The Cosmo Girl in me

So since I'm a magazine junkie, and always have been, I thought I'd make a list of some of my favorites.

1. Cosmopolitan: For those of you who choose not to live by the Christian Bible, Cosmo is a good substitue. Just kidding. But I love Cosmo very much. Cosmopolitan covers topics such as relationships, beauty, sex, health, fashion and everything else a girl needs to know. Well, not everything, but I still love it to death. The only issue of Cosmo that has ever disturbed me in the years I've been reading it was one that featured an issue about how to score a husband. I thought it was a little sad how it acted like women have to scheme to prove their worth to find a husband. This magazine can also have some repetitive articles, but I still find them interesting when I read them, and they usually have a new twist. Cosmo is great for when you're feeling girly and don't want to think too deeply, although some of the articles actually do have some depth to them. And I'm not a big fan of the teenage version of Cosmo, Cosmogirl!

2. Jane: Jane may just be my new favorite magazine. It has all the good stuff Cosmo has, but it's edgier and the writing is awesome. Jane is very in your face and the writing doesn't hold back. It tells it like it is without trying to be politically correct. I've seen articles about how to make fast money that include really risque stuff such as sending pictures to porn fetish sites. Some people may see this magazine as offensive and sleazy, but I absolutely love the fact that it's so uncensored. It's like Cosmo with a punch, and it's much more realistic.

3. Glamour: Glamour really is a lot like Cosmo. It covers a lot of the same stuff, with a slightly higher focus on fashion. There is usually a little more politics in Glamour, but don't kid yourself that you're reading news when you're reading Glamour. It's Basically Cosmo.

Okay, so I read chick magazines. So sue me. Sometimes I need a break from the real world so I can read about sex, fashion and glamour. These three magazines are all very similar, but if I had to recomend one, it would be Jane. Unless you're easily offended. It's cheap too, which is nice :-)

Plastic vaginas

I was surprised, but not really, when I read that there has been in increase in cosmetic surfery for vaginas. First of all I was shocked to think that a woman would be so unhappy with the appearance of such an important and beautiful part of her body that she would do something as risky as go under the knife to change it. Apparently the risk of infection, loss of sexual sensation, and other possible complications associated with surgery are not enough to deterr a woman intent on changing this part of her body.

Again though, I was not all that surprised when I really thought about it. Women have been getting breast implants for years and risking the same consequences as the vaginal cosmetic surgery. Liposuction, rhinoplasty, collagen injections and all sorts of other cosmetic surgeries place women (and sometimes men) at risk.

I guess the reason that the vaginal cosmetic surgery upset me so much is because it is such a personal part of a woman's body. In most cases, the only person who sees a woman's vagina is herself and her sexual partners. I just think that if a person is going to have sex with someone, ideally, he or she should be able to not worry about appearances of sex organs. They're all beautiful!

But of course, there are going to be people who don't agree with me. Women have been told that their vaginas are ugly since they were children. We just hope the girls figure out on their own that they aren't ugly by the time they reach adulthood. Maybe if society would stop suppressing sexuality so much, people would stop unhealthily obsessing obout things liek appearance of the vagina.

I understand that the surgery for vaginas has its roots in the same reasoning behind breast implants. I'm sure the confidence argument will make its way out soon. Eventually I'll probably be forced to be okay with this increasing surgery, but at the moment it really bothers me that young girls who hear about it may be in their rooms with hand mirrors seeing if their vaginas fit the beautiful image. Long ago, breasts weren't seen as sexual and having to look a certain way either. I guess it's only going to get worse for our daughters and granddaughters.

The people who are closest to me will probably call me a hypocrite for saying this, but I will anyway: Girls, your bodies are beautiful whether they fit the standards of ideal beauty or not. Don't let anyone tell you it isn't.

The risks of surgery aren't worth it!

Why are some words bad?

I don't really understand why some words in our language are considered off-limits. Curse words, swear words and vulgarity is frowned upon in most situations. Students are given detention for saying certain words in class that are considered indecent, it is inappropriate to swear in front of authority figures and young children and there are so many other situations where swearing is not acceptable.

