Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
John, 2.0
I have about one more week in the D, before headed back to the country for the 9 month school year. I think I will write as I go. It will give me some history to reflect on. We shall see. This may turn out to be something like Highway to a Husband.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Boyce Watkins College Habits
Hey peeps,
if you'd like to contribute to the cost of sending Asha Castleberry, one of our representatives, on a humanitarian mission to Haiti, please click here. Any support would be greatly appreciated, and I really want to see Asha make this trip. The world has forgotten about the suffering of Haiti since they are no longer in the media, but be clear - the suffering continues.
Beyond that, I just went to get a passport and driver's permit for my daughter the other day. I believe that all of our children need passports so they can see the world and broaden their horizons. One of my kids just got back from France, and I can see how her perspective has changed already. My little girl is starting college this fall, so we are both excited. The primary lessons I gave to her are the following:
1) Avoid the culture of rampant alcoholism and irresponsible sexual choices that exist on many campuses. Everything must be done in moderation (although I make it clear that she has a right to make her own decisions - I am not a helicopter parent).
2) Study 4 - 6 hours per day, just like a part-time job. I am not sending my child to college to be average, and neither should any of us. If kids can work 8 hours a day at McDonald's, they can study four hours a day.
3) Visit your professors at least once a week. They need to know your face, since this influences your grades and also makes a difference in the quality of letters they write for you later on.
4) Study in a quiet place with no distractions so you can get your work done. Studying in a dorm room with the TV on means that you'll waste time and not be able to have any fun because you'll need twice as much work to get half as much done.
5) Have a blast - college is the most fun you'll have in your life. College is about much more than just studying. But by having a proper balance, the fun can really begin once you're educated and doing well financially. I didn't really start having fun until I had a little money in my pocket and saw the benefits of a good educational foundation.
I explained to her that most college professors automatically give you a "B" for simply doing what you are told. To get an "A," you just have to do a little bit more. The key word that she and I remember is "consistency." Students who cram and wait to the last minute always end up stressed out with a poor performance. Those who study consistently typically dominate the rest of the class. That was the only reason I was able to do so well in college, since I was nobody's Rhodes Scholar in high school (I failed almost everything - I did well in college by applying principles I'd learned from practicing everyday in sports).
I thought I would share some of the info I give to my daughter so you can share it with your kids. After teaching at the college level for the past 17 years, I've concluded that it's just a hustle with a simple formula. If George Bush can graduate from Harvard, then all of our kids can be outstanding scholars. Push your kids to be the best, and to take the word "me" out of "mediocrity." If you want to read more, please feel free to get the discounted version of my book, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about College."
Sincerely,
Dr. Boyce
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Rules Between Men and Women
Women's Rules
1. The female always makes the rules.
2. The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification.
3. No male can possibly know all the rules.
4. If the female suspects the male knows all the rules, she must
immediately change some or all of the rules.
5. The female is never wrong.
6. If the female is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding
which was a direct result of something the male did or said wrong.
7. When rule 6 applies, the male must apologize immediately for causing
the misunderstanding.
8. The female can change her mind at any time.
9. The male must never change his mind without written consent
from the female.
10. The female has every right to be angry or upset at any time.
11. The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female
wants him to be angry or upset.
12. The female must under no circumstances let the male know
whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
13. If the female has PMS, all rules are null and void.
14. Any attempt to document these rules could result in bodily harm
to the male.
1. The female always makes the rules.
2. The rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification.
3. No male can possibly know all the rules.
4. If the female suspects the male knows all the rules, she must
immediately change some or all of the rules.
5. The female is never wrong.
6. If the female is wrong, it is because of a flagrant misunderstanding
which was a direct result of something the male did or said wrong.
7. When rule 6 applies, the male must apologize immediately for causing
the misunderstanding.
8. The female can change her mind at any time.
9. The male must never change his mind without written consent
from the female.
10. The female has every right to be angry or upset at any time.
11. The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female
wants him to be angry or upset.
12. The female must under no circumstances let the male know
whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
13. If the female has PMS, all rules are null and void.
14. Any attempt to document these rules could result in bodily harm
to the male.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Black women and marriage
http://newsone.com/nation/boycewatkins/dr-boyce-black-women-cant-find-good-men-oh-really/
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Bifurcated Images of African-Americans
The Bi-polar and Bi-furcated Exclusion of African-Americans and the United States Constitution
by John R. Arnold
The American Constitution is a value system whose basic content stems from supposedly egalitarian conceptions of the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America, authored by the founding fathers who also happened to be rich, many of whom were slave owners. Slave ownership contradicts the very spirit of United State’s Constitution. In fact, the Constitution may very well be a cleverly designed form of principality, as described by Niccolo Machiavelli:
All the states, all the dominions under whose authority men have lived
in the past and live now have been and are either republics or principalities
[republics being representative government, or semi-representative government]
(Bull, 1995).
The word "slavery" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution until the 13th amendment of 1865, which was ratified nearly 100 years after the Founding Fathers declared all men are created equal. Nevertheless, the initial Constitution of the American republic, by omission, gave indirect sanction to the institution of slavery. For example, the delegates, when determining congressional distribution and how and who to count as residents of particular states, agreed in the Continental Congress, as was determined in Article I of the U S Constitution:
…which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons,
including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians
not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons (U.S Constitution, Article I).
The Constitution then required, in Article 1, section 9, the return to their owners of “such persons” (fugitive slaves persons?) held to Service from crossing state lines, and it set the date for ending the “non-admitted to” slave trade, twenty years hence:
…The migration or importation of such persons as any of the state now
existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress
prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty
may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
person (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9).
According to author Dorothy Twohig’s article, Species and Properties (Twohig, 1991), which was a review of President George Washington’s position and actions regarding the slavery issue, Twohig’s assumption was that Washington had serious philosophical issues with regard to continuing the institution of slavery. George Washington was thought to be against slavery; but he was one of the larges slave owners in the colonies. Twohig insists that Washington’s behavior was cowardly in not addressing the morality of the slavery issue and for him, in his position as the president of America, to keep his personal beliefs private, as well as continued to own slaves was nothing less than hypocrisy of morality; however, Washington’s will did free his slaves upon his death.
