“Wings of a Dove”

IMG_6183

9 x 12  In Memory of Spirit 

Advertisements

RECONSTRUCTION

By Trudy A. Martinez

According to The American College Dictionary to reconstruct means to construct again; to rebuild; make over. What happens in the South following the Civil War does not meet the definition of reconstruction.  It is only a means of pacifying the guilt of those who originally profit from the slave trade. The actions they take are calculating, necessary moves that prove profitable, once again, for the North, the rich, and the rising upper-middle-class, the bourgeoisie, allowing their entrance into Industrialization. It is a means of gain from the misfortune of the southerners, the poor whites, and the blacks; a means of appeasement; an influx of Hope; a road block to revolution.

History dictates, as long as there is Hope for a better future, the common people will accept the hard times and the struggle to obtain and improve their status. How else can the government justify its action of freeing the salves, while at the same time, breaking the promise of 40 acres and a mule? The blacks are left with nothing more than the Hope of achieving a better tomorrow at the mercy of their previous owners, the Southern Elite.

The Freedman Bureau, a token agency (backed by the government, influenced by the rich, but yet, limited), was expected to achieve the impossible. From the beginning, the bureau has three strikes against it; it offers only hope and token justice by controlling the impersonal forces that determine history. One can only wonder if this is why President Lincoln, the role model for the common man, lost his life. Was the President’s death also determined by of one of those impersonal forces upon history? Did Lincoln make his strategy for reconstruction of our torn country known to the wrong people? These are questions for which we may never find the answers? Violence and a strong middle-class objection always pave the way for change in America, that is, when the change does not benefit the rich and the upper-middle-class.

In America (the land of the free, the government of the people), freedom is never a problem, or is it? Does a government of the people mean all the people: the common people, the blacks too? In 1865, is freedom a myth?

Guilt and restitution for the sins of the past alone does not free the slaves; it is a combination of greed and the desire to follow the footsteps of our mother county, England, into the Industrial Revolution. The slave trade is not just a source of guilt, but also a hindrance to progress placed on society by the greed of the past Northern Elite. The slaves only need to be free, no longer owned like cattle or a piece of property. What happens to the slaves after they are free is of no real concern to the Northern elite. True freedom is a luxury of the rich; one can only acquire freedom through status, prestige, or money; it is not a common man’s commodity.

Look at our past, the evidence is there. Our government is not a government of the people, at least not the common people, as the government wants us to believe; instead we are a government of the rich, the prestigious, the corrupt, the greedy, and the bourgeoisie. Our government is governed by the desires and whims of the rich. The common people are not a concern of the government until their Hope begins to fade; threats of revolution are in evidence by violence, loss of lives, and the voice of the middle-class objections are heard loud and clear.

Our sense of Nationalistic thinking begins with the birth of our flag, the red, white, and blue, signifying the blood, sweat, and tears of our fore fathers who win freedom from our mother country, England; they establish our Constitutional government, our Republic, by which the freedom of all the people are insured and protected. With this Nationalistic thinking, the common people are programmed to think they are unique, free, equal, and that truth and justice prevail; they are one nation, with a common goal. That thinking remains true until the north desires to enter venture into the industrialization of America. Then our common goal is obliterated.

The South didn’t cooperate. The South didn’t want to progress; it was enjoying all the advantages of slavery; it didn’t want to change; its goals differ. The violence of the Civil War is necessary before change can occur to achieve the desires of the Northern rich, to progress, to go forward, and to increase their wealth. The rich control the government; they want change only if it is beneficial to them, not when they pay a cost. The Civil War is a disagreement between the Southern rich and the Northern rich. In America, the rich grow richer at the expense of the poor, the working class, the common man, and the ethnic groups. The more blood, sweat, and tears the common man sheds, the wealthier the rich become. With the emancipation of the slaves, the Northern rich can induce the government into establishing a (forced) public education system. This education of the masses is a necessity for progress (if Industrialization is to occur) and for the rich to prosper from it.

When it becomes evident the common people are more than eager to learn, not only does education need controls, but also limits to and for those segments of society that are to become the working class of the Industrialization. The schools brain-wash the minds of the people by increasing the Nationalistic theme, i.e., to become one, together, with one goal, to increase the wealth of the nation, to build on the American Dream (the programmed dream: as long as we try, work hard; we will get ahead), a new article of faith, a myth. The owners of the means of production and progress keep it that way (a myth) by resisting payment of the true value of labor and by not sharing the wealth with those who make it possible for them to obtain it.

The Industrialization of America is a boom for the rich. They justify their mistreatment of the working class, depriving them of the fruits of their labor, through the practice and acceptance of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest).

