The View From Right Here

If I Were VP of PR for Susan G. Komen.

2012-02-02T21:13:00.004-05:00

In an election year, there are few issues that can rally the whole country under one banner, one color and one cause; but until two days ago, Susan G. Komen for the Cure did just that. Red, blue, green -- it didn't matter. Everyone recognized the pink ribbon and the pink cause, and who could possibly take a stand against an organization whose sole purpose is to find a cure for breast cancer?

Yesterday, we got our answer.

By now, we've all heard that the Susan G. Komen organization will stop their grants that assist Planned Parenthood in performing breast cancer screenings in low-income communities -- and after this announcement, we all chose sides. Interestingly enough, the teams weren't "Cancer Screenings" vs. "No Cancer Screenings," it was "Pro-Life" vs. "Pro-Choice" -- completely overshadowing the mission of SGK.

Even though SGK's response makes this decision look politically motivated, it's our fault for continuing to let it be about the politics of abortion. This isn't an issue about conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice, it's an issue of ensuring all women have access to affordable screenings for cancer -- wherever and however that may be! Being pro-life doesn't mean you have to support this decision; just like being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to never support SGK again.

So, how did we get here. Well, SGK didn't do itself any favors with the way the announcement was made and the fallout was handled -- or rather, not handled. I have to wonder, who is doing PR for SGK? It's a massive organization that manages billions of dollars, and while they don't find themselves needing reputation management on a regular basis, it's surprising that their team mishandled this situation so intensely.

So, if I were the VP of PR for SGK, here's what my strategy for making this announcement would be:

A year ago, when Nancy G. Brinker (president and CEO of SGK, as well as the sister of Susan G. Komen) launched an investigation into where grant money from SGK was really going, and how to increase the impact of those funds, I'd start to pay attention. Theoretically, I would have done work publicizing those grants and what they were used for, so I should have a clue as to which organizations might be affected, and how pulling funding might look.
Once a master list of organizations/areas losing funds was created, I'd pinpoint which, if any, might fight back for their own gain.
Once I saw Planned Parenthood on that list, I wouldn't underestimate their ability to rally the troops, and I would put my focus on how to balance their campaign against me.
Since we know PP tends to serve low-income communities, we'd have to have a plan that would include getting every single woman who got her mammogram at PP last year a mammogram somewhere else this year. The plan would also have to educate women in clear, simple language where else to go for an affordable mammogram. Or perhaps we have a Breast Health Bus that's wrapped in pink and travels city to city giving mammograms and teaching self breast exams.
Nail down our messaging and remind SGK employees that all tweets, blogs, updates and posts MUST BE ON MESSAGE -- and that message is: We are committed to eradicating breast cancer in every home on every block in every city in every state. No woman will be without a mammogram this year just because she can't afford one. We are bringing the SGK mission on the road through face-to-face meetings with women in rural and low-income areas to not only take care of their annual screening, but to ensure they are being properly educated on breast health.
Anticipate the backlash from the media and PP, in particular because of a recent hire that will undoubtedly add fuel to the political fire.
Come out with our story first -- and that story would be this: We are bringing the SGK mission on the road through face-to-face meetings with women in rural and low-income areas to not only take care of their annual screening, but to ensure they are being properly educated on breast health. To do that, SGK will spend more than a million dollars (or whatever number was decided on) focusing on educating women who don't have a primary care physician and often don't receive their routine health screenings.

In the past, we have given grants to other organizations to help us on our mission and to expand our reach. But as the message of SGK continues to spread, it's important to understand first-hand what women know, and what they don't, about breast cancer. Being in the field will give SGK a clear look at how to best meet the needs of all women.
The press release would also include messaging about the relationship with PP: To ensure the grants given by SGK have the greatest impact, SGK recently began examining the grant application process, as well as how grant money is used by the recipients. The study revealed that while all SGK partners use the grants for breast health and cancer awareness, some partners face challenges that could overshadow the mission of SGK.

As a result, we decided to tweak the application guidelines, as follows:
(List of all changes here, including, "Applicants under investigation by local, state or federal entities will not be eligible to receive grant money.")

These changes affect (x number) of our partners, including Planned Parenthood (insert others here). Grants that have already been dispersed will remain with the organizations they were given to, but affected organizations will not be eligible to re-apply for grants until all investigations conclude. While we rely heavily on our local partners to help spread the mission of SGK, this decision was reached in order to ensure the integrity of SGK and to clearly advance our mission of eradicating breast cancer.

(End with reinforced mission, restated message, SGK information -- and scene!)
Since we'd already anticipated that PP would use the announcement as a fundraiser, we'd launch our own social media fundraising campaign. Something that piggybacks on the SGK tour to reach out to low-income women. Announce what it costs to provide a mammogram on our Breast Health Bus, and ask supporters to contribute enough to provide a single mammogram for a woman who otherwise couldn't afford it. Remind followers how many women have been screened and saved as a result of SGK funding in low-income areas. Rally the troops -- breast cancer is everywhere! We have to help women who need our help the most!
Videos are a must -- and I'd have Nancy G. Brinker on film, but nothing like she was in the SGK response earlier today. Her hair would be down, she'd be in a white V-neck and she would be sitting anywhere but a library. She'd talk about her sister, and why ensuring low-income women have access to breast cancer screenings is a vital part of SGK's mission.

That's it! This is my thrown-together, un-researched and un-funded PR plan for SGK. Could this have stopped the intense scrutiny they now face? Hopefully. If nothing else, at least they'd have a plan.

The Lesson JoePa Left.

2012-01-23T10:00:00.002-05:00

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ~Edmund Burke

This quote is most often paraphrased as: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing.

This weekend, college sports and the game of football lost a legend. The late Joe Paterno, 85, spent his career leading Penn State to winning seasons and championships, players to graduation and the NFL, and the NCAA to higher standards.

If the cancer that killed him had taken him six months ago, it would be those things we'd remember about him.

But in November, a scandal tainted the beloved coach's reputation -- leading to his quick and unceremonious release from Penn State, along with the long-time president of the university and a score of other leaders in State College, Penn.

The cause? Doing nothing.

As rumors of JoePa's death filled cyberspace Friday evening, the question of his legacy again surfaced in full force. Some say he should be remembered for what he did prior to the mistake that lead to his demise. Others can't look past the role JoePa played in allowing a child molester to find and take advantage of prey at the university he loved, at the university that made him the winningest coach in college football history.

At the end of the day, JoePa made more than a single mistake. He made a choice to limit his involvement in a sad and sick situation. He made a choice to give a long-time friend the benefit of the doubt. But who wouldn't?

And that's just it. That is his legacy now. While his decisions created that legacy, I'm willing to bet it's not the one he thought he would leave -- it's not the legacy of academic and athletic excellence, the legacy of building an unstoppable program, the legacy of 250 pro athletes molded by his coaching. And that got me thinking: What if everything good I have done in my life could be wiped out by one, single, horrible choice? What if all the good things I've done as a friend, a daughter a colleague, are all overshadowed by a moment of anger, weakness, disappointment or failure? What if I give the wrong person the benefit of the doubt?

That's my challenge. That's my lesson from JoePa. It may have resulted from a fall from grace, but it also may be the most important lesson he leaves us -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing.

The right to never be uncomfortable? I don't think so.

2011-08-05T18:36:00.001-04:00

I wrote this post on July 25, but am delayed in posting. Still, I think it's relevant.

Did you know that a few short weeks ago, some of your basic Constitutional liberties were stripped from you, not unlike the dignity you leave behind after every TSA screening? No? You mean you didn't feel the Earth shift on its axis as the first gay couples in New York state took their marriage vows and proclaimed their commitment to the world? Well then, you're not alone, because I didn't either.

You wouldn't know that, though, if you read this from the New York Times. All it took was a short 24 hours before New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms filed suit against the state alleging the state's legislature violated "Constitutional liberties."

According to the New York Times, "The complaint, which is to be filed in State Supreme Court in Livingston County ... states: “The plaintiffs in this case seek to preserve not only marriage as the union of one woman to one man, but also our constitutional liberties by acting as a check on an out-of-control political process that was willing to pass a bill regardless of how many laws and rules it violated.”

Let's be honest here, the plaintiff in this case, the Rev. Jason J. McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom, is not concerned about the state legislature letting the bill "age" three days; he's concerned with having the bill overturned rendering the hundreds of marriages already performed null and void -- and it's not because of "Constitutional liberties," it's because of bigotry and ignorance that the majority of the country doesn't support, so McGuire needs to throw up a Hail Mary about violations of Constitutional liberties. McGuire is wrong, but he's not alone.

As of late, any time a public servant attempts to pass legislation, a roadblock is thrown up, usually in the form of the phrase: "This violates our Constitutionally protected rights of [insert vaguely related Constitutional amendment here]." So why do we keep hearing this phrase? It's simple -- collectively, Americans have a very limited relationship with the Constitution, and you know what? On one hand, that's the way it should be. On the other, it leaves open the possibility to be mislead and lied to by people with another agenda.

By not understanding exactly what our Constitution says, but listening to wild political talk show hosts rant about liberties being denied at every turn -- we do a disservice to ourselves. If you actually believe that your Constitutional rights as a heterosexual have been infringed upon because some strangers a few states away got married this weekend -- you're incorrect. Just like if you actually believe that your marriage means anything less because some strangers a few states away got married this weekend, you're wrong.

And to make sure we're clear: Paying taxes does not violate Constitutional liberties. Background checks before weapons purchases do not violate Constitutional liberties. Being a Republican in a country with a Democratic president is not a violation of Constitutional liberties.

Crying wolf about violations of Constitutional liberties is just as harmful as the boy who cried wolf in the children's fairy tale -- at some point, no one will listen when an actual violation happens.

So what's good about not having a close relationship with the Constitution? It means that we live in a country that allows us to live without fear that we're violating some obscure, arcane law. It means that for many of us, our rights are generally held in the highest regard, which is why we're not required to memorize the Constitution as a means of survival in the United States. It means the Constitution is working.

We have lost perspective about what our Constitution actually gives us and what it does not. Since its inception almost 300 years ago, we have elected public servants to enact new laws and write new legislation that enhances what the Constitution outlines as basic and essential. We've added new amendments to the Constitution, of course, which are designed to be seen as basic and essential, too. These rights give us the rights to vote, speak freely, publish without censorship and take up arms if the government turns on us. What it does not guarantee is your satisfaction with every administration and every legislative decision that passes through the White House.

So, now it's time to grow up and take a dose of reality: Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean that your Constitutional liberties are being violated.

Got it? Good.

The "F" word.

2011-03-16T21:32:00.003-04:00

You guessed it...feminism. It's a dirty word, right? Well, if not in the traditional sense, it has a pretty negative connotation that evokes images of butch lesbians, man haters and bra burners who can't appreciate anything a good dose of testosterone has to offer.

I've written about this topic before; but today, a news story prompted me to revisit it with a new perspective.

There's an organization gaining momentum and membership on college campuses throughout the country ... the Network of enlightened Women (NeW). NeW focuses on conservative values, both socially and politically. However, they're not gaining popularity because of their political leanings; instead, their emphasis on "conservative principles" and their annual "Gentlemen's Showcase" is padding their membership registry.

As I clicked through their website today and read a few news articles about the group and their mission, I was shocked that I wasn't turned off by their outlook (must remember to keep an open mind...must remember to keep an open mind...). Actually, what I found most offensive (although, not surprising) were the peanut gallery comments under each article, particularly those responding to the "Gentlemen's Showcase," which calls for the recognition of true gentlemen on college campuses. Here are some of the prerequisites:

* A gentleman opens your door for you, without expecting anything in return.
* A gentleman shovels his neighbor’s car out of the snow.
* A gentleman helps an older woman carry her groceries.
* A gentleman comes alongside you as a leader, not to demand submission, but to earn respect by giving love.
* A gentleman treats you like the lady you are.
* A gentleman is confident, but not conceited.

Most of the responses were about the need for women to "make up their minds!!!" ... "can they open their own doors, or not?" It's a silly question, really, considering many people with even limited capacities are able to open their own doors. But I understand the sentiment behind the question, and that's what I'd like to address.

I consider myself an independent woman who does not need someone else to take care of me financially or otherwise. That's to say, I am able to pay my own bills, I have a support system in place and I am able to "fend for myself," for lack of a better term. I also believe that I'm not an exception, and that any woman could do exactly what I do, if she wanted to. These things, I think, make me a feminist.

However, I look forward to the day when I find a man who enhances my life. I don't have deficits that need to be filled by someone else (well, aside from my accounting skills), and I wouldn't want to be with someone who needed me as a "filler" for his inadequacies. I imagine that the man I end up with will share my outlook -- separately, we're just fine; together, things are even better.

I also think that he and I will encourage one another to work toward goals and fulfill dreams, both personally and professionally, individually and collectively. Whether we decide to both work outside of the home, or for one of us to stay home with the kids, it will be a mutual decision reached after discussion and consideration.

If we have sons, we'll teach them to open doors and allows ladies to go first, because that is the gentlemanly thing to do. We'll also teach our daughters to hold open doors for the people crossing the threshold behind them, because that's the respectful thing to do.

We'll teach our sons to respect women by believing that they are every bit as capable as men. We'll teach our daughters to live up to those expectations and to respect the ideas and opinions of men, as they would anyone else.

At the end of the day, as far as I can tell, feminism is about respect. NeW's list makes a very important assertion that I find incredibly interesting -- a gentlemen does things for others without the expectation of receiving something in return. I think that simple concept is what spurred women to revolt throughout the 20th Century -- and even to the present -- because for too long, it was about women getting "respect" from men through the opening of doors and pulling out chairs, but being expected to give more than those small signs of respect in return. Actually, chivalry was the only sign of respect bestowed upon women, since their intellect and other abilities were not appreciated or acknowledged.

It's also interesting that they define a gentleman as someone who "comes alongside you as a leader, not to demand submission." Regardless of the roles a man and a woman play in their home, it's about a partnership. Feminism isn't about eliminating the role of the housewife, it's about eliminating the automatic job description of women as "wife, mother, cook."

The feminist movement didn't spring from women who were just bored of being at home. It was fostered by women who were not given respect by their male counterparts; and who in return were expected to submit. It was cultivated by women who appreciated the opening of doors, but not the assumption that they were incapable of doing that -- or anything else -- on their own. And it was carried on by women who had made it to the workplace, but who, based solely on their gender, weren't given the chance to succeed.

The feminist movement was not a revolt against gentlemen, because gentlemen give respect, as well as work to earn it. The feminist movement was a demand for a change in the mindset of men who mistakenly believed that a woman's acceptance of chivalry was really an act of submission, and that the act of opening a door warranted whatever he wanted in return.

It's no secret that politically I'll probably never see eye-to-eye with the women of NeW. However, I appreciate the effort to remind all people that respect is the most basic, but most important, thing we can give to one another.

Musings in a Minute.

2011-03-10T23:02:00.001-05:00

I wish I could churn out a full blog post daily about my topic-du-jour. Even when I'm not able to come up with a few hundred words, I always have thoughts about the headlines and the issues, which I still would like to share with you. So, let's give this a try:

Musings in a Minute:
Different party. Same story.
I think if we learn anything from the situation in Wisconsin, it should be that the November high tide of Republican wins wasn't an outcry for conservative values or Republican ideals, it was an outcry for a government that listens. Obama learned the hard way, and now Scott Walker is, too.

We all have a bottom line.
Speaking of Wisconsin, instead of promising corporate cronies that they'll strong-arm unions out of the way, the GOP should encourage a capitalistic approach to workers, as well. If you don't want your workers to unionize, don't give them a reason to. It's silly to think that only CEOs and upper-level managers care about bottom lines...the bottom line is everyone has bills to pay, mouths to feed and retirement goals. Heck, everyone wants the American Dream! It's becoming clear, though, that the real American Dream is only achieved by businesses and on the backs of the middle class.

The real way to stop abortions.
If all the money and effort spent trying to: pass legislation mandating doctors lie to women who want an abortion by saying it increases the risk of breast cancer; pass legislation mandating a woman receive a vaginal ultrasound before committing to an abortion; pass legislation mandating women who have miscarriages confirm to the government that the miscarriage was indeed an accident; pass legislation barring something that already is banned by the Hyde Amendment (Federal funds paying for abortions) was instead put toward legitimate pregnancy-prevention campaigns and sex education in schools, there wouldn't be a need for the debate any more.

Down the rabbit hole.
If the Tea Party really is all about fiscal responsibility, then Rand Paul really should be backing efforts to improve efficiency standards in appliances. After all, those lightbulbs that last 10 years, don't radiate heat and cost next-to-nothing are a pretty good deal. Oh wait...that would be infringing on our rights to be fiscally irresponsible. Rand, don't tread on me and my low energy costs or the companies I'm counting on to help shrink my carbon footprint.

Irish terrorists aren't as scary as Muslim ones, right?
It's ignorance and fear that encourages people like Representative Peter King and his supporters to call for hearings aimed at uncovering the root of Muslim extremism and terrorism in America. However, their goal isn't to actually find answers about the cause of the problem, it's to try and bring the rest of us into their misguided and prejudiced fold. This isn't news, though, it's an equation we've seen over and over again throughout our history: ignorance + fear = hysteria followed by public humiliation.

I think, as a whole, we're smarter than King wants to give us credit for. We know the "Christians" in the Westboro Baptist Church don't represent the Christianity many observe. We know Sarah Palin isn't the mold for all future Republicans. And we know that most Muslim parents don't raise children hoping they'll become terrorists in the name of Islam.

Like the Salem Witch Trials, the McCarthy Trials and the 1940s work camps we sent the Japanese to...this, too, shall pass. I think the most important question here is whether or not we'll actually learn something this time.

Collectively Benefiting.

2011-03-01T11:24:00.003-05:00

For a long time, I've wanted to share my view on unions here, but haven't felt comfortable broaching the subject, as many of my friends and family members have benefited, and continue to benefit, from union membership.

Historically, unions have served a great purpose. During the industrial revolution, people worked for next-to-nothing for hours on end, with no regulations on factory owners to keep things safe, as well as efficient. It's well-documented that children lost fingers and limbs as they climbed between large, cumbersome machines to play mechanic. Women working on large, mechanized looms often were scalped if their hair wasn't wound tightly at the back of their heads.

We can thank unions for the minimum wage, vacations days, annual salary increases and weekends.

But then the government stepped in and turned many of these concepts into law. Unions then had what they wanted, so they started going after more.

As a child of Michigan, I've seen the parody unions -- particularly the auto unions -- have become. It wasn't long ago that Detroit was booming, and without a college degree, you could stand on the line, be assigned a single task to perform for eight hours a day for 20 years, then retire at 50 with full pay and benefits.

Must be nice.

It also famously came unraveled. As the rest of the state shut down because the auto industry caved, unions stubbornly held on for their workers, refusing cuts or concessions while everyone else lost everything. It's all moot now, since even the final holdouts aren't getting what they were promised.

It seems like along the way, unions forgot about fostering a sense of goodwill between their members and the people who employ them. Now, "union" has become a dirty word, but not just in the private sector where they seem to defy all our capitalistic tendencies. Now, it's public sector unions who are front and center, taking on battle after battle.

I'm a bundle of contradictions on this topic, because I feel like there's wrongdoing on both sides here. I'll try to state my opinions as articulately as possible:

1. If you want to become wealthy, do not go into a profession where your salary is determined by tax payers and the government. Also, get a college degree. If you train to be a professional, you should be rewarded for doing so. If you don't go to school and work as an unskilled laborer, you cannot expect to be compensated in the same way as someone who must maintain a level of education for their job.

2. No one should ever expect an annual increase in salary. However, if you work hard and do your job successfully, you should be allowed to ask for more money commensurate with that experience.

3. You should never expect any else to pay your way. If you want healthcare, you should pay for it. If you want to retire, you have to fund it.

4. As a capitalist society, we cannot expect people to work for nothing. Every job is incentivized, and public jobs are no exception. If we want good teachers to help mold our children, we have to recruit them. If this means we have to offer them greater salaries up front so they can fund their own health care and retirement, while maintaining a middle class lifestyle (the standard for professionals), then so be it.

