Friday, October 31, 2008
What's Wrong David?
You know when David isn't feeling well when he is in the library, silent and like a small boy who behaves well in church. If David is even silent for five seconds you'd wonder if he's gone mad. If David is silent for five minutes you'd have to shake him up. If he's silent for 15 minutes you have to call 911.
Well, there he is, all drugged up after a visit to the doctor.
Well, there he is, all drugged up after a visit to the doctor.Going Green
Since it's autumn and the chilly wind makes the leaves of trees fall, we decided to grow our tomatoes in the house. And here's what we have right now:
Our glorious plump tomato.
David would say, "I don't eat tomatoes. Don't put tomatoes on my salad, sandwich, etc." And you believe him, until her opens a can of campbells tomato soup. And you hear him scream, "Oh Lord, this is the best soup ever." That and other things, like preparing his "everything soup" which is composed of a can of vegetarian vegetable soup (yeah, there could be a meatarian vegetable soup), diced tomatoes, tomato soup, beans, celeries, and other not too exotic ingredients. Yeah, he hates tomatoes.
Our glorious plump tomato.David would say, "I don't eat tomatoes. Don't put tomatoes on my salad, sandwich, etc." And you believe him, until her opens a can of campbells tomato soup. And you hear him scream, "Oh Lord, this is the best soup ever." That and other things, like preparing his "everything soup" which is composed of a can of vegetarian vegetable soup (yeah, there could be a meatarian vegetable soup), diced tomatoes, tomato soup, beans, celeries, and other not too exotic ingredients. Yeah, he hates tomatoes.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
'The Muslims I Know'
The College at Brockport State of University of New York events:
This important 60-minute documentary is about Moderate Muslims in America. Filmed in the United States and Pakistan, this open and insightful piece features interviews with people of the Islamic faith, their true stories, customs, beliefs and a candid look at how the events of 9/11 changed the collective American impression of Muslims in America and around the world.
The Muslims I Know
by Mara Ahmed
by Mara Ahmed
This important 60-minute documentary is about Moderate Muslims in America. Filmed in the United States and Pakistan, this open and insightful piece features interviews with people of the Islamic faith, their true stories, customs, beliefs and a candid look at how the events of 9/11 changed the collective American impression of Muslims in America and around the world.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
7:00 p.m.
103 Edwards Hall (Gold Room)
We will be joined by special guest moderator, the film's director, Mara Ahmed, who will lead a question and answer period after the film.
This event was sponsored by the Political Science Department at The College at Brockport, and Students for Peace and Justice.
For more information about the documentary, visit: http://www.themuslimsiknow.com/
7:00 p.m.
103 Edwards Hall (Gold Room)
We will be joined by special guest moderator, the film's director, Mara Ahmed, who will lead a question and answer period after the film.
This event was sponsored by the Political Science Department at The College at Brockport, and Students for Peace and Justice.
For more information about the documentary, visit: http://www.themuslimsiknow.com/
Shooting Spree
Trying my new Kodak Z1015 IS camera which was given to me by a friend. Thank you!
Scenes at Wickham Farm, New York:
The colors of autumn. 
The great train ride.
Pumpkins galore.
Cat on the loose.
Jams without end.
Miniature golf course.
How are Young Americans Going Vote this Election?
Students weigh issues as their primary consideration as whom to vote for this coming U.S. election as these will benefit their future. Via CNN Politics.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Mind Your Gas
Report via LiveScience.com, posted on YahooNews:
The Stink in Farts Controls Blood Pressure
A smelly rotten-egg gas in farts controls blood pressure in mice, a new study finds.
The unpleasant aroma of the gas, called hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be a little too familiar, as it is expelled by bacteria living in the human colon and eventually makes its way, well, out. The new research found that cells lining mice's blood vessels naturally make the gas and this action can help keep the rodents' blood pressure low by relaxing the blood vessels to prevent hypertension (high blood pressure). This gas is "no doubt" produced in cells lining human blood vessels too, the researchers said.
"Now that we know hydrogen sulfide's role in regulating blood pressure, it may be possible to design drug therapies that enhance its formation as an alternative to the current methods of treatment for hypertension," said Johns Hopkins neuroscientist Solomon H. Snyder, M.D., a co-author of the study detailed in the Oct. 24th issue of the journal Science.
Read more of this report by clicking the link above.
The Stink in Farts Controls Blood Pressure
A smelly rotten-egg gas in farts controls blood pressure in mice, a new study finds.
The unpleasant aroma of the gas, called hydrogen sulfide (H2S), can be a little too familiar, as it is expelled by bacteria living in the human colon and eventually makes its way, well, out. The new research found that cells lining mice's blood vessels naturally make the gas and this action can help keep the rodents' blood pressure low by relaxing the blood vessels to prevent hypertension (high blood pressure). This gas is "no doubt" produced in cells lining human blood vessels too, the researchers said.
"Now that we know hydrogen sulfide's role in regulating blood pressure, it may be possible to design drug therapies that enhance its formation as an alternative to the current methods of treatment for hypertension," said Johns Hopkins neuroscientist Solomon H. Snyder, M.D., a co-author of the study detailed in the Oct. 24th issue of the journal Science.
Read more of this report by clicking the link above.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The American Government and the Press
In 1787 Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Edward Carrington, said he would prefer newspapers without government to government without newspapers (Ford 357-361). His statement probably gave a cringe into the sentimentality of public officials at that time who had, in a way, felt slighted with the how the media depicted their governance. However, Jefferson saw that the “press as a powerful agent of freedom, even when its artillery was aimed at his own administration, was not to be censored except at the bar of public opinion” (Altschull 114). His statement came decades after Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton successfully defended Peter Zenger against a crucial libel case. Zenger had continually attacked Governor William Cosby for incompetence on his paper, New York Weekly Journal (Biagi 52). This success of defending the freedom of the press established the role of media as watchdog of the society and critic of public officials.
How crucial is the relationship between the government and press? If Jefferson was confident to say that it would be acceptable to have an existing media without any governing body at all, the reality, perhaps, is that without the existence of either branches of government, human existence would be a dull and gloomy one. The relationship may be a love-hate enigma, but in the end both agencies have one thing in common - to satisfy their common client – the public. Both have a responsibility to satisfy the need of the public, what the public demands, and to assure that these demands are promptly carried out no matter how the sensitive it may be.