The American government, the government of the people, during times of trouble, during hard times, turns its back on the needs of the common people, the working classes, i.e., the poor whites, the blacks, the Hispanics, the women, and the children. While simultaneously denying the acceptance and practice of the theories of Darwinism, the government allows the unjust practices of industry whose roots are in the theories of Social Darwinism. Why? Because, the theories and practice of “Social Darwinism” allow for a natural selection of the fittest, justifying the actions of the rich by allowing them to capitalize at the expense of the working class, the common people. Masses of wealth accumulate, as a result. So much wealth accumulates that the rich find it necessary to plan their next greedy step into what they refer to as progress, Imperialism.

In conclusion and in my opinion, to reconstitute the government would have been better solutions in 1865, i.e., reconstruct the government, not just the South, but the North as well. The radicals could have gotten the backing of the masses, but fear stood in their way. Fear of revolution like the one unleashed in France in the year 1797. The radicals chose compromise at the expense and suffering of all future generations instead of facing the enviable, the necessity of change, i.e., of defining “freedom”, of defining “the government of the people” and achieving a real government of the people, the common people, all the people. Through the ending of injustice, invoking controls on the greedy, forcing “the owners of the means of production” to pay the true value of the labor and thereby, alleviating the unnecessary blood, sweat, and tears of the working classes, the aim of a government for all the people may achieve. One can only envision the outcome of what such a change might mean to America, i.e., utopia, little or no unemployment, rapid growth, and increased stability, a sense of pride surpassing the Nationalistic theme that gives a sense of false pride and of false reality.

Regardless, America achieves what no other country has ever accomplished: We remain strong and resolute irrespective of our faults. And we will continue to do so as long as we have Hope.

Elite versus Democracy

By Trudy A. Martinez

Does the American government fit the definition of democracy in respect to the Constitution or is the Constitution strictly elitist?

According to The American Heritage Dictionary, the word democracy means:

1. (a) Government by the people exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

(b) A political unit with this form of government.

2. Social and political equality and respect for the individual within the community

The word elite means:

1. (a) The superior members of a social group.

(b) A small but powerful group.

Does the American government fit the definition of democracy in respect to the Constitution or is the Constitution strictly elitist?

The answer depends on the interpretation of the Constitution and most of all, who is doing the interpreting. The Constitution suggests an ‘elitist’ style of government whereby a few govern the majority. The original ideal bases its theory on equality and liberty, an extremely important element. The founding fathers (the white Anglo-Saxton Protestants) base the element of equality and liberty on their belief: Everyone is born a blank tablet, all equal.

The environment (the critical element) gives man the opportunity to be all he can be. Liberty (individual freedom of choice) grants people equality. The framers set up checks and balances in a Constitutional government to ensure equality and freedom and to alleviate oppression. However, the basis for the theory of the American Constitutional government never evolves to correct inadequacies gained after an internal war. The belief (man is born a blank tablet, equal) is only true when man is free to make his own choice; this aspect changes following the Civil War.

The war was said to give freedom to the slaves, but what actually transpires is only a token justice for the blacks; and in addition a mechanism by which control of all men (both black and white) is made to change the future. The establishment of control is brought about through behaviorism, mandatory schools, and the myths, leaving America and all its inhabitants to suffer the consequences. The eighteenth century philosophy of the framers becomes a mere illusion.

This is so because the application of a myth, behaviorism, and a mandatory school system controls, stifles, overwhelms, and blinds the common man; he is in a trap unaware of his circumstance with no way out other than the escape mechanisms the Impersonal forces provide. The Imperial force of Progressivism effectively steals the personal freedom and our blank tablet of equality when its theology creates and establishes sameness in place of individualism.

As a result of this inadequacy of the change in theology, a growing bureaucracy of corruption (evolving and transcending the politics) of government for the interest of those members of society who gain social superiority and economical superiority over the people (the majority).

Thus, instead of the Constitution, in conjunction with the Bill of Rights, granting equality and liberty for all as its equitable intent and purpose, the rights of the people evolve to the mercy of vice, corruption, and deceit, or the Supreme Court.

The Constitution, Article I, The Legislative Article, House of Representatives:

Apportionment; Section 2, “…direct Taxes shall be…included…according to…numbers…determined by adding to the whole Numbers of “free” Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years,…excluding Indians not taxed, “three fifths of all other Persons.

Say What? “Three fifths of all other Persons”? This is Elitist terminology; they’re saying we are not equal. What do we have to be to count as a whole person? Changes take place following the civil war:

Amendment 14–Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection of the Laws…Section 1

Ratified, July 9, 1868…”No state shall make or enforce any laws which…abridge the privileges of citizens…”

However what the federal government says or does depends on you. You don’t live in the federal government, you live in a state.

