Sports For Chicks: Phil Mickelson deserves headline for winning Masters 2010

Augusta, Georgia.  The Masters 2010.  It was suspenseful, it was exciting, and Phil Mickelson played the game of his career.  Every story covering the Masters should start with Phil's win.  His 139 yard sinker, his eagle-eagle-birdie, his courageous "are you kidding me!" shot out from behind two pine trees in the rough.  For the human interest angle, the embrace of his cancer stricken wife, Amy,  that never seemed to end.  She, their children and Phil's mother had traveled to Augusta to be there.  Amy had been resting the entire trip, but made it to the 18th hole on Sunday to be there when he took the title. 

These are the stories that should be headlining Masters media coverage.  NPR was the only media outlet I heard this morning who stuck to Phil Mickelson's win, and left Tiger Woods as an afterthought. Kudos NPR.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing this morning on the networks.  For example, the TODAY show (of which I am a fan) started their coverage like this:  "Tiger Woods finished fourth at the Masters Sunday."  They went on to talk about the anticipation of Tiger beginning the week, how he took the loss and when we'd see him play again.  THEN, they mentioned that Phil Mickelson won. To top it off, they didn't mention any of the other players giving Phil a run for his money: Westwood, Choi, Kim or Couples.

PLEASE!  I like Tiger Woods too.  I think he's an excellent player and I'm glad he's returned to the game.  But I like Phil Mickelson just as much and he's the one who played stellar golf this past week, he's the one wearing the green jacket, he's the one who deserves the adoration, first mention on Masters coverage, and the headline.  Congratulations Phil Mickelson.

A Review of Sorts: The Way We Were 1974

I know, I know,  what the heck am I doing reviewing a movie that had it's 25th Anniversary Edition formatted in 1999?  On VHS!!  Well, truth be told, I was strolling around the Saline District Library and saw the title.  I had always heard about "The Way We Were", and of course I knew the theme song sung by Barbra Streisand.  I knew she and Robert Redford were the stars and I figured it was just a really good romance, chick flick.

Well, was I ever pleasantly surprised!  Yes it is a romance, but with a lot of substance!  For those of you readers who know me, you probably know at least two of my passions: writing (no-brainer there) and politics.  This movie has them both in spades.  As a matter of fact, he, Hubbell Gardiner (Redford) is a writer, and she, Katie Morosky (Streisand) is an activist/writer for radio. And kudos to selecting the name "Hubbell". What a cool name for a beefy and sensitive guy, and it rolls well off of Streisand's tongue whether she is crying it, laughing it or yelling it.

Hubbell and Katie are truly opposites, and have this incredible roller coaster relationship in the 1940's, amongst all that goes with that time, as quoted on the movie jacket, "foreign war, domestic prosperity and McCarthy-era paranoia in Hollywood."  For those who aren't into politics, no worries, it is not in-depth enough to be boring or a distraction.  The relationship itself is a classic one, that mirrors the relationships we all have had, and I'm sure some people still have in current day.

I love this movie, and Redford never looked better! (Seriously!)  Streisand is beautiful and the storyline just as attractive. I recommend it highly.  Not only is it a good movie, but it is a kind of motion picture history that I hope doesn't get lost among the archives. It is worth renting, I'll probably find a way to own it.  The best way to view it though is for free, from your District Library.  Enjoy!

Sports For Chicks: Hello Augusta...it's The Masters 2010

I love the Masters.  I love the prestige, the gorgeous course, the hunky biceps and the green jackets.  We get a real feel of southern Augusta, Georgia hospitality and an inside look into the Augusta National Golf Club.

I don't understand how some people think watching pro golf is a bore.  Like any sport, once you are behind a player or two, it is impossible not to let the lust for great competition take over.  Especially on Sunday, the fouth day of the tournament, when the sun is setting and your favorite player is at sudden death with the second place player.  It is suspenseful, hold-your-breath-please-sink-it-in-the-hole-please-please-please competition that ranks with any other knock- down -drag -out action in the world of sports.