Press freedom is the great palladium of all other liberties, according to Andrew Bradford. Bradford could be referring to civil liberties which are sheltered under the law. These include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and also, the right to due process, to fair trial, to bear arms, and to privacy. “Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founding fathers subscribed to the tenets of the Enlightenment – the search for truth, the power of reason, the perfectability of society – and viewed freedom of expression as an essential tool for the ambitious democratic project that the new nation was about to launch” (Sanford 264). The exercise of one’s freedom is a fair constitution of what makes the American government a unique institution. “The Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted in 1776 has identified the press as ‘one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty’ and declared that the press ‘could never be restrained but by despotic Governments’” (Altschull 119-120). In protecting this freedom the Founding Fathers drafted and put guidelines to assure that these are protected and maintained within the boundaries of law. On the other hand, “The brevity of the First Amendment belies in its complexity. The words themselves seem unambiguously to prohibit Congress from censoring or controlling newsgathering activities and media content. But the development of the robust protection enjoyed by the press in the United States is of course a much more interesting story” (Sanford 263). What the media of the current age is enjoying is the freedom that has been a product of an old-age documentation, debate, and the passion to be free to exercise one’s existence.
Certainly, the relationship of the government and the press is not as simple as it looks like. While both say that they tolerate the criticism against each other, there is still a great division among the two agencies. They work together, in a way that is mysterious to the general public, harmoniously in some ways if only to avoid inconsistency and dilemma of being fragmented from the eyes of the public. They are both considered quintessential elements of the society though. But the media’s appeal to the public is primarily concerned on its prime motive – for the public to know what is its government is doing to carry out the demands the people want. Incursions on the roles of public officials and government agencies are primary function of the media. As the “prying eyes” of the public, the media have the role to report what they’ve uncovered to the public. It is the public, then, who will decide what steps must be undertaken. “The basic responsibility of reporters covering governmental institutions is to inform the public of what officials are doing and about official policies and goals” (Kumar 231). The media then not only serve as the watchdog in the society but the keeper of truth. “News organizations have an impact on what happens to legislation through the assessments they make of the prospects of a proposed bill becoming law… Sometimes an assessment of poor prospects for a bill can aid a president in shaping strategic dealings with members of Congress” (232). That is, if the president is keen enough to analyze what the media are trying to say. It is important to know that news organizations not only deliver the news to the public but also remind public officials of their sworn role to serve the public. “News reporting informs government officials of events and issues of which they were unaware. Members of Congress often learn of issues from news organizations, and use news vehicles to keep themselves current on foreign and domestic policy developments” (233). As the sole superpower nation of the decade, the American government thus owes its value and rank to the press. “The watchdog function may also alert publics to issues that can affect their opinions and their modes of engagement in public life… When today’s press watchdogs serves the public interest, it is generally in a partnership with other public watchdogs such as public interest or consumer advocacy organizations, courts, interest groups, and government itself” (Bennett 170, 186). The American press, then, has done more than enough to evaluate the capacity of the American government.
History does prove that the purpose of reporting centuries ago was to collect information from the British government and to express one’s opinion. “In the early years of the American republic, newspapers were usually financed by factions or were extensions of party machines… Beginning in the 1830s… a commercial journalism developed that began to displace the party press… At the turn of the twentieth century, newspapers, especially in the cities, were enormous enterprises, free of political and financial sponsorship by government” (Cook 250-51). However, journalism has evolved in a quintessential manner that it has reached a level of sophistication and earned the respect it has aspired. “There are four central ways in which the combined and singular media impact both those who govern and the governing process. First, news organizations inform the public of the actions of their national government officials. Second, the information provided by news organizations influences the conduct of those in government. Third, through their published work, reporters inform people within government of the actions of other governmental institutions… Fourth information provided by news organizations serves as an early warning system for government officials of problems they may not have recognized or issues coming to the surface that they did not see coming” (Kumar 230-31). However, it is what most government officials do not appreciate, the role of the media as the agency that stands between the government and the people. “The American Fourth Estate operates as a de facto, quasi-official fourth branch government, its institutions no less important because they have been developed informally and, indeed, haphazardly” (Cater 13).
When President George W. Bush claimed in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had made overtures to acquire uranium from Niger, reporters asked for the documentation. At first White House staff did not respond, but once knowledgeable people outside of government, such as former Ambassador James Wilson, provided information challenging the president’s set of facts, staff found they had to admit their error and discuss where the speech vetting process went wrong (Kumar 229). Saddam had no nuclear weapons program (Massing 18-19). The media’s role in uncovering the facts is vital to the establishment of truth on the matter of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the involvement of the United States in keeping an eye on countries that it deems threatening its world domination. The press has the unique talent in uncovering the news that no matter how much the government conceals the fact from the public, the media can still trace it. “‘News’ refers to both a phenomenon out there in the world and a report of that phenomenon, and sometimes a news sense is said to have olfactory qualities, as in having ‘a nose for news,’ being able to ‘smell out news,’ or as stipulated in a 2003 directive from the Poynter Institute, ‘writing with your nose.’ As the Poynter guideline reminded its readers: ‘good reporters have a nose for news. They can sniff out a story. Smell as scandal. Give them a whiff of corruption and they’ll root it out like a pig diving for truffles’” (Zelizer 68). In a recent report in the New York Times, President Bush, who has fixated its eyes on Iran for many years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, has reiterated his stand that Iran “remains a threat despite an intelligence assessment that it had halted a covert program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago” (Myers A1). The president’s stand on this issue has his critics doubt his plans considering that they question his credibility, primarily because the detail of the report was not revealed to the public nor to the media. The newspaper further added a statement from Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and Democratic presidential candidate). The senator said, “What we learned… from the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] and what President Bush has said in the past I find extremely troubling. Here in October, President Bush raised the specter of World War III with Iran because, as he said, its pursuit of a nuclear weapon – months after he’d been told by our intelligence community it’s likely that Iran had halted its weapons program as far back as 2003. And after all we’ve been through, for this president to knowingly disregard or once again misrepresent intelligence about the issue of far and peace, I find it outrageous. This is exactly what he did – exactly what he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq in consistently exaggerating the intelligence that he had available to him, suggesting that Iraq had WMD [weapons of mass destruction]… It further undermines America’s credibility around the world, which is at an all-time low, and it undermines the credibility here at home” (A12). Not too worried about credibility was the New York Times which sought the reactions of other parties, primarily from officials in Israel (America has been supporting the Israeli government). At one time, Bush complained about the press standing as a “filter” between him and the public… (particularly in the coverage about Iraq) (Kumar 227). If the newspaper has gathered enough information and reaction from sources, it was critical of President Bush in its editorial. It said, “There is a lot of good news in the latest intelligence assessment about Iran. Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to questions its own assumptions and challenge the White House’s fevered rhetoric. The president and his aides are apparently too worried about getting caught again shaving intelligence to stop that… After Iraq and Guantamano and Abu Ghraib, it is hard to imagine that this administration could do any more damage to this country’s credibility. Then it does” (“Good News and Bad News” A26). Here it is clear what the role of the media is: deliver of news, critic, and conscience. However, the decision is left to the public.
