Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 13, 1998)
The Battalion cnday* July 13,1998 PINION iving love a bad name [/ien seeking companionship, men and women exhibit desperate behavior Rr 'S id tki / A ,0' K' Jajor I ■ thinksi I n 8 lid ht'r Iblic 1 that Issue of church and state auses differences of opinion causet | is tract npaa p /f an y times, in many dif- ferent forums, it has I ¥ A been asserted that the cfl Bricans not only are complete Itina ots, but are arrogant idiots to pmei ot. Although it is not the place rose® critics to kdedltj (could fee with deny [claim. sa' Is,!-' : ex- Chris Huffines columnist P°st amazing examples of arrogant idiocy involves the lescn lititutional doctrine of separa- it. It I of church and state. Ameri- i, repjlilack understanding about an tion"-Be that cuts to the heart of daily lives. 'naultaneously, they are ag- Isively arguing an opinion -d on nothing more factual 1 the Tooth Fairy. And Ameri- [ wonder where the percep- of arrogant, American idiocy les from. v tack of knowledge is bad. J0 |/ e ? n ^ r e argument around Ration of church and state is of degree. At what point does [government violate the Estab- ^ ause of Constitu- • There are two views. The fWBist ^ 1£> V ' evv () f fhe separa- j'ey feel any involvement by evel of government in any •on is a violation of the Se - At the other end are the preferentialists, who hold as tang as government does support one religion over an- p d can provide broad, gen- Su Pport. y the way, these definitions a , case histories were culled ittfl'Bn Tilth Edition of Consti- ItoiAtar lnter Pretation by Craig ^ a and Harold Chase. It is a j Page tome that weighs more someone's skull and is an jesting reading experience ... L u can stay awake. [ 0s t Americans, when asked, ; w fo °ne of these two n S A ^ 0weve r, if asked, these Americans cannot ade quately tell why they feel as they do. The division between separa- tionists and nonpreferentialists exists because of the wording of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Consti tution. It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an estab lishment of religion." To the separationist, that means, in plain English, "Con gress cannot and will not make a law that affects religion." To the nonpreferentialist, it means, "Congress cannot and will not make a law that in any way helps a religion at the expense of the others." The more observant readers will have noticed the little prob lem with the duality of the word "establishment." Now, the average American knows why his or her position exists as such, but he or she still does not understand why he or she holds his or her position. Enter the Supreme Court, nine people paid to interpret the Con stitution for America. The Court has, since the since the 30's, been not only liberal, but also separa tionist. Only with the Reagan nominees has the Court begun re versing itself. So, like just about every other opinion Americans follow, the entire issue of separation of church and state boils down to the little donkey or the little ele phant. The origins of the image of the arrogant, idiotic American are starting to become more ap parent. However, the Supreme Court has handed down more than a few rulings in the last few decades which have shed a little light on the issue while simulta neously muddying the water. The Supreme Court excels at that. In Lemon vs .Kurtzman (1971), Chief Justice Burgher stated, "Some relationship between gov ernment and religious organiza tions is inevitable. ... Fire inspec tions, building and zoning regulations and state require ments under compulsory school- attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible con tacts. ... Judicial caveats [warn ings] ... must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a 'wall/ is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all circumstances of a particu lar relationship." In Engel vs. Vitale (1962), Jus tice Douglas said, "The First Amendment leaves the govern ment in a position not of hostility to religion but of neutrality." These two statements would lead the reader to believe the role of the government is to simply interact with religion only when it absolutely has to, to benefit in dividuals and society. In this case, the reader would be correct. In Lemon vs .Kurtzman, the Court originated a three pronged test. If a law (1) has a secular purpose, (2) has a prima ry effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion and (3) does not unnecessarily entangle gov ernment with religion, it is OK constitutionally. Otherwise, it gets struck down. This test takes the issue out side the realm of just the govern ment and the church and instead reviews it in the light of how sep aration of church and state affects society. This review can be difficult, but it takes the issue outside of the knee-jerk universes of the separationists and nonpreferen tialists. Where the reader wishes to draw the line of entanglement, primary effects, and the other points of the issue is the reader's own business. However, by examining the is sues, not with the rose-colored magnifying glasses provided by the Democrats and Republicans, but with his or her own two eyes, the reader can come to a conclu sion that is uniquely his or her own, end equally, if not more, valid than the party lines. In is not coincidence that this thinking requires humility and intelligence, not arrogance and idiocy. Americans have, for 40 years, shared a common dream of elimi nating stereotypes by empower ing those who are degraded by them. It is time to begin thinking and eliminate this one. Chris Huffines is a junior speech communications major. W hat leads individuals to desperation? Finding a mate. Essentially, they are in search for an ideal part nership. When this search becomes particularly challeng ing, men and women often times resort to desperate tac tics to inspire or enhance their search. Both genders equally contain the ability to become desperate for partnership and sex. However, when a man is desperate, it is per ceived differently than when a woman is desperate. It is more acceptable for a man to be desperate. It almost takes on a different connotation. Unfortu nately, based on social conscious ness, sometimes it is believed women win the most desperate award. Alison Lackey columnist This is an absurd generalization that is not representa tive of all women. It is a handful of desperate women who discolor the rest. Not all women are so bothered by rejection or their need of companionship that they become hopeless. Yet, every hour of every day, someone is soliciting through a want ad, paying for sex or going to other ex tremes to find a significant other. These tactics are degrading and pathetic for both men and women. Popular tactics include his and her want ads, similar to, "six foot blonde aerobics instructor looking for a HOT HOT HOT polo jock in his 50s." These want ads are highly desperate but extremely selective. The searcher should be disillusioned to how incredibly sexy this appears to a potential searchee. Modern-day mail order brides, a tactic controlled via Internet or magazine sometimes appeal to the loveless who see the romantic value in rescuing a timid crea ture from