it's a man's world

this week, a gentleman by the name of sacha heppel went head-to-head with more than 200 females, vying for a spot as a coveted denver bronco cheerleader. despite a lack of formal dance experience (though he reportedly performed as a sign-twirler for a local business), sacha shook what his momma's gave him, daring to achieve his dream to become the first male bronco cheerleader.

so, why does young sacha want to be a bronco cheerleader? "first, i strongly respect the broncos and am a huge fan. and second, i love to dance. i love expression. i lose myself in the music. i'm not as experienced as some of the girls -- i only started hip-hop lessons a couple months ago -- but I just love it." and audition he did!

according to the broncos' director of cheerleaders, the auditions are an open call that anyone can come out for, with all final decisions based solely on the applicants dance ability. what about the females auditioning? were they upset that sacha was there? to the contrary! the females applicants were supportive and encouraged him (atta girls!). sadly, sacha didn't make it this year, but he is hopeful for next year!

interestingly, this story of a male entering what has typically been viewed as a traditionally all-girls club, comes only a few weeks after the 2012 masters where gender was a topic of discussion.

augusta national, the exclusive golf club which hosts the masters each year, has traditionally given membership to the ceos of the tournament's three corporate sponsors. the problem? since opening its doors in 1933, this private club has never granted membership to a woman and now, ibm (one of the corporate sponsors) is now lead by female ceo, ginni rometty - who by the way, does play golf. (it's worth noting that this is not the first time the club has drawn attention because of its exclusivity; they refused to admit black members until 1990 and had a former policy requiring all caddies to be black.) needless to say, declining to offer a membership to the new ceo says loud and clear "no girls allowed."

my point, and i do have one is...isn't this some world we live in when men are allowed to audition to be nfl cheeleaders, but a female ceo still can't sit at the boys table at a golf club when her company is a corporate sponsor of the masters? it was said that in 2008 hillary clinton left 18 million cracks in the country's largest glass ceiling. maybe by the time a woman is elected the leader of free world, she will also be allowed to be a member of augusta national…just sayin’. what’s your point?

never forget

it's been nearly a decade since our country faced one of the worst events in modern history, 9/11. on that day ten years ago, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, parents and friends did not come home. the world was forever altered.

i was just telling my best friend, as we discussed this somber anniversary, that one of the things i remember most from the days and months that followed 9/11 was the sense of overwhelming humanity. while i can't speak to the rest of the country, in new york (and the tri-state region), there was an understood camaraderie...an unspoken feeling that we are all amercians and we have each other’s backs. i remember thinking, if this is the one good thing that comes from this horrible event, what a wonderful legacy that would be. then tonight, i watched the cnn special, "unwelcome: the muslims next door" and my heart and hopes dropped.

part of the nashville metropolitan area, murfreesboro has a population of approx. 108,755 (according to the 2010 u.s. census). cnn states that murfreesboro has had a healthy muslim community for quite some time. as a matter of fact, right after 9/11 those muslims interviewed in the special said they were approached by neighbors reassuring them that they know not all muslims were involved with terrorism. as the muslim community increased in this area, they slowly out grew their house of worship. they did some fund raising among their members and raised enough money to purchase land to build a new 52,000-square-foot structure with a mosque, gym, playground and cemetery. (i don't need to tell you what came next, do i?)

just as quickly as they prepared their plans, the backlash followed. this included lawsuits, a fire that, according to cnn, "destroyed construction equipment and damaged vehicles at the construction site for the mosque,” (the police declared it arson) and the defamation of a sign at the front of the property with the words "not welcome" sprayed across it. additionally, during the taping of one of the segments, gunfire was heard on the plot of land. throughout the special, the legitimacy of the islamic/muslim beliefs as a religion is called into play (hence waiving the first amendment). as the huffington post explains, the opposition's positions sounded reminiscent of claims made by people against desegregation, "you hear opponents make claims like, 'they want to disrupt our way of life. they want to kill us. they beat their women. they're not like us.'"

the judge in the case ultimately ruled in favor of the islamic center and recently upheld his ruling stating: “those who are adherents to islam are entitled to pursue their worship in the united states just as are those who are adherents to more universally established faiths (in our community)."

the very first amendment of the u.s. constitution reads in part: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." why was this is the first one out of the box? because it was the one that our founding fathers believed the most in. yet here we are today with people going to extremes to "protect" their cities from neighbors who have differing beliefs from their own. it sometimes seems like 9/11 gave people with these types of stereotypes and excuse for their bigotry.

it's not that long ago a country murdered millions of jews because they had different religious beliefs and were therefore something that needed to be eradicated. additionally, in our own country, fears of the japanese during world war ii cause many (including japanese-americans) to be held in internment camps. (if put to a vote after 9/11 how many would have sadly said yes to muslim internment camps?) and it is already sneaking into our next presidential campaign. recently, chris wallace of fox news interviewed presidential candidate herman cain about the issue in murfreesboro. wallace asked cain if any community has the right to ban mosques? his answer was yes. he said: "yes, they have the right to do that. that’s not discriminating based upon religion – against their particular religion – there is an aspect of them building that mosque; and the people in the community know what it is and they’re talking about it." (cain went on to justify his statement that he would not hire a muslim for his cabinet, saying that is different from people discriminating against blacks during civil rights because he is erring on the side of caution. here are the clips from the interview).

my point, and i do have one is...who are we? ten year after 9/11 is the america we now live in a better place than before? can’t we be patriotic without being discriminatory? do we stand more firmly in our country's core beliefs? or are we using them because we are scared? i am humbled by the men and women of our military who put their lives on the line for not just our freedom, but the rights of all people who long to be free from oppression...yet right at home the oppression for some continues. while our military is fighting overseas, don't we owe it to them to be able to return to a country free of oppression for all?

next weekend, i will challenge myself to honor those taken too soon by re-finding the basic humanity i felt the days following the attack…as i still believe that would be the greatest legacy. what's your point?

patriotically conflicted

on september 11, 2001, i was fortunate to not be downtown, but i vividly remember being in times square wondering if my location was the next area to be attacked? i remember watching fire trucks heading toward the towers on the west side highway to an uncertain future, while i waited on a two-hour line for a ferry to new jersey, to reunite with my brother and friends. i remember sitting with billy, stephanie and lou on sinatra drive in hoboken looking at what is now called ground zero, as it burned...our beautiful skyline became sad that day, never to be the same. i remember staying up all night watching the news while my brother slept on my couch because if the lincoln or holland tunnels were the next targets (as some were speculating at the time), their destruction would mean my first floor apartment would flood and we would need to get to higher ground immediately. i was profoundly sad, angry, scared and wished that that, in retaliation, as an act of war,we took out osama bin laden. now, nearly a decade later, bin laden's death, paired with the country's reaction has left me patriotically conflicted.