The press serves both as a resource for those who govern and as a source of pressure on officials, who must respond to press demands for information, information that government might not want to provide (Kumar 227). The recent problem on the government secrecy – that is, classifying government records as confidential and inaccessible to the press. “Government secrecy is a big and expensive business – and it’s getting bigger and more costly. [In 2003] the federal government spent more than $6.5 billion classifying and declassifying federal records. It marked 14.2 million documents as ‘Top Secret,’’Secret’ or Classified,’ putting them under lock and key for a minimum of 10 years (Weitzel 84). The government’s decision is as mysterious as it is haunting. It is said that it was spurned by the events that happened on Sept. 11, 2001. However, it wasn’t clear if that was the real reason, considering that “during the past 25 years the U.S. government has classified between 7.5 and 8 billion pages of information – enough to replace all 18 million books in the Library of Congress with shelf space to spare” (84). This government control of the release of information to the press is, perhaps, a violation of the public’s right to know. The government’s move to put some documents classified might emanate in the all levels of government agencies. “By one estimate, as many as four million local and state officials could be effectively gagged by requiring them to sign don’t show, don’t tell agreements. Secrecy is trickling down to many state and local lawmakers as well as with efforts to close records and meetings” (85). This is despite the existing Freedom of Information Act of 1967. FOIA became a law after a 16-year campaign by journalism organizations and others to promote the citizen’s ‘right to know.’ It was strengthened in 1974 and expanded to include electronic records in 1995” (86). However, after 9/11 the government severed its ties with the press by controlling the release of information. It even put into law the Patriotic Act just six weeks after the terrorist attacks to expand the FBI’s investigatory powers (86). On the other hand, the government is keen on its stand to protect the country’s security. Not too impress is Weitzel who indicated that “the federal government treats security as having only one dimension and demands that we, as a people, sacrifice other freedoms to achieve freedom from fear. If we as journalists allow this to happen, we will not only have forsaken our mission but our country. The strength of our nation is protection of its many freedoms – the first of which must be the freedom to have access to information about the decisions our government leaders make. Without that, all other freedoms are less secure” (88). The issue has not been resolved even until now.
For much of early American history, presidents were able to choose what information they released and on what terms. In the twentieth century, as the executive branch was required to provide increasing amounts of information on the record, conflicts increased over the release of specific information reporters wanted and the accuracy of what they were given (Kumar 229-230). No Monarch in history has had a retinue like that which gathers about the American President and calls itself the White House press corps. The reporters hang about his antechamber with the indolence of courtiers at some feudal court keeping those who pass in and out - Governors, Cabinet members, Senators, Ambassadors - under constant surveillance and interrogation (Cater 22). Reporting of government, like all big businesses, has its good points and its bad ones so far as the employee is concerned. The work habits are not so fixed as most, less adaptable to the time clock, more susceptible to peak and slack periods (6). The media’s purpose then is not to satisfy the government with tricks and treat. It has to satisfy the public’s thirst for something new and palatable news.
To understand more the relationship of the government and the press struggle of the press is to study some of the landmark cases. The book on United States Constitution cited the landmark case, Near v. Minnesota (1931), in which the Supreme Court explains, “The liberty of the press… is safeguarded from invasion by state action.” Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near’s Saturday Press for publishing vicious anti-Semitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in ‘prior restraint’; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from publishing or expressing a thought” (82-83). In another Supreme Court decision in 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times published an ad critical of an elected commissioner of an Alabama city. The commissioner sued for libel and won. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and said that, to ensure ‘uninhibited, robust and wide-open’ debate about public figures, the law must protect writers from libel suits. Thus, unless the words penned with ‘knowing falsity’ or ‘reckless disregard for the truth,’ a writer cannot be successfully sued by a public figure for libel (84). The dimension of the press’s criticism on government officials may be severe but for somebody who has sworn to be a public servant it is could be easily understood that service also includes sacrificing one’s personal life. “The government-press relationship has both personal and institutional layers. The personal relationship between officials and reporters is sometimes a strained one, but the institutional tie is basically cooperative. The tension arises because each side approaches the other trying to establish the terms of the relationship, and fights for what it considers to be its turf and rights” (Kumar 228). The strain may be mended but the relationship may never be the same. However, it is an acceptable fact that it is part of the deal. “No matter what the time period, information lies at the core of the relationship. Consistently, reporters present three basic demands to elected officials and those who work for them. The demands are: accurate information provided on a timely basis and responsive to the news needs of reporters; a policy of equal access to information; and guarantees of an open information policy (229).
Cater pointed out that a good reporter can be judged by the “condition of his legs. Success in the field comes from a fortuitous combination of luck and shoe leather. The business of getting news is described in the metaphors of the mine worker - pick and shovel, digging, a great deal of sweat” (1). Some reporters sweat blood in covering the war and conflict in the Middle East while others troop to the White House to record the President’s daily activities. The pressure, probably, putting on record the president’s daily appointments and interpreting it to be understood by the public. “[The reporter in Washington] have an acute sense of involvement in the churning process that is a government in America. The reporter is the recorder of government but he is also a participant. He operates in a system in which power is divided. He as much as anyone, and more than a freat many, helps to shape the course of government... He can illumine policy and notable assist in giving it sharpness and clarity; just as easily, he can prematurely expose policy and, as with an undeveloped film, cause its destruction... At his best, he can exert a creative influence on Washington politics” (Cater 7). An acute sense for news and to weigh the validity of the president’s words is what drives the Washington reporter to stay around the galleries of the White House. Consequently, every president responds to the reports in various ways. “Why such mutual fascination between the President and the press? The answer lies... in the very nature of modern American government. Publicity is as essential to its orderly functioning as the power to levy taxes and pass laws (Cater 25). Only the media can bring public officials closer to the masses. However, the price of using the media as a vehicle to propel one’s political agenda is a crucial method, but the fruits will be sweet if it the plans become successful.
