Sports For Chicks: 10 year old runner inspires on a national platform

Photo by Julie Charney

Sometimes it takes awhile for our kids to find their niche, the one or two interests that will fuel them through childhood and adolescence. For Lauren Charney, a 10 year old fourth- grader from Saline, it wasn't until third grade that she truly found her passion. Running.

Not only has the sport inspired Lauren, but it has given her the platform to inspire other girls to run too. A national platform.

Although Lauren participates in other sports, it is running that "makes me feel like I can do anything." When I asked Lauren what advice she would give other girls who might be a little shy about putting their first step forward, she didn't hesitate in giving credit to Girls On the Run. Girls On the Run has given Lauren a vehicle to great achievement and put her in a place to inspire all of us.Girls On the Run is a non-profit, non-competitive organization. According to their website,

"Girls on the Run® is a life-changing, experiential learning programs for girls age eight to thirteen years old. The programs combine training for a 3.1 mile running event with self-esteem enhancing, uplifting workouts. The goals of the programs are to encourage positive emotional, social, mental, spiritual and physical development."

Lauren Charney has taken her running a step further. Turns out her love of the sport and inspirational attitude has launched her to a place where she is one of six national finalists in the Kelloggs 2010 Junior Achievement Awards. She has already been flown to Chicago for a photo/video shoot, and is now being featured on the Kelloggs webisite competing for the 2010 ESPY award. She will fly to Los Angeles later this summer to attend the ESPY breakfast, where the winner will be announced. The winner will then attend the ESPY Award Ceremony that evening. To learn more about Lauren and vote her to to the top, go to www.frostedflakes.com.

Lauren has learned more than how to prepare for a race (like loading up on healthy peanut butter waffles and warming up her muscles with jumping jacks). She has learned what it is like to be supported by a community, to have self-esteem, to feel empowered to do anything.

Sometimes it takes a little time for our kids to really find what it is they are looking for. When they do, it is important for us as parents to support them, find outlets for them to go after what they dream of that gives them a sense of purpose and accomplishment. We all could learn a lot from girls like Lauren. It is never too late to take the first step.

The "Beauty" of Tennis: Sports For Chicks on Tennis

I love tennis season!  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer usually end up sweating it out in the finals of any given tournament, adding to the beauty of summertime.  Despite their ease on our eyes, they are both electrifying on the court. The French Open (clay courts) in Paris is underway this weekend. Nadal has an upper hand on clay, where he is so much more comfortable than many other players.  For those who are loyal fans of U.S. players, Andy Roddick is currently ranked eighth in the world, and is sure to give those ranked above him a real run for their money. 

On the women's court, Williams sisters Serena and Venus lead the world rankings in spots one and two.  Every year we wonder which sister will top the other in rankings.  This year, Serena leads.  I don't know about you, but I am inspired by these women everytime I see them play.  They are strong and explosive, both with daunting serves and unbeatable stamina.  I can't wait to see them play and often wonder if we'll see them head to head in the finals.  Then truly, who do I root for?  I remember the first time they were in the finals at Wimbledon and we got to see them in Prime Time on a Saturday night.  So awesome!

Competitive world tennis season is here:  The French Open, Wimbledon, The Australian Open, the US Open in NY.  It will be so exciting to see how our favorite players compete, see the upsets and the killer shots, hear the grunts and gasps of the crowds and get sucked into the drama.

And yes, I'm not above saying it, welcome back to television Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.  We've missed "seeing" you.  Happy Summer!

What Got To Me Today? I will not be quiet for hackers!

So this got to me Thursday, and is still getting me today. For those of you who read me, you probably know I have a website called Successful Women Weekly (www.successfulwomenweekly.com) where I feature all kinds of information about women.  I have a star feature of the month with a bio of an inspirational woman.  There is a Women In the News page, local woman owned Biz of the week, and a Champion For Women page that features a business or organization doing right by women.

The latter is where I seem to have attracted some opposition who felt they had the right to hack me.  As most of you know, I do a lot of writing on women's rights both domestically and across the globe.  I give kudos to people trying to help women who are abused or oppressed or both. I give kudos to those who try and make a difference in women's lives.

It is my right to write about these people.
It is my right to expose some of the terrible issues women face.
It is my right to celebrate the women who are successful.
It is my right to write about the losers who have tried to suppress my voice on my blog.

You will not stop me, you only fuel me.  I will continue to speak out and inform, and if you don't like it,  I guess you'll try and hack me again but I will keep coming back.

Here is to women on the rise.

Thank you.

