SO, here I am talking to a coworker of mine, and amazingly quite a few of our conversations stem around race. (My coworker is a white male). Now, I don't mind because in this day and age it's rare to have an honest conversation about race with someone of another race. Plus he asks really thought provoking questions that make me think, and I give him honest answers and respond with questions of my own. Anywho, we were talking about enrollment at SFA and how the percentage of white students has dropped in recent years. Now, I don't go to SFA and quite frankly I could care less about SFA; but what he said was interesting. Here goes snippets of our conversation:
Him: Enrollment of white students at SFA has dropped because all of the minority students are getting the grants and scholarships. Minorities are basically going to school for free, and white students are having to pay full price. That's why they're building all of these things on campus- to entice more [white] students to come. I don't think it's fair that minorities get most of the scholarships. I have a4.0 GPA and I applied for a scholarship as a black male who had a 2.9 GPA, and he received the scholarship. I think that's a bunch of bull. That's why SFA is going to crap.
Me: Well, first we can't blame minority students because they don't make the decision as to who gets what scholarship and who doesn't. Second, you need to look at your financial aid department who is handing out the scholarships and see what's going on. ALl the students are doing is filling out the application and praying they get the money.
Him: Well, I was told that the president of SFA [a Mexican Man] said that white people were going to become the minority on campus and that the minorities would become the majority. I don't think that's right.
Me: Well, that's still racism it's just directed at whites this time around. Maybe people need to look into getting a new president. People are only going ot do what their boss tells them to do and if he sasy give more scholarships to minorities that's what they're going to do. Plus college is like a business. The more minorities a school has the more funding they get. So of course they're going to want their minority numbers up in order to receive government money.
Him: Well, I have a question. What's wrong with having Predominately White Schools? We have Historically Black Colleges and no one says those schools are discriminating or racist; but if we have a PWS [Predominately White School] then that school is racist and discriminating. What's up with that?
Me: Well, first anyone can apply for entrance to HBCUs and cannot be denied based on race. I know people who are white and go to HBCUs. Second, a lot of colleges are PWS, I went to one. SO I don't think it's a problem, until racial discrimination starts.
(Later in the day, I realized that I should have said: HBCUs were started because Blacks had a hard time gaining entrance into college, so we started our own)
SO anywho, I got to thinking: Do we see racism or reverse racism in everything? IS it really racism? Or is it just jealousy? Or is it just things are changing and we don't want that change? Is it cynicism? Or is it conspiracy theory?
I think it's a combination of all of that. Whether people choose to bury their heads in the sand and proclaim that racism doesn't exist, it doesn't change the fact that it does exist. BUT not everything is racism. Sometimes it's just the better person got the whatever [promotion, spot, job, etc]. If you're a black male with a bachelors degree going up against a white male with a masters and he gets the job, that's not necessarily racism- he does have more education than you. But if it's reversed and you [black male] have the masters and the white male has a bachelors, then it could be construed as racism.
However, in the interest of the school with the declining white population, that just may be a conspiracy theory. Considering the same coworker told me that Nacogdoches public schools are becoming majority black because [white] parents are taking their childrent o private schools because of the influx of Katrina kids entering the school system. Supposedly education has gone down to accomodate these Katrina kids and [white] parents aren't pleased about that. Well, now that has a bunch of potentially racist propaganda in that statement! Let's break it down:
Katrina kids come [mostly black], [white] parents take their children out of the schools. The reason: education is going downhill. Well, that's like saying the [black] kids are dumber than the [white] kids, so I'm going to pull my [white] child out of that school. Or it's saying [black] kids receive a lower level/quality of education than [white] kids- at which point "who's fault is that?" comes up. Or it could be construed as too many [black] kids are at this school and I need to pull my [white] kids from the school system and go broke (coworker said some of these parents cannot afford provate schools, but they send their kids anyway) sending them to a school I can scarecly afford.
Is all of this racism? Is this just one big conspiracy theory? Or are people like my coworker just a cynic who believes in conspiracy theories? So much to think about, ya know? It wouldn't be this complicated if people were just honest instead of politically correct. How about, "I took my hcild out of this school becuase too many black kids are there"? Or "I don't go to SFA because they are starting to have more minorities than white students"? If we were just honest no one would have to wonder and second guess other's actions and words, and we as a country and as a people can move forward and address these issues. SO long as we continue to hide behind politically correct vernacular we will never fight the war on racism. Everyone will continue to put their head in the sand and believe that racism doesn't exists or that racism is not a major issue in our world today.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Politics again!
