Pet Nation
Americans spent more than 40 billion dollars on their pets last year. That's more than the GDP of all but 64 nations combined. The 40 billion dollars is more than what's spent on music, video games, and movies combined. Interesting since this consumption nation is obsessed with instant gratification and the thought that the resources spent on pets surpassed these three heavily targeted mediums really surprised me.
The amount spent per year has doubled in a little over a decade. Why? Empty nesters, singles without children, etc. More than anything I think people embrace pets in a different way than they did even a decade ago. Pets are seen as extensions of a family. They give unconditional love. We open up our wallets. It's an equal exchange.
Now some of the excessive behavior, in my opinion, is seeing people pay for their pets to have plastic surgery. Or spending more money on a pet than you give to charity. I understand these are personal choices, but is it more important for your dog to have esteem (faux testicles after they are neutered, neuticles at $900 a pop) or to give money to one of many charities. Again this is a personal choice. I don't own any pets. I can understand why someone might lavish their pets, which is not a problem in my eyes, as long as you're socially responsible as well.
Showing posts with label Social Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Commentary. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Prison Issued Jumpsuit
I think the whole country has been caught up in the Paris Hilton drama, even if you didn't want to be. I guess the whole fiasco about her being let out of prison after a few days by a popularly elected sheriff has been quite the fuel for water cooler talk.
The whole situation has been a farce. You had people begging the Governor to give her a pardon. Then you had her getting a reduction in sentence for good behavior, I believe cutting the sentence from 45 days to 23 days--if she was well behaved. She was at the MTV Movie Awards and she was poised to go into prison. She even said let this be a lesson to people to follow the rules, tough inspirational talk.
Then after a few days a sudden health issue and then she's on house arrest. Give me a break. The reality is I don't know if she should even be in a prison. She's not a hardcore criminal. What I would've suggested is to put her in a prison issued jumpsuit and let her pickup trash off of the highway, paint houses in low income neighborhoods, or even help plant a community garden.
Her celebrity punishment should of been to do acts within a community that could benefit from the media displaying the deplorable conditions people live in. Then they could juxtapose that with the trivial things she surrounds herself with. All the jewelry, all of the cars, all of the excess, where some of her money could be going to great causes. I don't care if she threw big parties and donated money to charities or whatever.
Somehow I predict you'll have quite a few celebrities sentenced to prison in the next few years. However, they'll wear it like a badge of courage, after they get out of prison. Real people that have a record can't get jobs. Their consequences live with them for the rest of their lives. Celebrities have more lives than a cat.
So sorry you had a meltdown Paris, maybe you'll think about following the rules next time around.
I think the whole country has been caught up in the Paris Hilton drama, even if you didn't want to be. I guess the whole fiasco about her being let out of prison after a few days by a popularly elected sheriff has been quite the fuel for water cooler talk.
The whole situation has been a farce. You had people begging the Governor to give her a pardon. Then you had her getting a reduction in sentence for good behavior, I believe cutting the sentence from 45 days to 23 days--if she was well behaved. She was at the MTV Movie Awards and she was poised to go into prison. She even said let this be a lesson to people to follow the rules, tough inspirational talk.
Then after a few days a sudden health issue and then she's on house arrest. Give me a break. The reality is I don't know if she should even be in a prison. She's not a hardcore criminal. What I would've suggested is to put her in a prison issued jumpsuit and let her pickup trash off of the highway, paint houses in low income neighborhoods, or even help plant a community garden.
Her celebrity punishment should of been to do acts within a community that could benefit from the media displaying the deplorable conditions people live in. Then they could juxtapose that with the trivial things she surrounds herself with. All the jewelry, all of the cars, all of the excess, where some of her money could be going to great causes. I don't care if she threw big parties and donated money to charities or whatever.
Somehow I predict you'll have quite a few celebrities sentenced to prison in the next few years. However, they'll wear it like a badge of courage, after they get out of prison. Real people that have a record can't get jobs. Their consequences live with them for the rest of their lives. Celebrities have more lives than a cat.
So sorry you had a meltdown Paris, maybe you'll think about following the rules next time around.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Open Door Policy
I just read a really inspiring New York Times Article: Elite Colleges Open New Door to Low Income Youth
It chronicled a growing acknowledgment that providing opportunities to low income students to enter "selective" programs--which are typically dominated by more affluent individuals--provides excellent opportunities for social mobility for the working poor and poverty stricken.
This isn't the first article that I've read about traditional academic powerhouses, including Ivy League Schools, opening their doors to talented lower income students. However, it struck a bright chord with me because I've just finished reading Adrian Nicole LeBlanc's compelling non-fiction account of 2 Hispanic families in the Bronx during the rise of the drug epidemic during the late 80s and that continued to plague the 90s (Random Family).
The book realistically portrayed how it is to survive on meager incomes, in the worse neighborhoods in the country, with little support and/or guidance. The book was great yet bleak.
So coming off of reading the book, this article is exactly what I needed to read. I needed to feel that some do escape, that some can aspire to the American dream, instead of a life of frustration and poverty.
So reading this article was just what I needed. It really focused on something that I've said to people many times: socioeconomic factors can often be more powerful influences than age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. Seeing doors opened to give these kids the opportunities to pull themselves, and hopefully their families, from the same environments (breaking the cycle), is all that one can ask for.
I suppose this is the new Affirmative Action. I'm sure it will have it's share of critics as well. I hope that individuals like Mr. Jack will make people open their minds and that such programs become common place in this great country.
I just read a really inspiring New York Times Article: Elite Colleges Open New Door to Low Income Youth
It chronicled a growing acknowledgment that providing opportunities to low income students to enter "selective" programs--which are typically dominated by more affluent individuals--provides excellent opportunities for social mobility for the working poor and poverty stricken.
This isn't the first article that I've read about traditional academic powerhouses, including Ivy League Schools, opening their doors to talented lower income students. However, it struck a bright chord with me because I've just finished reading Adrian Nicole LeBlanc's compelling non-fiction account of 2 Hispanic families in the Bronx during the rise of the drug epidemic during the late 80s and that continued to plague the 90s (Random Family).
The book realistically portrayed how it is to survive on meager incomes, in the worse neighborhoods in the country, with little support and/or guidance. The book was great yet bleak.
So coming off of reading the book, this article is exactly what I needed to read. I needed to feel that some do escape, that some can aspire to the American dream, instead of a life of frustration and poverty.
So reading this article was just what I needed. It really focused on something that I've said to people many times: socioeconomic factors can often be more powerful influences than age, sex, race, or sexual orientation. Seeing doors opened to give these kids the opportunities to pull themselves, and hopefully their families, from the same environments (breaking the cycle), is all that one can ask for.
I suppose this is the new Affirmative Action. I'm sure it will have it's share of critics as well. I hope that individuals like Mr. Jack will make people open their minds and that such programs become common place in this great country.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Notes from the Bronx Zoo
So Al was down for the weekend. She's been wanting to go to the zoo for the longest time. She's into Conservation Biology and I love learning about nature, currently watching Animal Planet (Tasmanian Devils earlier today, Leopards now).
It's the first time that I've been in almost 15 years. The last time that I went I was 15. I was chaperoning a group of toddlers, my first time meeting them too, wow that was an experience. Having to run after toddlers at the Zoo, midday, with no training--just instinct! I did tame the children by the end of the trip, putting them on my shoulders, sharing brown bag lunches with them, and laying the foundation for a great summer job experience.
I digress. So we went to the zoo. First of all it's a hell of a lot more expensive. Adults pay $14 for general admission. Entry to a few of the more exotic houses are additional, as is the price of jumping on the monorails (which is truly the only way you could see the Zoo in one day).
I was excited though. It was a chance to see Allison in her element. It was like going to the zoo with an expert from Animal Planet. We saw the wild dogs, giraffes, my favorites (cheetahs), and hers--the birds. I'm sure she's going to post about it. She has all of the wonderful pictures, as she had a brand new high powered camera to capture the experience. She even has a video of the wild dogs yelping.
The most amazing thing about the zoo was seeing so many different cultures. You saw so many families, each doing their own thing, no fighting, just reveling in the experience.
The best thing for me was not just seeing the animals, I've been to my fair share of zoos. It was to see how good of a job they did educating people about conservation, about the animals and the environments that are at risk, about the efforts of the zoo to protect habitats, about what they actually do with the funds from the different houses that you pay for. You even get to decide where and how your money is spent, when you go through the Congo exhibit.
There was an ecotourism bathroom (which eliminated wasting water--and educated you what you could do to save this precious resource), and just so much there. I asked Allison to take a few pictures of some of the signs. I'll try to get them and add them to the post. In essence they were telling people that where our planet's future stands is up to us.
I loved seeing the children so into nature, so knowledgeable, reading, pointing, some a bit overzealous, but it was so interesting to remember myself at their ages. I just hope that they'll remember, as they get older, all the animals that they saw along with their responsibility to make sure that our future and the future of the animals on our planet will be determined by our actions--and they'll be willing to do their part.
Good night, I have more to learn about leopards, LOL.
P.S. Part of the greatest joy from the experience is me projecting Allison in a similar environment. I'm sure she'll back me up that there's nothing else that she can do that will give her that level of joy, well--cough, LOL. Hardly anything.
