On my blog I've often talked about how I hate winter weather, but I love winter cooking. There's something about a big pot of simmering soup or stew that fills the house with wonderful aromas and makes you feel like all's right with the world. Autumn is officially here, so it's time to make soup!
For a few weeks I wondered when I'd start to see soup recipes popping up on the food blogs, and then one day about two weeks ago I suddenly felt like making soup myself. There must be some kind of seasonal-recipe biological clock that tells food bloggers when it's time for certain dishes, because before I had even posted my soup recipe, I started spotting soup recipes on other blogs. Here are some of the first soups of the season that have been looking good to me.
It was the Chickpea Soup from The Pink Peppercorn that inspired me to make my own version of Chickpea Soup. Gail said she didn't think this soup looked that appetizing, but to a chickpea lover like myself, it was impossible to resist!
At Simply Recipes I thought this New England Fish Chowder looked warm and comforting. Elise recalls her years living in Boston as she makes this creamy "chow-dah."
I also loved the sound of Bacon and Potato Leek Soup from The Hungry Mouse. If you haven't cooked with leeks, there are good photos and instructions here about how to cut and wash them.
At Everything Rachel Ray, Madeline declares "Yippee! It's Time for Soup!" as she shares the recipe for Zucchini, Potato, and Ham Soup. Madeline just posted this yesterday, and one commenter has already made it and agreed it's a keeper.
Finally, Amanda at Mrs. W's Kitchen got a jump on the season when she posted her recipe for Onion Soup clear back in September, but it's easy to see why she couldn't wait to make this wonderful looking soup. Amanda also has some good information to share about the health benefits of onions, so be sure to read that.
Has soup been on the menu yet at your house this Autumn? If you have made soup, please share your recipe, post the link, or at least tell us about your soup in the comments!
(Every Thursday night on BlogHer, we spotlight five recipes with a common theme for a feature called Weekend Menu Planning, hoping one of them might make it onto the menu at your house. You can find previous recipes shared by clicking the tag Weekend Menu Planning.)
"Put one foot in front of the other and soon you'll be walking out the door."
I love that you can find essential truth from a Rankin-Bass stop motion animation classic. How do we learn to do anything, how do we make progress towards achieving our goals and how do we create new, positive habits? We go forward step-by-step.
Magpie Girl is planning to go a year without purchasing clothing and inviting readers to join her. I've gone a bit over a year now without purchasing any new clothing but I did not do it intentionally. What I did do intentionally was decide to purge my closet of clothes that no longer fit my figure or style. I hung everything backwards and went from there. One by one I turned hangers around or either donated or tossed items. And I found that I didn't really need anything new. I already had something for every occasion this past year. And by that methodical process of evaluating each piece of clothing to see whether it should remain on a hanger and facing right-side around I created a new habit of only buying clothes when I really need to.
I think had I set out to intentionally not shop for a year it would have been far more difficult to reach the goal. But doing it intentionally might have not only taught me more but also created more new habits. Committing to a year of altering your behavior is big and serves a purpose beyond just changing a habit. But there are smaller commitments you can make in order to create new habits.
Popular wisdom tells us that it takes 21 days to create a new habit. Some teachers prefer the round number of 30 for number of days to challenge us to act differently. Some paradigms urge us to focus on whatever micro unit of time we can handle be that a day, an hour or just the moment we are in, lather-rinse-repeat until the new behavior becomes just what we do.
Regardless of what time frame you feel you can comfortably commit to, the paradigm for shifting remains the same:
1. Pick a habit or behavior to change and set a time period in which to break your old habit and create a new one 2. Start to make the change 3. Repeat daily (or what ever measure of time is appropriate) 4. If you fall off your change wagon forgive yourself and get back on 5. At the end of the challenge period evaluate your results. If you didn't get to the desired new habit assess whether or not you need to make adjustments to your goal or steps or if you need to do another round of steps.
Not every goal of reaching a new habit will be something you can achieve just by doing something different for 30 days. You might only make a partial change or you might gain insight into your behavior or habit that will allow you either to refine your approach or determine where you need help. But, at a minimum, in many cases, raising your consciousness and awareness is likely a good outcome and worthy of your time commitment.
Have you taken a challenge to change your behavior? How long did it last? How did it work? What did you learn? And, did you create a new habit? Share in the comments and teach it, sister!
BlogHer CE Maria Niles goes step-by-step (and also randomly) at her blog PopConsumer.
Rep. George Miller joined BlogHers for a health care reform discussion that ranged in topic from the public option to pre-existing conditions.
You can listen to the call with Rep. Miller -
You can also read the transcript below:
**start transcript**
Nancy Watzman: Welcome everyone. I'm Nancy Watzman of the Sunlight Foundation representing Blogher today and their community journalism initiative on healthcare policy.
The Sunlight Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit dedicated to using the power of the Internet to catalyze greater government openness and transparency.
As CEO Lisa Stone announced Blogher has been sponsoring a bipartisan series of telephone conference calls to connect women bloggers directly with legislators.
Today on the call we have Representative George Miller. He's been Congress for 35 years and is Chairman of the Influential House Education and Labor Committee.
He's a key champion of HR3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act. So let's begin the call and take some questions. Well actually the Chairman would speak for - introduce himself.
George Miller: All right, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the Bloghers and I'll just take a couple of minutes here to kind of outline where we are and then open it up for your questions.
I appreciate the invitation to speak with you. There has been no issue that I have been involved in in my public career in the Congress of the United States that has had more intensity and debated more extensively than the issue of healthcare and healthcare reform.
And I think that overall has been very good for the country. I think it's been good for the members of Congress to hear from the constituents. I was disappointed at some of the activities that took place this summer with the incredible misrepresentations and the efforts to try to scare Americans away from this bill and keeping members of Congress from, you know, talking with their constituents about what was in the bill.
But I think we've passed that stage for the most part and since the August break the leadership and the Chairman of the Committees and Democratic leadership have been meeting on a daily, ongoing, regular basis every day that we've been back in Washington with the members of the Democratic caucus, with the members of our Committee, with the members of the various caucuses within our Democratic caucus, with the progressive caucus, the Blue Dogs, the new Democrats, people who are concerned about regional disparities, people who are concerned about public option, no public option.
And those meetings continue today. But I think we're really coming toward the end of that process for - at this stage which would be to finalize the last remaining decisions on the cost of the bill, some options to pay for it or not.
But - and then to send it off to the Congressional Budget Office where they can give us a score as they're now doing for - or they will be doing shortly for the Senate bill.
We think that may take as many as ten days for them to do that and then we would - when we have that score if it requires additional changes to be made because of some finding by the Congressional Budget Office we will take time to do that.
Those will have to be scored and then I think we will be ready to introduce a bill that is the product of the three - the work of the three Committees, the Ways and Means Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee and my Committee, Education and Labor.
We started out with probably about 75 to 80% of the bills being in common from the three Committees and then there were amendments that were offered in the various Committees and we've been walking through some of those, and also listening to the members after the August break.
I think the product that we're going to end up with will reflect the work of those Committees and it will also be consistent with the goals of - that President Obama has laid out.
And some of you are familiar with those. First and foremost of course is in the long history of insurance company discrimination based upon pre-existing conditions to deny either families coverage because of one individual in that family may have a pre-existing condition or to deny an individual coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.
