Devan Hamric

Contributor

If we all got dirt on our faces, I could almost believe that we’d all just leave it there, add to it, talk about how we like to wear it, and deal with the problems of having it on our faces.

Never would the thought cross our minds that we could just wash it off or be embarrassed that we’re walking around looking like a filthy mess. Instead we’d act like it was something “cool.” We’d act like we were proud of it.

Society does this all the time. Maybe it’s an attempt to be “accepting.” Whatever the cause, we’ve lost our common sense and tastefulness. While some may think that they are only flaunting their sex life (and that it is harmless), I find our societal lack of couth disturbing.

We all make mistakes (fall in “the mud”) and there is, of course, no sense in beating ourselves up about what we can’t change. But we can have a little dignity, if not propriety. We don’t have to make a public spectacle of things no one should be proud of.

We live in a much different age. No one is going to stone a girl for losing her virginity and guys don’t have to buy the whole cow before they get the milk. People can have very different opinions about sex and what is considered “okay”.

But acting like a “one-night-stand” is something that everyone does and talking about it like its funny and cool? Do you really think that makes you look good?

People laugh about it as if it’s no big deal and even view it as some sort of ribbon that says to the world “I’m so hot.” Really all it’s saying is “I’m easy and don’t value myself.” And if you don’t value yourself, then why should anyone else?

It also tells prospective interests, “this person is loose, I could probably get with them but then again so could just about anyone.” How will anyone ever know that they are any more important to you then the past fifty partners? How will you prove it? Talk is cheap and your reputation won’t exactly scream “integrity.”

Deborah Vance, Ph. D.
Chair, Communication Department

I applaud the Free Press for highlighting a Communication Department course on interpersonal interviewing and documentary filmmaking (”Professors on Film,” Free Press, Vol 11, Issue 3, p. 4) that combines the expertise of Robert Lemieux in interpersonal theory and of Jonathan Slade in media theory. Although I appreciate the attention drawn to a departmental offering, I must comment on a bias the article displays.

In the eyes of this department as well as the administration, Slade and Lemieux are co-instructors who equally share teaching responsibilities in the course. However, reporter Casey Crough privileges the verbal (Lemieux “teaches” and “leads” in “his” class) over the visual (Slade “assists”, “collaborates”, and “offers advice”), a common prejudice among the public, especially those who are weak in their media literacy skills. In television and film, the image almost always trumps the word: how shots are framed, lit, and edited greatly influences how a viewer perceives the spoken word.

I encourage Free Press journalists to continue to improve your media literacy skills as you enter a world where news is increasingly moving off paper and onto video, film and the internet.

Max Robinson

Katelynn McGinley’s editorial in the last issue of the Free Press bothered me for a few reasons, and none of them political. My one major criticism of the Free Press is that many of its editorials can be unpolished or overly simplistic; “The Bailout: America’s April Fools Joke” is really a perfect example.

McGinley’s editorial needed serious revision before publication and as a section editor for the Free Press, she really ought to know better. Ultimately, the editorial has two major flaws.

First, McGinley, in writing an editorial about A.I.G. and the controversy surrounding their retention bonuses, reduces a fairly complex situation into “Your tax dollars are being used to reward executives of this company for sucking?” Obviously editorials aren’t supposed to be impartial, but the editorial barely defines the thing it’s angry about before it goes straight into a full-on rant.

There is no attempt to explain specifically how A.I.G. executives “sucked” or even why she thinks they’re being rewarded.

Then the editorial takes its first complete out-of-left-field turn and McGinley goes on about “Domino’s Bailout Pizza deals,” adding, “Nothing sells pizza like an economy that’s in the toilet.”

It’s this line that brings us to the other real problem of McGinley’s editorial, which is that it goes off on tangents that have almost nothing to do with the topic at hand. What does a promotional campaign for pizza have to do, at all, with A.I.G. or the bailout plan on any kind of substantive level?

It has nothing to do with either of them, but there it sits, awkwardly, at the center of the editorial. The closest analogy I can think of is if President Obama decided to throw in a reference to hating Geico commercials in a speech about healthcare reform. It’s completely out of place and I can’t be the only person left scratching their head about this.

I went into the next paragraph optimistic; it starts off discussing how there are viable reasons for bailing out major corporations, but all that hope disappeared when I discovered that, instead of some actual insight into this, McGinley decided to devote the second half of her editorial to the porn industry’s plea to Congress for bailout money.

This leads into rant number two where she decided this had a remote possibility of even being considered by politicians, and explains how college kids, doctors and teachers need that money more. Miss McGinley is certainly welcome to her opinion, but once again I have no clue what this has to do with the real issues at hand.