So Al was down for the weekend. She's been wanting to go to the zoo for the longest time. She's into Conservation Biology and I love learning about nature, currently watching Animal Planet (Tasmanian Devils earlier today, Leopards now).
It's the first time that I've been in almost 15 years. The last time that I went I was 15. I was chaperoning a group of toddlers, my first time meeting them too, wow that was an experience. Having to run after toddlers at the Zoo, midday, with no training--just instinct! I did tame the children by the end of the trip, putting them on my shoulders, sharing brown bag lunches with them, and laying the foundation for a great summer job experience.
I digress. So we went to the zoo. First of all it's a hell of a lot more expensive. Adults pay $14 for general admission. Entry to a few of the more exotic houses are additional, as is the price of jumping on the monorails (which is truly the only way you could see the Zoo in one day).
I was excited though. It was a chance to see Allison in her element. It was like going to the zoo with an expert from Animal Planet. We saw the wild dogs, giraffes, my favorites (cheetahs), and hers--the birds. I'm sure she's going to post about it. She has all of the wonderful pictures, as she had a brand new high powered camera to capture the experience. She even has a video of the wild dogs yelping.
The most amazing thing about the zoo was seeing so many different cultures. You saw so many families, each doing their own thing, no fighting, just reveling in the experience.
The best thing for me was not just seeing the animals, I've been to my fair share of zoos. It was to see how good of a job they did educating people about conservation, about the animals and the environments that are at risk, about the efforts of the zoo to protect habitats, about what they actually do with the funds from the different houses that you pay for. You even get to decide where and how your money is spent, when you go through the Congo exhibit.
There was an ecotourism bathroom (which eliminated wasting water--and educated you what you could do to save this precious resource), and just so much there. I asked Allison to take a few pictures of some of the signs. I'll try to get them and add them to the post. In essence they were telling people that where our planet's future stands is up to us.
I loved seeing the children so into nature, so knowledgeable, reading, pointing, some a bit overzealous, but it was so interesting to remember myself at their ages. I just hope that they'll remember, as they get older, all the animals that they saw along with their responsibility to make sure that our future and the future of the animals on our planet will be determined by our actions--and they'll be willing to do their part.
Good night, I have more to learn about leopards, LOL.
P.S. Part of the greatest joy from the experience is me projecting Allison in a similar environment. I'm sure she'll back me up that there's nothing else that she can do that will give her that level of joy, well--cough, LOL. Hardly anything.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Tales from BusinessWeek
Hello, all. First of all I'm back at my desk, woohoo. Second I can talk about an interesting article I read in last week's BusinessWeek. I find it interesting that Al is posting about something about business and I'm discussing something about the environment, but I digress.
So I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on renewable forms of energy. However, I know that global warming is a reality. I read an article yesterday that said Europe and Africa experienced record temperatures over the course of the last few weeks. People all over the world are starting to realize that environmentalists aren't deluded. The earth's temperatures are the highest that they have been in 350 years.
So the article I read talked about alternatives to fossil fuels: biodiesel, animal fat, and ethanol. It talked about the unfair advantage that corn based ethanol has (subsidy-wise) compared to further alternative energy sources.
Now I've been reading a lot about corn-based ethanol. I know that the price of corn is rising, and meat as well, based on the government backing it as a viable alternative to oil. Another huge issue is Ethanol can't be used in high concentrations in existing pumps and pipelines (huge infrastructure concern)--why isn't anyone talking about this?
From what I understand, correction might be warranted, sugar based ethanol is more efficient than corn-based ethanol ($0.51/gallon subsidy). I know that sugar-based ethanol is widely used in Brazil (thank you Amazing Race). Well the article mentions that corn-based ethanol contains less energy than gasoline (30% less in fact). So you would lose gas mileage. It mentioned that biodiesel ($1/gallon freezes easily, kind of a problem in the winter. Can you imagine a frozen tank in a cold winter, bad idea? It also mentioned that biodiesel can smell rank. Also, neither option has really been proven to offer major advantages to the current global warming issues (Al I expect you to comment on this one--I know when we discussed this article you mentioned the problem would be that we'd still be using a combustion engine. However, both biodiesel and corn-based ethanol have been backed by Congress and some other options are not being given a level playing field (subsidy-wise).
This seems ridiculous to me. We should be exploring any viable alternative energy source. One such fuel is generated by animal fat. In this scenario you would use a waste product for fuel, quite intelligent if you ask me. The article mentions that it would be beneficial for farmers that are being hit hard with higher corn prices. Other options include butanol, which can be used in existing pipelines and pumps, and hydrogen (which President Bush--the only compliment that you'll ever see me give him)--earmarked over a billion dollars for--or at least he claimed to have done so in the 2004 election and set a firm timetable for us to switch over from our dependence on gasoline.
It's a global issue, people. The United States needs to play ball internationally if we are going to see any real change. It has it's share of the environmental damage to account for, but it also needs to team with other industrialized nations--hello ratify the Kyoto Protocol--if we are going to have any realistic changes.
Forgive us Mother Earth.
Hello, all. First of all I'm back at my desk, woohoo. Second I can talk about an interesting article I read in last week's BusinessWeek. I find it interesting that Al is posting about something about business and I'm discussing something about the environment, but I digress.
So I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on renewable forms of energy. However, I know that global warming is a reality. I read an article yesterday that said Europe and Africa experienced record temperatures over the course of the last few weeks. People all over the world are starting to realize that environmentalists aren't deluded. The earth's temperatures are the highest that they have been in 350 years.
So the article I read talked about alternatives to fossil fuels: biodiesel, animal fat, and ethanol. It talked about the unfair advantage that corn based ethanol has (subsidy-wise) compared to further alternative energy sources.
Now I've been reading a lot about corn-based ethanol. I know that the price of corn is rising, and meat as well, based on the government backing it as a viable alternative to oil. Another huge issue is Ethanol can't be used in high concentrations in existing pumps and pipelines (huge infrastructure concern)--why isn't anyone talking about this?
From an environmental standpoint, ethanol is a deal with the devil.
From what I understand, correction might be warranted, sugar based ethanol is more efficient than corn-based ethanol ($0.51/gallon subsidy). I know that sugar-based ethanol is widely used in Brazil (thank you Amazing Race). Well the article mentions that corn-based ethanol contains less energy than gasoline (30% less in fact). So you would lose gas mileage. It mentioned that biodiesel ($1/gallon freezes easily, kind of a problem in the winter. Can you imagine a frozen tank in a cold winter, bad idea? It also mentioned that biodiesel can smell rank. Also, neither option has really been proven to offer major advantages to the current global warming issues (Al I expect you to comment on this one--I know when we discussed this article you mentioned the problem would be that we'd still be using a combustion engine. However, both biodiesel and corn-based ethanol have been backed by Congress and some other options are not being given a level playing field (subsidy-wise).
Thanks to years of lobbying by ethanol and biodiesel producers, two fuels get the big breaks. A number of states mandate that ethanol or biodiesel be blended with oil based fuels...the laws also narrowly define biodiesel in terms of a specific process, shutting out innovations and improvements.
This seems ridiculous to me. We should be exploring any viable alternative energy source. One such fuel is generated by animal fat. In this scenario you would use a waste product for fuel, quite intelligent if you ask me. The article mentions that it would be beneficial for farmers that are being hit hard with higher corn prices. Other options include butanol, which can be used in existing pipelines and pumps, and hydrogen (which President Bush--the only compliment that you'll ever see me give him)--earmarked over a billion dollars for--or at least he claimed to have done so in the 2004 election and set a firm timetable for us to switch over from our dependence on gasoline.
It's a global issue, people. The United States needs to play ball internationally if we are going to see any real change. It has it's share of the environmental damage to account for, but it also needs to team with other industrialized nations--hello ratify the Kyoto Protocol--if we are going to have any realistic changes.
Forgive us Mother Earth.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Profiles of a Serial Killer--Virginia Tech Part Deux
There's been so much information that has become available to the public since my last post. I felt the need to fill-in the pieces that were all so foggy before.
So we actually have the identity of the lunatic serial killer, Cho Seung-Hui.
We have news that he'd thoroughly planned out his attack. We know that he killed the first two victims and then brazenly walked into the Blacksbury Post Office to mail some 27 tapes and pictures to NBC.
We've heard of the discussions from one of his former teachers, Giovanni, that requested for him to be removed from her class. We know that he'd stalked two of his female classmates, or that there were allegations that he did. We know that he was declared an imminent danger to himself in 2005 (yet he was able to purchase assault weapons--scary).
His classmates, based on behavior and a few disturbing stories, had him pegged as the prototype for such an event.
We have his Manifesto where he's making some kind of convoluted statement about elitists.
So with all of this information it still doesn't make any sense. His reference to the Columbine shooters in such a familiar manner--first names only, and others of the same cloth--the mindless ranting--the pictures--he has what he wanted a bigger voice now than he ever had alive. He's got the media spinning, the sensationalism is beyond belief, the public is still in shock, families are morning.
The University's security and contingency planning will come under even more scrutiny. Perhaps we'll have tighter gun control, not allowing an imminent danger to themselves or others to purchase weapons would be nice.
An institution known for its heralded football program will now be known for the killings. How do those students go on? How can they go back to the campus? Or is the return to normalcy the best reaction to this case of mindless violence.
I find this whole situation even more disturbing. I just hope that we can learn from this, because it won't be the last time. You can bet that.
