.jpg)
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson wanted to generate support from the isolationist camp to intervene in the war in Europe. According to various sources, including PBS, he formed the Committee on Public Information, also known as the “Creel Commission,” to spread anti-German sentiment.
(Also see Wikipedia’s entries on the Creel Commission and propaganda. Good stuff.)
Wilson hired a “muckraking” journalist named George Creel to push official and pro-war information, and history shows he was successful, although many supported the war on principle, as well. (See Cartooning for Victory and Four Minute Men: Volunteer Speeches During World War I — Are the sources biased? Probably, but as long as they present facts…)
Most of us think of war generally or Nazism specifically when we hear the word “propaganda.” Today we think of propaganda as misleading per se, but that wasn’t always the case. Back in the seventeenth century, the church in Rome formed the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, or the Roman Catholic Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, to oversee the spread of Catholicism. The term became pejorative most likely after the formation of the Creel Commission. (Note: A commenter writes: “The OED gives a source from 1842 which says “propaganda is used as a term of reproach in modern political language…for the spread of opinions and principles which are viewed by most governments with horror and aversion.”)
If you’re like me, you don’t mind a little propaganda with your coffee.
As a conservative who supports the war on terrorism wholeheartedly, for example, including the “battle” in Iraq, I tend to give more weight to pro-war messages than “peace” messages. If we want to rid the world of war, we have to rid the world of sin. We don’t have the power to do this, but we have the power to protect ourselves from attack.
That’s why I believe certain types of propaganda during wartime are permissible (I can already see the e-mail coming!). I listen to old radio shows, and I especially like the ones broadcast during WWII. I even like the commercials. Everyone and everything seemed patriotic. We’re wise enough to know this wasn’t the case. The point is that Germany and Japan heard and saw pro-American and anti-German and anti-Japanese propaganda, which was the point. If nothing else, America presented a united front to the enemy, which I think is an extremely important psychological tactic during wartime.
If you haven’t already figured it out, I’ll disclose my bias. I am not against propaganda, especially during a time of war. The extraordinary circumstances that our country’s young men and women face on foreign soil defending freedom requires, in my opinion, a strong, unequivocally united front. If the spreading of pro-war sentiment is necessary for swift victory and the protection of as many lives as possible, then I’m all for it.
Now we get to 2005. I said all of the above to somewhat lessen the impact of the current form of propaganda being perpetrated in government agencies. The Bush administration has violated the law at least three times.
The language found in appropriations bills since 1951 usually reads like this: “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.” Three of Bush’s agencies paid no attention to the prohibition:
— In May 2004, the General Accountability Office (GAO), a government agency that purports to “investigative agency that examines the use of public funds, evaluates federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective oversight, policy, and funding decisions,” found that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s (of the Department of Health and Human Services) had violated the prohibition against using public money for publicity or propaganda. (Decision)
The “covert propaganda” was in the form of unsourced video news releases (VNRs) sent to various media outlets by government agencies via public relations firms (like Ketchum). If these VNRs do not identify the source of the information to the viewing/reading audience, it’s known as “covert propaganda” because it is misleading. People believe they are watching a reporter presenting a news story, but the “reporter” is actually a government contractor and the “news story” is actually publicity for a government program.
A spokesman for DHHS tried to defend the agency’s actions. “It’s not covert. TV stations knew the videos came from us and could have identified the government as the source if they had wanted to.” (Source)
Leave it up to journalists to disclose the information? Why not just indicate the source in the videos themselves to avoid all the trouble? Unless you’re trying to mislead the public. The GAO dismissed the government’s argument:
The intended audience, it said, was not news directors, but viewers, and “the video news releases did not alert viewers that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was the source.”Moreover, it said, “some news organizations indicated that they misread the label or they mistook the story package as an independent journalist news story.” (Source)
— On January 4, the GAO found another violation under Bush’s watch. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) produced VNRs and failed to identify itself to the viewing audience as the producer of the videos. (Decision)
Agencies, I assume, usually defend themselves by asserting that the type of publicity and “outreach” in VNRs are authorized by the Congress, as did the ONDCP and, therefore, are not in violation of the law. The GAO said:
We agree with ONDCP that news media outreach is an authorized activity under the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, and we agree that section 1802(a)(1)(H) evinces congressional intent that ONDCP influence the attitudes of the public and the news media with respect to drug abuse. Section 1802(a)(1)(H), however, does not relieve ONDCP of the need to comply with the publicity or propaganda prohibitions.