Even if this isn’t a publicity stunt by the porn industry, which I have to believe it is, the actual specifics of the bailout plan itself, or even the topic of executive bonuses that she began the editorial with would’ve made for better topics to discuss in her editorial. McGinley ends her editorial with a stern “Get your priorities straight, America”. I would argue that her editorial needs to do the same.

Edward Ezekial

For most McDaniel students, November 4th was their first opportunity to exercise their 26th Amendment rights. This was certainly a reason to celebrate and get out and vote! Republican or Democrat, this election was a historical one, and one that any voter should have been excited to participate in. Keeping this in mind, there are several concerns about the voting process across the nation and right here at McDaniel.

One of the foundations of democracy is that its citizens have a fair opportunity to vote in elections. The 2000 Presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore has become notorious for the voting scandal that took place in Florida. Last election, especially in the battleground state of Ohio, there were also instances of confusion and possible misdeeds surrounding electronic voting. Many people felt betrayed by their government and that their votes weren’t actually being counted.

Have Americans regained their trust in the voting system or, at least, have McDaniel students and teachers? When reminded of the Florida election, freshmen Farley Howe strongly declares, “It violat(ed) the trust of the American people. If people don’t think their votes are going to be counted there’s less incentive for them to vote.” This schism between voter and government lingers for many citizens.

Freshmen Colleen McCarrick looked forward “to exercising [her] right to vote” on Tuesday. However, she is also shocked with some of the “dirty tricks” that have been popping up lately. When asked her opinion on voting disenfranchisement (the effort of a political party to eliminate registered voters from the other party?such as calling the home phones of residents with recently foreclosed homes, and then striking their names from the voting roster because no one was there to take the call) she responds, “I don’t think that’s fair at all. Once someone has registered [to vote] they have done their part.”

Howe shares McCarrick’s repulsion with disenfranchisement and when questioned, she angrily replies, “That’s horrible! Using tricks is wrong, everyone loses.” Many students share this mix of excitement and shock about the upcoming election.

Disenfranchisement isn’t the only “dirty trick” in the book and students certainly aren’t the only people at McDaniel with concerns. The relatively new electronic voting machines have proven faulty or unsecure on many occasions. Professor Thomas G. Deveny also reminds us that the standard voting machines, “Diebold machines, (are) owned by a strong backer and donator to the Republican Party, which could generate a conflict of interests for the man in-charge of tabulating many votes.” Dr. Deveny somewhat gloomily concedes that “we’re going to have to trust them in Maryland,” but that “I wouldn’t trust them at all in a [battleground] state like Ohio.”

In addition to disenfranchisement and faulty electronic systems, accessibility is also a major concern. Long lines plague early voting stations in nearby Baltimore. Dr. Deveny feels “It’s a disgrace that our country cannot provide a system that will allow us to vote in a half an hour,” and that it makes us look like “a Third World country.” Many people have to choose between voting, and working.
The election has already taken place by now, so there is a rare moment for reflection. Did it turn out to be another “I told you so” moment in history, pointing out blame in the voting process? Or was it a fairly clean and historical celebration that decided our 44th president? This journalist sincerely hopes it’s the latter, but if not, in four more years lets get it right!

By Stuart Clarke, Reader

There have been a number of watershed events in American history, which irrevocably altered the course of this nation forever. We have just seen one such event in the form of a scandal surrounding Barack Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The recent comments by Senator Hillary Clinton prove that this issue continues to reverberate.

By now, all are familiar with Wright’s comments; suffice to say, the airwaves, Internet and multimedia have been filled for over two weeks with his words and debates over whether they are racist. Such arguments have now been offered by individuals from both sides, yet few point out that the comments themselves have NEVER been (and should not be) the real issue, at least where Obama is concerned.

There are two points to be made. The first is the swift and inevitable impact the Reverend’s comments have had on Obama’s campaign. It was not Wright’s comments, but rather Obama’s response to them that says the most about his campaign. Secondly, despite the seemingly endless discussion on the issue, Wright seems to have slipped through the cracks of the chasm he created.

To explain this first point, it is important to note why the Reverend’s relationship with Obama is significant. The U.S. is the world’s most powerful country, and the leader of this country arguably holds the most important job on the planet. It is only fitting that this post be filled by someone who has been vetted thoroughly, battle-tested and proved him/herself ready to take on the challenges inherent to the task. Thus, when on March 18, we saw Obama’s response to Wright on national television, we caught a glimpse of his responses to adversity and how he would likely deal with crises as president.

No one could ever truthfully claim Obama to be a poor orator, and this address was no exception, though not nearly on par with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (as has been suggested). He skillfully condemned the remarks made by Wright while simultaneously explaining why he will not disown his former reverend.