The worse thing we can do is to sensationalize this--because it's just breeding another group of killers that don't have a voice--that are maladjusted--ticking time bombs--that are looking for their 15 minutes of fame--or to have their own twisted legacy.
I might sound harsh, but I really hope he burns in HELL for what he did. I'd like to see what you think. Please feel free to comment.
There's been so much information that has become available to the public since my last post. I felt the need to fill-in the pieces that were all so foggy before.
So we actually have the identity of the lunatic serial killer, Cho Seung-Hui.
We have news that he'd thoroughly planned out his attack. We know that he killed the first two victims and then brazenly walked into the Blacksbury Post Office to mail some 27 tapes and pictures to NBC.
We've heard of the discussions from one of his former teachers, Giovanni, that requested for him to be removed from her class. We know that he'd stalked two of his female classmates, or that there were allegations that he did. We know that he was declared an imminent danger to himself in 2005 (yet he was able to purchase assault weapons--scary).
His classmates, based on behavior and a few disturbing stories, had him pegged as the prototype for such an event.
We have his Manifesto where he's making some kind of convoluted statement about elitists.
So with all of this information it still doesn't make any sense. His reference to the Columbine shooters in such a familiar manner--first names only, and others of the same cloth--the mindless ranting--the pictures--he has what he wanted a bigger voice now than he ever had alive. He's got the media spinning, the sensationalism is beyond belief, the public is still in shock, families are morning.
The University's security and contingency planning will come under even more scrutiny. Perhaps we'll have tighter gun control, not allowing an imminent danger to themselves or others to purchase weapons would be nice.
An institution known for its heralded football program will now be known for the killings. How do those students go on? How can they go back to the campus? Or is the return to normalcy the best reaction to this case of mindless violence.
I find this whole situation even more disturbing. I just hope that we can learn from this, because it won't be the last time. You can bet that.
The worse thing we can do is to sensationalize this--because it's just breeding another group of killers that don't have a voice--that are maladjusted--ticking time bombs--that are looking for their 15 minutes of fame--or to have their own twisted legacy.
I might sound harsh, but I really hope he burns in HELL for what he did. I'd like to see what you think. Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Virginia Tech Massacre
I remember checking CNN's websites early yesterday and seeing the developing story on the Virginia Tech shooting. I wondered what would make someone fire at a dormitory. I saw the early images of students jumping out of buildings, as two were hurt at that time--and one person was confirmed dead.
Fast forward a few hours. I'm on a technical support call with a woman from New Hampshire. She stops me midstream as she just got word that one of their former students were safe. We had a brief conversation. It was still just a developing story at that time. She said there was some speculation that the gunman lost it after his girlfriend cheated on him.
I then went back to see the updates. That's when I saw the death toll had jumped up to 31 and there were 29 confirmed injured, which possibly included the gunman.
I was previously on a high, being Allison's birthday. I was thinking about all the fun we had that weekend. Then I felt my mood melt as I thought about all of those students that were in class or in their dormitory when they were exterminated!
I became angry. I wished the guy had the courage to just kill himself instead of innocent people. I know that the story is still developing, but I find it quite disturbing. People send their kids to get an education, to broaden their horizons, and some lunatic robs families of their loved ones.
I offer my deepest condolences and hope they catch the additional assailant--if there is one. May god comfort the families who lost loved ones.
I remember checking CNN's websites early yesterday and seeing the developing story on the Virginia Tech shooting. I wondered what would make someone fire at a dormitory. I saw the early images of students jumping out of buildings, as two were hurt at that time--and one person was confirmed dead.
Fast forward a few hours. I'm on a technical support call with a woman from New Hampshire. She stops me midstream as she just got word that one of their former students were safe. We had a brief conversation. It was still just a developing story at that time. She said there was some speculation that the gunman lost it after his girlfriend cheated on him.
I then went back to see the updates. That's when I saw the death toll had jumped up to 31 and there were 29 confirmed injured, which possibly included the gunman.
I was previously on a high, being Allison's birthday. I was thinking about all the fun we had that weekend. Then I felt my mood melt as I thought about all of those students that were in class or in their dormitory when they were exterminated!
I became angry. I wished the guy had the courage to just kill himself instead of innocent people. I know that the story is still developing, but I find it quite disturbing. People send their kids to get an education, to broaden their horizons, and some lunatic robs families of their loved ones.
I offer my deepest condolences and hope they catch the additional assailant--if there is one. May god comfort the families who lost loved ones.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Enough with the Apologies
Okay so I've been holding off on commenting on the Rutgers/Imus situation for awhile now. First, I think both the comments of Imus and his producer were despicable. I remember reading the excerpt from the radio broadcast when they talked about the girls looking rough, about all the tattoos, thinking oh here we go with that age old narrow minded view that every woman that plays basketball is a lesbian.
No, Imus stepped even lower. "Nappy Head Hoes!" What were you thinking? Did you even think, or were you trying to be controversial? The reality is I don't care what your motive was. It was idiotic.
I've heard excuses that rap's misogynistic culture makes these types of statements easier to say. You know what I have to say that, bullshit. If a twenty-year old skater punk said it, perhaps that might be within the realms of reason. When a man looking like certain death says it--it's ingrained.
If I hear another person say I'm not a racist I know black people, or I have black friends I'm going to hit someone. You're just a racist that has a few exceptions.
Anyway, I've seen the Revered Al Sharpton (who I'm not necessarily the greatest supporter of--but that is not even the point) galvanize the black community in such a way that saw Imus not only get suspended for two weeks, but also have his show pulled from MSNBC.
Why take a shot at college women that are striving to better themselves. I'm glad that he was stupid enough to say that in public. Hearing things like that makes me wonder what he says about black people in private.
Enough with the apologies. You should of thought before opening your mouth. All the apologies in the world won't take the sting out of what you said. And unfortunately those women will be remembered as much for this scandal as they were for getting Rutgers to the NCAA championship.
I just ask that people try to be considerate. I'll tackle the rap issue in another email. Let's just hope people realize that their jokes are offensive to other people--we've come a long way since minstrel shows and I hate to think that some people will always see us in such derogatory ways.
Okay so I've been holding off on commenting on the Rutgers/Imus situation for awhile now. First, I think both the comments of Imus and his producer were despicable. I remember reading the excerpt from the radio broadcast when they talked about the girls looking rough, about all the tattoos, thinking oh here we go with that age old narrow minded view that every woman that plays basketball is a lesbian.
No, Imus stepped even lower. "Nappy Head Hoes!" What were you thinking? Did you even think, or were you trying to be controversial? The reality is I don't care what your motive was. It was idiotic.
I've heard excuses that rap's misogynistic culture makes these types of statements easier to say. You know what I have to say that, bullshit. If a twenty-year old skater punk said it, perhaps that might be within the realms of reason. When a man looking like certain death says it--it's ingrained.
If I hear another person say I'm not a racist I know black people, or I have black friends I'm going to hit someone. You're just a racist that has a few exceptions.
Anyway, I've seen the Revered Al Sharpton (who I'm not necessarily the greatest supporter of--but that is not even the point) galvanize the black community in such a way that saw Imus not only get suspended for two weeks, but also have his show pulled from MSNBC.
Why take a shot at college women that are striving to better themselves. I'm glad that he was stupid enough to say that in public. Hearing things like that makes me wonder what he says about black people in private.
Enough with the apologies. You should of thought before opening your mouth. All the apologies in the world won't take the sting out of what you said. And unfortunately those women will be remembered as much for this scandal as they were for getting Rutgers to the NCAA championship.
I just ask that people try to be considerate. I'll tackle the rap issue in another email. Let's just hope people realize that their jokes are offensive to other people--we've come a long way since minstrel shows and I hate to think that some people will always see us in such derogatory ways.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Is a Stand Necessary?
I remember reading an article on the Sports Illustrated website about rising Israeli tennis teen Shahar Peer. Peer is currently ranked in the top 20. She's given recent Australian Open Champion Serena Williams scares at both the Sony Ericson Open and at the Australian Open.
Shahar played the Middle Eastern Doha and Dubai tournaments this year. She played under the condition that she could not bring any member of her entourage to the tournament, not a coach, not her family, no other Israeli was allowed. Someone claimed she was a sell-out.
Serena and Venus William refuse to play Indian Wells after Venus was accused of defaulting against Serena for non-injury reasons. The two, who grew up only a few miles away, have not played the event since.
I was conversing with my friend Femi about whether or not Shahar was selling out. She said to me that isn't necessarily the case. Femi mentioned that a lot of talented blacks performed in places where they couldn't use the bathroom. So it made me think. She said that Shahar is on her way up. She's just trying to grind.
I think Femi is right. Perhaps as she becomes a bigger star she can be a bit more vocal about these types of issues, because lets face it nobody is even aware of what she gave up to play in the tournaments, except die hard tennis fanatics.
I remember reading an article on the Sports Illustrated website about rising Israeli tennis teen Shahar Peer. Peer is currently ranked in the top 20. She's given recent Australian Open Champion Serena Williams scares at both the Sony Ericson Open and at the Australian Open.
Shahar played the Middle Eastern Doha and Dubai tournaments this year. She played under the condition that she could not bring any member of her entourage to the tournament, not a coach, not her family, no other Israeli was allowed. Someone claimed she was a sell-out.
