Rush's Hoodie

Rush changing into his hoodie on the floor

If you have turned on a television in the past week, you may have noticed the massive amount of media coverage that the Trayvon Martin (the Florida teen unjustly killed by George Zimmerman) case is receiving. As if the case has not been compelling enough, the subplots that have spun off of this case have turned out equally as fascinating. My favorite being Illinois State Representative's Bobby Rush bold attire choice at a recent chamber meeting. 

While Rush was on the house floor discussing the Trayvon Martin case to his fellow congressmen, he began taking off his suit jacket to reveal a hoodie, symbolic of the one Trayvon wore on the night of his death. Almost immediately after this action, Rush was kicked off the house floor for breaking the chamber dress code. (Click here to watch Rush getting kicked off the floor). 

The big argument here is that other congressmen break the dress code all the time, but they have never been penalized like Rush was. Many government officials in support Rush have also noticed the unfair enforcement of the dress code, such as house minority leader Nancy Pelosi who stated, “If you’re going to enforce it {the dress code}, enforce it, but don’t be selective about it.” 

So, why isn't the dress code being enforced for the whole house?  Also, if they're not making a statement like Rush was, why would a congressman show up to a house meeting underdressed? Congressmen fifty years ago never had the nerve to show up to a formal house meeting underdressed, so why is it normal now? 

In my opinion, not just the house, but we as a society are becoming increasingly casual dressers. But, when did this happen? Are our values changing with appearance decreasing in importance? 

And finally, do you think If Trayvon Martin was wearing a sport coat instead of a hoodie he would have still been murdered? 

Pro Doctor Killing?

Pro Life or Pro Choice? That seems to be the buzzing question nowadays. As if the arguments behind abortion weren't complicated enough, our pals down in Tennessee have decided to kick it up a notch. A new bill entitled The Life Defense Act of 2012 is currently making its way through the Tennessee House of Representatives. This bill would make it mandatory for the state to publish the names of every doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the women who have undergone the procedure. Tennessee wishes to pass this bill in hopes of frightening abortion doctors into discontinuing their practice. 

If you have not yet realized how dangerous this bill could potentially be, allow me to explain. 

Abortion doctor George Tiller was shot to death as he entered
his church in Wichita, Kansas in 2009.

In the past 35 years, abortion doctors have faced, 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombs, 176 cases of arson, 99 cases of attempted arson, 191 cases of assault and battery, 420 death threats, 524 cases of stalking, and 4 kidnappings (NFA).

If this bill passes  these numbers will only increase. The state, regardless of their viewpoints, should not be able to utilize the threat of illegal violence onto doctors for doing something legal. I'm aware that some of you reading this blog may be morally opposed to abortions and support pro life, but shouldn't you also support the lives of the doctors that have now been put under threat by their state government? Why aren't the doctors' lives considered as important as the life of a fetus in the eyes of the politicians who wrote The Life Defense Act of 2012?

I don't care who you are, what your views are, or where you're from, I think we can all agree here that the government in no context should accommodate crimes and criminals.  

Girls on Youtube

In my last post, I introduced the idea of the internet being dangerous to young girls. If you have not read my last blog post entitled "Am I Ugly" (which can be read HERE) then you may be unaware of a growing trend of middle school and junior high aged girls posting videos on youtube asking the people of the internet whether they are pretty or not. 


Up until today I thought that these videos were the most dangerous types of videos girls of that age could post. But, I was proved wrong, oh so wrong. 


The girl in the video below, lets call her Leap Day Girl, may be a tad older than the girls that post the Am I Ugly videos, but Leap Year Girl exhibits the same maturity level. 
WARNING: This video contains cursing, if you are not comfortable with that, do not watch!

How in this girl's mind is it okay to post a video like this? The pure ignorance of it is enough to be disgusted by if you are not already appaled by the number of swears used per sentence. I think the funniest part of the video is the part where she states, "THIS IS WHAT SOCIETY'S COME TO", like leap year is some sort of stupid choice we've made as a society. She obviously has no idea that there has to be an extra day every four years to keep our calendar stabilized, and this is the ignorance she is receiving so much attention for. 

The first time I saw Leap Day Girl's video I immediately thought back to a comment I received in my last post from fellow AS classmate, Ozakh Ahmed, which said, "I think that girls our age should lead by example because we forget how much of an impact we hold on them {younger girls posting videos on the internet}." It made me ask myself, 'How do girls my age (16) and above portray correct internet and video mannerisms online?' 

The answer is, we don't. Take the very popular, very controversial video, originally titled "Asians in the Library" video for example (which can be seen to the below). 

The young woman from this video is aged somewhere between 18 and 22, goes to a highly ranked college (UCLA), and is just about as ignorant as Leap Day Girl. She displays herself as the epitome a horrible role model for younger girls, such as Leap Day Girl, through her disgustingly racist jokes and comments. So is this UCLA student part of the reason why younger girls think its okay to post offensive videos online? If anything she's not helping the issue. I know that there are plenty of older girls that post sophisticated, politically correct videos on youtube, but they do not receive half the attention that the shockingly distasteful videos posted by girls their same age get. But shouldn't this negative attention ward off younger girls from posting equally distasteful videos online? No, because they are too young to know any better. 

I'm aware that I have presented a lot of information to think about with these last two blog posts, but there are two final questions that I wish to leave you readers with: 1. Why do we see so many girls and young women posting ignorant, offensive, and shocking videos on the internet? 2. Are there any boys and young men that have done this before, and if yes, have received as much attention for it? 

Am I Ugly?

New social media trends are constantly popping up nowadays, but are they appropriate for all ages? I recently saw a video about a new social media trend for junior high aged girls. The trend is these girls posting videos of themselves on youtube asking the public if they are pretty.

Now, I was once a junior high aged girl, so I am familiar with the struggles of self confidence at that age, but in no way do I approve of this trend. In fact I think it is very dangerous. Turns out strangers love to bully these insecure girls so the comment section of their video can turn quite nasty. So it seems that these videos have the opposite effect of what the girls posting them seek out of them. All of these already self conscious girls are just becoming more self conscious as strangers trash them in front of the whole world. Also, I'm sure that internet predators love praying on these easy-targets insecure pre teens. This video epidemic is just a disaster and needs to be  stopped.

But how can we stop it? I think it should start in the schools, kids need to begin learning at a younger age about internet safety. Kids begin learning and using technology younger and younger these days. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily mature enough or cautious enough for it. It also scares me that such a trend has developed since I was their age, which was only a few years ago.

I also think schools need to teach their pupils to be comfortable in their own skin and not to take what bullies say to heart. I think that something like the New Trier Names Program was really effective with this lesson, but I also think that maybe freshman year is a little too late considering that many of the girls who post these Am I Ugly videos aren't even 14 yet.

Then the question comes up about the parenting of these girls. Parental controls are a good place to start.  Also, parents, like schools, should teach their children to be confident enough to not have to go to the internet to seek compliments.

There are 4 million views on this "Am I Ugly?" video above, 42,018 dislikes, and thousands of hateful comments.

This is not okay.

These girls obviously need help that they are not getting, so let's change that.

If you want to learn more about this trend click here.

TV Tokenism- Ugly Betty

Although I agree that TV Tokenism is real, I disagree with one of its points. I disagree with the point that states there is not a successful show with a minority as its protagonist.

The comedy- drama called Ugly Betty aired from 2006-2010 on ABC and had a very successful 4 season run. It focused on main character Betty Suarez (who is hispanic and has the most screen time by a long shot) landing a job in the fashion industry where she is sorely out of place. The show centered around the idea that being different is good. It also showcased not one, but many minorities (hispanics, gay hispanic teen, gay white male, transvestite, etc). I think that the show's content being centered around fashion had loads of appeal for its target audience, young women, who also struggle with self image like Betty. I'd even go as for to say that show's subject matter overpowered peoples disinterest in minorities. Plus, Betty Suarez completely goes against all rules of a TV tokenism minority character. First of all, she's the MAIN CHARACTER, she is the secretary for a white male, and she is not well dressed.

One may argue that the character of Wilhelmina on the show does comply with TC tokenism considering that she's higher up the chain than Betty so she has power over the protagonist (but is not the boss), she is well dressed. But, on the other hand she is very cruel and is the show's main villain which does not fit the TV tokenism mold for minorities. Therefore, I conclude that her acute fashion sense and the power she harnesses are merely coincidences. 

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