What do you do when someone betrays your trust? What does it take for them to regain that trust? At what point do you find forgiveness? Is it worse if a friend betrays you, or a lover? What if the person is one in the same....someone with whom you had been really close friends, but then it became more? Is delibrately withholding information the same thing as lying? (In my opinion, yes, it is.) Should saving the friendship and regaining the trust be a top priority? (For both parties, but particularly to the one who committed the betrayal.) Why does the potential loss of a friend hurt so much worse than the loss of a lover, even when the person is one in the same? What expectations are realistic, in terms of what the person should do to save the friendship and regain the trust?
I'm a very forgiving person...perhaps overly so. And, I can't just write people out of my life, even if I should. But, being hurt by a friend....for reasons of miscommunication, lack of communication, withholding of information...by someone who you believed would always be honest with you and would never want to hurt you, is a very hard pill to swallow. How do you reconcile the anger over someone not being honest with you, with the feeling of the loss....the loss of a friendship that meant a lot.
Forgivness is actually less of a problem...I can find forgiveness. I already have, to a large degree. But, what needs to be done to save the friendship? And, what happens if the efforts aren't made? Not only has then, a betrayal occured, but perhaps the friendship didn't mean that much...and, how do you deal with that realization?
It's easy to say that at the end of the day, everything will be fine. Necessary efforts will be made, or they won't. The friendship will be saved, or it won't. And, long-term, yes, that is all true. But, it doesn't change the feelings of loss, anger, confusion, et al, that exist in the here and now.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Welcome Guest Blogger and Author of, "Faking It", Elisa Lorello!
Thanks, Vicki, for hosting me on your blog! Readers should know that Vicki and I met on Facebook through a mutual dear friend of ours. She heard about my novel from him, read and enjoyed it, and has been incredibly supportive ever since. You can buy a print or download version of FAKING IT at Lulu.com, and it’s also available at Amazon. You can also follow me on Twitter@elisalorello, my blog “I’ll Have What She’s Having", or on Facebook at the Faking It Fans fan page.
If you’re looking for a fun summer read, then FAKING IT is definitely the book for you! Andi, a 30-something writing professor from
If you like When Harry Met Sally or Sex and the City, then FAKING IT is for you.
My favorite aspect of FAKING IT is the chemistry between Andi and Devin. As a writer, I’m very drawn to characters that have chemistry, be it romantic or platonic or some other form, and draw heavily on film and television character pairings for inspiration. And it doesn’t always have to be male-female. Matt and Danny on Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip had great chemistry. So did Leo and President Bartlet on The West Wing, or Lorelai and Rory on Gilmore Girls. Then, of course, there’s Harry and Sally, the couple that most inspired me, or Tom Hanks’ and Meg Ryan’s characters in You’ve Got Mail, which developed through dialogue, and shows that chemistry isn’t only the result of physical attraction. Much of Andi and Devin’s chemistry is found in their conversation. They constantly call each other out on the carpet in ways that others won’t, despite the fact that they’re both hiding quite a bit from each other.
I’d like to know your favorite character couplings – in print or on screen – and why you love them so much. Is it Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy? Carrie and Mr. Big? Abbott and Costello? What makes their chemistry so electric? What makes them work (or not work)? Please leave a comment and share with us!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Is There a Doctor in the Hamptons?
I recently watched the season premiere of "Royal Pains" on the USA Network, as I admittedly have something of a Mark Feuerstein crush, and given my love of the former NBC hit drama, "The West Wing", I feel the need to support any actor whom ever appeared on that show. (For those keeping track at home, Feuerstein played Cliff Caley, in a recurring guest-starring role.)
The show was, of course, entertaining, well-acted, well-written, clever, all anyone can ask of a new television show, in a time in which the pains of reality television seem to still be taking over. It did, however, raise the question for me, of "concierge doctors", and whether or not such a thing really does exist, and to what extent. Do the glitterati in places like the Hamptons, Manhattan, Aspen, Los Angeles, Telluride, Miami, et al., really have concierge doctors? Medical professionals who don't work for a hospital or medical practice, but rather work privately, for the world's elite, allowing them to avoid documented medical care (and, potential public embarrasment and/or police action) for plastic surgeries gone awry and drug overdoses? Doctors who pull up in a fancy SVU with a myriad of portable medical devices in the back? A black, leather Coach bag containing perscriptions? (And, how many medical ethics are being violated by physicians randomly carrying a variety of perscriptions, and potentially carrying them over state lines.)
Perhaps it's my own ignorance or naivety on the subject, as I am not one of the world's elite, possessed with the luxury of a private physician. Now, I will admit that in this day HMO's, increasing difficulty to obtain services as insurance companies don't want to pay, and the never-ending pleasure of waiting for hours in a hosptial emergency room, for a broken bone or laceration, the idea of having a conceirge doctor isn't an altogether unpleasant idea. But, shouldn't affordable and quality healthcare be a basic right of all people, regardless of station in life? Shouldn't the person who takes out Donald Trump's garbage be entitled to the same medical care as The Donald, himself? This isn't the same thing as buying a Wii or an iPhone, it's healthcare. Doesn't healthcare fall under the three unalienable rights that are provided to all citizens of this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that precisely why there are valid arguments for universal healthcare in this country, and why it's really only going to be a matter of time before it becomes a reality? Is this just going to be one more thing, one more wedge-issue to continue to divide the have's and have not's in America, yet another thing to cause contention between the classes?
And, should we be questioning the ethics of doctors who do become concierge doctors? The physician who went from being the Chief of Internal Medicine at the Mayo Clinic or Mount Sinai, and who now pumps the stomach of some Hollywood starlet who is vacationing in the Hamptons, so that it doesn't end up on "Entertainment Tonight", when she is taken to the hospital. (Let's be honest, the people who have the resources to hire doctors on demand aren't hiring the general practioner from some little family practice in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.) Does it only feed into the idea that has been perpetuated by society, the media, and certain aspects of the medical community, that people only become doctors because they want to be rich? (Now, obviously, anyone who has a friend or family member that is a doctor, knows that hardly all physicians end up rolling in dough, too. As with any profession, a great deal depends on location and specialty. The pediatrician or emergency room physician at a local, community hospital isn't making anywhere near what that plastic surgeon in New York City or the cardiothorasic surgeon in Boston are making.) I don't doubt that many doctors out there would love to find a way to pay off their student loans, faster, but wouldn't any reasonable physician have some serious moral or ethical objections to this type of practice? Shouldn't it, in some way, be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath?
Now, Feurestein's character on "Royal Pains" is certainly an example of a concierge doctor with a conscience, who genuinely cares more for the patients he is called in to see, rather than what he is being paid from someone's black American Express card. Should concierge doctors really be as prevelant as they seem, based on the portrayal, we can only hope that they have the same moral fiber possessed by Feurestein's character. And, for those of us who have or will watch, "Royal Pains", we can only hope that continues to the enduring and endearing trait of the character, and that he doesn't turn into what I'm sure we all imagine is the stereotypical concierge doctor in the Hamptons.
The show was, of course, entertaining, well-acted, well-written, clever, all anyone can ask of a new television show, in a time in which the pains of reality television seem to still be taking over. It did, however, raise the question for me, of "concierge doctors", and whether or not such a thing really does exist, and to what extent. Do the glitterati in places like the Hamptons, Manhattan, Aspen, Los Angeles, Telluride, Miami, et al., really have concierge doctors? Medical professionals who don't work for a hospital or medical practice, but rather work privately, for the world's elite, allowing them to avoid documented medical care (and, potential public embarrasment and/or police action) for plastic surgeries gone awry and drug overdoses? Doctors who pull up in a fancy SVU with a myriad of portable medical devices in the back? A black, leather Coach bag containing perscriptions? (And, how many medical ethics are being violated by physicians randomly carrying a variety of perscriptions, and potentially carrying them over state lines.)
Perhaps it's my own ignorance or naivety on the subject, as I am not one of the world's elite, possessed with the luxury of a private physician. Now, I will admit that in this day HMO's, increasing difficulty to obtain services as insurance companies don't want to pay, and the never-ending pleasure of waiting for hours in a hosptial emergency room, for a broken bone or laceration, the idea of having a conceirge doctor isn't an altogether unpleasant idea. But, shouldn't affordable and quality healthcare be a basic right of all people, regardless of station in life? Shouldn't the person who takes out Donald Trump's garbage be entitled to the same medical care as The Donald, himself? This isn't the same thing as buying a Wii or an iPhone, it's healthcare. Doesn't healthcare fall under the three unalienable rights that are provided to all citizens of this country, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that precisely why there are valid arguments for universal healthcare in this country, and why it's really only going to be a matter of time before it becomes a reality? Is this just going to be one more thing, one more wedge-issue to continue to divide the have's and have not's in America, yet another thing to cause contention between the classes?
And, should we be questioning the ethics of doctors who do become concierge doctors? The physician who went from being the Chief of Internal Medicine at the Mayo Clinic or Mount Sinai, and who now pumps the stomach of some Hollywood starlet who is vacationing in the Hamptons, so that it doesn't end up on "Entertainment Tonight", when she is taken to the hospital. (Let's be honest, the people who have the resources to hire doctors on demand aren't hiring the general practioner from some little family practice in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.) Does it only feed into the idea that has been perpetuated by society, the media, and certain aspects of the medical community, that people only become doctors because they want to be rich? (Now, obviously, anyone who has a friend or family member that is a doctor, knows that hardly all physicians end up rolling in dough, too. As with any profession, a great deal depends on location and specialty. The pediatrician or emergency room physician at a local, community hospital isn't making anywhere near what that plastic surgeon in New York City or the cardiothorasic surgeon in Boston are making.) I don't doubt that many doctors out there would love to find a way to pay off their student loans, faster, but wouldn't any reasonable physician have some serious moral or ethical objections to this type of practice? Shouldn't it, in some way, be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath?
Now, Feurestein's character on "Royal Pains" is certainly an example of a concierge doctor with a conscience, who genuinely cares more for the patients he is called in to see, rather than what he is being paid from someone's black American Express card. Should concierge doctors really be as prevelant as they seem, based on the portrayal, we can only hope that they have the same moral fiber possessed by Feurestein's character. And, for those of us who have or will watch, "Royal Pains", we can only hope that continues to the enduring and endearing trait of the character, and that he doesn't turn into what I'm sure we all imagine is the stereotypical concierge doctor in the Hamptons.
Friday, June 5, 2009
On the Prowl
There definately seems to be an increasing interest in the older woman-young man relationship, as of late. While some actresses like Susan Sarandon and Goldie Hawn have been with their younger men (Tim Robbins and Kurt Russell, respectively), have Madonna and Demi Moore made it even more acceptable? Desirable, even.
Between the new reality show, "The Cougar" and new Courteney Cox sitcom, to debut in the fall, "Cougar Town", (and, just simple fact that a term, "cougar" was even coined, a few years ago, for women who date younger men), it's something that is being talked about and even examined more and more. Have we finally come to a point in our society in which is just as socially acceptable for a woman to date a younger man, as it is for an older man to date a younger woman? And, if so, what took us long to get here? Or, is that there is still something that seems rather illicit about the older woman-younger man relationship that has everyone tuning into a yet another reality show in which people voluntarily humiliate themselves, or network executives debuting new shows regarding the topic? And, how do the women who may be, by some, called cougars feel about it? How do they feel about the increased interest in, or attention to their dating and sex lives? How do they feel about the term, "cougar"? (CNN did a story on this topic a few weeks ago, in which many women were voicing their distain for the term, and felt that if a label needed to be attached to a woman who dates younger men, then they would prefer the word, "sophisiticat". Still in keeping with the feline imagery, apparently.)