If the state makes or enforces laws that are contrary to federal law, it is the citizen’s responsibility to inform the federal government of the abridgement of those privileges. It takes time for Congress to Act. When citizens remain quiet, it is like sending up a signal saying, “Go ahead, have fun, abuse us; the federal government will not prosecute the State (at least not until, we the people object, loudly).

Amendment 14

Section 2…”…When the right to vote…is denied to any of the ‘male’ inhabitants…”

Remember the 14th Amendment is ratified in 1868? Per Section 2, any male inhabitants (including blacks) following the civil war have the right to vote; all males are whole; they are citizens.

(What about me, the White woman, and also the Black woman? Aren’t we citizens? Don’t we have rights? Don’t we count? (Unfortunately, not yet). Token Justice is not Justice for all. Note this ratification does not occur until following the Civil War. And the black man, even though he gains his right to vote, is not able to exercise the right for another 100 years.

The elitist extend their reign of Superiority to the Amendments to protect whose rights?

Section 5…”The Congress shall have the power to enforce…the provisions of this article…

The Federal government gives–and the State government takes– away! Just because there is a gain in rights doesn’t mean you get to exercise those rights right away. You see. The “KKK” was watching –at the state level. The black man waits 100 years before he steps up and objects to his unfair treatment. The Federal government doesn’t step in to enforce the law as written over a state law until there is objection. Women protest their plight and gain their right to vote from the federal government and the state government before the black man gets the opportunity to exercise his right because the women organize and object.

Article I…Senate Compositions: Qualifications, Section 3…The Senate…shall be composed of…Senators from each State, ‘Chosen by the Legislative thereof,…”

What? You mean I, one of the people, can’t vote for my own Representative and that the elitist have to make that decision for me? I am not trusted to make a quality decision?

Well we will see about that . . .

Sure enough the people gain control with ratification of the 17th Amendment, the people will be choosing their representation in the Senate. The Senator will be obligated to voice ‘their will’, the will of the people.

The Amendment implies that anyone may run for Office, but in actuality, a person who is not a member of the social or money elite winning an election will be a rarity, if not a near impossibility, today. In reality, Senators are not obligated to vote the voice of the people. Instead, the majority listen to lobbyist, Big Business, and special interest groups (the elitist). After all, everyone knows “money talks”, “bull-hockey walks”. However, if the people pay attention, they can vote them out at the end of their term for not voting the “will of the people.” After a while it begins to sink in, the people want their will acted on.

ARTICLE I, Section 6, Rights of Members…”shall…be privileged from Arrest…”

Here is an elitist part. When elected, a seasonal license to lie, steal, and cheat is issued to representatives? They are Immune–from prosecution of a misdemeanor? This makes one wonder if this is why Maryjane reduces to a misdemeanor. Doesn’t anyone get MADD because of these special privileges? Is it okay for them to drink and drive? This article establishes a double standard: One set of rules for the people and different one (set of rules) for the elite? Is that fair?

ARTICLE I, Section 8, Powers of Congress, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . .

That is except when it serves the purpose of the elite to Censor—-The public must not learn the truth; artist who insists upon telling the truth about their (Congress) purpose must be censored. In other words, the freedom of expression is removed as a right of the people at the will of the elite.

But what about my guaranteed rights under the Constitution? Say What? The Constitution doesn’t grant me rights? But what about:

The Bill of Rights?

Amendment 1–Religion, Speech, Assembly, and Politics…Congress shall make no law…prohibiting…abridging…freedom of speech . . . .the press, or the right to…petition the Government for redress of grievances.

You say what? I have to wait for at least fifty years…, but I am already fifty–I won’t need to feed myself then–I’ll be dead! What? –You say–that’s what they are counting on? Maybe if I learn the ropes, I can get my right sooner? (They have a Jungle-Jim? With ropes?)

ARTICLE I, Section 8, Powers of Congress, “…To make all Laws…necessary and proper for…Execution …

The “Elastic Clause” evolves the duties of the Judiciary, “uniquely” in a historical sense; Marbury vs. Madison sets the wheels in motion. With the help of the Civil War, the power of interpretation by the Supreme Court becomes cemented in with the outcome of McCulloch v. Maryland; an example is set in concrete, perplexing the system, yielding judicial power unsurpassed in the history of the world. The Elite issue an insurance policy of supremacy. You say to get around it I have to ride what?–a Merry-go-round! You have a Circus here too? How much did you say it would cost me? I–Yi-Yi-Yi! The nine Supreme beings now sit in control?

