No abstract

Binary communications represent the world as a place of polar opposites. Such conceptions of reality, although not uncommon in Western thought, take on a heightened importance when political leaders employ them in a concerted, strategic discourse in a mass media environment. With this in mind, this research offers a conception of binary discourse and uses this as a foundation to examine (a) the use of binaries by U.S. President George W. Bush in 15 national addresses, from his inauguration in January 2001 to commencement of the Iraq War in March 2003, and (b) the responses of editorials in 20 leading U.S. newspapers to the president's communications.

Political leaders craft public communications in a strategic manner and attempt to use mass media as a political resource. With this in mind, we argue that during summer and autumn 2002 President George W. Bush extended the September 11 crisis through emphasis in public communications on internal "homeland" security and an external "war on terror"—discourses into which Iraq was carefully inserted over time. These strategic communications allowed the president to significantly shape U.S. news coverage, helped Republicans gain control of Congress, and propelled the United States toward war with Iraq. Our analysis shows that Bush's emphasis on three themes in combination with a particular sequence of discourse facilitated a subtle shift from a focus solely on homeland security legislation to one that emphasized the dangers of Saddam Hussein's Iraq without substantive changes in the accompanying arguments. Further, analysis of U.S. news coverage during the same dates indicates that news media often followed the president's messages about these topics.

Upon passing their driver's license exam every American has the opportunity to become an organ donor. Organ donor status allows immediate retrieval of transplantable organs after death for transplantation into other patients in order to save their lives. Many citizens endorse this action because one donor can save multiple lives by donating viable organs postmortem. However, some people do not endorse organ transplants arguing that it violates the body and that being an organ donor results in a premature declaration of death.The current standard for cadaveric transplantation is retrieval from heart beating donors. A heart beating donor is brain dead with circulation artificially maintained by a ventilator. The ethical permissibility of this standard is questioned by some Christians. Christians do not believe in a bodily resurrection which provides one basis for permitting organ transplants. Christians also view the body as having intrinsic worth because of the presence of the image of God. When one views bodies as having intrinsic worth organ donation becomes a natural logical conclusion supported by stewardship and loving others (Richards, 2012). While there is nothing inherently wrong with giving of receiving cadaveric organs ethical discussions still remain. Transplantation of cadaveric organs raises ethical questions about the dying process, defining death, and bodily integrity (Ramsey, 2002).The best way to evaluate these ethical issues is by establishing a Biblical framework through which to consider and evaluate them. This paper will perform that task, ultimately arguing for the support of cadaveric transplants by Christians as an exercise of stewardship practiced in a way that maintains the sanctity of life.