As someone who did recently have a relationship with a younger guy (and, I'm playing it fast and loose with the word, "relationship"), there are aspects of it that were fun and appealing and aspects that weren't. (Allow me to preface by saying that unlike the Courteney Cox character in the upcoming ABC sitcom, "Cougar Town", or the woman who is allowing herself to be objectified on national television for her 15 minutes of fame, on "The Cougar", I am not in my 40's, typically the age range associated with woman who are called cougars...I'm 31 and the guy I had dated was 24.) He's a great guy, and we certainly had a lot of fun together, during the time in which we did date. But, it was definately hard for me to get serious about a guy who was still getting started in his life, while I am at a point of wanting to settle down and have a family. (Perhaps that is why "cougars" tend to be a bit older...the women who have already been married and had children and are now embarking on a new chapter of their lives?) And, it certainly didn't help that he was working as a bartender to pay his way through school, so he worked primarily evenings and weekends, while I work a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5-type of job. (He was so kind as to call me, intoxicated, at 3:00 in the morning, after the Super Bowl. The Super Bow being on a Sunday of course, meant that I was supposed to be waking up about 3 hours later, to workout, shower, eat breakfast, et al, before work. You can imagine my joy.) Do these relationships work better, when the women is perhaps in her 40's and has already done the marriage and kids-thing? (Or, at a point in her life where, even if she hasn't had those things, she wasn't looking for them in the first place, or perfectly content not having them?) Do they work better if the man and woman at least have more similar work schedules, as to prohibit one of them from being awoken in the middle of the night, for a booty call, on a work night, when the alarm is set to go off in just a couple of hours?
What is the increased interest within our society, as of late, regarding this relationship dynamic? Why was it so socially acceptable for Sarandon and Hawn for years (nobody ever seemed to question their relationships with their younger partners), both of whom have been with their significant others for longer periods of time than most other Hollywood couples, while most other women had (and, still do, to a certain degree) snide comments made about them? Are these women trying to recapture their youth, the things they may have missed out on, while they were focusing on their careers, or their marriages, or raising their children? Is the term, "cougar" offensive to a lot of women? What makes the older woman-younger man relationship work, what makes it successful? (Or is it necessarily supposed to be successful, long-term?)
I, for one, applaud women who are comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. And, if you're in your 40's and 20-somethings are finding you attractive and desirable, then you know what? You must be doing something right.
Between the new reality show, "The Cougar" and new Courteney Cox sitcom, to debut in the fall, "Cougar Town", (and, just simple fact that a term, "cougar" was even coined, a few years ago, for women who date younger men), it's something that is being talked about and even examined more and more. Have we finally come to a point in our society in which is just as socially acceptable for a woman to date a younger man, as it is for an older man to date a younger woman? And, if so, what took us long to get here? Or, is that there is still something that seems rather illicit about the older woman-younger man relationship that has everyone tuning into a yet another reality show in which people voluntarily humiliate themselves, or network executives debuting new shows regarding the topic? And, how do the women who may be, by some, called cougars feel about it? How do they feel about the increased interest in, or attention to their dating and sex lives? How do they feel about the term, "cougar"? (CNN did a story on this topic a few weeks ago, in which many women were voicing their distain for the term, and felt that if a label needed to be attached to a woman who dates younger men, then they would prefer the word, "sophisiticat". Still in keeping with the feline imagery, apparently.)
As someone who did recently have a relationship with a younger guy (and, I'm playing it fast and loose with the word, "relationship"), there are aspects of it that were fun and appealing and aspects that weren't. (Allow me to preface by saying that unlike the Courteney Cox character in the upcoming ABC sitcom, "Cougar Town", or the woman who is allowing herself to be objectified on national television for her 15 minutes of fame, on "The Cougar", I am not in my 40's, typically the age range associated with woman who are called cougars...I'm 31 and the guy I had dated was 24.) He's a great guy, and we certainly had a lot of fun together, during the time in which we did date. But, it was definately hard for me to get serious about a guy who was still getting started in his life, while I am at a point of wanting to settle down and have a family. (Perhaps that is why "cougars" tend to be a bit older...the women who have already been married and had children and are now embarking on a new chapter of their lives?) And, it certainly didn't help that he was working as a bartender to pay his way through school, so he worked primarily evenings and weekends, while I work a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5-type of job. (He was so kind as to call me, intoxicated, at 3:00 in the morning, after the Super Bowl. The Super Bow being on a Sunday of course, meant that I was supposed to be waking up about 3 hours later, to workout, shower, eat breakfast, et al, before work. You can imagine my joy.) Do these relationships work better, when the women is perhaps in her 40's and has already done the marriage and kids-thing? (Or, at a point in her life where, even if she hasn't had those things, she wasn't looking for them in the first place, or perfectly content not having them?) Do they work better if the man and woman at least have more similar work schedules, as to prohibit one of them from being awoken in the middle of the night, for a booty call, on a work night, when the alarm is set to go off in just a couple of hours?
What is the increased interest within our society, as of late, regarding this relationship dynamic? Why was it so socially acceptable for Sarandon and Hawn for years (nobody ever seemed to question their relationships with their younger partners), both of whom have been with their significant others for longer periods of time than most other Hollywood couples, while most other women had (and, still do, to a certain degree) snide comments made about them? Are these women trying to recapture their youth, the things they may have missed out on, while they were focusing on their careers, or their marriages, or raising their children? Is the term, "cougar" offensive to a lot of women? What makes the older woman-younger man relationship work, what makes it successful? (Or is it necessarily supposed to be successful, long-term?)
I, for one, applaud women who are comfortable with themselves and their sexuality. And, if you're in your 40's and 20-somethings are finding you attractive and desirable, then you know what? You must be doing something right.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Loving "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit"
Like many people, I love the show, "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit", and watching with eagerness and glee on Tuesday night, as they aired the season finale.
I can't begin to express how happy I am that NBC didn't end the season with a cliffhanger episode, making viewers spend their summer, waiting in anxious anticipation for the new season to begin in the fall. Additionally, like most people, I am grateful that no one was taking my blood pressure, while watching the show. I think it's fair to say that Tuesday night's episode was one of the best of the show. (And, that's saying a lot, as every show is well-written, well-acted, and full of suspense and twists.) For those who watch the show, I think we all knew it was a matter of time before the character of Dale Stuckey was bid adieu, given the irritating nature of the character. But, as I'm sure many people were, I wouldn't have guessed, a few episodes ago, that he was going to go out in the manner in which he did. (I guess being bullied really can cause some people to snap!)
The main reason I was concerned, as I'm sure others were, that NBC would end the season with a cliffhanger episode is due to the fact that at last word, neither Christopher Meloni (aka Detective Elliot Stabler) or Mariska Hargitay (aka Detective Olivia Benson) had signed their contracts for next season, and were still in negotiations. Which leads me to ponder....how would it affect the show, should one or both of those actors chose to leave? Would it affect the ratings? Would people stop watching, given that a great many people feel that Meloni and Hargitay's characters, and their chemisty is a large part of the popularity? (While the ratings may not have been affected after the departure of Stephanie March, who plays ADA Alexandra Cabot, a lot of viewers were sad to see her leave, hopeful that she would return, expressing disdain for the other actresses who stepped into the role of the Special Victims Unit ADA, and very happy to see her return earlier this season, while remaining concerned that it my only be short-term, as she continues to appear in the credits as a "special guest star" as opposed to her name and photo appearing in the opening theme song sequence, along with Meloni, Hargitay, B.D. Wong, Dan Florek, Tamara Tunie, Ice-T, and Richard Belzer.) Would the overall chemisty and dynamic of the show be adversely affected should either (or both) Meloni or Hargitay chose not to sign a new contract? Or, would the show continue, essentially unaffected, demonstrating that it's more about the writing, the story lines, the direction, and the overall ensemble, rather than one or two characters? (Many a critic and viewer thought it was going to be the end of "ER", after Anthony Edwards left the show, especially since George Clooney, Sherry Stringfield, Julianna Marguiles and a few others had already left the show by that point, too. But, the show continued on, even with a seeming revolving door of cast members, for several more years, not calling, "wrap", until earlier this season.) Besides, hasn't the orignal, "Law and Order" been on the air, for something like 15 years? And, none of the current cast members have been with the show, since the beginning, not even Sam Waterston.
All of the primary characters on "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" are enjoyable to watch and brought to life by talented actors, and it would certainly feel strange to watch the show, should any of them permenately. (Again, people never warmed to the other actresses who portrayed the ADA, the way they did Stephanie March.) Who could preside over the squad better then Dan Florek as Captain Cregan? What would it be like to not see the smart street sense of Ice-T as Finn Tutuola, paired with the paranoid, conspiracy theorist of Richard Belzer's John Munch. Who could give the FBI profiles prospective better than B.D. Wong as Dr. Georg Huang, and would we really want to see any other medical examiner speaking for the victim, other than Tamara Tunie as Dr. Melinda Warner? But, somehow, it still seems to come back around to Meloni and Hargitay as Stabler and Benson, respectively. How would the departure of one or both of these actors affect the show?
Of course, we have summer for these actors to renew their contracts. And, the possibility of the Screen Actors Guild going on strike again, too, could make it something of a moot point, for awhile, too.
I can't begin to express how happy I am that NBC didn't end the season with a cliffhanger episode, making viewers spend their summer, waiting in anxious anticipation for the new season to begin in the fall. Additionally, like most people, I am grateful that no one was taking my blood pressure, while watching the show. I think it's fair to say that Tuesday night's episode was one of the best of the show. (And, that's saying a lot, as every show is well-written, well-acted, and full of suspense and twists.) For those who watch the show, I think we all knew it was a matter of time before the character of Dale Stuckey was bid adieu, given the irritating nature of the character. But, as I'm sure many people were, I wouldn't have guessed, a few episodes ago, that he was going to go out in the manner in which he did. (I guess being bullied really can cause some people to snap!)
The main reason I was concerned, as I'm sure others were, that NBC would end the season with a cliffhanger episode is due to the fact that at last word, neither Christopher Meloni (aka Detective Elliot Stabler) or Mariska Hargitay (aka Detective Olivia Benson) had signed their contracts for next season, and were still in negotiations. Which leads me to ponder....how would it affect the show, should one or both of those actors chose to leave? Would it affect the ratings? Would people stop watching, given that a great many people feel that Meloni and Hargitay's characters, and their chemisty is a large part of the popularity? (While the ratings may not have been affected after the departure of Stephanie March, who plays ADA Alexandra Cabot, a lot of viewers were sad to see her leave, hopeful that she would return, expressing disdain for the other actresses who stepped into the role of the Special Victims Unit ADA, and very happy to see her return earlier this season, while remaining concerned that it my only be short-term, as she continues to appear in the credits as a "special guest star" as opposed to her name and photo appearing in the opening theme song sequence, along with Meloni, Hargitay, B.D. Wong, Dan Florek, Tamara Tunie, Ice-T, and Richard Belzer.) Would the overall chemisty and dynamic of the show be adversely affected should either (or both) Meloni or Hargitay chose not to sign a new contract? Or, would the show continue, essentially unaffected, demonstrating that it's more about the writing, the story lines, the direction, and the overall ensemble, rather than one or two characters? (Many a critic and viewer thought it was going to be the end of "ER", after Anthony Edwards left the show, especially since George Clooney, Sherry Stringfield, Julianna Marguiles and a few others had already left the show by that point, too. But, the show continued on, even with a seeming revolving door of cast members, for several more years, not calling, "wrap", until earlier this season.) Besides, hasn't the orignal, "Law and Order" been on the air, for something like 15 years? And, none of the current cast members have been with the show, since the beginning, not even Sam Waterston.