Kumar and Jones accounted that in his eight years in office, President Bill Clinton had 1,603 interchanges with reporters. The numbers break down in the following way: 193 press conferences; 368 interviews in which the president sat down with one or more reporters for an exclusive session; and 1,042 short question-and-answer sessions with reporters. Taken together, President Clinton met with reporters an average 3.85 times a week and 16.7 occasions a month during his two terms in office. In his first term, President George W. Bush had fewer sessions with reporters, an average of two a week and 8.66 a month through 2003 (227-228). The reason was never known. If Bush is not keen on answering important questions that hound his administration, no other public official is to blame for his action. He may have to reflect on Cater’s words: Presidents come and go but press bureau chiefs are apt to remain a while (13). But this doesn’t mean that Bush’s administration is not using any means to alleviate the criticism hounding his governance. Afterall, he needed all the publicity he needed to forward the cause of his political affiliation. “To study the publicity process in government means to study the ways and means by which government explains itself to the people. It also means necessarily to study the news-forming habits and techniques of the press, radio, and television, which transmit most of the public explanation of government. It means to examine the definition of news itself. Just as individual man cannot communicate thoughts that lie beyond the limits of his vocabulary to express, so it might be said that the vocabulary of the press delimits the thinking of men in organized society, particularly on matters as remote to their daily experience as their national government” (13). Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and even Senator Joseph McCarthy have used the reaching power of the press to advance their cause. “The President, of course, gives the ritual of the press conference its basic content. But the reporters largely determine the form. It is a source of continual amazement to the uninitiated how loosely defined is the ground rules for interrogating our head of state… [but] the skilled reporter's measurement of "news" is not simply defined by what goes into the total story. It can be charted by which chunk goes into the "lead," which is buried in the tail, and which, with squirrel-like foresight, is tucked away for the "overnight." The dogmas of what is "news" help determine the priorities of what is communicated to the public about its government (14, 16).
The recent argument hounding the government-press relationship is “how the government can support a free press.” This time in the manner that will affect the circulation of print journalism materials, for the reason that there is an increase in periodical-class mail. “From the first days of the Republic, the founders believed that the mails were the circulatory system of our democracy. George Washington thought that newspapers should be delivered free. As post-master general, Ben Franklin arranged for magazines to be sent free. That is why ever since 1978 second-class mail (now called periodicals class) has been the beneficiary off less expensive rates than first class. It was understood then and in the early days that our best national periodicals help bind a vast country together by the exchange of ideas (“Calling Uncle Sam”). Moreover, there is the peril of losing some news businesses because of lack of investors. In this case, some media entities enquired whether the government should help ailing media corporations. “Journalism is a rare business in that its product – news- has a public-service function, but unlike other public-services activities, like public education or scientific research, it is not protected from market forces by government support. So when the financial viability of the news business is threatened, so too is the press’ role as the fourth estate” (Nordenson 37). The matter of government helping the media might be a taboo to some media personalities but “by clinging to the idea tha they work in a profession free of government involvement, journalists are perpetuating a myth that may impede the future of their profession” (39). The government and the press then work hand in hand to deliver service to the public. It may not sound proper when the public has a knowledge that some media corporations have been subsidized by the government for it to survive, but if we see it as a reality factor everything will turn into good disposition.
So, how can one sum up the relationship of the government and the press? The answer may never be unearthed. It is because “the relationship is multilayered. First, government officials and news organizations spend a great deal of time and resources making use of the presence of the other, even if there is mutual mistrust of motives and actions. Second, there are personal and institutional layers shaping the manner in which each side approaches and considers the other. While the personal relationship appears combative, with reporters and officials sometimes openly critical of one another, the institutional relationship is a continuing one wherein the two sides cooperate with one another in ways intended to maximize their own advantages. That leads to a surface tension in the relationship, but in the main the news and information demands of each of the partners forces both sides to cooperate” (Kumar 227). We may never understand how the two agencies exist in both harmonious and troubled ways, but they will continue to exist.
Work Cited
Altschull, J. Herbert. From Milton to McLuhan: The Ideas behind American Journalism, New York: Longman, 1990
Bennett, W. Lance and William Serrin. “The Watchdog Role.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 169-188.
Biagi, Shirley, Media/Impact, OH: Thomson, 2007.
“Calling Uncle Sam.” Editorial. Columbia Journalism Review May/June 2007: 4.
Cater, Douglass, The Fourth Branch of Government. MA: Riverside Press Cambridge 1959.
Cook, Timothy E. “Public Policy Toward the Press: What Government Does For the News Media.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 248-262.
Ford, Paul ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Putnam, 1892-1899, 6:357-361.
“Good and Bad News About Iran.” Editorial. New York Times 5 Dec. 2007: A26.
Kumar, Martha Joynt and Alex Jones. “Government and the Press: Issues and Trends.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 226-247.
Massing, Michael, "The War Expert," On The Contrary Op-Ed column. Columbia Journalism Review, Nov.-Dec. 2007: 18-19
Myers, Steven Lee and Helene Cooper. “Bush Insists Iran Remains a Threat Despite Arms Data.” New York Times 5 Dec. 2007: A1 and A12.
Nordenson, Bree. “The Uncle Sam Solution.” Columbia Journalism Review. September-October 2007: 37-41.
Sanford, Bruce W. and Jane E. Kirtley. “The First Amendment Tradition and its Critics.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 263-276.
How crucial is the relationship between the government and press? If Jefferson was confident to say that it would be acceptable to have an existing media without any governing body at all, the reality, perhaps, is that without the existence of either branches of government, human existence would be a dull and gloomy one. The relationship may be a love-hate enigma, but in the end both agencies have one thing in common - to satisfy their common client – the public. Both have a responsibility to satisfy the need of the public, what the public demands, and to assure that these demands are promptly carried out no matter how the sensitive it may be.
