For Your Entertainment

In response to Ben Chang's "Selfish"

For those who don't appreciate the Royal Wedding and think that it's a huge waste of time, you may be right, it might be a waste of time and money. To others, it's a big deal because Prince William and Kate Middleton are the face of the future royal family. To the people of the England, their monarchs are huge public and historical figures. It's no surprise that this wedding will be a significant moment in history as well as pop culture. This was no ordinary wedding; it was also a ceremony that is taken very seriously. If you I can agree with you that although it is tragic and unfortunately of the events that occurred around the time of the royal wedding, but when did people become so cynical? Good and bad things are going to happen, and I've heard many complaints about how much the wedding costs and 'how can you spend so much money on something when you can do other things with it' but I say to those people, what have you done to help - besides complain?

The Royal Wedding did generate millions of dollars of a lot of people, including media outlets from all over the world. What people have to remember is that these news programs are also a business, and in business you have to generate revenue and that often times means that you're going to have to cover entertainment. There are networks where news is reported constantly, stations such as CNN. Think about it, how many hours a day do you spend watching CNN compared to how many hours you're watching MTV or your favorite television shows? Truth is, unless you're interested you won't be interpreted from your channel surfing by CNN.

What is the difference between the Royal Wedding and the Superbowl? Need I remind you that the Superbowl happens every year, while a Royal Wedding happens every couple of decades - and it's only a select few that are truly significant. Every year the Superbowl generates millions of dollars, and companies spend top dollar for airtime during halftime. Why not use that money towards other issues in the world? Had a tragic event had happened during the last Superbowl, do you still believe that it would be unnecessary and have the same opinion on it's media coverage? Probably not, the Superbowl interests you and has some significance to you.

The similarities of both the Royal Wedding and the Superbowl is that they bring the people of their country together. It is a sense of tradition and patriotism to the people of England and us here in America. It is important to keep broadcasting such events because they make the people feel proud, and happy. It is still important to be informed of the issues of the world and try to be proactive in aiding, but it'll be easier if we're doing it while we're happy. Too much of a good thing can be bad, and too much of the bad thing can be just plain depressing.

The information is out there, it is selfish for the people to expect to sit on their couches and expect information to given to them. The news stations should inform us of what's happening in the world, the good and bad in moderation. From there, it is our job to dig deeper if we feel strongly about an particular issue. It is just yet another bad image of Americans being lazy. Just think of it as a hybrid ACC course. We receive information that is thought to be the most important and beneficial in class, but it is also part of the course to do supplemental research and studying out of class.

Trump'd

What is with Donald Trump lately? This man's ego has completely peaked and has made him so bored that he has taken to irrational ventures -- such as the 2012 presidential campaign. Does that even make sense? Trump's first and only political strategy thus far as been to join the anti-Obama Americans by attacking the current President and his credential standing to be the President. I not sure about the rest of America, but I wouldn't trust a man who builds power and a campaign on the negative aspects of others. Of course, this is what American politics is already, but at least some know how to play the game better than Trump.

Would you vote for Trump in next year's election? I honestly think this insanely rich man think because he can run multimillion-dollar businesses, he can run the country. Although there are great financial aspects to the government, what could he possible do? A pro would be if he could stimulate our economy, but smarter American’s would know that this recession is only a result of other outside governmental issues. I'm not so sure Trump will have the adequate experience and knowledge of law and history to make the most positive decisions for the people. The average American knows little about politics and the process of how American politics works. Donald Trump is above average due to his bank account and business mind, but he probably has the same politic I.Q. has the rest of us.

With the reveal of Obama's birth certificate, what will Donald's next platform be?

The Celebrity Factor

Celebrities and politics, is the blind leading the blind? In class we've talked about how most Americans are not educated in the political science and government, therefore their vote may hinder larger problems. Think of it as kind of like guessing on an exam where you're asked to match answers to definitions. If you get one wrong, it's a chain reaction to other problems being incorrect.

So what do celebrities contribute to politics? Similar to fusing entertainment and news, celebs involved in political races and issues causes for the same effect. Viewers tune in to see their favorite celebrity or hear their celebrities talking about a particular issue then they may feel like they want to get involved as well. The want for involvement is great, but how do we know if they're just listening to what they're told on television by a certain celebrity?

For example, during the 2008 political campaign with Obama and McCain, celebrity involvement was very high. I remember seeing many celebrities and public figures getting together in rallies, campaign ads, public service announcements, on their own platforms such as televisions shows, social media, etc. One on the top of my head would have to be Oprah. She was a hardcore Obama supporter from the get go. Since Oprah is a huge celebrity and has a great deal of influence on the average American who watches her show and participates in her book club. With the backing of Oprah, Obama's campaign points will be expressed to a wide range of people and it won't have to come directly from him. People will be getting their news about the campaign from someone that they have allowed into their homes and hearts. With that kind of trust, they trust Oprah and her backing of Obama. So more likely than none, they will be open to Obama's points and be more lenient towards voting for him.

So is celebrity sponsorship good or bad? Both. Having certain celebrities for or against you can really hurt your campaign depending on the reputation and creditability of the celebrity. I'm sure not very many Americans would take a political figure seriously if he Lindsay Lohan backing them. But maybe celebrities are the future to getting information to the younger generation. If they see people who they look up to, no matter if they're a great role model or not, being involved in politics and giving it a "cool" factor, it might spark an interest. An interest to be involved and educated about government.

Marriage; A Controversy

This article by an unknown author, mainly because it didn't say and I couldn't find one, talks about the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA as I'll be referring to it. The author criticizes DOMA, stating that it was created during a time when pro-homosexuality was taboo, more so then now, and ultimately created to gain the popularity of voters at the time. Now, during times when homosexuality has really began to hit the spotlight hard and gained the attention of many Americans. To be honest, I believe it’s always been a taboo topic, but as of recently, people are beginning to feel comfortable talking about it. I feel like we've heard a lot of the arguments of the opposing side for years and now people are really beginning to stand up for a new progressive idea of equality.

In the article, the author targets those who may be on the fence about same sex marriage by stating some concerning contradictions. With the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell earlier this year, once soldiers are allowed to serve openly and freely the question arises of, "what about their spouses? How will the housing, benefits and burials play out?"

Other examples the author points outs in the article are backed by other laws set in place that would ultimately be compromised as well. The author states if DOMA is not Congress' right to force upon and change, but ultimately comes down the power of the states, then what about the new health care law? With criticism after criticism of how republicans and antigay government officials play with hypocrisy when it comes down to the gay agenda really discredits their claims.

As for me, I'm not as informed and educated in the politics to really understand the full length of some of the claims the author mentions because I don't have the adequate background information. I do feel because homosexuality is condemned in the bible, it is going to be a long argument that will not be settled overnight. Stating all of the facts and making a good argument will not change a persons view if they are strongly religious or what not. At least not overnight, acceptance and understanding with the idea of this modern equality may take many years. The author does make some great points and arguments in the pro-gay corner, though.

The fact of the matter is, I feel as though our government is heavily hypocritical. We say that there is not a central religion but the actions and views of government officials and the people of this nation prove otherwise. I don't believe there will ever be separation between church and state because religion is the driving force for many people.

Source -- In Defense of Marriage, for All.

Freedom isn't our gift, it's their right

The article I read and decided to write about is kind of ironic. The author of the article did exactly what I'm asked to do today; write about an article that critiques another. 'Their Victory, Not Ours' written by Aaron Ross, whom is a freelance journalist from Philadelphia, talks about an article in Slate written by Eliot Spitzer entitled "America is Freedom, and Freedom is Winning." Like Ross and Spitzer, I am optimistic for the people of the Middle East in their efforts towards freedom and like Ross, I agree that their drive may come from American's but it isn't the only driving force. Because they don't want to emulate the same government of other countries not does mean that they want to completely emulate ours. Sure there are certain aspects of our government that are great and then there are aspects that could be changed. Isn't that what the founding fathers did whenever they began writing the 'sacred documents' of our country? Why is it that many politicians think that American government is god's gift to the world? Maybe it's pride, or ignorance of the times. With each generation, the youth can hold the wheel and we can steer it either way. The revolutionaries of the Middle East are comparable to the American youth. They're both fresh with new ideas on modern issues, whether the current administration agrees or not.

Ross states that Spitzer views American's aid in the current situation as an apology for past mistakes to the Middle East for feeding money and such to certain autocrats isn't going to cut. I feel as though America may be backtracking to right a wrong but to boast about it and claim it as another American history is disgusting, but that's what America does. Because Spitzer was once a senator, of course he is going to believe that our country has done a job well done. But in reality, we should be helping now because it we kept freedom from them for so long. America had its' time of revolutions and now it's time to let others do the same.

sources: Aaron Ross: Their Victory, Not Ours

Eliot Spitzer: America is Freedom, and Freedom is Winning

Gay Marriage

It is the state’s job to set marriage laws but the government should have a general law pertaining to how the state laws are carried out - such as whether or not other states must recognize marriage licenses from other states.

Laws should be made to protect the people, benefit to ones safely and followed by all citizens because everyone is equal. So a law that denies the rights of certain citizens would not be right because of certain religious beliefs. The Constitution was written for all people and not just for religious groups, if it were, then that would go against separation of church and state and also against the Fourteenth Amendment which states that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Civil unions and marriages are not the same because civil unions do not offer the same benefits and protections as marriages do to heterosexual couples in different states. Having civil unions was taking one step forward, but the inequality of it compared to marriages is taking one step back. Because marriage is seen as a religious institution, shouldn’t all heterosexual couples that marry be religious? Why is it okay for non-religious heterosexuals to be allowed this “sacred” part of religion when they do not practice/nor believe in a certain religion as opposed to homosexuals that do but cannot share in this part of religion?

I believe that the church is fighting against many things that should not be in their hands but in the hands of all United States citizens. We should all play in a role in what our country allows and does not allow but we are also held responsible to research and listen to other ideas and make our own decision and question all other ideas before we make a decision. Especially one that effects countless other Americans because it is each of our rights to be able to live in freedom and happiness so long as we are not harming others, so how is two men or two women getting married hurting you?

The Other Women Should Be Lady Liberty

It's not that uncommon for scandals about politicians to leak to the masses every so often. I find these oddly humorous when it does. Don't get me wrong, someone else's pain isn't my pleasure. I find them humorous because the scandals involving politicians on the tabloids often times involve an anti-homosexual politician and their boy toy. The recent sex scandal to hit the blogs involves Representative Christopher Lee of New York. Rep Lee recently was caught soliciting a relationship with a women on the infamous Craigslist 'women seeking men' section of the website. The women was looking for someone who was emotionally and financially stable, guess the economy must be hitting her hard, too. I know that we all except the government to fix the unemployment issue, so I guess she took it into your own hands, went straight to the source and bagged her politician? Unfortunately for her, this one was already accounted for. Naturally, the other women did what most of us in this generation does - a little stalking. After Googling her prince, she realized he was lying to her and got her revenge by sending the emails to the online rag.

Representative Lee's camp has not yet made a statement and he has resigned from office.

I guess this post isn't full of information life changing content, but it just comes to show you that our government isn't perfect and neither are the people we elect. It's important to research and educate yourself on your representatives but also realize that they're human, too. People all make mistakes, and our government does, too.

Maybe Representative Lee should just apologize and continue doing his best for the state of New York, or maybe he is lacking some morals and should have stepped down. Let's just hope whoever replaces him is more honorable.

One of my friend's retweeted this tweet and I thought it was hilarious, I had to share!

Source New York Times + Twitter