5. Private sector workers expect certain things from their employers. No one would take a job that permanently requires 80-hour work weeks for a $20,000 salary without the promise of a few perks. As employers of public employees, we cannot expect them to do that either.

6. If you are not good at your job, you should be let go, regardless of how long you've served. There should always be incentive to improve.

7. Your employer should not be able to let you go without cause, and should provide support and protection for you against legal action relating to your job, provided you work according to all rules and guidelines.

8. Every worker should have the right to take action if their workplace doesn't live up to certain standards. However, I have to be realistic and realize that as a first-year employee of a company, my standards must differ greatly from the president of my company.

So -- where does this leave your left-leaning, pro-business friend? At odds with the governors of Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, etc. Not because they're trying to make cuts and balance budgets -- tough decisions in tough times -- and not because they're anti-union, because I'm certainly not a union advocate -- but because the rights of workers do exists, and that includes the right to collectively bargain.

I don't see, at this point in my career, the need for me to ever be a member in a union. However, I'll always reserve the right to rally for myself. I also know that in the private sector, it's important to many companies to create an environment where workers are valued, and therefore, more productive and loyal. This will probably always work in my favor.

It worries me, though, that states now are trying to limit the rights of workers, all in the name of budget balancing. It's not unions and pensions that have kept states in the red, and stripping workers' rights will not get them back in the black. It will make things easier for businesses and local governments, though, to re-set standards.

Do you remember the mid-term elections just a few short months ago? Do you recall the news stories about Chamber of Commerce funds paying for elections with millions of dollars from phantom donors? Do you see a connection with what's happening today? You should.

The Chamber has no interest in workers' rights because that costs money. While it would be nice to believe that all companies, school boards and cities would provide fair, safe and equal workplaces beyond a minimum standard if there was no one to oversee those things -- it's naive. What's important is the bottom line.

The largest contributors to Democratic campaigns are unions. The largest to Republican campaigns -- the Chamber/businesses. Should it be that way? No. However, since that's where we sit, do the Chamber and its pocketed politicians have a vested interest in shutting down unions and big Democratic contributions? Yes.

As you consider the subject -- recognize that it's one that affects more than unionized workers. This is about you and your employer, too.

Throughout this recession, our companies have started to understand how to get by with less, without sacrificing productivity. That's how we adapt and how our economy evolves. But if you've been asked to step up and give more than your employer has given back to you during this time, all in the name of being lucky to be employed...be aware that things aren't going to change as we rebound. A new standard has been set. If you're now doing the work that three people were doing 10 years ago...where did those other two salaries, benefits packages and incentive plans go? To the bottom line. Of course, you can ask for more, but if your boss no longer needs to stand up for your rights, and no longer is incentivized to provide you with raises, vacation days or weekends, you'll wonder how you got to where you are. Working more for less. How did that happen? It's starting right now.

Russian Roulette.

2011-01-10T21:34:00.002-05:00

Lately, it seems like the topics I discuss in this blog are a little redundant. However, until history stops repeating itself, I can't stop repeating myself. Also, revisiting issues gives me the opportunity to reevaluate my beliefs, which I encourage everyone to do as often as possible.

The only dark cloud over my recent Jamaican vacation was the shootings in Arizona on Saturday. A horrific tragedy perpetrated by a sick individual took the lives of six, and leaves 14 more hanging in the balance. I've said this before, and I still whole-heartedly believe it: we are not a nation of vigilante justice. There is no reason why Jared L. Loughner should ever have taken the law into his own hands...but he did, and now people are looking to place blame.

It's rare that I'll stand in defense of Sarah Palin and her ultra-conservative comrades whose political beliefs make my head spin; but in reality, their brand of gun-toting nationalism had nothing to do with Loughner's decision to play God. From the sounds of it, Loughner is a sick individual who has been sick for years.

While I don't think the actions of one can define the many (again, I've said this before in support of religious tolerance), I think tragedies like this give us the opportunity to reevaluate and determine what culpability we have in the actions of our fellow Americans.

After Saturday's attack, quiet rumblings from the left directed blows at the far right, claiming their anger instigated Loughner. I disagree. However, I do think there's reason to believe that pushing an agenda filled with anger and rhetoric is dangerous...from either side. Instilling fear (and Rush Limbaugh can call it the "truth" all he wants, everyone else knows it's fear) is not the way to promote change. Instilling fear and spreading intolerance is not the way to move forward. Disseminating hatred is not the way to prove that we're the best country in the world.

Other fingers pointed to the NRA. These might be directed in a more appropriate direction. Here's the thing: in Arizona, gun laws are basically non-existent. Fine. However, can't we all agree that selling guns to anyone who wants them is an abuse of the Second Amendment??? Loughner was not acting in a militia (which, really, is what our forefathers intended the Second Amendment to protect), he was acting as a single person, rebelling against one member of the United States' government (assuming he didn't know Judge John M. Roll was in attendance and intended him to be the recipient of a fatal bullet). It's reminiscent of Seung-Hui Cho who in 2007 massacred a number of his peers at Virginia Tech. He was a sick man, yet he was able to buy weapons that could cause a great amount of damage in a short amount of time. The NRA, while not responsible for the people who buy their product, should push for legislation that keeps firearms out of the hands of mentally deranged people, rather than pushing for ineffective or no legislation of firearms at all.

I don't personally understand the interest in civilians owning assault weapons that fire multiple rounds in a single second. However, I'm assuming there's some kind of thrill associated with ownership of such weapons for an avid collector. Fine. However, why can't there be background checks and evaluations of the people looking to buy these dangerous weapons to ensure that the people getting them are people who understand their power and don't intend to use that power on innocent people?

Of course, this isn't fail proof, but it's better than what we're doing now.

For those concerned about the breach of privacy this creates...get over it. We live in a world where technology is constantly evolving and danger is lurking within the darkest recesses of the next mastermind. It's time we demand with our voices and votes -- not our weapons -- that our tax dollars go toward protecting the most important tenets granted to us by our governing documents: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To keep protecting those who wish to strip that away from the rest of us is nothing more than a game of Russian roulette.

Room for Debate

2011-01-03T21:38:00.001-05:00

If you don't read the Room for Debate blog on NYTimes.com, you should! It's one of my favorite blogs to read because the topics are hot-button and salient, and the postings offer a range of perspectives on each issue.

I often comment on these blogs, and today, I felt compelled to comment on "A Showdown Over Healthcare." The topic is "Watching the New Congress," and is about what the bellwether tests will be for the incoming Republican congressmen.

Here's what I had to say about the issue of ultra-conservative, Tea Party-endorsed congressmen repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Health Care Reform:

"My greatest concern with the next Tea Party-endorsed congress is that there seems to be a lot of talk about repealing laws created during the past two years -- regardless of how many of those came down to the wire during the final weeks of the lame duck session.

I'm concerned that we won't get anywhere during this session if our new legislature spends all its time looking back on Democratic legislation and attempts to make it all disappear, rather than looking ahead and deciding where we are going next. Talk about politics as usual...this is the epitome of it.

Further, Tea Partiers' push to repeal HCR is another example of the greatest deficit for the fledgling party: they have a lot of ideas about what needs to be eliminated, but no insight in to what needs to be put in place. What legislation will the Tea Party offer up as an alternative to HCR to ensure every citizen has the ability to find affordable coverage? Sure, we've lasted for this long without overcoming that challenge, but why should we remain complacent? Well, we shouldn't, there is no better time than now to develop a sustainable and effective health care system that accomodates everyone.

All congressmen should go into this session with the same goal: to move our country forward and create legislation that advances that effort."

When you're going to the polls. Vote Progressive.

2010-10-30T08:06:00.001-04:00

Yes, I'm serious. For conservative readers, please don't let the title prevent you from reading the rest of this piece, because I promise my point is not to push any liberal agenda. I promise.

I find it interesting that to a large segment of the Right, "progressive" has become a dirty word. Why? Shouldn't we all be trying to make progress by moving ahead and making things better? Regardless of what kind of policies you think will make things better, isn't the point to go forward?

While I agree that we can only move forward within the parameters defined by our Constitution, attempting to backtrack to only those fundamentals -- as proposed by the Tea Party, for instance -- would prove to be an epic failure. We change, we grow, we evolve. So does our government, so should our policies. We have a tendency to look back, nostalgia clouding our vision, and think that everything "back then" was fine. When the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution; when Reagan was in office; when Clinton ran the free world...we think this way because we're desperate. We're desperate for things to get better, and so we're grasping for a time when things were. But those days are gone, and we must move on. We must look toward the future and decide how to proceed from here.

The solutions and policies that were successful in another time may not necessarily translate to the same success rate today. All else is not the same, so who knows how mammoth figures of the past, and their most notable accomplishments, would fare in today's climate.

In order to be successful, we must be dynamic. We must be able to maneuver the ebbs and flows of politics, society, tensions, etc. Falling backwards, however, is not an option. It will not produce results.

We should look to the past for guidance; to our Constitution for ground rules; to successful leaders for inspiration. But turning back the clock is not feasible, and attempting to do so will not work.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... No one has the right to hate.

2010-10-08T09:14:00.001-04:00

While reading my posts, I hope you've noticed a consistent theme -- a staunch intolerance for ignorance and hate.

Again and again, I've written in defense of free speech, but not when it comes to disseminating hatred. I stand by that, and always will.

In Michigan, we've had the First Amendment thrown in our face by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell, who has taken up a crusade against University of Michigan Student Body President Chris Armstrong.

Hiding behind the First Amendment's regard for free speech, Shirvell, an employee of the state -- and of Michigan residents -- has used his blog to speak out against Armstrong's "radical homosexual agenda," which includes fighting against tuition hikes and promoting the allowance of dormitory cohabitation.

Clearly these are both homosexual-centric issues. Not.

In his attacks, Shirvell has compared Armstrong to a Nazi, and has labeled the student leader as Satan's representation on campus.

In short, Shirvell should be ashamed of himself. As a graduate of U of M, Shirvell says he is merely an alumnus voicing concern for his alma mater. Factor in his job, though, and the concern quickly escalates into conflict of interest.

As an assistant attorney general, Shirvell is paid by the state of Michigan (read: paid by your tax dollars) to represent the state in legal matters. This means you pay him to represent you in a court of law.

On Friday, Shirvell announced he would take a leave of absence in response to the national attention the feud has gained. Though, this is only after Armstrong filed a restraining order against Shirvell, who apparently has a nasty habit of stalking Armstrong under the guise of "protesting."

What astounds me, is that Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has given Shirvell a public slap on the wrist, but nothing more. He attributes Shirvell's actions to poor judgment, and backs the statements with -- you guessed it -- freedom of speech.

If there were any legitimacy to the claims of steady tuition and cohabitation being part of some radical homosexual agenda, I don't think Shirvell would bother me so much. However, his rallying cry sounds less like fighting for the university, and more like homophobia to me. It begs the question; can Shirvell be trusted to represent any resident of Michigan in a court of law? Should Shirvell advance his career up the judicial ladder, could he give every defendent the fair trial they're promised by our governing documents? I doubt it.

Shirvell is going to come out of this looking like a psychotic person -- an alum who is now banned from campus and has no common sense. Cox will continue to look like a weenie for essentially doing nothing. Armstrong, however, will come out of this miles ahead of anyone. Not only has he remained almost mute on the topic, with the exception of a speech to his colleagues in the student government, he's remained poised and gained a lot of attention for it. Who knows, maybe Shirvell has inadvertently given Armstrong a boost in the job search arena.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...freedom of speech does not give us the right to hate. We so often forget that freedom of speech is a privilege, one not many people are fortunate to have. But abuse of the First Amendment does not conform to what it was written to really protect -- our ability to speak out without fear of punishment by our government. Shirvell has the right to publicly disagree with Armstrong, and even campaign against the changes proposed by the student. Shirvell does not have the right, though, to libel or slander Armstrong without punishment.

Battling at the front lines, and at home.

2010-09-11T10:15:00.000-04:00

For the last couple of years, I've posted on 9/11, but I wanted to avoid it on this, the ninth anniversary. There's nothing I can tell you about that day that you don't know or remember, and there's probably no need for me to remind you of it at all, because it's seared into your memory, just like it is in mine.

Then yesterday, I got to thinking about the residuals left from that day. Not just on our memories and on our feeling of safety, the long security lines at airports and the word "terrorism." I got to thinking about what the perpetrators of that crime really took from us, and the havoc they've caused since. I can't help thinking that they've won.

There's a very clear us-versus-them mentality prevalent in our culture right now, particularly toward the Islamic community both here and overseas. It's a culture of fear, and of misunderstanding, one that I imagine Osama bin Laden had been attempting to create when he and his cronies hatched their evil plan to stain America forever. Rather than re-bridge that gap, and clearly define who we loathe (al Qaeda/terrorists), we've allowed the divide to widen, and we've allowed for more hatred to seep into our daily existence.

Ramadan, an Islamic holiday similar to Catholic Lent, ended last night. Traditionally, the end of the month-long fast is celebrated with Eid al-Fitr, a three-day celebration, which this year happens to coincide with September 11.

On NPR yesterday, an imam from Southern California discussed his congregation's plan to not celebrate the holiday today, the anniversary. He said the members of his mosque were scared, their sacred space had been vandalized and it seemed inappropriate to celebrate on such a sad day. Part of me agrees with him, and commends him for altering their celebratory plans in the name of sensitivity. The other part of me wonders, would my church ever move Easter in order to make another group of people more comfortable? Should we, or they, ever have to do that?

I've already blogged about my feelings on the new Islamic center in Manhattan, but it's another perfect example. Now Donald Trump is offering to buy the place, so that the group will move the center a few blocks further away. What difference will that make? The scar in the earth, and in us, left from September 11, 2001, will forever be a scar, and that's ok. We should never forget what happened on that day, and how it made us feel, and what's been sacrificed since. What we should not do, though, is prevent the wound from scarring over. We cannot leave it open, preventing us from celebrating what makes us as a culture -- unique. There are few other places that openly accept and fight for freedom and tolerance, and we should fight for those rights. We should practice what we preach. We should recognize the horrible deeds of a few, are not representative of the whole.

When Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla. announced a Qur'an burning last week, I was confused. As I listened to the story as it unfolded, I became more confused. What was the point? Condemn a whole religion, one of the world's largest, and burn its sacred text in the name of remembrance and honor? There is no honor in that. Burning Bibles, Qur'ans, Torahs, or any other religious text, is hardly exemplifying free speech. It's promoting hatred. It's promoting fear. It's promoting ignorance. It's intentionally trying to hurt someone else -- and that's not Christianity at all.

True patriotism, and true honor of what's been given up since September 11, 2001, is not eliminating a culture or a religion. It's celebrating what makes this country unique by not giving in to fear and to hate. We should never forget, we should always be vigilent, we should always honor those sacrificed. We do that by not letting terrorism win...not on the front lines, and not here.

There's something about 20-somethings.

2010-08-30T17:54:00.008-04:00

The New York Times Magazine article “What Is It About 20-Somethings?” came at a perfect time for me. I’ve struggled for years, like many of my peers, to balance the expectations of family, school, teachers and self, with the desire to be happy and successful.

After watching my father struggle through professional life on a career path that did not satisfy him, I became determined to not fall into that same rut. It made – and still makes – me paranoid to make a career choice, for fear I’ll be stuck thirty years down the road, idly going through the motions (I should note that he’s since switched career paths, and seems to have found something that truly piques his interest and makes the daily grind much more bearable).

Maybe it wouldn’t be so daunting for me if America had a European model for daily living – one where work does not dominate life, but is seen as a means for financial stability, not necessarily financial freedom. Across the pond, quality of life is found during long lunches and weeks-upon-weeks of family vacation days. Why? Because even with all that time off, things still function, and get this, thrive.

To be successful here, you have to work endless hours for pay that if you’re lucky, will cover your student loan payment. In the year following college graduation, I had two full- time jobs, both requiring significantly more than 40 hours per week, and both earning me less than $20,000 per year.

Why take them? Well, what else could I do? Beggars can’t be choosers, and I had to choose. Employers fully take advantage of this reality, especially in a weak economy, knowing they can offer salaries instead of hourly wages, skirting the minimum wage. What about firms offering ultra-competitive fellowship programs, mandating two solid years of work with no vacation days, and without the promise of more than a letter of recommendation and an edge on the graduating classes coming up behind you?

Don’t like it? No problem, someone else will gladly take either, because an edge and a few hundred dollars a month is better than nothing. And nothing really is the alternative right now.

Further, to get that low-paying, high-stress job, we need internships (yes, multiple, which equal a few years of experience all added up, but don't count toward actual work experience on the job hunt), extra-curriculars, jobs, good credit, no “incriminating” Facebook photos, letters of recommendation, a good driving history and perhaps a website to highlight all of these things which offers digital copies of our resumes (which can’t just be Times font with bullet points, because who wants to look at that?). It’s literally exhausting to be a 20-something, a time we’ve been told is the Mecca of life, if you will. A time to make money, have fun and build a life. Maybe for our parents, but not us.

Currently, I have a good job – not my dream job, but a good one – with a salary that should be more-than-enough to get me by. Factor in bills, a car payment, loans, rent and insurance, that salary doesn’t go far. Such is life, a reality I’ve accepted. I also can finally contribute to my 401(k), something I’ve been eagerly waiting to do for a few years now. It’s sad, really, that in order to survive retirement, it has to be one of the first things I think about as I enter the working world. By all accounts, it will take millions of dollars for each member of my generation to comfortably retire, and I’ve been worried since graduation that the year I spent working for next-to-nothing, and being unable to contribute to a plan would hinder me down the road. So now, I’m contributing 10%, looking to make up for lost time, and earn the happy little bonus known as the employer match.

So, what next? Marriage?

Also facing 20-somethings is the reality of “settling down,” probably one of the first social norms we observe, not only thanks to Disney’s depiction of Prince Charming, but also from the basic family unit we’re born into. What has changed, though, is the timeline in which this has to happen. It took until I was 22 for me to realize that if I wasn’t married by age 24 (the age my mom had gotten married), that I would be okay. Now that I’m 24, I can’t imagine being married anyway, but I still sometimes fight a nagging feeling of failure and unrest that I haven’t reached that milestone, and that there’s a chance I never will. I don’t mean that in a self-deprecating way … I mean, there is a legitimate chance I will never feel ready, or will never find someone I want to commit to like that. It’s kind of scary.

Finding that person is a whole other story, with more people feeling like I do, unready to settle down, and unrushed to do so. Meeting someone organically is difficult, especially with workplaces creating boundaries for relationships between colleagues (possibly the ones we spend the most time with), cyberspace keeping baggage onboard way longer than is healthy, a shift in the mental aspects of casual sex, but the emotional and biological aspects staying the same, and self-centeredness ruling our lives.

Then there’s the balancing act of a relationship, the compromise. It would have been nearly impossible to maneuver the last year while constantly considering the needs of someone else, possibly requiring me to stay in one place longer than I would like, or with very little chance of creating professional and financial stability for myself. Then again, the tumult of the last year I think would have been more bearable if I had had someone to share it with. Someone who would offer unconditional love, support and guidance (aside from my parents), as well as companionship on each move I made. That’s actually been the toughest part this year, being lonely without anyone to share these life changes with. Again, it’s made phone calls home a daily occurrence, sometimes for nothing more than a chat because, to be honest, I like to talk, and they’ll answer the phone.

My parents, the parents of a confused 20-something. It’s something else I struggle with, daily, actually. There’s a constant friction between my desire to make my parents proud of the independent me, while still keeping them close and involved. Yes, involved. I not only love my parents in the obligatory child/parent way, I actually like them, and have a hard time balancing our adult-to-adult relationship. I know for a fact, they do, too.

Yes, the 20s are difficult, but while this article is incredibly interesting, I’m not convinced we need to be evaluated, poked and prodded to help other generations understand us better. While our Boomer parents may have trouble re-navigating the waters of early adulthood, this time with hindsight, their experience can’t necessarily be equated to ours. Just like their parents had the experiences of the Great Depression and World War II impacting their outlooks, which didn’t necessarily translate into anything useful for the coming-of-age Boomers.

