Henderson shows the ridiculously backwards priorities of Detroit in his recent article of the elderly couple and their ordeal with their garbage can. He does this by primarily using sarcastic tone. When writing about being ticketed for leaving their garbage can out a day late he uses saracsm by saying, "The nerve! It was time to crack down." This was an obvious use of sarcasm when contrasted with his first few paragraphs about how upstanding they were as citizens. The reader can hear a sarcastic voice saying that sentence, and it contributes to the tone because the reader's feel how exasperated Henderson feels. Henderson also says that they were ticketed by "an over-eager pencil-pusher". Here, his choice of words show his sarcastic tone. He goes on to describe the condition of the neighborhood, and made a good point when he observed that the trees being trimmed but the garbage and abandoned houses not being tended to. His sarcastic tone shows his effectiveness because the reader feels his irritation about this story. This could have easily been a dry, boring, non-descriptive article, but instead he makes it engaging (by using sarcasm) and he also has a point in writing this. After reading this, the reader goes away knowing exactly what Henderson was trying to say and he did this by using the this story.

It is obvious to me why Darnell's article impacted Detroit reader's so much. It was raw, personal, well-written and true. His whole paper was an obvious use of pathos, and he does this by using diction and compare/contrast.

Mr. Gardner used excellent vocabulary throughout his paper but a few words struck me most and added to the strength of his paper. He begins by countering a previously stated argument. He foresees people saying he is a bigot (just like Kwame accused). He counters this by saying my words are drenched in tears -- for my people and my city." The word drenched shows the extent of his sadness. It has weight; it weighs on the heart. He could have simply said "I'm really sad about what's going on in Detroit", but instead he uses a much stronger word that supports the tone of the paper.

Then he says, "While Kilpatrick touts building up dilapidated neighborhoods and tearing down abandoned homes, I cringe as he fails to preserve what little beauty this city still has left." This is a great use of diction and compare/contrast, which I will discuss later. Tout is such a strong, proud word, and the word cringe gives a painful, uncomfortable connotation. Both entirely different words with different meanings. The contrast between Darnell's and Kwame's opinion is apparent.

He goes on to write about the poor education in Detroit and how it is evident that student's are not receiving enough education. He says that the teacher's have a difficult time grading papers because they are not legible. He says, "In fact, one of my peers asked me to proofread one of his essays, and I nearly began to sob halfway through it." He could have chose an alternative, weaker word, but sob has passion. It also shows the extent of his sadness. When he uses words like these, especially sob, it makes his paper so much more personal, which is the reason why his paper impacted so many.

He finishes by saying, "I am one of the many Detroiters who are pleading for Kilpatrick's resignation." If there was confusion about what his purpose was in writing this, he makes it obvious when he says that. He uses the word pleading which has just as much passion as the other uses of diction. Again, he could have used different words, like asking or begging, but those words do not have the same effect as pleading. They are weak words and although they would make sense in the context of the sentence, they would not have been effective. The reader can hear the emphasis on this word. It is not only a good choice of words but it has emotion behind it.

His paper was very powerful and showed that excellent students and writers still exsist in Detroit.

"But I did what many other Detroiters still do on a regular basis: try to uphold the image of our city. "

He definitely has.

I found Kym Worthy's speech very well written. She touched on a lot of things I think Detroit has been irritated about, and she said it perfectly. She also made it very clear that the case was not about the sex or the texts which was very important to point out.

After reading her speech I concluded that Kwame Kilpatrick and Christine Beatty are being charged for perjury, but I was confused when Mr. Brandt asked for the charges. So I looked it up and found that they are also being charged for charged for "obstruction and willful misconduct in the text-message scandal." Since I only realized they are being charged for perjury after reading the speech, I will focus on that.

When Worthy uses ethics she is speaking about the importance of witnesses and also giving a broad definition of an oath. She says that it is vital that witnesses only speak the truth because their lies could have a great impact on the results of the case. She also gave both a definition of what an oath is and what an oath is not to highlight the importance of truthfulness. Truthfulness is an important part of character and everyone understands what is expected of someone that is truthful. She appeals to the the ethics by discussing the importance of the truth and she does it very well.

Worthy uses logos when talking about the justice system and the importance of oaths. She says,

"The fundamental principles of the justice system are fairly simple – they
aren’t hard. We learned them all as children:

Tell the truth
Take responsibility for your actions
Admit when you are wrong
Be fair and play fair
Don’t take or use things that aren’t yours
There are consequences for bad behavior

Even children understand that lying is wrong."

By using the phrases fairly simple, learned them as children, even children know lying is wrong she shows how obvious the situation is. Using children as an example strengthens her speech because she shows the common sense behind her point. It can also be seen as a comparison. It is almost like she is saying, "Children already understand the justice system, why can't you?" This appeal to the common sense of the situation is ethos in this case.

She uses pathos directly after this when she talks about the outcome if witnesses lie and why it is such a crime if someone does. She says, "If a witness lies, innocent people can go to jail or prison, people can literally get away with murder." She then goes on to say that at the end of the witnesses have to go back to their daily lives and risk the consequences of their testimony. Some by going home and "risking their lives in drive-by shooting cases." Then she asks the question, "How can we look another witness in the eye and ask them to come in and do these things if we do not follow the law for witnesses who lie under oath?" This is a good use of pathos because it brings real people's lives into account both the witness and the suspects; she does this by using the phrase risking their lives. With pathos it is very easy to place oneself in the situation and that is why it does such a great job of impacting the listeners. They can imagine how they would feel if they or someone they loved was wrongly charged because someone lied. When reading this I could even imagine the inflection of her tone when talking about this and that is a sure sign of pathos.

