Just Another Audacious Family Guy Skit

The Sunday before last a very controversial Family Guy episode was aired. The episode featured the awkward son Chris falling for a girl with Down's Syndrome. During their date Chris asks, "So what do your parents do?" and his date reply's, "My dad's an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska". Palin was immediately outraged, deeming the episode a jab at her youngest son Trig who has Down's Syndrome. Trig's siblings also expressed their outrage to the national media. Some on the other hand are saying that this episode is being taken too seriously. The 39 year old actress Andrea Fay Friedman who did the voice for Chris' date has Down's Syndrome and has surprisingly strong support for this particular Family Guy episode. She thinks that Palin is taking it too seriously and needs to, "learn to laugh". She then went even further and insulted Palin, "My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Gov. Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes." Others agree that Palin is over exaggerating her anger in an attempt to gain sympathy. While interviewing Seth MacFarlane, Bill Maher said, "She [Palin] is he queen of fake outrage ... whether it's you or David Letterman, it's always got to be somebody."
What do you think? Was this really an attack on Palin's son? Is Palin over reacting? Is she using this as a mean to gain sympathy?

POST!

A Mother 1st, Soldier 2nd

about a week ago I found a cnn article that I think is atleast slightly relevant to the woman's rights topics we covered with our Herstory projects. The article describes Alexis Hutchinson's uncommon predicament. She is both the single mother of a ten month old baby and a soldier who was scheduled to deploy to Iraq in November. When her plane was set to take off she was at home caring for her son Kamani who she feared would be placed in foster care if she left. She is now facing serious desertion charges which the Army justified by saying she had plenty of time to set up arrangements for the care of her son. Hutchinson had initially made an arrangement with her mother, but she later backed out saying she was too busy with her house run day care and simply did not have the time to watch the child. Hutchinson was granted a 30 day extension to find care for her son, but still was not ready to deploy when the deadline came. The Army claims that an investigation showed Hutchinson never intended to return to duty (you better not be laughing) and was deliberately looking for a way to avoid service.
This situation poses thought provoking questions on two fronts. Firstly, is Hutchinson actually using her child as an excuse to avoid service? Or is she a devoted mother being torn from her child? Secondly, what is the right action for this situation? Should the army have the authority to tear a single mother from her newborn child? Should soldiers in this situation be excused from duty? Should the Army be required to support these mother-soldiers during their absence from service?

BLOG!

Question Time for America

I can't say I'm an expert when it comes to politics, I often find that I know too little to take a stance on important issues. However, I don know that politicians are pro's when it comes to dancing around questions, insulting and exposing flaws in their opponents, avoiding their weaknesses, and overplaying their strengths. It seems only once in a blue moon that we the people get concise, truthful answers from our elected officials. This npr article offers an appealing solution. In England, it's known as "Question Time". It is a time designated for Parliament to argue openly, and it can get a little messy. The idea gained serious support after Obama's question/answer session (1.5 hours, skip around a bit) at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore last weekend. I personally think the idea is great. People get a real look at their elected officials when they see them in open debate. These days politicians rarely even contribute in writing the artificial speeches the deliver. "Question Time" would give people instant, direct answers in "real people" dialect. Whenever I hear a politician speak I get really annoyed. I would much rather have a politician talk like he/she normally would than dress up their message with exclamations, false compassion, and unnecessarily fancy adjectives. When I listened to Obama's State of the Union Address and heard him say, "So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences" I thought to myself, "Really? You really said 'And what the American people hope' contemplated what you had just said and decided 'hope' wasn't moving enough and added 'what they deserve' " I just feel like we're not getting a fair deal. If we elect someone to be President, they should give us real answers like real people. What do you think? Would "Question Time" be a good thing for American? Incidentally, Obama's not up for it. Would it make our political system too casual? When does casual become too casual? Or anything else you want to say.

POST!

The "R" Word

Today in Business class we read a discussed an article concerning an offensive comment made by White House Chief of Staff and New Trier alum Rahm Emanuel at a closed door meeting attended by White House aides and the heads of liberal special-interest groups. During the meeting the leaders of the liberal special-interest groups explained their plan to run ads against conservative Democrats who don't support health care reform. The notoriously brash Emanuel was quite clear expressing his disfavor of the special-interest groups' plan, deeming it, "f****** retarded". Emanuel's vulgar comment shocked and outraged many Americans. Sarah Palin, mother to a child with Down syndrome, was particularly offended. She quickly called on President Obama to fire Rahm Emanuel for using what she considers the equivalent of a racial slur, ""Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the 'N-word' or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable". Recognizing his mistake, Emanuel contacted Time Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics and advocate for the eradication of the "R" word, to apologize. This article had me thinking/questioning a few things. I have no doubt that Sarah Palin, mother to a mentally disabled child, took great offense to Rahm's comment. But could she have recognized the situation as a great opportunity to attack the Obama Administration and therefore over exaggerated her outrage? Is the "R" word actually as bad as a racial slur? Was Rahm Emanuel's apology sufficient or does more need to be done for him to fully redeem himself?

POST!