Reading Journal (4.1.2011) Emily Katz

Emily Katz

April 1, 2011

The Guardian article “Spain’s unemployed: one in five under 30 still looking for that first job” by Gary Younge a strong human element is seen from the narrative lede. The journalist begins the article with the case of the 34-year old Jesus who is going to China to find a job. The lede is then immediately backed up by Jesus’ quote about there being more opportunities in China. The journalist then presents the statistics (43% of Spain’s youth are unemployed) but put it in relation to the rest of the EU, saying that it is the “highest” and is also “double the average.” The journalist then further extrapolates the data by comparing Spain’s youth unemployment rate with that of African countries Tunisia and Egypt. The comparisons shed light on the significance of the statistics the journalist is presenting the reader with. The journalist obtained information from those affected by going to a class at an unemployment-training center. All those at the center said that they would leave the country to find a job, which suggests just how bad the job market is in the country. The journalist also compares the current emigration pattern in Spain to that of the 1960s and 70s, saying how back then the emigrants were mostly low-skilled workers whereas now the well-educated are emigrating. The journalist succeeded in helping make sense of what is happening in Spain’s job market, and furthermore, their economy.

In the New York Times article “Food Inflation Kept Hidden in Tinier Bags” by Stephanie Clifford and Catherine Rampell, the story begins with a hard news lede. The article adds a human element by interviewing those affected. A consumer said that her usual three boxes of pasta now has a smaller yield. The article is also an example of interpretive investigative reporting, for the journalist writes that Ms. Stauber began inspecting her other purchases aisle by aisle, and the journalist used her findings and data in the article. The article also includes a quote from a marketing professor at Harvard Business School, which provides the expert’s quote to make sense of what the companies are doing with the packaging and their motives. The journalists also incorporate quotes from a Kraft spokesman and Heinz’s chairman and chief executive. The article contains all of the important elements without over-crowding the article with numbers and statistics. Compared to the Guardian article, this article seemed to have a little less analysis of the larger issues at stake but more variety of sources interviewed.

The “F.D.A. Panel to Consider Warning for Artificial Food Colorings” article in the New York Times by Gardiner Harris also contains a hard news lede. The article quotes an F.D.A. report, but then adds an human element by interviewing a mother of two children who said that her son’s behavioral problems ceased when she eliminated artificial food coloring from his diet. However, though the human element is great, I am not sure if this counts as evidence for there is no scientific proof. The journalist then presents a behavioral pediatrician’s counter argument of saying that the mother’s claim is one of those urban legends. The journalist also puts this current panel debate in comparison to the 1950 ban of Orange No.1 dye and 1976 ban of Red No.2. The article also cites how “citizen petitions are routinely dismissed by the F.D.A. without much comment,” which exposes how perhaps the F.D.A. should be more responsive to the citizen’s concerns. Of the three, I would say this article was the weakest as the quotes obtained from the sources were not very informative. The article also focused more on the F.D.A. panel and the companies rather than those affected.

Behind the News

Article one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27bcpolice.html?ref=sanfranciscobayarea

This is a follow-up story that seems to be uncovering something about this report that was not covered the first time that it was reported on. First of all, the lede is less immediate than the lede's of a hard news piece. It reads: "Last fall, after 21 years at the Oakland Police Department, Sgt. Robert Glock was fired for dishonesty." This reads differently than a hard news article because there is no urgency to the piece because this has already happened. The story is not about the Sgt. getting fired, but rather the investigation of the Oakland Police and the uncovered truths that this reporter found. A much longer piece, this article is not structured in the same format as the articles we have been studying. It goes into deeper detail about the funding for the Oakland Police and the possibility that the lack of funding is leading to the murder rates increasing up to 50%. If this were a hard news article, I probably would have put the increasing murder rates in my lede just to get the attention of my readers. We hear about budget cuts all the time and therefore have become desensitized to the effects of budget cuts, however, telling the people that the murder rates have increased by 50% since the department has laid off 180 officers, would get others attention. This article was not about the firing of Sgt. Glock but it played a large roll in the story anyway.

Article Two:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/nyregion/30about.html?src=mv&ref=nyregion

This article is a "behind-the-news" story for many reasons. In the lede, it quotes a woman talking about her facebook page, claiming that she never thought the pictures could be taken from the website or sold. However as you read further, you learn that the officer that found this woman's friend, strangled to death in her apartment, posted a picture of her dead body on his facebook account. This is something that I believe the Police department would have tried to keep quiet, although they fired him immediately. This is a story behind another story. The original story was probably the murder itself, and how terrible it was this a young woman was brutalized in her own apartment. Now, however, this is the story of a officer who had the audacity to post something so awful for everyone to see. Originally the reporter would have wanted to write about the girl's murder, but now he has found something about the news story that was not mentioned in the original report. This is different from a hard news story because it's a follow-up piece. It is something the reporter found out about, after the fact.

Article Three:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/arm-rapist-dublin-bay-nolan

I chose this article because the arm had been reported about when it was found (on Feb. 8) however, they did not know who it belonged to. Now that they have found out the arm belonged to a rapist who hasn’t been seen since he was released from prison, there is a whole new story to be told. Now they can follow-up on the story and give it a completely different spin. Not only did they find an arm, but it belonged to a sexual predator.

Reading Journal for April 1st- Brianna Lyle

In Deference to Crisis, A New Obsession Sweeps Japan: Self-Restraint

New York Times, March 27, 2011, By: Ken Belson and Norimitsu Onishi

This story starts with explaining of Japanese usually like things in excess, however, it does read like a news story. The article goes on to say that with the sudden tsunami and nuclear crisis that Japanese are learning to live without certain things, such as lights, televisions and toilet seat heaters, in order to contribute electricity to the areas that need it most. This article is a follow-up-news-story about the tsunami but with a twist of human interest.

The structure of this story is different than that of a hard news story. It starts with the most important information (that there was a tsunami) and then goes deep into this subject (how it affected people) and their reactions. Unlike a hard news story, this article goes really deep into one subject and stays on that subject the entire time. It then has interviews with people who are locally effected by the tsunami, like Koichi Nakamura who said “’We are not forced or anything,” who runs a karaoke shop in Kabukicho, Tokyo’s famed entertainment district, where customers looking to sing their lungs out have all but vanished. “I hope it will somehow contribute to the affected areas.”

