Author: Richard Bell

The relationship between the media and politicians has always been interesting to me. I always wondered if the politicians actually pay attention to the press and it is clear that they do. Archer says that the tension between the two parties goes back to President George Washington when he thought he was being bashed by the press. It is easy to see how the press talking badly about you would cause aggravation, but I it is just part of the job. Professional athletes get talked about badly in media all of the time and most of the time most of them are able to move on from it because they know that it is what comes with the job.

I liked how Archer talked about Trump’s twitter. I find it fascinating how technology has changed the way that people are able to view news. In his findings, Archer found that Trump used twitter a lot to talk about the press and news. Most of the time, he is talking about how they are falsely reporting and “fake news.” Archer also mentions how this could be a tactic for politicians in general because it excites their followers and makes them listen to their leader more.

I am always annoyed about the way that CNN and Fox cover news. I think that there should be no biased when reporting news because their sole job is to give the public information on what is happening. Not only is their biased, but sometimes Fox won’t even report a big news event that is liberal and vice versa for CNN.

1 Comment

I attended Pure Confidence on Wednesday November 20th. I thought it was an extremely well done play. It started right before the Civil War, skipped through the war, and ended about fifteen years after it when slaves were free. It was about a very talented jockey named Simon. Through a deal with the auctioneer, a man named Colonel Wiley was able to consistently buy Simon for a very cheap price of $14. Simon would ride Wiley’s horse, Pure Confidence, in races and consistently win. Simon wants Wiley to buy his freedom, but the Colonel refuses. This causes them to have a fight and Simon races for Wiley’s race rival, George Dewitt. Simon buys Wiley’s wife’s slave, Caroline, because he likes her and they get married. By racing his own horse and Pure Confidence, Simon is able to raise enough money to buy his own freedom. In the second act, just about fifteen years after the war, Simon is working as a bell hop at a hotel and is still married to Caroline. Wiley and his wife, Mattie, appear at the hotel and the four of them are able to talk and the Colonel apologizes to Simon for mistreating him.

I thought that this play was very good. The actors at Richmond so far have exceeded my expectations. I really did not know where to put my expectations because I did not know how serious college theatre programs were or even how good Richmond’s was. That being said, they have been remarkably good. The only thing about the play that I did not like was that the stage was in the middle and the audience was on two sides facing each other. I thought it was kind of distracting and I have never seen anything like that before. Overall though, I would highly recommend seeing this play given any extra time this weekend.

Leave a Comment

This past Sunday I attended the Global Sounds concert in Modlin. The name is pretty broad so I did not know what to expect at all. During the concert there were students that played all sorts of different drums. A long with them were some adults who seemed to know what they were doing a little more. In some of the songs they did chants that reminded me of a cult and there was some audience participation such as clapping. It was definitely not what I expected because I did not think that it would be students and did not know that drums would be involved.

Overall, I did not really like the concert. I do not enjoy live music concerts too much anyways, and especially not really loud drums. While I know that they were students and did not practice a lot, they were not great at drumming. However, I do respect their bravery to go up in front of a crowd and do something that is not their craft. There were a good amount of people in the crowd and I am pretty sure that the students got some sort of extra credit in their class if they had a few friends come. This was an interesting experience but definitely not something I’m in a rush to go back to.

Leave a Comment

I thought that this was an interesting video because I had no idea that there was this type of backlash against the Vietnam War. That being said, I understand but do not agree with what the protestors were doing. I think that it was reasonable for them to be upset about the war, but that they should have supported their country more. Their protests were disrespectful to soldiers who wanted to volunteer and were giving their lives for their country. It must have been very demoralizing to be fighting for the USA but not getting the proper amount of support. The protests also divided the country. During a war the country should unite even more so that there is a higher chance of them winning. Lastly, the protests turned violent and people were often injured and even died. This is kind of ironic because they were protesting a war, but causing a lot of violence by doing so.

2 Comments

The first story, The Lottery, is about a weird tradition in a town. A person from each family picks a piece of paper from the box and if it is blank then they are safe, but if it has a black dot on it they are to be sacrificed. It is also mentioned that they thought about changing the box because the one they had was breaking, but decided not to. This story emphasizes the role of traditions in society and even when it seems easy for someone to step in and make a change, it isn’t.

The Omelas had the same type of theme. In this story there is a society that is very peaceful and happy. However, this is only due to the fact that there is a young boy suffering and being abused. Everyone knows about him, but they think that their society runs so well because of his suffering. Similarly to The Lottery, to us it seems simple for someone to step in and stand up for the boy. The tradition and superstition is so ingrained in their minds that they are not capable of seeing the truth.

