While it is a small step, D.C. barely being noticeable on a map of the United States, the numbers hardly recognizable in our country’s total population, it is still the nation’s capital, and that has to mean something. I am a huge supporter of gay marriage. I think it’s despicable that human beings can still exist in a world, where such obvious discriminations remain so present. I would like for one person to justify the argument that same-sex marriage would effect anybody who opposes it, besides spitefully (in their own opinions). How anyone could be content in denying somebody else the basic right, and freedom to get married (MARRIED!), is beyond me. I will never understand.

I don’t know why there is such a big issue regarding the subject, other than just personal objections, but that should not (SHOULD NOT!) reflect the actions politically, of any leader, or person in power– they should do what is right. Arguably, some people do believe, in their heart of hearts, gay marriage isn’t right, that it’s morally and ethically and physically and biologically and philosophically and conventionally wrong. But how? How could marriage, nothing more now than a romantic, if not whimsical gesture (with the ever popular option of divorce nowadays), be wrong in any case? Unless, that is, people have personal objections to marriage in general, even marriage between the timely “man and a woman”, in which case it would be (odd, but) a respectable demurral.

While I am very glad and extremely relieved that another gay marriage law has passed, it leaves me wondering, still– how much longer will we have to wait until we are an entirely free country? How many more years? From when our country was first established, it took until the 1960′s for black people to see the ease of inequality. Please, whoever it is we plead to anymore, let freedom come.

He acknowledges the filibuster in the Senate, one of the few, but huge road blocks on the path to (somewhat) recovery, but also releases his individual frustration– he, personally, would be relieved if the bill had already passed. He also recognizes that it is the bias of a handful of Senators– against President Obama– and, namely Senator Joe Lieberman specifically “who seems motivated by sheer spite”, that may be the, or one of the only, causes for the bill’s indefinite disapproval.

Kruger sites problems that may arise in the future if the Bill were to pass now. The Bill, which he deems “flawed”, would grant, in the future, other bills or laws, etc. to be passed, just as flawed, undercooked, and incomplete as this one– stiffing the country, once again, maybe even worse, to create a “false sense of security”. However, Kruger identifies that issues to occur in the future, will be different than the debate over health care now, and the “financial system” now. The Health Care Reform Bill, even though it has it’s kinks, should be dealt with, and frankly over with, as soon as possible, if not already.

Tiger Woods, the face of golf, dissapointed his millions of fans Thanksgiving weekend, with his infidelity to his wife. His disrespect to his family shows all the world that he is just another celebrity, using his status to fix his needs. His wife has yet to comment on the incidents, but Tiger has come out with a statement to The Associated Press: “I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.”Though he has apologized, is it enough for his fans to ever forgive him for his alleged 15 mistresses had? After Tiger’s leading ladies fifteen minutes are over the question will be lingering: why did the girls stay quiet for so long? Has Tiger been paying the women for their silence all along, or was it true love?

SNL covered the story with Kenan Thompson playing the award winning golfer, and Blake Lively, who hosted that evenings show, playing Wood’s wife, Elin Nordegren. In the now infamous skit, Thompson portrays a battered Woods, being constantly injured by his wife because of his comments to the press. The skit was as usual a stunt as the sketch comedy show does every Saturday, meant just for fun, but, as always happens, was of course taken out of context. The media took the skit too seriously and began to question the judgement of the SNL producer. The View, CNN, and most morning news shows have bashed the late night show for having a skit on domestic violence, viewed as a joke rather than a serious issue they have claimed. The other problem people were having was the skit’s “distasteful” timing, because the show’s musical guest Rihanna’s past history with domestic violence. Should people leave the Woods family alone? Or is the situation a public matter because of celebrity status?

The cast, with no real star or celebrity actor, works together in an idyllic tripod consisting of Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, and previously unknown to feature films, newcomer Zach Galifinakis. Each character embodies a different sterotype of a guy: the nerd, Stu Price, as played by Helms, the cool guy, Phil Wenneck, as played by Cooper, and the weirdo, Alan Garner, as played by Galifinakis (the standout scene stealer). Together, they create a dream team of hilarity, and nonsensical action-adventure.

