog post, my older work is included with the correct dates. These older works will be clearly labeled "Imported Work" and have a time stamp of 12:01 AM; if their is more than one for the same day the time stamp will be 12:01 + 00:01 for each additional work. Articles or writings that I do outside the Berman Post will also be included where possible and appropriate using the same protocol.
If you would like to join the a Berman Post, email Join@BermanPost.com.
If you would like to submit a guest post, email your post to GuestPost@BermanPost.com.. Please be sure to include instructions with your email (sign real name, sign tag name, post email, post URL...). If no instructions are received with the email we will include both your name and email in the post. Also, if accepted, your guest post will be published as is; read unedited.
Disclaimer: The views of each writer reflect only the views of that writer, not on anyone one else affiliated with the Berman Post nor the site itself. This is also true for guest posts.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Primary Season Strangest One Yet
Presidential elections seem to be getting stranger and stranger with each new election. It started in 2000 with President George Bush becoming only the fourth man in history to win the presidency without having won the popular vote [John Adams (1824), Rutherford Hayes (1876), and Benjamin Harrison (1888)]. To add to that, the mess in Florida would have made that a notable election by itself. You wouldn’t think punching a hole in a paper ballet would be so confusing but it appeared to be complicated for a surprising number of people. Recall the “Hanging Chad’s” and the “Pregnant Chad’s” leading to recounts and cries of “count my vote.” All this culminating in the Supreme Court decision and President Bush taking office.
Fast forward four years and you had the “four hour Kerry presidency” as early polls had him winning by a safe margin. Instead, with one of the greatest voter turnouts in history, President Bush was reelected this time, winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
This year, we don’t even have to wait for the presidential race to see some “bizarreties” commence. On the Republican side you have the amazing comeback of presumed Republican nominee John McCain. McCain at his lowest point was flying commercial coach carrying his own luggage. Now, not only is he the presumed Republican nominee for president, but he is leading in polls against both of the two front runners in the Democratic Party. If John McCain wins, he would break the record of oldest person to ascend to the presidency. Ronald Regan, the current record holder for the oldest president, was 73 when he won reelection.
As interesting as the Republican side is, it doesn’t hold a candle to the Democratic side. Either of the Democratic candidates would also be a first. Hillary Clinton would be the first female president and along the same lines the first spouse of a former president to become president. Barack Obama would be the first African-American elected president.
Barack Obama is campaigning on a message of change. What that means no one seems to know. A lot of people have decided that they want change, whatever it is. Hillary Clinton also tried to be the candidate of change. Unlike Obama, who is a third-year senator, she has more history to contend with. It is hard to be the candidate for change when the progression of recent presidents has gone Bush (senior, 1988), Clinton (Bill, 1992), Clinton (Bill, 1996), Bush (current, 2000), Bush (current, 2004). To say that adding another Clinton onto that list is change sounds a bit far fetched. After failing to be the candidate for change, Hillary Clinton switched tactics and started campaigning with the message of experience.
This primary has become one marked by controversy and screw-ups. It seems the only time John McCain gets any air time is when he makes a mistake. On a recent trip to the Middle East, McCain’s most televised moment was when he misspoke, confusing the names and locations of some of the terrorist groups; he promptly self-corrected. This lack of press for McCain is understandable in the context of McCain being the presumed Republican nominee while the Democrats are still fighting it out.
While the Democrats inevitably get more air time, recently their mistakes or slips of the tongue are dominating the coverage. Hillary Clinton’s snafus tend to be fewer and farther between but with more impact. For example, Hillary has commented on her experience in negotiating various deals in foreign countries. It appears now that she had little to nothing to do with the deals struck. Most recently, she claimed to have been under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia, reiterating the story more than once. Video from the landing shows that there was no sniper fire and the atmosphere seemed quite relaxed. These mistakes have some people questioning if Hillary Clinton will say anything to get reelected; is it possible she has such a skewed memory of what happened in favor of herself, or is she just making all this up?
