Martin Loofah King

Seeing as we are in the midst of our civil liberties unit, I found one photo I stumbled upon today on the internet particularly interesting.  The photo was of a loofah, with Martin Luther Kings face on it.

I find this product very contradictory. It claims to be a commemoration of the great MLK, but I find nothing complimentary about Martin Luther King's face rubbing away your dead skin cells. The worst part of this product? The other, non-exfoliating side of the glove which reads: "I Have a Clean". Clever spin on words or just cheesy? Definitely cheesy. 

Something that I did find quite surprising about this product though, was the fact that it was made by a man from the UK. His name is Sheridan "Shed" Simove and he makes other sort of goof products besides this one. Products such as "The Gaydar" and the "Control a Woman Remote". Most of Shed's products are degrading and inappropriate, but I don't think he necessarily was trying to hurt anyone with this product. I think he was just in it for the cheap laughs and quick bucks. It still is sort of insulting and probably should have never been put on the market. Perhaps since Shed grew up in the UK and not the US (where nowadays, starting at kindergarden the greatness of MLK gets pounded into our minds), he was unaware of how insulting this product could potentially be seen as, especially by Americans.  

Interestingly enough,  Shed no longer sells the Martin Loofah King on his website alongside his other products. But if you are really dying to get your hands on one, the loofah can still be bought on amazon here. 

Tobacco Tussles

In June, the FDA issued a mandate that requires tobacco companies to put large graphic photos on 50% of their cigarette packs that show and portray that smoking kills smokers and their babies. The FDA published a statement about this mandate on their website stating, "The introduction of these warnings is expected to have a significant public health impact by decreasing the number of smokers, resulting in lives saved, increased life expectancy and lower medical costs". Based on this statement and on the tobacco companies' negative reaction to the mandate, the conclusion can be made that the images have the possibility to seriously hinder sales for the companies. 


This February, 5 American tobacco manufactures decided to fight back and take a stand for their first amendment right. Therefore, they are suing the FDA.  Reputable news sources, such as CNN,  believe that these tobacco manufactures put up a good case. Even U.S. District Judge Richard Leon thinks they have a chance. 


But is the FDA really violating these drug companies' freedom of speech?


 Personally, I don't buy it. To me, these images just seem like a visual of the side effects to smoking tobacco. Every other drug company has to include side effects on their labels even if it hurts their business, so why should tobacco companies be exempt? Also, I'm aware that 50% of packaging is a large portion, but I truly think that the government has good intentions. 


My thoughts are that as long as the government is keeping less health harmful drugs illegal, such as marijuana, that tobacco should not be legal as well. I think tobacco companies are lucky that they even get to sell their deadly products to consumers.  




You can learn more about this heated debate here here!


-Chrisanthy S

What Kind of Man

With election day nearing closer, I find myself watching more and more obscene political ads. Romney may have won the Florida primary tonight, but I see Gingrich picking up momentum everyday. But, when I saw one of his Newt's newest anti-Romney ads, entitled: What Kind of Man, it made me think of a question that has been frequently brought up in my house recently. The question is what kind of man runs the country? Who seems to be more of a president? The general consensus in my house is that Romney seems to be more of a president than Gingrich,  I agree with this consensus, which is why I found Gingrich's "What Kind of Man" video sort of ironic.

I began delving deeper in why I thought Romney seems more of a president than Gingrich to me. I realized there are many factors supporting my decision.

Personally, I see Barack Obama as the quintessential male president, aside from his skin tone (which I find inconsequential but can be seen as otherwise). Therefore I have stacked up Romney and Gingrich against eachother and Obama in a chart I produced below. Click the chart to enlarge, I apologize for the of blurriness. (Warning: While many of the things I have written in this chart are based in fact, some are based on my own observations).

Now, I'm aware that these characteristics are not the sole characteristics of what makes up a presidential male, but I think that they are easily 5 of the most important. While making the chart it appeared to me that Romney proved to be a more "typical" president than Gingrich when both are compared to Obama, which might be just why I see him as more of a president than Gingrich. I also think these similarities could be a factor that will help Romney through the primaries and the polls.

And just for the record: I do not support Romney nor Gingrich. I simply found this question interesting.

What ingredients do you find necessary in a president?

As always,
Chrisanthy S.

META POST!!

Reading my blog as a whole, from a critical standpoint, I have begun to notice many things that I have not  noticed before. Certain aspects my blog posts have not changed, which in some cases hurt me, but in some cases I think these similarities help make my blog stronger. 