Press freedom is the great palladium of all other liberties, according to Andrew Bradford. Bradford could be referring to civil liberties which are sheltered under the law. These include freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and also, the right to due process, to fair trial, to bear arms, and to privacy. “Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founding fathers subscribed to the tenets of the Enlightenment – the search for truth, the power of reason, the perfectability of society – and viewed freedom of expression as an essential tool for the ambitious democratic project that the new nation was about to launch” (Sanford 264). The exercise of one’s freedom is a fair constitution of what makes the American government a unique institution. “The Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted in 1776 has identified the press as ‘one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty’ and declared that the press ‘could never be restrained but by despotic Governments’” (Altschull 119-120). In protecting this freedom the Founding Fathers drafted and put guidelines to assure that these are protected and maintained within the boundaries of law. On the other hand, “The brevity of the First Amendment belies in its complexity. The words themselves seem unambiguously to prohibit Congress from censoring or controlling newsgathering activities and media content. But the development of the robust protection enjoyed by the press in the United States is of course a much more interesting story” (Sanford 263). What the media of the current age is enjoying is the freedom that has been a product of an old-age documentation, debate, and the passion to be free to exercise one’s existence.
Certainly, the relationship of the government and the press is not as simple as it looks like. While both say that they tolerate the criticism against each other, there is still a great division among the two agencies. They work together, in a way that is mysterious to the general public, harmoniously in some ways if only to avoid inconsistency and dilemma of being fragmented from the eyes of the public. They are both considered quintessential elements of the society though. But the media’s appeal to the public is primarily concerned on its prime motive – for the public to know what is its government is doing to carry out the demands the people want. Incursions on the roles of public officials and government agencies are primary function of the media. As the “prying eyes” of the public, the media have the role to report what they’ve uncovered to the public. It is the public, then, who will decide what steps must be undertaken. “The basic responsibility of reporters covering governmental institutions is to inform the public of what officials are doing and about official policies and goals” (Kumar 231). The media then not only serve as the watchdog in the society but the keeper of truth. “News organizations have an impact on what happens to legislation through the assessments they make of the prospects of a proposed bill becoming law… Sometimes an assessment of poor prospects for a bill can aid a president in shaping strategic dealings with members of Congress” (232). That is, if the president is keen enough to analyze what the media are trying to say. It is important to know that news organizations not only deliver the news to the public but also remind public officials of their sworn role to serve the public. “News reporting informs government officials of events and issues of which they were unaware. Members of Congress often learn of issues from news organizations, and use news vehicles to keep themselves current on foreign and domestic policy developments” (233). As the sole superpower nation of the decade, the American government thus owes its value and rank to the press. “The watchdog function may also alert publics to issues that can affect their opinions and their modes of engagement in public life… When today’s press watchdogs serves the public interest, it is generally in a partnership with other public watchdogs such as public interest or consumer advocacy organizations, courts, interest groups, and government itself” (Bennett 170, 186). The American press, then, has done more than enough to evaluate the capacity of the American government.
History does prove that the purpose of reporting centuries ago was to collect information from the British government and to express one’s opinion. “In the early years of the American republic, newspapers were usually financed by factions or were extensions of party machines… Beginning in the 1830s… a commercial journalism developed that began to displace the party press… At the turn of the twentieth century, newspapers, especially in the cities, were enormous enterprises, free of political and financial sponsorship by government” (Cook 250-51). However, journalism has evolved in a quintessential manner that it has reached a level of sophistication and earned the respect it has aspired. “There are four central ways in which the combined and singular media impact both those who govern and the governing process. First, news organizations inform the public of the actions of their national government officials. Second, the information provided by news organizations influences the conduct of those in government. Third, through their published work, reporters inform people within government of the actions of other governmental institutions… Fourth information provided by news organizations serves as an early warning system for government officials of problems they may not have recognized or issues coming to the surface that they did not see coming” (Kumar 230-31). However, it is what most government officials do not appreciate, the role of the media as the agency that stands between the government and the people. “The American Fourth Estate operates as a de facto, quasi-official fourth branch government, its institutions no less important because they have been developed informally and, indeed, haphazardly” (Cater 13).
When President George W. Bush claimed in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had made overtures to acquire uranium from Niger, reporters asked for the documentation. At first White House staff did not respond, but once knowledgeable people outside of government, such as former Ambassador James Wilson, provided information challenging the president’s set of facts, staff found they had to admit their error and discuss where the speech vetting process went wrong (Kumar 229). Saddam had no nuclear weapons program (Massing 18-19). The media’s role in uncovering the facts is vital to the establishment of truth on the matter of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the involvement of the United States in keeping an eye on countries that it deems threatening its world domination. The press has the unique talent in uncovering the news that no matter how much the government conceals the fact from the public, the media can still trace it. “‘News’ refers to both a phenomenon out there in the world and a report of that phenomenon, and sometimes a news sense is said to have olfactory qualities, as in having ‘a nose for news,’ being able to ‘smell out news,’ or as stipulated in a 2003 directive from the Poynter Institute, ‘writing with your nose.’ As the Poynter guideline reminded its readers: ‘good reporters have a nose for news. They can sniff out a story. Smell as scandal. Give them a whiff of corruption and they’ll root it out like a pig diving for truffles’” (Zelizer 68). In a recent report in the New York Times, President Bush, who has fixated its eyes on Iran for many years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, has reiterated his stand that Iran “remains a threat despite an intelligence assessment that it had halted a covert program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago” (Myers A1). The president’s stand on this issue has his critics doubt his plans considering that they question his credibility, primarily because the detail of the report was not revealed to the public nor to the media. The newspaper further added a statement from Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee (and Democratic presidential candidate). The senator said, “What we learned… from the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] and what President Bush has said in the past I find extremely troubling. Here in October, President Bush raised the specter of World War III with Iran because, as he said, its pursuit of a nuclear weapon – months after he’d been told by our intelligence community it’s likely that Iran had halted its weapons program as far back as 2003. And after all we’ve been through, for this president to knowingly disregard or once again misrepresent intelligence about the issue of far and peace, I find it outrageous. This is exactly what he did – exactly what he did in the run-up to the war in Iraq in consistently exaggerating the intelligence that he had available to him, suggesting that Iraq had WMD [weapons of mass destruction]… It further undermines America’s credibility around the world, which is at an all-time low, and it undermines the credibility here at home” (A12). Not too worried about credibility was the New York Times which sought the reactions of other parties, primarily from officials in Israel (America has been supporting the Israeli government). At one time, Bush complained about the press standing as a “filter” between him and the public… (particularly in the coverage about Iraq) (Kumar 227). If the newspaper has gathered enough information and reaction from sources, it was critical of President Bush in its editorial. It said, “There is a lot of good news in the latest intelligence assessment about Iran. Tehran, we are now told, halted its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, which means that President Bush has absolutely no excuse for going to war against Iran. We are also relieved that the intelligence community is now willing to questions its own assumptions and challenge the White House’s fevered rhetoric. The president and his aides are apparently too worried about getting caught again shaving intelligence to stop that… After Iraq and Guantamano and Abu Ghraib, it is hard to imagine that this administration could do any more damage to this country’s credibility. Then it does” (“Good News and Bad News” A26). Here it is clear what the role of the media is: deliver of news, critic, and conscience. However, the decision is left to the public.
