The most publicized topic on American television right now is Lindsay Lohan’s release from prison on August 2, 2010 after serving only 13 days of a 90-day sentence for violating the probation she received for a DUI charge. She is now completing her time in a rehabilitation facility in California.

Us Weekly, a popular gossip magazine, quoted Dina Lohan, Lindsay Lohan’s mother, as saying, when asked about her daughter’s time in jail, “She doesn’t have cell phone privileges, that’s absurd. She doesn’t even have a pillow to sleep on. I talk to her through glass. There’s a phone and we put her on speaker but I can’t even hug my daughter…She’s treated like a common criminal.” What’s actually absurd is that Lohan is a repeat offender and her behavior warrants time to serve as well as help for her addiction. Any average American’s life would be derailed if charged with a DUI, but Lohan will probably still work and earn more money than I will ever see despite her having served time (a very short time) in prison.

I grew up with the teeny-bopper magazines plastered with pictures of Lohan. There were her films like The Parent Trap and Mean Girls and then the epic battle over Aaron Carter between Lohan and Hilary Duff. She seemed to have a decent career ahead of her until the drug and alcohol accusations and then convictions started.

Why do we pay so much attention to these celebrities? By these, I mean those constantly in and out of prison and rehab. We read sensationalized tabloids, chatter amongst friends about the latest scandal, and relish in the stupidity and misfortune of high-profile people.

Maybe the reason why we’re so enamored with these stories is because they’re so far removed from our real lives. I don’t personally know Lindsay Lohan, but reading about her lifestyle was a little shocking, dare I say intriguing as I do not club hop, act, or model. All of the glitz and glamour is a bit appealing.

Another reason could be that we like tragedy. All classic literature, for example, has its respective ups and fabulous, extremely low downs. The best plays are usually tragedies like Shakespeare’s Hamlet — we love despair. We love to see these characters struggle. We love to see the fall of these characters, real or not. We see these people as merely characters existing in a constructed world not unlike fiction.

We watch them so closely because, maybe, we feel like we’re watching them in just another film, another role. Right now, Lohan’s role involves being a recent jailbird and spending some time in rehab. After this, she’ll find another role to play. The same goes for every wife-beating, panty forgetting, head shaving celeb.

On the other side, celebrities who do good also make a separation between average people and the stars. Celebrities like Angelina Jolie enhance their fame through philanthropy. Every time Jolie adopts a child or makes a generous donation, she is spotlighted on nightly news programs. These actions are so far beyond the reach of “normal” people that we admire this her for her work. It is hard to believe that “real” people are able to do these things and we forget that celebrities really are people.

Is this inability to separate character from real person really a problem? Probably only when someone approaches Patrick Dempsey and asks for medical advice. But maybe we need to center our attention on other things besides celebrities and their shenanigans. There is more to life than Lindsay Lohan’s mug shot.

Laura Knoll is finishing her junior year at Drexel University, majoring in English with a Certificate in Creative Writing and Publishing.

Grad school or the working world? This is decision many college seniors and recent college graduates are facing today. Not too long ago, the average American was considered fortunate and at an advantage to even have the opportunity to earn a bachelor’s degree. But now, more and more people are pursuing higher level degrees in order to advance their career. So, what is the best option – graduate school immediately after completing undergrad, find a job, or attempt to do both at the same time? As I approach my senior year at Drexel, I find myself asking this very question.

Four years ago, as a seventeen-year-old, I chose to major in English because that’s what I loved and I wanted to continue studying it. But, did I know what I wanted to do with this degree after I graduated college? No. Do I know now? Not really. Because I still have not discovered what I really want to do career-wise, Grad school seems like an appealing alternative to the real world and a way to put off the pressure and responsibility that comes from leaving the academia bubble. I have been a self-declared bookworm since elementary school. I thrived in school and took a lot of personal pride in it. I am good at being a student. I can only hope that I find as much success in a career as I have in school.

The obvious benefit of grad school is that it will allow me to enter the workforce at a higher level, with a higher salary – this has never been a secret. Money is a very strong motivational factor in deciding to go to grad school. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. The university setting is also a great way of networking. I could learn from professors, other students, and experts in my field, as well as make good business relationships.

However, because I do not know what I want to do, I obviously do not know if what I end up doing will require a master’s degree. And if it does not, why waste the time and money? I am extremely fortunate that my parents were able to pay for my undergraduate education and that I will be leaving Drexel debt-free. Grad school would be out of my pocket, a very empty pocket. Too much education is never a bad thing, but another part of me is ready to get a job and make some money before I start spending any.

Another concern I have is that I will leave academia for the pursuit of career and find myself wishing I had gone to grad school. Will I be able to get back into the student mind-set after leaving it? Going to grad school immediately after college will obviously make for a much smoother transition. My test-taking skills, critical reading and essay writing skills, for example, will all still be at their peak and fresh. Would I be able to balance working full-time and being a part-time student? I do not know.

Some students use school to “find themselves,” as the clichéd saying goes. To me, finding myself seems not only like a luxury, but an unrealistic goal. I do not think we as humans ever truly know everything there is to know about ourselves, so this quest never really ends. Besides, even I am not sure what “I want to be when I grow up,” jumping into the career world may actually help me discover this, while making and saving money. Although I feel that returning to school after leaving for a job would be challenging, it is a valid possibility. I could take some time to save money that I can afford grad school, but also use it determine what I like and do not like about my current job to re-evaluate what my career goals are going to be after completing graduate school. Or, maybe I will discover that I am actually happy in the working world and do not need graduate school after all.

So, what’s my plan? I think I will make the most of my last year at Drexel, for starters. In a couple months, I will start looking for jobs to find out what is even out there in this economy. I am nervous about leaving school, because it’s been such a huge part of my life but I am excited at the thought of moving on to something different. Fortunately, very few decisions ever need to be written in stone. If I chose a job and find myself missing school, it’s never too late to go back. And if I go to grad school and really wish I was a career girl already, then at least most programs are over in two years. Decisions are hard, but I am lucky that I have the opportunity to make them.

Carolynn McCormack is a junior at Drexel University majoring in English. She is also working toward the Certificate in Publishing and Writing.

This past Fourth of July I went down the Ben Franklin Parkway and sat on the lawn in front of the iconic Philadelphia Art Museum to watch the annual fireworks show with my family.  This was our first time going to see them, and unfortunately we had miscalculated the timing of the event.  We got there thinking they started at 9 p.m. and later found out that they were to start at 11 p.m. after the concerts on the Parkway had ended.

As we sat there, I noticed the crowd getting larger and larger.  People of all races and social classes were arriving with sheets, blankets, drinks, family and friends.  It was then that I realized that all of these people, including me, were there to watch a 20-minute show of fireworks.  What’s so special about fireworks?  Why will we camp out in 90-degree weather while getting eaten alive by mosquitoes to watch them?

Fireworks are a staple during two American holidays each year: New Year’s Eve and July 4^th.  And they are a must in Disney World, which incidentally is the largest purchaser of fireworks in the United States.

The unusual aspect of fireworks is not our desire to watch them, but our reaction to them.  As I sat back and watched everyone around me, it was as though we were at a rock concert.  When a large display lit the sky and quickly changed colors, some in the audience screamed, as if Bono or Paul McCarthy had just walked on stage.  They oooh’d and aaah’d in minor rapture.  There was clapping, too.  But why? For what? In admiration of the person who created the firework, or the display, the light and noise, in the sky? It seems akin to when an audience applauds a movie. Neither the fireworks nor the movie performers can appreciate applause, and yet we offer it, perhaps in some kind of spontaneous, cathartic release.

Last but not least, there were the cameras.  The audience took photos as if they were capturing a moment in the South Africa World Cup Finals game to be published on Time’s Photo of the Year cover.  And how could I forget the tripods?  How bizarre are we that we set up tripods to take photos of fireworks? It might make for a pretty picture, but tripods?  Is that not a little excessive for a 20-minute fireworks show that happens every year? But I suppose this speaks to how seriously some people take fireworks—they want to capture the experience for someone else, even though a photo can hardly do a live fireworks show justice, if only because the sound is absent, to say nothing of how most modern fireworks are so dramatic.

It’s just strange when you really take yourself out of the crowd and look around. Perhaps it all comes back to a desire we have to watch things be lit on fire for entertainment.  We are amused by it. In that case, let’s just admit that we all have a little pyromaniac in us.

Sonal Patel is studying Communications in her fourth year at Drexel University. She is currently interning for the Drexel Publishing Group. Sonal is the Executive Director for the undergraduate public relations firm, 33rd Street PR. She is also the former treasurer for the Drexel chapter of the Public Relations Student Society of America.

By now Americans have had a love affair with healthy foods for a couple of decades.  They have obsessed over 100-calorie packs, low cholesterol and no added preservatives.  In the fast growing market that supports healthy lifestyles, it seems that everyone is trying to jump on the health bandwagon.  Supermarkets have organic aisles to battle Whole Foods and other specialty stores.  Fast food chains have begun challenging each other with healthier choices on their menus.  New laws have been established to force restaurant owners to display calorie counts on their signage and to ban products with trans fats in major cities.  The First Lady has even begun her own fight against childhood obesity, teaming up with primary schools to change lunch programs in order to combat the disease. However, there is one key organization that has fallen behind.  They should be the party rallying the cause because from what they sell to what they teach is all about food.  Who are they?  The Food Network.

You would expect an entire channel dedicated to food to advocate healthier eating practices.  The truth is that the Food Network makes minimal effort to encourage people to make healthier food choices.  The few steps they have made are quickly cancelled out by the gluttonous eating they promote.

For example, to have a chef like Paula Deen claim that her favorite food is butter and to frequently show her cook with it in heaping portions certainly sends viewers the wrong message.

Let’s begin with Food Network’s programs, the most popular aspect of the Food Network brand.  During the primetime hours, the lineup consists of southern chef shows “Down Home with the Neelys” and “Paula’s Home Cooking.”  These guys grill and fry everything.  Later in the evening, the audience gets to watch “The Next Food Network Star” winner Guy Fieri explore America’s unhealthy obsessions in “Diners, Drive-ins and Dives.”  Fieri takes us to the kitchens of such places where he moans, grunts and practically makes love to “good ‘ole fried, grilled, smothered-in-oil-and-butter” American cuisine.

On top of that, the image of these Food Network stars is far from appealing.  Deen, Fieri and the Neely’s all have an unspoken air about them that says, “Yes, I am overweight but I just like to eat and cook whatever I want…and I do!”

Of course, if these are the shows that create profits for Food Network, and these are the shows that are in demand,

Paula Deen

then it’s hard to blame them for airing the shows.  First and foremost, Food Network is a business.  In reality, advocating a healthy diet is not their professional responsibility, but it is their social responsibility.

After the recession hit, Food Network showed an interest in providing shows that helped Americans become better economical shoppers and chefs . They rolled out a sequel to Sandra Lee’s “Semi-Homemade” show with “Money-Saving Meals”.  Lee shows us how to cook cheaply by doing the supermarket price research for us.  Food Network also added “Ten Dollar Dinners” with Melissa d’Arabian and “5 Ingredient Fix” with Claire Robinson.   Robinson can give you a delectable meal with only five ingredients to keep your grocery lists short and d’Arabian can make a dinner for four people in under ten dollars.  It’s great that Food Network has realized that some of their chefs cook with ingredients and recipes that are beyond the average American’s budget, but what about shows that advocate healthy eating?

Food Network does indeed have one show that attempts to fill the void in social responsibility.  “Healthy Appetite” with Ellie Krieger shows us how to take our favorite recipes and make them with healthier ingredients.  Krieger is a licensed dietician turned Food Network chef-ebrity.  But what’s the catch?  No one even knows about poor Krieger because Food Network has given her the early Saturday morning timeslot. Let’s be realistic: no one is watching at 8:30 am.   The only way Americans follow Krieger is through Food Network’s official website.

Food Network’s website is another place where the company falls short.  On the site, you can watch videos of your favorite stars cooking, as well as find and share recipes by either Food Network stars or the magazine editors.  Browsers can comment on the recipes with questions, advice and reviews.  But the website lacks a key ingredient: calorie counts!  I wonder if they do this on purpose.  What exactly would be the calorie count on Robert Irvine’s “Kid Pleasin’ Macaroni and Cheese”?

Macaroni and cheese:

•    16-ounce package elbow macaroni

•    1/2 cup butter

•    1 cup chopped white onion

•    1/2 cup all-purpose flour

•    1/2 to 1 cup chicken broth

•    1/2 cup heavy cream

•    2 cups shredded Cheddar

•    Salt

•    White pepper

•    3 tablespoons quince jelly

Yes, half a cup of butter and half a cup of heavy cream, which surely translates into some many calories.  The kids would be pleased, but how on earth does that promote feeding our youth healthy dinners?  What is the point of changing the food in school cafeterias if the minute they get home they’re fed a recipe with half a cup of butter?  In fact, the only nutrition-conscious part of the entire site is a tab at the top titled “Healthy Eating.”  Yet, the main attraction on the site usually has a smiling Deen or Fieri along with a photo of fried chicken.

The Food Network may argue that many people can alter any recipe to cater to their individual lifestyles or needs.  However, they must take the initiative to at least recognize their role in promoting poor diets.  Most of America is still struggling to balance the active life with a healthy diet.  Taking the stairs and eating a salad during the day won’t do you any justice if a meal developed by the careless Food Network “stars” awaits you at home.

Whenever you hear an actor explain how he prepared for a role, the actor usually explains how he tried to find “the truth that lay at the heart of the character” or some equally pretentious acting manifesto. There is also some obligatory reference to “the method,” that famous revered method derived from the work of the now legendary Konstantin Stanislavski. However, among Hollywood actors, “the method” has been slowly dying away, its waning popularity only kept alive by traditionalists such as Daniel Day Lewis, Sean Penn, or (oddly enough) Wesley Snipes, who even off camera on the sets of the Blade movies disappeared completely, leaving the Daywalker himself eating bagels at the craft services table. Acting is essentially lying. The objective of any good actor is to make the audience believe they are someone completely different.

The method as taught by Lee Strasburg of the Actor’s Studio was an attempt to get at the truth of the lie. If actors recalled their own emotional experience and attached it to the experience of the character then the effect would be a realistic portrayal of an emotion that the audience would hopefully recognize and relate to. David Thomson of the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article stating that the method was dead and the stars of today like George Clooney and Johnny Depp have decided to invoke the styles of Cary Grant and Bob Hope rather than Marlon Brando or James Dean. I would argue that he is completely wrong and that method acting is not dead at all, but has simply gone through a Darwinian adaptation to survive the changing times. The best place to see the method on display is not in the next DeNiro picture, but in the antics of the self-described guido and guidette, The Situation and Snooki of MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”

The essential difference between the style of playing pretend and the method can be summed up quite nicely in a quote by acting legend Laurence Olivier. On the shoot of Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman had stayed up all night and ran himself to exhaustion to create a realistic portrayal of an exhausted man. When he arrived on the set the next day, legend has it that Laurence Olivier turned to him and said, “Try acting dear boy, it’s much easier.” The difference between the two is the difference between playing sad and being sad. The declining popularity of method acting should not affect the perceptions that today’s audience prefers anything other than the truth that the method provided for them during all those glorious years of Brando, DeNiro, and Pacino. Audiences’ cravings for reality or at least the imitation of reality that they get from TV and film can be seen in the death grip reality TV has had over the television industry for the past decade. And it is precisely here that some of the best examples of the method can be seen.

Anyone who maintains a steady diet of reality TV knows that “reality” is a bit of a misnomer. Mark Burnett, the creator of “Survivor,” says that, “it really is not reality TV. It really is unscripted drama.” Unscripted Drama is a much more fitting term for what is commonly referred to as reality TV. Even the “unscripted” idea often comes under fire from the reality police. MTV’s “The Hills” was constantly accused of having premeditated scripts and actors appearing on the show. “Survivor” has been known to restage incidents not properly captured on camera. The main unreality, however, is the producer’s power to control the reality on the set and the editor’s power to “re-write reality” after filming has completed. Daniel Petrie Jr., former president of the Writers Guild of America, has said, “We look at reality TV, which is billed as unscripted, and we know it is scripted. We understand that shows don’t want to call the writers writers because they want to maintain the illusion that it is reality; that stuff just happens.”

Jersey Shore has recently become one of the most popular shows on television, thanks to its outrageous cast of characters with names like “Sammi Sweetheart” or “Jwoww.” However the main “characters” on the show and the ones getting the most exposure are Michael Sorrentino and Nicole Polizzi or, as they are better known, the Situation and Snooki. Their names alone provide a certain disconnect from reality, and it seems they adopted these names specifically for the television program. Polizzi was previously on another MTV show entitled,” Is She Really Going out With Him?”, and as you can see there is never a mention of the name Snooki, suggesting that the name was one she adopted to help create her character on the Jersey Shore. Many reality TV show participants admit after the show has aired that they acted crazier or stranger than they actually are in order to get more screen time. The people we see on the screen are exaggerated versions of the actual human beings that they are.

Many professional actors simply portray different versions of themselves in their films. Christopher Walken and John Wayne are the two cliché examples of actors who take their own persona and attach it to whatever script they’re making. These reality show actors are simply taking that next logical step: they play versions of themselves, only the dialogue is improvised and the script is guided by the producers of the show during filming. For example, this kind of show relies on the drama of relationships, catfights, fistfights, and lots of people screaming at each other, and when the producers introduced Snooki’s ex-boyfriend in episode seven, it created exactly the kind of relationship drama they’re looking for. The producers also remove elements to make sure the characters (and subsequently the viewer) have the most fun they can. Angelina Pivarnick, is a perfect example of this.  Angelina, a self-avowed c**k block, was removed after three episodes, due to her tendency to interrupt and ruin the debauchery of the men on the show, because let’s face it, no one watched the show to see guidos not hook up.

The editors then go at the footage in postproduction and help shape the characters even more. By the time the footage is aired, we have seen people exaggerate themselves, producers guide the story to their liking, and then editors pick and choose clips, show them out of order, and combine different audio and video clips to misrepresent chronology, motivations, and behaviors. If a motivation gets taken out of context the entire audience perception of that character can change. When Ronnie got into a fight on the boardwalk and then blamed it on Sammi, the editor took great care to show that Sammi was walking home alone, even though Ronnie, Pauly D, and the Situation were all near by. This edit made Ronnie seem as if he was treating her even worse than he actually was, creating sympathy for Sammi and vilifying Ronnie. The editors here are re-writing reality, just as the producer are when they introduce/remove elements. Ronnie’s character takes on a while new dimension.

The method is supposed to use sense memory so actors can display real emotions, so then we, the audience, see real emotions in fake situations, and that is exactly what “Jersey Shore” gives us. Through the editing and production, the reality we see is no longer reality. What we are left with is tinkered with situations, such as Pauly D getting an immediate DJing gig at a bar, then we get to watch as the guidos improvise their characters and fist pump to their hearts’ delight.

This past year in Cold Souls and JCVD, Paul Giamatti and Jean-Claude Van Damme respectively, played themselves in fictional Hollywood scripts. These performances may be seen as the ultimate in method acting because even though they’re playing themselves, they are still working off a script. I would argue that “Jersey Shore” is an even better example of the method in use, because the emotions on display in the “Jersey Shore” are as real as they come. The smiting that Ronnie gave that preppy kid on the boardwalk is done with genuine wrath. The characters (and they are characters) on the “Jersey Shore” never have to feign lust, anger, shame, or embarrassment. They just feel those emotions and get immortalized on film. The only difference between the Paul Giamatti of “Cold Souls” and the Situation of “Jersey Shore” (besides maybe talent and the use of hair products) is the amount of influence the producer and editor have on the character’s development. That is why “Jersey Shore” is method acting by committee, and the best on TV.

Matthew Strickland is a senior at Drexel University. He studies English and Philosophy, and is anticipated to graduate in March of 2010.

Let’s face it — Americans have always had a love affair with gaining unnecessary pounds and then losing weight by going to the gym and eating “healthy.” However, it is commonly known that the amount of people who lose weight and successfully keep it off is minimal. Often the post-weight-loss weight-gain is blamed on quitting a strict gym regimen. In truth, most people just begin to confuse what eating healthy is all about. They start to loosen the grip on the excessive label reading and stop using their calorie-counting iPhone apps. Many Americans just balance the good foods with the bad foods, thinking that they’ll never be one of those people who gain the weight back.

Fast food corporations have taken full advantage of this weight loss woe and reinforce it with their advertisements. We all remember Jared, right? He was the fast food miracle to Americans and an angel sent to Subway. What could have been better for them than to advertise a guy who lost over 240 pounds just by walking and eating sandwiches from his local Subway? Americans fell head over heels for Jared. He immediately “disproved” all the dieticians that said you had to cut out fast food from your life to lose weight. Subway began to tell consumers that it was not their food that was unhealthy, but the way Americans were customizing their sandwiches. If the consumers simply “made better choices” then Subway wasn’t the bad guy at all.

So, Jared did a lot of commercials and people ate a lot of Subway.

Enter Christine. Sent to Americans during Biggest Loser commercials, she is Taco Bell’s chosen one for their new “Taco Bell Drive-Thru Diet”. Have you heard Christine’s amazing story?! Taco Bell has recently introduced her to the world — an everyday-soccer-mom-type who lost 54 pounds by eating one of their new “Fresco” options regularly and exercising. Apparently, each of the seven new items on the Drive-Thru Diet menu is a healthier option than the rest of the food on Taco Bell’s regular menu. The ingredients used in the “Fresco” line are fresh compared to the normal ingredients. For example, they use real tomatoes instead of those little packets of diabetes-inducing hot sauce.

Again, the consumers are told that if they simply made healthier choices from the given fast food menus and exercised, they would not only lose weight, but keep the pounds off. However, if Subway and Taco Bell are willing to admit that certain items on their menus are healthier than the others, than why can’t they simply make it all healthy? The annoyance here is how they advertise that they care about their consumers’ health, when in reality, they are just trying to float in the health food market. True, they do not have any moral responsibility to take a health initiative, but to trick customers into thinking they are eating healthy is unnecessary.

This trend of eating healthy from a fast food restaurant is confusing people who sincerely would like to lose weight or just eat healthier. Did you hear Jared has gained some weight back? Subway is having a hard time admitting it. Christine has a good chance of gaining the weight back as well. There will be days where she does not order from the Drive-Thru menu. The unhealthy food will be right there staring her in the face, as it does to all customers. The thought process will begin with the fact that they ordered healthy yesterday, and deserve to fulfill their unhealthy cravings. And soon enough, Christine and the rest of the “healthy” fast food eaters will gain the weight back just like Jared did. And the saga will continue, up five pounds, down two pounds, because that’s the American way.

Sonal Patel is studying communcations in her fourth year at Drexel University. She is currently interning for the Drexel Publishing Group.

I miss going through two levels of packaging to get to the disposable camera-first there was the cardboard box, then there was the plastic wrapping. I miss the sound of the clicks as I wind it up again and again. I miss the excitement of going with mom to the pharmacy just so I could get the paper bag and rip it open to finally see all the pictures I took.

In my room in the house I grew up in, there was a vanity table with a big mirror. This mirror and the walls of my room were covered with fuzzy-focused pictures of my friends and I all wearing sunglasses on the beach, my sister sleeping in the car on a road trip, my brother in the Halloween costume I made for him, and the goofy faces my best friend and I were making at a camera with a lifespan only as long as the weekend retreat we were on. I did not look glamorous in most of the pictures-in fact, there were a lot of pictures of me with my eyes closed and my hair sticking up in all directions – but I kept them all on my wall.

My favorite pictures were the ones from the beach trips I used to go on with my church youth group. For the first trip during my freshman year, all the girls, and a few guys, brought disposable cameras that they picked up the day before. After the trip, we all met up at someone’s house to share the developed photos. I always printed doubles so my friends could take the ones they wanted. It was a social activity that now happens in the form of silent comments left on Facebook or MySpace.

It used to be that we got what we got. There was no checking the LCD screen the instant the picture had been taken to make sure we looked great. We couldn’t delete every shot that was less than perfect. Back then, we didn’t edit the moments of our lives.

There is no argument I could give that would result in people tossing their trendy digital cameras aside and running to the store to pick up a plastic one with only 24 chances to capture the best moments. Digital cameras don’t have film that needs to be developed, the chances to capture moments are virtually limitless, and there’s no need to buy a new one each time a camera-worthy event comes up. The digital camera, though fancier and more technologically advanced, is significantly more cost effective and easier to use.

Still, there’s a part of me that wishes people would start capturing their moments through a disposable camera again. No instant gratification – there is pleasure in anticipation and waiting for film to be developed. No deleting – if we don’t look like supermodels in every shot, that’s okay. But if a return to film cameras is not possible, the least I hope is that people will print the pictures they take with digital cameras and put them on the walls of their rooms and not on walls in cyberspace, flip through them with their hands and not click through them with a mouse, and treat each photograph like a moment that will never happen again.

Abby Shagin is a junior at Drexel University majoring in film.

We all have different ways to cope with stress in our lives. Some eat chocolate. Others go for a vigorous workout. Still others head straight for the bar with a good friend. I escape from the world without gaining weight, muscle aches, or hangovers. What’s my secret? Tabloid magazines.

Sometimes I just need to leave my reality and step into someone else’s. “I got a B in biology? Whatever – Jennifer Aniston gained five pounds this week and John Mayer dumped her again. ”

They’re always there, in all their glossy glory in the grocery store checkout line. Kate Gosselin and her amazing beach body! Miley Cyrus and her newest stripper pole dance! Brad Pitt and his perfect everything! I must add it to the conveyor belt next to my orange juice, underneath the whole wheat bread so no one knows I’m buying it.

I am a rational person. I am serious, kind, sincere, and no one would guess from looking at me that I actually spend $4.75 on magazines written about people that I don’t and never will know, magazines that probably contain lies about the people I don’t and never will know. One minute I’m standing there, perfectly calm, ready to walk right past the rack of shiny rumors. The next minute, I’m texting my NY-Yankees-loving friend, asking her if she heard that Kate Hudson might be carrying A-Rod’s baby.

It’s scary – I’ve begun to use celebrity gossip as conversation starters. And the worst part about that? It works! You know those times when you hear something, and call up your friend to find out if it’s true and maybe get some more details? That’s me – I’m the friend you call. It has gotten to the point where people refer to me as the expert on celebrity gossip. It may be the most embarrassing thing I have ever been associated with.

Embarrassing as it is, there are many other people like me, and worse than me, that drive the tabloid market. I have even met people who subscribe to the magazines, who unashamedly say, “Mondays are my wife’s favorite day. That’s when People magazine is delivered and waiting in the mailbox for her.”

I reassure myself that I’m not that bad. Sure, I can interject my celebrity gossip knowledge into just about any conversation: “Real estate you say? Did you know Ivanka Trump just got married?” But, I don’t have a subscription. I’ve got that under control. For now.

And I reassure myself that my reading and sharing rumors about famous people isn’t doing any harm. My father always told me not to gossip, that it would ruin friendships. But I only gossip about people I don’t know. I have no personal connection to these people and don’t feel responsible if they get sad that people are calling them dumb for, say, getting a DUI.

I tell myself that celebrities should think of tabloids as their best girlfriend. You know, the one that’s supposed to look you in the eye and tell you that your outfit looks horrendous, or the one that volunteers herself to be your gym buddy to motivate you to lose a couple of pounds. Tabloids are really a good friend just telling it like it is.

And when I’m having a stressful day, that’s exactly what I need. Someone to tell it like it is. As long as it’s about someone else’s life.

Sonal Patel is a Communications major studying in her 4th year at Drexel University.

If you went out this “Halloweekend,” you probably noticed two major costume trends dominating the parties you attended. First: pop culture. The media and current events influence costume decisions, especially celebrities that are known for dressing outrageously in their daily lives. So, if you happened to observe several Lady Gagas, commemorative Michael Jacksons, and Ed Hardy-clad Jon Gosselins, I wouldn’t be surprised in the least. Recognizable, memorable moments in pop culture resonate with people, and imitation is the best form of flattery… or mockery.

The other trend I noticed this weekend — which has pretty much left trend territory and become a permanent concept — is the lack of a costume for girls. It has become not only accepted, but also expected, for girls to show as much leg, cleavage, or stomach as possible — sometimes showing all three in just one costume. Gone are the days of our childhood when we dressed as adorable pumpkins, princesses, and kittens. Gone are the days of creativity and the element of disguise that Halloween formerly entailed. Nowadays, if a girl dresses as a pumpkin for Halloween, it means she’s wearing a skin-tight orange leotard and black fishnet stockings. If she’s dressed as a kitten, the lengthiest article of clothing she’s wearing is the tail. Girls still occasionally show some creativity with their hair and make-up, but Halloween has become a time for college girls to replace taste with trash. False eyelashes, glitter, hair up to there, shirts that could probably double as lingerie… and it seems as though everyone is trying to one-up each other, get the most attention, and be even sluttier than the half-naked girl next to them.

Maybe I’m old-fashioned. After all, I’m someone who prefers to stay in on the weekends watching Flight of the Conchords and drinking Coke Zero. I always wear a helmet when I ride my bike. And I’d much rather listen to The Beatles than Beyonce. The party scene has just never been my thing. Moreover, it disappoints and discourages me to see my peers — intelligent, interesting girls my age — completely demean themselves, stumbling through Powelton Village in the highest heels and the shortest skirts. Why do women forget to respect themselves on October 31^st? Sure, most girls go to parties on other weekends, too, but from what I’ve observed, they dress much more modestly when there’s no special occasion… or excuse.

Perhaps I’m judging too harshly. After all, Halloween is an opportunity to break out of one’s comfort zone, becoming someone who drastically differs from your regular identity. Which brings me to another point: it seems that most costumes that girls wear fall into two categories: professions or re-imagined childhood looks. In regards to the former, it’s common to see girls dressed as policewomen, firewomen, athletes, referees, maids; anything you can think of, there’s a shorter, tighter version of it available on Halloween. For the latter, you might see girls dressed as princesses, animals, fairies, Barbies, and all things seemingly innocent, like Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz or Little Bo Peep. I find it disturbing to see the concept of childhood so brazenly sexualized, and the distortion of professional uniforms into something that barely resembles their inspiration is simply degrading to women. Why do women dress as slutty doctors, when we are all capable of going to medical school? Why do we dress as cops as we ironically partake in illegal activities? Why does society sexualize everything, right down to the most innocent fairytale characters? The concept of women as sex objects is not a new one — through societal influences, women are taught that the less clothing they wear, the more attention they’ll receive — but in the past few years, it seems that this long-lasting trend has reached a new extreme. Costumes have come to resemble nothing at all; it appears to me that most girls leave their houses dressed in black underwear, plop a pair of cat ears on their head, and call it a kitten costume. Replace the cat ears with devil’s horns, and boom, you’re sexy Satan. Girls seem to be clones of one another, each one wearing less clothing than the last. What’s going to happen next year? Body paint, and no clothing whatsoever?

Meanwhile, men, unaware and unaffected by the societal pull toward all things inappropriately sexual, still have the right idea, for the most part. When I see frat boys dressed as Michael Jackson, Jon Gosselin, heck, even Lady Gaga, it gives me hope. It makes me believe that maybe one day, women will set the stilettos aside and pick up some fabric and make a hilarious, creative, and appropriate costume, just like many of us did when we were younger. The influence of pop culture on Halloween can be positive, or it can lead to something distasteful. Humorous costumes inspired by celebrities are one thing, but taking the lead from Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan does not reflect the strong, smart women we are. We’ve come so, so far. Why revert back to outdated concepts of women as over-sexualized, submissive beings? We’re college students. Let’s show the world we’ve learned something, something that doesn’t have to do with sex.

Julia Perch is a junior at Drexel University studying English. She is currently the editorial co-op student for the Drexel Publishing Group and the managing editor of DPG Online. She can be reached at pg@drexel.edu