You might have heard of a little distraction this week.  It appears Tiger Woods is back in play (Really?  Hadn't heard...).  As a matter of fact, tonight (Wednesday) he is being honored by the Golf Writers Association as the 2009 Male Player of the Year.  Yep.  He's being honored for playing golf, as he should be.

You heard me correctly, he should be.  Tiger Woods, despite his off the course behavior which is none of our dang business, is the best, winning-ist golfer in the world.  I for one am glad he is back. He is exciting to watch.  He is fun to watch.  He is SO good at playing golf!   It appears other fans and players feel the same.  And certainly, the PGA is thrilled to have him back because they finally will have their audience back and sponsors are lining up in droves. The Masters Tournament Management expressed their disappointment in him, well, someone had to, for the viewers who want Tiger Woods to pay in some way, professionally, for something he did personally.

Even if you don't want to watch Tiger Woods, there are so many delicious players to keep your eye on...any one of them could break forward and claim the green prize.  Slocum, Kelly, Weir, Els, Kim, Cabrera, Cink, Harrington, Goosen, Furyk, Mickelson....and the list goes on.

I like Phil Mickelson too because he is so "pro-woman and their rights", he appreciates his wife, his mother, his daughters.  Mickelson's wife and mother were both diagnosed with cancer in the last couple of years.  This past weekend, for the first time ever, Mickelson let someone else sub-out his Caddie for the last few holes of the tournament.  Who was the lucky fan?  None other than his wife's cancer doctor.  Pretty cool.  Phil's a classy guy.

The only golfer I don't care for is Vijay Singh, because of some less than polite views he has toward women golfers.  Just rubbed me the wrong way and I haven't liked him since.

Anyway...tomorrow is the big day.  Day one of Masters 2010.  Dig into the luscious greenery, the beautiful bridges and gardens, the hunky biceps and the cool plaid pants...it's the Masters baby.  Hellooo Augusta.

A Surprising Review: The Price of Beauty with Jessica Simpson

I will be the first to admit that I put Jessica Simpson right into the "no substance" category when she was at her peak, filming Dukes of Hazard, wearing the daisy dukes (and no, I didn't see the movie, but didn't really have to with all the hype).  Then her relationship/personal life was all over reality TV (more lack of substance), and then all the drama with her on again/off again relationship with Dallas Cowboy quarterback Tony Romo was on every newsstand.  With all of this fluff media, my opinion of her worsened.  Any mention of Jessica Simpson and I was like, "blech! enough already".  If only the press would give so much attention to smart, successful, beautiful women who make their way on more than looks alone.  Give me brain power, culture and substance--PLEASE!

Next was her shoe line.  Jessica Simpson Shoes.  Not bad, but did she really design them?  Could I trust that she actually operated the business and didn't just promote it with a pretty face?  Where were the shoes made?  Could I be sure they weren't being glued together by 8 years olds in some country without child labor laws? Would she even know?

I didn't really give any more thought to Jessica until I started to hear her fighting back against all the bad press she was getting for her weight.  Yep, according to the tabloids, the daisy dukes would fit no more.  What stood out, however, was that Jessica Simpson started pleading her case for healthy women who weren't exactly a size 0.  I think I heard she was a size 12 at that time, a very standard size for the everyday American woman, yet the media was killing her, calling her fat, tubby, and wallowing in ice cream sundaes.  For the first time, my opinion of her began to change a bit.  Not because she was heavier (I would like her at a size 0 too if I got some brainpower with it!), but because she seemed to finally be being herself, and standing up for what she thought was right and healthy for her body, and to hell with everyone else.

So now, imagine my surprise when I hear Simpson is doing a new show for VH1 called "The Price of Beauty".  Simpson and her pals travel the world to see what women do in other cultures to maintain their beauty, and how each culture differs.  Before I could give it any more props other than "cultural fluff", I thought I'd better do my homework.  While it is true, some of the story lines mirror the same headlines we have here in the U.S. For example, in Mumbai, the show did a piece on how people are only perceived beautiful there if they are copying what they see on the silver screen of Baliwood.  Not too substantial.

