“Those who are impotent and limp and gutless and they go on their anonymous – sources that are anonymous – and impotent, limp and gutless reporters take anonymous sources and cite them as being factual references,” Palin said in her criticism of the press. “It just slays me because it’s so absolutely clear what the state of yellow journalism is today that they would take these anonymous sources as fact.”

The comments, made Wednesday on Sean Hannity’s radio program, appeared to be fueled by an unflattering Vanity Fair profile that relied heavily on unnamed sources and claimed the former Alaska governor had a ‘mean temper.’ Question: Do you think anonymous, unnamed sources are overused by mainstream media?

If you think that was good, or you’re just hungry for more information, follow this link to learn more finding your life purpose …

In case you haven’t heard we here in the US are in the process of figuring out who our next president will be. Final elections won’t be held until November, but state primaries proceed through early summer, determining how many delegate votes each candidate will bring to their party’s convention.

Senator John McCain earned the Republican party nomination last night, winning enough votes for Mike Huckabee, also running for the nomination, to concede defeat. Democrats, many of whom believed they would awake this morning to Senator Barack Obama defeating Senator Hillary Clinton for the party’’s top spot, were met instead by Senator Clinton’s three primary wins in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas. Her hopes live and the Democrats still have a choice to make before the final leg of the campaign trail commences.

Presidential politics are usually more cut and dried, but this year is different. We have no incumbent president or vice president running for the job of leading the country. Many of us are discouraged over our involvement in the Iraq war, our own sagging economy and the general downward turn the country has taken during the last seven years of the Bush presidency. We want change, and people seem to be waking up to the fact that this is a democracy and we all have to participate to make it function like one.

Because this year is different, we have choices and we appear to be exercising them. More people are actually discussing politics again, stating their opinions, saying who they like and why. Some people are also listening to each other, considering what points they may have missed about a particular candidate. It’s been a long time since we Americans cared enough to carry on a conversation about the future of our own country. We are desperately in need of this thing called hope.

We are also desperately in need of this thing we call faith.

Although it is said that religion and politics don’t mix, I would contend that faith and politics cannot be separated on an individual, a more personal level. I don’t so much care about large scale religious battles over land, communicant members or Best Church Band of 2008. My interest settles on those simple conversations we have when our guard is down and we feel we can trust another human being with a small part of our souls. These moments of personal exposure can be fleeting, but hold deep wells of hope for what we can mean to each other as God’s people.

Consider how you may express your faith in a study group at your church. Would you be ready to quote scripture or a memorized passage from a prominent author familiar to most people sitting in the circle around you? Is the level of intimacy you feel with your fellow worshippers strong enough to withstand differences of opinion between political candidates or scriptural interpretations? Would you be willing to tell the person next to you that a mistake you made in your personal life may cost you your home or your family? Yet every day these kinds of truths are told and intimacies are shared among perfect strangers on commuter trains, in grocery store lines and at public restroom sinks. We find it easier to be ourselves, speak of our beliefs and our lives with people who know nothing about us and who likely will never see us again.

We keep certain boundaries around ourselves when we believe we are around good church people who expect us to be a certain way, sound like them or believe the same things they do because we believe in God, just like they do. We don’t want to admit that famous author makes no sense to us, or that the political candidate another is supporting does not speak to our values. We don’t want to fully admit who we are because we are afraid of being judged, even if we may be equally judgmental of someone else.

My point is that even though we like the idea of religious freedom in our country, the same we we value democracy as a whole, we don’t much like to have discussions that embody that freedom because then we would have to actually think about what we believe. Agreeing with the group at church functions or sharing what we really feel and believe with total strangers in public places brings about the same result: we stay hidden, our faith stays stagnant, never integrating with our actions and allowing us to live fully as God’s people.

I have heard mentioned that our faith, though personal, is not private. But living a public faith takes courage, resilience and the willingness to listen. Not everyone shares the same religious beliefs, even people sitting in the same pew with us on Sunday morning. Faith, like democracy, is not a spectator sport. Challenging each other, through discussion, education, open-mindedness and faithful observance to grow what we believe beyond a childhood memory of “Jesus Loves Me” is part of who we are called to be for and with one another.

Nothing illustrates this need better than the current crop of malfeasant corporate pawns who represent us.  Since the Democrats regained control of Congress in January, 2007, neither party has done a single thing we the people obviously need and want.

