What's the true meaning of Christmas again?

Around this time of year, everyone always tells us to remember the reason for the season. We're always reminded not to get caught up in the presents and commercialization of the Christmas season, but now people are using the true meaning of Christmas to make even more money. That's the point of this cartoon. Everyone gets so caught up in presents, trees, and cards. We all need to be reminded that during this season that Christmas does not come from a store, but what has society done with the message? That message has just been turned into another money-making slogan.

I can't lie; I love the Christmas season. I love the hustle and bustle of buying gifts for friends. I love opening my gifts on Christmas, but at the same time, I agree with this picture 100%. You can find messages displaying the "true meaning of Christmas" on shirts, cards, and stickers. It's all just another way to make a profit during the holiday season.

The images used in this picture are brilliant. First of all, the customer who wants to boldly display the classic Grinch quote across a sweatshirt holds under one arm and a Visa in the other, not to mention his oh so festive clothing style. I think anyone looking at this picture can also take a lot away from looking at the salesman's face and body language. He looks at the Grinch movie as if he's saying, "Oh, please!" His hands look like their just itching to grab the customer's Visa card. One can interpret that the salesman does not care about the message of the movie, but if that message is getting him more money, he's interested. These details really help get the cartoonist's point across to the viewer. I have a feeling, however, that it's only a matter of time before someone commericializes the message of how we commercialize the true meaning of Christmas, because that just seems to be the way that our society works.

R.I.P. Sean Taylor

Jason Whitlock discussed his assumption that black men killed Sean Taylor. (This column was published prior to the arrest of the young black men). He stresses how in his opinion, today's hip-hop culture promotes violence, particularly among young African Americans. Whitlock shares how the violence will not stop until the aspects of the pro-violence culture are defeated.

I read this article about ten times. My first reaction was, "Wow. This Jason Whitlock guy makes me sick." At first I was angered that he was focusing on African Americans, because when I heard about the murder, race didn't come to mind. Then I scrolled over and realized that Jason Whitlock is an African American. So, I read the article again. Then I realized that he was focusing on the effects of the culture; it was then that I saw his point. Music, movies, and TV shows promote violence. Whitlock's right; nothing will change until fingers are no longer pointed, and people take matters into their own hands and fight the pro-violence culture.

I believe Jason Whitlock best used parallelism when he said, "Blame drugs, blame Ronald Reagan, blame George Bush, blame it on the rain or whatever." This strengthens Whitlock's point because the list of things to blame goes from drugs to 'whatever.' A person can blame violence on 'whatever', but the problem won't be solved until society starts looking at their own choices and actions. I think this is what Whitlock was trying to get across to his readers. Promoting a peaceful culture gets a little bit difficult when every other song, movie, or TV show consists of violence. The promotion of violence won't just disappear. He used parallelism to basically say, "Stop blaming everything else, no matter how big or small, and take some action."

A New Perspective

In this article, Betsy Hart shares her opinion on what she calls, the "freak dance." She provides a description for the "freak dance" and stories from parents who have witnessed it. The first line of her article reads, "Note to my kids: Get ready -- I'm going to chaperone every high school dance you attend." Hart obviously believes that the "freak dance" is inappropriate. Hart explains how today's dance moves are too sexual, and they put females in sexual danger. She went on to say that the way a parent reacts to the inappropriate dance moves at high school dances is a "metaphor for how we raise them from the start." She also questions the motives of the parents who approve of the dancing.

Are there guys out there who will take advantage of a girl who will grind with him? Yes, there are. We all know this. Is the dancing inappropriate? I believe it is. I also agree that some parents need to wake up and realize what's going on. I recently went to one of my good friend's sweet 16 party, and there was a lot of inappropriate dancing going on. You know who had the most fun? The group of kids that jumped up and down, ran around, and probably looked like completely losers. I know they had the most fun because I was apart of the group, along with a few other AP Language bloggers out there. So if our school wants to stick by the motto of "face to face, leave some space," just accept it and stop whining already. It really isn't going to change any time soon. The school puts on the dances for us to enjoy, so just abide by the rules set and make the best of it. I'd rather have the strict rules at dances than no dances at all.

Betsy Hart's use of rhetorical questions really helped provide a bridge between her opinion on inappropriate dancing itself and how parents respond to it. I think the most effective was, "Because they are proud of the public foreplay their children are engaging in?" I can just picture the parent saying, "Well no, but..." I believe that through this rhetorical question she really pressures the reader, if a parent, to ask themselves, "Why do I approve of this?" Without the questions, I don't think she could get her readers thought process going. Her question made the parents question their own motives for their apathetic reaction to the dancing, which to me, made all the difference in the world. Her focus through the use of those questions made the article an attention grabber to parents. The rhetorical questions changed the perspective from "Hey parents. Pay attention to what's going on," rather than the typical, "Oh, kids these days. What has the world come to?"

All men are created equal? Hm...

Laureen Rikleen argues that that the controversial talkshow host Imus should be brought back on the air after his dismissal following racial comments. While I do not believe that Imus should go back on the air, I agree with Rikleen's point. Nothing has changed about the media since Imus went off-air. Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick held a funeral for the N word, and yet rap artists still freely use the word in their music. However, a white man uses that word, and the entire world stops to point fingers. In my opinion, no one should use the words used by Imus, white or black. If one race receives punishment for inappropriate words, every other race in America should receive the same punishment. Every race, religion, and gender demands equality, but the word's meaning got lost in all the conflict.

For this reason, I think the best example used by Laureen Rikleen was the story of New York Knicks Coach Isaiah Thomas. The basketball coach basically said that when a white man talks extremely disrespectfully to a woman, it is way worse than an African American talking to a woman in the same way. This argument perfectly captures Rikleen's opinion. If Imus were an African American, no one would have cared about his words, but he isn't. He's caucasian, and those disrespectful words came out of a white man's mouth. In our current society, Imus's race makes his words more offensive. That doesn't seem like equality to me.