By Domenic Poli
Monday finished up one of those calendar occurrences that are oh-so-cherished by members of any student body: a three-day weekend. The reason for this most recent elongated treats was so the country could observe one of its lesser-recognized holidays. I am talking, of course, about Presidents’ Day – or should I say Washington’s Birthday?
You see, the nation uses the annual holiday as a way of honoring, arguably, America’s two greatest presidents – George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, whose birthdays are Feb. 22 and 12, respectively – but it was not intended to be that way.
I soon found out that Presidents’ Day was, in fact, originally intended to paid tribute to Mr. Washington, only. When I learned that what my calendar lists as ‘Presidents’ Day’ (a day when most remember the faces on the one and five dollar bills) was really instituted in memory of Washington alone, I was a little disappointed.
I mean no offense to Mr. Washington, of course – he is the Father of our Country and, arguably, the greatest American in history.
He fought gallantly for his homeland in the conflict that would grow into the French and Indian war, in 1775 he was elected commander in chief of the Continental Army, leading a ragamuffin bunch of militiamen through six years of arduous warfare in the American Revolution and when the Constitution (which he was largely responsible for fashioning) was ratified in 1776, the Electoral College chose him as the first President of the United States. The future of American democracy depended on how Washington would conduct himself while in office.
As we all know, he did a superb job as President and every bit of democracy that thousands of immigrants flock to this country every year for is due, in very large part, to Mr. Washington.
So, I wasn’t so much upset that he didn’t have a holiday all to himself, as I was surprised – especially when I learned that Mr. Lincoln was initially let out of the equation.
Lincoln is perhaps the greatest commander in chief in American history. Look at the facts. He kept the nation together when the Civil War threatened to crumble it and he signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which declared that all slaves (even in the Confederacy) were forever free. As you all can see (and probably knew already) Lincoln was not exactly chopped liver. He was instead one of the greatest presidents in history.
But there have been 41 other men who have proudly served this nation (some well, some others not so well) as its elected leader – don’t they all, like Lincoln, deserve a little recognition?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt led the country out of the Great Depression, through much of World War II, formed Social Security and established a huge worker relief program for the unemployed – all this while being crippled with polio, mind you.
How about President John F. Kennedy?
JFK guided the country through much of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. He helped fund the advancement of science, established the Peace Corps in 1960 and, as the man who proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was probably the greatest pioneer for civil rights in history.
And that’s just the start of the list.
Harry S. Truman won World War II when he decided to drop the A-bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, and Woodrow Wilson helped the Allies win the previous World War by declaring war on Germany in 1917. He then tried to end all future wars with the League of Nations and his Fourteen Points.
The argument I’m making here is that we’ve had 42 former presidents, and – though some of them may have done a lousy job – each one of them deserves to be honored for the work they did for their country. Though, I’m certainly not trying to take anything away from Mr. Washington – or Mr. Lincoln – for that matter.
The third Monday in February should stand with a different name in order to honor the two tremendous presidents whose birthdays envelope the date, and there should be another day during the calendar year to pay tribute to all of our former presidents – because, even if they didn’t do a bang-up job, they all gave up their otherwise simple lives just to be subjected to the constant scrutiny, pressure and attention that come from handling the reigns of the one of the greatest nations in the world – and they all did it because they loved their country.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
My un-American blacklist
Midterm elections took place last November. During the months prior, the country was subjected to countless advertisements promoting numerous politicians running for public office. Even though each one was slightly different, they all shared a common theme: What is best for "America?" "Let America be America Again." "America Can Do Better."
"America" this, "America" that. Every candidate seeking election seemed to try to remind people that they are U.S. citizens and to go vote. All this talk about being an American got me thinking - what exactly is American? Or, better put, what are some un-American things when it comes to politics?
I spent a good amount of time thinking about this and I came up with my own personal list of four things I believe are politically unpatriotic.
The most un-American thing out there is simply not voting in the first place. This nation was built on the principle of being a government of the people, for the people and by the people. The idea of a democratic system is that the people decide, by a majority vote, who will lead and represent them.
This is the reason the Founding Fathers selected a president over a king - they wanted to be able to elect their leader, instead of allowing the next generation in a royal bloodline to become the automatic top-gun who calls all the shots.
To this day there are countries run by monarchial dictators who refuse to hear the voice of the people. That's why it made me want to puke when I heard that, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, only 24 percent of Americans under the age of 30 voted last Tuesday - and that number is up by four percent from 2002.
Citizens of Iraq, who had to brave threats of bodily harm and/or death, produced a higher voter turnout than this when they held their first democratic election in over 50 years back in 2005. Americans are taking the democratic masterpiece known as voting for granted, and it is beginning to sicken me beyond words.
Next on my politically un-American blacklist is something so very common - belonging to a political party. When you check one of those little party-affiliation boxes on your voter registration form, you hand over your political independence and subject yourself to the bias of one particular alliance.
There are many people who tend to vote a certain way (which is only natural) but still stay unenrolled - and that, my fellow Americans, is the way to go. They vote for the party that they favor and still keep their political freedom.
Think about it. How many Republicans do you know who dislike President Bush, even with the increasingly unsuccessful war in Iraq, the highest national debt in history and his legalized constitutional violations all being as blatantly obvious as Ann Coulter's Adam's apple?
Not many, right? That's because they've attached themselves to one perspective and can't open their eyes to see the overwhelming evidence staring them right in the face. And if you think I'm only going to attack the GOP, just stop yourselves right there because, despite my many liberal points of view, I am far from a Democrat.