Other than passing a minimum wage law that was over ten years too late and as many dollars too low, lack of health care, education costs, poverty, infrastructure decay, joblessness and homelessness have all dramatically increased since then.  Rather than keeping campaign promises, Democrats have instead engaged in endless bend-over political charades. 

Under their watch, Congress has increased rather than reduced troop levels and war funding, signed away even more of our quickly disappearing rights and, allowed mega-media corporations to gobble up ever larger shares of radio and television airwaves that supposedly belong to us the public.  And beginning in 2008, our so-called “representatives” began selling our children’s future down a no-strings-attached, golden-platter river of unprecedented corporate bailout malfeasance. 

Because the business heading Supreme Court will always otherwise, declare any and all manner of corruption-eliminating reform “unconstitutional”, the only way to get rid of big money influence is by constitutional amendment.  Attempts at other methods of reform have left a long historical trail of tears of utter frustration and defeat.  Any semblance of half-measure reform that does somehow  manage to make it’s way into law is quickly shot down by the highest court in a false pretense of upholding the Constitution.

We need an amendment making it punishable by life in prison without parole, for any organization or group of people of any kind, for any reason, to contribute one penny or anything of higher value, to one small-town city council office seeker on up to president of the United States.  And we need to limit individual contributions to 1% of the median income per candidate per year, including candidates themselves; approximately $480 in 2009 dollars.

In order to be licensed for broadcasting on what are theoretically “the people’s” airwaves, we need to require all radio and television stations to grant free equal airtime to “qualified” candidates; qualification determined by obtaining enough signatures of registered voters, amount determined by office and number of people represented.

And, we need to eliminate the electoral college, elect everyone by popular vote, hold all party primaries on the same date and require a verifiable paper trail. There is much tweaking necessary for the amendment proposed here, but this sketch outline is sufficient to grasp the basic idea. 

No law will eliminate all corruption, but what is suggested here would eliminate well over 90% of the current problem and, would allow the majority of we the people to actually have a voice.

Will the bottom-feeding miscreant corporate-puppet juvenile delinquent treasonous reprobates of Congress ever be eliminated and put in federal prison where they belong?   You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this articlehttp://www.freedomtracks.com/500/congressionalreform.html 

The controversy began after conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a portion of the speech in which Sherrod spoke of not offering her full help to a white farmer. The initial video indicated that the incident Sherrod mentioned occurred when she worked for the Agriculture Department.  The news media jumped on the story.  The video seemed to be everywhere instantaneously.  Yet the impression it left the view with was a false one.  The incident took place decades before Sherrod joined the department, and her speech in its full, unedited form made the point that people should move beyond race.

The edited Sherrod video initially brought condemnation from the NAACP, which later retracted its statement and apologized to Sherrod after the context became clear.  Sherrod has also received an apology for her firing from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.  A call from President Obama and a new job offer from the administration.  She has yet to receive an apology from Breitbart and it doesn’t look like that’s coming anytime soon  Breitbart told CNN’s “Anderson Cooper: 360″ on Thursday that he saw no reason to apologize: “What would warrant an apology? … I’m not the one who threw her under the bus.”

In a week where the White House had hoped the focus would have been on the signing of the Wall Street Reform Bill, all eyes and ears were focused on the Sherrod fiasco.   In its haste to deal with what looked like an embarrassing and volatile situation the media and the administration ignored the source, took no time to investigate the story and with a knee jerk reaction created a media fiasco that could have been avoided.

Copyright © Anthony Mora 2010

Before I move on to the foundation of my thesis, note that I am not writing to change anyone’s political views. I am writing out of disgust of those who are brazen enough to hold up the picket signs that read, “Hitler wanted ‘change’ too”, and flamboyantly flash the garbage words that make my breakfast bitter as I watch the morning news in my living room. The audience that I write too is unrestricted; maybe I’m the one being narrow-minded and these people actually can back up the messages that they are spreading around. This is improbable though. My purpose in writing is to shed light to those involved in the happenings of society. I do not seek to influence; In fact, I am a detractor of the concept of “influence”. It is an individual’s responsibility to create his or her own thoughts on certain issues. Now, I’m not sure if republican intellectuals consciously fooled people into categorizing Obama with Hitler, or people truly make this silly comparison, for a word as powerful as “Hitler” can easily sway the mind of a non-intellectual.