What’s the rationale behind the prohibition on public funds used for propaganda? For starters, taxpayer funds shouldn’t be used to spread misleading information. As for journalists, they operate under the same criminal and civil laws that we do, as well as an unofficial code of ethics:
Journalism societies have noted in their codes of ethics that journalists should resist influence from outside sources, including advertisers and special interest groups. Because VNRs consist of information generated by a group with a distinct perspective on an issue, the unfettered use of VNRs may run afoul of these principles. Moreover, professional organizations warn against using materials that would deceive audiences. VNRs that disclose the source of information to the target audience alleviate these ethical concerns.
— Last and certainly not least, the Department of Education recently violated the prohibition against covert propaganda: the government failed to identify itself as the source of Armstrong Williams’s “advertisements.” Now, there’s been no GAO hearing on this, but I’m positive Democrats in Congress are drawing up the papers as I write.
What could have prevented the previous rulings and Williams’s embarrassment? Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure! I cannot stress this enough. The illegality of the whole Armstrong Williams fiasco turns on the failure to disclose. It would have been so simple, too simple, to identify the source of the videos referenced in the GAO cases.
And all Williams had to do was tell his audience that although he supports No Child Left Behind, the government was sponsoring the message. He would have been off the hook and the rest would’ve been Bush’s problem. But, alas, Williams is just a cog in the machine, the fall guy, and nothing more.
It’s not enough to believe that you’re doing nothing wrong or that what you are doing is nobody’s business. The appearance of impropriety is enough. Here are other laws that Williams broke, as pointed out by a commenter:
Section 317 of the [Federal] Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C….requires broadcasters to disclose that matter has been broadcast in exchange for money, service or other valuable consideration. The announcement must be made when the subject matter is broadcast…Section 507 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C….requires that when anyone pays someone to include program matter in a broadcast, the fact of payment must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast to the station over which the [matter] is to be carried. Both the person making the payment and the recipient are obligated to disclose the payment so that the station may make the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Act. Failure to disclose such payments is commonly referred to as “payola” and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice…
See Section 317 and Section 507.
The law found in appropriations bills and the federal code seems clear on its face, so why does the Bush administration continue to violate it? The president’s lawyers are in need of some remedial legal training. I hate to agree with liberals, but in this case, I must. While I don’t want to read about yet another Congressional hearing or investigation, one might be necessary.
I wonder how many other journalists (conservative AND liberal) are receiving payments from the government which are channeled through public relations firms for write-ups disguised as news or journalists’ opinions?
Update: FINALLY! Samuel “Sandy” Berger’s pilfering of top secret documents (down his PANTS) will be vetted before a federal grand jury. (Hat tip: Blogs for Bush)
Also, regarding video news releases (VNRs), reader Bryan P. writes:
When a reporter receives a VNR, it is up to that reporter to vet the information in it. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but it is their job to do that before they air it. If a reporter airs material from a source they neither know nor understand, they are not acting as a responsible journalist. As for disclosing the source in the video, you can’t really do that and expect it to air. If, for example, DHHS puts its logo on the footage, who’ll use it? They should disclose the source in accompanying paperwork, and that may have been done but the reporters never saw it. That paperwork tends to get lost in the shuffle at larger broadcast outlets. As for the VNRs themselves, sometimes the VNR makes it onto the air verbatim from the PR house, with only the station or network’s IDs attached. Most of the time the VNRs never see the light of day, or if they do only some small part gets aired. The tapes get turned into stock footage or get erased and used by the station that received them. If the station or net is in a generous mood, they’ll return the tape to the sender. This almost never happens, though.For years, VNRs have served both the agencies and the press. The
agencies get to tell their story to the press; the press gets a ready-made piece that will require just enough assembly on their end
to justify their existence. But I think in the DHHS/Drug VNRs,
someone in the press decided to “burn” this source. Either the VNRs
got outed by someone who’s new to the process and didn’t understand the role of VNRs in the press, or they did know but just wanted to embarass the Bush administration. Guess which theory I favor. The Washington press corps loathes Bush; anything they can do to embarass him, they’ll do. And the VNR story sure embarassed the administration, and helped close off one of its avenues for getting its stories to the public.