mark twain once wrote: "i've never wished a man dead, but i have read some obituaries with great pleasure." am i sorry bin laden is dead? no. will i mourn the death of a terrorist who murdered thousands of innocent people? absolutely not. after president obama gave his speech the other night, i found the coverage of the crowd outside the white house singing the national anthem very moving. for the first time since the days following september 11, the words took on more meaning than merely signaling the beginning of a baseball game. but quickly, it seemed to turn into a full on celebration of bin laden's death. it was sheer revelry...partying in the streets, toasting with liquor, applauding his death at national tv shows like the view.

i remember on september 11 and 12, 2001 watching news video of oversea "evil-doers" having similar celebrations in their streets over the tumbling of the twin towers, the destruction at the pentagon and the horror in pennsylvania and thinking, i can't believe those sons of bitches are celebrating! what kind of heartless people celebrate death? now, i can hear you saying: "but that's different, bin laden was evil and the people killed on 9/11 were innocent." that is true, i'm not arguing that point, but instead saying from a perception perspective...shouldn't we act better than them?

some of my friends have said that when they first heard bin laden was dead they felt exhilaration...not me. i felt a resurgence of fear. how long before they retaliate? where will that be? ny or dc again? maybe a smaller town? what about americans overseas? now, maybe it's the publicist in me, but in a time and age of instant communication, why would we want to taunt unstable terrorist type people with a celebration of their "leader's" death?

my point, and i do have one is...now more than ever, we should act like the civilized people we portray ourselves to be. is this how the supposed standard bearers of justice behave? according to jack cloonan, a former fbi special agent, my fears aren't unfounded. he told the huffington post "the reasons they hate us have not subsided and [these celebrations] could reinvigorate things."

nearly ten years later, the scars from september 11th still exist. some are public, like the gaping hole that to this day remains at ground zero…some less visible, like the continued pain felt by those who will forever mourn the loss of their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and friends. many first responders are sick and dying from what they inhaled at the ground zero pile, fighting for health care they so desperately need. i personally think everyone lost a little bit of their innocence that day, i know i did.

as a proud native new yorker and american, i make no bones about hating bin laden as well as the people who fulfilled his vision. but celebrating nearly a decade later over our taking him out, just leaves me feeling uneasy. if we want to celebrate anything, how about instead we focus all our energy on celebrating and honoring our troop's heroism and bravery?

my friend marc posted a quote from dr. martin luther king jr. on his facebook wall that, i think expresses says what i feel more eloquently than i ever could: "i mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

what's your point?

"honk if i need an education"

ronda holder, a 33 year old mother of six, had it up to here with her 15-year old, whose grades have been less than stellar. after her son, james, brought home his 1.22 gpa, holder made him stand on a street corner for nearly four hours with a sign that said “my name is james w. mond iii. i did 4 questions on my f-cat and said I wasn't going to do it! gpa 1.22... honk if i need [an] education."

this wasn’t holder's first attempt to make james realize the importance of keeping his grades up. according to the associated press, both holder and james’ father “offered help, asked to see homework, grounded and lectured him and confiscated his cell phone.” frustrated when those measures didn't work, holder decided to try sheer embarrassment. she was quoted as saying, “until he straightens up his grades and gets his education on track, he’s going to work this corner...[embarrassment] is the best thing. [james] don’t like to get embarrassed.” tv crews caught many cars honking in support of james getting more education.

this whole experience has had a definite impact on young james. “i felt crazy,” he told the st. petersburg times, “it’s embarrassing....she was trying to teach me a lesson. i should have been working harder than i was in school.” since neither holder, nor james' father, graduated high school, this extreme act was her ultimate plea in defense of her child's education. she said, “i don’t want any of my kids to stand by the side of the road asking for change.”

but not everyone thinks this side-of-the-road antic is much better. a psychologist told fox 13 in florida that "embarrassment and shame is not really healthy for a young person's mind growing up." additionally, according to an article in forbes, psychologists typically think extreme parenting, like this, is not only “humiliating and ineffective,” but also mentally abusive. they went on to say that a representative from florida's department of children and families thinks that punishment like this "might legally be considered a form of maltreatment."

my point, and i do have one is....while humorous on the surface, i find this story quite sad. not because james was "humiliated" but because at the core of this story, in my opinion, is a parent crying out for help. so often we hear people say that parents who aren't engaged in their children’s education are a big part of why the system often fails. well, here you have a mother who, despite having a lot of kids at a very young age and limited education of her own, is trying to do right by her son...trying to compel him in every way she knows how, to achieve more educationally than she did. i would imagine it’s just as shameful and embarrassing for her to publicly announce that her child is failing school, yet she believed that this, non-traditional (and admittedly controversial) approach, was the price to pay for another attempt to reach her son. while i don't know that this was the best approach, i applaud her for her action in doing something and for staying engaged.

what’s your point?

(girl scout) cookie monster

the mission of the girl scouts is to build girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place. well, clearly, hersah howard, of florida, was never a scout. believing her roommate ate the last of her thin mint girl scout cookies, howard allegedly ravaged the apartment and attacked her.

according to police, howard, who was in a rage about the missing thin mints, woke roommate, jasmin wanke, in the middle of the night on sunday. after arguing a bit, wanke claims howard (who according to police weighs in at about 400 pounds) proceeded to jump on her and hit her in the face. wanke's husband pulled them apart, but that didn't stop howard, she proceeded to chase wanke with a pair of scissors, only to then pick up a board and hit her. according to the associated press, "the fight [then] moved into the kitchen, where howard allegedly hurled her heft at wanke again. as they fought, howard bit wanke's breast and struck her several times."

after being torn apart yet again by wanke's husband, the police arrived and charged howard with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. she was released monday on $10,000 bail. wanke claims that she didn't eat the yummy chocolate-coated mint wafers (the most popular of the girl scout cookies) but instead fed them to howard's kids at around 1 a.m. when the children said they were hungry. (really??)

my point and i do have one, is....let’s be honest, shall we? girl scout cookies are a little like crack that is allowed to be legally distributed in offices by pre-adolescent dealers. once a year our friends and colleagues allow their darling little dealers, i mean daughters, to come around and take orders. everyone tends to buy at least one box, not just because we want to support the young ladies in their efforts to raise money, but because we know it will be a whole year before we will get to purchase the good stuff again. and everyone's order process is similar, you get one box of thin mints ('cause that's just a given, right?) and then you add at least one other variety (my preference, the yummy peanut butter).