The press serves both as a resource for those who govern and as a source of pressure on officials, who must respond to press demands for information, information that government might not want to provide (Kumar 227). The recent problem on the government secrecy – that is, classifying government records as confidential and inaccessible to the press. “Government secrecy is a big and expensive business – and it’s getting bigger and more costly. [In 2003] the federal government spent more than $6.5 billion classifying and declassifying federal records. It marked 14.2 million documents as ‘Top Secret,’’Secret’ or Classified,’ putting them under lock and key for a minimum of 10 years (Weitzel 84). The government’s decision is as mysterious as it is haunting. It is said that it was spurned by the events that happened on Sept. 11, 2001. However, it wasn’t clear if that was the real reason, considering that “during the past 25 years the U.S. government has classified between 7.5 and 8 billion pages of information – enough to replace all 18 million books in the Library of Congress with shelf space to spare” (84). This government control of the release of information to the press is, perhaps, a violation of the public’s right to know. The government’s move to put some documents classified might emanate in the all levels of government agencies. “By one estimate, as many as four million local and state officials could be effectively gagged by requiring them to sign don’t show, don’t tell agreements. Secrecy is trickling down to many state and local lawmakers as well as with efforts to close records and meetings” (85). This is despite the existing Freedom of Information Act of 1967. FOIA became a law after a 16-year campaign by journalism organizations and others to promote the citizen’s ‘right to know.’ It was strengthened in 1974 and expanded to include electronic records in 1995” (86). However, after 9/11 the government severed its ties with the press by controlling the release of information. It even put into law the Patriotic Act just six weeks after the terrorist attacks to expand the FBI’s investigatory powers (86). On the other hand, the government is keen on its stand to protect the country’s security. Not too impress is Weitzel who indicated that “the federal government treats security as having only one dimension and demands that we, as a people, sacrifice other freedoms to achieve freedom from fear. If we as journalists allow this to happen, we will not only have forsaken our mission but our country. The strength of our nation is protection of its many freedoms – the first of which must be the freedom to have access to information about the decisions our government leaders make. Without that, all other freedoms are less secure” (88). The issue has not been resolved even until now.
For much of early American history, presidents were able to choose what information they released and on what terms. In the twentieth century, as the executive branch was required to provide increasing amounts of information on the record, conflicts increased over the release of specific information reporters wanted and the accuracy of what they were given (Kumar 229-230). No Monarch in history has had a retinue like that which gathers about the American President and calls itself the White House press corps. The reporters hang about his antechamber with the indolence of courtiers at some feudal court keeping those who pass in and out - Governors, Cabinet members, Senators, Ambassadors - under constant surveillance and interrogation (Cater 22). Reporting of government, like all big businesses, has its good points and its bad ones so far as the employee is concerned. The work habits are not so fixed as most, less adaptable to the time clock, more susceptible to peak and slack periods (6). The media’s purpose then is not to satisfy the government with tricks and treat. It has to satisfy the public’s thirst for something new and palatable news.
To understand more the relationship of the government and the press struggle of the press is to study some of the landmark cases. The book on United States Constitution cited the landmark case, Near v. Minnesota (1931), in which the Supreme Court explains, “The liberty of the press… is safeguarded from invasion by state action.” Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near’s Saturday Press for publishing vicious anti-Semitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in ‘prior restraint’; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from publishing or expressing a thought” (82-83). In another Supreme Court decision in 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times published an ad critical of an elected commissioner of an Alabama city. The commissioner sued for libel and won. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and said that, to ensure ‘uninhibited, robust and wide-open’ debate about public figures, the law must protect writers from libel suits. Thus, unless the words penned with ‘knowing falsity’ or ‘reckless disregard for the truth,’ a writer cannot be successfully sued by a public figure for libel (84). The dimension of the press’s criticism on government officials may be severe but for somebody who has sworn to be a public servant it is could be easily understood that service also includes sacrificing one’s personal life. “The government-press relationship has both personal and institutional layers. The personal relationship between officials and reporters is sometimes a strained one, but the institutional tie is basically cooperative. The tension arises because each side approaches the other trying to establish the terms of the relationship, and fights for what it considers to be its turf and rights” (Kumar 228). The strain may be mended but the relationship may never be the same. However, it is an acceptable fact that it is part of the deal. “No matter what the time period, information lies at the core of the relationship. Consistently, reporters present three basic demands to elected officials and those who work for them. The demands are: accurate information provided on a timely basis and responsive to the news needs of reporters; a policy of equal access to information; and guarantees of an open information policy (229).
Cater pointed out that a good reporter can be judged by the “condition of his legs. Success in the field comes from a fortuitous combination of luck and shoe leather. The business of getting news is described in the metaphors of the mine worker - pick and shovel, digging, a great deal of sweat” (1). Some reporters sweat blood in covering the war and conflict in the Middle East while others troop to the White House to record the President’s daily activities. The pressure, probably, putting on record the president’s daily appointments and interpreting it to be understood by the public. “[The reporter in Washington] have an acute sense of involvement in the churning process that is a government in America. The reporter is the recorder of government but he is also a participant. He operates in a system in which power is divided. He as much as anyone, and more than a freat many, helps to shape the course of government... He can illumine policy and notable assist in giving it sharpness and clarity; just as easily, he can prematurely expose policy and, as with an undeveloped film, cause its destruction... At his best, he can exert a creative influence on Washington politics” (Cater 7). An acute sense for news and to weigh the validity of the president’s words is what drives the Washington reporter to stay around the galleries of the White House. Consequently, every president responds to the reports in various ways. “Why such mutual fascination between the President and the press? The answer lies... in the very nature of modern American government. Publicity is as essential to its orderly functioning as the power to levy taxes and pass laws (Cater 25). Only the media can bring public officials closer to the masses. However, the price of using the media as a vehicle to propel one’s political agenda is a crucial method, but the fruits will be sweet if it the plans become successful.
