- L. Arthalia Cravin

Last night Amarillo’s KFDA Channel 10 “too” news at 9 p.m. engaged in what I view as unprofessional and unethical “yellow journalism.” When the news began, the lead story was a photo of the Florida black woman, and a picture of 3 small children, probably under the age of 4. A voice over then said “woman kills four children and then kills herself.” The news then went to the usual station identification after which Stacy Sakai began reporting the news. The top story was about some type of dispute over use of water at Ute Lake. There were several other stories including one about the funding problem at Panhandle Community Services. Much later, Sakai reported on the story of the Florida killings.

My first reaction was why an Amarillo television station would report the Florida killings at all. What was the news value in reporting a Florida murder- suicide and to do so with a headline, lead- in story? My second question was why the story led as a major news item but was not reported until all other news had been reported, including a senseless story about a house fire where no town, no date, and no street, were mentioned. The only answer that I can come up with is that Channel 10 decided to lead in with a sensational story, showing a black woman killing herself and her children, as a way to grab viewers. This is “yellow journalism” at its worst. Let me explain what “yellow journalism” is. It is the type of journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates news to create sensations and attract readers. This method of journalism is used to increase circulation.” (The Channel 10 picture showed the black woman and small children when in fact the children killed were ages 12-17.) Years ago, these type sensational stories were carried in newspapers and printed on yellow paper and were considered the worst type of press. In the age of television the same thing happens except that instead of yellow paper there is the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality of announcing some type of hyped-up story to grab viewers.

The Florida story is a story about suicide. Last week a 16-year old Amarillo High School student committed suicide by hanging himself. A few months ago I was walking across a downtown parking lot behind another local television news crew. There was police activity in the area and I overheard one news person say that the police had found a person in a downtown office building who had committed suicide. The reporter then said that they didn’t cover suicide stories like that. There have been other suicides in Amarillo also not reported. Only the murder-suicides have been reported because of the initial police investigations had to rule out homicide.

(more…)

- L. Arthalia Cravin

With Obama’s Ok-ing marriage for gay people, why should there be laws against anyone having more than one spouse? Bigamy is being legally married to more than one spouse—husband or wife—at the same time. It is a crime in every state. Bigamy is a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree Felony in Texas—depending on how old the other person is. It carries a penalty of 5 to 99 years, or 2 to 20 years plus a $10,000 fine. So why should, “in this modern era,” a woman be confined to one husband, or a man limited to one wife?

Everything about modern marriage strongly suggests that monogamy, as in one husband or one wife, forever is going the way of the dinosaur. Some recent stats say that one-half of all Americans are now single—and happy to be single. Half of all marriages already end in divorce. The numbers for married folks who cheat—both men and women is said to be around 15 percent. The joke about “gay marriage” is, “So what, let them marry, it’s not going to last anyway.” The “joke is on them” reasoning is that traditional marriage is already a house on fire and burning down and gay people are upset that they can’t jump into the flames. Okay, rush on in– see if you can improve on the “institution of marriage,” commonly described as an imperfect arrangement entered into by two imperfect people. You think you can improve on that—well have at it. One guy went on television and said that no one should be allowed to marry—period. But why is bigamy so wrong? A few cultures allow for a woman to have more than one husband—so called polyandry. At least one Google search said that there is a culture, “far away from America” where a woman can have five husbands at the same time. They live in harmony based on respectful scheduling and any children are deemed to be that of the oldest man, the rest of the men are referred to as “uncle.” But on the serious side, I think women are least likely to want two or more husbands because it’s hard enough to put up with one. Half of the time we want him to “go somewhere—and stay gone.” But with men, having lots of wives is okay because he is always going somewhere anyway so why not be with another household set up somewhere else? The happy women would be the ones he’s not with– so everything works out just fine with this arrangement.

