Monthly Archives: September 2012

A homeless man named Dwayne: Occupy, one year later

Just three hours ago, I had no intention of writing a blog post about the meaning of Occupy one year later. It certainly doesn’t mean that I don’t empathize with the movement; in fact, I was involved with local activities and even took my ‘Critical Media’ students to a sit-in with protesters so that they could gain insight that wasn’t filtered by the corporate media. But, it has been an exhausting week. Driving home after treating myself to a much-needed massage, I was daydreaming of an evening filled with pop culture magazines, chocolate and a relaxing bath.

And then I met a man named Dwayne.

Right at the intersection, before I got whisked off into the highway with other tired, irritated drivers making their way home during the height of rush hour, I was stopped at a red light for about three minutes. When I turned my head, I saw him at the intersection. He was holding a sign, with an orange vest on and I immediately felt a mixture of empathy and guilt. Empathy because of his situation, and guilt because I was in no position to help at the moment, trapped in my car in the middle of a highway, with no money of my own to give.

And then, he smiled at me, and pointed to my long dangling earrings that were made of seeds from Brazil, tinged in a vibrant shade of orange (when I do fall colors, I do fall colors). He gave me a thumbs-up, and I felt a rush of disbelief overcome me. Here was this man, clearly struggling, trying to remain visible to a stream of people in moving vehicles, many of whom were probably pretending that he was not there, noticing something about me and wanting to make a connection. I was immediately grateful.

I rolled down the window, and we talked, for two short minutes. His name was Dwayne, and he had been homeless for the last six months. He was looking for work, he told me, but not having a driver’s license made it difficult to get to job interviews. He then acknowledged that “everyone’s struggling, so no one is really able to give me much money” and that this month in particular had been the hardest for him. He asked me for my name, and I told him, in the midst of honking cars that indicated the light had turned from red to green. When I was forced to drive away, he shouted ‘God Bless’ and blew me a kiss.

I thought of Dwayne the entire drive home, while standing in the checkout line at Food Lion, and as I sat on my futon at home, reflecting on our conversation and his comments about shared struggle. And it was then that I suddenly felt inspired to write about Occupy.

An Occupy Wall Street campaign demonstrator stands in Zuccotti Park, near Wall Street in New York (photo courtesy of Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

When Occupy Wall Street erupted last September, it was one of the most exciting protest movements my generation had witnessed since the WTO protests in 1999. Building momentum from both the Arab Spring and the public frustration over the debt ceiling crisis in the summer of 2011, at the heart of the seemingly disparate movement were two main points of critique: that the distribution of wealth and opportunity in our culture was inequitable, and that the media system, controlled mainly by the ‘big six’ corporations, contributed to that status quo.

And not surprisingly, the media lived up to its reputation as an institution that never disappoints in its marginalization of activist causes. Media watchdog groups like Free Press and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting published stories on how Occupy was denigrated as a ‘hippie movement’ that didn’t have any idea what they wanted. Instead of interviewing the people who were involved in the movement, the media chose to rely on a stream of ‘experts’ and scholars to speak on behalf of the protesters, who were labeled in different media outlets as ‘crackheads’ (Bill O’Reilly for Fox, 10/14/11), ‘boring’ (Bill Keller, former executive editor for the New York Times, 10/14/11), ‘indignant indolents’ (Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, 10/17/11) and ‘Milquetoast Radicals’ (David Brooks, The New York Times, 10/11/11).

And in a way, it makes sense. Mainstream news organizations are often reticent to report favorably on anti-corporate movements because they are themselves, owned by corporations. It creates a conflict of interest. Take Erin Burnett, a CNN reporter who was lambasted for her derogatory remarks towards the protesters. Guess where she worked before her tenure at CNN? Goldman Sachs and Citigroup—the same financial companies that profited from the bailouts the Occupiers were protesting!

To be fair, the media did start to portray the movement more evenly, as public opinion revealed a majority who were sympathetic to the Occupy cause. Even then though, the political media’s attempts to frame politics in a bipartisan manner often resulted in Occupy being labeled as a counterweight to the Tea Party, which conflicted with the anti-establishment message of a movement that freely critiqued Obama as much as it did the banks.

Jonathan Wall releases his statement on how a sports bar in Raleigh kicked him out for no reason.