Kumar and Jones accounted that in his eight years in office, President Bill Clinton had 1,603 interchanges with reporters. The numbers break down in the following way: 193 press conferences; 368 interviews in which the president sat down with one or more reporters for an exclusive session; and 1,042 short question-and-answer sessions with reporters. Taken together, President Clinton met with reporters an average 3.85 times a week and 16.7 occasions a month during his two terms in office. In his first term, President George W. Bush had fewer sessions with reporters, an average of two a week and 8.66 a month through 2003 (227-228). The reason was never known. If Bush is not keen on answering important questions that hound his administration, no other public official is to blame for his action. He may have to reflect on Cater’s words: Presidents come and go but press bureau chiefs are apt to remain a while (13). But this doesn’t mean that Bush’s administration is not using any means to alleviate the criticism hounding his governance. Afterall, he needed all the publicity he needed to forward the cause of his political affiliation. “To study the publicity process in government means to study the ways and means by which government explains itself to the people. It also means necessarily to study the news-forming habits and techniques of the press, radio, and television, which transmit most of the public explanation of government. It means to examine the definition of news itself. Just as individual man cannot communicate thoughts that lie beyond the limits of his vocabulary to express, so it might be said that the vocabulary of the press delimits the thinking of men in organized society, particularly on matters as remote to their daily experience as their national government” (13). Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and even Senator Joseph McCarthy have used the reaching power of the press to advance their cause. “The President, of course, gives the ritual of the press conference its basic content. But the reporters largely determine the form. It is a source of continual amazement to the uninitiated how loosely defined is the ground rules for interrogating our head of state… [but] the skilled reporter's measurement of "news" is not simply defined by what goes into the total story. It can be charted by which chunk goes into the "lead," which is buried in the tail, and which, with squirrel-like foresight, is tucked away for the "overnight." The dogmas of what is "news" help determine the priorities of what is communicated to the public about its government (14, 16).
The recent argument hounding the government-press relationship is “how the government can support a free press.” This time in the manner that will affect the circulation of print journalism materials, for the reason that there is an increase in periodical-class mail. “From the first days of the Republic, the founders believed that the mails were the circulatory system of our democracy. George Washington thought that newspapers should be delivered free. As post-master general, Ben Franklin arranged for magazines to be sent free. That is why ever since 1978 second-class mail (now called periodicals class) has been the beneficiary off less expensive rates than first class. It was understood then and in the early days that our best national periodicals help bind a vast country together by the exchange of ideas (“Calling Uncle Sam”). Moreover, there is the peril of losing some news businesses because of lack of investors. In this case, some media entities enquired whether the government should help ailing media corporations. “Journalism is a rare business in that its product – news- has a public-service function, but unlike other public-services activities, like public education or scientific research, it is not protected from market forces by government support. So when the financial viability of the news business is threatened, so too is the press’ role as the fourth estate” (Nordenson 37). The matter of government helping the media might be a taboo to some media personalities but “by clinging to the idea tha they work in a profession free of government involvement, journalists are perpetuating a myth that may impede the future of their profession” (39). The government and the press then work hand in hand to deliver service to the public. It may not sound proper when the public has a knowledge that some media corporations have been subsidized by the government for it to survive, but if we see it as a reality factor everything will turn into good disposition.
So, how can one sum up the relationship of the government and the press? The answer may never be unearthed. It is because “the relationship is multilayered. First, government officials and news organizations spend a great deal of time and resources making use of the presence of the other, even if there is mutual mistrust of motives and actions. Second, there are personal and institutional layers shaping the manner in which each side approaches and considers the other. While the personal relationship appears combative, with reporters and officials sometimes openly critical of one another, the institutional relationship is a continuing one wherein the two sides cooperate with one another in ways intended to maximize their own advantages. That leads to a surface tension in the relationship, but in the main the news and information demands of each of the partners forces both sides to cooperate” (Kumar 227). We may never understand how the two agencies exist in both harmonious and troubled ways, but they will continue to exist.
Work Cited
Altschull, J. Herbert. From Milton to McLuhan: The Ideas behind American Journalism, New York: Longman, 1990
Bennett, W. Lance and William Serrin. “The Watchdog Role.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 169-188.
Biagi, Shirley, Media/Impact, OH: Thomson, 2007.
“Calling Uncle Sam.” Editorial. Columbia Journalism Review May/June 2007: 4.
Cater, Douglass, The Fourth Branch of Government. MA: Riverside Press Cambridge 1959.
Cook, Timothy E. “Public Policy Toward the Press: What Government Does For the News Media.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 248-262.
Ford, Paul ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Putnam, 1892-1899, 6:357-361.
“Good and Bad News About Iran.” Editorial. New York Times 5 Dec. 2007: A26.
Kumar, Martha Joynt and Alex Jones. “Government and the Press: Issues and Trends.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 226-247.
Massing, Michael, "The War Expert," On The Contrary Op-Ed column. Columbia Journalism Review, Nov.-Dec. 2007: 18-19
Myers, Steven Lee and Helene Cooper. “Bush Insists Iran Remains a Threat Despite Arms Data.” New York Times 5 Dec. 2007: A1 and A12.
Nordenson, Bree. “The Uncle Sam Solution.” Columbia Journalism Review. September-October 2007: 37-41.
Sanford, Bruce W. and Jane E. Kirtley. “The First Amendment Tradition and its Critics.” The Press. Ed. Geneva Overholser, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. New York: Oxford, 2005. 263-276.
United States Constitution. Seventh Edition, 2006.