All of the primary characters on "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" are enjoyable to watch and brought to life by talented actors, and it would certainly feel strange to watch the show, should any of them permenately. (Again, people never warmed to the other actresses who portrayed the ADA, the way they did Stephanie March.) Who could preside over the squad better then Dan Florek as Captain Cregan? What would it be like to not see the smart street sense of Ice-T as Finn Tutuola, paired with the paranoid, conspiracy theorist of Richard Belzer's John Munch. Who could give the FBI profiles prospective better than B.D. Wong as Dr. Georg Huang, and would we really want to see any other medical examiner speaking for the victim, other than Tamara Tunie as Dr. Melinda Warner? But, somehow, it still seems to come back around to Meloni and Hargitay as Stabler and Benson, respectively. How would the departure of one or both of these actors affect the show?
Of course, we have summer for these actors to renew their contracts. And, the possibility of the Screen Actors Guild going on strike again, too, could make it something of a moot point, for awhile, too.
Words Can Hurt, Too
As someone who used to work in the field of domestic violence and sexual assault, perhaps I have stronger radar as it pertains to healthy relationships and anger management and communication skills. But, I continue to be concerned by the number of women who find themselves in abusive relationships and don't realize it. Why don't they realize it? Because the abuse isn't coming in the form of physical or sexual abuse, it's coming in the form of verbal abuse. And, it seems that a great many people continue to either deny or at least not see, that verbal abuse is every bit as damaging as physical abuse. No one (or at least no one with a social conscious) would stand by and allow a parent to hurl expletives and hurtful statements at a child, so why do some of these same people not see that it's not different just because the husband or boyfriend is yelling degrading and derogatory statements towards a wife or girlfriend? Is it because adults should have the "equipment" to defend themselves, or fight back? Or is it that verbal abuse is still not widely acknowledged or understood, since it doesn't leave physical bruises or scars? (With that said, to paraphrase a former Supreme Court Justice, I may not be able to define verbal abuse, but I know it when I see it.) Do the women (and, men...women can be perpetrators of abuse and violence, too) think that they egged the person on, got them angry and riled up? Do they say, "but, he doesn't hit me...I'm not being abused", or do they just feel they deserve it.
Sadly, it's probably, more often than not, the last one. Boys who grow up in abusive households are three times more likely to become perpetrators themselves, while girls are much more likely to end up in abusive relationships, themselves. Boys see dad being abusive and girls see mom being abused.
The fact remains, however, that no matter what you may have done, being late for dinner, not being in the mood for sex, forgetting to record a tv show, no one has the right to make you feel as though you are less than you are. And, it continues to be of concern to me, when I even see friends of mine, women who are, in every other respect, strong, capable, forthright women, in relationships in which they are not being treated well...not treated well to the point of verbal and emotional abuse. (Note: if your boyfriend or husband wants to know where you are every second of the day, if he expects you to report to him by a certain point in the evening, if he expects an explanation as to why you didn't answer the phone when he called, it's not because he loves you and is concerned about you, it's because he's trying to control you. And, that's not live, sista.)
Does he call you names? Refer you to, using language that is demeaning? Does he limit your ability to communicate, openly, with friends and family? Does he embarras or humiliate you in public? Does he make you feel like you can't do anything right? Does he continually make fun of you? Does he expect to track your every move? Well, that's abusive behavior. And, the greatest concern is always that of it possibly escalating.
Women tend to be overwhelmed with these feelings of, "oh, but I know he can change." Can he? Of course he can. People can change, it happens all the time. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. But, like everything else in life, people can only change when THEY want to, not because someone else wants them to. If HE realizes that his behavior is unacceptable, and is willing to go through the proper channels to address whatver his issues are (growing up in abusive household, issues of anger management, jealousy, trust, et al), then yes, it's promising. But, if that's not going to happen, then we can only hope that the women who find themselves in the position of being victimized by verbal and emotional abuse, find their inner strength to realize they deserve so much better, and that the world really is full of men who won't disrespect them.
And, for the men out there who do find themselves the perpetrators of abuse towards women, just remember...a woman brought you into this world, and another one can take you out.
Sadly, it's probably, more often than not, the last one. Boys who grow up in abusive households are three times more likely to become perpetrators themselves, while girls are much more likely to end up in abusive relationships, themselves. Boys see dad being abusive and girls see mom being abused.
The fact remains, however, that no matter what you may have done, being late for dinner, not being in the mood for sex, forgetting to record a tv show, no one has the right to make you feel as though you are less than you are. And, it continues to be of concern to me, when I even see friends of mine, women who are, in every other respect, strong, capable, forthright women, in relationships in which they are not being treated well...not treated well to the point of verbal and emotional abuse. (Note: if your boyfriend or husband wants to know where you are every second of the day, if he expects you to report to him by a certain point in the evening, if he expects an explanation as to why you didn't answer the phone when he called, it's not because he loves you and is concerned about you, it's because he's trying to control you. And, that's not live, sista.)
Does he call you names? Refer you to, using language that is demeaning? Does he limit your ability to communicate, openly, with friends and family? Does he embarras or humiliate you in public? Does he make you feel like you can't do anything right? Does he continually make fun of you? Does he expect to track your every move? Well, that's abusive behavior. And, the greatest concern is always that of it possibly escalating.
Women tend to be overwhelmed with these feelings of, "oh, but I know he can change." Can he? Of course he can. People can change, it happens all the time. Will he? Maybe. Maybe not. But, like everything else in life, people can only change when THEY want to, not because someone else wants them to. If HE realizes that his behavior is unacceptable, and is willing to go through the proper channels to address whatver his issues are (growing up in abusive household, issues of anger management, jealousy, trust, et al), then yes, it's promising. But, if that's not going to happen, then we can only hope that the women who find themselves in the position of being victimized by verbal and emotional abuse, find their inner strength to realize they deserve so much better, and that the world really is full of men who won't disrespect them.
And, for the men out there who do find themselves the perpetrators of abuse towards women, just remember...a woman brought you into this world, and another one can take you out.
Take This Job, And...Suck It Up?
How does one deal with job frustrations in a time of economic strife and country-wide layoffs? A time in which companies are going through hiring freezes and the cost of everything from health care to food is going up? Do you voice your concerns and frustrations to your supervisor, in the hopes of things improving? Or do you suck it up and just keep doing what you're doing, for fear that you will get fired, and won't be able to find another job, in a timely fashion? Would an employee fire someone, for voicing displeasure with their job, or the way in which the company handles things? Is it worth the cost of unemployment combined with the cost of posting job ad's, hiring and training a new employee? Or, is it worth letting go of a unhappy employee and hiring someone, whom yes, will need to be trained, but who has perhaps been out of work, for awhile, and therefore just so happy to have a job again that they will put with anything?
If you do choose to voice your concerns or displeasure with an employer in the current job market, should you, just to err on the side of caution, have already started looking for another job, should you at least have some irons in the fire? Do potential job seekers need to be more open to the possibility of picking up and moving, to another part of the country where they may be more opportunities, rather than limiting themselves to only looking in the area in which they currently reside? And, if married, how does that possibility affect the spouse and the career prospects? (The world is full of people who don't want to move for a different job opportunity, because they don't want to uproot their kids, have them change schools, etc. But, as an Army Brat myself, I have never had much understanding or sympathy for that line of thinking...kids adjust far easier than adults do, and there is a lot to be said for the educational and sociological experiences that come with not living in the same place for ones entire life. You go where the work is. And, in the long run, which is worse for the child, moving to a place, or seeing their parents depressed, out of work, and struggling financially?)
I am seeing, more and more, people who are frustrated in their current jobs. Frustrated, because of budget cuts, restructuring and hiring freezes, they are faced with the inability to do much to grow, or receive much support in their efforts towards professional development. And, the frustration is only increased by the fear that they are not in a position to speak out, given concern of being laid-off. (Even if a company doesn't fire you for voicing displeasure, the threat of future lay-offs always seems to be looming.)
What can companies do to ensure that their employees are remaining satisfied in their jobs, ensuring that they don't choose to look for other jobs, once the economy and job market improves? Will there be an onslaught, once things to pick up again, of people resigning from their jobs, to look for better opportunities, after months or even years of feeling dissatisfied and unappreciated? While companies, both for profit and nonprofits are being forced, more and more, to demonstrate their transparency with the general public, could they be doing a better job of demonstrating it to their employees, giving a better understanding of where the company is and where it's headed?
Both employers and employees seem to be dancing on the edge of a knife. No one, in the current state of financial affairs, can really afford to be out of work, but can employers really run the risk of being further short-staffed, should employees resign, given the number of lay-offs and hiring freezes that have, or are, currently, taking place? How can both parties be satisfied, fulfilled, and productive? Because, there is a big difference between a job and a career, and most people want careers. But, it seems, more and more that even those who are in their careers are feeling as though it's just a job, but stuck to do much about it. And, which is more beneficial to an employer...someone who feels that they're being treated fairly and given opportunity to grow, professionally, someone who is satisfied, or someone who feels that they have no idea what is going on from one day to the next, within the company for which they work, feeling as though they're walking on eggshells, and feeling infuriated when they see the bonuses that were paid to the CEO and COO, on the companies tax returns?
It seems that honesty may be the best policy on both fronts...the employee needs to be honest about how their feeling, their career goals, et al, the employer needs to be honest with the employees, regarding finances and the track that the company is on. And, both need to be able to feel as though they can do without fear of retribution. And, that's the rub, it seems....
If you do choose to voice your concerns or displeasure with an employer in the current job market, should you, just to err on the side of caution, have already started looking for another job, should you at least have some irons in the fire? Do potential job seekers need to be more open to the possibility of picking up and moving, to another part of the country where they may be more opportunities, rather than limiting themselves to only looking in the area in which they currently reside? And, if married, how does that possibility affect the spouse and the career prospects? (The world is full of people who don't want to move for a different job opportunity, because they don't want to uproot their kids, have them change schools, etc. But, as an Army Brat myself, I have never had much understanding or sympathy for that line of thinking...kids adjust far easier than adults do, and there is a lot to be said for the educational and sociological experiences that come with not living in the same place for ones entire life. You go where the work is. And, in the long run, which is worse for the child, moving to a place, or seeing their parents depressed, out of work, and struggling financially?)
I am seeing, more and more, people who are frustrated in their current jobs. Frustrated, because of budget cuts, restructuring and hiring freezes, they are faced with the inability to do much to grow, or receive much support in their efforts towards professional development. And, the frustration is only increased by the fear that they are not in a position to speak out, given concern of being laid-off. (Even if a company doesn't fire you for voicing displeasure, the threat of future lay-offs always seems to be looming.)