The writing style is also much more playful. Part of the introduction reads, “Even in a country whose people are known for walking in lockstep, a national consensus on the proper code of behavior has emerged with startling speed.” There is some use of satire here and I think it fits well with the story.

Libyans Seek News of Vanished Relatives

New York Times, March 28, 2011, By: Kareem Fahim

This article starts with a story that really pulls the reader in. It is a follow-up-story about Libya but with a lot of human interest aspects. The article starts with, “There were four doctors, a medical equipment salesman, a student studying economics, and dozens of others. Some went to out protest, some out went to fight, and others tended to the injured.” The article then says, “Then they vanished, in cities and towns that have become defined by their battles.” Right away, we know this story is going to be about the people who are currently effected by the state of Libya.

The lede is definitely different than a hard news lede. It is meant to tell a story and create ethos. As well, the structure of the article is more like a story line, following a person throughout their struggles in finding a vanished relative. “’He is married and has three children,” Mr. Naji said. “His wife is still crying.’”

Hunting for Bargains After a Titan’s Fall: Everything Must Go

New York Times, March 27, 2011, By: Cambell Robertson

I knew that this article was going to have a human interest just from the heading. It’s a news story but has a storyline of a man named Richard Scrushy, who once was one of the highest paid chief executives in the United States. Now he is jail and selling his belongings to locals.

The lede on this story is a question, ‘What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his casserole dish?” But, much like the other ledes mentioned above, it is not a hard-news-lede. It is meant to pull the reader in. Also, the construction of the story is a timeline. It starts with Scrushy’s jail-time and goes through the process of him selling his estate.

United Nations: Proactive in Libya

March 26, 2011

Libya and the UN

The Security Council for the U.N. announced that they are taking “all necessary measures” including airstrikes by sea and air in an effort to protect the citizens of Libya from Moammar Qadhafi’s forces.

It is unclear when the West will take action, however the allies passed a no-fly zone resolution 10 to 0, minus China and Russia, who have to power to veto, and Brazil, Germany and India.

President Obama, the British Prime Minister, and the French President spoke on Thursday night, the White House allowed, immediately decided to respect the terms of the United Nation’s resolution.

This resolution now aims to “ban all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” This also calls for a complete freezing of the Libyan National Oil Corp. assets as well as the central bank because of it connection to Qadhafi.

Now that the U.N. has decided upon a resolution, the situation in Libya has turned a quick reversal. Self-assured rebel leaders are now in peril danger from the Qadhafi force’s use of artillery and tanks. They are now advancing towards the Mediterranean coast in an effort to reclaim the eastern half of Libya.

After the vote, Libyan Foreign Minister offered a chance for cease-fire with the rebels. Khalid Kaim was welcoming of the Security Council’s push ad overall concern for the citizens of Libya. He did, however, ask the world to not issue the rebels weapons claiming that “if countries do that, they will be inviting Libyans to kill each other.”

The Foreign minisiter of France arrived in New York on Thursday to further discuss his plan for a quick approval from the Security Council.

Many anti-Qadhafi protestors gathered to watch the U.N proceeding in New York on Thursday on a large outdoor projector screen with celebratory gun shots, and fireworks.

No Fly Zone, said the world

f one looks at even a condensed history of Col. Gaddafi’s leadership in Libya, one cannot help but become skeptical of his treatment of neighbor countries. Yes, it has been reported that the man is posing a threat to his own civilians, but is foreign involvement purely because of ‘safety maseaures’ or are there external interests guiding this involvement. It seems like the globalized world is a big playground, with the U.N. elbowing Mr. Gaddafi saying: “Stooop iit!”
This is a snippet from an article from the New York Times relating the most recent development in the story (NATO agreeing to enforce the U.N.’s No-Fly Zone):
The U.N. Security Council authorized the arms embargo and no-fly zone last week to protect Libyan civilians after Gadhafi's forces attacked anti-government protesters seeking his ouster after nearly 42 years in power.
An international coalition comprising the U.S., Britain, France and other nations launched an air and missile campaign on Saturday to enforce the air quarantine. But it has also targeted Gadhafi's ground forces and military installations.
I’ve read as much as I can about the revolts in Libya, Egypt, (and now Syria apparently?), and it was literally these two paragraphs that put things in perspective for me. I feel like the whole situation is completely contradictory. The U.N. proposes the No-Fly zone as a security measure, to preserve civilians’ safety and peace. Yet the actual means of taking these measures includes having nations launching missiles. It’s kind of contradictory isn’t it, that an attack is a safety measure?
I have another point in a more ‘national’ perspective, is something I thought about after reading two opinion articles, one by Michael Tomasky in The Guardian and one by David Bosco on The Washington Post. Specifically, the articles refer more to the U.S.’s reaction to the events in Lybia. The second issue I have in understanding these events is the question of how is the U.S.’s attack now different than Bush’s reaction in the Middle East back in 2003? Is this a more “moral” approach to invading another country? Or is this a “militant” way of being moral and supporting democracy?

Setting the Controls for the Heart of Libya's Sun

By Harrison Golden

In this, the day and age of blind imperial politics, the United States has become the sandbox bully. Metaphorically, of course, while nations such as France and Britain have their own sandcastle molds, with their own little grooves, shapes, and sizes, the folks in Washington want nothing more than to grab the closest, cheapest plastic one they can find and have their way with it.

As tensions rise in Libya, the United Nations has stepped up efforts to end the forceful and closed-minded reign of Colonel Moammar Gadhafi, imposing no-fly zones and planning out possible air and naval attacks. Many of those killed have only sought out to state their voices and represent themselves and their individuality.

“Thousands of lives are still at stake. We could well see a further humanitarian emergency,” said Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, to the Associated Press.

As of right now, roughly 330,000 people have fled Libya, 9000 are stranded at the nation’s borders with Egypt and Tunisia, and 250,000 more are expected to flee within the upcoming weeks.

With all these numbers in mind, it is clear that the people of Libya are tired of Gadhafi’s quarter-century stranglehold. Accordingly, from a humanitarian standpoint, the need for action in this region is undeniable. However, many of the world’s most crucial leaders, including Secretary General Ban and President Obama, are not doing nearly enough to clarify the details of this revolution.

While France and Britain took early engagements in the war, sending tornado jets and Eurofighter tycoon warplanes in to reinforce the no-fly zone, the United States is still insisting a position of higher ranking on the warfront. Furthermore, the United Nations and the Arab League both seem determined to get involved on a more militaristic level. Mr. Ban and Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa met with foreign ministers in NATO just before the implementation of the no-fly zone, thus calling the various aspects of the conflict into question.