A lot of Dems have promoted their party as the open-minded one, the one who will fight for the average American and the one that has never done anything wrong in its existence. How many Bill Clinton fans either don't know, or don't care, that the former president bombed a factory in Sudan that he believed was making chemical weapons?
(FYI: The factory was manufacturing aspirin, and though no one was killed in the attack, the owner sought $50 million in damages).
Or how about the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Most Democrats shrugged it off as something unimportant and a private matter, but I don't think it's too much to ask for the man who represents my nation in the international arena to respect his wife and his marriage.
Third on my listing of things that are un-American from a political standpoint are exit polls. The politician that a citizen votes for is supposed remain private. It is the voters' business and no one else's. Now, I know that most exiting voters choose to reveal which box they checked off to whatever microphone-wielding field reporter that has chosen to occupy the sidewalk, but that is just because the realization that a vote is private and personal information, which used to be a cherished component of the election process, has been lost deep in shouds of time since the days of the Founding Fathers - but it doesn't have to stay this way. We can change this unfortunate generational trend. The next time you cast a ballot and a TV reporter (or anybody for that matter) asks you who you voted for, give them a patriotic cold shoulder. That way you will uphold this cherished anonymity of the democratic procedure and maybe the Framers will roll back over in their graves.
I could write for days on end about this topic, but, to keep from boring you, I will wrap this thing up. (Drumroll please) Last, but certainly not least, on my Un-American Blacklist is...rigging an election.
Anything that is done to steal an election is a true molestation of a democratic society, and it has happened far too often.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that President Bush won both the 2000 and 2004 elections due to some sort of fraudulence. It appears that faulty voting machines, hanging chad ballots and some foul play may have won the elections for Bush.
And, again, I'm not one-sided here. I know about JFK's victory in 1960. Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. admits that his uncle's colleagues used the votes of people who had been dead to defeat his opponent, Richard Nixon.
A Commander in Chief is supposed to be selected by a coalition of proud, free-thinking Americans, and whenever anything happens to thwart the democratic method, we, as a nation, are the victims. Americans need to take a step back and decide whether to turn their heads to these atrocities or to help put our country back on the path of true democracy.
"America" this, "America" that. Every candidate seeking election seemed to try to remind people that they are U.S. citizens and to go vote. All this talk about being an American got me thinking - what exactly is American? Or, better put, what are some un-American things when it comes to politics?
I spent a good amount of time thinking about this and I came up with my own personal list of four things I believe are politically unpatriotic.
The most un-American thing out there is simply not voting in the first place. This nation was built on the principle of being a government of the people, for the people and by the people. The idea of a democratic system is that the people decide, by a majority vote, who will lead and represent them.
This is the reason the Founding Fathers selected a president over a king - they wanted to be able to elect their leader, instead of allowing the next generation in a royal bloodline to become the automatic top-gun who calls all the shots.
To this day there are countries run by monarchial dictators who refuse to hear the voice of the people. That's why it made me want to puke when I heard that, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, only 24 percent of Americans under the age of 30 voted last Tuesday - and that number is up by four percent from 2002.
Citizens of Iraq, who had to brave threats of bodily harm and/or death, produced a higher voter turnout than this when they held their first democratic election in over 50 years back in 2005. Americans are taking the democratic masterpiece known as voting for granted, and it is beginning to sicken me beyond words.
Next on my politically un-American blacklist is something so very common - belonging to a political party. When you check one of those little party-affiliation boxes on your voter registration form, you hand over your political independence and subject yourself to the bias of one particular alliance.
There are many people who tend to vote a certain way (which is only natural) but still stay unenrolled - and that, my fellow Americans, is the way to go. They vote for the party that they favor and still keep their political freedom.
Think about it. How many Republicans do you know who dislike President Bush, even with the increasingly unsuccessful war in Iraq, the highest national debt in history and his legalized constitutional violations all being as blatantly obvious as Ann Coulter's Adam's apple?
Not many, right? That's because they've attached themselves to one perspective and can't open their eyes to see the overwhelming evidence staring them right in the face. And if you think I'm only going to attack the GOP, just stop yourselves right there because, despite my many liberal points of view, I am far from a Democrat.
A lot of Dems have promoted their party as the open-minded one, the one who will fight for the average American and the one that has never done anything wrong in its existence. How many Bill Clinton fans either don't know, or don't care, that the former president bombed a factory in Sudan that he believed was making chemical weapons?
(FYI: The factory was manufacturing aspirin, and though no one was killed in the attack, the owner sought $50 million in damages).
Or how about the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Most Democrats shrugged it off as something unimportant and a private matter, but I don't think it's too much to ask for the man who represents my nation in the international arena to respect his wife and his marriage.
Third on my listing of things that are un-American from a political standpoint are exit polls. The politician that a citizen votes for is supposed remain private. It is the voters' business and no one else's. Now, I know that most exiting voters choose to reveal which box they checked off to whatever microphone-wielding field reporter that has chosen to occupy the sidewalk, but that is just because the realization that a vote is private and personal information, which used to be a cherished component of the election process, has been lost deep in shouds of time since the days of the Founding Fathers - but it doesn't have to stay this way. We can change this unfortunate generational trend. The next time you cast a ballot and a TV reporter (or anybody for that matter) asks you who you voted for, give them a patriotic cold shoulder. That way you will uphold this cherished anonymity of the democratic procedure and maybe the Framers will roll back over in their graves.