Barack Obama has had more than his fair share of snafus, not all of which were even his. Comments from a speech his wife made along with excerpts from one of her writings led people to think that she has never been proud of this country until now. Obama has come under fire for statements his pastor made while Obama has been a member of the church. Barack Obama’s slips of the tongue include threatening to bomb Pakistan, talking about “typical white” people, and most recently calling a baby a punishment for a mistake.
When you combine these mistakes with the candidates arguing about the tiny differences in their health care plans (which seems to be the only substantive issue that gets any coverage) and the incessant “3 a.m. phone calls,” too many people are left shaking their heads every time they turn on the news if they even bother to do so at all.
Beyond the individual candidate’s mistakes, there is a bigger storm brewing with the Democratic nomination—two separate ones, at that. The first is in regards to Florida and Michigan. Both states were stripped of their delegates for moving their primaries to an earlier date. Hillary Clinton won both, though in Michigan, Obama’s name didn’t appear on the ballot. In Florida, where Obama’s name did appear on the ballot (he didn’t campaign there), the state had its highest turnout ever. As of now, officially their votes don’t count; if it wasn’t so sad it might be funny having Floridian votes not counting again.
Hillary Clinton is strongly in favor of counting the votes or having reelections. This is not surprising, considering that she won both states and is behind in the overall election. Also not surprisingly, Barack Obama is not in favor of counting the votes (often citing his absence from the Michigan ballot) and is content with the status quo of the votes not counting. Besides a seeming disregard for the democratic notion, the Democrats risk alienating their base in two key states if nothing is done.
The second proverbial storm has to do with superdelegates. Superdelegates are just like their elected counterparts, with one important exception: they can vote however they want to. The Democratic candidate needs 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. There are roughly 800 superdelegates, or about one-fifth of the total delegates. As it stands now, Obama has more elected delegates and Clinton has more superdelegates. Obama has an overall lead of about 150 delegates, and leads in the popular vote as well.
These storms come together at the Democratic National Convention in two different doomsday scenarios for the Democrats. While Hillary will likely close the gap a little by the convention, Obama will almost certainly still have a lead in both the delegate count and the popular vote. In the first scenario, Michigan and Florida are both told that since they held their primaries early, their votes don’t count. The Democratic base in both states are disenfranchised, which gives the Republican Party a leg up before the presidential election begins. Some Hillary supporters get fed up with the political games and are also disenfranchised. This gives the Republicans another nice boost to put John McCain in the White House in 2008.
The second doomsday scenario starts with Florida’s and Michigan’s votes counting (at lease in part). While Hillary Clinton would still be losing to Obama, she would be closer—close enough to try to persuade the superdelegates to vote for her. Clinton would say that she had won most of the big states, and that Obama’s victories have come from small states, many of which will almost certainly go Republican. She will say that Obama is unelectable and it is the superdelegates’ responsibility to vote for the person with the best chance of winning the presidency. Clinton succeeds and wins the Democratic primary. This victory could literally fracture the Democratic Party in half. Her victory would be perceived by many as old rich white men and women stealing the nomination from a black man and giving it to a white person.
It seems the only way the Democrats can get out of this mess is if they find a way to count Michigan’s and Florida’s votes while ensuring the superdelegates don’t overrule the will of the people. This will likely mean an Obama victory in the Democratic primary. No matter what happens, it will certainly be interesting to watch. Just think; if the primaries are like this, what will the presidential election be like?
Cardozo Jurist Article Link: http://www.cardozojurist.com/index.php/site/comments/primary_season_strangest_one_yet/
Fast forward four years and you had the “four hour Kerry presidency” as early polls had him winning by a safe margin. Instead, with one of the greatest voter turnouts in history, President Bush was reelected this time, winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
This year, we don’t even have to wait for the presidential race to see some “bizarreties” commence. On the Republican side you have the amazing comeback of presumed Republican nominee John McCain. McCain at his lowest point was flying commercial coach carrying his own luggage. Now, not only is he the presumed Republican nominee for president, but he is leading in polls against both of the two front runners in the Democratic Party. If John McCain wins, he would break the record of oldest person to ascend to the presidency. Ronald Regan, the current record holder for the oldest president, was 73 when he won reelection.