“It remains to be seen whether Ban Ki-moon will actually function as General Ban, with any influence over real-time military decision-making,” said Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

If nothing else, all of these fronts, including those in the diplomatic and military sectors, have one common goal—to allow for a peaceful, lawful Libya to exist. While this is clearly a benefit for all future activity in the region, we must not lose track of the details in-between, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, regrettably. For this reason, the United States must consider the overall benefits of backing away from the military-based aspects of this conflict, instead working to solve their own paralleling battles in other parts of the Middle East. In addition, the United Nations should also insist upon remaining consistent with humanitarian missions, rather than imposing on military officials, who are already busy enough trying to strategize to deal with sneaky, childish grabs for control.

The best option in maintaining relevance is to allow for Britain and France to continue and magnify their military lead in Libya, as they currently have the two largest army budgets within the European Union. Moreover, the EU maintains a strong “Mediterranean partnership” with many of the North African nations. Such a geographical relationship would make their involvement in ceasing the ongoing violence more fitting and constructive than any American or United Nations attempt would provide.

All too often, we forget the idea of what war should be—a carefully orchestrated replacement of a rule of force with a rule of law and reason. As violence surges against innocent protesters who want nothing short of a life of representation, the best way to do this is to clearly and confidently give them the honor of knowing who is, and isn’t, in control of their future.

3/25 Op-Ed: Libya and the UNSC

UN Security Council begun military intervention in Libya with an allied bombing campaign to end conflict between the leader, Muammar Qaddafi, and enraged citizens who want the nation's leader out of power. Some see the decision to intervene as justified and necessary, in light of the violently chaotic political and social climate in Libya. Others are shocked by the move to intervene and feel betrayed by a president who ran on a platform of change, who repeatedly promised to end the United States' involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still others disagree with the decision to begin a bombing campaign on the grounds that such an act cannot be financially justified. 

The history of violent political turmoil and upheaval in the Middle East would lead some to believe that military action is necessary. This position is further supported by the use of force on Qaddafi's part against his own people. Ideally, a unified show of force would get a message across to Qaddafi that the international community, which Libya cannot take on by itself, is not pleased. Ideally, it could work. But practically speaking, I reason that it would not, that military intervention will not work. Not for Libya, not for the United States, not for the world at large. 

If there is a lesson to be learned by past, less than successful, military interventions into the Middle East, it is that the decision to intervene with force should not be hastily made. The first question ought to be that of practicality. The mode of intervention must be tailored to the situation, the country, the people and the leader to as to ensure that it's purpose is achieved to the highest degree. In the case of intervention in Libya, the situation has been violently chaotic, the country and it's people charged and heated and the leader less than willing to listen to outside voices and warnings. It is fitting that intervention, at this stage, would have to command Qaddafi's attention so that he and his government would have to address the public outcries in a serious manner.  

Practically speaking, is a bombing campaign the proper mode of intervention? Sure, it is quick, noisy and gets a point across. But bombs are also highly destructive and non-specific, they do not hit specific targets but rather random striking areas. There is little to ensure that there will not be an alarming citizen casualty rate. And if many citizens die as a result, can that not be construed to make the campaign signify support for the government of Libya? Practically speaking, there a too many variables to justify a bombing campaign.

 Further, the decision cannot come from any false notion of the infallibility of the West and Western ideas. This notion dictates that the "developed" nations have a moral imperative to intervene in foreign affairs in order to bring democratic or industrialized ideals to that country. Because the fact  is, the West is not all knowing or all powerful. If the West is anything, really, it is just in debt. On the other hand, something must be done in Libya so that the government and the citizens can enter into a dialogue and sort out the current mess. 

For citizens of the United States, a people that voted for Barack Obama in particular, the decision to intervene in Libya is alarming. Seven years ago, the U.S. under President Bush, began what would become a drawn out conflict with an ambiguous purpose. Here again, under a new President who promised to refocus the nation's pocketbook on the economy instead of foreign affairs, the country finds itself in largely the same situation. President Obama would do well to remember that it is those campaign promises that got him elected, and that if he continues to go against those promises by engaging the country in yet another foreign struggle he not likely be re-elected come November 2014.

This is change, you say? No sir, I answer, this is more of the same. 

Intervention in Libya

Libya’s leader Muammar Gaddafi must be stopped by any means possible. Therefore, the United Nations Security Council’s decision to support the Transitional National Council of the Libyan Republic, established by Gaddafi’s opposition in February, may be the most efficient way to end the reign of a ruthless dictator and protect the people of Libya from further violence.

There were very few options left to the United Nations, and the world at large as we watched Gaddafi brutalize his people for over a month before a no-fly zone was established over Libya.

The military intervention in Libya began on March 19 with the enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which imposed a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution received ten favorable votes from countries including permanent members the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Russia, China, and three other countries abstained from the vote, but there were no  votes against the resolution. The support of the majority of the UN Security Council indicates that their actions were inevitable.

Unlike in Egypt, where Mubarak eventually stepped down in response to his peoples’ protests, Gaddafi appears to be unwilling to let go of power voluntarily. Instead, he has attempted to subdue his people by impeding their freedom of communication through various measures, as well as ordering his military to take aggressive measures against protesters and rebels who dared defy his 42 year rule.

Gaddafi has been warned that his government may be charged by the International Criminal Court with crimes against humanity. Therefore, Gaddafi knows that there will be consequences if he gives up. Instead of succumbing to those consequences, he is prolonging his freedom by waging a war against his own people. There are no signs, and no incentives for him to stop of his own accord, so military intervention appears to be the best solution.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon reported earlier this week that the Libyan government has not implemented the cease-fire stipulated in Resolution 1973. There is clearly a need for foreign intervention to free the people of Libya if the government cannot uphold the UN’s demands.

In the Bosnian War, the United Nations’ imposition of a no-fly zone, as enforced by NATO’s Operation Deny Flight which spanned from 1993 to 1995, was instrumental in keeping air strikes from adding to the violence in the region and eventually helped end a bloody conflict.  Although this was accomplished by Operation Deliberate Force, a bombing campaign, ultimately this led to a peaceful resolution.

We can only hope that the no-fly zone in Libya, and the military support NATO is lending, along with other countries, will help to bring about a quicker end to the horrific violence in Libya.