Article 1 (ART-I-(CHUCKLE), Section 9, Powers Denied to Congress…

“…The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless…”

The purpose of the Elite shall be better served; the witch hunts, the “Red Scare”, Read-my–Palm-er, and Mc Cart-thy off, the snitch-man, witch-man, get under-the-desk, huntsman are proof of the “pudding”–“They stuck in their noise–where it didn’t belong–and pulled out a “Commie”, then said, ‘Oh, what a good Patriotic–“cheese”–boy am I!” What happened to our APPLE PIE? When did we revert to “yucky”–PUDDING? As a result, innocent people suffer unjustly, their freedom breached. Merely because the elite’s fear, not a revolution, not a threat, just- a shiver down their spine (guilt pangs from unjust practices–they remember what happened in Anatole France); all in the name of the elites’ freedom to oppress common man. (You say what?–your position is reaffirmed; I can’t escape?)

ARTICLE IV, Privileges and Immunities; Interstate Extradition, Section 2,

“A person charged…with…Treason…shall be delivered up on Claim…”

You mean I am not entitled to the due process of law? But–but–AMENDMENT 14 says: I shall not be deprived of my “life, Liberty, or Property” I am entitled to “equal protection under the laws”.

You say what?–that doesn’t apply to my situation–not when the witch men are in control–those rights are only reserved in situations concerning the State!

Article 1 (ART-I-CHUCKLE), Powers Denied to Congress, Section 9, paragraph 4,

“No Capitation, or …direct, Tax shall be laid, unless…Census…”

But, Capitation means: fixed tax, an equal sum per person–O-o-o-o-o-OH! You–Amended that!

AMENDMENT 16–INCOME TAXES, (Ratified February 3, 1913), “…Congress shall have the power to lay–collect taxes on incomes…without apportionment…without regard…to enumeration.”

Did I hear you say–President Wilson–the E-l-i-t-e–have plans,–OH–it’s a secret! It is not for us to wonder why, we are only supposed to pay, not lie. To tax the elites will be to our defeat–so they say–we must pay. “No Capitation . . .tax shall be laid…”–read on you’ll be dismayed!

Article 1 (ART-I-CHUCKLE), Section 9, paragraph 8,”…no Person holding any Office…, shall…, accept…any present…, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

But if you like you may sell your “soul” to the “country store”–you can. Yep! As long as you don’t get caught, because if you get caught “King” and “Prince” interpretation may be “King of Big Business” and the “Prince of Wall Street”. “Advantage rather than responsibility is the name of the game”, as long as you don’t get caught it won’t be your shame.

Article II–THE EXECUTIVE ARTICLE, Nature and Scope of Presidential Power,

“…Each State shall appoint,…may direct, a Number of Electors…Vote by Ballot…the Votes shall be counted…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be President.”

Disillusion! “A bummer, I thought my vote counts; boy, I am misinformed. Why bother voting? My vote doesn’t matter! The elite perceive me as a loser, unable to make an intelligent decision, so why should I prove them right? Isn’t that what they taught me in school?

ARTICLE I, Section 2, Powers and Duties of the President

“…he shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons of Offenses…”

Pathetic, bigoted, affluent child, Poor diminutive hereafter elite! He’s being restrained from instruction about reality, prison life. He’s being denied the privilege of justice of an education in prison. How’s he ever to progress, to comprehend the truth, never having the opportunity to mingle, rub elbows with the poor black and the white refuse? “President, sir, did you know you are denying the affluent child a glimpse of reality?” You say, you already have another throne to sit him on–you reserve the Electric throne for us! Am I supposed to thank you?

Article III–The Judicial Article, Section 1,

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,..”

Once you’re in. you’re in! Forever more! Until death do you part? The Constitution is Elitist; you have no right to interfere–unless one of those “little beneath our feet” people learn the secret and object through the legal process, then and only then may you review the laws. That is only because the Federalist papers imply that right to you, not that you are given that right in this Constitution–remember–only TOKEN justice–CAN YOU–WAKE-UP!–CAN YOU REMEMBER THAT?

The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, in conjunction with the Supreme Court, suggest our rights, the rights of the people, are protected. If the people can afford financially to fight for the rights through the courts, they may have one of them.

The 1st Amendment grants: Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press,

Right to assembly, right to petition the Government for redress of grievances

But they are in the process of being changed–examples are being set–that elastic clause–worked for us once–it can just as easily go the other way–to work against us. Go ahead; read on. You are educated aren’t you?

AMENDMENT 2, “…THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS..” Don’t get excited, today you have it–tomorrow who knows?

AMENDMENT 3AMENDMENT 4–SEARCH AND SEIZURES, “The right of the people…against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated…”

Well, that “unreasonable” means something different–you may bolt the door, but it’s more expensive to replace a door than to open it..

AMENDMENT 5…Due Process, and Eminent Domain, “…No person shall be held to answer…EXCEPT in cases arising in the land…”

You might as well use white-out on the later.