The moral of slavery was raised at the Constitutional Convention on several occasions. Ironically, George Mason, an aid to one of the largest slave owners, Thomas Jefferson, may have voiced the most eloquent attack on slavery at the Constitutional Convention when he said,
[slavery]…produces the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master
of slaves is born a petty tyrant… Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when they see it performed by slaves....I hold it essential
... that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase
of slavery (Papers of George Mason, 1970).
Conversely, Thomas Jefferson merely freed one of his nearly 200 hundred slaves; the one whom he had children with, Sally Hemmings, only after his death. In October 1802, while he was president, the story was published in newspapers that Thomas Jefferson, whose wife had died in 1782, was keeping his wife's slave half-sister, Sally Hemings, as a concubine and was producing children from her. Jefferson, who lived for 44 years after the death of his wife and who never remarried, never denied the story, but he never admitted it either. Sally Hemings was at his bedside when he died. Thomas Jefferson freed all five children of Sally Hemings either just before his death or in his will. Thomas Jefferson made provisions for Sally Hemmings in his will. These were the only slaves Thomas Jefferson freed (Sloan, 1998).
In the following years, the abolitionist movement would use the same anti-slavery arguments as Mason did, and bring to bear the same sense of moral outrage; but during the time of the ratification of the constitution the issue of slavery was evaded by the Founding Fathers, both as a word and as a moral challenge. It would ultimately take the tragic conflagration of the Civil War (1861-1865) to end human bondage in the United States and start the country along the elusive path to full racial equality.
One premise of why the wealthy founding fathers were reluctant to do away with the institution of slavery earlier may have been because they wanted to design America as a white police state. In hindsight, it appears the founding fathers main function was guarding the aristocrat’s estates from the poor. Even as late as 1830, President Andrew Jackson told Congress in his second Annual Message:
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of
the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the
removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example
will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages
(Richardson, 1908).
The majority society of early America was not a society of equals (as a republic should be) but a society of servants, slaves and poor whites. The government of this, so called, republic may have been a device set up deliberately by the wealthy as a form of protection, which may answer why the chief responsibility of the President of the United States of America was (and is) law enforcement.
The republic was originally designed only to represent the interests of the owners of property. This political scientist believes many Americans have been literally conditioned to accept the notion that a republic is better than a kingdom because citizens of a republic, be definition, are supposed to be free.
The American republic certainly was not designed with the best interest of blacks and Indians in mind and, it may not have been designed to make its non-wealthy citizens free either. Instead, it may have been designed to reduce the citizen’s rights from the status of endowments individuals were born with, into privileges accorded to them by the Bill of Rights and by the Founding Fathers; and these privileges could be taken away upon bad behavior.
The Federal Government views the rights conveyed by the Bill of Rights as privileges it can revoke, like the privilege of a driver's license. However, the reality is the traditional freedom of the people pre-dated the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights. In fact, both of those instruments were really meant to limit the traditional liberties freemen were entitled to under the common law since at least 1215.
No product of human society is perfect. Despite its many amendments, the Constitution of the United States is still hypocritical and contains flaws, which may become evident in future periods of stress. However, for the interest of the aristocrats of the United States; two centuries of growth and unrivaled prosperity have proven the foresight of the 40 Anglo-Saxon and mostly rich men who worked through the summer of 1787 to lay the foundation of American government for wealthy people, at the expense of poor and minority people. The Constitution uses the concepts that the Constitution is the source of civil rights as the basic mindset of the Federal Government and that the American people owe it gratitude for their freedom. This hypocritical attitude mirrors a principality because in most other republics the traditional outlook would require a legal Government to feel gratitude that the people allow it any power to exist. The constitution may be have been a fancy way of expanding a new principality under guise of a republic for rich white men at the expense of the natural civil rights of the poor and minorities.
References
Machiavelli, N. (1995). The prince (translated by George Bull). New York: Penguin Books.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
Twohig, D. (1991). The papers of George Washington: The species of property, Washington’s
role in the controversy over slavery. Originally presented at a Conference on Washington and Slavery at Mount Vernon, October, 1991. http:///www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/articles/slavery.html
The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill, N.C: University of North Carolina Press, (1970) 1:61
http://visit.gunstonhall.org/gunstonhall/quotes#on
Sloan, S.H. (1998). The slave children of Thomas Jefferson. P.320. Santa Monica, CA: The Orseden Press.
Richardson, J.D. (1908). President Andrew Jackson’s second annual message to Congress, A compilation of the messages and papers of the presidents 1789-1908, Volume II, Published by Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1908. http://webcr05.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3437t.html
by John R. Arnold
The American Constitution is a value system whose basic content stems from supposedly egalitarian conceptions of the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America, authored by the founding fathers who also happened to be rich, many of whom were slave owners. Slave ownership contradicts the very spirit of United State’s Constitution. In fact, the Constitution may very well be a cleverly designed form of principality, as described by Niccolo Machiavelli:
All the states, all the dominions under whose authority men have lived
in the past and live now have been and are either republics or principalities
[republics being representative government, or semi-representative government]
(Bull, 1995).
The word "slavery" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution until the 13th amendment of 1865, which was ratified nearly 100 years after the Founding Fathers declared all men are created equal. Nevertheless, the initial Constitution of the American republic, by omission, gave indirect sanction to the institution of slavery. For example, the delegates, when determining congressional distribution and how and who to count as residents of particular states, agreed in the Continental Congress, as was determined in Article I of the U S Constitution:
…which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons,
including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians
not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons (U.S Constitution, Article I).
The Constitution then required, in Article 1, section 9, the return to their owners of “such persons” (fugitive slaves persons?) held to Service from crossing state lines, and it set the date for ending the “non-admitted to” slave trade, twenty years hence:
…The migration or importation of such persons as any of the state now
existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress
prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty
may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
person (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9).