What would be helpful, though, is a new set of hash marks for my generation to use, ones which help us evaluate whether or not we’re on course. Sometimes it’s murky, understanding exactly what is expected of me, both by my parents and my peers, as well as what’s realistic financially, emotionally, mentally and socially. Four years of college is no longer then norm, and a bachelor’s degree no longer translates into a post-grad job. Retirement age is being pushed back, so does it matter if we put off the 401(k)contributions for a year, or two? With half of marriages ending in divorce, and the miracles of science making childbirth possible well into our fifties (or later, if you’re into it), is it okay to spend more time focusing only on me, or will this make it more difficult for me to commit later in life?

I’m in unchartered territory, heck, most of the people in my generation are. I’m just hoping for the best, and that when I look back, I’ll have made enough educated guesses to have gotten me to a happy place.

Challenging freedom means no freedom.

2010-08-15T10:45:00.001-04:00

Talk about polarizing.

The discussion about building a mosque near Ground Zero is reaching a boiling point, and the truth is, there will be no winner. Advocate for the building of the mosque, and you're anti-American and pro-terrorist. Rally against the mosque, and you're anti-freedom.

I vividly remember the morning of September 11, 2001. I wandered into my english classroom a few minutes early, and rather than greet me, my teacher stood staring at the classroom television, hand over her mouth. She and I stood together watching, my classmates started trickling in, and a few minutes later, the second plane flew into the tower.

Shortly after, video of President Bush reading to elementary schoolers was released, a Secret Service Agent whispering into his ear, then his face going grey.

I don't have to recount these moments for you, it's likely you remember them the same way I do.

We went to war over this. We lost not only the people in the towers and on the planes that day, we've lost troops and allies over this. For what? Freedom, liberty, the American Dream?

The American Dream, which now seems to have relocated from the purple mountains and fruited plains to between a rock and a hard place, is like a nostalgic patch on an Americana quilt. Don't get me wrong, for those of us born here, the Dream can be achieved. But its roots as a means for anyone to achieve betterment and a life of freedom has been hacked at by an anti-immigrant, anti-non-Anglo mentality.

We're a country founded on religious freedom (think back to history class, friends, religious persecution is one of the reasons settlers wanted separation from England), but now there's an expectation of a whole religion to keep their distance in one of the most congested cities in the world.

We could debate the tact of building a mosque so close to a piece of land forever scarred by 9/11, but the reality is, they have a right to do it.

Islam, as a whole, is not representative of the small percentage of extremists who have, quite literally, hijacked the religion for their own evil plans. We don't judge all Christians or Germans based on atrocities committed by Adolph Hitler, nor should we condemn a whole religion for the actions of a few who have twisted their doctrine into something the majority of Muslims don't recognize.

We should always honor those who have sacrificed for our Constitution and our freedoms as Americans, but denying religious freedom doesn't honor the sacrifice, it mocks it.

For obvious reasons, this is an emotional issue, but we should not forget that our Constitution was written to provide rational guidance free from emotional argument. Particularly for Constitutional fundamentalists, this is a chance to adhere to what our Founding Fathers believed, and uphold one of the greatest aspects of being an American.

Challenges facing Catholicism

2010-04-15T09:04:00.005-04:00

In this piece, I use we to refer to beliefs of the Church because I am a Catholic and have been brought up in the Church. 'God' and 'Him' are used interchangeably because it's what I'm familiar and comfortable with. Also, all references to Church in this blog are referring to the Catholic Church, and are capitalized out of respect.

In a recent issue of Newsweek, Religion Editor Lisa Miller tackled two incredibly salient issues facing the Catholic Church: the sex-abuse scandal and the role of women in Catholicism. Her argument states that women in the church may have somehow affected the outcome of the scandal by nipping it in the bud and solving the problem at its root, she also suggests that women will become increasingly removed from the faith if they are not allowed a greater role in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

I disagree, and I think these two arguments are absolutely worth having, but should not be looked at as one.

Sex-abuse scandal

First, I hate how this issue is being referred to as a 'scandal.' The connotation of 'scandal' is snarky and gossipy. But this is not idle gossip or something that should be looked at as a blemish on the face of the Church--two things that 'scandal' connotes. This is a disgusting, deep-seeded problem that needs to be addressed because it has been left to fester for too long.

It's also worth noting that this is not an issue solely affecting the Catholic Church. Like Miller reiterates in her article, instances of abuse are not higher in the Church than in other faiths. Likewise, the percentage of priests who commit these crimes is not higher than the percentage of men in other professions. This is not an excuse, but it does make me wonder if other churches have handled this situation in the same manner by sweeping it under the rug, and if in a few years, it will be another sect we're focused on for doing too little to protect its children (let's not forget, though, that parochial schools were founded by Catholic priests and sisters, mainly the intellectually-focused and strong-faithed Jesuits, in order to give a comprehensive and intense education to children).

Sometimes people do bad things. If the instances of Bill, Nixon and Tiger have taught us anything, it's that when people in power do bad things, the light glares and the microscope sharpens. It's no surprise, then, that the ever-evolving sex scandal involving the abuse of boys by Catholic priests is being examined by the media and public with a focused and scrutinizing eye. I also think institutions like the Church draw an extra amount of interest and judgement because they are not understood by the masses--something that I think Miller made very clear in her piece by her over-simplification of Church tradition.

I think sexual abuse is the most reprehensible form of abuse. As a matter of fact, I've blogged about it before. There's no excuse for allowing perpetrators of sexual crimes to remain in positions where they have easy and instant access to their forbidden fruit, and the church hierarchy should be ashamed at the mishandling of abuse complaints. Each priestly pedophile should have been stripped of his vestments and turned over to authorities, not given the opportunity to "reform," which I imagine is the real reason why these men were allowed to stay in their vocations.

I believe we are born with certain aspects of character, self and personality hard-wired into our psyche--sexuality is one of those ingrained facets. It also is not something that can be changed because of immense and faithful prayer. The most common instance of this is in homosexuals, who many ultra-conservative Christians believe can be cured of their sexuality. So I wonder if the Catholic Church took the same approach with sexual abusers--essentially looking at pedophilia as a character flaw that could be cured through the Grace of God. Pedophilia is an illness that does not necessarily result in the abuse of children, but for men and women who cross that line, a U-turn is not an option. No amount of faith, remorse or prayer can prevent a pedophile from continually giving in to an intense and unstoppable urge, particularly when temptation walks the halls of parochial schools every day.

Miller makes a few suggestions about the roots of sexual abuse in the Church--fraternity-esque group think and a divide between the clergy and the faithful--as well as what could have prevented the extent it's gone to--women playing a larger role in the Church. I agree with her first two points, I do not agree with the third.

Catholics do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. For us, scripture is inspired by God but written by imperfect men. It's why we use the Gospels to act as a guide for our lives, but do not believe in stoning a woman for adultery. We also believe that all people are born with original sin, which stems from the story of Adam and Eve eating fruit forbidden by God. Basically, original sin is to remind us that we are not divine. We are imperfect. We are human. It's not to say all people are bad, but that we are perpetually and innately sinful, and need to constantly work at a relationship with God throughout our lives. Essentially, we are not infallible. However, the concept of infallibility (something reserved for the perfect judgement of the Trinity) is given to one living human at a time--the pope.

The first pope was Jesus' disciple Peter. The Gospels tell us Jesus named Peter the rock of the church--the cornerstone. Many of the Church's traditions were woven at the time of Peter and have remained essentially in-tact for centuries. We also believe that since he and his post were anointed by God, that his successors are, too.

This creates an interesting dynamic, really, that Miller describes almost like a chasm between the faithful and the hierarchy. I would have to agree. I think placing absolute power in the hands of someone who is imperfect according to the Church's teaching of man, and allowing that person to dictate his own interpretation of faith as truth, is a problem. I also think that in order to rise up the ranks of the Catholic Church, you have to be disconnected from the people a bit, because at the end of the day, your job is uphold the doctrine of the religion, not cultivate the faith of people. In rare instances, like with Pope John Paul II, you manage to find someone who can do both.

When you have any group of people who believe they are working because of a direct calling from God that may lead to the ultimate God-like label of infallible, it does create a group think dynamic that is brought on by the belief that they are above the laws of man and answer only to God. (Do you think it's by accident that Rome is an independent state in Italy that is ruled by the pope, not the prime minister?)

In her article, Miller mentions traditional aspects of the Church as other ways to indicate the distance between the hierarchy and the faithful--which is a paragraph I find offensive as a member of the Church, and who finds Church history and culture incredibly interesting. The garments worn by every rung of the hierarchy are symbolic of multiple aspects of our faith. Priests who don the colorful vestments on Sunday are not doing so for visual effect, they're taking part in two thousand years of tradition and meaning. Priests, bishops, cardinals, popes--and anyone in between--who use vestments for any other reason, like indicating dominance, are not doing so from a place of God. Great priests are able to connect with their parishoners and bring the Gospel to their lives regardless of garb.

While the distance between the hierarchy and the faithful is huge, and while the Church's male leaders are guilty of playing God under the guise of infallibility, the real root of this 'scandal' was, tragically, unavoidable. The Church absolutely handled the allegations of abuse in the wrong way. But the root of the problem--pedophiles becoming ordained--is not something that can be absolutely avoided, just like it's impossible to stop every man or woman with child sex fantasies from becoming certified as teachers. This is where the members of the Catholic Church need to recognize the fallibility of the Church, and remember that it is run by a group of imperfect people, who are no more inspired by God than anyone else, they've just chosen a different vocation. (In Catholicism, we believe we're each called by God to either the vocation of the priesthood, sisterhood or marriage.) There is no replacement for our justice system, and the people who did come forward with information pertaining to these men, should not have stopped at the the Church leaders who do not feel compelled to abide by the laws of man, and instead chose to preserve the image of their Church.

The reality is, most priests are not evil, manipulative, self-serving misogynists who feel compelled to touch children, and to let the horrible judgements of a few taint the whole image of the Church is narrow-minded and incredibly sad.

The role of women

As a Catholic, I've been accused of worshipping multiple gods by people who are ignorant to the faith. Most often, these allegations come from the Catholic views on Mary, the saints and the Trinity (the belief that God is one being in the three parts: Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I can see how people may be confused, particularly in regards to our reverence to Mary. We pray to her for guidance and for her to intercede for us to God, because she was chosen and is closer to Him that we could ever be. But neither Mary nor the saints take the place of God.

With so many strong women described in the Gospel, and with Mary serving a very prominent role in the Church, it is interesting that the roles of women are kept out of the main decision-making artery of Rome. To be honest, I think this aspect of the church evolved mere centuries after the Church was founded, based on the role of women in the culture of the time. Now, the menial role of women has become so intertwined with Church tradition, that making changes seems blasphemous to many of the faithful. It's an issue that even I'm torn on.

What Miller suggest in her article, though, is that since women make up the majority of Catholic church-goers and donors, and the masses are not catered to our needs, that we will begin to drift from the church. I don't see that happening. The reality is, there are many ways for every member of a parish to give and participate (I do by being a chorister), and I don't know that a significant shift would happen if women were allowed to be ordained. The argument in Miller's article suggests that breaking up the all-male club of the Catholic Church with women in power, would limit the ability of the hierarchy to disregard issues like the sex-abuse scandal. As I mentioned before, though, it takes an interesting set of personality characteristics to rise to the highest Catholic ranks, and women would not be exempt from needing that same bundle of traits to be successful. They still would have to be absolutely devoted to Doctrine, and prepared to separate themselves from the faithful.

I don't know how I feel about the ordination of women, probably because it's a concept that is completely foreign to me. Although, at some point I do believe that something has to give: celibacy or male-centricism, in order to keep people taking up religious vocations. To be honest, I think breaking the boys-only description of the priesthood should come before breaking the vow of celibacy.

Something the Church does need to address, perhaps before the women-as-priests issue, are the changes in our culture and how they affect the Church's views of women. While Catholic Social Teaching will never change regarding many hot-button women's rights issues (abortion), I think there really should be a reevaluation of the birth control issue.

The Church views birth control as a means of preventing God-given life, and that if God wants you to have a baby, even if you're using the tried-and-untrue methods of family planning (fancy name for calculations of body temperature and ovulation, paired with pulling out), you'll have one. But the world we live in no longer gauges the value of women based on how many children they are able to bear. We don't live in a society that needs ultra-large families to run farms and keep things afloat. We live in an expensive and ever-shrinking world, though, that often casts a sidelong glance at people who choose to have more than the acceptable 2.4 children (TLC, however, capitalizes on them). And in reality, it's not the Church's place to try to bring that mindset back.

This clash of the cultures puts Catholic women in a tough position, particularly if you happen to be a member of a parish with an ultra-traditional priest. Are we supposed to be Madonnas who, like Mary, don't say 'no' to God's will and accept as many children and He (and let's face it, horny husbands) have to give? I see that as more of a messaging issue than the opaque glass ceiling pertaining to Catholic girls. It's no wonder that with issues like birth control becoming a recurring theme in right-to-life discussions and Catholic Social Teaching lessons, that women may feel estranged from the Church they otherwise feel comfortable in.

The Vatican II Council, which more than 40 years ago paved the way for some aesthetic modernization of the church, recognized that the role of women would be changing, but pretty much left it at that. (I wish they would have focused more attention on that issue rather than allowing for praise bands to creep into non-stain-glassed-windowed churches. But that's just me.) This clearly is a facet of a changing Catholicism that needs to be examined, and there's really no time like the present.

Lisa Miller's article is worth reading, but to be honest, is a too-broad look at two very different issues facing the Catholic Church. But after 2,000 years, what institution wouldn't be facing some issues? This is a time for Catholics the world over to evaluate their faith, and perhaps determine what role each of us play in the changing Church.

Is that a gun in your pocket? Or are you just happy to see me?

2010-02-24T12:39:00.001-05:00

The gun control issue is one I don’t really understand. To me, it seems like common sense to regulate a deadly weapon to ensure the safety of people not carrying guns. This isn’t to say that people who wish to hunt or keep a gun in their homes for protection or target practice should be restricted from doing so, it just means that we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of people who seek to harm others.

An article in the New York Times today, describes the sudden push to deregulate gun ownership as much as possible, for fear the current administration has some secret plan to take our arms.

Chief Executive of the National Rifle Association Wayne LaPierre said in the article, “We have had some success, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

According to what precedent?

The success LaPierre is referring to are pieces of legislation passed on the state and federal levels that make guns more readily accessible. Many of the measures have been blocked in the past, but have been reintroduced to sympathetic general assemblies.

It probably helps that the tragedies of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois have fallen prey to the short memory span of the American public.

What’s particularly interesting about LaPierre’s statement, though, is that Obama actually is responsible for signing into law two amendments that significantly expand gun rights.

Legislation: Crack down on credit card companies
Amendment: Allow guns in national parks

**Don’t see the correlation? Neither do I, but I’ll do some research and get back to you.

Legislation: Transportation appropriations
Amendment: Allow guns to be stored in luggage on Amtrak trains

**I’m writing this on a train…and now I find myself wondering if the guy behind me is packing.

It seems to me that the president has little desire to regulate gun laws, as a matter of fact, he’s doing the exact opposite. So why the push for further deregulation?

I guess I would need to chat with someone who is pro-gun to really understand the draw. I would have to ask, though, what are the points of some other recent state-passed legislation?

For instance, the Virginia General Assembly last week approved a bill that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants where alcohol is served. I think even the NRA might agree that guns and alcohol don’t mix well. Has there been a surge of gun violence at Applebee’s that the media has failed to report on? Also, is this piece of legislation supposed to reduce the number of bar fights? Maybe it’ll just save the district attorney’s office some work by reducing the number of defendants, and police the effort of writing disturbing the peace tickets.

Also in Virginia, the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month.

More than one handgun a month? Who needs that many handguns?! Even if you’re a collector, I’m confused as to the impact a 30-day waiting period between purchases will have on your arsenal—excuse me—collection.

Again, in Virginia, the legislature is considering laws like ones in Tennessee and Montana, that says firearms produced and kept in those states are beyond the authority of Congress.

These rulings are being challenged, for obvious reasons.

Changes in gun-control legislation are creeping north, as well. Notably in Indiana, where the legislature passed bills that block private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property, according to the New York Times article.

So, what exactly is the point? Is it really a win for gun advocates that now firearms are legal in bars, on private property, aboard trains and in national parks?

I can’t say the affect this will have on the number of violent crimes increasing, but I also don’t believe that more guns on the streets inhibit the inappropriate use of them. I’ve said this in a post before, we are not a society based on vigilante justice. We have a judicial system to settle problems between people in a fair, ethical and legal manner…so why are we making it easier for people to carry weapons and take justice into their own hands?

Again, I’m not opposed to gun rights, they’re protected by the 2^nd Amendment, and should remain as such. My concern is, state governments are expanding rights solely to combat an invisible cinching at the federal level, and it’s at the expense of the public.

So, tell me, my gun-owning friends…is it necessary to have the ability to purchase more than one handgun every month? Are the bars you frequent so dangerous that firearms seem like an appropriate accessory? I’m not a gun owner, but I’m open to hearing these arguments so I can better understand these legislative changes, because right now, they don’t make any sense to me.

My newest 'un-friends'

2010-01-25T18:10:00.009-05:00

I have a lot of 'friends' on Facebook. Recently, I did a massive cleansing of the list, and still have about 1,300 left. These are the people I consider good friends, whose updates I don't find annoying or whose photos I enjoy browsing.

Every once in a while, though, as my newsfeed refreshes, I find the need to 'un-friend' certain people. Today, four people are getting cut, and this is the reason why:

"Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this"

Really???

Let's start with the obvious: America is not the only country who suffers from homelessness, hunger and illness, and how ignorant to believe that we are, or that we have it worse than 99% of the countries we share this planet with.

As a matter of fact, according to www.bread.org, an organization dedicated to eradicating hunger, 430,000 children in the United States go hungry on a regular basis (meaning whole days without food), with more than 12.6 million children at risk of going hungry. This number is disturbing, especially considering the wealth we posses. There is no information on the site indicating children in the United States die regularly from hunger-related issues. Hopefully this is because the agencies we have in place to combat starvation are working to the extent of preserving lives.

If you click on the 'international' tab of www.bread.org, though, a horrific number leaps off the page: 16,000.

Internationally, 16,000 children die of starvation every day. Every single day.

Internationally, 1.02 billion people are starving.

There is something in between the lines of that ignorant status update I agree with, though. Why do we wait until a disaster happens to sit up and realize people need help?

When international crises happen, monetary donations are the easiest and most effective way to help, and a good percentage of Americans realized that two weeks ago as they pushed millions of dollars to relief efforts for Haiti.

But what about stateside? There are huge issues here that need to be addressed and evaluated. Hunger being only one on that long list.

Volunteerism, which I've written about before, is an easy way to help combat the social issues plaguing our country. Not to mention, it's free. I'll admit, I can't write a check to most organizations I would love to support, I'm a broke 20-something, after all. But I can don a pair of rubber gloves and a hairnet and hit the soup kitchen. I can pick up an extra can--or five--of soup at the grocery store for the pantry down my street. I can clean out my closet and donate the clothes I don't use. I can pick up pieces of trash when I'm wandering around my neighborhood. I can mentor a child. I can get involved.

Of course we're lucky, but we can always be better. We can help each other by finding the common thread of humanity in people, rather than condemn those who struggle to make ends meet. We can recognize our abundance and give to someone else. As a matter of fact, we do that here quite a bit. It's other countries who don't have it as good...and that's exactly why we have international aid.

I wonder how many of my former Facebook friends do put in the effort here to fight the problems in their status updates. If you're reading this and you do, then good for you--if you re-add me, I'll accept.

If not, though, perhaps now is the time to make your move and to get involved. The world could be a little better if you do.

We can do it.

2010-01-14T13:41:00.005-05:00

I’ve mentioned my good friend Erica in a few posts on my other blog, and was honored when she decided to follow this one as a result of my post on Republican senators voting against a bill that would protect soldiers who are raped while on tour.

To me, Erica is the epitome of a modern-day feminist. She is gorgeous, tall, smart and funny, with a huge heart for people she cares about and a ‘fuck you’ attitude to people who doubt her.

