Here is something that she is likely to never top:
Seriously??? If I were to assemble 254 random pictures and show them each for one second to that song, it might make more sense than that video.
And if Jen at EPBOT is right, and it is a Kraft Macaroni & Cheese commercial…well, it doesn’t make me hungry.
Just confused, and slightly concerned…
That's right…if you haven't read it anywhere else, you can read here how Trina Thompson is suing Monroe College because their office of career advancement hasn't helped her more to get a job. Of course, she's a prime candidate with her 2.7 GPA and “solid attendance record”.
According to Thompson, they can't even take the time to call up and say “I got this student, her attendance is good, her GPA is all right — can you interview this person?”
The nerve!
Clearly, Monroe College made a mistake in allowing this individual to fall through the cracks and actually receive a degree. Too many bonus points for that “solid attendance record”, I guess.
I'm not sure I understand this at all…so we're supposed 
to ignore the major character flaws of an athlete because he was a warrior on the field and was a major contributor to his community? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me. Here was a married man with four children running around with a woman nearly half his age, which appears to have ultimately gotten him killed. If this were a politician or CEO, the word going around with this story in the media would be “scandal”, not “tragedy”.
For some reason, athletes get a lot more latitude with their personal lives than most people do. If you knew a 36-year-old who was dating a 20-year-old on the side of their marriage, there would almost certainly be tons of gossip at the water cooler and over the backyard fences. And if they were killed, even if they were a pillar of the community, more people would be saying “they got what was coming to them” than “oh, that's such a shame”.
Now, I'm not saying that Steve McNair is the devil and should rot in hell, but that we should hold him (and every other celebrity, for that matter) to the same standards that we do for everyone else in our lives. For me, I'm sorry to say that means that McNair's extracurriculars are a major black mark on an athlete who played the game the right way and was respected on the field. And to simply ignore that mark is an injustice to our children, who view these athletes as role models.
One day a few weeks ago, I had the following experiences in my travels to and from work:
These events just brought to a head one of the things I am regularly observing with increasing frequency: that we are a number of key laws that are simply not being enforced with any kind of consistency any more. People are driving further and further over the speed limits, weaving in and out of traffic (usually without using any turn signals at all, a personal pet peeve of mine), and breaking laws right and left, even in the presence of law enforcement officers.
And look…I do understand that police officers can't be everywhere at all times. And yes, there are times when more pressing matters require officers to overlook minor offenses. However, it should be the responsibility of police officers to act when they see these clear offenses, and to uphold the letter of the law at all other times…especially when they are on duty! I don't see that as being too much to ask as a loyal, upstanding, taxpaying citizen. Do you?
I came across this talk on the Lebo School Board Updates blog (that's the blog of our local school board director, James Fraasch), and found it extremely interesting and provocative. It's a talk by Sir Ken Robinson at the TED conference about the importance of creativity in education, and it's a really interesting speech (even though it's a little long).
I strongly recommend giving it a listen…
This afternoon my wife and I ventured over to Ross Park Mall, o
n the north side of Pittsburgh. Now, living on the south side of town, we probably haven't been up to that mall in nearly four years. Well, in that time, the mall's management has been working to make the mall more upscale and leave the general shopping to the numerous strip malls and plazas that surround the main mall. They've added a Nordstrom, Louis Vuitton, Burberry, and a number of other “high-end” stores.
Now, even in good economic times these are stores that I wouldn't normally venture into. They're “label” stores, which basically charge you an exorbitant amount for an inferior product because it's got their label on it. Unfortunately for them, I'm a functional person and usually will buy a product for quality over brand name (and I'll admit that there have been some exceptions).
But now that we are in less-than-stellar economic times, one has to wonder about the impact on these stores, and the mall as a whole, when their business is primarily aimed at expendable income. Will they be able remain profitable in this economic climate? Will mall foot traffic drop because the clientele they were targeting is no longer there in the same quantities?