What can companies do to ensure that their employees are remaining satisfied in their jobs, ensuring that they don't choose to look for other jobs, once the economy and job market improves? Will there be an onslaught, once things to pick up again, of people resigning from their jobs, to look for better opportunities, after months or even years of feeling dissatisfied and unappreciated? While companies, both for profit and nonprofits are being forced, more and more, to demonstrate their transparency with the general public, could they be doing a better job of demonstrating it to their employees, giving a better understanding of where the company is and where it's headed?
Both employers and employees seem to be dancing on the edge of a knife. No one, in the current state of financial affairs, can really afford to be out of work, but can employers really run the risk of being further short-staffed, should employees resign, given the number of lay-offs and hiring freezes that have, or are, currently, taking place? How can both parties be satisfied, fulfilled, and productive? Because, there is a big difference between a job and a career, and most people want careers. But, it seems, more and more that even those who are in their careers are feeling as though it's just a job, but stuck to do much about it. And, which is more beneficial to an employer...someone who feels that they're being treated fairly and given opportunity to grow, professionally, someone who is satisfied, or someone who feels that they have no idea what is going on from one day to the next, within the company for which they work, feeling as though they're walking on eggshells, and feeling infuriated when they see the bonuses that were paid to the CEO and COO, on the companies tax returns?
It seems that honesty may be the best policy on both fronts...the employee needs to be honest about how their feeling, their career goals, et al, the employer needs to be honest with the employees, regarding finances and the track that the company is on. And, both need to be able to feel as though they can do without fear of retribution. And, that's the rub, it seems....
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Pondering "The Philanthropist"
NBC will be debuting a new on June 24th, 2009, "The Philanthropist".
I must admit that as an overall fan of NBC programming and someone who has worked, in some capacity, within the nonprofit sector, for several years, I am quite curious and definately like the title, and what it stands for. The ad's that I have seen on television, thus far, along with the few bits and pieces of information which I have read, do cause me to raise my eyebrows, though, at the premise. A young billionaire, while on vacation, loses his son, the result of which is that he has a newfound respect and appreciation for someone in his position of wealth, being charitable and philanthropic. Ahhh....but, of course that's not enough of a pitch to sell the Armani-wearing big wigs in Hollywood, is it? Of course not...the twist being that instead of building hospital wings, or funding new programs at local nonprofits, instead of attending $2,000.00 a plate fundraising dinners to raise money to send medical supplies to third world countries, he is doing the travelling, himself to the third world country, to deliver the supplies. Okaaaaaaayyyyyyy....So, I'm guessing that he finds himself in some rather dangerous (read: exciting for the viewer) situations, all in the name of charitable giving.
While I do applaud NBC for examing the need for philanthropy and think it's an interesting premise, what is wrong with a slightly more realistic approach to a television show that revolves around a wealthy giver? Based on the ad's that I have seen, and the few things that I have read, it seems that the show will put our young, wealthy, philanthropist in a lot of third world countries. Now, that is all well and good, and certainly there are many countries all over the world who desperately need the services provided by American npo's and ngo's. But, I'm curious if there will ever be any episodes revolving around the local domestic violence shelter or Humane Society? I have worked for small, locally-based nonprofits, and those are people who are giving their all, every day, in the trenches, working for the greater good, to improve their communities. Those types of episodes may not make for exciting television, the way being stranded in Korean refuge camp would, but they're every bit as socially concious. And, would hopefully demonstrate the importance of giving back to your local community, while also giving back to your global community.
I must admit that as an overall fan of NBC programming and someone who has worked, in some capacity, within the nonprofit sector, for several years, I am quite curious and definately like the title, and what it stands for. The ad's that I have seen on television, thus far, along with the few bits and pieces of information which I have read, do cause me to raise my eyebrows, though, at the premise. A young billionaire, while on vacation, loses his son, the result of which is that he has a newfound respect and appreciation for someone in his position of wealth, being charitable and philanthropic. Ahhh....but, of course that's not enough of a pitch to sell the Armani-wearing big wigs in Hollywood, is it? Of course not...the twist being that instead of building hospital wings, or funding new programs at local nonprofits, instead of attending $2,000.00 a plate fundraising dinners to raise money to send medical supplies to third world countries, he is doing the travelling, himself to the third world country, to deliver the supplies. Okaaaaaaayyyyyyy....So, I'm guessing that he finds himself in some rather dangerous (read: exciting for the viewer) situations, all in the name of charitable giving.
While I do applaud NBC for examing the need for philanthropy and think it's an interesting premise, what is wrong with a slightly more realistic approach to a television show that revolves around a wealthy giver? Based on the ad's that I have seen, and the few things that I have read, it seems that the show will put our young, wealthy, philanthropist in a lot of third world countries. Now, that is all well and good, and certainly there are many countries all over the world who desperately need the services provided by American npo's and ngo's. But, I'm curious if there will ever be any episodes revolving around the local domestic violence shelter or Humane Society? I have worked for small, locally-based nonprofits, and those are people who are giving their all, every day, in the trenches, working for the greater good, to improve their communities. Those types of episodes may not make for exciting television, the way being stranded in Korean refuge camp would, but they're every bit as socially concious. And, would hopefully demonstrate the importance of giving back to your local community, while also giving back to your global community.
Coming Soon....Guest Blogger Elisa Lorello!
On June 9th, my friend Elisa Lorello will be a guest blogger, here in my blogspot blog, to promote her novel, "Faking it". I read the couple a couple of months ago, and thoroughly enjoyed it, so I sincerely hope her upcoming blog tour will be hugely successful in continuing to get the word out! So, tune in on June 9th, for my friend and guest blogger, Elisa Lorello!
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wall Street is NOT a Nonprofit
As someone who works in the nonprofit sector, and as someone who is, you know...HUMAN, I find this infuriating....
http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/8438/aig-seeks-control-of-charitable-endowment
Just because the banking industry can't seem to turn a profit doesn't make it a nonprofit.
Perhaps I am just cold hearted, after years of dedicating my life to the nonprofit sector, but my heart is not breaking for the crooked, Wall Street fat cats, who are not getting their annual bonuses. Their annual bonuses being far greater than what most people annual salaries are.
I would hope that the recent trials of Wall Street (both literal and figurative) have taught us all about the need for transparency. In every sector, public, private, governmental, et al. And, as such, I can't believe that the powers that be at AIG, would honestly think that they could get away with dipping into their charitable endowment to pay bonuses to certain employees. Given the current economic climate and the fact that there is a greater need for services that are provided to people by both the nonprofit sector and the government, I can't think of a better time to use a corporate charitable endowment the way it was MEANT to be used. By helping those less fortunate. And, regardless of the economic hardships currently being faced by Wall Street, there are a great many people who are far less fortunate than those investors who may not be getting their bonuses. You know, like the people who had invested with them.
Oh, and it may be worth mentioning that it's illegal to do what AIG is attempting. Not like that has ever stopped them before, though. Obviously....right, Mr. Madoff?
http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/8438/aig-seeks-control-of-charitable-endowment
Just because the banking industry can't seem to turn a profit doesn't make it a nonprofit.
Perhaps I am just cold hearted, after years of dedicating my life to the nonprofit sector, but my heart is not breaking for the crooked, Wall Street fat cats, who are not getting their annual bonuses. Their annual bonuses being far greater than what most people annual salaries are.
I would hope that the recent trials of Wall Street (both literal and figurative) have taught us all about the need for transparency. In every sector, public, private, governmental, et al. And, as such, I can't believe that the powers that be at AIG, would honestly think that they could get away with dipping into their charitable endowment to pay bonuses to certain employees. Given the current economic climate and the fact that there is a greater need for services that are provided to people by both the nonprofit sector and the government, I can't think of a better time to use a corporate charitable endowment the way it was MEANT to be used. By helping those less fortunate. And, regardless of the economic hardships currently being faced by Wall Street, there are a great many people who are far less fortunate than those investors who may not be getting their bonuses. You know, like the people who had invested with them.
Oh, and it may be worth mentioning that it's illegal to do what AIG is attempting. Not like that has ever stopped them before, though. Obviously....right, Mr. Madoff?
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Cheney
Who is this person who is now in favor of same-sex marriage, states that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and isn't commenting on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court and what have they done with our former Vice Idiot, Dick Cheney? When did Dick Cheney, become...almost...human?? (Bear in mind, I said, "almost".) I must say that it's rather disconcerting to see someone to whom I never failed to hurl anger and annoyance, acting like a rational, reasonable human being. Has he come to his senses, that he is no longer having to deal with the Village Idiot of Texas? Has he realized, out in the light of day, away from the confines of the Vice President's Mansion, that perhaps he should be a little more accepting of his daughter's orientation? Is this guy, Mr.-I-Shoot-My-Friends-In-The-Face, going to come out in favor of stricter gun control? And, he didn't feel to speak out on the fact that there was no connection between Saddam Husseing and 9/11, oh....I don't know...say...BEFORE WE STARTED FIGHTING TWO WARS? Did he just feel that little piece of information wasn't important until recently? For that alone, he, along with his cohorts GW Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice, should be dragged off to the Hague and tried for war crimes.
I really thought one of the benefits (and, there should be many) of no longer having him as the VP would be that we wouldn't have to see him anymore. And, now I feel as though everytime I turn on the TV, there is his big, fat, war mongering, lying, anti-choice, anti-education, head on CNN, "The Today Show", "Meet the Press", "The Week", et al. I'm waiting, in horror, for him to host "Saturday Night Live" or turn in a guest-starring appearance on "How I Met Your Mother". (Although, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to him make a royal ass of himself, along with a bunch of other B-list celebrities, on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here". Maybe the producers can kill two birds with one stone and set the show in the Hague, actually..."I'm a Politician Who Committed Crimes Against Humanity, I Deserve To Be Here".
A lot of talking heads are making predictions of a Cheney run for the Presidency in 2012, which is perhaps why he seems to be changing his tune on a lot of issues. All I have to say is, "bring it on, Dick". Democrats don't typically like to engage in smear campaigns, but in your case...I think we'll make an exception.
I really thought one of the benefits (and, there should be many) of no longer having him as the VP would be that we wouldn't have to see him anymore. And, now I feel as though everytime I turn on the TV, there is his big, fat, war mongering, lying, anti-choice, anti-education, head on CNN, "The Today Show", "Meet the Press", "The Week", et al. I'm waiting, in horror, for him to host "Saturday Night Live" or turn in a guest-starring appearance on "How I Met Your Mother". (Although, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to him make a royal ass of himself, along with a bunch of other B-list celebrities, on "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here". Maybe the producers can kill two birds with one stone and set the show in the Hague, actually..."I'm a Politician Who Committed Crimes Against Humanity, I Deserve To Be Here".
A lot of talking heads are making predictions of a Cheney run for the Presidency in 2012, which is perhaps why he seems to be changing his tune on a lot of issues. All I have to say is, "bring it on, Dick". Democrats don't typically like to engage in smear campaigns, but in your case...I think we'll make an exception.
Relaying Relay for Life
This past weekend was the Relay for Life event, to raise money for the American Cancer Society, here in Williamsburg, VA. The event was held at Jamestown High School.
