Im aware of the 1st Amendment, but I'm confused...was that an apology?

After a lot of backlash from New Yorkers and criticism from elected officials, the NY Post, which published the controversial editorial cartoon, issued an apology. On the night of February 19th, nearly 2 days after all the opposition to the illustration, The Post posted an editorial on its Web site that read:

Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon — caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut — has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else — as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past — and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon — even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.

If this isn't the biggest non-apology we have seen in a long time I dont know what is. Initially, it seems as though they are explaining themselves and remorseful for the misunderstanding, but then the editorial lashes out at anyone who has ever disagreed with the Post, saying this situation is being used as an opportunity for "payback." The last part of the editorial basically takes back the apology while giving it.

Of the many community leaders that accompanied Al Sharpton in his protest outside The Post, State Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx also issued some words of contempt:

During Black History Month, The New York Post has depicted the first black president of the United States as a chimpanzee – to draw a twisted parallel to the chimpanzee that was recently killed. Their cartoon does nothing but promote racism against our president and encourage further racism in our society. When Fernando Ferrer ran for mayor, The New York Post ran a bigoted cartoon of Fernando Ferrer and the Rev. Al Sharpton — without much consequence. The Post’s apparent racism is still in place — as demonstrated by their ugly cartoon in yesterday’s paper — and we will not tolerate it.

The interesting point about Mr. Diaz's statement is that both the 2001 cartoon and the recent illustration were both drawn by Sean Delonas. Not only didn't The Post respond to the claim that they have a longstanding pattern of racism as shown by the earlier cartoon, but they also didn't state whether or not they would stop using Delonas in the future.

On February 24th, Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of The Post issued his own apology saying, "Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted." He also said that the Post will try to be more sensitive. However, for the NAACP this pledge wasn't good enough. Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP still called for a boycott of the Post on Saturday. Mr. Jealous said, "The offenders are still on staff and there are no measures being taken to increase diversity in its newsroom."

Given all of this, my take on the issue is a bit on edge. In light of the incident in Connecticut with chimpanzee Travis, the cartoon trivializes the tragedy a mere few days after it happened. The cartoon was undoubtedbly tasteless and insensitive from this standpoint, but is this whole fiasco protected by fair comment? As far as the non-apology I am also unsure if I would even want them to apologize. Apologies can just as well be used to mask the fact that the cartoon was still produced. If all that is needed is an apology many people can publish all kinds of controversial work that they know they can later just say sorry for and get away with. What can be done to prevent future questionable work before its worldwide publication? Is there anything at all that can be done? Questions like this still arise for me although It should also be kept in mind that the First Amendment may protect the newspaper from accountability. The first Amendment says:

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.

The most basic component of this Amendment is the right to freedom of speech which allows individuals to express themselves freely without government interference or constraint. However, if the government does feel the need to severely step in the Supreme Court requires the government to provide extensive justification. The Supreme Court also allows government prohibition if the speech causes a threat to peace and ignites violence.

Is there a difference between speech and press?
Exploration of this question and an overview of The First Amendment

Should we all just learn how to take people's opinions in stride and turn the other cheek? This issue seems to be bigger than the cartoon. The First Amendment remains as new issues arise so what can be/should be done for future problems?

I've given you a lot to chew, but overall do you feel The First Amendment protects the paper from having to apologize or be held accountable??

Is the N.Y. Post Racist?

What do you see when you look at this cartoon? It can be said that they are partly referring to Travis, the Chimp that was just killed by Police earlier this week for attacking his owner's friend. However, because the cop is saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," the cartoon has taken a political turn. This statement could be interpreted in two ways: On the one hand, the cartoonist could be saying that the people who wrote the stimulus bill are a bunch of monkeys, but on the other hand the cartoon could be referring to the person who introduced the bill in general to the American public and signed it, Barack Obama. Either way the cartoon is violent and has raised a lot of questions about racism.

