Broadcasters have been known to complain that they enjoy much less First Amendment freedom than the print media. Do they have a valid point? I argue that broadcasters do have fewer freedoms, with regard to the First Amendment, compared to print media. In order to come to any definite conclusion, however, I find it relevant to discuss two aspects of this scenario. First, we need to look at the nature of the two mediums: namely the written word, and broadcast space, or the electromagnetic spectrum. Second, it is important to look at the court’s decisions regarding the two different types of media, and their reasoning behind the rulings. I will address the nature of the two mediums first.
Nature of the Mediums
Ever since the beginning of the United States, freedom of the press has been deemed a very important and fundamental right. It was important enough to be included in the Constitution, such that the federal government shall establish no laws regarding the right to print media. Print has been used for many, many different reasons, on many different mediums (i.e., newspaper, books, magazines, pamphlets, to name a few). The mentality over the years is that there is a free marketplace of ideas, and there needs to be many different ideas out there for the system to work. One can argue that there are numerous places to get one’s work published, and, like in the case of Walt Whitman’s first published work “Song of Myself,” if needed one should be able to print their own ideas. What has been established in the minds of both the American public, as well as the American Judiciary, is that there is quite literally an infinite amount of space out there for printing media. It is then up to the public at large to choose what is popular and what is not. On the other hand, broadcast media was fairly limited in the number of outlets to get the word out.
Unlike print media, which hypothetically has an infinite number when it comes to outlets to get the message out, broadcast media is (at least before digital TV) limited to possible frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. Because of the limited amount of space, there are severe limits on what can be broadcast. For example, when radio was first broadcast, companies would frequently broadcast on the same wavelength. This created a slur of “black noise” where it was impossible to hear any singular message. This creates serious problems when it comes to broadcasting, and throwing out messages into the marketplace of ideas. If everyone had the chance to broadcast, and it turned into a melee, there would literally be no message to hear (with the possible exception being in parts of Alaska). Therefore, you can see that the very nature of these two mediums is quite different, and because of the many plausible problems that could exist in broadcasting, the government decided that it needed to step in.
Legal Status of the Two Mediums
When it comes to print media, the government has been very protective of it (at least since the Gitlow and NY Times v. Sullivan era). The courts have used preferred position balancing and Mickeljohnian approaches when dealing with the print. The trend has been to block any legislation, or other forms of prior restraint, that block more speech than is necessary, the exceptions being obscenity, national security, and incitement to violence. The courts have also ruled that in order for a prior restraint to happen it must be narrowly tailored (not overbroad); there must be a substantial government interest; it must limit an administrator’s discretion; all content must be treated neutrally; a complete ban on expression cannot be issued. On top of these governmental restrictions, there nave also been freedoms granted to the publishers of the print. In the Tornillo case, the Supreme Court ruled that a newspaper is private property, and that all discretion is in the hands of the editor. Newspapers cannot be forced by the government to print counter-arguments. This perhaps draws on the largest distinction between print and broadcast media.
The courts have ruled that the electromagnetic spectrum is a public resource. This is the complete opposite of print media (it is private). Just like with other public resources, the government deemed it necessary to regulate its use (based on social responsibility traditions). So Congress created the FCC. Interestingly enough, the courts have used ad-hoc balancing when it comes to rules set by the FCC regarding broadcast media. This method of judgment has allowed for lots of regulations to come into play. Things like the safe harbor rule, which prohibits any obscene material from being broadcast at all, and indecent material from being broadcast from 6 am to 10 pm. The courts have also shown a preference to children as well.
In the Pacifica case, the Supreme Court ruled that broadcasting is different from print: it has a “uniquely pervasive presence,” and is easily accessible to children. This had implications with indecency in particular, but also with ad placements. In 1990, the FCC made certain requirements regarding children’s education, as well as with when certain types of ads could be placed in front of children, and for what amount of time.
It is difficult to deny that the two types of communication discussed in this essay have received different treatment from the government. This is mainly due to the difference in how government views the two mediums: public and private. Because broadcast media is viewed as a public resource, the government has been able to place more restrictions on the types of things broadcast, all under the umbrella of “regulation.” The question that arises then is this: “Are these regulations warranted?” With new technologies, such as DVR, as well as digital television (a much more efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum), is there any reason for government to continue its course of regulation of broadcast media?