Now, celebrating its one-year anniversary, Occupy finds itself again denigrated by a media establishment that never really understood it. FAIR published a story on the different news outlets that proclaimed the Occupy Movement to be a failure and a fad. While there is some truth to the claim that Occupy was not able to create legislative and regulative change in the banking system (more likely due to the barriers in our political climate than any real issues within the movement itself), it succeeded in other important ways. Most notably, it helped to change the national conversation on wealth and inequality, creating the Twitter meme of #occupy and spurring occupy movements across the country that responded to local needs and issues. One local example I can personally cite was the ‘Occupy Downtown Sports Bars’ in Raleigh which was organized after a black Harvard graduate student got kicked out of a downtown bar for no apparent reason.

My students attend a local Occupy sit-in.

And since when do protests have to achieve everything they hope to accomplish in a span of one year? If the Occupy movement hoped to deliver a marked critique of inequality, and call for a government that represents the needs of citizens instead of the big banks or corporations, then I would argue that they did a pretty decent job in 12 short months. They centered this question of economic inequality in national discourse for the first time since the 1960s, were involved in movements to protect citizens from evictions and foreclosures, pressured President Obama to ease the loan burden, if marginally, to current recipients and focused the attention on police brutality towards marginalized communities. They bravely critiqued the corporatization of society, including that of the mainstream media, and encouraged people to become active citizens by seeking out alternative sources of information and media. As an instructor of cultural and media criticism always trying to instill the importance of societal and political engagement, I couldn’t have asked for better inspiration for my students.

So yes, one year later, a man named Dwayne is still homeless, and many people, as he himself so compassionately put it, are struggling. But that doesn’t mean that this revolution has failed. It has started a conversation about shifting the national paradigm to one of connection, to an inclusive society, to one that focuses on the needs of the people, to the 99%. It was about creating a world that works for everyone, including the 1%, who are also implicated in our society’s loss of community and intimacy.

Occupy reinforced my belief that the worst crimes committed are the ones that happen when we don’t ask questions. After decades of apathy that helped to create our current economic and cultural crisis, we can no longer stand to look the other way. So here I am writing at 2 a.m., wishing that I could forget about Dwayne and lose myself in the mindless world of celebrity magazines, but knowing that I can’t, because the conversation must go on.

8 Comments

Filed under Media & Culture

The Dalai Lama – can we get any more inspirational?

When I am feeling discouraged about the world – whether it’s just having a blah day, hearing a sad story from a refugee client, learning that a student can’t watch a movie with a rape scene because it would bring her own sexual assault too close to home, turning on the TV only to be assaulted with hateful campaigning during the election season, or just freaking out about my life as a young professional trying to make my way in this post-recession world, I look to the Dalai Lama for guidance.  I wanted to share two of my favorite quotes by him, and I hope this brings a smile to your lunch hour 🙂

“At the end of the talk someone from the audience asked the Dalai Lama “Why didn’t you fight back against the Chinese?”

The Dalai Lama looked down, swung his feet just a bit, then looked back up at us and said with a gentle smile, “Well, war is obsolete, you know.”

Then, after a few moments, his face grave, he said, “Of course the mind can rationalize fighting back… but the heart, the heart would never understand.  Then you would be divided in yourself, the heart and the mind, and the war would be inside you.”

Amazing. Here’s another one of my faves, one that I keep in my daily consciousness, one that encourages me when I have a student who asks me what’s the point of fighting for a better world when the world is already so screwed up, when we’re all so disconnected, when the 1% controls everything.  So many people expect change to happen overnight, and underestimate the value of their individual actions.

“Each of us has been born into this world, and each of us has been provided with a way to help others. A kind attitude of concern for those in our respective field of activity will affect them, even if it is just ten people, bringing them more comfort and less strife. If each of them, in turn, treats their associates in a similar way, then even though the effect will be gradual, it will in time be transformative. This is how we can change the world.”

Amen 🙂

Thousands of monks praying for peace.

2 Comments

Filed under Inspirations

Can Fashion Change the World?

“It’s quite incredible that we might save the world through fashion .” -Vivienne Westwood

In my recent post on New York Fashion week, I focused on the disconnect between the glamor and fantasy of the fashion industry with the exploitation that often hides beneath the glossy surface. I wanted to emphasize in this post, a few key players that are trying to work for more sustainable, ethical practices in the industry.