Still, are we headed to removing of all social “rules and regulations” about marriage and family? If a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman, what’s left to protect of the so called traditional family? And if the “traditional family” goes, then bigamy has to go too. Wouldn’t “legalized” bigamy
solve the problem of not enough men for black women to marry? (Of course I don’t know of any black women who would go along with this arrangement.) But I do think that black women will be hurt more than any other group by “gay marriage is OK.” And this is precisely why Obama tossed black women a “vote for me again bone” by saying that he discussed his evolving thoughts about gay marriage with his wife and children. Really? You mean that the President sat down with Sasha and Malia and talked to these children about a man marrying a man and a woman marrying a woman. I don’t think so. I think he flat out lied. I think what he tried to do was “cover his behind” on the looming backlash by black women. Every born-again Christian black woman I know personally has said that she cannot in good conscience vote for Obama in November. My sentiments are presently the same. At least one person is trying to reason with me on my “retreat from Obama” by asking me to take a hard look at Romney. I told him that I wouldn’t vote for Romney either. Well, as one pastor put it, “the President is Commander in Chief not Pastor in Chief.” So if pressed to answer, or boxed into another corner by Joe Biden’s big mouth, would the President OK bigamy? If not, why not?

Copyright 2012 – L. Arthalia Cravin. All rights Reserved. No part of this commentary may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the author.

- L. Arthalia Cravin

If by chance you listen to National Public Radio, you may be familiar with the early morning program that includes British Broadcasting Company (BBC) News. Last night’s topic was yet another doozey about “scary women.” This was not about the Lizzie Borden, chop your head off with an axe type scary women, but women bosses who can still chop your head off.There is something of a stereotype about women bosses and that is that they go overboard to try to be like men. Women especially seem to despise women bosses. If they had a choice the word is that women would prefer a male boss to a female. I once had a female boss—some 40 years ago, and she was “hell on wheels.” I was almost afraid of this woman. This woman made Leona Hemsley look like a girl scout. I did everything I could to avoid her. The other women in the office called her “the cow in office 200. This woman had some kind of mental complex about being the “top dog.” She finally became the top dog of the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington. Within two years of her arrival, an investigation into abuses of the so-called Super Fund for toxic clean up, landed her picture on the front of Newsweek where they referred to her as “The Ice Queen.” Well, the Lizzie Borden axe came down on her head and she was literally run out of Washington. I jumped for joy-“Now you cow, you see what it feels like to treat other people like crap”There are plenty of “cow” female bosses all across America. The BBC story pointed to how women must make people afraid of them in order to “break through the glass ceiling” in corporate America. The story said that the reason why there are so few women at the very top of most companies is that they are not mean enough. They haven’t learned how to terrorize employees or be cut-throat enough to rise to the top. Well, I’ve heard otherwise about a few workplaces around Amarillo. I’ve heard through the grapevine that they are some “hell on wheels” cut-throat, take no prisoner, female (all white) bosses here in Amarillo.

So do females have to be “little Hitlers” to make it in corporate America? Why can’t women “just be nice” and get ahead? What I know of most professional workplaces is that there is a definite preference for male bosses. Not too long ago I went to a branch office of a bank here in Amarillo. During my brief visit I noticed that all of the tellers were women, even the ones handling the drive through transactions. The women were working like bees. But in the middle of all the women workers was one funny looking young looking white male, wearing a funny looking suit that looked as if it had never been pressed, strolling about with both hands in his pockets. He was their boss. All he was doing was “watching the women” as if he was looking for some type of behavior to correct. One woman who probably should have been the boss, had a look of utter disdain on her face as if to tell him to get his little “poot-butt” out of the way.

(more…)

- L. Arthalia Cravin

Last week, the Denver Post ran a story about a Colorado couple that is struggling with “big house” versus “little house.” The couple, he 30, she 27, ended up building a house 7 feet by 19 feet, a total of 133 square feet of living space, and spent about $25,000. There is a sofa and bookshelves, and a sleeping loft accessed by a ladder. Electricity comes from solar panels, and the toilet is a compost type. The couple has to haul water by the jug because there is no well nearby. A two-burner alcohol stove serves the kitchen and a propane-fueled stove, the kind found on sailboats, provides heat. Bathing will be done under a sun-heated camp-style shower. Of course some folks asked why they didn’t just buy a single wide mobile home. Their response was that they wanted to “move the house around” on a trailer—if they wanted to.

For now, the couple’s “roll-a-about” house sits on land somewhere in the Colorado mountains where it serves as their get-away cabin. As you can see from the photo there’s not much wiggle room. But I wonder if Amarillo has already beat these guys to the “gimme shelter” “small house” movement with the small houses located at the corner of 14th and North Tyler. I’m sure you’ve seen this cluster of five small rental units. They are identified on the appraisal district records as as 1311 N. Tyler—as follows Building 4, 288 square feet, valued at $8050; Building 5, 288 square feet, same value, Building 6, 320 square feet, valued at $8974. (more…)