For example, since the beginning, all of my blogposts have had a picture, a link, or/and a video embedded into them and I will continue embedding these elements into my blog for the remainder of the year because I truly believe they make a blogpost much more interesting for the reader. Another similarity between my blog is the amount of time I put into the titles. I try to brainstorm witty and inciting titles such as "Extreme Couponing: Extremely Crazy" and "The Fun Theory". I think titles are one of the most important parts of a blog because many readers decide whether or not to read a blog based on solely their attraction to the title. 

Yet, I think that some of the similarities in my blogposts are not beneficial and weaken my blog overall. One thing that really struck me while reading my blog was how similar all of my opening sentences were. What I do is I start my opening sentence with a recent day of the week where the topic of the blogpost was introduced to me. And I do this in order to set the scene. But I do it all too often, in fact I've done it 7 times this semester. I counted. The earliest example I can find of myself doing this is from Sept. 21 in my blogpost entitled: "Music and Our Fellow Man". I open my blogpost by saying, "Yesterday, while scrolling down my tumblr dashboard, I saw an interesting post about a new website". And unfortunately the most recent example of myself doing is only from last month, on December 11th, in my blogpost entitled: "The 51st State: Chicago". I said, "Today, a shocking idea was introduced to me".  I think these two opening sentences are much too similar and now that I've had a chance to step back and look at all of this opening sentences, I feel like I've turned into a broken record. Therefore, that will be something that I will make sure to work on when blogging next semester. 


While there are many similarities between my blogposts, there are also many differences, and changes that I have made over the course of this year. A big difference between my early blogs and my latter blogs is using quotes in my blogposts. I think that this was a necessary change because there is no question that for a stronger blogpost, I need more than to just simply provide a link, I need to ground my claims in textual evidence. 

Another difference that I have noticed is the topic of my blogposts. At first the topics were quite random, and  were not really full of mass appeal or relatability. But, lately, I have been posting about current events and my take on them. I even wrote a blog post about the peoples' awareness of current events entitled: "An Ignorant Genoration". I'm not quite sure if this change has been valuable or not yet. It's just something that I have noticed. Though, on the subject of blog topics, I think I need to write more blogs about themes and ideas we discuss in class because right now I feel like my blog is more like a general blog rather than a New Trier AmStuds. blog.


I think I have grown into a much stronger blogger throughout this semester so far, but I still have a LONG way to go. 


Thanks for reading,
Chrisanthy S. 

The Bloomberg Breakfast Boycott

It's that time again. Time for New York's Mayor Bloomberg's annual interfaith breakfast, which invites country leaders, with all different faiths, from all over the world, to share breakfast with Bloomberg in NYC. Though, there will be one major difference at this years breakfast, that being the absence of 14 major muslim leaders who will not be attending. Said leaders are boycotting the breakfast in order to display their opposition to the "unfair" surveillance, or spying, of muslims that the NYPD has been conducting recently. The targeted areas of surveillance on Muslims include: mosques, Muslim businesses, and predominately Muslim neighborhoods. I find it insulting that Bloomberg condones this obvious violation of Muslim American rights, and still expected these leaders to come to his breakfast. In a letter addressed to Bloomberg the 14 Muslim leaders (plus many other businesses leaders, organization leaders, and professors) voice their opposition to Bloomberg by writing, "Mayor Bloomberg, the extent of these civil rights violations is astonishing, yet instead of calling for accountability and the rule of law, you have thus far defended the NYPD’s misconduct".  The full letter can be read HERE. I fully support the Muslim leaders who have chosen not to attend. The city of New York is basically racially stereotyping all Muslims living in New York and they're breaching these Muslim's civil rights. 

Protest to the Breakfast and to the
Surveillance of Muslims

So Mr. Bloomberg, when the other Muslim leaders who did accept your invitation arrive at the interfaith breakfast, will they be given their own special surveillance like their fellow muslims residing in NYC? 

The answer is no, because that would be ridiculous, sort of ridiculous as racially stereotyping every Muslim in the big apple. 

I think this opposition just goes to show how America's new surveillance laws, such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are ultimately affecting the world and its opinion of us. These laws enable racial profiling and this is not the first time America has racially profiled a group. I really hope that America has not ruined all Muslims' opinion of our country, but then again, I fear that it's too late for that. Racism against Muslims has been on the rise in America ever since the tragic events of September 11th, and if anything, this surveillance that the NYPD is conducting just promotes the racism. 


For the New Years I am creating a resolution for America. We as a country need to remember what this country stands for and realize what we will not stand for. 