I could write for days on end about this topic, but, to keep from boring you, I will wrap this thing up. (Drumroll please) Last, but certainly not least, on my Un-American Blacklist is...rigging an election.
Anything that is done to steal an election is a true molestation of a democratic society, and it has happened far too often.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that President Bush won both the 2000 and 2004 elections due to some sort of fraudulence. It appears that faulty voting machines, hanging chad ballots and some foul play may have won the elections for Bush.
And, again, I'm not one-sided here. I know about JFK's victory in 1960. Even Robert F. Kennedy Jr. admits that his uncle's colleagues used the votes of people who had been dead to defeat his opponent, Richard Nixon.
A Commander in Chief is supposed to be selected by a coalition of proud, free-thinking Americans, and whenever anything happens to thwart the democratic method, we, as a nation, are the victims. Americans need to take a step back and decide whether to turn their heads to these atrocities or to help put our country back on the path of true democracy.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Home sweet Fenway
Throughout the world there are structures that have a striking essence to them. And inhabitants of every place think that their structure is the most captivating of all. For citizens of India, it’s the Taj Mahal. For the Britons it is Big Ben or Buckingham Palace. But if you have dirty water in your veins, it is none other than Fenway Park.
Having been born and raised in Quincy, a town less than ten minutes outside of Boston, I was brought up believing that the Fens is a sacred terrain, much like a church. And in a sense, it is. It’s a place where folks come to spend time with one other, pray intensely, and their requested miracles sometimes go unanswered, or at least for a while anyway.
Well, this sacred terrain was one of the most significant structures throughout my childhood.
My grandfather bought into a season tickets deal back in 1970. For years he would take my dad or my uncle to a handful of games every season. Then, when I was born, he handed the tickets down to my father and he has taken me or my brother to Section 30, Box 77, Row A for as long as I can remember.
The feeling that I get when I’m there is unlike any other. The stadium has such a celebrated history, and when I’m sitting there, right smack-dab in the middle of Red Sox Nation, I realize that I have become part of that history. I can almost see the ghosts of games played- Babe Ruth bringing the crowd to its feet, Ted Williams not tipping his cap or Dave Roberts sliding under Derek Jeter’s tag in Game 4. It’s an eerie, almost surreal feeling.
Erected in 1912, Fenway Park is the oldest in the Major Leagues. But what is even more fascinating to me is the significance of the structures within the structure. Fenway has almost as many separate pieces of storied real estate as Washington D.C Every historical dimension and feature provides interesting obstacles challenging to players, but entertaining for fans.
Even though almost of all you are quite familiar with it, I will give you a brief verbal tour of this slice of heaven known as Fenway.
First of all, the Green Monster is the most synonymous feature connected to baseball lore in the entire country. To players, the 37-foot spectacle stands out in left field as a haunting reminder that home runs do not come easily in the Major Leagues. At a reasonably short distance of 315 ft., it is riddled with dents of homers, destined to be reduced to wall-ball singles.
Despite the particularly short porch in left, Fenway owns one of the longest centerfields in the league. At 420 ft. from home plate, it is said that the stadium’s centerfield is where triples go to die.
Not wanting to be left out of Fenway’s list of oddball dimensions, right field also has its share of secrets and adventures. Besides for a low concrete slab, which gives the baseball a pinball machine-like effect, right fielders must deal with blinding glare of the setting sun, which can disable their ability to locate a fly ball. At around 380 ft, Fenway’s right field is one of the most feared amongst outfielders, who must learn to adapt to its tricky nature.
But, keep in mind that the field isn’t the only feature that could share an anecdote. The press box would boast about how it held the presence of broadcasting legends Curt Gowdy, Ken Coleman and, now, Jerry Remy and Don Orsillo. The visitors’ dugout would talk about the games when it hosted legends like Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson and Whitey Ford.
This delightful little ballpark hosts over 36,200 seats, and every one of them has a story to tell. Two of those seats include Seat 3 and Seat 4. They are the ones with which my family holds partnership.
One of my favorite stories from sitting in those seats is from a game played back in 2001. It was pitcher Bryce Florie’s first game back after a devastating injury suffered just the year before.
On Sept. 8, in a game where he was pitching against the New York Yankees, Florie was drilled in the face by a line drive off the bat of outfielder Ryan Thompson. (A pitch thrown 96 mph is estimated to be hit back at around 120 mph). The impact fractured his cheekbone, as well as his orbital socket and damaged his retina. It took him out of baseball for about a year.
Then on the night I was there, I saw one of the most emotional spectacles in my life. About two-thirds of the way through the game, manager Jimy Williams came out to the mound to initiate a pitching change. However, this was no ordinary pitching change. As Williams signaled for his righty, the Fenway Faithful simultaneously rose to their feet. As soon as the intercom started blasting rock music, the stadium announcer declared, “Ladies and Gentlemen, coming into the game…Bryce Florie.” With that the pitcher trotted in from the bullpen and Fenway exploded into pandemonium. I got this feeling inside of me that is hard to describe. But, I know that I felt everything Florie did at that moment. I was as excited, nervous and misty-eyed, as I’m sure he was. The fans gave him an ovation unlike any I had ever heard before. His brave comeback from such a devastating injury made the vicinity come together, as one.
This moment is a perfect example of why Fenway Park means so much to so many fans, including myself. Red Sox Nation is not merely a club, but more like a family. When Florie made his dramatic comeback on that cool night in 2001, Sox fans young and old rose to their feet to welcome back one of their brothers, whom they had never forgotten about.
