Granted, there are cheaper options that I can get my doctor to prescribe for me in the future, at least I hope. However, as there is no direct generic version of the drug I am on, I was forced to pay the $60 at this time and switching drugs will be a difficult task. What’s worse is that the insurance company gave me no advanced warning of this change in prices, but simply left me to discover thus on my own.

I had often wondered in the past why there are still so many unwanted pregnancies when a large array of birth control is readily available. However, if things continue at this rate, birth control pills will start to become a privilege of the upper and middle classes, not affordable to those who arguably need it most. I do not claim to know who is to blame for this change with certainty, though the easy target is the insurance companies themselves. Then again, recent initiatives like the 2005 Medicaid Bill that was just implemented in January decreased rebates pharmaceutical companies received for selling birth control to campuses at large discounts (this still wouldn’t help me though, as Georgetown will not fill birth control based on its Catholic morals.) In any case, measures such as these indicate that at least part of the problem is political. Without naming names, it is truly unfortunate when the politics of religion inhibit women from getting the medical protection that they are entitled to.

For those of you who did not already know, yesterday was 4/20, a day that can only be described as an unofficial “National Marijuana Day.” Thus, I wondered what people would be doing in this holiday’s honor, if one can call it that. Before shouting “ignorarmous,” what I mean is that I was curious to see what people would be doing within the confines of the law. The answer ranged from protests and petitions to discounts on medical marijuana. However, Oaksterdam University is far-and-away the most interesting example I discovered of combining marijuana with the law. Just this past weekend, classes were being held as per usual in this Oakland school.

To say that Oaksterdam (a combination of Amsterdam and Oakland) is not an actual university would still be a mammoth understatement. Nevertheless, it certainly provides an education—everything one could possibly want to know about marijuana. More specifically, Oaksterdam was founded by Richard Lee as a place to teach the basics of the marijuana business, from horticulture to the techniques for running a “pot club.” While smoking marijuana may be illegal throughout the county, it is in fact legal in California for medical purposes. Thus, Lee is allowed to run his university free from much legal prosecution. He believes that keeping his business as open as possible is the best way to avoid getting entangled with the law.

It may appear as though this school and its attendees consist of people either looking to make a quick dollar or learn to grow marijuana plants themselves while avoiding persecution. While this may certainly be the case for some, one cannot forget that the reason California legalized marijuana in the first place was on medical grounds. At least some of the attendees either genuinely desire to help people who have no other outlet for their pain or are in grave amounts of pain themselves. Regardless of one’s attitude for the full legalization of marijuana, helping people is something that cannot be condemned, on 4/20 or any other day of the year.

A “safe, effective, and reversible” contraceptive pill was recently introduced by a group of international physicians.  It seems that ‘new-and-improved’ birth control pills are being discovered in rapid fashion lately, to the point where most doctors probably couldn’t name them all. This one, however, certainly trumps all others in its uniqueness—it’s for men.

The physicians promise that this pill will provide just as much protection as the other two male options for birth control, vasectomy and condoms. It essentially works like the female pill, restricting sperm production in males. Unfortunately, there is no word out yet on when this pill will be readily available.

I commend this new opportunity for men to participate in birth control, but I cannot help but question what the result of it will be. Elaine Lissner, the director of the M ale Contraception Information Project, hails it as a way for men to “take control” of their destinies. One could not argue with the benefits of a man being extra safe in his sexual encounters, and it is wonderful when anyone decides to go the extra mile to ensure that unwanted pregnancies do not happen.

That being said, I wonder if there won’t be a few males who use it as an excuse to have intercourse sans condoms. I can only imagine the precarious results that will occur once the refrain “it’s okay, I am on the pill” can come from a guy’s mouth as well. Even if they are in fact being protected, it still leaves both parties open for a myriad of STI’s. On a whole, this new pill is beneficial, though its usage will certainly be open to a number of questions. For in the end, I wonder how many men will be eager to take such a pill in the first place, but perhaps I am being a bit too pessimistic.

This week, the Georgetown University Grilling Society (GUGS) is coming out with a new campaign; it is one that has been surprisingly controversial considering the group is best known for selling burgers on Friday afternoons. In fact, other than grilling burgers in warm weather and at school events, I’m not sure what GUGS does. However, the usually apolitical organization has caused quite a stir with its promotion of “Grills Gone Wild Week” and the associated selling of t-shirts that say “Grade A, Size D.”

While most students either find the campaign mildly amusing or simply have yet to take notice of it, many members of the pro-choice organization “H*yas for Choice” are outraged. Many of the group’s members feel that both slogans are rather degrading to women, and some have even gone so far as to create a Facebook-organized boycott of GUGS. The group is especially enraged because GUGS is an official club and consequently receives university funding, while H*yas for Choice does not. Thus, not only is there a chauvinistic theme being promoted, but it is also being indirectly supported by the University.

On the other hand, not all of members of the group or the student body for that matter agree with this condemnation of GUGS.  One member of H*yas—the only male member of course—noted that he felt that women were not being degraded at all. The campaign does not have any lewd pictures of women or any real use of women in a sexual way at all; it is simply a way to promote hamburgers with a cleverly worded slogan. With so much objectification of women in the world, would it not be better to focus on a more serious issue that actually threatened women’s rights? After all, Grills Gone Wild would not exist if Girls Gone Wild did not exist. Videos like these and the Hollywood image of women as a whole are what are to blame for the sexism in today’s world, not a few $3 burgers.

Nevertheless, GUGS put out an apology today noting that “GRADE A, SIZE D” was meant to indicate meat, and that the obvious goal of the campaign was to be funny and get the campus excited about the Spring ’08 debut of their burgers. They said that they never intended to offend anyone. They have decided to continue ahead with Grills Gone Wild Week, though they will pull the t-shirt sales for now.  Is GUGS a sexist organization for doing so? I do not think that even the hardliners of H*yas for Choice would go this far. However, it is true that the organization has no female members, which is perhaps a much more significant issue than this specific campaign itself.

The planned ballpark for the Washington Nationals will be the first baseball stadium to “go green” in that it has passed the U.S. Green Building Council’s “LEEDS” rating system. USA Today  has an interesting interactive feature that allows readers see the different energy efficient parts of the ballpark.

I certainly commend the city for commissioning such an environmentally friendly structure in a form of building that is usually far from energy-efficient. It’s just one more initiative in a long line throughout the country whose main goal is reducing the world’s carbon emissions. However, I wonder how effective all of these new initiatives really are. They certainly are trendy, but their impact leaves much to be desired. When building a new ballpark that is not entirely necessary to begin with, how much energy will these measures really save?

Then again, perhaps this is a bit harsh, at least when it comes to calling a new ballpark unnecessary. There are many valid arguments to be made for a ballpark being a great asset to the community. Still, are citizens really getting their money’s worth when it comes to making this one ballpark ‘green’? I know that every little step is important, but money might be better spent on a more broad-scale environmental initiative than on one ballpark.

In the end, energy-efficient or not, it’s unlikely that this new ballpark will succeed in attracting many more fans to Nationals games, especially once the excitement wears off. Unless the energy they are saving in the ballpark can be magically transmitted to the team, many of the seats may still go empty.

A recent bill passed in Wisconsin, requiring hospitals to give emergency contraception to rape victims who request it, represents a duel victory. For one, this is victory for the women of Wisconsin. I believe that having access to birth control is a basic right for American women in today’s society, not to mention especially in the situation of rape. I wish the bill would require free access to ALL women who wanted the drug, but I suppose I must take one victory at a time.

I find it amazing that people today, including members of the organization Pro-Life Wisconsin, still believe that the Emergency Contraception pill is a form of abortion. While I do not support the pro-life platform, I can at least understand the complexity of the abortion issue. I can appreciate the arguments of the pro-life camp and know that it is not black and white, even questioning my own firm beliefs in my opinion at times. That being said, Emergency Contraception is a completely separate entity. The science of the drug illustrates that it prevents either the fertilization of an egg or the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. Thus, this pill is not an “abortion pill” at all, but rather it is one that stops unwanted pregnancies—ones that may lead to abortion—from occurring in the first place. Is this not something that the pro-life camp would want?

Additionally, the passing of this bill is also a victory for partisan politics. Republican Representative Terry Musser was criticized by her party for her support of the bill. Despite their protests, Terry continued with her support and consequently received a special mentioning during the bill-signing ceremony. I commend Terry for being able to look past partisan politics and for putting the rights of American women first.

In just another example of why I do not like telling people where I am from, my home city of Philadelphia has given the world just one more reason to celebrate: Combat Zone Wrestling! Combat Zone Wrestling is an extremely violent spectacle, though the Philadelphia Inquirer notes that many young people attend the monthly shows. The official website of the organization itself makes no attempt to hide its emphasis on bloodshed, with the tagline being “Let’s get ultra-violent!”

I am not sure exactly what it is that disturbs me so much about these events, as objectively I do not think I have the right to judge what other people find entertaining. After all, one could hardly say that my obsession with “What Not to Wear” has any educational value. That being said, something about organizations such as Combat Zone Wrestling does not reflect well on American society as a whole.

I’ll give Combat Zone Wrestling this much, at least it does not claim to be a professional sport, like the WWF does. “Professional” wrestling implies that there is fair and honest competition at this level, something that is absent from wrestling. It is akin to the thankfully now-defunct XFL, a disgusting and sexist take on football. Calling these sports is an insult to all the real professional athletes out there. If Combat Zone Wrestling just claims to be entertainment for now, it will at least retain some sense of decency. Rather, it won’t further tarnish the legitimacy of professional sports in America today.

I suppose in the end that Silda is simply trying to put on a brave face for the world, and I commend her for having the courage to get on stage with her husband today. However, I only hope she thoroughly evaluates the situation once the initial scandal makes it way out of the press—and that she comes to a better decision.

Boring montages aside, the Oscars are usually a celebrated ceremony, providing entertainment for movie buffs and fashion critics alike. This year, however, there was a subtle, but certainly noticeable, difference about the award show. Hank Stuever discusses the “Dark Victory at the Oscars,” noting the wins for rather, well, disheartening films. For example, No Country for Old Men, a movie filled with violence and focusing around vice, took home the coveted award for Best Motion Picture.

Stuever also details how the ceremony as a whole was a bit more somber then usual. In addition to other wins for depressing movies, even the dress was especially reserved. Many of the actresses sported basic black, and others wore orange ribbons in recognition of US torture. He accredits this partially to the increasingly gloomy American outlook, from the never-ending war in Iraq to the omnipresent threat of global warming.

In the end though, I do not completely agree with Hank’s pessimistic take on the Oscars. While rather depressing films did win, Oscar rarely chooses the cliché, happy-ending film, even though these are usually much more popular with audiences. In fact, if there is anything that the Academy should be worried about, it is the extremely low ratings. I think these numbers prove that Americans are not just disillusioned by politics, but also about the length of the writers strike, perhaps more so.

When the television station PBS is mentioned, Mister Rodgers Neighborhood or Sesame Street usually comes to mind, in addition to those telephone marathons where parents were encouraged to make a donation in exchange for their children’s education and a stuffed Elmo. Needless to say, these are at least the memories of my childhood, and I was subsequently rather disheartened when I read Charles McGrath’s article in the New York Times about PBS’s slow but certain death.

McGrath argues that cable television is now more than capable of doing what PBS does, and that it can even do it better. It is an unfortunate fact that the programming on PBS is waning because the cable networks are able to afford better shows. With the addition of funding cuts from the Bush Administration, it’s becoming hard for PBS to draw any crowds at all.

And yet, I still think that there is a place for the Public Broadcasting System within the American television landscape. For one, the article fails to discuss those among us who still cannot afford cable, which is a reality for many people. While most of the college age group is not enthralled by the programming of PBS, this is not exactly its target audience in the first place. PBS provides excellent educational programming for younger children. It is hard to justify ridding the television of any educational programming, even for those who can afford classier cable versions. Additionally, PBS also appeals to the older generation (i.e. Antiques Roadshow) whose members often cannot afford the increasingly expensive medications, much less cable. Then again though, I think people of all age groups enjoy Antiques Roadshow, but I will not mention any names.

To be sure, I think that everyone is simply sick of hearing about steroid use in baseball, me included. I have always hated Roger Clemens for something I can only describe as "sliminess;" however, other than the verification of his evilness, the charges of steroid use do no good for anyone. With the constant media attention on steroids, it is hard for new people to engage in the sport as they watch the current fans become more and more disillusioned. I of course recognize that this is an important issue that needs to be reported, but my complaint is that it often overshadows the baseball stories about baseball. It is only so popular because baseball is popular in the first place. I hope that sports journalists learn how to write about baseball again, especially in time for the season to start.

So I say congratulations to USA Today for coming out with the top ten intriguing story lines for next season, even if the first part of the article was about steroid use. The article discusses what has been going on in the off-season other than simply the trials. A little over a month to opening day—get excited, baseball fan or not!

This week the Politico created a list of its “Top 50 Politicos” to watch, including journalists, lobbyists, operatives, congressional staffers, and the all-inclusive “players.” Though I know that all 50 are certainly well-deserving, it was rather satisfying to see that the list included over ten people in their early thirties or younger.

I know that young people, myself included, often protest that they do receive nearly enough recognition for the work that they do in the political arena. While sometimes this complaint is overused, it is always rewarding to see credit given where it is due. In this case, I think that it is particularly gratifying because these politicos were not on the list simply due to their young age. Rather, their achievements seem to rival their older counterparts, and it is clear that they would be considered on the path towards success for any age.

For example, the list includes people from Susan Davis, a 28-year-old reporter for the Wall Street Journal, to Carrie Giddins, the 33-year-old communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party.  In fact, not to toot our own horn—for lack of a better expression—but it is very much worth congratulating Campus Progress’s Erica Williams for her appearance on the list. Erica most recently created the video “Why the Conservatives Won’t Capture the Youth Vote,” which has had enormous success on You Tube and the web circuit. Fantastic work Erica!

During yesterday’s Super Bowl, among the funny but never-ending car and beer advertisements, there was a bright spot in a commercial that had a point beyond selling a product. Coca-Cola put out a commercial in which James Carville and Bill Frist, politically at odds with one another, enjoy Washington together—while sharing a Coke, of course.

If Coke can get it right, I am starting to wonder why the government cannot. Without going on a really cliché and naïve rant about how I wish everyone would just get along, I do think that more compromise should be happening in Washington. I know George Bush stinks—for lack of a better word—but there very well may be another Republican in the White House next year. If, for example, the troops are ever going to leave Iraq, someone must be willing to give an inch.

In the end, I suppose that Coca-Cola’s number one motivation was not trying to advocate bipartisanship in Congress with this advertisement. Rather, it was doing something creative to get people to remember that Coca-Cola had a great commercial. Nevertheless, they certainly succeeded. Not that I don’t drink enough Diet Coke as it is, but I think this ad convinced me to drink even more, and they sold me without using half naked woman or animals.

It finally came up at the very end, when someone from the audience asked the panel what they thought should be done about the lack of care about politics among students. Yes, there are many bureaucratic obstacles impeding youth voting and it is certainly true that more youths would vote if it was a really simple process. Sending in an absentee ballot is rather annoying, and it would be better if it were something as minimally time-consuming as voting right on campus. However, I think that when students really want to vote, more often than not they reserve a few minutes of their day to do so.

The real problem is that even if it was as undemanding as walking outside, there would still be those students who simply did not care. I am not pretending to know what the root of this problem is, but there are certainly many ideas floating about. Many, including several of the panelists, point to youth disillusionment about politics—that students believe politicians are dominated by rich lobbyists and do not really care about their needs—and thus they do not vote. Try as candidates might to reach out to students, there will always be those students and adults alike who will remain cynical about the political process.

Unfortunately, I do not think that I have discovered a solution to the problem of voter apathy in the time that it has taken me to write this blog post, other than giving out free beer with votes. I do know that I commend efforts by the Roosevelt Institution to put on events such as this panel. While they may not be able to solve every issue, such as voter apathy, in the end, at least they are trying to take action to get Americans to exercise their most underappreciated right.

Tonight, for the first time ever, I will get to eat at 1789, the famous gourmet restaurant in Georgetown that normally costs about a billion dollars per person. However, on this cold January Monday, my entire meal will only cost 30 dollars. Granted, this still is not exactly a meal on a budget, but it is a rather great price for a three-course gourmet meal.

No, I’m not being taken on a date by a beautiful and rich man (though if you have any takers-let me know!) Rather, DC is finishing up its Restaurant Week, a time when many exclusive (a.k.a. expensive) restaurants offer their food at much cheaper prices, though the menus are often fixed. There is nothing more to say except that this is a rather great way for poor college students and twenty-somethings to eat really nice food for a change.

I regret to inform the other residents of Washington D.C. that this post is a bit late, as Restaurant Week is coming to an end. However, while many restaurants did end on the 20th, there are a few restaurants such as 1789 that keep their cheaper menus till January 31st. In fact, I just learned that cities across the country engage in their own restaurants week at various times throughout the year. Check out the restaurants extending Restaurant Week in Washington DC, as well as Bethesda’s participating restaurants in their own Restaurant Week, happening now.

Hayden Panettiere, of Heroes fame, is coming to Georgetown University tomorrow to raise awareness for saving the whales...again, because once just wasn’t enough.

Though I know that celebrities often use their status to support causes they tend to know little about, it seemed to me a particularly large stretch that the little girl from Remember the Titans(my favorite movie—by the way) would have advanced knowledge on marine biology. Furthermore, of all the causes to support in the world today, I initially wondered why saving the whales was number one on Hayden’s list of priorities. Haven’t we protected them enough?

Nonetheless, after investigating the situation, apparently Hayden (or whoever writes for her) has a point. According to the “Save the Whales” data, the whales are indeed in danger again, or rather, the danger never went away.  Yet, I still think that the cause would be more fruitful if it attempted to stop the underlying reasons for this in the first place, from pollution to global warming. Honing in on saving the whales, though I know now that it is a real issue, makes the cause seem a bit childish and out-of-date.  Especially with Hayden running the show, it is hard to take seriously.

In any case, I am going to try and go see her, if only to ask her what it is like to date Milo Ventimiglia. Also, you can click here if you now have an overwhelming desire to Free Willy!—I mean donate—rather.

Nikol Hasler has decided to take her unique personal experiences and put them to good use. The 28-year-old mother of three is now creating weekly pod-casts on teen sex advice. The article from the Boston Globe notes how “Hasler uses her experiences to talk to teens about such topics as "The First Time," "The Older Boyfriend" and "Female Masturbation" on the online video series that started this summer.”

Though I am sure that many would protest the scientific fact of everything Hasler discusses, I think I wouldn’t be alone in commending her for this innovative idea. Coming from a very open-minded family, I often take for granted open dialogue about sex, among other more “taboo” topics. When I came to college, I was amazed to learn that many of my peers were still a bit clueless about information I believe is imperative for everyone to know, things that I just assumed everyone knew and that I had known since I was thirteen. In fact, I couldn’t help but draw parallels with her to my own life. No, I am not a mother of three children—or any children, for clarification—but there are countless times in my life when I have been forced to play the role of Hasler.

Unfortunately, not everyone is blessed with a close relationship with their parents, an older sibling, or even feel comfortable enough with their peers to talk about that which really warrants discussion. Despite today’s so-called modern world, some of my friends are still becoming acclimated to the fact that merely learning about sex is not a direct sentence to eternal damnation.  In lieu of the recent anniversary of Roe V. Wade, sex discussion is especially relevant even to those who are pro-life. One of the main goals of an open dialogue such as Hasler’s, as she herself admits, is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Overall, in addition to being amusing and relatable, Hasler’s pod-cast fulfills an important role. For those of you who do not have the privilege of attending my weekly advice talk that is.

When explaining to my mother that one of my assignments for my new internship was regular blogging, she responded by asking me what in the world that met. My mother is an extremely intelligent woman, and thus her response made me wonder how many Americans actually blog, read blogs, or even know what a blog is. I will admit to the fact that it is only since becoming a college student that I started reading blogs myself (unless you count the infamous Xanga), and that my political blog viewing is still often interlaced with perezhilton.com or various Hoya basketball blogs.

Nevertheless, the research proved to be favorable for my mother. The most recent data I could find was from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which reported in 2006 that about twelve million American adults were blogging. While this represents only about 4% of the population, it is a great deal more than I had expected. However, I still do not think that the percentage is high enough that I can guiltlessly patronize my mother for not knowing what a blog even was. Not to mention that fact she knows much more about the world than our neighbors, whose knowledge of the internet probably does not extend past QVC.com

What’s my point? I think that while blogging is certainly becoming more and more mainstream, it still should not be assumed that most Americans, even most professionals, regularly read blogs, never mind keep one of their own.  Then again, I could just be justifying this because I anticipate that the amount of people who will read my first blog will equal about two.