While I have participated in many Relay for Life events in the past, this was my first year as a team captain. I named the team, "Billie's Belles", after my mother (whose name was Billie, obviously), who lost her own battle with breast cancer in May 2003. Overall, I have to say that I think we were pretty successful, considering it was my first year as a team captain. (And, I didn't form my team and start fundraising until pretty late. Plus, I gave a lot of energy to an MS Walk that I did for a friend of mine, in Hershey, PA.) We didn't meet our team goal, but I did surpass my personal fundraising goal. (And, the fundraising efforts aren't done yet! We still have until July 23rd to raise money...http://main.acsevents.org/goto/billiesbelles.)
In the grand scheme of things, I know I should just take pride in the job I did, my first time out, as a team captain, and be happy for the money we raised, for the American Cancer Society, while also being grateful for those who donated and/or came out to walk with me, in the event. But, I am still struggling with some feelings of disappointment. Disappointment in myself for not focusing on it more and devoting more time to it, disappointment in those people whom I really thought would have at least responded to my requests for donations and/or team members, with emotional support, "hey, I can't make it to the event, and money is really tight, but I just want you to know that I'll be thinking about you. Good luck!", and disappointment in feeling that I let my mom down, somehow, in not doing more.
Obviously, I am incredibly grateful to those wonderful friends who not only came out to walk with me, but even stayed with me all, night, for the full 12 hours. And, I am so touched and humbled by the number of people whom did donate, especially given the tough economic times in which we all find ourselves. But, there is still that nagging feeling that I didn't do enough, and I'm having a very hard time reconciling my feelings of disappointment not only in myself, but in others.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that we can't all do everything or give to everything...I certainly can't. But, I do at least try. Even if I can't attend the fundraiser, the sporting event, the show, et al, that a friend is involved with, even if I can't contribute financially, I do what I can to let them know that I'm proud of them and will be thinking about them. And, I'm finding it rather discouraging, knowing that I certainly do what I can to be there for people, to feel as though as I have been let down by certain people....especially when some of them are people whom have often counted on me to be there for them. Now, I am certainly pretty hard on myself....and, as such, perhaps I'm harder on others than I should be. But, with that said, I don't think I expect anything of others that I don't expect of myself.
I'm confident that whatever feelings of disappointment I'm currently feeling in both myself and others, is something that I will get over. I don't believe in holding grudges. I just wanted this to be a grand success, for my mom, who was a great woman, and someone whom I miss every day.
I supposed the important thing is to take all of this as a learning experience, for the future, for any other Relay for Life events (or Susan G. Komen) that I may head-up.
While I have participated in many Relay for Life events in the past, this was my first year as a team captain. I named the team, "Billie's Belles", after my mother (whose name was Billie, obviously), who lost her own battle with breast cancer in May 2003. Overall, I have to say that I think we were pretty successful, considering it was my first year as a team captain. (And, I didn't form my team and start fundraising until pretty late. Plus, I gave a lot of energy to an MS Walk that I did for a friend of mine, in Hershey, PA.) We didn't meet our team goal, but I did surpass my personal fundraising goal. (And, the fundraising efforts aren't done yet! We still have until July 23rd to raise money...http://main.acsevents.org/goto/billiesbelles.)
In the grand scheme of things, I know I should just take pride in the job I did, my first time out, as a team captain, and be happy for the money we raised, for the American Cancer Society, while also being grateful for those who donated and/or came out to walk with me, in the event. But, I am still struggling with some feelings of disappointment. Disappointment in myself for not focusing on it more and devoting more time to it, disappointment in those people whom I really thought would have at least responded to my requests for donations and/or team members, with emotional support, "hey, I can't make it to the event, and money is really tight, but I just want you to know that I'll be thinking about you. Good luck!", and disappointment in feeling that I let my mom down, somehow, in not doing more.
Obviously, I am incredibly grateful to those wonderful friends who not only came out to walk with me, but even stayed with me all, night, for the full 12 hours. And, I am so touched and humbled by the number of people whom did donate, especially given the tough economic times in which we all find ourselves. But, there is still that nagging feeling that I didn't do enough, and I'm having a very hard time reconciling my feelings of disappointment not only in myself, but in others.
I'll be the first to acknowledge that we can't all do everything or give to everything...I certainly can't. But, I do at least try. Even if I can't attend the fundraiser, the sporting event, the show, et al, that a friend is involved with, even if I can't contribute financially, I do what I can to let them know that I'm proud of them and will be thinking about them. And, I'm finding it rather discouraging, knowing that I certainly do what I can to be there for people, to feel as though as I have been let down by certain people....especially when some of them are people whom have often counted on me to be there for them. Now, I am certainly pretty hard on myself....and, as such, perhaps I'm harder on others than I should be. But, with that said, I don't think I expect anything of others that I don't expect of myself.
I'm confident that whatever feelings of disappointment I'm currently feeling in both myself and others, is something that I will get over. I don't believe in holding grudges. I just wanted this to be a grand success, for my mom, who was a great woman, and someone whom I miss every day.
I supposed the important thing is to take all of this as a learning experience, for the future, for any other Relay for Life events (or Susan G. Komen) that I may head-up.
The Passion of the Gibson
So, I haven't been a big fan of Mel Gibson's for quite awhile....ever since I met him on the set of "We Were Soldiers" (my father was portrayed in the film), and found him to be something of well...an ass. In the years since then, he has only continued to be less-than-impressive, in my opinion. He refused to denounce his father's rather moronic comments regarding his belief that the Holocaust never happened, on the heels of making a rather anti-semitic film, he gets pulled over for a DUI, and in the process makes some just lovely (read: idiotic and racist) comments to the officers who pulled him over. And, now, after years of claiming what a devout Catholic he is and basically implying that anyone of a differing faith is a heretic, he is divorcing his wife of over 20 years and has proceeded to get his girlfriend pregnant. Now, I am certainly not one to listen to many of the ideas put forth, by many religions, regarding sex, birth control, et al. Nor am I one to knock others for their beliefs, whatever they may be. But, what I do have a problem with is hypocrisy. If Mel Gibson had kept his mouth shut about how devout he was, and always claiming to be such a good, observant Catholic (I know plenty of Catholics who use birth control and have premarital sex, but they also don't go around making other people feel as though they are less than they are), then I wouldn't care for a split second about the fact that he is getting a divorce, or impregnating his girlfriend, before his divorce is even finalized. But....he DID shoot his mouth off, therefore I'm allowed to pass judgement and call him a hypocrite.
And, the envelope of hypocrisy, racism, and overall assholic-ness goes to...Mel Gibson.
And, the envelope of hypocrisy, racism, and overall assholic-ness goes to...Mel Gibson.
Word Play Consulting
So, I have begun to take some very small steps towards starting my own business...Word Play Consulting, which will be a professional writing service. (Grant writing, press releases, speeches, scripts, blog contributions, et al.) Given my fondness for the written word, combined with my background in nonprofit development work, in which I wrote grants, press releases, speeches, etc., and my current and increasing frustrations with my job, it seems like the right time to try to pursue this. I have bought the website domain (www.wordplayconsulting.com) and started looking at business cards and thinking of various marketing techniques. I have not yet started to build the website, as I am not even remotely savvy in that respect, so I am waiting for one of my IT wiz friends/coworkers, to return from a business trip. (At which point, we will hopefully sit down with another IT wiz friend of both of ours.) I also figure that given my desire to possibly move, this is something that I could do from where....just take it with me!
Like I said, this is all in the very preliminary stages right now. (I just purchased the website domain yesterday!) But, I am getting pretty excited about it. And, I figure that given my experience, in various capacities, within the nonprofit sector, I could also work as something of a nonprofit consultant, in addition to providing various writing services. (The latter wouldn't necessarily be limited to the nonprofit sector.)
So, should you or anyone whom you know, need any writing/editing done....you know who to call!
Like I said, this is all in the very preliminary stages right now. (I just purchased the website domain yesterday!) But, I am getting pretty excited about it. And, I figure that given my experience, in various capacities, within the nonprofit sector, I could also work as something of a nonprofit consultant, in addition to providing various writing services. (The latter wouldn't necessarily be limited to the nonprofit sector.)
So, should you or anyone whom you know, need any writing/editing done....you know who to call!
Rockin' Women
So, a friend of mine recently bought Rock Band 2, for the Wii. The reason being that Beatles Rock Band is coming out in September and his best friend as already pre-ordered it. In an attempt to make sure that we don't all suck, when the Beatles edition comes out, Rock Band 2 was purchased to ensure that we have time to practice, before September. (Yes, I am apparently, that much of a geek.) As we have gotten together recently, (at present time, it's usually two men and two women) it has occured to me that the vast majority of the songs that are available, are performed by men. There are only a handful, of the vast and varied songs on Rock Band 2, that are performed (at least, vocally) by women. Now, certainly, I appreciate that there are a greater number of male rockers than there are women and probably a larger number of men who play Rock Band, or even just have Wii's in general. (I, apparently, buck that stereotype.) But, wouldn't it stand to reason that if the ladies were given their due, then it might cause an increased interest among us estrogen-producing members of society, in playing such games as Rock Band??
So, let's consider this my grassroots campaign to develop an additional Rock Band game, or at the very least an additional song pack, that gives credit to the women who rock. Let us all bow down and pay homage to Melissa Etheridge, Sheryl Crow, Meredith Brooks, Chrissie Hynde, The Bangles, KD Lang, Alanis Morrisette, Saving Jane, Pat Benatar, Stevie Nicks, Heart, Tina Turner, Janis Joplin, Gwen Stefani, Lauryn Hill, The Indigo Girls, Christina Aguilara, Pink, Carole King, Carly Simon, Madonna, and all of the other women of rock!
So, let's consider this my grassroots campaign to develop an additional Rock Band game, or at the very least an additional song pack, that gives credit to the women who rock. Let us all bow down and pay homage to Melissa Etheridge, Sheryl Crow, Meredith Brooks, Chrissie Hynde, The Bangles, KD Lang, Alanis Morrisette, Saving Jane, Pat Benatar, Stevie Nicks, Heart, Tina Turner, Janis Joplin, Gwen Stefani, Lauryn Hill, The Indigo Girls, Christina Aguilara, Pink, Carole King, Carly Simon, Madonna, and all of the other women of rock!
Friday, January 16, 2009
How Did We Elect This Guy...TWICE?!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17494.html
You have got to be kidding??? This is a slap in the face to anyone who supports Roe vs. Wade, not to mention any woman who has, or ever will seek a safe, legal abortion.
I am currently reading, "The Nine", by Jeffery Toobin, and even the conservative Supreme Court, in the early 90's when given the perfect opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade, weren't about to overturn something that had been the law of the land for almost 30 years, at that point, something that the majority of Americans did (and still do) consider to be a right, under the rights of privacy. I appreciate that George W. Bush may have his own opinions regarding the issue of abortion, but even Justice Tony Kennedy didn't vote to overturn Roe and he's a devout Catholic, who, on an ideological level, cannot stomach the idea of legalized abortion, but realizes that his religious views are not the law of the land, that he cannot allow his own personal beliefs to be the guiding force in his legal judgements.
There is one thing that I feel needs to be clarified for the Right To Lifers...being Pro Choice does not mean that you're pro-abortion. It simply means that everyone should be allowed the choice to determine what she can or will do with her body.
