Stevie Nicks and Javier Colon Sing Landslide: The Voice

The video above features Stevie Nicks singing her classic "Landslide" with a contestant during the finale of NBC's The Voice. I watched the show, and liked all the finalists.

While I thought Dia Frampton, the runner up, had a more unique voice, I thought Javier Colon, the winner, had better pitch. He also consistently performed well and had a better back story--family and kids, artistic struggle, etc. Over the years he's had a record deal or two but his label didn't give him the attention he deserved, and they later cut him.

I strongly suspect that since he doesn't easily fit in the black box of R&B, rap, or soul, his style has been problematic for him in the industry. When you're of African descent and you don't fit in the black box, life gets complicated.

Adam Levine coached Colon, and Blake Shelton coached Frampton. The other coaches were Christina Aguilera, who coached finalist Beverly McClellan. She was lots of fun to watch and I still may download McClellan's version of the "The Thrill is Gone." Cee Lo Green coached finalist Vicci Martinez.

CNN has a article about the finale and how Colon did not expect to win. I didn't know Justin Bieber was rooting for him and telling his Facebook army to vote for him.

The most disappointing thing in this is some of the asinine comments from readers about the show, Colon, and the other contestants at CNN, including one idiot who is saying Javier was only on the show and won because he's black. You know, a lot of Americans out there show clear signs of mental illness when it comes to race.

Hilarious Real Husbands of Hollywood Spoof of Real Housewives: Kevin Hart, Nick Cannon, Nelly, and Bobby Brown, Parts 1 & 2

I LMAO at Kevin Hart, Bobby Brown, Nick Cannon, and Nelly's BET Awards '11: Real Husbands of Hollywood. I have parts one and two here. Watch more at BET.

Tribute to Patti Labelle at BET Awards 2011 Went Well

Patti Labelle tribute at BET Awards 2011 with Marsha Ambrosius, Cee Lo, and Shirley Ceasar. Patti herself performs at the end. I enjoyed watching the show with my aunt and cousins last night, three generations in one place with a difference of opinion about what is good music. The younger ones were more into the rappers. And Kevin Hart's Real Husbands of Hollywood made me laugh until I cried.

Be Careful What You Say to Census Workers

I'm joking. I don't think today's census workers would ever write down what this census work did in 1880. Check what's listed as Joseph Jean Baptiste's occupation.



Also notice how neat the handwriting is on the snippet of the screenshot from the original document. I doubt this guy was walking and writing at the same time.

Mr. Jean Baptiste was most likely a farm worker living on the Laura Plantation or St. Joseph Plantation in Vacherie, Louisiana. Most of the white people listed on the form are Waguespacks. While slavery was technically over, it's quite possible Joseph Jean Baptiste never spoke to the census worker himself and an overseer or somebody from the "big house" gave the census worker the information. But if that worker did talk to this black man himself, I can only imagine how that conversation went.

In addition, here in Louisiana census workers often ran into people who could only speak French, and so, sometimes what made it to the census form was not accurate for that reason. But it's quite possible the man himself said "drunkard" out of his own mouth.

Last semester I read Ernest Gaines's collection of short stories, Bloodline, in a class. I recommend the short story of the same title about the passing away of old plantation life and the complexities of the Laurent family to anyone who wants to see how the effects of paternal and overt racism as pathology worked itself out on the plantations of River Road. However, it's also a class issue. No census worker would have dared write anything so negative about one of the plantation owners even if he'd come upon him dancing naked in a drunken stupor on the veranda.

I found the census record at FamilySearch.org.

Worst Summer Vacation: Fallon's Twitter Hashtag

This is how my summer's going. I'm spending more time in my brick and mortar life, and so I'm not online as much. That's how I ended up watching Twitter on television instead of Twitter itself. But Jimmy Fallon's delivery of tweets under his #worstsummervacation hashtag made me laugh just the same. Big media and entertainment is really leveraging the social media thing, huh?

Broward County, Florida: Judge Shows Compassion to Mother Who Left Children in Hot Car while She Sold Her Blood

In the clip, Broward County, Florida, Judge John Hurley gets "a little choked up" when reviewing the case of a poor woman arrested for leaving her children in a hot car. MSNBC posted:

Angel Smith, 41, (left her two children) in a hot car for two hours while she gave blood to earn money to feed them, the Sun-Sentinel reported.

She was paid around $30 for giving blood, but when she left the center, cops were waiting.

A security guard at the blood donation clinic saw the children - ages 4 and 7 - alone in the car and called police, who arrested Smith on child neglect charges. The children were unharmed and are in the custody of the Department of Children and Families.

In the video, the judge tells Smith, "I don't look at you as a criminal, all right, but at the same token, ma'am, you can't leave your children in the car, that length of time, unattended." She's still facing charges.

This story of the Florida woman touched me because the judge empathized with the woman, who is clearly going through a hard time, and it's good to know that we have judges who don't automatically throw the book at people without considering circumstance. Do you know how desperate you have to be to sell your blood?