Sports For Chicks: What to do about Roethlisberger

Okay ladies, I need some feedback.  Last month I posted about how dispicable it is that Ben Roethlisberger, star quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, only received a 4-6 week suspension from game play after he continues to particpate in sexually abusive behavior toward women.  Here is an excerpt from my previous blog:

For those of you unfamiliar with this particular topic, here it is in a nutshell:  Ben Roethlisberger is the beloved quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers. He has been accused of sexually assaulting a 20 year old woman in a bathroom while two of his cronies guarded the door.  He did not rebut the charges.  This is not his first alleged sexual abuse.  He kind of has a habit of women accusing him of not knowing the meaning of "no means no". This is the second time he's had to say something like, " I'm sorry this makes my team look bad" but never sorry to the girl.

The question now becomes, what are we, the women football fans, going to do about it?  I got a couple of comments from that blog, but have had many discussions as to whether or not there should be a real boycott of big Ben from lady fans.  Do we think we can make a difference?  Should we contact some national women's organizations to try and get some publicity behind us?  Is this a good way to bring awareness to rape and domestic abuse, while making sure our beloved NFL doesn't let these kinds of athletes bear their awesome logo?

I'm a huge NFL fan.  This is not to make our favorite teams look bad (Go Lions!), I just think the NFL Commissioner should know that a lot of women pay for their sport.  We deserve a little respect, not a slap in the face compared to Ben Roethlisberger's slap on the wrist.

You tell me... should we go for it? 

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is dangerous. It's time to repeal. This is What Got To Me Today.

I get what President Clinton was trying to do with the implementation of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military.  The idea behind it was to somehow protect gay soldiers, figuring if they weren't "outed", then there could be no repercussions. 

Well, DADT has been a disaster.

Not only does it treat gay soldiers like second class citizens, it has cost the Pentagon hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax payer funds and has implemented the discharge of over 13,500 good, American soldiers.  I don't think people realize what kind of expertise we are losing because of a person's sexual preferences.  The Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara has released data obtained from the Freedom of Information Act, and not only shows how many soldiers were discharged because of DADT, but what positions or specialties they served.  According the website:

"For the first time, we can now trace how many gays and lesbians have been discharged from each military base, and how many service members in each distinct job category have been discharged for homosexuality. According to the data, for example, between 1998-2003, the military discharged 49 nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare specialists, 90 nuclear power engineers, 52 missile guidance and control operators, 150 rocket, missile and other artillery specialists, and 340 infantrymen.  


I don't know about you but I would feel a lot better if these people were still serving us.  For discharge lists by base and job positions, click here.


I ran across an article today by P. Scott, a political blogger for Care2Make a Difference.  It prompted me to check out the website of the Service Member's Legal Defense Network (SMLD).  There, there are letters posted that have been sent to President Obama, in an attempt to urge him to repeal DADT.  Former Army Seargent Tracey Cooper-Harris wrote this letter:

May 10, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President,

My name is Tracey Cooper-Harris. I served in the Army for 12 years, reaching the rank of Sergeant. As a soldier and a non-commissioned officer (NCO), I performed my duties with honor and distinction. I was lauded by my peers and superiors for going above and beyond the status quo to complete the mission.

And, I am gay.

I lived in constant fear serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I was always looking over my shoulder, censoring what I said and keeping as much physical distance as possible between my military life and my personal life.

Even with this vigilance, I was found out by some male “friends” at my first duty assignment. I was just 19 years old. The deal was simple: Perform sexual favors and my secret was safe.

I had a choice: report these men for “sexual harassment/cohesion” and end my military career or submit to their demands.

Despite the military’s “zero tolerance” policy on sexual harassment, it doesn’t apply to those forced in the closet under DADT. I was sexually blackmailed and just a teenager.

At that time, as well as other times during my military service, I had seen friends discharged under DADT who were in similar situations. My friends were discharged, while their perpetrators were given a slap on the wrist.

The signal from command was clear: being gay was a far more serious offense in the military than sexually harassing a fellow service member. I ultimately chose what I believed was the best decision for me at the time. I let these men have their way with me in exchange for their silence.

I am not proud of what I did, but I loved my job too much to let it destroy my career before it had even started.

My decision didn’t come without consequences. I was eventually diagnosed with an STD which could potentially lead to cervical cancer later in life.

I, frankly, am still ashamed of what I had to do to stay in the Army. I wasn’t discharged under DADT, but left because of it. I continue to attend counseling sessions provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs for what I went through. The memories still come back to haunt me some 16 years later.

I don't want to see other service members go through what I went through. And unfortunately, this will continue to happen as long as DADT is law.

As long as a recruit or military member meets or exceeds the criteria for military service, let them serve. A bullet doesn’t discriminate because of a person’s race, gender identity, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, so why does the U.S. military continue to do so?