Serena and Venus William refuse to play Indian Wells after Venus was accused of defaulting against Serena for non-injury reasons. The two, who grew up only a few miles away, have not played the event since.
I was conversing with my friend Femi about whether or not Shahar was selling out. She said to me that isn't necessarily the case. Femi mentioned that a lot of talented blacks performed in places where they couldn't use the bathroom. So it made me think. She said that Shahar is on her way up. She's just trying to grind.
I think Femi is right. Perhaps as she becomes a bigger star she can be a bit more vocal about these types of issues, because lets face it nobody is even aware of what she gave up to play in the tournaments, except die hard tennis fanatics.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Commodization of Hip-Hip
I've been meaning to write this post for more than a week. I read an article about Steve Stout, the hip-hop artist Nas' former manager (fist-a-cuffs ruined that situation if I can remember correctly). It was in last week's BusinessWeek magazine.
Well he's gone on to start a very successful consulting business. He's working with top-notch companies including: Reebok, General Motors, and McDonald's to reinvent their mass appeals. He's a provocateur of what I've coined the commodization of hip-hop. He's using the appeal of urban culture to reinvent GMs image, to bring Reebok back onto the map, and to take the king of fast food up a notch.
Case 1: Reebok
I remember when Reebok seriously threatened Nike's position as the most profitable apparel company. It was on the strength of the Reebok Classic, forgot the urban coinage for these sneakers, but that was a long time ago. Reebok is a second-tier company now. Enter Steve Stout. He's convinced Reebok that their biggest marketing flaw is that they are trying to compete with Nike based on performance. Stout says give it up. It's already a lost cause perception-wise. Leave that appeal to Nike. Instead he used his good friend Sean Carter, aka hip-hop superstar and Def Jam CEO Jay-Z, to champion his new campaign to reinvent their image. Their new direction is to appeal to urban gear, which has mass crossover appeal to non-urban marketplaces.
Case 2: GM
GM's under real pressure from Toyota--as its Japanese rival is slicing market share away in leaps and bounds. It won't take long at this pace before Toyota is the number one car manufacturer in the world.
GM has taken out the boxing gloves. It sought Stout and his revolutionary advertising/consulting schema. Stout has made several clever decisions.
The last option is just brilliant. It has appeals to so many different audiences. I never even thought about the Impala as being cool until I saw these commercials. I guess I'm the audience that Stout is successfully catering to.
Case 3: McDonalds
Have you seen/heard the new slogan "I'm lovin' it?" That coinage is one of Stouts ingenious consulting tips as well. He's also trying to get the workers to have more pride in their uniforms. He's pitched more urban gear, figuring most of McDonalds employees are young. The more pride they have in their appearance the better workers they will be. If they wear their uniforms outside, free advertising.
Keep up the good work! These little nuggets of information have proven extremely successful. I'm not sure if this philosophy will work long-term. So Steve cash in while you can, while urban culture and its exports are still worthy of mass appeal--and don't become oversaturated.
I've been meaning to write this post for more than a week. I read an article about Steve Stout, the hip-hop artist Nas' former manager (fist-a-cuffs ruined that situation if I can remember correctly). It was in last week's BusinessWeek magazine.
Well he's gone on to start a very successful consulting business. He's working with top-notch companies including: Reebok, General Motors, and McDonald's to reinvent their mass appeals. He's a provocateur of what I've coined the commodization of hip-hop. He's using the appeal of urban culture to reinvent GMs image, to bring Reebok back onto the map, and to take the king of fast food up a notch.
Case 1: Reebok
I remember when Reebok seriously threatened Nike's position as the most profitable apparel company. It was on the strength of the Reebok Classic, forgot the urban coinage for these sneakers, but that was a long time ago. Reebok is a second-tier company now. Enter Steve Stout. He's convinced Reebok that their biggest marketing flaw is that they are trying to compete with Nike based on performance. Stout says give it up. It's already a lost cause perception-wise. Leave that appeal to Nike. Instead he used his good friend Sean Carter, aka hip-hop superstar and Def Jam CEO Jay-Z, to champion his new campaign to reinvent their image. Their new direction is to appeal to urban gear, which has mass crossover appeal to non-urban marketplaces.
Case 2: GM
GM's under real pressure from Toyota--as its Japanese rival is slicing market share away in leaps and bounds. It won't take long at this pace before Toyota is the number one car manufacturer in the world.
GM has taken out the boxing gloves. It sought Stout and his revolutionary advertising/consulting schema. Stout has made several clever decisions.
- Tiger Woods is the spokesperson for Buick. He says Woods is such a big name use him for as many of your brands as possible.
- A new Jay-Z blue GM Envoy for cross-over appeal
- The new Chevrolet Impala commercials that you've seen featuring R&B juggernaut Mary J. Blige, southern rapper T.I., and Dale Earnhardt Jr.
The last option is just brilliant. It has appeals to so many different audiences. I never even thought about the Impala as being cool until I saw these commercials. I guess I'm the audience that Stout is successfully catering to.
Case 3: McDonalds
Have you seen/heard the new slogan "I'm lovin' it?" That coinage is one of Stouts ingenious consulting tips as well. He's also trying to get the workers to have more pride in their uniforms. He's pitched more urban gear, figuring most of McDonalds employees are young. The more pride they have in their appearance the better workers they will be. If they wear their uniforms outside, free advertising.
Keep up the good work! These little nuggets of information have proven extremely successful. I'm not sure if this philosophy will work long-term. So Steve cash in while you can, while urban culture and its exports are still worthy of mass appeal--and don't become oversaturated.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I'd heard about John Amaechi's book Man in the Middle coming out recently. He literally comes out as one of only four men, to this point, in the major American sports (basketball, baseball, football, hockey) to admit that he is a gay man.
Of course he's been out of basketball for a few years now. I can't imagine the type of scrutiny that he would've suffered if he disclosed his sexuality when he was an active player. Actually I do. Perhaps some players would've stuck by his side, but I'm sure he would have been ostracized.
When his book came out I thought--well we know that there are much more gay men in organized sports. People might not be comfortable with that notion, kind of a don't ask don't tell mentality. I didn't think he was a big enough name to really illicit attention.
A few players have been asked questions, none really taking the bait. Well that is until Tim Hardaway, former Miami Heat/Golden State Warrior, made the statement below Tuesday on a Miami radio broadcast. I'm including an excerpt from a posting I found on ABC News:
"You know, I hate gay people," Hardaway said during an interview on "790 the Ticket."
"You know, I let it be known I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people,"
...
"First of all, I wouldn't want him on my team," he said. "I think the majority of the players would ask for him to be traded or they would want to get traded."
The show's host said: "You know that what you're saying there though, Timmy, is flatly homophobic."
Hardaway replied, "I am homophobic. So yeah, I don't like it."
When reading the article I learned that Shaquille Oneal has given his support to John Amaechi. Shaq has always been his own man. I'm not surprised by the support from the gentle giant.
Hardaway offered an expected apology after all of the heat he's been taking regarding his comments. I know that Commissioner David Stern issued a statement that the NBA in no way backs the comments made by Tim Hardaway.
"I want to apologize for my comments … regarding gays. My comments were offensive and I regret making them. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended."
The sentiments expressed by Tim Hardaway, though offensive, are probably reflective of how a good percentage of organized athletes would react to having a gay team-mate. Hardaway expressed his opinion in a public forum, with a lack of sensitivity. However, that is his opinion, and though I don't share his sentiments I think he has the right to express it.
Perhaps Tim putting his foot in his mouth will open up dialogue where more players feel comfortable about expressing their reaction to the thought of having a homosexual team-mate. I can only hope that people discussing such an issue, and John being courageous enough to broach this issue, will help people to be more open-minded towards homosexuality.
Finally, I did notice a couple of people took a look at his picture (had this conversation earlier today at work) and I didn't hear anyone say well you could tell he was gay (from how he looked). I haven't heard any of his former team-mates assert anything along those lines either. I think people who might have not been exposed to (or more likely not aware that they were being exposed to)--can see that being gay has little to do with feminine or masculine traits, but with who you'd invite to your bed.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Happy Valentine's Day
I know so many people that get depressed when they don't have a significant lover in their life on Valentine's Day. I've gone many of years without one. I've had one the last two years (she's a good woman)--but we are very far away from each other, currently defying the laws of a long distance relationship.
Still being alone for Valentine's Day is nothing to be depressed about. I can understand if you went out to a restaurant and you saw people sucking each other's tongue's out. That could be pretty sickening.
Valentine's Day really doesn't mean so much to me. I try to express my love year round. That doesn't mean that I totally disregard the day. I try to make Al feel special, because I think she's worth it. I don't need anything special. A card is always nice.
It's a holiday that sees couples go to ridiculous lengths: diamonds, fur coats, perhaps vehicles--to show their love. Valentine's Day to me is about the simple things. I got a chocolate fish that says you're a keeper, cute and funny. I got a card that says I'm the sweetest. I also received a Nalgene bottle filled with chocolate kisses.
I must say when it comes to creativity I'm a distant second to Al. I love to send her flowers, Peruvian Lilies this year (gorgeous), chocolates, and a teddy bear. The last couple of years I've sent them on the 13th so she can feel extra special, because she is.