I admire her, and I’ve been thinking lately about her brand of feminism…but to make my point, I have to start on a totally separate subject.

For centuries there’s been a race war in the United States. There are people who want race to be an unspoken issue, others who want it to be the focus. Over time, though, I think we’re moving toward having race be nothing more than a physical feature, something as noted or overlooked as my chestnut locks.

Currently, I think women are fighting a similar battle to the one fought by minority groups for generations. Now, women are attempting to shatter the glass ceiling, balance the biological drive to procreate with the desire to be successful, and level the playing field between women and men. In short, be recognized for more than a physical characteristic.

On top of all this, we’re fighting with one another to get to the top.

This morning on Twitter, a woman I follow (@JessicaGottlieb) tweeted:

“The greatest act of feminism is to be kind to other women. This isn't a contest.”

She’s absolutely correct. As women, we shouldn’t be competing against each other, we shouldn’t be apologizing for wanting to get to the top, we shouldn’t be conflicted about the way we look and the way we’re perceived (namely hot=dumb, ugly=smart). Women, like any other umbrella group, are multi-faceted, with the physical aspects often taking a backseat to what's unseen...at least, that's the hope.

By clawing at other women to get a top spot, we’re conceding the battle, we’re sending the message that there’s only room for one woman at the top…everyone else needs to fall in line as subordinates. This isn’t true.

As women, we fight battles that men never will have to (in fairness, so do they. Prostate problems, for instance). But they never have to deal with the public scrutiny of staying home vs. going to work. Tampons vs. pads. Independence vs. dependence in relationships. (this is a jab at a recent date who suggested all women give up work, drive, etc. as soon as the egg is fertilized and rely solely on her husband.)

In reality, we can do it all if that’s what we want to do. There shouldn’t be doubt or question that having it all is possible.

I think most women know this. Our mothers and grandmothers fought for the right to vote, to choose, to marry or not. Now we need to cultivate those rights to build on that foundation.

In an ideal world, gender would be dually noted and disregarded. Women won’t have to hide femininity in an attempt to be more successful. In an ideal world, women won’t be afraid to play nicely, because it won’t mean giving something up. In an ideal world, we’ll all be a little more like Erica, and believe in the real meaning of “We can do it.”

Let's talk about too much information.

2010-01-13T20:02:00.001-05:00

How much information is too much information?

Some people may not believe there’s any such thing. On the outside, I probably resemble one of those types. What gives it away? Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and two blogs, perhaps?

In reality, though, I absolutely believe it’s possible to share too much with too many people. Take my Facbeook news feed, for instance.

There are a few people I’m “friends” with who consistently provide me with more information than I ever need or want to know. What really drives me nuts, though, are the posts that try to be discrete by not mentioning specific names, but are obviously directed at a specific person. Why not just come out and say whom you’re mad at?

Further, no one really cares about your haircut, shopping trip, phone calls or daily schedule. If you must talk about those things, can you at least give me a recommendation or a funny anecdote? Make it interesting, people!

When it comes to blogs, I prefer the type that share an experience, an interesting thought or something out-of-the-ordinary. If you really want to share every detail about your day, buy a diary.

Today on Twitter, TMI got a whole new definition, when one of my tweets was re-tweeted by a profile I’d never seen before: ChicagoSchmaps.

Last night, I stayed with my mom at the Renaissance in Northbrook. She was in the suburbs for work, and my office is nearby. Our room was upgraded to a great suite, and I tweeted about it this morning. A little while later, I check my at replies, and I see my post has been retweeted by ChicagoSchmaps with a link.

I followed the link and found a map pointing to the Renaissance in Downtown Chicago. Hm, I didn’t mention specifics in my post, but my profile does mention I live in Chicago.

ChicagoSchmaps had found me because I have ‘Chicago’ as my current city, then retweeted based on my presumed location. This time is was incorrect, because I wasn’t in Chicago last night, but what if I had been? I went to the profile, and I found that every one of this group’s tweets were in regards to the locations of Chicago tweeters. One person had mentioned donating blood, and ChicagoSchmaps pointed out exactly where said tweeter would be.

Talk about TMI.

I suppose it’s possible for some creep to follow me if I say “going to Bongo Room” for brunch. But why cut out the Google Maps middle man and make it incredibly easy for weirdos to find prey in real-time?

I guess I won’t be tweeting my location prior to departure anymore, because today was a wake-up call for me. I encourage you to check your tweets, too, and block ChicagoSchmaps, just like I did.

30 senators vote to silence rape victims. How is that justice or doing what's right for us?

2009-12-08T23:49:00.008-05:00

I’ve been blogging a lot about the need for bipartisanship in Washington in order to get things done. While on some issues this does not seem possible—the economy, health care, the war, etc., there is one issue up for debate that should not receive any doubters: Al Franken’s KBR Rape Amendment.

Here’s some background. Jamie Leigh Jones worked for the contract company Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, where she was subsequently drugged and gang-raped by her colleagues four days after her arrival. Upon telling her superiors about the vicious sexual assault, she was quarantined in a shipping container and denied food, water and sleep. A rape kit was performed, and has since disappeared. She was not allowed to press charges and her superiors attempted to threaten her into silence.

The not suing part was actually written into her contract. Apparently most contractor companies have clauses like this for their female workforce, which prohibits them from taking rape charges to court, and instead forces arbitration between the victim and her attackers, or even worse, forced silence of the victims.

To say I was…well, am…outraged is an understatement. What makes me more angry, though, are the 30 Republican senators who voted against Sen. Franken’s bill, which would override these contracts and give women the ability to face their attackers in a court of law and hold them responsible for their actions.

I’m leaving the list of senators here, along with links to the contact pages on their Web sites, so that you may write each and every one of them and demand that they re-examine their view on this bill. They’ve all reacted pretty strongly to the term “pro-rape” being used when being questioned by the media, so toss that term in if you can. I’ll be doing the same.

The bill proposed by Franken would withhold defense contracts to companies “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.”

The bill passed 68-30, with the only holdouts being male Republicans. Their arguments for not supporting a bill that prohibits rape victims from being silenced vary. However, the overriding theme is that during wartime, our troops need to be supported unequivocally, and that these contract companies should not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal feels to address allegations by a few women.

Let me say here that I adamantly support our troops. However, I do not believe that serving in the military neither justifies rape nor should lead to leniency in legal rulings.

I don’t care what their reasoning is, not supporting this is a disgusting display of sexism, misogyny and the inability to reach across the aisle no matter what the cause. I think these 30 men voting against the bill is another example in the recent trend of Republicans stopping at nothing to prevent the passage of any Democratic initiative, regardless of the positive change it will create.

I hope each of the 30 are forced to sit face-to-face with Jones, as well as any other rape victim who chooses to confront them, and are forced to listen to the gruesome details of rape—not just the physical ramifications, but the emotional, mental and spiritual harm that is done when a woman’s choice is viciously taken away from her. Because that’s what rape is. Men who rape feel entitled to a woman’s body, regardless of whether or not she wants to give it.

In a way, each of these senators have perpetrated the same crime. They forced the choice of prosecution out of the hands of victims, and instead, forced them to keep quiet and arbitrate. They forced these women to admit their bodies and well-being are not worth the time, money and bad press that would surely come about when the media finds out that Jones’ situation was not uncommon, and that dozens of women, if not more, have suffered the same fate.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing. Congratulations, senators. You have done nothing, and you have sent a message to perpetrators to continue raping because there will be no consequences; and for women to just take it because they’re not useful for anything more than a sexual plaything.

This is wrong. These senators are wrong.

Thank you, Senator Franken, for working to pass this bill and ensure the rights of women and their bodies are preserved.

The embrace heard 'round the world.

2009-11-16T13:19:00.011-05:00

Today, an article in the New York Times discusses Republican governor of Florida Charlie Crist and the grief he's catching from his party for being...civil?

Last February, Crist stood with newly-elected President Obama, and said that Republicans and Democrats need to rise above partisanship and support an economic stimulus. Then, he and the president hugged.

Failing to see an issue here? Yeah, me too.

The Republicans aren't, though. As a matter of fact, many of them are madder than hell that Crist would extend such a gesture, verbally and physically to the Democratic president.

There is a growing sect of ultra-right-wing Republicans, who cling to the "core values that make our country great," according to Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina. A Republican, of course.

I can't follow this line of thinking. There is only one set of values that make us great? What would those be: gun ownership, capital punishment, limited choice, small government and big business? What about freedom, liberty and justice for all?

It is a disgrace to the Republican party that differences between the right and the left cannot be set aside long enough to extend a friendly gesture to the president of the United States.

This outcry also makes clear that the Republicans are so short-sighted, that offering bi-partisan support on any piece of legislation will not happen. This does not promote conservative, Republican values...rather, it proves the right is out of touch and unwilling to help better anyone standing left of center.

Is it really possible that the stimulus and health care reform stand in such stark contrast to the core of the Republican party's values? No! As a matter of fact, at the root of it all, Republicans and Democrats want the exact same thing: A better country.

My question today is not why can't we compromise (I've asked this one already), but why completely exclude a discussion of compromise based solely on the ideological differences of our two main political parties? Does anyone have our best interests at heart?

Shame on the right for shunning a man who has reached out his hand to the other side in an attempt to get things accomplished. To me, it shows Mr. Crist knows how to pick his battles, and garner support in unlikely places. Like among Dems. Shouldn't this be a tactic that all Republicans employ, particularly when a huge cross section of voters is willing to vote liberally on social issues but conservatively on fiscal ones?

It seems to me that conservatives are looking for reasons to vilify anyone who does not subscribe to traditional Republican ideals. Wait...Crist is against abortion and same-sex marriage, supports gun rights and the death penalty. So, maybe this really is only about a hug and the image it conjures.

I thought the McCarthy era was over.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...the only way to get things done is to work together for a solution that benefits the greatest number of people. There is a reason we have multiple parties with different opinions. No one should be in politics if they cannot figure out how to reach a compromise, because it completely defeats the purpose of our system. While our senators and congressmen are spending time and money in a constant headlock attempting to prove a point of intangible ideals, it's We the People who suffer.

I wonder how long this is going to go on. Further than that, I wonder when Republicans are going to get a clue.

It's called growing up. It's just a little harder for some people.

2009-11-12T19:24:00.000-05:00

At 15, I was a sophomore in high school, captain of my ski team and starting keeper on the varsity soccer team. I had my first date, met my first love, broke my first heart and while on a mission trip, got caught kissing a boy in a stairwell when I should have been sleeping. It was a good year, full of typical teenaged activities, drama and awkwardness.

There are things about being 15 I would love to recapture. What it felt like to fall in love without any baggage. Being a size 4. No responsibilities.

There are things about being 15 I’m glad I’ve left behind and never have to revisit. Well, until I have a 15-year-old of my own.

We change as we grow up, shedding skin we’ve outgrown, both literally and figuratively. Luckily, most people only have photos as the only tangible reminder of being a teenager. Those may chronicle some bad fashion choices, or even a bad decision. But what if that photo was a mug shot?

The Supreme Court is in the midst of hearing two court cases to determine if it’s constitutional to lock away for life minors convicted of crimes. There currently are more than 2,000 inmates serving life sentences for crimes involving killing someone. However, 109 people are serving life sentences for crimes committed as minors where no one was killed.

We are the only country in the world that will lock away a child for life. What does that say about us? Moreover, what does it say about our feelings toward the kids we lock away who mostly hale from low-income areas and minority backgrounds?

The two cases before the Court are Sullivan v. Florida, and Graham v. Florida.

Joe Sullivan was 13 when he was locked away for raping an elderly woman. Terrance Graham committed multiple armed robberies before a judge told him he’d thrown his life away, and in turn, the judge threw away the key.

Can a rapist be counseled out of a violent, sadistic mentality? Some therapists and doctors seem to think that at the age of 13, we’re not done developing yet. Our mindsets can be molded into something different. Should that route have been taken for Sullivan?

What about Graham, who aside from an obvious lack of judgment, didn’t really hurt anyone. He was a repeat offender at the age of 17, but does that mean he had no redeemable qualities?

It’s a tough argument, particularly in the case of Sullivan. Rape is a heinous crime. But at 13, what prompted that act of violence? I doubt his mind formulated the plan of breaking-and-entering solely to forcibly have sex with an elderly woman. Who else was behind that plot?

I think it’s sad that rather than rehabilitate our children, we tell them they’re not worth it and stick them in a cell for life. I can’t say where the line should be drawn for crimes not involving murder, but I stand by the belief that children are inherently better than adults, and have the incredible chance to alter their entire life course with just one decision, leaving only a bad judgment call behind.

Of course, some kids perpetuate the cycle, not grasping at the chances handed down by teachers, mentors and judges. There are exceptions to every rule, and they should not be looked at as the standard.

The Supreme Court should rule to end our practice of life imprisonment for minors convicted of crimes not involving murder. These kids should be counseled and taught that there are paths to success available for people from any walk of life, and that there is much more to live for than the instant gratification of a cheap thrill.

I’m glad I’ve outgrown my 15-year-old’s mentality, and I know that I’m not the only one.

You call it communism, I call it doing the right thing.

2009-10-23T00:46:00.004-04:00

I consider myself extraordinarily lucky, not only because I was given all the emotional, psychological and financial support I needed while I grew up, but because my parents forced me to experience the world outside of my white-picket-fenced childhood.

Beyond my living room, even, my high school required a minimum number of community service hours and a social justice class. Of course, more was encouraged, and the largest organization on campus was H.O.P.E, Helping Out People Everywhere, a service organization.

While there are many reasons why graduates of my high school come out ahead of the pack, this one stands in the forefront for me. Already we had a better understanding than many, including some of the media’s most influential, well, vocal, members.

I am referring to FOX News’ Glenn Beck, and his latest warning to Americans about the public brainwashing by the Obama administration. Don’t worry, friends, you’re not being indoctrinated to be pro-choice, pro-taxes, pro-union or pro-blue. You are, however, being called to help fellow mankind.

Gasp!

This week, First Lady Michelle Obama talked about a pretty cool coordination between the Big 4 networks, which includes socially responsible plots.

Beck fired back, claiming that encouraging volunteerism is some kind of communist plot because it asks people to work for no money.

Here’s a link to that clip. I’ll keep the petty commentary about it to myself, but if you’d like to hear it, feel free to contact me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVqIpqA80Y#watch-main-area

Tell that to Mother Theresa.

Luckily, people all over the world, liberals, conservatives and moderates alike, disagree with Beck’s blatant attempt to find issue with any concept muttered by anyone sporting blue in the White House.

Volunteering is the most basic way someone can help a neighbor. It goes further than giving money because it bridges people by human interaction and connection. Volunteering mimics the parable of the fish and loaves. Volunteering adheres to the Golden Rule. Volunteering helps thousands get on their feet after devastating personal setbacks.

I’m failing to see a problem.

Beck claims there are enough volunteers in the United States of America lending enough time to causes. I encourage him to call any food bank, shelter, American Cancer Society branch or nursing home and ask if their volunteer needs are fulfilled. I will go out on a limb and guess they’re not.

Further, comparing this call to action to Mao’s communist China is ludicrous. There is a massive gap between volunteering for no pay and working 40+ hours per week for cents/hour and no benefits. Not to mention, if we were indeed living in Mao’s China, Beck’s voice would have been silenced before it ever made the airwaves. You’re welcome, Mr. Beck, for voting for a democratic, rather than communist, leader.

For the people who already consider volunteerism a staple in their routine (daily, monthly, annually), I applaud you. It’s not easy to give up time after a long week’s work for little more than the warm fuzzies and knowledge of helping another person.

For people who do not take the time to give back, I encourage you to remember, that volunteering is not writing a blank check. It’s not giving things to people who can’t—or won’t—work for it. Volunteering is about tapping into the basic human needs of love, support and solidarity.

The only thing I take away from this clip by Beck is his insistence that individuals have no impact on the greater world around them. I wonder what his offspring will grow up to be if they are never sent to a soup kitchen or never required to donate clothes they’ve outgrown. This I do know: I hope I never meet them.

Enough already. Let's get something done.

2009-09-08T21:46:00.002-04:00

I want to scream. Literally scream at the top of my lungs, loud enough for the entire country to hear my plea of “Sit down. Shut up.”

Death panels.

Thievery.

School kids.

Indoctrination.

Socialism.

Communism.

If I hear any of these words ever again it will be too soon.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding of the two major political parties is as follows:

Side A presents an idea, which is bias toward their beliefs. That idea is expanded into a bill with the hope of affecting some kind of change.

Side B looks at said bill and presents a counter, which is bias toward their beliefs.

Sides A and B continue to rework said bill, with each making concessions throughout the process to create a comprehensive, fair and balanced bill. The bill passes, the President signs it into law and the American people are able to progress.

Did I miss anything? I must have, because that process is exactly what is NOT happening in Washington. I’m annoyed about it, and I am annoyed at my countrymen who instead of demanding that this process be enacting so that everyone comes out ahead, they are buying into ridiculous rhetoric that has no basis in reality.

The Labor Day weekend’s BS of the moment revolved around a speech that hadn’t even happened yet. President Obama was going to address the nation’s school kids with an inspirational speech focused on staying in school and persevering even when early mornings and bad grades make dropping out seem appealing. Originally, his speech was supposed to accompany an assignment, which was kyboshed in concession to the right’s major backlash against this speech. The assignment? Write an essay outlining how you can help President Obama.

What’s the problem?! First, American children have now fallen behind Estonia and Sweden in math and science scores. For years we’ve been behind China and Japan. So while many parents shouted that the “Stay in school” message should come from no one but them, clearly there is a disconnect, because while those parents may be demanding attendance, they’re obviously not demanding excellence.

Next, why not ask children how they can help the president? Most kids have a better grasp of right and wrong than adults do, they also have a raw understanding and desire to be safe and secure. Further, even if they have already been “indoctrinated” by their parents’ political beliefs, it’s a view that the president can and should take into consideration. That’s the process I outlined above. If you disagree, you’re supposed to present your side, that’s how change should happen.

Parents freaking out sends the wrong message to our children. It says, if you don’t like what someone has to say…you don’t have to listen. You don’t have to respect it. You don’t have to consider it. Further, if you don’t like something, just wait it out. Make sure you make a lot of noise while you do it, but wait it out.

Next, I challenge each and every opponent of the health care reform to actually read the government’s Web site. I’ll even make it easy and post the links of credible sources. No Googling involved, just click. Health Care Reform Web Site White House Web Site After you read both, then you may voice educated concerns. None of which involve anything spewed by the media as of late.

My feelings on the issue itself are another story and the topic of another blog, but I will go out on a limb and say that no government official will be choosing who lives and who dies. Also, while I find Joel Stein hilarious (Read this, I promise you'll laugh!!!), neither he nor anyone else will be sitting on death panels making those decisions, either. Also, if you think health care is the next slip on the slope toward communism, I encourage you to read the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence , all of which pretty much ensure it’s not.

What’s worse than people not understanding what they’re so fiercely resisting, are their congressmen, who are not appeasing their constituents by presenting facts or revisions. The men and women we have elected have fallen into the same nasty habit as America’s Average Joes. And that’s to just make a lot of noise without offering any real substantial suggestion to make change.

The infighting on the Senate floor is disgusting. The name-calling and bullying is better suited to the playground rather than the hallowed halls our country was built on, and congress needs to step back and remember that. They’re there to duke it out and reach decisions, not dig in their heels on the precept of political differences. If past congresses had behaved the way our current one is, slaves would still pick cotton, women would not vote, drinking fountains still would be segregated and my great grandparents probably would not have emigrated from Sicily to the land of promise.

So, to congress, I have one thing to say:

WE GET IT!

You stand on different sides. You believe in different solutions. Does that really mean that there can be no resolution to anything that so desperately needs one? The economy, health care, the wars, nuclear power…these are not issues that should be falling to the way side simply because no concessions or compromises can be made.

Remember what I said about the playground? Well, aside from learning not to name-call and bully, we also learned to share. We learned that we don’t always get what we want and that if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. I wish that congress would remember those lessons, because they’re valuable not just on the swing set, but in life.