UNSC/Libya Op-Ed Story

On March 17th, 2011, the United Nations Security Council took into effect resolution 1973, authorizing all members of the nation to intervene, defend and guard the citizens of Libya from Colonel Mummar el-Qaddafi’s almost month-long barrage of attacks. Originally proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom, it also demanded for the international community as a whole to implement a “no-fly zone” over Libya, and also that “all means necessary” should be enforced in order to protect the civilians of Libya.

All of Benghazi rejoiced, as according to The New York Post several hours later the Libyan government released a statement that it would “call an immediate ceasefire and the stoppage of all military operations,” against the rebels who wished to exile Qaddafi from his reign. This was extremely shocking, as it was a complete 360 degree shift from their utterly noncompliant stance mere weeks ago.

Just two days later European and American militaries launched missile attacks on Qaddafi’s forces in the sky and sea, but then refocused their energy on obtaining control on his ground forces. That in turn caused Libyans to allege that innocent civilians had been murdered by these troops, which European nations vehemently discarded.

I question whether America is truly prepared, or frankly needs to be involved in yet another war with a Middle Eastern/Muslim country. It has been well over a decade since the attacks of September 11th, but for some reason we are still heavily embroiled in the “war on terror” in both of Afghanistan and Iraq - Isn’t that enough? I adamantly agree with the officials in Britain, France, and the United states who suggest that the forces behind the Arab League should be involved, so it doesn’t perpetuate the idea that America is always on the forefront of these attacks in the Middle East/Africa.

I do not by any means believe that Libya should receive any less support or attention from America, on what is becoming a common onslaught of horrific, violent, and escalating politic and social international tensions in recent months. On the contrary, I think America could play a vital role in the reemergence of a more stable society for Libyans – but it needs to be in conjunction with other United Nations Members. As the New York Times suggests, one of the best decisions would be to put into place an international peacekeeping force, which I think is beyond brilliant, and a healthy non-violent alternative to more and more military force, which inevitably creates a never-ending cycle of brutality.

President Obama has come under fire for not putting enough emphasis and urgency into the situation in Libya, with The New York Times shrewdly declaring him a “reluctant warrior.” I also find it odd and disconcerting as both an American citizen and a Muslim that it took him well over six days to even issue some kind of response. I also found it interesting yet very doubtful when White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that this would not be a war on Libya, just “time-limited, scope-limited military action.” Frankly, to me, that sounds like political/P.R. mumbo-jumbo – a way to keep in with Obama’s strategy to remain a relaxed pragmatist, in an effort to not alarm citizens.

Just three years after being proclaimed as the “King of Kings of Africa,” Colonel Mummar el-Qaddafi has now openly said to his own citizens that “we will come by house by house, room by room. It’s over…We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity,” – I think it’s about time to be alarmed.

UNSC: Libya (Op-Ed)

By Emily Katz

March 24, 2011

With ten votes in favor and five abstentions, the United Nations Security Council approved a “no-fly zone” over Libya and authorized “all necessary measures”--including the enforcement of arms embargo and the freezing of funds and financial assets of Libyan authorities--to protect Libyan civilians.

The Western world seemed to have been waiting for the Libyans to sort themselves out; however, after weeks of news stories on Colonel Qaddafi’s continual violation of his people’s human rights and political freedom, the Western world finally took action. The council’s decision was a response to the Arab League’s appeal for international support. The UN resolution is largely sponsored by Britain, France, and Lebanon and has the ill-defined support of the Obama administration. The allied nations rightfully realized the risks of inaction are too high: if Qaddafi successfully crushes the revolution, the perpetuation of the violent regime would pose as a major setback for democratic development in the Arab world.

As the no-flight zone is established and aerial bombings of Qaddafi’s tanks and artillery begin, the U.S. is seen as relegating itself to a secondary position by allowing the European powers to take the military reigns. The Obama administration has not articulated clear objectives for U.S. military action, for it does not want to be involved in another Arab war. The United States is certainly feeling the pressure to assist the efforts, since this is the first time the Arab League has ever voted unanimously to reach out to the international community for support. I think that the administration’s ambiguity is somewhat understandable, for it is also feeling the pressure to wrap up the war in Afghanistan and to address our nation’s economic needs.

However, I also think that as a participant of the Security Council’s decision, the U.S. should completely get off the fence and fully contribute to the best of its ability. If we only half-heartily support the Libyan civil war, we run the risk of a stalemate and the failure of the whole operation. At the same time, it is equally important that the United States not be solely responsible for all the military action. Support from the Arab states and contributions from other nations are crucial. All 13 nations in the allied forces need to communicate with each other, outline a clear plan, and agree to make substantial commitments of military forces. A collective effort must be established to remove Colonel Qaddaffi and to organize an international peacekeeping force that will help rebuild the new Libya.

Brianna Lyle Op-Ed Libya

It was no surprise that the UN Security Council decided on a no-fly zone over Libya after the UN authorized “use of all necessary means” to employ a ban on flights in Libyan airspace. According to the New York Times, the closed meeting only took 45 minutes. Nor was it a surprise that countries such as the United States, Britain, France, Denmark, Canada, Italy and Qatar announced their participation in the no-fly zone. I’ve been voting for the Security Council to make this move for weeks, however, now I find myself wondering about the repercussions of this potentially hazardous mistake.

The American and European missile attacks on Libya’s little force have already proved their power to Colonel Qaddafi, but is are these attacks really enough to make him stop his attacks completely? According to the LA Times, Qaddafi’s armed forces are working in urban areas where the population is difficult to control, often killing civilians in the action. If this gets worse, is America and Europe ready to take ground forces?

According to Obama, no. He claims this could lead us into a stalemate. Qaddafi would simply grasp onto his power while international help would slowly deteriorate as usual. Even if we were to employ ground forces and Qaddafi steps down, we’re still going to be left with a list of problems which we have now dived into head first. We could end up with another war on our hands. After ten years, I’m simply begging that we escape Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not quite sure this country has the endurance for another war.

Surely fighting Libya would be far less risky than the present wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, due to its size. Libya is bigger, although smaller in population and is primarily Muslim which means that bitterness between ethnicities is little to nonexistent. Libya is also not surrounded by countries that would further engage in war with us, such as Pakistan or Iran.