We also are working very hard to introduce competition into that insurance market with the introduction of the public option. If you have a robust public option and this is the discussions going on now - we have two different versions of the public option we reported from the Committees. A robust public option saves you about $110 billion.
That savings comes from the lowered premiums that people would have to pay for their insurance plans in the national insurance exchange. We believe that and CBO tells us that that public option would drive competition. Those lower premiums that people would have to save would save families money and individuals money.
It would also save the government money in the subsidies that it has to pay to help families and individuals pay for that coverage in the national exchange. We expect that we will be able to cover about 97% of the people in the current program.
There will always be some people who just, you know, won't sign up, won't do this and over time we also - we expect that we'll find them but they don't necessarily show up the day you open up the new plan or even in the first year.
And again the choice and the competition we think is important. The other one is that never again will people lose their insurance because they've lost their job, because they switched jobs or because they've decided they wanted to go out on their own and start a small business.
They will be able to stay in the exchange. Their premiums may change. Their subsidies may change but they will always have coverage. Their family will always have coverage if they have a family.
Many, many people, you know, Congress looking at the business rule, you know, really think we pay huge prices in the nation for that job lock; people who can't leave a job for another opportunity because of the need for insurance or the absence of insurance in the next job or people who don't start businesses because they don't - they would not be able to have insurance for themselves or for their family.
We believe that we're going to provide the incentives to shift to a - instead of reimbursing everybody for activity in the medical field for outcomes in the medical field and we have a number of studies to - for the Institute of Medicine on how that can be done.
We require bundling so that hospitals and providers can look at the overall medical care that they provide to an individual and figure out how to get the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
So we're really taking medicine I think into an area where many of us had believed that it should go for a long time. The simple fee for service creates huge expenditures that really don't reflect in the better health status of Americans.
And that's really what we're after. We're really after improving the health status, not just health insurance coverage but the health status of Americans. We believe that we strengthened Medicare and I think that's important.
There's been a lot of rumbling back and forth for that. The changes that we make in this system we believe and CBO tells us will extend the solvency of Medicare by an additional five years.
And yet we think we'll provide better care for seniors. We will be closing the doughnut hole that - after seniors exhaust part of their benefits for prescription drugs in Part D they're then on their own for quite a while and then they get help again.
We're hoping to be able to close that very rapidly with this legislation. There's still some discussion about how rapidly we'll be able to do that. A lot of that pertains to the cost of doing that.
The President said that on the coverage part of this legislation and the reforms that he wanted a limitation of $900 billion that we believe we'll be able to meet that.
He said he wanted a deficit neutral over ten years. We believe it'll be deficit neutral over ten years and that's why - we'll see what CBO says but that's our goal and that's what we will bring to the floor.
And we also wanted them as they talk and hear Washington bending the curb we want to look out over an additional 10 or 15 year period and know that we're - we have policies in place that will help us reduce the long-term healthcare costs because that's what our economy needs.
That's what businesses needs, that's what families need is to understand that we cannot continue to absorb these dramatic increases in health costs or insurance premium costs that are crushing businesses and crushing families.
It's a big list. It's controversial but I'm very encouraged by the attitude in the caucus and I think the progress that's being made in the Senate is very helpful. They're not the same bills but we - I do believe that we will pass them in both the House and the Senate.
We'll have a Conference Committee and we'll have a bill to the President's desk before the end of the year. So I'm really quite encouraged but it's been a long effort.
You know, we're changing the system in America that sort of grew up haphazardly over a 50, 60-year period and it's a very complex process to do it and to try and do it right.
And I think we see many of the people who have been engaged in the study of the medical system, economists and providers and medical experts and others think that we're really dealing with the right pieces here.
Do they agree with everything we've done? Not necessarily so but we're on the right track and we're making changes where we can get the best deal hopefully for the taxpayer, for the - for families that have to buy coverage and for the economy. So thank you again and I'd be happy to answer a few questions.
Nancy Watzman: Well thank you. Yeah let's turn it over to our callers and if you'd like to introduce yourself to the Chairman please do so. So let's take the first call.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to register a question, please press the 1 followed by the 4 on your telephone. You will hear a three tone prompt to acknowledge your request.
If your question has been answered and you would like to withdraw your registration, please press the 1 followed by the 3. If you are using a speakerphone please lift your handset before entering your request.
One moment please for the first question. And our first question comes from the line of 296N as in November. Please proceed with your question.
(Jaelithe Judy): Hello Chairman. Nice to hear from you today. My name is...
George Miller: Thank you.
(Jaelithe Judy): I appreciate you coming to speak with women Bloghers. My name is (Jaelithe Judy). I live in Missouri. I write for monocaps.com and I have a son with a chronic health condition so I've been following this debate very closely because I'm an independent contractor.
And if my husband were not currently employed by a big business there would be no way we could get individual insurance that would cover our own family that would - our whole family that would be affordable.
George Miller: Right.
(Jaelithe Judy): My question for you is I understand that you're a supporter of the public option.
George Miller: Yes.
(Jaelithe Judy): And I know that the House bill included the public option and in the Senate there's been a lot of debate about the public option. I'm wondering what is the plan in the House if the Senate passes a bill with no public option or with a very weak public option or with a public option trigger?
What is the House going to do during reconciliation to try and preserve a strong public option in the final plan?
George Miller: Thank you. One, correctly we believe we will pass a public option in the House. Whether or not the Senate will or not remains to be seen. A number of my colleagues in the Senate tell me they think that when they get to the floor they may very well pass a version of the public option.
We're hoping to pass a robust, strong public option. That's still in debate in our caucus. We're counting votes and people in support of one proposal versus another are going through the caucus and counting the votes and talking to the members.
And we'll know that result probably here within the next couple of days. But I do believe that we will take a plan with a public option. The question is whether we have negotiated rates or whether we have rates that are based upon Medicare plus 5%.
There's a lot of concern that if you have Medicare plus 5% that perhaps providers will not accept patients from the exchange, from the public option. Others believe that that's not - that's really not an issue and that that could be fine.
The other plan is to negotiate those rates somewhere between Medicare rates and the average of plans that are offered in the exchange. That would still continue to put downward pressure on those plans.
If we did the pure robust public option that my Committee and another Committee reported out that saves us $110 billion over ten years. That savings as I pointed out go to families and go to the taxpayer.
If we have negotiated rates we save about somewhere between 25 and maybe $35 billion dollars. So the choice is important and the choice is significant.
And when we're trying to insert competition into the insurance market you can see what the difference will mean. Do taxpayers and ratepayers save $110 billion over ten years or do they save 25 to $35 billion over the next ten years?
In either case I think we will end up with a public option and I think that in either of these cases we will be able to drive a much more competitive insurance market for the government that provides subsidies for people that go to the insurance exchange and for families that have to pay for part of their policies. But I think the public option will go to the President's desk is my conclusion.
Nancy Watzman: Okay, any follow up on that with this caller or...? Are you still on the line?
(Jaelithe Judy): Yes I'm still here. Well I guess so you're confident then that the final bill will have a public option in it?
George Miller: Yes I am. I am. I think it's very important to the House of Representatives. I think it's fundamental to building the most efficient and cost-effective system for the - for our country and I think it will prevail.