AMENDMENT 6, CRIMINAL..—

This one only means criminals. We the people don’t count; we have to wait for our cases to be decided.

AMENDMENT 7, Trail by Jury–Common Law,

AMENDMENT 8, Bail….,

AMENDMENT 9–RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, “The enumeration in the Constitution, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You mean we have rights, but only CERTAIN rights?

AMENDMENT 10, –RESERVED POWERS…,The powers not delegated…by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.

What power is left? Maybe we have certain rights, maybe we don’t. One thing for sure, the Constitution is an elitist document. The Bill of Rights is the document that may have our backs.

One can say with Democracy in America Tyranny of the majority is born. A foreigner, a French man, says it all when he looks through the looking-glass into the “fairy-tale” land of America and says:

“The error arose from seeing the interest of the nobles perpetually contending with those of the people, without considering the issue of the contest, which was really the important point. When a community . . . is equally divided between adverse principles,–it must either experience a revolution, or fall into anarchy . . . social superior to all others must always be placed somewhere . . . liberty is endangered when this power finds an obstacle which can retard its course, and give it time to moderate its own vehemence . . . Unlimited is in itself a bad and dangerous thing. Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion. God alone can be omnipotent” (De Tocqueville 115).

Only Those Who Obey

Posted on June 21, 2006

By Trudy A. Martinez

The Bakersfield Californian reports (In 1994) that INS wants the news of deporting illegal Chinese immigrants kept quiet so mass crowds will not gather.

Am I supposed to believe deporting illegal immigrants will offend me and thus offended, I might protest?  Not I.

When are officials going to learn hiding the truth brings out the masses, not telling the truth?

If I come out, my reason will be to cheer them on, not to yell protests.

Immigrants need to know, only those who obey the laws are welcome and those who do not are not.

It is as simple as this: Crossing the border illegally is against the law; this action alone (crossing illegally) shows you are not worthy to be here!  Illegal aliens must stop; they must leave; and if they don’t leave on their own, we must deport them.

Current actions reflect the deporting of only those who disobey the laws after they cross the border.  This is not enough.  It does not send the correct message. It does not send a strong enough message!

In my opinion, what should happen when they protest (like the 500,000 did), the army should gather them up and take them right then back across the border.  They are not citizens!  (They do not have the same rights as citizens, nor should they be afforded the same rights.)  When they come out in force, they should be met with force!  And they should all be immediately deported!

Immigrants (who are legal) help to make this country prosper.  Legal immigrants are wanted. Illegal immigrants game the system; they cost the taxpayers billions each year (6 billion annually in California alone) Illegal immigrants are NOT wanted.

I say, “Legal you’re okay!”  “Illegal?  Go home! We don’t want you to stay!”

Unworthy of Honor?

Posted on November 10, 2006

By Trudy A. Martinez

· clip_image001· clip_image002· clip_image003

· clip_image004

Staring up from the page are the words:  Veteran’s Day–Regular Classes Scheduled.  “Wrong schedule,” I think.  “I need the Winter Schedule.”  Knowing there is a holiday scheduled and not remembering what holiday it is,  I search for the answer.  “Oh, here it is,” I tell myself as my eyes read the bold print: Martin Luther King Day — Campus Closed.

“Why,” I ask, “do we observe Martin Luther King Day when we do not observe Veteran’s Day?”  True, King fights with words for freedom of oppression for one segment of the population.  But it is also true millions of service men, both black and white, fight with their lives to insure freedom for us all.  Why then doesn’t the campus observe their Day as well?  Is the lack of acknowledgement because service men use violence while the educated use words as a method of persuasion?

If the method of persuasion determines worthiness, the message conveys the Universities do not consider those who fight to ensure freedom with their lives on the same level as an educated man; and therefore, the fighting men are not worthy of honor.  The past reiterates this thinking; Universities were havens for the affluent to avoid the draft; the less affluent were excluded from this avenue of escape.  And soldiers returning from war were treated as outcasts.

Even though the efforts of the press physically acknowledge service men recently returning from military excursions, the message sent remains the same:  You are not worthy of our honor!

I for one say, “You’re wrong!”

This analytical  journal entry was written back in 1994.  Nevertheless, things are the same.  All do not honor those who lay their lives on the line to maintain and preserve our freedom.  Why not?  Do you have the answer?

Television and Technology:(Paper 2) An Outgrowth of A Means of Control:  Changing The Face of America?

Posted on July 10, 2006

By Trudy A. Martinez

Introduction

The Television technology, in itself, is welcome into society.  It provides an avenue of entertainment within the home of Americans.  It allows culture to feed the uneducated.  It is a tool that can enhance the learning capacity of Americans.  But what happens to change the aspects of Television’s perspective use?  Can advertising, the outgrowth of the television industry, be seen as the reason for technology’s changing roles?  Advertising’s changing role will be examined.