At the same time, we've had at least one child die in the New Orleans metro-area in the last three weeks who was left in a hot car and another who nearly died but was rescued by New Orleans Recreation Department workers. A babysitter has been charged with negligent homicide in the death of the first child. She was a family friend who was supposed to take the child to daycare but for some reason she stopped at her house instead and left the child in the car for eight hours. In the second case, the mother, Sha'ron Hudson, 22, has been charged with second-degree cruelty.

In addition, last week a woman was arrested in Westwego, La., after leaving two children, ages three and six, in the car with the air conditioner on low. She was shopping in the grocery store. A passerby saw the children who were sleeping and called the police. While that woman used poor judgment, at least she was aware that she should not leave children in a hot car.

The local paper reports that the children's father said the woman who was arrested is not the children's biological mother and he defender her. Apparently she's his wife. Police told WDSU that she was the third woman arrested for under such circumstances this summer. I don't know if they were referring to the two cases I mentioned earlier or other cases.

The police handling the case sounded frustrated and angry. It is indeed hard to fathom why people do this, especially during the summer down here when local stations run announcements and segments telling of the dangers of leaving children in cars with temperatures outside above 90 degrees. It's difficult to understand sometimes why people leave children in cars alone at all given the news stories carjackings where the thieves didn't realize a child was in the car, not to mention all the warnings about child predators.

Imagine how distraught the Westwego woman would have been if someone had abducted her husband's children or how terrified she would have been if the children had awakened and done what one of my younger cousins did when he was a slightly more than two years old. He tried to drive his parents' car and rolled into a busy street. The keys weren't in the car, but the door was unlocked. My uncle, his father, was working in the yard when my cousin climbed in the car and messed around enough to release the brakes. The car rolled back into the driveway and reached the part that sloped downward. Gravity took over and the car rolled into the street. Fortunately, no cars hit him.

Last year, Kids and Cars, reported 48 children died due to being left alone in hot cars, a record number.

H/T to Nancy Lockhart who shared the video of the judge on her Facebook page.

Did Falling Skies Skitters Escape from Super 8 Movie?

I watched the premiere of the new TNT series Falling Skies last night and enjoyed it. The characters drive the storyline more than its aliens and special effects, and that's always a good thing. So far, thumbs up! (Visit the microsite.)

Nevertheless, I could not help but notice the Super 8 clone running around in Falling Skies. "Skitters," as the TNT series characters call one class of aliens in the story, look a lot like a scaled-down version of the giant alien in the latest J.J. Abrams movie, Super 8. The human characters are currently battling these insect-like skitters and also "mechs," giant metal robots. The dialogue last night, however, foreshadowed that the aliens ultimately invading Earth may be humanoid.

Steven Spielberg is connected to both Falling Skies and Super 8 as a producer; so, is the resemblance of the two creatures a coincidence or did the series and the movie use the same special effects house?

The houses are not the same. MastersFX, Todd Masters, CEO, co-designed the Skitter creature featured in Falling Skies "working with Steven Spielberg’s designers and the CG house Zoic," according to SciFiAndTVTalk. However Neville Page, also the man behind the Cloverfield creature, designed the alien for Super 8, and it seems Abrams wooed him to the project.

I'm not saying these two gifted special effects artists copied each other because really, when it comes to creature design, the movie industry seems to be running out of ideas. There seems to be a rise in a ET-meets-Alien-meets-Starship Troopers hybrid. But as far as these two productions go, it's possible the person connected to both had some influence. Does Spielberg have a soft spot in his heart for multi-legged aliens? Only his creature creators know for sure.

Dinner with President Obama: You Too Can Win!

The President of the United States of America is holding a raffle. I received in my email today a fundraiser promotion from President Barack Obama's re-election campaign offering me and everyone else a chance to win dinner with the the President of the United States. Of course, it didn't say it that crassly, but still it's a chance for me (or you)--an ordinary citizen--to win dinner with the most powerful man in American government and four other winners/supporters. All we have to do is make a donation.

I like the idea of it more than I dislike it, but when I first saw the email, I had reservations: "A raffle, Mr. President? Seriously?" I flinched because immediately I could hear the flack he'll take on this one even though, as a friend of mine says, he did similar fundraisers during the 2008 campaign. The distinction for me is that in 2008, Obama was not a sitting president. Has any sitting president before him ever raffled off a dinner with himself to ordinary folks? (He also did this during the midterm elections last year to help the Democratic Party.)


As his campaign writers explained this fundraiser in the email, I agree with what he's trying to do, which is to not take money from lobbyists. Consequently, by raffling off time with him to everyday people, he is able to raise money without being in anyone's pocket but the people's. Nevertheless, I hear someone objecting somewhere and saying that this kind of move cheapens the Office of the POTUS.

Does it really? He's not selling himself to the highest bidder but drawing donors' names whether that donor's given $5 or $2500. (It probably won't be that simple. I'm sure if your name is drawn and it's discovered you're a violent felon or a member of the KKK or some have been associated with anti-American extremists that you won't be called to dinner).