I think it's more an argument now of what kind of public option we will have and that's very different than maybe the argument that we were having back in July and August.
Nancy Watzman: Okay, should we go to the next call?
Operator: And the next question comes from the line of 221N as in November. Please proceed.
Wendy Norris: Hi, this is Wendy Norris and I'm with RH Reality Check. I was wondering more of a political question - why the caucus allowed the debate to be diverted on abortion and maternal health care?
It seems as though we've gotten ourselves really tied up in knots over, you know, issues that are quite controversial and we're losing sight of the bigger picture and the opportunity to really make the case to the American public about healthcare reform overall.
And I'd be interested in your thoughts on sort of the sausage making behind healthcare reform in Congress.
George Miller: Well we're, you know, obviously we would prefer and making every effort to keep the healthcare reform debate and the insurance reform debate front and center with the American public.
But in the - this is a democratic system and we're on notice that there will be individuals in our caucus and certainly when we come to the floor perhaps Republicans and Republicans with some Democrats that are - have under discussion amendments or challenges on the question of the use of public funds for abortion.
They want to extend the ban on public funds to include subsidies that are provided to people. The question is whether there will be at least one plan in the exchange that does not - that doesn't provide for abortion or one plan that does and the others don't.
I mean, this is all a matter of discussion and I don't know where it's going to come out but you can't avoid that discussion because it's, you know, obviously of great importance to many members of the Congress on both sides of the aisle.
We've been through these legislative battles before on this issue and I - this is going to continue. And there's a lot of discussions going on on this subject among various members of Congress that have been involved in it many years.
Nancy Watzman: Okay, next caller.
Operator: The next question is from line 207N. Please proceed.
(Karoli): Hi Representative Miller. My name is (Carolee) and I have been unemployed for the last almost year now and my husband is self-employed. And through a series of - well it's not really important other than to say that our COBRA administrator has managed to set things up in a way that causes our whole entire family to be uninsured.
I'm 51; my husband is 56. I have a 20-year-old who was just diagnosed with diabetes a month ago. And my question is if healthcare reform - if the actual provisions aren't taking hold until the year 2013 what do we do in the meantime?
We can't get insurance at our age and employers don't want to hire us at our age.
George Miller: Sure, sure. We are - or the President in his - when he spoke to the nation on this subject several weeks ago asked us to create in this legislation a plan for people who have pre-existing conditions who do not have insurance.
We're in the process of doing that as a part of this bill. I - I'm sorry, you know, it's in the - we're formulating it right now so I don't - I can't give you all of the details on it.
But it's really designed for those individuals that sound very much like you on how do they get from here to 2013. And to create a fund to address those concerns I think at the outset we're talking about setting aside $5 billion to help those individuals and families in that situation. And so that's how we're trying to deal with it.
Nancy Watzman: Okay, next...
(Karoli): Can I just follow that up with one quick question? Is there any consideration being given to allowing us say over 50 or over 55 to buy into Medicare as an option?
George Miller: That's been discussed but we haven't - that's what I would prefer but I haven't been able to secure the ability to do that. I think that's - it's not completely off the table because people recognize because of the economy and what's taking place and people that are thrown into that position, you know, because of their employment COBRA may not be an option for them.
So that continues - we continue to have some discussion about that. I don't want to get your hopes up.
(Karoli): Thank you.
George Miller: That's all right. Thank you.
(Karoli): Me too. Thank you.
Nancy Watzman: Okay I know we don't have too much more time so let's go to the next call and maybe try to keep it quick so everyone can get their questions in.
Operator: And the next question is from line 274N. Please proceed.
Maria Niles: Hi Representative Miller. My name is Maria Niles and I blog at both Blogher and my own blog called popconsumer. And my question is about purchase mandates.
And what if anything is coming from the House? I know I've heard that there are considerations in the Senate to require people to purchase health coverage.
I'm concerned that someone like myself who is self-employed will be required to purchase private health insurance and that it may not be affordable. And I'm just very concerned about being forced to contribute to the profits of a private company.
George Miller: Sure, sure. There is in the House bill an individual mandate. You will be required to have health insurance. At tax time you will be required to provide proof of insurance.
And in that mandate we would expect it again depending upon your situation if you, you know, if your employer provides it that's one set of circumstances.
If not you would go to the exchange and depending upon your income we would provide subsidies for people of between 133% of the poverty rate and 400% of the poverty rate.
And those subsidies - we continue to work them out but they would obviously be graduated. People at 130% would pay essentially little or, you know, would pay 2% perhaps of the premium and at 400% you would end up paying maybe 97% of the premium.
Four hundred percent is about $88,000 and that's where people would go to the - there in that exchange they could choose private insurance plan, you know, Kaiser or Blue Cross or they could choose a public plan, whichever fit them better as individuals or as family members.
But there is an individual mandate. One of the things we're trying to do is to get rid of the uncompensated costs for individuals who don't have insurance and then encounter a health problem, crises, whatever it is and then the system ends up - the hospital or the providers or others end up paying those costs because that person wasn't insured.
So there's an employer mandate on employers to provide insurance. Small employers are exempted along the scale but for individuals there's a mandate to have insurance.
Nancy Watzman: Okay, next question.
Operator: And the next question is from the line of 958M. Please proceed.
(Erin Koteki vest): Hi Chairman. This is (Erin Kotekivest). I am with Blogher and my own blog, Queen of Spain blog. I wanted to ask you - we've got a lot of community members who are very concerned as they hear about pre-existing conditions being applied to victims of domestic violence. Could you speak a bit about that please?
George Miller: Well we will not allow insurance policies to be rated based upon any pre-existing conditions. I - apparently in some states that that's an allowed pre-existing condition - it's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.
But in this legislation the insurance policies in the exchange and for employers and else later on but for the insurance policies in the exchange we do not allow any pre-existing conditions. We cannot deny coverage to individuals in the future because of any of those conditions.
Nancy Watzman: Okay.
George Miller: All right?
Nancy Watzman: And I'd like to ask you a very quick question as representative of the Sunlight Foundation which cares very much about transparency in government. I'm wondering what will you see transparency playing in this, you know, in the debate and what role you think it should play?
George Miller: Well, you know, I think it's a very important part of this debate. As you know when we finally passed the three bills prior to the August break they were up on the Internet.
My Committee site, my personal site got an exceptional number of hits from people who either read it or in fact downloaded it. It was quite amazing the number of - numbers of people who downloaded it.
And I assume the other committees and the speaker site and other sites in the Congress got those same kinds of requests. As we now near the end of this process, when this bill is finalized, I mean, as I said earlier we're going to go to the Congressional Budget Office, we'll get new costs and then we'll have to make changes according to that.
And then when we're ready to introduce the bill, when the bill's introduced that bill will be on the Internet for 72 hours. And if there is a manager's amendment which would be - usually it deals with making relatively small changes but it could be some other issue that pops up.
And if that manager's amendment - when it is approved by the Rules Committee that will also have to be on there for 72 hours. So in my, you know, ordinarily around here you introduce the bill.
That bill would be on the Internet for 72 hours. During that time you might be putting together a manager's amendment so - and that manager's amendment is approved by the Rules Committee.