OK so first of all, what is ethical fashion girlfriends?? While I will no doubt touch on this subject many more times in my future blog posts, I really loved this definition from the ultimate in sustainable fashion information, the Ethical Fashion Forum.

” The meaning of ethical goes beyond doing no harm, representing an approach which strives to take an active role in poverty reduction, sustainable livelihood creation, minimizing and counteracting environmental concerns.”

Artisans at the Nairobi hub with Lisa Barratt, left, Jane Kabura, center, and Jeremy Brown, right, standing behind bags for Stella McCartney, Vivienne Westwood and Sass & Bide. Credit: Chloé Mukai/ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative

Obvi, that’s kind of amazing, but can it be done?  While the coverage of labor issues during fashion week was pretty paltry, The New York Times did run an incredible story on Simone Cipriani, head of the Ethical Fashion Initiative. Cipriani is connecting designers like Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney with Ghanian artisans,  who are working to the fair labor standards of $5 to $11 a day, making luxury items for the couture designers. Besides achieving a living wage, the work also gives many of these women employable skills that can empower them and help raise their families out of poverty.

Sustainability is still not widely understood though, and many associate the word with hippie-trippy, unattractive clothing, and well … Birkenstocks. Perhaps that’s why the awareness created by luxury brands could prove to be influential for changing the consumption patterns of the mainstream.  When Vivienne Westwood of her Ethical Fashion Collective line and Ilaria Venturini Fendi of her Carmina Campus line ask questions at New York Fashion week like ‘Was this made ethically?’ ‘Are the fabrics green?’ and ‘Were the workers treated fairly?’, this can have an incredible impact by encouraging ethical consumption but also proving that being stylish doesn’t come at a cost to others.

Martin Luther King Jr. said 45 years ago that “True revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.” What exactly is it going to take to shift our values, to create a shared paradigm of ethical labor practices and more sustainable consumption? If it seems to be impossible, consider the resistance towards smoking reform in the mid-century, to the current situation where almost 50% of the U.S. population lives with smoking regulations in all workplaces, restaurants and bars. Yup, change can happen girlfriends, we just need to believe in it!

And a revolution seems to be happening,  and it’s not just within haute couture. Just this month activists staged flash ‘faint-ins’ at fast-fashion retailers H&M and the Gap to protest sweatshop conditions in countries like Cambodia, and workers in Cambodia are in turn striking for better pay. Check out this website, Fashioning Change, a self-described ‘do-gooder’ website that offers cute, eco-friendly alternatives to popular designer name brands. Their ‘Wear This, Not That’ feature is an easy way to compare some of your favorite clothes with more eco-conscious lines that have transparency in their supply chain. What’s more, these lines usually come at a cheaper price-tag then their brand-name comparison! Aaaand, it’s time to go shopping. 🙂

We need to fix the bloated nature of a fashion industry that creates a lot of waste with too many products that end up in landfills on one end, and too little pay for those who labor on the other. Vivienne Westwood, who is using her fashion line to promote environmentalism, has argued that fashion and anti-consumerism don’t necessarily contradict each other if people buy less, and in a more sustainable way. Check out her show from the London Paralympics in late August, where she ends her somewhat haphazard collection with a pointed cry for environmental advocacy, rolling out of a banner that reads “Climate Revolution.” A nod to her punk roots, it had me thinking, “Where is Pussy Riot??”

Have any thoughts on how we can shift our fast consumption to sustainability? Do you have any links to share, or know any peeps who are working on this cause? Please share with me, either in the comments below or via email! 🙂

10 Comments

Filed under Critical Fashion

New York Fashion Week-the Fantasy and the Fire

Rodarte, Spring 2013. Gorgeous and stunning, now … who made them?

Fashion Week 2012 just wrapped up, and I always love the opportunity to lose myself  in the fantasy world of haute couture for just one short week. This year it was Vivienne Westwood’s steampunk-inspired collection, the ethereal draping of Carlos Miele’s clothes, the op-art, mod-inspired fashion of Marc Jacobs, and the punk-rock gypsy aesthetic of Anna Sui (always a favorite of mine) that made my heart race. Even the shoes worn by audience members this year were so unreal, that if the pictures weren’t shot by my heart, Bill Cunningham, I would have assumed they were photo-shopped. (I want five inch yellow Prada shoes with flames shooting out of them, NOW daddy!!)