5 Comments

In the first article, Slavery without Submission, Zinn talked about the brutalities of slavery. While Lincoln did abolish slavery, Zinn gave an interesting perspective that differs from what most people are told. We are generally taught that Lincoln abolished slavery because he was pro-equal rights and did not believe in it. However, it seems as if his motivation was more economic and political Lincoln stated that if he could free the slaves and save the Union at the same time, then he would. Also, people do not focus on the fact that The Emancipation Proclamation led to black people being able to fight for the Union army. It seems as if Lincoln knew that more soldiers would be helpful in beating the south and that was another reason for why he freed the slaves.

The second article, Or Does it Explode, shows how life after the slaves were freed was still extremely tough for them. They were taken advantage of by rich white farmers because they needed jobs and there was still the same amount of racism in the south. When the Republicans agreed to pull Union soldiers out of the south so that Hayes could become president, the south basically went back to how it was except without slavery. I agree with MLK when he said that the riots were good because they brought attention to the matter, but they were not going to get them to their overall goal. I think that most people, including me, forget how recently America became desegregated.

4 Comments

This article gave me a really different perspective of the events leading up to the American Revolution. At least from what I remember, I never learned a lot about the class tension between the colonists. It was interesting to read that a lot of the poor colonists were willing to side with England just because they were so upset with the rich people. Their arguments were valid, as they were not being treated fairly and being taxed more even though they had less money.

Zinn states that Patrick Henry was able to settle down tension between the upper and lower classes and get them to also be against the British. He used a lot of patriotic remarks and a lack of talking about class conflict. It was odd to see how some people saw the Declaration of Independence as a way to get enough people to fight and beat the British, but also keep the wealth and power relationship. I never really saw the Declaration in this way, but it is easy to see how people could perceive it like that. There is obviously still class conflict in the US, and it is possible that it will never get solved.

4 Comments

In the first article, “Domination/Subordination” Miller discusses two types of inequality and dominants and subordinates. The first type of inequality is Temporary Inequality. The “lesser” person is socially defined as unequal and the “superior” is supposed to help them rise in society. The second type is Permanent Inequality in which the “lesser” person is born unequal and the “superiors” never help them rise in society. Although temporary inequality has a harsh definition, it is definitely the better option between the two because at least there is a willingness to help.

In the second article Cheney and Lair discussed dissent. It is defined as the rejection of the views that most people hold. In work and politics it is frowned upon because it is seen as disruptive, anti-progress, and an inappropriate response to seemingly new situations. However, dissent is actually needed because if the dissenter is right they can help prevent something bad from happening. This reminded me of the mind guard in groupthink because it is their job to make sure groupthink does not occur and a dissenter is supposed to step into a group and make them realize that maybe they aren’t making the best decision.

Leave a Comment

Appropriate was a comedy and drama theatre performance put on in the Cousins theatre here at Richmond. I did not go into the show with high expectations because I did not know what level college theatre was at. However, I was very impressed with all aspects of the show. I thought that the actors did a great job. They made everything that they said seem believable and were very into what they were doing. I also did not think that I’d like the performance because I did not really get the concept of the blackbox theatre. In a blackbox theatre the stage designers can put the audience and stage wherever they want. In addition, they are small so the audience is very close to the actors. I actually ended up thinking that being close to the actors was pretty cool and it made the audience seem like more of a unified group.

The only part of the show that I did not like was the beginning and end. To start the show there was a long period of darkness and cicada noises were going on and off. I found it unnecessary and thought that it was dragged on too long. At the end of the show, the lights were going on and off and when the lights came on we would see the “house” being destroyed by nature and decaying. I understood the point of this, but again thought it was unnecessary and took too long.

Leave a Comment

Burns definition of leadership is that it is “leaders inducing followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and motivations of both leaders and followers.” While no definition will be perfect, I think that this is one of the best definitions of leadership we have gotten yet because it mentions that the motivation should be for the leader and the follower. I do not believe that the leader should be leading only for his personal goals, but he should also not only be leading for other people. As Burns states, leadership should have a result that help both the leaders and the followers.

Bass’s article about transformational and transactional leadership is interesting because it is clear that there can not be one without the other. I think that people are looking to choose one as a leadership technique instead of using the best parts of each one. If there was a scenario where one had to be chosen, transformational leadership would be better. This is because transformational leaders, for example a president, will articulate to their followers what they can do for their country. This is a beneficial tactic because it is important for the people to understand the cause. Transactional leadership is the weaker option because they cater to the immediate self-interests of their followers, which may not be for their best interest.

1 Comment

I thought that the perspective of viewing leaders as humble or not was very interesting because it is not a trait that we have discussed too much in class. Citizens do not realize how big of an impact a leader with humility can make due to their respect of ordinary people, their institutions, and traditions in the country. Ruscio discusses Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy who were all generally well liked. His point about how they took responsibility for their mistakes and did not get defensive was significant towards me. No one likes people who don’t admit when they are wrong, and the president should certainly be able to do it.