Another 72 hours would run so you can see here spaces of time, you know, made - whether it's two 72-hour periods or something - somewhat longer than that. But the final drafts of the bill and the manager's amendment will both be available on the Internet for that period of time. Speaker Pelosi is committed to that and the rest of the issue is committed to that.
Nancy Watzman: Okay. Well thank you so much.
George Miller: Thank you for the opportunity.
Nancy Watzman: That wraps up today's call and - with Representative George Miller and Blogher. Thank you for participating and thank you Bloghers for joining us. Please keep an eye on Blogher.com for the audio and transcript of this call and for the announcement of the next call where we give you another opportunity to talk healthcare reform with legislators.
Operator introduction and conclusion has been deleted.
LaFontaine Automotive Group recently received a Gold Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification for its brand-new Buick-GMC-Cadillac dealership, becoming the only "Green" dealership in Michigan, one of only two Gold-certified sites in the country, and the premiere auto dealership facility in the United States.
The LaFontaine collection of dealerships are a family business, owned and operated for more than 25 years by Mike and Maureen, as well as their children Mike Jr., Ryan, Kelly, and Khristie.
When they began planning their new campus, the LaFontaine family's original decision to use a geothermal heating and cooling system soon led them to learn about other eco-friendly opportunities. Once they began researching, they decided to go all the way for a Gold LEED certification by employing such features as the use of recycled building materials, a car wash that recycles 85 percent of the water conventional car washes would waste, PPG waterborne basecoat paints with zero volatile organic compounds in the body shop, 85 skylights to create natural light and lower energy costs, and computer-controlled lights that automatically shut off when enough daylight fills the facility. LEED certification by the US Green Building Council provided independent third-party guidance and verification to ensure the building meets the highest sustainability standards.
Utilizing "green" construction methods represented $3 million of the total $18 million cost of building this amazing state-of-the-art facility. As part of their green construction plan, they utilized local materials and furnishings because using recycled content supplied by firms within a 500-mile radius of the facility promotes local economies and cuts down on transportation-related energy use. Exterior masonry is 100 percent recycled, and 60 percent recycled aluminum is used on the building's exterior decking and framing. Around the structure, pavement aggregate is 60 percent recycled crushed concrete, while inside the building, "agrifiber" doors are made of compressed corn cobs and wheat.
The facility's centerpiece - and most costly single expenditure at $750,000 - is a 64-well geothermal system that heats and cools the building by capturing energy stored in the earth 350 feet below the facility. The system transfers energy to and from the facility with closed loops of fluid-filled tubes.
"Originally, we had anticipated an eight-year payback, but now we project it will be more like five years," said General Manager Ryan LaFontaine of the new, 63,000-square-foot facility, located on 24 acres in Highland, Michigan. LaFontaine estimates annual energy savings alone to be as much as 54 percent compared to a conventional facility.
Other environmentally friendly elements include service bay lifts that use vegetable oil instead of caustic and difficult-to-dispose-of lubricants, a white roof and generous use of green belts to reduce the "heat island" effect of such a large facility, a rainwater collection system for irrigating the landscaping, and indigenous plants that require less water. They've stopped using lead wheel weights, and out back, they've even got their own windmill to generate the energy required to pump retention pond water for irrigation.
Beyond these eco-friendly construction methods, the dealership also strives to be incredibly customer friendly. "LaFontaine is the only place where you can get a $9.95 oil change while getting a manicure and pedicure, drink a cup of coffee, and shop - all at the same place," says co-owner Maureen LaFontaine. A promenade at the center of the facility offers a full-service beauty shop, gourmet bistro and coffee shop, specialty gift boutique, children's play area, and 450-gallon saltwater aquarium, as well as free WiFi, plasma screen televisions, an ATM machine, and a complete inventory of automotive aftermarket parts and accessories. Observation cameras feed video of the children's play area directly into the business rooms where purchasers negotiate their vehicle sale, to ensure families can buy a vehicle without worrying about their children's safety and comfort.
The dealership's eco-friendly attitude extends to its employees as well. Preferred parking is offered to employees who carpool or who drive low-emissions or alternative-fuel vehicles, and bicycle storage areas and changing rooms are provided to employees who use their own horsepower to get to work.
To the LaFontaine family, their decision to go green was extremely important. They put their heart and soul into developing a campus that would not only bring people and business to the community, but would showcase environmentally sound practices. "No one required us to do this," said Ryan LaFontaine. "We thought it was the right thing to do for our employees, for the environment, and for the community. We want to set a good example, and believe in giving back to the community."
As a result, many visitors come to the dealership for more than just a deal on a Buick, GMC or a Cadillac vehicle: Some come simply to marvel at the dealership and others stop by their informational science center looking for answers to their own energy-efficiency questions. Everyone is welcome to use the dealership's conference room for business meetings, or to participate in ongoing tours to educate schools, churches, and civic groups.
"The family is so proud of this, said Kelley LaFontaine, "This community is our heart and soul. We believe passionately in giving back."
The 'unsinkable'' British liner Titanic sails out of Southampton, England, at the start of its doomed voyage in 1912.
A recreation of the voyage will depart from Britain on April 8, 2012 and head for spot where ship sank on April 12, 1912--The Globe and Mail
Let's get this out of the way first and foremost: D'ya get to slam into an iceberg, too? Okay, okay, I'm done with that. Mostly. Well, not really, but I'll snicker quietly to myself while I tell you an unrelated story. I was in the line to see a movie, NOT Titanic. In front of me, a family buying tickets for Titanic. Mom to the ticket agent: How long does the movie run? Ticket agent: [Muffled speech.] Girl of ten or so, standing next to mom: THREE HOURS JUST TO SEE A SHIP SINK?!?!?? Okay, NOW I'm done.
The truth is, the Titanic, at her launch, was a miracle in a golden age of travel. The imagination reels at the fancy dress, the steamer trunks, the chandeliers. Those spooky photos of the giant rusted hull on the ocean floor, the objects recovered that seem like ghosts... I actually see the appeal. The glowing optimism of a time that made this giant seagoing cruiser, the tragedy of loss, and then, in more modern times, the miracle of science that brought her back to us.
But it's not, uh, smooth sailing for the tour company. From World Hum:
"Miles Morgan Travel, the company behind the Titanic Memorial Cruise, tells Reuters it has "come in for a little bit of criticism," but stresses the upcoming trip is meant to be "a commemoration not a ghoulish recreation of the original journey."
It's rather ironic, considering, that the health and safety page on the website makes no reference to lifeboats or evacuation procedures. In the event of any disaster the band will play, but if you are still on board when they conclude by playing Autumn (not Nearer My God To Thee, that's a myth) then you are in real trouble.
Also, the whole idea that they plan to take the same route at the exact same time of year (you know...the time of year when ice burgs are in the vicinity) seems a bit like tempting fate.
I'm sure they are at least better supplied with life boats.
These images on gCaptain show the actual cruise liner in some horrifyingly rough seas -- I'm green just eyeing the photos. And hey, if you find yourself with several thousand dollars to spare, you can book yourself on the trip here.
The occasion? It will be 100 years since the sinking of the unsinkable. The liner will go out to the place where the Titanic went down, then, theoretically, continue on to New York. Along with your regular cruise activities -- the spa, the buffet, the Lido deck (whatever THAT means), there will be a series of Titanic historical lectures and educational activities, and who knows, maybe a line at the bow to be King of the World! I don't know about you, but as per my usual reaction, I'm keeping both feet on the shore.