To declare that this fundraiser cheapens the office of the president, however, also implies an elitism that would exclude average people from having the chance to do something the wealthy have been doing for a very long time, which is sit down to dinner with the President of the United States after buying a plate for a re-election fundraising dinner. However, some Americans tend to associate the Oval Office with the seat of royalty, and so, they might think something as ordinary as a raffle, something little churches and benevolent associations do, is beneath that office.

To my knowledge, fundraising dinners to re-elect presidents in the past have had little to do with opening the door to any ordinary citizen because they have had minimum "donations" that often began in the thousands of dollars range. What working-class family can afford that? So, in the past, it's only been rich people and special interest lobbyists who have had access to sitting presidents via fundraising dinners.

Anyway, here's an excerpt from the email:

Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests.

We didn't get here doing that, and we're not going to start now. We're running a different kind of campaign. We don't take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs -- we never have, and we never will.

We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford -- and I want to spend time with a few of you.

So if you make a donation today, you'll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of the four supporters to sit down with me for dinner. Please donate $5 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner-with-Barack

We'll pay for your flight and the dinner -- all you need to bring is your story and your ideas about how we can continue to make this a better country for all Americans.

This won't be a formal affair. It's the kind of casual meal among friends that I don't get to have as often as I'd like anymore, so I hope you'll consider joining me.

But I'm not asking you to donate today just so you'll be entered for a chance to meet me. I'm asking you to say you believe in the kind of politics that gives people like you a seat at the table -- whether it's the dinner table with me or the table where decisions are made about what kind of country we want to be.

The same friend who said Obama did this during the 2008 campaign also said this kind of fundraiser may reflect how social media (and the Internet) gives candidates new ways to connect to potential donors and supporters. Could be. It seems to fit a president who effectively used social media and new methods to connect the first time around.

Undoubtedly he'll still have town meetings, and everyday citizens can ask questions there, but those won't be as intimate as sitting down to a small dinner with him. At the very least this raffle and the dinner itself intrigues me as a media event.

How do you feel about this?

Weak Impulse Control Hurts More if You're Poor?

Some people will read this article at The New Republic, "Why Can’t More Poor People Escape Poverty?," and without going very far into have a knee-jerk reaction and reject its information because the article can be misread to say that all poor people lack impulse control. That's not what it's saying, but I know that's what that I thought until I realized I was wrong.

What the article is saying is that when people who are not poor lack will power, they have more wiggle room to indulge and can make more impulse purchases because they have more disposable income. If you're neither wealthy nor poor, you still have more wiggle room than someone who is poor. As the article suggests, if you have adequate income, choosing to buy an empty calories item such as a doughnut because you feel like eating a doughnut, while probably not the best choice for your health, is not going to make that big a difference in your budget. However, if you're poor and you buy the doughnut, a relatively small purchase for those with adequate income, the ripple effect in your budget will have a greater impact at the end of the month.

It's something we know already, right? If you're earning $7.15 per hour, buying one talle Starbuck's latte per week proportionally hurts your budget more than if you are someone earning $40 per hour. The person earning $40 per hour could buy a venti latte everyday at $5.50 a pop, actually have zero willpower when it comes to resisting the daily purchase, but that indulgence will probably not prevent her from paying her light bill unless she's living waaay above her means.

So, again, the article is not saying that all poor people lack will power or have impulse control issues. It's saying that if you are poor, self-indulgence does more damage. Having more money cloaks lack of will power and may also hide relatively small errors in decision making. If you have money, you can do dumber things. Poverty magnifies bad decisions.

It's sort of like being overweight due to having a medically documented slow metabolism issue such as hypothyroidism. The skinny person with the normal-to-fast metabolism may not be able to resist chocolate milk shakes and can drink two a week and it never shows up on her body, but people assume because the person is skinny she must really work out at the gym and have great willpower although neither is true. The fat person, however, may be working out at the gym daily, and only indulging in a dessert once a month. People nevertheless assume that the fat person's sitting on the couch all day and has never seen a sweet she couldn't refuse. They attribute a host of character flaws to the fat person such as laziness and lack of self discipline, and they are wrong. The skinny person's great metabolism cloaks that she lacks willpower while the fat person must work harder to battle a visible physical circumstance. As the skinny person, due to her great metabolism, is freer to make bad food choices, the person with more money is freer to make bad financial choices, and society attributes supposed better character traits to both the skinny person and the wealthy person.

Having a great metabolism as the result of genetics is a benefit you did not earn. In context of discussing poverty, being born with a great metabolism is analogous to being born with more social and cultural capital. Better social and cultural capital, other than the obvious one of being born to wealthy parents, can be benefits we otherwise don't consider such as being born to a mother or father who spent time with us and taught us how to live on a tight budget or who stayed on top of us about school work and went to PTA meetings. Better social and culture capital can also accumulate later in life hrough having the advantage of going to a school where we encountered better role models and didn't have to worry about gang violence or being born to a family in which no one, including us, has a mental disorder or a substance abuse issue or we may even have social and cultural capital because we were born with some kind of higher intelligence--emotional or academic--or natural self-discipline or some special talent or personality trait that helps us cope better with hardship and drives ambition.