Mad about 'Mad Men'...can you blame me?

2009-08-16T22:55:00.002-04:00

If you don't watch 'Mad Men' on AMC...you should.

I'm happy to say that I'm not a bandwagon 'Mad' watcher. I actually watched the first season as an assignment for an advertising class. I was hooked, and more recently, I "On Demanded" the first two seasons to get ready for the premier of the third.

This season looks like it's going to live up to expectations.

Aside from the dramatic story lines, impeccable era costumes and a seemingly red-resistant budget, there is an element of familiarity to the show.

Although 'Mad Men' is set in early-1960s Manhattan, the overriding plot lines are not a departure from today's issues and social epidemics.

The difference? The clothes are better, the men are more gentlemanly (well, except for the marital indiscretions) and there is something infinitely exciting about bottomless drinks and chain smoking.

Moral of the story: watch 'Mad Men.' No matter if you like sex, romance, comedy or drama...you won't be disappointed.

Now I see...there's no PR firms in Alaska because they're all in D.C.

2009-08-13T21:55:00.001-04:00

It’s safe to say that President Barack Obama ran the most successful political PR campaign in the history of American politics. However, is the continuation of that campaign into his presidency helping or hindering his ability to get things accomplished?

I studied public relations in college, so I can appreciate manufacturing great moments and calculating responses to create the most appealing message possible. However, with a country in shambles and public support of President Obama plummeting by the day, I wonder if inundating the airwaves with his image is smart.

Having beers with a Harvard professor and his arresting officer to smooth over a premature statement might have been a good PR move, but was the timing really appropriate? I don’t think so. It’s the economy and health care that are in the forefront of the American mindset, and I think that move showed a lack of focus.

The media plays a massive role in what makes the airwaves. Media outlets decide what to air, though, based on ratings and numbers from viewers. If it’s not generating revenue, it won’t play. However, I think it would do everyone some good if television, radio and news bigwigs decided to take less time covering the PR stunts pulled by President Obama’s team and shifted their focus to the issues at hand.

My idea of news outlets is that it is their job to educate the American people. Sure, we all have the responsibility to look deeply into issues that will affect us, our families and our bank accounts, but I think the media can provide a sense of direction that many people may not have on their own. There are hundreds of takes and opinions surrounding every bill and law, so finding accurate information can be difficult. In particular, hundreds of television channels and thousands upon thousands of Web sites, put up by any Average Joe, may contain information that may or may not have anything relevant to say about what’s really going on.

Sorry, I’ve gotten a little off topic…let me get back to my point.

The American people don’t really know what’s going on, and it’s not for lack of the President’s face being shown multiple times every hour in regards to one issue or another.

What now? For the past few weeks I’ve been following health care, and reading messages congressmen and women are taking home to their constituents regarding the issue. What I have found is that no one knows what actually is going to happen.

The New York Times reported today about what our elected officials are finding after returning home, which are angry citizens who often look to pass blame rather than ask real questions.

Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri, is quoted in the article saying, “I don’t understand this rudeness. I honestly don’t get it.” Her statement was directed at constituents who jeered her as she entered a town hall meeting, then spent the remainder yelling in an united front against her and her colleagues in Washington.

I can’t blame her for being frustrated! I also can’t blame the constituents who rely solely on mainstream media for information, because they’re not getting it!

We get what we ask for when it comes to the media, so if people want answers, they need to demand answers. That’s why our industry is known as the “Watchdog.” But if Americans are more willing to tune into E! News and Good Morning America than hard-hitting news sources, what’s going to change?

I think, in general, people were looking for a president who was more hospitable, charismatic and smarter than what we seemed to have before. I think those needs played a role in the push for positive PR rather than the crisis control that was prevalent in the last administration. But now, it’s coming back to bite the President.

When things didn’t turn around immediately upon his election (duh) Americans got nervous. Suddenly the great hope was more concerned with imbibing officers and professors, planting gardens and choosing puppies than he was with real issues. Now, is this really accurate? No. But is that all we’re seeing? Yes.

I think it would do President Obama a great deal of good to remove himself for a while. Take a step out of the limelight, well, as far out as a president can get, and focus. Buckle down and get things done, then come forward with some real news, information and progress. We’re a society of instant gratification, which also means we have short memory spans. Being reminded every day of the health care crisis makes us jumpy, but telling us something will be done, then hashing it out in private until there’s something to report, makes us feel like the government is doing its job. If something is not reiterated every day, it fades away.

President Obama, we know that your team is one of public relations masters, but maybe they should go on recess with congress. No more fabricated moments, no more fluffy interviews. You told us you can do it, and I personally believe that you can. But now it’s really time to get to work.

Don't be a fool, wrap your...

2009-07-09T16:34:00.002-04:00

Apparently the United States isn’t the only government run by people with an allergy to monogamy.

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy is embroiled in his own sex scandal, although the notoriously love-sick Italians don’t seem to mind. Perhaps my cousins in the boot have reached a conclusion that Americans have not—performance evaluations of politicians should not account for current or past sexual relationships. Well, in terms of their political performance anyway.

It seems that every few months a new scandal pops up, regardless of race, sexual orientation or party affiliation. However, the result has historically been the same, resulting in the public apology and resignation of the offending party. But why? Shouldn’t the punishment these men endure come from their wives, not their constituents?

It’s common knowledge that Thomas Jefferson had mistresses and illegitimate children with his slaves. I’ll go out on a limb and guess that he was not the only randy founding father. John F. Kennedy’s sexual past is less than sterling, and was known as a womanizer before and after taking office. The American public elected Bill Clinton twice…then publicly cried to impeach him when they found out he was engaging in some under the table, well desk, exchanges that were not of a political nature.

These situations beg the question: Does moral aptitude really affect one’s ability to govern? I think not.

Too often Americans expect their political figures to share morality and virtue with the public, which often leads to confusion about issues really being political or moral. I’m not talking about ethics in regards to stealing, lying, cheating, etc., etc., but morals as they pertain to the personal day-to-day interactions of life.

Here are some examples:

Morals: I am late, but I will not run down the pedestrian crossing the street, even though he is taking too long to cross, because it is wrong to kill someone.

Ethics: The whole economy is in the tank and if I don’t forfeit my $10 billion paycheck, I’ll have to fire 500 people. I guess this year, I’ll take the pay cut.

Morals: I am married, therefore I will remain faithful to my spouse since being unfaithful is wrong and condemned by the Bible (perhaps the Qaran and Torah, as well, I’m not familiar with those texts).

Ethics: I will not use taxpayer dollars to fly to a foreign country to vacation with my mistress, (I know, I know…I’ll address this later) or to buy prostitutes, because that’s illegal.

In my mind, morals tend to affect an individual more than others. Abiding by morals helps us to sleep at night and gives us comfort that in the end, we’ve tried to abide by what we identify as right. Morality should be controlled by the individual, who may draw suggestions or guidelines from resources like religious texts or social norms and mores. I’ve long held the belief that what works for one doesn’t work for everybody, which is why I think government should stay out of the morality right and wrong, and focus on issues that actually apply to our government.

Ethics on the other hand, tend to affect more people and come into play in on a larger scale. Like in politics. Sure, ethics and morality go hand-in-hand in many instances, which is why they get so enmeshed in issues. But there needs to be some separation, for the sanity of voters and politicians everywhere.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford currently is nursing a broken heart after his affair with an Argentinean journalist, apparently his soul mate, ended abruptly. The public would have found out eventually, however, that process was sped up when he told a little lie about a hiking trip in the Appalachians, then went missing for a few days. That story was actually code for a trip to Argentina to try to win his mistress back.

While I find cheating disrespectful and morally repugnant, who am I to judge Sanford for his actions? He is the one who has to look at himself in the mirror, not me. However, if I were a South Carolina taxpayer and I found out that the governor was using my money to jet set between home and his Latin lover, I would be more than a little peeved. But that’s not a moral issue…it’s an ethical one.

The focus should not be on this man’s affair. The media should not be trying to dig up dirt on his mistress. Why? Because that’s their business. What the media should be doing is taking a closer look at other undocumented trips and time spent away from the governor’s office.

A complete departure from morality in government could create chaos. However, in instances like the sex scandals (I’m referring to the ones not involving prostitution…which is illegal, therefore, and ethical issue and not counted in this discussion)…is it really necessary to embarrass a person and family out of office? Our public officials owe us no explanation for any activity that does not affect his or her ability to run our cities, counties, states and country. But by the public crying out against moral indiscretions and personal time (off the taxpayer clock), is unacceptable and places the spouses and children in the awkward position of having dirty laundry aired on national television. That’s not fair.

The public should question and challenge the people who run our country to be better, smarter and more effective politicians and people. But what we cannot expect is for our leaders to subscribe to our moral beliefs. Isn’t that what our freedoms are all about?

Rest in peace.

2009-07-07T23:05:00.003-04:00

Today was Michael Jackson's final memorial. Thousands attended the event and millions tuned in.

I hope his burial will bury the media hype with his body. May we actually let him rest in peace.

Are there PR firms in Alaska?

2009-07-07T17:50:00.003-04:00

I’m almost nervous to write this post, considering Governor Sarah Palin and her team are threatening legal action against media outlets and bloggers who “defame” her. So let me cover my tracks and clarify something up front:

I have never spoken to or had any correspondence with Sarah Palin or any of her associates or family members. All I know about Palin’s resignation has come from her press conference and stories from the New York Times, USA Today and CNN. So, all the statements in this blog are merely my opinions about what I have heard and read, not claims that she is something she may or may not be…of which I would have no idea considering I have never met the woman.

Phew…so much for free speech.

Anyways, now that my disclaimer is out of the way, let me share my reaction to the resignation of Governor Palin from her post in Alaska.

First, I want to know who is running the PR for Palin. While I am not a fan of her or her policies, I think she has been ill-advised since August when she accepted the nomination for vice president and started down one of the most infamous, laughable and cringe-worthy campaigns of all time. Rather than publicly stating that perhaps she was unprepared for a national campaign last August, she has blamed the media for her ticket’s loss. The American public is a forgiving one and tends to have a lot of sympathy for people who admit to a shortcoming and accept responsibility, rather than pass the blame.

Speaking of the media, it might serve Palin well to not bash on the outlets that carry her messages. If she is concerned about how something will sound on air, perhaps it shouldn’t be said at all. Censoring and thinking before speaking is a lot easier than trying to backtrack after making claims about foreign relations experience and newspaper subscriptions. Further than that, completely unbiased media may be hard to find, but what channel is going to be gracious to Palin when she can’t seem to find a nice word about our watchdogs? I’m sure none of them believe that hard-hitting questions are out of line or over the top. For that matter, neither do I.

Also, I’m confused about the language she used during the press conference. First, relating things to a sport does not make you relatable to the American public. I found it confusing and was unsure whether she was talking about herself as she relates to the state of Alaska, or herself as she relates to the entire country. In reality, while her political ambitions may include taking on Washington D.C., she never admitted in the conference that she will seek higher office. So in my opinion, her thoughts on the national climate and the current administration should have been kept out of the resignation speech. Her job that day was to announce her resignation and discuss the future of Alaska, not define the direction the White House should be taking.

The major question after watching her press conference is: What are her plans? It seems to me that Alaskans may have wanted a few more answers than what she gave in her statement. It sounded like she was conceding some kind of defeat, as she kept repeating that if she continued in office it would be a waste of time and money, that she and her family could affect immediate change if she left office. What change is that? What impact will her family make now that they could not have before? More volunteering? More monetary donations? Also, what message does that send to the residents of Alaska? I’m sorry I don’t have the patience to spend 18 more months in office when I have bigger and more important fish to fry elsewhere. Thank you, governor. Michigan has the worst economy and employment rate in the nation…but at least our governor is sticking it out.

Palin also kept repeating “This is not politics as usual.” I think she was referring to herself becoming an ineffective leader, but staying because it looked good. In reality, I think this move, although unconventional, is politics as usual. She was elected to a position for a period of time, and during that time has spread her interests further than her jurisdiction. She has become a media spectacle and queen of coining buzz phrases, rather than getting very much done. Think about the amount of time she has spent away from her state, campaigning from August through November alongside Senator John McCain (four months) and now cutting out of her contract more than a year early. For all intents and purposes…that’s half of her term spent away from her state.

I can’t help but wonder if McCain’s team created a monster when they added Palin to the mix. They gave her a taste of something that she otherwise would never have reached on her own…and now she can’t get enough. Which is interesting considering she still grants interviews and spends time trying to “set the record straight.” Palin even mentioned she and her husband would be spending about $500,000 in order to do just that.

Well, Ms. Palin, I think you have two options. Take the advice you offered to Washington and basketball teams alike during your press conference, and pass the ball elsewhere. Either to someone else in the Republican party, or to a new PR team who might be better suited to untangling the web you’ve woven since last August. Heck, it doesn’t take a maverick to know that either of those options are just smarter than doing it on your own.

Why watch someone else's life? Live your own.

2009-06-30T17:36:00.000-04:00

Being good at something has never been an automatic in to the galaxy of stars swirling around our planet and across a few generations. However, the ones who did make it all had something in common:

An extraordinary gift or talent.

For instance, Shakespeare’s ability to write a character out of thin air, or Audrey Hepburn’s ability to bring a character from a page to life.

Even infamy required going above and beyond the average rebel. Like Marie Antoinette or John Gotti and their twisted paths to the top.

Those celebrities, the ones with talent or skill, probably roll over in their graves recounting their trips into stardom, since now all it takes is…

I’ll go with having a pulse, since it seems to be the only prerequisite for fame these days.

While I find being famous for being average annoying, I find the celebrity worship that prevails throughout our culture even more disturbing than everyone seeking their 15 minutes of fame.

In case you haven’t heard, Michael Jackson passed away and his parents are taking custody of his children. Jon & Kate are legally separated and have been accused of taking advantage of their 8. Heidi preaches about Jesus via Twitter, while her husband, Spencer, raps on morning talk shows…unprompted.

In reality, who cares?!

More of my friends read Perez Hilton and TMZ than the actual news from legitimate news sources (Just because TMZ broke the MJ story doesn’t make it legit, sorry, guys!). My Facebook newsfeed is never full of responses to local or world events, but it is often overrun with comments regarding pop culture phenoms.

I don’t know Jon or Kate, but I’ve watched their show. Not regularly, but enough to know the names of their kids. However, when all the stories swirled about infidelity and divorce and child abuse, I tuned out. None of those incidents have any bearing on my life. Nor do I feel it is appropriate to watch their lives unravel on T.V. I’m sure if getting out of their contract was an option, J & K would have taken that route rather than letting 40 million viewers watch their passive aggressive spats. Who wouldn’t?

After announcing the separation on their show, TLC released a statement saying that new episodes of the Gosselins would not air for a few months, while things calmed down for them. Too bad it was after two of the highest rated shows the network has ever seen (the season premier and the divorce announcement). Not to mention, back-to-back reruns of the show still play in its normal timeslot. Also, what network wouldn’t drag out real-life drama for more ratings and therefore revenue? For weeks they milked “Jon & Kate have an announcement that will change the lives of their whole family…” Typically shows only get once such event each season, but now “Jon & Kate + 8” will have two. When the show resumes airing new episodes in the fall, I’m sure it will be just as hyped up as the announcement we all knew was coming. TLC doesn’t really have a vested interest in the lives of Jon & Kate, they have a vested interest in the success of their network. It’s not wrong…it’s business.

Thursday, the news of Michael Jackson’s death slapped fans from across three generations. The King of Pop was found dead in his home at the age of 51. Since then, the news has been saturated with coverage of his death. As late as this morning, live shots from Jackson’s home, the Apollo and a few make-shift memorials were being broadcast. Five days later we’re still showing live shots?!

His death was shocking, and releasing information regarding memorials, his estate and the upcoming tour are normal and acceptable. But now everyone wants to know what’s going to happen to the kids. Can Joe, who presumably created Michael the strange man-boy, avoid the same fate for his grandchildren? How is that any of our business? Speculation of Joe Jackson’s motives, and reaction to his lack of reaction at the BET Awards left the broadcast media chattering about what really was going on in the Jackson family. I hate to be redundant…but who cares?! And why is it the business of anyone outside of Jackson’s immediate family and close friends? It’s not like people were fans of Joe, I think it’s common knowledge that he was a little off, but why vilify him further? As far as I’m concerned, the fans don’t need to have answers. The fans don’t need to blame any one. Mostly because Jackson’s real life, the one played out not in the public eye, belongs to Jackson and Jackson alone.

Too often, people forget that celebrities are not playthings for the public to enjoy. Their work, absolutely, that’s what it’s there for. And they do give up most of their privacy when they sign on the dotted line of fame. But while they may be more talented than you or I, at the end of the day, their star isn’t any brighter than the average person, and their personal lives are not important enough to constitute real news.

Qualified? It's all in the eye of the beholder.

2009-06-22T10:57:00.001-04:00

I have only been in Chicago for a few weeks, but a scandal from one of Illinois’ largest higher education institutions filled the pages and airwaves of media outlets.

The University of Illinois admitted to having a “clout list” used in determining admissions to some prospective students. These applicants may not have had the best grades or stellar extra-curricular records, but they did have connected parents, typically with fat pocketbooks.

My first reaction was: “SHOCKER.”

I do not believe that U of I is the first, or even the last, institute to have a list similar to the one they were busted with. As a matter of fact, I guarantee nearly every institution that requires an admissions process has one.

After all, isn’t it standard on college applications to ask if any immediate family members went to the institution? Isn’t being grandfathered in essentially being on a glorified “clout list?”

So, what’s the problem here? Is it really having a “clout list?”

In some instances—yes. If there is reason to believe a student will not be able to carry a college class load with passable grades on par with peers, then yes, admission due to a connection is a problem. No one benefits from a situation like that—in particular, the unqualified student.

I think the real problem is carrying a “clout list” over into the classroom. If a student who did not get in on their own merit is given preferential treatment in the classroom, everyone loses. Not only are students then unprepared to take on the real world, but the institution loses “clout” in the eye of organizations hiring the unqualified, and the colleagues of those people as well.

As far as I know, reports of grade boosting and sliding scales have not been reported for the clouted students, although, who knows what will come up.

And if it does…will I be surprised? Not really.

Freedom of speech...not freedom to hate.

2009-06-11T14:24:00.004-04:00

Above anything else that the governing documents give the citizens of this country is the freedom of speech. It’s the first amendment our founding fathers wrote, it’s the driving force behind our media, it’s the primary right that sets us apart from the countries we go to war with.

But is there a line that should be drawn?

Telling people to suppress their feelings defies the First Amendment, but should hate fall into that category? Should a superiority complex be protected by the First Amendment of a country priding itself on liberty and justice for all?

This is a hard line to tow, and it would take a lot to separate myself from my personal feelings to see both sides. While I don't claim my blog to be unbiased, I do try to see all angles. But today, I don’t think I’m going to tread lightly on the feelings of both sides of the argument. Instead, I am going to give my feelings, uncensored, as to what limits should be placed on our precious First Amendment right.

Hate is never acceptable. Plain and simple. And in spite of what some organizations believe, white supremacist groups in particular—being black, Jewish or liberal, and being pro-family and pro-American, are not mutually exclusive qualities.

Earlier this year, I interviewed an active member of the Ku Klux Klan for a story. I can say nothing bad about that man after our interview. He was polite, honest and open about his beliefs and his membership in the Klan. He stood behind his rhetoric that as a Klan member, he was protecting traditional American values and promoting whites’ rights. Despite his good manners, I think that man is wrong. Should he be required to keep to himself as a result of how he was raised? No. But what about the day after President Obama was elected and that man stood in full Klan garb on the side of a busy street protesting the president’s election? Was that okay? I don’t mean his anger at the election results, I mean wearing robes symbolic for most people as an outfit of hatred, death, superiority and racial intimidation. Should that be allowed? No.

The man who walked into the Holocaust museum yesterday and opened fire on innocent people working and visiting there, what are his rights? Are his freedoms more important than those of the people who were injured physically, emotionally and mentally? Could he have been stopped if the hateful message he had grown up with had been squashed?

