THE DEEP, DARK TRUTH OF CHOCOLATE

           Some of the most exciting and interesting health studies expose facts about foods with previously misinterpreted nutritional value. Quite a few recent reports have shown that a few of our guiltiest pleasures actually have solid dietary merit. For breakfast lovers, this meaningful breakthrough came with the disclosure of accurate health benefits in eggs, yoke and all. For alcohol enthusiasts, this finding pertained to the factual advantages of drinking one to two glass of red wine per day. For me personally, and I assume many other sweet-tooth fanatics, this joyous discovery arrived with the truth about chocolate.

Chocolate is derived from a plant, meaning its origins can be traced back to Mother Nature. Over the past couple of years, foods with natural beginnings once thought to be unhealthy, like chocolate, have been analyzed, tested and discussed within modern medicine. According to such studies, high quality chocolate is said to contain vitamins (A, B1, B2, D, and E), large amounts of vegetable proteins, potassium, magnesium and healthy fats.  Additionally, indulging in any sort of mouth-watering treat can stimulate endorphin production, sending pleasure vibes throughout the entire body. Chocolate also contains serotonin, an anti-depressant as well as caffeine and additional stimulants humans avidly intake. All of these are considered benefactors of the confection’s consumption, causing chocolate zealots world wide to give themselves an extra pat on the back.

At the forefront of chocolate’s benefactors, however, is a noteworthy innate component known as a “flavonoid.” Flavonoids are natural elements found in most plants, allowing them to fight environmental toxins and repair structural damages. Upon human ingestion, flavonoids act as “antioxidants,” fending off harmful molecules implicated in heart disease and other serious illnesses, called “free radicals.” Thus, chocolate acts rather powerfully as a preventative measure.

In addition, flavonoids can help reduce and relax blood pressure as well as augment blood flow to the heart and brain. When the body lacks a sufficient amount of antioxidants, it is prone to an increase in LDL cholesterol (aka bad-cholesterol) and/or plaque build-up on the artery walls. Though chocolate does contain fat, only 1/3 of it affects cholesterol negatively. In fact, the sweet is partially composed of oleic acid, known as a “healthy fat” also found in foods like olive oil and avocado. Candidly speaking, all this positive possibility makes chocolate avoidance seem practically sinful.

There appears, however, to be a slight catch, as benefits do not emerge in just about any old candy bar. In fact, only dark chocolate (65% coca and up) is said to be of value. Evidently, mixture with milk interferes with the absorption of antioxidants, indicating that milk chocolate and white chocolate are out of the running. This also means gulping down a glass of cold milk after munching on dark chocolate is out of the question. As for nougat, caramel and other savory fillings, these only add sugar and useless calories to a once powerful piece of candy.

Furthermore, no health scientist will say it’s time to go on a chocolate binge. The key is not to replace healthy foods with chocolate but rather, swap daily sweets with a bit of this dark and ambrosial indulgence. Additionally, chocolate is considered a high calorie food, so in order to avoid weight gain, those calories must be balanced out by eating less of something else. Since chocolate is not recommended in copious amounts, enthusiasts advice others to take time to really savor the taste. These connoisseurs insist that the best way to enjoy the luxury is to allow a piece to melt in ones mouth, releasing its richest and fullest flavor. Chocolate consumption should be more of an experience than a simple, fleeting burst of pleasure.  Candy lovers far and wide can’t help but crack a smile. Clearly, this breakthrough has brought a whole new meaning to the word chocolate.

SOURCES:

http://www.webmd.com/video/truth-about-chocolate

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/nutrition/chocolate.aspx

http://longevity.about.com/od/lifelongnutrition/p/chocolate.htm

Does an App a day...keep the doctor away?

As a solid Blackberry user, I have to admit, I’ve been completely oblivious to the world of iPhone Apps. However, after opening my eyes to this “alternate means of communication”, I’ve come to understand that Apple Apps uphold a culture all their own. iPhone and iPad users accumulate these programs much like baseball cards, frequently checking for new Apps to add to their collections. Application functions appear to be endless, although some applications seem more useful than others. While browsing through, the App Store I came across one known as “iFart” which guarantees a “digital scent” and sound when activated. No program appeared too absurd for purchase. I began to wonder, what happens when an App ventures beyond bizarre, towards downright dangerous? In my eyes, for this technological innovation to remain innocuous, a clear line explaining appropriate versus inappropriate applications needs to be drawn. Research soon showed me that such a definitive standard has yet to be set.

No single party can be held responsible for the inception of an App. Apparently, anyone technologically savvy enough can create one and attempt to feature it on the Apple site for official online downloading.  Beyond such creativity, additional financial investment is necessary.  Programming requires an Intel-based Mac computer with Mac OS X 10.5.5 Leopard, some testing devices (iPhone and/or iPod Touch), and a registered membership with the Apple iPhone Developer Program, (which costs $99 for the most basic edition). Creators can then publish their applications on iTunes or at the App Store and receive 70% of sales revenue without paying any distribution costs.  Apps usually sell for .99 cents online, but of course there are other means of downloading Apps illegally. 

However, in order to be sold on an Apple indorsed site, Apps must be “pre-approved” by the company. Regularly, Apple rejects programs that they feel do not warrant personal support. For example, the site has recently shunned the “Obama Trampoline” and “iBoobs” due to sexually suggestive content and hazardous political ridicule. Yet the company has overlooked other Apps that appear to be equally dodgy, causing many to point fingers at Apple’s “murky and infamously inconsistent” approval policy.  Though Apple employees may not create such Apps personally, online authorization indicates the company deems them socially acceptable.

Two programs have caused quite a stir within recent media reports. One titled the “Manhattan Declaration” is a  “call of Christian conscience,” allowing users to sign an official declaration against gay marriage. The second “The Ugly Meter, ” is a program that rates one’s facial features based on proportionality and then gives an “ugly” score ranging from 1 to 10. These applications open up a world of danger, unfairly targeting homosexuals and causing potential pain for those who do not fit the set “beauty standard”. There is no reason for Apple to place a seal of approval upon programs with such underlying detriments.

Additionally, both Apps encourage the possibility of a growing social crisis known as "cyberbullying". According to Stopcyberbullying.org, cyberbullying “is when a child, preteen or teen is tormented, threatened, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by another child, preteen or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile phones.” This form of torment is not to be taken lightly as many victims have suffered from severe depression and even been driven to suicide. Shockingly, 33 percent of our youth has been victimized by cyberbullying and that number continues to grow with each passing day. Why add any more fuel to the fire in the form of asinine iPhone Applications?

Thus, Apple must uphold a definitive standard of review, understanding that every little application deserves just as much scrutiny as the next. A clearer line should be drawn designating what is worth downloading and what is not. Nowadays, to avoid a potential lawsuit, businesses have no choice but to play the devils advocate with a product before endorsing it. Apple must assume this outlook as well.

A creditable App should not cause harm. I may be a confused Blackberry user, but in my eyes, there is no pleasure to be had at the expense of others, electronically or otherwise. The iPhone App culture needs to slow down, take a step back, and realize their electronic gadgets equate to more than fun and games. After all, their social implications have costs far beyond a .99 cents face value.

Feel Good, Laugh Louder

Apparently, these days, observing good health is indeed a laughing matter. Don’t believe me? Just ask die-hard fans of a practice called Laughter Yoga. If you’re laughing already, then you’ve got the right idea.

Laughter Yoga is the brainchild of Mumbai medical doctor, Madan Kataria. His creation combines classic Yogic breathing (called Pranayama) with good, old fashion, unconditional laughter. Dr Kataria promises his amalgamation of the two practices is incredibly therapeutic. Laughter Yoga’s ability to create joy without reason deems it a solution more powerful than any pain-killing pill. The only challenge remaining, is believe in it.

According to clinical research, Laughter diminishes the level of stress hormones (like epinephrine and cortisol) within the blood stream. Less stress fosters an upbeat and hopeful attitude. Such positivity can work wonders on an individual suffering from depression, trauma, or severe anxiety. Evidently, there’s no reason to run straight for antidepressants, knowing that every individual has the personal power to giggle their troubles away.

 The theory behind Laughter Yoga is simple, fake laughter turns into real laughter. Proven through scientific verity, the human body cannot distinguish between authentic and fabricated laughter. Actor or not, anyone can force a chuckle without much effort. Thus, Kataria and his trainees “simulate” laughter through a group body exercise, using “eye contact and childlike playfulness [which] soon turns into” raw, contagious, and uncontrollable laughter. Believers assert it’s as simple as it sounds.

Regardless of real laughter or not, how can a fabricated giggle stimulate true happiness? Well, the key premise of Laughter Yoga is its focus on Joy rather than Happiness. Doctor Kataria argues that Happiness is a passing, short-lived emotion and a “conditional response, subject to fulfillment of certain desires of the Mind.” Joyfulness, on the other hand, is an unrestricted commitment to have fun and be content in the moment, regardless of life’s surrounding circumstances. Dr. Kataria has a point, how long have you stayed happy after, let’s say, receiving some excellent news or hearing a great joke? My guess is not much longer than a day or maybe an hour. The moment passes, we find another obstacle to overcome, and forget what our happiness even felt like. Joy is equally as powerful and far easier to call upon.

Furthermore, Laughter Yogi’s attest that drugs are not the answer to life’s problems. Pills and prescriptions are costly and addictive. Not to mention, medication for anxiety and depression is only 50 percent affective according to lab research. Laughter has the power to be 100 percent effective if given the chance.

There’s no reason to shun a solution that’s pain-free, cost-free and substance-free.

Truthfully, however, the only obstacle I see with this practice is an ability to believe in its influence. Personal experience has shown me that the mind it one of the strongest organs in our body. We can convince ourselves something is effective simply by accepting it as truth. Most people are familiar with the term “placebo,” which is essentially an inert pill used to test the efficacy of an actual drug. Patients often admit to feeling relief from the placebo pill, simply by believing they have taken the actual medication. This reaction is known as the “placebo effect” and demonstrates the power of the mind. In my opinion, individuals seeking the benefits of Laughter Yoga must put all of their trust into the experience and leave doubts at the door. Otherwise, it seems unlikely real effects can be felt.

Nevertheless, Laughter Yoga’s strong fleet of believers and lofty promises prove it’s worth a shot. So, next time you’re feeling nervous about an exam or overwhelmed by the pressures of modern day society, don’t head to a bar to drink your troubles away. Get a bunch of your friends together, assume the infamous “down-ward dog” Yoga pose, and start to force a chuckle or two. I presume you’ll start feeling a whole lot better about life. If you don’t, well at least you took a few minutes to exercise your smile.

WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EGTETc5oFU

Would You Like Fries With That?

The Golden Gate City has successfully stood up to Ronald McDonald and his alluring Golden Arches, being the first metropolis ever to ban the McDonalds Happy Meal. On November 3^rd, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a regulation requiring that meals including a children’s toy with purchase meet specific nutritional guidelines. Mickey D’s 510 calorie, 22 grams of sugar, and 23 grams of fat children’s feast didn’t quite make the cut.

At present, the fast food industry functions on the premise of self-regulation. Ironically, the focus of such self-regulation appears to overlook public health. Happy Meals and the like are perfect illustrations. Even though companies are well aware of FDA health standards, amongst a possible 3,000 kids meal combinations at “major [fast food] chains, only 12 meet the nutritional guidelines for pre-schoolers.” Clearly, due to industry wide disregard for civic well being, government intervention is necessary.

 Companies like McDonalds are focused on amplifying revenue as opposed to augmenting health benefits. In 2009, the fast food industry spent over 4.2 billion dollars on advertising alone. Throwing a free toy into a bag is just another savvy sales tactic. In fact, it is arguably the dirtiest ploy of them all, targeting the youngest, most naïve, and most malleable of consumers and getting them hooked on fast food from day one.

How is a two year old to know that their Happy Meal can bring them a lot of unhappy health problems?

Whether due to the success of advertising or the mere fact that technological advancements negate physical movement, obesity has become a nation-wide epidemic. America’s weight gain is clinically linked to hypertension, heart disease, and an upsurge in diabetes throughout our country. Shockingly, these illnesses and others related, account for seven out of every ten deaths each year. Evidently, obesity is no joke.

Yet, our leadership wags a disapproving finger at the public. Complaining that, “obesity accounts for nearly ten percent of what the U.S. spends annually on health care.” Not to mention, it is a huge expense factored into Medicaid and Medicare. This means, even if you and your loved ones aren’t contributing to the obesity epidemic, you’re still paying for it. Angry?

The government cannot place the sole blame upon us and then simply sit back and watch the public fall victim to clever advertizing gimmicks and the delicious scent of French fries. Especially when the targets are innocent little children.

Remember, these little one’s will grow up soon enough to become big adults with a fast food fetish and a health record to prove it.

Yes, I recognized such authoritative intervention frustrates many individuals, after all this is the land of the free. Americans pride themselves on the freedom of choice, including the right to choose what they want to eat and when they want to eat it. However, what happens when other individuals “unhealthy” choices start affecting the expenditures of your hard-earned tax dollars?

Of course, parents have a responsibility to re-enforce proper nutrition within the home and as grown adults, we should have the ability to practice a little bit of willpower. After all, most Americans know a hamburger a day does NOT keep the doctor away.

But let us remember, self-restraint is a virtue.

As Martin Miller of the Los Angeles Times put it, “Willpower is one thing, but when sodas are in schools, restaurants are serving ever larger meals and vending machines are everywhere, even the strongest constitutions can gradually succumb.”  Evidently, our dietary choices are being affected on a subliminal level.

Not to mention fast food is cheap, tasty, and true to its name, fast. With all that the industry has in its favor, who wouldn’t want some positive governmental re-enforcement?

            Realize, San Francisco is not banishing all McDonalds establishments. The Board of Supervisors merely wants to work with the company to create a Happy Meal below 600 calories, with less than 35% of those calories from fat and including at least a half a cup of either fruits or vegetables. This is a perfectly levelheaded request, especially if this may be the continuous lunch or dinner option for children of busy parents or families on a budget.

By no means should our government determine what we consume on a daily basis. Regulation to that extent will never happen, simply because American’s won’t let it. Food is one of life’s biggest pleasures, enough said.

It is, however, the responsibility of our leadership to help make the “healthy” choice the easiest choice, whatever that may be. This might mean providing more individuals greater access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Or it might mean substituting apple juice for soda. But it does not mean doing away with soda all together.

 San Francisco is attempting to make the healthier option the first option for its youth. Parents are not forbidden from ordering their child a milkshake on the side. Such government interference is by no means a drastic measure but rather, an act of constructive support. Clearly, there is no need for fast food fanatics to panic. After all, it’s still legal to ask the age old question, would you like fries with that?

Eskenazi, Joe. "San Francisco Bans the happy meal." Huffington Post 03 NOV 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Nov 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/02/san-francisco-happy-meal-ban-mcdonalds_n_777939.html>.

Miller, Martin. "Feeding our diet obsession." Los Angeles Times 05 MAY 2003: n.

pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/05/health/he-diet5>.

"We Have the Power to Change Our Weight." Newsweek 10 SEP 2009: n. pag. Web.

30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/09/we-have-the-power-to-change-our-weight.html>.

Facebook Safety

Nowadays, it seems like everyone and their mother has a Facebook profile. In fact, just the other day I was “friended” on the site by one of my girlfriend’s dogs. Laugh all you want, but it’s true. Facebook has become a part of every day life, to the point that checking your profile page is just as routine as brushing your teeth. The real question is, should society really look at Facebook as a social necessity, or rather a social hazard?

Most people would admit that they’ve been warned, in some way or another, about the dangers of social media sites. However, it seems as though the general public has not taken these accusations to heart. There has yet to be a mass exodus from Facebook. I personally believe, as I assume many others do too, that, “If everybody is doing it, then what could be possibly be the real danger? I should be just as safe as the next person.” Individuals, like myself, have additionally put their minds to rest by privatizing profile settings and cutting down numbers of Facebook friends.  However, even this may not guarantee one’s safety. Apparently, according to cbsnew.com in May of 2010, every time Facebook redesigns its site, all of one’s personal privacy setting are set back to default. This means your private information is made again public without you even knowing. Ultimate control rests within the hands of Facebook employees. 

Quoting CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s unofficial mission is to “make the world more open and connected.” The site has indeed connected people. However, I would argue such connection to be on a superficial, “electronic level.”  Just because you are “connected” to someone on Facebook, does not mean you would necessarily say hi to him or her on the street. As for Zuckerberg’s other mission, Facebook has absolutely inspired users to be open; so much so that just about anyone is ready and willing to publicize their every move.  I am continuously astounded by the growing number of individuals eager to publish a minute-by-minute broadcast of their thoughts, emotions and whereabouts. I hate to say it, but what ever happened to the allure of living a life of mystery and secrecy?

After researching the topic of Facebook safety, I came across five distinct actions with mentioning that one should never commit on the site. First things first, never give out your full birthday. Apparently, it is possible to decipher one’s social security number with simply an accurate date and place of birth.  The Huffington Post asserts that, “revealing your exact birthday and your place of birth is like handing over your financial security to thieves.” Second, never publicize that you will be leaving for a vacation or extended period of time. This is essentially like letting untrustworthy “friends,” know your house is the perfect target for a burglary. If you are insistent upon alerting others of your leave, it would not hurt to remind them you also have an alarm system, a watch dog, and some pretty sharp neighbors keeping an eye upon your residence. Third, refrain from over sharing personal thoughts pertaining to others. For example, even if you’ve had a bad day and hate your boss, there’s no need to make it Facebook knowledge. Over sharing has lead to the arrest of quite a few individuals, and for others, the loss of a job. Fourth, block your Facebook page from appearing when Google searched. Most people don’t even realize this is a prospect of owning a social media profile. The possibilities of such publicity are endless, enabling total strangers to see your gender, your picture and your full name. To amend this confidentiality setting, “go to Privacy Settings under Account, then Sharing on Facebook” (Smith and Bosker). Fifth and finally, when selecting a security question, refrain from choosing “What is your mother’s maiden name.”  Wireless service providers, credit card companies, and the like use this very word to protect your private information. A better, more cautious option would be, “Who was your first kiss?” or “Who was your third grad teacher.” Though these questions may harbor greater personal sentimentality in your heart, they hold far less value in the way of confidential information. 

Nevertheless, it is not my intention to scare readers off of Facebook. Its entertainment value and ability to keep distanced friends abreast of one another’s lives absolutely makes the site worthwhile. Users should merely be conscientious of their digital portfolio and electronic perception. Think twice about what you post and what you tag. Even deleted digital information is retrievable. Once it’s out in cyberspace, there’s no reeling it back in. Perhaps try keeping a bit more of your personal information personal. Who knows, the out come of such mystery might actually be a liberating feeling.

 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/08/earlyshow/saturday/main6469373.shtml)

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-kantra/the-dangers-of-facebook-o_b_645427.html)

Media's Magic Pill

The American media has distorted our perception of health. We have been force fed images of thin, idealized bodies, yet live in a society where food is literally within reach at all times. We are criticized for becoming a society of overweight individuals, and then foolishly sold the empty promises of diet trends.  Clearly, there is no reason to wonder why uttering the word “FAT” is practically taboo.

The message that the media is sending to the American public is ubiquitous, inescapably ever-present in our society.  Just pick up any magazine and skim through the images within. It is nearly impossibly to find a picture of a person with even the slightest amount of extra meat. Turn on the television or go to the movies and the same slender depictions abound. We, in turn, are trained to worship an impossible body frame that may actually be more unhealthy than healthy. Furthermore, we have no choice but to believe that a thin appearance is the answer to wellbeing when, in actuality, there isn’t much correlation at all.  According to health specialist and author of Fear of Fat, Laura Fraser, an hour of exercise three times a week and a healthy diet mean more than a couple ounces of fat.  Fraser insists a little extra skin does not equate to poor health, and “weight obsession is a fate far worse than love handles.” (Read more about this topic on CommuniKATE)

Simultaneously, America is experiencing a health crisis that our media incessantly blasts loud and clear. Public health authorities assert, “no less than four of every five Americans maintain a medically dangerous body mass, [with] nearly two-thirds of us…said to be overweight, [and] almost half of the rest of the nation…categorized as too thin” (Campos).  According to a report released in April 2010 by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, forty five percent of all adults had at least one of three chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia, related to poor diet and exercise habits (Tuttle).  Not to mention, our hard earned tax dollars go towards the aid of such domestic health issues. As Newsweek recently reported, “[o]besity accounts for nearly 10 percent of what the U.S. spends annually on health care and is linked to about one third of the increase in domestic health spending since the mid-1980s” (“We have the power…”).  Meaning, even if you aren’t obese, you’re paying for everyone else that is.

Honestly though, how are we to blame for an obesity epidemic when food is readily available at all times? Even gas stations sell something to satisfy the stomach.  What is more, unhealthy food is the most affordable. Not to mention, “everything in America is set up to eat more and move less’” (Miller). Portion sizes have grown while technological devices now enabled us to do anything we could ever want with the touch of a button.  Why chase a soccer ball when you can do so virtually on your laptop?  The media doesn’t make avoiding such temptations any easier, plastering food advertisements on billboard left and right and airing McDonalds radio commercials every five minutes.  I will be the first to say, it is hard to think of anything BUT food.

This sense of disarray has left American’s desperate for a solution and in turn, transformed the diet industry into a billion dollar business. Companies sell everything and anything, from pills to books, promising to whittle down the waistline. Yet media promotions of such short cuts to weight loss give society nothing but false hope. In fact, on October 23, 2010, latimes.com announced that the FDA rejected a newly proposed weight loss drug, Lorcaserin, intended to “work on the brain to alter metabolism and appetite.” Apparently, when further tested, Lorcaserin raised concerns regarding “marginal effectiveness” and increased chances of cancerous growth. According the Times report, the FDA, more often than not, shuts down diet drugs for similar reasons of false promises and health risks.  However, even if such drugs were indeed effective, studies have shown that, “95% of dieters who take off the weight pack it back on after five years or less” (Miller). To date there proves to be no easy way out of proper nutrition, modest caloric intake, and good old fashion exercise.  Sadly, the media is selling us a solution that’s only further fueling the issue and encouraging society to take shortcuts when addressing personal wellbeing.

Unfortunately, America’s solution won’t come in the shape of a pill. Its answer lies in our ability to create an environment that fosters good health habits. Simultaneously, it is the media’s responsibility to promote such changes.  It is time to do away with unrealistically thin images and weight loss drug advertisements.

(Haven’t tobacco ads been outlawed for similar health risk reasons?) Pills and diet “secrets” are nothing but empty promises.  The answer to weight loss remains a balance between exercise and healthy food consumption. We must make a concerted effort to eat more vegetables and find a form of exercise we actually enjoy doing. We need to embrace the “journey” of a healthy lifestyle, instead of focusing on an easy way out.

Campos, Paul. "Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health."

Not Alone. 2004. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://www.enotalone.com/article/6358.html>.

"FDA shoots down another weight loss drug." Los Angeles Times 23 OCT 2010: n.

pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/23/nation/la-na-weight-loss-lorcaserin-20101024>.

Fraser, Laura. "Fear of Fat." Fair (1997): n. pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010.

<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1388>.

Miller, Martin. "Feeding our diet obsession." Los Angeles Times 05 MAY 2003: n.

pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/05/health/he-diet5>.

Tuttle, Steve. "I Was a Male Weight Watcher." Newsweek 30 APR 2010: n. pag. Web.

30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/i-was-a-male-weight-watcher.html>.

"We Have the Power to Change Our Weight." Newsweek 10 SEP 2009: n. pag. Web.

30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/09/we-have-the-power-to-change-our-weight.html>.

laugh, look the other way, or shrug it off...

Recently, the media has been going crazy over a publicity mishap with GQ magazine and the cast members of popular Fox tv series, Glee. For those not familiar, the show is a fictional depiction of a High School Glee club composed of some incredibly talented young adults. The show is corky, witty, and anything but PG13, which is exactly what makes this controversy so very interesting.

Apparently, photos released from the upcoming GQ issue depict scantly clad female leads Leah Michelle and Dianna Argon posing seductively in what appears to be the halls of a High School. The suggestive attire and overall image messages have left quite a buzz trail. They’ve been criticized by the likes of The Parents Television Council, gossip king Perez Hilton, and even news anchor Katie Curic, all of which have claimed to be incredibly disappointed. In fact, The Parents Television Council declared the shots to be borderline “Pedophilia,” further stating, “the creators of the program have established their intentions on the show's direction, and it isn't good for families." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/parents-group-calls-glee-_n_770295.html)

In reply, both GQ and actress Dianna Argon defended their actions with public statements and blog posts. GQ protested that the show is racy in and of itself and these actresses are indeed grown adults, not the high schoolers they play on TV. As for Dianna, she apologized for anyone that misinterpreted her intentions. She also admitted that she didn’t personally like the idea to begin with, but then reminded herself that she’s just playing a character and doing a job she’s so very blessed to do. Neither source fully admitted to be in the wrong. Dianna even questioned wittingly, “if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/glee-star-dianna-agron-ad_n_771495.html).

The truth of the matter is entertainment and entertainers love to push the limits. It’s part of what makes them so darn entertaining. They thrive on these sorts of media explosions simply because of their ability to cultivate more fans, more viewers, and ultimately, more money. Ever heard the saying there’s no such thing as bad publicity? I can’t pronounce I entirely agree with this statement, but I do agree with the fact that pushing the envelope a little gets people to stand up and take notice.

 I will assert, however, that publicity should never intentionally hurt another individual or go against mainstream society’s ethical code. In my eyes, the GQ shots do neither. Yes, these images are pretty darn sexy, but so were those of Marilyn Monroe in her flowing white dress. If you are a parent and unhappy with the message media is sending, tell you children you don’t like what you see. Be a good role model yourself. I can almost guarantee that children will emulate their parents and people they actually know, more so than a celebrity, but ONLY if they have a solid role model in front of them leading the way.

To be blunt, entertainers aren’t going to stop pushing buttons anytime soon. It’s the nature of the beast. (Read more about this  topic). Getting stirred up over a racy photos, and publishing a press release, is exactly the reaction publication is going for and really not going to make worried viewers any better off. So laugh, look the other way, or shrug it off. It was only meant to arouse a little hype anyway and it will all be forgotten by tomorrow.