Filed under: Political | Leave a Comment
Tags: Congress, Electromagnetic Spectrum, FCC, FCC v. Pacifica, Federal Communcations Commission, First Amendment, Free Press, Free Speech, Gitlow, Mass Media Law, NY Times v. Sullivan, Obscene, Print vs Broadcast, Prior Restraint, Safe Harbor, Scarce Resource, Tornillo
So, the other day I was thinking and I caught myself singing the Paula Cole song “Where Have all the Cowboys gone?” and I found myself wondering, “where have all the cowboys gone?
Filed under: Question of the Week | 1 Comment
Tags: Cowboys, humor, Paula Cole, Question of the Week
So, why is it that whenever I go through the drive thru at my local bank to use the ATM there is braille on the key pad? Seriously, I might be missing something here, but there is something going on.
Filed under: Question of the Week | 1 Comment
Tags: ATM, funny, humor, Question of the Week
Think of every single conversation you have ever had. Now, think of how many times food has been used in language, or even been a subject in the conversation. Why is food used in every conversation?
Filed under: Question of the Week | Leave a Comment
Tags: Communication, Conversation, Food, question of the w, Question of the Week, why
On November 21, 2001, Laura Bush, the First Lady, spoke on national radio. She spoke mainly on the women of Afghanistan and the “brutalities” facing them, but the implications of the segment reached much farther that just the Afghan women. I chose this particular piece partly due to the fact that it was in the reading, but mainly because I found the address very interesting and very enlightening.
The main questions raised here, so eloquently, by Laura Bush deal specifically with terrorist activity in, namely, Afghanistan, and its effects on the women and children living there; the implications, however, extend, in my opinion, to a large portion of the Islamic world (including SW Asia, and Northern Africa). The radio segment was directed to an American public who had recently experienced the tragedy of 9/11. Throughout the country there was a great deal of emotion tied to the words terrorist, and Middle East, among other things. The people were outraged, with reason, and the thought of revenge, or payback, was something that was much easier to palate immediately following the terrorist attack then during long outbreaks of peace. Therefore, specific words were used, at that time, to get the public to react in a certain way. This is the case with the radio presentation by the First Lady.
Mrs. Bush used colorful language to describe, through a very Western lens, a view of life under the Taliban Regime. Phrases like “children aren’t allowed to fly kites[1],” and, “only the terrorists and the Taliban threaten to pull out women’s fingernails for wearing nail polish[2]” are mentioned throughout the segment. She also used general sound bites like “Muslims all over the world[3]” and “because in Afghanistan we see the world the terrorists would like to impose on the rest of us[4]” to not only paint a scenario of lot of the world wanting things to be better in Afghanistan, but also to justify (not that it is a bad thing) taking military action in the country.
I have no doubt that Mrs. Bush was really concerned about the conditions facing the women and children over there. The entire radio segment seemed to be a serious cry-out for the support of women in Afghanistan. When I actually heard this for the first time I was outraged. I really wanted to do something to help the women and children over there. I felt anger and sympathy at the Taliban, which was all escalated from what I was feeling after 9/11. What can I say, I am a right-wing republican with very conservative views, and I grew up that way. However, looking back, I find that I was very narrow-minded (I still am, but not quite as much), and didn’t take into account other cultures. To me, freedom used to mean America. While that statement, in certain points of view is correct, the term freedom is entirely dependent on what someone is free from.
I feel like I can sum up the First Lady’s address in one word: typical. This is just a typical statement from an American who, though shows plenty of concern for people in another place, has no idea what the people from that other place see as normal, no idea what culture and ethnicity mean to another people. Don’t get me wrong, there are things that are heinous going on in lots of countries in that area of the world. There is no “good” reason for any types of brutality towards women, children, and men but, more then just trying to stop what is going on, trying to understand why things are the way they are should take a much higher precedence.
Filed under: Middle Eastern Topics, Political | Leave a Comment
Tags: Afghanistan, Ethics, Human Rights, Islam, Laura Bush, Middle East, Muslim, War on Terror
I have always love the excuse, when attempting to conceal laziness on the part of the student, that student resorts to lying, and actually says to the teacher when posed the question “Where is your homework?”…my dog ate it.” Well, what happens to the kid who’s dog actually ate his homework?
Filed under: Question of the Week | 2 Comments
Tags: dog, funny, humor, my dog ate it, Question of the Week, silly excuses
Prisoner Abuse at Abu Ghraib
This post was actually my final exam in my Political Science class last quarter at the University of Washington.