I say this all to say when I was single I wasn't sad not to have a Valentine. I thought I'll have one--one day. I took my mother out and made her feel special. I went out with my sister and my cousin. I made the holiday work for me, instead of defining me. I hope that I'm able to maintain this even though I have someone very special person in my life.
Happy Valentine's Day Everyone!
I know so many people that get depressed when they don't have a significant lover in their life on Valentine's Day. I've gone many of years without one. I've had one the last two years (she's a good woman)--but we are very far away from each other, currently defying the laws of a long distance relationship.
Still being alone for Valentine's Day is nothing to be depressed about. I can understand if you went out to a restaurant and you saw people sucking each other's tongue's out. That could be pretty sickening.
Valentine's Day really doesn't mean so much to me. I try to express my love year round. That doesn't mean that I totally disregard the day. I try to make Al feel special, because I think she's worth it. I don't need anything special. A card is always nice.
It's a holiday that sees couples go to ridiculous lengths: diamonds, fur coats, perhaps vehicles--to show their love. Valentine's Day to me is about the simple things. I got a chocolate fish that says you're a keeper, cute and funny. I got a card that says I'm the sweetest. I also received a Nalgene bottle filled with chocolate kisses.
I must say when it comes to creativity I'm a distant second to Al. I love to send her flowers, Peruvian Lilies this year (gorgeous), chocolates, and a teddy bear. The last couple of years I've sent them on the 13th so she can feel extra special, because she is.
I say this all to say when I was single I wasn't sad not to have a Valentine. I thought I'll have one--one day. I took my mother out and made her feel special. I went out with my sister and my cousin. I made the holiday work for me, instead of defining me. I hope that I'm able to maintain this even though I have someone very special person in my life.
Happy Valentine's Day Everyone!
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
What exactly is a Nerd?
According to Wikipedia:
I would describe a nerd as someone that is socially awkward. To me this designation doesn't necessarily mean that you are smart. We had a guy at Randolph that was extremely socially inept. His name was Maurice. He had bad skin, huge pink lips, an Urkle-esque voice, and was so willing to be accepted amongst the popular kids that he became a bulls eye for their ridicule and harassment. They'd make him feel like they wanted to bring him into their circle just to bring up a story about his masturbating to one of the attractive girls in his grade. You see Maurice was a nerd, but he wasn't smart. He is what I call unfortunate.
Now I've been called a nerd before, of course not as I've gotten older. The first time was when I was in the fifth grade. I was in an enrichment program. The class just below us, the 1 class--we were 5-E they were 5-1, passed us in the hallway and called us nerds. We laughed because we knew they were jealous, because they were second best. We got all of the attention for being the "gifted" kids.
When I went to Junior High School I was never given this designation. Mostly, because only the smart kids knew that I was smart. I never pretended that I wasn't. People that just knew me from the neighborhood or that just met me might've assumed I was destined to be a juvenile delinquent, LOL. This was far from the case. I stayed in SP classes throughout JHS. So I was separated from most of the other kids except for lunch and gym. I blended well with the smart kids and the delinquents.
I suppose some people might've thought I was a nerd in high school. I was always on the honor roll. However, I always had a lot of friends, who thought I was really crazy. I experienced a bit of an identity crisis during the earlier portion of the 9th grade so perhaps I think the label would've been appropriate at that time.
I remember going to play on a basketball team (not for my high school--a neighborhood team). It was assumed that we were all stupid. We were required to take these retarded classes that a fifth grader should've been able to handle. I quit the team, because I couldn't take the classes.
Other than that I've never been awkward. I've had a very defined personality. People have respected me for who I was.
My older cousin called me a super nerd growing up. He was also very smart. However, I was a straight A student for so much of my life. It was kind of like being called a braniac--which a lot of people used to call me.
Our high school Valedictorian was super smart. I would've never called him a nerd. He was a bit socially awkward (as most genius type personalities are), but he had a lot of friends. He was cool being different. That made us more eager to accept him.
This post isn't about bragging about my intelligence level. You can make that judgment based on knowing me. It is to dispel some of the negative connotation behind the word.
Some times it is a good thing to be called a nerd. That's when the expression is given from some that are jealous or perhaps to signify that you're smart. Lenora Fulani says that we need more nerds in the black community. She wants people that aren't afraid to show how smart they are, people who can avoid the snares of popularity and that acceptance brings. Wouldn't that be wonderful for America at large?
You might ask what brought about my decision to post this. I went to a funeral and one of my former classmates saw me. He played on that basketball team that I mentioned. He was in the 2-E class with me. I fought a bully for him (that was in our class). He sold his condo to my cousin. So both my cousin and I know the guy. Well he told my cousin that I was a nerd in school. I found that kind of funny. I told my cousin that he was in my class and that he was smart. The guy did tell my cousin that he wished that he would've stayed on the path that I followed. He switched schools in the 3rd grade. He took the wrong path, even though he's a good guy. My cousin told him that I'm super smart, that I was never a nerd. It's so funny how differently people use the word nerd.
Okay that's enough rambling.
According to Wikipedia:
Nerd, as a stereotypical or archetypal designation, refers to somebody who passionately pursues intellectual or esoteric knowledge or pastimes, rather than engaging in a social life, participating in organized sports, or other mainstream activities. The Merriam-Webster definition is an "unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially: one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits."
I would describe a nerd as someone that is socially awkward. To me this designation doesn't necessarily mean that you are smart. We had a guy at Randolph that was extremely socially inept. His name was Maurice. He had bad skin, huge pink lips, an Urkle-esque voice, and was so willing to be accepted amongst the popular kids that he became a bulls eye for their ridicule and harassment. They'd make him feel like they wanted to bring him into their circle just to bring up a story about his masturbating to one of the attractive girls in his grade. You see Maurice was a nerd, but he wasn't smart. He is what I call unfortunate.
Now I've been called a nerd before, of course not as I've gotten older. The first time was when I was in the fifth grade. I was in an enrichment program. The class just below us, the 1 class--we were 5-E they were 5-1, passed us in the hallway and called us nerds. We laughed because we knew they were jealous, because they were second best. We got all of the attention for being the "gifted" kids.
When I went to Junior High School I was never given this designation. Mostly, because only the smart kids knew that I was smart. I never pretended that I wasn't. People that just knew me from the neighborhood or that just met me might've assumed I was destined to be a juvenile delinquent, LOL. This was far from the case. I stayed in SP classes throughout JHS. So I was separated from most of the other kids except for lunch and gym. I blended well with the smart kids and the delinquents.
I suppose some people might've thought I was a nerd in high school. I was always on the honor roll. However, I always had a lot of friends, who thought I was really crazy. I experienced a bit of an identity crisis during the earlier portion of the 9th grade so perhaps I think the label would've been appropriate at that time.
I remember going to play on a basketball team (not for my high school--a neighborhood team). It was assumed that we were all stupid. We were required to take these retarded classes that a fifth grader should've been able to handle. I quit the team, because I couldn't take the classes.
Other than that I've never been awkward. I've had a very defined personality. People have respected me for who I was.
My older cousin called me a super nerd growing up. He was also very smart. However, I was a straight A student for so much of my life. It was kind of like being called a braniac--which a lot of people used to call me.
Our high school Valedictorian was super smart. I would've never called him a nerd. He was a bit socially awkward (as most genius type personalities are), but he had a lot of friends. He was cool being different. That made us more eager to accept him.
This post isn't about bragging about my intelligence level. You can make that judgment based on knowing me. It is to dispel some of the negative connotation behind the word.
Some times it is a good thing to be called a nerd. That's when the expression is given from some that are jealous or perhaps to signify that you're smart. Lenora Fulani says that we need more nerds in the black community. She wants people that aren't afraid to show how smart they are, people who can avoid the snares of popularity and that acceptance brings. Wouldn't that be wonderful for America at large?
You might ask what brought about my decision to post this. I went to a funeral and one of my former classmates saw me. He played on that basketball team that I mentioned. He was in the 2-E class with me. I fought a bully for him (that was in our class). He sold his condo to my cousin. So both my cousin and I know the guy. Well he told my cousin that I was a nerd in school. I found that kind of funny. I told my cousin that he was in my class and that he was smart. The guy did tell my cousin that he wished that he would've stayed on the path that I followed. He switched schools in the 3rd grade. He took the wrong path, even though he's a good guy. My cousin told him that I'm super smart, that I was never a nerd. It's so funny how differently people use the word nerd.
Okay that's enough rambling.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
I was just on the New York Times website reviewing the most popular articles. I came across one that I glimpsed in December, but today it struck me in a completely different way than before.
It centered on questions that couples should ask themselves before they get married. I thought the list was really good--and if more oouples dealt with these issues instead of impulses the divorce rate might not be as high in this country as it presently is. Love will only take you so far, communication will take you the rest of the way.
It centered on questions that couples should ask themselves before they get married. I thought the list was really good--and if more oouples dealt with these issues instead of impulses the divorce rate might not be as high in this country as it presently is. Love will only take you so far, communication will take you the rest of the way.
Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying
Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:
1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?
2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?
3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement on who will manage the chores?
4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?
5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?
6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?
7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?
8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?
10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?
11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?
12) What does my family do that annoys you?
13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?
14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
15) Does each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?
Monday, January 22, 2007
Welcome to the New NFL
I'm an avid sports fan, sometimes borderline obsessive. Football has always been at the top of the heap closely followed by track and field, tennis, and a whole bunch that my fingers would get cramped typing out.
