Who says that?

This article by Larry Elder is mostly about the liberal's extreme hate of conservatives, particularly, the current president. Larry has a conversation with a very interesting individual about some of the things the president "did". The man was convinced that Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11 and that he did it to kill black people. What the man didn't know, was that most of people killed were white. However, he refused to give up and rambled on that "They were in the way." The man clearly did not know what he was talking about.


I believe the main point that Larry is trying to get at here is that liberals (no offence) express extreme hatred to conservatives. They gave Saddam Hussein a higher rating than Bush on the "temperature scale". I agree with Larry that liberals, at least in this case show some ruthless hatred towards conservatives. It is hard to believe that some of these people actually believe the president is out to get them and is a mass murderer. Well, at least Larry can defend himself, and he does a pretty good job at it too.

One of the most noticeable ways that he mocks liberals is by throwing out their own comebacks before they even say them. He even shows why it's wrong with proof, so they can't even use it against him. "Explain to me why people like Bush and Cheney run for public office in order to commit murder." "Because that's what they do." "For what reason? To get rich?" I asked. "They already were." I found this quit amusing, this guy obviously didn't know what he was talking about and Larry made that crystal clear. He puts out the liberal's excuse and shoots it down before the guy even has a chance to defend it, that's skill, and for on the spot thinking, impressive. Not only did he shoot down the question, he made the guy look like a complete idiot because he didn't have any proof. He never gave one example with adequate evidence. "How do you get up in the morning thinking that somebody in Washington, D.C., wants to murder you?" He couldn't even answer that question, so how could he possibly know what he's talking about? Basically, the guy was talking out of opinion and decided since he didn't like Bush, he was going to blame the end of the world on him. Larry Elder is truly quite skillful in the art of "they say" "I say".

Comics

The comic strip I chose is one from the FoxTrot series, authored by Bill Amend. This comic portrays a young boy trying to teach his pet iguana how to download music using BitTorrent, which is a download provider. His older brother warns him of the danger of downloading music illegally but the young boy believes he has an idea that will work. Since the iguana isn't a real person, he will teach it to download the music for him. He believes he cant be sued because, "who would sue and iguana?" The next slide shows a recording association executive delaying his appointment with a doctor because he sees someone is downloading music illegally.



The message here seems quite obvious. It is showing that the recording industry doesn't support illegal music downloads and will punish people for trying to do so. The young boy foolishly believes that as long as he isn't downloading the music himself, he can't get in trouble for it. The truth of the matter is, the recording industry doesn't care who downloads the music, if they find out it came from your computer, they may choose to sue you regardless of who you are. The comic shows this by having the recording executive concerned over noticing that someone is downloading Metallica. To further prove that this concerns the industry, the executive has his psychiatrist put on hold just to track this download.



Downloading music illegally is risky and should be avoided at all costs. I personally know people who have been caught and have been lucky enough not to get sued, but let off with a warning. Remember if you get caught, they aren't just going to sew you, they are going to sue your whole family partially because they are your parents and you are under their care. Also, unfortunaly, you wont be able blame it on your dog either. In the words of P.B. "Don't be a rascal"

Marion Jones: The needle, the Lying Done By: Mitch Albom

In this article, Mitch Albom discusses the negative effect that steroid use can have on your life, especially if you are a professional athlete. Marion James just admitted to steroid use and had all her Olympic Medals taken away and is banned from all track and field games. She will now be serving six months in jail despite her plea to the judge for mercy. Mitch discusses the difference between Jones and the other athletes who get caught. Jones openly admitted to it and confessed while other professional athletes tend to fight it all the way to the end, and still lose. Roger Clemens. "The star pitcher was screaming his innocence all last week, despite charges in the Mitchell Report that he was injected with steroids numerous times by his personal trainer, Brian McNamee." Mitch points out that this guy can scream and cry all he wants, that deosn't change the fact that he was being injected with some kind of substance, most likely steroids. Hopefully we can all learn a valuable lesson, at least athletes can, that steroids aren't worth it, and that you can only cheat yourself by using them.



