The Spirit of Giving

In this editorial cartoon, the artist is trying to convey the fact that Christmas gifts are not about receiving, but rather the spirit of giving in the givers heart. Now, we all know that the true meaning of Christmas is the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ, but Americans have turned Christmas into a secular day of exchanging gifts. The customer in the store hears the message on the tv, and realizes that she doesn't need to be buying all these material possessions, Christmas means more than just exchanging gifts. The employee at the store, who has been using a holy day of the church to exploit money from customers, is shocked when he hears this saying that Christmas does not come from a store.
I agree with this cartoon, Americans have gotten so far from the true meaning of Christmas that when we hear a message contrary to that Christmas is all about presents, we are surprised.
The fact that this is a visual cartoon, and not just black words on a white screen really help strength the point of this cartoon. The Grinch is given as a visual on the screen, and everyone knows the story of the Grinch. They can see the Grinch on the tv and immediately relate him to the "scrooge" Christmas. He thought that he would ruin Christmas by stealing all the presents, but then he realized that "Christmas doesn't come from a store, maybe perhaps Christmas needs a little bit more." Because you can see the Grinch saying this, it brings more meaning to the saying because of the visual of the Grinch. The VISA card also is a visual symbol of the American way of viewing Christmas. The customer just hands over the credit card to pay for all these meaningless things that she is buying for other people for Christmas. The credit card is a visual reminder of the way Americans think. You just hand over a piece of plastic and you get everything you ever wanted. These two visuals help us to incur the purpose of this cartoon. The real meaning of Christmas is the virgin birth of Christ. The tradition that we have of exchanging gifts is not about the material possessions that are exchange, but rather of the spirit of giving.

R.I.P. Sean Taylor

Jason Whitlock believes that the death of football player Sean Taylor was a result of the black KKK. He believes that black people target black people.

His main point is that the black KKK "wants to keep black men in their place — uneducated, outside the mainstream and six feet deep."

I have to disagree with Whilock in this case. I know we have different vantage points because I am white , while he is black. I believe that Sean Taylor was not targeted because of his race, but because of his social status. Several athletes have been murdered in the last year, and I do not believe that it is coincidence. I do agree that hip hop music does encourage this type of behavior, however black people are not targeted because of their skin color, but rather poor members of society, white or black, living a rough life in the innercity will target rich people like athletes.

Whitlock does use parallelism in this article, he says, "I blame hip hop for playing a role in the genocide of American black men. When your leading causes of death and dysfunction are murder, ignorance and incarceration, there's no reason to give a free pass to a culture that celebrates murder, ignorance and incarceration." Hip hop and rap music definitely celebrates murder, ignorance, and incarceration and he does a good job paralleling the rap music to the social order of the typical urban black man. He uses parallelism to give a reason of why he believes that the black KKK targets other black men. Without this parallelism, it would just be his thought of why murder rates are high among black men is abnormally high. But by blaming rap music, he shows the readers an example of a factor that increases murder. However, the murder rate is not a product of black people targeting black people, but rather a consequence of hard economic times and a bad situation, a factor that is independent of race.

Foreplay or dancing?

Betsy Hart is one of many parents who are offended by the kind of "dancing" that goes on at high school dances. She wants a face to face leave some space rule. She claims that that kind of dancing and distasteful and dangerous to get teenagers sexually aroused at school dances. When I was reading this article it reminded me of an act by comedian Dane Cook. He says "Whatever happened to the very formal 'May I have this dance'? Now guys just go up behind the girls and bang their(male parts) on them for a few minutes, and then move on to the next one." The reason why this dancing is going on at high school dances is because it is glorified in the media and is looked at by society as acceptable. Everything that is in the media filters down to high schools, so it is no surprise that this is happening. I agree with Hart that it has the potential to be dangerous, but she is talking as a protective parent. There comes a time when parents just have to trust their kids to do the right thing, and there are bigger things for parents to worry about than the way their children dance, like the what goes on at the afterparty. This is just a fad and will die out in a few years. One of the rhetorical questions that Hart uses is If the "$400 dress girl" had been sexually assaulted in the parking lot after the festivities because the dance wasn't a "dud," would her mom be happy, or suing the school? This shows that this situation is a no-win situation. No matter what the schools do there will always be someone who is unhappy. Parents will be unhappy if it is allowed, and the potential for more sexual activities is there. I can nderstand why a school, especially a school with a relgious affiliation, would want to ban this kind of dancing, but if it is banned, than the students will not be happy and will stop going to the dances. They may even chose to go to other schools who do allow that kind of dance. So, no matter what the schools do there will always be someone who is unhappy. The risks and benefits have to be weighed, and the question is to the benefits outweigh the risks. No, that $400 dress girl's mom would not have been happy if her daughter was sexually assaulted, but I would like to know who can prove that sexual assaults are directly related to this kind of dancing. I don't know, but my guess would be that it is a very rare case. The schools are placed in a predicament here. They are under heat from parents, but if they ban grinding students will be enraged and boycott dances. Teens are always going to be rebellious, they will just find another place to partake in these sort of behaviors. This sort of dancing is a matter of taste. Most high school students find it acceptable, while older (and more mature) members of society find it offensive and distasteful. If parents are really that concerned with the way that their children dance, then don't let them go to dances.

Assignment 1: Imus returning?

I am strongly opposed to Imus returning to the air. He made derogatory comments that were both hurtful and demeaning. It was as much a race issue as it was a gender issue. Yes, Rikleen brings up the point that Imus did apologize for his actions, but that is no consolation for the players he directed his comments at. Why would he even make those comments in the first place? His punishment of six months is nowhere near enough. Rikleen contradicts herself when she said that his punishment has not been enough. She says that there have still been incidents since Imus's, so why in the world should he be reinstated to the air? If you want to make a statement that this type of talk will not be accepted he should never be allowed on the air again. One example that she uses, Rush Limbaugh, supports my argument more than hers. What she fails to mention is that beside the recent comment that Limbaugh made he also directed racial slurs at Eagle's quarterback Donovan McNAbb. Limbaugh took alot of heat for that comment, and he is still making slanderous comments on the air. That goes to prove that someone who says something like that will eventually say it again. Imus should never be allowed on the air again because he will eventually make another dumb statement, but also to make a point to all other hosts that derogatory comments will not be accepted in America.