The time to repeal DADT is long overdue. Please, Mr. President, do the right thing.

Respectfully yours,
Former Sgt. Tracey L. Cooper-Harris
United States Army

Really?  Are we honestly going to say as a society that it is better for women (and men too) to subject themselves to sexual abuse because we would rather have that than openly admit we have gay soldiers?  It is infuriating!


I have never been in the military, so maybe I am missing something.  I just don't see what the big deal is?  A trained American soldier is a trained American soldier.  Period.  Whether or not they are hetero- or homosexual doesn't change the fact they are serving our country, protecting our people, and sacrificing themselves for the cause. 

Speaking of sacrifice, what does a system like DADT say to those gay soldiers who have already given their lives for our country?  What does it say to their families?  How could we value these men and women any less than any other soldier? 

Currently there are twenty-five other nations who openly allow gays in the military and it is a non-issue.

I, for one, hope the same will be true for our military, and the rest of society for that matter.  A person's sexual orientation is none of anyone's business. A Defense Authorization Bill is pending in Washington D. C.  The time is upon us.

It is time to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

Sports For Chicks: 90 yr. old woman makes hole in one

Okay so I just love it when something like this happens!  According to the BBC News Hour today on NPR, Mary Tattersall of West Yorkshire, made a hole in one on a 181 yard par three.  I know hole in ones do happen occasionally, but did I mention Mary is 90 years young, and has only been golfing for two years?

She took up golf at the age of 88 to meet new people and get some good exercise, and says it beats going to the gym.  The manager at the golf course says he's tempted to go and help Mary get out of her car when she arrives, but then thinks better of it when he sees her jump right out, swing her clubs onto her back, and head for the tee.

I don't know about you, but I sure am inspired to work out today.

Illegal Happy Meals! This is "What Got To Me Today"

Oh puh-leeeaasse give me a break.  I just watched a video from abcnews.com about a law in Santa Clara County, CA making happy meals/kids meals illegal because it should be unlawful to use advertising to lure children to unhealthy foods. 

Really?  Last time I checked it was the parent who decided what their kids should have for dinner.  So what then?  We implement a law so parents don't have to hear their kids whine and beg for Happy Meals?  How weak is that?  Now, before all of the health foodies out there go ballistic (as I consider myself a version of one), let me say the following disclaimer:

I know fast food restaurants do not make their biggest profits on their healthier menu items.  I know fast food is a major contributing factor to childhood obesity in this country.  I know that fast food is often much more affordable than healthier options, and that some families cannot afford to feed their entire families elsewhere.  I know all of these facts.

What I do not know, is how county officials are allowed into my kitchen, or my car, to decide what I  feed my kids for dinner.  We don't let government into our bedrooms, so why should we let them into any other rooms of our homes (unless of course there is a CRIME being committed)?  There are so many awesome programs out there, many provided by the government, that seek to educate versus boycott.  And this is coming from me, one of the all time pro- boycotters out there.  Show me the injustice of happy meals, and I will consider your argument.

You want to take soda (pop), candy and chips out of the lunch line at public schools?  Go for it.  But when it comes to how I spend my own money on my kids, hands off.  I guess this is similar to a "dry" county, where alcohol is not legally for sale within county lines.  But if you're going to boycott kids meals based on that argument, then you have to boycott ALL fast food, not just for kids.

This is strictly about advertising, and whether or not we, as parents, give into it.

This takes me back to my Cookie Monster debate, and how the "cookie opposition people" wanted to give Cookie Monster carrots and celery instead, because cookies contribute to childhood obesity.  My argument then was the same as it is now, it is up to the parents to moderate what their kids eat.

I, for one, occasionally look forward to treating my kids to a Happy Meal,  especially, if there was a particular toy they were really crazy about.  It doesn't mean they get the entire series with 12 visits to the restaurant inside of a month.  It means I get to treat my kids to a "TREAT". 

I get the childhood obesity numbers, but again, the kids within the age range of those who want happy meals, only eat what they are provided. You want to tax it?  Fine. But you shouldn't be able to tell me I'm not allowed to buy it.

And I haven't even touched the business side of this argument.  Shouldn't it be true, if fast food restaurants are forced not too offer toys with their food, then health food restaurants should be forced to offer toys along with their kid's menus?  Both arguments, of course, are ludicrous.

This isn't an argument for big business.  This isn't an argument on whether or not fast food causes obesity.  This is an argument about whether or not the government should be allowed to decide what advertising I decide to buy into.  What's next? No trendy flavors for my coffee at the corner coffee house?  Because even though some consumers buy them because they are fun, trendy and sophisticated, they are high in fat and calories?

We, as consumers, get to decide.