In other words, some people are born with more benefits or through good fortune after birth encounter someone or something in their lives that gives them an extra edge that makes it easier to escape poverty through avenues not totally dependent on their individual hard work. Consequently, if they are not born into poverty but fall into it later, they may have an easier time escaping it, and if they are born into poverty but have one or more of these social and cultural assets, the deck is stacked in their favor to escape poverty. What can we say? Life is not fair.

I'm making this point about differences in our natures and circumstances to counter arguments from people who seem to measure everyone as though we're all exactly the same and have had the same experiences. Usually these people make statements such as, "I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps, and so can everyone else" like everyone is born with boots like them or the same level of social and cultural capital. (When such people do not reference themselves, then they speak of some ancestor who started with what they claim was nothing.)

Once past my first wrong conclusion that the article suggested poor people have less will power than the financially sound, I looked at potential solutions presented. One mentioned a project in a rural area that helped poor people set limits on their bank accounts that helped them to not make impulsive purchases. I know some of us do this for ourselves to keep us from buying that hot pair of heels we just saw at the mall. And isn't this the same idea behind why some of us opt for part of our paychecks to go straight to a savings account? If we don't see the money in our checking account, we're less tempted to use it for something idiotic.

The article also mentions the following:

Third, money itself can go a long way toward altering the dynamic that leads to willpower depletion among the poor. Government transfers of money have proven successful in Mexico and Brazil, for instance. In particular, attaching conditions to these transfers—such as requiring school attendance, regular clinic visits, and savings behavior—may allow for an end-run around the kind of willpower-based poverty traps that too frequently seem to end with the poor making unwise decisions.

I think a lot of people struggling with poverty would like this kind of help, but I also think it would be hard, if not impossible, for the government to implement any program like this in the United States. On the conservative side such a proposal would face opposition from people like those mentioned above who perpetuate misconceptions about everyone having boots as well as small government ideologies that only allow for dog-eat-dog economics. On the progressive side, opposition would come from the mindset that government assistance should come with no strings other than proof of poverty--the handout model. Some of my progressive friends feel that in a democracy the government should not be able to tell you what to do with your own resources. I agree and disagree. If the money in your hand came from the government, then it is not your personal resource but a collective resource.

I agree with objections to some welfare-to-work programs that have been proposed to force poor people to work full time in government service to receive housing and food stamps because that's a sneaky way to force someone to work for less than a living wage in a job that keeps them from finding a better job elsewhere. But if the person receiving the assistance elects to do this, then who am I to argue?

I disagree, however, with the idea that any expectation of accountability is insulting or akin to violating civil liberties. I think that if you are receiving money from the collective fund, you owe something to the collective. How we arrive at what that should be is open for debate, but that you don't get something from the collective without giving something back is not, even if what you give back is something that benefits you more than it obviously benefits the collective such as you seeing your children grow up to at least finish high school and stay away from criminal activity, a feat that's not as easy for some poor parents as it is for some middle-class parents. Nevertheless, unfortunately our birth circumstance, such as being born into poverty, may saddle us with hurdles others don't have to jump. We get nowhere by complaining that we should not have to jump them. Life is what it is until we overcome.

Money sent as a gift has no strings attached, but money provided by the government is not a gift; there's a rarely-articulated string attached. The premise under which the government provides money for poor families is not simple compassion. Charities function on the simple compassion premise, not governments. American government should function on compassion plus improving the commonwealth. Helping poor parents feed, clothe, and house their families is an investment in human resources that contributes to domestic stability and tranquility. If the result of how we implement the programs only establishes a system of generational poverty for some families, then we're doing it wrong.

(I feel the same way about corporations that get subsidies but do not produce jobs that pay a living wage and continue to harm the environment. If we don't hold them accountable, then those subsidies are a gift and we're idiots because unlike the poor, "successful" companies shouldn't need government assistance.)

I'm not suggesting that in order to get food stamps you should have to go scrub the White House steps or that work will somehow magically form better character. Being in a work program is good for some people. For others, such as a mother with a one-year-old at home or a young man who could earn more in the private sector if he were taught a skill first, not so much. I'm thinking more in terms of giving people additional assistance that they can choose to accept or reject, but if they accept it, then it comes with strings such as requirements to take a class in money management or letting someone else help you learn what your mama and daddy may not have taught you about planning for the future or determining needs versus wants. We need to stop assuming people have knowledge when their lives indicate otherwise and least provide a way for them to get that knowledge.

Our schools apparently are so burdened with teaching children how to pass standardized test that other important lessons never get taught. If I didn't run into people who have never learned some life skills that go hand-in-hand with life achievements, I wouldn't be saying this.