However, my story is just one of millions that could be told by millions of people. Other stories would be of a stadium full of people holding their collective breath as Carlton Fisk frantically waved his arms, begging his home run to stay fair in 1975. Carl Yaztremski hitting his 400th home run into the right field bullpen. Or about Ted Williams embracing a Fenway crowd one last time at the 1999 All-Star Game.
And though the Sox ended the 86-year old Curse of the Bambino in 2004, I can still hear and feel the despair of deceased fans who passed away waiting for the championship that came just a little too late. As corny as it may sound, there is a sort of brotherhood among the members, past and present, of Red Sox Nation. I sympathize with the generations of diehard fans and Royal Rooters whose time simply ran out before their beloved BoSox could bring home the crown.
But, I can’t help feeling that when the Sox held the victory parade after winning the World Series, that the ghosts of Red Sox past, including my Italian immigrant great-grandfather, Crescenzo DiMichele, were right there by my side. Together we celebrated with the Sox and thanked them for finally bringing one home to Boston.
Having been born and raised in Quincy, a town less than ten minutes outside of Boston, I was brought up believing that the Fens is a sacred terrain, much like a church. And in a sense, it is. It’s a place where folks come to spend time with one other, pray intensely, and their requested miracles sometimes go unanswered, or at least for a while anyway.
Well, this sacred terrain was one of the most significant structures throughout my childhood.
My grandfather bought into a season tickets deal back in 1970. For years he would take my dad or my uncle to a handful of games every season. Then, when I was born, he handed the tickets down to my father and he has taken me or my brother to Section 30, Box 77, Row A for as long as I can remember.
The feeling that I get when I’m there is unlike any other. The stadium has such a celebrated history, and when I’m sitting there, right smack-dab in the middle of Red Sox Nation, I realize that I have become part of that history. I can almost see the ghosts of games played- Babe Ruth bringing the crowd to its feet, Ted Williams not tipping his cap or Dave Roberts sliding under Derek Jeter’s tag in Game 4. It’s an eerie, almost surreal feeling.
Erected in 1912, Fenway Park is the oldest in the Major Leagues. But what is even more fascinating to me is the significance of the structures within the structure. Fenway has almost as many separate pieces of storied real estate as Washington D.C Every historical dimension and feature provides interesting obstacles challenging to players, but entertaining for fans.
Even though almost of all you are quite familiar with it, I will give you a brief verbal tour of this slice of heaven known as Fenway.
First of all, the Green Monster is the most synonymous feature connected to baseball lore in the entire country. To players, the 37-foot spectacle stands out in left field as a haunting reminder that home runs do not come easily in the Major Leagues. At a reasonably short distance of 315 ft., it is riddled with dents of homers, destined to be reduced to wall-ball singles.
Despite the particularly short porch in left, Fenway owns one of the longest centerfields in the league. At 420 ft. from home plate, it is said that the stadium’s centerfield is where triples go to die.
Not wanting to be left out of Fenway’s list of oddball dimensions, right field also has its share of secrets and adventures. Besides for a low concrete slab, which gives the baseball a pinball machine-like effect, right fielders must deal with blinding glare of the setting sun, which can disable their ability to locate a fly ball. At around 380 ft, Fenway’s right field is one of the most feared amongst outfielders, who must learn to adapt to its tricky nature.
But, keep in mind that the field isn’t the only feature that could share an anecdote. The press box would boast about how it held the presence of broadcasting legends Curt Gowdy, Ken Coleman and, now, Jerry Remy and Don Orsillo. The visitors’ dugout would talk about the games when it hosted legends like Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson and Whitey Ford.
This delightful little ballpark hosts over 36,200 seats, and every one of them has a story to tell. Two of those seats include Seat 3 and Seat 4. They are the ones with which my family holds partnership.
One of my favorite stories from sitting in those seats is from a game played back in 2001. It was pitcher Bryce Florie’s first game back after a devastating injury suffered just the year before.
On Sept. 8, in a game where he was pitching against the New York Yankees, Florie was drilled in the face by a line drive off the bat of outfielder Ryan Thompson. (A pitch thrown 96 mph is estimated to be hit back at around 120 mph). The impact fractured his cheekbone, as well as his orbital socket and damaged his retina. It took him out of baseball for about a year.
Then on the night I was there, I saw one of the most emotional spectacles in my life. About two-thirds of the way through the game, manager Jimy Williams came out to the mound to initiate a pitching change. However, this was no ordinary pitching change. As Williams signaled for his righty, the Fenway Faithful simultaneously rose to their feet. As soon as the intercom started blasting rock music, the stadium announcer declared, “Ladies and Gentlemen, coming into the game…Bryce Florie.” With that the pitcher trotted in from the bullpen and Fenway exploded into pandemonium. I got this feeling inside of me that is hard to describe. But, I know that I felt everything Florie did at that moment. I was as excited, nervous and misty-eyed, as I’m sure he was. The fans gave him an ovation unlike any I had ever heard before. His brave comeback from such a devastating injury made the vicinity come together, as one.
This moment is a perfect example of why Fenway Park means so much to so many fans, including myself. Red Sox Nation is not merely a club, but more like a family. When Florie made his dramatic comeback on that cool night in 2001, Sox fans young and old rose to their feet to welcome back one of their brothers, whom they had never forgotten about.
