At Vassar, Jonty and I were The Guys Who Rollerbladed Everywhere. Whether down the hill from the Town Houses and across Raymond Ave. and directly into the classroom, or simply to run an on-campus or in-town errand, we sped around Poughkeepsie with the greatest of ease. It was exhilarating and a great way to stay in shape. Rollerblading is like off-season skiing, so from the time I first strapped on a pair of blades, it’s been like second nature to me. As with other exercise routines or recreational activities of late, though, blading has fallen off my radar in favor of things like blogging, watching TV, enjoying wine on the porch. You know, things that are good for the heart and really get the blood flowing.
This morning I woke up at 6:30 and felt the need to go blading. I’ve forgotten how invigorating exercise is. How could I have let it escape from my life for so long? It’s not even 8am and I already feel so focused and energized for the day.
I strapped on the ol’ K2 Flight 76 blades, saddled up the dogs, and took them out for the usual mile-long morning stroll. Happy loved the increased speed; Stella was suspicious of my blades and lagged behind. I dropped off the dogs, skated to the local rec field, and did a couple laps around the track. There’s even a skate park, so I may have to return at some point to hit the ramps with the other kids.
Even if blading isn’t as hip as it was in the ’90s, I don’t care. I love it. Now where did I put my spandex shorts?
Reporters handcuffed in new era
They fear jailing of journalist will prompt sources to clam up
“There are times when the greater good of our democracy demands an act of conscience. Judy has chosen such an act in honoring her promise of confidentiality to her sources. She believes, as do we, that the free flow of information is critical to an informed citizenry.”
— Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times
Good for New York Times reporter Judith Miller for standing her ground and protecting her source. Shame on U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan for punishing Ms. Miller for keeping her word, something not many people do these days.
Have you taken the gabeanderson.com survey yet?
2 responses so far ↓
1 Nat // Jul 7, 2005 at 11:55 am
Gabe, let me know if you ever wanna go blading at East Side rec Skatepark.
There used to be a much more present “Skater” faction in town. At its peak, the Skatepark would have 8-10 guys waiting to drop in on the 11 foot vert ramp. Those were the days:)
2 Milhouse // Jul 7, 2005 at 4:13 pm
I too see something good in Judith Miller’s stand, although her past reporting on Iraq suggests we could have a far better standard-bearer for the profession. (See http://www.slate.com/id/2086110/ for a fairly strong critique of her work on behalf of the Bush Administration regarding WMD. Even better, read all of the stories linked to this search query on Slate -> http://www.slate.com/?querytext=%22judith+miller%22&id=3944&searchfromtoc=Go&action=fulltext).
I disagree however with your criticism of the judge in this case. Just as Delay was wrong to criticize the judges involved with the Terri Schiavo case, it is wrong to criticize Judge Hogan for enforcing the law. The law here is very clear — there is no broad right for journalists to avoid the obligation that most citizens have to testify regarding serious criminal acts when called upon.
We (in the community sense of the word, as opposed to the you and I sense of the word) can argue about whether they should enjoy such rights or not, but there is no legal basis for a judge to grant her those rights. He’d basically be making it up.
Not only that, but he’d be making it up after being told very strongly by the highest court in the country that he was wrong to do so. Frankly it would have been irresponsible for this judge to rule any other way, and would have been very significant grounds for him to lose his job. We shouldn’t attack the man for enforcing the rules that others have set for us.
As for Ms. Miller, I think she’s making a brave stand on a subject that I think is very important. However, I think she’s on the losing end of this one.
The definition of a journalist used to be pretty clear, but in the internet age that definition is pretty cloudy. There just is no practical way to define a journalist for the purposes of providing immunity from an obligation most citizens have — to testify about criminal acts we may have witnessed when called upon to do so.
Too much is at stake to create a broad definition, and there are too many shades of “journalist” these days to set a standard that includes just the right people (however you’d define that).
Bravo to Ms. Miller for taking this stand for something she believes in, but she’s the wrong person to be doing so. Even if she were the right person, I don’t think it’s a winnable position.