As interesting as the Republican side is, it doesn’t hold a candle to the Democratic side. Either of the Democratic candidates would also be a first. Hillary Clinton would be the first female president and along the same lines the first spouse of a former president to become president. Barack Obama would be the first African-American elected president.
Barack Obama is campaigning on a message of change. What that means no one seems to know. A lot of people have decided that they want change, whatever it is. Hillary Clinton also tried to be the candidate of change. Unlike Obama, who is a third-year senator, she has more history to contend with. It is hard to be the candidate for change when the progression of recent presidents has gone Bush (senior, 1988), Clinton (Bill, 1992), Clinton (Bill, 1996), Bush (current, 2000), Bush (current, 2004). To say that adding another Clinton onto that list is change sounds a bit far fetched. After failing to be the candidate for change, Hillary Clinton switched tactics and started campaigning with the message of experience.
This primary has become one marked by controversy and screw-ups. It seems the only time John McCain gets any air time is when he makes a mistake. On a recent trip to the Middle East, McCain’s most televised moment was when he misspoke, confusing the names and locations of some of the terrorist groups; he promptly self-corrected. This lack of press for McCain is understandable in the context of McCain being the presumed Republican nominee while the Democrats are still fighting it out.
While the Democrats inevitably get more air time, recently their mistakes or slips of the tongue are dominating the coverage. Hillary Clinton’s snafus tend to be fewer and farther between but with more impact. For example, Hillary has commented on her experience in negotiating various deals in foreign countries. It appears now that she had little to nothing to do with the deals struck. Most recently, she claimed to have been under sniper fire while landing in Bosnia, reiterating the story more than once. Video from the landing shows that there was no sniper fire and the atmosphere seemed quite relaxed. These mistakes have some people questioning if Hillary Clinton will say anything to get reelected; is it possible she has such a skewed memory of what happened in favor of herself, or is she just making all this up?
Barack Obama has had more than his fair share of snafus, not all of which were even his. Comments from a speech his wife made along with excerpts from one of her writings led people to think that she has never been proud of this country until now. Obama has come under fire for statements his pastor made while Obama has been a member of the church. Barack Obama’s slips of the tongue include threatening to bomb Pakistan, talking about “typical white” people, and most recently calling a baby a punishment for a mistake.
When you combine these mistakes with the candidates arguing about the tiny differences in their health care plans (which seems to be the only substantive issue that gets any coverage) and the incessant “3 a.m. phone calls,” too many people are left shaking their heads every time they turn on the news if they even bother to do so at all.
Beyond the individual candidate’s mistakes, there is a bigger storm brewing with the Democratic nomination—two separate ones, at that. The first is in regards to Florida and Michigan. Both states were stripped of their delegates for moving their primaries to an earlier date. Hillary Clinton won both, though in Michigan, Obama’s name didn’t appear on the ballot. In Florida, where Obama’s name did appear on the ballot (he didn’t campaign there), the state had its highest turnout ever. As of now, officially their votes don’t count; if it wasn’t so sad it might be funny having Floridian votes not counting again.
Hillary Clinton is strongly in favor of counting the votes or having reelections. This is not surprising, considering that she won both states and is behind in the overall election. Also not surprisingly, Barack Obama is not in favor of counting the votes (often citing his absence from the Michigan ballot) and is content with the status quo of the votes not counting. Besides a seeming disregard for the democratic notion, the Democrats risk alienating their base in two key states if nothing is done.
The second proverbial storm has to do with superdelegates. Superdelegates are just like their elected counterparts, with one important exception: they can vote however they want to. The Democratic candidate needs 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. There are roughly 800 superdelegates, or about one-fifth of the total delegates. As it stands now, Obama has more elected delegates and Clinton has more superdelegates. Obama has an overall lead of about 150 delegates, and leads in the popular vote as well.
These storms come together at the Democratic National Convention in two different doomsday scenarios for the Democrats. While Hillary will likely close the gap a little by the convention, Obama will almost certainly still have a lead in both the delegate count and the popular vote. In the first scenario, Michigan and Florida are both told that since they held their primaries early, their votes don’t count. The Democratic base in both states are disenfranchised, which gives the Republican Party a leg up before the presidential election begins. Some Hillary supporters get fed up with the political games and are also disenfranchised. This gives the Republicans another nice boost to put John McCain in the White House in 2008.