But while the fashion press focused intently on the genius of these designers, as well as the important faces in the audiences that ran the gamut from Anna Winatour to Kim Kardashian (ugh), very little was mentioned about the fire in Pakistan at a textile industry that killed more than three hundred workers. Supposedly (and I’m sure more information will be revealed as the investigations move forward), the factory employers locked the doors of the factory to prevent the workers from stealing the jeans they were making. And what is even more shocking is that this factory was declared as safe by monitors working with Social Accountability International, which is a nonprofit monitoring group largely financed by corporations. And of course, despite finding a pair of Guess jeans and other brand-name labels in the wake of the fire, producers, including Guess, are denying that their jeans were made there.

Is it ironic that as I’m reading this article on the fire, which killed more than twice as many workers as the famous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in 1911, a gorgeous advertisement of a beautiful model wearing  layers of bracelets and a glittery sequin top for the brand Armani flashes across the screen? The fashion industry in a nutshell—beauty and fantasy, alongside tragedy.

The aftermath of the textile fire in Pakistan (photo courtesy of Fareed Khan for AP)

What this reveals is obvious: the need for more transparency in the design process, and for more sustainable labor practices. As long as those who make the clothes are not given a face, people—the designers, the fashion editors, the consumers—will continue to look the other way. A recent article in The New York Times documented the fashion industry’s “25 key players,” which included the founders of the globally-influenced retail store Opening Cermony, Vogue editor Anna Winatour, and my personal favorite, ‘I got famous for a sex tape and now my face is plastered on every freaking ad on every website that Nadia visits’ Kim Kardashian (UGH). And where are the textile workers in this list? I find this more than a little ironic considering that the haute couture industry defends its high price tags on the basis of its ‘fine’ craftsmanship and supposedly fairer labor practices (though it’s recently been revealed that the ‘made in Italy’ label is kind of a sham-those who labor in these Italian factories are often Chinese migrants exploited by their employers). Shouldn’t they be proud to reveal the names and faces of their workers who help make their dazzling shows a reality?

There are two main issues at play here. First, the fashion industry, with its reputation for glamour and beauty, doesn’t want to be bogged down with the gritty reality of the exploitative labor it employs.  Many designers are considered artists, and artistry and labor politics don’t exactly mix well. Secondly,  the transnational nature of the fashion industry makes it difficult to find any particular person or system entirely culpable. As the fire in Pakistan reveals, regulations are difficult to enforce in an industry that stretches across multiples nations, means of labor, and forms of presentation. Perhaps that’s why when 29 people were killed in a factory fire that produced Tommy Hilfiger clothing last year in Bangladesh, no one blinked an eye when Hilfiger himself was chosen just one month later as the fashion consultant for American Idol, giving style advice to irritated-looking contestants. After all, he couldn’t have known that his factories were shady, right? If he did … he would have done something about them, right? Sometimes, the worst crimes committed are the ones that happen when we aren’t forced to ask questions.

20 Comments

Filed under Critical Fashion

Did Frank Ocean really ‘come out?’

Shortly after the release of his album Channel Orange, Frank Ocean responded to the critics who were questioning his use of male pronouns in some of his songs by revealing on his Tumblr page that his first true love was with a man when he was 19 years old. The internet then blew up, with some fans commentating on ‘what’ sexuality he was to others pondering as to whether it would hurt his album sales (it didn’t). Ocean has garnered accolades for his albums and television performances, like this one on Jimmy Kimmel, and the SNL one below. His voice and sound are like nothing in R&B at the moment, offering something very different from the usual generic dance hits you can hear at the club.

After Ocean released his Tumblr blog, the news media began to refer to him as “the recently Out Frank Ocean.” And that got me thinking, what does it mean to be ‘out?’ When I read Ocean’s sweet description of his first love, I don’t see any announcement of him being gay, and he doesn’t explicitly state that he is bisexual either. In fact, he never once in his blog frames the relationship in an overtly sexual way, saying that the two slept alongside each other, and that they had a ‘peculiar friendship’ that was never fully realized into a relationship.

And that is what is so brilliant about Frank Ocean. He’s a true bohemian, a true artist. He encourages people to ask questions, but never answers them. He uses male and female pronouns interchangeably, but his music  is ultimately universal, like when he touches on the theme of a lost first love in his song, ‘Thinkin Bout You.’ He doesn’t allow himself to be put into a box. He just is.