People argue that refraining from using certain words is a form of respect. I think that is such a stupid argument.

How is holding back and not speaking like yourself respecting someone? When I'm 80 years old I hope that my grandchildren feel comfortable enough with me that they can say naughty words in front of me.

And by the way, how did these words become bad? I don't really get that either. Swear words are usually one of two things. Sometimes they are substitutes for clean words that mean the same thing. For some reason though, the swear word is considered vulgar. Some swear words are used to express annoyance or another strong emotion. I can think of times when I've been upset and swear words come out. I don't really understand why using a word to express my anger or frustration is seen as bad. Would people rather that I go beat someone up or destroy something?

Speaking English can be confusing enough. I say we quit censoring ourselves when it comes to swearing. It's tiring.

Maybe some teen drama is necessary to grow up

I've been thinking a lot about relationhips lately. Teenage relationships in particular. I've been through my fair share of ups and downs when it comes to boys, and I have seen many friends go through the same experiences as well. I've also heard many adults, and even some teens, speak about how silly all of it is as teenagers. "It's such a waste of time. Teenage dating doesn't even count. They're not old enough to understand," say so many people.

This is rubbish. People at any age who are parts of relationships realize that they can be the most rewarding and the most painful experiences a human can go through. I'm sick of people not giving teens respect for relationship issues because it's dismissed a "puppy love" or "lust."

Lately I've been noticing many of my friends going through problems with boyfriends or girlfriends. It kills me that I can't help them through, and I know exactly how terribly they feel in so many situations. When parents dismis it as silly drama, the loyl friend in me wants to punch out the adults for being insensitive. This probably makes me sound young and immature, but maybe that's part of it all.

Of course high school and college dating is going to have some bumps (just the same as adult relationships). But I think we need to go through these bumps while we're young and open-minded, and can learn from them. Most people are going to experience a broken heart at some point in their lives. Experiencing it when they are young is not a bad thing.

Boys are stupid. Girls are stupid. Men and women are stupid too. Nobody can fully unserstand love or how it affects people and relationships. So why give kids a hard time about trying to get a head start in figuring it out.

I'll admit to disliking the nausiating declarations of love after 10 minutes of dating someone, but don't judge all of us teens by that.

And to my friends who are dealing with heartache and confusion right now: I love you, and you will get through. It's going to suck for a while, but we'll figure it out some day. or at least get as close as we're meant to get in figuring it all out.

All you need is love.

It's May of senior year, and the college decision has been made. Besides the constant battling of senioritis (with the senioritis often winning), the stress should be lifted until college starts in the fall.

So what do teens find to stress about during this time? Prom! I think it's good, fun stress, but many pople take it to the extreme. Just about daily I hear about a big crisis because someone's hair appointment isn't at the optimal time, or her nail appointment isn't at the best salon, or her dress alterations make her look fat. I will definitely admit to some time spent obsessing over prom, but not to the same extent as some of these girls.

Each year I pick and choose the expensive little extravagances I want to indulge in that year. So many girls go broke (or make daddy go broke) trying to get every little thing to be perfect. Last year I spent $18 on my dress, so I splurged on getting my nails/hair done, and nice shoes and jewelry. This year I spent a little more on the dress (under $200 which is considered cheap these days) so I'll be doing my own nails and wearing last year' shoes and bag.

Politics are weird

Politics are always strange. Here is a selection of recent videos just for fun.

Okay, this one is for Maddie. It's a little long, but it's amusing. Especially if you like to see how stupid religious, conservatives can make themselves sound.



This whole video is funny. Karl Rove raps and dances. If you're pressed for time start the video at 1 minute 30 seconds to see the action.



This one is just too good not to include. Fergie ain't got nothin' on Condi.



This would not be complete without some stupid Bush momeents.

Give teenagers some more credit

Smoking cigarettes in movies causes much outrage among people. Parents are upset because they believe that teens watching movies will be tempted to mimic the stars, and develop the unhealthy habit. As a teen, I must say that this worry is unfounded.