The second doomsday scenario starts with Florida’s and Michigan’s votes counting (at lease in part). While Hillary Clinton would still be losing to Obama, she would be closer—close enough to try to persuade the superdelegates to vote for her. Clinton would say that she had won most of the big states, and that Obama’s victories have come from small states, many of which will almost certainly go Republican. She will say that Obama is unelectable and it is the superdelegates’ responsibility to vote for the person with the best chance of winning the presidency. Clinton succeeds and wins the Democratic primary. This victory could literally fracture the Democratic Party in half. Her victory would be perceived by many as old rich white men and women stealing the nomination from a black man and giving it to a white person.
It seems the only way the Democrats can get out of this mess is if they find a way to count Michigan’s and Florida’s votes while ensuring the superdelegates don’t overrule the will of the people. This will likely mean an Obama victory in the Democratic primary. No matter what happens, it will certainly be interesting to watch. Just think; if the primaries are like this, what will the presidential election be like?
Cardozo Jurist Article Link: http://www.cardozojurist.com/index.php/site/comments/primary_season_strangest_one_yet/
Monday, March 17, 2008
No One Fights For Evil
Disagreements are an everyday part of life. On an international campus such as this one, many people coming from many different places have very distinct opinions and views. Often times, such conversations become political in nature if not overtly so from the beginning. No mater how heated the debate gets be sure to keep one thing in mind; no one fights for evil.
To some this seems obvious, to others it seems counter intuitive. Some people do what they consider to be wrong, but they do it to further a right or justified cause. People do not do bad things for bad purposes. It may seem that way to you, but it is the relative perspective you must consider.
By no means does this defend actions or positions taken by fringe groups, or even some mainstream groups, but it should be helpful in understanding perspectives.
Take an abortion clinic bomber for example. The person does not blow up abortion clinics for fun. Nor do they do it because they are bored and think it is a good way to occupy themselves. They blow up a building, and act that in any other context they themselves would consider wrong, to further what is a just cause in their opinion. They believe abortion is murder and must be stopped at all costs. Thus the evil actions furthers a just and righteous cause.
To those that believe abortion should remain legal, the bombers actions seem evil. To them, his actions are not furthering a noble cause, it is bringing unnecessary and unwarranted destruction down upon people who are doing something they should be aloud to do. Keep in mind that to the bomber, every time that clinic performs an abortion they are committing an act of abomination. It is all in the perspective, and as such, is relative. This is not to be confused with moral relativity, but that is an entirely different topic.
The examples are endless and need not be gone into. Understand that in most debates you and your opponent have the same goals. What differs is the way in which you both think those goals should be achieved.
One final example to illustrate this point is look at the war on terror. Almost universally, people believe that terrorism against civilians must be stopped. The way in which they are stopped however, is a point of great controversy. Some think the best way to stop it is to attack the sources of funds and the strongholds of the terrorists. Others think that negotiation is the only way we can ever hope to be rid of the terrorists. Both want the same goal, but both have different ideas of the best way to go about achieving it.
Remember this the next time a lively debate heads toward getting personal or worse, violent. There is no need for such escalation. Most of the time you are both on the same side, you just don’t know it.
To some this seems obvious, to others it seems counter intuitive. Some people do what they consider to be wrong, but they do it to further a right or justified cause. People do not do bad things for bad purposes. It may seem that way to you, but it is the relative perspective you must consider.
By no means does this defend actions or positions taken by fringe groups, or even some mainstream groups, but it should be helpful in understanding perspectives.
Take an abortion clinic bomber for example. The person does not blow up abortion clinics for fun. Nor do they do it because they are bored and think it is a good way to occupy themselves. They blow up a building, and act that in any other context they themselves would consider wrong, to further what is a just cause in their opinion. They believe abortion is murder and must be stopped at all costs. Thus the evil actions furthers a just and righteous cause.
