The point that the illustrator of the cartoon was trying to make is how commercialized Christmas is. The illustrator is pointing out the holiday movies, how they've corrupted our view of Christmas. The sales everywhere show the idea of "buy, buy buy," which isn't what Christmas is supposed to be about.
A second point of this drawing is showing how a few people find joy on Christmas, such as folks like the Grinch, and the man with a severe overbite notices this, and apparently, admirers the Grinch's Christmas joy.
I agree with the point of this article - for once - because I wish that St. Nicholas (Santa) would stay where he is - six feet under - and stop taking away the true meaning of Christmas, which is Jesus. (My full story for this will be published in the North Star next week, so be sure to check it out. Or you could check out my Sheezyart, where I have another brief story of how I feel about Christmas.)
The author's point is well represented in the picture, where the clerk at the counter shows no expression of joy or excitement for the Grinch's joy. The man appears to want to leave all of the Holiday Madness, he's probably thinking, "would this oaf just give me the cash and leave?" This man's heart is three sizes to small. Perhaps, because he lives in the world of Santa, he does not even know the real meaning of Christmas, and has found no joy in the holiday. His look of disgust probably also comes from the fact that the movie has been playing all day and the buck toothed oaf is just getting excited over a movie that is thirty years old. The man's look may also come from what the narrator in The Grinch is saying, "doesn't come from a store," but if the meaning of Christmas doesn't come from a store, then this man will probably be out of a job.
Another visual element found in this cartoon is the buck toothed oaf himself. The man comes off as such, a buck toothed oaf, but it seems that the man is starting to get it. It? The meaning of Christmas. He obviously likes the idea of Christmas not coming from a store, because that means that he wouldn't have to purchase the gifts in his hand. He could just show off the T-shirt he wants to his kids.
Either way, the man is giving in to the pressures of the world, simply by wanting the shirt. He already appears to be a pretty well off when it comes to having the Christmas spirit, decked in a festive sweater. If the man wanted to make a statement about the meaning of Christmas, there are plenty other ways to go about it rather than giving the market his money for the shirt (that nobody will read because people are tired of sarcastic, witty shirts,), rather he could invite his friends and family to Church on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Wouldn't that be a better way of showing the real meaning of Christmas?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Response to the Black KKK article
The author of this article chooses to blame the fact that black men are shooting each other on the streets on Hip-Hop and the culture surrounding it.
I disagree with this author on many topics. I don't know anything about this author, but by the way he is writing, I'm assuming that he doesn't live in the ghetto and fear being shot every time he walks out the door like the people he describes do. The movies "Freedom Writers" and "Take the Lead" (which are both true stories) contradict everything that this author has said. The black kids in super poor "ghetto" communities don't want an education because no one wants to give it to him. The movie "Freedom Writers" clearly shows the administrators feel that the kids attending these type of schools are lost causes and treat them as such. I don't blame the kids for not wanting to go to school.
If my teachers didn't want to teach me and didn't respect me, I would respect them or want to "learn" from them either.
One example of parallelism, "His immature, undisciplined behavior with his employer, his run ins with law enforcement, which included allegedly threatening a man with a loaded gun, and the fact a vehicle he owned was once sprayed with bullets are all pertinent details when you've been murdered."
The author supports his point with this statement. By comparing Taylor's previous crimes, the author makes it nearly unquestionable why Taylor was shot. The examples, threatening someone with a gun, being a jerk to his boss almost make it seem like Taylor deserved to die. This may not be how the author feels, but it comes off this way. The author believes that the Black KKK was involved in the murder, but that Taylor wasn't innocent. The above parallel shows both these by implying that the activities Taylor was engaged in are likely Black KKK activities. Neither party is Innocent, and the author makes that clear.
