 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought May 22, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins It is apparent that liberalism brings with it a dark side, not that I view that as news mind you. But it seems as though there is nothing that even looks like a learning curve unless one looks at the reckless toboggan ride of Newsweek as it repeats the CBS mistake. This error is made even worse because of the overreaction to their flawed story. I have to ask myself what kind of civil liability the reporter and the magazine will find themselves subject to now, especially when we stop to consider the sad fact that they are against any kind of torte reform. They may change their tune after they find themselves sued into oblivion by a bunch of Afghanis who discover that the liberals agree that they aren’t responsible for their own actions. Another sad fact is that right now we have a large number of kids graduating skool who are unaware of what the First Amendment means. To many of them, because of the liberal bent of those entrusted with teaching them, it simply means freedom from religion through replacement with anti-religion, and nothing more. That is why there are so many of them that feel the media needs to be controlled. One of the most critical comments made by Thomas Jefferson was this one, though it is often forgotten by the radicals on both sides of the political aisle. I’ll paraphrase because I can’t seem to locate the original quote. “Don’t be too happy when you take away the rights of another because it suits your current need. Because when the political winds change, and change they will, you will find you have only taken away your own rights.” That is the first lesson on Civics and Rights such as the First Amendment. I hope some of these kids go and look up the First Amendment along with all of the rest of the Constitution, called a "living document" by those out to kill it. May they become interested enough to read the whole blessed Constitution and the Federalist Papers wherein each and every item is put in its proper historical context instead of the fantasy version of the leftists and the rightists. Thomas Jefferson also had much to say about newspapers, which only goes to show that the more things change, the more they stay the same. He points out that division is the purpose of the press because they choose to titillate and jar us so we’ll become addicted and buy more and more. "A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle and the schisms they can create. It is a contest of opinion in politics as well as religion, which makes us take great interest in them and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite... So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful and would have to go to the plough." — Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1801 Then he tells of whose responsibility it is to maintain the press in its proper position in the country and why things are as they are. "An editor [should] set his face against the demoralizing practice of feeding the public mind habitually on slander and the depravity of taste which this nauseous aliment induces. Defamation is becoming a necessary of life, insomuch that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant. Even those who do not believe these abominations, still read them with complaisance to their auditors, and instead of the abhorrence and indignation, which should fill a virtuous mind, betray a secret pleasure in the possibility that some may believe them, though they do not themselves. It seems to escape them, that it is not he who prints, but he who pays for printing a slander, who is its real author." — Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. Once again, the bloggers are batting a thousand and the regular media is justifiably striking out. Google can go ahead and refuse to refer to conservative bloggers all they want. I already have many of their links. The media can continue to whine about the competition from the bloggers who only look like they’re running around them in circles. It’s simply a matter of perspective. If the media wouldn’t panic and go into spin mode, the bloggers who are stomping them wouldn’t appear as though they were the ones doing the circles. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
What has journalism really become? When did humankind give birth to journalism? (Was Moses actually the first journalist? He is the one giving an eyewitness account to the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea). Moreover, what was the original point of journalism? Was it nothing more than pontificating opinions? Good questions. Now how about a journalistic opinion? Wait... isn’t that all we have today anyway, just opinion? One might ask what constitutes good journalism, or better yet how we define journalism. (Some would define good journalism strictly by punctuation and grammar.) Is it Dan Rather? Is it Barbara Walters? Is it Katie Couric? Perhaps it is nothing more than a cross section of the supermarket tabloid with a pinch of the New York Times, a dash of CNN, a deluge of ego by Mr. O’Reilly, a smattering of the BBC, a whirl of the Al Jazeera Network, and a sprinkle of psychology by Dr. Phil. Oooooh, what a mess we’ve created and thrown up for human consumption, calling it “the news!” How poignant the song by Don Henley a few years ago, Dirty Laundr: “I make my living off the evening news, Just give me something, something I can use. People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry.” Does it matter to a journalist if what they are portraying to the public is a dressed up lie? Do readers really want to be spoon fed something, just anything? This does seem to be the pathetic course readers are being served. The news media this past year though has had its god-like form of all knowing taken down a notch or two. No longer can the media rule over the masses. What Hitler once proclaimed, “What luck for rulers that men do not think!” is being exposed by the masses hungry for truth and willing to spend the time and effort to dig for it. The time of tabloid glorifications, mindless chatter (known as gossip), sound bites of spin sensationalizing what is only a small fraction of truth so we can sell our papers, magazines, web sites, and television programs to the ever-gullible public is over. The