However, as Obama explained late last week, there is simply too much that can go wrong in a Libya with Qaddafi out of the picture. Although a week ago I was praying for a UN decision to help Libya, I now see that the best option is some sort of peacekeeping force under the United Nations, and as Max Boot of the New York Times suggests, NATO and the Arab League. This will require a Security Council resolution, not just decision to employ a ban on airspace.

I’m not saying I don’t support us in intervening in Libya. I think for humanitarian reasons we’ve done the right thing. However, now we must realize and plan for the future predicaments that we’ve pushed ourselves into.

Libya News Comparisons

Mazen Hassan

3/4/2011

Reading Journal – Libya

Hard News Lede : In an effort to gain control of Ziwaya, Libya, Colonel Mummar El-Qaddafi has amplified his counterattack on radical adversaries, by attacking local oil towns, and opening fire and peaceful protesters, with 35 people reportedly dead, over 100 wounded, and 65 still currently missing.

Comparisons:

(Hard News) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/africa/05libya.html?_r=1&hp

This article presents straight up factual, solid, and concise information as to the events taking place in Libya. It immediately delves into the severity of the situation, stating from the beginning how many people have been reported killed, missing, or injured. All of the information and quotes are very stern and serious, with one witness stating that the shootings are “a massacre.”One thing I really appreciated was how they not only give background information pertaining to the entirety of the country who are obviously under an immense amount of distress, but they also are in epicenter of where all the action is going on, in Ziwaya. I feel this article was very succinct, and is best for someone who has no idea what’s going on, to read and be able to fully comprehend the current condition of Libya.

(Opinion Piece) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-rainwater/libya-a-worsening-humanitarian-crisis_b_831138.html

I loved the way the basis of this article, stripped away all the “shock value” of murders, blood, etc, and really focused on the humanitarian aspect, and what people (specifically America) can do to aid people, and not let them continue to suffer. Rainwater clearly describes how America how donated, what he says is a “modest” $12 million dollars, concentrating on humanitarian operations and emergency evacuations – but he says that this is simply not enough. He then goes on to illustrate, in length, all the different actions he feels America can do to be of assistance to Libya – from working closely with the UNHCR, to developing field hospitals, funding medicine/medical equipment, and providing shelter, blankets, bedding, generators etc. He also states that rushing urgently to “just do something,” by sending military involvement, is naïve on America’s part to think that is enough. I always say that if you can’t find a solution, don’t bring up a problem. And John Rainwater has done just that; not only succesfly explaining the dire situation, but providing resolutions to solve them.

(“Soft” News) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/01/libyan-refugee-food-crisis-looms

This article provides more background as to the plight Libyan citizens are currently facing. It describes the overwhelming concern of lack of food stocks and resources. It has gotten so bad to the point that over 140,000 Libyan people have crossed over into Egypt and Tunisia. I think Borger did a good job speaking to the right sources, to get the proper information regarding his topic. He spoke to Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Program, obtaining quotes and specific information as to why it has gotten as bad as It has, what actions are being taken to rectify the problem, and when she thinks these issues will be taken care of. He also put information I had not seen in other articles, detailing how Libya relies 90% on imports for food, and how drastically its been affected by its recent state of turmoil. All in all, I feel Borger did a successful job merging a “softer” aspect as to what’s currently taking place in Libya, but still providing concrete and necessary facts that may be overlooked, as opposed to the protests and deaths.

Libya Conflict Article Comparisons

Lede for News as of Right Now:

Government protests in Libya seek refuge from Britain, in the near future, who is sending a team of military experts trained in giving military advice in an effort to aid the struggle to over throw Col. Muammar el-Qaddifi.

New York Times

In a New York Times article, rebels seek solutions to overthrowing Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Since Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s power has been diminished and not stripped, Libya has been showing an escalating amount of frustration among rebel leaders and is now debating whether to ask for Western help. A group of “lawyers, academics, judges and other prominent figures” seek to find a distinction between an airstrike and foreign intervention. Rebel leaders are strongly opposed to an intervention but still contemplate the use of the United Nations for an airstrike on Libya. Rebel leaders express their concern about el-Qaddafi’s destruction of the army, and a spokesman for the council claimed, “if it is the United Nations, it is not a foreign intervention.” This article immediately grabbed my attention with its headline because it brought the United Nations into the discussion. I think this was effective and would make people more likely to read something that could effect their country, but also to inform the people what the United Nations is doing to help answer the protests in Libya. (See NYTIMES - Libya)

L.A. Times Blogs

The LA Times Blog chose to write a story on Angelina Jolie’s commentary on the conflict in Libya. I thought it was interesting that they author chose to incorporate pop culture into perspective. Quoting Angelina Jolie, the author expresses her concern for the refugees in Libya as a goodwill ambassador to the United Nations’ high commissioner for refugees: “It is critical that all parties respect the fundamental right of people in danger to flee to safety—whether civilians caught in conflict in their own country or refugees and asylum seeks caught in new conflicts… All I’m asking is that civilians be protected and not targeted or harmed.” It was nice to see an article about celebrities doing their part, however, it’s a very different approach from the New York Times. (See LA Times Blogs - Libya)

The Guardian

In an article dated March 4^th, 2011, Patrick Wintor and Richard Norton-Taylor inform readers about Britain’s plan to send experts to Libya who can offer military advice to the protestors. They continued to explain that this “diplomatic taskforce would not be providing arms to the rebels, as there is an international arms embargo.” I liked this approach to the news and thought this was news that needs to be heard. I would be more inclined to read this article than the article about Angelina Jolie’s statement about refugees. I did not get the sense that they were trying to sway the reader in any certain direction, however I immediately was concerned when I read the story. It was an article that made me thirst for more information, although this information may not be available. (See Guardian - Libya

Libya Article Analysis

By Harrison Golden

Despite increased loyalist counterattacks, government protesters in Libya remain determined and united against longtime dictator Colonel Moammar al-Gadhafi and his government.

1. In The New York Times article “Battle in Libya for Strategic Town Kills At Least 13,” David D. Kirkpatrick describes the aspects of the ongoing Libya conflict that relate to hard news. He details about Moammar al-Gadhafi and his growing counterattack against protesters, primarily in the city of Zawiya, where tensions are growing between the loyalists and the rebel forces. Kirkpatrick also aims to direct the reader’s attention to the people fighting on the ground. In addition to providing detail regarding the tangible fighting, damages, and casualties, he gives voices to the witnesses of the difficult events. In doing this, not only does Kirkpatrick shed light on the lesser-known issues, such as loyalist firing at ambulances, but he also does it in such as way that provides the story with perspective, keeping the story’s crucial aspects in tact.