However, my story is just one of millions that could be told by millions of people. Other stories would be of a stadium full of people holding their collective breath as Carlton Fisk frantically waved his arms, begging his home run to stay fair in 1975. Carl Yaztremski hitting his 400th home run into the right field bullpen. Or about Ted Williams embracing a Fenway crowd one last time at the 1999 All-Star Game.
And though the Sox ended the 86-year old Curse of the Bambino in 2004, I can still hear and feel the despair of deceased fans who passed away waiting for the championship that came just a little too late. As corny as it may sound, there is a sort of brotherhood among the members, past and present, of Red Sox Nation. I sympathize with the generations of diehard fans and Royal Rooters whose time simply ran out before their beloved BoSox could bring home the crown.
But, I can’t help feeling that when the Sox held the victory parade after winning the World Series, that the ghosts of Red Sox past, including my Italian immigrant great-grandfather, Crescenzo DiMichele, were right there by my side. Together we celebrated with the Sox and thanked them for finally bringing one home to Boston.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Don't blame commercials!
Last Monday, I was sitting in a booth at the Worcester Dining Commons on the UMass campus, like I do almost every morning before my first class, and began reading that day's issue of the Massachusetts Daily Collegian. After reading through the front-page stories, I turned the page where I was embraced by two headlines: one about Saddam Hussein's seeking an appeal on his death sentence and an uplifting one about strides in HIV research.
My eyes then ventured down and spotted a headline that almost made me choke on my tater tot: "Advertising blamed for kids' ills." I quickly began reading the article to learn more about the topic that had so violently grabbed my attention. The story reports that the American Academy of Pediatrics has produced a new policy statement that says advertisements via television, billboards and magazines are partially to blame for the vices of American children. It suggests that problems such as adolescent obesity, eating disorders and underage drinking are caused, in part, by the ads that young people are exposed to.
The world-renowned doctors' group referred to commercials promoting sugared breakfast cereals and full-page ads featuring petite and diminutive models as some of the factors contributing to the vices carried by the nation's youth.
The group's new statement also proposes that doctors across the country should lobby Congress to take direct action. The group suggests banning junk-food advertisements during programs focused on attracting young viewers, limiting commercial advertising to no more than six minutes per hour and confining alcohol ads to showing only the product - not fun cartoon characters or sexy women.
The statement insists that these ads fuel the temptation of na've youngsters and that the federal government needs to do something to curb this disastrous influence.
My response to all of this? Oh, please.
I know that kids are impressionable and that corporate companies spend countless dollars trying to target them with their advertisements, but to suggest that these pictures and images are actually responsible for the bad decisions and eating habits of young people is ludicrous.
This is just one more example of people trying to pin problems on something psychological and, quite frankly, it's thinking way too much into things.
Advertising cannot be directly blamed for the poor choices people make. Commercials and magazine ads do not tie an adolescent down and force him/her to devour "Quarter-Pounder" cheeseburgers or a liter of "Vault" or to have unprotected sex at the age of 14 - the kid does it all on his/her own. Pinning the culpability on advertising companies is just another example of how certain people try to pull responsibility away from kids and pass it along to somebody else.
The advertisements on TV are just that: advertisements. They are trying to promote a certain product in order to increase sales - that's the whole idea. But, here's the best part: you don't have to buy it.
When I was growing up, my friends and I were subjected to the same sort of commercials, billboards and full-page magazine ads as kids are nowadays, but we didn't run out to buy a dozen "Frostys" and a pack of cigarettes because of them. Companies can spew whatever type of advertisement they want on people. It still comes down to a personal choice.
The folks who try to use advertisers as scapegoats for the problems that America's youth has adapted are the same ones who try to blame high obesity rates in children on the voracious eating habits of the Cookie Monster.
That delightful blue creature has been an American icon for generations and was one of my favorite members of the "Sesame Street" gang growing up. Yet, there are still those mindless, probing "big brothers" out there who claim that his enormous love of cookies and ravenous style of eating tells young kids that it is OK to shovel handfuls of baked goods down their throats.
That is ridiculous, bordering on laughable.
I'm going to say this just once: leave the Cookie Monster alone. He didn't do anything to you. He is a harmless television character, and anyone who thinks he is responsible for 17 percent of American kids being obese, as the article stated, needs to get a life.
I didn't eat cookies and get out of shape because of the Cookie Monster. I did it because I truly love cookies - they're yummy and delicious.
And I've got a question: Where the heck are the parents of these children who watch these ads?
They're supposed to be supervising what their kids are subjected to. If a few dead-beat parents can't monitor what their children view, that doesn't mean that advertising companies should be to blame.
Little by little, the amount of responsibilities that parents display is eroding, and the social/mental/emotional problems of their screwed-up kids are tacked onto others.
I'll admit that obesity, eating disorders, teen drinking and pre-marital sex can probably be influenced somewhat by ads. But when you get down to it, the choice to eat that bacon cheeseburger, or down that six-pack of "Budweiser," all come down to choice. Kids just need to wise up and think for themselves, and if they can't, their parents need to step up and try being parents.
My eyes then ventured down and spotted a headline that almost made me choke on my tater tot: "Advertising blamed for kids' ills." I quickly began reading the article to learn more about the topic that had so violently grabbed my attention. The story reports that the American Academy of Pediatrics has produced a new policy statement that says advertisements via television, billboards and magazines are partially to blame for the vices of American children. It suggests that problems such as adolescent obesity, eating disorders and underage drinking are caused, in part, by the ads that young people are exposed to.