According to author Dorothy Twohig’s article, Species and Properties (Twohig, 1991), which was a review of President George Washington’s position and actions regarding the slavery issue, Twohig’s assumption was that Washington had serious philosophical issues with regard to continuing the institution of slavery. George Washington was thought to be against slavery; but he was one of the larges slave owners in the colonies. Twohig insists that Washington’s behavior was cowardly in not addressing the morality of the slavery issue and for him, in his position as the president of America, to keep his personal beliefs private, as well as continued to own slaves was nothing less than hypocrisy of morality; however, Washington’s will did free his slaves upon his death.
The moral of slavery was raised at the Constitutional Convention on several occasions. Ironically, George Mason, an aid to one of the largest slave owners, Thomas Jefferson, may have voiced the most eloquent attack on slavery at the Constitutional Convention when he said,
[slavery]…produces the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master
of slaves is born a petty tyrant… Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when they see it performed by slaves....I hold it essential
... that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase
of slavery (Papers of George Mason, 1970).
Conversely, Thomas Jefferson merely freed one of his nearly 200 hundred slaves; the one whom he had children with, Sally Hemmings, only after his death. In October 1802, while he was president, the story was published in newspapers that Thomas Jefferson, whose wife had died in 1782, was keeping his wife's slave half-sister, Sally Hemings, as a concubine and was producing children from her. Jefferson, who lived for 44 years after the death of his wife and who never remarried, never denied the story, but he never admitted it either. Sally Hemings was at his bedside when he died. Thomas Jefferson freed all five children of Sally Hemings either just before his death or in his will. Thomas Jefferson made provisions for Sally Hemmings in his will. These were the only slaves Thomas Jefferson freed (Sloan, 1998).
In the following years, the abolitionist movement would use the same anti-slavery arguments as Mason did, and bring to bear the same sense of moral outrage; but during the time of the ratification of the constitution the issue of slavery was evaded by the Founding Fathers, both as a word and as a moral challenge. It would ultimately take the tragic conflagration of the Civil War (1861-1865) to end human bondage in the United States and start the country along the elusive path to full racial equality.
One premise of why the wealthy founding fathers were reluctant to do away with the institution of slavery earlier may have been because they wanted to design America as a white police state. In hindsight, it appears the founding fathers main function was guarding the aristocrat’s estates from the poor. Even as late as 1830, President Andrew Jackson told Congress in his second Annual Message:
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of
the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the
removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example
will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages
(Richardson, 1908).
The majority society of early America was not a society of equals (as a republic should be) but a society of servants, slaves and poor whites. The government of this, so called, republic may have been a device set up deliberately by the wealthy as a form of protection, which may answer why the chief responsibility of the President of the United States of America was (and is) law enforcement.
The republic was originally designed only to represent the interests of the owners of property. This political scientist believes many Americans have been literally conditioned to accept the notion that a republic is better than a kingdom because citizens of a republic, be definition, are supposed to be free.
The American republic certainly was not designed with the best interest of blacks and Indians in mind and, it may not have been designed to make its non-wealthy citizens free either. Instead, it may have been designed to reduce the citizen’s rights from the status of endowments individuals were born with, into privileges accorded to them by the Bill of Rights and by the Founding Fathers; and these privileges could be taken away upon bad behavior.
The Federal Government views the rights conveyed by the Bill of Rights as privileges it can revoke, like the privilege of a driver's license. However, the reality is the traditional freedom of the people pre-dated the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights. In fact, both of those instruments were really meant to limit the traditional liberties freemen were entitled to under the common law since at least 1215.
No product of human society is perfect. Despite its many amendments, the Constitution of the United States is still hypocritical and contains flaws, which may become evident in future periods of stress. However, for the interest of the aristocrats of the United States; two centuries of growth and unrivaled prosperity have proven the foresight of the 40 Anglo-Saxon and mostly rich men who worked through the summer of 1787 to lay the foundation of American government for wealthy people, at the expense of poor and minority people. The Constitution uses the concepts that the Constitution is the source of civil rights as the basic mindset of the Federal Government and that the American people owe it gratitude for their freedom. This hypocritical attitude mirrors a principality because in most other republics the traditional outlook would require a legal Government to feel gratitude that the people allow it any power to exist. The constitution may be have been a fancy way of expanding a new principality under guise of a republic for rich white men at the expense of the natural civil rights of the poor and minorities.
References
Machiavelli, N. (1995). The prince (translated by George Bull). New York: Penguin Books.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
Twohig, D. (1991). The papers of George Washington: The species of property, Washington’s
role in the controversy over slavery. Originally presented at a Conference on Washington and Slavery at Mount Vernon, October, 1991. http:///www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/articles/slavery.html
The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill, N.C: University of North Carolina Press, (1970) 1:61
http://visit.gunstonhall.org/gunstonhall/quotes#on
Sloan, S.H. (1998). The slave children of Thomas Jefferson. P.320. Santa Monica, CA: The Orseden Press.
Richardson, J.D. (1908). President Andrew Jackson’s second annual message to Congress, A compilation of the messages and papers of the presidents 1789-1908, Volume II, Published by Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1908. http://webcr05.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3437t.html
The Catholic Church Has Issues
Pope Paul VI and Pope Leo VIII: The Issue of Resource Sharing In Modern Social Times
John Arnold
Poli Sci 355
11/11/99
Just as Pope John Paul II addresses the delicate issue of property, Pope Paul VI condemns the intolerable injustices caused by the misappropriation of property and governments that do not recognize earthly goods are meant for everyone, as did his predecessor Pope Leo VIII whose teachings directed to the rich was “to own money is distinct form the just use of money (34).” Each Pope was in agreement that the economic system of their respective times were the same systems which were allowing and encouraging various forms of human exploitation, i.e., low wages and denial of workers’ human dignity.