Kwame uses a couple rhetorical strategies to try to win Detroiter's over. Of course the use of pathos and ethos in his speech does not work well enough to convince the majority of Detroit to feel bad for his situation, especially after everything he has done.


Kwame uses pathos when he brings up the safety and lack of respect for his wife, children, and the children on Detroit. He says, "I've heard these words before but I've never heard people say them about my wife and children. I have to say this because it's very personal to me. I don't believe that a Nielsen rating is worth the life of my children or your children." He tries to get people to relate to his situation by bringing up his family. Everyone has experienced the love between family members so this would have been a wise move to make if only people were still willing to side with him. He tries to make it so that this is not about himself, but about his family. It seems to me that this is just a front he puts up to appear to be a family oriented man and to win the pity of Detroit. Then he tries to get the listeners to relate to his situation by bringing up their own families. How a Neilsen rating would risk the lives of everyone else's children is unclear to me, but he desperately tries this one last attempt to get the listeners to relate to his situation.


Kwame also uses ethos to scold Detroiter's when he says, "In the past 30 days Ive been called a nigger more than anytime in my entire life. In the past three days I've received more death threats than I have in my entire administration." and "This unethical, illegal lynch mob mentality has to stop." By pointing out the obvious wrong doings of his opponents, he appeals to the ethos of the listeners. He does this especially by illustrating how people have recently called him the N-word and threatened him more than any other time he has been in office. He does this to make the listener side with him because of all these unfortunate events that have been happening to him.

In Larry Elder's article he points out the differences between the Liberal's and Conservative's points of view. He uses multiple "they say" arguements through out his article to mock the Liberal's perspective. The "they say" arguement that mocks the liberal's the most is this:

"In other words, six out of ten Americans on the far left found that no evil, heinous person in the world could be worthy of more hatred than Bush and Cheney. For a little perspective, the then alive Saddam Hussein recieved on average a score of 8 from all Americans."

The first sentence is humorous because he describes our current president and vice president as "evil and heinous" which is not what most readers would describe them as. Not because they are not, because I am sure in some people's opinion they are, but it is humorus because these are our nation's leaders. The second sentence is what really mocks the liberals. Saddam Hussein, a man whose murderd countless innocent people, scored higher that our nation's leaders. That simple comparison shows the debatable perspective of the liberal's.

In Jimmy Johnson's comic today, his characters discuss the idea of moving to a farm. The husband regrets that it did not work out, saying how living close to nature would have made life much more enjoyable. This reminds me of the idea of transcendentalism we have been talking about in class. We all experienced this first hand last week; we found that removing "modern distractions" from our lives made it much simpler. In some way, shape, or form it brought us calmness, and that's exactly what the husband in this comic is looking for. The idea of homemade wine and big parties seem attractive to many families. However his wife realizes that had they moved to a farm, their kids would've gone crazy because they would have nothing to do, and she would have had more work to do. The underlying message in this comic is that today's society heavily relies on electronics to keep them entertained.

The smug look on the husband's face shows his ignorance to the difficulties of living on a farm. The reader knows he has good intentions with his idea of living a simpler life, but he obviously had not thought it all out, especially in regard to his children's enjoyment. The last scene is the most revealing in the message though. The wife's sarcastic comment, "Oh I know" shows that she had thought about the realistic results of living on a farm which meant more work for her. The clothes line in the background shows how the lack of electronics would make simple tasks much harder. The look on the kid's faces and their actions show their lack of things to do, so they pester their mom instead. The mom's facial expression sums it all up. She looks worn out, tired, and irritated. Her husband obviously had not given a thought to how moving to a farm would effect his whole family.

In this column, Desiree Cooper writes about my new favorite movie "Juno". She gives a brief summary about the movie: sixteen year old gets pregnant and instead of aborting her baby she decides to give it up for adoption. Coopers says, "Juno" broadens the dialogue on teen sexuality by helping us peer into its devastating realities" and goes on to say that's a win for her.

Her point is summed up when she says, "too often, teenage mothers suffer the stigma and burden of raising a child, while the young fathers' lives stay on track". She writes about the lack of teen fathers and puts the pressure on them to step up and take responsibility. I mostly agree with her point, however I don't think she can stereotype all teen fathers into one mold. I'm sure there are plenty of them that took responsibility and helped their child's mother.

Cooper writes to an older adult audience, for example our parents. I think this because she says that the movie Juno showed her how some teens today handle unplanned pregnancies. If she were to write to our age group though, a few things would be changed. First of all, she should change this sentence: "it does a great job of deglamorizing what it's like to carry a child when you're a child yourself", because I don't think we, at sixteen, would like to be called children. We wouldn't want to relate to a column that makes us sound less mature than we might be. She would also have to change the way she described people, because she'd be writing to a different point of view. She calls the receptionist at the abortion clinic "a promiscuous twentysomething receptionist" and that's not how I would've described her having seen the movie. From my point of view and the point of view of my age group, I think she'd be seen as somewhat of a freak.

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.