A Lesson From The Grinch

The entire Christmas season has evolved in such a way, as to perfectly characterize our society's focus today. Like a spoiled child before Christmas, all we want is MORE MORE MORE. It seems like everyone these days are constantly looking for the lateest greatest toys. Words from the wise? A narration from the Grinch wonders, "Maybe Christmas, he thought, doesn't come in a store. Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more." In this woman's case, more is referring to MORE GIFTS. As if this enthusiastic shopper (obviously the jumbo jaw with the bulging bicuspids on the right) doesn't have enough gifts already, she feels the need to demand an item the store doesn't even carry!

The author/illustrator of this cartoon, whether he be Christian or believes that the holidays should again focus on love and family time, he shows a contrast between the emotional or religious aspects of the season, and the struggle for the most expensive, biggest, and best gifts obtainable. The TV screen shows a mindset completely different from that of the shopper. The woman in this scenario, stares at the screen but misses the point of the message. She is so engrossed in the materialism of the holidays that she is oblivious to the true "reason for the season". She is diving head first into the quick sand of materialism, and doesn't care if she ever gets out. It is sad that this is the case of so many Americans (myself included). It is hard to resist getting caught up in the gift-giving and surplus shopping. The act of buying presents itself is not as wrong as forgetting Christmas' significance (the birth of our Christ) in the process.

Hopefully, the good news (gospel) will take the place of sales pitches. And Jesus, who came to pay the ultimate price, will be more valuable than the price tags on our gifts this year.
Let us all remember the greatest gift of all this season. (not a quote on a sweatshirt)

The "Black KKK": the new (killers) on the block

Jason Whitlock's article this past week discussed the death of Sean Taylor and its possible link to the "Black KKK" (black men targeting black men) and the influence of rap music on the African American culture. He warns that this event serves as a reminder all black men, that they're lives "[are] in constant jeopardy of violent death". Whitlock concludes that any African American could be next and that the situation should not be taken lightly.

I agree that the influence of rap music can influence behavior, but I do not necessarily agree that every black man's life is at stake. Not everyone (black OR white) that listens to rap or hip hop is destined to be a cold-blooded killer. This music may play a role in the process, but it is certainly not the main cause of these killings.

Whitlock uses parallelism when comparing the "Black KKK" to the original KKK. Our author explains that they are similar by saying that the "pain, the fear, and the destruction are all the same". This adds to the article by creating a mood of intollerance to these unecessary killings. By understanding the effects that the "Black KKK" has on society, we are able to understand Whitlock's point of view and why he feels the need to take a stand against the promotion of a "crab-in-barrel mentality".

From Foxtrot to 'Freak Dance'

Is modern day dancing really endangering our generation? The root of all evil to a Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Betsy Hart, is what my generation likes to call "freak dancing."(aka grinding...and for those more advanced users-of-slang, "bumpin' & grindin'")
Hart begins her column with a warning to her children, "I'm going to chaperone every high school dance you attend." This concerned mother of four believes that the continued presence of "freak dancing" during school dances will lead to sexual assault and abuse. She goes on to speak out against the use of this more sexual form of dancing, by voicing her belief that children need parents to "protect them from themselves, whether they like it or not."
The rhetorical question that Betsy Hart used reads, "'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?"
Hart is making the point that dirty dancing is leading to bad situations, and parents aren't reacting in a worried way towards their childrens safety.She believes that it is time to start changing the way adults view this type of behavior, in order to abolish it.
I agree that this type of dance does reflect upon one's morals, but Hart is approaching the situation in a risky way. The way we present ourselves does have an impact on others, and does reveal our character those around us, but inappropriate behavior cannot be corrected through sudden, strict punishment. If Hart's goal is correct teens' social practices by being a social nazi, in hopes that other moms will follow in her footsteps, she is in for a rude awakening. Not only will these teenagers begin to resent, but will also rebel against authority. Parents without morals themselves cannot expect to, after raising their children without these morals either, all of a sudden impose rules upon them and expect them to accept that way of thinking.
It is too late now.
This behavior can only be stopped by teaching and building good morals into their children at a young age, to develop good character that they can trust to make the right decision in any situation. Because when they grow up, they won't have their parents to be their chaperones through life.
While Betsy thinks she is starting a revolution, what she's aking for is a war.

Should We Miss Imus?

If you asked author/lawyer Lauren Stiller Rikleen what her opinion is on the belief that Don Imus should be put back on air, after his crude and inappropriate comments directed towards the Rutgers women's basketball team, she would not hesitate to give you a definite "YES." In Rikleen's opinion, since there are "too few journalists [that] go below the surface of the initial question and answer", we need more interviewers "willing to ask the tough questions." My question is, "should we compromise our morals for it?" Rikleen does not condone the use of unnecessary, vulgar language and even admits to us that there are "no excuses for his remarks".......yet she offers us several excuses of her own.
Putting "Donny" in the time-out chair for 6 months and listening to his 7 minute apology does not justify his demeaning comments, nor does comparing him with others' offensive opinions. Writing about how much worse Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh's comments are does not make Imus seem less guilty, but it gives a perfect example of why such crude language is still being used in the media. This can be traced to the natural thought, "If he/she says it then so can I!"
(I.E. What was bounty hunter, Duane Dog Chapman thinking before he also apologized for using racial terms?)
In order to eliminate this type of language in the media, appropriate and effective consequences need to be enforced.
Still, there are columnists, celebrities, and interviewers such as Don Imus who are reprimanded, yet their punishment doesn't fit the crime. Rikleen wonders why Imus's dismissal, the attempt "to herald a new era in media discourse" was unsuccessful. She asks why, "the rest of the media did not get the memo?" Well Laura, maybe because like you, no one sees the need to correct them.