There is a lot of debate centered around this cartoon. Given the timing of its release, one day after Obama signed the Stimulus Bill, some say this is blatant racism on the part of The Post. On the previous page of the newspaper, there was a picture of Obama with the Stimulus Bill all around him, which further illustrates for many that the publishers definitely had Obama in mind when releasing this cartoon. Many also say that the story of Travis the chimp is a good cover for the Post publishers because like the cartoon, the chimp was actually shot. If the cartoon would have came out before the incident with the chimp they would not have had such an easy cover.

People who do not so easily see racism when looking at this cartoon argue that the cartoon was not referring to Obama because he was not the one that wrote the Stimulus. Nancy Pelosi wrote the 1000-plus pages along with help from members of Congress. If anything, the cartoon was mocking Politicians in DC that wrote the bad bill moreso than pinpointing Barack Obama himself. Supporters of the paper also argue that Bush was called a monkey for 8 years by people who didnt support him so its not so new that a monkey would be used as imagery for public figures. Still, opposers say that of course the paper would use a loose word such as needing someone else to write the next stimulus bill because they didn't want to be outright racist. This is a good cover because by saying it in another way they still get the message of bigotry out, although they are not directly stating it. Opposers look at this picture as a play on the long standing racial slur against blacks as uncivilized monkeys.

Personally, I do find the cartoon a bit questionable, but ultimately the First Amendment gives people the right to speak freely. Undoubtedly, the illustration has fostered debate, which is always good for new ideas in an open forum, but the bigger issue remains....did The New York Post go too far??

More on this topic
What's your take on the issue?

Stamford Chimpanzee Attacks Woman

On February 16th, Travis, a 200-pound primate lost control and attacked a woman. The huge ape went wild at his long time owner's home and mauled the face of 55-year -old Charla Nash. Sandy Herold, who had Travis since the age of 3, unsuccessfully tried stopping him with a shovel before she had to stab him with a knife to get him off of Nash. Travis then escaped and it wasn't until cops arrived that he was eventually shot to death when he attempted to open the car door of the patrol vehicle. After ripping off the mirror of the car, Travis was repeatedly shot by an officer before returning inside his home where he died.

The 15-year old chimp attacked Charla Nash so badly that she was mistaken by a cop for a male. She suffered severe hand and facial injuries and was taken to the Stamford Hospital. This was not the first time Travis escaped either. In 2003, Travis got away from Herold and was stopped by cops later on. He was caught playing in an intersection where cops then had to sedate him in order to capture him and put an end to the traffic gridlock. He was also known around his neighborhood because there were times Herold admitted to Travis' taking off with her car and going on joy rides. Here is a video of a woman describing an earlier time when Travis had attacked her previous to this incident, but she was not able to get authorities to take notice and see Travis for the threat he was...the video also features the 911 call from Herold:

Sandy Herold, 70, who lost her husband 5 years prior to this incident and her daughter to a car crash, raised Travis as a human and essentially as her own son: He was fed steak, lobster tails, took his own baths, ate at the table and drank wine from a stemmed glass. He also brushed his teeth using a Water Pik, according to the Stamford Advocate. In addition to this, he was a television Pro, appearing on commercials for Old Navy and Coca Cola.

There is speculation that Travis may have been set off due to Nash's change of hairstyle that day, making her unrecognizable to the chimp and therefore a threat. However, the interesting part of the story is that Herold had given Travis, Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug in tea earlier Monday and it was not prescribed for him. "In humans, Xanax can cause memory loss, lack of coordination, reduced sex drive and other side effects. It can also lead to aggression in people who were unstable to begin with" said Dr. Emil Coccaro, chief of psychiatry at the University of Chicago Medical Center. She also said that Xanax could have possibly made Travis worse if human studies are any indication. source

Travis was also said to have had Lyme disease, a tick-borne illness with flu-like symptoms that could have also played a part in his lash out at Charla Nash.

Here is another article and another video pertaining to the incident:

link



Given all the information disclosed about this situation, do you feel that animals like Chimps can be pets, socialized into normal everyday human activities? Was this story an anomaly or was this more about bestiality than anything else? Let me know your thoughts...

