For example, after Wimbledon, everyone was either talking about Federer being dominant or Serena Williams (maybe) returning to glory.  Whitlock took a different stance and put Serena in a category of underachievers and stated what has been obvious to those who have watched her over the years: she is inconsistent at best and not as dedicated or committed to tennis as any of her competitors.

Serena was blessed with talent as was her sister.  Together they have dominated doubles tennis, and they’ve traded blows in the singles realm.  Unlike the men’s field however, the women’s field has two big names with several others that seem to win tournaments over the players who out talent them by miles, and in Serena’s case in particular, it’s all due to work ethic.  Serena has slacked off and pursued other ventures over the years and she’s been on and off her game and all over the place.  In the rare cases when she’s been in top shape, she’s unstoppable.  When she’s in great shape, she’s a competitor.  But most of the time, she’s indifferent and falls by the wayside.

She is what could have been the equivalent of Federer, Nadal, or Sampras.  She instead can count her total grand slams on one hand and complains that people don’t give her the respect she deserves.  I agree with Whitlock in saying that if she perhaps tried as hard, or even cared to try, like Federer has done, Agassi had done, or Sampras, she would be there as the women’s ambassador for any sport, not just tennis.  It’s a shame to see talent not put to its full potential.

But it’s an even bigger shame to have people criticize a writer for pointing that out.  I am not one that prefers to keep the truth, however ugly, from coming to light in the sports world.  There is a line drawn at the personal life, but as far as their play and the reasons behind great or poor performances, those things need to surface and be discussed.

In the end, that is the only way there can be effective reporting: fair, balanced and with great debate.

Overall, I like what the book stands for, essentially Pinsky’s thesis on how celebrities are more narcissistic than the average Joe, which Pinsky classifies as “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” He says, using psychological terms, that it’s apparently not self-love, but self-loathing and the “inability to form a sense of self without input from others” that results in this form of behavior and pathology.

The problem for American society with relation to this fixation of celebrities on themselves came with the Internet and the ability for people to put themselves in the public eye with something as simple as a video camera and access to YouTube. With this, Pinsky and Young want to demonstrate that celebrity narcissism is actually “luring American into a vicious trap” because it provides instant fame, and being “obsessed with celebrity can lead to dangerous mimicry of the worst celebrity behavior.” And, of course, since many celebrities can be unsympathetic to anyone hurt by their sometimes bad or “outrageously uncommon” behavior, copying it can lead to problems for everyone in American society.

This makes sense to me, though the first part I think I could have told you without a degree in psychology.

Pinsky then goes into detailing those most affected and prone to this behavior. He cites that those with the “greatest exposure to technological developments” are the most likely to fall into this “trap.” Of course, teenagers are the most obvious group because of their “body image obsession, sexual acting-out, drug use and diva behavior.” Pinsky points out that these are all ways that celebrity “gawkers” can inadvertently mimic bad celebrity behavior.

One of the most interesting portions of the book, to me, was when Pinsky and Young gave an example of how a typical American would respond to “typical” celebrity behavior. The example was when Britney Spears took her son out for a ride in her SUV, except the baby wasn’t in a car seat, but sitting on Spears’s lap, window rolled down for the whole world to see, which it did. Pinsky says on a typical American’s reaction to this story, “The person would dismiss it as spoiled or crazy.”

I agreed with this almost immediately, but soon had my thoughts challenged when Pinsky and Young brought up another point, and backed by psychological study.

Pinsky and Young want their readers to understand that narcissism isn’t just a personality trait, but it’s almost always the result of childhood trauma. The book goes on to describe the different sorts of trauma and to point out notable examples among today’s celebrities. The main idea behind this is that if we refuse to recognize the underlying cause of celebrity misbehavior, then we’ll never succeed in understanding it and may well end up encouraging it.

Since the behavior is rooted in childhood, this suggests that celebrities are not just normal people who behave badly or become “corrupted” by fame. Instead, they are drawn to the celebrity culture that satisfies their already narcissistic desires, which goes back to the thesis and how we all have narcissistic tendencies. It’s just whether these natural tendencies are stimulated and brought out of us.

I think this is a most important book for any parent of today to read. Celebrity is everywhere. Just start clicking through your cable television stations to see, or go to the grocery store and look at the covers of the magazines in the check-out line. It’s undeniable that celebrities are a huge focus for many of our media outlets. This, in turn makes celebrity impression and influence important because it will certainly have some impact on our society, particularly youths as this books points out. And instead of providing the negative aspects of this personality disorder, Pinsky and Young end with expert instruction on how parents can raise their children to prevent these narcissistic tendencies. Not to mention, the authors also provide at the end of the book a “Narcissistic Personality Inventory” so that the reader can see how narcissistic they really are, which I found to be extremely interesting.

Overall, I found the book to be a great mix of science and celebrity.

(What I found may surprise you. I know it did me.)

Overall, it seems that my three interview subjects, ethnicity aside, have generally the same feeling on the Civil Rights Movement in that it was a very important and certainly constructive progress that truly needed to take place in order to provide a few more stepping stones on the path toward bringing the United States closer to having a society where all men may truly believe that they are created equal. Not one of my three participants took any sort of radical racist point of view or explained that they felt blacks were “unjustified” or that this event should never have taken place. This is something I found to be quite interesting. Although each of my interviewees were from relatively different areas geographically, they were all born and raised in up north, a fact that I think had a very significant impact on how each one of them experienced this epic event in history.

As any historical text on the time period suggest, many of the violent racial acts committed against blacks during this period were performed in the South. Obviously, this reason is deep rooted in the history of our country, with ties back to the early colonial period of our nation, or even more specifically, the Civil War era where one of the plights of the South with the North was over the right of mostly white male plantation owners to maintain ownership of African American human beings, or slaves at that time.

Between all three of the interviews I conducted, there was only one real mention of any hands on experience, or even first hand sighting of any serious racial act over the approximate fifteen years each one of my interview subjects spent living through this period. All three make note of barely seeing any discrimination in their hometowns or anything truly prejudice where they grew up during the Civil Rights era.

“It was if it was another world,” Jerry, my second subject, said.

“We didn’t even differentiate between them. They played sports. They were treated just like everyone else,” my first subject, Joyce, pointed out.

“We were the only black family, for probably about…I mean, I only had white friends until I went to junior high and there was never any difference,” Debbie, the third person I interviewed, explained.

Each interviewee agreed that hearing about what was going on in the South, with regard to the violence and harsh segregation, had only been seen on television or on the news. I have to wonder if this is because of the region of the U.S. that each person was living in during this time that this is so. I didn’t think the North was that different from the South in the way that blacks were treated. I mean, if this were true, why didn’t all the blacks down south come rushing like ants out of the woodwork for protection up north?

Each one of my participants’ views on this monumental affair in history seem only to differ slightly from one another, but it is here that these minute details are key.

During my first interview, with Joyce, I came to find out that her take on the whole civil rights situation was very much in support of national equality and overall worldwide equality. From what she told me, it seemed almost as if the whole 400 years of slavery in our country never existed, or at least not in her home town. She spoke about other people and how she never heard or witnessed any prejudicial acts generated toward anyone and that everyone treated everyone equally. I found her statements somewhat hard to believe, but maybe this is only because whenever I hear about the Civil Rights Movement, I immediately think about all the violence that took place and how awful it must have been for the black community and for the whites who were trying to help them out.

(As an aside, I think the media and even some prominent writers like to focus, and perhaps exaggerate, on events in order to make them more appealing, or worth mentioning, and since I wasn’t around during the sixties and seventies, my only experience with this event is thus through the media and written word. Therefore, I could very well be wrong about disbelieving some of what my interview materials suggest.)

My second interview, with Jerry, was by far the most outspoken, least modest, and realistically the closest to becoming racist in words. The information he provided gave me insight on how many people who were raised with the issue of race being a little closer to home, and with probably some genuinely decent parenting, would turn out.

While maintaining a fine, yet solid barrier between being somewhat prejudice and completely accepting, Jerry explained that he had indeed encountered some “bouts with blacks,” but it wasn’t necessarily over a race issue, especially during the Civil Rights era.

He went on to uncover some of his own personal experiences, which could be viewed as bias on his part, he being white, but these were all incidents that occurred well after the Civil Rights Movement. His true feelings on the issue only surfaced when I asked him questions about how he feels about the U.S. now after this crucial turning point in history, and how he believes blacks have changed as a direct result. It’s obvious that Jerry feels that equality is important to be maintained and upheld for all people and should definitely be provided for blacks, but he points out that he feels all races should act a certain way in order to determine whether or not they are “worthy” and “deserving” of freedom and equal opportunity, such as being “cordial,” “civilized” and mainly just having the attitude of “treating others as you would have them treat you.”

To me, my final subject was the most interesting.

Debbie is an African American woman who believes in equality for all people of this world. She experienced very little prejudice or discrimination throughout her life and has become very proud of her roots and herself through learning from her family and its history and personal past experiences.

When I sat down with Debbie, I was honestly expecting to hear a whole load of how many times she’d experienced someone slighting her because of her ethnicity, or how many times someone had called her a vulgar name or committed racist actions due to the color of her skin. I was shocked at this interview most of all. Debbie is a strong individual with solid beliefs and morals and seemingly was never ashamed of her skin color, as many African Americans have admitted to, and in some cases, still do today as a result of demeaning racial stereotyping in our society. But what surprised me most of all about this particular interview was that Debbie didn’t experience any form of racism or discrimination until she began to really integrate with other African Americans.

Something else that surprised me was the way in which Debbie regards affirmative action measures. She is completely against affirmative action and even explained that because of it, she turned down many job offers. Her whole attitude on this subject shocked and amazed me, and maybe that’s actually some form of stereotyping on my part.

It became obvious to me through these interviews that all those who lived during the Civil Rights era were affected in one manner or another by it, and as a direct result of it. It was also apparent that these people had in some way had contact with the race issue before, and while this important era was occurring. It just goes to show that racism truly is a “deep seeded” issue that can only be turned into something positive and righteous by the selfless actions of those in favor of equal rights for all human beings, as the Constitution of our mighty country says (although not initially intended as such).

Overall, what I took away from the reporting behind this article is the importance of our differences as individual human beings and that relying on text material only will never provide a full understanding of any concept. You have to get out there and ask the questions, see the sights and really take part.

I’ll be far less inclined to make judgments on people, especially historical figures and general persons, in the future after this.

Take the economy for instance.  America blames Bush for our economic turmoil, much to the public’s own ignorance.  He provided a convenient scapegoat for all the troubles in foreign policy with the wars around the world to our dismay at our economic stability on the domestic front.  His goofy grin and poor public speaking ability allowed the populace to mock him at will, believing him to be incompetent.  Unfortunately, competence does not always come hand in hand with charisma, otherwise Obama would be the savior a blind America has hoped for and yet has not seen.

The root of our economic problems sits before our former President Bush.  Our problem rests in a man known for his fiasco in Yugoslavia, his bombing of the no-fly zone in Iraq, and the military SNAFU he caused in Somalia.  Oh, and he is also known for not knowing the definition of the word ‘is’ and of ‘not’ having sexual relations with one Monica Lewinsky.

Yes, America’s herpes has come out of remission once again: Bill Clinton.

If Bush failed America through his inability to stop the economic collapse, then Clinton failed America by sticking our economic screwdriver into the wrong socket.  Everyone remembers how well the economy did under Clinton (which only happened due to the Reaganomics that pulled the country out of a recession).  Clinton needed only to sit back and let it happen and reap the benefits of a ’successful’ presidency.  Yet he didn’t sit back as much as he should have, and instead let three major mistakes to open a cut in our strong economic hide, and that wound festered for a decade before finally becoming infected and taking the system down.

Looking back, 1997: Taking the housing market on first, Clinton allowed for tax modifications on homes greater than $500,000, effectively taking a market that was once priced on supply and demand and opening the floodgates for price gouging, uncontrollable speculation and inflating home prices far beyond their actual worth (as we have seen since with the recent housing crash).

Then in 1998: Doing what Clinton did best in his term, outside of his feeble attempts at leading, I think is best describe by MSN Money:

“The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management’s use of derivatives and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it push for tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets?

Alan Greenspan and Arthur Levitt, then the chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively, and Clinton’s Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, all counseled against it to varying degrees. No action was taken.”

The biggest and final mistake worth mentioning, however, was allowing brokerages and banks to operate as one big, happy, manipulative and misguided family.  Having worked for Citigroup at one time, I can give testimony to how the company believed to be on top of the world, defeating the Glass-Steagall legislation that had prevented things like Traveller’s Group and Citicorp from merging. Through this action, and the creation of Citigroup, the Clinton administration created new legislation to allow mergers to take place and form super conglomerates.  

We all know how that ended now don’t we?  Letting these banks hold and manage, then recommend risky investments and give loans to people without the income to support their mortgages when the interest rates skyrocketed into a housing market that was inflated like a cancer tumor, it created the perfect storm for economic distress.

And now, Clinton’s infectious legacy has once again come back to lay waste to the American way of life.

Rigby has experienced all that comes with growing up on the Gulf Coast of Florida, including red tide. After seeing some of its terrible affects, he decided to take matters into his own hands, and in 1992, he began research to find a cure.

Nine years later, Rigby found it.

When an increased amount of algae grows in bodies of water, it is called red tide. This algae creates a toxin, affecting the central nervous system of fish and also respiratory systems in people. While red tide is found all over the world, the Gulf of Mexico produces a distinct kind of red tide, which is characterized by the algae Karenia brevis.

“In good times, the effects are devastating. If we had a bloom, it could wipe out tourism. I figured it can’t be all that complicated,” Rigby said.

Rigby described the invention process as “easy.”

For nine years, he would bring buckets of water into his garage to tweak his new formulas until he found one that was “100 percent stable and only kills the algae.”

But finding funding proved to be much more difficult.

Once Rigby got a patent, he approached several colleges and organizations, including Florida Gulf Coast University in Ft. Myers, Fla., and Mote Marine Laboratory, in Sarasota, Fla., to get his formula recognized and utilized.

Unwilling to allow the organization to take full credit for the formula, Rigby looked elsewhere, approaching legislators. He finally found solace with the Venice mayor, Dean Calamaras, who approved local research at the high school where Rigby graduated, Venice High.

Appointed by the school, veteran marine science teacher, Charlie Powell, became public chairman of the formula’s research, working with the students, Rigby and the public.

“The students felt really good about it. It was a lot of work,” Powell said.

Their research began with two culture flasks of Karenia brevis provided by the Fish and Wildlife Research Insitute in St. Petersburg, Fla. The students were able to see the effect of this bleach-based formula and documented their findings throughout. Students then began to test the formula with water containing fish and shrimp.

“Working with Venice High School students was perfect. There were big hunks that loved two things: rubber and girls, dressed up in lab coats and safety glasses,” Rigby said.

Powell recalls the day when three different television stations came to cover the research being conducted in his classroom.

Since then, however, many have lost interest.

Controversy and skepticism continues to surround the formula and research.

Rigby has contacted Dr. Bill Hogarth, dean of the University of South Florida’s College of Marine Science, concerning his newest invention: Solar Water Conversion Technology as well as the red tide formula.

USF Marine Science professor, Dr. Bob Weisburg, is currently evaluating Rigby’s invention. Rigby hopes to get research of both rolling as soon as possible.

He has been waiting for more than a year for a response.

“The little guy gets screwed,” Rigby said. “What’s holding this up?”

All who have been involved are concerned that this formula may go to waste. Nevertheless, Rigby will not give up hope.

Clothes Line Too is one of many consignment shops or clothing resale stores where people can bring in their old clothes to be considered for consignment. Many people don’t realize it, but places like this are more than just good for the few extra bucks they provide their clients’ wallets.

“I love my job because of the people. They become like family and you discover there’s more good out there than you might think,” Clifford says, as she pushes up a cheerful grin and hangs some new items on a nearby rack. “During certain times of the year, like around Christmas, my assistant Trisha and I will do something I call ‘late-nights’ where we’ll keep the store open extra hours for people who work late. For example, last year a man came in with three women. He gave them each $50 to buy whatever clothes they wanted. The women, I found out later, were some of his employees, single mothers who just needed a little help. I thought to myself, what a nice guy.”

“We also put out flyers during the holidays, providing discounts to people who bring in toys that we will later donate to children’s charities. It’s this sort of stuff that makes you feel good about life in general. I’m just glad I can help out,” chimes in Trisha Villa, Clifford’s assistant manager.

Outfitting tight-pocketed customers in name brand, top quality clothing is what these shops do best. Many people can’t afford to shop at higher-priced stores, and these shops provide a comparable alternative for them.

“The only clothing stores I shop at are consignment. With prices on just about everything seeming to rise these days, the last thing I want to worry about is clothing. With consignment shops, I find all that I’m looking for in one place, I avoid the giant crowds of the mall and I can afford to keep up with the current style trends,” said Laurie Hrizai, one of Clifford’s many perusing customers. “I don’t know what I would do without these places.”

With over 25,000 resale shops operating in the United States, it’s the very few big timers like Plato’s and Buffalo Exchange, giant resale shop chains that make most of the money, according to the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops. Individually owned shops usually don’t attract the attention that these new names do because they’re older and aren’t appealing to the younger crowds where the fashion draw seems to be currently.

Plato’s Closet, which caters to teen fashion, opened some 200 franchises since 1999, and rang up more than $100 million in sales in 2006, planning to open 35 additional stores this year, reported by Plato’s Closet Online.

“My biggest competition is other consignment shops, especially those like Plato’s Closet. I just can‘t afford the advertising they can. The best I can do is have flyers made and draw out a big sign for the front window,” says Clifford. “Plato’s has come around to our area within the last few years and it has hurt my business.”

It’s becoming more difficult for the small-time, individually owned consignment shops to compete with the giant resale stores who are constantly buying more and more space and coming into more and more areas.

“The problem is that people just don’t dress as professionally as they used to,” said Myra Levine, owner of The Closet Collection consignment boutique. “I used to make decent money selling blazers suits and pants suits, but now it’s all about t-shirts and jean skirts.”

Consignment shops also provide a rather curious service and surprising attraction to a special part of the community with which they share.

“I sell only women’s clothing in my shop, and one time I had a man come in here and try on some skirts. He just swished around in front of the mirrors for like five minutes. I was so shocked that I just sat behind the counter silent and staring. It was the strangest thing. He came out of the changing room dressed like a man, but as he walked through the doors I noticed he was wearing heels,” says Levine of a past experience. “When business gets very slow, I think about opening up a shop for cross dressers because I’d probably make more money.”

“Cross-dressers…they come in cliques. It’s hilarious. I think they feel more comfortable trying on women’s clothing in a store like this instead of somewhere like JC Penney,” says Clifford. “There’s less exposure and we’re probably friendlier.”

About 12 to 15 percent of Americans will shop at a consignment shop during a given year; this is considering that during the same time frame 11.4 percent of Americans will shop in factory outlet malls, 19.6 percent in apparel stores and 21.3 percent in major department stores, according to America’s Research Group.

“I’d like to say consignment shops will be around forever, but with all the competition from departments stores that can cut prices 50 to 70 percent, making it so a person can buy something brand new for the price I sell it at used, I just don’t know,” says Judy McNeil, owner of Wee Bit Consignment Boutique, reflecting on the future of consignment.

“I think they’re going to grow. There’s no way they can’t. People realize the good bargains and quality of the items. You go to the mall and it’s three times the price of what consignment offers. People will talk down about it being other peoples’ clothes, but they don’t think about how many people have tried on stuff at the mall and have just come from the beach,” said Betty DeGray, a consignment shopper.

With this in mind, I don’t know if California is a place I want to visit, let alone call home, any time soon…or is it?

I once saw a sign that jokingly displayed the border between California and Arizona with a sign that read, “Now entering the great Golden State, California,” and it depicted two people, a man and a woman, wearing buttoned-down, flower printed t-shirts, baseball caps stuck to their sweaty heads and on their faces were giant green gas masks.

Although this instance was derived in jest, for the residents of many cities and towns in California, industrial air processes have a great and negative effect on overall life. In fact, 90 percent of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of one or more air pollutants during some part of the year.

Many cities in California are also known for high levels of fine particulate matter (solid particles and droplets of liquid found in the air, some of which include aerosols, smoke, fumes, dust, ash and pollen), which contribute to widespread and major health risks. A study conducted in Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange County, Sacramento, San Diego and Santa Clara demonstrated increased risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, ischemic heart disease and diabetes and as a direct result of exposure to these particles.

By itself, ozone is deadly and poisonous to humans. Californians are exposed to this gas every day at one point or another, and at some of the highest levels recorded in the U.S. Exposure to ozone contributes to an annual 637 cases of premature mortality, 4,200 respiratory hospital admissions, 660 pediatric emergency room visits for asthma, 4.7 million days of school loss and 3.1 million minor restricted activity days, according to HHS.gov. Ozone has become such a problem for California that the state has adopted a law that requires a lowered ozone standard of 0.070ppm.

Menacing in just the length of its name is the term methylterbutylether, commonly abbreviated as MTBE. This barely pronounceable term is actually a harsh chemical compound sometimes found in drinking water and is extremely harmful if consumed in high enough amounts. When tested over a six-year period, MTBE was found in 1.3 percent of all drinking water samples, 2.5 percent of all drinking water sources and 3.7 percent of all drinking water systems in California.

MTBE has been associated with petroleum and is now banned in California and U.S. fuels.

So yes, California might live up to some of the pollution-related stereotypes clouding its name, but the Golden State isn’t just sitting back about it.

We’re all familiar with global warming. It’s been in and out of the news non-stop in recent years. It’s true that in California between the years 1960 and 2001, global warming pollution bounced up 85 percent due to a greater combustion of oil and natural gas, with heating and electrical supply needs responsible for 61 and 38 percent of that increase. Many California businesses, however, such as Adobe Systems Inc. in San Jose, are helping the cause by making a serious effort to cut their global warming pollution.

In 1990, California passed a pioneering mandate on zero emissions vehicles (ZEV). The order was “designed to improve the air quality whereby the state can be in compliance with federal air quality standards by 2007 and to protect the public health from the adverse effects of air pollutants from automobiles.”

I actually just recently visited California and found it quite interesting that residents there must have their vehicles checked every year to make sure they still pass emissions standards set by the state. Signs are posted on just about every auto and mechanic shop front, “Have you had your emissions checked lately?”

So this all might make you feel better about California, but also consider this: alone, California’s emissions from fossil fuel combustion are greater than all other U.S. states with the exception of Texas. And in the transportation sector, California has only a slightly lower fuel use for cars and trucks than the entire nation.

With the environment on just about everyone’s mind these days, it’s good to know that California is standing up against pollution to promote the idea of a brighter, greener and overall better tomorrow, but is what it’s doing really enough?