Just recently, I told a friend that I had a crush on Frank Ocean, and she replied by saying, “Umm….isn’t Frank Ocean gay?” Frank Ocean sings and raps convincingly about women, often in an explicitly gendered way (‘Songs for Women’ is an example, lol), but because of his one love for someone who happened to have a penis, we’re now labeling him as gay? Why are people who identify as straight never asked to defend their sexuality, even though there’s ample evidence that straight people may not really be born that way? (sorry Lady Gaga, I usually think you’re fierce but that song? Not feeling).

It’s not just his sexuality either, it’s in his music. Ocean has complained about the music industry automatically labeling him as an R&B artist because he’s a “black singer who can sing,” even though his music draws on electro, funk, hip-hop, and the introspective musing of an indie songwriter. Ocean himself admitted that he prefers to be referred to as a ‘singer-songwriter’ instead of an R&B singer, because “the former implies versatility and being able to create more than one medium, and the second one is a box, simple as that.” This human need to put people into neatly defined categories that make us feel more comfortable about our own identity and who we are is perhaps why we label Barack Obama as black, despite his multi-racial identity, and Rashida Jones’ character Karen on The Office as Italian, even though she’s half black, half white. Ambiguity scares the hell out of us. Labels keep us comfortable.

Frank Ocean’s Tumblr blog might prove progressive for a somewhat homophobic hip-hop community (Jay-Z and Beyonce offered their support), but in a way, I hope that he doesn’t become a poster child for the gay community. He’s approached civil rights in his music, like in ‘We all Try,’ where he defends people’s right to marry anyone they love, and for women to have control over their own bodies. I hope that he continues with his brand of secular humanism, and that he doesn’t allow anyone—the media, his fans—to categorize him, to force him to pick a single identity when his own is so fluid.

I doubt he will though. I mean seriously, did anyone catch his performance on SNL last week that was pretty much, the chillest thing ever? Ocean crooned his high notes to perfection on ‘Thinkin Bout You,’ and then while guitarist John Mayer hit a solo, crazy face contortions and all, he walked over and played a video game on the arcade set-up, letting John Mayer take the final spotlight of the performance. And I couldn’t help but think, “Frank Ocean’s not gay or straight. He’s just really. F#cking. COOL”

5 Comments

Filed under Gender

When the 1% shares: the Kalamazoo Promise, and why Romney got it wrong :)

In the same week that Romney’s secret videotape was leaked, where he revealed his ‘off the cuff’ (read: from the bottom of his heart) remarks that 47% of the country who would vote for Obama “no matter what,” are freeloaders relying on the government, and not hard work, to succeed, The New York Times printed one of its most inspiring Sunday stories in the last year. To sum up: In 2005, a group of anonymous donors pledged to pay up to 100% percent of state college tuition for any high school graduate within the Kalamazoo district. Kalamazoo has high high poverty rates, and many many children come from families where their parents do not have a high school education. The Promise was not just an altruistic gesture, but an experiment, one that would hopefully boost the economy around it.

And for the most part, it has. To quote the article,

High-school test scores in Kalamazoo have improved four years in a row. A higher percentage of African-American girls graduate from the district than they do in the rest of the state, and 85 percent of those go on to college.

Overall, more than 90 percent of Kalamazoo’s graduates today go on to higher education. Six in 10 go to Western Michigan University or Kalamazoo Valley Community College. And over time, a greater number of students are landing at the more selective University of Michigan and Michigan State.”

Equal Opportunity in Education-The Kalamazoo Promise

The measure has also improved the economy. School enrollment has gone up, and new schools have been built. The success of Kalamazoo has encouraged surrounding areas to compete with its success, strengthening the rest of the region. Furthermore, while there was a steady trickle of ‘white flight’ from Kalamazoo to the wealthier suburbs of Portage since the 1970s, since the Promise, that suburban flight has stopped, and the demographic mix in the school system has steadied.

Of course, not everything is rosy. Many of the students have difficulty finishing four year college degrees due to lack of preparation  and resources that students from college-educated, middle-class families take for granted. To that end, the director of The Promise Janice Brown is working on strengthening early-child education so that students are more prepared for a rigorous college environment. Now that they have the resources, this might prove possible.