so, when you break it down to the basics, girlfriend realized her thin mint stash was gone, so like any good crack/cookie head does, she went a little charlie sheen and beat down the person she thought stole it. how has it taken this long for this to happen?? what's your point?

a very un-"happy ending" (in so many ways)

ahhh vegas, the city littered with so many broken hearts and dreams. think you have heard them all? let me introduce you to young hubert blackman, who has filed a $1.8 million lawsuit against an escort service in vegas because one of their girls didn't spend enough time making him happy.

according to the las vegas times, while on vacation, this new york college student hired an escort from exclusive personals to come to his hotel room for a "date." while he was apparently satisfied with the quality of this woman's work, the quantity quickly became a point of contention.

here are the undisputed facts: the woman performed a lap dance (for $155) and a sex act (for another $120). the issue became the length of her "performance." hubert claims while she was commissioned for a one-hour period, she left after just 30 minutes. dissatisfied, he called the escort service to demand his money back (he also supposedly told them he had been too drunk at the time of the services to make an informed agreement with the dancer). needless to say, they said no (i'm guessing they said no while laughing hysterically, but i digress.)

so what did he do next? hubert did whatever sane thinking person does when the prostitution service they paid for isn't up to snuff, he called the cops! the vegas police promptly informed him that prostitution is illegal and that he could be arrested. (fun fact: while prostitution is indeed illegal in sin city, certain counties have legalized it, hence places like the bunny ranch being able to offer legal brothel service - sharing is caring.)

now before you think this story is over, let me remind you that hubert is a new yorker and a couple of no's won't stop us from seeking justice so richly deserved! upon returning to new york, he promptly filed a suit in manhattan criminal court, claiming he needed medical treatment for the clearly traumatic event, stating: "an escort did an illegal sexual act on me during her paid service to me...i almost had gotten arrested...i would like the court to close the business. i also would like to get my $275 payment back and a $1.8 million verdict for the tragic event that happened."

my point, and i do have one is...wow, hubert, the "tragic event" that happened is that you have now become a national laughing stock! so young and so stupid...so sad. my wish for hubert is that he forgets manhattan criminal court and instead brings the case before judge judy or the people's court so the rest of us see this case through with him!

what’s your point?

***update***

in a previous blog, i introduced you to peter and alisha arnold, the couple who wanted you to decide if they should keep or abort their pregnancy. since that post, they have confirmed the premise of the site was not real. according to a cnn article, they created the website as a way to "stimulate conversation about the politically charged subject" of abortion.

peter arnold claims he got the url birthornot.com before his wife got pregnant and this was actually something he had been mulling around for a while. in regards to the request for america to help choose the fate of their pregnancy, they said they "chose their words carefully because abortion was never [really] on the table."

in addition to the negative press and public outrage of their site, in a turn they didn't foresee (really?), alisha arnold lost her job due to all the brouhaha. according to kstp-tv, her bosses thought she was a threat to the company's reputation. they even asked employees to de-friend her on facebook.

my point, and i do have one is....in the tv special rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, we learned about the island of misfit toys, a sanctuary where defective and unwanted toys were sent. i think the time has come for an island of misfit parents, created specifically for those who use their children (or in this case unborn child) to help grab their 15-minutes of fame.

now, i'm not talking about your run-of-the-mill famous parents who are no doubt bad influences on their children like...say...courtney love or oj simpson. on my island of misfit parents, the arnolds would join residents such as dina and michael lohan, octomom, the parents of balloon boy and any maury guest who has been on more than two times (each time with two or more guys) to try and "figure out" who their baby-daddy is. ladies and gentlemen, meet your modern day mommie and daddy dearests. make no mistake about it, while they may not be beating their kids with wire hangers they are leaving marks on their children and society. when will the madness stop? what is your point?

Where's My Shiv?

As one that has had his dog attacked twice by pitbulls on our very own street when I lived in LA...I'm calling for a ban on pitbull and pitbull mixes at dog parks. Controversial and not PC, I don't care. How many attacks have to happen against children and other animals?

Are you capable of taking a knife and stabbing a dog that is attacking yours? I think I am. I used to carry a stun gun with me on our walks. Nothing compares to seeing your dog attacked, especially my old senior citizen Bailey who could not fight back. Why should those people in the East Village or any place live in such fear they need to arm themselves to protect their beloved pets. I SAY BAN THE DOGS.

LOWER EAST SIDE, NY (WPIX) —

After a recent spate of pit bull attacks at an East Village dog run, fearful pet owners have begun to arm themselves.

Tompkins Square Park dog owners claim there have been five attacks by pit bulls on other dogs and humans at the dog run since September, and they fear for their pets.

"I mean when you see a pit bull latching on to another dog, there is no letting go," said Ellen Burton.

So owners are taking matters into their own hands, and several dog lovers are now reportedly packing knives, hammers and other weapons when they visit the dog run.

"In every dog run there is a fight -- it happens, it's like a playground with kids -- the only difference is, pit bulls finish fights," said one dog owner.

There is a sign at the entrance clearly stating that dog owners are always legally responsible for any damages their canines do, but that hasn't prevented the pit bull attacks.

"It's not necessarily (the case of) a bad owner, but if you know you have a dog that is aggressive you are a bad owner if you bring your dog to the park," said New York veterinary specialist E'lise Christensen.

Some dog owners blame the nearby Social Tee Animal Rescue, but founder Robert Shapiro thinks he's being targeted unfairly. "The minute a dog gets into a fight at the dog run my name is mentioned . . . I'm sure some have been from me, (but) my policy is no pit bulls at the dog run," Shapiro said.

The Parks Department says they've met with the NYPD and community groups on the issue and have installed undercover units to patrol the area.

voting for dummies....

after suffering three miscarriages, minnesota couple alisha and peter arnold have not only found themselves pregnant again, but struggling with whether they are emotionally prepared to have a child. when faced with the decision to either move forward with the pregnancy or abort, they did what every normal couple does...they set up a website, birthornot.com, so america could help them decide! once on the site, visitors could not only vote, but monitor "wiggles'" progress (that's what they call him/her) and see ultrasound pictures.

while voting was supposed to be open until dec. 7 (two days before the arnolds could still legally get an abortion in their state), it was abruptly closed yesterday. with the number of votes jumping from 250,000 to over one million in a 30 hour period (including a large swing in opinion shifting from from 81/19 in favor of "give birth" to 42/58 for "have an abortion") the arnolds suspected voter fraud. here are two excerpts from their posts:

"if you think by having a computer auto-vote for us, that it is going to discount the votes of the hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes from real people who actually care in helping us make a decision: you are wrong. rest assured, whatever your opinion on this topic, and whatever you have voted one way or another, your vote is being heard."