Each Pope built their respective teaching on, and took license with, the teachings of Pope Leo VIII who insisted God gave the earth for man to enjoy. “He intended indiscriminate ownership of it by all, but because He assigned no part to anyone in ownership, leaving the limits of private possession to be fixed by the industry of men and the institutions of peoples (14).” This is the point of contention throughout the ages, i.e., the sharing of the resources between the rich and the poor.
In the encyclical teachings Populorum Progressio, The Development of Peoples, Pope Paul VI addresses governments on the question of property, the conflicts between the classes, the new world order; and the alarming disproportions in developing economies. In this “Third World” text Pope Paul VI is building directly on the earlier teachings of his antecedent, Pope Leo XIII, who saw an urgent need for Catholics to have a presence in political life. In Pope Paul VI’s 1967 teachings, he justified the church encouraging political involvement by referencing the second Vatican Ecumenical Council, as “a renewed consciousness of the demands of the Gospel making it her duty to put herself at the service of all, to help them (the wealthy) grasp their serious problem in all its dimensions and to convince them that solidarity in action at this turning point in human history is a matter of urgency.” Pope Leo VIII’ s teachings were in relationship to the Industrial Revolution.
Pope Paul VI’s teaching may have been related to the New World Order. However, both Pope Paul VI’s and Pope Leo VIII’s teachings were addressing the complex social issue of the rich and the poor, during each Pope’s respective time and place.
Pope Leo XIII offered ideas and methods for giving rise to liberalism and at the same time models of sensible socialism to meet the need for fundamental rights and obligations of humanity (Marxist?). His years of diplomatic experience had given him a certain flexibility; Leo XIII reversed much of the conservative political policy of Pope Pius IX. However, Rerum Novarum ((1891), was especially important for the leadership he gave on the social question of the condition of individual workers in the modern world. This teaching was necessary to document and outlined the duties of improved behaviors of individual employers as well as the responsibility of workers. Pope Leo VIII went further in upholding the principles of collective bargaining, just wages, and private property, “All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights.” Seventy-five years later, Pope Paul VI wrote, “Inequality is normal.” Again, In Populorum Progressio, Pope Paul VI’s teachings deal with the hard reality of modern economics and the imbalance between the rich and the poor.
In 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote, “Local and individual undertakings are no longer enough. The present condition of the world demands concerted action, based on a clear vision of all economic social and cultural and spiritual aspects. We have a duty, since we have benefited from people who came before us, to make life better for those who come after us (13).” Pope Paul VI makes it clear he is including all men of God's will (Nostra Aetate) including non-Catholics (82) and, in chapter (5) he brings together Catholic sons and Christian brothers to address the issues of government making certain the big countries would not exploit smaller countries, and rich landowners would not continue to treat workers and the poor inhumanly.
Pope Paul VI specifically addresses the rich people in chapter seven: Colonizing powers have furthered their own interest, power and glory, with one kind of crop. But he also praises the landowners because they brought their science and technical knowledge, and left beneficial results of their presence in under-privileged regions; brining improved living conditions. Nevertheless, because the wealthy often have vast influence within governments and continue to “not see” the plight of the poor, Pope Paul VI encourages the press to present “efforts to promote mutual assistance among peoples as well as the spectacles of the miseries which men tend to forget in order to quiet their consciences, “Thus at least the wealthy will know that the poor stand outside their doors waiting to receive some leftovers from their banquets.”
Pope Paul VI appears to instruct governments to become the It is obvious this pope was leaning more to the Marxist ideology. Pope Paul VI goes so far as to encourage governments to make the wealthy “accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save peace. “ This is very similar to Pope Leo XIII teachings regarding wages and the ability to earn a living (70). Pope Leo VIII suggest the state should be the arbitrary between the poor and those who own the resources (25).
Just as written in Rerum Novarum, because the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest, in civil society, because of their individual talents and skills, overseers of the rich to make certain the wealth is shared with the workers. The socialists presuppose that the different classes in society are automatically hostile to one another. There will always be those differences in the conditions of citizens without which society could neither exist nor be conceived.
Pope Leo XIII would be in agreement with Pope Paul VI in that the poor must be taken care of. Pope Leo XIII did not support the socialists idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, because it violates the rights of “lawful landowners, and throws the state government into confusion.” This is an area Pope Leo XIII suggests we all should approach very carefully, after all, the reason the poor people work is to save enough money to buy some land of their own. If the system was changed, there would be no incentives for the poor to continue to work, and this could lead to anarchy.
John Arnold
Poli Sci 355
11/11/99
Just as Pope John Paul II addresses the delicate issue of property, Pope Paul VI condemns the intolerable injustices caused by the misappropriation of property and governments that do not recognize earthly goods are meant for everyone, as did his predecessor Pope Leo VIII whose teachings directed to the rich was “to own money is distinct form the just use of money (34).” Each Pope was in agreement that the economic system of their respective times were the same systems which were allowing and encouraging various forms of human exploitation, i.e., low wages and denial of workers’ human dignity.
Each Pope built their respective teaching on, and took license with, the teachings of Pope Leo VIII who insisted God gave the earth for man to enjoy. “He intended indiscriminate ownership of it by all, but because He assigned no part to anyone in ownership, leaving the limits of private possession to be fixed by the industry of men and the institutions of peoples (14).” This is the point of contention throughout the ages, i.e., the sharing of the resources between the rich and the poor.
In the encyclical teachings Populorum Progressio, The Development of Peoples, Pope Paul VI addresses governments on the question of property, the conflicts between the classes, the new world order; and the alarming disproportions in developing economies. In this “Third World” text Pope Paul VI is building directly on the earlier teachings of his antecedent, Pope Leo XIII, who saw an urgent need for Catholics to have a presence in political life. In Pope Paul VI’s 1967 teachings, he justified the church encouraging political involvement by referencing the second Vatican Ecumenical Council, as “a renewed consciousness of the demands of the Gospel making it her duty to put herself at the service of all, to help them (the wealthy) grasp their serious problem in all its dimensions and to convince them that solidarity in action at this turning point in human history is a matter of urgency.” Pope Leo VIII’ s teachings were in relationship to the Industrial Revolution.
Pope Paul VI’s teaching may have been related to the New World Order. However, both Pope Paul VI’s and Pope Leo VIII’s teachings were addressing the complex social issue of the rich and the poor, during each Pope’s respective time and place.
Pope Leo XIII offered ideas and methods for giving rise to liberalism and at the same time models of sensible socialism to meet the need for fundamental rights and obligations of humanity (Marxist?). His years of diplomatic experience had given him a certain flexibility; Leo XIII reversed much of the conservative political policy of Pope Pius IX. However, Rerum Novarum ((1891), was especially important for the leadership he gave on the social question of the condition of individual workers in the modern world. This teaching was necessary to document and outlined the duties of improved behaviors of individual employers as well as the responsibility of workers. Pope Leo VIII went further in upholding the principles of collective bargaining, just wages, and private property, “All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights.” Seventy-five years later, Pope Paul VI wrote, “Inequality is normal.” Again, In Populorum Progressio, Pope Paul VI’s teachings deal with the hard reality of modern economics and the imbalance between the rich and the poor.
In 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote, “Local and individual undertakings are no longer enough. The present condition of the world demands concerted action, based on a clear vision of all economic social and cultural and spiritual aspects. We have a duty, since we have benefited from people who came before us, to make life better for those who come after us (13).” Pope Paul VI makes it clear he is including all men of God's will (Nostra Aetate) including non-Catholics (82) and, in chapter (5) he brings together Catholic sons and Christian brothers to address the issues of government making certain the big countries would not exploit smaller countries, and rich landowners would not continue to treat workers and the poor inhumanly.
Pope Paul VI specifically addresses the rich people in chapter seven: Colonizing powers have furthered their own interest, power and glory, with one kind of crop. But he also praises the landowners because they brought their science and technical knowledge, and left beneficial results of their presence in under-privileged regions; brining improved living conditions. Nevertheless, because the wealthy often have vast influence within governments and continue to “not see” the plight of the poor, Pope Paul VI encourages the press to present “efforts to promote mutual assistance among peoples as well as the spectacles of the miseries which men tend to forget in order to quiet their consciences, “Thus at least the wealthy will know that the poor stand outside their doors waiting to receive some leftovers from their banquets.”
Pope Paul VI appears to instruct governments to become the It is obvious this pope was leaning more to the Marxist ideology. Pope Paul VI goes so far as to encourage governments to make the wealthy “accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save peace. “ This is very similar to Pope Leo XIII teachings regarding wages and the ability to earn a living (70). Pope Leo VIII suggest the state should be the arbitrary between the poor and those who own the resources (25).
Just as written in Rerum Novarum, because the lowest cannot be made equal with the highest, in civil society, because of their individual talents and skills, overseers of the rich to make certain the wealth is shared with the workers. The socialists presuppose that the different classes in society are automatically hostile to one another. There will always be those differences in the conditions of citizens without which society could neither exist nor be conceived.
Pope Leo XIII would be in agreement with Pope Paul VI in that the poor must be taken care of. Pope Leo XIII did not support the socialists idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, because it violates the rights of “lawful landowners, and throws the state government into confusion.” This is an area Pope Leo XIII suggests we all should approach very carefully, after all, the reason the poor people work is to save enough money to buy some land of their own. If the system was changed, there would be no incentives for the poor to continue to work, and this could lead to anarchy.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Blacks and the Constitution
The Bi-polar and Bi-furcated Exclusion of African-Americans and the United States Constitution
by John R. Arnold
The American Constitution is a value system whose basic content stems from supposedly egalitarian conceptions of the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America, authored by the founding fathers who also happened to be rich, many of whom were slave owners. Slave ownership contradicts the very spirit of United State’s Constitution. In fact, the Constitution may very well be a cleverly designed form of principality, as described by Niccolo Machiavelli: All the states, all the dominions under whose authority men have lived in the past and live now have been and are either republics or principalities [republics being representative government, or semi-representative government] (Bull, 1995).
The word "slavery" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution until the 13th amendment of 1865, which was ratified nearly 100 years after the Founding Fathers declared all men are created equal. Nevertheless, the initial Constitution of the American republic, by omission, gave indirect sanction to the institution of slavery. For example, the delegates, when determining congressional distribution and how and who to count as residents of particular states, agreed in the Continental Congress, as was determined in Article I of the U S Constitution: …which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons,including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons (U.S Constitution, Article I).
The Constitution then required, in Article 1, section 9, the return to their owners of “such persons” (fugitive slaves persons?) held to Service from crossing state lines, and it set the date for ending the “non-admitted to” slave trade, twenty years hence: …The migration or importation of such persons as any of the state now
existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9).
According to author Dorothy Twohig’s article, Species and Properties (Twohig, 1991), which was a review of President George Washington’s position and actions regarding the slavery issue, Twohig’s assumption was that Washington had serious philosophical issues with regard to continuing the institution of slavery. George Washington was thought to be against slavery; but he was one of the larges slave owners in the colonies. Twohig insists that Washington’s behavior was cowardly in not addressing the morality of the slavery issue and for him, in his position as the president of America, to keep his personal beliefs private, as well as continued to own slaves was nothing less than hypocrisy of morality; however, Washington’s will did free his slaves upon his death.