2. In the article “Joy, Lust for Revenge in ‘Free Libya,’” written by staff members of the website Monsters and Critics, readers are made more able to see within the lives and struggles of the everyday Libyan people. The story consists primarily of descriptions and profiles of the protesters, many of whom have spent their entire lives fighting to establish a freer nation for themselves. Although the writers of the article are not given, their ability to collaborate and interview a variety of people, including Abdulhamid Abu Baker, a 53 year old who spent time as a prisoner in the early 1980s for plotting against Gadhafi’s government. The way that the writers provide well-roundedness to their profiles, detailing the lives of the Libyan people and the lengths of their struggles, allows for the creation of a distinct forum to discuss the potential for a successful revolution from the bottom up.

3. In the Politico opinion piece “U.S. Needs A Low Profile In Libya,” writer Ted Galen Carpenter details the potential disadvantages of the civil war in Libya, were outside nations such as the United States to get involved. Furthermore, he describes his argument for a laissez-faire foreign policy in a way that appeals to both sides of the political spectrum, writing “The uprisings in the Middle East are proving frustrating for both neoconservatives and liberal hawks.” Most specifically, he states that in light of this war, Americans should unite in their knowledge that few Libyans are seeking American intervention. While this article dominates in giving many of the key points of this issue, points that are currently on the minds of many Americans right now, Carpenter fails to provide readers with engaging quotes or outside perspectives. Rather, he is merely creating a series of bullet points that, while relatable to most, if not all readers, is nothing that active citizens have not seen before. This piece, while intriguing in its subject matter and its widespread relevance, does not contribute much, if anything, original to the ongoing conversation.

Reading Journal - Libya

Lede for where the news is right now:

Pro-Gaddafi forces launch widespread offensives against the opposition forces in Libya. Mass Protests planned for Friday after prayers, but many Tripoli residents too scared to participate.

Andrew Sullivan –

Asides from the coverage provided by The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan put his two cents in about the protests in Libya. I like Andrew Sullivan’s style overall because he writes short posts, includes links and uses simple language. He also had a set up for following the uprising against Gaddafi; he followed the developments day by day with a title template and a quote. His first post on the day-by-day coverage of the subject is Libya, day 9: “Muammar can go to Hell!”. Sullivan does an excellent job of dissecting information from various sources (videos from the Times, hourly updates/live blogs from Al Jazeera, etc). He’s basically doing what we’ve been assigned to do…except he does it every day…10 times faster.

The Times

While I do try to remain skeptical to the best of my ability, I have to admit that more and more every day, The Times is becoming that “first go-to” source. If I haven’t been following a story for long, or have absolutely no idea about the conflict (happens a lot, more than I’d like to admit), the Times helps me out. This page in particular is a template for what the online editors do with big stories or important people in the news. It’s a sort of ‘fact-sheet’, it’s also a day-by-day account of Hard News stories (yet not as overwhelming as Live blogs). Given, the times has its array of op-eds about Libya, but I use the times more, as I said, for background.

The Guardian

The approach of the British newspaper is more “live” based. I may have been confused about the website, but when I clicked any hard news link about Libya, it just directed me straight to their live blog, which, is important to add, has a feature that allows updates at the discretion of the reader. I like the angle The Guardian took with this article specifically, a quiz that compares Muammar Gaddafi and Charlie Sheen; it's just a way of having a bit of lightness in a heavy subject such as Libya.

Glen Greenwald

I'll just start by quoting the first (kilometric) line of one of his recent analysis-posts on the situation in Libya:

It has been widely documented that many of the worst atrocities on behalf of Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi have been committed by foreign mercenaries from countries such as Algeria, Ethiopia and Tunisia. Despite that, the U.N. Security Council's sanctions Resolutionaimed at Libya, which was just enacted last week, includes a strange clause that specifically forbids international war crimes prosecutions against mercenaries from nations which are not signatories to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which protects many of the mercenaries Gadaffi is using.

I'm going to be completely transparent here and say that I have no idea of what he is talking about. I know he is getting at one of the core issues of the conflict in Libya, which is, the allegations against leader Gadaffi, but it's very clear that Greenwald has a very specifically educated audience.

---Just a note. I noticed that overall, the coverage of the uprising in Libya is mostly focused on Gadaffi. There are a few stats and updates on refugees and civilians, but in comparison to the Egypt coverage, the coverage that has been given to this revolt has focused more on the country's leader.

Reading Journal 4: Libya

By Emily Katz

My News Lede:

While members of U.S. National Security Council debated on intervening, Libyan anti-government insurgents successfully warded off attacks by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s troops on the city of Brega on Wednesday, but the Colonel’s power remains unshaken.

Comparisons:

The hard news story “U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates slams ‘loose talk’ about ‘no-fly zones’”(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/03/robert-gates-dismisses-no-fly-zone) from the Guardian shows the conflicting opinions of David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding intervening Libya. Since the Guardian is a UK publication, the journalist seems to view the situation through the lens of the British. The article also reveals some tension between Downing Street and the White House, perhaps due to the fact that Gates criticizing Cameron’s idea of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. The journalist incorporates direct quotes from both Gates and Cameron, thereby creating a sort of dialogue between to the two figures regarding their approaches to the situation. The journalist captures the U.S. and UK’s differing position—one treads carefully, weighing all options, while the other calls for immediate action to relieve the Libyan people.

In the Politico.com opinion piece “U.S. held hostage by Qadhafi,” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50617.html) the journalist argues that the U.S. doesn’t quite know how to counteract Col. Muammar Qadhafi. The journalist credits the U.S. for following the “how-to-pressure-a-dictator manual pretty faithfully.” The piece also seems more analytical, for the journalist spells out potential reasons why Qadhafi has been able to remain in power despite pressure from the U.S.—because “the United States has not been a central player in the transformative wave of political change sweeping the Arab world.” For an opinion piece, it seems okay for the journalist to make claims without backing them up with direct quotations, for the claims are made based on a range of reporting from secondary sources. The journalist also states potential steps the U.S. can take: either to watch and wait for the Libyans to take Qadhafi down or to mobilize airpower. The journalist seems to think that U.S. will be better off if we don’t act; however, the article ends with the journalist depressingly stating that the U.S. will have to get involved sooner or later. This piece differs from the Guardian article in that the writers’ voice and analysis of the whole picture is clearer. The opinion piece also helps contribute to the larger discussion of what actions foreign countries should take. For me, the hard news story is informative, whereas this opinion piece is more insightful and visionary on what the news entails.

