Mysterious Force Invades Portland Oregon

An armed force, many of them with no identif ying marks on their uniforms or their vehicles, have invaded the streets of Portland, “arresting” protestors, often at random. They even grabbed people who only happened to be nearby, shoving them into unmarked vehicles and driving them off to to federal buildngs.

Many of those detained were simply let go later, with no justifiable cause for arrest. If this mystery forced seized people without cause and detained, it doesn’t matter who does it. It’s a crime.

As Jann Carson, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Orgeon told the Oregonian, when people are grabbing individuals off the street for no cause, “we call it kidnapping.”

Count 1: Kidnapping.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler should tell his police department to arrest this invasion force sent there by, who else, Donald Trump. The Mayor did tell Trump to have the militarized feds leave the city or confine them to federal buildings they were supposedly sent there to protect. Some of their so-called arrests, however, occurred far from any federal building.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown reportedly criticized Trump for stirring up confrontation in the hope of scoring political points elsewhere to boost his election. That’s also known as inciting a riot, though the protesters were mostly peaceful, at least until the Feds showed up, according to media reports. Some of the protesters apparently sprayed some words on a few federal buildings. Oh my!

Count 2: Inciting a riot.

“Authoritarian governments, not democratic republics, send unmarked authorities after protesters,” Democratic U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley said in a tweet.

Repelling The Invaders

Portland officials, however, have had enough of these mysterious invaders sent in by Trump.

U.S. Attorney Billy Williams in Portland on Friday asked the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General to investigate the actions of DHS personnel. Earlier Friday, U.S. Attorney for Oregon Billy Williams called for an investigation into reports that federal officers had detained two protesters without probable cause. Williams had previously launched a federal investigation into the shooting of Donovan La Bella with a “less-lethal munition,” but was still enough to critically injure La Bella’s with a cracked skull. La Bella had his hands above his head when was shot.

Count 3: Assault.

Then late Friday, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced her office will sue several federal law enforcement agencies over their response to Portland protests and launch a criminal investigation into an incident of force by federal officers.

Civil Suit: Detention Without Probable Cause

Rosenblum gave notice she is seeking a temporary restraining order to stop federal officers from detaining Portlanders, arguing federal agencies seized and detained Oregonians without probable cause. The Attorney General said the state’s lawsuit in federal court will name the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Protection Service as defendants.

“The federal administration has chosen Portland to use their scare tactics to stop our residents from protesting police brutality and from supporting the Black Lives Matter movement,” Rosenblum said in a statement. “Every American should be repulsed when they see this happening. If this can happen here in Portland, it can happen anywhere.”

Rosenblum also said the state and the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office would criminally investigate the shooting by federal officers of La Bella in the face causing his critical injury.

Earlier Friday, U.S. Attorney for Oregon Billy Williams called for an investigation into reports that federal officers had detained two protesters without probable cause. Williams had previously launched a federal investigation into the shooting of La Bella.

What of The Ringleader?

Of course, it’s unlikely the man who launched this unwarranted invasion of America’s West Coast will be included in Portland’s initial legal action to fight off the invasion. Donald Trump will be hunkered down in the White House, appearing occasionally to spout some rambling, indecipherable diatribe that leaves any who hear him scratching their heads in puzzlement. But he’s still the president and believes he’s invulnerable.

For a time, perhaps. Yet it’s becoming clearer as November approaches that he’s becoming an increasingly insufferable bully who is sending this country on a path to oblivion, with support from his friend, Putin.

But Americans are getting wise to him. The counts against him continue to rise.

Count 1: Kidnapping.

Count 2: Inciting a riot.

Count 3: Assault.

Civil Suit: Detention Without Probable Cause.

Ineptitude: Countless occurrences.

Portland and Oregon officials should gather their warrants and lawsuits and have them ready. It’s probably best if they get to the White House soon after high noon on January 20. There’s liable to be a long line.

Why Do I Publish? Because I Write

It does no good to write if I don’t publish. I mean, what’s the point? Writing without publishing means my words get stuck in some drawer, hiding in the dark. Writing is meant to be read. It is the second step toward publishing. 

Reading is the first.

IngramSpark posted the challenge to writers recently to explain why they publish. In one way, the answer is simple, as noted above.

Yet writers are often afraid of having their words read by strangers, fearing what they’ve written isn’t good enough. But you have to start somewhere.