The world-renowned doctors' group referred to commercials promoting sugared breakfast cereals and full-page ads featuring petite and diminutive models as some of the factors contributing to the vices carried by the nation's youth.
The group's new statement also proposes that doctors across the country should lobby Congress to take direct action. The group suggests banning junk-food advertisements during programs focused on attracting young viewers, limiting commercial advertising to no more than six minutes per hour and confining alcohol ads to showing only the product - not fun cartoon characters or sexy women.
The statement insists that these ads fuel the temptation of na've youngsters and that the federal government needs to do something to curb this disastrous influence.
My response to all of this? Oh, please.
I know that kids are impressionable and that corporate companies spend countless dollars trying to target them with their advertisements, but to suggest that these pictures and images are actually responsible for the bad decisions and eating habits of young people is ludicrous.
This is just one more example of people trying to pin problems on something psychological and, quite frankly, it's thinking way too much into things.
Advertising cannot be directly blamed for the poor choices people make. Commercials and magazine ads do not tie an adolescent down and force him/her to devour "Quarter-Pounder" cheeseburgers or a liter of "Vault" or to have unprotected sex at the age of 14 - the kid does it all on his/her own. Pinning the culpability on advertising companies is just another example of how certain people try to pull responsibility away from kids and pass it along to somebody else.
The advertisements on TV are just that: advertisements. They are trying to promote a certain product in order to increase sales - that's the whole idea. But, here's the best part: you don't have to buy it.
When I was growing up, my friends and I were subjected to the same sort of commercials, billboards and full-page magazine ads as kids are nowadays, but we didn't run out to buy a dozen "Frostys" and a pack of cigarettes because of them. Companies can spew whatever type of advertisement they want on people. It still comes down to a personal choice.
The folks who try to use advertisers as scapegoats for the problems that America's youth has adapted are the same ones who try to blame high obesity rates in children on the voracious eating habits of the Cookie Monster.
That delightful blue creature has been an American icon for generations and was one of my favorite members of the "Sesame Street" gang growing up. Yet, there are still those mindless, probing "big brothers" out there who claim that his enormous love of cookies and ravenous style of eating tells young kids that it is OK to shovel handfuls of baked goods down their throats.
That is ridiculous, bordering on laughable.
I'm going to say this just once: leave the Cookie Monster alone. He didn't do anything to you. He is a harmless television character, and anyone who thinks he is responsible for 17 percent of American kids being obese, as the article stated, needs to get a life.
I didn't eat cookies and get out of shape because of the Cookie Monster. I did it because I truly love cookies - they're yummy and delicious.
And I've got a question: Where the heck are the parents of these children who watch these ads?
They're supposed to be supervising what their kids are subjected to. If a few dead-beat parents can't monitor what their children view, that doesn't mean that advertising companies should be to blame.
Little by little, the amount of responsibilities that parents display is eroding, and the social/mental/emotional problems of their screwed-up kids are tacked onto others.
I'll admit that obesity, eating disorders, teen drinking and pre-marital sex can probably be influenced somewhat by ads. But when you get down to it, the choice to eat that bacon cheeseburger, or down that six-pack of "Budweiser," all come down to choice. Kids just need to wise up and think for themselves, and if they can't, their parents need to step up and try being parents.
It may be time to hit the showers for male practice players
They are considered an essential part of the team. But a new proposal by the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics may soon change all that.
The Massachusetts women's basketball team's male practice squad is held in very high regard by the Minutewomen, and is thought to be as important as any other part of the program.
The 15-member CWA committee of administrators and athletes from Division I, II and III schools has requested that the routine of having men scrimmage against women in practice be disallowed.
"[Men practicing with women] violates the spirit of gender equality and Title IX," the CWA said in a statement released on Dec. 6.
Title IX was a groundbreaking federal law requiring fair and equal treatment for any educational program that receives federal funding. Part of the Education Amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX was the first piece of national legislature to ban inequity in policies and programs of any educational institution.
The law especially affects collegiate sports. In short, Title IX states that universities that receive federal funding must spend equal amounts of money on athletic teams for men and women.
Supporters of the new measure feel that permitting men to practice against a women's basketball team takes a backward step from the ruling passed 34 years ago aimed at eliminating any discrimination in the world of academia on the basis on gender.
Despite the noble intentions of the law, certain measures taken in order to comply with it are, at times, considered unnecessary - even by the people it was intended to support.
"I'm not happy. I think the men should be able to play with us," UMass coach Marnie Dacko said. "I think they add a great deal of intensity. They're a great aide in helping women basketball players all over the country and I think [the league] would be doing a disservice if they chose not to allow men to practice [with women].
"I think that somebody out there is complaining," she continued. "You know, they need another cause to complain about and so somebody brings it up and starts something in a negative connotation."
Members of the women's team displayed confusion and disappointment at the idea of the NCAA restricting whom they can practice against.
"I think that it kind of sucks," junior guard and team co-captain, Alisha Tatham said. "We love when the guys come in. They really push us. They give us a lot more than, maybe, if a women's practice team were to come in. The guys are a lot more physical, they're a lot quicker.
"I don't see what's wrong with it," she continued. "There's a lot of people that play against guys all the time. I don't know why they'd take it away."
Neither does junior civil engineering major Ryan James.
James, 21, is one of the six members of the men's practice squad - and he says he's frustrated that the NCAA is trying to interfere with, what he considers, a team's own personal business.