It’s unreal to me that in this century people still hold onto the beliefs that events like the Holocaust did not happen. It disgusts me that people think because of their race, they are a step above the rest.

Freedom of speech is one thing, but it should not cover the freedom to hate.

I believe in the First Amendment. However, I also believe that freedom of speech should not include hatred, intimidation or terrorization. People who intentionally taunt others because of race, orientation, age or religion should not be tolerated by a country who welcomes all people with a plaque saying “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” If we are going to let incidents like the one that happened yesterday, and let people who spread hateful messages like that live openly and publically, we should revise Lady Liberty’s welcome speech to say, “Well, unless you’re what we don’t want you be.”

But better than that, maybe we should take a lesson from our bronze goddess, and let her remind us why we’re here.

Just lookin' for a sign.

2009-06-04T11:21:00.002-04:00

I’ve mentioned in previous blog posts my experience working with a minor-league affiliate of the L.A. Dodgers. While the job was physically and mentally exhausting, it was a great experience and a lot of fun.

One of my duties as an intern was to monitor the autograph area, which was nothing more than a sidewalk and low fence separating the bullpen from the lawn seats. Most players spent at least a few minutes at the autograph area, chatting with fans and signing anything from baseballs to foreheads. I imagine those moments were fun for the players, or at least entertaining. But that area was particularly special to the fans, who hoped they held the autographs to the next Hank Aaron or A-Rod…wait…Manny…wait…never mind.

Today, a comment on the New York Times article reporting on the difficulty of getting autographs at the Yankees’ new tricked-out stadium, caught my eye. The man who voiced his frustration at the players being totally secluded was not alone in his anger. Agreement echoed from across the country and from fans of other Major League franchises.

I have to say that I agree with the fans. Tickets, merchandise, food and beer are all rising to unaffordable prices. In particular when families are cutting back on luxuries as the economy tanks. These athletes make multi-million dollar salaries, not including sponsorships and signing bonuses. But arguing exorbitant paychecks is not the point of this post. I do think, though, that for that amount of money, signing some autographs should be on the honey-do list.

I understand being in the zone and focusing on the game. But I have trouble believing that as a professional athlete, finding the appropriate game-time mindset is difficult. If it was, none of them would have made it through the farm systems.

While players make it to the big leagues based on their own hard work and accomplishments, they are nothing without fans. Unlike pop singers and movie stars, though, they have other team members they can rely on to build a fan base willing to buy tickets. However, all athletes know it’s not enough to fall back on teammates, just like they know to run for each pop fly and not assume the fielder next to you will pick it off.

It’s unfortunate that love for the game tends not to reach the heights of careers. But why does that have to affect the fans? The people who admire and support their teams should receive something other than a winning record. Particularly when it comes to baseball, where franchise support is passed down through generations.

Professional athletes need to remember what it’s like to be a kid wanting a shot to have a minute of face time with their heroes, as well as appreciate the fans who give up time, money and an afternoon to watch America’s favorite pastime.

Right to life? How about respect for life?

2009-06-01T21:45:00.003-04:00

Last Sunday morning I went to mass at the church in my new neighborhood. As I sat in the pew, I watched other parishioners, listened to the priest and marveled at the stained glass windows looming over me. I never felt unsafe. I never felt unsure. I never felt in danger.

Members of the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kan., where Dr. George Tiller was a member, did not have an experience like mine on Sunday, though. Instead their prayers and hymns were drowned out by a single gunshot.

Tiller is one of only a few doctors in the United States who offers late-term abortions, procedures carefully regulated by Kansas law. Recent allegations that Tiller did not always comply with the rules had been brought to court, but the doctor was never convicted.

The murder of Tiller is one example of the extreme activism surrounding controversial social issues. And I can’t help but think, in this circumstance, what the shooter was trying to prove about having respect for life. However, a lack of respect can be found on both sides of the argument.

The justification some right to life groups have made in defense of Tiller’s killing, is that his death will prevent thousands more. I find this logic twisted and the argument false. Women seeking abortions will not be stopped by one man’s death. Other means to the same end are available in the form of other doctors or self-inflicted injuries resulting in the same outcome. To me, this means Tiller’s death was in vain.

The shooter took his version of justice, one that differs from the United States’ established laws, and executed a fatal plan.

There are reasons we have laws, regulations and social norms to guide our day-to-day lives. They keep the majority safe and anarchy at bay. So what does it do to our system when people feel they are above the law and disregard all three?

People like the man who killed Tiller create distrust in the system and a breakdown in justice and fairness. They may intimidate other people, but is that really the point? Disregard free will, choice and respect to get what you want? It sounds more like a child throwing a temper tantrum at Toys’R’Us to get a present than making a difference. Only those tantrums are nothing but an annoyance, rather than deadly.

I understand both sides of this argument, as well as the emotional toll it takes on people who choose to fight for one side or the other. However, making stands like the one Tiller’s murderer did is not one that will help the issue transcend the current deadlock it’s in. Likewise, people who engage in similar acts to fight for other issues will not make a difference or change. Instead, we need to make a shift toward intelligent arguments and using the options outlined by our Constitution to make changes.

Hundreds of organizations do this already, and many of them are Pro-Life groups. Similarly, Pro-Choice groups are not sitting complacently on the current law, seeking ways to keep choice available. Neither group should be condemned for their beliefs, and neither should be set back by the actions of irresponsible extremists.

The death of Dr. Tiller was an unnecessary act of violence that proves no point and serves no purpose. It is unfortunate that it taints the work of other people pushing for the same goals, and that women exercising choice and doctors who perform abortions have reason to fear and live closeted.

I applaud the National Right to Life organization for condemning the killing and similar acts of violence as against their teaching, I only hope that people who subscribe to their beliefs feel the same and keep their protests limited to civil, respectful and legal activities.

Welcome back to the Wild, Wild West.

2009-05-23T11:50:00.002-04:00

The days of the Wild West are gone. It’s no longer socially acceptable to challenge someone to draw in the middle of the street or across a crowded bar. However, Texas is trying to go back to its roots…tumbleweeds, whiskey, blazin’ guns and all.

While the 2^nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, I have a problem with Texas’ newest gun (un)control law, which will allow college students to carry concealed weapons on campus. This week, the bill passed in the Texas House, and now will go to the state Senate for approval.

Let me back up and say that I do not have a problem with the 2^nd Amendment, or peoples’ right to hunt, carry a weapon on camping trips where a grizzly may be encountered, or to shoot target practice. I do have an issue with people carrying weapons around relatively safe areas under the guise of self-protection.

The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 was tragic and most likely preventable. Had professors, administrators, family members or acquaintances taken any interest in the mentally unstable student, warning signs may have been there to help prevent the catastrophe to human life. Further, checks into the mental background of a person trying to purchase guns would have indicated a serious history with social anxiety and depression-related disorders.

Would a second gunman at VT have saved lives? Maybe. Would it have saved all the lives lost? No.

The odds of a student perpetrating the same crime that was committed at Virginia Tech are slim to none. There are millions of co-eds enrolled at institutions of higher education across the country, and nothing like the VT massacre had been seen before or has been seen since. So why are we willing to arm more students and set them loose on campuses?

Clearly, background checks into mental stability are not required, so who’s to say students won’t take advantage of loopholes the way lawbreakers do? Allowing gun deregulation on campus does not mean only responsible gun users will bring guns to class, it means all gun users can, and might, bring guns to class.

What happens when another sick student opens fire in a classroom, this time, though, not taking the route of planning a sneak attack (after all, why plan one when you can just carry a gun into a classroom?). From the back of the room, he attacks.

My first question is: How many other students in that room have guns?

Second: What are the odds those students know how to properly use a firearm? (I’ll give Texans the benefit of the doubt…meaning most will).

Third: How many of those gun-carrying students have the wherewithal in a high-stress situation to shoot?

Fourth: How will they know whom to shoot at?

I hope school shootings do not become commonplace to the point of every child needing to carry protection with them to school. I also hope that the Texas State Senate looks into the likelihood of those situations occurring and decide on what is best for the majority of students. I don’t think gun deregulation is the answer. Making guns more available on campus will not deter already sick students from planning and implementing a plan of morbid action. Students who take the route of the VT shooter, and others like him, already have no consideration for the law or what social norms dictate as acceptable. They also have no regard for what others may think of their actions. Further, most school shooters take their own lives at the end of their sprees, making death not a punishment, no matter what form it comes in.

I also have an issue with concealed weapons. It would not make me feel safer sitting in class with the knowledge that someone, somewhere, has a gun. I would want to know who? Where? Why? What’s their history? So unless Texas also is ready to provide each person on campus with that information on each gun holder, I think this law has the potential to create more problems than it will solve. We are not a society made up of vigilante justice forces. (I really almost used a “The Big Lebowski” quote to further make my point. So for my fellow fans, here it is: “This isn’t ‘Nam, man. There are rules here.”) As a matter of fact, we as a society tend to frown on vigilante justice, so why let college students take justice into their own hands?

Bringing guns to campus increases the chances of emotionally charged situations escalating to violent or deadly ones. Places of learning should be safe environments, free of concealed weapons and free of the fear that someone is carrying out a deadly plan in the next room.

Should this law pass in Texas, I certainly hope it does not become the norm.

Not just the butt of the joke.

2009-05-21T12:43:00.001-04:00

My dad loves to pick up copies of local magazines and publications focusing on Michigan’s attractions, resources and natural beauty. I think there are a couple reasons he has become a collector of these colorful pages. First, he takes a genuine interest in history, culture and where he comes from. Second, I have aspirations to write for a travel magazine, and he hopes piquing my interest in a local one will keep me nearby.

Today, Michigan History Magazine was left on the counter, I assume for me to page through. The content of the May/June issue includes pieces on one-room schoolhouses, Motown, boxer Jack Dempsey, and included a smattering of photos chronicling Michigan’s evolution from a logging state to a musical powerhouse, all told through the eyes of Michiganders (not Michiganians), nostalgic for the glory days of our state.

It’s no secret that Michigan has been battered and bruised by the national economic climate. The state also is more split by partisan lines than ever before, with people protecting assets and what they’ve earned, while others fall from the upper-middle class and clamor for help after finding themselves in a situation requiring unemployment and welfare.

Mitch Albom has pleaded with the readers of his nationally syndicated column to give Michigan a break and find a new punch line (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/01/07/detroit/2.html). Eminem released a viral video telling his hometown of Detroit to “keep your head up” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXm6vIeC4zo). Jeff Daniels, not only a Michigan native but a graduate of my alma mater, Central Michigan University, lends his voice and image to commercials touting new industries sprouting up in the state. The “Pure Michigan” advertising campaign uses the voice of another Michigan actor, Tim Allen, who invites people to come and see what the Great Lakes State has to offer.

While the sentiments of camaraderie and toughness are welcomed by Michigan residents who feel the situation in its rawest form, there is something about this Michigan History Magazine that I find to be even sweeter.

The nostalgia of Allen, Albom and Daniels is different from the nostalgia in the pages of the magazine. It seems like Michigan History Magazine offers less yearning for the old days and begging for the future, but more points of pride for Michiganders. This state comes from an incredible past and is built on a solid foundation of immigrants and laborers who worked to shape their home.

Michigan gave the world Aretha Franklin and Smokey Robinson. Michigan gave the world the Mustang and the F-150. Michigan has beaches, hills, forests and vistas…combinations found across entire continents, but rarely in one state.

It’s easy to forget where we come from sometimes, especially during tough times, when looking forward and hoping for tomorrow is what keeps us going. But forgetting where we come from causes us to forget our strength, and that we didn’t start here. It’s also hard to see ourselves anywhere but where we are.

The truth is, we will bounce back. The economy will recover, new industries will germinate, people will move back and Michigan will again be known as an innovator. If there is one thing I’ve learned from Michigan History Magazine, it’s that the path we’ve hoed is a long one that has come up against a few obstacles. That’s never mattered, though, we’ve always fought through it. And now, more than ever, we need to fight and work, because there is a long line of hard workers behind us, pushing us, supporting us, and reminding us where we come from.

Fighting Irish. Fighting Mad.

2009-05-13T12:53:00.000-04:00

I grew up in a Catholic household and spent a majority of my academic career at parochial schools. My religion classes ranged in content from church history to morality to Old Testament studies, and each offered more insight into the religion I’d accepted as my own and integrated into my life.

While most of my peers seemed to take the route of their parents and our teachers on the path of conservative political and social values—I did not. Sometimes my difference of opinions caused problems (any readers take Mrs. Koss’ social justice class with me?), other times it allowed for great debates between my friends and I. We all came from similar backgrounds and took the same classes, but we each got something different out of it.

I have a handful of friends who after graduation enrolled at the University of Notre Dame. Coming from a Catholic high school, ND is the holy grail of higher education institutions, and acceptance there is celebrated by friends and family alike.

Notre Dame is an institution steeped in history and tradition, one of which is extended an invite to the president of the United States to speak at the first commencement after his inauguration. This has been going on for most of the last century, and this year’s invitation to President Barack Obama is no different.

However, Obama’s liberal stance on social issues stands in stark contrast to most of the Church’s teachings, causing many students, parents and donors to sound off against the president and his visit to the university. As a matter of fact, many of my parents’ friends are in that group.

I have a great deal of respect for the members of my community who hold our religion as paramount in their lives, working their day-to-day interactions around what is right and wrong according to the Catholic church. However, in this case, I feel they are wrong to react so adversely.

No matter what your political leanings are, I don’t think it’s out of line to say that Obama is an extremely compelling speaker. His life story exemplifies the American Dream, and he now holds one of the highest offices in the free world. He adopted the words “hope” and “change” as his own during his presidential campaign, and has succeeded on both of those sentiments. In reality, what is graduating from college without change and hope? Leaving the comfort of any university means changing not only locations—but lifestyles, friends, jobs and security. Graduating from college means hope for the future.

For a man who mobilized millions during his campaign, it’s safe to say that President Obama knows a thing or two about appealing to a crowd and fitting into his audience. I don’t think his speech at Notre Dame will be any different. I doubt he’ll be promoting a political agenda and speaking on his personal beliefs regarding hot-button social issues, but rather his take on the world those graduates will enter, and maybe some advice about achieving feats that seem impossible. After all, isn’t that what he did?

There also has been anger at the president receiving an honorary law degree from the University. Again, I don’t understand the rage here. Are there no liberals wandering the campus at Notre Dame? Has the university never given a degree to someone who may not subscribe to the Catholic Doctrine? This is an honor that has been bestowed on other democratic presidents, without the backlash our current president is receiving. Does Obama’s acceptance of a law degree diminish the value of the other degrees being presented that day or the diplomas already hanging on the walls of alumni across the world? Absolutely not.

The outcry against the president’s visit to Notre Dame truly gives a new meaning to the Fighting Irish. But I’d like to make a point, that while Obama is liberal, he is no more anti-Catholic than I am. His views were not molded to be a slap in the face to Catholicism, at least, that is an assumption I am willing to make. And since when is it a problem for Catholics to face challenges to their morality and religious views? Our values should be challenged. Our values should be questioned, and if our faith is strong, our answer will always be Christ.

I learned an incredible amount about my faith and about myself going through Catholic school, but one ability I came out with has been extraordinarily valuable during my post-Catholic school life. I have such a comprehensive understanding of the Church and its history, that I can be a defender of the faith when people question or put down what I believe in. I’ve been told by a Southern Baptist woman that I am not saved. I was told by a college roommate that my religion was a disgrace and corrupt, and that my way was not the way to heaven. Okay. To each his own. However, I was able to respond with facts, not a spewing of anger and hate like what was being doled to me. That alone stands as one of the greatest beauties about the place my Notre Dame friends and I came from. Why should now be any different?

I encourage the people who are lucky enough to hear the president speak this weekend to open their minds and their hearts. Not to be converted, because who can shake faith as strong as yours? But rather to learn something. We weren’t taught to be closed-minded, we were taught to be strong in our convictions and character, and now is the time to be just that.

One more nostalgic post...then I promise to go back to normal.

2009-05-03T15:25:00.000-04:00

The past couple weeks have been riddled with emotion. I am graduating college on Saturday, and while it is exciting, I also am feeling nervous, scared, anxious and a mixture of at least a dozen other emotions that I can’t quite put my finger on.

I know my last post got a little nostalgic, but please indulge me in this walk down memory lane. It just seems right to finish up with a quick look back.

Pulling up to Trout Hall my freshman year gave me the same crazy myriad of emotions I’m feeling now. I felt a sense of independence I had never had, and ready to take on Central Michigan University. That first semester was rocky, at best, but I learned quite a bit about myself, my friends and surviving life away from my parents.

After wrapping up my first semester of college with the worst case of mono ever seen, I moved into a new dorm with new people and a new outlook. My new roommate was a tall, gorgeous, opinionated, brilliant woman named Erica. She became one of my closest friends, as well as a dancing buddy to fabulously bad 90s hip-hop. That also was the semester I met my first boyfriend, one of many bumps in the road Erica would help me smooth out.

Sophomore year. Wow. Let’s talk about the definition of the rock’n’roll lifestyle. I skipped a lot of class and drank way too much. But I became friends with five of the most beautiful women I have ever met. My roommates that year, Caitlin, Lauren, Alli, Jess and Megan, were more than my roommates or friends, they became my sisters. While we fought like only sisters can, we laughed, cried and celebrated victories, defeats and heartbreaks the way that only family can. I miss those ladies and those days, but I think I am still recovering from one of our many epic bashes.

During the spring of my sophomore year, an organization came into my life that would change everything. I will never forget walking up the steps of the Alpha Chi Omega house and not knowing what would happen inside…but when Kaitlyn Konarska greeted me at the door, something felt like home. I was offered an accepted a bid to the best sorority on campus, and began my trip to Greek-town. I was unprepared for what being in a sorority would mean. It was more than parties and philanthropy, recruitment and dues…it was a real sisterhood that I thought was a myth in organizations such as mine. Joining brought me my best friends and the women who help define my college career. It also brought experience and drama that has helped shape me, along with relationships and memories I cherish every day. I love that no matter how far away we live, it feels like nothing has changed when we get together, and I hope someday when we’re 50, it will be the same. (At this point, I’m issuing an open invite to mine and Colson’s mansions, which will be next door to one another. We’ll have servants—a.k.a our children—to serve us drinks, so it should be a great time!)

Central Harmony serenaded its way into my heart during my junior year. While at the time we weren’t very good, the a cappella group I love so much has grown and evolved into the premier singing group at CMU. We have performed all over the state of Michigan, and have built a following of our music. CH has opened for InPulse, a nationally recognized a cappella group, and has even been asked to perform with them again. The group has made me a better singer and performer, and has brought me two of my very best friends. Dom and Elwood—you two have become my rocks this year. It can’t be easy putting up with me when I get whiney, but no matter what, you do. The dinners and movie nights have made my toughest year in college one of my best, and it’s because of you guys.

It’s funny where we end up, you know? I’m a public relations major who planned on going into crisis management. Then, out of nowhere, an editing class brought me to Central Michigan Life. I laid low for the first semester I worked there, editing pages then leaving. But when then Senator Barack Obama came to Flint and every reporter had class…I got my chance. My first real story for the paper was Obama’s rally on the east side of the state. My second was Senator John McCain’s on the west side. Over the course of the semester, I covered all things politics and some other random campus events. I was named senior reporter the next semester, and have since filled my portfolio covering interesting events and people. My love of writing and reporting grew to the point of giving up PR for another life. The life of a writer. I think I’ve found my niche, the place where I feel most comfortable, and I haven’t felt that way since I gave up singing opera five years ago. My colleagues in the newsroom are vastly talented, and every day made me work for bylines and perfection. I appreciate the lessons learned there, the faith of my editors and the great times at Marty’s once the pages were sent.

Finally, this post wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t give a shout out to my parents. While I don’t think I was too difficult to raise, I don’t think I was too easy to watch while I fumbled my way through college. While I got my social streak from my dad and my class skipping tendencies from my mom (a fact I only learned last year when she signed up for an art class then never went…), rolling those qualities into one made for a rocky ride. But one they always held on for. I’m not sure what words sum up my appreciation…I’m a writer, I should be able to find them. But nothing seems significant enough. So, thank you…and I promise to find you the best home when the time comes, because you’ve given me the best home for the past 22 years. (That’s supposed to make you laugh, by the way!)