Romney’s comments may have been focusing on income taxes, but they had broader implications. Part of the dialogue of the right is that when wealth is shared, people become lazy. They aren’t inspired to work hard when things are given to them. The Kalamazoo Promise strongly suggests that contrary to this belief, when young people are given the ‘promise’ of opportunities that were once barred to them because of economic disadvantages, they take them. In the past year, the Occupy Movement has made much of the inequity of a system where 1% of the population holds the majority of the wealth. Does the Kalamazoo Promise reveal all the progress and good that can happen when the 1% shares?

Check out this adorable montage of children from Kalamazoo talking about their dreams ‘when I grow up.’

Leave a comment

Filed under Inspirations

Insightful comments on Romney’s 47%: Can we talk about poverty?

So I was reading this breakdown on the 47% that Romney described as ‘paying no income taxes’ and ‘freeloaders’ and I came across two reader comments that I wanted to share with my peeps. I found them to be right on, and truly, inspirational. If mainstream news channels brought in more people like this to share their perspectives, maybe we could have some actual conversations instead of just the usual partisan bickering.

The problem with folks that don’t really do their homework, is they think that folks earning 20K or less do so on purpose. They think folks are lazy and take the easiest, thoughtless jobs so they can spend most of their time doing nothing. If they actually tried living that way they’d see that it isn’t true. There’s also a toxic amount of judgement that happens without a depth of knowledge. I say this as a social worker who works with low income folks. There are many who are tired, stressed out, and cranky … and yes, sometimes it’s hard for them to give up time with their children to flip burgers or wait tables for people that do the same amount of work but make tons more. In America, we say you have to work hard for success but the truth is, we inherit our lifestyles and defend them to the death. In more socialized countries, folks get what they need and you work hard to get that extra. Do you really think Mitt Romney works harder that a miner in Eastern Kentucky? I say this with a healthy acknowledgment that I have been blessed with privilege myself.

And this comment in reply:

I also work with low-income people and have realized that a lot of “poor” people make more money than I do, but face much higher economic barriers because they got a point of destitute poverty.

For example, someone who is homeless and has to rent a hotel room every night for shelter might end up paying $1200/mo. Because it’s owed weekly or daily, there is no point where they actually have that $1200 all at once to use for an apartment rental.

Falling all the way into unassisted poverty incurs great cost to individuals. Going from homeless to housed and employed costs much, much more than being employed and finding new housing.

When was the last time you heard voices this insightful on FOX or MSNBC?

There is, indeed, a crazy amount of judgement towards people who are struggling that come from people who a) have never really struggled and b) have never worked with people who struggled. Furthermore, there is this tendency in our country to make giant, lazy leaps to socialism every time there is a call for greater government involvement. Support labor unions? You’re a socialist. Support a fair minimum wage? You’re a socialist! Support health care? Obvi, you’re a socialist. And of course, any support for these policies means we’re one step away from becoming the old Soviet Union or China … watch out!!!!

OK seriously. Calling someone a socialist for wanting a health care system that protects people from dying is way harsh, Tai. Instead of engaging in one-sided debates that avoid the complexity of the issue, perhaps Americans should  look beyond the confines of their small towns to countries in Western Europe, where people work their asses off despite a more socialized system. Reading this article by an American who lived in the Netherlands for a few years, titled “How I learned to love the Dutch Welfare state,” will prove enlightening. Here are some snippets:

“Over the course of the 20th century, American politics became entrenched in two positions, which remain fixed in many minds: the old left-wing idea of vast and direct government control of social welfare, and the right-wing determination to dismantle any advances toward it, privatize the system and leave people to their own devices. In Europe, meanwhile, the postwar cradle-to-grave idea of a welfare state gave way in the past few decades to some quite sophisticated mixing of public and private. And whether in health care, housing or the pension system (there actually is still a thriving pension system in the Netherlands, which covers about 80 percent of workers), the Dutch have proved to be particularly skilled at finding mixes that work.”

“I think it’s worth pondering how the best bits of the Dutch system might fit. One pretty good reason is this: The Dutch seem to be happier than we are. A 2007 Unicef study of the well-being of children in 21 developed countries ranked Dutch children at the top and American children second from the bottom. And children’s happiness is surely dependent on adult contentment. I used to think the commodious, built-in, paid vacations that Europeans enjoy translated into societies where nobody wants to work and everyone is waiting for the next holiday. That is not the case here. I’ve found that Dutch people take both their work and their time off seriously. Indeed, the two go together.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Inspirations