Author: Jocelyn Hernandez

In the reading Attacking the Fourth Estate: The Nature and Effects of Political Leaders’ War with Press, the effects of politics attacking the press are explained. To my surprise, the attack on media did not begin with Trump but has been tied all the way back to George Washington as he expressed concern with the calumnies saying things about his administration in the press because they would affect his ability governing. 

In that same way, Trump attacks the media through Twiter to his advantage. During his campaign which when his attacks on media were at an all-time high, he attacked the media by calling it fake news to divert from accusations against him like the rape scandals. 

Understanding how politicians use media to attack the news sources of the people affects people’s trust in the news can show how media affects presidential elections and the people’s knowledge of the facts. Taking that into consideration, what limitations should politicians have on social media especially when it comes to attacking the press and new sources that provide citizens with important information?

1 Comment

It is now apparent to me that young teens and college students have a lot of power in the realm of protest and political movements. Time and time again they have stood up for what they believed and became the front lines of protest. Back in high school, I along with my friend lead many walkouts in my school, but I thought that because Chicago was so progressive, it was the only place such acts would be seen. But now learning more about the specifics behind political movements such as war, racial justice, and women’s right to vote, it is clear that we college students have the power to lead. 

This video was very eye-opening to me because it shows how the US has dealt with civil disobedience throughout history. It’s not surprising why we still see police take advantage of their power and turn around and defend it with “they felt like their lives were in danger.” Something else that captured my attention was how the Vietnam veterans felt about the war coming back home. Today I see veterans proud to have served this country, but the fact that these veterans went as far as to throw their metals back shows how unwilling they were in going to war in the first place. 

This poses my question which is, what is our current Vietnam war? What is something our country is so politically or socially separated on that we are willing to protest to see change?

Leave a Comment

These readings were very interesting, to say the least. “The Lottery,” was about a village that does a lottery and whoever wins gets stoned to death. While “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” was about, to my understanding, a fake or made up happy society by a child that was locked in a closet made possible only due to their lack of happiness. 

Both of these stories are sad and pulled my heartstring, but more importantly, talked about leadership roles through literature. For example, “The Lottery,” allows the reader to understand the differences between the importance we place on males between females. This is seen by the interactions between Mr. Summers and Janey as he asks if she did not have a “grown boy” to take her place, inferring that a boy had more power or more authority to take her place. 

In the story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” the importance we place on leadership roles to help create structure in a society is evaluated. This is seen as the author begins by illustrating some characteristics of a king, just to say that that leadership role was not needed in the happy society created, which still had structure and function without a clear leader. 

Before reading these pieces of literature and viewing them from a leadership perspective, would I have truly seen the importance or the impact narrative literature had on leadership. I truly believe that the way the author sees leadership has an impact on their writing, but the way literature creates leaders makes us reevaluate the way we see leadership. 

Leave a Comment

This week I have watched another lecture. This one was presented by Dr. E. Bruce Heilman. He gave a lecture to a leadership class with the topic of Military Leadership. To begin with, what caught my attention almost immediately to this lecture was the title of the lecture: “Why They Never Talked About It.” Once I realized this lecture was going to be given by someone who had served in the military, my interest only grew greater, because I wanted to know the answer to the question of why they, as in people in the military, never talk about it. It being war. 

At the beginning of the lecture, Dr. Heilman created a timeline with his life. He explained how he had lived through the Great Depression, WW1 and served in WW2. He went on to express to the class that the hardships he faced at war, especially at such a young age as a teenager, prepared him for the challenges he later experienced in life. He then followed by explaining the surface reason why returning military did not talk about their experiences at war with their family by saying there wasn’t enough time to do so. They returned home to their wives and family to find jobs and continue living, without the time to address stories at war. At that moment Dr. Heilman addressed my interest in the topic by acknowledging that the lack of communication of those war stories, left future generations on a cliff hanger, hungry for what actually happened at war and what it was like. 

Dr. Heilman reveals to the audience that the reason he will reveal those realities was that he believed that they would increase the appreciation of the military and those who gave their lives for the country. He explains three things war movies have not been able to illustrate, the sound of the dying, the smell of the body decay, and the process of dying on the battlefield. These things he explains are things that veterans cannot to this day surpass. Interestingly but not surprising, Dr. Heilman, also divided into the idea of survivals’ guilt. He describes it as feeling selfish for surviving. He continuously expresses the questioning of his survival by talking about things his comrades were unable to experience a college education or the formation of a family. By the end of the lecture, Dr. Heilman reveals to us why veterans never talk about it. He says that he and his partners understood the severity of their experiences, and understood the lack of social norms they had. They were that their war stories were not presentable in table-talk. 

Leave a Comment

In the reading Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom the author wrote about the reasons behind slavery and its beneficiaries before and after emancipation. A quote that I found interesting was “Thus, while the ending of slavery led tp reconstruction of the national politics and economics, it was not a radical reconstruction, but a safe one-in fact, a profitable one” (pg 172). In other words, although the emancipation of slaves did happen, major change about race in the smallest scale to the largest one in politics did not happen. It is described as safe and profitable, meaning that emancipation, in reality, was done not because of new ideals of equality in the United Staes, rather it does one still rooted in bigotry and profits like it was in its genesis. 

