I thought this pertained to government enough for me to post, and I couldn’t really refrain considering the hilariousness.
CNN reports that Obama “snacked on popcorn, the First Lady, Sasha, Malia and the girls’ grandmother Marian Robinson.”
Although it created an awkwardly worded and grammatically incorrect sentence, the author decided that Obama’s popcorn consumption was important enough to include. Syntax errors always crack me up!
Just goes to show the importance of grammar — and editing.
(Before reading my post, read this article, if you haven’t already.)
To preface, I am adamantly pro-life. Abortion is very emotional to people on both sides of the issue, I get that. I’m not here to debate it, really, but I am interested in everyone’s thoughts about this.
According to the article, there’s a new anti-wrinkle cream on the market called Neocutis. The product may look like any other expensive cream and have the same claims as other creams, but it is very obscure about its unusual component: one of the ingredients is PSP, processed skin cell proteins, from an aborted fetus.
What would you put on YOUR skin?
The article mentions that some may be unfazed by the revelation (as some of you may be). Some may regard this to be the same as skin cell proteins from animals or not be concerned as long as the abortion was performed with consent. And for some, like ME, “it would be unthinkable to fetal ANYTHING into their deepening wrinkles to make them become less so”.
I was honestly shocked to find out that this is what some researches are using aborted fetuses for. First of all, abortion is controversial. Stem-cell research is controversial. Even animal testing is controversial! Why is this anti-wrinkle cream being sold on the market without any uproar?
Here is the link to the product’s official site. On that site, I discovered that it was named as Allure Magazine’s Breakthrough Beauty Award. I haven’t heard of this product before reading the article, but it surprised me even more that this has apparently been on the market for a while considering it already won an award in Allure (a popular young women’s beauty magazine). Have people purchased the product without realizing it’s ingredients? Or do they just not care?
On a MUCH lower scale, I’ve noticed that people often turn their head with situations like these. When finding out that the gross ingredients in their makeup includes bat feces, they may respond, “don’t tell me!” Or if I remark that the marshmallows they are popping into their mouth contain boiled bones, skins, and tendons of animals, they’ll answer “I know, but they taste so good!” (As an aside, I am vegan and do not eat any animal products.) I do not think these are the same thing, because one is an ethical situation while the other is just plain gross (no, I do not think eating meat is unethical, although factory farming is sick and a post for ANOTHER TIME). However, is this how people are going to react to beauty products created with ABORTED HUMAN FETUSES? Does that not raise the eyebrows of anyone shopping for anti-wrinkle cream?
Do you think this is horrifying? Questionable? Acceptable?
I am partically conflicted on the ban on flavored cigarettes, but I thought I’d write up a post to share my thoughts and get some feedback. I thought I’d link to this article in particular because it mainly addresses what this post will touch on.
Since the Food and Drug Administration is able to regulate tobacco (Obama recently signed a legislature condoning the regulation earlier this year), federal health officials have begun cracking down on specially flavored cigarettes. They believe that flavored cigarettes are catered towards adolescents and give a false sense of a “safer” cigarette. Flavors lessen the harshness of the cigarette and are more appealing. Another reason for the ban is the theory that these flavored cigarettes become a gateway for adolescents to make the switch to regular cigarettes and become a daily smoker.
The F.D.A. cannot ban regular cigarettes; they can only ban or prohibit certain manufactoring or advertising tactics used. Words that describe cigarettes as “Mild” or “Light” will also be banned. Only menthol has been exempt from the ban (mainly because of an anticipated bootleg backlash).
Djarum Black.
Personally, I’ve never even heard of some of the flavored cigarettes described in the article (Twista Lime? WTF?), but I am very familiar with Djarum Black clove cigarettes.
This is where I am conflicted. On the one hand, I think adults should be able to smoke whatever cigarette they would like. Clove cigarettes (kreteks) are the most popular cigarette in Indonesia. They smell uniquely appealing, they crackle, and they’re black – almost classy looking in comparison to regular cigarettes.
But the F.D.A.’s argument does have legitimacy to it. I do belive that flavored cigarettes are a “gateway cigarette”; I’ve seen enough evidence of it. But the beef, I believe, is more with the flavored cigarettes that are intentionally geared toward adolescents. Djarums, although technically flavored, are enjoyed by plenty of adults; I do not believe there is anything in the advertising that would entice young people to choose their cigarette over a regular cigarette. However, Warm Toffee and Kauai Kolada (flavors from Camel’s Exotic Blends) sound more like popsicle flavors.
All in all, a ban will probably be beneficial. The smoking addiction rates of young people will probably decrease. Not as many people will die of lung cancer. Who can argue with that?
But what do you think? Does this ban affect you? Should menthol cigarettes be banned as well?
Regardless of whether or not you choose to hydrate with Coca-Cola products, it’s likely you’ve heard some of the buzz about the proposal to implement a soda tax. This tax has been controversial; on the one hand many people think it would be an excellent way to fight America’s war on obesity. Sugary drinks (sweetened with the ever evil high-fructose corn syrup, no less) may contribute to significant weight gain, and it can be easy to consume hundreds of calories unknowingly (especially if you are partial to those 72 oz. Big Gulp soda fountain cups available at every gas station). However, there is a dispute on whether or not a tax on soda would deter soda-drinkers from purchasing these beverages, or if the government is inappropriately taking away our freedom as American’s to choose what we want to reasonably consume.
Maybe the Coke cans should be filled with water, as this confusing photo depicts.
An interesting article I recently read on the soda tax touches on the point that our government often “strongly suggests” what we should eat or drink, which no one opposes. The arguments begin when disagreements arise on how the government should be involved in our healthy decisions. Is a soda-tax fair?
WhileI agree that soda is obviously a cause of obesity and unhealthy (recently, I kicked a nasty Diet Coke habit, as I became aware of how nutritionally void and filled with potentially dangerous chemicals it was…cancer, anyone?), I do not believe this soda-tax is an effective solution to our country’s obesity problem. Not only are there other causes to obesity (hello, McDonalds), but there are also multitudes of people that are not overweight or obese that enjoy these beverages. Also, prices on soda have increased dramatically since I was a kid, and that obviously hasn’t stopped Americans from indulging. If the tax makes any difference, I believe it would be very minimal.
Instead, I believe that educating people on making healthier choices is a good step, as well as making more nutritional options (naturally flavored water, vitamin-enhanced water) more readily available and affordable. It’s easy to get addicted to Coke, and I don’t think a tax is going to stop an individual from getting their fix purchasing their favorite beverage. However, I think the more we advertise healthy options and educate people on the effects of drinking your calories, the better off we are as a country.
Do you drink soda beverages? Do you think a soda tax is a good idea? Leave a comment.