Historical Insights

Fond memories of sitting in front of the television set, watching the variety of test patterns and waiting for the set to come alive, invades my head.  It is exciting.  It stimulates my imagination and electrifies my thinking processes.  Television is not in every home as it is today.  Instead, there are few televisions in the homes of Americans.  There is a sense of sharing in the neighborhoods; if one family is lucky enough to own a television set and another is not, the more fortunate family invites the less fortunate over to view programing.  Today, you rarely see your neighbors because everyone has their own television set.  In the past, programming is sporadic.  it is not unusual to see only a test pattern when the TV set is turned on, unlike today where 24 hour programming is available.

Earlier Programming Influence

Test patterns identify the big three broadcasters: NBC, CBS, and ABC.  These “. . . American broadcasters are neither government agents serving the public good nor philanthropist willing to lose money to enlighten the masses (Mac Donald 1990. p.27)”.  The broadcasters are like any other business, out for the money.

Advertisers wishing to promote their products to the American public have the money the broadcasters want.  Broadcasters seize the opportunity of enticing advertisers to promote entertaining programs with “glamour and glitz,” knowing this type of programing will draw big audiences:  The bigger the audience, the bigger the broadcaster’s paycheck.  In this manner, the American public literally merchandises over unto industry (Mac Donald 1990, p.28).

Educationally base Public Service programs lose out and so does the American public.  The programing brings debate from educators:  “. . . Networks [defend] their . . . [programing] . . . ,[claiming] Americans [are] too good for broadcasting as envision by educational reformers out . . . [undermining] mass culture (Mac Donald 1990. p.28-29).” A Network spokesman, William S. Paley says: “. . . We . . . have. .  . The most critical audience, and one of the most independent in establishing its own standards of appreciation and judgment (Mac Donald 1990,  p.29).”. Maybe at the time TV commercials are first aired, the consumer is able to establish his own standards.  But is he or she now?  Or is the advertising establishing the standards for the consumer?

Advertising’s Role

Ultimately, advertising” . . . influences the kind of programing that is produced (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1988, p. 7).”  Some might have said, without advertising, there will not be television programing; and without advertising, the public will not be kept informed and up-to-date on new innovations.  The public is too excited with the new innovation, the exciting programing, and the entertainment potential of their investment in the television set to think about the futurist consequences of advertising’s influence.  Quite often, the viewer paid the advertiser back by buying his product.  In the past, buying the product, when the need arises, is a way of saying, “thank you”.  Then, the advertisements are informative:  the product is seen and the manufacturer’s name given.  There is usually only one sponsor for each program and the advertisements are spaced further apart than the current fifteen minute intervals.  The General Electric Theater is a prime example of a one sponsor program.  Advertisements are seen after the close of specific Acts.  The Advertisements shows new products, but they are not entertaining nor do they hold the viewer’s attention.  The viewer quite often uses these advertisement breaks to get a snack or relieve themselves like they might also do during the intermission at a real theater.

Controversial Advertising

Advertising now does more than just inform.  It persuades.  It is innovative and holds your interest.  You remember the jingles.  You remember what the advertisement tells you.  Let’s say you are shopping for a pair of comfortable shoes.  In the store when you are trying to decide which to buy, you remember the one the advertisement says walking on a specific shoe makes you feel like you are walking on a cloud.  If your feet are tired when you get home from work, you will consider this product over the others because the advertisement persuades you your feet will feel better and therefore, so will you.   If advertising still only informs the public, there will be little controversy over it.  But advertising goes beyond informing.

The greed of industry aims TV commercials toward children as consumers.  As a result, value changes appear to have surfaced that instill greed in young minds; this reaction causes conflict between children and their parents (McLauglin  1991, p.D2).

I can personally substantiate McLauglin’s claim that advertising causes friction between children and parents.  I remember, on more than one occasion, resorting to a negative presentation of myself in public just because of advertising’s effect upon my children.  Others view me as violent because I lecture and spank my offspring in public.  I taught my children right from wrong and to obey.  And most of the time, they do.  But all I have to do is take them with me to the supermarket or shopping anywhere, and they become monsters.  Suddenly, they are not satisfied with the products within our budget; they want the one they see on TV.  It becomes an obsession with them.  When I tell them “no”, they begin to scream and throw a fit.  I have no other alternative but to revert to what others call violence, if I am to remain in control.

What happened since my childhood?  I don’t remember myself or my siblings acting this way when we went shopping with my mother.  And I certainly did not need a spanking in public.  At first, I question my own ability as mother and guardian over my children.  But when I begin to investigate what it is I am doing wrong, I find I may not be at fault.