The NFL has had a major campaign to get black coaches involved in the interviewing process as a result of criticism from prominent members of the black community. The result has been the hiring and consideration of many qualified black candidates that weren't receiving those opportunities in the past. You had qualified assistant coaches that never got their chances to shine, contrary to the normal career track.
This year's Super Bowl will represent the first time that two teams coached by minority head coaches will square off. In fact it is the first time that black coaches have ever led a team to the Super Bowl.
This represents a milestone in sports in general. It shows that if you give qualified people the chance they can excel, therefore race should not be used as a barrier to entry. The efforts of the NFL weren't quite an affirmative action situation either. The league requires teams to interview at least one minority coaching candidate per opening. Most of the successful black coaches paid their dues as assistants before they were given the chance. You also had commentators (like Dan Marino and Boomer Esiason) that made the fact that certain coaches weren't being interviewed an issue that was worthy of attention.
Coaches like Art Shell and Dennis Green had moderate success (with the Raiders and Vikings). They were the pioneers. A decade later you see Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy leading their teams to football's promised land. Marvin Lewis has turned around a perennial struggling franchise in the Cincinnati Bengals. Kansas City is coached by former Jets head coach Herman Edwards. The Minnesota Vikings just hired a black coach as well.
This is a measurement of how far this country has come in regards to race relations. When I first started watching football there was the old saying that you could have an all black team except you'd need a white quarterback and a white kicker/punter. Take a look at the legion of black quarterbacks that have changed the image of what a quarterback should be. They might not fit traditional views of what a quarterback should be (Drew Brees doesn't either), but you can still ride them to success.
I'm so proud, if you can't tell. I will be routing for the Bears, however, because I hate the Indianapolis Colts with the fire of a thousand suns. Their coach, however, is cool in my book. He turned around a losing team in Tampa Bay, got them close to the pinnacle and was fired for not getting them to the Super Bowl. He experienced similar frustrations with the aforementioned hated Colts, but should have given himself some serious job security. Whether you like them or not you must give him credit for making that team one of the strongest teams in football (during the regular season--with the exception of this year).
I'll leave you with an excerpt from the definition of coach:
It's a leadership position, and we all know that America is more preoccupied with leaders than it is with those that receive directions (sorry followers didn't seem right in this context). Individuals that strategize and take the heat for their decisions and/or reap the rewards of the success from their planning are definitely worthy of applause/ridicule. It takes a lot to put yourself in those types of positions, because of the scrutiny that will follow you. If you're the first to do it or amongst the first--you have even more pressure, because if you fail the naysayers will say I told you so: women shouldn't referee male sports (NBA), blacks shouldn't play tennis/golf, a woman should not enter male sports (Michele Wie). The list goes on and on. Some battles aren't so much about race or gender, but about acceptance. Tear the barriers down, break those glass ceilings, and enjoy your moment in the sunshine!
If this post has tickled your fancy, here's an interesting article that speaks about the gap between minority coaches at the NCAA level compared to the NFL.
NFL leads colleges in promoting minority coaches
I'm an avid sports fan, sometimes borderline obsessive. Football has always been at the top of the heap closely followed by track and field, tennis, and a whole bunch that my fingers would get cramped typing out.
The NFL has had a major campaign to get black coaches involved in the interviewing process as a result of criticism from prominent members of the black community. The result has been the hiring and consideration of many qualified black candidates that weren't receiving those opportunities in the past. You had qualified assistant coaches that never got their chances to shine, contrary to the normal career track.
This year's Super Bowl will represent the first time that two teams coached by minority head coaches will square off. In fact it is the first time that black coaches have ever led a team to the Super Bowl.
This represents a milestone in sports in general. It shows that if you give qualified people the chance they can excel, therefore race should not be used as a barrier to entry. The efforts of the NFL weren't quite an affirmative action situation either. The league requires teams to interview at least one minority coaching candidate per opening. Most of the successful black coaches paid their dues as assistants before they were given the chance. You also had commentators (like Dan Marino and Boomer Esiason) that made the fact that certain coaches weren't being interviewed an issue that was worthy of attention.
Coaches like Art Shell and Dennis Green had moderate success (with the Raiders and Vikings). They were the pioneers. A decade later you see Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy leading their teams to football's promised land. Marvin Lewis has turned around a perennial struggling franchise in the Cincinnati Bengals. Kansas City is coached by former Jets head coach Herman Edwards. The Minnesota Vikings just hired a black coach as well.
This is a measurement of how far this country has come in regards to race relations. When I first started watching football there was the old saying that you could have an all black team except you'd need a white quarterback and a white kicker/punter. Take a look at the legion of black quarterbacks that have changed the image of what a quarterback should be. They might not fit traditional views of what a quarterback should be (Drew Brees doesn't either), but you can still ride them to success.
I'm so proud, if you can't tell. I will be routing for the Bears, however, because I hate the Indianapolis Colts with the fire of a thousand suns. Their coach, however, is cool in my book. He turned around a losing team in Tampa Bay, got them close to the pinnacle and was fired for not getting them to the Super Bowl. He experienced similar frustrations with the aforementioned hated Colts, but should have given himself some serious job security. Whether you like them or not you must give him credit for making that team one of the strongest teams in football (during the regular season--with the exception of this year).
I'll leave you with an excerpt from the definition of coach:
one who instructs or trains a performer or a team of performers; specifically : one who instructs players in the fundamentals of a competitive sport and directs team strategy
It's a leadership position, and we all know that America is more preoccupied with leaders than it is with those that receive directions (sorry followers didn't seem right in this context). Individuals that strategize and take the heat for their decisions and/or reap the rewards of the success from their planning are definitely worthy of applause/ridicule. It takes a lot to put yourself in those types of positions, because of the scrutiny that will follow you. If you're the first to do it or amongst the first--you have even more pressure, because if you fail the naysayers will say I told you so: women shouldn't referee male sports (NBA), blacks shouldn't play tennis/golf, a woman should not enter male sports (Michele Wie). The list goes on and on. Some battles aren't so much about race or gender, but about acceptance. Tear the barriers down, break those glass ceilings, and enjoy your moment in the sunshine!
If this post has tickled your fancy, here's an interesting article that speaks about the gap between minority coaches at the NCAA level compared to the NFL.
NFL leads colleges in promoting minority coaches
Sunday, January 21, 2007
The Epidemic of Teenage Drinking
I'm currently watching Do as I Say, on ABC. Today's Episode is titled: "On the Rocks: The Epidemic of Teenage Drinking." I am actually horrified watching this program. I was one of those "good" kids, which meant that I didn't start drinking alcohol until I was 21. I remember seeing kids in my junior high school drinking beer and wine coolers before school started. They would go to the stores nearest to the school and steal them. Then they'd go to the park to drink.
My mother doesn't drink much. My father didn't either, god knows he had his other vices, but drinking wasn't one of them. My grandmother was probably the only adult that I was aware of that drank on a regular basis. She passed away almost ten years ago from an unexpected bout with cancer. It was short and I am happy that she didn't suffer from it. She was about 55 when she was gone. I digress. I only brought up my grandmother to show that she and my grandfather, when he snuck a drink or two, were the only two adults that I really ever saw have a drink.
Many of the neighborhood kids did drink. They'd go to parties and come home wasted. That was during the early nineties. Snoop Dog's "Gin and Juice" was out and it was the poison of choice amongst many of my peers. I couldn't understand what the enjoyment was of coming home and throwing up--and truth be told I was afraid of my mother's actions if I ever came home high from alcohol/narcotics. I was one of those kids that was obsessed with my future. Therefore, alcohol and drugs weren't on my agenda.
Similarly, I didn't really start drinking until I was about to turn 22. By that time I had a full time job and a college degree. I was a social drinker and have always maintained control over my behavior when I do drink.
Well I guess that's why I was horrified when watching the special. The commentators mentioned that teenagers drink to get drunk. They aren't drinking to get buzzed and they really can't regulate their level of intoxication effectively. They tend to become impulsive: violent, lascivious, etc.
Now don't think I'm being hard on teenagers. I know that adults display the same type of behavior as these teenagers. However, the show displayed the brains of teenagers that drink and those that don't. You could see the damage that the binge drinking did compared to those who didn't. The long term damages were irreparable.
Then I started thinking about teenage drinking and driving. I don't know the whole shabazz upset me. There is so much promise. To tell you the truth I don't like the message that you have to drink to have a great time, or drink to get drunk. I don't think that's a good message, for teenagers or adults. I can attest to this drinking water at parties at times and having just as much fun as I did when I did drink.
I just feel for the parents that were dealing with the children who were drinking. You saw children with straight As have severe drops in their grades. Some started acting out.
One set of parents sponsored a party where children could drink, kind of a don't ask don't tell type deal. Well they didn't regulate the party. You can guess that things went out of hand quickly. One altercation involved a drunk teen throwing gasoline on a rivals car and then setting it on fire. A girl in the car was severely burned.
I don't have an answer to fix this problem. I'm not a parent and haven't dealt with it. I saw that the show advised parents not to have alcohol in easily accessible locations, to talk to your children about the behavior that is accepted in your household, and to talk about the long term effects of drinking.
