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.