"I can't really see any logic behind this new proposal. At the collegiate level, coaches should be able to prepare their teams in any reasonable way they feel will help their players," he said. "I think the NCAA shouldn't get involved with the structure of women's practice. It should be up to the coaches and the players collectively to decide if men should be allowed to practice or not."
James, a native of South Deerfield, Mass., first donned the uniform of a UMass practice-teamer after seeing a flyer at the basketball courts at the horseshoe in Southwest. After trying it out, he found himself making friends on both the practice squad and the varsity team and decided to stick with it. It's a decision he says he's glad he made.
"I do enjoy scrimmaging against the women. It's fun to play against girls that are just as physical as you are," James said. "I've gone through harder screens playing against the women than I have against most other guys I've played against.
"I'm just happy to be able to play basketball a couple of extra days a week," he said. "And I think [the women] are happy to get an extra challenge a couple days a week."
According to a report by USA Today, though the origin of having males practice against female players can be linked to a few different people, legendary women's coach Pat Summitt is generally credited with instituting the idea at Tennessee in the 1970s.
The strategy paid off for Summitt, now in her 33rd year as head coach of the Lady Volunteers, as she has claimed a record six NCAA titles. Perhaps it is the result of such success that has led to this now-common method being used by basketball programs of countless universities throughout the country.
According to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, this is the third season in which UMass has applied the tactic regularly.
In addition to James, the squad also consists of sophomore Steve Games (20-years old), juniors Ken Parsley (20) and Aidan O'Kennedy (21) and senior Zak Tseytlin (22). A sixth member, junior Morgan O'Loughlin (20), practiced with the team in the fall, but has left for a semester abroad in Australia.
On top of trying to protect the dignity of Title IX, advocates for the NCAA's proposed rule also explain that using male practice teams harm the varsity's back-up players.
"To have talented, capable female student-athletes stand on the sidelines during official practice while the team's starters practice against 'more talented men' is a lost opportunity," the statement said. "To have them sitting out of practice while a full 'scout team' of men comes to practice is costing them the opportunity for growth and betterment that they were promised during recruitment."
James disagrees.
"I guess the reasons for this proposal is that it takes away valuable practice time for other girls on the team. Based on my experience, all the girls get plenty of playing time during practice and seem to enjoy the challenge that we give them," he said.
Junior forward and co-captain Kate Mills, certainly enjoys the challenge. And she wholeheartedly appreciates everything the men do to prepare her and her teammates for upcoming games.
"It's disappointing to hear - that [the NCAA] would [try] do something like that," she said. "I think it's the NCAA thinking that it's taking away from [the men's] school or something like that or they're getting something extra than other students. But, it's their decision to come onto the team, so they get some privileges about it."
Not that many privileges, though.
Members of a practice team are obligated to adhere to the same academic standards as every other student-athlete - they must be full-time students, pass a physical examination and maintain a 2.0 grade-point average. They do not, however, benefit from scholarships or excused absences that varsity athletes do. Therefore, they must work their class schedules around practice times.
Though they may not be on scholarship or travel with the team to away games, the members of the scout team are given the same amount of respect as any of the people permitted to enter the women's locker room.
"We definitely consider them a part of our team and one of the reasons for our success - just as much as the coaches or the [jersey players]," Tatham mentioned. "They're a part of our team as well because they're helping us."
Junior guard/forward Pam Rosanio echoes the kudos from her captain.
"I think the guys' team helps. They're a heck of a lot quicker than we are and just stronger, so, I mean, it helps us come gametime when we're playing against people who aren't as quick as [they are]," she said.
The CWA, however, feels that the rule's passing is essential to quell, what it calls a "disappointing" recent trend.
According to the statement, when Title IX was enacted, 90 percent of Division I women's athletic programs and women's teams, were headed by a female. But, in 2006, those numbers had plummeted to eight percent and an all-time low 42.4 percent, respectively.
To add salt to the wound the declined has caused, 82.3 percent of all intercollegiate coaches are men - while a mere 17.7 percent are women.
Those responsible for the proposal feel that prohibiting women's teams from scrimmaging with designated male-scout teams is the only way to increase the number of women active in women's college teams and to gain some of the ground they feel they've lost since 1972.
Tatham, on the other hand, wants everything to stay put.
"I definitely hope it stays the way it is," she said. "I don't want it to go away just because it makes me better as a player."
Ryan James seconds that.
"I hope the proposal falls through," he commented. "If it doesn't, then I'll have to go back to playing against men."
The Massachusetts women's basketball team's male practice squad is held in very high regard by the Minutewomen, and is thought to be as important as any other part of the program.
The 15-member CWA committee of administrators and athletes from Division I, II and III schools has requested that the routine of having men scrimmage against women in practice be disallowed.
"[Men practicing with women] violates the spirit of gender equality and Title IX," the CWA said in a statement released on Dec. 6.
Title IX was a groundbreaking federal law requiring fair and equal treatment for any educational program that receives federal funding. Part of the Education Amendments of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX was the first piece of national legislature to ban inequity in policies and programs of any educational institution.
The law especially affects collegiate sports. In short, Title IX states that universities that receive federal funding must spend equal amounts of money on athletic teams for men and women.
Supporters of the new measure feel that permitting men to practice against a women's basketball team takes a backward step from the ruling passed 34 years ago aimed at eliminating any discrimination in the world of academia on the basis on gender.
Despite the noble intentions of the law, certain measures taken in order to comply with it are, at times, considered unnecessary - even by the people it was intended to support.