Many people who struggle with poverty don't need any kind of paternalistic help. They are doing everything they can, including not buying doughnuts and Big Macs, to work their way out of poverty. They may need only seed money, the kind of financial boost up that some of us get from parents. But there are some who need more hands-on guidance toward intangible but practical knowledge because no one in their families ever provided them with such guidance. (The same can be said of some who grew up in middle-class to wealthy families but they've got other resources through family to help them. In cases of generational poverty, no one in the family may know how to dig out. And local community resources have dwindled.)

So, I think this notion that it's an insult to provide a system that requires some kind of accountability is irrational. If people with money can lack self control, then so can people without money. If people with money feel they need help with becoming better parents, then so do people without money. If people with money need lessons about how to plan for the future, then so do people without money, and if some people who have money in our consumer-driven culture need to learn the difference between needs and wants, then some poor people may also need to learn the difference. Therefore, let's stop acting like below the poverty line there exists some special class of Magical Poor People who are more emotionally stable, super-effective at coping with life challenges, and better spiritually adjusted than all the financially stable humans on the planet.

And yes, I have had to apply for public assistance before and been part of what the government and media call "the low-income class." It's a humiliating process, but if someone had told me, "You're entitled to the minimum amount of food stamps, but you can get $10 more if you sit through a few classes on childcare," my answer would not have been "Don't insult me." It would have been, "I'll do it because I love my child, and maybe I'll learn something I don't know. I need help and know that there's no such thing as a free lunch." At the same time, I was born with the kind of social and cultural capital that someone trapped in generational poverty does not have.

Yes, nobody, poor or otherwise should be forced to participate in a program against his/her will, but what about people in poverty who want to participate? Living in poverty limits freedom in ways far more isolating and insidious than a requirement to finish school or manage a meager savings account would. I know poverty is a far more complex issue, and it must be addressed through a variety of measures. I guess I'm just tired of programs that might help being shot down on the basis of abstract and impractical notions of what it means to be free.

Freedom is not free. Freedom comes through a balance of power and accountability. Name any freedom, such as gun ownership, freedom of speech, or the right to pursue happiness, and you will find there's a cost somewhere. There's always a price for freedom.

But this discussion is moot because I sense in this country little desire to help poor families and a stubborn insistence that being poor is always the result of laziness or some kind of genetic deficiency. We're trapped in dual cycles of blaming the victim and indulging victim mentalities that shun accountability. Where's the balance? As a collective, we're stuck on stupid. America, we're in trouble.

Photo: I used that iconic photo from Hurricane Katrina survivors in New Orleans because I think that while it's true the government--local, state, and federal--made excessive mistakes following that catastrophe and race was obviously a factor, too, the suffering we witnessed was also the result of the persistence generational poverty in New Orleans.

The Slippery Slope of All Bloggers are Journalists

The court was right. Shellee Hale, a blogger, was out of her lane. She made her inflammatory statement against Too Much Media, LLC, a New Jersey software company, on a message board at Oprano.com, a website for the porn industry and accused TMM of "violat[ing] state laws protecting consumers against identity theft." Unfortunately for her, a New Jersey court ruled against her claim that as a blogger she is also a journalist protected by the state's shield laws that shield journalists from prosecution who refuse to reveal sources.

I just finished reading Melissa Ford's well-written summary at BlogHer.com, "Are Bloggers Journalists and Should They Be Protected By the Shield Laws?" It's about the Hale case. Hale is a mother, a former Microsoft employee, and a self-described investigator who wants to expose security breaches in the porn industry or something like that, according to multiple news sources.

CouponCandy, sharing her frustration about folks not paying their dues in her profession, commented on the BlogHer post and said that people who have not been formally trained to be journalists should not get the title and protections of trained journalists. Ford responded, pointing out that untrained writers are hired by newspapers and are considered to be journalists:

There is, though, a slippery line in defining journalist. For instance, my local paper--which is an accredited news outlet, in production for 50+ years and a respected newspaper in the area--has writers on staff who do not have a degree in journalism or a background in journalism. They have an interest in writing and they can write a news article well enough to be employed by this newspaper. Are they a journalist? Should they be protected? If a blogger gets a job with them tomorrow, should their blog posts not be protected, but the articles they write for this newspaper protected?

I'm not talking about in terms of quality, I'm just talking in terms of logistics--that a person can be not protected one day and protected the next day and not have the methods for collecting the facts for the piece change at all.

True, but even a trained journalist is protected one day but not the next. The judge made that clear by declaring that the person must be collecting information or working on a story for a "legitimate news media" organization. Hale tried to get around this definition by saying her website, Pornafia.com, is also a news outlet and that she was working on a piece for a proposed "news section" at her site. The court rejected that argument on grounds that she never launched the news section.