"with 2,008,039 votes, we have decided to close the vote. we will be sending them off to a third party report wizard to have them analyzed and have the fraud removed."

the results currently shown on the page are 73.63% for "have an abortion" and 22.37% for "give birth." according to alisha: “we are using [the vote] to help determine our decision, but we will still make the final decision." (at the time of this post, no announcement had been made.)

needless to say, this site has sent many news websites and bloggers into a tizzy. a debate has even begun on whether its premise is legit or, if it's really just a hoax to start a national discussion on abortion? according to the arnolds, "while some see this as a game, we most certainly do not."

my point, and i do have one is...are we really surprised this is what it has come too? everyone seems to not just want, but crave their 15 minutes of fame. in my opinion this has led to the over-sharing of people's lives on public forums like facebook and twitter. go ahead, look at your facebook page and see how many of your friends talk about their relationships, jobs and personal issues.

why do people feel the need to purge every single thought they have and action they take for the masses? i just don't get it. but even those of us, who may not over-share but still condone and encourage it, need to accept some responsibility. while others may have the problem, we are their enablers. which brings us back to our couple who has put the fate of their pregnancy to a national vote, just like on american idol or dancing with the stars.

in my opinion, whether or not to go to term with a pregnancy is a very personal and private matter. while the moral implications can be debated, at the end of the day i think one thing is clear...if this couple needs america to vote on whether they should be parents, children's protective services better be on hand if they have the baby! if not we, america, may be co-parenting this child via votes on their next website. (don't laugh, you know that's coming next.) what's your point?

mo' controversy on the street

for forty-years bert and ernie, have cohabited at 123 sesame street, leading many to ponder, what is the nature of their relationship? are they really just roommates? or, perhaps, they are more than "just friends?" (not that there would be anything wrong with that.)

this deep philosophical question, which has long been debated by both mensa members and stoned college kids alike, is back in the news thanks to a tweet from bert on sesame street's official twitter page.

while referencing his hair style, bert tweeted: "ever notice how similar my hair is to mr. t's? the only difference is mine is a little more 'mo,' a little less 'hawk." well, hawk-ish people may have read a little mo' into this tweet than originally intended.

since the word "mo" is used by some in the gay community as a shortened version of "homosexual," it didn't take long before bert's comment became the ambiguous tweet heard 'round the world.

not only were gay bloggers, activists and parents questioning whether this was finally a tip of the proverbial hat to those who have long speculated about bert and ernie's sexuality, but mainstream media also jumped on the bandwagon in an attempt to "break the story."

the la times posed the question: "is sesame street brought to you by the letters g-a-y?" (that's some pulitzer prize winning writing right there.). some media even referenced the fact that sesame street has been inviting more openly gay celebrity guests to the show, such as wanda sykes and neil patrick harris (who came on as the shoe fairy – i love it!) as additional "proof" of...ummm...something...i guess?

everyone can speculate all they want but, according to long-standing statements made by sesame workshop, bert and ernie are just good friends. in 1993 they went on the record regarding the gay rumors and said: "bert and ernie...do not portray a gay couple and there are no plans for them to do so in the future. they are puppets, not humans...[they are] characters who help demonstrate to children that despite their differences, they can be good friends." sesame workshop president and ceo gary knell commented again in 2007, saying: "they are not gay, they are not straight, they are puppets...they don't exist below the waist."

my point and i do have one, is...while i would happily support the lifestyle choices of both bert and ernie, whatever they may be, i actually find it more interesting that bert tweeted.

sesame street is targeted to children ages five years and younger, so who exactly are the tweets on the official sesame street twitter page targeted to? are they suggesting it's the five-year olds in their audience? or, is it really the parents of these children, as well as long standing fans of the show? if in fact, as i suspect, it is the later, is it really such a leap to then believe that these same adults that follow sesame street, may read into the tweets posted, thinking there may be some hidden messages and double entendres?

either way, i think people have mo' time on their hands than they know what to do with. and besides, everyone knows that if bert and ernie did come out as gay, that would be about as news worthy as when clay akin, ricky martin and lance bass did. scandalous!

what's your point?

an open letter to anderson cooper

dear anderson,
how you doing? long time no speak. so, i read today that you signed a deal to host a syndicated daytime talk show in 2011. now honey, you know how much i love you right? and you know i think you kill when you fill in for regis! but really? a daytime talk show?

i know you aren't leaving your gig at cnn and that you think the daytime show will provide an opportunity to expand your hard news background, showing a different side of you. your syndicator, warner brother's, is billing you as a replacement for oprah, saying your show will even be similar to hers, “an hour with a celebrity one day and an investigation of women’s rights around the world the next day" with a studio audience and that special mix of "feature pop culture, human interest stories, investigative reports and the occasional town hall meeting."

if i could, i would set the dvr right now to support your vision, because i love ya, you silver fox you! but, my darling anderson, my point, and i do have one...is, why didn't you call me before making this decision?

while i see the allure and appeal of daytime for many, i don't see why you would choose to make the jump. i know it's not for the money...you do quite well for yourself and, oh yeah, in case you forgot, you're a vanderbilt! i know you're not doing it to get some ass, 'cause your a hot commodity in both the gay and straight communities!

anderson, you are this generation's go-to-guy for news (you know, besides jon stewart). you're seeming accessible, you show empathy and compassion while informing and educating your audience. this daytime show will give you an opportunity to explore different stories? are you telling me that cnn won't give you a special if you asked? you are the rock of cnn! sure their ratings suck, but they have anderson cooper! but, ok if you can't do the stories you want there, what about your special correspondent gig on 60 minutes? not enough room to spread your wings?

now, in fairness, i felt the same way when george stephanopoulos went to gma. after the untimely death of tim russert, this inside the beltway, washington insider was the king of sunday morning with this week. and now? you can see him doing cooking segments in the 8:00 hour. really? (george, you can call me too the next time you're making a big decision.)

but, you never know, i could be way off base. this could be the start of an amazing show. i wish you all the luck in the world! i mean, even edward r. murrow did lighter fair with person to person. and, if you do get some of oprah's time slots, in a lot of cases you'll be the lead-in to local news, which is stronger than a mid-day slot against jerry springer.