So, President Obama gave a State of the Union Address last night. I must admit, I didn't watch. Not because I didn't want to, but I got busy with household duties and it slipped my mind. So, to make up for my slip, I decided to google and find the articles on the speech. Needless to say, that all of them were biased. Articles were either written from a Democratic standpoint or a Republican standpoint, no one was unbiased (which is why when I get home, I will youtube the SOTU).
It was a perfect representation of our government: biased. Government needs to stop acting like babies, and work together to figure out asome solutions to the problems that our country is facing. It's like: Dems give a solution, Rep. shoot down the solution. Arguments, mudlsinging, and name calling ensue and nothing gets accomplished. SO, what are you in office for? You're there to make decisions right? SO MAKE SOME SOLUTIONS! If you don't agree then give me something to counter the solution on the table.
I'm just basically tired of all the crap that is going on in the political arena. People are thinking about who will be running in 2012 and are trying to set themselves up to run instead of thinking about how the government is going to make it to 2012. Stop being selfish and work today. No matter what party you associate yourself with, what you do right now will affect how people vote on you in the future. If all you do is shoot down bills and offer no solutions, all you've shown the people is that you know how to say no and that you dont know how to solve problems. Telling me there is a problem is not the same as solving it. Hell, I can tell people there are problems, that doesn't mean I should be in office; that just means I can state the obvious.
Bottom line: Congress, get it together. Work together and stop thinking about your party. At the end of the day, I do't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc...all I care about is this: What are you doing to help our country? What solutions to the problems we are facing have you come up with?
Last words that politicians need to think on: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem! Which part are you?
It was a perfect representation of our government: biased. Government needs to stop acting like babies, and work together to figure out asome solutions to the problems that our country is facing. It's like: Dems give a solution, Rep. shoot down the solution. Arguments, mudlsinging, and name calling ensue and nothing gets accomplished. SO, what are you in office for? You're there to make decisions right? SO MAKE SOME SOLUTIONS! If you don't agree then give me something to counter the solution on the table.
I'm just basically tired of all the crap that is going on in the political arena. People are thinking about who will be running in 2012 and are trying to set themselves up to run instead of thinking about how the government is going to make it to 2012. Stop being selfish and work today. No matter what party you associate yourself with, what you do right now will affect how people vote on you in the future. If all you do is shoot down bills and offer no solutions, all you've shown the people is that you know how to say no and that you dont know how to solve problems. Telling me there is a problem is not the same as solving it. Hell, I can tell people there are problems, that doesn't mean I should be in office; that just means I can state the obvious.
Bottom line: Congress, get it together. Work together and stop thinking about your party. At the end of the day, I do't care if you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc...all I care about is this: What are you doing to help our country? What solutions to the problems we are facing have you come up with?
Last words that politicians need to think on: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem! Which part are you?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Really?! : Jennifer Aniston Copies Angelina's Dress, Brad Cuddling (PHOTOS)#slide_image
Jennifer Aniston Copies Angelina's Dress, Brad Cuddling (PHOTOS)#slide_image
Must be an extremely slow news day, if this is reported! The only similarities in this are:
-the slit is thigh high
-they're wearing a dress
-the dress is made out of cloth and has seems
-they're both females
-they're posing with males
-they both have their hair down
Other than that....this is a dumb article. Personally, I think Jen Aniston looked better, healthier, and had a better man on her arm (sorry Gerard Butler looks better than Brad Pitt and his facial hair).
But thus brings to mind: WHY WONT THE MEDIA STOP COMPARING JEN ANISTON AND ANGELINA JOLIE? Why won't they let sleeping dogs lie? I mean it's been about 5 years already! Move on! Clearly the parties involved have moved on. Everytime Jen breaks it off with a guy it's because she's still in love with Brad Pitt, and anytime Brangelina is having "problems" (which are more than likely nothing more than fabrications) it's because or connected to Jen Aniston. Hey media! Give the unrequitted love angle a break! Leave Jen outta Brangelina and Brangelina outta Jen. This is becoming ridiculous. The should just name it: Brangelifer or Jenradina or Angibranifer or some other ridiculous moniker because apparently it's a law that these people cannot be mentioned without mentioning all three people.
Must be an extremely slow news day, if this is reported! The only similarities in this are:
-the slit is thigh high
-they're wearing a dress
-the dress is made out of cloth and has seems
-they're both females
-they're posing with males
-they both have their hair down
Other than that....this is a dumb article. Personally, I think Jen Aniston looked better, healthier, and had a better man on her arm (sorry Gerard Butler looks better than Brad Pitt and his facial hair).
But thus brings to mind: WHY WONT THE MEDIA STOP COMPARING JEN ANISTON AND ANGELINA JOLIE? Why won't they let sleeping dogs lie? I mean it's been about 5 years already! Move on! Clearly the parties involved have moved on. Everytime Jen breaks it off with a guy it's because she's still in love with Brad Pitt, and anytime Brangelina is having "problems" (which are more than likely nothing more than fabrications) it's because or connected to Jen Aniston. Hey media! Give the unrequitted love angle a break! Leave Jen outta Brangelina and Brangelina outta Jen. This is becoming ridiculous. The should just name it: Brangelifer or Jenradina or Angibranifer or some other ridiculous moniker because apparently it's a law that these people cannot be mentioned without mentioning all three people.
politics
So, I'm riding in the car with one of my coworkers on the way to work, and we began to talk about politics. I said that I don't think people are letting Obama prove himself becasue they expect fast action to fix an economy (and country) that in my opinion has been plahued since at least the sixties. He asked me: "Well, what has Obama done so far?" I told him that I like the fact that Obama has tried to fix the healthcare in the States. His reply was, "My mom is in the healthcare industry and she said that his plan is cray because it will make people like us (teachers, etc) have to pay double what we are currently paying in order for the plan to work." It go tme thinking. You know I'm all for Obama (besides the fact that he was tons better than McCain, I think he can actually change America if not a lot then at least a little), but I began to ask myself what has Obama done?
I went to google and typed in, "What has President Obama accomplished so far?" Hmmm....it was not very complimentary. One site said that he, "accomplished two things: Jack and Squat", others said that he's done nothing but, "impose deadlines that are not being met. Congress is not scared of President Obama and his ultimatums and deadlines." I began to ask myself, "did unemployment go down?" I looked it up: too complicated for me to understand. Where is a nice and simple graph when you need one? They had one, but it stopped in 2008 and clearly Obama wasn't president then. So, I asked myself, "what exactly is his healthcare reform bill?" I looked that up, but it was a bunch of jargon that I could not understand. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very intelligent person, but I spend most of my days teaching kids, so it's not like I exactly have a chance to take a refresher course in: "What in the world does this legal mumbo jumbo mean".
I realized that I am like plenty other Americans; I don't understand crap about what's going on in our economy! I don't know what these bills mean, and I am just relying on the people I've elected to know what's best for me and everyone else in America. But isn't that wrong? I mean I'm not saying that I want to go out and tackle every single problem in America. I am saying, that I should at least be informed in language and terms I can understand about the issues that face our country. You know if I come across a text in a language that I don't know (like Spanish), I can always copy the text, go to freetranslation.com and paste the text in a box click a button and viola! that text is turned into plain English. Why isn't there a site I can go to where I can type in this legal, political mumbo jumbo and click English and it's translated into plain terms that everyone can understand? Part of Americans' problems stem that we don't understand the issues until they've been voted on and either put into place or shot down.
What about the people like me who don't have cable television and don't receive local news channels (although tomorrow I will have cable, yay me!)? Or who don't have the radio and rarely ever see the newspaper. I have to rely on the internet at work to connect to AOL to find out what's going on. Then the issue of which websites will report the facts and not their opinions. I feel lost in this new political arena. I'm 26, young and interested in politics and what's going on in our world, but I don't enderstand half the crap that's being said. Think about all the other people out there like me: interested in what's going on, but without the means to find out and understand what is actually going on. Or people who don't even have a computer (I at least have that at work 5 days a week). It's mind boggling, how many people can become informed and powerful if they just knew what was happeneing!
I know for me these are things I think need to be addressed in this country: healthcare (obviosuly) that doesn't overtax lower and middle classes (will explain about upper class in a minute); education (effective education and can teachers get a raise, we work HARD!!!); our economy (why are we giving bailouts to companies and not to the people? Doesn't it stand to reason if the people get the money, most of that money will in turn be given to these companies who need the bail out? We all need transportation, homes, and a good bank); all these wars (ummmm....America has enough issues without jumping in to help other countries who only want our help, not NEED our help. I'm all for helping others, but only those who NEED our help, not want our help. There is a difference between needs and wants; if you don't know, ask your mom or better yet ask mine, she'll be happy to explain!); unemployment (clearly, there needs to be a change, and unemployment should be surveyed. Is it that you can't find a job or is it that you're picky about what job you take? Could you have a job at McDonald's even though you have a doctorate? I mean get a job where you can until something in your field opens up!); student loans (ummm...companies like Sallie Mae are raping students in college and fresh out of college; interest rates are ridiculous; and the harassing phone calls are a bit too much. They also have no patience or understanding, but that's a rant for another day.); banks/credit card companies (these companies are just making money off of ridiculous interest rates, and pther dumb fees.); and credit (can we redo the whole credit score system?). These are just a few that I am interested in seeing a change in.
About upper class people, they make a good bit of money and they are entitled to that money, but if you're making 10 million a year, and thae government wants a million, please don't complain about your taxes. You can afford to give that and live on the other 9 million. Try living on about $50,000 a year and the government takes about $5,000 of your money. Oh and you have a family of four. $45,000 sounds like a lot in numbers, but wait until you factor in BASIC bills, uh uh $45,000 ain't gonna cut it! So don't whine when you still have millions or even hundreds of thousands to live on. Come to me when you start living pay check to pay check and can barely put food on your table and gas in your car; then maybe we can talk. Although in truth if you're having problems managing that much money, give it to me and I'll manage it for you!
Well, I was a little long winded, but I really had some things that I felt needed to be said. Oh! And if you know of anything that President Obama has done for our country (besides show that a Black man can be elected President) please please please let me know (along with providing the sources where I can confirm what he's done!).
Alicia
I went to google and typed in, "What has President Obama accomplished so far?" Hmmm....it was not very complimentary. One site said that he, "accomplished two things: Jack and Squat", others said that he's done nothing but, "impose deadlines that are not being met. Congress is not scared of President Obama and his ultimatums and deadlines." I began to ask myself, "did unemployment go down?" I looked it up: too complicated for me to understand. Where is a nice and simple graph when you need one? They had one, but it stopped in 2008 and clearly Obama wasn't president then. So, I asked myself, "what exactly is his healthcare reform bill?" I looked that up, but it was a bunch of jargon that I could not understand. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very intelligent person, but I spend most of my days teaching kids, so it's not like I exactly have a chance to take a refresher course in: "What in the world does this legal mumbo jumbo mean".
I realized that I am like plenty other Americans; I don't understand crap about what's going on in our economy! I don't know what these bills mean, and I am just relying on the people I've elected to know what's best for me and everyone else in America. But isn't that wrong? I mean I'm not saying that I want to go out and tackle every single problem in America. I am saying, that I should at least be informed in language and terms I can understand about the issues that face our country. You know if I come across a text in a language that I don't know (like Spanish), I can always copy the text, go to freetranslation.com and paste the text in a box click a button and viola! that text is turned into plain English. Why isn't there a site I can go to where I can type in this legal, political mumbo jumbo and click English and it's translated into plain terms that everyone can understand? Part of Americans' problems stem that we don't understand the issues until they've been voted on and either put into place or shot down.
What about the people like me who don't have cable television and don't receive local news channels (although tomorrow I will have cable, yay me!)? Or who don't have the radio and rarely ever see the newspaper. I have to rely on the internet at work to connect to AOL to find out what's going on. Then the issue of which websites will report the facts and not their opinions. I feel lost in this new political arena. I'm 26, young and interested in politics and what's going on in our world, but I don't enderstand half the crap that's being said. Think about all the other people out there like me: interested in what's going on, but without the means to find out and understand what is actually going on. Or people who don't even have a computer (I at least have that at work 5 days a week). It's mind boggling, how many people can become informed and powerful if they just knew what was happeneing!