In the case of Abu Ghraib, the existence of asymmetric information led to not only unthinkable treatment of prisoners, but, even more surprising, encouragement of these actions by principles and a breakdown of oversight. There was a breakdown in communication that ranged from the soldiers committing the abuses to the very top, in Donald Rumsfield. Because this lack of information flow, lots of mixed signals were appearing. The night crew was under the impression that they were doing a good job, and their officers didn’t want to know how they were doing it. This is clearly a case of a self-inflicted information breakdown that had huge consequences.
Though adverse selection played a role in the abuses that took place, I think that moral hazard, coupled with the culture of the agency, was the biggest issue in this case. First, in addressing the culture, this is a war that is being discussed. The culture here, though difficult to define in any situation, was one that was driven by results. If good results were achieved then the methods were looked at with much less weight and scrutiny. This was a perfect breeding ground for the types of abuses that occurred in the prison to come to life. This type of culture led to a lack of direct evaluation, virtually no direct observation, and a definite shirking of duty and responsibility on the part of the night crew. However, this severe case of moral hazard extended up through the ranks of the military. The supervisors of the night crew shirked the responsibility of overseeing how they (the night crew) were performing the interrogations. Though rumors about purported abuses had been circulated a little bit, no one did anything to investigate, and, in the first actual investigation, these things were not even mentioned.
As far as adverse selection is concerned, it would have been extremely difficult to screen for these circumstances. However, the breakdown could have occurred here because of, once again, the culture of the agency. The agents were chosen, I am guessing, because they fit best into this type of results driven culture. There were certain things that took precedent, such as ability and a desire to complete objectives, over other things, like whistle-blowing or moral-driven attributes. Though I think that given much less stressful circumstances the night crew wouldn’t have done the things they did, it was impossible for the principles to know how their agents were going to act in the circumstances that arose. There were no other cases of these abuses in any of the other prisons.
The biggest problem in this case is that of the agency’s culture. Steps should be taken to change the culture from one driven by results (by that I mean achieving the results no matter the cost is more important than backing off when moral lines are clearly going to be crossed) to something much less severe. However, as discussed ad nauseum during the quarter, changing the culture is no easy task. First of all, the culture needs to be clearly defined. This is a very difficult thing to do, in this case, for a few reasons. The culture was, though was roughly the same throughout all the armed forces in Iraq, different between different areas. The culture at Abu Ghraib seemed to be different from the cultures of other prisons. Also, the cultures differed between Marines and Navy, Army and Air Force. So, nailing down a specific culture would be extremely difficult.
In changing a culture, reorganization is often considered. In the case of Abu Ghraib, as well as in other cases of agency failure, finding where the agency needs to be reorganized is very difficult. One of the main difficulties is found in bureaucratic accountability. In this type of situation, who is responsible? Is it merely the fault of the night crew themselves, or were they merely the product of decisions made by their supervisors? If not the supervisors of the night crew then would it be the person in charge of the prison, or maybe the man in charge of operations on Iraq? Maybe the person to blame is the Secretary of State. The big problem of accountability is found in the habit of agencies of passing the buck. Everyone seems to like pointing fingers at others, passing off accountability, when things go wrong (it is funny, however, that when the opposite happens, people try to take credit for successes, accountability in these cases is also difficult to define).
Therefore, reorganization proves equally difficult to do. This requires finding who is to blame, and then possibly replacing them. If reorganization happens, then adverse selection will definitely take place. Measures need to be taken to put a check on it, because if there aren’t checks, then similar things are likely to occur. One of the ways that could be considered, that would hopefully reduce moral hazard, would be to have inspections and direct observances of the prison interrogations. There should also be strict punishments, not only fixed to deviance, but enforced as well. I have found with my 2 year old that fixing punishments to deviance have little to know effect in deterrence unless enforcement occurs one hundred percent of the time.
I do not think that drastically changing the culture is necessary in this case. Action should be taken against those who perpetrated the abuses, as well as those who directly shirked the responsibility of oversight, and to top it off, those who, in the higher-up, who lied about the abuses occurring. The next thing that should happen is simply what I discussed in the paragraph above. Attention needs to be paid to detail, and deviance needs to be punished, no exceptions. Other incentive structures could be added, but those can be discussed at a different time.