Pam blogs about travel and other adventures at Nerd's Eye View.
I'm packing for a road trip this weekend, if by "packing" you understand me to mean "intermittently standing in my closet wondering what precisely one wears for a day of wine and cheese tasting."
Flats, I guess. I mean, because of all the wine tasting.
(Yes, I know you spit it out after you taste. But still. Flats.)
I have made a big effort to carefully curate my closet, to buy only pieces that I will really wear and that will work together. And yet, any time I am packing to go anywhere, I discover two things about my carefully-edited wardrobe.
1. It doesn't say what I want it to say about me.
2. Nothing goes with those great black pants.
That second thing is easily solved (note to self: shop for something to go with the great black pants! And take the pants along when you're shopping, because that way you will be certain that the outfit works). The first, I fear, is the bigger dilemma.
I love my clothes; there's not a single thing hanging in my closet that I don't enjoy wearing. On a normal day, I can whisk in, pull together an outfit, and whisk out, ready to get on with the business of doing whatever is on my calendar. But traveling, especially to events with specific functions (wine tasting!), always throws me.
But it's not about my clothes; it's about something else. It's about wanting to look like a better, smarter, more interesting version of me. Like someone who goes to wine tastings all the time.
(In my everyday life, I'm more someone who asks that nice guy at the liquor store if he can recommend a white that retails for under $15, please. Fortunately, he's good at that.)
A trip like this one always ends with me putting together crazy outfits, things I would never wear together in my normal life, either because the proportions are all wrong once I put them on or because they're just too dramatically different from what I usually wear. And at some point in this crazy mix-and-match routine, I start to wonder why this is so hard, why I can get dressed every morning so easily but now I cannot find three days worth of clothes to put in my suitcase.
Argh.
The bottom line for me is this: I'm not good with new looks; I like my routine, and my comfortable closet of Outfits that Work. But a trip always seems like an opportunity to be someone different, and the easiest way to do that is to wear something different! And that leaves me either packing a bunch of brand-new pieces (never a good idea, really) or furiously mixing and matching old standbys in the hope of creating a Better Me.
One that fits in a small rolling suitcase, of course.
In the end, I'll be taking my favorite pieces this weekend and wearing them the same way I always do. But what about you -- is a trip an opportunity to try out a New You, or do you just pack your regular uniform and go as your everyday self?
Canadian Thanksgiving weekend is just days away and I have to confess something. I don't have any Thanksgiving traditions. I haven't had the same Thanksgiving experience more than two years in a row since um...high school? Possibly even before that.
I've spend Thanksgiving in the dorm. I've cooked (with the help of a former roommate) Thanksgiving dinner for ten fellow students. I've spent it travelling. I've had Thanksgiving dinner on trains and even at a Swiss Chalet. I've cooked with friends (and always provide the stuffing). I've spent at few at a cottage in Vermont. This year I really thought I was going to cook the big meal. But I'm not.
My mother is coming to visit next week. She arrives Sunday evening. It will be the first Thanksgiving we've spent together in at least ten years (probably closer to twelve). At first I considered cooking the big meal but then I realized that we'd spend her entire visit eating leftover turkey. That's not very fun. I like to treat my mother to meals that she can't quite get in my small hometown - Indian curry, Thai stirfries, shish taouk.
After rejecting the idea of the traditional turkey I thought about making lasagna. My mother always makes me make a lasagna whenever she's in town or when I visit her. It takes me almost as long to make as cooking a turkey. Then we realized that she'd have to meet my in-laws. Thanksgiving dinner seemed appropriate. I met Lee's entire family on Easter weekend. (We seem to have a thing for holiday dinners.) We figured we might as well do it at the same place that I met his parents, a place that has become the default family dinner location. Yep, we're going to the buffet at the racetrack and casino.
I know. It seems funny. It's actually pretty good. It provides a nice neutral group for meeting family members. It's busy but not too loud. On race nights you have a few minutes of excitement every 30 minutes or so. And when it's all over we each take a $20 bill and take our chances with the slots. It's fun. But not so traditional for Thanksgiving, which to be honest suits my not-quite-traditional family just fine.
Maybe someday I'll cook a traditional Thanksgiving dinner again. It would be pretty similar to an American one - turkey, stuffing, gravy, cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, veggies. You wouldn't see green bean casserole or sweet potatoes with marshmallows. There would be, of course, pumpkin pie. Or maybe I won't. Maybe my Thanksgiving tradition is to not have one.
Getting married at 50+ is possible no matter what "they" say. They being statistics that are quoted in various articles and numerous conversations I've had, nearly all with women, about how hard it is to find a mate. (Although, come to think about it, I've had that conversation with women in their twenties, thirties and forties - same sh**, different decades.)
I got married for the second (and best) time at 50. Among friends and colleagues, a number of us have gotten married in our early fifties – many for the second time and a few for the first.
We arrived at these marriages by different routes: * Some of us found mates who had been right in our backyards even if slightly off our radars. * Two of us met and connected/courted through on-line dating sites. Another married her best friend. * One friend thought she'd never get married and was surprised when, in fact, she did at age 52.
Many of these relationships happened in that window of opportunity that opens when first marriages dissolve whether by disinterest, disarray or death of a spouse. I believe that many people, especially male people, who have had happy long-term first marriages are inclined toward marriage and, if you happen into their emotional space, a marriage may likely result.
One thing for sure, marriage at 50+ is a different thing than it is in your twenties and thirties Or at least it has been that way for me.
A 48 when I started dating my husband, I was fully and firmly formed (as was he). Both of our children were launched into independent adulthood. I was figuring out what my next decade would look like. I never saw him coming because I was literally planning to move from Boston and had stopped thinking of Boston as having any possibilities for me. Yet, when I least expected it, there he was.
I anticipated that we'd have difficulty living together, especially since I hadn't lived with a mate in twenty years. I found it surprisingly and delightfully easy to cohabitate because:
* We bought a house together and so moved into a space that was a celebration of and reflection of us and no one else. * We have enough room to have separate studies (on two different floors). * We have no children-at-home and the drama that they can bring. * We're pretty compatible. * We're just plain old cool people.
I have had to learn that marriage is not a roommate situation. Treating it more like a union with joint goals and responsibilities has been where my learning curve has been. I'm independent to a fault.
I am often asked by female friends a question that goes something like, how do you meet a man at my age?
Here's my advice gleaned from my own experience and the experiences of the aforementioned friends:
* Make a list and check it twice of what you want in a partner. * Tuck the list away (after meditating and/or praying on it). * Advertise your interest and availability for love by living fully and telling people whose taste you trust that you are "single and ready to mingle." * Go out and about and date to date not to mate (until someone comes along that is worthy and ready). * Go places where there are men (it is quite easy to live a females-only existence which is often fulfilling but won't get you a man). * Have a mixer where everyone you invite is charged with bringing an eligible single good-guy. * Learn to flirt and follow-up on possibilities. * Join affinity groups – like biking, hiking, investment and other groups – great ways to meet people. * Believe in your desirability and the possibility of meeting a mate. * Expand your thinking of what a mate for you will look like - he might be shorter, taller, whiter, browner, thinner, fatter - and so on, than you imagined in your younger years.