Identifying Advertising’s Changing Face

Paul Santilli, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy (1983) says, “Advertising can be regarded as having two separate functions, one of persuading and one of informing consumers”.  He argues persuasive advertising may be” . . . denigrating human reason” and when used as a persuasive tool through irrational means “is . . . immoral” (Santilli  1983, p. 27).

The informative purpose of advertising grants the viewer of an advertisement a choice by presenting to the consumer only information about the product.  In this way, the consumer is the one who makes the decision of whether the product is in need (Santilli 1983, p.27).

The Persuasive purpose of advertising goes beyond providing information; its purpose is to convince the consumer that he needs the product whether there is a need for the product or not.

In my opinion, no advertising should be directed toward children.  I feel this way because by combining the informative with the persuasive approaches of advertising, a sense of control over the viewer’s choice is relinquished to the manufacturer of the product for the sake of greed.  This relinquishing reaction may be seen when the viewer of the advertisement is a child and the advertisement portrays the product in imaginative ways that stirs the child’s desire.  Total control of the child’s reasoning factors (if a child is seen as a reasoning person) are relinquished.  The child thinks only of the pleasure of the interaction the commercial portrays.  As a result, the child is put in a persuasive position over the parent.  If the parent does not want to be in a position of ridicule in public, the parent may opt to purchase the product just to shut the child up.  In this sense, the advertiser uses the child and gains control through the child of the parent’s decisions to purchase.  According to Santilli (1983), “. . . information even about inherently good thing . . . may be destructive if presented at the wrong time in the child’s development (p.32).”

The mind of a child is easily impressed.  The fact that the child is undeveloped and is learning to reason as an adult puts his or her mind in a compelling position.  As a child, he or she is in the early stage of learning.  The child imitates and learns through what is presented to him or her.  As a result of his or her learning, the child reacts.  It is because of the child’s reaction, as a result of viewing commercials on TV, that I question the ethics and morality of advertising.

Behavioral Effects of Advertising

Conduct is a learned behavior.  A child learns how to act through the significant others in his or her life.  A significant other may be anyone influences the child’s behavior in meaningful ways.  The amount of time the significant other spends with the child may or may not be an aspect.  But I feel assured, the more time a child spends with the significant other, the more the child will be influenced.

The most impressive learning years of a child is between the age of 1 and 9.  Once a child reaches the age of ten, the child has formed his or her own patterns of behavior and is influenced then by situations and others.  Prior to the age of ten, the child imitates a significant other.  The child is persuaded, through watching the actions of the significant other, how to act.  After the age of ten, the child considers his options; he can either react as his parents or from accepted practices of the crowd.

Let me demonstrate this concept with a few photographs.  The photographs portray behaviorism in action.  See the first photograph (figure 10001) below.  A crowd joins to watch a street performance.  Please note the father (in a tan jacket) and two children (in red) that have just approached the performance.  The youngest child questions what he sees by the outward expression of scratching his head in the first photograph, as if to ask, “How am I supposed to react to what I am seeing?’

In the second photograph (figure 10002), both children stand still as statues, watching the performance with their hands at their side, as if to ask:  “Am I just supposed to look?”

In the third photograph (figure 10003), please note the remarkable difference in the reactions of the children.  The oldest boy does not seek assistance from his father before he determines how to react; he, instead, follows the reactions of the remaining crowd.  Whereas, the younger boy imitates his father’s reaction, as if to say:  “I’ll just follow my dad’s example and do as dad does”.

The reaction of the younger child is called a learned behavior.  The reaction of the older lad stems from contemporary culture.

In my opinion, just as a child learns behavior from his or her parents, the child also learns from other sources of influence such as television.  It doesn’t matter what the length of exposure is.  What matters is the message conveyed.  The significant other needs not be the mother or father.  The significant other can very easily be replaced by television.  “Therefore, there is a moral obligation on the part of advertisers [as well as the] . . . parents to be prudent about having children see and hear even the most non-enticing information about the best products”(Santilli 1983, p.32).  On television, advertisements influence and divert the values and morals of children and teach them to want, want, want and buy, buy, buy.

The advertiser’s preferred reaction is for us to buy.  The age of the viewer is a factor that is taken into consideration by advertisers.  Even though a child watches less television than an adult, the advertiser know the child is an easy mark and the child can influence the parent through his or her behavior.  When I was a child, tennis shoes came in two colors: black and white for boys and white for girls, and they were multiple purpose: for jumping, running, walking, and etc.  But today, the children (and some adults) are conditioned through commercials to think they must have a pair of shoes for each activity; jumping, running, walking, and so on and so on.  Not only do children think they need a separate pair of shoes for each of these activities, but they think the color and design of these shoes are a very important aspect to them.  For example, in Los Angeles, a child lost his life because he didn’t want to give up his stylish tennis shoes to a less fortunate child (whose parents may have told him no) who happened to have a great desire for them, a desire most likely created by a television advertisement.