As I now set the foundation of my thesis I can only wonder why people would think to compare Obama to Hitler. Certainly not everyone who actively encourages changes in the government is a Nazi. Let me remind you, in case you had forgotten, who Hitler was. Yes, he did want “change”, but not with the respect to the government so much as he wanted it with respect to the German population. He was an evil genius, a nationalist, and a demagogue who was able to convince the German population that it needed “cleansing”. He killed millions of people. Obama on the other hand recognizes a problem with our functional government. He knows that if he does not act as president, if policies were to remain as they are now, our country will fall into shambles! Every democrat and republican knows that this is the truth. It is indisputable, and referencing Obama’s policies to that of Hitler is the most pathetic and desperate attempt thinkable to defame a president who has the best interest of America in mind.

For as long as anyone can remember, those with even an ounce of status as an artist tend to weigh in and in some instances even raise money for their chosen delegate’s campaign. We, the general public, have in some ways come to trust their opinions. And why not? We spend courtesy of http://kerry.senate.govenough of our money and time being their devoted fans, hanging on to every note and word that pours out from them. And it’s nothing new for a band to express political views in their music. Contrary to what conservatives think, rock music isn’t merely a vacuum of escapism from the real world, it has the ability to create a culture surrounding politics, albeit an oftentimes insular one. We have Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bono, the Dixie Chicks, and Bruce Springsteen, but really there are countless other musicians working in a more underground way to effect change, not to mention the entire genre of punk rock which typically takes on political issues before musicality. And for some, like Washington DC’s own outspoken band, Fugazi, voicing their opinions both on and off the record, as it were, is equally important to who and what they are. But where did it all begin?

It can most likely be traced back earlier, but Beethoven’s third symphony was originally called “Bonaparte” due to his admiration of ideals set forth during the French Revolution. Then, upon Napoleon crowning himself emperor in 1804, Beethoven was so put off by that act of egotism that he rescinded the dedication and renamed the symphony “Heroic Symphony, Composed to Celebrate the Memory of a Great Man.”

In the more recent past, as rock ‘n’ roll is really only in its infancy, we’ve really seen musicians get politically active. What about Nixon getting elected twice during the height of the hippie movement in the late ’60s/early ’70s? This era particularly showed the power rock music could have on the younger demographic, and yet it did not change who was elected during that time. At the Hollywood Palladium in 1984, the Clash rallied for five nights against Reagan and Thatcher. But, alas, Reagan was re-elected. Alt-rock sage Michael Stipe of R.E.M. was a huge advocate of Dukakis, who in the courtesy of http://remhq.comend got bupkis. Springsteen’s music has evolved from personal stories of the common man to darkened tales of the demise of America. The Rising Tour anyone? And yet, the horror of the Bush family/administration lived on despite his efforts to change it. And, in 2004, when it was nearly impossible to exaggerate the importance of the presidential election, for us and the rest of the world, we saw musicians come out in droves in support of John Kerry with the Vote for Change Tour, not to mention countless other events featuring musicians getting political for the cause. It was probably the most outspoken musicians had been up until that point during an election. While those were inspiring times, we remember all too well what resulted because we’re currently still living with it. Could it be that a musician’s involvement in politics makes a lot of noise but signifies really nothing at all? Or could it be that it has the unintended, inverse impact, which invites conservatives to rail against them and preach “family values?” When considering what musicians like Springsteen sing about in their music, there exists great irony to how things have played out time and again.

For the most part, musicians identify with the Democratic Party. Interestingly, this works both ways. Rock music is an everyman activity and is used as a tool to aid in making these candidates appear less like a robot stiff. Some politicians throw the opening pitch at a big league baseball game, others choose to rock (or rap, ugh). Jimmy Carter quoted Dylan when he accepted the Democratic nomination in 1976, and Bill Clinton made Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” his 1992’s campaign theme song, which sparked the band’s reunion at his inauguration party. But, generally, it appears that musicians are mostly asking folks to do their homework and use their own brain to make an informed choice. Otherwise, it’s likely they’re either preaching to the choir or alienating those who can think for themselves. But there’s an important thing to consider about all of this. Although they have every right to stand up for what they believe in, political involvement by musicians for a presidential election can be worthless if it’s not well thought out.