"I'm not happy. I think the men should be able to play with us," UMass coach Marnie Dacko said. "I think they add a great deal of intensity. They're a great aide in helping women basketball players all over the country and I think [the league] would be doing a disservice if they chose not to allow men to practice [with women].
"I think that somebody out there is complaining," she continued. "You know, they need another cause to complain about and so somebody brings it up and starts something in a negative connotation."
Members of the women's team displayed confusion and disappointment at the idea of the NCAA restricting whom they can practice against.
"I think that it kind of sucks," junior guard and team co-captain, Alisha Tatham said. "We love when the guys come in. They really push us. They give us a lot more than, maybe, if a women's practice team were to come in. The guys are a lot more physical, they're a lot quicker.
"I don't see what's wrong with it," she continued. "There's a lot of people that play against guys all the time. I don't know why they'd take it away."
Neither does junior civil engineering major Ryan James.
James, 21, is one of the six members of the men's practice squad - and he says he's frustrated that the NCAA is trying to interfere with, what he considers, a team's own personal business.
"I can't really see any logic behind this new proposal. At the collegiate level, coaches should be able to prepare their teams in any reasonable way they feel will help their players," he said. "I think the NCAA shouldn't get involved with the structure of women's practice. It should be up to the coaches and the players collectively to decide if men should be allowed to practice or not."
James, a native of South Deerfield, Mass., first donned the uniform of a UMass practice-teamer after seeing a flyer at the basketball courts at the horseshoe in Southwest. After trying it out, he found himself making friends on both the practice squad and the varsity team and decided to stick with it. It's a decision he says he's glad he made.
"I do enjoy scrimmaging against the women. It's fun to play against girls that are just as physical as you are," James said. "I've gone through harder screens playing against the women than I have against most other guys I've played against.
"I'm just happy to be able to play basketball a couple of extra days a week," he said. "And I think [the women] are happy to get an extra challenge a couple days a week."
According to a report by USA Today, though the origin of having males practice against female players can be linked to a few different people, legendary women's coach Pat Summitt is generally credited with instituting the idea at Tennessee in the 1970s.
The strategy paid off for Summitt, now in her 33rd year as head coach of the Lady Volunteers, as she has claimed a record six NCAA titles. Perhaps it is the result of such success that has led to this now-common method being used by basketball programs of countless universities throughout the country.
According to the Daily Hampshire Gazette, this is the third season in which UMass has applied the tactic regularly.
In addition to James, the squad also consists of sophomore Steve Games (20-years old), juniors Ken Parsley (20) and Aidan O'Kennedy (21) and senior Zak Tseytlin (22). A sixth member, junior Morgan O'Loughlin (20), practiced with the team in the fall, but has left for a semester abroad in Australia.
On top of trying to protect the dignity of Title IX, advocates for the NCAA's proposed rule also explain that using male practice teams harm the varsity's back-up players.
"To have talented, capable female student-athletes stand on the sidelines during official practice while the team's starters practice against 'more talented men' is a lost opportunity," the statement said. "To have them sitting out of practice while a full 'scout team' of men comes to practice is costing them the opportunity for growth and betterment that they were promised during recruitment."
James disagrees.
"I guess the reasons for this proposal is that it takes away valuable practice time for other girls on the team. Based on my experience, all the girls get plenty of playing time during practice and seem to enjoy the challenge that we give them," he said.
Junior forward and co-captain Kate Mills, certainly enjoys the challenge. And she wholeheartedly appreciates everything the men do to prepare her and her teammates for upcoming games.
"It's disappointing to hear - that [the NCAA] would [try] do something like that," she said. "I think it's the NCAA thinking that it's taking away from [the men's] school or something like that or they're getting something extra than other students. But, it's their decision to come onto the team, so they get some privileges about it."
Not that many privileges, though.
Members of a practice team are obligated to adhere to the same academic standards as every other student-athlete - they must be full-time students, pass a physical examination and maintain a 2.0 grade-point average. They do not, however, benefit from scholarships or excused absences that varsity athletes do. Therefore, they must work their class schedules around practice times.
Though they may not be on scholarship or travel with the team to away games, the members of the scout team are given the same amount of respect as any of the people permitted to enter the women's locker room.
"We definitely consider them a part of our team and one of the reasons for our success - just as much as the coaches or the [jersey players]," Tatham mentioned. "They're a part of our team as well because they're helping us."
Junior guard/forward Pam Rosanio echoes the kudos from her captain.
"I think the guys' team helps. They're a heck of a lot quicker than we are and just stronger, so, I mean, it helps us come gametime when we're playing against people who aren't as quick as [they are]," she said.
The CWA, however, feels that the rule's passing is essential to quell, what it calls a "disappointing" recent trend.
According to the statement, when Title IX was enacted, 90 percent of Division I women's athletic programs and women's teams, were headed by a female. But, in 2006, those numbers had plummeted to eight percent and an all-time low 42.4 percent, respectively.
To add salt to the wound the declined has caused, 82.3 percent of all intercollegiate coaches are men - while a mere 17.7 percent are women.
Those responsible for the proposal feel that prohibiting women's teams from scrimmaging with designated male-scout teams is the only way to increase the number of women active in women's college teams and to gain some of the ground they feel they've lost since 1972.
Tatham, on the other hand, wants everything to stay put.
"I definitely hope it stays the way it is," she said. "I don't want it to go away just because it makes me better as a player."
Ryan James seconds that.
"I hope the proposal falls through," he commented. "If it doesn't, then I'll have to go back to playing against men."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)