I disagree with this author on many topics. I don't know anything about this author, but by the way he is writing, I'm assuming that he doesn't live in the ghetto and fear being shot every time he walks out the door like the people he describes do. The movies "Freedom Writers" and "Take the Lead" (which are both true stories) contradict everything that this author has said. The black kids in super poor "ghetto" communities don't want an education because no one wants to give it to him. The movie "Freedom Writers" clearly shows the administrators feel that the kids attending these type of schools are lost causes and treat them as such. I don't blame the kids for not wanting to go to school.
If my teachers didn't want to teach me and didn't respect me, I would respect them or want to "learn" from them either.
One example of parallelism, "His immature, undisciplined behavior with his employer, his run ins with law enforcement, which included allegedly threatening a man with a loaded gun, and the fact a vehicle he owned was once sprayed with bullets are all pertinent details when you've been murdered."
The author supports his point with this statement. By comparing Taylor's previous crimes, the author makes it nearly unquestionable why Taylor was shot. The examples, threatening someone with a gun, being a jerk to his boss almost make it seem like Taylor deserved to die. This may not be how the author feels, but it comes off this way. The author believes that the Black KKK was involved in the murder, but that Taylor wasn't innocent. The above parallel shows both these by implying that the activities Taylor was engaged in are likely Black KKK activities. Neither party is Innocent, and the author makes that clear.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Response to Betsy Hart
In the article "School dance steps look like foreplay", an angry parent (who, to my understanding doesn't even have children that are of high school age) is expressing her views of raunchy high school dances. She doesn't feel like the parents are understanding of the attempts made by the administrators to stop sexual dancing at school dances. She says that the parents are supporting their children's "foreplay" by complaining to the school system.
The author believes that the school's should be taking even more action at the dances then they already are, like "turn up the lights at all times, and always be ready to protect them from themselves whether they like it or not."
I do not agree with this author at all. She doesn't know what she's talking about. Has she ever been to a high school dance? (And I don't mean twenty years ago.) She doesn't even have high school kids. How can she speak her peace when she doesn't even know what goes on in the oh-so dramatic world of a teenager? If she were to try and compare high school today to high school when she was there, then she'd be very far out of line. Time after time I hear my parents talk about how things have changed since they were in school, and they're right.
(One example of this, Miss Haupt was talking to us about, is because of the way we dress, there is now four pages of dress code guidelines.)
The dancing styles are influenced by culture and media. Even if kids weren't to watch MTV to get ideas for dance moves, the influence is still all around us. Look at everything from watching the news to little girl's Halloween costumes. Nothing is pure and innocent anymore, it's just the way it is.
The author states, "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."
If the kids are dancing inappropriately, then it's probably not much of a "danger" as it is a desire. If they are dancing sexually, it's not because they are being forced to, it's because they want to. If they were afraid, they wouldn't do it. Most parents aren't stupid, they know what goes on in today's high school dances. If they were really afraid of it, they wouldn't allow their kids to go.
The author asks the question, "Why? Because they are proud of the public foreplay their children are engaging in?
This question is asked to make the parent think about their attitude toward their children's behavior. In the author's opinion, by ignoring the behavior, it is a way of supporting the behavior and encouraging them to participate in their "dangerous" activities. When she says this, it makes the "cool mom" suddenly change into a "bad" mom, one of the moms who sends her daughter off to the dance after she's taken her birth control, "just in case!" Most parents don't want to be that "bad" parent, and then the question makes them think about their views, so that they can rise up with Betty and ruin all the fun.
(PS- Before I get bashed and turned into a disgusting animal, I'm not supporting premarital sex and all that, I just want to have fun - Play better music!!!)
The author believes that the school's should be taking even more action at the dances then they already are, like "turn up the lights at all times, and always be ready to protect them from themselves whether they like it or not."
I do not agree with this author at all. She doesn't know what she's talking about. Has she ever been to a high school dance? (And I don't mean twenty years ago.) She doesn't even have high school kids. How can she speak her peace when she doesn't even know what goes on in the oh-so dramatic world of a teenager? If she were to try and compare high school today to high school when she was there, then she'd be very far out of line. Time after time I hear my parents talk about how things have changed since they were in school, and they're right.