I know for me these are things I think need to be addressed in this country: healthcare (obviosuly) that doesn't overtax lower and middle classes (will explain about upper class in a minute); education (effective education and can teachers get a raise, we work HARD!!!); our economy (why are we giving bailouts to companies and not to the people? Doesn't it stand to reason if the people get the money, most of that money will in turn be given to these companies who need the bail out? We all need transportation, homes, and a good bank); all these wars (ummmm....America has enough issues without jumping in to help other countries who only want our help, not NEED our help. I'm all for helping others, but only those who NEED our help, not want our help. There is a difference between needs and wants; if you don't know, ask your mom or better yet ask mine, she'll be happy to explain!); unemployment (clearly, there needs to be a change, and unemployment should be surveyed. Is it that you can't find a job or is it that you're picky about what job you take? Could you have a job at McDonald's even though you have a doctorate? I mean get a job where you can until something in your field opens up!); student loans (ummm...companies like Sallie Mae are raping students in college and fresh out of college; interest rates are ridiculous; and the harassing phone calls are a bit too much. They also have no patience or understanding, but that's a rant for another day.); banks/credit card companies (these companies are just making money off of ridiculous interest rates, and pther dumb fees.); and credit (can we redo the whole credit score system?). These are just a few that I am interested in seeing a change in.
About upper class people, they make a good bit of money and they are entitled to that money, but if you're making 10 million a year, and thae government wants a million, please don't complain about your taxes. You can afford to give that and live on the other 9 million. Try living on about $50,000 a year and the government takes about $5,000 of your money. Oh and you have a family of four. $45,000 sounds like a lot in numbers, but wait until you factor in BASIC bills, uh uh $45,000 ain't gonna cut it! So don't whine when you still have millions or even hundreds of thousands to live on. Come to me when you start living pay check to pay check and can barely put food on your table and gas in your car; then maybe we can talk. Although in truth if you're having problems managing that much money, give it to me and I'll manage it for you!
Well, I was a little long winded, but I really had some things that I felt needed to be said. Oh! And if you know of anything that President Obama has done for our country (besides show that a Black man can be elected President) please please please let me know (along with providing the sources where I can confirm what he's done!).
Alicia
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
CocoPerez: Jennifer Aniston Likes Her Legs And Wants You To Know It
CocoPerez: Jennifer Aniston Likes Her Legs And Wants You To Know It
OK, I'll be the first to admit, I LOVE reading Perez Hilton's blog. He's funny and when I'm at work and the kiddies are working my last nerve a good laugh is a MUST! But come on! It's no secret that he has his favorites (Lady GaGa, Brangelina, Rhianna just to name a few), but seriously he picks on certain people way too much. Take Jennifer Aniston. He calls her Maniston. I've never read anything in his blogs that she's done that is wrong/controversial, yet he always picks fun at her. From her dating life to her hanging out with friends, he stays on her case.
So, when I saw what she wore to the Golden Globes, I just knew for sure that he would talk about how fabulous she looked (and trust girlfriend looked AMAZING!!!); but he goes on to say, "Jennifer Aniston showed a LOT of leg last night at the Golden Globes, wearing a black Valentino gown with a very, very high slit. Jeez, Jenn, you look good, but come on. Aren't we getting a little desperate old for this?" What the hell? She lloked AMAZING!!! Who cares how old she is? I mean if she has the body why not? So basically he's saying you look good, but you're too old for this? So what does he want her to wear, a moomoo? Should she go out on the red carpet dressed like Susan Sarandon or Meryl Streep (both of whom get slaughtered in the press about their fashion choices)? Goodness, she looks AMAZING! Why criticize?
SO the question I guess is: What is the correct age to stop dressing sexy? I mean Mariah Carey had a plunging neckline and he said nothing. Halle Berry had a plunging neckline and he said nothing. Jennifer Aniston shows a leg and it's like POW! She's too old? Really?
Then he gets on her hair. I'm of the school if it aint broke dont fix it. Her hair was fine. She's known for her hair. She's also known for her red carpet style. She does black dress to a tee and the few times she's strayed from it, she's still looked awesome, but she always looks best in the black dress. Her hair is ALWAYS down, and it ALWAYS looks fabulous. She looked fabulous last night (with the exception of the shoes, strappy was right, but strappy across her toes looked kinda uncomfortable).
Bottom line: Perez, leave Aniston alone! She's done nothing! I mean he picks on Chris Brown like there is no tomorrow, and I understand (I may not agree, but I do understand); but she's not done anything. Well, that's my celebrity rant for today....although I do agree with Perez's assessment of Mo'Nique...baby girl needs to shave those legs! I'm all for going natural, but not that natural!
