State of the Union

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."
-Martin Luther King Jr.'s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, 1964

"If Dwight Eisenhower had come back from the war and decided to run as a Democrat - which he almost did - there would be no Republican party today. They would be like the Ku Klux Klan, small knots of hate-crazed rich people scattered in walled ghettos around the country, instead of the dominant ruling autocracy that they have been for most of the last four decades."
-Hunter S. Thompson, "Better Than Sex"

It makes me sick. The other day I saw a Muslim - a MUSLIM walking in lower Manhattan, just a block a way from Ground Zero. Let me repeat that. A Muslim has the audacity to walk so close to the place where a group of Muslims killed so many Americans on September 11, 2001.

I don't care that you won't be able to see the Park51 community center with its mosque from Ground Zero. It shouldn't be there at all. It's not that I'm afraid of Muslims - it's just that I don't want them to kill me and corrupt my children.

It's not that I don't want Muslims in Manhattan, it's just that I don't want Muslims in this Christian Nation. In fact, if we can do away with all the Muslims, Homosexuals, Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Democrats, Socialists, and Pedophiles we will be pretty close to what the founding fathers intended. I don't believe they ever intended for this place to be overrun with immigrants and foreigners. So let's do them the favor and kick them out.

2,752 people died in New York on 9/11, excluding the hijackers. In total, 2,995 died, including the 19 hijackers. What did the 19 hijackers have in common? They were all Muslim. What does this community center and mosque have in common with them? It's Muslim as well! It's amazing. [The "white rights" group, on the other hand, the KKK, is all about nonviolence! (What's that, you say? They link to Storm Front? Well that's just a coincidence, isn't it?)]

The other day I asked a friend about the whole thing and he said, "Well, people have the freedom to practice their religion in the United States." I said show me where and he pointed me to the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And so I said, Well, Arizona doesn't give a shit about the Fourth, so why New York give one about the First? [Sorry about the link to that long-haired hippy-liberal piece of trash, but it's the best I can find]. He just kind of looked at me confused. Then he told me something that made me kind of sad. Anyone can be a Muslim. Thankfully, most people aren't. I knew Arabs and Blacks could be Muslim, but I had no idea whites could be as well. It's just a testament to the strength of their brainwashing. All those poor children consumed by Allah.

I used to think they were all alike. Some Arabs will tell you they are "Sikhs." Don't be fooled - they are Muslims as well. In fact, these are some of the most dangerous Muslims because they carry a sword or dagger. Now it turns out Muslims can be anywhere.

So if these so-called people are using their so-called "freedom of religion" to put a MUSLIM community center and mosque two blocks behind Ground Zero (and I don't care that it will be hidden behind buildings - it will still be there) we should use our freedom of speech against it. After all, there is no Constitutional Amendment that forbids hate. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue in the first place!

So here's my plan for getting back: hit them where it hurts. Was everybody sure to draw a picture of Mohammed for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?" I know I did. Here's my reference image:







[Courtesy change.org. By the way - check out the name of the "Designated Agent." It's a huge conspiracy.]

Barack Saddam Hussein Obama Bin Laden. How did he ever get elected president? He wasn't even born in the United States. By the way, did you know that 82 percent of Americans don't know that Obama is Muslim? That's up 7 percent since last year. People have been finding out! I'm glad Americans are getting so well educated.

History Lesson

[Update with regards to the last post: There will be no narrative journalism insert due to logistical issues. I'm still going to try to get my final article published somewhere. Let me know if you would like to see it.]

In doing research for my thesis, I stumbled upon a gem: the first issue of the New York Times, then called New-York Daily Times. The first printing was 18 September 1851. You could pick it up for a penny - that covered the physical paper; profit and paychecks came from advertisements. There was no Sunday edition.

The first edition featured "A Word about Ourselves." I will let these excerpts speak for themselves. And then I will highlight bits I think are important, as a gloss. So they won't be speaking for themselves, after all.

We understand perfectly, that great capital, great industry, great patience are indispensable to its success, and that even with all these, failure is not impossible. But we know also, that within the last five years the reading population of this city has nearly doubled, while the number of daily newspapers is no greater now than it was then; - that many of those now published are really class journals, made up for particular classes of readers; - that others are objectionable upon grounds of morality; - and that no newspaper, which was really fit to live, ever yet expired for lack of readers.