The moral of slavery was raised at the Constitutional Convention on several occasions. Ironically, George Mason, an aid to one of the largest slave owners, Thomas Jefferson, may have voiced the most eloquent attack on slavery at the Constitutional Convention when he said,[slavery]…produces the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant… Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when they see it performed by slaves....I hold it essential ... that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery (Papers of George Mason, 1970). Conversely, Thomas Jefferson merely freed one of his nearly 200 hundred slaves; the one whom he had children with, Sally Hemmings, only after his death. In October 1802, while he was president, the story was published in newspapers that Thomas Jefferson, whose wife had died in 1782, was keeping his wife's slave half-sister, Sally Hemings, as a concubine and was producing children from her. Jefferson, who lived for 44 years after the death of his wife and who never remarried, never denied the story, but he never admitted it either. Sally Hemings was at his bedside when he died. Thomas Jefferson freed all five children of Sally Hemings either just before his death or in his will. Thomas Jefferson made provisions for Sally Hemmings in his will. These were the only slaves Thomas Jefferson freed (Sloan, 1998).
In the following years, the abolitionist movement would use the same anti-slavery arguments as Mason did, and bring to bear the same sense of moral outrage; but during the time of the ratification of the constitution the issue of slavery was evaded by the Founding Fathers, both as a word and as a moral challenge. It would ultimately take the tragic conflagration of the Civil War (1861-1865) to end human bondage in the United States and start the country along the elusive path to full racial equality.
One premise of why the wealthy founding fathers were reluctant to do away with the institution of slavery earlier may have been because they wanted to design America as a white police state. In hindsight, it appears the founding fathers main function was guarding the aristocrat’s estates from the poor. Even as late as 1830, President Andrew Jackson told Congress in his second Annual Message:
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of
the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the
removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example
will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages
(Richardson, 1908).
The majority society of early America was not a society of equals (as a republic should be) but a society of servants, slaves and poor whites. The government of this, so called, republic may have been a device set up deliberately by the wealthy as a form of protection, which may answer why the chief responsibility of the President of the United States of America was (and is) law enforcement.
The republic was originally designed only to represent the interests of the owners of property. This political scientist believes many Americans have been literally conditioned to accept the notion that a republic is better than a kingdom because citizens of a republic, be definition, are supposed to be free.
The American republic certainly was not designed with the best interest of blacks and Indians in mind and, it may not have been designed to make its non-wealthy citizens free either. Instead, it may have been designed to reduce the citizen’s rights from the status of endowments individuals were born with, into privileges accorded to them by the Bill of Rights and by the Founding Fathers; and these privileges could be taken away upon bad behavior.
The Federal Government views the rights conveyed by the Bill of Rights as privileges it can revoke, like the privilege of a driver's license. However, the reality is the traditional freedom of the people pre-dated the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights. In fact, both of those instruments were really meant to limit the traditional liberties freemen were entitled to under the common law since at least 1215.
No product of human society is perfect. Despite its many amendments, the Constitution of the United States is still hypocritical and contains flaws, which may become evident in future periods of stress. However, for the interest of the aristocrats of the United States; two centuries of growth and unrivaled prosperity have proven the foresight of the 40 Anglo-Saxon and mostly rich men who worked through the summer of 1787 to lay the foundation of American government for wealthy people, at the expense of poor and minority people. The Constitution uses the concepts that the Constitution is the source of civil rights as the basic mindset of the Federal Government and that the American people owe it gratitude for their freedom. This hypocritical attitude mirrors a principality because in most other republics the traditional outlook would require a legal Government to feel gratitude that the people allow it any power to exist. The constitution may be have been a fancy way of expanding a new principality under guise of a republic for rich white men at the expense of the natural civil rights of the poor and minorities.
References
Machiavelli, N. (1995). The prince (translated by George Bull). New York: Penguin Books.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
Twohig, D. (1991). The papers of George Washington: The species of property, Washington’s role in the controversy over slavery. Originally presented at a Conference on Washington and Slavery at Mount Vernon, October, 1991. http:///www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/articles/slavery.html
The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill, N.C: University of North Carolina Press, (1970) 1:61 http://visit.gunstonhall.org/gunstonhall/quotes#on
Sloan, S.H. (1998). The slave children of Thomas Jefferson. P.320. Santa Monica, CA: The Orseden Press.
Richardson, J.D. (1908). President Andrew Jackson’s second annual message to Congress, A compilation of the messages and papers of the presidents 1789-1908, Volume II, Published by Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1908. http://webcr05.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3437t.html
by John R. Arnold
The American Constitution is a value system whose basic content stems from supposedly egalitarian conceptions of the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America, authored by the founding fathers who also happened to be rich, many of whom were slave owners. Slave ownership contradicts the very spirit of United State’s Constitution. In fact, the Constitution may very well be a cleverly designed form of principality, as described by Niccolo Machiavelli: All the states, all the dominions under whose authority men have lived in the past and live now have been and are either republics or principalities [republics being representative government, or semi-representative government] (Bull, 1995).
The word "slavery" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution until the 13th amendment of 1865, which was ratified nearly 100 years after the Founding Fathers declared all men are created equal. Nevertheless, the initial Constitution of the American republic, by omission, gave indirect sanction to the institution of slavery. For example, the delegates, when determining congressional distribution and how and who to count as residents of particular states, agreed in the Continental Congress, as was determined in Article I of the U S Constitution: …which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons,including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons (U.S Constitution, Article I).
The Constitution then required, in Article 1, section 9, the return to their owners of “such persons” (fugitive slaves persons?) held to Service from crossing state lines, and it set the date for ending the “non-admitted to” slave trade, twenty years hence: …The migration or importation of such persons as any of the state now
existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9).
According to author Dorothy Twohig’s article, Species and Properties (Twohig, 1991), which was a review of President George Washington’s position and actions regarding the slavery issue, Twohig’s assumption was that Washington had serious philosophical issues with regard to continuing the institution of slavery. George Washington was thought to be against slavery; but he was one of the larges slave owners in the colonies. Twohig insists that Washington’s behavior was cowardly in not addressing the morality of the slavery issue and for him, in his position as the president of America, to keep his personal beliefs private, as well as continued to own slaves was nothing less than hypocrisy of morality; however, Washington’s will did free his slaves upon his death.