Update II:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was cautious in choosing his comments.“Questions have been raised about that arrangement, it ought to be looked into, and there are ways to look into matters of that nature,” [Scott] McClellan said…The Government Accountability Office is already investigating whether the department illegally promoted the No Child Left Behind law with a video that looks like a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid by the government. The GAO is also reviewing why the department paid for rankings of how reporters are covering the law. (Source)
If McClellan is lying (because it will be found out if he is), can you imagine the fall-out? The Democrats will have their long-awaited scandal.
(Hat tip: Cincinnati Black Blog)
Update III (1/12): Those Power Line guys are alright.
Also see Casey Lartigue’s Open Letter to Armstrong Williams.
Update IV (1/13): From Little Green Footballs:
“Well, here’s a shocka.
Markos “Screw Them” Zuniga, the proprietor of moonbat lefty site Daily Kos, was paid — apparently well paid — by the Howard Dean campaign…”
I hope liberals will have some substantive to say about this. What do I say? Since we bloggers fancy ourselves citizen journalists, shouldn’t some journalistic standards apply? Of course. Daily Kos should have disclosed. It reeks.
Update V (1/14): As it turns out, Daily Kos disclosed. It reeks less.
LASHAWN IS ON
Keying off the Armstrong Williams/Dept. of Ed. mess, LaShawn Barber examines good propaganda, bad propaganda, and the law. Read her. Previous coverage: Rathergate vs. Paidpunditgate Why no one paid me to sell “No Child Left Behind” Rodney Paige, Arms…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 01.11.05 @ 1:19 pm
You’re absolutely dead-on. I am worried that every conservative commentator out there has now been tarnished by this mess, not to mention what hot water the administration is going to get in. The dems and liberals in general are going to have a field day with this, and accuse all of you good conservative commentators of being on the take.
It makes conservatism in general look bad. On my blog, I talked about how normally it’s great to be a conservative, because we’re above stuff like this, usually. When we start going down ethical dark paths like this, it, we look no better than the Demoncrats.
Conservatives are supposed to be the good guys.
Comment by Kyle — 01.11.05 @ 1:50 pm
I just found your corner yesterday. I’m a Christian and I believe in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I too believe that it is our primary purpose is to share the gift of our salvation and God’s grace.
However, we differ in our political views. I consider myself to be a conservative liberal. I know, the two are rarely together. Let me explain. I personally lead my life in a conservatice manner which closely follows the teachings and beliefs of christianity. However, my political views are liberal in a sense that I am tolerant of others viewpoints in not just words but by actions. My walk with God is evident in my personal choices and actions and not those that I would force upon others through public policy and regulations.
In saying that I would never link up with a political party in the name of my religion because MAN will ALWAYS fail you. Therefore, MAN will fail religion and bring forth a stain upon my beliefs. The only MAN I follow would be God.
I find it interesting that Republicans love to offset their wrongdoings by pointing out a history of wrongdoing as you’ve done in your post today.
Propaganda is wrong. Facts should be reported. Sources should be sited. Motivations should be disclosed. Period the end. The moment you praise one form of propaganda you open a pandora’s box.
How difficult would it be if God wasn’t absolutely clear about sin? What if God said sin was good if the ends justified it or if it produced the outcome that is good?
I think we should never blur the lines of fact reporting and disclosure.
Comment by Candyce H — 01.11.05 @ 1:56 pm
‘If you haven’t already figured it out, I’ll disclose my bias. I am not against propaganda, especially during a time of war.’