Filed under: Political | Leave a Comment
Tags: Abu Ghraib, Abuse, Geneva Convention, Iraq, Iraq war, Political Issue, Prisoner Abuse, War in Iraq
Evolution of an individual is inevitable. However, the speed that this evolution takes place is completely dependent on the individuals who make up the race. Ralph Waldo Emerson, an advocate for evolutionary thinking, makes this point clear in his Divinity School Address. He makes his point by stating that there are laws that continually expanding the laws of the universe. This expansion happens, in every instance, on an individual level. In order for it to happen, individuals must accept these laws though they don’t know exactly what they are. When individuals accept these laws they do so on a fist hand basis. That is, they take nothing as it is; on the contrary, the individual takes all information as a provocation, and deliberates upon the subject until it is either accepted or rejected by the individual. As this happens on a personal level, individuals pave their own paths instead of following the miracles of other. The speed at which this expansion occurs is entirely dependent on the society as a whole. When the voice of the majority is under the impression that only one or two people can expand upon the spheres of the universe, then the progression is extremely slow. It is therefore quite advantageous if lots of individuals seek to deliberate upon things that strike them as interesting. Emerson raps up his argument stating that the time has come for a new revolution, so to speak. His final point is that the Church must no longer rely on the miracles of the past. They must go alone, and make miracles happen on an individual level. This all starts with a basic understanding of how the previously mentioned laws work.
There are laws, Emerson argues, that “traverse the universe and make things what they are (pp 73); by [these laws] is the universe made safe and habitable (pp 75),” and that “these laws execute themselves…are out of time, out of space, and not subject to circumstance… [These laws] worketh everywhere, righting wrongs, correcting appearances, and bringing up facts to a harmony with thoughts (pp 74).” I would say that Emerson’s point here is that these laws, though no one knows exactly what they are, or how they work, are at the bottom of every thing that comes about. Each individual is in their own battle to find out what works for them. When any man opens themselves up to this sentiment, that man sees himself as he really is. At the same time, however, that man continually looks up to see where he can go. This is not a dwelling on the past, but rather it is up to the individual to achieve something new and better. Next, Emerson said that it is not by “science and power (pp 75)” do things happen, but by these laws. In these laws lies the key to innovation and development of anything. It is simply up to the individual to accept them (the laws), and let them guide him in his own path in life. The way to accept these laws is to develop what Emerson called the “sentiment of virtue (pp 73).”
If one were to have this sentiment of virtue, then that person would need to have a “reverence and delight in the presence of [these] divine laws (pp 73).” One does not need to know these laws, in fact Emerson said that “these laws refuse to be adequately stated; they will not be written out on paper, or spoken by the tongue (pp 73),” but rather accept that they exist. This is the enabler that allows any man to “right wrongs, [and] correct appearances.” Things that are old or outdated, or just plain dirty, ugly, or dusty, are made better then they were. Developing this sentiment, I think, is the basis on which Emerson’s argument rests. There is one condition, however, that everyone faces in finding this sentiment: “It cannot be received at second hand (pp 77).”
Emerson says that everything must be done first hand, not second hand. . Every single man has to find their own way. It is all really trial and error. Whenever anyone learns something new it is up to them to internalize it. They need to find out if they like it or not. Simply accepting something as truth because someone of high standing, or any one at all for that matter, said so is not good enough. Whether or not anything is truth is up to the individual to find out for themselves. Nothing can be treated lightly, but everything new that one hears or reads should “provoke” the individual to see if it rings true to them, and if not, then one is free to reject it outright, or continue in thought upon the subject and see if there is some way that it can be made better, or fixed. The person who truly understands the sentiment of virtue will never see anything other than a provocation. If they see things as instruction, that man misses the point completely. When a man sees all things as a provocation they can then “correct the capital mistake of the infant man, who seeks to be great by following the great, and hopes to derive advantages from another—by showing that every man is an inlet into the deeps of reason (pp 76).” I personally think it good that Emerson pointed out that the laws make the universe inhabitable and safe, not science and power.
Emerson is not saying that science and power do not help in making the universe safe and habitable, but rather because of certain men, having acquired the sentiment of virtue, did this science and power come into existence as a means to make the universe a better place. The forthcoming of these two things is proof that man made better the things that existed in the past. You can’t seek to be great by following the great and expect anything to happen differently, if this was the case, then the scientific discoveries that exist today would not exist at all. After Emerson drives home the fact that this sentiment is a product of provocation and not instruction, he then proceeds to point out the failures of the Church to follow this pattern.