To those that believe abortion should remain legal, the bombers actions seem evil. To them, his actions are not furthering a noble cause, it is bringing unnecessary and unwarranted destruction down upon people who are doing something they should be aloud to do. Keep in mind that to the bomber, every time that clinic performs an abortion they are committing an act of abomination. It is all in the perspective, and as such, is relative. This is not to be confused with moral relativity, but that is an entirely different topic.
The examples are endless and need not be gone into. Understand that in most debates you and your opponent have the same goals. What differs is the way in which you both think those goals should be achieved.
One final example to illustrate this point is look at the war on terror. Almost universally, people believe that terrorism against civilians must be stopped. The way in which they are stopped however, is a point of great controversy. Some think the best way to stop it is to attack the sources of funds and the strongholds of the terrorists. Others think that negotiation is the only way we can ever hope to be rid of the terrorists. Both want the same goal, but both have different ideas of the best way to go about achieving it.
Remember this the next time a lively debate heads toward getting personal or worse, violent. There is no need for such escalation. Most of the time you are both on the same side, you just don’t know it.
Right World View Article Link:
http://www.rightworldview.com/mvilleissuearchive
Monday, April 2, 2007
Letter From the Editor (Right World View Vol. I, No. 8)
I read the article entitled, "Purpose, Funding of 'Right World View' Questioned" in Volume 61, Issue 5 of the "Touchstone" with interest. Unfortunately, it misreports my views in almost every way. And one must wonder why another derogatory cartoon was used in the article.
There is an interesting apparent contradiction in the article. In the same sentence which seemed to say that we have not faced problems of being silenced, the author seems to hint that our club should be destroyed. This also overlooks the evident theft of half the distribution of our second issue. If that's not an attempt at silencing, I am not sure what is.
It seems to me that that the article was a purposefully slanted attack. Why? The article itself might better have been the subject of an editorial rather than set in the guise of investigative reporting. Especially if about half the article was edited / modified, as I was informed it was. I would hope that Joseph Fulginiti (Editor-in-Chief of the Touchstone) would agree with me that such modification (especially if it changes the intent of the article) would be inappropriate.
What is the Right World View; a Newspaper or a publication? Both, neither? There are so many possible titles, it is hard to pin it down. According to President Berman, on the front page of the first issue of the Touchstone this academic year, the Right World View is one of the two student-run Newspapers. Just an interesting note that was not picked up on in the article.
The preamble to the Mville College Code of Community Conduct includes the words, "The distribution of signed statements, publications and petitions is welcome…..", (Note the "s") recognizing and encouraging multiple publications, not just one. And there currently are at least three - the "Touchstone", "Right World View" and "Link" (not to mention "Graffiti", "Tower", and a myriad of newsletters). Why the fuss over "Right World View", Joe?
Let me now make a public request of Joseph Fulginiti - stop sending journalists to do so-called "investigative" reporting, and stop using offensive cartoons and pictures - they don't do you justice. Nothing that happens to the Touchstone is the Right World View's fault, nor mine. With this in mind, please leave the Right World View (including its writers and editors) alone and we will continue to afford you the same courtesy. I really do not want to see my name in your paper in any sort of negative light anymore and, here again, I will afford you the same courtesy.
On to some more pleasant news. You are holding in your hand our first official 16 page issue (in standard tabloid [11”x17”], no less). If you flip to the back page you can see that we now have broken the 50 contributors mark. I don't recall any other publication breaking these marks as long as I have been here. All this in our first year; our eighth issue.
We are proud to bring you a few new features. Photography lovers, we now have a featured photo section (page 14). We also have something new called "Castle View." Turn to page 15 and check it out. Have you ever felt poetic? We now have a section for you as well; the "Poetry Section" (page 15). Dance and Theater people, we haven't forgotten about you. There is a nice two page spread (pages 10 &11) about the upcoming Senior Thesis performances. All in all, I am very pleased with how this issue turned out and hope that you will be as well. Either way, let us know what you think by e-mailing RightWorldView@gmail.com or me personally at Bermana@mville.edu. We are always interested in feedback and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Andrew Berman
Editor-In-Chief
Right World View Article Link:
http://www.rightworldview.com/mvilleissuearchive
There is an interesting apparent contradiction in the article. In the same sentence which seemed to say that we have not faced problems of being silenced, the author seems to hint that our club should be destroyed. This also overlooks the evident theft of half the distribution of our second issue. If that's not an attempt at silencing, I am not sure what is.