The moral of slavery was raised at the Constitutional Convention on several occasions. Ironically, George Mason, an aid to one of the largest slave owners, Thomas Jefferson, may have voiced the most eloquent attack on slavery at the Constitutional Convention when he said,[slavery]…produces the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant… Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when they see it performed by slaves....I hold it essential ... that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery (Papers of George Mason, 1970). Conversely, Thomas Jefferson merely freed one of his nearly 200 hundred slaves; the one whom he had children with, Sally Hemmings, only after his death. In October 1802, while he was president, the story was published in newspapers that Thomas Jefferson, whose wife had died in 1782, was keeping his wife's slave half-sister, Sally Hemings, as a concubine and was producing children from her. Jefferson, who lived for 44 years after the death of his wife and who never remarried, never denied the story, but he never admitted it either. Sally Hemings was at his bedside when he died. Thomas Jefferson freed all five children of Sally Hemings either just before his death or in his will. Thomas Jefferson made provisions for Sally Hemmings in his will. These were the only slaves Thomas Jefferson freed (Sloan, 1998).
In the following years, the abolitionist movement would use the same anti-slavery arguments as Mason did, and bring to bear the same sense of moral outrage; but during the time of the ratification of the constitution the issue of slavery was evaded by the Founding Fathers, both as a word and as a moral challenge. It would ultimately take the tragic conflagration of the Civil War (1861-1865) to end human bondage in the United States and start the country along the elusive path to full racial equality.
One premise of why the wealthy founding fathers were reluctant to do away with the institution of slavery earlier may have been because they wanted to design America as a white police state. In hindsight, it appears the founding fathers main function was guarding the aristocrat’s estates from the poor. Even as late as 1830, President Andrew Jackson told Congress in his second Annual Message:
It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of
the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the
removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example
will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages
(Richardson, 1908).
The majority society of early America was not a society of equals (as a republic should be) but a society of servants, slaves and poor whites. The government of this, so called, republic may have been a device set up deliberately by the wealthy as a form of protection, which may answer why the chief responsibility of the President of the United States of America was (and is) law enforcement.
The republic was originally designed only to represent the interests of the owners of property. This political scientist believes many Americans have been literally conditioned to accept the notion that a republic is better than a kingdom because citizens of a republic, be definition, are supposed to be free.
The American republic certainly was not designed with the best interest of blacks and Indians in mind and, it may not have been designed to make its non-wealthy citizens free either. Instead, it may have been designed to reduce the citizen’s rights from the status of endowments individuals were born with, into privileges accorded to them by the Bill of Rights and by the Founding Fathers; and these privileges could be taken away upon bad behavior.
The Federal Government views the rights conveyed by the Bill of Rights as privileges it can revoke, like the privilege of a driver's license. However, the reality is the traditional freedom of the people pre-dated the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights. In fact, both of those instruments were really meant to limit the traditional liberties freemen were entitled to under the common law since at least 1215.
No product of human society is perfect. Despite its many amendments, the Constitution of the United States is still hypocritical and contains flaws, which may become evident in future periods of stress. However, for the interest of the aristocrats of the United States; two centuries of growth and unrivaled prosperity have proven the foresight of the 40 Anglo-Saxon and mostly rich men who worked through the summer of 1787 to lay the foundation of American government for wealthy people, at the expense of poor and minority people. The Constitution uses the concepts that the Constitution is the source of civil rights as the basic mindset of the Federal Government and that the American people owe it gratitude for their freedom. This hypocritical attitude mirrors a principality because in most other republics the traditional outlook would require a legal Government to feel gratitude that the people allow it any power to exist. The constitution may be have been a fancy way of expanding a new principality under guise of a republic for rich white men at the expense of the natural civil rights of the poor and minorities.
References
Machiavelli, N. (1995). The prince (translated by George Bull). New York: Penguin Books.
U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
Twohig, D. (1991). The papers of George Washington: The species of property, Washington’s role in the controversy over slavery. Originally presented at a Conference on Washington and Slavery at Mount Vernon, October, 1991. http:///www.virginia.edu/gwpapers/articles/slavery.html
The Papers of George Mason (Chapel Hill, N.C: University of North Carolina Press, (1970) 1:61 http://visit.gunstonhall.org/gunstonhall/quotes#on
Sloan, S.H. (1998). The slave children of Thomas Jefferson. P.320. Santa Monica, CA: The Orseden Press.
Richardson, J.D. (1908). President Andrew Jackson’s second annual message to Congress, A compilation of the messages and papers of the presidents 1789-1908, Volume II, Published by Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1908. http://webcr05.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3437t.html
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Tomgram: Michelle Alexander, The Age of Obama as a Racial Nightmare
Prison Industry: More African American Slaves in the United States Today Than in 1850
*There are more African Americans under correctional control today -- in prison or jail, on probation or parole -- than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began. *As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race. * A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yz9vyup
*There are more African Americans under correctional control today -- in prison or jail, on probation or parole -- than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began. *As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race. * A black child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born during slavery.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yz9vyup
Journalist/Commentators
Every broadcaster worth his/her salt (and certainly one who has broadcast in a major city more than ten-years) should be familiar with Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations just as a physician should be familiar with a thermometer or stethoscope. Selling “spots” (usually one minute or less) is not the same as selling programs (usually more than a minute). Selling programs obviously involves programming –which always leads to tensions between ad-sales and the programmer. Although smaller stations occasionally allow broadcasters to wear multiple hats and even sell commercials, frequently that practices leads to trouble within the functioning broadcast operation, i.e., jeopardizing other A/E’s relationships with advertisers, potential payola or and practices of favoritism. In the case reference herein, it is safe to describe the incidents as “infomercials.” Therefore, the licensed holder is ultimately responsible not declaring the programming as paid-programming—as the license holder is responsible for every item aired on their respective frequencies. A journalist’s work is evident in their presentation. The same is true for a DJ or talk show host. Choose which one you want to be – and stick to the conventional ethics of your respective profession. Pick one.