But then...

The Simpson group traveled to Thailand where fair skin is meant to be more beautiful.  The fairer the better, because tan skin signifies one working outdoors, meaning less status.  For that reason, the cosmetic industry in Thailand puts bleaching cream in just about every kind of foundation there is, much like our obsession with the opposite, our bronzers, or "sun-kissed" cosmetics sold here.

Jessica and her group met a woman whose life was ruined by too much bleaching cream.  She had been a singer, had wanted fairer skin, but after using a bleaching product and going in the sun, her complexion was completely ruined.  She stopped singing.  Her husband left her. Tragic.  A true price of beauty.  Jessica was noticeably affected by this woman's story, and she talks about it here.

http://www.vh1.com/video/shows/jessica-simpsons-the-price-of-beauty/490967/skin-treatment.jhtml#id=1633535

 I think it is brave to travel the world and be submerged into other cultures and customs, and to make the point that being obsessed over beauty has it's costs.

I'm all for being the best you can be, looking and feeling your best too.  As long as what is on the outside compliments what is on the inside...substance.  The Price of Beauty is no Frontline, heck, it's not even a Dateline, but it does show a different side to Jessica Simpson, where she is being educated right along with the viewers.  Let the substance begin.

What Got To Me Today? Something good: I'm a Weeble!

Today I found out I am a Weeble.  Now, to someone from a younger generation that might not sound so great.  And for someone from my generation who knows what a Weeble is, they might be thinking, "Are you sure you want to be a Weeble?  Bottom-heavy and all?

Yes! Yes! Yes!  Today I met a terrific, energetic, smart businesswoman named Julie.  We had never officially met, but turns out we mirror each other on many levels, but especially on our determination to be optimistic, and to "keep on keepin' on" no matter what.

Anyone who knows me knows I am outrageously optimistic, always looking on the bright side.  Unlike someone from the other end of the personality pole, I see obstacles as opportunities, and then I make use of them.  I am never really down for very long when facing a problem, it's just that my being down consists of trying to find ways to get up.

Anyway, all of this self proclaimed Ms. Sunshine stuff brings me back to the Weeble.  For those who don't know, Weebles were like the original "Little People" you see now made by Fisher Price.  They were egg-shaped little people, with weights in the bottoms, so anytime they tipped over, they bounced right back up.  The commercial jingle was "Weebles Wobble but they don't fall down!".

So, this woman I met today is a Weeble, because she shares the same positive characteristic/personality traits I do.  And as she pointed out to me today, I'm a Weeble too.   So I think I'll proudly add that to my resume: "Professional Writer and Big Time Weeble".

What Got To Me Today Series: Student tasered at Ypsilanti High

So I'm reading an article on Friday about a 17 year old kid who was tasered at Ypsilanti High School because he was "unruly" while being escorted to the Principal's office. 

REALLY?

I had to go back and make sure I had read all the details and wasn't missing anything. 

Surely the deputy escorting him must have needed to taser in self-defense, right?  WRONG.  Nothing mentioned about that in two different news publications.

Surely the student was armed with a weapon, right?  WRONG.  No weapon mentioned.

Okay, then surely school administrators realize that tasering is only to be used as a last resort short of discharging a firearm, right?  WRONG, obviously.

Tasers, or stun guns, are weapons that look like pistols. Instead of discharging bullets, tasers send an electric charge.The electrical current then, disrupts electric signals sent from a subject's brain to his muscles, rendering him to a state of temporary paralysis.

The use of tasers by police (let alone high school deputies) has been a controversial one.  Tasers cause extreme pain and loss of balance. In some cases they cause vertigo, seizures, skin or muscle damage, cardio problems and death.

According the the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), tasers have been added to the list of punishments deemed torturous based on the following definition of torture:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

I'm going to need to hear something a lot more threatening than "unruly" before I can get my head around tasering a 17 year old child.  Back before tasers were the norm in some schools, this kid would have taken his "unruliness" and stormed right out of the building.  The parents would've been called, and the student would face some kind of disciplinary action upon returning to school.