public has become wise to the system of journalistic news, and they are tired of twisted, skewed facts whether the stories lean to the left or to the right. John and Jane Smith are tired of shoddy, overtly opinionated, sensationalized journalistic junk! How do we help bring investigative style back into the realm of writing? We must demand it as readers for starters. We need to insist that we want to form our own opinions and not just follow the intelligentsia crowd. It is dangerous when a society becomes so apathetic that they are willing to let others decide how to think for them. Remember it only takes a generation to forgo their obligation to be involved, and tyranny slips itself into the fine threads that bind a country and world together. Is all lost? Maybe what journalism has become isn’t so bad. Sure, we’ve catered too much to just one side of the pen to paper. There isn’t anything wrong with slanted opinioned writing, there isn’t anything wrong with sound bites, and there isn’t anything wrong with sensationalism…What is wrong, though, is that this is all we get. The latest fiasco comes from Newsweek, and it builds the case that we aren’t presented with responsible news stories delivered by well-informed investigative style reporting. Unnamed news sources are a dangerous thing to play with in today’s world. Newsweek has retracted its story and apologized for the faux pas, but it has contributed to the escalation of Muslim hatred towards the U.S. The story even caused an uprising that led to more than a dozen people dying, and many injuries. With the advent of high speed global communications, where in an instant a story true or untrue can be read by millions, it would seem this would weigh the importance of confirming sources to be sound before publishing them. The journalistic shakers and makers need to state unequivocally to the public when they write or speak that they are either giving their own opinion, someone else’s opinion, being paid to lie, or truly reporting the facts they’ve painstakingly investigated, and then be willing to substantiate their legitimate sources. Moreover, when was the last time a breath of “this good news just in” came wafting across our TV speakers? We need some good news each day. Whether it’s a kind deed performed by a young person, or an accomplishment in Iraq’s development, we need to share good news. News isn’t just about pain, anguish, and others' misfortunes. It is information about recent events or happenings. The word itself is a middle-English word meaning tidings, intelligence, and word. his means news can be diverse in topic and not fed to the public in myopic distorted bites. What is the future of journalism? We are witnessing a point in news making time that has never been explored before. The news industry and journalists are scrambling to be the first source with the big story. Competition is tough, but the ideology of what true journalism should be need not take a back seat to sell a paper. With the ability to write and give voice over events we witness unfolding about us comes great responsibility, and the public now is demanding that journalists take their oath and their passion seriously, paying heed and respectfully gracing it with due honor. The pendulum of true journalism is making its swing back towards the middle. There is room for opinion editorials and biases, but we need to bring back the strength to our words by utilizing the ability to investigate from all angles and report to the public. Then we can let them decide. The public doesn’t need the “papes” to tell them how to think any longer. But then again…is that just my opinion? |
||||||||
Well, congratulations, America, you finally did it. You finally collapsed into absolute tyranny. Last week, Congress defended freedom by sneaking the Real ID Act into an $82 billion military spending bill. The Real ID Act establishes a new set of federal standards for all state driver’s licenses, creating what some call a “de facto” national ID card. Ostensibly, this measure will aid Homeland Security in the war against terrorism. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who authored the act, notes that all but one of the September 11th hijackers “deliberately used valid driver’s licenses and state IDs,” because these documents allowed them to “avoid suspicion” at the airport. “Real ID would require all states to confirm… that visas are valid for foreign visitors,” Sensenbrenner says. It would also require that “a foreign visitor’s license term ends when the visa expires.” Which is great. Unless, of course, a foreigner decides to kill Americans the first six months he’s here. Everywhere you look, it seems immigration is in the news these days. As Neil Diamond put it, “They’re coming to America.” Last week, the Washington Times reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents had been ordered not to arrest illegal immigrants in the area of Arizona being monitored by the freelance Minuteman Project—the idea being that an increase in arrests would prove the Minutemen’s efficiency. Bill O’Reilly, for one, is incensed about all this. On his May 5, 2005, program, he told the story of a 42-year-old housewife, Mary Nagle, who was murdered by a 29-year-old Guatemalan with an expired visa, who was hired—thanks to a valid California driver’s license—to come to her home with a power washing company. “Now every sane American knows that most illegals are good people,” O’Reilly assured us. But: “At least 11 million people are living here illegally. And nobody knows how many of them are violent.” “So Mary Nagle becomes yet another victim of illegal alien killers. She is no less a victim of our government’s failure to protect us than all of those who died on 9/11.” Fear. That’s what they’re selling here, people. Pure, unadulterated fear. Those opposed to hassle-free, come-and-go-as-you-please immigration often complain that America has “porous borders.” These borders, we’re told, are the root cause of many of our problems. September 11th didn’t happen because we’ve meddled in the Middle East for decades; it happened because people from other countries are present in ours. And our economy isn’t hindered by frivolous lawsuits, regulation, and protectionism. God no. It’s hindered by damn dirty Indians answering phones for Dell tech support. And bastard Hispanics mowing lawns with a