I also can't help but find it laughable that a President who allows the torture of detainees, has no problem sending young men and women off to war, under false pretenses, and still has barely made a dent in the devastation that was caused by Hurricane Katrina, can claim to value human life. His track record hardly reflects that.
You have got to be kidding??? This is a slap in the face to anyone who supports Roe vs. Wade, not to mention any woman who has, or ever will seek a safe, legal abortion.
I am currently reading, "The Nine", by Jeffery Toobin, and even the conservative Supreme Court, in the early 90's when given the perfect opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade, weren't about to overturn something that had been the law of the land for almost 30 years, at that point, something that the majority of Americans did (and still do) consider to be a right, under the rights of privacy. I appreciate that George W. Bush may have his own opinions regarding the issue of abortion, but even Justice Tony Kennedy didn't vote to overturn Roe and he's a devout Catholic, who, on an ideological level, cannot stomach the idea of legalized abortion, but realizes that his religious views are not the law of the land, that he cannot allow his own personal beliefs to be the guiding force in his legal judgements.
There is one thing that I feel needs to be clarified for the Right To Lifers...being Pro Choice does not mean that you're pro-abortion. It simply means that everyone should be allowed the choice to determine what she can or will do with her body.
I also can't help but find it laughable that a President who allows the torture of detainees, has no problem sending young men and women off to war, under false pretenses, and still has barely made a dent in the devastation that was caused by Hurricane Katrina, can claim to value human life. His track record hardly reflects that.
T-Minus 96 Hours and Counting
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17503.html
I can see the light at the end of the tunnel! The reign of terror is almost over! The end of an error is almost here!!!
Yes, I am a Democrat, but I feel that I am a reasonable person in my political ideology...I realize that no two people are going to agree on every issue, all of the time. And, there are even some Republicans in Washington that I could get on board with...Arlin Spector of Pennsylvania, for example. Ron Paul of Texas could be another one. However, there is another Texan whom I have never been able to get on board with, nor would I ever want to...the man who has done nothing but corrupt what should be the very seat of Democracy....George W. Bush.
But, at last, after 8 long years of torture, corruption, lies, cronyism, illegal wire tapes, two wars, false information, and verbal gaffes that probably have Mark Twain rolling over in his grave, it is FINALLY coming to an end. The man who will most likely go down as the worst President in American history, making even Herbert Hoover look competent will return to Texas, where I'm sure the village has been missing their idiot. (Claiming that there are "some things we would have done differently" is clear enough sign of that...."some things"?? Really? Only some? How about a do-over of the past 8 years, entirely.)
My Fellow Americans, fear not...the end is near, and the sun is coming up. And, to President Bush...don't let the door of Air Force One hit you in ass on the way out. On second thought...let it hit you.
I can see the light at the end of the tunnel! The reign of terror is almost over! The end of an error is almost here!!!
Yes, I am a Democrat, but I feel that I am a reasonable person in my political ideology...I realize that no two people are going to agree on every issue, all of the time. And, there are even some Republicans in Washington that I could get on board with...Arlin Spector of Pennsylvania, for example. Ron Paul of Texas could be another one. However, there is another Texan whom I have never been able to get on board with, nor would I ever want to...the man who has done nothing but corrupt what should be the very seat of Democracy....George W. Bush.
But, at last, after 8 long years of torture, corruption, lies, cronyism, illegal wire tapes, two wars, false information, and verbal gaffes that probably have Mark Twain rolling over in his grave, it is FINALLY coming to an end. The man who will most likely go down as the worst President in American history, making even Herbert Hoover look competent will return to Texas, where I'm sure the village has been missing their idiot. (Claiming that there are "some things we would have done differently" is clear enough sign of that...."some things"?? Really? Only some? How about a do-over of the past 8 years, entirely.)
My Fellow Americans, fear not...the end is near, and the sun is coming up. And, to President Bush...don't let the door of Air Force One hit you in ass on the way out. On second thought...let it hit you.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ta-Ta, T.O.?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/111294-dallas-cowboys-thinking-of-releasing-terrell-owens
As a Dallas Cowboys fan, I would obviously hate to see them lose the athleticism of Terrell Owens. He is an outstanding football player, no question. However, letting him go, could be one of the smartest things the Cowboys do. Skills on the field or not, his attitude is toxic. He began the season well, keeping his ego and his attitude in check, but he certainly didn't end the season that way. I think he resents Jason Whitten, Patrick Creighton, et al., and I think his relationship with Tony Romo has been tarnished, as well.
The fact is, the Cowboys did not play as a team, this season, and while there are probably any number of reasons as to why that's the case, I don't think anyone, even the most hardcore Cowboys fans, can deny that Owens's attitude, especially towards the later part of the season, was a factor in that. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how good you are on the field, if you pollute the locker room, off the field.
There are any number of changes the Cowboys organization can and should make during the off-season, before next year, including within the coaching staff. And, their owner, Jerry Jones could also benefit from a good stern talking to. But, it's getting harder and harder for me to defend my boys...the expression, "Dallas Cowboys...hated by many, respected by all" is holding true less and less....everyone still hates them, but their not respected the way they used to be. If Dallas wants to once again be, America's Team, then some shake-ups do need occur, before next season. And, letting go of T.O., while his skills on the field will be missed, is probably one of them.
As a Dallas Cowboys fan, I would obviously hate to see them lose the athleticism of Terrell Owens. He is an outstanding football player, no question. However, letting him go, could be one of the smartest things the Cowboys do. Skills on the field or not, his attitude is toxic. He began the season well, keeping his ego and his attitude in check, but he certainly didn't end the season that way. I think he resents Jason Whitten, Patrick Creighton, et al., and I think his relationship with Tony Romo has been tarnished, as well.
The fact is, the Cowboys did not play as a team, this season, and while there are probably any number of reasons as to why that's the case, I don't think anyone, even the most hardcore Cowboys fans, can deny that Owens's attitude, especially towards the later part of the season, was a factor in that. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how good you are on the field, if you pollute the locker room, off the field.
There are any number of changes the Cowboys organization can and should make during the off-season, before next year, including within the coaching staff. And, their owner, Jerry Jones could also benefit from a good stern talking to. But, it's getting harder and harder for me to defend my boys...the expression, "Dallas Cowboys...hated by many, respected by all" is holding true less and less....everyone still hates them, but their not respected the way they used to be. If Dallas wants to once again be, America's Team, then some shake-ups do need occur, before next season. And, letting go of T.O., while his skills on the field will be missed, is probably one of them.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Theatre of the Absurd
As someone who was a Theatre Major in college, and is still actively involved with supporting the arts, as both a patron and participant, I keep myself up-to-date (or, I at least, try) on various goings on in my general area of Southeastern Virginia, as well as the Washington, DC area and New York City. As of late, I have come across a few articles and blogs and whatnot from the greater Richmond area...articles and reviews and such in online publications, etc. And, more and more, I am seeing a very disturbing trend...one that perhaps I have always known was growing, but seems to be becoming more so...the lack of interest in theatre, both community and professional. I realize that given my education in theatre, my experience and continued support, that I am perhaps biased, but with that said, I was also raised by parents, who while not terribly artistically-inclined, themselves, were always taking me off to theatres, art galleries, museums, et al. I used to reside in Northeastern Connecticut, and while various arts organizations certainly had their struggles, it did not seem to be as hard to find (and please) patrons, as it does in Virginia. (With that said, I also haven't lived in CT for about 8 years or so...the theatre scene there may be suffering there, now too, just as it seems to be in Virginia.)
Certainly, with cable, and all the accessibility that goes along with it, and movies, and the internet, going to theatre isn't the only form of entertainment available to people. But, for anyone who has been a theatre patron, you know that for what it may lack in shoot 'em up action, like that of a Nicolas Cage film, it more than makes up in intimacy. While you don't the close-up camera shots of an actors face, as you do with film or television, there is a connection that is formed, when sharing the space, with the actors on the stage. (And, as an actor myself, I can also say that it is the same for the actors...the intimacy that you share with audience is quite...well, magical.) I find it very distressing that we seem to be becoming a society that doesn't appreciate the arts, in any form (theatre, dance, music, visual arts), the way we used to. The talent and skill and passion that is exhibited, every day, in places all over the country, all over the world, is to be respected, admired, and appreciated.
Insofar as the lack of interest in/support of community theatre is concerned...it seems that a lot of the rather negative comments that I have come across have been from people who have moved to this area from Washington, DC., New York City, etc., places in which professional theatre is far more accessible, and probably even the community theatre is of high quality, given the larger talent pool, from which to choose. But, as I have learned, from my own experiences, treading the boards, one should never underestimate the community theatre. The men and women who participate in these productions, in every capacity, usually do so on a volunteer basis...if they get paid anything at all, it's usually only a small stipend. They are volunteering their time, their talent, their passion, and their energy, so that live theatre may be more accessible to the masses. They volunteer time their time, even though no one has enough of it. (And, now you can probably see my nonprofit life coming out to play.) They have regular "day jobs" and volunteer to go to rehearsals 3, 4, 5 nights, a week, after they get off work, for 2 or 3 hours a night, to put together a production that can be accessible to and enjoyed by those who may not otherwise have the resources to see a professional theatre production. After all, not everyone can make it to DC, or NYC...and, certainly, in this economy, not everyone can even afford tickets to The Fergeson Center, Virginia Stage Company, or Chrysler Hall, to see a professional touring production.
Obviously, community theatres have to do some leg work, on their end, too...more/better marketing and public relations...listening to their patrons as to what shows they would like to see (something of an ongoing debate, on that point, though, as there are those within the arts world who feel that people don't really know what they want until it's given to them...and, I do believe that there is some truth to that...especially as a transplanted New Englander, and a theater major at a liberal arts college in Massachussettes, where things are much more liberal and people seem to have greater ease at "pushing the envelope")...doing more to make their existence known, both to patrons and participants. But, most community theatres are, by their very nature, nonprofit organizations, and sometimes the idea of "you have to spend money to make money" (as it pertains to marketing and such) isn't always as feasible as it is with other types of organizations. As previously mentioned, I moved to Virginia from the icy tundra of New England, and from the standpoint of an actor, was somewhat spoiled, given the relative ease in which we could do shows written by David Mamet, Tennessee Williams, Sam Shepherd, and be able to do so without fear of offending our audiences. (Of course, there were, from time to time, those people who were offended, but it was a fairly rare occurrence.) Which again, I suppose, brings up the idea of whether or not audiences really even know what it is that they want, until it's given to them. There are arguments to be made on both sides of that coin.
It's just a sad idea...the lack of appreciation for the arts. Of course, the funding cuts within our countries public schools certainly doesn't help, in that regard. Unless younger kids have parents who will expose them to the arts, giving them an appreciation for it, they're not going to get it at school, either, it seems. The lack of appreciation for the arts within public schools, also being a real source of contention for me. It's not like any of us learned anything, had fun, or made friends in any of our arts-related classes, regardless of whether or not it was something that we continued to pursue. It's not like it didn't expand our horizons. There is a direct corralation between the progress of a society and progress within the arts. (Hello...the era of Elizabeth I was also the era of Shakespeare.)