He is out there. Believe.
Related Links:
Women after 50 don't want to be a 'nurse or a purse' writes Jane Glen Hass. Her Haas Theory of Marriage concludes "that most women who are widowed or divorced after age 50 would like a companion but not another wedding ring…"
In the book, Late Love: A Celebration of Marriage after Fifty, Eileen Simpson interviews fifty women and men in mid-life and older about the nature of their late marriages. Simpson writes positively about these marriages saying that "such marriages can be among the best relationships we ever have. " She also finds that there's no formula for success in marriage after 50. Some people "return to long-lost lovers from their youth, while some yearn to find a different kind of partner from their first or early flames."
"When I was young, I took the whole dating thing so seriously. As I think back on it, the end goal was to get married and have a family -- at least that's what I learned back in the day. Now I don't really worry about getting married again. So I'm less wedded -- not to make a pun -- to the end result and more to the journey in a relationship. "
Sharon Jayson, a correspondent for USA Today, wrote "Singles Find Love, Marriage After age 45." In it she quotes Carl Weisman author of So Why Have You Never Been Married? He conducted an online survey for the book and found that 48% of the 1,533 bachelors ages 40 and older who responded said they were afraid of marrying the wrong person.
"They'd rather go to the grave unmarried than marry someone wrong," says Weisman, 49. "The No. 1 fear is marrying the wrong person — more than not marrying at all — by 10 to 1."
We all have to learn to take a chance on love. In order to succeed at love (which for some of us means marriage or another form of committed relationship) you must risk failure. There's just no way around it.
The way our nation treats teenage prostitutes is a moral failure. Over two years ago, Elizabeth Anne Wood at wrote about two bills moving through New York State's legislature at Sex in the Public Square:
If it were to pass it would mean, as the New York Times pointed out in an editorial this morning, that we would treat American born teen prostitutes much the way we treat internationally trafficked teens caught working as prostitutes: that is, we would treat them as people in need of protection and services rather than as criminals. Here's the lead paragraph from this morning's New York Times editorial:
Sexually exploited children can be helped by the law or victimized by it, depending on where they are from. An Eastern European child smuggled into this country as a sex slave is offered protection under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. An American child who flees abusive parents and ends up selling her body on the streets is labeled a criminal and sent to the juvenile equivalent of prison.
That statement is important because it points out one reality of young prostitutes: they are sometimes engaged in prostitution because, as runaways, there are few options open to them that will allow them to remain free of the homes they are trying to escape. The National Runaway Switchboard sites a 1998 study published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect, indicating that 34% of runaway youth (girls and boys) reported sexual abuse before leaving home and forty-three percent of runaway youth (girls and boys) reported physical abuse before leaving home.
One of my favorite New York Times opinion columnists, Bob Herbert, has written many articles about the sex slave trade and how teen prostitutes feed it. After his column criticizing Las Vegas appeared, The Arizona Republic reported that the city's mayor said that "he'd like to take a baseball bat to Herbert." But the paper stood up for Herbert's thoughtful reporting, noting:
Las Vegas Family Court Judge William Voy told the Las Vegas Sun that 70 percent of the juvenile prostitution cases he deals with involve children who came from out of state. What's more, most of them worked as prostitutes in their home states.
Teen girls do not "choose" a whore's lifestyle because it is so glamorous. They are coerced, raped, beaten and controlled by pimps who take advantage of their youth and play off a popular culture that glorifies sex as something women are supposed to deliver on cue.
The interstate nature of teenage prostitution has Georgia's new program director concerned. Women's eNews reported that:
[Kaffie] McCullough, director of "A Future. Not A Past," hopes Georgia's program spreads beyond the state's borders. "Pimps and traffickers don't recognize boundaries of states, so if Georgia gets tough they may take the girls to South Carolina, Florida, Alabama or Tennessee," she said.
McCullough is right to be worried. Melissa Snow at the End Human Trafficking blog explained how pimps lure young girls into prostitution:
Here in America, the average age a child is targeted and recruited into sex trafficking is 13 years old. Pimps prey on the innocence of youth because it provides them with a target that can be romanced, tricked and then brutally forced into the sex trafficking market. Pimps use a variety of techniques to target and recruit a child into prostitution, from immediate force and violence as demonstrated in the case of two underage girls from Toledo, to the more common "loverboy" or boyfriend approach.
With either approach, pimps prey on and target girls who project a low self-esteem, or who have run away from home due to familial physical or sexual abuse. This provides the pimps with the opportunity to fill the gap of the lover or caretaker role as both "daddy and boyfriend". The pimp will invest as much time as necessary into securing the trust and loyalty of his victim. He will fulfill all his promises, buy her nice things and say all the caring words that she has been longing for - biding time to turn the seemingly caring relationship into one of sexual exploitation and torture.
Given the extremely troubled background of many prostitutes, especially teenage ones, it just seems extra vile to treat prostitutes as criminals.
Personally, I think prostitution should be legalized, and we would avoid a lot of these problems as a result. (Tracy Clark-Flory at Salon has the same view: there serious are problems with prostitution, but railing against it doesn't help the women who wind up working in it.) As the law stands now, women and girls who work as prostitutes bear the full burden of the law, which as discussed above makes no moral sense, and anyone trained in cost-benefit analysis (cough*me*cough) can attest to what an enormous waste of money it is to throw women in jail. However, the laws against sex trafficking and pimps should be ramped up so that the real "bad guys" face serious penalties for coercing and abusing women. The penalties for recruiting teenagers to work in the sex trade should be even higher. Given the serial predatory nature of pimp work, I'm talking like maybe life in jail or something like that. Let's give some real meaning to the stupid (but infuriatingly catchy), Oscar-winning song "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp."
Not only do my partner and I argue in front of our kids, we believe that arguing in front of the kids is an essential responsibility of parenting.
Now, here are my caveats:
I am not talking about intense arguments about grown up issues like money and sex and whether we ever should have had children in the first place. I am not talking about knock-down, drag-out fighting; no screaming, no door-slamming, no throwing things or stomping off.
I am talking about the routine disagreements that arise almost daily and call for little attention between adults themselves but present an excellent opportunity to give children a lesson in "emotional intelligence."
My partner and I actually don't argue very much. It just isn't our style to turn a disagreement into a discussion--heated or otherwise. And we rarely disagree in the first place. Both of us prefer the "just drop it and move on" approach to relationship maintenance when "it" isn't something either of us considers to be a vital issue.
But our older daughter has an almost uncanny ability to pick up on the emotions of those around her. When her parents are irritated with each other, she notices. To us, these irritations may be small and insignificant and require nothing but a small attitude adjustment on either or both our parts. But even if we have judged them minor and not worth a conversation, our daughter, when she notices, will say "are you angry?" to one or both of us.
Her empathy can be disconcerting. More than once I've wondered if my daughter didn't know something about me that I didn't. But rather than handing my psyche to my kid for diagnosis, I decided that I could simply own my feelings--however small they might seem to me, and explain what such feelings mean in the adult world.
So now when we hit these little daily speed bumps in family life, my partner and I will stop and rehearse an "argument." It might look something like this:
"I didn't like the way you left your shoes in the floor. I tripped over them and it scared me. I wish you would put your shoes away." "You're right, I should have put those shoes away. I'm sorry you tripped. I'll try to put my shoes away from now on." "That's okay, I love you." "I love you too."