As a journalist, however, I say "Real journalists don't break stories on messageboards." They play their big news close to the vest until the story is published. Practicing, trained journalists do not want to be scooped. Consider the words of veteran investigative journalists Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp writing about how they broke the Rekers story featured recently on CNN:

When a journalist breaks a hot story, or even a pleasingly warm one, he feels a keen desire to stay atop it, to negotiate each of the story's developing angles before any other journalist thinks to try. (emphasis added)

So, Hale's messageboard comment was pretty inflammatory, and if true, it was also big news. Publishing such a claim on a website messageboard to which she had no fiduciary obligation and it had none to her, therefore, screams that she is not a journalist. She's an activist. It sounds to me as though she's driven by a specific issue with a specific industry, porn, and it seems her main goal is to sound an alarm of some kind. Sounding a warning was more important to her than breaking a news story.

Yes, a trained journalist can also be an activist, but a journalist should know the difference and understand when she or he is one and not the other or has blended the two. A trained journalist should also know how to write a statement to be read as opinion rather than fact.

An activist is not automatically protected from revealing sources nor are activists given the same rights as a journalist because it's understood activists have ulterior motives. (A journalist may also have ulterior motives but is trained to know that motives, no matter how noble, may not substitute for facts, and even though journalists are protected by shield laws, a journalist should also be prepared to go to jail to protect a source.)

So, I'm as annoyed as CouponCandy, who commented on BlogHer. I'm not annoyed at Ford's argument in answer to CouponCandy but at the course some of us who also call ourselves bloggers seem to be on of downgrading professional writers and journalists to mean anyone with a blog. Bloggers are definitely not automatically journalists, and so, we are not on a slippery slope if we stand by statements that define what a journalist is and isn't. (See Kim Pearson's piece, "Why James O'Keefe is Not a Journalist." )

If you are an amateur/untrained writer and you work for a newspaper or another publication, it's the willingness of its editors and publisher to pay you as a journalist that gives you credibility. In addition, the publication/publisher paying you takes on the risks of lawsuits and other consequences, such as loss of advertising income or readers, if you make false or harmful statements in the publication. That's why newspapers and other media outlets generally don't let you write whatever you wish in their publications. Editors and sometimes publishers monitor journalists' stories to guard against libelous errors. (I used to publish a newspaper. I took on the risks.)

But this does not mean that one must be paid to write to be a journalist. The point is that someone else other than you feels confident enough in your ability and integrity to let you publish under his or her publication's name. Most of all I am saying that journalists work in discourse communities where their work is read by someone else before it's published, and if no one else is involved to vet the work first, then the level of risk is directly proportional to the journalist's integrity and training.

Bloggers are essentially unvetted writerly cowboys. Their posts are not scrutinized by other editors or a publisher before going public, and so, any willingness of the courts to accept that the blogger is telling the truth without knowing from whom the blogger got the information is akin to giving a blank check to anyone with a blog to commit slander and libel. The court has to "consider the source" when deciding whether statements are true or untrue. It would be irresponsible and unfair to those against whom a blogger might make charges if any blogger can accuse any individual or business of anything without proof. Such a precedent would make lone bloggers unaccountable for their words in the larger community.

I'm not saying that some bloggers don't write as well if not better than paid journalist, nor am I saying that bloggers can't investigate and break a story that mainstream media neglects. What I'm saying is that if a blogger wants to be called a journalist and receive the protections of a journalist, then he or she should take time to learn about journalism ethics, the difference between sensationalism and reporting with integrity, and the difference between credible journalism and yellow journalism. For the sake of self protection alone, bloggers should also read up on libel, slander, and copyright laws.

I wish Hale the best and I appreciate what she's trying to do, and so, I'm glad that she had libel insurance, as she stated in comments on BlogHer. However, I hope other bloggers who want to take on hard news and break stories pay attention. Some people who have not been trained or who have never bothered to read up on journalism ethics and libel laws unwittingly take huge risks from which even libel insurance may not protect them.

Bloggers can no more hide behind ignorance of libel and slander laws than can citizens carrying concealed weapons hide behind ignorance of the law when caught with a gun in the pocket. Furthermore, possession of a gun alone does not make that citizen a marksman; and yet, if that citizen aims and shoots someone, she will be prosecuted.

Some people blog blindly. Free speech and whistleblowing laws have limits, and bloggers who don't understand those limits can do a lot of damage to themselves and to others. Talking about celebrities, public figures, and family life is low risk. Making accusations against private companies and private people is high risk.

What Hale did is akin to someone going to a bottlers association website and making the charge that one of the companies that provides caps to bottlers is providing virus-contaminated caps. Such a statement would not be perceived as opinion, but a statement of fact, and if the writer said it, then the writer should be ready to prove it. If the only way to prove the statement is to name sources and the writer refuses to do so, then what proof is there that the writer's story is true other than the writer's word? That's a lone blogger, a lone wolf. Where's the accountability?