The problem is that ‘time of war’ is a very different thing now than then. Then, war was total — it was the full employment of our nation, a complete, centralized effort. Today, its on the sidelines.
Another is that today war is permanent — as you admit, it will exist so long as there is sin.
Another problem is that, much to the chagrin of some stubborn people, the debates are not over the merits war, but about how to fight it.
Thus in the end this propaganda is (1) for part, not all, of our nation’s effort (2) permanent and (3) dismissive of legitemate policy discussions.
Comment by actus — 01.11.05 @ 1:57 pm
It is shameful that Armstrong Williams was hiding this while promoting it, and then he got caught. If the defocrats are going to keep this story alive, all Bush would have to do is just take a bunch of planes and paint them in U.N. colors and start bombing civilians in some Baltic Republic… Oh, wait! That’s already been done. Maybe now would be a good time to just be honest about the whole thing and just COME CLEAN!
Comment by Lawrence — 01.11.05 @ 2:01 pm
La Shawn:
Thanks for comments.
The word “propaganda” has a negative tone because of its wide use by the press - and the Left would use this word to describe any truth they don’t want to hear.
“Publicity or propaganda not allowed by Congres” is vague -
This could exclude “education” - informing the public about a law. And while “propaganda” - normally considered to be lies - would not be allowed, “news” and “facts” would.
You say “taxpayer funds shouldn’t be used to spread misleading information - what about spreading the truth?
Likesise, it would appear totally appropriate to me to use Government funds to inform the public (educational function) about how the Government spends taxpayer money (congressional record, many web sites do this).
Likewise, those who favor privatized Social Security use Government records to show how money is processed - could be considered “publicity and propaganda”, but is “educational”. Certainly no one could honestly deny Government the opportunity to disclose finances, but those opposed to privatization could cry foul.
I believe that the Department of Education (and other Government agencies as well) not only has the legal right, but a moral obgligation, to disclose information to the public - like how successful it is; opponents then have the oppurtunity for a rebuttal.
Medicare and other medical agencies spend money educating the public about programs, diseases, medicines, and a lot else. Some might call this “propaganda and publicity” - for those opposed to massive expansion of Medicare, this is exactly what this is - the more publicity Medicare gets, the less people are willing to dump it - it becomed a sacred cow politically.
In summary, this “propaganda and publicity” stuff is too poorly defined to be regulated - somewhat like “political speech” - the regulatory process itself can be much worse than alleged misinformation.
Like “political contributions” - requiring full disclosure is the only practical solution, with penalties for violations. And with Talk Radio, Cable News, and watchdog bloggers like you, these guys will have to stay honest.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.11.05 @ 2:09 pm
Very nice. Lashawn will think me morally ambivalent, but right now - at the beginning of the second Bush term - seems to me to be the perfect time to be critical of certain of the administration’s actions.
Comment by patrick — 01.11.05 @ 2:37 pm
Williams and the Payola
Being kind of Mean and Evil, I take a bit of sadistic glee in taking down trolls. However, it is more gratifying to have an adult exchange of views with someone who holds polar opposite views. (See previous post on
Trackback by baldilocks — 01.11.05 @ 3:05 pm
Some historians blame a lot of the turmoil of the 1920’s — race riots, REd Scare, etc. — IN PART on the creel Committee, whose propaganda stirred up hatred towards Germans. Intense hatred was intended (by the Wilson administration) to carry trhe American public through what was expected to be a very bloody 1919. The Armistace surprised everyone, and the emotional charge that the creel Committee had built up then had to be discharged at home — hence some of the 20’s turmoil. The Law of Unexpected Consequences at work again!