The problem with the Church (I think this is pointed at societies in general too) is that the preachers and the leaders are seen as “spiritual” to a level that none of the congregations can achieve. “The divine nature (sentiment of virtue) is attributed to one or two persons, and denied to all the rest (pp 77).” The worst thing that could happen is for this attribute to only be given to the elite (one or two persons). This would lead to, and according to Emerson did in fact lead to, little or no progression in any way, shape, or form. The next fallacy that enters in is when the majority of the people come to believe this fact (that the sentiment of virtue exists only with one or two people). When this happens individualism is wiped out. “Grand things might have happened in the past, but they could never happen today,” is the majority’s thought. If or when this happens, it is up to someone to make a change. Emerson says that it is the role of teachers to make this happen, and how it is that they must do this.
He states: “the soul knows no persons; it invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe, and will have no preferences but those of spontaneous love; the divine bards are friends of my virtue, of my intellect, of my strength (they provide provocation); it is a low benefit to give me something; it is a high benefit to enable me to do somewhat of myself (pp 79).” It is not the role of teachers and writers to present their reason as fact; on the contrary, they are to provide provocation to the mind and heart of the reader or listener. Christ said himself, “if you give a man a fish you feed him for a meal, but if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.” Man can’t accept anything as absolute; he must deliberate and build upon what it is that he took in. Everyone should try to expand the full circle of the universe. In stating this, the universe (as well as the mind and heart of man) is really infinite. It is always expanding and always growing, never looking in to what has already been accomplished, but looking out to where it has not yet reached. In order for the preacher to do this, Emerson pointed out how.
“The true preacher can be known by this that he deals out to the people of his life,—life passed through the fire of thought (pp 83).” If anyone is going to teach something, they need to show, in their words, that they have done it. It is imperative for the listener to know that the speaker has deliberated, has thought through history and other works, and come to their own conclusion to what they mean, and then they need to build on it in their presentation. “The good hearer is sure he has been touched sometimes; sure that there is somewhat to be reached, and some word that can reach it (pp 83).” It is then up to the listener to deliberate what they hear, and then decide if it works for them, and then they need to build upon it. Emerson points out the example of the Puritans to prove this point.
The Puritans left the Catholic Church in search for civil freedom. They got up and got out in order to make something better. The Puritans were seeing no progression in the Catholic Church. They saw, it seems, stagnation in the direction the Catholics were going. However, Emerson relates that the Puritan creed is diminishing, and someone needs to rise up to take its place.
“Now their creed is passing away, and none arises in its room (pp 86).” Here Emerson brings the whole thing together and tells everyone listening what they were thinking. Basically that no one has stepped up to the plate, and that Christianity is failing. Luckily, Emerson states the final solution. “Go alone; refuse the good models, even those which are sacred in the imagination of men; imitation cannot go above its model; the imitator dooms himself to hopeless mediocrity; he bereaves himself of his own beauty, to come short of another man’s (pp 87).” In short, there will be nothing found that will revitalize the Christian faith if one looks at what has already been done.
That is the failure of the Church in the first place. Everything is based on the miracles of the past. The miracles and tropes have become a monster in that they have stopped anyone from progressing. Something radical needs to happen to both the teachers and the learners. In order for the sphere of the universe to expand, the teachers must create new miracles. The people cannot rely on the past because what happened in the past was good enough for them, but not near good enough for today.
Filed under: Philosophy | Leave a Comment
Tags: 19th Century Literature, Divinty School, Emerson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Transcendentalism
Deparment of Early Learning
The Department of Early Learning (DEL) was created in 2006[1] as a means to combine all of the pre-kindergarten agencies in the State. It is the first of its kind, and therefore is deemed to be setting an example for the rest of the country. Statewide the DEL employs 180 people with satellite offices ranging from Bremerton to Spokane Each office has basically the same structure consisting of front line employees and their supervisors; each region, consisting of 6-7 satellite offices is supervised by regional supervisors. This goes all the way up to the state level[2]., and the goal of these offices is to make sure that children who have yet to enter kindergarten are prepared for school.