First of all, my generation has had the benefit of knowledge and education about the subject of smoking. Students learn about the harmful effects of tobacco use as early as elementary school. Seeing a character in a movie smoke will not counteract the knowledge of how bad it is to smoke.

Many factors contribute to a teen’s decision of whether or not to smoke. Some include parental example and opinion, peer pressure, facts about the effects of smoking, tobacco advertisements, and the laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to teens. In my opinion, all of these factors weigh more heavily than following the example of a smoking movie star. As a teenager I am insulted that people believe I will be influenced so easily.

Statistics seem to support my view that smoking in Hollywood has little impact on teens. Since 1982, the occurrence of smoking in movies has doubled, but statistics show that the smoking rates of teens have decreased by 40% since 1997 (Source: American Lung Association). Following the example of fictional characters in movies doesn’t seem to be happening.

The focus of this issue has been how smoking in movies affects teenagers; but what about how it relates to movie makers? Hollywood gets made out to be the evil force in this issue. This simply does not make sense! Completely eliminating smoking from movies would make the films an unrealistic portrayal of actual society. In real life, people do smoke. Pretending that the problem doesn’t exist will not help. Sometimes smoking really does add to characterization, plot or setting. Imagine watching a movie set in 1950 without any reference to smoking. It would be unrealistic. It’s not fair to take away the freedom of expression of movie makers on the premise that taking smoking out of movies might keep teens from smoking. There are more relevant issues to attack to keep new smokers from emerging.

There is no doubt that tobacco related diseases are a huge problem in this country. It is important to keep young people away from smoking and the problems it brings. People must focus on more effective ways of keeping kids educated and away from tobacco than removing it completely from films. Perhaps a preview in movie theaters about the harmful effects of smoking would be helpful. The key idea is that knowledge about the harmful effects be available to kids, not that smoking is unrealistically removed from the media.

Jumpin' Jack's kicks of Spring in Scotia

The Spring and Summer season has officially begun in the Village of Scotia.

The popular Jumpin' Jack's fast food Drive-In opened yesterday, Thursday March 29. The sun was shining and the temperature mild, which made the hour + wait for food a little more pleasant for those loyal Scotians who stop to eat at JJ's every year on Opening Day (rain or shine of course).

Only in Scotia do people wait in line for an hour and a half for a burger and fries. We understand it though, because the food is great, and the atmosphere of the park in the spring time is not so bad.

Jumpin' Jack's has been around for a while. My Mom recalls going there as a kid in the '60s. They serve burgers, hotdogs, fish fries, steak sandwiches, fried shrimp/clams/chicken tenders and also the famous "Jack Burger," which is a double cheeseburger with cole slaw. Many people have an infatuation with the twister fries and onion rings as well. And aftr dinner most people stop by at the icecream building (Twin Freeze) for dessert. Pistachio is always the "flavor of the day" on Opening Day in a addition to the standard chocolate and vanilla.

In case you'd are not a Scotia native, nd hve not been to Jumpin' Jack's before, you should check out some of t etiquette. visitscotia.com has the rules posted. here is a copy:

Jumpin' Jack's Etiquette (Just For fun)

1) Ordering: Know what you want before you get close
Look up and you'll see the menu. Keep the line moving by knowing what you're going to order before you're asked. If you have questions just ask someone else in line.

2) Ordering: Your drink order is separate.
Don't confuse the guy taking your food order with what you want to drink. The drink guys will ask for your beverage preference before you get to the register.

3) Dress code: Dress warmer then you might expect.
Everyone in the Village of Scotia knows it always feels 10 degrees colder at Jumpin' Jack's.

4) Dress code: No Shirts or Shoes, No Service.
It's still a restaurant so health laws still apply even if you're not eating.

5) Parking: Customers Only
If you're attending a concert in Freedom Park or you're there to see the US WaterSki Show Team don't take up spaces in the main parking lot. There's plenty of parking in the Collins Park Beach parking.

6) Tipping: Leave the change and they'll yell "Subway"
Tipping is a allowed and everyone will acknowledge your tip by yelling "Subway". Rumor has it the folks at Scotia's Subway now yell "Jumpin' Jack's" when tipped.