Ruscio’s statements about Trump were fascinating to me because I have never heard anyone hate on Trump for his lack of humility. While I do not pay a huge amount of attention to politics, it seems as if people focus more on how they don’t like what he is saying. It is possible that people do not realize how he doesn’t respect laws and political norms and has a resistance towards other authorities. To me it is very important for a leader to be confident, but have a high level of respect for others, be open to help, and admit when they are wrong. Trump definitely does a lot of bad things, but this is certainly an aspect of his leadership that makes people like him less.

3 Comments

The Allegory of the Cave was intriguing because we as humans don’t often think about how we are perceiving something and that maybe we are wrong. Humans have a hard time seeing things from a different point of view, but it is a very important tool in life and for also becoming a good leader. Plato’s idea connects to Mabey’s claim that our leaders are becoming more divided from the communities. If the leaders were able to perceive stuff differently or even knew that their perception was always right then maybe we wouldn’t be stuck in this dilemma.

I do not agree with Mabey’s idea of needing more or majority citizen leaders. More citizen leaders would certainly be great, but it is not what I believe the solution is. In fact, I don’t think there is a set answer. I believe that the society needs to know what they want in their leader, and then choose them. Some people won’t be happy with the decision, but at least it is majority. There is no best way to change the leaders and their roles, it depends on what the society and community want.

3 Comments

I agree with the decision to kill Charles I. It wasn’t quite tyrannicide because there was a real government involved and it wasn’t one person randomly doing it. Therefore, I think Parliament would have a better chance of putting someone into power next who wasn’t as bad as Charles I.

The facts show that Charles I was an evil leader and a tyrant. After reading about the “Engagement” I was fully convinced that he deserved to be beheaded. He put his own country under military pressure just to ensure that he could be back as King. This is a great example of doing something for personal benefit, but it harms the public.

Leave a Comment

The justification of tyrannicide is something that philosophers and historians constantly theorize about. It is all about one’s opinion and the situation to decide whether it is acceptable. This is because tyrannicide is the act of killing a tyrant who is abusing the power in order to better the community and have a central government. On the other hand, terrorism is an act of violence, usually by an institutional organization, used to promote their differing ideologies. The theories that claim tyrannicide and terrorism are the same are interesting but wrong.

 There are a plethora of reasons for why tyrannicide and terrorism greatly differ, but I think there are two main ones. One is because tyrannicide only targets one person: the tyrant. On the contrary, terrorists chose their victim or hostage at random to send their message and target a larger community. The second and perhaps most significant reason is that tyrannicide is an attempt to uphold the moral principles of natural law. Terrorism is the complete opposite, as terrorists are described as amoral and antinomian.

4 Comments

Charisma is a word that is almost impossible to define but can be noticeable in someone within seconds. Dating back to its roots of being used in a religious context, the top leaders of societies such as Jesus and Moses had an outstanding ability to fascinate and inspire others. German sociologist Max Weber built off of this by stating that the relationship between the leader’s qualities and the follower’s devotion to the leader and the cause is more important than anything. Riggio’s six characteristics associated with charisma are enthusiastic, driven, eloquent, visionary, self-confident, and responsive to others. It is important to know that even if someone has five of these characteristics they are not going to be a great leader without the sixth. However, charismatic leader can be stopped very easily, according to Riggio. He asserts that this happens when the leader is too arrogant and has a lack of concern or responsiveness. It is interesting to hear this because someone who may have been a great leader will never be one. 

More recent theories focus on the personal qualities of charismatic individuals, instead of leaders. They state that charismatic individuals have very developed communication skills, emotional expressivity, a lot of energy, eloquence, and self-confidence. Due to these attributes,  they make very good first impressions. Also, the combination of their plethora of energy and emotional expressiveness leads to them being seen as more physically attractive. The most interesting part about personal charisma to me is that it does not necessarily lead to charismatic leadership. I agree with Riggio that for a charismatic person to turn into a charismatic leader, a situation must arise for them to be needed, such as a crisis or a call for change. 

The most fascinating and important part of the reading was about the study done by Richard Avery and his colleagues and the project done at the University of California, Riverside. At UC Riverside, they enhanced the verbal and nonverbal skills of partakers through training in an attempt to increase personal charisma. The result of Avery’s study showed that “leadership is about ⅔ made and ⅓ born.” Equally as important, the ratings of participants before and after their training at UC Riverside showed that they were “more animated, more influential and persuasive, more effective communicators.” On top of that, the trained individuals said they felt more social self-confidence and got wonderful feedback from family and friends. These results lead to an extremely important question: why are there not more leadership development programs? I see an extreme increase in the amount of these programs around the world, which will result in more charismatic leaders.

Leave a Comment

Hero

Leader

Role Model

Leave a Comment