Say Hello To Queen Juicy

In September of 2008 my mom's friend, Angie lost my two dogs, Fluffy and Buddy. Fluffy was a Maltese that I had since the tender age of 10 and Buddy was a yorkie whom I bought just the year before. Asking me how Angie was able to pull this off is a question well beyond my comprehension. To say that I was upset is an extreme understatement as both dogs had become an important part of the family. Fluffy was getting old as she had developed a slight cough that always seemed to return despite the numerous visits to the vet and Buddy was wild and crazy because he was still a baby not even a full year old yet. The point of this story is to describe the horror and pain experienced upon learning how careless a grown woman could be. My family put up signs every where and even announced award money for the safe return of our extended family. However, we heard no word about either pup and it is going on 5 months since there initial departure.

The good news is that I have since been able to move forward and as of Christmas brought a new family member into the house. Her name is Juicy and she is also a Yorkie like Buddy. However, she is teacup size and fits in the palm of ur hand. If you haven't assumed by now it is safe to say that I have a strong love for dogs which is why I was fast in buying a new puppy. Juicy is lovable, fiesty, and full of life. At first sight you may be taken back by all the energy she has given her size, but Juicy is definitely a go-getta. She has devised a way to get on the couch or any other high area by crawling up your leg in a relentless manner. There is no obstacle to great for Juicy who seems to be constantly creating ways to maneuver around the house. In short, I would like you all to meet my little angel who is the new rave around the neighborhood or any place she graces with her presence.

Introducing Adele, for all those not yet acquainted...

This past summer (summer '08) I was introduced to a great English artist by the name of Adele. My bestfriend took me to the Highline Ballroom, located at 431 w 16th street in Manhattan's meat packing district where she was giving a special intimate performance. A native of London, Adele's music can be described as a mix of rhythm blues and soul. Singer and songwriter, Adele has described her own musical style as "heartbroken soul." Her sound is refreshing, but reminiscent of an Amy Whinehouse or Etta James, where she has said to get her inspiration. Her Debut album, 19, topped the UK charts and is definitely a must-have. Featuring hits like, "Chasing Pavements", "Hometown Glory", and "Melt my Heart to Stone", all of which she performed at Highline Ballroom, Adele's sound captured me immediately.
Extremely unconventional, Adele performs barefoot with a barely done Bun in her hair staring downward in a nervous state of being. Constantly giggling and seemingly frantic, Adele is bound to run off the stage at any moment, but run she does not. Her music penetrates your heart with her fierce soul and undeniable talent. If you do not wish to take my word, watch the video for her "Hometown Glory" yourself:

In case one song didn't satisfy your appetite here is the link for her video "Chasing Pavement's" ....enjoy!

What does Obama's victory mean for the African American community?

Ok, so it is no secret that Obama's election into the White House has social and political meaning for all of America not to mention specifically for the black community. Being an African American woman myself I got to thinking about what Barack Obama's victory means for the black community's ego. Will Obama's win create a new found motivation for young people? Will his win give African American men in particular further reason to have excuses by means of this new "entitlement?" Will affirmative action be called into question? From the moment of Inauguration, I pondered the sense of pride being felt from the black community and even the possible opportunity for continued disguise and lackadaisical attitude. I came across a nice article that discusses the social and political improvement Obama's victory symbolizes for America. The article comes from Solidarity and discusses how his win ties into the long standing issue of race and class in American history. Not only does Obama's popularity show how the reverse Bradley Effect (a group of people saying they would vote for the opposite race in public then deciding not to in private) was a factor in the election, but as well may be a statement against bigotry.
I also came across another article from the Washington Post in November between psychiatrist and author, Alvin F. Poussaint, MD, and journalist Amy Alexander. The two went online to discuss with people their reactions to the historical election and what this means for African Americans and the entire nation. This article also talks about the possibility for this generation to be moving past the issues that divided us in the past. Dr. Poussaint says that the younger generation is less racist and open to accepting differences in people in large part as a result to the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Movement, and the gay/lesbian Movement that emerged. The issue of afffirmative action arises in this article as the question of whether or not it is still necessary given that the first black president has just been elected...

What are your thoughts about all that has been brought up???