I have to say that 2017 has been epic interesting...
Thinking about the past several years and wrapping that up in a blog post, a blog that was opened while in college is a bit silly.
I just happened to find this while digging through old archives (I'm messing around on my old MacBook Pro that I bought in 2008) and decided I wanted to see something new posted.
It's funny really, there is so much media and personal information saturation now days between Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, and old Blogs, by the way; does ANYONE use Myspace anymore??
Yeah, there are more out there but I'm not going to link them...
Parents of Children on TLC's 'Toddlers in Tiaras' Hurting Their Kids, Critics Say...
In a post-JonBenet Ramsey world, the very concept of incredibly young girls strutting around a stage in swimsuits and gowns with synthetic hair extensions and fake eyelashes in the bid to be crowned the next "Miss" something is bound to cause controversy. The Television Learning Channel (TLC) doesn't seem to mind, as they took viewers a little deeper into that world on Wednesday night with the third season premiere of “Toddlers and Tiaras.”
The first episode demonstrated the intense, very adult preparations that these girls, some as young as four years old, go through in the pursuit of tiaras, titles and $12,000 in cash and prizes.
But these beauty princesses-turned-reality TV stars obviously don’t do it alone. Which begs the question, do their beauty pageant stage parents make Jon and Kate Gosselin look like Ward and June Cleaver? Plus its one thing to dress your children like adults and parade around them for money without cameras following you around 24/7, but does taking your tots on television for all the world to see take things to another level?
"As a treatment professional of sex offenders as well as victims of sexual abuse, I would like the parents of these little girls to assume responsibility for their choices. They are sexualizing their young children. Do not be surprised if your child is preyed upon as a result of this high degree of visibility,” said Dr. Nancy Irwin, a Los Angeles-based psychotherapist. “Men can pose as agents/managers and track you/your girl down through the show. Further, know that sthey will be pleasuring themselves while looking at your daughter’s YouTube clip."
Irwin added that she would not say "these are the 'worst parents' – the worst would be those who actually abuse. These parents run a close second, however, as they are selfish…spoiling their children, and training them that their value is based on their beauty."
And according to childhood behavioral health psychologist and executive director of Wellspring Camps Dr. Mike Bishop, participating in this realm from such a young age can trigger a raft of developmental problems.
"Toddler beauty pageants set a superficial expectation about what makes someone beautiful – that beauty is primarily about your pose, your smile, your hair, and the clothes you wear. Self-worth should not be tied to competitions," Bishop told us. "Toddlers are not old enough to make an informed decision as to whether they should compete. Nor are they able to separate the competition from reality, which can make participation even more damaging to their self-esteem."
However, Annette Hill, the founder of Universal Royalty Child and Baby Beauty Pageants, which is featured on the TLC program and allows anyone from babies to adults to participate, started competing very early in life herself, and believes that the experience actually has a positive impact on young ones and their parents.
"Pageants allow for quality family time, everyone is involved, and everyone gets to go out for dinner together and travel together, and it promotes positive self esteem. Children that compete are more assertive and vocal, they aren’t afraid to look you in the eye when they talk to you, and they communicate very well,” Hill told Pop Tarts. "Besides, what is wrong with showing off your beautiful, talented daughter to the world? It is up to the parents to keep their children grounded. And if the child is backstage and doesn’t want to on, they certainly aren’t forced too."
Rochelle Scott, the director of California’s Cover Miss and Cover Boy pageants, agreed.
"The pageants, like the ones I run, build self esteem and character and make the kids more outgoing, and it’s a good way to mother and daughter or family to spend time together doing something they enjoy," Scott said. "Kids feel special when they have something sparkly on their head, even if it’s not the winning tiara, it makes them feel good about themselves and the fact they accomplished something. With the right attitude, pageants can be like any other sport."
However Keith Lewis, the Director of the Miss California USA and Miss California Teen USA, is “terrified” by the mere idea of child beauty contests, and even more so the motives behind why any parent would want their precious young one to transform into a pageant "princesses" – especially on reality television.
"I question these parents’ ability to parent. It is one thing if your child wants to express themselves through dance or acting, but there are other ways to do it," Lewis said. "It is just unfortunate that we have to share the same 'pageant' name as these things."
Season two of “Toddlers and Tiaras” achieved an average of 1.3 million viewers each week, and the fact that TLC is going in for a third season further demonstrates that this topic obviously resonates well with some American viewers – so what’s the fascination?
"These shows are so popular because, unfortunately, it seems the damage done to beauty pageant toddlers' self-esteem often results in demanding and bratty behavior. As a viewer, you want to watch what happens and it's certainly entertaining,” said Bishop. "But as a parent, you’re mostly glad they aren't your kids."
In a post-JonBenet Ramsey world, the very concept of incredibly young girls strutting around a stage in swimsuits and gowns with synthetic hair extensions and fake eyelashes in the bid to be crowned the next "Miss" something is bound to cause controversy. The Television Learning Channel (TLC) doesn't seem to mind, as they took viewers a little deeper into that world on Wednesday night with the third season premiere of “Toddlers and Tiaras.”
The first episode demonstrated the intense, very adult preparations that these girls, some as young as four years old, go through in the pursuit of tiaras, titles and $12,000 in cash and prizes.
But these beauty princesses-turned-reality TV stars obviously don’t do it alone. Which begs the question, do their beauty pageant stage parents make Jon and Kate Gosselin look like Ward and June Cleaver? Plus its one thing to dress your children like adults and parade around them for money without cameras following you around 24/7, but does taking your tots on television for all the world to see take things to another level?
"As a treatment professional of sex offenders as well as victims of sexual abuse, I would like the parents of these little girls to assume responsibility for their choices. They are sexualizing their young children. Do not be surprised if your child is preyed upon as a result of this high degree of visibility,” said Dr. Nancy Irwin, a Los Angeles-based psychotherapist. “Men can pose as agents/managers and track you/your girl down through the show. Further, know that sthey will be pleasuring themselves while looking at your daughter’s YouTube clip."
Irwin added that she would not say "these are the 'worst parents' – the worst would be those who actually abuse. These parents run a close second, however, as they are selfish…spoiling their children, and training them that their value is based on their beauty."
And according to childhood behavioral health psychologist and executive director of Wellspring Camps Dr. Mike Bishop, participating in this realm from such a young age can trigger a raft of developmental problems.
"Toddler beauty pageants set a superficial expectation about what makes someone beautiful – that beauty is primarily about your pose, your smile, your hair, and the clothes you wear. Self-worth should not be tied to competitions," Bishop told us. "Toddlers are not old enough to make an informed decision as to whether they should compete. Nor are they able to separate the competition from reality, which can make participation even more damaging to their self-esteem."
However, Annette Hill, the founder of Universal Royalty Child and Baby Beauty Pageants, which is featured on the TLC program and allows anyone from babies to adults to participate, started competing very early in life herself, and believes that the experience actually has a positive impact on young ones and their parents.
"Pageants allow for quality family time, everyone is involved, and everyone gets to go out for dinner together and travel together, and it promotes positive self esteem. Children that compete are more assertive and vocal, they aren’t afraid to look you in the eye when they talk to you, and they communicate very well,” Hill told Pop Tarts. "Besides, what is wrong with showing off your beautiful, talented daughter to the world? It is up to the parents to keep their children grounded. And if the child is backstage and doesn’t want to on, they certainly aren’t forced too."
Rochelle Scott, the director of California’s Cover Miss and Cover Boy pageants, agreed.
"The pageants, like the ones I run, build self esteem and character and make the kids more outgoing, and it’s a good way to mother and daughter or family to spend time together doing something they enjoy," Scott said. "Kids feel special when they have something sparkly on their head, even if it’s not the winning tiara, it makes them feel good about themselves and the fact they accomplished something. With the right attitude, pageants can be like any other sport."
However Keith Lewis, the Director of the Miss California USA and Miss California Teen USA, is “terrified” by the mere idea of child beauty contests, and even more so the motives behind why any parent would want their precious young one to transform into a pageant "princesses" – especially on reality television.
"I question these parents’ ability to parent. It is one thing if your child wants to express themselves through dance or acting, but there are other ways to do it," Lewis said. "It is just unfortunate that we have to share the same 'pageant' name as these things."
Season two of “Toddlers and Tiaras” achieved an average of 1.3 million viewers each week, and the fact that TLC is going in for a third season further demonstrates that this topic obviously resonates well with some American viewers – so what’s the fascination?
"These shows are so popular because, unfortunately, it seems the damage done to beauty pageant toddlers' self-esteem often results in demanding and bratty behavior. As a viewer, you want to watch what happens and it's certainly entertaining,” said Bishop. "But as a parent, you’re mostly glad they aren't your kids."
Anyway, the winter quarter of 2009 is finally over, cant say I'm happy or sad, either way it was a learning experience for me, and actually I've decided to maintain this journal, just because its become a habit for me now...
so, I'm taking classes online through the Art Institute... so, now i have the freedom to travel between Vegas and California, when ever i want.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing.
“The Chief Justice attacked the Law School's asserted goal of reaching a "critical mass" of minority students, finding the absolute number African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students varied markedly, which is inconsistent with idea of a critical mass, in that one would think the same size critical mass would be needed for all minority groups.”
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia said, concurring in part and dissenting in part, "Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system."
Personally I think its ridiculous this case went before the Supreme Court… for one, couldn’t Barbara Grutter just settle on another college? And for two, why couldn’t the admissions department just accept her… its not like its that big of a deal, they probably wasted more money on this case than her entire tuition would have brought them… so… in my mind It doesn’t make sense… there are some VERY stubborn people out there in the world. Maybe they were trying to make a point, but I don’t agree with the admissions policy, honestly speaking here, I would rather have a successful student in my classroom than a dumber student of another race. We go to school at the art institute of Las Vegas, and they have admissions policies too! Based off skill, not gender or race, and trust me I’ve made some friends in admissions since I’ve been here… if there just so happens to be more Hispanic students who are better at practicing law than there are of white ethnic background, by all means go with the majority here… I think an admissions policy based off skill and talent is far better than one based off ethnic quota. It doesn’t make sense, not only that these people wasted money because neither wanted to back down, but also the admissions recipe is kind of lame… it may look like a cherry pie, but it has a sour lemon center!
The decision of the court was based on the thought that diversity is required in Universities to provide a diverse education environment. The court holds that as long as the final decision is not based solely on race, then it is not unconstitutional. This upheld the position asserted in Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke.
The District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they were nearly indistinguishable from a quota system, which is illegal.
The Sixth-Circuit Court turned over the decision of the District Court, claiming that the use of race was to further the compelling interest of diversity.
“The Law School's racial preferences were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored. It held that the Law School's stated objective of enrolling a "critical mass" of "underrepresented" minority students was achieved through considering race as a "plus" factor in the manner approved by Justice Powell in Bakke and described in the "Harvard plan" referenced in Justice Powell's opinion. Finding that the Law School had no "fixed goal or target" for minority admissions, the court rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.”
“In a 5 to 4 decision involving the University of Michigan School of Law, the United States Supreme Court upheld the "flexible" consideration of race as one factor among many for admissions to public institutions of higher education.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced the decision; joining her in the majority ruling were Justices, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, And John Paul Stevens. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, And Clarence Thomas dissented.”
The Supreme Court’s majority ruling said that the United States Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” They believe that the interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority groups was a tailored use. They also held that in the future, racial affirmative action would no longer be required.
This case was brought before the Supreme Court after it was requested by Grutter, and the Center for Individual Rights. Two courts had made opposing decisions and so the Supreme Court agreed to look over the case and hear the arguments. Grutter had won in the District Court, however, in the Sixth Circuit court, she had lost.
“This case presents questions about what constitutes a compelling interest that may justify race-based preferences in student admissions at a state law school to applicants from certain racial or ethnic groups. The Sixth Circuit resolved this issue by concluding that the opinion of Justice Powell in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted binding precedent establishing "diversity" as such a compelling governmental interest. The Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits have split on this issue of profound national importance. The First and Fourth Circuits, in cases involving racial preferences in admissions to public elementary and secondary schools, have issued opinions noting uncertainty about whether diversity is an interest sufficiently compelling to justify such preferences.
Even assuming "diversity" to be a compelling interest, this case presents additional questions concerning what constitutes appropriate "narrow tailoring" of an admissions policy designed to achieve diversity. The decision of the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the approach to narrow tailoring taken by this Court and by other lower courts. The Sixth Circuit's de novo review of the district court's factual findings concerning the racial preferences at issue was also an extraordinary departure from the rule that such findings should be reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. “
The problem was that the University of Michigan Law School said that they wanted diversity on their campus. However, when actual numbers were looked at, African-American’s, Native Americans, and Hispanics were not equal in any sense of the word.
“In practice, the Law School's program bears little or no relation to its asserted goal of achieving "critical mass." Respondents explain that the Law School seeks to accumulate a "critical mass" of each underrepresented minority group. The Law School's ... current policy ... provides a special commitment to enrolling a 'critical mass' of 'Hispanics'. But the record demonstrates that the Law School's admissions practices with respect to these groups differ dramatically and cannot be defended under any consistent use of the term "critical mass."
The point of this case was to determine whether or not the University could select a person over another person based on race, to avoid discrimination. The University argued that this wasn’t the only thing they used to determine who was admitted. They used a point system to add up all attributes.