The seed for my desire to write was planted by my oldest brother, Irvin, when I was still in elementary school. He drove me to the Elizabeth Knapp Branch library in Detroit and pointed out books that he thought I’d like to read, the same books he read when he was my age at the time.

I read a few books in the small library we had in the Catholic elementary school I attended, but the public library opened whole new horizons for me. I became an avid reader, taking out as many as six books one week, only to return the next week to bring those books I’ve read back and looking for six more.

Perhaps my favorite book series at the time was “Swallows and Amazon,” written by Arthur Ransome. I didn’t find out until much later that Ransome was a well respected author in Britain, and his children series was considered a classic, with adventures set mostly in Britain’s Lake District. I just thought the stories were a lot of fun. Yet something began percolating in the back of my mind. Even then, the thought to be a writer sprouted its early growth.

The real spark that drove me to pursue my writing occurred years later when I was the “humor editor” of the high school newspaper. Like any high school, this school had its cliques, a group I really had no interest in joining. But one day, one of the guys in the group was reading the column I wrote, and he cracked up. Another guy in the group asked, with obvious disdain, “Why are you laughing?”

The first guy answered, “Because it’s funny.”

I didn’t write to make him laugh, though I hoped to make some of the students laugh. The fact that I did make him laugh had me thinking that perhaps this writing idea was something I should explore.

One of my first stops when I started classes at Western Michigan University was the newsroom of the college newspaper, The Western Herald. Even though the classes I signed up for that first semester had nothing to do with journalism, I soon realized I wanted nothing to do with those classes. (Who wants to take a sliderule class at eight in the morning?) I was hooked. Journalism became my interest and my career from the 1970s and into the early part of this century.

But there was one side trip for me when I took a break to attend The Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers’ Workshop back in 1982. I wanted to write fiction, especially science fiction. But I wasn’t ready, yet. There were still plenty of stories ahead of me as a journalist. Even so, I realized I was using some of what I learned at Clarion in my writing as a reporter. Good writing is good writing.

Though I still do freelance work from time to time, I eventually decided to turn most of my efforts to science fiction. In doing so, I learned something else. Much of what I learned as a journalist I could use in my fiction, especially dialogue. What reporters do most is listen. We know how people talk. We know when to ask questions, and when to stay quiet until the person we’re interviewing fills the silence with the perfect quote.

During my time with newspapers, I had covered the police beat, higher education, theater, music, and so much more. Some of the articles were grim, some uplifting, some entertaining, and yes, some funny. Journalism gave me a palette of ideas to color my stories when I turned to fiction. But when I began that return, I started by revisiting Ransome’s “Swallows and Amazon” series, reading the stories again, and reading more about the author himself. I soon realized I had a favor to pay forward. I bought the first book of the series and gave it to Irvin’s youngest daughter. She loved it, as did my brother, as did I.

Then I set out for Mars.

I’ve published three novels in the Martian Sands series so far, and am working on the edits for my fourth. 

Why do I write?

Why would I not write?

And because I write, I publish.

Tom Chmielewski grew up in Detroit, MI and worked for several newspapers in the Midwest and freelanced for magazines, including science stories for The Atlantic’s online edition. He currently lives in Kalamazoo, MI, where he was on the staff of the Kalamazoo Gazette for 10 years. Tom is also the treasurer of The Clarion Foundation, which runs The Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers’ Workshop.

Local journalism needs passion and commitment to a community to succeed

By TOM CHMIELEWSKI

It was the elephant in the room, after all.

While last week’s Breaking the News Part 1 panel discussion was meant to look forward on how to reinvigorate the level of local journalism Kalamazoo once enjoyed when the Gazette was a healthy, vibrant newspaper, inevitably someone would ask the panel to look back. Toward the end of the evening, the question came from the audience.

After 4-1/2 years of the Kalamazoo Gazette/Mlive’s digital/print integration, “how would you evaluate it? Does it seem like a vibrant business model, both journalistically or financially?”

The question was like a pitcher grooving a fastball right down the middle of the plate, daring a batter to swing at it. Instead, I expected the panel to be taking all the way. At first, that seemed to be just what the Battle Creek Enquirer’s executive editor Michael McCullough intended to do when he “stepped up” to the mic and said, “I can’t sit here and tell you what business model is better because I can’t see their financials.”

