Back when there used to be 3 or 4 TV channels with news segments along with the daily newspaper, you generally had to be important to make the news. Now that there are several TV stations with 24 hour news formats, internet news sources, news magazines, and the like, news outlets are stuck looking for news and ways of differentiating themselves from the other news competitors. So what do we end up with? People that get on the news who THINK they're important. Get on the news-- you made it in life!!! Personally, I find it annoying and a drizzle sickening. To wit... Why is celebrity gossip news? Why are the results of the latest TV reality show news? Why do we need to hear from the most moronic "people on the street" about the latest inane movie? Why? Why? WHY???
It's crazy. Crazy I's tells ya.
And that's the news from this corner of the blogworld. Print it!
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Joys of Music
Ever since the Great Imus Debacle of '07, there's been a question by
many white people as to why Mr. Imus should have gotten the boot while rappers can get away with using slurs, curses, and other degrading jargon. Well coincidentally or not, we're starting to see some people wake up to this reality that, yes, Imus was wrong, but rappers and radio stations do indeed need to clean up their acts. Big-name African-Americans like Russell Simmons and Michael Baisden have begun to call for an awakening in the African American community. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen, but it's honorable that at least this is a start to cleaning up the airwaves.
Meanwhile, I'd like to mention another problem on the airwaves: country music. I'm a channel flipper while in the car and I often wind up on the local country channels. I'll admit that I do enjoy some of the songs on these channels, though it's not my favorite genre. At any rate, if anybody listens to these songs for even five minutes, it's easy to hear that these country singers sure like to drink and carouse and sing endlessly about it! Hey, I'm all for a little of both, and I'll admit that country tunes make for great party music, but let's be real here... there are millions of Americans with drinking problems (and/or anger issues), and these songs go blatantly overboard at glamorizing each of these themes.
Should these types of songs be halted? Probably not, but I'm also confused as to why I don't see anybody taking notice to lyrics in
these songs. Maybe it's not as noticeable as racism, but drinking has definitely ruined the lives of many, yet many country singers are glamorizing it and could very well be influencing the minds of younger fans, much like what's going on in the rap community. I'm no sociologist or pyschologist, but hey, a message like this repeated over and over is bound to stick eventually. Perhaps we should consider if this is the message we want to linger on.
But hey, maybe I should just forget about it, kick back with my posse and have some "Whiskey for my Men and Beer for my Horses". Right Toby Keith?
Monday, April 23, 2007
Response to "Society Fails Because Families Do"
In the Sunday, April 22, 2007 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer,
Michael Smerconish jumped on the a recent study showing that "homes
without both parents have a higher chance of being involved in
violence," in his article entitled "Society Fails Because Families Do.
While I agree with the concept that children raised in household without married parents are more likely to commit violent acts, there is a key missing ingredient that I think is even more vital to preventing violence and encouraging socially healthy living: love. Anecdotally, but quite
consistently, I find that households with loving parents produce
children that are much less likely to be violent and committing crimes. Love is an intangible yet powerful force in the lives of children and can make all the difference in the world.
Even from a media perspective, consider how many TV shows and movies portray families (based on fact or fiction), and then consider what those families are like. There are poor, urban families with only one parent who displays his or her love and raise great children. There are rich, cold suburban parents who are unloving and raise dangerous children. There are kids raised in households without any parents at all, perhaps an aunt or grandmother (Spider-Man, perhaps), but a loving figure no less, and the kids are equally as loving as their role model in life.
In short, I can certainly understand a connection between a two-parent household and the decreasing amount of violence in their children, as the study shows, but I think the more important factor here is love.
And I know it because my mom and dad taught me so.
Michael Smerconish jumped on the a recent study showing that "homes
without both parents have a higher chance of being involved in
violence," in his article entitled "Society Fails Because Families Do.
While I agree with the concept that children raised in household without married parents are more likely to commit violent acts, there is a key missing ingredient that I think is even more vital to preventing violence and encouraging socially healthy living: love. Anecdotally, but quite
consistently, I find that households with loving parents produce
children that are much less likely to be violent and committing crimes. Love is an intangible yet powerful force in the lives of children and can make all the difference in the world.
Even from a media perspective, consider how many TV shows and movies portray families (based on fact or fiction), and then consider what those families are like. There are poor, urban families with only one parent who displays his or her love and raise great children. There are rich, cold suburban parents who are unloving and raise dangerous children. There are kids raised in households without any parents at all, perhaps an aunt or grandmother (Spider-Man, perhaps), but a loving figure no less, and the kids are equally as loving as their role model in life.