Take for instance, Monday night’s show at the Bowery Ballroom in NYC called “Barack Rock,” which was put on by the politically-biased website Getupandvote.com. The show featured OK Go, Nina Persson of the Cardigans, and Craig Wedren and Nathan Larson from Shudder to Think, and was hosted by the likes of Michael Ian Black. If there’s one thing that’ll band together young rocker types, it is disillusionment and comedy. This is all well and good; except for the fact that it wasn’t a fundraiser for Obama—tickets were $20 a pop, not cheap, and where the money is going is unclear. But that’s not the bad part, really. It’s the mixed message they’re sending. Although they’re pushing for a candidate, as suggested by the name of the event, their website claims “it will be neither preachy nor didactic, but a clear, inspiring reminder for viewers and listeners to get off their asses and vote.” For $20 you can have a ball and be reminded by the following morning’s hangover that you’re supposed to get out of bed and vote, preferably for Obama, although so long as you’re voting, it’s cool…like whatever, man. This isn’t exactly an exercise in righteous indignation for making a difference. I mean, take a fucking stand on the matter. Or else, so much for the days when rock ‘n’ roll looked people in the eye and forced some kind of response.

Speaking of, remember when Eddie Vedder impaled a mask of the president on a microphone stand during concerts? Now that was obviously disrespectful, but it was at least very clear how he felt about things. Not whatever, man. Who else is going to drive a point home like that if not a musician in a rock band? Maybe, photo by Chris Sweda for Chicago-Sun Timesjust maybe, that Susan Sarandon broad might have it in her. But do you think Vedder was saddened by the fact that his pro-Bush fans were offended by him impaling that mask? Hell no!

But, back to this year’s democratic delegates. Once a presidential hopeful goes where the voters are and figures out what makes them tick, it’s also been said that victory goes to the more likable candidate. Hillary Clinton isn’t getting on with the rocker types too well, I can tell you that much, even though it’s been reported that she’s seen support from Elvis Costello and Timbaland. Perhaps she should pick a campaign song by someone other than Celine Dion? Now, the epitome of indie rock mainstream (and yes, I just wrote “indie rock mainstream”) Conor Oberst was the opening act at Obama’s rally in Iowa. There we go, now we’re talking. Obama, or Ba-Rock—as tagged by series of concerts to mobilize young voters with members of Wilco in tow—is gaining support from the indie rock community by the day and gaining ground on Hillary in the primaries by the day as well. Are the two things mutually exclusive? Hard to tell, but indie rock (if you don’t know what it is exactly, please refer to your newly purchased Juno soundtrack) has headlined in various places as being Obama’s secret weapon. Indie rock is like the new swing vote in the Democratic primaries.

In an article published in Newsweek, the writer reported that “On Friday, Dec. 7 in Chicago, Wilco captured the crucial ‘indie rock’ constituency for Obama. John Edwards may have Bonnie Raitt. Hillary Clinton may have Celine Dion. But Barack has the MacBook-tanned mp3 bloggers in skinny jeans and vintage t-shirts. And as they go, so goes the nation.” The writer also immediately shot this sentiment in the foot by noting that Jill “I Kissed a Girl” Sobule and that dude from Third Eye Blind also performed at the event. However, there’s still a fair amount of validity to the matter when Newsweek reports that the indie rock community is a “crucial,” what, constituency was it? So maybe we shouldn’t shrug apathetically at our computer screens when our RSS feed explodes with news that Arcade Fire frontman Win Butler spoke out on his blog, both criticizing Hillary Clinton and backing Obama. It appeared to be actual news that Butler said, “Do we live in a democracy so we can just keep electing the same families?” A good point, though not necessarily a new one, which was followed by an f-bomb with several exclamation points. I think Butler could do better. Impaling stuff with a microphone stands comes to mind. But perhaps the point here is not so much the power of indie rock itself, but the power the internet and indie rock have to reach the 18-25 year old demographic, and reach them consistently at that. In 1968 you’d have to wait a month for Rolling Stone to come out. Now young adults can access immediately when and where and why Pete Wentz of Fall Out Boy courtesy Rough Trade Recordschose to side with Obama.

During this past Sunday’s Superbowl, Obama ran an ad that aired in about 20 states, as it was funded on a state-by-state basis (and cost $250,000 instead of a national ad which costs $2.5 million), aimed at a younger demographic as it featured shots of young folks in the crowd cheering Obama on while also playing the music of Dan Zweben. Never heard of him and I followed up on this… Zweben only has approximately 2,000 friends on MySpace. Not exactly Fleetwood Mac status or anything like it, but pretty interesting that I was actually introduced to a new musician through a commercial for a presidential hopeful. Nicely played, Ba-Rock.