At a more basic level, if you run a business that primarily caters to high-end customers with more disposable income, in poor economic times is it better to remain exclusivity to retain the value of your brand name, or is it better to branch out and offer a broader range of products to make your brand more available to all kinds of customers.
Not that I have any answers, because each solutions has it's place in certain situations. Just rambling some of my thoughts after seeing a “rich people's” mall in the midst of some pretty difficult economic times for our country…
Unfortunately, I came across this article through CNN (through Oprah's publishing group) about a woman complaining about her husband and how much work their marriage is. In all honesty, it's a horrible piece of writing that does little more than demonstrate that the author would rather complain about her life in a public forum than do anything to improve it.
Interesting was the point she tried to make that “divorce” is no longer a dirty word and looked down upon. That may be true in her circle of New York City friends, but I'm certain that it's not so well accepted in the rest of the country. I know I still view divorce as something that never really needs to happen. Of course, there are cases where it is for the best (namely cases of battered or cheating spouses), yet most divorces result from bad decision making (because likely you didn't know the person well enough going into the relationship, or foolishly decided you could change them) or lack of effort (it's amazing how many people can't even discuss their true feelings with their spouse).
And in the end, she concludes that the real power is knowing she has a choice to stay with or leave her husband. Of course, if I were her husband and I read that, it begins to sound a lot more like blackmail. “Here's where you've screwed up, and if you keep it up, I'm leaving!” Yep, that sounds like a real solid foundation to build a close-knit emotional bond upon. I can't believe it's not working!
In the end, this is just another jet spray in the fountain of crap that is the Oprah empire, cornering the market on false women's empowerment, quasi-spirituality, and insincere charity (boy, what a farce the Big Give was…she hardly gave a crap). With quality like this, you can be certain that I will be avoiding all content with her trademark upon it.
You may have seen the recent news of over 100 major college representatives calling upon Congress to have the nation's minimum drinking age reduced to less than 21. They're arguing research that shows that the previous increase of of the drinking age has done little to prevent alcohol-related deaths in that age group.
Of course, on the other side is MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, is arguing that these college officials are twisting the data to make it say what they want it to. After all, there would be a signifigant shift in security needs and liabilities for these colleges were the drinking age to be lowered to 18. Then again, would putting alcohol in the hands of younger individuals make things better?
It's a debate that comes about as regularly as the legalization of marijuana, and very similarly fails to see the forest for the trees.
The factor that is left out of all these studies is history and exposure to alcohol, as age is not the sole indicator of responsible alcohol consumption. For someone who grew up in a household where one or more parents abused alcohol, it's likely that they will either grow up to abuse it themselves (and follow the examples set before them), or avoid it completely (attempting to avoid the same fate). In these cases, their experience has a polar effect.
Similarly, those who grew up in a household preaching the downfall of alcohol are likely to see this same polar effect. Either they stay the course that they have been taught, or they rebel and take alcohol consumption to it's limits.
However, those who have been exposed to responsible alcohol consumption are more likely to be able to accomplish that feat themselves. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but more often then not they are influenced by the good examples that have been set before them. In my opinion, lowering the drinking age only limits the time parents have to set a good example for their children.
In the end, I believe the only way to positively influence the current trend of irresponsible alcohol consumption in young adults is to teach parents how much they doo have an influence in their kid's lives, no matter what age. It's time for fewer parents to stop going out and getting sloshed with their friends and more to show that they can responsibly have a single glass of wine with dinner. For some, it may be quite the sacrafice. But that's what good parents do to help make their children better people.
After all, if you can't make a sacrafice for the well-being of your own offspring, it may be time to re-think your priorities…
I just read this great article in Harper's magazine by Jonathan Rowe and wanted to pass it along. It's a great look at the perspective of “the economy” and how the term is often misused and the measure being contraindicative.
If you have a few minutes, I definitely recommend giving this a read:
