Tanning: The Sun vs. Tanning Beds

If you live in California, which I assume that most of my readers (as if I have a lot HA!) do, you know about the pressure that comes around ... well... year round but mostly Summertime. One word - "tan". I've been tan only once in my life before this year, and it was the year I was on swim team from April-ish to mid-September. I was in a wedding that year in July, I believe, and my strapless dress gave a boy all the clues he needed to surmise that I was a swimmer... although I was confused at the time when he said, "Swim team, huh?" I guess the extremely white X in stark contrast to my otherwise very tan back gave it away. In my defense, I was blonde back then.

This year, I was basically peer pressured into getting a tan. Several people suggested I go to a tanning bed, at least for a few weeks, to really jump-start a tan... but I prefer the sun. I really do... Something just ... doesn't seem right about a coffin with sunlamps. :)

So I started tanning in the afternoons, but wasn't getting anywhere, I eventually started tanning in the morning, and BAM ... I have a tan.

But... my tan really isn't the point of this post. It's about the debate over the health issues of tanning in the ...

vs.

I've always felt this: the sun really, REALLY shouldn't be the victim when it comes to skin cancer concerns. Yes, I realize there are those of my beautiful red-headed and fair-skinned friends (of which I have many) who are more sensitive and prone to burns than most - and I'm not suggesting they stop wearing sunscreen because a) they actually are more prone to sun damage and cancer than most and b) sunburns hurt like ... well, you know. But, the sun has been around.. you know, a LONG TIME... like, longer than humans, by a few days. People have been working and living and working some more out in the sun for thousands of years... and yet, somehow, skin cancer has only really gotten WORSE in the last 30 years or so ... since tanning beds were invented.

According to The Skin Cancer Foundation (article linked), "indoor tanning increases melanoma risk by 74 percent." SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT?! And people are worried about the SUN?! It really IS a coffin with sunlamps, my gosh! 

I don't even want to start to get into the debate about whether or not Obama plans to put a tax on indoor tanning (although, let me just point out that if a Republican were in office, a lot of Republicans probably wouldn't think it was a bad idea ... I'm just sayin'.) Personally, I don't want to get into the politics of it, although I will say that if it increases the chance of skin cancer by SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT then they should probably be consistent with taxing it alongside cigarettes. Whether or not you think that is the government's right however, is an argument I'm really not interested in.

So, why am I bothering to post this? Consider me an advocate, a pro-bono lawyer per say, for the sun. I love the sun. We can't avoid every single thing that "may cause cancer" (unless it increases the risk by SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT AND COSTS MONEY!!!?!). The Sun, however, really is a great, awesome thing. So even if you smother on the sunscreen this summer, go out in it. Believe me, it feels great and it is quite a mood lifter (especially for people like me with S.A.D. - seasonal affective disorder). But make sure to always, no matter what, even if you use Hawaiian Tropic Tanning Oil on the rest of your body (like me) use at least SPF 30 on your face!! (And preferably your hands, too). A bronzer can give you that tan look now, but there is no covering up those wrinkles when you're 35 and spent way, WAY too much time out in the sun... (like my apartment neighbor who, by her body, can't be older than 35.. but her face looks 60. Why? I see her putting tanning oil ON HER FACE!!) So if you're going to get a tan, do it the healthier way... Take advantage of the free, beautiful sunlight.

And in the words of my friend Stephanie, "Tan fat looks better than pale fat." Haha! :)

They seem to be catching on...

Here in California, we have a law that requires cell phones be "hands-free" while driving. This means that we cannot text, but we can still have conversations on our bluetooth headsets.

I've had a problem with this idea since the law was passed. Granted, the no-texting law does make sense. But my issue is, is it really holding the cell phone up to our ear that causes the distraction, but not the conversation?

Let me try to explain what I mean: I can eat a burger, while holding a shake in another hand, but cannot get pulled over, granted I am not swerving, or running lights, of course. However, I cannot hold a cell phone with one hand to my ear. Now, let's be honest, if I was about to get into an accident, which one would I drop -- the messy burger or the cell phone?

So why is it then, that I CAN eat a burger while driving, but I can NOT hold a cell phone?

I've always said that if they're going to outlaw one, they really should outlaw the other. It seems as though the government is possibly picking up on this. Watch this short video:



In all honesty, it may be a good idea. Drivers should not be distracted while driving. The only problem is, where do you draw the line? Can cops really pull EVERYONE over for not being in the 10-and-2 position? What about if my conversation with my friend in the passenger seat is causing my mind to drift, even if I am driving, with all intents and purposes, correctly? What about if I am driving to a funeral and I am crying? At what point can they outlaw "distractions"?

What do you think?

Make Hay While the Sun Shines

There are several sayings and words I use that I've noticed a lot of people have no clue what I am talking about or trying to communicate. This is pretty frustrating for me, because I'm not sure if I'm the weird one, or if they're just uneducated.

For instance, the other night while hanging out with Paul and Julia, I said something to Paul about how he needed to get his homework done now since he had the time, and I tagged on, "Make hay while the sun shines." He looked at me like I had something bright orange on my forehead then asked me what that was supposed to mean. I said, "Haven't you ever heard that? It means do things while you have the time before you can't do them anymore. Get things done early and work hard while you have the chance."

I looked to Julia for confirmation, but she looked only slightly enlightened by my explanation. "You've heard that, haven't you?" I asked her.

"No, actually," she answered.

"You say a lot of things that no one's ever heard of," Paul said.

Now see this is frustrating for me, because it happens quite often. A lot of the traditional sayings I grew up hearing and learning turn out to be "family sayings."

However, it's not just with sayings though, so that's what leads me to believe people are uneducated. I can't recall an exact instance now, but there have been several times I'll be in conversation with a few people, even at college and in my advanced English classes, and I'll say a word or two that, to me, seem normal. I've read them, I've said them, I've used them in conversation with my sister or mother or brother... but everyone else, when they hear them, either look surprised and say, "Wow, that's a big word!" or they just look confused and ask me to rephrase my sentence.

I don't know, I suppose that's what happens when you don't grow up watching SpongeBob like everyone else, and you actually read books like Jane Eyre when you're 11 or 12. Maybe I am the weird one. It feels wrong to "dumb myself down" though and use smaller words or shorter sentences.

That thought actually leads me to another, one that bothered me a lot in my English class quite a bit. Just because I know how to write longer sentences, unlike the rest of the current population, with the usage of semicolons and correctly placed commas, doesn't mean that I should have to shorten them just to make them easier to read. Doesn't anyone read older literature anymore and actually understand it? I'll give that -- was it Mark Twain?-- wrote much too long of sentences; 1 page sentences get a little tiring. However, the usage of one semicolon is not ridiculous and outdated as my teacher and fellow students tried to tell me.

Oh well. I'll keep being the English freak and try to get used to not being able to communicate well, even though I'm the one communicating correctly. *sigh*

Ridiculous -- A Mockery and Annoyance of and with America's Inept Teachers

I may sound conceited, but I know a good paper when I have read one and I know a good paper when I have written one. I am currently angry with uneducated teachers, they not being my own, but Paul's. Now this might sound ridiculous that I care so much, but Paul's English teacher has made me very annoyed.

When Paul was here last weekend (or was it already two now?), he had a five page paper he needed to write, and since we were pressed for time to spend together, I helped him with it by helping him reword some things, find some resources, and by editing it for him. Sure, there were a few things I would have written differently, but I know enough about peer editing (reading and editing others' papers), that I know how to be honest and fair. I would have given his paper an A-, or perhaps a B+ if I wasn't feeling very nice;)

He waited a week and a half in anticipation for a grade sure to be better than his previous papers. However, we were both disappointed and dejected when he logged on to his class website, only to find he had gotten an 80%. A B-? Ridiculous! Now, I know I am not the most accomplished writer, and I also know that I am 18 and a freshman in college, but like I said previous, I know a good paper when I have read and written one, because my overall grade on my papers this semester has been 99%. This is not to sound as if I am above reproach and that, because I helped him, he was guaranteed an amazing paper. However, this was ridiculous. The paper was not a barely-above-C-level paper.

I would have perhaps been mollified had the teacher left a few good comments concerning weaknesses and strengths, and perhaps a few changes that he felt could have made. However, when this morning I finally was able to read the comments he typed into the margins of Paul's paper, I felt even more annoyed -- hence the post.

My favorite of his comments was, "We use the word 'people' today." Paul's sentence had been something to the effect of, "Since the beginning of the sporting world as man knows it, ....." (Is there anything wrong with that sentence? Is it too archaic for your post-modern, uneducated mind?) My second objection, overall, to this mediocre teacher is the fact that EVERY one of his comments after that said something to the effect of, "Good usage of...." Then at the bottom, "80/100", shortly after the, "STRONG Works Cited Page!" comment.

Let's be honest. This teacher is a perfect example of today's inept group of teachers. Anyone who knows how to read would have found Paul's paper at least relatively well-written, even if it was not an interesting subject. Which, by the way, it was not, which leads me to my next problem with this teacher.

For everyone who grew up with parents who sheltered you from inappropriate media, this teacher decided to get revenge on your family by making you pay back those years of being careful. So far, Paul has had to read books concerning the selfishness of men and the amazing "Generation Me" that concerns women on the rise (oh, feminism, how I abhor you!), a book about the sex and violence in an L.A. gang, and a book about the war crimes in Africa, and how a child learns to shoot up the town without regret -- all written from a triumphant standpoint, of course.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have been home schooled and private schooled for a good portion of my recent years that makes me so ridiculously upset with the public school world; perhaps it is the fact that, from my A+ view, I can see the biased glasses teachers don when they feel a student is not the best, and consequently never grade above a certain average. Whatever the answer, I despise the lack of propriety in the morality and intellectual ability of the public school system.

I walked to school this morning, the snow swirling around me, but I did not feel the cold. The passion and annoyance I felt for this topic was boiling in my veins. I apologize to you, dear teacher, for my having learned to read the works of Jane Austen and the King James Version of the Bible at the age of ten or less. However, on the contrary, I beg you to read the words and literature that have blessed, shaped, and molded the world since its very foundations, before you believe you are such an authoritative figure in the literature and writing world.