7) Ice Cream: No Dips
Don't ask about dipped ice cream. If you want your ice cream dipped you can go to Dairy Circus across from the high school.

8) Ice Cream: Bite off the bottom
When buying ice cream for someone else's children you should teach them to bite off the bottom of the small cone and suck the soft ice cream out.

9) Water Access: Keep the kids on the grass.
The Mohawk River is very beautiful and drops off quickly at the shore line into the "Muddy Mohawk". When attending water ski shows keep the kids up on the grass or you'll bring them home wet and they'll be in the way.

10) Parking: Hot cars rule.
The corner in front of the Twin Freez ice cream building is the place for hot cars and bikes. Check them out while your there. If you drive a mini-van or SUV there are plenty of other spots to park.

Happy Spring everyone!!!

Pussies Unite!

I had a chance to see The Vagina Monologues on Saturday at Union College in Schenectady. Although the play gets some bad reviews from people who see it as anti-heterosexuality or anti-men, I found it to be a good experience and well worth my $7 (90% of which went to support Schenectady's YWCA and the rest went to benefit this year's Women in Conflict Zones campaign).

TVM is a play written by Eve Ensler about women, their sexuality, and of course, their vaginas. It is based on interviews Ensler conducted with women of all different backgrounds, and it consists of separate monologues that are based either on one woman's story, or a compilation of several women's stories. The monologues touched on issues such as menstruation, transgender women, homosexuality, rape, domestic violence, genital mutilation, birth and even the all-important topic of pubic hair. Parts of the monologues were inspiring, others were saddening, and there were some funny parts too.

Saturday was the second time I saw the production. I noticed that Union College’s production didn’t quite do everything it was supposed to. Some of the monologues require accents or props that the college students didn’t use. I remember the production I saw three years ago at the YWCA was better with these things.

The college girls did perform well in other ways though. The monologue about menstruation is a compilation of many women’s stories. Six or seven girls sit on the stage and read a few sentences at a time, telling dozens of girls’ stories in just a few words or sentences each. The timing of each girl’s lines was well done. When one girl was finishing her few words or sentences another would jump right in without hesitation. The stories of menstruation really bled into one another (pun intended). I thought it gave a really nice effect.

As for the play having a homosexual agenda or being anti-men, I don’t see it. There were monologues that portrayed lesbian relationships positively, but also ones that were positive towards heterosexual relationships. The monologue titled Because He Liked to Look at It was about a woman who came to love herself and her vagina through an experience she had with a man. There was also a monologue about the wonder of birth, which of course would not be possible without the help of a man. There were also parts about rape and domestic violence that portrayed men negatively, but these issues cannot be ignored simply because they are unpleasant. I thought the balance of good and bad was well done. It made the audience realize that the vagina and a woman’s sexuality can be the biggest source of pleasure or pain for her, depending on her experiences. Either way, it is important and should be recognized.

The Vagina Monologues is usually performed near February 14^th around the country for a reason. Most people celebrate this date as Valentine’s Day and see it strictly as a commercialized holiday to spend with lovers. The Vagina Monologues has changed this by proclaiming February 14^th V-Day. The “V” in V-day stands for Victory, Valentine and Vagina. It is meant to spread awareness of and help stop violence against women and girls across the world. Proceeds from TVM, including sales of tickets, the infamous pussy-pops (chocolate vulva-shaped lolli-pops), “Vagina Warrior” T-shirts and jewelry, and other donations, raise money for organizations aimed to promote a stop to violence against women. The production itself also allows people to hear actual stories of women who have experienced violence, as well as hearing facts and statistics between some of the monologues.

So the play does an excellent job of raising awareness about violence, but I still left feeling empowered. A girl can’t help getting caught up in that “pussies unite” mood when leaving the show. Spending two hours talking frankly about vaginas is a welcome break from society’s normal hush around the topic, and it feels nice. I recommend this play to any woman. Men can also get a lot out of the show in the sense of awareness and possibly even slightly more empathy towards women, but don’t expect to leave feeling empowered guys. Maybe someone will write The Diaries of a Penis for you or something.

For more information about V-Day and its mission you can visit the V-day Homepage

Daylight Saving Time starts earlier and ends later this year

I've never been a fan of losing an hour of my day on the first Sunday in April. Daylight Saving Time (NOT Daylight SavingS Time) is a nuissance and entirely unnecessary. Dealing with it for a half a year was bad enough, but now our "extra" hour of daylight will last even longer. This year Daylight Saving Time will start on March 11 and we won't get our hour back until November4. This change has prompted me to share my grievences about the time change with the world. Or at least my blog readers.

First we'll start with a little history. Just a little, I promise.

Around the time of World War I, the US and some European countries started using DST to conserve energy. The thought was that having an extra hour of daylight at night would mean one less hour of using energy to light homes and businesses. My first thought upon hearing this was that it didn't make sense because we don't just gain an hour of daylight at night, we steal it from our morning daylight. But then I realized that we'd be more likely to light our homes at night than we would while we're sleeping before sunrise. So they got me there.

But wait. Maybe that doesn't work today. After doing some reading, I realized that people are also more likely to use their air conditioners in that extra hour of daylight in the summer, which is when we experience Daylight Saving Time. Also, people are more likely to drive in the daylight, burning precious gasoline. Reports show that 1% or less of the nation's energy is conserved during the Daylight Saving Time. Maybe finding alternative energy sources is a better way to conserve fossil fuels than robbing Americans of an hour in March.

There are other reasons that Daylight Saving Time and I are not friends. It really does throw off my sleep pattern. As crazy as my sleep cycle is anyway, losing that hour makes it even weirder, and it takes weeks for me to get over the change. Most people complain about the loss of an hour of sleep for at least a few days. Think about what it must be like for someone with an actual sleep disorder. I imagine it would take months to adjust.

Farmers agree. They say it takes the roosters weeks to adjust to the time change. They (the roosters, not the farmers) crow at the same time, whether the clock says it's an hour earlier or not. Farmers, and other people whose work hours are based around daylight, are forced to start work an hour later, which often means they lose an hour of leisure time at night beause they are still working.

The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. We have to go around to all of our clocks and change them, adjust our sleeping pattern and lose an hour of our day, because it saves less than 1% of our energy consumption. And now it's taking over the year by starting earlier and ending later. The monster must be stopped!

Anyway, here are some summertime activities that are harmed by DST:

• Drive-in movies
• Fireworks
• Waking up in daylight
• Catching fireflies
• Looking at the stars
• Staying cool outside on a summer night
• Skinny dipping (it's easier in the dark)
• And Sundial reading
• 

War on Drugs Part II: The Costs of Being Denied the Right to Pursue Chemical Happiness

The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) of 1970 renewed the drug ban reasoning and has been surprisingly embraced by many Americans. Too bad this law, which was passed by Congress, goes against the Constitution. But that’s okay, nobody has seemed to notice.

The Constitution did not give the national government the power to regulate drugs, which is why an amendment was necessary to ban alcohol in 1920 (which by the way was unsuccessful, as many people know. Alcohol use and crime is cited as increasing during prohibition. This is much the way drug use and crime have increased since the outlawing of drugs. Just an observation). So if an amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, it is needed to prohibit drugs. But that is avoided now that the CSA is in effect. The government can now decide for the people whether or not they have the right to pursue chemical happiness. And the right has been repeatedly denied.

It should be a person’s right to decide whether or not he uses any kind of drug for medicinal or recreational purposes. The government doesn’t prohibit bacon because of its potential to clogs arteries. Maybe that will be next; we will lose our right to pursue nutritional happiness.

The CSA classifies drugs into different categories called schedules. Schedule I drugs are completely banned, including a ban on research. Schedule I drugs are considered to be highly addictive and have no medicinal value. Somehow marijuana and LSD ended up categorized as Schedule I drugs. I’m fairly certain I learned in health class that both of these drugs are not physically addictive, and I know that pot has the medicinal purpose of increasing appetite in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. But these drugs remain classified as Schedule I. Once a drug is considered schedule I by government committees, there is no need for a constitutional amendment for a ban thanks to the CSA. (Gotta love loopholes that get government out of upholding our constitutional rights.) This happened to LSD, marijuana and ecstasy despite the drugs’ medical uses and lack of addictive qualities.

Ecstasy was used in the 1970s by psychiatrists and considered the “love drug” because of its power to help people cope with intimacy problems. California psychiatrists used the drug in group marriage therapy and were quoted as saying that it accomplished, in six hours, results that would normally take a year or more of expensive therapy.

When ecstasy was still legal, it was also used at “love parties” and raves. There were very few deaths resulting from conditions such as dehydration during ecstasy use, but the deaths were highly publicized and led to a ban of the drug that literally took place overnight. Ecstasy is now a Schedule I drug despite the fact that it is not addictive and can be used successfully in therapy.

Now for LSD. Ok, I can’t think of a medical purpose for the drug, but it has not been well researched due to its Schedule I status. Perhaps there are great things that could be accomplished with this drug. Many would argue that we already know it does great things. Acid may not cure disease, but many people argue that it is mind-expanding and could change the way people think for the better if everyone would use it. I know it sounds a little far out, but we’ll never know now that it’s been banned. LSD is not addictive and when used in moderation and without being laced with anything dangerous, is safe. There is a risk of harming brain neurons if LSD is overused, but that risk should be weighed by consumers, not the government.

The risks weighed by people today regarding LSD are much different than they would be if it were not illegal. On the black market acid often gets laced with other dangerous drugs or poisons or the dosages can be dangerously high. If the drugs were legal and regulated the way other drugs are, these risks wouldn’t exist. If a person wants to expand his mind by dropping acid, he should be able to without the risks associated with it today thanks to the government ban. It also kills me to think that an 18-year-old kid could actually go to jail for possessing LSD. LSD users aren’t typically dangerous criminals that need to be off the street and in jail; they usually just want to use it recreationally or to expand their minds.

The amount of jail space devoted to drug offenders is ridiculous. The US already has a high percentage of its population in prison compared with other developed countries. About 55% of jailed persons are drug offenders. If we keep this up, there won’t be any room for the murderers and rapists! They need to be off the streets more so than a college-aged pot smoker does.

Money is another issue brought about by jailing drug offenders. Each year it is estimated that between thirty to forty million people use illegal drugs. If police caught all of these people and sent them to jail the US would need prisons with the capacity to hold the combined populations of California, Arizona and New Mexico. To imprison these drug offenders for five years it would cost 10-15 trillion dollars. That is about 10 times the annual federal budget. Not only would the country lose money by spending it on prison upkeep, but it would also lose all of the tax-payers’ dollars of those who were imprisoned. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that imprisoning people for doing drugs is a little unrealistic in addition to being unfair and stripping of constitutional rights.

America, you’re being taken advantage of by more than Bush’s “War on Terror” propaganda. Nixon’s “War on Drugs” is still brainwashing us after almost four decades. Just be aware of the distorted information the government feeds you. Keep your eyes and your minds open. Acid anyone?

War on Drugs Part I: The Outageous History

The term "War on Drugs", coined by President Nixon in the 1970s, has stuck with us and somehow invokes positive connotations for many people. People have become victims of the propaganda that leads the public to believe that drugs are the root of all evil in today's society, and if we could just get rid of drugs, crime would decrease tremendously. I'm hoping to convince people that this is a bunch of crap.

First of all, most of the violent drug crimes committed today are committed because of the prohibition of drugs, not because of the existence of drugs. The black market for illegal drugs is huge, and violence results from drug deals gone wrong etc. This is because there is no government regulation, only prohibition and incarceration for offenses. If narcotics were sold in stores, there would be no need to meet a dealer in a back alley.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. So here is some interesting history. I found some fascinating information on the website druglibrary.org about the origins of anti-drug laws. It turns out that most of the reasoning behind prohibiting drugs were based on ridiculous claims that one could never get away with today. For example, the first measure to ban opium occurred in San Francisco in 1875. The reasoning behind the ban? Chinese men use opium to seduce white women, therefore it should be illegal. This first ordinance banning opiates was passed around the time some other discriminatory laws against Chinese people were passed, such as the law prohibiting the pigtails hairstyle. This passed because some Chinese men wore their hair in pigtails. During the period that opiates and pigtails were outlawed in San Francisco and other states, there was no evidence of drug related crime. I'm almost certain that the measure against wearing pigtails has since been revoked, so maybe opiates will become legal again. If only.

Prejudice against Chinese men wasn’t the only prejudice that fueled the prohibition of drugs. In 1914 Utah made marijuana illegal in a series of laws aimed to discriminate against Mormons. Mormons who had moved to Mexico to escape anti-polygamy laws returned with a new habit: pot. The government banned pot in an effort to piss off Mormons. Sounds legit to me.

Then there was the broadened banning of marijuana by 30 states by 1930. The main reasoning for the ban in southwestern states was that pot made the Spanish-speaking people crazy. Latinos were unintelligent to begin with, according to some politicians, and adding marijuana to the mix just makes them plain crazy, so it should be outlawed.

I think the validity of some of these bannings should be reevaluated due to the reasoning used to pass them. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me who thinks banning pigtails and opiates in response to hatred for Chinese men is kind of out there.

Ordinance passed in Bangor, Maine gives children a voice

The Bangor, Maine City Council approved an ordinance Monday to prohibit people from smoking in motor vehicles while children are present.

My first reaction to this measure was disapproval. I'm not a fan of the government intervening more than it already does in citizen's lives and this issue seemed to be overstepping boundaries. After some thought however, I realized that this really is a health risk, and maybe the measure does have some validity.

Second hand smoke is something that many kids deal with every day. As awful as it is when children are forced to breathe it in their homes, at least most houses are big enough that children can escape the worst of the smoke by leaving the room or by not sitting directly next to a smoking parent. There is no such escape when riding in a confined space such as a car.

I can remember being exposed to smoke during long car rides when I was younger, and I also remember the discomfort I felt as a result. Sometimes I rode in a car while three of the passengers were smoking. During the winter the windows were often kept mostly closed, except for an inch or two, because of the cold weather. In addition to the immediate discomforts such as difficulty breathing and coughing, by the end of the car rides I remember dealing with eyes that burned and itched for hours and clothes and hair that smelled like tobacco. I'm lucky because I don't suffer long term damage from the exposure, such as asthma, but many children do suffer such medical problems as a result of being exposed to second hand smoke.

Something like this should be a law because children have no other defenses. Kids know it is uncomfortable to deal with cigarette smoke in cars, but many do not know how much it could be physically harming them. Very young children can't even talk to say they are uncomfortable, and even if they could, many parents would not change their behaviors. The law is the only way to defend children from harm in this case. Hopefully it will make parents less likely to expose their children to smoke in the small spaces of cars.

If parents know it is illegal to smoke in the car while a child is present, maybe they will be more likely to pull over and take a cigarette break outside. I understand how addictive cigarettes are, but that does not justify exposing kids to the toxic chemicals in small spaces. Opponents argue that this is just a way for nonsmokers to "moralize" against smokers. I think it's simply a way to help protect children from the dangers of secon hand smoke in confined spaces.

Feminism shouldn't be a dirty word

American girls and women living in today's society enjoy so many advantages compared to women 100 years ago. We can vote, own property and hold the same jobs as men. As grateful as I am for these accomplishments, I refuse to consider the feminist movement over and worth only a few paragraphs in history textbooks. We still have a long way to go, girls.

The need for a feminist movement isn't over, it has just changed. Feminism is defined as a movement to gain equal legal, political, social and cultural rights for women. Women gained equal legal rights, but stereotypes and double standards live on. Now, more than ever, is when feminism needs support. Struggling to gain equal legal rights was not easy, but at least there were clear goals that could be accomplished, such as gaining support to pass equal right laws. Now that we have all the laws, it's harder to set and accomplish measurable goals. Congress can't pass a law forcing men to stop treating women as sex objects. What is needed is people dedicated to spreading awareness about the need for social change regarding the way women are portrayed and treated.