But then came his swing.

When it came to local journalism, “I think it’s an abject failure.”

Out of the park.

I was almost surprised the more than 60 people in attendance didn’t stand up and cheer for the affirmation of what they already felt. Why else would they be there? Why else  would InterCom, the Kalamazoo Area Association of Communication Professionals, feel the need to organize this panel discussion? Why did the logo for the event include a tag line “Local Story Missing!”? What stories weren’t we seeing anymore if not those we used to read in the Gazette?

“that connection to your community is the most important asset that you have, something I guard jealously.” – Michael McCullough, Battle Creek Enquirer

I am a board member of InterCom, and for 10 years I was a reporter for the Gazette, from the mid-80s to the mid-90s. To be clear, the InterCom board from the start formed this panel with a goal of looking ahead. Part 1 last week brought together representatives from a variety of journalistic endeavors across the state. We wanted to give those involved from our area in traditional and niche media, public relations and others a chance to learn from voices they may not normally hear or read. For that purpose, the panel discussion was a clear success.

But there was also something more to learn from McCullough’s answer, the need to hold a passion for local journalism in order to succeed at it. He described MLive’s efforts as a “perilous path they’re on, and believe me, I understand the pressures. But that connection to your community is the most important asset that you have, something I guard jealously.”

For the reporters and editors still working at MLive in Kalamazoo, Flint, Ann Arbor, Jackson, Muskegon, Grand Rapids and Bay City, the passion and commitment for local journalism is still evident. But their resources and staff numbers continue to fall.

Panel moderator Anna Clark, correspondent for the Columbia Journalism Review, noted that MLive was invited to be on the panel, but the company declined.

The Enquirer and the Gazette were never true newspaper competitors except where their circulation areas abutted, somewhere near Galesburg and Augusta, I suppose. But being neighbors, the staffs used to read each other’s papers, and McCullough said he still reads MLive. He also hears from their readers.

“Because we are next door, the complaint I hear from people is they don’t feel it reflects who they are. That’s a very dangerous place to be if their commitment is to community journalism. Now that commitment may be to something else, and that may work for them.”

Maybe it does. But during the evening, I was sitting next to Jim Mosby, who was editor at the Gazette when I was there. All he could say about the Gazette discussion was, “It’s a shame.”

Best quotes of the night

The funding model has changed for journalism. Where once there was a wall between editorial and the business side of operations, that wall doesn’t seem as strong as it once was. More news outlets accept, at least in part, some form of public funding. Editorial has been forced by economic circumstances to accept a greater understanding that without money, there is no local journalism. Clark said one Ohio news outlet explained it this way.

“They don’t see it as a wall between editorial and business any more but as a four-foot fence where the neighbors can talk to each other but still keep the dogs in the yard.”

And another quote from McCullough, this one trying to understand what “millennials” want in news coverage.

“A third of my staff is millennials, and I discovered they’re no better connecting with millennials than I am.“

Part II in August

Look for more details to be announced soon on the InterCom website for Breaking the News Part 2 on Aug. 25. The August session will focus on existing and developing local news outlets and their efforts to fill the local coverage gap.

Rick Chambers / Local News: Picking Up the Pieces

MLive Reductions Cast Shadows on Local Journalism

Crossing the fairness border in Dem Town Hall

By GINA C. PECORA /

I sometimes tune in to watch Andrea Mitchell’s show on MSNBC because she has a fair reputation for how she treats the news. But when she was talking with Jose Diaz-Balart today about the exchange with the Latino woman at the Democratic Town Hall last night, whose husband had been deported for 10 years, I felt Mitchell either missed the boat or was intentionally padding the Hillary support. I realize that most Washington insiders feel that Clinton has the better chance in the general, but I am really surprised at this one bit of reporting today because it made Mitchell sound very naive.

Maybe that is a persona she adopts from time to time in order to serve another purpose; but for my part, I was outraged last night to begin with at how that whole first question was handled by the media and then, predictably I might add, by Clinton. Sanders won the coin toss and went first. This automatically sets up the opportunity for the following candidate to one up him on the topics that were brought up in his segment.

The woman asked when and how he would enact policies to bring her husband home. And she interrupted his answer as well, in order to press the question of “when”; so he had to splice his answer in by saying that it would also depend on Congress to act, even though he said he would make it a priority. I don’t believe the other candidate ought to be allowed to watch the first candidate’s Q&A if it gives them the benefit of forming a more studied response when it is their turn.

