West Side, Walk it Out

According to the CDC, the prevalence of obesity in the United States has increased from 15% to 33% in the last two decades, and the situation is worsening. It's no wonder, considering the growth and convenience of fast-food restaurants. (Side note: Did you know that McDonald's delivers in India? It's true! Sorry, no beef or pork though.)

The obesity trend is perpetuated by the fact that jobs have become more sedentary, but have no fear, for two scientists have come up with a nifty solution: the "vertical workstation." The invention is essentially a desk which can be affixed to a treadmill, enabling the user to work at his or her computer while walking those extra pounds off. Experiments have shown that it is effective and comfortable to use. The desks cost about $2,700 and will fit over standard treadmills. They will not come with fries and a shake. Taxes, shipping and workers' comp may apply. Treadmill and weight-loss guarantees not included. Order yours today!

HillBilly for President

Journalist Carl Bernstein has written a biography of Hillary Clinton that will be published next month. Details that have been released by readers of advance copies indicate that the book doesn't paint Senator Clinton in the most favorable light. Furthermore, Bernstein seems to focus a great deal of his attention on the Clintons' tumultuous marriage, suggesting that Hillary toyed with the idea of divorce but decided against it, in the interest of their political careers. Readers are inferring from all of this that Hillary will divorce Bill in January 2009, if and/or when she is elected. Bernstein also suggests that Hillary considered running against her husband for Governor of Arkansas out of anger and spite. Ah, to be a scorned woman.

Personally, I think this biography is absolutely unnecessary and out of scope (what does it have to do with her campaign anyway?), and will just turn into anti-Democratic/anti-Clinton fodder for the GOP. Oh, how they conveniently forget about their Newt Gingriches and their Mark Foleys. The last people we need preaching to our country about family values are a bunch of right-wingers who need to be reminded that they are just as fallible as the rest of us. If not more so. But that's just my humble, Democratic opinion.

As upsetting as the whole premise of this biography is to me, what is more maddening is the Republican response thus far. One writer has gone so far as to say that "the train wreck that is the Clinton marriage is a nagging, perhaps insurmountable, political problem for her campaign." Umm... what? Do you sleep in their bed every night to know how problematic their relationship is for her campaign? I didn't think so. Why not let Hillary be the judge of that? And before you so quickly dismiss her politics, consider what your own party member Newt Gingrich (!) has said about her: "Any Republican who thinks she's going to be easy to beat has a total amnesia about the history of the Clintons... I have been very struck working with her." Huh. I'm speechless.

In closing, I leave you with this rather far-fetched comment left on a website by some anti-liberal loony: "Does it bother anyone that in the past twenty years, only two families have led this nation as President? Now the mainstream media and all those intellectually challenged liberals want to make it at least 24 and maybe 28 years? Democracy? Nope, we have already hit full stride into an oligarchy. If Hillary gets elected, is a monarchy not far behind? Or even worse, a dictatorship?" Okay, first of all, we had two perfectly good chances not to screw this up, first with Al Gore and then with John Kerry. So before you complain about "24 and maybe 28 years," rethink your own voting patterns. Secondly, if you're talking about oligarchy, monarchy, and worse, consider all that controversy in 2004 over the voting system in swing states like Ohio. If dictatorship is on its way in, it's because democracy was on its way out in the last election, when voting rights -- the most fundamental symbol of democracy -- were undermined. Then again, what do I know? I'm just an "intellectually challenged" liberal.

"You're irrelevant!" "Your Mom's irrelevant!"

Former president Jimmy Carter told a news reporter that our current chief executive is the "worst in history." Finally, someone other than the Dixie Chicks speaks out against this administration. And a former politician, no less. I'm so happy, I could buy a peanut farm. Bush's badass right-wing posse responded to Carter's statement by saying Carter is "irrelevant." (Bush himself was reportedly unable to offer further comment because he is still attempting to locate Baghdad on the map.)

In other news, this country is still going to shit. Happy Monday!

Ode to Paris

No, not the famous French city. The other Paris. The one who looks like she hasn't had a square meal in years. Here goes nothin'...

Gather 'round, children:

The story now begins.

Pay close attention;

You might learn a few things.

It started in February

Of nineteen-eighty-one,

When a little girl was born to

Mister Richard Hilton.

Globe-trotter that he was,

He called his newborn Paris,

And twenty-six years later,

She's a rich hotel heiress.

But her fame didn't come from

All the cash that she bagged,

But from a raunchy little tape

Of the sex that she had.

Of course, that's all over now.

It's buried in the past,

And rumors about her love life

Surely will not last.

Besides, she's moving on,

Living the movie-star dream;

For her role in "House of Wax,"

She even won Best Scream!

But what once was a Simple Life

Is no longer fun and games.

Now young Paris spends her time

In courtrooms, filing legal claims.

The moral of this story, kids,

Is not to drink and drive.

For if you do, there are no

Guarantees that you'll survive.

Instead, work hard and get those grades,

And do make sure you stay in school,

So when you graduate, we'll all say,

"No GEDs or DUIs for you!"

If you're wondering what inspired that pseudo-poetic endeavor, check this out. I, for one, am "shocked, dismayed and appalled" that there are people in this world who believe Paris Hilton should be exonerated simply because of her celebrity status. Now if only Martha Stewart would indulge in a little bit more insider trading, perhaps she and Paris could be cellmates. Paris could finally learn how to make cute little doilies out of onion skin, while she teaches Martha how to live on only 300 calories per week. Both highly marketable skills, if you ask me.

A Sight for Sore Eyes

As a teenager, I was fortunate enough not to have to deal with the unpleasantness of acne. Skin conditions in general were a foreign concept to me because my daily routine of washing with the same kind of body soap and moisturizing with the same kind of lotion -- a routine to which I adhered religiously over the course of many years -- seemed to keep such problems at bay. So you can imagine my surprise when, a few months ago, I developed an allergic reaction to a Lancome face cream containing sunscreen.

Until that point, I had been using Lancome face products for quite some time without incident, so it didn't really occur to me that things should be any different with a product that happened to have an SPF rating of fifteen. Apparently, I was wrong. Within a few days, the skin around my eyes became very dry and red, so I stopped using the product and instead reverted to another Lancome face cream that did not contain what I suspected to be the offending agent. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to fix the problem. So then I started thinking that maybe it wasn't the sunscreen that was irritating my skin, but Lancome products in general. Had I suddenly, after months of use, developed an allergy to an entire product line? To test my new theory, I completely stopped using Lancome face products -- face wash, toner, lotion, under-eye cream, lip exfoliant, everything -- and opted instead for more generic, unscented products.

After a few weeks, I noticed that removal of Lancome products from my daily cleansing routine had actually done nothing to alleviate the skin allergy. On the contrary, the skin around my eyes had become much, much worse -- wrinkled, dry, red, flaky and swollen. My parents urged me to see a doctor, but I resisted for as long as I possibly could. I'll be the first to admit that I'm stubborn, but in all my 26 years, I'd never needed to consult a dermatologist, so why now? I thought I was smart enough to diagnose and fix the problem myself.

At that point, I began to consider other factors that may have triggered the allergic reaction. The first thing that came to mind was my diet. Around the time I started using the SPF-15 product, I made my entrance into the world of carnivorism and tried chicken for the first time in my life. Were the gods frowning upon me for being a bad Hindu? Was this skin condition their form of karmic retribution? I then started to worry that I might have other food allergies of which I was unaware. Visions of my body convulsing in pain after eating something seemingly harmless started to haunt my dreams. I realized I had no choice but to consult a professional.

Two weeks later, I finally met with a dermatologist. It turned out that I had developed a case of allergen contact dermatitis -- in a word, eczema. The good news was that the condition was very unlikely to be food-related. The bad news was that I could no longer use any Lancome products. For that matter, the dermatologist advised me to stay away from any facial products that are perfumed, as they're much too strong for the sensitive skin found on the face.

The other bad news? I was prescribed a topical steroid cream that I have been using for the last four months, at the advice of the dermatologist. Four months! That's a long time! I did see dramatic improvements soon after I started the treatment, but anyone that knows me knows that I am highly suspicious of any kind of medication, prescribed or over-the-counter. Needless to say, having to use a prescribed cream on an ongoing basis is anathema to my very being. Oh, well. At least it's not the bulging-bicep type of steroid. One tube down, one more to go. Sigh. I think I'll go eat a buffalo wing.

A Case for Change

The events that unfolded on the Virginia Tech campus fifteen days ago have sparked numerous debates about what steps could have been taken to prevent such a horrible tragedy. On the morning of April 16th, a 23-year-old student embarked on a shooting spree, killing more than 30 people before taking his own life.

It can be argued that the school didn't do enough to encourage the shooter to seek psychiatric help when it became apparent two years ago that he was mentally unstable. On the other hand, it was not in the school's power to force counseling upon an adult who was deemed not to be a risk to himself or others. It can also be argued that campus security could have prevented the second set of shootings by issuing a warning about the first. Then again, there was little evidence to suggest any danger of a second attack, and campus police were wary of raising red flags and causing panic for no reason. They also concluded that students would be safer staying inside the classroom than running across campus hysterically.

In truth, the school acted in the best way it could given limited information; systemic deficiencies were only brought to light after the fact and with the benefit of hindsight. It is now the school's responsibility to devise a more effective method of ensuring students' safety in such dangerous situations, but ultimately, this tragedy could have been prevented altogether if the shooter had not been able to obtain a gun in the first place.

In a country as developed as the United States, it is a shame that we are not equipped to offer universal health care, but are prepared to allow almost anyone of eighteen or more years to purchase a gun. NRA lobbyists might argue that the best way to face the danger of gun violence is to promote our second-amendment right to personal protection, but wouldn't the more preventive measure be to offer better access to mental health professionals? How does society benefit more from lax gun laws than from affordable medical help? The solution to gun violence is not more guns, and those who pose the greatest risks tend to be those that are most in need of more accessible, financially-viable health care.

And while I'm on this rant, why is it that an eighteen-year-old can purchase a gun but can't consume alcohol? The rationale behind enforcing a minimum drinking age of 21 is that, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the benefits are "life-saving." Hmm. Wouldn't tighter gun control have "life-saving" benefits too? Just a thought.

Sadly, Democrats in recent elections have, in the interest of winning more votes, become less dogmatic about the need for stricter gun laws. Many have even softened their stances, arguing more in favor of "gun safety" than "gun control." In fact, last year a pro-gun Democrat won the seat of junior Senator in a campaign against an incumbent pro-gun Republican in a state that is historically pro-gun. Now I'm not pointing any fingers, but that state starts with "V" and ends with "irginia." Go figure.