Also, the Hale case is not the same as an ordinary blogger ranting about a company that ticked her off. When a blogger writes about an incident between her and a company, then she is the primary source of information, and as long as the blogger sticks to exactly what happened to her and does not embellish the actions of the company to place it in a falsely bad light, she's protected. It's one thing to write "XYZ Baby Powder gave my son a rash and no one from the company will respond to my letters. XYZ sucks!" especially if you've got proof of a doctor's visit and medical corroboration that your child's skin reacted to the powder. It's quite another to write "XYZ Baby Powder is putting a secret chemical in its powder that will endanger the lives of babies everywhere." The first statement is opinion based on personal and factual experience. The other is a statement that could ruin the company, and something you must be able to prove in court.

But why are we even discussing Hale's case in terms of her being a blogger anyway when she didn't make the comments on her own blog?

I'm struggling here to hit the stop-rant-button because my mind's moved on to the rise of websites that expect writers to write for free. In many ways, the willingness to call anybody with a blog a writer contributed to publishers devaluing content providers/writers. Different topic, I know, but still, here we go again with people making the argument that calling yourself by your aspiration means you've achieved that goal. Try telling your sons and daughters to call themselves medical doctors because they hope to be physicians some day and see what trained doctors and the courts have to say about that. When are professional writers going to stand up and say, "Enough!"? To be considered a professional, others in your field must vet you.

Journalism cloud from Reportr.net.

White Mother Pissed: Black People Keep Secrets

The white mother in this video is funny. Her complaint is that black people have been inadvertently hiding their skin care secrets from whites, and she wants that to stop. Furthermore, she wonders how many other secrets black people are keeping from whites that could help them. The video description reads in all caps:

BLACK PEOPLE TELL US YOUR OTHER SECRETS! LIKE HOW THE HELL ARE YOU 95 YRSOLD AND LOOK 35?????

WHITE PEOPLE GO GET YOU SOME BUTTERS STAT...GET OFF THE LOTION..

New Jersey talk show host Lisa Durden shared this video silliness on Facebook which comes from Heady1313 on YouTube, and I'm glad because I take my laughs where I can get them. However, on a political note, white people through colonization and in the guise of academic or scientific research have studied black people for a long time and walked away with our cultural knowledge, frequently earning dollars off our culture that are never returned to us. I guess I'm laughing in part here at the irony of which Heady1313 may be unaware or cleverly plucking at the domesticity level.

Some people thought she was dead serious in "the butters," but I didn't. Nor did I find the video offensive.

What I've gathered is that Heady1313, who is also on Twitter, has Multiple Sclerosis that's left her in a wheelchair and she committed to vlogging for a year. Her first video talks about feeling like she's an inconvenience, but before that she says that she hopes through blogging, "to make MS my bitch."

On John Blake's "Actually, that's not in the Bible" Article

I just read a provocative article by John Blake at CNN.com, "Actually, that's not in the Bible," and I left a comment, but with 6,200 comments and rising, I doubt he or anyone else will read my thoughts there. (The article's been shared on Facebook nearly 46,000 times already) So, here is what I said:

I agree with this article, but have two considerations. I think the saying "This too shall pass" is a distillation of a concept in the Book of Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1-8 that begin. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." It's the idea that there is a season for trouble and and a season for peace and so troubling times don't last forever.

Also, while I agree completely that the saying "God helps those who help themselves" goes against a greater theme in the Bible that tells people to help the poor and needy, I also think that Ben Franklin extrapolated the idea of helping oneself from 2 Thessalonians 3: 10–"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

But we should remember that in the period in history in which this verse was written, society was still largely agrarian. People were not dealing with (the level of) poverty (we see today) and industrialization had not happened yet which contributes to people not being able to "work" for their food. Also the idea that faith in God is manifested through physical deeds is seen in the Book of James. The problem for many Americans is that they try to take concepts from the Bible, repurpose them for their own agendas, and then try to force them onto the country.

In addition to my comment, lots of people are sharing how other sayings have been extrapolated from other Bible passages, such as the idea that Satan is the serpent in the Garden of Eden, but the Genesis story does not actually mention Satan. I shrugged reading Blake's section on Eve and the serpent as one of the misquoted or misrepresented stories because last semester I had to read Cain by Lord Byron, and an objection to saying Satan was in the Garden is one of the foundation pillars of that play. Read Blake's piece at the CNN website.

Psychology Today Ousts Satoshi Kanazawa: Color of Change

It pleases me to announce that ColorofChange.org launched a campaign aimed at Psychology Today against Satashi Kanazawa and the magazine has dropped the evolutionary psychologist as a contributor. Psychology Today is "taking the necessary steps to prevent an incident like this from ever happening again," says the advocacy group.

According to an e-mail sent to ColorOfChange.org – the nation’s largest African-American online political organization who asked its members to flood the editorial offices of Psychology Today with phone calls, e-mails and Facebook and Twitter comments and demand clarification – Psychology Today is no longer allowing Kanazawa to contribute to the publication. “We are currently implementing measures to ensure more rigorous oversight of blogs prior to publication, including nights and weekends, when this was posted. The blogger in question is no longer contributing to the site,” said Kaja Perina, editor-in-chief of Psychology Today.