So here I go. I’m less than a week away from donning the funny hat and gown, and walking with my friends across the threshold of life. I’ve had a good run…and I feel like I haven’t left any strings undone or rocks unturned. So, thank you to my friends and family for the past five years. To my friends, new and old, it’s been a great run…and you’re all to thank. To my family, thank you for the unconditional love and support…you inspire me to be better and to be that for you.

Fire up, Chips.

Facing cyber police.

2009-04-29T02:26:00.000-04:00

For the past few years, I have kept pretty close tabs on my social networking accounts. I make sure the photos tagged of me are appropriate, and if they’re not, I take them down. I refrain from including non-politically correct interests and activities in my profile (now that I type that, I’m not quite sure I have a list of those anyway…), and I try to keep profanity in my status updates to a minimum.

However, I cannot count how many times my mother has begged me to get rid of my page. She has two lines of reasoning. The first is stalkers, the second is someone not hiring me because of my Facebook page.

I’ve heard of this happening. Someone has belligerent pictures of themselves from freshman year tagged, and they don’t get a job. Or the companies who create fake profiles to see all the available details about someone’s personal life. Recently, a woman in Britain was fired from her job because she took a sick day but logged into her Facebook account.

Okay, the last one I understand. While the sole act of logging in is not grounds for dismissal, posting something on Facebook contradicting a lie and then getting caught is just dumb.

But is it really fair for employers to take Facebook and other social profiles into consideration during the hiring process?

Most companies are taking that route. I understand wanting to know about the backgrounds of employees, but shouldn’t a background and reference check give a pretty good idea of someone’s work ethic, work experience and the ability to show up to work on time and sober?

Yes, people who post to Facebook accounts are, to a certain extent, making their lives public. But what about people who keep their profiles on private?

Recently, I interviewed for a few internships both in and out of Michigan. Shortly after beginning the interview process, I received a number of friend requests from people in New York, Kansas and New Orleans. I didn’t know a single one, and didn’t have friends in common with any of them.

Nothing indicated these people were from the companies I had interviewed with, but it was a strange coincidence. I denied every one.

What exactly were they looking for? Activities: kicking kittens, getting high, taunting old ladies and drinking excessively. Who would actually post something like that anyway?

Needless to say, I don’t think Facebook is an accurate barometer of a person, their character or their work ethic.

In a constantly shrinking and ever-connected world, though, whatever you post is fair game. And apparently that’s how more and more companies are playing it.

So be careful, fellow cyber junkies. We live in a world full of accessible information and a country with limited jobs available. Employers will look for any reason to decrease their workload in the hiring process, so don’t let Facebook become what keeps you from finding a job.

To study or to nap? That is the question.

2009-04-28T19:14:00.003-04:00

I have never claimed to be studious. As a matter of fact, I don’t really enjoy school all that much. I do like to learn, but I’ve been known to skip a class or two in favor of activities that help me gain life experience.

At least, that’s what I tell my mom and dad.

I have spent a good portion of my college career looking toward the next phase of my life. The “Big Kid World” as I like to call it, was always just out of reach, taunting me with steady paychecks, nice apartments and big-city skylines.

Well, now it’s here. Please, don’t get me wrong, I’m ready. But I’m starting to realize that I am going to miss the place that I have made my home for the past five years.

I have some of the best memories, and photos to chronicle nights that have become hazy over time, or that were hazy in the first place. I also have the most amazing friends and sorority sisters a girl could ever ask for.

I spent two years as an active in my sorority, Alpha Chi Omega, before claiming alumna status last spring. The choice to give up the active social and philanthropic life was not a difficult one to make. It was my time to go. New girls were coming up the ranks who were beautiful, smart and capable, I knew the organization I loved so much would continue to thrive, and it has.

Central Harmony has claimed another significant part of my college career. Three years to be exact. Before coming to college, I was an opera singer with an intense vibrato and the ability to reach notes high above the scale. I was not what the group was looking for, but they took a chance on me, and quickly shook that classical training right out of me. It turned into one of the most challenging, and rewarding experiences of my life. Last Saturday, I performed my last concert with Central Harmony, and I could not have asked for a more amazing performance. It’s sad, but it’s my time to go.

A few nights ago, I decided to walk to the library. I’ve never been a fan of libraries, there is too much distraction for a people watcher like me. I do, however, love the Baber Reading Room, or rather, the Baber Napping Room. That little space between the library’s atrium and the elevators is the quietest place on campus with the most comfortable chairs. No one speaks there, and once I step into that space, I’m either incredibly productive or incredible at taking a nap, depending on the time of day.

There is an interesting air in the Baber Napping Room. It's usually the same group of people there when I am, since we all presumably have the same break from class. No one speaks in the Baber Room, since even the slightest whisper is audible throughout the room. But there is a quiet understanding between us, an unspoken camaraderie based on procrastination, sleep and even productivity.

As I sat in my favorite spot, I suddenly realized something, in the Big Kid World, I don’t think I’ll be able to nap in a public place and have it be acceptable, or even safe. To be honest, it kind of scares me.

I'm leaving not just the comfort and quiet of the Baber Room, but the comfort and security of my college campus. No more blue lights to run to if something goes wrong, no more free rides around campus from the police department, no more $1 fountain pops and $1.50 pizza slices, washed down by $1 pints of beer.

I'm going to miss this place.

So now I have to give up the little burrow, which has been so conducive to both academic and sleepy endeavors, to a younger version of myself, just trying to find her way on campus.

But that’s okay. It’s my time.

That's some good, quality H2O.

2009-04-23T01:08:00.001-04:00

There are a few basic needs humans require for survival. Sleep, food, and above all, water. The rule of thumb is to consume about 8 glasses of water per day in order to replace fluids lost in our day-to-day functioning. Eight glasses is the equivalent of 64 ounces, or 2 liters, of the life-giving liquid.

I suppose it doesn’t matter how you get your water…tap or bottled…or maybe it does.

Currently, I am taking a chemistry class (yes, I’m graduating in two weeks, but I’ve been putting this class off since freshman year), and we are studying water. Last night’s assignment required some reading about the standards bottled water companies are held to versus the governmental regulations of tap water. As it turns out, tap water is the better choice for drinking. Let me explain.

Tap water is regulated by the EPA and is tested hundreds of times every month for bacteria such as E. coli and fecal coliform. It’s also disinfected with chlorine, keeping germs and bacteria at bay even after the water comes out of the tap. Municipal water plants also are required to test for viruses.

Now for bottled water. The FDA regulates bottled water, however, water bottled and sold within a single state is not regulated on a national level. FDA standards require bacteria testing once each week (versus the hundreds per month for tap) and once yearly testing for organic chemicals (versus the quarterly testing done on tap water). Unlike tap water, bottled water companies are not required to filter water, eliminate E. coli and fecal coliform, or even disinfect their water before bottling, marketing and selling it to the public. However, when bottled water companies do disinfect their water, it typically is done with ozone. Ozone leaves no taste the way that chlorine does, but its power is eradicated when air hits the water, meaning bacteria grows back quickly.

Surprised? I was!

After learning about the differences in safety regulations between tap and bottled water, I wondered how it is that people aren’t getting sick from water potentially contaminated with feces and E. coli? Well, if you’re a bottled water drinker, here’s the good (well, maybe bad) news… you’re drinking tap water!

Most bottled water companies have fine print on the back of their labels with the actual location of where their water is collected. More often than not, it’s from municipal water sources. Why wouldn’t it be? Municipal water sources are held to a higher standard than bottled water, it’s cleaner, it’s paid for by tax dollars and there is little to no risk of people getting sick. What company would risk bottling actual river water with minimal restrictions, just to get a customer sick and face legal problems? I’ll venture the guess of “not many.”

I used to be a big fan of bottled water. Fiji Water was my favorite. I also used to sing opera and classical music. This meant being involved in two choirs and taking private voice lessons, along with rehearsing on my own. To keep my chords limber and ready, drinking water was a must, and I got in the habit of drinking about 16 glasses each day. Bottled water became too expensive for that habit, so I went cold turkey back to the tap.

I’ve never minded tap water anyway, and suddenly, I felt like I was doing something good for myself and the environment. I bought a Nalgene bottle, which I refilled once or twice each day, eliminating my need for plastic water bottles. More recently, when potential health risks resulting from plastic bottles came to light, I bought a stainless steel refillable bottle.

So today, I encourage you to do something good for yourself, your wallet and your world. Invest in a reusable water bottle and drink your eight glasses. You’re already paying for it with taxes, and the good news is…it’s cleaner than anything you can buy in a store.

Actually pleasant.

2009-04-22T10:09:00.004-04:00

While Mount Pleasant, Michigan may not be renowned for much, there are a few gems in this town that make living here worthwhile. Nelson Park is first on my list.

I discovered Nelson, the little brother of popular Island Park, with my now ex-boyfriend a few years ago. We would bring his dog to walk the paths or explore the riverbank bordering the eastern edge of the park. A manmade waterfall, built as a tribute to the native Saginaw Chippewa, adds a picturesque touch.

Last week, on the first really nice day of the season, I hopped on my bike and pedaled the mile or so from my apartment to Nelson Park. I pulled up to a grassy spot overlooking the Chippewa River and laid out a blanket, taking in the beauty of spring exploding around me. Flower, trees, green grass and a bright, warm sun. I brought a book with me, but for some reason, I didn’t crack the binding. I didn’t do much for a while, other than watch pieces of driftwood float down the river, watch people coming out of hibernation and enjoy nature, soak in a little real sunshine.

That day goes down as one of the best I’ve had in a very long time. I felt so relaxed and at peace. That’s a strange combination for me in a city that has zapped me of my energy and contentment for the past five years.

I did end up making a pretty nice dent in my reading material and drifting, like the wood on the river, in and out of sleep. The weather hasn’t cooperated with my plans for another trip to Nelson Park, but predictions for tomorrow indicate more sunshine and warm temperatures. So, I guess this post is a long way of saying: if you need me, chances are I’m out enjoying a day in the most pleasant place in Mount Pleasant.

Photo courtesy of: http://www.mt-pleasant.org/depts/pr/prhomepage/cityparks/nelson.html

Can't we all just get along?

2009-04-15T12:15:00.003-04:00

I’ve never been short on opinions. As a matter of fact, I also would like to believe that I am always right, but to err is human. However, there is one topic I feel I have the absolute upper hand on. Tolerance.

I have a major issue with people and groups who do not respect or tolerate an opposing viewpoint. I also take issue with people who under the guise of free speech preach hateful and hurtful messages.

Maybe I like to color my world in rainbows and butterflies, but I still believe that it is possible that we can all just get along. We don’t all have to agree or conform—but can’t we just respect one another?

Last week’s presentation at Central Michigan University by Gary Glenn of the American Family Association was met by protestors of his ultra-conservative, anti-gay viewpoints. In the days following the event, an uproar on www.cm-life.com, CMU's student newspaper Web site, indicated people from both sides were outraged at the attempts to silence either side. This is a perfect example of intolerance and a communication breakdown between campus organizations. In particular because both groups stand by their right to assemble and speak without being inhibited.

This week, the fiasco with Amazon.com re-categorizing the titles of all gay and lesbian sympathetic books to the adult section of the Web site, offers another example of intolerance.

Amazon denies responsibility of moving the titles, saying that a bug created by a blogger caused the change.

On his Live Journal, the blogger takes credit for the incident, stating his goal was to cause moral outrage.

Whoever is responsible, Amazon or the blogger, I have to ask:

What’s the point?

Whatever the political, social or religious viewpoint of this blogger, why does he feel so entitled to keep information and entertainment from a whole group of people? Likewise, why would Amazon, a company who prides itself on offering the widest selection of titles and works, delete a whole array of literary options? That is not free speech, it is discrimination.

Sure, I have certain tendencies based on my life experience. I also think the world would be much easier if everyone subscribed to my belief system. However, I recognize this would not make the world a better place, rather a society of drones with no ability to think or speak freely.

Therefore, I welcome people who make judgments and assessments on situations in an educated and enlightened manner, whatever their viewpoint may be. I also welcome healthy debates on my beliefs, with the expectation that my viewpoint, and yours, will be respected and given consideration.

As a matter of fact, I often look to be converted. I covered rallies for both presidential candidates last fall, and hoped to be swayed from one side to the other. I attended Catholic schools for middle and high school, the whole time hoping someone would present an argument to sway my social beliefs to a more conservative stance. That would have made my life easier in my social justice classes.

At the end of the day, though, I cannot readily subscribe to every controversial viewpoint. I can, however, respect the ones who leave open the door for conversation and allow the possibility of building a bridge to understanding.

To me, that is tolerance. That is respect. And those are two pillars I always seek to uphold, and that I always hope to receive in return.

Thank you, Tom Brokaw.

2009-04-14T15:06:00.005-04:00

This is the first blog I'd ever written. It was posted on my original blog site, but I wanted to repost it for my new followers and open it up for discussion again. I think it still holds true, anyways. Enjoy!

One of the most vivid memories from my childhood is sitting with my parents every evening to watch Tom Brokaw introduce stories and discuss the state of our world. To this day, the staccato notes of NBC’s Nightly News makes me feel like I’m back at home nestled up on my father’s lap with a globe, pointing out the countries talked about on the program.

My attention to the news began then. Looking back, I appreciate that my dad made me sit with the globe and an encyclopedia so he and I could research far away places and the history behind the breaking news. Now, those nights of reading about Afghanistan, China, Ethiopia and Iraq are more useful than ever.

The media world is at a crossroads, with the familiar and comfortable path at a dead end. No longer is print or broadcast news enough, as the Internet has permeated nearly every aspect of our lives. While the Web provides countless research and learning opportunities, sifting through thousands of results for accurate and relevant information requires more effort than most are willing to put in.

Through classes, other columns (http://cbs5.com/worldview.html) and my own observations, it is clear that the way news is delivered must adapt to an increasingly technologically savvy and impatient society. One where instant gratification is key, and bullet points displaying information is sufficient.

When newspapers and broadcast media were the prime ways of gathering news, anchors and writers had the opportunity to explain, sometimes in depth, ramifications of events or the background that brought us to this point. However, with the Internet becoming the primary source of news for many Americans, this benefit is becoming obsolete.

Too often, people simply use a search engine to get a quick overview of daily events, without putting any thought into what they’re absorbing. Beyond that, most sites returned in searches are not putting together credible stories with accurate first hand information, rather a smattering of pieces from other sources.

Credit must be given, however, to those who do seek out news, from any source. It is vital in a continually shrinking world to understand what is happening around us. While the ideal would be taking the time to seek credible and in depth news sources (The New York Times, The LA Times, BBC), I respect people who make any attempt to gather information from any source.

But let’s go further. Most of today’s events are merely another step towards a culmination. Rarely is news just a freak occurrence stemming from nothing and going nowhere. Everything to this point is a piece of history that lends itself to current events. And tomorrow, today’s news will just be another piece of that puzzle. Today is history in the making.

It is so important that we take a look back and understand how we have made it this far. Not to just accept what is happening and use recitations from online or a television headline broadcast as water cooler banter with no real understanding of what is going on. Educate yourself and educate others. Most of today’s biggest news sources post stories online for free--it’s just a matter of seeking those sites out.

On a local level, request more information! Write the editors of your local papers and ask for more comprehensive coverage of events, more in depth analyses of stories. That’s what reporters and editors are there for, to get the information and share it with the masses. But if your requests fall on dead ears, fire up that search engine and do some research on your own. Go beyond the sites with the most hits and find Web pages with .gov or .org domains. These are typically regulated and offer accurate information. Also, use the expanse of the World Wide Web to your advantage. Check out newspapers from across our country, and from others as well. It’s one of the greatest benefits of instant and distant interaction.

Or if you’re like me…do it the old fashion way. Curl up in a comfortable chair, spin your globe and crack open the binding of an encyclopedia. Who knows what you might learn.

No one should be invisible.

2009-03-25T23:16:00.000-04:00

In a grey colonial house, nestled at the end of a cul-du-sac, lives a little girl with brown hair and big brown eyes. She spends her days on her bike, traveling the neighborhood and exploring the local park. At night, the two-story playhouse in her backyard is the setting for slumber parties and late-night giggle fests between her and her best friends. There is a picket fence in the front yard and a loyal Golden Retriever at the foot of her bed every night. It is the quintessential American fairy tale.

Half a world a way, though, is a little boy. He is the same age as that brown-eyed girl, only his world could not look any different. Months ago, he was abducted from his village and handed a machine gun. He was forced to watch his comrades mutilate his countrymen, forced to kill others. He has never seen a photo of himself, or even a camera, and fears that even if he could escape, his captors would find him only to torture and kill him.

Uganda has been torn apart by a civil war for 23 years. Rebel forces, known as the LRA, are led by a man named Joseph Kony. Kony considers himself a god and savior, and members of his army follow him with cult-like devotion.

Kony attacks villages and communities without warning and for no reason, other then to recruit for his cause. By recruit, I mean kidnap children, many younger than 12, and threaten them into submission. These children are trained to be soldiers and killers. They are told that if they try to escape, they will be found, tortured and killed. Not to be misunderstood, many of these child soldiers have seen their family members and friends killed in front of them.

There are more than 3,000 children currently yielding machetes and machine guns, pushing through the jungles of Africa, following orders and missing out on all the beauties of being a child.

Tonight, the roadies of Invisible Children came to Central Michigan University with documentaries, a message and a plea: help save these children.

Invisible Children is an organization based out of San Diego, California. Six years ago, a trio of friends, who had spent their childhood years similar to the little brown-eyed girl, set out to learn about the atrocities happening in the Congo. After learning about the war being fought by children, they decided to make a pilgrimage to Uganda, spend time with the kids and unveil what really is going on in the region.

After forming bonds with child soldiers, learning about Uganda’s history from locals, speaking with Kony himself and spreading the word in their community, the group was able to raise millions of dollars to build schools in the region and rescue some of the soldiers from rebel hands. However, thousands still carry out orders from Kony, Uganda’s self-proclaimed god.

I make it a point to know what’s going on in my world, but I was unprepared for some of the images I saw in the documentaries this evening. Haunting frames with malnourished boys creeping through the underbrush. Some still seemed hopeful, counting on relief from the world community.

The documentary showed one boy who had escaped from Kony’s army, but life on the other side was not really a life of freedom. He said he would rather die than live, since running away meant spending the rest of his life running.

It’s easy to find reasons to support a cause, sometimes it’s harder, especially during a recession, to actually act. But Invisible Children is not just asking for donations. They’re asking for activism. They’re asking for action. Here is a link of the plan: http://www.invisiblechildren.com/marchhouseparty/ , the culmination of this year’s tours and documentary.

The main Web site www.invisiblechildren.com also lists the organization’s history, contact information and much more about the child soldiers.

I cannot do their message the justice it deserves in this blog, so I encourage you to visit the site, see what Invisible Children is all about. If not to become involved, at least to become informed.

This big world is getting smaller…and I think we owe it to each other to do something to make it a little better. Don’t you?

Getting fired up about my Chips.

2009-03-24T23:40:00.000-04:00

My past five years at Central Michigan University have been pretty decent. I’ve met some amazing people, taken some interesting classes, joined a sorority and learned to sing with an a cappella group. I’m content.

However, it has occurred to me that I have not experienced much here at CMU.

With all the free shows and concerts, I’ve only attended a handful. Movies at the Wesley? Never been. Did you know we have a film festival here?

My paper chain only has 43 links left on it—which means only a few short weeks separate me from commencement, and losing so many student perks.

So, here is my pledge to myself and to CMU: I am going to spend my last 43 days here really experiencing the place I’ve called home for five years.

I’m going to check out the film festival and spend some time at the University Art Gallery. There’s an exhibit about the history of Michigan’s newspapers, and with those historic institutions crippling under industry changes, now’s the time to take a look back.

There’s open mic nights, lectures on Darwin and Lincoln, jazz concerts and spoken testimonials from sexual abuse survivors. Why have I been missing this stuff?!