In short, I can certainly understand a connection between a two-parent household and the decreasing amount of violence in their children, as the study shows, but I think the more important factor here is love.
And I know it because my mom and dad taught me so.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Pithy Thought of the Day: American Jobs
There's been much discussion about American jobs getting outsourced overseas. While I do feel for the people who lose their jobs here to cheaper labor in foreign countries, perhaps we should at least be flattered that the world actually wants to take our jobs, such as sitting in cubicles answering customer complaint phone calls, mining in hazardous conditions, and sewing away in sweat shops. These are jobs that we created that are not generally desirable, yet other countries actively want them. Whodathunkit!
America has enough talent, ingenuity, and resources to now focus on making the world a better place-- environmentally, socially, medically, etc.-- , rather than dwelling on mundane tasks that, while necessary in many ways to the world's economy, may just be better off being done by someone else.
So instead of striving to maintain jobs that "suck the life out of us", perhaps we can reach for the stars and create better jobs to take on challenges to improve the world-- such as improving the environment, improving the health of others, and improving job conditions in developing countries (how ironic), to name a few. Hopefully other countries will then want to copy those jobs as well...
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The Power of Creativity
A blurb by James Gleick from the New York Times Magazine:
Congrats, fellow average Joe and Jane Web-sters
out there. Sometimes the best things are the result of a lack of hard-core planning. The meeting of the minds clearly does not have to occur in a lush, wood-paneled boardroom anymore. It can occur on a remote island, on the top of a mountain, or in a drafty barn. The Internet is open to all... bring your creativity with you.
The Internet has taken shape with startlingly
little planning... The most universal and independent network on the
planet somehow burgeoned without so much as a board of directors, never
mind a mergers-and-acquisitions department. There is a paradoxical
lesson here for strategists. In economic terms, the great corporations
are acting like socialist planners, while old-fashioned free-market
capitalism blossoms at their feet.
Congrats, fellow average Joe and Jane Web-sters
out there. Sometimes the best things are the result of a lack of hard-core planning. The meeting of the minds clearly does not have to occur in a lush, wood-paneled boardroom anymore. It can occur on a remote island, on the top of a mountain, or in a drafty barn. The Internet is open to all... bring your creativity with you.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
An Uplifting Note from a College Campus
In light of recent events on college campus, I'd like to turn something that's positive. In the February '07 edition of College Planning & Management (http://www.peterli.com/cpm), I caught a small snippet about the College of the Atlantic in Maine. I was really impressed by what they're doing. Just
reading the College's About Us page (http://www.coa.edu/html/about.htm) is
interesting and inspiring. Follow the link to take a gander, won't you?
But anyway, going back to the article, it states that the college has been designated as a "net zero" campus for greenhouse gas emissions-- the first in the USA. Essentially, the college has pledged to "avoid, reduce, or offset all contributions to global warming that are associated with any of the college's activities,
including travel to and from campus. All of the school's annual emissions, including electricity, heating, and commuting, will be offset by funds to be invested in projects that reduce the college's greenhouse gasemissions to 'net zero.'"
This, to me, is what college is all about. Being innovative, progressive, and challenging its students and faculty to step up to the next level. It's clearly not
your typical educational institution.
I thank them for stepping up to the plate in dealing with this scary issue of global
warming, and also for educating its students in a unique and positive
manner.
This is a college scenario that I wouldn't mind seeing copycatted.
reading the College's About Us page (http://www.coa.edu/html/about.htm) is
interesting and inspiring. Follow the link to take a gander, won't you?
But anyway, going back to the article, it states that the college has been designated as a "net zero" campus for greenhouse gas emissions-- the first in the USA. Essentially, the college has pledged to "avoid, reduce, or offset all contributions to global warming that are associated with any of the college's activities,
including travel to and from campus. All of the school's annual emissions, including electricity, heating, and commuting, will be offset by funds to be invested in projects that reduce the college's greenhouse gasemissions to 'net zero.'"
This, to me, is what college is all about. Being innovative, progressive, and challenging its students and faculty to step up to the next level. It's clearly not
your typical educational institution.
I thank them for stepping up to the plate in dealing with this scary issue of global
warming, and also for educating its students in a unique and positive
manner.
This is a college scenario that I wouldn't mind seeing copycatted.
Monday, April 16, 2007
A Sad 50th Post
So this blog post marks my 50th of my short career as a "blogger". Almost 5 months since I started. Ahh, the memories.
But I digress.
