What’s in a Name?

What’s in a Name?

 

I often wondered what impact if any a name had on one’s life.  As a youngster I was often called Davy and I hated it, don’t know why I just hated it.  I ended up getting in fights in grade school when someone had the temerity to call me Davy.

 

I’ve known many who insist on going by their middle name or simple initials.  Of course I was always fascinated by men who only felt comfortable when they had their initials on their shirts, coats or suits.  I’ve always had the feeling that these people obsessed with their names were really obsessed with what impact names would have on their business and personal lives.  There are also abbreviations of names like my dad ‘s name Charlie, so much less elegant [to me] than Charles Wesley Martin.  Still the name fit, Charlie was a friendly, well liked “regular guy” and at his funeral many people stood up without prompting to say how Charlie had helped them out with family problems, given them a job at the bus company my father owned when they couldn’t get an opportunity at another company, well you get the idea, he was “one of the guys.”

 

I am just not sure the motivation’s for many people using identifications other than their actual names is for business or egotistical reasons, still I wonder.

 

My ex-brother-in-law, a very bright man who eventually had degrees from Princeton, Northwestern and the University of Chicago wrote a piece I won’t soon forget.  It was thirty-eight years ago and my second son was born.  Jeff, my then brother-in-law wrote the following and I hope you’ll agree a unique and creative piece.

Daniel Harrison Martin’s his name.

Many the roads that could lead him to fame.

It all hinges on how the name is said,

What will be done and what life will be led.

 

D. Harrison Martin, now let’s be frank,

Would make him the head of a large New York bank.

For wheeling and dealing that name is cut out;

He’ll move up in the business without any doubt.

 

But if as a writer he wants to gain fame,

Then D.H. Martin’s his best choice of name.

With novels and plays and things of that kind,

Success could be his, if the critics don’t mind.

 

Daniel Martin’s a man who is folksy and plain.

He could win each and every election campaign.

Just like in Illinois, he could be The Man,

And have everyone call out “There’s Governor Dan.”

 

Harry (The Horse) Martin’s a bookmaker’s handle.

To him Jimmy the Greek surely can’t hold a candle.

To the top of the mob he’ll be sure to have risen,

That is, as long as he stays out of prison.

 

The name Danny Martin has a real classy ring,

And he’ll make it on Broadway, if he can sing.

But if he can’t sing, he won’t be a louse,

He could still play piano in a cathouse.

 

His career has various paths, you can see,

And no one can tell just what he will be.

A name can make the great determination,

His fate depends on its interpretation.

 

Now my son Dan is working in a responsible position at a bank, so maybe Jeff called it correctly however the bank is in Chicago and to the best of my knowledge he doesn’t go by the name D. Harrison Martin.  I should also point out that at the age of thirty-eight Dan hasn’t many of the options associated with the names he might use. I do think he is too much of a practical man to run for a political office, he can’t rate horses and I know he can’t play the piano so no cathouse for him.  Now he may become a writer, I guess we’ll just have to see.

 

So what do you think?  Do names make the man or woman or do the individuals make the names?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Real Anita

The Real Anita.

The Real Anita

Antia is a small town girl from Alabama.  In her small black community she was“by birth” a democrat as were all here relatives and friends.  She got a good education and in time looked for some sort of social work, preferably in her own community.  Fate struck in that she was able to go to Washington D.C.   Eventually she was hired by a socially liberal organization called Acorn.  She was excited because this group expressed the intention to work within the law to achieve social justice, a platform if you will aligned with the democrat partyobjectives.  However one day she saw some documents that were at odds with the law and that led to her investigating other suspicious documents and actions by the Acorn management and employees.

Anita complied a series of documents that clearly defined the illegal acts ofAcorn and contacted The New York Times.  Over a period of three months she had several private conversations with a specific reporter from the paper then she became concerned that no articles were being published.  She contacted other news outlets, CNN, CBS and FOX.  Eventually The New York Times reporter told her they would not use the story during such a crucial time in the Presidential election.  The reporter explained that these revelations of Acorn’s blatant violation of the laws promoting the democratic agenda and President Obama’s campaign might tip the election against him.  She was shocked at the mainstream media bias and their rejection of her documentation and personal testimony.  Eventually some stories about theAcorn agenda reached the pubic; the government was forced to address the outrageous actions of Acorn and withdrew government funding and other subtle support activities.  If you want the full story visit Anita Moncrief on the Internet and read how a good democrat from Alabama became a whistle blower on Acorn and more importantly was stonewalled by the mainstream media.

The Real Anita

The Real Anita

Antia is a small town girl from Alabama.  In her small black community she was “by birth” a democrat as were all here relatives and friends.  She got a good education and in time looked for some sort of social work, preferably in her own community.  Fate struck in that she was able to go to Washington D.C.   Eventually she was hired by a socially liberal organization called Acorn.  She was excited because this group expressed the intention to work within the law to achieve social justice, a platform if you will aligned with the democrat party objectives.  However one day she saw some documents that were at odds with the law and that led to her investigating other suspicious documents and actions by the Acorn management and employees.

Anita complied a series of documents that clearly defined the illegal acts of Acorn and contacted The New York Times.  Over a period of three months she had several private conversations with a specific reporter from the paper then she became concerned that no articles were being published.  She contacted other news outlets, CNN, CBS and FOX.  Eventually The New York Times reporter told her they would not use the story during such a crucial time in the Presidential election.  The reporter explained that these revelations of Acorn’s blatant violation of the laws promoting the democratic agenda and President Obama’s campaign might tip the election against him.  She was shocked at the mainstream media bias and their rejection of her documentation and personal testimony.  Eventually some stories about the Acorn agenda reached the pubic; the government was forced to address the outrageous actions of Acorn and withdrew government funding and other subtle support activities.  If you want the full story visit Anita Moncrief on the Internet and read how a good democrat from Alabama became a whistle blower on Acorn and more importantly was stonewalled by the mainstream media.

Just a Media Moment

There is much talk about media bias.  Sarah Palin had a great line, lame stream media as opposed to mainstream media.  The inference of Sarah’s designation for media as being lam is just not factual.  When the media determines it is in their best interest to avoid direct statements about how they feel on a political issue they use the cover of advocates for politicians or parties, quoted as an authority.  Most of the major media players are adapt at playing this game of misdirection.  Generally speaking the media has enjoyed a better than average education by top line schools and while not all come from journalism school they are as a percentage launched into the real world with an education governed by the liberal, sometimes rebellious left of center professors.  They are ambitious by nature of youth and eager to prove their professor’s bias’s against the business establishment and in search of the truth, as a well-educated liberal would see it.

 

There are exceptions to the “professional” journalist that populate the traditional networks, cable news networks and radio networks or syndicated services.  Tamron Hall from The Today Show and in the afternoon with her own show on MSNBC is an example of a product of the liberal media’s strength in the news-reporting world.  Tamron is blatant in her support of the Obama administration and almost angry when theories that do not support her bias to the liberal side are suggested by her quests.  I point this out because she feels insulated from recourse against inaccurate or biased reporting.  She feels she will not be called to task, particularly on her statements coming from her MSNBC.

 

Another example would have to be Soledad O’Brien from CNN.  Soledad works for a network that is openingly liberal or maybe even anti-conservative.  In any case when she slants the story and is confronted on air she references her talking points provided by liberal bloggers who act as her researcher resource.  Unlike Tamron who is relatively young in her news roll Soledad is an “experienced” news reporter and a liberal interrupter.  One interesting fact is that Tamron in her newsreader on the Today Show is totally impartial in her stories, more likely the product of the producers of the show.

 

A reasonable question would be; is the liberal bent effective in swaying the viewer or listener?  Well there in lies the name of this article “Just a Media Moment.”  The subtly of how facts, figures, witness statements, quotes out of context can sway voters in “a moment or more.

 

Debbie Wassermann Shultz, Chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention said in an interview to more than one news outlet stated that the ambassador from Israel said the Republican party’s position on the United States foreign policy regarding the state of Israel was dangerous to Israelis.  The ambassador when questioned denied that he had said any such thing.  The reporter reported the ambassador’s statement along with Debbie’s statement.  When Debbie was challenged by an on air reporter about her version of the Israeli ambassador’s statement she denied she had ever made such a statement.  Debbie blamed the newspaper reporter claiming he was from a conservative newspaper and what did anyone expect except that the paper would deliberately misquote her.

 

The next day the newspaper reporter released the recording of the interview in which he had quoted her exactly. Debbie lied, no question about it, she lied.  Not one of the liberal press question Debbie about that lie, they didn’t follow up with the recorded statement, they tried to brush it under rug.  So a moment or more is all that is needed to make a major impact on the creditability of a candidacy or party.  A moment that could be ignored by a bias press but in this case a reporter from a newspaper wouldn’t let Debbie’s lie stand and wouldn’t be shutdown by media outlets that didn’t want to be told a representative of their preferred party had lied and lessened the believability of the democrat party.  That is a real example of media bias; there are many more less discernable and subtle bias’s that occurred in news reporting