Looking back, I believe I chose my student organizations and friends wisely, I only wish I would have let this campus become as much of a part of me as I became of it. And that’s what I encourage you to do as well.

Take a look at the University Events Calendar and take your pick. There is so much to learn and explore outside of the classroom, and I have a strong feeling that my last 43 days at CMU might be my most enlightened days here. And if you hear of an event that looks pretty cool, feel free to send the information my way.

The 'Twilight' phenomenon finally dawns on me.

2009-03-22T22:31:00.001-04:00

I don’t jump on book bandwagons. Not that I’m a literary snob, but my stubborn streak prevents me from reading books or series that everybody else is. As a result, I did not read any of the ‘Harry Potter’ installments, and more recently, I have steered clear of ‘Twilight.’ Maybe this habit is detrimental to my entertainment, but I just can’t bring myself to read these books.

The first film interpretation of ‘Twilight’ came out on video Friday, and a fair number of my friends bought copies at midnight, if they hadn’t preordered them online. Therefore, this weekend was chock-full of ‘Twilight’ viewing parties, leaving my social calendar rather empty.

But today, some friends who I have not seen in a while invited me over to watch the movie. I really had nothing else to do, and I’ll admit, I was curious after seeing photos and interviews with Robert Pattinson, the actor who brings the dark, sexy vampire Edward Cullen to life.

The movie was…alright. (I’m not being a snob, I promise). I liked the way it was filmed, I liked some of the effects, and I thought Pattinson and his counterpart, Kristen Stewart, created a pretty realistic awkward high school relationship. However, there was not quite enough character development for me. I just don’t buy that after hanging out a few times, this girl was willing to give up her whole life, literally and figuratively, to be with a vampire.

However, in all fairness, I didn’t read the book, so I can’t attest to the character development in between the bindings.

Anyway, for months I have been pondering what has kept people, women mostly, intrigued with this fantastical book of improbable romance. Today as I watched the film, it was obvious.

Edward Cullen, the bloodthirsty, eternally 17-year-old creature, displays an incredible amount of self-control when it comes to his love interest, Bella, whom he describes as a drug, like heroin, to him. He said he can’t become out of control around her because he’s afraid of what he would do to her; so instead, the pair build a relationship based around conversations and sexual tension. And by sexual tension, I mean these two were constantly hovering over one another, his lips nearly touching hers, their hands brushing for a moment, but only two kisses were shared in the whole two-hour film.

Edward never crosses the line, or even pushes the boundaries, always looking out for Bella’s best interests, no matter how much it pains him. He shows her his world, spends his sleepless nights at her side, and even saves her from a car accident and a rival vampire clan.

Further, though, is Edward's devotion to Bella in spite of the lack of physical contact between them. Not only does he keep his drive in check toward her, he never even looks at another woman. The only person he ever sees and desires is her.

Today, self-control is not often taught, in particular when it comes to relationships. Young men have expectations of the girls they date, perpetuated by hypersexual movies, books, magazines and television shows. Not to mention, the easy access to porn online. While the physical gratification of sex and relationships is glorified by the mediums, the romantic, intimate side is not. (I should clarify that these messages are not only sent to boys, but to girls as well, in terms of how to get and keep a man’s interest. So I’m not placing the blame on men or even the whole blame on the media, there are a multitude of factors causing this phenomenon, but that is a topic for another blog.)

Despite the lack of romance in relationships, the desire to find prince charming, has never gone away. Only now, women believe that the only way to find the man who will wait, respect, abstain, adore and appreciate, is to read a book or rent an old movie.

So, I want to know: Do men like Edward Cullen exist? I don’t mean in sex appeal or thirst for blood, but how many men would indeed control all physical and biological urges just to keep the women they love happy and safe? And how long do women have to wait until that point is reached with a significant other? Further, how can women find a man like that?

I’ll admit some of my relationships have left me a little jaded with the concept of romance and appreciation. However, I refuse to believe it’s not out there. I just hope that I find the real thing, otherwise who knows what I’ll be doing in 20 years. Maybe jumping on that bandwagon just to get a little taste.

An apple a day.

2009-02-18T12:41:00.000-05:00

I’m lucky.

While there are many factors that make this statement true, for this blog I will focus on one: I am covered under my parents’ insurance.

Recently, CM Life published a few articles about college students with no insurance, and today, I read an article in the New York Times about the same issue. It really made me think about how often I rely on the insurance my parents pay for, as well as what I am going to do when coverage runs out post-graduation.

I don’t tend to get sick too often, but about once each spring I get hit hard. The end result is usually a doctor’s visit, as well as a few prescriptions. However, this past year has been a sickness-ridden one for me. On top of my annual battle with the flu and bronchitis, I was hospitalized over the summer for a bacterial infection and dehydration, and this past fall had two surgical procedures done during one short day in the OR. All three instances required visits and follow-ups as well as prescriptions, and the surgery also required anesthesia, pre-ops and post-ops. Further, I am on birth control and an antacid for my chronic heartburn.

What does this mean? I’m an expensive child. It also means that as a broke college student who occasionally gets her byline in school newspaper, I would have had to pick and choose which, if any, of those services I could afford.

Let’s break it down:

Some people may think waiting a sickness out is an option. I subscribe to that belief when it comes to the cold and the flu. However, I don’t function well when I’m sick, and beyond that, I’d rather spend two days recovering with the help of drugs, vitamins and lots of water, than a few weeks recovering with only the latter.

The bacteria infection came out of nowhere, and on the third day of not keeping any food or water in my body, had to go to the hospital. My skin was tenting and I could hardly move. My summer job was very physically demanding, and losing days of work because I was not strong enough to do my job was not an option. I had to figure out an alternative, and it was lots of saline bags, as well as—you guessed it—a prescription.

My surgery was to take care of abdominal pains I have had for years. I suppose I could have continued to function with shooting pains through either side for a few more years, but I have to say, my quality of life is a lot better without those interruptions to my daily schedule.

I consider my heartburn medicine a necessity. Without it, my sleep suffers, I can’t eat and I feel like crap. Have you ever had really bad heartburn? If you answered “yes,” you know what I mean.

Finally, the birth control. Well, I can’t even afford my own medical bills, let alone someone else’s.

I can see how so many college students who don’t have the luxury of insurance that I have could get into trouble. And as the articles in CM Life and the NY Times state, uninsured students are taking to self-diagnosing and medicating. Both very dangerous practices.

So, what’s next? Some students wring every possible free service out of local clinics, however, in the case of Mount Pleasant’s Planned Parenthood branch, that backfired and the clinic went bankrupt.

What about more affordable health care for students? I know, I know, that suggestion sounds trite and pretty pie-in-the-sky. But let’s think about it. Most students are young, fairly resilient and healthy. Maybe universities should be footing the bill for the most common health care needs—like flu vaccines and antibiotics for the bacterium that immobilize whole classrooms of people before running their course. What about vitamins in the student center? Or Purell dispensers throughout campus? Both would help prevent the spread of viruses and bacteria from one student to the next.

I’m not very well versed in the intricacies of health care for students or the general population. I am a little surprised, though, by the coverage it is receiving in the media, as well as the realization I may be insurance-less very soon, considering after I get my diploma, I will be working yet another unpaid internship.

I guess what I’m saying is this will be the next area I tackle for information. I’m going to make it a point to learn more about this situation, what it means, what its ramifications are, and how it may affect me. I’ll try to keep you posted on what I learn, and I would like for you to do the same. Maybe it will be our suggestion to congress that makes enough sense to work.

Take me out to the ball game...

2009-02-13T14:27:00.001-05:00

Doping in the professional athletics arena is not really a new problem. Well, it is when considering the entire history of sports. As far as I know, shooting up was not an issue for the ancient Greeks. Babe Ruth changed the game of baseball, and rumor is, he accomplished it drug-free.

So what happened? Is it no longer good enough to just hit 733 home runs, which according to BaseballAlmanac.com is what Hank Aaron did when he wore the Braves uniform? Further, why isn’t that champion over physical and mental capacities honored by the modern baseball fan or player?

To me, whether or not doping is discovered and revealed to the media, breaking records would be tainted by the knowledge illegal substances stepped in to compensate for shortcomings. Then again, millions of dollars probably eradicate the need to be internally satisfied with achieving the unattainable.

I think there are a few huge issues associated with sports heroes doping up:

1. 1. Someone who has used performance-enhancing substances is not really accomplishing much at all. The drug, not the athlete, achieves everything past the injection site.

2. 2. What does doping say to rising athletic stars? How hard does someone really have to work if drugs can do the hard part for them? Taking drugs does not tell kids hard work is rewarded; it tells them getting ahead at any cost is a viable option. It also indicates the strength and drive of humans is nothing without a little synthetic help.

3. 3. Doping says modern athletes cannot stand up to the records set by their predecessors. The stats of Ruth, Aaron and Kaat (I don’t believe doping only is helping batters), should stand, unless the record breaker is deemed to be drug-free at the time the feat is realized.

4. 4. Players enhanced by drugs do not make the game better. It might seem incredible for a person to be so good at something they surpass everyone else on the field, but it loses its luster when the competition is unmatched. Is it fun to watch a 5^th grader beat a 1^st grader at tag? Not really…just like it’s not fun to watch a steroid laden batter hit run after run off a clean pitcher.

5. 5. What about the clean players who face titans of muscle and steroids? Their records may not compare, but the doping of one player makes everyone look guilty. How can men not doping up compete against others who are and be successful? The truth is: they can. It happens in every game, but people watching may believe equal playing means equal drug use.

I’m not sure where this started, or when it became inadequate to make it all the way tot the majors and succeed on one’s own merits and abilities. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, though, this will be an issue in many managers’ offices…baseball in particular.

I spent last summer working for a Single-A affiliate of the LA Dodgers, and I am confident there are players rising through the lineups who do not use illegal substances to make their games better. I hope it remains that way as major league teams get closer and closer. I have faith in the guys I worked with, and that they can enact a change with their actions alone. Lack of action, rather.

The question is: what about current major leaguers and their minor league counterparts who have already been tempted by quick fixes for a low average? I think there should be repercussions. Permanent suspension from the League? No. However, I think wiping their records back to pre-doping numbers seems reasonable, as does suspension until their test clean and can no longer benefit from the effects of the drugs.

Baseball season is just around the corner, and I think it’s going to be a good one. There’s a throwback that happens for me every time I walk into a stadium and see that warning track and grass, a sense of nostalgia that comes along with the smell of beer and hotdogs. Let’s see if we can go back on a more important front, though, and that’s back to an era of good, clean fun.

Stopping to smell the roses.

2009-02-11T12:17:00.000-05:00

When do incredible feats lose their luster? It seems like new technologies emerge daily to make colors brighter, pictures sharper, music clearer. Sure, these advancements are designed to make experiences better than ever before…or could it be commonality comes too quickly in our fast-paced world?

I’m guilty of it myself. Sometimes, I forget how beautiful a sunset is because I don’t watch them as often as I could. Sometimes I forget the stars dance and flicker because I don’t cast my gaze upward on my walks home from work. The first winter thaw, and the sunshine that comes with it, makes me smile every year. But a few weeks into summer, the tickle of sunshine on my skin gives way to the trickle of sweat down my forehead, and suddenly the heat isn’t so lovely.

There is so much to experience, and in retrospect, very little time to do anything. Maybe that’s why we try to jam so much into a single day, to squeeze every ounce of life out of every moment. That’s a great concept, provided there is anything to squeeze in the first place. Sometimes work can wait, sometimes class isn’t important, and sometimes rediscovering what’s right in front of us can be just as exciting as something new.

I hope I have the ability to try new things and see as much of the world as I can for many, many years. I also hope I remember as spring dawns and I wrap up my college career, to look around me and appreciate what’s been in front of me for the last five years.

Incredible feats. Maybe it’s an 80-gig iPod or a 2-pound computer. A bigger car with better gas mileage? I guess. But back to that sunset…that’s really something to see, and even better, it will never go out of style.

Turning words into art

2009-02-10T20:21:00.001-05:00

Last weekend, my parents took me to the Grand Rapids Art Museum in my hometown. I’d never been there, and an exhibit caught my eye: Andre Kertesz: On Reading.

Each black and white print encapsulated more than merely the image of a person immersed in a story. Taken over the course of about 50 years, each outfit, accessory, page and expression provide a time capsule of an era, and a moment.

I lingered longer at each of Kertesz’s shots than my parents did. I couldn’t help but search each frame for a little more, like I was trying to peer through the film and onto the streets of New York, Hungary and Paris.

How did Mary Poppins jump into the chalk drawings? If only I could figure that magic out.

As my mind wandered over the faces and forms of people I don’t and will never know, I wondered about each of them. What they were reading and if they like it. Why is that man on the park bench alone? The woman sunbathing on a Greenwich Village roof…what is she doing today? Did the camera flash sear words into their minds?

I think photographs are beautiful…more so than most paintings. While the colors of oils and pastels have the ability to evoke feelings from me, prints have an ability to evoke actual emotion and make my mind wander. Most of the stories I construct in my mind are probably romanticized hopes for lives that actually may have been similar to mine. Maybe that’s why I enjoy looking at photos so much. I feel like each person is a character in a never-ending novel…but one I only am allowed to read one sentence of.

If you’re in the Grand Rapids area, I suggest checking out the exhibit, which runs until March 22. I hope to make it there again. Who knows, if I’m lucky, maybe I’ll get to read another sentence.

Pushing to the Limit

2009-02-03T01:07:00.000-05:00

During the 2000 Summer Olympic games I watched a swimmer from a small African country compete as the only swimmer in his heat. The other athletes had dropped out of the race or been sent home for violations of Olympic rules.

When he began to swim, the arena was silent, watching his slow, methodical strokes cut the water and inch him ahead. The announcers, though, described the journey this man had taken. His country wanted athletes to compete in as many events as possible, but the arid climate and desert terrain prevented most citizens from learning how to swim, let alone perfecting the sport. But this man persevered.

He worked with a trainer in the only pool near his hometown. The announcers said it was rundown and not even close to Olympic regulation size. Despite the obstacles, he became the strongest swimming prospect for his country and made it to the Games.

As he crawled across the pool, the audience began to pick up on something, that while this man was not nearly as fast as the athletes vying for glories and medals, he was there for the same reason. Pride in his accomplishments and in his country. As he made the final stretch of his last lap, the crowd began to cheer him on, encouraging him to finish.

In an interview after the race, the man said the cheers were so loud, he though he had actually won a medal and that he was just honored to represent his country.

That story is why I love watching the Olympics. Watching people, most younger than myself, push their bodies past limits and on to the next checkpoint makes me feel a sense of pride for each athlete. Actually, it doesn’t matter the country or the sport, I feel a connection in the hope and strength of each Olympian. There is something so admirable in dedicating your life to something in the hopes of perfecting it, and each Olympic athlete has done just that. And they know it.

Beyond athletic perfection, though, stands the connection athletes have with one another, recognizing that they have accomplished what only a fraction of their fellow citizens have, or ever will. I think it is sweet and intimate to watch a team huddle before competition, and encourage each other throughout in a language honed over years of practicing and dreaming together.

Last year’s Olympics were no different. Watching obscure sports come into the foreground, teams dominating cocky rivals and children becoming role models for future Olympians. This is an event so special and elite it happens only every four years, and for some, only once in a lifetime.

Wow, reality sure can come at you fast

2009-01-25T15:00:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, no matter how prepared I think I am for something—I’m not.

For instance, I have known for years I will be graduating from college. For months I have known that feat will be accomplished in May. But every once and a while, I feel like I’ve run into a brick wall with the word “reality” tagged on it in bright red letters. No matter how ready I think I am, it’s still an unknown realm I am not entirely sure I am ready to embark on, even though having a real job with a real paycheck is the only thing I can focus on right now.

Perhaps part of the fear stems from … the economy. I know this topic has been overplayed more than a one-hit wonder, but yesterday, it really hit me how bad things are.

My mom and I went to the mall, not for anything in particular, but to peruse a little. Walking up to the giant glass doors at Macy’s, nothing seemed different. The chrome handlebars glistened in the winter sunshine, and the sand colored brick stood three stories above the concrete. But walking inside those glass doors was an entirely different story.

The store was nearly empty. No one browsing racks, checking out the sales (which yelled discounts up to 95 percent for some items). The jewelry counters had empty rotating racks and picked over felt ring holders. Boxes held pieces in plastic bags, all on sale for 65 percent off. They were leftovers from the Christmas season, which usually would have sold during the post-Christmas shopping rush. But not this year.

In my experience, and I have plenty of it when it comes to malls, by the end of January, items from the spring lines are creeping into window displays and onto racks. Especially with spring break less than six weeks away for some schools. But yesterday, it seemed like nothing had been ordered to take the place of the lucky sweaters and jeans that did go to nice home during the holiday season. The inventory ordered in October and November to cover Christmas and Hanukkah still clutters the storage rooms of these stores, or hangs on the rack, looking like a teenager stood up at prom. Looking so 2008.

I’m not sure how we got here. There are theories and ideas that make sense, and I’m sure each plays a role in the economic tailspin we have endured thus far. But sometimes, it just comes into perspective: this is bad.

The good news is: every economy deals with ups and downs. This is the dark before the upswing takes us back towards the light of strip malls, department stores and neon numbers rung up on cash registers. But what can we learn from this? Perhaps that credit is good, when used wisely? Buying things one cannot afford is always a poor decision? Savings is more important than ever? No one is immune?

I have never claimed to be fiscally savvy, however, this situation has prompted me to read up a little on financial issues, credit, savings and investing. I do not believe we are immune to recessions, and I hope that the next time the economy dips, I am prepared. I hope you are, too.

A change in attitude.

2009-01-20T11:14:00.001-05:00

Last week, I was a little out of sorts with the state of the world. On Wednesday, I interviewed a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a story. He was polite and very nice, but I couldn’t help but think about his views about superiority and inferiority, and how those views stand in stark contrast to what I believe in.

On Friday, I saw “Defiance,” the movie starring Daniel Craig, without all the flourishes of his character, Bond. James Bond. Craig depicts Tuvia Bielski, a Russian Jew who built one of the largest forest camps during World War II. His efforts, paired with his brothers’, saved more than 1200 Jews from capture and death. While the Bielski brothers did what they had to, and all that they could, to save people, they were fighting an uphill battle against racism, fear and ignorance.

Today, though, those feelings I had last week are gone. This morning, I woke up and immediately tuned into CNN, wanting to drink in every second of President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration. Millions are gathered, some since yesterday, to watch Obama be sworn in. For me, this moment defies negativity and misunderstanding. There is little argument that the last eight years have been tough ones, but starting now, it could all turn around.

It also should be noted that yesterday was Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and today, we are swearing in our first African American president.

There are people I do no agree with. Beliefs I do not understand. However, everyone has a right transcending all of that…respect. As hard as it may be to accept another viewpoint, differing so greatly from your own, I think that is a step toward a more peaceful and accepting society. Today’s inauguration exemplifies that.

Needless to say, I am excited. Actually, I haven’t been this riveted with an event since Pope Watch ’05. I wish I could be in D.C to experience it, but from the comfort of my living room will have to do. I hope you’re checking it out, as well, whether it’s because you’re excited, disappointed or just curious. There’s always something to learn.

2009-01-20T10:40:00.000-05:00

I'm back! Things with my old blog didn't work out, but I've moved on, and I'm sure he has as well. So here I am on blogspot.com, and I think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship.

There were a few posts on my other blog that I am very proud of. I am working on putting them on here in a way that is not confusing. However, it may mean I have a dozen posts for today. Why bring baggage from my old blog into my new one? I think some of the work I did on my old one gives some good insight into my background, as well as why I am contributing to the blogosphere.

For those of you who did not follow my last blog, let me explain something: This is not a forum for my rants and raves. I am keeping a blog to keep me writing, to keep my voice clear. While my personal feelings and emotions may seep into some posts, my goal with this site is to write what I observe, from as many angles as I can. I vow to keep my relationships, friendships and academics out of this blog. Unless, of course, they are vital pieces to a story.

So, read in good health, comment in good faith and, please, continue to think and observe.

Cheers!

LEH