Comment by John McBride — 01.11.05 @ 3:48 pm
La Shawn appears to be just about the only one on the blog today that isn’t confused about what propaganda is. Candyce says that propaganda is “wrong,” period. But propaganda is not necessarily false, or even misleading. If Colin Powell makes a perfectly accurate public statement about the nature of Saddam’s regime, that’s propaganda. If Clinton makes a public appearance signing welfare reform bill, that’s propaganda. It’s more properly called “public diplomacy,” and it can be used for good or nefarious ends, in a truthful or deceitful way. The idea that it’s an evil art is something we’ve come to believe precisely because of the Soviet and Nazi systems. Propaganda isn’t “wrong” any more than the use of atomic energy is wrong. It all depends on how you do it, why, what are the outcomes, etc.
Comment by Sage — 01.11.05 @ 4:28 pm
I don’t think propanganda is wrong, as in *immoral* either, Sage. However, if there is a law against it under the circumstances cited between Mr. Williams and the DOE, this does make it illegal. Now whether such should be illegal or not is a different matter altogether.
I think most are in agreement about this: that either Mr. Williams or the DOE should have been up front about the transaction, if only to make some obscure press release.
Warning labels are good.
Comment by Juliette — 01.11.05 @ 4:41 pm
Since Mrs. Malkin doesn’t have a comment section I’ll post it here as she linked this site on her’s.
Here’s what Michelle Malkin said of POSSIBLE conservative pundits receiving funding from the Bush Administration,
“Grow some principles, for God’s sake.”
Principles? Let’s take a trip down to Exodus 22:28 (NIV), “Do not blaspheme God”.
The name of my God is Holy; He is the alpha, the omega, the beginning and the end. His name means righteousness, justice, forgiveness. He upholds the ways of the righteous; he secures the upright in heart. He is perfect.
His name is not to be taken out of context, it is not to be taken in vain; it is not to be misused in any way. His name is beyond man’s comprehension. Take His name in vain and you sin. Now you have been made accountable of His word.
For it is written in James 2:7 (KJV): “Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?”
Not only did you judge unknown pundits you committed blasphemy against the only God. And yet you speak of “principles”? Read the Word before you blog, it’s the write thing to do.
Comment by MK — 01.11.05 @ 4:59 pm
La Shawn,
You’re right about government agencies shoving off talking points to journalists through PR firms. I feel this may be an all too-common occurance in the world of journalism. And it’s certainly pervasive on both sides of the political spectrum.
I feel if you have the responsibility of handling a personal opinion column you shouldn’t have to rely on partisan political talking points to motivate your writing and need to share your opinion with the world.
We now know of the Williams case. But, I wonder what other conservatives and liberals are also participating in such filth?
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 5:16 pm
La Shawn…a commendation for your dissection of propaganda. I completely agree with your definition.
I feel propaganda often has a negative connotation. And while some forms are certainly deplorable, much of it is entirely necessary at any given moment in time.
Propoganda is most important during times of war…expecially when it comes from both sides. Conservatives screamed propaganda when Fahrenheit 9/11 was released. All I could say was “Yeah…well you say it as if it’s a bad thing.”
Advertisements at the movie theatre to join the military are also propaganda. It works both ways.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 5:21 pm
LaShawn wrote: “The term became pejorative most likely after the formation of the Creel Commission.”
The OED gives a source from 1842 which says “propaganda is used as a term of reproach in modern political language as a term of reproach for th spread of opinions and principles which are viewed by most governments with horror and aversion.”
Comment by Jim C. — 01.11.05 @ 8:19 pm
in ww2 frank capra gave us the “why we fight” series. well done propaganda, i remember watching them on pbs as a kid and wanting to go kill germans.
today we get fahrenheit 9/11
Comment by err head — 01.11.05 @ 8:26 pm
Thanks for the info, Jim C. By the way, what is OED?
Comment by La Shawn — 01.11.05 @ 8:27 pm
La Shawn
I think it’s Oxford English Dictionary? But that’s just a guess.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.11.05 @ 8:39 pm
La Shawn penned, ““No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.”
My response - Then let’s wipe out PBS.
Wipe out PBS!
Wipe out PBS!
Question about Mr. Williams…. Propaganda implies lying. What was a lie told by Mr. Williams besides the fact that his silence (WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CLEARED) was a lie because he didn’t disclose (BUT NOW HAS DISCLOSED)????