What it comes down to is the drawing of a line in the sand. And that is probably what the rock community at large respects about Barack Obama. He’ll tell you that he did a little of the ol’ Dr. Zhivago back in the day and is currently still at the mercy of nicotine gum. He easily admits that he’s human with faults and foibles and probably a real fuck up from time to time, but that doesn’t keep him from doing his job and doing it well. This earns him respect and makes him infinitely more likeable, especially amongst a crowd of young voters who tend to embrace the awkward and emotionally damaged. I’m not knocking that either… I think it’s perfectly healthy. Besides, when did anyone ever like someone who goes around pretending like they’re perfect? And what is rock music if not a place where we can openly contend with all the things in life that make us human?

We like our music defined in this way. It’s good to know where everyone stands. So, yes, I’m completely fine and even encouraging of musicians getting up and voicing their opinions on political matters so long as their message isn’t lukewarm or wishy-washy. If the message being preached can heighten political awareness and energize young voters, a positive impact will have taken place. Still, the end of their means is in question. The results of the intended impact has yet to be seen (as I sit here writing this), and history thus far doesn’t bode well in terms of how much muscle musicians can provide in getting folks out to the voting polls to make a difference for change. And yet, it’s not a very long history to consider. This new idea that the rock community is a significant group to win over might actually have some legs to stand on this time around. In the end, as the anxiety of who will become president in 2008 reigns supreme, one thing is certain: we’re being entertained and perhaps even comforted by the music as we wait.

Probably one of the better known supporters of the Behavioral Theories was Kurt Lewin during the 1930s. He described the behaviors of different leaders, identifying three different kinds of leaders:

According to Lewin, autocratic leaders made decisions solely on their own interpretation of what need to be done quickly. They made no reference to any other opinions. Lewin recognized different degrees of democratic leaders. In other words, some were more democratic than others. Unless the need for a decision was particularly pressing these leaders allowed input from colleagues, often weighing up the worth of others’ opinions before making a final decision. Meanwhile, Lewin’s interpretation of a laissez-faire leader was one who guided a team of colleagues but sat back and let them make their own decisions. This type of leader would be best described as a motivator or facilitator in modern terminology.

Where Lewin Meets Hersey-Blanchard

Failure to come to any conclusion regarding the personal characteristics of leaders led to the development of theories that focused on the situations surrounding the leader. One of the more popular theories belonging to this category was the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory. Basically, this involves the mental capacity and maturity of the leadership team. This theory was developed by the author of the book ‘The Situational Leader’ and the author of ‘The One-Minute Manager’. The former book was written by Dr Paul Hersey and the latter by Ken Blanchard. This gave rise to the name of this particularly theory: the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership.

According to Hersey and Blanchard, a good leader ensures that the style of leadership is altered in accordance with the person being instructed. There is little point in giving instruction in language so far above the head of the person you are instructing if they are unable to understand what you are talking about. The idea of giving instruction is to delegate a job and get it done, not to prove that you are so far above your subordinate that they can see that they cannot possible compete.

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory displays four styles of leadership:

Put simply, the first two styles involve making sure the job gets done. The last two involve empowering another person to have the skills to do the job. A leader who exhibits participating and delegating skills is leading more through facilitating than through just basic instruction. There are loose similarities between autocratic leadership and the ‘telling’ style of leadership; ‘selling’ leadership has various indications that might mimic democratic leadership; ‘participating’ and ‘delegating’ both appear similar to the laissez-faire leadership style.

Levels of Maturity

A discussion of the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory wouldn’t be complete without following through with their related ideas on maturity levels. According to Hersey and Blanchard, instead of being entrenched soundly within one leadership style, the charismatic leader is one who can adapt their style of leadership according to the type of person being led. To be able to explain this more adequately, Hersey and Blanchard have divided these maturity levels into four divisions. These include M1, at the lower end of the maturity scale up to M4 at the most mature level.

Focusing on the maturity needs of the person being led, Hersey and Blanchard have matched up the style of leadership that should be most appropriate for each. In other words, when leading somebody with an M1 level of maturity the leader should use the ‘Telling’ style. When leading somebody with M2 level of maturity, or somebody whose skills are limited, the leader should employ the ‘Selling or coaching’ level of leadership. For the M3 maturity level which often tends to include somebody whose skill levels are quite high but who tends to lack confidence, the leader should recognize the style of leadership required is the ‘Participating/supporting’ role. The highest maturity level or M4 should be matched with the ‘Delegating’ level of leadership.

Overall, what Hersey and Blanchard are saying is that it is up to the skill of the leader to recognize which kind of leadership needs to be used in which situation.