anderson, i hope i am wrong...i really, really do! but i have just two words for you: the mole (how long did it take you to regain credibility after that?)...i'm just sayin'.
xoxo
robin

ps: what's your point?

tackling tenure

the topic of teacher tenure has been in the news this week, in part due to nyc mayor michael bloomberg's announcement regarding changes he plans to make to the city's tenure program, as well as chatter about the upcoming movie waiting for superman. i don't need to tell anyone reading this blog that teacher tenure is a hot button issue for many. for the purposes of this blog, when referring to teacher tenure, know i am specifically discussing elementary, middle and high school public school teachers, not college professors. so where to begin? let’s start with the history of tenure.

back in the early 19th century, the purpose of tenure was to ensure that educators (at the time, mostly college educators) were free to teach without fear that their jobs would be in jeopardy due to factors other than education. this was particularly the case for female teachers who may have either married the wrong kind of person or did things that were deemed "inappropriate" (for a woman at that time, this potentially meant simply being out in the street past a certain hour). tenure also protected those who may chose to speak against the political leanings of their school or administration. tenure rallied against arbitrary firings and guaranteed that if a teacher were dismissed, it was based on clear violations of the educational system and nothing else.

currently, as we know, teacher tenure has expanded past the collegiate ranks and into the public school system. it has become a pillar of teach union's platform and something at the heart of many debates over the years. while the length of time it takes for an elementary, middle school or high school teacher to achieve tenure in a public school varies from state to state, it seems most are eligible for tenure review within two to three years. currently roughly 2.3 million public school teachers enjoy tenure.

according to the national education association (nea), "tenure is about due process — not about guaranteeing jobs for life. and it’s not about protecting “bad” teachers — it’s about protecting good teachers." they say tenure does not guarantee teachers a job, does not offer any lifetime employment security and, regardless of the implications, does not just happen after a “certain amount of time.” in comparison to jobs not in education, the nea said this about a teacher's probation period prior to tenor: " at most jobs outside the field of education, a newly hired employee may be considered probationary for six months, or even a year....[but,] when teachers are hired, it is common for them to serve as untenured, probationary employees for three or four years. at this point they can be — and often are — dismissed for any reason whatsoever. that time period also gives school administrators an extended opportunity to evaluate a teacher before determining whether or not the school district, at its discretion, should grant the teacher tenure." another point often made on this side of the debate is, teachers still fear retribution for political disagreements, whether with a supervisor, principal or administrator, hence needing tenure.

now, let me state upfront that i grew up in a family with several public school teachers. in particular, i have an uncle who, in my opinion was (and continues to be) the epitome of the teacher you want in your child's classroom. this is a man who knew he always wanted to be a math teacher. he loves math, he loves teaching it and always had fun doing it. when i would visit him at work when i was small, i witnessed a teacher who was both effective and liked by the students. he was a rock star! sure, he knew the cool music of the time (madonna, cyndi lauper and wham) and had a good report with the students, but he also demanded respect in his room and success from his students. in addition to our family teachers, my brother and i are beneficiaries of the new york city public school system. we had many amazing teachers who helped mold us into the people we are today.

ok, with that said, my point, and i do have one...is, i think teacher tenure should be eliminated. i firmly believe being a teacher is a noble and important profession, especially in the formative years. teachers help shape and influence our leaders of tomorrow. public school teachers should be revered, not made the butt of jokes and should be paid handsomely for doing a good job. but i don't understand why teachers deserve more protection than employees in other industries and professions? i think the basic premise of employment should be you work hard, you strive to always be better and, in turn, you get rewarded with monetary compensation that reflects your success.

in my 15+ years of working, i have not only had to do my job and do it well, but also play the politics necessary to ensure my success (i'm not saying that should be part of the gig, but lets be honest it's the truth). i would be lying if i didn't say that, since moving to the south, there have been numerous times this loud mouth, opinionated northerner has held her tongue so as not to potentially ruffle the political feathers of conservative higher-ups. i have lived my whole professional career knowing that being vocal on things that have nothing to do with the quality of my work could potentially put my job on the line. where is my tenure to ensure i can say what i want without penalty?

if i calculate all the six month probationary periods i have had at my various non-education jobs (as referenced by the nea), it would show i have worked nearly 4.5 years of probation and, to this day, i can be fired at will! where is my tenure to ensure this doesn't happen? (i am not even getting into summers off, spring breaks, my approx 235 work year vs. the approx.180 school year...oh and lets not forget snow days!)

what about all those people who worked at a job 20+ years and then, when the economy tanked, lost their jobs? many of those people are now in foreclosure and have lost their retirement money because they didn't have a guaranteed tenure or a pension. where is their tenure? and what about the teacher i knew in high school who flat out told me he doesn't like his job or the kids, is phoning it in and is only a teacher because he needed a way to stay out of vietnam? he is probably in a classroom right now, because he has tenure.

now, before you go thinking i am anti union, know, i am actually not. i think unions can be a good thing and should be there to protect basic rights of different groups. but over the years, i have seen what appears to be the all powerful teachers union (who reportedly gives more money to political campaigns than the nra) looking out for the protection of the teachers, often, in my opinion, at the determine of the children. (to be honest i fault the union leaders, not the teachers, for that perception.) look, whether fair or not, if the system was working, this would be on page 16 of the newspaper, not above the fold, but the system and our children are failing and i don't believe you can address improvements to the overall system without looking at teacher tenure.

in an effort to try and provide an alternate solution, i think a system should be set up to properly review teachers so that a full picture of their work can be established. some of the review points would include:

* test results - i think this is something to look at, but by far not the end all and be all. the school you are in and students you have will play a factor in this, so i believe a straight "results/reward" plan is faulty. additionally, when looking at scores its important to not just see pass/fail, but also increases/decreases vs. past performance.

* surprise peer reviews - i think that teachers who teach the same subject should peer review other teachers. this also gives teachers the chance to learn from other teaching methods.

* surprise supervisor reviews - just like in any job, the supervisor should do evaluations of the employee's work. not with a scheduled review, but one where the teacher has no time but to do what they planned for the day.

* student reviews - i think this is important too. i think there is good information to be had in reverse evaluations. i feel this way regarding corporate america as well. the "subordinates" (in this case the students) should have a voice to say what they think of the teacher and the teaching style. these should be done anonymously so the students don't feel they will be punished or rewarded for their thoughts and opinons.

* self review - this would give the teacher a chance to review and critique themselves as well as lay out any bumps they had in the road that year, concerns, successes and goals for the next year.

* principal review - i think it is important that the principal know the quality (good or bad) of the educators within his/her school.