The problem is that most of today's young women are far from being proud feminists. They consider the struggle for gender equality to be over and don't want to be grouped with a bunch of radical, hairy, homosexual, bra-burning, bitchy, man-hating feminists. The fact that women who believe in equal rights are stereotyped so negatively is reason enough to consider a need for more support of feminism.

Many people are not aware that discrimination still takes place. Women are still facing some of the same types of discrimination that they were 30 years ago. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that in 1979, women working full time earned 63% as much as men. In 2002 women working full time earned 80% as much as men. This is progress, but we're obviously still not where we should be, and most people don't even know that the unfairness still exists.

Here is my view of what today's feminist movement should be like. It is more based on fighting for social equality and to end stereotypes and double standards than it is about fighting for legal rights. Today's feminists have more in common with, and can join forces with, other minorities. Blacks technically have equal rights just like women do, but they are also still discriminated against. Today's feminist should be concerned with equality for all people. Women need to demand to be treated equally and to be as open with their sexuality as men are. I will be very happy the day when women aren't considered sluts for having casual sex while men are high-fived for the same behavior. People need to understand that women and men are different, so are naturally going to be treated somewhat differently. The gap just needs to be narrowed. People need to be educated about the biological and psychological differences between men and women, and learn to respect each other for the differences.

I don't want to hear someone else say, "Well you feminists can't have it both ways. You want to be equal but you get mad if men don't hold doors open for you or pay for your dinner." I won't lie and tell you that I don't enjoy when men are chivalrous, but it doesn't mean that I require it. I'm fine with opening my own doors and I often pay for my own dinner, but I am also psychologically different from a man. Women do like to be treated well. It doesn't mean we deserve to be treated as the weaker sex.

Just stop using the word "feminist" like it's such a bad thing. The movement isn't over, it has just changed. Feminists have changed. They don't bite, I swear. At least not most of them.

Do kids even go to libraries?

A Missouri library is being pressured by community members to ban two graphic novels that have "pornogrpahic images" in them.

I'm not really up to date on what's popular in libraries at the moment, but apparently comic book-like, illustrated, graphic novels are all the rage right now. Some community members in central Missouri are upset because two of the graphic novels in a library depict naked people in their drawings. However, these books don't throw in drawings of naked people and sex just for the hell of it. The drawings are in the contexts of semiautobiograpgical accounts of the authors' difficult childhoods, including strict religious upbringings and homosexuality.

If you ask me this is literature, not porn. (Actually, if you ask me, it wouldn't matter if it was porn. But that's for another entry.)

The opponents of having the books available at the library say that the cartoon-like drawings will attract young readers who shouldn't be exposed to nudity and sex. (Would they rather their children see a dictator being hanged on youtube?)

I don't understand why American culture still clings to hang-ups about the human body and sexuality. The Puritans have been dead for a while, so get over it already! Sheltering children from a drawing of a naked couple will not protect them from evil, it will just reaffirm the ridiculous idea that sex is a bad thing. Living in a culture that airs The Terminator on television at three in the afternoon, but limits edited versions of Sex and the City to later at night after a disclaimer makes me wonder if we have our values in order. It bothers me that we allow our children to witness violence, but we can't let them see something as natural as nudity or sex. So many people are fine with allowing children to see images of guns, but how about seeing guns that shoots life instead of death? Penises are not evil. We don't need to hide them.

Children enter their teen years harboring enough feelings of self-counsciousness about their bodies. Adding extra hang-ups about the human body does not help matters. The pictures in the books aren't even photographs of real people; they're just drawings. If kids can see diagrams in textbooks of naked people it doesn't make sense to ban images that are a part of valid literature.

These people need something else to get fired up about. Censoring books is such a waste of time. Sheltering people from "bad" things won't keep them away. Hopefully those kids will grow up and be naked sometimes, and maybe even have sex if they're feeling extra sinful. Exposing it to them through drawings in books won't corrupt them. They're most likely all doomed to
become sexual beings at some point anyway. Oh well, I guess people will keep reproducing, and the human race will have to continue.