Stealing – Is it ever appropriate? This is the question that we are going to attempt to answer in this discussion. The question is a complex one as several arguments on both sides of the question could be explored from an ethical point of view. There is the natural answer that stealing is never appropriate which is backed up by the Divine Command, Natural Law, Utilitarian, and Social Contract ethical theories. But what happens when a person is faced with extreme circumstances, such as natural disaster, poverty, or hopelessness? Does that make it okay for a person to steal in order to survive? Is it okay for a person to steal as a form of protest?
The Ethical Egoism supports these answers in the affirmative as the theory states that everyone is self-preserving by nature. Therefore, it provides a justification for a person to steal in order to feed their family in times of crisis. We will examine these arguments by first breaking down the issue into the individual components. These individual components will identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations. Then we will utilize these components to establish two ethical theoretical viewpoints for each side and examine the underlying complexities that exist on each side of the argument.
The complexities introduce themselves in the form of racial stereotypes. Minorities have always struggled with equality in the areas of civil and economic rights. They have been typically stereotyped as animals, and therefore not worthy of exception or the proper respect afforded to other races. This was exemplified during the New Orleans disaster, when Kanye West commented on the government response to Hurricane Katrina during the NBC telethon where he stated the following:
“I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, "They're looting." You see a white family, it says, "They're looking for food." And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help -- with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!... George Bush doesn't care about black people!”
This quote is unprecedented for a number of reasons: 1.) Kanye is commenting on the how the actions of the victims are being perceived based on race, 2.) He is a Black entertainer making a direct criticism of the President of United States, implying that the President has racial bias, which is unheard of, and 3.) He is in a position to assist the victims and he understands that he is not doing enough to solve the problem making him part of the problem as opposed to being part of the solution. Personally, I agree with the statements that Kanye West made during that telecast. My view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided.
The following table decomposes the issue of stealing into the individual components. These individual components identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations.
(Table not listed)
This is important because the decomposition allows us to perform a comprehensive analysis of the question of stealing by carefully examining each component on both sides of the argument and constructing the appropriate justifications that will support the arguments.
As I stated earlier, my personal view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided. Ethical egoism is the ethical theoretical viewpoint that can be used to support this argument. This theory explicitly states that, "In other words, it is good for humans to act in their own self-interest in each and every occasion." Under situations of extreme duress, such as Natural disasters (New Orleans disaster), Traumatic situations (Rodney King verdict), or Poverty mentioned in the table, the agents, whether it is a single person or a particular group of individuals, have to commit acts of stealing against the patients in order to survive. Traumatic situations such as the Rodney King verdict and the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are a catalyst for such acts because the affected groups of people are traumatized and require a release. Thus, the traumatic situation becomes an impetus for a riot against those who are perceived to inflict the trauma. These riots start with stealing simply for survival, but quickly degenerate into situations of looting and the complete destruction of property. In a weird twist the Prima Facie theory, specifically the Principle of Reparation could be used to support the acts that arise from traumatic situations. The reason being is that prior to the traumatic situation, there are usually symptoms that create unrest in these communities. Whether its lack of quality schools, affordable housing, stable employment, or basic social violations, these communities feel neglected and that their voice is not being heard by their leaders on all levels (local, state, federal, and international). At this point, the traumatic situation represents the point where the community is fed up and the community is seeking both retribution and reparation for the harm that has been caused. The government has continually inflicted harm on these communities through waste, exploitation, mismanagement, and an abject failure to listen to the citizens. So the community inflicts reparations on those who they feel are exploiting them for profit without giving back to the community.
But does that justify stealing as appropriate? These acts are still crimes, with or without proper justification. The Eighth Commandment in the Bible states, "Thou shall not steal...” which establishes the Divine Command theory as the foundational theory to support the argument that stealing is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Natural Law theory states that "there are very general moral principles/laws that are objective truths discoverable in the nature of things." Stealing is understood as a general moral principle that has consequences for the action. If it is a generally understood law that stealing is illegal, and there is a contract within society that states that citizens will obey the generally understood laws of society, then to break that contract is to understand that significant penalties come with these illegal acts. That premise is the basis for the Social Contract theory which states, "...we agree to give up some authority and power to a ruler (or rulers) in exchange for the benefits of living in a peaceful, law-abiding society. We contract (agree) to form a society. Just by living in this society we silently agree to its laws and ethos." So stealing becomes a violation of God's Law, Natural Law, and the Laws of society that govern our people.
There is an emotion that Kanye West conveys in his quote at the onset of this discussion that applies to both arguments. That is one of remorse or use of his moral conscience in analyzing his actions against the backdrop of the New Orleans disaster. Whether the justification of stealing is right or wrong, there is crime committed against your soul that will always have to be atoned for. It may not be right away, but at some point those actions come back to affect one's conscience. Aristotle's theory states that, "The goal of morality is to develop a soul whose rational and non-rational parts act as one." This synthesis occurs at different stages of a human's life and development. But when it occurs, regret sets in, upon reflection upon the act that has been committed. This is important in the development of the next aspect of Aristotle's theory which outlines that, "Virtue ethics emphasizes that it is not actions that are right or wrong, moral or immoral. It is the human being that is moral or immoral. Becoming a good person involves developing a certain moral wisdom throughout a lifetime." This allows for healing, whether it is in a correctional facility, through God, or the reparation for wrongdoing. The act of stealing for one's survival would still be appropriate, because it is an extenuating circumstance, but there still is a price to be paid, which society cannot define.
So in conclusion, we have successfully examined both sides of the question, "Stealing – Is it ever appropriate?” We have established an argument through careful examination that stealing is appropriate under situations of extreme duress. It does not excuse the moral price that has to be paid for the pain that is inflicted on others because it is still a violation of law. But under situations of extreme duress, survival is the primary instinct, with the consequences being a secondary factor in the equation. So under that specific condition, stealing is an appropriate act, regardless of the consequence.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Competition Policy In The European Union
You know what....y'all want to know my thoughts..........well here they are.....one of the nerdier ones....
---------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of Competition Policy in the European Union (EU) is a direct result of a basic requirement to create a European single market. This basic requirement came as a result of the impact of 19th century Industrialization. The impact resulted in the need for greater productivity in less time, with increased efficiency to sustain economic growth. The marriage of invention with new technology created a new standard of living in a society that would come to expect for this standard of living to be maintained at all costs. European businesses, whether privately-owned or state-owned, were experiencing unprecedented growth with diversified revenue streams. As competition increased, European businesses were willing to adopt a “By Any Means Necessary” approach to sustain economic growth. An effective Competition Policy would need to be developed to prevent businesses from getting out of control in their zeal for sustained economic growth.
Competition Policy is “the application of established rules to make sure that companies compete with each other and, in order to sell their products, innovate and offer good prices to consumers.” The formal study of ‘competition’ dates back to the Enlightenment and the work of Adam Smith. The work that he is most known for, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” is the prominent dissertation on the political economy at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, and is generally considered to be the first contemporary work in the field of economics. The work is also the first all-inclusive justification of free market policies.
“When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither, cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want. Rather than want it altogether, some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will immediately begin among them, and the market price will rise more or less above the natural price, according as either the greatness of the deficiency, or the wealth and wanton luxury of the competitors, happen to animate more or less the eagerness of the competition.”
This primary source quote outlines a portion of Smith’s “invisible hand” theory that deals specifically with competition. The “invisible hand” theory states that if each consumer is permitted to decide without restraint exactly what to purchase, and each manufacturer is permitted to decide freely what to retail and how to manufacture it, the market will reconcile on a product distribution, and the cost that is beneficial to the all individual members of a society, and hence to the society as a whole. In the quote, Smith refers to the concept of competition as the means to reconcile the market price of a product that falls short of the demand. Smith’s ideas would provide the economic foundation of the common market. This foundation is important because the Single market is defined as a refined incarnation of the common market that provides for additional emphasis on removing the impediments that inhibit the member states such as the tangible (i.e., “borders”), procedural (i.e., “standards”) and financial (specifically, taxes). The definition of the Single market falls right in line with the primary objective of the European Union to foster cooperation amongst its member states by developing a common system of law and making member states’ economies completely interdependent.
The formation of the EU began as a calling for unity following World War II. There was a conference in 1948 at The Hague that provided a forum for the discussion of unification. There was still lingering division, but The Council of Europe was formed as a compromise to those in attendance. The Council still exists today as a means to defend human rights and to arbitrate any complaints against its member states, but falls short in establishing “stronger transnational institutions” that are vital to ensure proper European integration amongst its member states. Two French leaders would solve this problem by creating an institution had the same vision of an integrated Europe, but started with modest beginnings that would evolve from that point.
The EU that we know today started as the French-German Coal and Steel Authority in 1950. It would evolve into the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 (documented by the ECSC Treaty) inspired by the inclusion of Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. This would be the creation of the first common market in Europe as it was charged with coordinating the production and distribution of coal and steel. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome would bring about additional evolution and the ECSC would go on to create EURATOM to develop atomic energy and the European Economic Community (EEC) (also known as "the Common Market") to work towards abolishing tariffs between one another. The European Community (EC) formed in 1967, combining the EEC’s three organizations into one single entity. The abolition of internal tariff barriers would finally be achieved in 1968. The EC would gain considerable traction with the addition of Britain, Ireland, and Denmark. The Single European Act was signed in 1986 to launch a Single European Market by 1992, by removing the barriers to free movement of capital, labor, goods and services.
The foundation of EU competition policy draws from Article 3(f) of the EEC Treaty. This Article sought to guarantee that ‘competition in the Common Market is not distorted.’ The EEC Treaty outlined that this Article would be implemented through ‘rules on competition’, which outlined the EU’s authority to control cartels, monopolies, and oversight of state-aid. They have been expanded to include mergers between corporations and to detail provisions that deal with specific exceptions that have not been previously addressed. But the foundation largely remains intact from the ratification of the EEC Treaty in 1951 to today.
Throughout the evolution of EU competition policy, there are several landmark cases that have upheld the policy’s foundation with the EEC Treaty. These landmark cases cover the four major areas of competition policy: Cartels, Monopolies, Mergers, and State-Aid. The cases have validated European Union competition policy, developed a healthy respect from world leaders for its enforcement measures, and in some cases, provided impetus to make revisions to competition policy.
There is historical significance to beginning our discussion of landmark cases with the Vitamin Cartel breakup of Hoffman-La Roche. Cartels were the first entities to develop out of the Second Industrial Revolution as companies throughout Europe bonded together out of necessity to stay in business. At that time, factories were not receiving enough business to survive, let alone maintain economic growth. These firms would bond together to “monopolize” entire divisions of industry, by colluding to negotiate higher prices for their services and fixing higher prices in the marketplace.
The Vitamin Cartel breakup started when Stanley Adams, Hoffman-La Roche's World Product Manager in Basel, initiated contact with the EEC in 1973 with proof that Hoffman-La Roche had been violating antitrust laws, engaging in price fixing, and market sharing with its competitors. Hoffman-La Roche was fined appropriately, but the EEC botched the investigation by permitting Hoffman-La Roche to discover that Adams was behind the EEC investigation. He was subsequently arrested for illegal disclosure — a crime under Swiss law — and incarcerated. Then from 1990 until 1999, Hoffman-La Roche engaged in an illegal price fixing cartel for vitamins, which also included BASF and Rhone-Poulenc SA. In 1999, Hoffman-La Roche pleaded guilty in the United States and paid a $500 million fine, then the largest fine ever secured in the United States. The European Commission levied against Hoffman-La Roche €462 million for the exact same violation in 2001. The historical significance lies in the fact that these were record fines levied at the time, which drew worldwide attention to competition policy, not limited to EU competition policy.
The landmark case for a monopoly that we will use for this discussion is the Microsoft Antitrust Case. This case is one of the most significant antitrust cases due to amount of the fine and the extensive nature of the case. The case originated with a December 1998 complaint from Sun Microsystems alleging that Microsoft was refusing to supply it with interoperability information critical to interoperate with Microsoft’s PC operating system. Several companies including Novell and RealNetworks would be listed on the formal complaint. Microsoft was able to reach a settlement with these companies, but that did not prevent EU from levying a €497 million on Microsoft in 2003. Microsoft and EU would tangle back and forth through an appeals process that would last until October 2007, when all of the EU’s findings were upheld and Microsoft chose not to file additional appeals.
In 1998, WorldCom completed its $37 billion merger /purchase of its former competitor, MCI Communications. This merger was significant because it was the largest corporate merger in United States history. Immediately, the EU had concerns that the existing company would possess a prevailing position on the "backbone" of the Internet. After significant negotiations, MCI reached an accord to sell some of those data trunk lines to the British firm Cable & Wireless for $625 million. However, that would not enough to dispel concerns that the merged entity would possess too much jurisdiction over the future of the Internet. MCI would cave by agreeing not only to sell all of its Internet business, but also promised not to solicit its past Internet clientele for a predetermined period of time. The EU would later intervene in the combined companies’ proposed merger with Sprint Corporation, which would have been the largest corporate merger in the world, citing monopoly concerns with the combined company. The EU’s actions in this situation proved to the world that its enforcement was a force in the global economy.
The EU has been heavily involved in the regulation of state-aid to commercial industries, and of certain industry divisions and public services. The train system, power or gas serves as examples of public services that are being regulated by the EU. Article 4 of the Treaty of the EC delineates the EU liberalization program that has proved to be critical in easing the barriers that have been in place previously that have inhibited member states economic policy in this case.
So if the foundation of competition policy has not evolved from its inception in 1951, how has competition policy evolved in the EU? The answer lies not in the policy itself, but in the process in which competition policy developed. This process developed from the impact of 19th century Industrialization developing a problem, which was how to keep businesses’ honest in the wake of increasing pressure to maintain economic growth. The problem escalated from a problem to a need for a solution as social, political, and economic challenges that arose from 19th century Industrialization led to several tenures of Imperialism and two World Wars. These conflicts fostered numerous discussions in which a base set of solution requirements was developed in order to foster European integration amongst member states. Then a solution would be implemented in the form of a Treaty, along with initial set of rules and policies that had to be handed down to the member states. Finally, we had implementation, where the competition laws of the member states had to be toughened in order to match up with the policies of the European Union and an organization had to be developed to enforce these policies. This overall process is how competition policy evolved in the European Union from an initial problem to an established policy that is touted as a European success story.
“.... European competition policy is certainly a success story. From humble and highly controversial beginnings it has become a cornerstone of the Commission’s activities. Competition has never commanded such attention among commentators as it does today…”
This quote accurately reflects the conclusion that European Competition policy has evolved into a success story. As we continue to embark into the 21st century, there are challenges that lie ahead and European competition policy will need to maintain its foundation but continue to evolve in order to meet the challenges of a global economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of Competition Policy in the European Union (EU) is a direct result of a basic requirement to create a European single market. This basic requirement came as a result of the impact of 19th century Industrialization. The impact resulted in the need for greater productivity in less time, with increased efficiency to sustain economic growth. The marriage of invention with new technology created a new standard of living in a society that would come to expect for this standard of living to be maintained at all costs. European businesses, whether privately-owned or state-owned, were experiencing unprecedented growth with diversified revenue streams. As competition increased, European businesses were willing to adopt a “By Any Means Necessary” approach to sustain economic growth. An effective Competition Policy would need to be developed to prevent businesses from getting out of control in their zeal for sustained economic growth.
Competition Policy is “the application of established rules to make sure that companies compete with each other and, in order to sell their products, innovate and offer good prices to consumers.” The formal study of ‘competition’ dates back to the Enlightenment and the work of Adam Smith. The work that he is most known for, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” is the prominent dissertation on the political economy at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, and is generally considered to be the first contemporary work in the field of economics. The work is also the first all-inclusive justification of free market policies.
“When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither, cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want. Rather than want it altogether, some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will immediately begin among them, and the market price will rise more or less above the natural price, according as either the greatness of the deficiency, or the wealth and wanton luxury of the competitors, happen to animate more or less the eagerness of the competition.”
This primary source quote outlines a portion of Smith’s “invisible hand” theory that deals specifically with competition. The “invisible hand” theory states that if each consumer is permitted to decide without restraint exactly what to purchase, and each manufacturer is permitted to decide freely what to retail and how to manufacture it, the market will reconcile on a product distribution, and the cost that is beneficial to the all individual members of a society, and hence to the society as a whole. In the quote, Smith refers to the concept of competition as the means to reconcile the market price of a product that falls short of the demand. Smith’s ideas would provide the economic foundation of the common market. This foundation is important because the Single market is defined as a refined incarnation of the common market that provides for additional emphasis on removing the impediments that inhibit the member states such as the tangible (i.e., “borders”), procedural (i.e., “standards”) and financial (specifically, taxes). The definition of the Single market falls right in line with the primary objective of the European Union to foster cooperation amongst its member states by developing a common system of law and making member states’ economies completely interdependent.
The formation of the EU began as a calling for unity following World War II. There was a conference in 1948 at The Hague that provided a forum for the discussion of unification. There was still lingering division, but The Council of Europe was formed as a compromise to those in attendance. The Council still exists today as a means to defend human rights and to arbitrate any complaints against its member states, but falls short in establishing “stronger transnational institutions” that are vital to ensure proper European integration amongst its member states. Two French leaders would solve this problem by creating an institution had the same vision of an integrated Europe, but started with modest beginnings that would evolve from that point.
The EU that we know today started as the French-German Coal and Steel Authority in 1950. It would evolve into the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 (documented by the ECSC Treaty) inspired by the inclusion of Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. This would be the creation of the first common market in Europe as it was charged with coordinating the production and distribution of coal and steel. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome would bring about additional evolution and the ECSC would go on to create EURATOM to develop atomic energy and the European Economic Community (EEC) (also known as "the Common Market") to work towards abolishing tariffs between one another. The European Community (EC) formed in 1967, combining the EEC’s three organizations into one single entity. The abolition of internal tariff barriers would finally be achieved in 1968. The EC would gain considerable traction with the addition of Britain, Ireland, and Denmark. The Single European Act was signed in 1986 to launch a Single European Market by 1992, by removing the barriers to free movement of capital, labor, goods and services.
The foundation of EU competition policy draws from Article 3(f) of the EEC Treaty. This Article sought to guarantee that ‘competition in the Common Market is not distorted.’ The EEC Treaty outlined that this Article would be implemented through ‘rules on competition’, which outlined the EU’s authority to control cartels, monopolies, and oversight of state-aid. They have been expanded to include mergers between corporations and to detail provisions that deal with specific exceptions that have not been previously addressed. But the foundation largely remains intact from the ratification of the EEC Treaty in 1951 to today.
Throughout the evolution of EU competition policy, there are several landmark cases that have upheld the policy’s foundation with the EEC Treaty. These landmark cases cover the four major areas of competition policy: Cartels, Monopolies, Mergers, and State-Aid. The cases have validated European Union competition policy, developed a healthy respect from world leaders for its enforcement measures, and in some cases, provided impetus to make revisions to competition policy.
There is historical significance to beginning our discussion of landmark cases with the Vitamin Cartel breakup of Hoffman-La Roche. Cartels were the first entities to develop out of the Second Industrial Revolution as companies throughout Europe bonded together out of necessity to stay in business. At that time, factories were not receiving enough business to survive, let alone maintain economic growth. These firms would bond together to “monopolize” entire divisions of industry, by colluding to negotiate higher prices for their services and fixing higher prices in the marketplace.
The Vitamin Cartel breakup started when Stanley Adams, Hoffman-La Roche's World Product Manager in Basel, initiated contact with the EEC in 1973 with proof that Hoffman-La Roche had been violating antitrust laws, engaging in price fixing, and market sharing with its competitors. Hoffman-La Roche was fined appropriately, but the EEC botched the investigation by permitting Hoffman-La Roche to discover that Adams was behind the EEC investigation. He was subsequently arrested for illegal disclosure — a crime under Swiss law — and incarcerated. Then from 1990 until 1999, Hoffman-La Roche engaged in an illegal price fixing cartel for vitamins, which also included BASF and Rhone-Poulenc SA. In 1999, Hoffman-La Roche pleaded guilty in the United States and paid a $500 million fine, then the largest fine ever secured in the United States. The European Commission levied against Hoffman-La Roche €462 million for the exact same violation in 2001. The historical significance lies in the fact that these were record fines levied at the time, which drew worldwide attention to competition policy, not limited to EU competition policy.
The landmark case for a monopoly that we will use for this discussion is the Microsoft Antitrust Case. This case is one of the most significant antitrust cases due to amount of the fine and the extensive nature of the case. The case originated with a December 1998 complaint from Sun Microsystems alleging that Microsoft was refusing to supply it with interoperability information critical to interoperate with Microsoft’s PC operating system. Several companies including Novell and RealNetworks would be listed on the formal complaint. Microsoft was able to reach a settlement with these companies, but that did not prevent EU from levying a €497 million on Microsoft in 2003. Microsoft and EU would tangle back and forth through an appeals process that would last until October 2007, when all of the EU’s findings were upheld and Microsoft chose not to file additional appeals.
In 1998, WorldCom completed its $37 billion merger /purchase of its former competitor, MCI Communications. This merger was significant because it was the largest corporate merger in United States history. Immediately, the EU had concerns that the existing company would possess a prevailing position on the "backbone" of the Internet. After significant negotiations, MCI reached an accord to sell some of those data trunk lines to the British firm Cable & Wireless for $625 million. However, that would not enough to dispel concerns that the merged entity would possess too much jurisdiction over the future of the Internet. MCI would cave by agreeing not only to sell all of its Internet business, but also promised not to solicit its past Internet clientele for a predetermined period of time. The EU would later intervene in the combined companies’ proposed merger with Sprint Corporation, which would have been the largest corporate merger in the world, citing monopoly concerns with the combined company. The EU’s actions in this situation proved to the world that its enforcement was a force in the global economy.
The EU has been heavily involved in the regulation of state-aid to commercial industries, and of certain industry divisions and public services. The train system, power or gas serves as examples of public services that are being regulated by the EU. Article 4 of the Treaty of the EC delineates the EU liberalization program that has proved to be critical in easing the barriers that have been in place previously that have inhibited member states economic policy in this case.
So if the foundation of competition policy has not evolved from its inception in 1951, how has competition policy evolved in the EU? The answer lies not in the policy itself, but in the process in which competition policy developed. This process developed from the impact of 19th century Industrialization developing a problem, which was how to keep businesses’ honest in the wake of increasing pressure to maintain economic growth. The problem escalated from a problem to a need for a solution as social, political, and economic challenges that arose from 19th century Industrialization led to several tenures of Imperialism and two World Wars. These conflicts fostered numerous discussions in which a base set of solution requirements was developed in order to foster European integration amongst member states. Then a solution would be implemented in the form of a Treaty, along with initial set of rules and policies that had to be handed down to the member states. Finally, we had implementation, where the competition laws of the member states had to be toughened in order to match up with the policies of the European Union and an organization had to be developed to enforce these policies. This overall process is how competition policy evolved in the European Union from an initial problem to an established policy that is touted as a European success story.
“.... European competition policy is certainly a success story. From humble and highly controversial beginnings it has become a cornerstone of the Commission’s activities. Competition has never commanded such attention among commentators as it does today…”
This quote accurately reflects the conclusion that European Competition policy has evolved into a success story. As we continue to embark into the 21st century, there are challenges that lie ahead and European competition policy will need to maintain its foundation but continue to evolve in order to meet the challenges of a global economy.
Friday, April 20, 2007
I agree with this wholeheartedly..............
Dear Ms. Winfrey,
It is with the greatest respect and adoration of your loving spirit that I write you. As a young child, I would sit beside my mother everyday and watch your program. As a young adult, with children of my own, I spend much less time in front of the television, but I am ever thankful for the positive effect that you continue to have on our nation, history and culture. The example that you have set as someone unafraid to answer their calling, even when the reality of that calling insists that one self-actualize beyond the point of any given example, is humbling, and serves as the cornerstone of the greatest faith. You, love, are a pioneer.
I am a poet.
Growing up in Newburgh, NY, with a father as a minister and a mother as a school teacher, at a time when we fought for our heroes to be nationally recognized, I certainly was exposed to the great names and voices of our past. I took great pride in competing in my churches Black History Quiz Bowl and the countless events my mother organized in hopes of fostering a generation of youth well versed in the greatness as well as the horrors of our history. Yet, even in a household where I had the privilege of personally interacting with some of the most outspoken and courageous luminaries of our times, I must admit that the voices that resonated the most within me and made me want to speak up were those of my peers, and these peers were emcees. Rappers.
.
Yes, Ms. Winfrey, I am what my generation would call "a Hip Hop head." Hip Hop has served as one of the greatest aspects of my self-definition. Lucky for me, I grew up in the 80's when groups like Public Enemy, Rakim, The jungle Brothers, Queen Latifah, and many more realized the power of their voices within the artform and chose to create music aimed at the upliftment of our generation.
As a student at Morehouse College where I studied Philosophy and Drama I was forced to venture across the street to Spelman College for all of my Drama classes, since Morehouse had no theater department of its own. I had few complaints. The performing arts scholarship awarded me by Michael Jackson had promised me a practically free ride to my dream school, which now had opened the doors to another campus that could make even the most focused of young boys dreamy, Spelman. One of my first theater professors, Pearle Cleage, shook me from my adolescent dream state. It was the year that Dr. Dre's "The Chronic" was released and our introduction to Snoop Dogg as he sang catchy hooks like "Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks..." Although, it was a playwriting class, what seemed to take precedence was Ms. Cleages political ideology, which had recently been pressed and bound in her 1st book, Mad at Miles. As, you know, in this book she spoke of how she could not listen to the music of Miles Davis and his muted trumpet without hearing the muted screams of the women that he was outspoken about "man-handling". It was my first exposure to the idea of an artist being held accountable for their actions outside of their art. It was the first time I had ever heard the word, "misogyny". And as Ms. Cleage would walk into the classroom fuming over the women she would pass on campus, blasting those Snoop lyrics from their cars and jeeps, we, her students, would be privy to many freestyle rants and raves on the dangers of nodding our heads to a music that could serve as our own demise.
Her words, coupled with the words of the young women I found myself interacting with forever changed how I listened to Hip Hop and quite frankly ruined what would have been a number of good songs for me. I had now been burdened with a level of awareness that made it impossible for me to enjoy what the growing masses were ushering into the mainstream. I was now becoming what many Hip Hop heads would call "a Backpacker", a person who chooses to associate themselves with the more "conscious" or politically astute artists of the Hip Hop community. What we termed as "conscious" Hip Hop became our preference for dance and booming systems. Groups like X-Clan, A Tribe Called Quest, Brand Nubian, Arrested Development, Gangstarr and others became the prevailing music of our circle. We also enjoyed the more playful Hip Hop of De La Soul, Heiroglyphics, Das FX, Organized Konfusion. Digable Planets, The Fugees, and more. We had more than enough positivity to fixate on. Hip Hop was diverse.
I had not yet begun writing poetry. Most of my friends hardly knew that I had been an emcee in high school. I no longer cared to identify myself as an emcee and my love of oratory seemed misplaced at Morehouse where most orators were actually preachers in training, speaking with the Southern drawl of Dr. King although they were 19 and from the North. I spent my time doing countless plays and school performances. I was in line to become what I thought would be the next Robeson, Sidney, Ossie, Denzel, Snipes... It wasn't until I was in graduate school for acting at NYU that I was invited to a poetry reading in Manhattan where I heard Asha Bandele, Sapphire, Carl Hancock Rux, Reggie Gaines, Jessica Care Moore, and many others read poems that sometimes felt like monologues that my newly acquired journal started taking the form of a young poets'. Yet, I still noticed that I was a bit different from these poets who listed names like: Audrey Lourde, June Jordan, Sekou Sundiata etc, when asked why they began to write poetry. I knew that I had been inspired to write because of emcees like Rakim, Chuck D, LL, Run DMC... Hip Hop had informed my love of poetry as much or even more than my theater background which had exposed me to Shakespeare, Baraka, Fugard, Genet, Hansberry and countless others. In those days, just a mere decade ago, I started writing to fill the void between what I was hearing and what I wished I was hearing. It was not enough for me to critique the voices I heard blasting through the walls of my Brooklyn brownstone. I needed to create examples of where Hip Hop, particularly its lyricism, could go. I ventured to poetry readings with my friends and neighbors, Dante Smith (now Mos Def), Talib Kwele, Erycka Badu, Jessica Care Moore, Mums the Schemer, Beau Sia, Suheir Hammad...all poets that frequented the open mics and poetry slams that we commonly saw as "the other direction" when Hip hop reached that fork in the road as you discussed on your show this past week. On your show you asked the question, "Are all rappers poets?" Nice. I wanted to take the opportunity to answer this question for you.
The genius, as far as the marketability, of Hip Hop is in its competitiveness. Its roots are as much in the dignified aspects of our oral tradition as it is in the tradition of "the dozens" or "signifying". In Hip Hop, every emcee is automatically pitted against every other emcee, sort of like characters with super powers in comic books. No one wants to listen to a rapper unless they claim to be the best or the greatest. This sort of braggadocio leads to all sorts of tirades, showdowns, battles, and sometimes even deaths. In all cases, confidence is the ruling card. Because of the competitive stance that all emcees are prone to take, they, like soldiers begin to believe that they can show no sign of vulnerability. Thus, the most popular emcees of our age are often those that claim to be heartless or show no feelings or signs of emotion. The poet, on the other hand, is the one who realizes that their vulnerability is their power. Like you, unafraid to shed tears on countless shows, the poet finds strength in exposing their humanity, their vulnerability, thus making it possible for us to find connection and strength through their work. Many emcees have been poets. But, no, Ms. Winfrey, not all emcees are poets. Many choose gangsterism and business over the emotional terrain through which true artistry will lead. But they are not to blame. I would now like to address your question of leadership.
You may recall that in immediate response to the attacks of September 11th, our president took the national stage to say to the American public and the world that we would "...show no sign of vulnerability". Here is the same word that distinguishes poets from rappers, but in its history, more accurately, women from men. To make such a statement is to align oneself with the ideology that instills in us a sense of vulnerability meaning "weakness". And these meanings all take their place under the heading of what we consciously or subconsciously characterize as traits of the feminine. The weapon of mass destruction is the one that asserts that a holy trinity would be a father, a male child, and a ghost when common sense tells us that the holiest of trinities would be a mother, a father, and a child: Family. The vulnerability that we see as weakness is the saving grace of the drunken driver who because of their drunken/vulnerable state survives the fatal accident that kills the passengers in the approaching vehicle who tighten their grip and show no physical vulnerability in the face of their fear. Vulnerability is also the saving grace of the skate boarder who attempts a trick and remembers to stay loose and not tense during their fall. Likewise, vulnerability has been the saving grace of the African American struggle as we have been whipped, jailed, spat upon, called names, and killed, yet continue to strive forward mostly non-violently towards our highest goals. But today we are at a crossroads, because the institutions that have sold us the crosses we wear around our necks are the most overt in the denigration of women and thus humanity. That is why I write you today, Ms. Winfrey. We cannot address the root of what plagues Hip Hop without addressing the root of what plagues today's society and the world.
You see, Ms. Winfrey, at it's worse; Hip Hop is simply a reflection of the society that birthed it. Our love affair with gangsterism and the denigration of women is not rooted in Hip Hop; rather it is rooted in the very core of our personal faith and religions. The gangsters that rule Hip Hop are the same gangsters that rule our nation. 50 Cent and George Bush have the same birthday (July 6th). For a Hip Hop artist to say "I do what I wanna do/Don't care if I get caught/The DA could play this mothaf@kin tape in court/I'll kill you/ I ain't playin'" epitomizes the confidence and braggadocio we expect an admire from a rapper who claims to represent the lowest denominator. When a world leader with the spirit of a cowboy (the true original gangster of the West: raping, stealing land, and pillaging, as we clapped and cheered.) takes the position of doing what he wants to do, regardless of whether the UN or American public would take him to court, then we have witnessed true gangsterism and violent negligence. Yet, there is nothing more negligent than attempting to address a problem one finds on a branch by censoring the leaves.
Name calling, racist generalizations, sexist perceptions, are all rooted in something much deeper than an uncensored music. Like the rest of the world, I watched footage on AOL of you dancing mindlessly to 50 Cent on your fiftieth birthday as he proclaimed, "I got the ex/if you're into taking drugs/ I'm into having sex/ I ain't into making love" and you looked like you were having a great time. No judgment. I like that song too. Just as I do, James Brown's Sex Machine or Grand Master Flashes "White Lines". Sex, drugs, and rock and roll is how the story goes. Censorship will never solve our problems. It will only foster the sub-cultures of the underground, which inevitably inhabit the mainstream. There is nothing more mainstream than the denigration of women as projected through religious doctrine. Please understand, I am by no means opposing the teachings of Jesus, by example (he wasn't Christian), but rather the men that have used his teachings to control and manipulate the masses. Hip Hop, like Rock and Roll, like the media, and the government, all reflect an idea of power that labels vulnerability as weakness. I can only imagine the non-emotive hardness that you have had to show in order to secure your empire from the grips of those that once stood in your way: the old guard. You reflect our changing times. As time progresses we sometimes outgrow what may have served us along the way. This time, what we have outgrown, is not hip hop, rather it is the festering remnants of a God depicted as an angry and jealous male, by men who were angry and jealous over the minute role that they played in the everyday story of creation. I am sure that you have covered ideas such as these on your show, but we must make a connection before our disconnect proves fatal.
We are a nation at war. What we fail to see is that we are fighting ourselves. There is no true hatred of women in Hip Hop. At the root of our nature we inherently worship the feminine. Our overall attention to the nurturing guidance of our mothers and grandmothers as well as our ideas of what is sexy and beautiful all support this. But when the idea of the feminine is taken out of the idea of what is divine or sacred then that worship becomes objectification. When our governed morality asserts that a woman is either a virgin or a whore, then our understanding of sexuality becomes warped. Note the dangling platinum crosses over the bare asses being smacked in the videos. The emcees of my generation are the ministers of my father's generation. They too had a warped perspective of the feminine. Censoring songs, sermons, or the tirades of radio personalities will change nothing except the format of our discussion. If we are to sincerely address the change we are praying for then we must first address to whom we are praying.
Thank you, Ms. Winfrey, for your forum, your heart, and your vision. May you find the strength and support to bring about the changes you wish to see in ways that do more than perpetuate the myth of enmity.
In loving kindness,
Saul Williams
It is with the greatest respect and adoration of your loving spirit that I write you. As a young child, I would sit beside my mother everyday and watch your program. As a young adult, with children of my own, I spend much less time in front of the television, but I am ever thankful for the positive effect that you continue to have on our nation, history and culture. The example that you have set as someone unafraid to answer their calling, even when the reality of that calling insists that one self-actualize beyond the point of any given example, is humbling, and serves as the cornerstone of the greatest faith. You, love, are a pioneer.
I am a poet.
Growing up in Newburgh, NY, with a father as a minister and a mother as a school teacher, at a time when we fought for our heroes to be nationally recognized, I certainly was exposed to the great names and voices of our past. I took great pride in competing in my churches Black History Quiz Bowl and the countless events my mother organized in hopes of fostering a generation of youth well versed in the greatness as well as the horrors of our history. Yet, even in a household where I had the privilege of personally interacting with some of the most outspoken and courageous luminaries of our times, I must admit that the voices that resonated the most within me and made me want to speak up were those of my peers, and these peers were emcees. Rappers.
.
Yes, Ms. Winfrey, I am what my generation would call "a Hip Hop head." Hip Hop has served as one of the greatest aspects of my self-definition. Lucky for me, I grew up in the 80's when groups like Public Enemy, Rakim, The jungle Brothers, Queen Latifah, and many more realized the power of their voices within the artform and chose to create music aimed at the upliftment of our generation.
As a student at Morehouse College where I studied Philosophy and Drama I was forced to venture across the street to Spelman College for all of my Drama classes, since Morehouse had no theater department of its own. I had few complaints. The performing arts scholarship awarded me by Michael Jackson had promised me a practically free ride to my dream school, which now had opened the doors to another campus that could make even the most focused of young boys dreamy, Spelman. One of my first theater professors, Pearle Cleage, shook me from my adolescent dream state. It was the year that Dr. Dre's "The Chronic" was released and our introduction to Snoop Dogg as he sang catchy hooks like "Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks..." Although, it was a playwriting class, what seemed to take precedence was Ms. Cleages political ideology, which had recently been pressed and bound in her 1st book, Mad at Miles. As, you know, in this book she spoke of how she could not listen to the music of Miles Davis and his muted trumpet without hearing the muted screams of the women that he was outspoken about "man-handling". It was my first exposure to the idea of an artist being held accountable for their actions outside of their art. It was the first time I had ever heard the word, "misogyny". And as Ms. Cleage would walk into the classroom fuming over the women she would pass on campus, blasting those Snoop lyrics from their cars and jeeps, we, her students, would be privy to many freestyle rants and raves on the dangers of nodding our heads to a music that could serve as our own demise.
Her words, coupled with the words of the young women I found myself interacting with forever changed how I listened to Hip Hop and quite frankly ruined what would have been a number of good songs for me. I had now been burdened with a level of awareness that made it impossible for me to enjoy what the growing masses were ushering into the mainstream. I was now becoming what many Hip Hop heads would call "a Backpacker", a person who chooses to associate themselves with the more "conscious" or politically astute artists of the Hip Hop community. What we termed as "conscious" Hip Hop became our preference for dance and booming systems. Groups like X-Clan, A Tribe Called Quest, Brand Nubian, Arrested Development, Gangstarr and others became the prevailing music of our circle. We also enjoyed the more playful Hip Hop of De La Soul, Heiroglyphics, Das FX, Organized Konfusion. Digable Planets, The Fugees, and more. We had more than enough positivity to fixate on. Hip Hop was diverse.
I had not yet begun writing poetry. Most of my friends hardly knew that I had been an emcee in high school. I no longer cared to identify myself as an emcee and my love of oratory seemed misplaced at Morehouse where most orators were actually preachers in training, speaking with the Southern drawl of Dr. King although they were 19 and from the North. I spent my time doing countless plays and school performances. I was in line to become what I thought would be the next Robeson, Sidney, Ossie, Denzel, Snipes... It wasn't until I was in graduate school for acting at NYU that I was invited to a poetry reading in Manhattan where I heard Asha Bandele, Sapphire, Carl Hancock Rux, Reggie Gaines, Jessica Care Moore, and many others read poems that sometimes felt like monologues that my newly acquired journal started taking the form of a young poets'. Yet, I still noticed that I was a bit different from these poets who listed names like: Audrey Lourde, June Jordan, Sekou Sundiata etc, when asked why they began to write poetry. I knew that I had been inspired to write because of emcees like Rakim, Chuck D, LL, Run DMC... Hip Hop had informed my love of poetry as much or even more than my theater background which had exposed me to Shakespeare, Baraka, Fugard, Genet, Hansberry and countless others. In those days, just a mere decade ago, I started writing to fill the void between what I was hearing and what I wished I was hearing. It was not enough for me to critique the voices I heard blasting through the walls of my Brooklyn brownstone. I needed to create examples of where Hip Hop, particularly its lyricism, could go. I ventured to poetry readings with my friends and neighbors, Dante Smith (now Mos Def), Talib Kwele, Erycka Badu, Jessica Care Moore, Mums the Schemer, Beau Sia, Suheir Hammad...all poets that frequented the open mics and poetry slams that we commonly saw as "the other direction" when Hip hop reached that fork in the road as you discussed on your show this past week. On your show you asked the question, "Are all rappers poets?" Nice. I wanted to take the opportunity to answer this question for you.
The genius, as far as the marketability, of Hip Hop is in its competitiveness. Its roots are as much in the dignified aspects of our oral tradition as it is in the tradition of "the dozens" or "signifying". In Hip Hop, every emcee is automatically pitted against every other emcee, sort of like characters with super powers in comic books. No one wants to listen to a rapper unless they claim to be the best or the greatest. This sort of braggadocio leads to all sorts of tirades, showdowns, battles, and sometimes even deaths. In all cases, confidence is the ruling card. Because of the competitive stance that all emcees are prone to take, they, like soldiers begin to believe that they can show no sign of vulnerability. Thus, the most popular emcees of our age are often those that claim to be heartless or show no feelings or signs of emotion. The poet, on the other hand, is the one who realizes that their vulnerability is their power. Like you, unafraid to shed tears on countless shows, the poet finds strength in exposing their humanity, their vulnerability, thus making it possible for us to find connection and strength through their work. Many emcees have been poets. But, no, Ms. Winfrey, not all emcees are poets. Many choose gangsterism and business over the emotional terrain through which true artistry will lead. But they are not to blame. I would now like to address your question of leadership.
You may recall that in immediate response to the attacks of September 11th, our president took the national stage to say to the American public and the world that we would "...show no sign of vulnerability". Here is the same word that distinguishes poets from rappers, but in its history, more accurately, women from men. To make such a statement is to align oneself with the ideology that instills in us a sense of vulnerability meaning "weakness". And these meanings all take their place under the heading of what we consciously or subconsciously characterize as traits of the feminine. The weapon of mass destruction is the one that asserts that a holy trinity would be a father, a male child, and a ghost when common sense tells us that the holiest of trinities would be a mother, a father, and a child: Family. The vulnerability that we see as weakness is the saving grace of the drunken driver who because of their drunken/vulnerable state survives the fatal accident that kills the passengers in the approaching vehicle who tighten their grip and show no physical vulnerability in the face of their fear. Vulnerability is also the saving grace of the skate boarder who attempts a trick and remembers to stay loose and not tense during their fall. Likewise, vulnerability has been the saving grace of the African American struggle as we have been whipped, jailed, spat upon, called names, and killed, yet continue to strive forward mostly non-violently towards our highest goals. But today we are at a crossroads, because the institutions that have sold us the crosses we wear around our necks are the most overt in the denigration of women and thus humanity. That is why I write you today, Ms. Winfrey. We cannot address the root of what plagues Hip Hop without addressing the root of what plagues today's society and the world.
You see, Ms. Winfrey, at it's worse; Hip Hop is simply a reflection of the society that birthed it. Our love affair with gangsterism and the denigration of women is not rooted in Hip Hop; rather it is rooted in the very core of our personal faith and religions. The gangsters that rule Hip Hop are the same gangsters that rule our nation. 50 Cent and George Bush have the same birthday (July 6th). For a Hip Hop artist to say "I do what I wanna do/Don't care if I get caught/The DA could play this mothaf@kin tape in court/I'll kill you/ I ain't playin'" epitomizes the confidence and braggadocio we expect an admire from a rapper who claims to represent the lowest denominator. When a world leader with the spirit of a cowboy (the true original gangster of the West: raping, stealing land, and pillaging, as we clapped and cheered.) takes the position of doing what he wants to do, regardless of whether the UN or American public would take him to court, then we have witnessed true gangsterism and violent negligence. Yet, there is nothing more negligent than attempting to address a problem one finds on a branch by censoring the leaves.
Name calling, racist generalizations, sexist perceptions, are all rooted in something much deeper than an uncensored music. Like the rest of the world, I watched footage on AOL of you dancing mindlessly to 50 Cent on your fiftieth birthday as he proclaimed, "I got the ex/if you're into taking drugs/ I'm into having sex/ I ain't into making love" and you looked like you were having a great time. No judgment. I like that song too. Just as I do, James Brown's Sex Machine or Grand Master Flashes "White Lines". Sex, drugs, and rock and roll is how the story goes. Censorship will never solve our problems. It will only foster the sub-cultures of the underground, which inevitably inhabit the mainstream. There is nothing more mainstream than the denigration of women as projected through religious doctrine. Please understand, I am by no means opposing the teachings of Jesus, by example (he wasn't Christian), but rather the men that have used his teachings to control and manipulate the masses. Hip Hop, like Rock and Roll, like the media, and the government, all reflect an idea of power that labels vulnerability as weakness. I can only imagine the non-emotive hardness that you have had to show in order to secure your empire from the grips of those that once stood in your way: the old guard. You reflect our changing times. As time progresses we sometimes outgrow what may have served us along the way. This time, what we have outgrown, is not hip hop, rather it is the festering remnants of a God depicted as an angry and jealous male, by men who were angry and jealous over the minute role that they played in the everyday story of creation. I am sure that you have covered ideas such as these on your show, but we must make a connection before our disconnect proves fatal.
We are a nation at war. What we fail to see is that we are fighting ourselves. There is no true hatred of women in Hip Hop. At the root of our nature we inherently worship the feminine. Our overall attention to the nurturing guidance of our mothers and grandmothers as well as our ideas of what is sexy and beautiful all support this. But when the idea of the feminine is taken out of the idea of what is divine or sacred then that worship becomes objectification. When our governed morality asserts that a woman is either a virgin or a whore, then our understanding of sexuality becomes warped. Note the dangling platinum crosses over the bare asses being smacked in the videos. The emcees of my generation are the ministers of my father's generation. They too had a warped perspective of the feminine. Censoring songs, sermons, or the tirades of radio personalities will change nothing except the format of our discussion. If we are to sincerely address the change we are praying for then we must first address to whom we are praying.
Thank you, Ms. Winfrey, for your forum, your heart, and your vision. May you find the strength and support to bring about the changes you wish to see in ways that do more than perpetuate the myth of enmity.
In loving kindness,
Saul Williams
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Real Talk!!!!!!!
LESSONS IN LIFE
By Regina Brett, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland , Ohio
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolls over to 50 this week, so here's an update:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
4. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more heal ing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.
16. Life is too short for long pity parties. Get busy living, or get busy dying.
17. You can get through anything if you stay put in today.
18. A writer writes. If you want to be a writer, write.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you and no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.
< STRONG>21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.
22. Over-prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain.
25. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words: "In five years, will this matter?"
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.
35. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood. Make it memorable.
38. Read some good books. They cover every human emotion.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.
41. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
42. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
43. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
44. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
45. The best is yet to come.
46. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
47. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
48. If you don't ask, you don't get.
49. Yield.
50. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.
By Regina Brett, The Plain Dealer, Cleveland , Ohio
To celebrate growing older, I once wrote the 45 lessons life taught me. It is the most-requested column I've ever written. My odometer rolls over to 50 this week, so here's an update:
1. Life isn't fair, but it's still good.
2. When in doubt, just take the next small step.
3. Life is too short to waste time hating anyone.
4. Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
5. Pay off your credit cards every month.
6. You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
7. Cry with someone. It's more heal ing than crying alone.
8. It's OK to get angry with God. He can take it.
9. Save for retirement starting with your first paycheck.
10. When it comes to chocolate, resistance is futile.
11. Make peace with your past so it won't screw up the present.
12. It's OK to let your children see you cry.
13. Don't compare your life to others'. You have no idea what their journey is all about.
14. If a relationship has to be a secret, you shouldn't be in it.
15. Everything can change in the blink of an eye. But don't worry; God never blinks.
16. Life is too short for long pity parties. Get busy living, or get busy dying.
17. You can get through anything if you stay put in today.
18. A writer writes. If you want to be a writer, write.
19. It's never too late to have a happy childhood. But the second one is up to you and no one else.
20. When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer.
< STRONG>21. Burn the candles, use the nice sheets, wear the fancy lingerie. Don't save it for a special occasion. Today is special.
22. Over-prepare, then go with the flow.
23. Be eccentric now. Don't wait for old age to wear purple.
24. The most important sex organ is the brain.
25. No one is in charge of your happiness except you.
26. Frame every so-called disaster with these words: "In five years, will this matter?"
27. Always choose life.
28. Forgive everyone everything.
29. What other people think of you is none of your business.
30. Time heals almost everything. Give time time.
31. However good or bad a situation is, it will change.
32. Your job won't take care of you when you are sick. Your friends will. Stay in touch.
33. Believe in miracles.
34. God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.
35. Whatever doesn't kill you really does make you stronger.
36. Growing old beats the alternative -- dying young.
37. Your children get only one childhood. Make it memorable.
38. Read some good books. They cover every human emotion.
39. Get outside every day. Miracles are waiting everywhere.
40. If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back.
41. Don't audit life. Show up and make the most of it now.
42. Get rid of anything that isn't useful, beautiful or joyful.
43. All that truly matters in the end is that you loved.
44. Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need.
45. The best is yet to come.
46. No matter how you feel, get up, dress up and show up.
47. Take a deep breath. It calms the mind.
48. If you don't ask, you don't get.
49. Yield.
50. Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
And you said that racism doesn't exist.......
AsianWeek has taken down the column off its website, but I managed to save a copy. By reprinting this, in no way do I support Eng's views. (Obviously!) I just thought people should be aware of this piece:
Why I Hate Blacks
Kenneth Eng, Feb 23, 2007
Here is a list of reasons why we should discriminate against blacks, starting from the most obvious down to the least obvious:
• Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl racist remarks at us.
In my experience, I would say about 90 percent of blacks I have met, regardless of age or environment, poke fun at the very sight of an Asian. Furthermore, their activity in the media proves their hatred: Rush Hour, Exit Wounds, Hot 97, etc.
• Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that blacks are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years. It's unbelievable that it took them that long to fight back.
On the other hand, we slaughtered the Russians in the Japanese-Russo War.
• Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians.
Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time whining about how much they hate "the whites that oppressed them."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity the religion that the whites forced upon them?
• Blacks don't get it. I know it's a blunt and crass comment, but it's true. When I was in high school, I recall a class debate in which one half of the class was chosen to defend black slavery and the other half was chosen to defend liberation.
Disturbingly, blacks on the prior side viciously defended slavery as well as Christianity. They say if you don't study history, you're condemned to repeat it.
In high school, I only remember one black student ever attending any of my honors and AP courses. And that student was caught cheating.
It is rather troubling that they are treated as heroes, but then again, whites will do anything to defend them.
Why I Hate Blacks
Kenneth Eng, Feb 23, 2007
Here is a list of reasons why we should discriminate against blacks, starting from the most obvious down to the least obvious:
• Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl racist remarks at us.
In my experience, I would say about 90 percent of blacks I have met, regardless of age or environment, poke fun at the very sight of an Asian. Furthermore, their activity in the media proves their hatred: Rush Hour, Exit Wounds, Hot 97, etc.
• Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that blacks are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years. It's unbelievable that it took them that long to fight back.
On the other hand, we slaughtered the Russians in the Japanese-Russo War.
• Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians.
Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time whining about how much they hate "the whites that oppressed them."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity the religion that the whites forced upon them?
• Blacks don't get it. I know it's a blunt and crass comment, but it's true. When I was in high school, I recall a class debate in which one half of the class was chosen to defend black slavery and the other half was chosen to defend liberation.
Disturbingly, blacks on the prior side viciously defended slavery as well as Christianity. They say if you don't study history, you're condemned to repeat it.
In high school, I only remember one black student ever attending any of my honors and AP courses. And that student was caught cheating.
It is rather troubling that they are treated as heroes, but then again, whites will do anything to defend them.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
This sounds like something I would do............
Sex in fast lane halts traffic on Israeli road
Couple snarls travel on major highway
JERUSALEM - Israeli police investigating why a car was blocking traffic in the fast lane of a major highway on Sunday found a couple inside having sex.
A police spokesman said the female driver and her male passenger gave in to their passions without pulling over to the side of the road, causing congestion and leaving other motorists having to swerve to dodge their stationary vehicle.
A patrolman gave the woman a ticket for holding up traffic.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Couple snarls travel on major highway
JERUSALEM - Israeli police investigating why a car was blocking traffic in the fast lane of a major highway on Sunday found a couple inside having sex.
A police spokesman said the female driver and her male passenger gave in to their passions without pulling over to the side of the road, causing congestion and leaving other motorists having to swerve to dodge their stationary vehicle.
A patrolman gave the woman a ticket for holding up traffic.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Things that I would like the world to know (Part I)
1.) I am most definitely hip-hop - There arent too many people in the world that are more hip-hop than I. I love hip-hop like I love breathing. But in the same turn, I also understand that in some places hip-hop has no place at all, or if so, a very limited space. And this man that stands before you has real responsibilities. So I respect the game and move on. And while we're here........
1a.) I'm 32 years old. I am pretty good on ebonics and my lingo, but I wont quote it faithfully. So if you want to call me a geek, please feel free. If you consider my statements to be dry, ok, fine then. But I'm not a teenager, nor am I a child. Therefore, I am not going to be "hip" 24 hours a day. 'Nuff said!
1a.) I'm 32 years old. I am pretty good on ebonics and my lingo, but I wont quote it faithfully. So if you want to call me a geek, please feel free. If you consider my statements to be dry, ok, fine then. But I'm not a teenager, nor am I a child. Therefore, I am not going to be "hip" 24 hours a day. 'Nuff said!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)