the depths of despair. And there also is the age-old profession of prostitution often ventured when desperation persists. This summer an event occurred that gave new mean ing to hopelessness in finding a companion for both sexes. This event illustrated just what lengths people would go to for bachelor parties and bouquets. David Weinlick, a Minneapolis, Minn, resident set June 13,1998, as his wedding date. However, he did not have an intended bride at the time. As the date approached, Weinlick asked his friends to find a wife for him. His pals devised a national search to interview women to become Mrs. David Weinlick. These women were to go through screening processes to marry a man they had never met. Applications were printed and Web sites were de signed to find the "lucky" girl. There were thousands of inquiries. These women completed their applications to parade through a pageant of sorts judged by a panel of 50 family members and friends. This event caught local media attention, blossomed into national attention and ultimately the selling of rights for a movie. Weinlick also was a guest on several talk and news shows, such as "The Today Show" and "CBS Morn ing News." After careful consideration, the bride was chosen and Elizabeth and David Weinlick were married in front of 3,000 spectators and guests at the Chapel of Love at the Mall of America in Minnesota. The Chapel of Love is conveniently located in a shop ping center of gargantuan proportions (it is one of the largest in the world). What about a man could make a woman this desper ate? What about women could make a man this desper ate? The applicants' desire for married life landed them in an exploitative contest. Weinlick's desire for married life pushed him to senseless solicitation. The appli cants subjected themselves to judgement by a point system. Weinlick and women voluntarily entered themselves into a sorry display of desperation, at the mall, nonetheless. Perhaps there are a variety of reasons for this type of desperate behavior. For example, according to a June 13 article printed in a Forbes poll in Time Magazine, 95 percent of British men It is more acceptable for a man to be desperate. It almost takes on a different connotation. Unfortunately, based on social consciousness, sometimes it is believed women win the award for being most desperate. ages 20 to 34 said they'd rather watch World Cup soccer on TV than have sex with the woman of their dreams. This silly overture of, "I am jock hear me roar," possi bly frightens women and encourages them to desperately entice their partners to a match of roaring in the bedroom. At this point both men and women are terribly foolish for this. Regardless, in this day and age, individuals should wrestle with their need for companionship. Succumbing to desperate measures only means los ing your dignity. It is widely known that it is tough searching for people to meet and finding places to meet them. However, don't disrespect or degrade yourself by resorting to these options to find a mate. Alison Lackey is a senior English major. Media’s lack of ethics erodes integrity, professionalism Meredith Hight columnist E very time a newspaper is opened, a magazine is read, or a newscast is shown, the public places its trust in the me dia's hands. This trust seems to be increasingly eroding, though, fu eled by the discovery of numerous cases of un ethical prac tices within major media organiza tions. The most alarming of these is the story reported by both CNN and Time that claimed that U.S. commandos used a highly potent nerve gas to kill American defec tors on a mission to Laos during the Vietnam War. The story was retracted after CNN hired media attorney Floyd Abrams to investigate its report that came under attack by the Pentagon and Vietnam veterans. CNN admitted "serious faults" in their coverage and said their "system of journalistic balances broke down." CNN and Time had collabo rated on the story for the recently launched TV newsmagazine bringing the two forces together, entitled "Newsstand." The nerve gas story was heavily hyped by CNN, partly because CNN/USA President Richard Kaplan was pushing "Newsstand" as a way to improve poor ratings for the station that is facing increased competition from other 24-hour cable news outlets. That drive to merely boost rat ings amid fierce competition may begin to explain why a story that was researched for eight months could culminate in the firing of the senior producer, April Oliver, another producer and the repri manding of the reporter cover ing the story, Pulitzer Prize win ner Peter Arnett. Although Arnett was the main reporter for the nerve gas story, part of his defense was that he contributed little to the story. He said Oliver and others did most of the background work for the story, noting that he was in Bagh dad during the time it was being researched. In fact, he did not write any of the Time magazine article on the mission, although it carried his byline along with Oliver's. His chief duty was to ask scripted questions on camera of people involved who already had been interviewed. Since when do journalists blindly walk into a story that oth ers have pieced together for them? That is a perfect example of why journalists are losing their credibility, and it is just one in a sequence of journalistic missteps that have been occurring lately. Boston Globe columnist Patri cia Smith, who was a Pulitzer Prize columnist, was fired after it was discovered that she fabricat ed some of her work. New Republic associate editor Stephen Glass was fired after he confessed that he fabricated part of a story. The Nezv Republic said 27 of his 41 columns in the past three years contained embell ished material. What has led to this degenera tion of journalistic integrity? Be sides the obvious problems that can come from leaving the back ground research to others (as Ar nett found), there are other faults that lie within the structure of the media itself. Journalists today are faced with a barrage of competition. The Internet and cable TV have created more media outlets, but the audience numbers have stayed the same. Also, business mergers have resulted in incestu ous relationships between maga zines and television shows. The "Newsstand" show on CNN for instance, works with the maga zines Fortune, Entertainment Weekly and Time. What sets the CNN story apart from the rest is that the nerve gas report could not necessarily be considered fabricated. According to Abrams, the journalists involved deeply be lieved the story. Oliver still de fends the report as being true, even after being fired. It does not appear to be a ma licious effort by the media to mis inform the public. Instead it seems as if journalists are trying in earnest to uncover injustice and scandal in order to score a journalistic coup and in the process are sacrificing their credi bility. Considering all this, why should the public trust the me dia? Because the media carries the responsibility of informing the public in the most fair way possible, it would be a disaster for society to not be able to rely on journalists. The CNN retraction should serve as a wake up call to the field of journalism. Meredith Hight is a junior journalism major.