Every journalist, even first-year students in communication, know that exchanging money or favors is at the least dishonest and deceitful and certainly insincere. The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides special privileges to those in the journalism business in order to make for a perfect nation. There are journalists currently held hostage in Iraq and Korea, and on trail in America for being truthful to their profession. It is an insult for anyone to call himself or herself a journalist, while perpetrating fraud to the American news consumer, and when caught say, “it was a mistake.” How does any broadcaster, DJ, newscaster, commentator, or talk show host legitimately justify exchanging payment for accessing airtime to others and then calling it a mistake? There are distinct departments in any broadcast operation, i.e., programming and promotion, local and national advertising sales, and talent that prevents so-called “mistakes.”
A mistake is breaking a coffee cup. A mistake is forgetting to put salt in the birthday cake batter. To build a career criticizing the judgments and mistakes of political figures as unprofessional, not paying their taxes, not behaving professionally, and the same time, spent ten years not voting, owes more than $11,000 in back taxes, and actually charged specially chosen candidates $1,000 dollars per TV interview for an upcoming election is mindboggling. Professionally, the journalist/broadcaster in question should return the money to the candidates – immediately and issue a public apology. Moreover, in the name of full disclosure, the journalist/broadcaster should fully disclose any other monies or favors exchanged over the years for radio and/or television interviews presented as interviews as quid pro quo, including dinners, trips, gifts, etc. That is if the self-described “professional” journalist wants to redeem him/herself within the eyes of the journalism community of peers and rehabilitate their reputation.
Secondly, with technology and multiple channels of message delivery, including AM/FM/XM/Sirius, cable, satellite, and Internet; the problem becomes defining journalism versus commentary. Are Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hanity journalists or commentators? Is Fox News Network a news station or a commentary station? When Barbara Walters sits at the table on the View is she a commentator or a journalist? If the broadcaster in question is a journalist, then he/she violated the fundamentals of journalism – and will likely be used as an example in journalism school across America as what not to do, as in Armstrong Williams and President George W. Bush’s education reform. Williams was paid handsomely to deliver the Republican movement’s message on No Child Left Behind, but he too made a mistake and forgot to disclose the small detail of being paid over $200.000 to promote the policy until other media outted him. Today, Williams’ reputation as a broadcast journalist is only a shadow of his once prominent place in the urban community.
Lastly, before the recent days when broadcast companies hired anyone willing to work on the radio or TV for free or for minimum wages, talent contracts included ethics and morals clauses. The talent would be released from the contract should they do anything considered immoral, illegal, or viewed by the FCC as an embarrassment to the broadcast station; however, when the owners of these consolidated broadcast facilities themselves are less than honest with the public interest, what becomes the standard of work performance imitates what ownership allows. Obviously, broadcast frequency trustees, who are allowed to use the American owned airwaves in exchange for serving in the public interests, should define themselves and their employees as public servants, or admit to being custodial operators for Wall Street investors. Pick one.
Every journalist, even first-year students in communication, know that exchanging money or favors is at the least dishonest and deceitful and certainly insincere. The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides special privileges to those in the journalism business in order to make for a perfect nation. There are journalists currently held hostage in Iraq and Korea, and on trail in America for being truthful to their profession. It is an insult for anyone to call himself or herself a journalist, while perpetrating fraud to the American news consumer, and when caught say, “it was a mistake.” How does any broadcaster, DJ, newscaster, commentator, or talk show host legitimately justify exchanging payment for accessing airtime to others and then calling it a mistake? There are distinct departments in any broadcast operation, i.e., programming and promotion, local and national advertising sales, and talent that prevents so-called “mistakes.”
A mistake is breaking a coffee cup. A mistake is forgetting to put salt in the birthday cake batter. To build a career criticizing the judgments and mistakes of political figures as unprofessional, not paying their taxes, not behaving professionally, and the same time, spent ten years not voting, owes more than $11,000 in back taxes, and actually charged specially chosen candidates $1,000 dollars per TV interview for an upcoming election is mindboggling. Professionally, the journalist/broadcaster in question should return the money to the candidates – immediately and issue a public apology. Moreover, in the name of full disclosure, the journalist/broadcaster should fully disclose any other monies or favors exchanged over the years for radio and/or television interviews presented as interviews as quid pro quo, including dinners, trips, gifts, etc. That is if the self-described “professional” journalist wants to redeem him/herself within the eyes of the journalism community of peers and rehabilitate their reputation.
Secondly, with technology and multiple channels of message delivery, including AM/FM/XM/Sirius, cable, satellite, and Internet; the problem becomes defining journalism versus commentary. Are Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hanity journalists or commentators? Is Fox News Network a news station or a commentary station? When Barbara Walters sits at the table on the View is she a commentator or a journalist? If the broadcaster in question is a journalist, then he/she violated the fundamentals of journalism – and will likely be used as an example in journalism school across America as what not to do, as in Armstrong Williams and President George W. Bush’s education reform. Williams was paid handsomely to deliver the Republican movement’s message on No Child Left Behind, but he too made a mistake and forgot to disclose the small detail of being paid over $200.000 to promote the policy until other media outted him. Today, Williams’ reputation as a broadcast journalist is only a shadow of his once prominent place in the urban community.
Lastly, before the recent days when broadcast companies hired anyone willing to work on the radio or TV for free or for minimum wages, talent contracts included ethics and morals clauses. The talent would be released from the contract should they do anything considered immoral, illegal, or viewed by the FCC as an embarrassment to the broadcast station; however, when the owners of these consolidated broadcast facilities themselves are less than honest with the public interest, what becomes the standard of work performance imitates what ownership allows. Obviously, broadcast frequency trustees, who are allowed to use the American owned airwaves in exchange for serving in the public interests, should define themselves and their employees as public servants, or admit to being custodial operators for Wall Street investors. Pick one.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sade's new LP drops on Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/arts/music/07sade.html?ref=arts&pagewanted=all
Sade's new LP drops on Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/arts/music/07sade.html?ref=arts&pagewanted=all
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The new Apple book reader: The iPad. Impressive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35098950#35104021
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