Anyway if you want to check out more of what the special had to offer take a look at the website below:
Connect With Kids
I'm currently watching Do as I Say, on ABC. Today's Episode is titled: "On the Rocks: The Epidemic of Teenage Drinking." I am actually horrified watching this program. I was one of those "good" kids, which meant that I didn't start drinking alcohol until I was 21. I remember seeing kids in my junior high school drinking beer and wine coolers before school started. They would go to the stores nearest to the school and steal them. Then they'd go to the park to drink.
My mother doesn't drink much. My father didn't either, god knows he had his other vices, but drinking wasn't one of them. My grandmother was probably the only adult that I was aware of that drank on a regular basis. She passed away almost ten years ago from an unexpected bout with cancer. It was short and I am happy that she didn't suffer from it. She was about 55 when she was gone. I digress. I only brought up my grandmother to show that she and my grandfather, when he snuck a drink or two, were the only two adults that I really ever saw have a drink.
Many of the neighborhood kids did drink. They'd go to parties and come home wasted. That was during the early nineties. Snoop Dog's "Gin and Juice" was out and it was the poison of choice amongst many of my peers. I couldn't understand what the enjoyment was of coming home and throwing up--and truth be told I was afraid of my mother's actions if I ever came home high from alcohol/narcotics. I was one of those kids that was obsessed with my future. Therefore, alcohol and drugs weren't on my agenda.
Similarly, I didn't really start drinking until I was about to turn 22. By that time I had a full time job and a college degree. I was a social drinker and have always maintained control over my behavior when I do drink.
Well I guess that's why I was horrified when watching the special. The commentators mentioned that teenagers drink to get drunk. They aren't drinking to get buzzed and they really can't regulate their level of intoxication effectively. They tend to become impulsive: violent, lascivious, etc.
Now don't think I'm being hard on teenagers. I know that adults display the same type of behavior as these teenagers. However, the show displayed the brains of teenagers that drink and those that don't. You could see the damage that the binge drinking did compared to those who didn't. The long term damages were irreparable.
Then I started thinking about teenage drinking and driving. I don't know the whole shabazz upset me. There is so much promise. To tell you the truth I don't like the message that you have to drink to have a great time, or drink to get drunk. I don't think that's a good message, for teenagers or adults. I can attest to this drinking water at parties at times and having just as much fun as I did when I did drink.
I just feel for the parents that were dealing with the children who were drinking. You saw children with straight As have severe drops in their grades. Some started acting out.
One set of parents sponsored a party where children could drink, kind of a don't ask don't tell type deal. Well they didn't regulate the party. You can guess that things went out of hand quickly. One altercation involved a drunk teen throwing gasoline on a rivals car and then setting it on fire. A girl in the car was severely burned.
I don't have an answer to fix this problem. I'm not a parent and haven't dealt with it. I saw that the show advised parents not to have alcohol in easily accessible locations, to talk to your children about the behavior that is accepted in your household, and to talk about the long term effects of drinking.
Anyway if you want to check out more of what the special had to offer take a look at the website below:
Connect With Kids
Friday, January 05, 2007
Why Do Men Spend So Much Time at Their Jobs?
I just read an interesting article on Yahoo (that came from Men's Health)--a magazine that I have subscribed to in the past.
It was a very interesting and I think accurate article about why men can have faults in their relationships that they do not exhibit in business.
I'm actually going to paste the article below instead of including a link to the post. Please let me know what you think.
Why Do Men Spend So Much Time at Their Jobs?
By David Zinczenko
Yahoo has some pretty interesting comments posted on this article. You can find them at Link to Article and Commentary
I just read an interesting article on Yahoo (that came from Men's Health)--a magazine that I have subscribed to in the past.
It was a very interesting and I think accurate article about why men can have faults in their relationships that they do not exhibit in business.
I'm actually going to paste the article below instead of including a link to the post. Please let me know what you think.
Why Do Men Spend So Much Time at Their Jobs?
By David Zinczenko
The question comes up over and over again in relationships. She says to him: If you gave me the same amount of attention as you give your boss, we'd be topside on the Love Boat rather than ballast in the Titanic.
Kinda true, right? At work, men can't communicate enough with e-mails, memos, brainstorming meetings that last all morning, and drinks that intrude on the dinner hour. But in a relationship, we hardly mutter an "uh, huh" when women ask if the dress looks okay. At work, men come up with creative solutions to problems. In a relationship, we hold our ground in the never-ending arguments about the budget/remote/toilet seat. At work, we're never satisfied with an average performance. In a relationship, we sometimes are. And then we fall asleep.
So, of course, it's a natural question for a woman to ask: Why is it that men obsess about work so much and spend so much time there-even without seemingly direct rewards or benefits for doing so? Part of the reason is that we value job performance and career advancement almost as much we value SportsCenter (almost). In fact, 35 percent of men in my Men, Love & Sex survey say that a 50-percent raise would be the one-time life boost that would make them feel the best-beating out both losing 20 pounds (29 percent) and working less to spend more time with the family (11 percent). Ouch.
The quick and obvious explanation is that men can take their relationships for granted after they've been in it for a while. In fact, that very sense of security is what we treasure most about a long-term relationship, in part because we can't afford to view our jobs the same way. These are some of the main reasons why men seem to have such great relationships-with their boss and coworkers.
They're Always Out to Prove They Are THE Guy
Early on in a relationship, a guy is competing for a woman's attention against all kinds of potential suitors. So he's at his best-witty, romantic, generous, unselfish. Once he knows he's the guy in the relationship, the pressure to perform decreases. At work, that drive is the same: He's competing against lots of other people for jobs, for raises, for respect-and a man's competitive nature drives him to want to be the best out of all the others. The difference in a job setting is that the pressure to perform never decreases, and he's always competing to be the guy. Even when he's the big boss, he's competing against other big bosses for his company's share of the pie (that is, the whole damn thing).
Not Working Equals Weakness
Of course, women have a lot of unfair stereotypes that they're fighting against day after day. But one of the stereotypes that men are saddled with is that their career success is a measure of their personal worth. The sociologist Warren Farrell has written that just as women are at times looked at as "sex objects," men are at risk of being considered "success objects"--to others, to themselves. Not working, or working in the same job, or never mustering the drive to move up makes us feel like going-nowhere dolts. Some of a man's drive to succeed comes from the desire to make more and more money, but some of that drive also comes from the desire to earn more and more respect.
They're Always Playing to an Audience
The difference between work and home life is like the difference between a filled-to-capacity stadium and an empty practice field. Men tend to feel the performance-anxiety pressure to succeed, to not make mistakes, and to excel when a whole company's watching. Right or wrong (OK, undoubtedly wrong), the natural tendency is to not give as much effort as we should when the only third-party eyes that are watching are the dog's.
Think I've nailed it on the head? Or is there something else that's driving men to spend those long hours at the office? I want to know what you think.
Yahoo has some pretty interesting comments posted on this article. You can find them at Link to Article and Commentary
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Much Ado About the Holidays
So much of the Christmas spirit is giving. I guess that's who I am, I'm a giver. I like to receive too, but I don't give in order to receive (wow this kind of sounds dirty).
The best gifts that I gave out was a Tanzanite and diamond white gold eternity necklace and earrings for my girlfriend (not a set) and a diamond and yellow gold necklace for mom (which my brother and I chipped into buy. Both gifts went over very well--and are beautiful (I'm pretty good at picking out pieces that reflects the individuals personality). Al got her gift before Christmas, because I can't wait that long after I buy something nice for someone, LOL. It seriously drives me nuts (I guess you can say I have to give and know the other party likes it).
She was very happy and gave me the look of I can't believe you spent that much money on me (I made her promise before hand that she wouldn't yell at me). She then promised that she wouldn't show anyone until Christmas Eve (though Amy cracked her, LOL). And she was impressed that the gifts were wrapped (professionally of course--as I beg people to wrap gifts for me because I'm a poor man without the skills to do so effectively (winks)). I used my bargaining prowess to get a reasonably good price on the jewelry. You have to see the color of the Tanzanite--it is so beautiful (rich) and the clarity is wonderful as well.
My mother on the other hand. I know she gets up in the middle of the night. So I turned on the Christmas lights and left the necklace in the foyer in all of its glory. She told me she wanted to wake me up at 3 in the morning, because it was so beautiful. The retail value on the necklace is ridiculous, but I did get it for a steal, being the good shopper that I am.
I bought my nieces and nephew a bunch of board games (as they are finally old enough to appreciate and for me to beat them mercilessly until they learn to emulate my strategies and can go forth and conquer kids their own age). None of them have seen them as of yet (sighs), but they will probably get over to the house by this weekend.
Now everyone likes to ask me what I got for Christmas, which tends to make me sad. I don't expect a lot from people. I'm one of those people who loves Christmas Cards. I think a few heart felt words can't be beat.
I did receive some pretty cool gifts:
A knitted grey scarf, a power tie, and an amazing Norelco shaver from my wonderful girlfriend.
I was given some gift cards for Starbucks and Blockbuster.
And Thomas got me the new Game CD, which was completely unexpected. It was a nice gesture.
I gave my office mates the present of holiday cakes from Juniors (which they devoured today). I have their admiration, who can beat that.
The best gift of all was thank you from the office mates and everyone that I bought gifts for! I love it.
And I finally popped that bottle of champagne with Thomas from when my god-daughter was born! It almost dented the wall (been at the office since September 28th). It was wonderful and packed quite the punch.