A child does not need to watch much TV to be influenced by it.  If it were not the advertiser’s intent to enhance the sales of products through the children, then why do the advertiser’s target this audience?  Why are so many products aimed at the child?  Why do we allow it?  Have we become programmed as good little consumers just as our children are being programmed?  Or are the economic trends, of not spending, the public’s revolting reaction to advertiser’s unethical practices?

clip_image002 clip_image004
clip_image006 clip_image008

How does the 14th Amendment Apply to today’s World?

Posted on May 25, 2006

By Trudy A. Martinez

How does the 14th Amendment apply to today’s world?  The answer to this question depends upon the actions taken by the citizens of the United States of America to preserve the privileges guaranteed through the Constitution and the Amendments thereof.

In analysis, the State of California is testing “The Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments thereof” by making laws that condense through omission specific privileges.  The State allows practices within the State boundaries which individually or collectively lessen or diminish citizen privileges cited in the Amendments of the U. S. Constitution through unfair business or ethical practices.  Even though the 14th Amendment specifically states: “No State shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens . . . nor . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny . . . equal protection of the laws,” Californians are allowing the State to lessen or diminish our guaranteed rights through the passage of legislation or, more frequently, by allowing the State officials to turn their head to all the abuses surrounding them.  Why?  Just because legislation doesn’t affect us today, doesn’t mean it won’t affect us tomorrow.  We need to pay attention to what is happening around us and stop being so self-interested.  We need to stop taking our rights for granted. Allowing only factions of our society to make our decisions for us may strip us of our rights.

People say:  “You can’t fight City Hall!”  That statement may be true if you go to City Hall to do the fighting.  The City Hall comes under the County, the County under the State.  When the State is offends, then we must go to a higher source, the Federal Government.  Specifically Congress and the Supreme Court have the authority to resolve issues abridging our privileges as citizens.  If the State will not correct their encroachment then it is left up to Uncle Sam.  Just like a child who disobeys, punishment comes from his or her parent; the State needs their punishment to come from our higher government or the court system.

Help doesn’t come automatically; citizens need to take the necessary steps to make it happen.  New State legislation doesn’t correct it; it only confuses and enhances the deceiving.  Our duties as citizens are to identify the discrepancies and then together file suits through the court systems when our privileges become too few, For example:

1.     Legislation abridging our right to bear our choice of arms (Amendment 2).

II.     Insurance companies have been allowed the “taking” of property (Amendment 5) through the use of unrealistic evaluation of the replacement value or property (i.e., vehicles or property damage).

III.    Nursing Homes, Hospitals, and especially mental hospitals are sometimes guilty of depriving “life” and “Liberty . . . without due process of law” by using the “Sword of Damacles” over the heads of patients admitted voluntarily through the stripping of the patient’s right of leaving voluntarily.  In other words if a doctor doesn’t give his approval for release, the patient must pay “cash” for his own release because the insurance companies won’t pay.  A poor person is therefore held in an insane prison against his will.

IV.    The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and other “Hip Pocket Agencies” such as the EPA, and the BLM, and environmentalist continue to put the price of human “life” below that of purported endangered species while at the same time abridging the privileges of the people through “taking” (Amendment 5) of property or monies as compensation for development.  These agencies have it backwards; they want us to pay them.

Where does it say in the Constitution or in the Amendments thereof that the people must do the compensating?

Previous legislation proposals want a tree to come to be an endangered species.  But is the tree the real issue?  Or is the real issue you and me?  Taking of our property or abridging our privileges is blackmail, extortion, and/or plain highway robbery.

The same is true of the illegal immigration issues.  The point is the illegals are not citizens!  As such, they have no rights, nor should they.  When they protest, they identify themselves; we should deport them immediately, escort them across the border using the U. S. Military forces.

I say, “Yes to America.”  And I say, “No to the deception that is invading our shores.”  The 14th Amendment says in Section 5:  “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  In other words if we want action, Congress has to do it for us.  Congress has shown through history that they tend to wait fifty to one hundred years before acting.  Do we want to wait until we are dead (the future of America lost) before our rights as citizens are protected?  When Congress ignores the people, the people must take steps to force Congress to act.  Life in the United States must not grow into a game of “Simon Says” or “Mother May I.” We are a free people. We must stay that way.

The Supreme Court gives the authority through court actions to force Congress to act on our behalf.  In the matters at hand the Supreme Court may prove to be our protector.