So, if you have never been to theatrical production...go to one. Turn off the television, turn off the iPod, turn off your BlackBerry, step away from computer and do something, regardless of whether it's a professional production or a community theatre production, that will open your mind, broaden your horizons, and make you, at least look, a little more sophisticated. And, for those two hours, you may find yourself transcended, you may laugh, you may cry, you may think, you may have something with which you can have a thought-provoking conversation. (Impress your friends! Fun at parties!) You may very well become a patron of the arts.
Certainly, with cable, and all the accessibility that goes along with it, and movies, and the internet, going to theatre isn't the only form of entertainment available to people. But, for anyone who has been a theatre patron, you know that for what it may lack in shoot 'em up action, like that of a Nicolas Cage film, it more than makes up in intimacy. While you don't the close-up camera shots of an actors face, as you do with film or television, there is a connection that is formed, when sharing the space, with the actors on the stage. (And, as an actor myself, I can also say that it is the same for the actors...the intimacy that you share with audience is quite...well, magical.) I find it very distressing that we seem to be becoming a society that doesn't appreciate the arts, in any form (theatre, dance, music, visual arts), the way we used to. The talent and skill and passion that is exhibited, every day, in places all over the country, all over the world, is to be respected, admired, and appreciated.
Insofar as the lack of interest in/support of community theatre is concerned...it seems that a lot of the rather negative comments that I have come across have been from people who have moved to this area from Washington, DC., New York City, etc., places in which professional theatre is far more accessible, and probably even the community theatre is of high quality, given the larger talent pool, from which to choose. But, as I have learned, from my own experiences, treading the boards, one should never underestimate the community theatre. The men and women who participate in these productions, in every capacity, usually do so on a volunteer basis...if they get paid anything at all, it's usually only a small stipend. They are volunteering their time, their talent, their passion, and their energy, so that live theatre may be more accessible to the masses. They volunteer time their time, even though no one has enough of it. (And, now you can probably see my nonprofit life coming out to play.) They have regular "day jobs" and volunteer to go to rehearsals 3, 4, 5 nights, a week, after they get off work, for 2 or 3 hours a night, to put together a production that can be accessible to and enjoyed by those who may not otherwise have the resources to see a professional theatre production. After all, not everyone can make it to DC, or NYC...and, certainly, in this economy, not everyone can even afford tickets to The Fergeson Center, Virginia Stage Company, or Chrysler Hall, to see a professional touring production.
Obviously, community theatres have to do some leg work, on their end, too...more/better marketing and public relations...listening to their patrons as to what shows they would like to see (something of an ongoing debate, on that point, though, as there are those within the arts world who feel that people don't really know what they want until it's given to them...and, I do believe that there is some truth to that...especially as a transplanted New Englander, and a theater major at a liberal arts college in Massachussettes, where things are much more liberal and people seem to have greater ease at "pushing the envelope")...doing more to make their existence known, both to patrons and participants. But, most community theatres are, by their very nature, nonprofit organizations, and sometimes the idea of "you have to spend money to make money" (as it pertains to marketing and such) isn't always as feasible as it is with other types of organizations. As previously mentioned, I moved to Virginia from the icy tundra of New England, and from the standpoint of an actor, was somewhat spoiled, given the relative ease in which we could do shows written by David Mamet, Tennessee Williams, Sam Shepherd, and be able to do so without fear of offending our audiences. (Of course, there were, from time to time, those people who were offended, but it was a fairly rare occurrence.) Which again, I suppose, brings up the idea of whether or not audiences really even know what it is that they want, until it's given to them. There are arguments to be made on both sides of that coin.
It's just a sad idea...the lack of appreciation for the arts. Of course, the funding cuts within our countries public schools certainly doesn't help, in that regard. Unless younger kids have parents who will expose them to the arts, giving them an appreciation for it, they're not going to get it at school, either, it seems. The lack of appreciation for the arts within public schools, also being a real source of contention for me. It's not like any of us learned anything, had fun, or made friends in any of our arts-related classes, regardless of whether or not it was something that we continued to pursue. It's not like it didn't expand our horizons. There is a direct corralation between the progress of a society and progress within the arts. (Hello...the era of Elizabeth I was also the era of Shakespeare.)
So, if you have never been to theatrical production...go to one. Turn off the television, turn off the iPod, turn off your BlackBerry, step away from computer and do something, regardless of whether it's a professional production or a community theatre production, that will open your mind, broaden your horizons, and make you, at least look, a little more sophisticated. And, for those two hours, you may find yourself transcended, you may laugh, you may cry, you may think, you may have something with which you can have a thought-provoking conversation. (Impress your friends! Fun at parties!) You may very well become a patron of the arts.
Joe the War Correspondent
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/joe-plumberer-war-correspondent-says-
So, Joe the Plumber, now, apparently, Joe the War Correspondent, who has gotten a job with a conservative network, (being an out-of-work plumber, of course, making him the premier example of experience in journalistic integrity, and certainly bearing the same qualifications as Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Katie Couric, and Barbara Walters), has stated that he feels, in his infinite wisdom, given all of his prior experience as a member of the press, that the media should not report on the war. This statement was made all the more interesting and poignant, given the face that Joe the Plumber/War Correspondent/ was making this profound proclamation from...wait for it...Iraq.
Now, as an Army Brat, I have, from time to time, had my concerns about the way the media reports on the war, printing the locations of troops in the papers, et al....I am certainly not one who supports the idea of classified National Security information being published in the New York Times, but America has a civilian-lead military, and as such, to a certain degree, we do have a right to know, how our tax dollars are being spent and the full nature of what is befalling the brave men and women of our Armed Services. I never condone reporting that would potentially put the safety of our soldiers, sailors and pilots at greater risk, but we do have a right to know what those risks are.
So, Joe the Plumber...if you have a problem with the way the media covers the war, you are entitled to your opinion. But, the next time you want to get on your soapbox regarding said issue, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it from the middle of a war zone. Just a thought.
So, Joe the Plumber, now, apparently, Joe the War Correspondent, who has gotten a job with a conservative network, (being an out-of-work plumber, of course, making him the premier example of experience in journalistic integrity, and certainly bearing the same qualifications as Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Katie Couric, and Barbara Walters), has stated that he feels, in his infinite wisdom, given all of his prior experience as a member of the press, that the media should not report on the war. This statement was made all the more interesting and poignant, given the face that Joe the Plumber/War Correspondent/ was making this profound proclamation from...wait for it...Iraq.
Now, as an Army Brat, I have, from time to time, had my concerns about the way the media reports on the war, printing the locations of troops in the papers, et al....I am certainly not one who supports the idea of classified National Security information being published in the New York Times, but America has a civilian-lead military, and as such, to a certain degree, we do have a right to know, how our tax dollars are being spent and the full nature of what is befalling the brave men and women of our Armed Services. I never condone reporting that would potentially put the safety of our soldiers, sailors and pilots at greater risk, but we do have a right to know what those risks are.
So, Joe the Plumber...if you have a problem with the way the media covers the war, you are entitled to your opinion. But, the next time you want to get on your soapbox regarding said issue, perhaps you shouldn't be doing it from the middle of a war zone. Just a thought.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Vampire Effect
It certainly seems that the "Twilight" series has continued to expand it's popularity, especially amongst adults. I find it interesting (as someone who also ended up loving the series by Stephanie Meyer and couldn't put them down) why it is that adults, people in their 30's and 40's are being so sucked into a series of novels that were written for teenagers. (Much the same way the "Harry Potter" books, took the world by storm, regardless of the age of the reader...I was the loser at the book store at one minute past midnight getting her copy of the book, with the last three novels.) Is it that we, as adults, are so accustomed to reading (by our own design or by societal pressures) more "heady" books...the classics, written by Hemingway, Woolf, Plato, Bronte, Austen, et al., to the political and biographical books of today..."The World is Flat", "American Lion", "American Creation", "Team of Rivals", etc., that everyone once in awhile we want to escape in the easier, lighter fare of books geared young people? (And, if it's just lighter fare for which we're looking, couldn't we just get that from a Harlequin romance novel?) Or, is there something about reading books like "Twilight" and "Harry Potter" that takes us back to our own youths? A time in which we read, "Sweet Valley High", "The Babysitters Club", "The Saddle Club", and books by R.L. Stine and Christopher Pike. (The "Twilight" series and the "Harry Potter series both being, in my opinion anyway, much better written that any of the geared-for-adolescents books that I remember pleasure-reading, as a kid/teenager.) Perhaps that's it...are the younger person books of today, better written than that used to be, making them more enjoyable to read for people of all ages? Or, with the internet, an increase in cable channels, video games, parenting changes, and societal changes, overall, that children are growing up faster than they did, 15 to 20 years ago? (And, at 31, I suddenly feel like a fossil, having pondered that..."These kids today, with the hair and the music....".) What I do know, is that every time I login to that website that was initially intended as a way for high school and college students to keep up with their friends, facebook, a site in which everytime I check, there are friends of mine, my age and older, who have joined the world of social networking, there are more and more status updates from people who are reading the, "Twilight" series, have gone to see the fim version of the first book, joining "groups" to demonstrate their devotion, and becoming "fans". Or, perhaps, it has nothing to do with the quality of the writing, being able to read and enjoy something of a lighter fare, or being transported back to the days of our own youth...perhaps we all just want to be wizards, witches, vampires, and werewolves.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Loser Tour
When, oh, when is Sarah Palin going to end her Loser Tour? Seriously, if I wanted to keep seeing this woman, I would have voted for her. Can she find any more people to blame for the fact that she wasn't taken seriously as a Vice Presidential candidate and the for the fact that the McCain/Palin ticket lost the election? She is blaming the McCain campaign staff, she is blaming the media (actually stating yesterday that if she were a Democrat, if she were Obama's running mate, she would have been treated better. Yeah, because no one in the media has ever accused Joe Biden of being a loose cannon...no, he's always treated really well), blaming Katie Couric, blaming Tina Fey...blaming everyone but herself. Not that she needs to "blame" herself, per se, but maybe acknowledging the fact that she was in no way ready to be a Vice Presidential candidate, that there are too many issues on which she knows...ummm...nothing, would be a good idea. Right now, Sarah Palin is coming off like that ball player who screams at the umpire because he doesn't like the call at the plate, and no one votes for that guy again. And, really, as a Democrat, I would love to see her in a position to be nominated to run again...a poll a couple of months ago apparently showed that something like over 60% of Republicans want her to run in 2012...yeah, and 100% of Democrats want her to run in 2012. I don't doubt that there were missteps taken by the McCain camp, regarding how she was "handled", but blaming Tina Fey? Really? I love "Saturday Night Live", but really, what kind of political influence does she think a late-night sketch comedy show has on the minds of voters? And, if there are those people who really do get their political news from "SNL" then maybe we don't need those people participating in the political process, anyway. At some point, Governor Palin, there is something to be said for being a gracious loser, and not being dragged off the campaign trail, kicking and screaming. You lost, and there are many, many, many, MANY reasons...some of which, believe it or not, you lipstick-wearing hockey mom pitbull, don't have anything to do with you. Or John McCain. So, it's time to end your Loser Tour, go back to Alaska and come back in 2012...so you can lose to better Democrats again.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
A Huge Stimulous?