 Just for the record, at that moment Clinton did not offer anything better or different than Sanders had. She just shouted it louder.

In the first place, Clinton herself was never asked the question directly, which means that she did use her speaking second status to take advantage of the format to intrude herself into the topic and make it appear that she was more empathetic to the woman and her plight. Just for the record, at that moment Clinton did not offer anything better or different than Sanders had. She just shouted it louder. But that doesn’t mean her efforts would be more effective than his. When pressed later on by Diaz-Bolart to set a timeline on helping Latino causes, Clinton seemed compelled to answer that she would propose it within the first hundred days of her administration. She insisted the “legislation would be introduced” within that time period because these causes were so important to her. Balart asked her to reaffirm that, and Clinton seemed almost desperate to do so.

For his part, Sanders also missed the opportunity to link the theme of his campaign of grassroots activation of voters to how soon he could effectively address the woman’s issue. He did say that Congress would have to act, but his premise has consistently been that enough voters can motivate Congress to act. This could have been linked to an effective response to the woman’s question.

But it was unfair of Mitchell to contrast, as she did, the compassion of Hillary’s supposed outreach to the woman, and Sen. Sanders’ failure to do so. Clinton had a full half hour or more to form that response after viewing Sanders’ impromptu exchange on the question.

Young people are not gravitating to Hillary because they sense this manipulation of the facts and circumstances. This type of grand standing is evident to them. They are drawn instead to someone with passion, but who doesn’t feel the need to impress people with inflated rhetoric and over the top style.

And I would like Mitchell to refrain from making transparently naïve or partisan observations on situations such as last night’s, and to give a more insightful analysis on what is a complex scene.

MLive’s Reductions Cast Shadow on Local Journalism

By TOM CHMIELEWSKI

There’s a saying among politicians that all politics is local. The same is true for news.

So what happens when MLive Media Group announces yet another round of cutbacks in the state, including 29 layoffs in editorial staff –apparently divided among the eight news hubs in the cities that once had vibrant newspapers – and the relocation of “News leadership,” what we used to call editors, out of local offices?

That, of course, includes the Kalamazoo Gazette. MLive, in its carefully worded, cryptic announcement on Jan. 6, stated “the number of staff members producing content … remains intact statewide, although some roles will evolve based on audience demands.” Yet in the very next sentence, the announcement went on, “Overall, 29 content positions will be eliminated.”

I think MLive’s announcement could have used some better editing, though MLive said positions eliminated will be “primarily through reducing management roles and jobs related to newspaper production.” Perhaps more ominous for local news coverage, John Hiner, MLive’s vice president of content, said, “News leadership has been restructured around regional management.”

The emphasis is on statewide coverage. That’s important, but local communities also need local news if we’re going to make sense of what’s going on, in our towns, our cities, our state. Hiner said MLive will maintain “essential news coverage in local markets,” but the decision on what local news is essential and how it will be reported will not be made locally. But hey, MLive’s Michigan’s Best food and travel series will be expanded. So what’s the problem?

Diving into App World

By TOM CHMIELEWSKI

I never saw ebooks as simply a print book without paper. It struck me that ebooks offer the opportunity to be more than transferring words on paper to words on screen, or to be just an easy way out for self-publishing authors and publishers with extensive backlists to put their titles on the market. I thought that was throwing away the potential of books published on electronic media. So I looked for ways to experiment. I found it at a medieval feast.

Chef Channon Mondoux put on a banquet for several hundred medievalists here in Kalamazoo, Mich. She had meticulously researched recipes from the 16th century Ottoman Empire and earlier centuries that would have been served at the palace of Süleyman the Magnificent in Constantinople, now known as the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. I covered the feast for a magazine, but I thought this was too cool, too exotic. I found the subject for my experiment.

Writing for myself

By TOM CHMIELEWSKI

Writers rarely, it seems, get a chance to write for themselves. I have written for grizzled newspaper editors, corporate magazine editors, demanding book editors and anonymous online copy editors. Some have been good, others not so much. As one might expect, the anonymous online editors for production line content providers include some of the worst, but others there may have been among the best. The contact with them, however, has been too minimal to know. The nature of the beast, I guess.