Hope you all have a happy New Years Eve, 
Chrisanthy S.

The 51st State: Chicago

Today, a shocking idea was introduced to me. It's the idea of splitting Illinois's Cook County, primarily the city of Chicago, away from the rest of Illinois and making it its own state. The origin of the idea began in Southern and Central Illinois where they feel that Cook County and Chicago are munching up the state's tax dollars and imposing their political views on the rest of Illinois. They feel this way because they uphold much more conservative views than Cook County, and they attribute the liberal decisions made for the state with Cook County elected officials. Cook County is the second most populous county in the country and according to the article, the rest of Illinois feels like they're getting lost in the crowd.


At first I questioned the legitimacy of this idea. Because to me, the likeliness of Chicago becoming a state, about parallels the likeliness of republican candidate Jimmy McMillan becoming president in 2012. But, as I read more of an article published by the Huffington Post (click here to read), I learned that central Illinois state reps Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown actually proposed such an idea recently at a press conference. Bill Mitchell saying, "The old adage is true: Just outside Chicago there's a place called Illinois." Bill Mitchell has infact even introduced a bill to the Illinois General Assembly to separate the state from Cook County. To be passed, this bill would potentially be voted on by state citizens, and then congress would have to approve it, and finally the president would have to approve it as well. 

IL State Rep Bill Mitchell

Now, I suppose I can see why these Southern and Central Illinois citizens are getting frustrated, but I honestly think they just need to suck it up. We live in a democratic country, while our system is usually just and fair, it does not mean that everyone gets what they want. I think that if they really feel that strongly about their political views being enforced, than perhaps they should move to a more conservative state. 


Chicago is the staple of Illinois, and according to the article, Cook County "...is the state's economic engine and key tax generator, providing substantial contributions to the state's other 101 counties for everything from schools to roads, colleges and universities, and prisons". Which means that downstate Illinois may possibly not even be able to financially support themselves if they became a state. I don't think that they could legitimately function without Cook County. A state cannot simply divide and become their own state because they feel overpowered.  Plus, then all state maps, text books, and even the flag would need to be changed. 50 states is a nice even number, and 51 is not. Has Southern and Central Illinois really thought this through? Just because they aren't getting their way does that really entitle them to become their own state? 


Overall, I think this concept is absurd and is never going to be implemented. And frankly I feel embarrassed for Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown for bringing it up at a press conference with a straight face and for introducing it as a bill and I plan on writing a strongly worded letter to Billy kindly explaining how stupid this idea is. 


What do you think?

America's Most Used Drug

Allow me to begin this blogpost by saying, I'm an insomniac. I average about 4-5 hours of sleep a night. Because of my unique sleep schedule, I feel as if I have formed a very close, personal relationship with joe. My cup of joe. Every morning.

Unsurprisingly, I often get criticized for my coffee drinking habit, as it is a nationally accepted notion that coffee is horrible for you because of the caffeine, which is infact America's most used drug. I am often told that the caffeine in coffee stunts your growth. But what most people don't know is that, that "fact" is actually a wives tale. It stems from a study conducted on the elderly where the subjects ages 65-77 drank eighteen ounces of caffeine daily and had greater bone loss over a period of three years when compared to 65-77 year old's who did not ingest caffeine daily. A more recent study compared the bone gain and bone density of 81 teenagers, some with very high caffeine intake and some with very low caffeine intake, over a period of six years. The study found that the teens with the highest daily caffeine intake at the end of the study had no difference of bone gain or bone density than the teens with the lowest caffeine intake. And no growth stunting. 

Though, not having the fear of stunted growth isn't the only reason why coffee is okay to drink, coffee actually has many health benefits too. According to this article entitled "7 Health Benefits of Coffee" from the Huffington Post, experts tend to agree that for the effects of coffee on the body, "....the good largely outweighs the bad for most people...". 

The article's listed seven health benefits are:
-Coffee can help you proofread better

-Coffee can lower the risk of depression in women

-Coffee can potentially save your brain from Alzheimer's
-Coffee could lower a man's prostate risk
-Coffee could ward off skin cancer
-Coffee can protect you from type 2 diabetes 
-Coffee can decrease the risk of developing Parkinsons


These health benefits prove that the consumption of coffee can actually be beneficial to a person opposed to the popular belief that it is harmful. I am glad that coffee is finally getting the justice it deserves because it is amazing, in my opinion. But, like anything, coffee is best in moderation, so drink wisely. At the end of the day, America's most used drug is thankfully not as dangerous as it's cut out to be.