So, I'm watching CNN last night, and what do I discover? That Larry Flynt is asking the federal government to bail out the porn industry. Seriously?? This is an industry over which I personally, have very conflicted feelings...one the one hand, as a woman, a graduate of a woman's college, someone who has worked in the field of domestic violence and sexual assault, a feminist, I feel that this is a business that only serves to exploit women and perpetuate various racial and ethnic stereotypes as it pertains to female sexuality. Additionally, there have been plenty of studies that demonstrate that boys and men, especially if exposed to pornography at a younger age, and watch it excessively, end up having violent sexual tendencies, and unhealthy sexual relationships with their partners. But, on the other hand, as a liberal Democrat, I am all for freedom of speech, and love the First Ammendment. I may not, personally, like what people like Larry Flynt do, but I can appreciate their legal rights to do it. However, that doesn't mean that I want my tax-payer dollars to go to bailing them out. I didn't love the idea of the federal government bailing out Wall Street or the auto industry, either, but a great more people were being hurt, economically (and the strain on the economy, overall), in those two examples, and therefore, perhaps a bit more in need or deserving of a government bailout, than the number of people who will be hurt by the collapse of the porn industry. Remember when there was a collapse in the tech industry and computer programmers were losing jobs left and right? No one bailed out the computer companies. No one bailed out the dot coms that went under, when there was a downturn in that industry, either. But, where do we draw the line? It's okay to bailout Wall Street, the auto industry, and at various point, the airlines, but it's not okay to bailout the tech sector. And, what about all of the nonprofits that are (or, probably will be, given the downturn, currently, in the economy) closing their doors, due to lack of funding? At least the npo's are doing something to give back to their communities, and providing services to those who need them? (Does anyone really NEED to see a gang bang produced by Larry Flynt? And, if you do 1) you may be in need of therapy and 2) get HBO.) At point do the bailouts end? And, should they? Where is the line between helping an industry that is suffering from a downturn in the economy and helping a company who is being hurt by their own business practices? (ie...the American auto industry not doing more to make fuel efficient cars...perhaps the auto industry should have been bailed out by the oil industry.) And, who has the moral authority to make that judgement, on any level? "We're not going to bail you out, because you just ran a poor business...we're not going to bail you out, because we don't like your business." But, as an American citizen and a tax payer, I certainly don't want to see any more people lose their jobs, their homes, their businesses, as someone who works in the nonprofit sector, I want to see the economy get better, as much as anyone. But, as a woman (and, still a citizen and tax payer), if Larry Flynt's business is suffering, perhaps he should have a business that doesn't promote the exploitation of women.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The non-existence of bi-partisanship
http://crooksandliars.com/node/25048
See, this is why, even though I am a self-described political junkie, who watches CNN, like it's the only thing only television, I also become incredibly frustrated with the elected officials who work in the hallowed halls of Washington, D.C. The simple fact that we even have to ask ourselves if the Republicans will work with President Obama to fix the economy is ludicrous. They better damn well be willing to work with President Obama and the Democrats on the Hill, as it's in the best interest of the American public, you know, their constituents, a group of people to whom they should have some alleigance, as opposed to playing bi-partisan "Gotcha" and offering up inside-the Beltway-bitch slaps. And, what is particularly unfortunate is the number of voting Americans who don't always seem to realize that the President does not have absolute power, and there is this little nagging thing, called Congress. (Okay, current President, not withstanding...Bushy Boy seems to have done a fine job of ignoring the US Constitution.) And, as such, there will probably be a great number of people out there, who ignore any of the possible and probable, irresponsible behaviors by member of Congress, and place the entirety of the blame on Obama, if and when things don't go smoothly. It might not be such a bad idea for the American public to enroll, collectively, in a Civics class. And, perhaps, while we're doing that, it wouldn't be such a bad idea for various members of Congress to enroll in an Ethics class.
See, this is why, even though I am a self-described political junkie, who watches CNN, like it's the only thing only television, I also become incredibly frustrated with the elected officials who work in the hallowed halls of Washington, D.C. The simple fact that we even have to ask ourselves if the Republicans will work with President Obama to fix the economy is ludicrous. They better damn well be willing to work with President Obama and the Democrats on the Hill, as it's in the best interest of the American public, you know, their constituents, a group of people to whom they should have some alleigance, as opposed to playing bi-partisan "Gotcha" and offering up inside-the Beltway-bitch slaps. And, what is particularly unfortunate is the number of voting Americans who don't always seem to realize that the President does not have absolute power, and there is this little nagging thing, called Congress. (Okay, current President, not withstanding...Bushy Boy seems to have done a fine job of ignoring the US Constitution.) And, as such, there will probably be a great number of people out there, who ignore any of the possible and probable, irresponsible behaviors by member of Congress, and place the entirety of the blame on Obama, if and when things don't go smoothly. It might not be such a bad idea for the American public to enroll, collectively, in a Civics class. And, perhaps, while we're doing that, it wouldn't be such a bad idea for various members of Congress to enroll in an Ethics class.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Raising Kaine
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05dnc.html
As a Democrat and a Virginia Resident, I have mixed feelings about the naming of Tim Kaine as the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. One the one hand, I think it's great that both Virginia's previous Governor, Mark Warner (soon to be Senator Warner) and current Governor are both Democrats, and I applaud Gov. Kaine for his support of President Elect Obama and heightening the profile of Virginia Democrats, during the recent election. But, with that said, Gov. Kaine isn't necessarily a terrific governor. He's a decent governor, but Mark Warner was better. (As evident in the fact that he won his Senate seat in a landslide victory.) And, Virginia is no different from the rest of the country, as we feel the effects of the current state of the economy...people losing their jobs, losing their homes, the cost of living rising, businesses closing...so the idea of Gov. Kaine having to split his focus for the next year, until his term as governor expires, s a bit nerve-wracking.
But, at the same time, it is nice to see that Democrats, on a national level, can no longer write off Virginia as a red state...two recent governors have been Democrats, both of our US Senators are now Democrats, and President Elect Obama won Virginia. And, Tim Kaine certainly did a play a part in that.
As for comic relief, though...Tim Kaine isn't as funny as Howard Dean.
As a Democrat and a Virginia Resident, I have mixed feelings about the naming of Tim Kaine as the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. One the one hand, I think it's great that both Virginia's previous Governor, Mark Warner (soon to be Senator Warner) and current Governor are both Democrats, and I applaud Gov. Kaine for his support of President Elect Obama and heightening the profile of Virginia Democrats, during the recent election. But, with that said, Gov. Kaine isn't necessarily a terrific governor. He's a decent governor, but Mark Warner was better. (As evident in the fact that he won his Senate seat in a landslide victory.) And, Virginia is no different from the rest of the country, as we feel the effects of the current state of the economy...people losing their jobs, losing their homes, the cost of living rising, businesses closing...so the idea of Gov. Kaine having to split his focus for the next year, until his term as governor expires, s a bit nerve-wracking.
But, at the same time, it is nice to see that Democrats, on a national level, can no longer write off Virginia as a red state...two recent governors have been Democrats, both of our US Senators are now Democrats, and President Elect Obama won Virginia. And, Tim Kaine certainly did a play a part in that.
As for comic relief, though...Tim Kaine isn't as funny as Howard Dean.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Bush Sr.: Just Google all of my son's failures | Crooks and Liars
Bush Sr.: Just Google all of my son's failures Crooks and Liars
When you're own father won't even offer up a strong defense of your actions for the past eight years, that's when you know you have really screwed up.
As a Democrat, it's hardly surprsing that I would feel that Bush is an idiot and will remembered in the annals of history as one of the worst Presidents we have ever had...someone who makes Herbert Hoover look competent...eight years of illegal wire taps, two wars, using the tactics of fear to win an election (after stealing the first one), outing CIA agents, sending the economy down the tubes...I don't think I need to go on...we all know what he has (and hasn't) done...but, when your father, a former President himself, won't come to your defense, you know you have reached a new low, regarding your prowess in your current job.
When you're own father won't even offer up a strong defense of your actions for the past eight years, that's when you know you have really screwed up.
As a Democrat, it's hardly surprsing that I would feel that Bush is an idiot and will remembered in the annals of history as one of the worst Presidents we have ever had...someone who makes Herbert Hoover look competent...eight years of illegal wire taps, two wars, using the tactics of fear to win an election (after stealing the first one), outing CIA agents, sending the economy down the tubes...I don't think I need to go on...we all know what he has (and hasn't) done...but, when your father, a former President himself, won't come to your defense, you know you have reached a new low, regarding your prowess in your current job.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Constantly Connected
BlackBerry, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Blogs, Friend Feed, Google Reader, Google Chat, Yahoo Instant Messenger, AIM, Windows Live Messenger, BlackBerry Messenger…I am in a constant state of connection with pretty much every person I have ever met throughout the course of my life. And, I have yet to determine if this is really condusive to a healthy lifestyle. Obviously, it’s wonderful to get back into contact with those people whom I have lost touch, over the years, and modern-day technology certainly makes it easier to not only get back into touch, but to remain in touch, once the contact has been made. But, honestly, my BlackBerry goes off ALL DAY! As I am typing, this, I have someone sending my instant messages on Yahoo, via my BlackBerry. Could I just log-off? Of course I could. Could I turn off the BlackBerry? Of course I could. But, for anyone who has found themselves the slave to this piece of technology, you know that it’s just too hard! Turning off the BlackBerry would mean that I wouldn’t be able to see people’s status updates on facebook, at the push of a button, I wouldn’t be able to get instant messages via every IM service that exists, all day long…I would be so out of touch, for….oh, I don’t know…a couple of HOURS, possibly!!!! Yes, for all the whining and complaining I (and anyone who has found themselves in the position of being ridiculously easy to get in touch with), the idea of suddenly being without, once the dye has been cast, is almost scary. Going to the theatre, going to the movies, becomes an escape from reality in a way that was only imagined, several years ago, as it’s now the only time that our phones don’t ring, beep, chirp, or make any other type of sound, alerting us that somehow, somewhere, someone may be trying to get in contact with us. For two hours, in a dark theatre, the world continues to revolve on it’s axis, even though we’re technologically disconnected from it, at the time. I know, shocking, isn’t it?
It is really necessary to be in such a constant state of contact with everyone around us? Will our lives fall apart, will relationships come to a crashing halt, if we’re not glued to our cell phones, BlackBerry’s, iPhones, iTouches, computers, on a constant basis? In reality, the answer is no…but, the new hyper-reality, the cyber-reality, is yes…we just wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves! Because at the end of the day, we love our computers, because our friends live inside them. We love our cell phones, because we never have to miss a beat, or feel left out, like we did, when we were picked last for the kickball team in 4th grade. Who cares that we suddenly can’t spell anymore, because we have become to accustomed to abbreviating everything to fit the character limits of text messages, or to ensure that we don’t sprain our thumbs on the tiny keyboards on our cell phones. Who cares that we don’t know how to speak anymore, because we communicate solely through instant messages and text messages. And, who cares that you know everything about the person on whom you had a crush in 6th grade, but haven’t actually spoken to in 15 years, because you can read the status updates on facebook, like some sort of crazed cyber-aged Romeo. It’s all about feeling connected to those around us, isn’t it? Even if the constant state of connection is bordering on compulsion. We just want to feel close to others…even if that person is hundreds of miles away. However, sometimes, it really is okay to NOT be that accessible to everyone. Sometimes, as hard as it may be, it really is okay to turn off the BlackBerry. As I’m sure I’ll learn, if I ever actually do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