The clients served are families with children under the age of six, whose income is 145 percent below the state’s poverty line[3]. There has been a recent push, by Governor Chris Gregoire to really help children at this age to jump start their learning. What I find most interesting about this particular bureaucracy is that there is really very little opposition to it. I have my own opinions, which I will address a little later, but in looking at the political map, you can’t really see a whole lot of opposition.
Defining the Political Environment
Starting with the principals, there is the state legislature and the Governor. I think that this was a stroke of genius on Governor Gregoire’s part. She hasn’t had the best run at governor and this particular program is a great one for credit claiming on her part. As for the state legislature, they have also taken this as a way of credit claiming, and as such, have been appropriating what this program needs. There have also been some private donors, such as the Gates family[4], that has given quite a bit of money.
The clients have already been discussed, but others that have a stake here are the communities where low income families live, as well as friends and families of those who receive support from DEL. However, the rivals were not as easily defined. They are mainly, as far as I can see, private pre-schools. DEL is in direct competition with them with their public preschools as well as contacts with preschool teachers.
The burdened were a little easier to define. They include care professionals, as well as child care providers. DEL is also stressing proper health and nutrition among these young children, and naturally, families that are this far below the poverty line will have issues in paying doctor bills. Also, DEL has made a lot of new rules and guidelines concerning licensing as well as taking care of the children; one such rule would be routine evaluations every 18 months. Low income families who are not below the line drawn are also included in this list. It is very difficult to include everyone because there is only so much in the state budget, so there could very well be some angry families here.
The biggest group here is the allies. From looking at the map, one can see that there are quite a few. I think that when it comes to small children, it is really hard to oppose any action taken in favor of their (children) welfare. The private donors are important to note, as well as the Tribal support. Though not under the jurisdiction of the state, per say, the Native Americans have opted into this program by creating guidelines themselves. Most of the other allies are other government based agencies, both on a state and national level that have similar goals and interests.
I think that a case can be clearly made that DEL is definitely based in the client politics realm. The beneficiaries are clear, the children and their parents. The costs and opponents are clearly diffuse, seeing that I really couldn’t find any opponents, and the taxpayers are responsible for the costs.
Challenges Facing the Agency
First and foremost the burdened groups need to be addressed. It is up to DEL to turn the health care providers as well, as well as the child care providers, into allies. There could definitely be opposition here because of the many rules and regulations set in place by DEL, so instead of stressing the rule (though enforcing them is a must), the health and welfare of the “Country’s or State’s future” is very important. If DEL can get all these people on their side, then the rules and regulations will seem a “necessary evil” when compared to the importance of raising these children, and helping to prepare them to succeed later on in life.
Addressing the private preschools is another (much smaller scale) issue. Most private schools have no problems here because low income families can’t usually afford to send their kids to them. However, I think it would be good for the agency to try and make efforts to create allies out of these preschools as well.
The last challenge that needs to be met is the results. This one is very difficult to judge, seeing that the agencies goal is to foster brain development in small children to prepare them for success in life. However, there has been a lot of scientific evidence to help this cause along, and I think that if DEL stays on top of things by promoting the “latest” in scientific research, the agency will stand a good chance of staying around for a while.
Conclusion
DEL has found a very distinct niche. Let’s face it, when it comes to getting the best for our children, we want to go forward with it. Therefore, in order for DEL to stay afloat a key thing for them to do is to really get in with the communities and to put on a face that shows “we have your children’s best interest at heart!” This not only needs to be stressed on a community level, but in the private sector as well. The children need to be stressed, and if the burdened and the rivals can see DEL eye to eye on this one issue, I think that there will be a huge joint effort to make things work.
[2] www.dop.wa.gov (department of personnel)
Filed under: Political | Leave a Comment
Tags: Bureaucracy, DEL, Department of Early Learning, Early Development, Gregoire
Recent Entries
- Who’s got it worse? Broadcasting or print?
- Question of the Week—Where have all the Cowboys gone?
- Question of the week—Drive-by ATMs???
- Question of the Week- Why Food???
- Laura Bush and the “Women of Cover”
- Question of the week-my dog ate it!!!
- Prisoner Abuse at Abu Ghraib
- ESPN Mens Basketball Team
- Emerson–Transcendentalism (Divinity School Address)
- Deparment of Early Learning
- What’s up with DPS?
Categories
- Middle Eastern Topics (1)
- Philosophy (1)
- Political (7)
- Question of the Week (4)
- Uncategorized (1)