Upon all topics, - Political, Social, Moral and Religious, - we intend that the paper shall speak for itself; - and we only ask that it may be judged accordingly. We shall be Conservative, in all cases where we think Conservatism essential to the public good; - and we shall be Radical in everything which may seem to us to require radical treatment and radical reform. We do not believe that everything in Society is either exactly right, or exactly wrong; - what is good we desire to preserve and improve; - what is evil, to exterminate, or reform.

...And while we design to be decided an explicit in our positions, we shall at the same time seek to be temperate and measured in all our language...There are very few things in this world which it is worth while to get angry about; and they are just the things that anger will not improve.

We hope to make the Daily Times acceptable to the great mass of our people, and shall spare no effort to do so. We have an abundance of means, -plenty of able and experienced assistance, and every facility for making at once, the best and the cheapest newspaper in the United States.

Live blogging Tiger Woods' um, whatever it is.

***Updated below with postscript***

10:20 AM - 40 Minutes Till Go

It's the event that no respectable journalist should attend: Tiger Woods' scripted, no-questions-allowed statement to 30 of his closest friends and few media outlets.

You might think that's not a lot of people, except it's televised. And the fact that Woods isn't answering questions there is no reason for anyone to really attend at all. Woods could have apologized in person to those people. It's a "pseudo-event." But he is apologizing to me, so unlike the Golf Writers Association of America, I'm bringing the media circus straight to you.

Woods has no reason to apologize to the public. As Richard Sandomir writes in the New York Times, "Woods did not sin against golf." He sinned against his partner and American institutions perhaps, but not his sport. It's the institutions part that I am fascinated by. Woods was seen as a safe bet for advertisers, a positive role model. So he lost his sponsorships and was vilified when a single affair (and over the next few days a harem) is exposed.

I love it. Compare it to Alexander Ovechkin, who is one of the dirtier players in the NHL, nice neither on nor off the ice. But kids somehow look past his transgressions because he is an amazing player:


(1:10 gives the best detail)

"But wait," you say, "the situations are completely different!" You're absolutely right! Woods transgressed on his own time. If there is any crossover between Woods' personal life and his sport, it is because of the entertainment-media-advertising complex. Woods plays great golf no matter who he has sex with.

Roy Peter Clark brings to light five great stories that should be done on Woods. In my opinion, these creative methods should be the only pieces done on Woods:

1. Woods as a prototype of Barack Obama, an African-American with light skin and a proper accent (cf. the oafish Harry Reid), deemed more acceptable to white America.
2. A description of the gender differences revealed by the reaction to the scandal: how women focused on disloyalty, while men seemed more concerned with the stupidity and recklessness that resulted in his getting caught.
3. A story on race and gender focused on the reaction of African American women to Tiger's apparent obsession with light-skinned, light-haired women.
4. Whether or not a wealthy celebrity like Tiger Woods can find justice within the legal system. Does his status get him a pass? Or does it attract harsher penalties?
5. The extent to which a double standard governs cases of spousal abuse. What if it were the Tiger swinging a club at his wife?

Those are good stories. This upcoming live blog...not so much.


*You might notice I refer to Tiger Woods as "Woods" throughout this post. That's because I don't know him on a first-name basis, as apparently a number of newscasters and writers do.


10:30 ESPN Pregame

The asshat is giving commentary on ESPN. He advocates taking six months off of golf ("we're only three months into it"). Says Woods is on step nine (of a ten-step program), but Woods is going back into rehab after this statement.

Reilly is very concerned with Woods' marriage and the people he surrounds himself with (in public). "We invested in his life," says Reilly: buying his products, believing in his school, etc. Yeah, but people invested in Enron as well. There is a risk to investing in anything.

Apparently women are the people that are the most disgusted by Woods's actions. And Nike? Woods should therefore go on Oprah and get interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Couch jumping, in fact, has been proven to endear strange-seeming men with astereotypical (yes, astereotypical) relationships.

Rick Reilly calls the man "Tiger." Josh Elliot calls him "Woods."


10:40

ABC News' John Berman interviewed. Go figure.

Sergio Garcia: "To tell you the truth, I'm really not that interested."

Golfers interviewed are more interested in Woods' professional life than personal life. Go figure.


10:50

SportsCenter Rundown: Tiger Woods Public Statement // Tiger Speaks Today // North and Reilly Live.
On now: Tiger and Galleries

10:54

How many William Blake knock-offs do you think have been written since Thanksgiving?