* school review: this is a part of the review that takes into account the school’s student make-up, issues and successes when evaluating inherent issues a teacher in that school may face.

in my opinion it is important for the criteria to be laid out in advance, so there are no secret as to what a teacher has to do to succeed. those who excel year-to-year should be rewarded accordingly and those who don't, should be put on a probationary period and then, baring future improvements, kicked to the curb. there should also be some sort of review board that can swiftly and in a timely fashion hear issues that may arise. this board would not be made up of purely board of education administrators, but also teachers and principals.

i don't think anyone's job should ever be even close to guaranteed, especially a teachers. like all professionals, teachers should constantly be working to get better. if their own personal drive isn't enough to keep them motivated to create new and innovative ways to teach, let the fact that their job can be on the line be their motivator.

finally, for those who think this blog has been somehow critical of teachers, i ask you to read it again, because it has not. what it has done is critique the tenure system, a system that i believe is hurting the level of education in this country. overall, i think most teachers are good and want to help students learn and succeed, but there are always the bad apples and we should not make it hard or expensive to pick them out and remove them. teacher tenure is far from the only problem with today's educational system. there needs to be an overhaul of school funding, as well as an acknowledgment that we have an epidemic of parents who don't get involved in their children's education.

as i stated at the beginning, i think being a teacher is a noble and important profession, they should be revered and should be paid very well, i just don't think they should get tenure.

what is your point?

really...she is plus-size?

at ny fashion week, uber designer zac posen cast plus-size model crystal renn (pictured here) for his zspoke show. needless to say, the idea of putting a plus-size model in a high fashion runway show during fashion week has caused quite a stir.

when renn started in modeling, at the age of 14, she was told to lose almost a third of her total body weight. she did, all so she could attain that model look that was requested and required. once she achieved her size zero, she became one of many unknown models out there looking for work. eventually, after having health scares due to her unhealthy obsession with food and weight (which led to anorexia), she made the bold decision to switch to plus-size modeling. since then she not only became the highest-paid plus-size model in the world, but a bonafided supermodel, gracing the covers of american vogue and harper's bazaar as well as appearing in dolce & gabbana ads. while renn's exact dress size is debated (most say this six-foot model is a size 10, though some say she could be as small as a six), what is not in debate is the fact that those in attendance at posen's show say renn's larger size was barely noticeable.

my point, and i do have one, is...to begin with, the official definition of "plus-sized" is a u.s. dress size of 14 or higher, therefore it's not even proper to consider renn plus-size (even by the standards set by the fashion world). that being said, i think that it is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible for the fashion industry to classify the woman pictured above as plus-size!

ok, before i get any further, lets address the big fat plus-size elephant in the room...with 28 percent of americans officially obese and the average woman in this country wearing a size 14, people may question if by applauding plus-size models we are indirectly promoting obesity and unhealthy living. i get it! as a woman who has battled her weight her whole life and who comes from a family with, lets just say many women of size, let me be clear, i would never encourage, endorse or celebrate unhealthy lifestyles or obesity! (for the purposes of this blog, know i am not speaking about the overly overweight and obese when discussing plus-size, i am talking about run of the mill, in my opinion "average" sized woman.) also, let me say that i am not a women who hates or dislikes "skinny" women, even those who are size zeros (i have many friends who are naturally size zeros that can eat me under the table!)...my problem is with a world that tells women that they need to be size zero thin to fit into society's warped sense of "average."

society not only celebrates but rewards women who are ultra thin (the majority of actresses, models and performers are sizes zero-two). airbrushed and unattainable images of super thin women are perpetuated, leading to a blanket acceptance of this look as the benchmark for beauty. this leaves the majority of women and young girls not only wondering what that says about their shape, but also with unhealthy body images (giving way to a world dominated by weight loss companies and dietary supplements).

society also tells men that this is what they should look for in a woman. a certain gentleman i know (who i love and adore) once famously said to me the following about the look he wants in a woman: "i'm not saying that i want her to have an eating disorder, but i wouldn't be mad if she looked like she did...you know the hungry look." i think he said a mouthful! while i wanted to slap the crap out of him, truth be told, he was just being honest and verbalizing a look that many (not all) men consider ideal.

recently, star of the tv series mad men, christina hendricks (who is very curvy and oozes of sexuality) found it nearly impossible to score a dress for the emmy awards. she told the daily record: "people have been saying some nice, wonderful things about me. yet not one designer in town will loan me a dress...they only lend out a size zero or two. so i'm still struggling for someone to give me a darn dress."

now, speaking for myself (a size 10/12 woman), it has taken me the better part of my life to sorta come to terms with the fact that i have hips, i have (a whole 'lotta) boobs and no matter how little i eat, no matter how much i diet and exercise, i will never come close to being a size zero or two (not that either size would work on my body frame). i have long said, regarding my shape, that on a good day i have an hour glass figure and on a bad day it's an hour and a half! yet, as self aware and knowledgeable as i am, every day i still struggle to try and achieve the unattainable, because at the end of the day, it is still what society says is beautiful and desired.

this is why is disturbs me so very much to see crystal renn called "plus-size" when in reality is she not "plus" at all, but actually quite normal. what's your point?

just 'cause your knocked-up, doesn't mean you can't be a knock-out!

forever 21, a store known for their inexpensive and young trending clothes, recently announced they will be introducing a "love 21" maternity line.

while being launched in five states across the country, three of which (arizona, california and texas) have some of the highest pregnancy rates, the store reps say that's just a coinky-dink: "forever 21 did not create, design or distribute love 21 maternity to target, or appeal specifically to pregnant teens. any relationship between teen pregnancy rates and the locations of our stores is unintentional." needless to say, a maternity line in a store targeting tweens and teen, has raised an eyebrow or two. some question whether forever 21 is profiting from the glamorization of teen pregnancy?

my point, and i do have one, is...when forever 21 launched a clothing line called "faith 21," targeting the plus-sized girl, i don't remember seeing all this buzz about them glamorizing or profiting from obesity(i'm not saying that buzz shouldn't have existed, but it didn't.) we live in a capitalistic nation and i personally think this is a brilliant move for forever 21. in addition to opening themselves up to a new market of consumers, who happen to be teen mom's-to-be (or as sara libby from salon's broadstreet calls it the “temporarily plus-sized” girl"), the controversy is providing them with a lot of free press and chatter.

when a teen mom goes to babies r us to buy stuff she needs, aren't they profiting from that teen pregnancy? oh, and what about the magazines and newspapers who ran stories about bristol palin and jamie-lynn spears, didn't they profit from teen pregnancy? and if a teen girl walks into macy's or target and buys maternity clothes there, aren't they profiting?

look, i am not saying teen pregnancy is a good thing, not at all. and i don't think it should be glamorized. but if a girl goes and gets pregnant because the store she shops in now has maternity clothes...well we have a much bigger problem on our hands! (i can just hear a mom now: "just because all your friends are getting pregnant to wear forever 21's maternity line, doesn't mean you should!")

people spend so much time and effort looking for someone to protect "our" kids, when they already have supposed protectors, their parents. it is a parent's job to make sure their kids are eating healthy, staying safe and not getting themselves or someone else pregnant. but from the looks of things, too many parents either don't or can't do their job (and this is one job, even in today's bad economy, you can't get fired from). but hey, if you can't do your job effectively, don't be surprised when you are maternity shopping with your kid at forever 21.

what's your point?