However, unlike his other speeches, this one actually brought attention to a demonstrable and perhaps irreparable flaw in Obama’s candidacy. This was not because he failed to address the issues he set out to ameliorate, but because he did in such a way as to cast serious doubt on his ability to lead this country in an era of unprecedented obstacles. It was what he said, not how he said it.

The defense he provided, if condensed, is essentially that of the Golden Rule. Rather than condemn the man, he instead seeks to understand the misguided reasoning that gave rise to these comments, and thus solve the problems at their source. It is a way of life that is as praiseworthy and laudable as it is hopelessly na?ve for someone running for president.

The distinction to be made is between idealism and naivety. Idealism gave rise to Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, naivety to Jimmy Carter and the current administration.

While idealism is a combination of dreams and confidence tempered by experience, naivety lacks that final, critical element. It is that which Obama’s address brought to the fore. At what point does the need for reaction override the search for justification? When does his personal conviction trump expediency? And, most importantly, when does Obama’s loyalty to his country?the one his former pastor wished to the netherworld?become more important than his loyalty to his friends?

This, then, is the problem. For the most part, Wright’s comments were, at the risk of sounding flippant, somewhat hackneyed. Whether it be the HIV conspiracy or 9/11 comeuppance, Wright was by no means the first to perpetuate these “sermons,” and he will not be the last. Our Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, and Wright is not?and should not be ?denied that right, regardless of how ridiculous his assertions.

But the most pivotal and heinous point?that of “G*d d*mn America”?in the end calls into question Obama’s patriotism. This is not, of course, to insinuate that Obama shares Wright’s views, but the Senator’s mantra demonstrated that he puts loyalty to his pastor over loyalty to his country. A simple condemnation decries only complicity of motive, not improper prioritization.

Indeed, attempting to rationalize such comments shows a dangerous lack of political maturity on Obama’s part. At what point does he stop making excuses for others? If during an Obama presidency, Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were to issue another scathing rant against Israel or Kim Jong-Il were to threaten South Korea or Japan, would Obama condemn their comments then seek to find a rationalization for them? A more experienced leader would not have attempted to separate the man from his comments in an attempt to justify a personal conflict.

Furthermore, that the relationship between Obama and Wright has reportedly lasted some twenty years adds a more ominous dimension to the situation. Wright was more than a mere spiritual advisor; he married Obama and his wife and baptized their children. Thus, the odds are long that Obama never heard Wright make such comments, and Obama in his address did acknowledge hearing controversial political statements from Wright (though not the ones in question).

Nevertheless, if taken at face value, Obama’s statements suggest that 20 years of hearing controversial, political commentary with which he strongly disagreed, even combined with Wright’s latest offerings are not enough to disown the man. Certainly all would agree that loyalty is important, but just how far does Obama’s loyalty go before it becomes blind following? Would an explanation similar to Obama’s be sufficient to explain retaining, say, Alberto Gonzalez? Or perhaps Donald Rumsfeld?

This is entirely the kind of event needed during a presidential campaign to show how a candidate would react in actual practice?an occurrence sorely lacking in the last two presidential cycles. Ironically, this entire process has provided a litmus test of perhaps the only obstacle Obama faced?whether or not he is sufficiently experienced for the office.

Wright’s comments were just this kind of situation?a scenario that demanded immediate action. Yet, instead of unconditionally and unequivocally condemning both the comments and the man who made them, Obama tried to explain them, to rationalize them, and despite his protestations, to justify them. It is the sign of a decent man, a good man, but a na?ve man, and thus a man who is in the final analysis not yet presidential material.

The second point to be made is of greater importance, for it concerns the future of this country and not just a single election cycle. The comments of Wright have brought to the fore questions and issues that my generation was supposedly beyond. That is not to say that racism, sexism and anti-Semitism are dead; they are unfortunately issues that will likely always be present. However, statistics had shown this decade and the 18-25 generation in particular, to be the most tolerant and accepting in the nation’s history. Yet after watching people interact since the Wright story made national headlines, suddenly you would never know that.

The United States did not become the greatest country in the world by bowing in the face of evil, whatever that evil may be. Hate-mongers and bigots exist in all races, all religions, all creeds, all ethnicities and all political parties and want to see exactly what is occurring?strife they have caused. The truly sad part, the tragedy of the story, is that we as a people are letting it happen.

Rather than rising up as one people and telling Wright there is no place for his hate-filled speech in American culture, we are fracturing along the very lines we claimed to have sealed. And as long as we allow people like him to continue, the wounds they reopen will never really heal. Thus, if there is to be a racial divide as a result of this scandal, it will be our fault for allowing it to happen. We are better?we must be better?than what we have shown.