Kiss!
Silly as it feels to write it out, I am convinced that this sort of thing is absolutely critical to helping children learn the right place of anger and arguing and apologizing in human life and relationships. Too many of us--women especially--grew up feeling that anger was a "bad" emotion or that it would damage a relationship beyond repair. Too many of us were never told how to really kiss and make up. Sensitive as my daughter is to the smallest emotional blips in the people she is closest to, I think she needs more than the average kid, to learn that people who love each other can get mad and disagree with each other and not just survive, but grow stronger through the work of reconciliation.
There's no denying we're truly into October, now (no matter what the 80-degree temps here in Georgia may feel like), and that means that those of us with kids in school are starting to receive Halloween Paperwork. For us, it's requests for help with room parties, as well as "helpful" memos about what will and will not be tolerated at school in terms of Halloween celebration.
The schools my children attend now don't allow costumes, for example, although they've always had Halloween parties; it's not a refusal to acknowledge the day, just an unwillingness to deal with wardrobe changes, which I think is fair. When we lived in New England, costumes were allowed, albeit with a list of rules as long as my arm about what constituted appropriate dress (nothing too scary, nothing obscuring the face, nothing that required a teacher's assistance, nothing that hampered mobility, etc.).
I've also, over the years, gotten instructions for school Halloween that included such earnest requests as "nothing sugary," which, well, what kid doesn't look forward to the big day and and a chance to stand around with carrot sticks?
Still, I realize we've been lucky. We've never found ourselves at a school where celebration of Halloween was banned, nor do I care if one day a year I'm invited to smell my children's stinky feet. To me, Halloween is a day for sugar and fun, and nothing more (or less).
Objections come, it seems, from religions who fear the holiday is either harmful or religious or both. You could spend a good chunk of time doing research on the origins of Halloween, but the bottom line is that it had religious motivation back in the day (and actually, that includes paganism and Wicca) and was adapted and celebrated in all sorts of ways, yes. Today, however, I think many of us agree it has become a harmless secular holiday. To some, though, it remains an affront to their religion, and therefore something they'd rather schools not foist upon all.
The issue is still a hot one, if the recent Edutopia poll by Sara Bernard is any indication. One commenter says:
Please give me a break! Why can't some 6-10 year olds have something fun to look forward to at school. We already take all of the fun out of school for many students with Open Court Reading, Prescription Math, Accelerated Reading, etc. Let kids be kids! If no one has to stand and place their hand over their heart and recite the Pledge of Allegiance then they certainly do not have to participate in a holiday celebration. If parents choose to keep them home, ok. They will only get really crabby becuasue it will cost them day care $$, which most of the families see is the main value for school in the early years.
As a former principal of a large elementary school, Halloween was a fun day enjoyed by all (teachers, students and parents). My concern today is based on some parents telling me it that Halloween is the only "religious" holiday they celebrate. They were Wiccans. In some circles it is considered a religious holiday like Christmas and Christians are not allowed to celebrate that in the schools. Public school personnel need to be aware and sensitive to the diversity in our ever changing culture.
And therein lies the rub, I suspect -- did Halloween start seeming like a bad idea (vs. harmless fun) to religious folks when they realized some other people really felt it was a devotional holiday...?
Jen at Moms Like Me wants to know what's going on:
If I were living or traveling in another country I would want to (and my children) to want to experience the festivals and religious holidays of the countries in which I was traveling/living. I would not want them to change it or dilute it in order not to offend me. I am well grounded in my religious beliefs and am confident in the intelligence of my children that they will make good decisions about their future. We are a melting pot of people who respect each other. So, what are we doing by banning a decades old tradition of putting a Bible verse on a sports banner. What are we doing to our children by changing the school parties too "Fall party" instead of Halloween..."Holiday party" instead of Christmas, "Spring Party" instead of Easter? What foundations...traditions are we giving them.......
The ensuing conversation touches on tolerance and diversity, but also points out that teachers are often in a difficult position here because of both parents' concerns and a climate of "teaching to the test" and needing every moment of instructional time for that.
A teacher on the A to Z Teacher Stuff forums asks if Halloween is banned at anyone's school, and the responses range from "we all dress up, even the principal!" to "we're not allowed to do anything and I hate it." Just a very broad spectrum of experiences and reactions.
WomensForum.com traces the history of Halloween and the increase in schools refusing its celebration, too.
I'll tell you a secret; I like Halloween. I'm all for a chance for kids to be silly and eat junk once in a while. And I don't think that makes me a pagan or a bad mom.
So tell me... does your child's school have a Halloween party? Is it okay with you (whether they do or don't)? Am I trivializing the supposed danger, or are schools being silly?
BlogHer Contributing Editor Mir also blogs about issues parental and otherwise at Woulda Coulda Shoulda, and about the joys of mindful retail therapy at Want Not.
Okay, this is one of those posts that even moi - race baiter that I am - is on the fence.
Like everyone and their dog, I have actually....willingly turned the channel to Entertainment Tonight to watch the real-life soap opera of the Jon & Kate + 8 saga. Unlike probably many women, whom undoubtedly feel sympathy for a middle-class single mother with 8 kids, I actually side with Jon.
Yes, he has acted like a jerk, but I have to think: If I were him and decided to leave, wouldn't I immediately want to get my party-on? Eight kids? A cold, unreasonable, controlling wife? Dude, I'd want to get a piece on the side, too ( maybe that's why I don't have kids and no husband!)
Over the past few years, I have caught a few minutes of the show, and had always thought that Jon was a brow-beaten man who secretly hated his domineering wife. Perhaps it was the stress of having so many children, but regardless, I wasn't suprised when I saw on TV that they had separated.
Anyway, a few weeks ago I came across this interesting post from Nadra Kareem at Sociological Images on how Jon's Asian heritage (and the kids) plays out. I'd always wondered how it did, but according to Kareem, the one episode where they tried to address it didn't turn out so well:
In the episode, we also learn that the children don't understand who in their household is Korean.
"They have arguments in the car about who is Asian and who is not, and it boils down to me and Alexis are the only non-Asians in the whole house," Kate remarks. But, on the flipside, one of the children tells Kate, "I'm Asian just like you."In response, Kate laughs and says, "You are?"
Some of the children even wonder if their stuffed animals are Asian.
And Kate (God help her) isn't the best person to teach her children about their half-Asian heritage. in the episode the Gosselin family tries to cook an authentic Korean dinner:
Kate not only tries to prepare the food how she thinks is fit, she attempts to correct Jon's pronunciation of Korean food, telling him that he shouldn't shorten bulgogi to "gogi." When he tells her that this is the equivalent of shortening hamburger to burger, she stands corrected, responding with a simple, "Oh."
In these exchanges between the couple, it's difficult to know what force is at play. Is Kate assuming the role of culturally superior Westerner or simply being a controlling wife? At one point, she even tries to kick Jon out of the kitchen, arguing that she needs the space.