Again…. Let’s move on to tackle the LIARS in the press who want to say anything about anybody without any regard for the truth. Who want to say anything about economics, the environment, stem cells, or whatever you want to name.
I would gladly love to set the record straight. I don’t know what Mr. Williams said that needs to be set straight. And if he broke that law LB then so does PBS in my eyes.
Comment by Baklava — 01.11.05 @ 10:11 pm
…. And how about the fleecing of taxpayers to pay for anti-smoking commercials or this and that commercial. When was the government never supposed to have the ability to pay for their VOICE?
The issue was disclosure…
… now we’ve moved the goal posts on Mr. Williams but nobody else have we moved the goalposts on..
Double-standards hurt us.
Comment by Baklava — 01.11.05 @ 10:13 pm
LaShawn,
I have authentic 1940 xerox memos that prove Uncle Sam worked for CBS while posing for war posters on the side. “I know they are real”
Comment by BuckTownDusty — 01.11.05 @ 11:04 pm
Enough’s enough. Williams made a mistake. That’s all. moveon.now, ’cause here’s what I’m suspecting: I luv ya Lashawn -I really do- but I believe I detect that your squeamishness on this matter derives from what your friends from your former liberal days are saying or going to say about it all. And they don’t matter. Whatever Williams did is minor and deminimis compared to what goes on in the liberal world. And there was no dishonesty here. He isn’t a crook. So forget about it.
Comment by jay bird — 01.12.05 @ 1:48 am
Dear Lashawn,
Sorry but you lose me here. I see nothing wrong in being paid to advocate a program you approve of. All of this just sounds silly, petty, jealous and very self rightous. I don’t believe for a minute That Mr. Williams can be bought. I absolutely do not see anything wrong with his being paid. I usually just come by and lurk and feel refreshed and happy to read your blog. This is the first time I have felt insulted and and kinda of oohhh I don’t know a little like I need to wash or something.
Comment by Linda — 01.12.05 @ 10:46 am
As you wish, Linda. It’s certainly a free country.
If you’ve read my post, although I have a feeling you’re reacting more to the comments, you will clearly see that I have nothing against a person earning money. Although I put the word Disclosure in bold letters and repeated it several times, you prefer to disregard it.
I don’t write all this stuff to entertain myself. I try to give people as much information as I can so they will know the facts. I included links for two GAO hearings, which state that what the various government agencies have been doing amounts to “covert propaganda,” their words, not mine. The language is in the appropriations bills for a reason. If the government broke the law by giving Williams the cash without disclosure, Williams bears some of the blame, too.
Comment by LB — 01.12.05 @ 10:53 am
Normally I do not like to give Democrats gasoline for a fire. But in this instance I think you are right on here. And someone should be held accountable for the error.
I beleive that the President will address this issue and we will move on.
Comment by ikw3804 — 01.12.05 @ 11:02 am
Catching my eye: morning A through Z
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: LaShawn Barber has a solid post on propaganda. Bithead comments on train derailments. The ubiquitous praktike of chez Nadezhda endorses Simon Rosenberg for DNC chair. So does Matthew Yglesias. Callimachus of …
Trackback by The Glittering Eye — 01.12.05 @ 11:20 am
I would point out one small correction.
LaShawn stated: “I hate to agree with liberals, but in this case, I must. While I don’t want to read about yet another Congressional hearing or investigation, one might be necessary.”
LaShawn isn’t agreeing with liberals here even if she says she does. She is taking a stand that people should be honest and legal regardless of the party they belong to and she will hold our side accountable just as she would the liberals. That the liberals are on the right side is coincidental, they are doing this out of their desire to inflict damage on the other side, not because it was dishonest. Based on what little I have read here, I am certain that LaShawn does not agree with them on motivation.
This issue starts touching on a number of issues that conservatives have dropped in favor of thrashing Democrats. President Bush has at least three major points that disagree with conservative values.
No Child Left Behind Act: I don’t disagree with the act per se (I haven’t really researched what it does, but I hear it establishes standards against which schools can be measured), but I disagree that the federal government should intrude on the states to push such a program.