The New York Times article “Rebels in Libya Repel Qaddafi Forces in a Key Oil City” serves more as a background story rather than a hard news story reporting on the battle in Brega, Libya on Wednesday. The article is more narrative and the journalist uses less of a diplomatic reporting voice. The paragraphs are also longer and more descriptive. The journalist incorporates emotional quotes, such as “Victory or death!” from the men at the scene. There is also a direct quote from a wounded soldier as well as the emergencies director for the Human Rights Watch. The story is mainly told from the perspective of the victims and those who might help them. The overall article seemed more like “story-telling” than “hard reporting,” giving the article a more humanistic view rather than a diplomatic one.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03libya.html?ref=todayspaper)

Libya Coverage

Hard News Lede-

Libya's President Moammar Gadhafi is attempting to undermine tomorrow's planned protests in Tripoli this morning as midday prayers approached by having militiamen in his camp set up checkpoints around the city, as well as taking measures to cut off internet service and prevent journalists from leaving their hotels.

Comparison of Stories-

Because the events unfolding in Libya are the center of an ongoing and fast developing debate, there is a broad range of coverage of the issues. Many news items are brief and function as updates since the situation is constantly changing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030400543.html

This post by the Washington Post succinctly explains the latest development in Libya- basically the information contained in my news lede above, but a bit more fleshed out. It's only about 100 words long and contains only the bare bones information. It assumes that its reader is following the story and only wants a slightly in depth understanding that keeps them aware of the situation up to the moment. It's an example of hard news, and it's in more of a blog style, signified by its brevity.

Actual bloggers are covering the issue in a variety of ways, often with more innovative angles than many of the more news oriented outlets. Even celebrities have entered the discourse on Gadhafi. Libya is a somewhat rare situation since many of these celebrities are musical performers who are publically giving away the money that the Gadhafi family paid them to perform. However, there are also more typical ways in which celebrities have been incorporated into the discussion.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/libya-protests-2.html

This LA Times blog post is an example of the inclusion of celebrity culture in the political struggles in the middle east. In this case, they are siting Angelina Jolie's stated concern for the people of Libya and the growing refugee situation that is arising out of the conflict. In this case, a media outlet is helping Jolie to possibly increase awareness of the issues by using her celebrity.

Another way that journalism deals with major news events is through opinion pieces, which probably play a large role in "sense making" despite being less exact in their timeliness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03asfar.html

This Op-Ed in the New York Times is from the perspective of a Libyan. This is typical of Op-Eds, since they often are written from the perspective of someone with authority or expertise on a particular subject. In this case, who better to represent the Libyan people than an actual Libyan?

This Opinion piece utilizes the luxury of a longer word count and has more speculative nature, as well as making a broader statement about the impact of the events going on. The writer takes the time to use anecdotes and contextualize the reader with her own personal situation by introducing her family into the piece. He also takes the time to give more history than a news article can at this stage of the conflict.

Another thing about this Op-Ed piece is its ability to philosophize about the events in Libya and explore their personal meaning as well as their broader impact.

One example of a softer news story is this one since rather than discussing events that have just transpired, it's more predictive in nature.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/01/libyan-refugee-food-crisis-looms

The main topic of this piece is that refugees are pushing at the borders of Tunisia and Egypt and that this could result in a food crisis. The length of this article is moderate since there are some details and speculations about the broader impact of the situation. There's only one evident source in this piece-- the executive director of an organisation called the World Food Programme who witnessed first hand the refugee situation building up. Therefore the emphasis of the article is on WFP's actions and the issues that they are directly involved in.

"Almodovar's Future Muse" - A Profile of Julia Lucrecia

Mazen Hassan

Feature Story

3/3/2011

In Spanish countries, the quince is the moment every girl waits for. It is a spectacular celebration, much like America’s version of a sweet sixteen. Except it is much larger and more grandiose, as it is the transition into womanhood for these young females. Most girls ask for money, jewelry, expensive purses, maybe even a car – but Julia Lucrecia, 19, isn’t most girls. She asked for the one thing she had waited for her whole life – her first trip to New York City.

Upon first arriving in NYC in the summer of 2006 for the New York Film Academy’s Acting Program, Julia Lucrecia fell in love. “I have always been obsessed with acting and performing, and here was the first opportunity I had to finally perfect my craft.” She made three short films during her month-long stint at NYFA, and networked to make contacts that may hopefully benefit her in her future. “That summer changed my life, I knew that New York was where I wanted – no, needed to be. My mind was made up.”

Born June 18^th, 1991 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Julia always knew she wanted to be an actress. “I used to be part of this group called "Teatro en Movimiento", which basically means, “Theater in Movement. “We would meet every other weekend and have scripted improvs, and basically give a performance for whoever was in front of us,” she said gazing out the window, with a bright, beautiful smile on her face recalling old memories of where her dreams began. “It was loads of fun, mainly because we just made small skits in regards to the political drama of Puerto Rico. But I knew I wanted more…I wanted bigger and better.”

So with her parent’s blessing and support, she applied, and was subsequently accepted to The New School, and made her big move to the city in August of 2009. Though her family (her mother, specifically) was worried about sending their daughter, alone, to the Big Apple, they felt comfort in the form of her oldest brother, who lives in Long Island, NY. “I am the youngest of five siblings, but my brother and I are super close, and I am so glad to have him nearby.”

Julia wasted no time diving right into her passions, and taking advantage of all that her city of dreams had to offer. She went to every audition she could find, involved herself in whatever groups would have her, and took a full course load to fully immerse herself in a “New York state of mind.”

Now a sophomore, Lucrecia is still doing incredibly well in all her courses at The New School, and takes part not only in the Lang Theatre Collective, but is one of the stars of the Lang Spring Production of “The Vagina Monologues.” She also works two jobs (babysitting and as a tutor for HEOP), and is an intern at a Flamenco Dance Company in Manhattan. “They don’t pay me anything, but I get free flamenco dance lessons, which I love, as it has been a passion of mine since I was thirteen.”

Sounds like a lot for a nineteen year old to take on, right? Again, Julia isn’t your typical nineteen year old girl, she has many more goals and accomplishments she’s set her sights on, and isn’t slowing down anytime soon.