I agree with Mitch completely on this matter. Steroids not only cause other athletes to look down on you, they also have side effects and long term results that are bad for your health. Part of the thrill of competitive sports is for it to be a challenge, a time for you to reach deep inside yourself and give even more when you have nothing else to give. Using steroids totally does away with that challenge and though you may excel faster, its not really you, and if anyone ever finds out, you will go down as just another cheater and will eventually be forgotten. If you have trouble believing this, just look at all the athletes who have used them and have completely ruined their careers and popularity. It's a no win situation, and one that you cannot recover from if you happen to make the wrong choice.



This article could easily be altered to address a high school football team. In high school, kids tend to get more obsessed with athletics and will do anything to get to the top. Sadly some even resort to steroids. One thing about this column I would change, would be to show more of the health effects of steroids. Mitch does a good job showing the financial and moral effects, but I would also cover some health issues. High school kids, especially football players want to get bigger. As I'm writing this I can still hear our high school coach yelling at us to get in the weight room, and "get huge." However, our team knows that our coach does not mean to use steroids, but to merely get in the weight room and to push yourself. Kids today want everything fast, and they think taking steroids will give them muscles fast. This is somewhat true, however, they will also receive multiple health risks, and most kids will look down on these athletes (cheaters). I would also go into more details about how these people who have done them feel afterwards. Almost all of them regret it and if given another chance would have never done it. After covering these topics I would encourage kids to eat healthy and if they feel they have to do some kind of supplement, to just take vitamins. Eating the correct combination of foods and minerals can give you natural results, and you will be better for it. Finally, I would end it with some kind of catchy saying, like the one used by our coach, "Now go get huge".

Christmas Cartoon

The point of this holiday cartoon is to show that Christmas has become something it was never meant to be. It has become just another big week of shopping and sales. People today seem to neglect the true meaning of Christmas; they should be giving thanks to God for sending His Son instead of looking for the next sale sign. However, in this cartoon it is hard to say if the artist is a Christian or not, but at least they acknowledge the fact that something is missing. The artist is trying to saying that there should be more focus on the family in the whole Christmas season and that getting gifts for people is not the proper method of showing how much you love them. With this being said, I completely agree with the artist. People are forgetting what Christmas is all about and really need to sit down and think about it.

There are many visual elements that support the artist's point. However, there are two elements that stick out the most, the lady who is shopping, and all the sale signs that surround her. The sale signs support the artist's point because it's exactly the kind of thing that he or she is speaking out against. It shows that the lady has been drawn to the store because she sees all the sale signs and is looking for a good gift for someone. People see the signs and think they are getting a deal, but few are actually smart or care enough to notice that they are not. This leads to the next visual, the lady herself. She is loaded with presents and has already whipped out her visa card to make the next purchase. She is the perfect example of the typical Christmas shopper, thinking that she has to buy that sweeter because if she doesn't get a gift for everyone someone is going to be angry. Again this shows that there is something wrong with people's view of Christmas. If your going to get upset because someone didn't get you a gift for christmas, then your spoiled and don't deserve one anyway. All this things agree with the artist's purpose for making this cartoon. CHRISTmas doesn't come from a store, CHRISTmas means more, much more.

A Tragic Example

This article by Jason Whitlock described how today's anti-education and pro violence view of things influenced the death of not just Sean Taylor, but other black men was well, such as Darrent Williams. He believes that a black kkk organization has sprung up and surprisingly, they don't kill white people, they kill black people. Go Figure. Whitlock also believes that hip hop has played a role in the genocide of black men. He asks what could you possibly expect from a race that celebrates murder, ignorance and incarceration? The only outcome could be just that. Whitlock states that we are the only ones who can change the rotten culture our kids have adopted. The only question is, how long are we going to let this continue or how bad does it have to get until someone does something?

In response to Whitlock's article, I must say I totally agree. This rap music that people listen to today does indeed promote murder, non-education and many other things. However, it seems to me that this is not only a problem with the members of black society but is becoming a problem in white society as well. I also agree with Whitlock's argument that we need to control what goes into our children's ears. Regardless of what they think, the music can affect them and cause them to act a certain way. We need to raise our children in a loving, God fearing environment and not let the ways of a corrupt society influence them and their decisions.

I have found that Whitlock's best use of parallelism occurs in the paragraph that states, "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." Whitlock uses this to compare all the violence that occurs to the type of music that influences it, rap. How could we possibly create a better society if we allow music that promotes death, destruction, rebellion, and uneducation? It is impossible to build something out of absolutely nothing and that's exactly what this music promotes, reverse progress. Whitlock uses this to strengthen his article by showing people what happens to the unfortunate persons who follow this way of life sadly, Sean Taylor was one of them. So, in conclusion let this be an example to show what this is transforming our society into and let it serve as a level at which we should start building up our lives, the lives of our kids, and the lives of others around us.

Has Dancing Become a Pagan Sport?

This article by Betsy Hart suggests that school dances should be carefully chaperoned and the music that is to be played should not be of a sexualy provacative type. Betsy states that surprisingly many parents when told of this could care less. "It consistently stuns me that some of the very same parents who will carefully protect little junior and junioress from every scrape and bump early on, who will trail them carefully to super-safe playgrounds and rarely leave them to play unattended even in their own backyards, will then abandon their children to real dangers, including sexual ones, later on." She believes that this is partly a result of the competition between parents ,who has the "sexiest child"or because the parents want their kid to "like" them. The good news is that some schools are cracking down on this but it is parents who can really help by not allowing their children to attend these dances or educating their children with correct values and morals.

It should be obvious that the authors main point is that this type of dancing is damaging and potentialy harmful to the young men and women who participate. These dances are sexualy provacative and lead to things such as rape, or sexual assault. She also states that the kids safty is more important than if the dance was a "dud" or not. "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?" Parents need to tighten up the rules, "turn up the lights" and be ready at all times to protect their kids from themselves if neccesary.

I absolutly agree with what Hart is saying. Of all people I, we, teenagers are living in this innapropriate dance era and we most likely now it best. On many occasions I have seen this provocative dancing even at my school, a private christian school. Dancing like that might feel or look right for the moment, but in the long run you will regret it. It could even lead you to do something that you dont want to do. So as much as we teenagers dislike having chaperones at the dances, it is done for our best interests and to protect us. The least we could do is show some respect for them and the girl or boy next to us. Face to face, leave some space.

As for the obvious rhetorical questions, Hart uses plenty of them. "Why? Because they are proud of the public foreplay their children are engaging in? Because "sexiest child" is yet another competition for parents to engage in? Because they want their kids to "like" them?" These questions are all likely reasons as to why parents seem to turn the other cheek when it comes to the dancing at dances. This strengthens Hart's point because these are exactly the kind of people whos kids end up participating in those dances and cause trouble. She uses them as an example of what other parents should not be like. By using these questions she also encourages parents to get involved and set their kids straight. She states that parents were protective of their kids when they were younger, it should be no different now, especialy since this deals with sexual matters. Hart states that if you really care about your kids that you will protect them from these things even though they are older. After all, whether we like it or not, our parents know best.

Assigment #1 Let Imus Speak

I must say that I certainly one-hundred percent agree with Stiller. True, the remarks that Imus made were very rude, but when I looked at Stillers other examples of this and how those people went unpunished for their remarks,I was deeply moved.

Obviously the example that stands out the most is the O' Reilly case. "Bill O’Reilly was unrepentant and unpunished for suggesting that African-Americans eating peacefully in a restaurant was an extraordinary event." That statement is so outright unnecessary and rude, I'm surprised it was not taken as an act of extreme prejudice or raceism and that O' Reilly wasn't punished for his actions. Judging by this example, it makes no sence as to why Imus was taken off the air and why O' Reilly can get away unpunished for his remarks. Also taking into consideration the first amendment, why was Imus punished for this anyway, we have the freedom of speech in this country dont we? At least Imus apologized and took responsibility for his actions, O'Reilly never did that. He just said what he wanted to say, and appearantly no one even thought twice about it. If someone is going to be punished for unnecessary speech, shouldn't authority at least in this matter make sure that anyone who uses this kind of language be punished? Is there no justice is this country? Cleary this is an act of hypocrisy and whoever has the power to make decisions like taking people off the air, better make sure that people like O' Reilly dont go unpunished for their deeds either. Bottom line, Imus is innocent.

With that I rest my case, if the voice of O'Reilly is to be heard, then certainly the voice of Imus is to be heard as well. Imus should have never been silenced in the first place...let him speak.