You Offend Me You Offend My Family (funny blog, BTW) points out an interesting fact. Jon is probably the most visible Asian-American man on television - not in the way that many of us would like to see, but unfortunately - or maybe not - , this situation has also broken some negative stereotypes about Asian people - specifically Asian men:
I'm not going to criticize a brotha who's experiencing his first taste of freedom. If he wants to be a douchebag and party like a frat boy, hell, he probably earned it. Let him enjoy it. And if he wants to go around and fuck every young white chick he can get his hands on? More power to him. Aren't we always bitching that Asian American men are only portrayed as asexual eunuchs in the mass media? Well, now we have an Asian brotha who's out there fucking up a storm so shouldn't we consider him a pioneering stereotype-buster?
There is an interesting post over at the Christianity-oriented The Thinking Housewife where they debate interracial marriages and the Gosselin family. After a commenter argued that the marriage broke up over their cultural differences, many refute this, saying that Jon was "all American:"
In this case, Jon is not a pure "Other" to Kate – he is, as Laura notes, half-Korean, half-white. But culturally-speaking he's as American as any blonde-haired surfer dude. Just listen to the way he talks, how he carries himself. I see the inversion of gender roles in their marriage as far more relevant to their breakup than any racial differences. I don't share Karen's view of the "higher moral and spiritual purpose of marriage [as] preserving racial, cultural and religious tradition." While certainly important in themselves, race and culture do not line up with morality and spirituality. And as for religion tradition, Jon & Kate professed to be "Christians," albeit of the popular American variety. They had enough to work with to save their marriage.
But apparently not the same for Black / White interracial marriages (WTF?):
I'm always skeptical about black/white marriage because I understand from observation that the gaps are likely to be so huge as to be nearly insurmountable. Even where there is not a significant IQ gap between the two, there may well be a psycho-social chasm in the way each perceives the world, where the white is universalist in outlook while the black is almost invariably into black identity. Add to this the fact that both sets of relatives will always look suspiciously on the other person, and you're building the whole thing on a mountain of potential tension.
I'm laughing here because otherwise I'd cry over their not-so-thinly-veiled ( by Christianity) racism.
Anyway, what do you think? I don't believe that race was a factor in why the marriage (and later, this media whoredom) broke up. I do believe that If their marriage wouldn't have ended this year, it might have down the road because of race. Just because the children are half-white and "American" does not mean that they are going to avoid idenity issues when they get older.President Obama, anyone?
From early accounts, it seems as though Kate is not going to handle those conversations well. It is an elephant in the room, one that might break down the walls in the future, especially with the Gosselin's attitudes. We will have to wait and see - but hopefully, it will not play itself out on TV.
It seems like it's just been a few weeks since I last wrote about National Coming Out Day, and yet it's been a year. Crazy, I know. But, here we are. It's almost October 11th, National Coming Out Day (NCOD), again. Where does time go? And I hear time only passes faster with age, which is why a day like NCOD is the perfect reason to slow down for minute and reflect. Share your story. Show your support. Be visible. Visibility is key to acceptance. People who know GLBT people, tend support GLBT rights. That's why it's so important to be out, if you can.
Anyone who is out, and has been living out, knows that coming out is not a one time event. Coming out is an on going, life long experience. But once you get more comfortable with telling people that you're gay, you don't really actively think about it too much. We all have to go through telling that first person(s) that we're gay. Or bi. Or trans. Most of us are terrified to reveal our secret, but reach a point that we have to tell someone. Then we have to tell someone else. Then someone else. With each next person, it becomes a little easier. Eventually, being out, just isn't as hard as we once might have thought it would be. But the ease of being out doesn't happen over night. It takes time, and the support of others. Gay and straight, both.
Those of us who have been out for more of our lives than not, may not see much value in National Coming Out Day. But I think it is important to share our stories with one another. I guarantee your story will inspire and encourage at least one person. Maybe your words will give someone the courage to come out. Maybe your words will change hearts and minds, and create allies. Even if it's just one person. That one person may one day influence one other person, who may influence one other person, and so on.
mindschmootz wrote a fantastic post for National Coming Out Day, reflecting on her journey to self-acceptence and coming out
In a rare moment of nondiscriminatory, personal exposure, I responded to an email question last night that made me start thinking about my pilgrimage toward bravery. How did I get brave? To borrow a phrase from Velma Kelly, I couldn't have done it alone. Though I made the first step myself, I enjoyed the sustenance and the encouragement from an unwavering friend supporting my progression. I allowed myself to fall in love, true love, and she not only championed me, she challenged me. She continues to challenge me every day.
While many may see National Coming Out Day as a day for teh gays, I think it's equally important for our straight allies to tell their stories. How has knowing a GLBT person(s) changed the way they view things. It's important for our straight allies to speak about why GLBT rights matter to them and why they should matter to everyone. It may also be a good time spark conversation between staight allies and the GLBT community.
Geekgirl, a straight ally, has written a series of post at jaysays called LGBT Lessons for Straigt People. In her Coming Out Day post, she writes,
I know that for me and many straight friends, support goes unsaid. So why does it go unsaid and how can we say it? Perhaps more importantly, I would love to hear from LGBT folks what clues you look for to know that it is safe to come out to someone?
There are many ways to share your story. I would of course, recommend writing a blog post. But, you could just post a badge on your site; for example, one that looks like a name tag and says, "Hello, I'm bisexual." You could submit a video of you telling your story, to Our Scene TV, for the Guess Who's Coming Out of the Closet project. You could twitter about NCOD. You could donate your Facebook status to the HRC's Conversations From the Heart app. You might be able to find an event by your area Pride group. I know our local Pride group is having an event which includes a session for sharing coming out stories. Or you could just, call a friend.
What do you think about National Coming Out Day? Are going to do use the day as a catalyst? Other intering post on Coming Out Day:
In 8 days, it will be exactly once year since my final day at work as a lawyer. It is the day I officially decided to live a more creative life, and make my living from writing and photography.
I like to call it "Emancipation Day."
During the past year, since making my career change, some pretty amazing things have happened: I was on Oprah. I've gotten a book deal, and an agent for a second book. And while I'm not making nearly as much as I was making as a lawyer, I remind myself: I practiced law for 15 years. I've been living a creative life for 1. Perhaps I should cut myself some slack.
Most importantly, however, I'm living a happier, much more authentic life than I ever have. And so, in the event that you might be considering living a more creative, art-filled life, I thought I'd share with you some resources that I've come across along the way:
First, from the fabulous Gwen Bell, a thorough blog post on writing a personal manifesto -- a wonderful way to get clarity about what your goals for your new creative life will be. When you're ready to devote some time to her exercises, then do -- you may be startled at what you learn about yourself.
Secondly, from the creative minds behind the wonderful blog The Boss of You, is their book with the same name -- and I found it incredibly helpful in helping me set up my own business, as well as some practical advice about what to expect when you're building a business. The book was recommended to me by a creative entrepreneur, and I'm so glad I purchased it.
And finally, Meg Mateo Ilasco, the creator of the blog Designer's Library, is also the author of the book, Craft, Inc., which is all about turning your creative hobby into a business. I haven't read this yet, but I've heard great things.
So for those of you who are thinking about becoming a professional creative, the very best of luck to you! And for those of you who have already made the leap, what tips and advice do you have? I'd love to hear all about them.
Karen is a writer and a photographer in Houston, Texas. You can read and see more of her work at Chookooloonks.
3 comments:
jangan curang
jangan curang
jangan curang
Post a Comment