smile. Be afraid! Be very afraid! People are going to tell me I’m anti-American for writing this article. They’re going to say I’m “dangerously wrong.” Because, surely, any “sane American” would jump at the chance to seal those porous borders. Look, I understand why people don’t want other people coming here. Cities and suburbs are already crowded. Dream jobs are hard to come by. Income taxes are painful. And multilingualism is a hobby every blue blooded American is within his rights to despise. Gotcha. Fine. Neighborhoods retain the right to not want certain neighbors. I’m down with that. But if you want to put America first, then listen: The Real ID Act is going to be a pain in your ass—not Mohammed Atta’s. If a guy wants to knock down a building, which is illegal, you think a legal document’s going to stop him? Why? And what are sealed borders, really, but an abstract excuse to force us to buy state-brand IDs? About a month ago, my mother—a teacher—went to the DMV, which, in NJ, has already adopted a six-point ID verification system. She wanted to get a new driver’s license that day, but the DMV turned her away. It seems her old driver’s license bears the short version of her name, while her Social Security card bears the long version—an unacceptable discrepancy in this post-9/11 world. She showed them a pay stub to verify her identity, but somehow that wasn’t good enough. Sure, she’s a lifelong Jersey resident. And, sure, she happens to work for the government. But how do we know that’s not just her cover? How do we know the Board of Ed isn’t a front for a terrorist group? This is just a preview of the fun stuff we have in store. The Real ID Act calls for licenses to be “machine-readable,” leaving the door wide open for traceable RFID chips. Like red light cameras, authorities could easily use this surveillance technology to fine law-abiding Americans for perfectly reasonable, yet suddenly illegal, activities—like buying a beer or having a wardrobe malfunction. You won’t be able to travel without one of these cards. You won’t be able to get a job. Hell, you won’t really be an American anymore. (Which is why we’re lucky Congress stripped out the Real ID provision suspending habeas corpus for non-citizens.) History begs and pleads with us not to adopt national ID cards. The Bible warns of a time when the “mark of the beast” will decide who can and cannot do business (which, presumably, includes the things listed in the previous paragraph). The Nazis also serve as a fine example. They rallied a nation in fear of those no good, dirty, rotten Jewish money grubbers, then implemented their own national ID card system, with yellow, six-pointed cards. And now again, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we see this fear of the outsider—the stranger living and working amongst us—informing us to give up freedoms and privacy. Someone’s responsible for our problems. Surely it must be them! Hey, if that’s what makes the Real ID Act easy to swallow for you, then, like I said, congratulations. To me, though, it seems like a pretty raw deal. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
I often find myself defending President Bush when I discuss NCLB with teachers. Many of them have nothing but criticism about how the goal of adequate yearly progress has impacted school policy or placed additional burdens on the teaching staff. When I explain that the changes which take place at their district are implemented at the state or local level, most don't understand what I am talking about and look at me in disbelief. They think that I don't know of what I speak. This is because teachers usually receive the bulk of what they learn about their particular circumstances through a filter. To begin with, education law is not a required course for those who study to be an elementary or secondary education teacher. It's not even offered as an elective. Just as teachers are not usually taught how to manage their classroom effectively, record an appropriate number or representative sampling of grades into a grade book, and lesson plan in a time efficient manner, they are also kept in the dark about the major policy decisions that will effect their contracts, day to day schedule, and how much time they will end up spending in education workshops in order to maintain necessary teaching credentials. This type of knowledge is picked up in bits and pieces while on the job. Although teachers have a vague idea that property taxes help fund the cost of an education in their district and pay their salaries, for the most part they are in the dark about how the numbers break down in terms of federal, state, and local contributions. They aren't privy to how all the strings are attached to the money in the education budget. New teachers are formally introduced to the school board members, who must approve any hires or dismissals. These wide eyed rookies are urged to attend board meetings in the evening hours. They gratefully sign their teaching contracts, read the student/parent handbook, and soon come to realize that their success or failure is predicated on one semester of student teaching and accumulated experience of being a student. Teachers are strongly compelled to join the teaching union. It is not presented as an option. Soon, the literature from the state and federal education associations is delivered to their mailboxes at home. Union Representatives require their presence at mandatory meetings held on institute days, and eventually they are doing odd jobs that further the cause of the union and also serve to maintain or elevate their personal job stability. Teachers and administrators do not play on the same team when it comes to negotiating contracts. And for all their talk about protecting the teacher, contracts are often "negotiated" more favorably toward the school district. Like any bureaucracy, the teachers who are the rank and file in any education machine, usually end up doing the grunt work and having very little say in the overarching policy of a district or how it will affect them. So when I read Credentials for Sale! by Linda Schrock Taylor in Education News, I half sympathized with her situation but was equally frustrated by her decision to blame "Bush" for all her troubles. I can assure Ms. Taylor that President Bush did not personally make the decision that she would have to be fingerprinted or take a prospective teacher test in order to teach English in her new state of residence. As a matter of fact, teaching requirements are determined by those authorized in her state to do so. I, too, am frustrated with the bureaucratic mess that teachers must negotiate in order to placate the variety of bureaucrats who make decisions such as treating teachers no differently from one another when it comes to credentials and salary schedule. Ironically, it is these same bureaucrats that are just as quick to remind those in the trenches that one size does not fit all when it comes to teaching students. Sadly, these very same folk are lobbied by the teachers' unions pledged to protect the teachers. I sensed what I