A(AA) solution to an age old problem

this fourth of july, aaa clubs across the country are doing their part to cut down on the number of people involved in drunk driving incidents with their "tow to go" and "tipsy tow" programs (depending on where in the country you live).

these programs provide free, confidential rides and tows home from any bar or restaurant to anyone who has had too much to drink, even those not aaa members. (program specifics vary in locations, but generally speaking, the ride is only for the driver, not additional passengers and is free up to five miles from the pick-up destination, cost beyond that may apply).

"i work the night shift and have provided more tows home for intoxicated drivers than i can count with nothing but good experiences because everyone is usually grateful for a free ride home," said dan simpson, florida service technician who has serviced tow to go calls for more than eight years for aaa auto club south. "what concerns me is the fact that the majority of people tell me they were going to drive home if tow to go wasn't an option and that's not good since many of these people can't even walk, let alone sit upright on a bar stool."

these programs provide assistance during heavily traveled holiday periods when drunk driving accidents are most common. the full list of events/observances includes: the pro bowl, super bowl, st. patrick's day, cinco de mayo, memorial day, independence day, labor day, halloween and thanksgiving through new year's day.

according to the most recent statistics on the mother's against drunk driving site, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver, with these deaths constituting 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. the tow to go program of aaa south (which is regionally sponsored and underwritten by budweiser) has safely removed more than 11,400 drunk drivers off roadways since their program began in 1998. it goes without saying that these programs should be used as an emergency option after trying to get a cab or calling family members.

my point, and i do have one...is, i think these are great campaigns. these programs keep not only those towed safe, but also the innocent people who could potentially be in harms way by merely sharing the road. while many drunk people think they can still drive well beyond when they should and therefore may not call for these services, if bartenders, waiters/waitress and party hosts call, it could save many lives.

now, while i understand why only the car's driver is towed in these programs (they probably only have one other seat in the tow truck), when possible, i think it could be a benefit to have the tow include the driver, plus one, since most people go out with at least one other person and wouldn't want to leave them behind. additionally women may not want to go in a tow truck with a stranger while drunk.

that being said, in the big scheme of things, the good done by these programs outweighs the small potential improvement suggestion. i applaud aaa and their local sponsors for being part of the solution to the age old problem of drunk driving.

what's your point?

discrimination is thicker than water

on friday, the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability (which makes recommendations to the food and drug administration) voted nine to six against lifting the ban preventing gay men from donating blood in the u.s., putting them in a category with other banned groups like intravenous drug users and people who have been paid for sex.

that's right, according to current fda rules, if you are a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977, you are banned from donating blood for life. this rule, which was put in place in the 80's, before hiv tests were available, is supposed to be a way to ward off potential hiv tainted blood. a study showed that if this ban was lifted, approximately 219,000 more pints of blood would be available each year.

the fda recognizes the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory. the national gay and lesbian task force doesn't quite agree with that: "the committee's decision today not only leaves a discriminatory practice in place, it also puts lives at risk." additionally, the red cross expressed disappointment stating: "while the red cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the fda, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."

my point, and i do have one...is, these stories of blatant government upheld discrimination, make me ashamed to be american. first, this ruling implies that ONLY gay men have a potential risk of acquiring hiv, merely perpetuating outdated stereotypes that hiv is not just a gay disease, but a gay man's disease. in reality. studies have shown that heterosexual sex is the fastest-growing means of contracting hiv in the u.s. and and the most prevalent method worldwide. does this mean we should also include heterosexuals in the ban? if we do, we better line up a bunch of non iv drug-using lesbians who were never prostitutes, because they seem to be the only group still ok to donate! (also, i find it odd that someone who has been paid for sex is banned, but the person who paid them, not so much. what steps are we taking to protect society from the john who potentially gave the prostitute hiv? but i digress...)

here's another thought, you can't identify most gay man by sight (yes, i said most...come on now, you know i love each and every one of you over the top, make-up and boa wearing gay men, but lets be honest, some of you are a tiny bit easier to spot). is the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability therefore keeping us all "safe" by assuming that no one will lie when asked about their sexual history? yeah, 'cause that never happens, right evangelist ted haggard, senator larry craig, representative bob allen or national chairman of the young republicans glenn murphy jr.?

look, while current hiv tests are highly accurate, no test can yet detect the virus 100 percent of the time. that being said, donated blood is put through a battery of sophisticated tests to determine whether it is safe and disease-free.

it wasn't too many years ago that blood from a black person wouldn't have been able to be donated and now, the government (run by a black man with blood that can donated blood), is blatantly and systematically blocking gay right (don't ask don't tell, gay-marriage and now blood donation). nahh, that's not discrimination. god bless america.

what is your point?

the (military) code has been cracked

general stanley mcchrystal, president obama's hand-selected commander in afghanistan, along with his aides, made shocking comments to rolling stone. according to the washington post, they called the national security adviser a "clown," described the president as intimidated and disengaged, disparaged allies and top u.s. diplomats and converted vice president biden's surname to "bite me." the article, whose accuracy mcchrystal has not denied or challenged, has been called an "enormous mistake" by the white house. they also said mcchrystal showed "bad judgment."

at the time of this blogs posting, the president was awaiting mcchrystal's arrival at the white house. speculation has begun that he is prepared to give the president his letter of resignation.

my point, and i do have one...is, as a citizen of our country, we have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. i personally value and treasure this right. however, when you talk about the military, they live and die by a code of conduct and ethics. at its core it prides itself on honor, respect, order, chain of command and discipline. for any solider, let alone one as high ranking as mcchrystal, to outright and publicly criticize the commander in chief during a time of war goes against everything the military supposedly stands for. as a solider, it is not your job to agree with or even respect your commander in chief, it is however your job to respect his rank and carry out his orders. mcchrystal could have first retired or quit and then run his mouth, but he didn't. instead he made the conscious decision to do this interview while actively leading men into battle.