11:00

According to Randy Shilts in Patient Zero, The Wall Street Journal did not report on GRID (as it was called before the more correct term "AIDS" came into use) until the disease had a heterosexual angle. That's shameful on the part of the paper, but the newspaper does offer an interesting glance into the financial world. The Wall Street Journal lets us know what's on the minds of America's business people, with some hard-hitting news built in (through the lens of business, of course).

Things that matter this morning (headlines courtesy WSJ):

Tax Protestor Crashes Plane Into IRS Office
U.S. Bets Best Ally in [Afghanistan] Surge is Old One
[Interest] Rate Rise Stirs Questions
Obama Unveils Debt Panel - and GOP Is Likely to Join It
Soldiers Oust President in Coup in Uranium-Rich Niger
Somali Troops Gird for Battle With Militants
Fight Over Health-Care Premiums Heats Up
IAEA Suspects Iran Seeks Nuclear Arms
U.A.E. Probes a U.S. Tie in Killing of Hamas Figure
IMF Suggest Capital Controls for Emerging Markets
Pakistan Arrests Two Taliban Leaders
Dutch Nearing Afghan Pullout
Wal-Mart Warns of Soft Sales Ahead
Toyota's Chief Will Testify in Congress
Google Defends Its Books Pact
Regulators Clear Microsoft-Yahoo Alliance
Greece's Next Test Is in Bond Sale
Lewis Knew of Legal Decision
Obama Meets Dalai Lama Despite China's Ire


11:10

It is 31 degrees outside.


11:15

The shindig is over. Rick Reilly is coming on so the TV is turning off.

Fin.


1:45 Post Script

Okay, it seems I can't not talk about Woods. I was just talking with my roommate Jon about Woods' claim that Elin Nordegren did not ever harm him. Where did that report ever come from? TMZ? Oh. Reblogged by the...wait. Huffington Post?! Oh my. Oh, oh my.

I am surprised no one has advanced a Tyler Durden theory yet regarding Woods' injuries. Spread the word. But not too much - no one likes a media circus.

Amazing Grace

Update below

At least one newspaper is doing well. Sort of. For a moment.

Is the iPad newspapers' saving grace? It's even the focus of Doonesbury comics this week.

We have two-thirds of a perfect storm right now simultaneously being explored by Gary Trudeau and others. The first is the New York Times' online "paywall." The second is the iPad.

Pay dirt (as in what I pay right now)
That's right, the New York Times will soon begin charging for access after a certain number of articles. No more all-you-can-eat buffet without a subscription. Welcome to news a la carte.

Apparently Newsday has had great success with this. Hah.

Having to pay to access any online story would hurt a lot of amateur bloggers like me because one, my audience doesn't necessarily subscribe to every newspaper, and two, my income does not at the moment support me subscribing to every online news source I read. Luckily, though, it's unlikely that free online news will ever go away. It will probably just change forms.

Check out the Nieman Journalism Labs' paywall widget.

iWhat?
Did you see the iPad? I saw the iPad. It looks like a big iPod Touch. It's "magical and revolutionary" at an "unbelievable price." But I believe the price.

The Big Money writes that a key to Apple's success is its antisocial attitude. This is true, but there is another factor as well.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee
MacWorld predicts that newspapers and magazines will benefit from portable e-readers. Just think: all the news, no physical production cost. Just lay it out in a digital format and you're good to go. The downside to this is that Apple will undoubtedly try to sell subscriptions through iTunes, meaning that Apple will be getting a cut of the hard work that newspapers do. (For ha-has: I link freely to articles, and you get added commentary!)

While this can save "print" (err, let's work on another name for that) publications, it will give Apple greater power over media. Apple is saving newspapers, and it's doing a much better job than the federal government did when it saved America's "cannot fail" institutions. Those institutions were given fairly free rein. Apple is holding newspapers by the lede. A better model for newspapers would allow you to subscribe directly through the publication's website, bypassing Apple entirely. But Apple wants to control the media because its device will be expensive. Worst case scenario for us/best case scenario for Apple: People will buy cheaper e-readers, but it will only be iPad users that can download the content they want. Let's hope it never comes to this

Update 6:30: I was just discussing this with my friend Anthony, who is an English major. His greatest concern is for the book publishing industry. The same logic applies regarding Apple's control of media. The difference is that book publishing has not lost revenue due to declining readership and a loss of advertising.