What I'm here to banter about are guns in this country. By now we've all heard about the despicable shooting at VTech. I for one am fed up with hearing about these shootings and seeing people killed, hurt, and suffering because of them. And I
can't help but think that guns are quite literally killing this country.
Now yes, I know that Americans have the right to bear arms. And yes I know that the vast majority of gun owners don't commit heinous crimes like this rampage. And I also realize that if somebody really wants to kill somebody, they can find a way to do it. But let's face facts here... there's a very small percentage of people who have it in them to mess things up for everybody else out there... in ANY area of life.
For example, in a game of basketball, there's always one guy who fouls
constantly while everybody else is playing a clean, competitive game. Well, if this
guy keeps fouling, he's going to foul out of games (if they're refereed), or people will stop playing basketball with him in due time. Simple solutions. In either case, this persistent fouler becomes marginalized so as not to ruin the game for everybody else.
Unfortunately, when it comes to guns, gun owners seemingly won't accept
So now what? Short of getting rid of guns, which won't happen (for better or for worse... I'm not going to debate that issue one way or the other at this point), how do we marginalize people who feel the need to unleash their semi-automatics on innocent bystanders? Penalties apparently don't matter, especially when the shooter commits suicide. And it can be difficult, if not impossible, to recognize the signs of somebody who's about to spray bullets. And there is certainly no way to have security at every corner and doorway to try and prevent such incidents.
One solution that might help: the media should be barred from showing the face or announcing the name of the killer(s). Sadly, I think many people are looking to make "a name" for themselves and becoming cult heroes by starting a massacre. Think about the "trenchcoat mafia" from Columbine, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, etc. Their faces, tactics, and mental histories are bandied about in the media, making them seem larger than life. Without such notoriety, I highly doubt there would be so many copycats.
To wit, let's go back to the basketball game scenario. If you're watching an NBA game on TV and a streaker runs across the court, what happens? The cameras all turn away, the announcers give a vague update that "a senseless fan is interrupting the game", and once the culprit it nabbed, life goes on. TV viewers will never find out the guy's name, identity, or motive. And guess what? People are less likely to idolize the culprit and subsequently copycat him or her. Therefore, the few idiots out there don't continue to ruin it for others.
Well that's my take on the issue. Stick around for the next 50 posts, won't you?
But I digress.
What I'm here to banter about are guns in this country. By now we've all heard about the despicable shooting at VTech. I for one am fed up with hearing about these shootings and seeing people killed, hurt, and suffering because of them. And I
can't help but think that guns are quite literally killing this country.
Now yes, I know that Americans have the right to bear arms. And yes I know that the vast majority of gun owners don't commit heinous crimes like this rampage. And I also realize that if somebody really wants to kill somebody, they can find a way to do it. But let's face facts here... there's a very small percentage of people who have it in them to mess things up for everybody else out there... in ANY area of life.
For example, in a game of basketball, there's always one guy who fouls
constantly while everybody else is playing a clean, competitive game. Well, if this
guy keeps fouling, he's going to foul out of games (if they're refereed), or people will stop playing basketball with him in due time. Simple solutions. In either case, this persistent fouler becomes marginalized so as not to ruin the game for everybody else.
Unfortunately, when it comes to guns, gun owners seemingly won't accept
So now what? Short of getting rid of guns, which won't happen (for better or for worse... I'm not going to debate that issue one way or the other at this point), how do we marginalize people who feel the need to unleash their semi-automatics on innocent bystanders? Penalties apparently don't matter, especially when the shooter commits suicide. And it can be difficult, if not impossible, to recognize the signs of somebody who's about to spray bullets. And there is certainly no way to have security at every corner and doorway to try and prevent such incidents.
One solution that might help: the media should be barred from showing the face or announcing the name of the killer(s). Sadly, I think many people are looking to make "a name" for themselves and becoming cult heroes by starting a massacre. Think about the "trenchcoat mafia" from Columbine, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, etc. Their faces, tactics, and mental histories are bandied about in the media, making them seem larger than life. Without such notoriety, I highly doubt there would be so many copycats.
To wit, let's go back to the basketball game scenario. If you're watching an NBA game on TV and a streaker runs across the court, what happens? The cameras all turn away, the announcers give a vague update that "a senseless fan is interrupting the game", and once the culprit it nabbed, life goes on. TV viewers will never find out the guy's name, identity, or motive. And guess what? People are less likely to idolize the culprit and subsequently copycat him or her. Therefore, the few idiots out there don't continue to ruin it for others.
Well that's my take on the issue. Stick around for the next 50 posts, won't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
