Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Yes, Virginia, you can have sex before marriage
Now we will see whether or not the conservatives and the Republicans feel it necessary to protect morality and the sanctity of marriage, or whether they just beat the gay drum in order to get votes from bigots and over-zealous adherents of faith traditions.
My prediction? There will be no constitutional amendment to ban singles' sex that gets out of committee because the Republicans have kids who do have sex, and none of them wants to see their kid go to jail. Also, real conservatives should start thinking about the kind of police state this law might enable. It's just ridiculous and it's a good thing that it's gone.
Morality is cultivated and encouraged, not mandated and enforced. If Christians feel their standards are the ideal for everyone, they ought to do a better job convincing people that God's ways are best rather than legislating them down the public's throats.
"Singles' Sex No Longer a Va. Crime" - Washington Post, Jan. 15, Metro section page 5
My prediction? There will be no constitutional amendment to ban singles' sex that gets out of committee because the Republicans have kids who do have sex, and none of them wants to see their kid go to jail. Also, real conservatives should start thinking about the kind of police state this law might enable. It's just ridiculous and it's a good thing that it's gone.
Morality is cultivated and encouraged, not mandated and enforced. If Christians feel their standards are the ideal for everyone, they ought to do a better job convincing people that God's ways are best rather than legislating them down the public's throats.
"Singles' Sex No Longer a Va. Crime" - Washington Post, Jan. 15, Metro section page 5
Monday, January 17, 2005
Looking back to last week
I think this blog thing is going to take a little bit of work to make sure that I post everyday. New habits and all that.
I realize I missed a lot from last week, and I will mention some of it as I go through the newspapers, but I did want to draw the reader's attention to an interesting column by George Will that appeared in Thursday's Washington Post ("No Ad Left Behind").
Now, after reading that column, re-read my post from last Saturday. I am afraid to say, George, that you are five days behind this intrepid blogger.
You'd think that Will would spent more time on politics when baseball is out of season. Guess the same thing happens to journalists as well as baseball players: old age ruins timing.
Yet another reason why blogs will leave traditional newspapers behind. Without some journalistic standards and a commitment to represent the public, though, blogs will never be the same watchdog force as the responsible news media were at one time. Personal agendas must be put aside in order to truly realize the potential of this new technology. In an age where the personal and the public are increasingly blurred, such a dichotomy is increasingly more difficult, and even unwanted. What will reporting look like in the post-modern age?
I realize I missed a lot from last week, and I will mention some of it as I go through the newspapers, but I did want to draw the reader's attention to an interesting column by George Will that appeared in Thursday's Washington Post ("No Ad Left Behind").
Now, after reading that column, re-read my post from last Saturday. I am afraid to say, George, that you are five days behind this intrepid blogger.
You'd think that Will would spent more time on politics when baseball is out of season. Guess the same thing happens to journalists as well as baseball players: old age ruins timing.
Yet another reason why blogs will leave traditional newspapers behind. Without some journalistic standards and a commitment to represent the public, though, blogs will never be the same watchdog force as the responsible news media were at one time. Personal agendas must be put aside in order to truly realize the potential of this new technology. In an age where the personal and the public are increasingly blurred, such a dichotomy is increasingly more difficult, and even unwanted. What will reporting look like in the post-modern age?
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Paying for Favorable Coverage
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times offer stories about commentator Armstrong Williams and the $240,000 he received from the Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind law.
There are several sad stories here. First, that a respected African-American commentator trashed his reputation and his career accepting money to promote government actions without notifying the public of the contract. The fact that Williams simultaneously runs a public relations firm, writes a syndicated column, and produces a television show raises questions about at what point a journalist ceases to be a journalist and instead becomes a public relations expert.
Second, that the Department of Education felt it necessary to pay a commentator in order to receive positive coverage of NCLB. That law is facing opposition from both liberals and conservatives, and may, in fact, with the appointment of Margaret Spellings, face significant changes, as reported by the Washington Post Friday.
But the most disturbing aspect of this story is that the government is actively spending money in order to promote unpopular laws. The fact that the DoE is paying a public relations firm (Ketchum Inc.) nearly one million dollars a year to promote and gauge support for or opposition to NCLB reveals that government officials may see citizens and taxpayers as gullible, pliable consumers that can be manipulated through advertising and positive comments by trusted journalists. Nothing prevents the government from passing unpopular laws not in the public interest, and then spending millions of taxpayer dollars to convince taxpayers and citizens that those laws are in their best interest. Without an independent media, or hopefully ever-vigilant bloggers, we may as well live in an Orwellian-Huxleyan state where lies are truth and the masses can be distracted by artificial crises and entertainment.
In 1913, Congress passed the Gillett Amendment, which states "Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a website with several lobbying and ethics guidelines, but all seem to be directed at preventing public relations activities targeting pending legislation, not laws already on the books.
For more information about the intersection of public relations and governmental action, check out Spinwatch and PR Watch.
This story does raise the obvious question: What other prominent journalists and commentators have received money from the government to promote governmental programs?
There are several sad stories here. First, that a respected African-American commentator trashed his reputation and his career accepting money to promote government actions without notifying the public of the contract. The fact that Williams simultaneously runs a public relations firm, writes a syndicated column, and produces a television show raises questions about at what point a journalist ceases to be a journalist and instead becomes a public relations expert.
Second, that the Department of Education felt it necessary to pay a commentator in order to receive positive coverage of NCLB. That law is facing opposition from both liberals and conservatives, and may, in fact, with the appointment of Margaret Spellings, face significant changes, as reported by the Washington Post Friday.
But the most disturbing aspect of this story is that the government is actively spending money in order to promote unpopular laws. The fact that the DoE is paying a public relations firm (Ketchum Inc.) nearly one million dollars a year to promote and gauge support for or opposition to NCLB reveals that government officials may see citizens and taxpayers as gullible, pliable consumers that can be manipulated through advertising and positive comments by trusted journalists. Nothing prevents the government from passing unpopular laws not in the public interest, and then spending millions of taxpayer dollars to convince taxpayers and citizens that those laws are in their best interest. Without an independent media, or hopefully ever-vigilant bloggers, we may as well live in an Orwellian-Huxleyan state where lies are truth and the masses can be distracted by artificial crises and entertainment.
In 1913, Congress passed the Gillett Amendment, which states "Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a website with several lobbying and ethics guidelines, but all seem to be directed at preventing public relations activities targeting pending legislation, not laws already on the books.
For more information about the intersection of public relations and governmental action, check out Spinwatch and PR Watch.
This story does raise the obvious question: What other prominent journalists and commentators have received money from the government to promote governmental programs?
Friday, January 07, 2005
Gonzalez and torture
I like reading the Washington Post after midnight when they post the next day's paper on-line. Yeah, I'm that much of a junkie, get over it. So grow used to seeing posts from early in the morning.
I watched some of the Alberto Gonzalez testimony at his confirmation hearing Thursday, and I wasn't really surprised that none of the senators followed up any kinda-tough questions.
But when the Post says that Gonzalez "strongly defended" his time spent as White House counsel, I had to laugh because he neither spoke strongly nor was asked questions that would have required a strong answer. He was a soft-spoken man at the hearing and didn't give any answers that the senators could jump on. I'm sorry, on which the senators could jump. That's why I didn't go Ivy League like Gonzalez, that preposition at the end of the sentence crap.
The issue with Gonzalez is not whether he makes sure the DoJ "'aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions.'" The issue is whether the memo he authored in 2002 gave the green light to leaders in the military and intelligence agencies to use barbaric methods in the pursuit of information that may or may not have existed in order to prevent attacks on the United States that may or may not have been planned.
I'm sure what Gonzalez intended to mean is that he will make sure that the soldiers included in the pictures we have seen from Iraqi detention centers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That's a mistaken idea, that only the people who actually performed the actions are solely responsible. I would argue that those who created the atmosphere in which the abuses occurred are also responsible. That means that Gonzalez himself bears some of that responsibility. He should be fired, not given a promotion.
But in the Orwellian universe that is the Bush White House, incompetence is rewarded and excellence ... um ... well, once we see some excellence, then we'll see what Bush does with it.
I watched some of the Alberto Gonzalez testimony at his confirmation hearing Thursday, and I wasn't really surprised that none of the senators followed up any kinda-tough questions.
But when the Post says that Gonzalez "strongly defended" his time spent as White House counsel, I had to laugh because he neither spoke strongly nor was asked questions that would have required a strong answer. He was a soft-spoken man at the hearing and didn't give any answers that the senators could jump on. I'm sorry, on which the senators could jump. That's why I didn't go Ivy League like Gonzalez, that preposition at the end of the sentence crap.
The issue with Gonzalez is not whether he makes sure the DoJ "'aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions.'" The issue is whether the memo he authored in 2002 gave the green light to leaders in the military and intelligence agencies to use barbaric methods in the pursuit of information that may or may not have existed in order to prevent attacks on the United States that may or may not have been planned.
I'm sure what Gonzalez intended to mean is that he will make sure that the soldiers included in the pictures we have seen from Iraqi detention centers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That's a mistaken idea, that only the people who actually performed the actions are solely responsible. I would argue that those who created the atmosphere in which the abuses occurred are also responsible. That means that Gonzalez himself bears some of that responsibility. He should be fired, not given a promotion.
But in the Orwellian universe that is the Bush White House, incompetence is rewarded and excellence ... um ... well, once we see some excellence, then we'll see what Bush does with it.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Welcome to the Friendly Fire blog!
Welcome to the "Friendly Fire" blog! "Friendly Fire" is a new show on WXJM 88.7 FM Harrisonburg, VA. WXJM is the student-run radio station for James Madison University.
My name is Adam Sharp, and I am one of the co-hosts of the "Friendly Fire" talkshow, together with Kevin Perkins. Kevin and I disagree about a lot of political issues and decided to have a radio show to welcome other comments about the issues we think and talk about.
This blog will allow us to post columns and news stories we see throughout the week as we prepare for our show, which will air Thursday mornings from 10 am - 12 noon EST. Also, we may post comments on an issue specifically to solicit your opinions. We welcome your comments on whatever we post here, and your e-mails and IMs to our show. You can also visit our website for more information.
Our first show will be January 13 at 10 am! We hope you'll listen in.
Peace,
Adam
My name is Adam Sharp, and I am one of the co-hosts of the "Friendly Fire" talkshow, together with Kevin Perkins. Kevin and I disagree about a lot of political issues and decided to have a radio show to welcome other comments about the issues we think and talk about.
This blog will allow us to post columns and news stories we see throughout the week as we prepare for our show, which will air Thursday mornings from 10 am - 12 noon EST. Also, we may post comments on an issue specifically to solicit your opinions. We welcome your comments on whatever we post here, and your e-mails and IMs to our show. You can also visit our website for more information.
Our first show will be January 13 at 10 am! We hope you'll listen in.
Peace,
Adam
