Is smoking as bad as sex?

A new rule by the Motion Picture Association of America was set last May, stating that movies with excessive cigarette smoking will now be given a more restricted rating. The association is considering cigarette smoking to be in the same category as sex and violence, when rating movies.
Woody Allen's newest movie, “Cassandra’s Dream”, managed to slip through the cracks with a PG-13 rating, despite it's excessive smoking. Few other movies have also managed to get lower ratings, due to them being rated before this new rule was set. A spokesperson for the Weinstein Company, which holds distribution rights to the film, said although the film managed to not get an R rating, the Weinstein Company was the "first motion picture company to include anti smoking public service announcements on DVDs of movies that depict smoking."


So what do you think? Should cigarette smoking be considered just as bad as sex and violence for younger audiences? I feel this is semi-stupid, as most people know movies are not real, and the people smoking are just actors. I grew up in a house where BOTH of my parents smoked, and giving a movie an R-rating to prevent me from seeing what I see at home everyday, I find to be pointless.

The Washington Post could be going out of "Style"

The Communications Workers of America union has started an advertising campaign in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area against The Washington Post. The union represents about 400 employees of the newspaper, known as mailroom workers, who work in the printing plants, assembling the newspapers. The article states that "The workers have not had a raise in over five years and have gone four years without a contract, according to the union." The union has paid for this campaign, which includes print, radio, and billboard messages. The billboard messages have been posted in two separate Metro stations, and print versions will be run in The Washington Post, and also in the free tabloid Express. All of the ads have sentences or phrases, which include a section name from the newspaper in them, like, Style, Business, and one even includes the name of the chairman and chief executive of The Washington Post Company. The ads also give the address to a web-site set up by the the union: washingtonpostunfair.com.

I think that this is a great way of getting a point across, and letting the public know what is going on behind the closed doors of some very large companies. T.V. and radio ads are great ways to do this, but putting up these billboards in TWO separate Metro stations is genius. (Here is a link to view the ads being posted - Ads) If you're unfamiliar with Metro, it is the Washington D.C, Maryland, and Virginia equivalent of the New York subway, but runs above ground as well as under. If this union picked the right two stations to post these ads, they have the chance of them being seen by thousands of people a day, most of which are probably holding today's Washington Post in their hand as they're reading the ad. This makes me think, why am I paying money to this company everyday to read their newspaper, when they won't even give raises to the people who assemble the paper?

Predator problem or parenting problem?

An agreement was announced Monday that MySpace, the most popular social networking Web site, was going to make changes to better protect it's users from sexual predators. The agreement was made with MySpace, and the attorneys general for 49 states, and the District of Columbia, (Texas was the only state not to sign). MySpace currently has over 70 million users, and allows them to make a personal profile, displaying pictures and other information about themselves. Current security barriers used by MySpace include the reviewing of all videos and images, for sexually explicit content, and making the profiles of users ages 14 and 15 private. In the new agreement, all profiles of users under the age of 18 will automatically be set to private, and parents can send MySpace their children's email address to have it permanently blocked from the site. Also, a task force will be implemented to verify the ages and identities of the site's users.
OK, so really, not that I in anyway feel we shouldn't be protected from sexual predators, but I find this to be semi-pointless. I have had a MySpace account for about 4 years now, and I have yet to encounter a sexual predator. Could it be because they don't want to talk to me? No, it's probably because I don't allow them to talk to me. MySpace gives you the option to set your profile to private, even to the point where someone may have to give your last name or email address to even REQUEST to be your friend. Yes, that's right, request. Which means, you don't have to approve them. Also, as most people with a MySpace account know, you have to be at least 14 years old to have one. So if all your friends are 14 and they have a MySpace, but you are only 13 and you HAVE to have one, what are you gonna do? You're gonna lie. Now they are upping the age of the profiles they set to private. If you don't want your profile to be private, all you have to do is lie about your age. Let's say you're a sexual predator, and you want to use MySpace to solicit children. Well since they delete all of the profiles of sexual predators, your gonna lie.
I don't think that MySpace has a problem with sexual predators. I think that MySpace has a problem with parents. I truly believe that parents these days do not have enough control over their children to prevent them from doing things that could put them at risk of encountering a sexual predator.
If a parent cannot control their child on their own, then they will raise concern about an issue, leading government officials to step in and parent their child for them.

This is a practice link to BuzzMachine!

Watch Out, Here I Come...

Hello World! I'm here and I'm excited to write to you this semester!