Hmmm...what kind of disciplinary action would be appropriate for a school administrator to implement?  Detention?  Suspension?  Expulsion?  An electric shock with enough current to disrupt all voluntary control of a 17 year old's muscles?

It must now be illegal for a teenager to rebel against authority.  Perhaps he should have been arrested for not going to the Principal's office.  Actually, I'd be able to understand the incident better if I knew this student had done something against the law.  Did he pull a knife?  Was he out of control on narcotics? Were there assault charges?  Absent of legal charges or a threat of weapons, I'm going to have to side against the deputy in this instance. 

These are our children.  And though it is true a seventeen year old child can be tried as an adult in a court of law, let me say again, no law appeared to be broken here.  This young man is someone's child and he was electrically shocked at school, a place we trust our kids will be taken care of.  I know many people will say "no harm done" or "thats what he gets" (as one facebook commenter on the story posted), or "well perhaps my good child is safer because the bad ones get tasered."

REALLY?

Tasers are weapons.  Is it really in our children's best interest for authorities to err on the side of violence?  Is it really in our child's best interest to set an example of weapon use?  To teach them the only way to resolve a dispute is by shocking the hell out of them?  As parents, do we really want "fear of tasering" to be motivation for good behavior? (I can probably source about a dozen psychology books that go up against this one!). I'll go on the record here that fear and anxiety of physical harm are not condusive to a postive learning environment.

Is this the kind of behavior we want from our authority figures,  as examples for our children?

This parent says no.

What Got To Me Today Series: Law & Order writers open eyes to Women of Congo

It is impossible to look at the above photo and not feel something for this woman, her child on her back, running for her life.  Not only does she run from an explosion, from war, but most certainly she is running in fear from the rebels themselves, who did the bombing.  She is running because she knows what they will do to her and her child when they catch her. This woman and millions like her are running everyday, today, right now.  Appallingly, most people don't  know about them because the violence facing these women is too horrific to even think about. But thanks to some excellent women writers of Law & Order SVU, millions of Americans got a glimpse last night.

Most people, at one time or another, have caught an episode or two of Law & Order or one of it's spin-offs, either Special Victims Unit or Criminal Intent.  If you are familiar with Law & Order, you know they often pull their story lines right from current headlines, whether it's a big Supreme Court decision or some sultry sex scandal. They always twist it up a bit, so we don't know the outcome, but surely we are familiar with the content.

Last night, the writers of Law & Order SVU did something extraordinary.  Writers Christina M. Torres and Dawn DeNoon took an episode entitled "Witness", and used it to open mainstream eyes to the ongoing, mind blowing atrocities facing the women of the Democratic Republic of Congo.  I'm sure there are some viewers who know about the conflict going on in Congo, but I bet millions do not.  I am giving some serious kudos to Ms. Torres and  Ms. DeNoon for bringing such important subject matter to mainstream America.

Conflict in Congo between  Rwandan-Congolese joint military operations and Rwandan Hutu Rebels is ongoing.  Women and children are used as objects of war, subject to torture, mutilation and sexual violence. Often these acts are commited in front of the women's husbands and family. Once attacked, a woman is considered to bring shame on her family and she is outcast.  Some women die, some run to the jungle and try and find camps for survival.  Camps are often also raided by rebels, unable to give protection to the women and they are attacked all over again.

I feel very strongly about these women, and the attempts to bring awareness to them and their plight. Thank you to the writers for bringing this headline back into the limelight.  There are many organizations trying to help these women.  Three of my top favorites are www.womenforwomen.org, www.refugeesinternational.org and www.congowomen.org.  Please visit these websites to learn more about these women, our sisters.  See photos and read more about what goes on in their lives and how you can help them.  With the current economy, financial support is difficult, however there is one bigger thing we can do to help and that is to raise awareness.  Ms. Torres and Ms. DeNoon did just that, and you can too. Thank you.