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?

Final Exam: Voting in the Dark

Natural Disasters have always rattled our nation. I remember the devastation of Hurricane Katrina when I was younger and much more recently, Hurricane Sandy. When searching for my artifact, I came across this image that I think represents the media’s view on the superstorm. I believe that this photograph is an important contemporary American artifact because it portrays the theme of resilience. 

This picture shows a woman in New York preparing to vote but there is no power so the Election Official is using a headlamp to see the ballots. It is important to note that the woman is elderly in the picture because oftentimes, the elderly are seen as weak. Instead, this woman is coming out to vote even though she may face hardships because of the storm. Another interesting detail is the light that only appears to shine on the emergency ballots. To me, this represents the true importance of having a voice even in times of disaster. I think the caption below is also worth examining. It says, “Election Official Christina Fox uses a headlamp to illuminate emergency ballots and check voters in while shivering in the dark on Nov. 6, 2012 in Yorktown, N.Y.” The use of the word “shivering” makes the viewer feel pain for these people and also shows that they are pushing through.

This image reminded me of Kurt Vonnegut's explanation of the redemptive arc in his short story titled “Here is a Lesson in Creative Writing”. He explains, “[The story]: Somebody gets into trouble, gets out of it again. It’s not accidental that the line ends up higher than where it began”(Vonnegut 349). In the case of Hurricane Sandy, I believe this can be used as a model to understand the reaction of the American public. This story would go:People on the East Coast were affected, there were power outages, damage, and death but the media is portraying the positive end by showing that the people are resilient by coming out to vote. In other words, their voices are not being silenced by the storm. In the picture, the elderly woman provides an “encouraging ending” to the public because of her perseverance.

Another connection I saw was to William James story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omalas”. In the story, the main question is if a society should give up the happiness of one for the happiness of others. Of the one unhappiness, “They all know it is there, all the people of Omalas. Some of them have come to see it,others are content merely to know it is there(James 282). To me, this can be interpreted as the American public (happiness) and those affected by Sandy(unhappiness). Many people donated money to aid them yet what more could have been done? Americans may think this is not my problem. The woman sitting at the table checking in voters exemplifies the idea of helping out and she has walked away from Omalas.

This image can be further explained by Molly Klare’s blogpost titled “The Nation by Storm” She writes,” I would say an American value is to tough things out…Americans in general are hardheaded. Ever since people came to America and had to make it on their own, they have been making it anyway they could”.The people who continued to go out to vote in areas affected by Sandy are “toughing things out” and want to show that they are resilient. The media goes out of its way to show positive problem solving through this picture rather than continuing to focus on pictures of the wreckage that is usually associated with the storm.

Helicopter Parents

A literal interpretation of Helicopter Parents

As second semester of Junior year rapidly approaches, myself and many of my peers are beginning to feel the pressure of the college search. As cheesy as this may sound, for many of us, college will be a time where we can embark on a new chapter of our lives (away from our parents at last!) But what would you do if you felt like your parents were interfering too much on your "new life"?

A few days ago, my dad showed me an article that he wanted to hear my take on. The article described how a college student, Aubrey Ireland, felt that her parents were too involved in her life that she actually won a court case that put a restraining order on her parents. According to the article, Aubrey's parents set up tracking software on her phone and computer to see who she had been talking to and what sites she was visiting. Already, this seems a little bit ridiculous. The student is an adult, living away from home so why should her parents feel the need to monitor her every action? If this isn't enough, her parents would also drive nearly 600 miles from their home to arrive unannounced at the college and go to some of their daughters theater performances. The parents justified their actions by saying that they were worried that Aubrey was using illegal drugs,was being promiscuous, and was having mental issues. Aubrey denied these allegations and said that everything was under control. She wanted to experience life on her own and if she were to make the wrong decisions, then the consequences would fall on her.

As Americans, I feel like our society puts a large emphasis on privacy. Everyone has the right to keep information or parts of their lives hidden, This case is especially interesting because it deals with the relationship between parents and child. These helicopter parents seem to have good intentions but where should the line be drawn?

Where is it Needed Most?

During the holiday season, there is a sense of joy and happiness that seems to flow around. People often reflect upon their actions in the past year that is coming to an end. With these thoughts, during the holiday season especially, people make an effort to help the less fortunate and give to charity. But how should one decide where to give? There are so many causes out there that it can often be difficult to sift through and find the "most important ones". I was reading an opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune whose author thinks that American's donations should be given to the many people in poverty in developing countries  rather than giving to institutions at home in the United States.

The first question that arose when I read this article was, What about the people in the United States who are in poverty? The author, Peter Singer, argues that we should give to people in extreme poverty. "Extreme poverty, as defined by the World Bank, means living on less than $1.25 a day"(Singer). This number is much more common in developing countries than in the United States, because it is a relatively rich country, so therefore less of the population is in this intense situation of need here. Although his reasoning seems to be logical, I feel like Americans who are donating money should first consider problems in their own country rather than those across the Atlantic. The author argues this again by saying that people should give where they would have the most impact; developing countries.

I do agree with Singer that money should be given to more direct causes rather than already wealthy institutions. The example he brings up is one that I think about as well. Singer is a professer at Princeton where a vast majority of the student body was exposed to an excellent education and he does not always see the importance of giving to an institution that is already thriving when he could give his money elsewhere to places that could give as many children possible at least some form of an education. From this example, Singer is saying that he would prefer to donate where the need is greatest. Do you think that there are some causes that are more deserving than others? How would you decide what causes are the most needy?

Is Autism to Blame?

By now, almost every person in the United States has heard about the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that took the lives of 26. This tragedy has appeared to overwhelm the country with talks of increased gun control and better security measures in schools. Although gun control is a huge topic and one that is of utmost importance, I feel that another topic related to the shooting is not receiving enough focus. I was reading an article that mentioned the recent spike of hate towards children with Autism. You may be wondering how this can possibly be related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Well,the shooter (Adam Lanza) was diagnosed with a form of Asperger's. This condition is on the Autism Spectrum but at the very low end so therefore is not very severe. People with Asperger's often exhibit social awkwardness but can still function rather normally. On the other hand, people with extreme Autism may have impairments in their communication. In Lanza's case, his form was not extreme but still played a major role in his life.

People were quick to assume that one of the reasons for Lanza's violent actions were related to his Autism but advocates of organizations like "Autism Speaks" are trying to get the message across that this is not the case. The President of Autism Speaks recently wrote a statement that reads,"Several media outlets are reporting that the shooter might have had an autism spectrum disorder. Some have also inaccurately reported that there is a linkage between autism and planned violence. We ask that blame not be placed on people with disabilities or disorders in the midst of these types of tragedies". True to her words, many doctors have agreed upon the fact that Autism is not related to this type of violence. So why then are Americans so quick to blame this disease? I think that a possibility is that with such a tragic event like this one, people do not want to sit with the feeling of an unknown cause and want to find a scapegoat.

In relation to this misleading assumption, there have recently been concerns that more children with Autism will be bullied. Students may  falsely identify the link between Autism and violence and would further exclude these kids from school life. This study found that 46 percent of middle school and high school students with Autism have reported being bullied. These students are already "easy" targets and now with this new association tacked on, it seems as though children with this disability will never be able to escape a cycle of exclusion. Advocates of Autism awareness organizations feel that teachers should better educate students about the condition. To what extent do you think this would help the situation? Do you think this raises an even bigger question about the American's desire to blame?