OK, I'll be the first to admit, I LOVE reading Perez Hilton's blog. He's funny and when I'm at work and the kiddies are working my last nerve a good laugh is a MUST! But come on! It's no secret that he has his favorites (Lady GaGa, Brangelina, Rhianna just to name a few), but seriously he picks on certain people way too much. Take Jennifer Aniston. He calls her Maniston. I've never read anything in his blogs that she's done that is wrong/controversial, yet he always picks fun at her. From her dating life to her hanging out with friends, he stays on her case.
So, when I saw what she wore to the Golden Globes, I just knew for sure that he would talk about how fabulous she looked (and trust girlfriend looked AMAZING!!!); but he goes on to say, "Jennifer Aniston showed a LOT of leg last night at the Golden Globes, wearing a black Valentino gown with a very, very high slit. Jeez, Jenn, you look good, but come on. Aren't we getting a little desperate old for this?" What the hell? She lloked AMAZING!!! Who cares how old she is? I mean if she has the body why not? So basically he's saying you look good, but you're too old for this? So what does he want her to wear, a moomoo? Should she go out on the red carpet dressed like Susan Sarandon or Meryl Streep (both of whom get slaughtered in the press about their fashion choices)? Goodness, she looks AMAZING! Why criticize?
SO the question I guess is: What is the correct age to stop dressing sexy? I mean Mariah Carey had a plunging neckline and he said nothing. Halle Berry had a plunging neckline and he said nothing. Jennifer Aniston shows a leg and it's like POW! She's too old? Really?
Then he gets on her hair. I'm of the school if it aint broke dont fix it. Her hair was fine. She's known for her hair. She's also known for her red carpet style. She does black dress to a tee and the few times she's strayed from it, she's still looked awesome, but she always looks best in the black dress. Her hair is ALWAYS down, and it ALWAYS looks fabulous. She looked fabulous last night (with the exception of the shoes, strappy was right, but strappy across her toes looked kinda uncomfortable).
Bottom line: Perez, leave Aniston alone! She's done nothing! I mean he picks on Chris Brown like there is no tomorrow, and I understand (I may not agree, but I do understand); but she's not done anything. Well, that's my celebrity rant for today....although I do agree with Perez's assessment of Mo'Nique...baby girl needs to shave those legs! I'm all for going natural, but not that natural!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Going natural
My roots :-
Roots :-
My curls!
When I do the twists and curls
Me with the tracks when I get lazySooooo... I made the conscious decision to go natural. It started out as just something to do, to see if I could do it. It then turned into I want to see what my natural hair is like. I haven't had a perm since August and if you know me I get perms every 5-6 weeks like clockwork. It's now January and I am about five months into my going natural "phase"...I'm going absolutely crazy! LOL! I mean I'm so used to being able to style my relaxed hair, and now I'm dealing with two different textures: nappy and straight.
So far I'm managing to keep my hair decent. For the days when I don't feel like struggling with it on a daily basis, I flat iron it and put tracks in. I know I know I know! The horror! Why go natural only to put tracks in? Well, I put them in to save myself time in the mornings when I have to dash off to work. Besides it keeps me out of my hair for at least a week, and that's a week more that I'm natural and not relaxed! On the other days, I twist the front and have the back in curls (using rod rollers) or I just wear the curls.
It's a struggle. especially when I have to wash my hair. After it's washed, trying to do something with my hair that makes it presentable and professional (to my standards) is difficult because I have high standards and I dont like to go anywhere with my hair a mess. For so long, I've permed and wrapped and styled my hair, now I have to think of new things to stop getting bored with the same old same old. One of my biggest struggles so far is trying to find the right hair products to use to prevent breakage.
Next time I wash it, I'll post pictures of what it looks like wet. Maybe someone will tell me exactly what my natural hair could be like.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Shaq Pays for N.C. Girl's Funeral -- NBA FanHouse
Shaq Pays for N.C. Girl's Funeral -- NBA FanHouse
In this day and age, many athletes get a bad rep. From promiscuity and infedelity to drugs, gambling and tax evasion; many athletes don'y have a great reputation. So, when I read a story like this one, it makes me think that there are some good guys out there. Shaq just paid for the funeral of a 5 year old girl that he did not know and had never met. He didn't know her family and had never heard of them until he sawher story on the news; yet he paid for her funeral...It makes one think.
