Please stand clear of the doors.

What images come to your mind when you think of McDonald’s? Do you see golden arches? How about a Big Mac with fries? Or maybe you see a middle aged clown peddling hamburgers to kids?

Ronald McDonald, the main mascot for fast food giant McDonald’s, has appeared in advertisements for the restaurant chain since 1963. Recently, critics have spoken out against Ronald, saying he “promotes unhealthy eating” to kids, and should be phased out.

However, the Associated Press is reporting that McDonald’s is saying Ronald isn’t going anywhere any time soon. One reason they give for this is that “he is a force for good” as the face of the Ronald McDonald House Charities, which help families be close to their kids while undergoing treatments for illnesses.

While I can understand the outcry against Ronald, it is pretty unrealistic to expect McDonald’s to retire him. The clown has been a staple of McDonald’s advertisements since the sixties, he won’t be hanging up his clown shoes overnight.

McDonald’s food is, for the most part, notoriously unhealthy. So having a “kid-friendly” mascot selling this food to kids is more than a bit eyebrow raising, which is why he has been compared with the retired “Joe Camel”, the former mascot for Camel cigarettes. Camel was accused of marketing to kids through the Joe Camel character, and he was forced to retire in 1997.

So, is Ronald McDonald guilty, or not? I don’t know about kids these days, but when I was that age, I didn’t want to go to McDonald’s because Ronald McDonald told me so. It was not a clown attracting me to McDonald’s, but rather the sweet delight of a greasy cheeseburger and the possibility of getting a cool toy with my Happy Meal. Actually, I thought Ronald McDonald was pretty creepy, and I think most people (kids and adults alike) do. So, instead of persecuting Ronald, maybe we should be pointing fingers at the marketing department at McDonald’s, who bribe children with toys to eat their food and become obese. Or maybe, McDonald’s should just make healthier food. Don’t blame the clown.

There has long been a stigma associated with driving under the influence of alcohol, and it is about time that same stigma applied to texting while driving. The Associated Press is reporting that a new program is being initiated by the Department of Motor Vehicles in Vermont, which takes teens through an obstacle course to teach them the dangers of texting while driving.

To many teens, and even adults, texting has become second nature. Without our cell phones with us, we feel cut off from the world. However, many people don’t realize that sending a text message while operating a car can have deadly consequences. Twenty-five states have made texting while driving illegal, and the other twenty-five should follow suit. Texting while driving is dangerous and irresponsible, and this new program hopes to educate teens on this reality.

Teens in the program drive a golf cart through an obstacle course of cones and signs, once without a cell phone, and a second time while text messaging. The participating teens claim to have made few errors without a phone, and experience a significant increase in errors while they were texting. The program seems to have worked for these teens, and hopefully it continues to educate people about this dangerous common habit.

> ><

As cell phones become more and more prevalent in our day-to-day life, the chances of being in a vehicle accident caused by negligent driving due to texting skyrockets. I know that I can’t even walk in a straight line while I’m texting, let alone drive a car. I think this program does the trick for many drivers, and should be implemented in other states. The more people understand the consequences, the less likely they are to cause the problem.

>

It seems that the past year has seen more celebrity extramarital affairs than ever before. From Jon Gosselin, to David Letterman, to Tiger Woods, and most recently Jesse James – the public eats these stories up, and demand even more juicy gossip, which the tabloids are more than happy to provide us with. It is unlikely that more celebs are cheating now than they were before. The most reasonable explanation for this is that the media is more relentless now than they have ever been, which makes it close to impossible for celebrities to be able to keep a secret. In this cultural climate, it’s shocking that Sandra Bullock was able to keep a secret of her adoption for so long. Should limited privacy come with the territory of being a celebrity, or should the media back off and let these famous people live in peace?

In March of 2010, it seemed as if Sandra Bullock was on top of the world. Having just won the “Best Actress” Academy Award for her role in “The Blind Side”, public interest in the actress was at an all time high. Bullock and her biker husband Jesse James appeared to be a happy golden couple, even if they were a tad on the unconventional side. News broke soon after of James’ extramarital affair. Bullock wasn’t seen in public for almost two months afterward, leading to tabloid assumption that she was closed off in her home, humiliated and mournful. Because of the media’s spinning of her story, Bullock’s joyful appearance on the cover of People Magazine, with her newly adopted baby came as quite a surprise.

While it’s remarkable that Bullock was able to keep this secret from the press for so long, it is really not right that she had to go to so much trouble to do so. Reportedly, keeping this secret under wraps was an ordeal, and Bullock’s team had to go to such lengths as using decoy cars to fool paparazzi. Ultimately, her life is her own business and she shouldn’t feel a responsibility to the world to spill the private details of her life. Most of us would object to having our lives smeared across the Internet and the check out at Stop + Shop.

Sandra Bullock, her fellow celebrities, and citizens of the world all have a right to privacy. The details of someone’s life shouldn’t be for sale, and no one should feel that anyone’s business is public domain, no matter how interesting it is. Congratulations to Sandra Bullock for doing what few celebrities can, and control her own privacy and public image. However, if celebrities want the gory details of their lives on public display, which so many of them do, that’s their own prerogative.

I walked into Border’s Saturday afternoon, and I was greeted at the door with a table full of Kitty Kelley’s new biography of Oprah Winfrey, simply titled Oprah: A Biography. In an interview with CNN, Kelley says that, “has more influence on our lives, possibly, than the government.” While, that might seem like a dramatic overstatement, used to drum up sales for he new book, Ms. Kelley does have a point. Oprah Winfrey is not only a pop culture icon, and fabulously wealthy, she is also one of the most influential people in the entire world. With a new tell-all claiming that Oprah isn’t the person we think she is, should we rethink her influence?

Oprah in 1986

If you’re one of the few people who has never heard of Oprah Winfrey, you should know that she rose to fame in the 1980’s as the host of her own nationally broadcast talk show, “The Oprah Winfrey Show”, where Oprah encourages her audience to “life their best lives”. Her empire has since expanded to include, among other things, a production company, a book club, a magazine, and a cable channel. Oprah is also well known for her charity, earning the title of most philanthropic celebrity.

Kitty Kelley’s unauthorized new biography has been creating controversy since it was announced. It contains many accusations against Oprah, and glimpses into her life that she would not want the public to know about. The most shocking of these claims, to me at least, is that Oprah has exaggerated tales of her childhood. Oprah claims so have grown up in poverty, subject to abuse and even molestation. For many people, Oprah’s rags-to-riches story is part of what makes her such an inspirational figure. Kelley tells that when she interviewed Oprah’s cousin Katherine Carr Esters, she said, “Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and roaches I have no idea. I’ve confronted her and asked, ‘Why do you tell such lies?’ Oprah told me, ‘That’s what people want to hear. The truth is boring.’”

Kitty Kelley, Oprah Winfrey

When reading an unauthorized, tell-all, such as Kelley’s, it is important to consider the source. Kelley knows she can make money just by putting Oprah’s name in the title. So, without the input of Oprah herself, it cannot be a completely reliable biography. Oprah is so influential, that it is unlikely that this new book will do too much damage to her career. Oprah does a lot of good, and none of Kelley’s claims cancel that out. Even Kelley herself claims to have a “great deal of respect for [Oprah]”. It is often said that no publicity is bad publicity, so once again – Oprah is the winner.

The Independent is reporting that many women in Afghanistan are going against the world of the Taliban, and learning school subjects, and to read. Typically, in this part of the world, women reading and learning is not just frowned upon, it is a serious crime. The fact that these women are going against the Taliban to improve themselves shows a tremendous amount of bravery, which also applies to their teachers, such as Ehsanullah Ehsan who has “devoted his life to educating women in some of the most culturally conservative places on earth.”

By saying that they are being taught lessons from the Qu’ran, the Islamic sacred text, husbands and leaders allow the lessons to go on. They meet in secret locations, and on top of learning to read, women learn subjects such as science, ethics, and history. To call this ‘dangerous’ would be an understatement. The consequences would be dire for the women, and the men who are helping them if they were discovered by the Taliban.

Ehsanullah Ehsan justifies his work with these women by saying “…why do women have to wear burqa, not men? Why do women have to be treated so inhumanly? My mother was the one who loved me most. It was my mother who nursed me. Why alienate half of humankind? So, I thought, I have to do what I can do.” It is a shame that all men in Afghanistan do not view this issue in the way that Ehsan does, and it speaks to his character that he risks his life and freedom to help opressed women.

I believe that women are equal to men, and should be treated as such in every part of the world. Women have as much of a right to be educated and hold jobs and be successful as men do, regardless of the culture you live in. While it is risky to go against a violent, radical group, it seems to be the only way that women in Afghanistan can better themselves through education. With help from men and other countries, women in Afghanistan could advance greatly, and in the future become more liberated.

Imagine you are a woman in Saudi Arabia. According to your religion, government, society, and culture – you are a second-class citizen. You do not have the right to vote, , you must be completely covered (including your face) when you leave your home, you are not allowed to drive, and your husband or male relative makes your choices for you. These limitations are only the tip of the iceberg, and it is safe to say that a woman in Saudi Arabia is not free to be her own person.

Saudi Arabian wife, mother, and poet Hissa Hilal, however, is not settling for a life as a typical suppressed Saudi woman. Appearing as a competitor on the Abu Dhabi reality poetry competition Million’s Poet, Hissa expresses her opinions on women’s rights and Islamic extremism through poetry. One of Hissa’s poems translates to this:

I have seen evil from the eyes
of the subversive fatwas
in a time when what is lawful
is confused with what is not lawful;
When I unveil the truth,
a monster appears from his hiding place;
barbaric in thinking and action,
angry and blind;
wearing death as a dress
and covering it with a belt
He speaks from an official,
powerful platform,
terrorizing people
and preying on everyone seeking peace;
the voice of courage ran away
and the truth is cornered and silent,
when self-interest prevented one
from speaking the truth

Hissa is unbelievably brave to be appear on television in this way, expressing opinions that could get her in serious trouble with the law. Hailing from a country where she is expected to not do much more than have children and cook, Hissa has achieved so much more. She is a popular contestant on the show, having made it further than any woman before her.

Hissa is risking her own safety and the safety of her family by appearing on the show, but she is also making major strides in the women’s rights movement. By showing that she is fed up with the way her gender is being treated, she is paving the way for other women to follow her example. Hopefully, the more outcry there is against this way of life, the more change will come about.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell recently sat down with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to discuss the state of women’s rights in the Middle East, which is a subject that Clinton is very involved in. Fifteen years ago, in 1995, Secretary Clinton made a statement that proved to be groundbreaking at the time, saying, “women’s rights are human rights”. Fifteen years later, Clinton expresses her happiness over the progress that has been made in the area of women’s rights in that part of the world, but also remarks that there is still much work to be done. It is commendable that Hillary Clinton is using her position of power to improve the lives of women in other countries, and that she is bringing attention to these issues.

When Clinton mentions that women in Kuwait now have the right to vote and how it’s a big deal that women in parts of Africa can now legally own land, it is striking because these issues are so far removed from us. In the United States, the law sees women and men as equals, and it would be unthinkable for there to be laws against women voting and owning land in 2010. But, as Hillary Clinton is bringing to our attention, these issues are rampant in countries that are poorer and have more political corruption. It is good that these issues are being brought up, so there can hopefully be even more change, growth, and development in solving these problems.

In the article, it is said that the United States should be a leader in this cause. Here we are fortunate enough to not have to deal directly with these problems in our own country. In the U.S., “gendercide” is not a major issue, nor are women being denied education. It is important for the U.S. government, as nation in a better state, to do all it can to help. As Clinton says, “Change doesn’t happen just because you wish it.” If the government follows Hillary Clinton’s example, further change can become a reality and the lives will be better for millions of women.

Unable to sleep last night, I turned on the small television in my bedroom. Before I knew it, a typically disturbing episode of Law and Order had ended and NBC was informing me that up next was Jay Leno’s big return to The Tonight Show. Quickly, I reached for the clicker and changed the station, finally stopping at CBS, where I watched the first few minutes of David Letterman on The Late Show. I’m certainly not Letterman’s number one fan, as his routine is almost as tired and worn out as Leno’s. He made a couple of jokes about his rival, Jay Leno during his opening monologue and I chuckled a bit. It wasn’t long before I turned the TV off anyway, hoping to finally be able to sleep.

This morning when I saw an article boasting of The Tonight Show’s large victory over the other late night talk shows last night, I groaned. Really? My effort of pressing one button on my remote control hadn’t helped the cause, and Leno’s ratings soared. While I knew it was not a big deal in my life, and I hadn’t thought it about it since before I fell asleep, I couldn’t help but be a tiny bit disappointed.

Click here to watch a report on this and see short clips from last night’s Late Show and Tonight Show.

I’m normally not awake late enough to watch late night talk shows, but during Conan O’Brien’s recent stint as host of The Tonight Show, and when he was the host of Late Night with Conan O’Brien, I would normally opt to watch him, as I found him to be the freshest and most entertaining of all the late night comedians, and considerably funnier than old fogies like Letterman and Leno, who have been hosting late night talk shows for a combined forty-four years.

I certainly wasn’t the only one who was appalled that Leno was taking over The Tonight Show from Conan O’Brien, who had been host for less than one year after Leno’s departure. Leno’s underwhelming The Jay Leno Show wasn’t exactly setting TV sets on fire, and NBC made the decision to remove Conan O’Brien, whose ratings hadn’t been as high as Leno’s, from his spot as host to let Leno return to his old chair. Naturally, there was considerable backlash, and no one will ever know if Conan’s ratings would have improved if he had just had some more time.

I will not be watching The Tonight Show with Jay Leno as host, not only because I don’t think it was the right decision to bring him back, but also because I am not interested in watching him perform the same jokes with the same delivery. He’s old news. In my opinion, Leno has had his day. With seventeen years of hosting The Tonight Show under his belt and nothing new to bring to the table at age 59, he would be better off calling it quits. It’s time for Leno to step out of the limelight and hand the microphone off to his successors.

When I heard that Disney and Pixar’s “Up” had been nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award, I was shocked. Not because I thought it wasn’t deserving of the nomination, but because it has one big difference from all of the other nominees. It’s animated. Only one other animated film, 1991’s “Beauty and the Beast”, has achieved this distinction, and it will be unprecedented if Up takes home the Oscar. I’m rooting for “Up”, but it’s really just good enough that it’s been recognized in the first place.

“Up”‘s nomination not only surprised me, but it also excited me. Growing up on Saturday morning cartoons and Disney classics on VHS, I have always had a love for animation. It mesmerized me as a child, and still fascinates me now that I understand the painstaking process that is gone through to create it. Animation is truly an art form and a unique medium for cinema. I’ve often thought that animation is severly underappreciated, and easily written off as being “just for kids”. In the last decade or so, Pixar has more or less revitalized animation with it’s critically acclaimed hits, such as “Finding Nemo”, “The Incredibles”, “WALL-E”, and now “Up”.

The “Best Animated Feature” category was introduced to the Academy Awards in 2001, and since then most animation aficionados had just about lost hope that an animated movie would ever win Best Picture. Pixar should give itself a pat on the back for crossing over and bringing animation a new audience.

However, simply being an animated movie is not enough reason for it to win. While, I personally think that it was great and should totally win, I am completely and 100% biased. Not to mention, I haven’t seen any of the other nominees (Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Precious, A Serious Man, and Up in the Air). If I had seen any of these movies, I might have had a more balanced view on which movie should win. No doubt they are all equally deserving, and Up likely has some tough competition.

I don’t think that Up will win the Oscar. It might be my skeptical nature that is causing me to make this assumption, but I honestly can’t see it winning. One reason for this is because it’s, well, animated. It’s hard for many people to see animated films as more than just “kiddie”, and to not discriminate in this way. A more understandable reason is that the other nominees might just be better. It seemed like I couldn’t go an hour without hearing about Avatar, Precious, and Up in the Air this winter, so I would place my money on these before I would on Up. Oscar or no Oscar, it’s a huge deal that Up was nominated at all, and the folks at Pixar should give themselves a pat on the back. I’m rooting for Up and I’m glad to see that critics are taking animation seriously.

MTV’s highest rated program and one of the top shows on cable, reality series “Jersey Shore” is nothing short of a cultural phenomenon. The show has spawned hundreds of Facebook groups, a page devoted to the show’s unique vocabulary, and soon there will even be a type of beer named after cast member Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino. Millions of people tune in to watch the exploits of Snooki, The Situation, DJ Pauly D, JWoww, Vinny, and company as they spend their summer on the shore, partying and living charmed lives. The series has not been without its share of controversy, which its high ratings can be partially credited to.

“Jersey Shore” is a show that truly has to be seen to be believed. If you’ve never seen or heard of “Jersey Shore”, this thirty second preview pretty much sums the show up.

Now that “Jersey Shore” has been given a second season, it continues to attract criticism. The New York Daily News reports that the National Italian American Foundation wants the show cancelled, and is upset with the way Italian-Americans are being portrayed on the show, saying that Italians are being stereotyped as violent, tanning, promiscuous, gel-haired “guidos”. This particular word has caused controversy, as it has been embraced by the cast members, who use it to describe themselves and each other in a positive light. The cast members also claim that they only represent themselves, and not the majority of Italian-Americans.

To date, all of my experiences with “Jersey Shore” have been positive. I don’t watch it to see a touching half hour of the mundane lives of eight average Italian-Americans. I watch it to be entertained by over-the-top personalities and ridiculous situations. I enjoy “Jersey Shore” because it’s entertaining. I know that it’s trashy, I know that it’s tasteless, and I know that I’m probably getting dumber every second I spend watching it, but I don’t really care. It makes me laugh, and it occasionally makes my jaw drop and I find myself wondering how can people act like this? I can understand how some people can view the show as offensive, and in some ways it is. I am not Italian, and I am not personally offended by the show, but I don’t think that the stereotyping that takes place on “Jersey Shore” is vicious. Stereotypes or not, it’s difficult to deny the show’s entertainment value, given that it is such a smash hit. MTV knows that they have a guaranteed hit with the second season of “Jersey Shore”, and it’s unrealistic to expect them to cancel the show due to controversy. The controversy is more likely to help the show’s ratings soar even higher than it is to hurt them.

Still, it’s kind of strange that in the age of political correctness, that a show, which was to fall into the “Trash TV” category and specifically feature eight Italian-Americans who throw the word “guido” around like it’s nothing, would be greenlit. It might have been wise of MTV to include some Italian-Americans who don’t fit the “guido” stereotype, or non-Italian cast members. However, it is often said that no publicity is bad publicity, and MTV opting to take a more politically incorrect route will probably continue to lead to further success.