in my opinion mcchrystal's alleged resignation should be rejected so that the president can outright fire him. additionally, i think mcchrystal should be court-marshaled. according to article 88 of the u.s. uniform code of military justice, “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice-president, congress...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

at the end of the day the president needs to be able to trust his commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan. how is that possible any more? many are saying that it could do the operation more harm than good by replacing him. but if they don't, what message does that send to the rest of the military? if a general at mcchrystal's level can blatantly disrespect the commander in chief with no consequences, it sets a precedent that others, at every rank, can disrespect their commanding officer and expect no repercussions. i am not sure that is something i would be comfortable with.

general mcchrystal should feel ashamed that by granting an interview with rolling stone, he has smeared what, to this point, was a highly respected military career. (and if i can speak directly to the general for a sec... really? rolling stone? that is the publication that you choose to give the story that will haunt you the rest of your life? my friends and i have played the game, "if you are the lone survivor of a plane crash, who would you give your interview to?" i gotta tell you general, rolling stone never makes anyone's top ten. do you not have any media advisers around you at all? i'm just sayin'...)

what is your point?

taking a bite out of crime

almost forty years ago, sonnet ehlers, a then 20-year old medical researcher, met a devastated rape victim who looked at her and said "if only I had teeth down there." ehlers promised that one day she would do something to help victims like her...and today she has made good on that promise: rape-aXe.

according to cnn.com, this female latex condom, which is inserted like a tampon and has jagged rows of teeth-like hooks inside to attach on to a man's penis during penetration, can only be removed by a doctor once it lodges on. ideally authorities will be on hand to make an arrest at that time. ehlers, who sold her house and car to launch the project, plans on distributing 30,000 free devices during the world cup in south africa. taking drastic measures to prevent rape is nothing new to women of south africa, which has one of the highest rape rates in the world. some women have gone so far as to insert razor blades wrapped in sponges in their private parts.

a man who finds himself on the receiving end of a rape-aXe (which was designed with the consultation of engineers, gynecologists and psychologists to make sure it was safe) will find himself in, what one can only assume will be, at the least, discomfort. according to ehlers: "it hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on...if he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter... however, it doesn't break the skin and there's no danger of fluid exposure."

ehler, a mother of two daughters, said blind dates and traveling in areas a women may not feel comfortable, are examples of times to wear the rape-aXe. she visited prisons to speak with convicted rapists who, according to her, said a device like rape-aXe may have made them rethink their actions. after the trial period at the world cup, rape-aXe will be available for about $2 a piece.

not everyone is sold on this product. some critics say it's not a "a long-term solution and makes women vulnerable to more violence from men trapped by the device." victoria kajja, from the centers for disease control and prevention in uganda, said it is a form of "enslavement" that reminds women of their vulnerability. "the fears surrounding the victim, the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to." she does say however that "it allows justice to be served."

my point, and i do have one...is, i don't think this device reminds a woman of their vulnerability anymore than when she puts mace in her pocketbook. sure, in an ideal world, people wouldn't need to worry about being sexually assaulted, however, we live in the real world, so if this is what some women need to feel safe and secure, more power to them. i wonder how long it will be before we see this item on law & order svu? what's your point?

good god...seriously?

if you are redeeming yourself from a thieving past, have a potty mouth, a bad attitude and are catholic, today is your lucky day!

that's right, the movie the blues brothers was officially sanctioned by the catholic church this week, with the vatican's official newspaper calling it a "catholic classic" and recommending it for catholics everywhere.

the movie, which celebrates it's 30th anniversary this year, is about two blues performers (john belushi and dan ackroyd) from a catholic orphanage who grew up to a wild life of crime (the characters started as a skit on snl). throughout the film the lead characters repeatedly say that they are on a "mission from god" to save the orphanage. (for those keeping score, another notable religious reference from the movie includes: "jesus h. tap-dancing christ! i have seen the light!") the official vatican newspaper l'osservatore romano devoted no fewer than five articles to the blues brothers, anointing it as a film with a catholic message.

it is worth noting that the church did not always find this movie to be quite so pious. in a review of the movie 30 years ago by the united states conference of catholic bishops, they referred to it as having "rough language and crude situations" as well as saying that certain scenes were "spectacularly unfunny and uninvolving."

there are some in the church that take issue with this recent cinematic endorsement saying that by increasing their use of pop references, l'osservatore romano is trivializing the vatican. a web-columnist for the national catholic register says they should instead be "devoting its pages to more spiritual and lofty matters related to the faith."

the blues brothers now joins the ranks of other vatican-endorsed films such as the ten commandments, jesus of nazareth, and it's a wonderful life.

my point, and i do have one...is that the catholic church never ceases to amaze me! drinking, debauchery and violence is a "catholic message?" no wonder they are dragging their feet when it comes to abuse within the church! additionally, when did the vatican become the siskel and ebert of religion? ("i give this movie three crosses" or "the maker of this movie need to say ten hail marys and ask for forgiveness.") what's your point?

to tweet or not to tweet, that is the question

phil corbett, the latest standards editor at the new york times, issued a memo to staff asking writers to abstain from using the word "tweet."

while acknowledging that new words are created all the time for our ever-growing technology, he noted that not everyone uses twitter and therefore may not be familiar with what a "tweet" is. he said it isn't standard english, "and standard english is what we should use in news articles." he went on to say that the new york times doesn't "want to seem paleolithic and favors established usage and ordinary words over the latest jargon or buzzwords." (ok - quick show of hands…how many of you reading my blog, excluding my mom, know what "tweet" means, but need to look up what paleolithic means? mom - we all know you know what they both mean :) click here for an article highlighting the top words nytimes.com readers looked up in the last year using the site's online dictionary tool).

but i digress, corbett went on to say that should the new york times choose to make an exception to the no "tweet' rule, it will be for special effect. he said: "we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. and “tweet” — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on twitter — is all three. yet it has appeared 18 times in articles in the past month, in a range of sections...but let's look for deft, english alternatives: use twitter, post to or on twitter, write on twitter, a twitter message, a twitter update. or, once you've established that twitter is the medium, simply use 'say' or 'write."

my point, and i do have one...is with this story being in the news, and the new york times being a newspaper, how are they going to be able to report that they have stopped using the word "tweet" without using the word "tweet?"(deep thoughts). what's your point?