When asked what she ideally wants to do in her future, after graduating, her luminescent green eyes light up at the prospect of all she has yet to do. “I would love to go to Spain and study cinema, and maybe get cast in a Pedro Almodovar film and be one of his many, famous muses,” she says with a coy smile.

I then ask her when she will feel that she has finally “made it?” She stops and ponders for a moment, almost entranced in thought. “That’s a very overwhelming question for somebody who wants so much,” she says giggling. “Well, in some way, I feel I have made it. I am 19 going to a great school, working three jobs, doing two plays, living the life I promised myself at 15. But that doesn’t mean I’ll be satisfied in two years. In other words, I feel it’s important to always feel like you ‘made it,’ yet still have a lot to do…does that make sense? …basically, I want to conquer the world,” she says seriously and filled with confidence.

Though it may be easy to dismiss the idle dreams of a young wide-eyed girl…somehow, I believe her sincerity. And I expect to see her blazing the screen of the next Almodovar film, and becoming the new Puerto Rican Screen Siren for a new generation.

From Washington to New York

By Harrison Golden

Growing up in Washington, D.C., Rey Mashayekhi has always had a knack for the arts and sciences of politics.

“It’s about so many substantial things that go on and how they all affect us,” said Mashayekhi, the 20-year-old sophomore at Eugene Lang College. “It’s always interesting. When you’re in close proximity, it’s easy to understand why it’s so important.”

Although he is a fairly new contributor to the world of journalism, he strongly believes that writing has provided him with the ability to create outlets and forums for which to discuss his knowledge and ideas. While studying at Pace University in his freshman year, he wrote for the Pace Press, the college-wide paper, where he gained an affinity for the many processes of journalism, including interviewing and storytelling. However, despite helping him become more interested in news writing, the newspaper lacked aspects of professionalism. According to him, editors would rarely perform their edits and failed to even acknowledge the power of the news lede.

But with time spent traveling the world, visiting places such as New Orleans, London, and Madrid, and Brussels, Mashayekhi as developed a new-found sense of worldliness and a perspective intent on informing the public. Furthermore, with specific journalistic experience, has developed into a more well-rounded presence. Not only is he now beginning to understand the future of journalism, such as that seen on an ever-growing amount of websites, but he also comprehends how these technological changes can help contribute to the most basic aspect of the craft.

“I was always interested in writing. The great thing about it is that these things that interest me are the things I like to write about. Journalism gives me such a great opportunity. I get to develop ideas on how things impact our life,” Mashayekhi stated, remaining hopeful about his future. “I see myself writing for some publication, trying to repay my loans. But I know something interesting will happen along the way.”

Profile

Meet Garrity, student and …everything else.
by: Julia Taveras
Sarah Garrity Guenther, 20, is a student at Eugene Lang College trying to balance life, work, and having fun.
“Too many damn jobs”
Asides from being a Psychology major and Gender Studies minor, Garrity, as she prefers to be called, works at the University’s writing center and at New School’s phonaton, “I call alumni and student’s parents to ask them for money” she says with a smile. She’s also an intern for credit at the Psychology dept. at The New School for Social Research and is highly active in the school’s Feminist Collective.
But Garrity makes a distinction between her ‘two lives’. One life includes three jobs, an incredibly caffeinated and ‘lotta-shit-to-do’ routine. In her second life, she goes out hard, “I do the heels” she says, along with the subsequent glitter and late night ventures. “I need to blow some steam” says Garrity, “I physically cannot just…chill.”
“Smart Girl”
Garrity was drawn to New School by it’s list of renowned teacher-alumni. From working towards an early graduation date to finding a perfectly located and reasonably priced apartment on Bowery, Garrity seems to be very smart and practical about her choices. “I don’t like paying for things,” she says about finding a loophole out of her broker’s fee when she bought her apartment. In Garrity’s day to day, dressing up on the run doesn’t mean a flush on her credit card either. For anything formal or more “professional” she whips out a pair of black pants and coat from Zara, nail polish-free nails, along with some Dior mascara, and is out the door; very New York
“Kentucky is Stupid”
Garrity is interested in people and how they act, she is a gal of strong opinions who will openly express herself without flinching, even if she’s talking about the faults of her own state: “The second you leave Louisville and go to any other one of the cities or counties, it is the most backwards thinking, racist place I have ever been in my entire life.” Born in Chicago and raised in Kentucky, she points out that Louisville, the city she was raised in, is the exception. Her city is “like a smaller version of Portland and The Village minus the stupid hipsters” she says.
Watch your back New York, Garrity Guenther has a lot to say.

Profile of Meredith Pollack

“I’m honestly waiting for New York to snap my neck and then I’m moving to California,” Meredith Pollack hyperbolized.

A sophomore at Eugene Lang College, Pollack is not the only New School student to consider leaving New York for the sunny West Coast state. She knows a few people that have already made the move, including her girlfriend, who is already in the process of moving to a small town outside of Santa Barbara.  

Pollack just spent three weeks driving down the California coast with her girlfriend over Winter Break. Starting at her girlfriend’s home in New Mexico, the trip was her first time on the West Coast and she stopped in all of the major cities.

One of her three brothers is at Sacramento State, so she and her girlfriend stopped in the capital city on the way to San Francisco. Following that they hit Santa Cruz, Big Sur, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara where Pollack said she had the best Mexican food of the trip. Then they went on to Los Angeles and San Diego and spent a night in Tijuana.

Pollack felt a distinct difference between the people in Northern and Southern California and preferred Northern California, but is willing to give the lower half of the state another shot.

“The insecurities of living in New York bubbled up when I was in L.A.” Pollack said. For the most part, California was a relief from the lack of belonging she feels living in New York. 

“I feel like I don’t fit in really,” Pollack said. “I’m not confident here [in New York.]”

Pollack was born in Hackensack, New Jersey but grew up in Buenos Aires and Connecticut since her father’s job as a consultant caused her family to move around.

Recently, her father moved to Los Angeles for his job, and for the meantime her mother is still in Connecticut but Pollack figures that her mother will wind up in L.A. soon enough. When that happens, she plans to join her in the Sunshine state.

Pollack described driving through the clouds as she entered California and the impact the natural beauty had on her.

After making a disclaimer about being hippie dippy, Pollack described the way California and that moment made her feel.

“It brought me to a spiritual level of being closer to the earth than New York City,” she said.