(One example of this, Miss Haupt was talking to us about, is because of the way we dress, there is now four pages of dress code guidelines.)
The dancing styles are influenced by culture and media. Even if kids weren't to watch MTV to get ideas for dance moves, the influence is still all around us. Look at everything from watching the news to little girl's Halloween costumes. Nothing is pure and innocent anymore, it's just the way it is.
The author states, "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."
If the kids are dancing inappropriately, then it's probably not much of a "danger" as it is a desire. If they are dancing sexually, it's not because they are being forced to, it's because they want to. If they were afraid, they wouldn't do it. Most parents aren't stupid, they know what goes on in today's high school dances. If they were really afraid of it, they wouldn't allow their kids to go.
The author asks the question, "Why? Because they are proud of the public foreplay their children are engaging in?
This question is asked to make the parent think about their attitude toward their children's behavior. In the author's opinion, by ignoring the behavior, it is a way of supporting the behavior and encouraging them to participate in their "dangerous" activities. When she says this, it makes the "cool mom" suddenly change into a "bad" mom, one of the moms who sends her daughter off to the dance after she's taken her birth control, "just in case!" Most parents don't want to be that "bad" parent, and then the question makes them think about their views, so that they can rise up with Betty and ruin all the fun.
(PS- Before I get bashed and turned into a disgusting animal, I'm not supporting premarital sex and all that, I just want to have fun - Play better music!!!)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Response to #1 (Lauren Rinkleen)
While at first when I heard about the famous Imus case, I thought that it was completely rude. However, after considering the first amendment along with the examples used in Rinkleen's article, I must say that I agree with her, let the Imus voice be heard.
Rinkleen's excellent use of examples only proves the unjust jurisdiction behind the Imus case even further. The strongest example must be, "Bill O'Rielly was unrepentant and unpunished for suggesting that African-Americans eating peacefully in a resaurant was an extraordinary event." This is possibly one of the most belligerent statements I have ever heard in my life. The audacity that O'Reilly has to claim that Black's can't properly handle themselves in a public restaurant is absurd, I for one have never seen an African-American act any ruder (while eating) then a white person. If O'Reilly can get away with saying this, then why was Imus punished for ripping on whinny basketball girls?
O'Rielly's statement was a pure matter of opinion, but perhaps he has also had personal experience with the subject. Perhaps he was speaking of one specific restaurant that the reoccurring situation was held in. Imus could have been referencing the same thing, an opinion, which he is allowed to in America because we have freedom of speech, or perhaps he was referencing a personal experience he had in the past with a similar event.
Either way, Imus, unlike O'Rielly had the boldness to stand up for himself while apologizing at the same time. I agree with Rikleen, let Imus speak; it is in my opinion that he should have never been silenced in the first place.
Rinkleen's excellent use of examples only proves the unjust jurisdiction behind the Imus case even further. The strongest example must be, "Bill O'Rielly was unrepentant and unpunished for suggesting that African-Americans eating peacefully in a resaurant was an extraordinary event." This is possibly one of the most belligerent statements I have ever heard in my life. The audacity that O'Reilly has to claim that Black's can't properly handle themselves in a public restaurant is absurd, I for one have never seen an African-American act any ruder (while eating) then a white person. If O'Reilly can get away with saying this, then why was Imus punished for ripping on whinny basketball girls?
O'Rielly's statement was a pure matter of opinion, but perhaps he has also had personal experience with the subject. Perhaps he was speaking of one specific restaurant that the reoccurring situation was held in. Imus could have been referencing the same thing, an opinion, which he is allowed to in America because we have freedom of speech, or perhaps he was referencing a personal experience he had in the past with a similar event.
Either way, Imus, unlike O'Rielly had the boldness to stand up for himself while apologizing at the same time. I agree with Rikleen, let Imus speak; it is in my opinion that he should have never been silenced in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