Today we still have issues that are rooted in racism, homophobia, and hatefulness. Some examples include abortion laws, equal pay in regards to sex, and gay rights. And although there have been political changes that allow same-sex marriage, allow abortions, and declare us equal, why has our reconstruction not been radical? We continue to let history replay itself in different forms, and lack leadership is pivotal change unless it is coming from a higher power like slavery with Lincoln. In Chicago, public school teachers have been on strike for a week and still, haven’t received a fair contract, with the political system and even more general systems in place, how can the people cause change without relying on political officials?

1 Comment

The reading titled Tyranny is Tyranny is about early American history before and the beginning of its independence. It illustrates the problems the colonies faced under the ruling of Britan with taxes. In the article, it stated, “so, the American leadership was less in of English rule, the English more in need of the colonists’ wealth” (pg.60). This shows one of the major problems that made the 13 colonies freedom from Britan, causing a rise in revolts. This problem, however, does not end with freedom from Britan, because the U.S. seems to still not understand taxation and the entirety of its effects, as the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich due to taxation. This again lead to riots. 

What I found most interesting however, was the analysis of the paper does on The Declaration of Independence. It highlights the statement, “all men are created equal” and how the word “men” was not used as an umbrella term from all people, rather specifically used to not include women. It is also important to point out of course the lack of inclusion of other races, identities, and social classes even if the statement did not say, “wealthy white men.” 

The article at the end also points of the inequalities seen when it came to be having to serve and how one could get out of it by “paying for substitutions.” This leads me to ask, in our society and government today, what are some things that deliberately or non-deliberately exclude minorities and that in effect allow the privileged to be a foot ahaed of the game like in the case of paying to not go to war?

2 Comments

Over the weekend I watched a leadership lecture given by Sen. Jennifer McClellan titled, “Where Do We Go From Here?” In her presentation, McClellan began by defining leadership as the guidance of a group through the present and to plan for the future. She makes it clear that leadership is the goal of moving forward, but to do so, one must know where they are, and where they come from. She gives an example of governor Bob McDonald of how past actions, affect present ideals. When he faced her with the question of how Virginia was doing with race. She responded progressively as there was an African American president at the time, but also addressed voter laws that were still in place not allowing minorities of color to vote. This was an example of how past actions still affect the present, and how learning that, the governor was able to change that in the future. 

 

McClellan went on to carry that example to show how change can happen within leadership by knowing the past, understanding how it still affects the present, and using that knowledge to change the future in a positive direction. Interestingly, she also went over some America history to illustrate how equality was so difficult to obtain by the laws that were first created for the white males. She also blamed bigotry and ignorance for the fact that equality for all not yet being accomplished. 

 

What I found interesting too is that she explained cultural lag when it comes to new people in leadership especialy as more minorities were gaining places in government. An example she presented is the Chorletville riots in the announcement of Obama winning the presidential elections. As she continued to explain more factors that still impact our society when it comes to race, she ended on a high note stating that there is hope in the reach for equality if we have hopeful leaders and help from everyone.  

Leave a Comment

In the presentation given by Kite Hafner in the Jepson Leadership Forum under the series Digital Dystopias, was very insightful in the pros the internet has in society. She explained how Algor created the High-Performance Computing Act. Which let the internet superhighway, that the then-president, George Bush, predicted that the internet would allow for major advancements not only in science but in global trade. To be able to convey her ideas of the internet, the speaker analyzes the myths that are often associated with the internet. One of those myths that The other myth the speaker talks about is that Tim Burners Lee did not invent the internet, but the web. Which I learned are two different things. The second myth she addresses is the ARPANET and how its goal was to be able to survive a nuclear attack.

What she made sure to point out, and help the audience understand is that unlike all the dark stories that will be proceeding in the series about the internet, is that it wasn’t all that bad. She emphasized that as the internet developed, and email became a thing, the “wars” that were being had, was how long a header should be, called the “Header Wars.” What she also talked about was what exactly was the internet and how international data is transmitted. She stated that about 99% of the data was transmitted by wires at the bottom of the ocean, submarine communications cables.  And travel thousands of miles in length, and as deep as mountains.

All in all, the question she was addressing who created the internet, and how each person who helped develop it claims to have created it.

Leave a Comment

In the reading Elevating dissent and transcending fear-based culture, I thought it was very interesting the point the writer brought up about the publics’ involvement in democracy. In the United States, we claim to appreciate the ability to have to say in what happens in government, and while we push for positive difference, people do not casually talk about global issues that impact our community. The writer says, “in the face of this lack of democratic vitality, few observers seem to be able to do anything other than throw up their hands” (Cheny 183). By this, the writers are trying to explain the actions the public does take in the time of trouble. Instead of talking and moving towards movements to make situations better, they just complain about the problem at hand. 