Now $5000 is nothing for a man who makes miilions, but he did it. I keep thinking back to "regular, every day" folks like me. What am I doing to help my fellow Americans? If Shaq can pay $5000 for a funeral can't I give a $1 to the Salvation Army bell ringers? I mean, I'm not balling and I do have bills, but what's a dollar or so to help out others, right? This weekend I was asked at least three times if I wanted to donate money for a good cause, and each time my answer was, "No, I don't have any cash on me". Technically that was true because I didn't have cash just a debit card, but if I can pay $250 for a flat scrren TV, then can't I pay $6 for the use of an ATM machine and then donate a few bucks to a good cause?
These days "regular, ever day" folks tend to think about themselves and not about others. We complain about the bills we have, the job that we have, the expenses that come with every day living, hell, we just complain. Shockingly, we never do anything proactive, meaning anything that would cease our complaining. We never try to cut back on the going out to eat, the shopping, the multiple trips to the grocery store for little items (instead of making just one big trip); we constatnly leave things plugged in running up electricity. And, amazingly, we hardly ever sit down to say thank you Lord for everything that you've done for me. I mean, yeah, gas is way too high, and yeah we have car notes, rent, bills, cell phones, etc to pay for; but think about the people who don't have a home or transportation or a job. Our lives could be so much worse, but we still complain.
Now, what does this have to do with Shaq paying for that little girl's funeral. In a way nothing. But ina way everything. Shaq paid for her funeral (I'm assuming with no questions asked and with no hesitation) out of the vast amounts of money that he has. He's done his part ot help others. What are we doing? I think a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that in order to give and helppeople, we have to be millionaires. Not so. We can give our time and yes, our money. Even if it's a dollar to the volunteers for the Salvation Army or a few bucks to St. Jude's it's more than what they had before you gave it. I feel bad for not giving up a buck or two considering what I had just bought, especially after reading about what Shaq did. Such a big heart! Next time, I'm going to donate some money and do my part to help humanity. You should do the same!
In this day and age, many athletes get a bad rep. From promiscuity and infedelity to drugs, gambling and tax evasion; many athletes don'y have a great reputation. So, when I read a story like this one, it makes me think that there are some good guys out there. Shaq just paid for the funeral of a 5 year old girl that he did not know and had never met. He didn't know her family and had never heard of them until he sawher story on the news; yet he paid for her funeral...It makes one think.
Now $5000 is nothing for a man who makes miilions, but he did it. I keep thinking back to "regular, every day" folks like me. What am I doing to help my fellow Americans? If Shaq can pay $5000 for a funeral can't I give a $1 to the Salvation Army bell ringers? I mean, I'm not balling and I do have bills, but what's a dollar or so to help out others, right? This weekend I was asked at least three times if I wanted to donate money for a good cause, and each time my answer was, "No, I don't have any cash on me". Technically that was true because I didn't have cash just a debit card, but if I can pay $250 for a flat scrren TV, then can't I pay $6 for the use of an ATM machine and then donate a few bucks to a good cause?
These days "regular, ever day" folks tend to think about themselves and not about others. We complain about the bills we have, the job that we have, the expenses that come with every day living, hell, we just complain. Shockingly, we never do anything proactive, meaning anything that would cease our complaining. We never try to cut back on the going out to eat, the shopping, the multiple trips to the grocery store for little items (instead of making just one big trip); we constatnly leave things plugged in running up electricity. And, amazingly, we hardly ever sit down to say thank you Lord for everything that you've done for me. I mean, yeah, gas is way too high, and yeah we have car notes, rent, bills, cell phones, etc to pay for; but think about the people who don't have a home or transportation or a job. Our lives could be so much worse, but we still complain.
Now, what does this have to do with Shaq paying for that little girl's funeral. In a way nothing. But ina way everything. Shaq paid for her funeral (I'm assuming with no questions asked and with no hesitation) out of the vast amounts of money that he has. He's done his part ot help others. What are we doing? I think a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that in order to give and helppeople, we have to be millionaires. Not so. We can give our time and yes, our money. Even if it's a dollar to the volunteers for the Salvation Army or a few bucks to St. Jude's it's more than what they had before you gave it. I feel bad for not giving up a buck or two considering what I had just bought, especially after reading about what Shaq did. Such a big heart! Next time, I'm going to donate some money and do my part to help humanity. You should do the same!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)