call "burn out" in the tone of Ms. Taylor's piece. The shame
is that when good teachers are subjected to bureaucratic entanglement,
difficult students, the pressures of testing, and a variety of adverse
conditions on a daily basis it is difficult to maintain a positive attitude
toward what they are really there for –their students. It's especially
distressing to see this veteran teacher who clearly has a grasp of her
subject matter and a command of her job, almost lose her cool. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
"Insanity in individuals is something rare — but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." — Friedrich Nietzsche The “global democratic revolution” is the center piece of the Bush presidency. While a revolutionary spirit was the focus that moved our Founding Fathers to break with the Crown, today’s all powerful imperial empire resides in the United States. King George II says he is on a hallowed mission to save the Middle East from themselves. Democracy will be the cure and the medicine of approved regime changes will be forced down their throats. Women will be made participatory citizens and the shahs of Islamic extremism will be tamed into submissive puppets. Ah, the ‘Pox Americana’ spreads the virus of emancipation with the fervor of an old time religion. But what kind of faith moves this evangelism? An all consuming belief in the superiority of Democracy has certainly served America well! We have unelected and unaccountable federal judges decreeing that babies can be squashed, when a self centered tart gets a headache. That’s certainly consistent with liberation of the defenseless . . . Spreading this practice will have the benefit of curtailing the government schooling dominion. This will leave more money to fuel the occupation seminaries as conversion to a higher order is enforced. It should be obvious that we can no longer tolerate dictatorships that pray to the East. How can you indulge weird talking Muslims who don’t fish at Kennebunkport during the summer? Exporting acceptable practices through an exchange program might well turn those mirages into seas of good fishing. Trawling the dunes and sands would be a good exercise to teach the skills for netting flounders. Transforming the Middle East would be a central staging ground for finishing the assignment of a New World make over. Just imagine, Bush will create a fantasy planet that would make John Lennon proud.
All those contentious countries will be provided with THE script for constitutional governance and the rule of law. There will be no need to place your trust in a higher power, since that force; will be the deliverance. Democracy the Desired Doctrine! That’s the answer, no need to look for any other promise. Bush portrayed himself as a champion of liberty setting out a "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East". Hark, Bush speaks:"Iraqi democracy will succeed and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation". "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Don’t you feel all warm inside - safe and secure - with such leadership? Woodrow Wilson taught his course well, the Bush clan has the drill down, and we will all reap the aftermath of the generosity from internationalism. Forget the lessons that the British Empire learned in India, the endowment of the last superpower will subdue any disenchanted tribes. The Middle East will be transformed into a Bastar district, a “melting pot” of races and cultures. Oh yes, this model works so good at home that we can hope to have Jessie Jackson bargain affirmative action for the Kurds. Look how well democracy operates, shake downs can fund a sons political career! Hey, the community voted, so the will of the people must be prevailing. Just wonder what would happen when Baath Party remnants want to be put on the ballot? Sorry; that could never be, the re-education machine will protect from such an occurrence. Now that Iraqi oil is flowing Saudi resistance can be condemned. President Bush; surely family ruling dynasties aren’t acceptable in a Democracy? Your father never expected to follow in the footsteps of Prescott! Glad that having the ability to vote protects us from having an American version of King Fahd. No home grown Mattoids for us. When Bush cites countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Morocco and Jordan as examples of democratic progress in the Middle East, he is really saying they are conforming to the Bush program. The criteria that is being used is whether a country will fall in line with the NeoCon colonialism. If they accept invasion of a neighboring state as a legitimate intervention, then the fruits of a communal democracy, will flow to the coffers of an autocrat who promises to reform his regime. The ramifications of the arrogance of the Bush doctrine will haunt our country for decades. The sobriety of George II is in question - has he been hitting the bottle again? Probably not, but the national hangover will not be relieved with a swift end to his administration. That noble method for self government - federal elections - will never allow a true alternative to internationalism. How long will public opinion continue to support such an insane foreign policy? Well; what can one conclude, when a society so willingly accepts the destruction of their own civil liberties. The likes of the Patriot Act are the results of this precious Democracy. No wonder the elites are so eager for exportation of the expropriation model . . .
|
||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Saturday, May 28, 2005 9:18 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||