I didn't write about Satashi Kanazawa's insulting and scientifically unsound article that ran in Psychology Today back in mid-May because I felt the story was getting enough discussion. I also was in a place where I could not absorb the negativity of spending too much time with Kanazawa's argument, which was essentially his assertion that black women are the ugliest human creatures on the planet because they have more testosterone. And if that were not insulting enough, he also managed to squeeze in that black men (who he claims are the most attractive human specimens) and black women are less intelligent than other humans.

While I didn't want to analyze his article, I'll gladly give attention to Kanazawa's dismissal as a PT contributor, but I guess I'm only hearing about it a week later because nasty news always gets more attention than pleasant news. Nevertheless, I would feel even better if the London School of Economics fired Kanazawa. Jezebel, reporting on the fall-out following the article, quoted an article in The Guardian about LSE students protesting Kanazawa's being on staff at the school. The University of London Senate (a student organization) voted unanimously for his dismissal, condemning his research.

Sherelle Davids, anti-racism officer-elect of the LSE students' union, said: "Kanazawa deliberately manipulates findings that justify racist ideology. As a black woman I feel his conclusions are a direct attack on black women everywhere who are not included in social ideas of beauty."

Amena Amer, incoming LSE students' union education officer, added: "We support free speech and academic freedom, but Kanazawa's research fuels hate against ethnic and religious minorities promoted by neo-Nazi groups. Not only does he use the LSE's credentials to legitimise his 'research' but this jeopardises the academic credibility of the LSE."

Who respects this man's so-called "science"? When I look him up online, I find other scientists who scorn him, including people in his field, but if British academia operates the same way American academia operates, then getting a professor fired for expressing racist, dehumanizing ideas is nearly impossible. I think for years the University of New Orleans had a professor who openly taught that black people were inferior to white people, but he had tenure, and so, the school endured him until he retired. So, we may have to endure Kanazawa's bigotry until he fades away.

Decoding High School: Why Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth

I saw this segment yesterday on CNN with Alexandra Robbins, author of the new book Why Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth. I used to say regularly to children who complained about not fitting in at school, "Geeks rule the world," and sometimes I'd end up in a debate about the difference between geeks and nerds. If you check Amazon, you'll discover a lot of books have the word "geeks" in the title, but the last time I bought one it was Geeks: How Two Lost Boys Rode the Internet Out of Idaho by Jon Katz.

The Katz book is about two specific "geeks," misfits who were bullied, and how they succeeded and found their place through network technology, while the Robbins book is about different types of high school students and where they fit or don't fit in on the teen social hierarchy chart. Here is the publisher's description as posted to Amazon:

*Now a New York Times bestseller* In a smart, entertaining, reassuring book that reads like fiction, Alexandra Robbins manages to cross Gossip Girl with Freaks and Geeks and explain the fascinating psychology and science behind popularity and outcasthood. She reveals that the things that set students apart in high school are the things that help them stand out later in life. Robbins follows seven real people grappling with the uncertainties of high school social life, including:

• The Loner, who has withdrawn from classmates since they persuaded her to unwittingly join her own hate club;
• The Popular Bitch, a cheerleading captain both seduced by and trapped within her clique's perceived prestige;
• The Nerd, whose differences cause students to laugh at him and his mother to needle him for not being "normal";
• The New Girl, determined to stay positive as classmates harass her for her mannerisms and target her because of her race;
• The Gamer, an underachiever in danger of not graduating, despite his intellect and his yearning to connect with other students;
• The Weird Girl, who battles discrimination and gossipy politics in school but leads a joyous life outside of it;
• The Band Geek, who is alternately branded too serious and too emo, yet annually runs for class president.

In the middle of the year, Robbins surprises her subjects with a secret challenge--experiments that force them to change how classmates see them. Robbins intertwines these narratives--often triumphant, occasionally heartbreaking, and always captivating--with essays exploring subjects like the secrets of popularity, being excluded doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you, why outsiders succeed, how schools make the social scene worse--and how to fix it. The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth is not just essential reading for students, teachers, parents, and anyone who deals with teenagers, but for all of us, because at some point in our lives we've all been on the outside looking in.

If I give credence to Robbins's classifications, I don't know where I would have fit in under them when I was a teenager. When you throw being overweight in to the equation, outcomes go askew.

Also, I went to a predominantly white, all-girls boarding school that was trying to integrate its student body for the first two years of high school and a predominantly black high school for the second two years. Cultural differences played a role in my perception of high school, but I would not go back to high school for a million dollars, even if youth came with the deal, unless I could take everything I know about life now with me. I think without reading her book, I would agree with the first classification, "The Loner," a person any one of us can become if we internalize being rejected.

I may buy Robbins's book just to see if I agree with any of it based on what I've observed of teens today. It's a bestseller so apparently a lot of people are still trying to figure out what the hell happened in high school.