It seems to me that that the article was a purposefully slanted attack. Why? The article itself might better have been the subject of an editorial rather than set in the guise of investigative reporting. Especially if about half the article was edited / modified, as I was informed it was. I would hope that Joseph Fulginiti (Editor-in-Chief of the Touchstone) would agree with me that such modification (especially if it changes the intent of the article) would be inappropriate.
What is the Right World View; a Newspaper or a publication? Both, neither? There are so many possible titles, it is hard to pin it down. According to President Berman, on the front page of the first issue of the Touchstone this academic year, the Right World View is one of the two student-run Newspapers. Just an interesting note that was not picked up on in the article.
The preamble to the Mville College Code of Community Conduct includes the words, "The distribution of signed statements, publications and petitions is welcome…..", (Note the "s") recognizing and encouraging multiple publications, not just one. And there currently are at least three - the "Touchstone", "Right World View" and "Link" (not to mention "Graffiti", "Tower", and a myriad of newsletters). Why the fuss over "Right World View", Joe?
Let me now make a public request of Joseph Fulginiti - stop sending journalists to do so-called "investigative" reporting, and stop using offensive cartoons and pictures - they don't do you justice. Nothing that happens to the Touchstone is the Right World View's fault, nor mine. With this in mind, please leave the Right World View (including its writers and editors) alone and we will continue to afford you the same courtesy. I really do not want to see my name in your paper in any sort of negative light anymore and, here again, I will afford you the same courtesy.
On to some more pleasant news. You are holding in your hand our first official 16 page issue (in standard tabloid [11”x17”], no less). If you flip to the back page you can see that we now have broken the 50 contributors mark. I don't recall any other publication breaking these marks as long as I have been here. All this in our first year; our eighth issue.
We are proud to bring you a few new features. Photography lovers, we now have a featured photo section (page 14). We also have something new called "Castle View." Turn to page 15 and check it out. Have you ever felt poetic? We now have a section for you as well; the "Poetry Section" (page 15). Dance and Theater people, we haven't forgotten about you. There is a nice two page spread (pages 10 &11) about the upcoming Senior Thesis performances. All in all, I am very pleased with how this issue turned out and hope that you will be as well. Either way, let us know what you think by e-mailing RightWorldView@gmail.com or me personally at Bermana@mville.edu. We are always interested in feedback and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Andrew Berman
Editor-In-Chief
Right World View Article Link:
http://www.rightworldview.com/mvilleissuearchive
Monday, March 5, 2007
Money Issues Update
As you can clearly see, we were not able to fix our funding "snafu" as of yet, despite our best efforts. This has forced us to keep the same formatting as our last issue. Just as with that one, if you prefer to read this publication in its standard format (11x17 tabloid) it is available (in color) on our website (www.RightWorldView.com). What you are reading now is exactly the same as you will find on our website, it has just been scaled down in size.
We are doing everything in our power to ensure this publication will return to its normal size before the end of the semester.
On the brighter side, this issue has seen us expand once again. It has been our goal to add people to our staff each time we print. In this issue (as you can see to the right of this article), we reached 40 people. In part, this influx of people has forced us to expand the size of our publication. If you look at the upper left-hand corner of this page you will see the number 14. Although it may not seem like much, this represents a 1/6th growth in the size of our publication.
As always, we would like to hear what you think. E-mail us at and let us know.
Right World View Article Link:
http://www.rightworldview.com/mvilleissuearchive
We are doing everything in our power to ensure this publication will return to its normal size before the end of the semester.
On the brighter side, this issue has seen us expand once again. It has been our goal to add people to our staff each time we print. In this issue (as you can see to the right of this article), we reached 40 people. In part, this influx of people has forced us to expand the size of our publication. If you look at the upper left-hand corner of this page you will see the number 14. Although it may not seem like much, this represents a 1/6th growth in the size of our publication.
As always, we would like to hear what you think. E-mail us at and let us know.
Right World View Article Link:
http://www.rightworldview.com/mvilleissuearchive
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow
