cheryl santa maria

I used to date a guy who was head over heels in love with his BlackBerry.

He’d bring the stupid thing everywhere – to formal occasions,  to family dinners … I even saw him use it  in church.  When he wasn’t using his BlackBerry he’d clutch it tightly in his hand, terrified to put it down for even a second.

I wish I was exaggerating but that’s the honest-to-goodness truth.  One night over dinner, I asked him to his BlackBerry away for an hour so we could enjoy our meal in peace.

He looked at me, mortified.

“Are you crazy?” he said. “What if I get an important email while we’re eating? what if somebody calls me? what then, Cheryl? what then?”

I sat there staring at him for a minute, dumbfounded.  How could a stupid gadget wedge itself in between a perfectly happy couple – and in such a short amount of time?

It was then that I realized that smartphone users are completely and utterly insane. For many, the smartphone is more than a mere electronic device – it’s also a security blanket.  For others, it doubles as a pathetic status symbol.

Bored in a meeting? Pull out the smartphone.
Forced to make awkward conversation in an elevator? Pull out the smartphone.
Want to ignore the homeless person begging for change on the street? Pull out the smartphone.

The phones are ingenious, really – not only for their user-friendly interfaces and sleek designs – but also for they way they have created a socially-acceptable manner for people to mentally “check out” of unpleasant or awkward situations.

I say that smartphone overuse is “socially acceptable” because, as of yet, there is no universal “BlackBerry etiquette” in corporate America.  Earlier this year, the NY Times ran an article suggesting that roughly twenty percent of employees have been chastised for smartphone overuse.  Here in Ontario, the problem has become so bad that we’ve had to enact a law that prevents people from using electronic devices whilst driving.

I know that I’m susceptible to the powers of the smartphone, which is precisely why I don’t have one.  I suppose it’s only a matter of time before I jump on the bandwagon, though.  But until that time, I’ll continue to enjoy making self-righteous remarks about the ill-affected.

Expect a post revoking all of the statements I’ve made here in 12-24 months time.

What can I say? I may hold out longer than most, but in the end my consumer impulses always get the best of me.

This is an interesting concept by Robert Kiyosaki. In his book Cash flow Quadrant: Rich Dad’s Guide to Financial Freedom,  Kiyosaki argues that there are only four types of jobs.

There was a time, not long ago, that I regularly attended professional development seminars. The quadrant was almost always mentioned. It’s an interesting theory and if you aren’t familiar with it you’re in luck, because I’m going to summarize it here.

The Quadrant

According to Kiyosaki, every working individual has a place within the quadrant, which looks like this:

The left side is considered to be the “unfavourable” side. Most of us start out on the left, but the idea is to get to the right side as quickly as possible. While it’s possible to get rich working for a company or owning a business, wealth accumulation is far easier as a business owner or investor because these people employ money-earning systems.  Lefties tend to do all of the work themselves, thereby relying on the less-efficient individual to make money.

Employee

[photo credit]

If you work for someone else, you have the fine distinction of being an employee. While there are some plus points to working for another (i.e., you don’t need to invest your own money to grow the company and you’ll likely have an established client base/corporate identity) being an employee is one of the riskiest ways to make money. For starters, employees are always at the whim of their employers. Throw into the mix the current economic downturn and the explosion of outsourcing in corporate America and it’s a wonder that any of us are still working.  Another downside is the fact that the earning potential of an employee is essentially capped. A salaried employee generally knows how much money (and how much vacation time) he or she will earn in a coming year, regardless of how many extra hours are put in. While a few extra bucks may be made via raises and bonuses, it’s nearly impossible for an employee to double his or her salary working for the same company, in the same position, within a year.

According to Kiyosaki, this is the worst place to be on the quadrant.  Employees have very little control over their earning power and their job security.

Self-Employed

[photo credit]

Being self-employed is a definite step up from being an employee.  Self-employed individuals have far more freedom over their work conditions, their clients and their time. With a little hard work income can double in a few short months. Of course, the opposite can happen as well- most small businesses fail within the first five years – but the rewards of being self-employed truly outweigh the risks.

Doctors, lawyers who act as sole practitioners, some farmers, contractors, consultants … all of these people are self-employed. While this lot tends to make more money than the average employee, this type of job has its limitations. If a sole practitioner decides to take a three week vacation, he or she will not make any money during that time. The salary that these individuals earn is dependent on the hours the individual puts in, meaning that the self-employed often work many more hours than salaried employees.

Business Owner

[photo credit]

Business owners are different from the self-employed in that they earn money through a system that requires very little maintenance. Consider the owner of a McDonald’s restaurant. An individual can purchase a franchise and then hire staff to run the business. If the business owner decides to take a vacation, or is unable to work for a long period of time, the system will continue to generate income. While some business maintenance is required, business owners have to work far less than those on the left side of the quadrant and, because they often employ multiple systems, have far more job security and a practically limitless earning potential.

Investor

[photo credit]

This is the be-all, end-all of money making schemes. An investor puts his or her money to work in investment funds and lives off of the interest. There’s a catch, though. Investors need a boat-load of money to invest – ideally, millions.  While most people won’t be able to reach this status, it’s fun to fantasize about it.

Think about it: 10 Million dollars invested in a fund that yields an 8% return will garner $800,000/year in interest.

I could live quite nicely off of that, how about you?

If you make the leap from the left side to the right, help a lady out – I’d love to hear how you’ve done it …

Hollywood actress Nicole Kidman stood before congress last month on behalf of UNIFEM, calling for an end to violence against women.

The actress, who was in Washington to testify in favor of the International Violence Against Women Act, admitted that Hollywood can perpetuate negative stereotypes by portraying women as “weak sex objects”, but was quick to point out that she had “no interest” in such roles.

Although Kidman is clearly committed to her post as Goodwill Ambassador for UNIFEM – she traveled to Kosovo in 2006 to meet with abused women and helped launch an advocacy campaign in 2007 – I wonder if the organization would have benefited from choosing another, more suitable, spokesperson.

While it’s undeniable that Kidman has built her career upon a foundation of talent and hard work one need only look at her to see that she too has fallen victim to society’s sexist ideologies. In recent years Kidman’s taut forehead has made her into an unwitting poster child for excessive cosmetic surgery; last week, images of the actor’s apparently immobile face seemed to spark just as much online debate as the actual lobbied cause.

While I don’t believe there’s anything inherently wrong with plastic surgery, I find Kidman’s insistence that she is “completely natural” unsettling. I’m equally disturbed by the way that “role models” like Kidman endorse society’s collective fear of the aging woman by freezing their faces beyond the point of recognition.

The idea that a woman’s allure can only be maintained through youth constitutes a double-standard that is, at its root, abusive. The fact that UNIFEM has opted to elect an ambassador who has, by her own actions, perpetuated negative beliefs about feminine beauty is curious to say the least.

A woman who is paralyzed by insecurity often requires as much counseling as a woman who has suffered at the hands of a man. Perhaps UNIFEM would benefit from acknowledging and mentoring women who have inflicted abuse and self-denial upon themselves.

They can start with their own ambassador.

[photo by deepchi1]

French immigration minister Eric Bessom initiated a debate on French national identity last week, declaring that the country should cease to tolerate burqas – the head-to-toe covering garments worn by many Muslim women – arguing that they run counter to the country’s equality values. Bessom’s statements echo those of French President Nicolas Sarkozy who spoke out against the burqa in June of this year, declaring that the “oppressive” garments are “not welcome” in the territory of the French Republic.

Bessom has not called for a ban on the burqa but the country is considering the option. Despite their minimal presence in France, the garments of Islam have been a point of heated debate for some time: In 2004, a political firestorm erupted when France proposed a law prohibiting Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols from appearing in French public schools. A slew of public debates and demonstrations followed.

As contraversial as the garments of Islam may be, legislating a full-out ban will do little to help France’s cause. Any law that prohitbits a woman from wearing a burqa is every bit as tyrranical as the traditions that brought the garment into frutition. While some outsiders view Islamic garments as a symbol of oppression, there are women who don burqas as an expression of free will. To deny a person the right to dress as he or she pleases demonstrates a blatant disregard for human rights.

The “fight” to advance women’s freedoms should not be rooted in coercion. Rather than attempting to prohibit public displays of the burqa, the government of France should empower its citizens with freedom of choice. The most effective way to create positive change within a society is through education and open dialogue – not legislation.

It is only when the government of France begins to view burqa-clad women as equals – instead of as “prisioners” in need of rescue – that an amicable resolution can be achieved.