This phenomenon of being a fearful culture, as put in the readings is due to the history of the U.S. when it comes to big turning points like 911 inducing fear, followed by the increase of security to help the fear, then the discussion of ending the danger, and finally the blaming of the problem one on group. Therefore, that is why we as a culture of fearful of revolutions in such a stable society. Taking this into consideration, how do you think we can change the course of our fearful society to be one that interacts more as it should as a democratic government?

Leave a Comment

The difference between transactional and transforming leadership is in my opinion what differentiates political leaders and social leaders. As defined in the readings, transactional leadership is more of a trade-off between the leader and the followers which can be through votes. This is important because this means that the leader, like the followers, want something from each other and some deception is bound to happen. A candidate, for example, could without their true goals during candidacy and promote more promises than they will complete in order to get the votes they need. 

On the other hand, transcending leadership is more of collaborative work. It is one in which people work together to reach a goal that pushes both groups forward. That is why I believe this type of leadership is seen in social leaders like MLK. He formed a relationship with his followers to fight for equality. That relationship was key to the success of the goal. Keeping this in mind, do you think it is possible for a president to be a transcending leader while stilling having the trade-off of votes?

1 Comment

Why is humility when it pertains to leaders forgotten? When defining leadership in class and in the article, words like strong, assertive, and visionary are repeated. However, we forget the importance of humility as defined by the article as not arrogant, not timid, but with the ability to accept error, consider help, and open to change.

As I was reading about leadership in democracy, and analyzing the characteristics of presidents that embodied humility, I could not help but think how Trump was the complete opposite of that. It was to my surprise that toward the end of the reading, the lack of humility was being alluded to Trump the whole time. NOt only does he lack humility seen though his ignorance, but almost clearly fits the title of a tyrant.

1 Comment

So far in the Leadership course, we have only or mainly talked about what makes a leader or who is considered a leader without asking why. We talked about Hitler becoming a leader due to trouble in Germany, and MLK becoming a leader due to the civil rights movement, but never really mentioned the followers and the interaction between the followers and the leader. In the first reading titled Leaders and Followers, I found it interesting how as time passes what we as followers want from a leader changes. The change is not what is surprising, rather it is the actual want this is interesting. Sometimes we want a more fluid leader, that listens and is responsive, but other times we want a rigid ruler that is confident with their decisions. 

What I also found interesting is the line we draw between leaders and followers. Why do we find the need to separate ourselves from a leader that is not much different from us? If in fact, all it causes is the insecurity of knowledge and power that induces change. The last reading was very empowering for me because it really opened my eyes to the possibility of leadership.  Why it took me so long to understand that I too have a place as a leader and should have a place as a leader leads me to the question, what influences leaders to become learners other than hardships or a call from a divine power? 

2 Comments

When asked if King Charles I deserved to be executed… my answer is yes. According to the text, although he had a “sense of humor,” and was said to be loyal, he was still a tyrant. And taking into consideration that it takes a lot of boxes to check when it comes to labeling someone a tyrant, it makes the question easier to be answered. Interestingly, what made me question the question is the fact that King Charles I was not the first king to be executed, so why was it such a big deal. But, moving forward, however, I realized this execution was very public and blunt. At this point, it was inevitable for me to compare the execution of King Carles I to the crucifixion Jesus. 

I am not saying that Jesus too was a tyrant, but the amount of publicity and controversy that is put upon the death of King Charles I parallels those seen as Jesus is called to death. Unlike Jesus, King Charles I was as described int he text, selfish as he called for war for his personal gain, killed, and was himself an enemy to the public.

1 Comment

 

As I began to read I was a bit confused with how tyrannicide and terrorism were being explained and even compared. Even from the tittle, which is “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism. I immediately thought about the recent cases of terrorists we have seen today like the one in El Paso. But to my surprise, the article said nothing remotely close to what I thought terrorism was. So, I had to look up the definition of “Tyrannicide.” Tyrannicide: the killing of a tyrant. Then I had to look up the definition of a “Tyrant.” Tyrant: a cruel and oppressive ruler. 

As I continued reading I was intrigued by how the terms were being used. On page 396 it stated, “tyrannicide and terrorist assassination are distinguished and linked together as antecedent and consequent in a historical chain of causality.” This helped me understand how and in what context terrorism was being used. All in all, and like today I understood that people have and will always have different interpretations of words as they are identified in their environment and community. 

 

1 Comment

In the reading, charisma is defined in many ways. In the Encyclopedia of Leadership, charisma is defined as a “quality” people have that in one way or another affects people. Something I found interesting was that the first mentioning of “charisma” is in spiritual or religious texts and defined as supreme. Today, charisma is more of a combination of skills that make one more or less appealing or fit to be a leader.

As I was reading I could not stop thinking about leaders in history that clearly showed charisma but their effects on the world were horrible. Hitler, for example, was an extremely charismatic person. Hitler was good with words, amazing at speeches, and was able to convince multitudes of people that the Jewish people were to blame for the downfalls of Germany. More importantly, however, as stated in the reading, charismatic people are “committed to a cause.” Hitler was charismatic because he not only had a way with words and persuasion but was very passionate about the goals he had in eliminating a whole race of people.

While many think charisma is something or a golden trait some people are just born with, it was surprising to me that studies show that I can be developed.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Comment