The Best Picture Goes To...Michelle Obama?

Last night, my family and I, like millions of Americans tuned in to the Acadamy Awards. By 10:30, our patience had dwindled down to almost nothing while waiting for the biggest award, Best Picture, to be revealed. We were quite surprised to see the screen turn to our first lady Michelle Obama in a beautiful gown in the White House with the envelope. I was confused at first as to why SHE was presenting the award considering that it is usually some famous actor. By this time, we had put it together that she would undoubtedly be mixing in politics into the Oscars. I found an article from the Washington Post that talked about the backlash that she received from her surprise appearance  Obama's message was about how important the arts are. This message seemed to tie in perfectly with the overall theme of the Oscars.

Her controversial guest appearance could not go without criticism. Many critics said that it was not her place to be; that The First Lady should not have been in Hollywood at all. Also, it was interesting that the video with Michelle Obama at the White House also included military personell standing behind her. If she had just been talking about the arts and there were no military personell in the background, there still would have been backlash but I don't think that some people would have had such an intense reaction to her seemingly harmless presence. This whole incident seemed to remark on the idea of separation  Some Americans did not feel comfortable with mixing politics and their entertainment. I would argue that even the television and movies that we see everyday may in fact contain commentary about our society and can relate to politics. Do you think that Michelle's appearance at the Oscars was out of line?

NRA Aiming at a Surprisingly Young Audience

Recently there has been even more attention on the issue of gun laws because of tragedies that have swept the nation like the Sandy Hook School shooting. The most well known proponents of keeping gun rights is the NRA (National Rifle Association). According to this article, the NRA has released an iPhone app that is targeted at a younger audience. This app called "Practice Range" it is quite self explanatory considering that the app consists of virtual shooting ranges. What is even more remarkable is that the app is rated for ages 4+ in the App Store. Of course there are countless shooting games that exist primarily in video game form and many of these are rated mature( ages 17 and up). The difference is though that the shooting video games are often very gory and brutal whereas the purpose of the app is,"[to] instill safe and responsible ownership through fun challenges and realistic situations. It strikes the right balance of gaming and safety education, allowing you to enjoy the most authentic experience possible"according to an NRA spokesperson. The use of the word "authentic" already does not sit well in my mind. Even if the game does not include shooting people, it is supposed to simulate shooting a target. Does the NRA really believe this content is alright for 4 year olds? I do have to adress that in my community, I feel like people are very close minded and may not understand when it comes to gun rights. Many people around here do not practice shooting as a sport and only see the negatives. By putting this app in the market, the NRA is not promoting violence rather a sport or a hobby. Do you think the NRA was out of line by releasing this app?

A Muslim As Your "Average" American?

Recently in class we have been discussing the massive influence that Superbowl commercials have. These commercials themselves are watched almost as closely as the game. This whole conversation got me thinking about the power of TV advertising. I read this article from the New York Times that described a (non-superbowl) commercial that had a unique "twist". The Prudential advertisement was for its retirement plan in the "Day One" campaign. The campaign follows real people on "day one" of their retirement. The commercial featured a normal American man who was embarking on his first day of retirement after his career of 19 years. This man is seen enjoying "normal"American pastimes such as fishing with his grandchildren and sitting down to a wholesome family meal. The name of the man is Mujahid Abdul-Rashid; and yes he is Muslim.
The commerical is presenting this Muslim-American in a way that nearly every American of his age could relate to. Instead of being seen as a "threat to national security" as, we hate to believe it but, many stereotypes make him out to be, he is in a position that allows for him to be seen as a "normal" American. Mr. Abdul Rashid commented on the fact that being Muslim got him the commercial by saying, "I'd never thought about the ad in those terms, because the thrust of the commercial had nothing to do with my religion whatsoever"(New York Times). Can this really be true? I feel like the American people are trying to become more accepting of Muslims and seeing a commercial with a Muslim categorized as a "normal" American would only enhance this process. In other words, this commercial seems like a way of sending a message about the way American society should be. The commercial presented a strong man who was not afraid of his identity. Does this not sound like a definition of American to you?

Academic Freedom

I recently read an article that reminded me a lot of a topic that we discussed in the beginning of the year relating to Civil Liberties. In this discussion, we debated if reciting "The Pledge of Allegiance" (that mentions God) was obstructing the American ideal of Separation of Church and State. The article that I read talked about how four states are considering new legislation about teaching the theory of evolution in science classes and also bringing up God in the creation story. What initially struck me was that, according to the article, "the proposed laws were framed around the concept of "academic freedom". The phrase "academic freedom" seems so vague. Is this insinuating that in order to have "academic freedom" some religious explanation is required?

The main root of this argument is that teachers are struggling to find enough scientific evidence of Evolution and Creation so in an attempt to clarify these concepts with the students, they will teach from a religious perspective. This is  understandable reasoning but many critics think that this would be going outside of the boundaries of the basic public school institutions that can only exist if there is no clash between Church and State. Many critics also fear that this legislation could lead to a rise in the Creationist form of teaching in schools. In case you do not know the term, Creationism is the religious belief that the world was created by a supernatural being. The Public Education System has had a difficult time drawing the line between religious beliefs and scientific evidence when dealing with controversial topics such as Evolution or Creation. The Public Education System would like to keep it's purely science based curriculum but it is a challenge to remain purely base on evidence when teachers feel like their students are not grasping these certain concepts and have a lot of unanswerable questions. Do you think that these laws, if passed, could impact the future of the Public Education System?