Trying to find their lost friend Doug, actor Justin Bartha, after a night of heavy drinking, blacking out, and semi-unconciousness roofie-ing in Vegas, Alan, Phil and Stu find themselves in a wild goose chase, resulting in Mike Tyson’s tiger in their hotel room, a naked Asian man in the trunk of their car, card counting, and a baby. Along their many gone-awry labrinths of exploits, each has his own epiphany and realization, as typical in a comedy, but to make this movie untypical, the comedy is of much higher quality than most others.

“The Hangover” deserves as many good reviews as it got, skyrocketing it’s cast into famehood, and it’s writers and director into credibility. I thoroughly enjoyed it, recommend it to anyone curious, maybe even apprehensive for having the same feelings I initially felt, but genuinely, “The Hangover” is a movie to remember.

Provided such poor inheritance from the President before him, the country that he left to hand over and the people, slighted and fearful, with which he created and suddenly exchanged. I personally disagree with this grade. I would give him a B-/C+ (although the C would be of a harsher opinion) for what he has done so far. I strongly thought against his receiving the Nobel Prize– an honor I am sure there is a more deservatory contestant– but with what Obama has to deal with, and the efforts he has made to connect with his people, to turn the country around, I agree he is headed on a good path. It is still early to tell, though. Rome wasn’t built in a day. America cannot be rebuilt within the span of several monthes, but that is expectant from almost every citizen.

I was watching The View the other day, which may seem like an uncredible source, and the grade was a “hot topic” of discussion. Whoopi Goldberg, I thought, gave an interesting perspective. An open supporter for Obama, she said that her grade for him would be a C. She said that this was so because he had not done everything he had promised he would have by this time. She particularly named the “gay marriage” issue, which she said the Obama made it clear the stance he had, and just what he would do about it. Since he hasn’t touched the situation, she thought that he deserved a “C”– which is understandable. However, the guest on for that day, Charlie Gibson, gave the most acceptable answer, in my opinion. He said that Obama should have answered that his grade was an “incomplete”, because it is too early to tell. I completely agree with this statement, that would have been the smartest answer for the President to give.

While I’m sure the President is kicking himself for not saying this instead of actually grading himself, at least he gave is honest view of himself. I respect it, maybe it’s a hopeful conjecture, but anyways, I’m sure everybody now is hoping he will live up to his self set standards.

The news does not promote this type of thinking. The news, people who watch the news, and to whom it effects, does not believe in that way of life. Journalism provides a global education, a universal perspective and knowledge which broadens one world, to every world. The news gives valuable information to people from the world’s edge to the new world, taking from the darkest corners of the earth, and showing what they found to the privileged pedastals of life; making small worlds, big.

The news provides insight, philosophy and intelligence. The news gives meaning to history, our future, the present and what is happening now. If it weren’t for the news, then how could any issue be communicated? In the U.S. it is detrimental for it’s citizens to hear from our leaders, to know who they are, what they are about, in order to make an knowledgable decision for who we are electing into office. As residents of a “free” state, then by that, it is upheld by the people themselves to determine the fairness and credibility the country in which they are living. Without the news to relay the events occuring and plans unfolding, or without those in power monitoring who they are in control of, it would be blind leading the blind.

For others around the world, living in third world conditions, in poverty and without freedom or choice or rights, then how would it be possible to know that they exist if not for the news? How would it be believable, the stories accounted from the deserts and jungles and slums of the earth, without the news to show them to us?

We learn, and learn to help, and learn to care, and learn how to grow from the news. The news does not exist to project any other view of the world, than simply, a view of the world. There is nothing bad about that.

The easiest interview to get, of course, was the grass roots. I used a student who parks in the same lot as I do, so she was bound to have some opinions on the matter. But interestingly, the most useful information I got was from the parking services themselves. The man I was in contact with, through e-mail and telephone, was Mike Brennan. He provided me the budget for the Parking services, and answered all of my other questions to the best of his ability, seemingly to me, quite truthfully, sans politico. He was very helpful, even though at first I thought I was going to have a hard time getting in contact with anybody, but when our communications finally opened, it was worth the initial frustrations.

I’ve just been creating my article since yesterday. It may seem last minute to finally be getting starting on the written part of the article, but in my opinion, that is a very small part of the actual process. I think journalism involves the whole package: the research, the interviews, the contacts, the thought, and the writing. But in all, after you have got the most part of it, the article writes itself. The evidence and facts all point to a specific ending, all there is to do is put it in words for the rest of the world. It’s going well so far, I haven’t run into any writer’s block yet– let’s hope it’s not a fluke (even though it always seems to be)– but I think I have some strong perspectives and points which all support my thesis, or what I set out to get, anyways. Maybe it’s just the way I’m writing. The hardest part, for me, is to write without bias. Wish me luck!

To talk to him would not divulge any secrets.

But to know him, and to know his story, would require a super amount of understanding and support.

Pat, affectionately called “Peppermint Patty” by his friends because of his affinity for Peppermint Schnapps, is a man who likes women. This seems like a fair enough assessment, not an unusual statement to say that a man likes women. The conflict, however? He doesn’t feel like a man. He feels like a woman trapped inside a man’s body.

Pat, who requested his identity remain anonymous, is a resident of Hatfield, Mass. With a dirty farm shirt, Carhartt pants, and steel toed boots, his appearance strays not far from that of a typical Hatfield dress code. And his work, at a construction facility in the town, is also of similar interest. However, his inner ambiguity seems more than uncommon.

For the past year, Pat has been taking hormone pills to help him become a woman. The pills have helped him develop breasts, and slightly heighten the pitch of his voice, and have generally furthered his progress in the sex change process, preparing him to change genders.

Recently however, Pat has run out of money to continue taking the hormone pills, which has stalled his efforts in becoming a woman. The plunge in the economy has left him with little to spend elsewhere than for necessities, leaving him, now, from the outside in, not a quite a man, and not yet a woman.

Pat has no choice but to wait for his funds to build up again for him to continue along the path towards a sex change. Yet for now, all he can do is try to live his life, suspended, as normal as possible.

I am having trouble thinking about who to interview that is not of grass roots level. A parking service expert of some sort? I doubt the dean would know anything about commuters or their resources (I don’t know why I feel that she wouldn’t know, it’s just a hunch that… she doesn’t care to know). I can obviously get a million (exaggeration) responses from students about their parking circumstances, but who is of some authority that might have an opinion? Or better yet, an explanation?

I am also hesitant about what questions to ask to get my point proven! If I approach, like, the Dean we’ll say, and ask her “Why are parking lots for commuters so bad (or something to that effect)?” “Is it a slight gesture to possibly discourage commuting students by making their resources disreputable?” She wouldn’t answer me. Or she would just outright deny that and maybe say they don’t have enough funding (“Out-of-state students’ tuition is higher, to facilitate with funds such as parking?”), or maybe not respond at all… although if she did that that might actually help my story.

I really want to do well on my final article, but there are so many stressful factors going into it! I am trying really hard to get a good story, it took me a while to find something that I cared about enough (because at UMass, there is really not a lot a care about– being a commuter) that I would be willing to divulge six pages into it. Commuter parking effects me and it matters because what happens in winter when I can’t make it to class because of parking conditions? Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t think of any other motive for not paving a driveway than deliberately trying to make a statement.

Before I saw Nachtwey’s photos, and before I heard him describe his business, I dismissed “photojournalism” as somewhat hokey. I am a very strong believer in words and the effect and influence and power they hold. Taking pictures for a living, such an outwardly materialistic hobby, seemed to me more like a “sidekick” career than a forerunning aspect of journalism and news media. Anybody can take pictures; not everybody can write. After seeing what Nachtwey did, I say with both confidence and shame– I can not do that. I could not see, in a place a war, a place of confusion, anger, or sadness, a singular image that has all the elements of beauty and tragedy, and get my point across. It is truly a gift of Hemmingway-istic style to narrow a vision that clearly, so that only one picture is needed to tell the entire story.

Nachtwey’s wish speaks to anyone willing to put an effort forth and make it come true. To tell the story worth telling. To tell the story that has to be told. It seems only too paradoxical that a photographer would summarize so eloquently the goal of writers everywhere. I guess this is what the world is coming to.