Patriot Act: I would rather we have strict limits on the ability of government to monitor people and violate fundamental rights and take the risks of terror attacks. Yes, people point out there has been no abuse of the act, and I can’t argue that, but I have been through kangaroo court type hearings and know exactly how much due process means. It will be when people are comfortable with this act that government will start abusing it.
Senior Drug Prescription Benefit: Disclosure: I am getting close to being a senior type person and my wife is five years closer than I am. Yet, this is an irresponsible giveaway that taxes one group of people to provide benefits to another. If people want something it should be up to them to get create it rather than have government provide it. We all die and it shouldn’t be government’s business to prolong it at the expense of others.
In these three things our president has moved left and I don’t see anybody calling him on it. I think that Republicans are mistaken when they say President Bush has a mandate. He sneaked liberal garbage into his agenda and the election may reflect that more than any cultural movement to the right. I do believe that culture is moving that direction, but we should be cautious about the actual distance we have traveled and the number of people who are truly conservative. If we misread our own status, we may end up like John Kerry, and who of you wants to end up like that?
As I have heard the mainstream media say, we need to speak truth to power, and it can’t be just the Democrats we speak it to. If we want the culture to continue to move right we need to have a destination worth moving to. We have to show that we have dependable, trustworthy principles that are worth living for. It cannot be corrupt and philosophically bankrupt like those who advocate socialist, leftist politics and who must cheat to advance their agenda.
LaShawn Barber is my kind of lady in that regard.
Jeff Mitchell
Comment by Jeff Mitchell — 01.12.05 @ 11:49 am
As a person with a masters degree in arts of mass media I could not agree more with your analysis about the “advertising” practices of the Department of Education. However, there is an additional problem: This situation is used by the media to focus on any possible wrong-doings of the involved parties when the real question regarding No-Child-Left-Behind ought to be: Is it working?
In December of 2004 the results of the PISA study 2003 were published. It was conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which tested 15-year old students from 39 countries. The result: U.S. students’ math skills have dropped from #19 in 2000 to #28 in 2003. Now, U.S. students’ math skills are listed as significantly below the OECD average. With the usual exceptions (NY Times, CSMonitor, Business Investor’s Daily) not much was reported about this devastating result, which may or may not be due to the fact, that U.S. children actually scored better before NCLB was signed into law.
Given the facts that the IT-industry is the only one which forecasts a 100% job-growth, that outsourcing is already a major problem for the U.S., and that mathematics is THE most important subject to prepare students for any career in the IT industry, this PISA study result is a devastating problem. U.S. students were outscored by students from 27 countries including Poland, Hungary, and Latvia, and not only the usual top scorers from Asian countries. Rod Paige called this situation a “blinking red light”, I think it presents a dangerous situation for the future of the country (If in the future more well-paying jobs will get outsourced, whose taxes will pay for … whatever?).
Personally, I believe that these famous funds should have been used for a publicity campaign informing U.S. parents that they will have to engage into their children’s math education or their children might not be able to get a well-paying job in the future.
The idea that No-Child-Left-Behind, which practically puts all burden on teachers alone, could be working without parental support is ridiculous. However, advertisement stunts such as the one with Armstrong Williams are designed to convince the public who may not read the NY Times, the CSMonitor, or Business Investor’s Daily that No-Child-Left-Behind solves all their and their children’s problems, and that should be the real issue of debate.
Comment by Gisela Hausmann — 01.14.05 @ 10:38 am
Dont ever expect the liberal left-wing news media to ever tell the truth their too busy lying about everything why do you think rather and brokaw lost their jobs?
Comment by firebird — 01.14.05 @ 9:13 pm
I heard that the classic I WANT YOU signs with Uncle Sam were derived from a poster used by england during WW I with the lines BRITONS NEEDS YOU and a picture of lord kirctner on it but you got to admit the UNCLE SAMS poster with it I WANT YOU was a great idea
Comment by firebird — 01.19.05 @ 9:34 pm