Weitzel, Pete. “The Steady March of Governement Secrecy.” Nieman Reports Fall 2004: 84-88.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Doveglion
I was so delighted and elated (still am) when David surprised me with this book:
This is the definitive book of poems of Jose Garcia Villa which I have been browsing through over and over at the Barnes and Noble bookstore in Pittsford. I thought there would be enough credits left from my Barnes and Noble/BASC scholarship to buy the book, sadly I put on hold in purchasing the book. Then, with David's generosity the book fell on my hand one evening.
I have told my friends that the things that should be included in my coffin when I die would be Villa's books I have collected for years (and several other things dear to me).
Thank you sooooo much, David! I owe you a lot.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Two Filipino Writers Make It To 2008 Man Asian Shortlist
Filipino writers Miguel Syjuco and Alfred Yuson made it to the shortlist of this year's Man Asian Literary Prize.
Syjuco's and Yuson's novels are Ilustrado and The Music Child, respectively.
The other finalists are Kavery Nambisan for The Story that Must Not be Told, Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi for Lost Flamingoes of Bombay, and Yu Hua for Brothers.
Filipino writers Ian Rosales Casocot (Sugar Land) and Lakambini Sitoy (Sweet Haven) made it to the longlist.
The winner will be announced on Nov. 13 in Hong Kong.
Here are some information about Syjuco and Yuson taken from the Man Asian Prize's Web site.
Miguel Syjuco was born in Manila, Philippines in 1976. His fiction and poetry have appeared in national publications and anthologies. He co-founded and edited an online publication, Localvibe.com. He has written poetry, fiction and journalism for national and international publications. The manuscript of his debut novel, Ilustrado, has just been awarded the Grand Prize at the Palanca Awards. Ilustrado begins with Crispin Salvador, lion of Philippine letters, dead in the Hudson River. His acolyte Miguel investigates the author's demise and the disappearance of a manuscript about the corruption behind rich Filipino families. To understand the death, Miguel scours the life, charting Salvador's trajectory via his poetry, stories, interviews, novels, polemics and memoirs. The literary fragments become patterns become stories become epic: a family saga of four generations tracing 150 years of Philippine history forged under the Spanish, Americans and Filipinos themselves. Finally, the story twists, belonging to young Miguel as much as his lost mentor.
Alfred A. Yuson has authored 22 books, including two novels as well as short fiction, poetry and essay collections. He contributes a weekly culture column to The Philippine Star, and a fortnightly column to the weekly Philippine Graphic magazine. He teaches fiction and poetry in Ateneo de Manila University, where he held the Henry Lee Irwin Professorial Chair. The Music Child tells about an American journalist undergoes strange experiences in a southern island in the Philippines. He stumbles into a remote tribe of hair-string fiddlers, and encounters a half-breed child with the magical gift of song. Violence intrudes, forcing him to flee. Many years later, he encounters the "music child" again, this time as a grown man who has found a female partner with an equally prodigious gift.
Syjuco's and Yuson's novels are Ilustrado and The Music Child, respectively.
The other finalists are Kavery Nambisan for The Story that Must Not be Told, Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi for Lost Flamingoes of Bombay, and Yu Hua for Brothers.
Filipino writers Ian Rosales Casocot (Sugar Land) and Lakambini Sitoy (Sweet Haven) made it to the longlist.
The winner will be announced on Nov. 13 in Hong Kong.
Here are some information about Syjuco and Yuson taken from the Man Asian Prize's Web site.
Miguel Syjuco was born in Manila, Philippines in 1976. His fiction and poetry have appeared in national publications and anthologies. He co-founded and edited an online publication, Localvibe.com. He has written poetry, fiction and journalism for national and international publications. The manuscript of his debut novel, Ilustrado, has just been awarded the Grand Prize at the Palanca Awards. Ilustrado begins with Crispin Salvador, lion of Philippine letters, dead in the Hudson River. His acolyte Miguel investigates the author's demise and the disappearance of a manuscript about the corruption behind rich Filipino families. To understand the death, Miguel scours the life, charting Salvador's trajectory via his poetry, stories, interviews, novels, polemics and memoirs. The literary fragments become patterns become stories become epic: a family saga of four generations tracing 150 years of Philippine history forged under the Spanish, Americans and Filipinos themselves. Finally, the story twists, belonging to young Miguel as much as his lost mentor.
Alfred A. Yuson has authored 22 books, including two novels as well as short fiction, poetry and essay collections. He contributes a weekly culture column to The Philippine Star, and a fortnightly column to the weekly Philippine Graphic magazine. He teaches fiction and poetry in Ateneo de Manila University, where he held the Henry Lee Irwin Professorial Chair. The Music Child tells about an American journalist undergoes strange experiences in a southern island in the Philippines. He stumbles into a remote tribe of hair-string fiddlers, and encounters a half-breed child with the magical gift of song. Violence intrudes, forcing him to flee. Many years later, he encounters the "music child" again, this time as a grown man who has found a female partner with an equally prodigious gift.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Ontario County Park, New York
Visit Ontario County Park for more information.
Ontario County Park
Rt. 64Bristol Springs, NY
Ontario County Park
Rt. 64Bristol Springs, NY
145125
585-374-6250
Hurd Orchard
On a Sunday afternoon, David and I went out to Childs, New York to eat out at Tillman's Restaurant. It was a gorgeous day, David was so excited about going out to eat and wander around unknown regions of New York. It was also one of those days when I could show David my superb driving skills (you know, the drive-and-stop stuff like what Maggie Griffin said when Kathy gifted her with an old folk's scooter). On our way we stopped at Hurd Orchards in Holley, New York. Hurd is a cute little place - posh and dusty. It is one of those places out in the county where dust is an essential part of social status. You can sniff the many fragrant soaps and candles, and sneeze afterwards - well, it would be a posh sneeze anyhow. And you know David, he likes going out to these old barns with homey atmosphere, but he wouldn't live out in the county ("I will stay wherever I am now. It is closer to everything, especially Wegman's").
Hurd is a quaint shop/restaurant. You can have your wedding reception there or enjoy the nice view of the farm while sipping your coffee or tea.
Isn't this a nice picture?
Hurd Orchards open:
MAY, JUNE, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER
Wednesday - Sunday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm
JULY AND AUGUST
Everyday, 10:00 am - 6:00 p.m.
phone: 585-638-8838
fax: 585-638-5175
address: 17260 Ridge Road, Holley, NY 14470
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)