Day 3 was going well, until a few minutes ago. I had an overwhelming craving for something sweet...a cookie. A chocolate cookie. My favorite butter cookies with an overlay of dark chocolate on top. Like the kind that are sitting WAAAY in the back of my pantry, where I shoved them before I began this Lenten detox.
(Must...stay...strong...)
Instead, I ran and grabbed a handful of strawberries.
*sigh*
I'm doing well with regard to headaches and all of that other stuff. No headaches today, although there were patches of skin that seemed...not sore, but they were painful, as if I had a sunburn or something on those parts. Very odd, and maybe part of the detox. I don't know.
I'm getting used to the unsweetened oatmeal with bits of fruit in it, and unsweetened herbal tea (I love peppermint!).
I will probably need more fruit by early next week. The rain should be done by then.
Hang in there, fellow Lenten folk!
Thanks for stopping by.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Letting Go for Lent: Day 2
Alrighty...it's day 2 of my giving up sugar for Lent. And guess what? Since I like to drink black tea (lots of caffeine!) with lots of sugar, I kind of gave up caffeine by default.
Maybe I should have thought this through a bit more. *sigh*
Oh well...it's done, and it'll do me some good.
So far, I'm not experiencing any of the horror stories I've read about sugar and/or caffeine detox. I was a bit more tired yesterday and fell asleep watching TV in the early evening, and late yesterday evening and sometimes during today, I've had a low-grade headache; not enough for me to take any Advil or anything, but enough to let me know it's there. This is apparently a normal part of sugar and caffeine detoxes.
One thing I've been doing, which I didn't realize was helpful at the time, was eating oatmeal for breakfast. Apparently, it helps suck out the toxins in my body and happily scrubs them out of my intestines.
(Okay, that may have been a bit graphic and TMI, but you get the point).
I've also been eating a lot more fruit; that helps when I have a taste for something sweet. Even though food is sky high these days, I've managed to find some good sale items, and don't sleep on those markdowns that grocery stores do to try and get rid of stuff that is about to expire. I got two bags of green apple slices for $1.00 each (BARGAIN! regular price was $2.99/bag), and three pints of strawberries for $4.98 (yes, you read that right: 3 pints of strawberries in this specially marked package, for about 5 bucks). I also got some bananas. I cut up a banana in my morning oatmeal, and add some cinnamon and a bit of half-and-half, and it actually turns out pretty well. I tried strawberries but they don't taste as good to me as the bananas.
Another thing I've been doing is just eating right, period. I've been eating more vegetables too, especially since springtime is fast approaching and more fresh fruits and vegetables are becoming available. Plus, given the high cost of foods, I've been shopping at a place called Fresh Market (which is kind of a Whole Foods Lite LOL--no toiletries section). Some of their prices are less than the regular chain stores like Kroger (which is similar to Harris Teeter, Safeway/Vons, Ralph's, Giant, Albertson's etc., depending on where you live) and the produce and meats tend to be of better quality. Plus, it's right next to the public library, a branch of my bank, a Harris Teeter (if I can get some stuff cheaper there), and some other shops (like a drugstore and a very nice thrift shop run by the Junior League), so it's one-stop shopping for me.
I'm plugging along and for those of you who may be on your own Lenten journey, I wish you luck and encourage you to hang in there!
Thanks for stopping by.
Maybe I should have thought this through a bit more. *sigh*
Oh well...it's done, and it'll do me some good.
So far, I'm not experiencing any of the horror stories I've read about sugar and/or caffeine detox. I was a bit more tired yesterday and fell asleep watching TV in the early evening, and late yesterday evening and sometimes during today, I've had a low-grade headache; not enough for me to take any Advil or anything, but enough to let me know it's there. This is apparently a normal part of sugar and caffeine detoxes.
One thing I've been doing, which I didn't realize was helpful at the time, was eating oatmeal for breakfast. Apparently, it helps suck out the toxins in my body and happily scrubs them out of my intestines.
(Okay, that may have been a bit graphic and TMI, but you get the point).
I've also been eating a lot more fruit; that helps when I have a taste for something sweet. Even though food is sky high these days, I've managed to find some good sale items, and don't sleep on those markdowns that grocery stores do to try and get rid of stuff that is about to expire. I got two bags of green apple slices for $1.00 each (BARGAIN! regular price was $2.99/bag), and three pints of strawberries for $4.98 (yes, you read that right: 3 pints of strawberries in this specially marked package, for about 5 bucks). I also got some bananas. I cut up a banana in my morning oatmeal, and add some cinnamon and a bit of half-and-half, and it actually turns out pretty well. I tried strawberries but they don't taste as good to me as the bananas.
Another thing I've been doing is just eating right, period. I've been eating more vegetables too, especially since springtime is fast approaching and more fresh fruits and vegetables are becoming available. Plus, given the high cost of foods, I've been shopping at a place called Fresh Market (which is kind of a Whole Foods Lite LOL--no toiletries section). Some of their prices are less than the regular chain stores like Kroger (which is similar to Harris Teeter, Safeway/Vons, Ralph's, Giant, Albertson's etc., depending on where you live) and the produce and meats tend to be of better quality. Plus, it's right next to the public library, a branch of my bank, a Harris Teeter (if I can get some stuff cheaper there), and some other shops (like a drugstore and a very nice thrift shop run by the Junior League), so it's one-stop shopping for me.
I'm plugging along and for those of you who may be on your own Lenten journey, I wish you luck and encourage you to hang in there!
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Letting Go for Lent: Day 1
While grocery shopping the other day, I had the bright idea that I should give up something for Lent. Mind you, I'm not Catholic nor do I play one on TV, but perhaps attending Mardi Gras parties and seeing the Mardi Gras-themed items in stores had an influence. After a bit of deliberation, I decided that I should give up sugar for Lent.
What was I smoking?
If you don't know, now you know: I am a sugar freak. Always have been. I don't eat chocolates, and the most candy I eat these days is the occasional piece of peppermint. But I've never met a tiramisu, creme brulee, strawberry shortcake, donut, or vanilla/yellow (cup)cake with chocolate icing that I didn't like. And my tea? Sweet. Period. Hot or cold. I'm talking about lots of sugar, enough to send somebody into a diabetic coma.
(which is probably not a good idea for someone who has diabetes on both sides of the family--types 1 and 2--but I digress)
Add to the fact that my belly lip is expanding into a muffin top, and I'm still having acne breakouts, and I decided that it was time for an intervention. Lent was a good excuse, and also gave me a good time frame within which to do this (40 days). Plus, I refuse to buy any more bigger clothes (arse expansion notwithstanding).
40 days and nights of no added sugar. No sugar in my tea, no cakes, cookies, pies, or donuts.
Lord have mercy on my detoxing soul.
It's not like I've gone cold turkey before. I used to do 3- to 7-day juice fasts when I lived in California, or went from sunup to sundown without eating anything. But a whole month and some change (practically a month and a half)? I don't know...it's going to be tough.
I'd already taken a step toward a better diet when I cut regular bread out of my diet and switched to pita bread. Granted, I will have the occasional croissaint or some three-cheese bread (especially when it's on the "reduced for quick sale" rack in the grocery store bakery section), but that's maybe once a week--not every day, like I used to. As a result of that, I noticed that the muffin top was slowly deflating, especially as I was able to get into a new (to me) pair of jeans that I'd bought over the summer and couldn't wear because I couldn't fasten them. Plus, I think I read that carbohydrates convert to sugar in the body as an energy source, so lessening that will help my sugar withdrawal.
Anyway...I am going to try and chronicle my sugar abstinence here: how I'm coping (or not), physical and emotional changes, and all that good stuff. It may get ugly, so read at your own risk.
Thanks for stopping by.
T.
What was I smoking?
If you don't know, now you know: I am a sugar freak. Always have been. I don't eat chocolates, and the most candy I eat these days is the occasional piece of peppermint. But I've never met a tiramisu, creme brulee, strawberry shortcake, donut, or vanilla/yellow (cup)cake with chocolate icing that I didn't like. And my tea? Sweet. Period. Hot or cold. I'm talking about lots of sugar, enough to send somebody into a diabetic coma.
(which is probably not a good idea for someone who has diabetes on both sides of the family--types 1 and 2--but I digress)
Add to the fact that my belly lip is expanding into a muffin top, and I'm still having acne breakouts, and I decided that it was time for an intervention. Lent was a good excuse, and also gave me a good time frame within which to do this (40 days). Plus, I refuse to buy any more bigger clothes (arse expansion notwithstanding).
40 days and nights of no added sugar. No sugar in my tea, no cakes, cookies, pies, or donuts.
Lord have mercy on my detoxing soul.
It's not like I've gone cold turkey before. I used to do 3- to 7-day juice fasts when I lived in California, or went from sunup to sundown without eating anything. But a whole month and some change (practically a month and a half)? I don't know...it's going to be tough.
I'd already taken a step toward a better diet when I cut regular bread out of my diet and switched to pita bread. Granted, I will have the occasional croissaint or some three-cheese bread (especially when it's on the "reduced for quick sale" rack in the grocery store bakery section), but that's maybe once a week--not every day, like I used to. As a result of that, I noticed that the muffin top was slowly deflating, especially as I was able to get into a new (to me) pair of jeans that I'd bought over the summer and couldn't wear because I couldn't fasten them. Plus, I think I read that carbohydrates convert to sugar in the body as an energy source, so lessening that will help my sugar withdrawal.
Anyway...I am going to try and chronicle my sugar abstinence here: how I'm coping (or not), physical and emotional changes, and all that good stuff. It may get ugly, so read at your own risk.
Thanks for stopping by.
T.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Friday the 13th: Preview of Hairy Attractions
Today, I was running errands and saw some things that hurt my heart. As we get ever closer to the commercial pimpstrosity that is Valentine's Day, I have to implore my fellow women to do one simple thing that will make a world of difference.
Shave. Your. Face.
Seriously, y'all...I saw three (count 'em) women with mustaches to rival Adolf Hitler's and five o'clock shadows (at 11:30 in the morning). I tried not to stare, but I had to in order to determine if the shes were actually hes.
Now, I understand that some of us are genetically hairy (Nair has been a good friend since I hit puberty), and some of us have hormonal issues, but that is still no excuse to walk out of the house looking like a spinoff of the show Kyle XY that has gone horribly wrong. Even if you can't afford depilatory creams such as Nair and Neet, or the home wax kits, razors are relatively inexpensive. You can get a pack of ten store-brand ones for about $1.50 or less at everyday prices; or, you can save yourself 50 cents and pick the razors up at your local dollar store. You don't even need to buy shaving cream; soap makes a very effective skin enhancer for shaving (I mean, how do you think they shaved in the olden days? With SOAP! Ask any old-time barber who used a straight razor).
The point is: there is no excuse for any woman to leave the house looking like she needs a #2 guard (a certain attachment used on electric razors for closely shorn hair) used on her cheeks and jaws.
Have some pride, y'all. Valentine's Day isn't about loving someone else; it's about loving yourself too, which you should practice every day. Self-love means making sure you look good for YOU...which is the quickest path to finding love with someone else.
Love means never having to comb or brush your significant other's face.
Thanks for stopping by.
Shave. Your. Face.
Seriously, y'all...I saw three (count 'em) women with mustaches to rival Adolf Hitler's and five o'clock shadows (at 11:30 in the morning). I tried not to stare, but I had to in order to determine if the shes were actually hes.
Now, I understand that some of us are genetically hairy (Nair has been a good friend since I hit puberty), and some of us have hormonal issues, but that is still no excuse to walk out of the house looking like a spinoff of the show Kyle XY that has gone horribly wrong. Even if you can't afford depilatory creams such as Nair and Neet, or the home wax kits, razors are relatively inexpensive. You can get a pack of ten store-brand ones for about $1.50 or less at everyday prices; or, you can save yourself 50 cents and pick the razors up at your local dollar store. You don't even need to buy shaving cream; soap makes a very effective skin enhancer for shaving (I mean, how do you think they shaved in the olden days? With SOAP! Ask any old-time barber who used a straight razor).
The point is: there is no excuse for any woman to leave the house looking like she needs a #2 guard (a certain attachment used on electric razors for closely shorn hair) used on her cheeks and jaws.
Have some pride, y'all. Valentine's Day isn't about loving someone else; it's about loving yourself too, which you should practice every day. Self-love means making sure you look good for YOU...which is the quickest path to finding love with someone else.
Love means never having to comb or brush your significant other's face.
Thanks for stopping by.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Birth of a Nation
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past week or so, then you already know about the woman who gave birth to octuplets via in vitro fertilization (IVF)--even though she already had six children.
The birth has raised a storm of drama and controversy, among them:
--why did this woman want even one more child, when she's living at home with her parents and unemployed?
--what doctor was crazy (or unethical) enough to implant more than the usual two embryos?
--who's going to end up paying for all this?
Like a lot of people, I could care less about how many children this woman has; but when the burden of their care will more than likely fall on me as a U.S. taxpayer, then that makes it my business. The woman, while she allegedly has a college degree, is not working; lives at home with her parents (and her father is doing consulting work in Iraq in order to support this suddenly enlarged family--even after they've already filed twice for bankruptcy). Her mom is raising her other six kids while she's recovering from the birth of the eight. Also, word on the curb is that she likes to file workers' compensation claims and reap the benefits. Another interesting tidbit to this story is not only that the sperm donor is the same for all of her children (a little bird mentioned that the woman could not conceive naturally due to blocked Fallopian tubes), but also that she gave birth and is (along with the babies) under medical care at a Kaiser Permanente facility (which is a Medicaid/MediCal haven).
*sniff* You smell that? Smells like a scam.
Come on, y'all, do the math. IVF costs a minimum of $10,000 per cycle (each time the woman goes in to get implanted with the fertilized embryos); most couples who have gone through IVF will tell you that it usually takes at least two or threee cycles to get pregnant. Then there are the pesky costs of food, medical care, bottles, clothes, diapers, toys, and all the lovely things that come with having one child, let alone the 14 she now has with the birth of the octuplets. And since this lady decided to hire a publicist AND a spokeswoman, that costs money too.
(A publicist, y'all. And a spokeswoman. Seriously.)
The tab is now up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, now. That's not chump change, except maybe by Wall Street standards.
On the real, though, can you really blame her? It was only a matter of time before someone got it into their heads to have multiple children for the sake of notoriety and fame. How many times has the media reported on sextuplets, septuplets, and octuplets getting everything from free diapers and formula, to free four-year college educations? And let's not forget the popular show Jon and Kate Plus 8 on The Learning Channel, which chronicles the daily lives of parents who gave birth to sextuplets years after the birth of twins. And, above all else, there is the 15 minutes of fame accorded to the mother who actually carried those children for over 30 weeks and gave birth.
The old adage "use what you got to get what you want" comes into play here. The woman felt that what she had was the ability to deliver children, so she tried to parlay that into a lucrative arrangement. Unfortunately for her, it fell flat. Sponsors aren't lining up to donate goods and services for the children because of the public outcry. People are writing TV networks, begging them not to add a show about this woman and her children to their programming lineup. The doctors who performed the IVF are laying low and keeping their name(s) out of the media--for now (I'm sure this will be revealed in upcoming weeks).
I'm not one to tell folks how to raise their children (except to support the use of discipline), but her parents should take some of the weight for all this mess. The woman is quoted by her mother as "loving children", even going so far as calling the woman's love for children an "obsession." An obsession is usually interpreted to mean "an unhealthy fixation", so knowing all this, how could you condone this behavior? Or were you trying to get a piece of the pie too?
(and before you say anything: the mother knew. She probably didn't want to know, but she knew her child and what she was capable of.)
Of course, the publicist and spokeswoman are trying to spin this and say that ol' girl wasn't out for financial gain, yadda yadda yadda...but then say that she's had offers from TV stations and publishers for her story and it's "too early to determine how much money she may receive."
Mmph.
Babymaking is a big business, judging from the amounts paid to surrogate mothers and adoption agencies (especially foreign ones). Still, it's a slap in the face to those who want to have kids but can't, or don't have the means to stage a media coup in an attempt to set themselves up for life. And given this chick's parental history, I'm hard pressed to feel any sympathy for her--only contempt. And if you want to get her side of the story, you'll have to wait until she signs it over to the highest bidder.
Thanks for stopping by.
The birth has raised a storm of drama and controversy, among them:
--why did this woman want even one more child, when she's living at home with her parents and unemployed?
--what doctor was crazy (or unethical) enough to implant more than the usual two embryos?
--who's going to end up paying for all this?
Like a lot of people, I could care less about how many children this woman has; but when the burden of their care will more than likely fall on me as a U.S. taxpayer, then that makes it my business. The woman, while she allegedly has a college degree, is not working; lives at home with her parents (and her father is doing consulting work in Iraq in order to support this suddenly enlarged family--even after they've already filed twice for bankruptcy). Her mom is raising her other six kids while she's recovering from the birth of the eight. Also, word on the curb is that she likes to file workers' compensation claims and reap the benefits. Another interesting tidbit to this story is not only that the sperm donor is the same for all of her children (a little bird mentioned that the woman could not conceive naturally due to blocked Fallopian tubes), but also that she gave birth and is (along with the babies) under medical care at a Kaiser Permanente facility (which is a Medicaid/MediCal haven).
*sniff* You smell that? Smells like a scam.
Come on, y'all, do the math. IVF costs a minimum of $10,000 per cycle (each time the woman goes in to get implanted with the fertilized embryos); most couples who have gone through IVF will tell you that it usually takes at least two or threee cycles to get pregnant. Then there are the pesky costs of food, medical care, bottles, clothes, diapers, toys, and all the lovely things that come with having one child, let alone the 14 she now has with the birth of the octuplets. And since this lady decided to hire a publicist AND a spokeswoman, that costs money too.
(A publicist, y'all. And a spokeswoman. Seriously.)
The tab is now up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, now. That's not chump change, except maybe by Wall Street standards.
On the real, though, can you really blame her? It was only a matter of time before someone got it into their heads to have multiple children for the sake of notoriety and fame. How many times has the media reported on sextuplets, septuplets, and octuplets getting everything from free diapers and formula, to free four-year college educations? And let's not forget the popular show Jon and Kate Plus 8 on The Learning Channel, which chronicles the daily lives of parents who gave birth to sextuplets years after the birth of twins. And, above all else, there is the 15 minutes of fame accorded to the mother who actually carried those children for over 30 weeks and gave birth.
The old adage "use what you got to get what you want" comes into play here. The woman felt that what she had was the ability to deliver children, so she tried to parlay that into a lucrative arrangement. Unfortunately for her, it fell flat. Sponsors aren't lining up to donate goods and services for the children because of the public outcry. People are writing TV networks, begging them not to add a show about this woman and her children to their programming lineup. The doctors who performed the IVF are laying low and keeping their name(s) out of the media--for now (I'm sure this will be revealed in upcoming weeks).
I'm not one to tell folks how to raise their children (except to support the use of discipline), but her parents should take some of the weight for all this mess. The woman is quoted by her mother as "loving children", even going so far as calling the woman's love for children an "obsession." An obsession is usually interpreted to mean "an unhealthy fixation", so knowing all this, how could you condone this behavior? Or were you trying to get a piece of the pie too?
(and before you say anything: the mother knew. She probably didn't want to know, but she knew her child and what she was capable of.)
Of course, the publicist and spokeswoman are trying to spin this and say that ol' girl wasn't out for financial gain, yadda yadda yadda...but then say that she's had offers from TV stations and publishers for her story and it's "too early to determine how much money she may receive."
Mmph.
Babymaking is a big business, judging from the amounts paid to surrogate mothers and adoption agencies (especially foreign ones). Still, it's a slap in the face to those who want to have kids but can't, or don't have the means to stage a media coup in an attempt to set themselves up for life. And given this chick's parental history, I'm hard pressed to feel any sympathy for her--only contempt. And if you want to get her side of the story, you'll have to wait until she signs it over to the highest bidder.
Thanks for stopping by.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Dale Carnegie for the New Millenium...NOT!
I really must move to Seattle...so many interesting things show up in the Emerald City's newspapers.
Like this tidbit from columnist Jerry Large, talking about a book that is causing a slow controversy: Leadership 101 for White Men: How to Work Successfully with Black Colleagues and Customers by Chuck Shelton.
According to Shelton, white men make up most of the executive leadership in this country, yet make up less than 1/4 of the total workforce in this country. Ergo (in his mind), they should learn to get along with the little people--which, according to his research, are black folks.
*cues up "Ebony and Ivory" by Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney*
I am feeling some kind of way about this book. I guess I missed the memo that, once again, this country is being built on our backs. Yes, there may be higher concentrations of black folks in certain jobs (e.g. blue collar) in certain areas (like Detroit or Washington, DC), and I've noticed that there seems to be a disproportionate number of black women in the administrative ghettoes of Corporate America and federal and state government jobs. But to make a blanket statement that most of the workforce in the United States is black just seems off to me. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding, Jr. in Jerry Maguire: "Show me the statistics!"
Likewise, I didn't know that white men had different leadership strategies than black men...or Asian men...or Latino men. Or women. When John Maxwell writes his leadership books, he doesn't specify that only white, Christian men (like him) would benefit from his knowledge. I also don't recall Dale Carnegie specifying that only white people would (and should) know how to win friends and influence people.
Here's the product description from Amazon.com:
"Leadership 101 for White Men: How to Work Successfully with Black Colleagues and Customers is the first book that equips six million white men to lead, through seizing the opportunities and handling the challenges that diversity provides. Honed by the author through more than 250 presentations, and tested in relationships with people of color and women for forty years, this approach prepares white men to deliver better results, by building more effective relationships with black employees and customers. Through 101 essays, it speaks directly to the growing national appetite for straight talk that helps Americans communicate and achieve across race and gender lines."
This is comical on so many levels, the least being that women are not included among the people of color (check the wording of the second sentence). Also, since when did "of color" equal "black"? Maybe I learned differently, but usually the term "of color" refers to anyone who is not white/Caucasian/European; that means black/African/Caribbean/South Asian/Asian/Hispanic/Latino, and any and all combinations thereof. Please refer to the "One-Drop Rule" if you ever get confused.
Has this Shelton dude showed up on Sean Hannity's or Bill Reilly's show yet? Has FOX network made this mandatory reading for its executive staff? Somebody's buying it, because as of the time of this posting, there were only 2 copies of the book left in stock on Amazon.com. Oddly, no one has written a review, and the book was published in December 2008. Guess no one wants to put their neck on the block for a flame war.
Of course, it begs the question that Shelton may feel that there should be another manual that specifically deals with each ethnicity and race of persons of color, or do we all just look alike and thus can be lumped together? Or one that deals specifically with leadership strategies in dealing with women? What about when dealing with gay people? In which case, it's the US Census Form all over again, and you have to check off one box only.
I guess we all can't just get along.
Thanks for stopping by.
Like this tidbit from columnist Jerry Large, talking about a book that is causing a slow controversy: Leadership 101 for White Men: How to Work Successfully with Black Colleagues and Customers by Chuck Shelton.
According to Shelton, white men make up most of the executive leadership in this country, yet make up less than 1/4 of the total workforce in this country. Ergo (in his mind), they should learn to get along with the little people--which, according to his research, are black folks.
*cues up "Ebony and Ivory" by Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney*
I am feeling some kind of way about this book. I guess I missed the memo that, once again, this country is being built on our backs. Yes, there may be higher concentrations of black folks in certain jobs (e.g. blue collar) in certain areas (like Detroit or Washington, DC), and I've noticed that there seems to be a disproportionate number of black women in the administrative ghettoes of Corporate America and federal and state government jobs. But to make a blanket statement that most of the workforce in the United States is black just seems off to me. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding, Jr. in Jerry Maguire: "Show me the statistics!"
Likewise, I didn't know that white men had different leadership strategies than black men...or Asian men...or Latino men. Or women. When John Maxwell writes his leadership books, he doesn't specify that only white, Christian men (like him) would benefit from his knowledge. I also don't recall Dale Carnegie specifying that only white people would (and should) know how to win friends and influence people.
Here's the product description from Amazon.com:
"Leadership 101 for White Men: How to Work Successfully with Black Colleagues and Customers is the first book that equips six million white men to lead, through seizing the opportunities and handling the challenges that diversity provides. Honed by the author through more than 250 presentations, and tested in relationships with people of color and women for forty years, this approach prepares white men to deliver better results, by building more effective relationships with black employees and customers. Through 101 essays, it speaks directly to the growing national appetite for straight talk that helps Americans communicate and achieve across race and gender lines."
This is comical on so many levels, the least being that women are not included among the people of color (check the wording of the second sentence). Also, since when did "of color" equal "black"? Maybe I learned differently, but usually the term "of color" refers to anyone who is not white/Caucasian/European; that means black/African/Caribbean/South Asian/Asian/Hispanic/Latino, and any and all combinations thereof. Please refer to the "One-Drop Rule" if you ever get confused.
Has this Shelton dude showed up on Sean Hannity's or Bill Reilly's show yet? Has FOX network made this mandatory reading for its executive staff? Somebody's buying it, because as of the time of this posting, there were only 2 copies of the book left in stock on Amazon.com. Oddly, no one has written a review, and the book was published in December 2008. Guess no one wants to put their neck on the block for a flame war.
Of course, it begs the question that Shelton may feel that there should be another manual that specifically deals with each ethnicity and race of persons of color, or do we all just look alike and thus can be lumped together? Or one that deals specifically with leadership strategies in dealing with women? What about when dealing with gay people? In which case, it's the US Census Form all over again, and you have to check off one box only.
I guess we all can't just get along.
Thanks for stopping by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