I'm sure this will be my last post for the year. May God bless you and keep you near and dear to his heart in the new year.
So much of the Christmas spirit is giving. I guess that's who I am, I'm a giver. I like to receive too, but I don't give in order to receive (wow this kind of sounds dirty).
The best gifts that I gave out was a Tanzanite and diamond white gold eternity necklace and earrings for my girlfriend (not a set) and a diamond and yellow gold necklace for mom (which my brother and I chipped into buy. Both gifts went over very well--and are beautiful (I'm pretty good at picking out pieces that reflects the individuals personality). Al got her gift before Christmas, because I can't wait that long after I buy something nice for someone, LOL. It seriously drives me nuts (I guess you can say I have to give and know the other party likes it).
She was very happy and gave me the look of I can't believe you spent that much money on me (I made her promise before hand that she wouldn't yell at me). She then promised that she wouldn't show anyone until Christmas Eve (though Amy cracked her, LOL). And she was impressed that the gifts were wrapped (professionally of course--as I beg people to wrap gifts for me because I'm a poor man without the skills to do so effectively (winks)). I used my bargaining prowess to get a reasonably good price on the jewelry. You have to see the color of the Tanzanite--it is so beautiful (rich) and the clarity is wonderful as well.
My mother on the other hand. I know she gets up in the middle of the night. So I turned on the Christmas lights and left the necklace in the foyer in all of its glory. She told me she wanted to wake me up at 3 in the morning, because it was so beautiful. The retail value on the necklace is ridiculous, but I did get it for a steal, being the good shopper that I am.
I bought my nieces and nephew a bunch of board games (as they are finally old enough to appreciate and for me to beat them mercilessly until they learn to emulate my strategies and can go forth and conquer kids their own age). None of them have seen them as of yet (sighs), but they will probably get over to the house by this weekend.
Now everyone likes to ask me what I got for Christmas, which tends to make me sad. I don't expect a lot from people. I'm one of those people who loves Christmas Cards. I think a few heart felt words can't be beat.
I did receive some pretty cool gifts:
A knitted grey scarf, a power tie, and an amazing Norelco shaver from my wonderful girlfriend.
I was given some gift cards for Starbucks and Blockbuster.
And Thomas got me the new Game CD, which was completely unexpected. It was a nice gesture.
I gave my office mates the present of holiday cakes from Juniors (which they devoured today). I have their admiration, who can beat that.
The best gift of all was thank you from the office mates and everyone that I bought gifts for! I love it.
And I finally popped that bottle of champagne with Thomas from when my god-daughter was born! It almost dented the wall (been at the office since September 28th). It was wonderful and packed quite the punch.
I'm sure this will be my last post for the year. May God bless you and keep you near and dear to his heart in the new year.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Spread the Knowledge
I personally think there isn't a moment that a child should not be learning. They have the ability to absorb information at rates that adults dream of. This doesn't mean that learning should be devoid of fun. You can learn while playing basketball, a board game, during just about anything (wink, LOL).
I've just played learning games with my two nieces and my nephew. Most of the conversation was dominated by the eight and ten year old.
The gauntlet of subjects included a very interesting discussion of religion (to which they grilled me), the Civil War, the American Revolution, tectonic plates, etc.
More than anything I find that this learning process is mutually beneficial. I have learned things from children that I haven't from adults. I've also been refreshed on topics that I haven't thought about in years.
My greatest goal is to make sure that I can keep the children open-minded, as I try to be myself. They don't need their minds cluttered with misconceptions from adults. I'd prefer if they are close-minded (as they age), perish the thought, that it results from their own experiences and not those of parents, family members, television, or friends.
I personally think there isn't a moment that a child should not be learning. They have the ability to absorb information at rates that adults dream of. This doesn't mean that learning should be devoid of fun. You can learn while playing basketball, a board game, during just about anything (wink, LOL).
I've just played learning games with my two nieces and my nephew. Most of the conversation was dominated by the eight and ten year old.
The gauntlet of subjects included a very interesting discussion of religion (to which they grilled me), the Civil War, the American Revolution, tectonic plates, etc.
More than anything I find that this learning process is mutually beneficial. I have learned things from children that I haven't from adults. I've also been refreshed on topics that I haven't thought about in years.
My greatest goal is to make sure that I can keep the children open-minded, as I try to be myself. They don't need their minds cluttered with misconceptions from adults. I'd prefer if they are close-minded (as they age), perish the thought, that it results from their own experiences and not those of parents, family members, television, or friends.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Parenting
I'm not a parent. I hope to be some day.
This morning as I rode in the dollar van towards the Utica Avenue train station--the driver had his radio tuned to Air America. I've noticed most of the Caribbean dollar van drivers seem extremely conscious of the political scope of this country and abroad. I always enjoy listening to the discussions that they have with their fellow passengers or just to hear the topics being discussed on the radio.
This morning's topic was about parenting. Specifically, it was about whether bad parents should be required to attend parenting classes by good parents. When you first hear a topic like this--you get sucked in. It sounds logical. Lets see what others think about it.
One caller said that bad parents would be concerned that if they attended such a class they would risk having their children taken away or having to deal with ACS. I though wow that's a valid concern.
Another caller said bad parents are a result of how restrictive this country is in terms of the ability of a parent to discipline a child without ACS being called. He said that back in the days parents were better parents because they didn't have such limits. I thought to myself well that sounds logical. Well the host tore into him. She said what he is doing is called revisionist history. She said there were bad parents 40 years ago. There are bad parents now. And that proof of this is the current crop of bad parents, that are proof that they were taught their bad ways by their bad parents (cyclical).
Another caller said that he noticed good parents are more involved. Again I thought okay, but what does he mean by involved. Well finally I was exercising a bit of caution before I agreed with what seemed like a logical statement. The two hosts both asked what does involved mean. So he goes on to say how he's involved in his child's academic and social life...well I'm sure he thought he was going to get a pat on the back. He goes on to say that bad parents are not involved. I'm mentally cringing at this point (due to the sweeping generalization). He was taken to task. The female host said to him that a good parent can have bad children (something he clearly hadn't considered). She said you could have a child that was "good" until they were 16 and then get caught up in the neighborhood or date a thug and then everything could go downhill. This I definitely agreed with. Parenting is a function of two environments, internal and external. Then you throw in this thing called the rebelliousness of youth and as the host said it is a crap shoot. Parenting is a crap shoot. I completely agreed.
I'll close this post with the final thought that I heard before I left the van. The female host said she has a sister that has children. The children were all good. They've had children that are now good. So she asked her sister for advice for raising her daughter, Cassie. Her sister says all you can do is show them love.
That's simple. Show them love.
It makes me think of parenting like taking care of a plant. You water it, nourish it, make sure it has light and hope that it thrives in its environment. You show it love and attention. Sometimes it might be lush and green. Other times it might look as though it will wither and die. Just never give up on it. That's what being a parent means to me, you'll never give up!
I'm not a parent. I hope to be some day.
This morning as I rode in the dollar van towards the Utica Avenue train station--the driver had his radio tuned to Air America. I've noticed most of the Caribbean dollar van drivers seem extremely conscious of the political scope of this country and abroad. I always enjoy listening to the discussions that they have with their fellow passengers or just to hear the topics being discussed on the radio.
This morning's topic was about parenting. Specifically, it was about whether bad parents should be required to attend parenting classes by good parents. When you first hear a topic like this--you get sucked in. It sounds logical. Lets see what others think about it.
One caller said that bad parents would be concerned that if they attended such a class they would risk having their children taken away or having to deal with ACS. I though wow that's a valid concern.
Another caller said bad parents are a result of how restrictive this country is in terms of the ability of a parent to discipline a child without ACS being called. He said that back in the days parents were better parents because they didn't have such limits. I thought to myself well that sounds logical. Well the host tore into him. She said what he is doing is called revisionist history. She said there were bad parents 40 years ago. There are bad parents now. And that proof of this is the current crop of bad parents, that are proof that they were taught their bad ways by their bad parents (cyclical).
Another caller said that he noticed good parents are more involved. Again I thought okay, but what does he mean by involved. Well finally I was exercising a bit of caution before I agreed with what seemed like a logical statement. The two hosts both asked what does involved mean. So he goes on to say how he's involved in his child's academic and social life...well I'm sure he thought he was going to get a pat on the back. He goes on to say that bad parents are not involved. I'm mentally cringing at this point (due to the sweeping generalization). He was taken to task. The female host said to him that a good parent can have bad children (something he clearly hadn't considered). She said you could have a child that was "good" until they were 16 and then get caught up in the neighborhood or date a thug and then everything could go downhill. This I definitely agreed with. Parenting is a function of two environments, internal and external. Then you throw in this thing called the rebelliousness of youth and as the host said it is a crap shoot. Parenting is a crap shoot. I completely agreed.
I'll close this post with the final thought that I heard before I left the van. The female host said she has a sister that has children. The children were all good. They've had children that are now good. So she asked her sister for advice for raising her daughter, Cassie. Her sister says all you can do is show them love.
That's simple. Show them love.
It makes me think of parenting like taking care of a plant. You water it, nourish it, make sure it has light and hope that it thrives in its environment. You show it love and attention. Sometimes it might be lush and green. Other times it might look as though it will wither and die. Just never give up on it. That's what being a parent means to me, you'll never give up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)