The Real Meaning of Christmas

The point of the article is to show how the true meaning of Christmas has become misinterpreted and how people go crazy over Christmas. Right after the Grinch says that Christmas is more than presents the woman wants to buy a gift with that quote on it, which completely contradicts the Grinch's message.

I agree with his point. Today's shoppers are obsessed with Christmas; they'll go to any length to get that perfect gift for their loved one, even if that means waiting for hours outside a store the morning after Thanksgiving. We have become so focused on the material aspect of Christmas that they miss the true point: Jesus' birth.


I think visual of the woman strongly supports the cartoonist's point. She's all decked out in her Christmas gear, so we can assume she's a Christmas junkie. This supports the point because she's the definition of a crazy American Christmas shopper. Her silly smile shows her excitement of finding a gift for someone, and as we can see she doesn't need anymore. Her sweater is also important to understanding the cartoon, it's used as a characterization tool. If she wasn't wearing it we wouldn't understand the cartoon because it illustrates her "small" obsession with Christmas. The other visual that supports his point is the look on the cashier's face. I can just imagine him thinking, "How many times am I going to have to listen to this movie before Christmas is over?" I know people who have worked in store's during Christmas and they've told me that it ruined their outlook on the Holiday while working there. Dealing with irritable customers and running around looking for an item doesn't seem too pleasant of a job to me. His face clearly shows his contempt for Christmas.

People shouldn't feel either of these ways towards Christmas. It's good to be enthusiastic ab when you understand the real point of Christmas, but when people become absorbed in the giving and receiving part of it, it isn't beneficial. I can only feel sorry for the people who look at Christmas as a chore, because as we know Christmas is the happiest time of the year.

Jason Whitlock

Jason Whitlock's article this week was about the tragic death of Sean Taylor, how hip hop culture is primarily responsible for his death, and how black on black targeting needs to stop. He says that until young African American men realize that "there's always someone ready to tell you you're selling out" the cycle will keep repeating.

At first I was very shocked by this article because I didn't know the race of the author, but after talking with another student about it I understand his point of view. Although I'm a typical white young woman and I'm not very educated in African American culture, I think Whitlock gives a very good argument. I especially liked the comparisons to the 1950s through out his article.

The example of parallelism I thought was best used was "blame drugs, blame Ronald Reagan, blame George Bush, blame it on the rain or whatever". This strengthens the article because it reveals the finger pointing aspect of all societies. By using parallelism he gets his point across by showing there's only one thing they can blame this on, and it's themselves. I think it's a very powerful and discreet way of making his point.

"Face to Face Leave some Space"

Betsy Hart's article this week was about the inappropriate dancing going on in high schools. She writes that's schools are trying to prevent this from happening in their high schools, but the some parents and DJs are posing problems. Parents have complained about the dancing being banned, going so far as to have dug up dirt on the superintendent to make him seem like a hypocrite for being divorced and fathering a kid at 17. Other parents are equally concerned about the provocative dancing occurring, some chaperone's have even separated such couples. The DJs are "feeling the heat" since they're the ones controlling the music that's played that encourage this type of dancing. However, one reporter defended the DJs saying, "there's only so much a DJ can do". The schools are afraid that by allowing this dancing, it could potentially be dangerous to the female students.

Besides reprimanding the students for the way they dance and obviously disagreeing with the morality of it,she points out that the these student's parents should feel responsible for their children's safety through out their lives, not just when they are younger.

I'd say I have to agree with her. I can't believe parents would knowingly allowed their children to act this way! One of the reasons she said schools want to ban this type of dancing is because of the potential sexual assaults that could happen, and I disagree with that. I don't think that's realistic at all. Although, I do agree that something should be done about it.

Even though I don't think the possibility of sexual assaults happening because of dancing is accurate, I think the hypothetical question she uses is the best one. By asking the question, "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?" she points out the stupidity of the mother for complaining about the dance being a "dud" after spending so much money. Rhetorical questions are used to prove a point without asking for an answer; it just makes the person think about it. Hart sarcastically uses this to prove her point that this kind of dancing should be stopped to protect the students. It supports her main point by referring back to one specific example she used and showing what could have happened had the school not been proactive. By writing the worse case scenario, she shows people, without even having to explain herself, that banning this provocative dancing is the best thing for high school students.

Laureen Stiller Rikleen

To be completely honest I had never heard about this situation with Don Imus, but after reading past articles and this one I'd have to say I agree with Rikleen's point. Yes, he said some very racists and sexual comments, but I don't think he should be banned from being on the air. There have been numerous incidents when other people have had comments like these and they weren't punished nearly as harshly. The author points out that it's a right of his to say what ever he'd like to say because of the first amendment. He also is a great interviewer. He asks the questions that his listeners really want to know. He keeps them interested and entertained by simply doing his job. He's also raised a considerable amount of money for charity. This does not sound like a bad person to me. It sounds like a man who slipped up and said something he should have kept to himself, but overall he does his job well and has done some commendable things for others.

The example that struck me the most was about the New York Nicks Coach Isaiah Thomas who was found guilty of sexually harassing a female executive. This is the best example because the two situations are practically one and the same, both men did something that offended a single person or and entire group of people. And here's the difference, Imus is being punished for what he did, and Thomas is still coaching. This doesn't sound fair to me that two people that generally did the same thing are not punished in the same way. There was another minor example which was one of the main reasons I ended up agreeing with Rikleen. She said that he's "one of the few interviewers willing to ask the tough questions that most others ignore". She goes on to say that the way he asks the questions and the kinds of questions he ask are exactly what his listeners were wondering as well. He does his job. This strengthened her point by stating the obvious, he does his job well, therefore he should be able to keep it. We can only wait and see if that's the way this will turn out.