The True Meaning of Christmas

“Maybe Christmas,” he thought, “doesn’t come from a store. Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!” Hmm... Maybe. This quote explains what many people claim to believe today. Several Americans portray themselves as understanding the true meaning of Christmas, but as the cartoon represents, the actual meaning of Christmas continues to be forgotten each year. I agree with the view of Christmas presented by this picture. Although people try to convince themselves that Christmas is much more than a holiday of giving and receiving presents, they still become consumed with the many preparations and other things to go along with December twenty-fifth, without stopping to think of what the day is really about. When do you ever see a sign or advertisement proclaiming the birth of Jesus Christ? Instead, during this time of year, every commercial, every window sign, billboard, or coupon and magazine received in the mail proclaims the “best gift ideas” and informs us on where the “biggest sales” will be taking place. During this time, it is not made clear that Jesus was God’s ultimate gift to the world, given to us graciously and willingly at the expense of our sins.
The image of the Christmas shopper stresses the point that the importance of Christmas is soon forgotten around this time of year. Although it is clearly portrayed in the message on the screen that Christmas is about more than presents, the woman’s first thought is to purchase a gift with the phrase included on it. Hypocritical much? It seems that she is oblivious to what the quote means, and sees it simply as an idea for more presents; exactly what Christmas should be least about. The fact that her arms are filled with additional gifts only helps more in showing her lack of understanding of what the quote is talking about. Another visual that goes along with the main point is the whole appearance of the salesman behind the counter. His expression looks as if he can care less about what he is doing. In the Christmas season, shouldn’t an employee at least attempt to be in the Christmas spirit? He appears unhappy, unenthused, and unfriendly. This helps by once again, displaying nothing of the sort of what Christmas should be about.

The Death of Sean Taylor and The "Black KKK"

In his article, Jason Whitlock writes about the death of former NFL player, Sean Taylor. Whitlock uses Taylor’s death to support his assertion that the “Black KKK” is responsible for what has happened, and claims that they are still a threat to all black men today. He feels that “black men are targets of black men” and until the Black KKK has not been stopped, nothing will change. Whitlock also discusses the impact of hip-hop on the young black culture. He believes that it is responsible for giving them the impression to live in a “culture that celebrates murder, ignorance and incarceration”. Whitlock believes that this Black KKK is to blame for the death of Sean Taylor, and any black man or boy could be next.

Jason Whitlock argues that “if you're a black man living in America, you've been reminded once again that your life is in constant jeopardy of violent death”, and I disagree. Your life is not in danger simply due to the color of your skin. I do not agree that every black man is destined to a violent death, such as Whitlock claims. It is true that African Americans were once degraded, mistreated, and left undefended in United States history, however, it would be unacceptable for anyone to look at blacks in such a way now. They are no longer viewed as inferior members of society, and assumptions should not be made that they remain “in danger” and subject to “violent deaths” as a result of their race. Whitlock jumps to conclusions in assuming the present view on blacks in America.

An example of parallelism used in this article is the comparison between the “White KKK” and the “Black KKK”. Whitlock states that “rather than whine about white folks' insensitivity or reserve a special place of sorrow for rich athletes, we'd be better served mustering the kind of outrage and courage it took in the 1950s and 1960s to stop the white KKK from hanging black men from trees”. This strengthens the article by fulfilling Whitlock’s statement that the Black KKK needs to be stopped. His parallelism to the White KKK proves that it took courage to put an ending to this similar problem in the past, and it shows that maybe the same courage is what’s required in stopping the Black KKK today.

"School dance steps look like foreplay"

Betsy Hart’s article discusses the troubling issue of what is taking place at high school dances. The behavior of teenagers at school dances is brought to the attention of many naive parents. Hart has become aware of the inapropriate dancing that is taking place, and feels that others should be informed about the matter. The issue requires a more strict set of boundaries and guidelines to maintain the safety of teens. The parents and school authorities to which the concern has become known to have tried to control the matter. Some schools have set restrictions on the ways the kids choose to dance, and some parents have become worried and, like Hart, want to be involved in chaperoning the dances to assure that they are under control. There are also parents that are blind to the improper ways of their children, and say that they shouldn’t be stopped. Hart, as well as other sensible parents, disagree.

It seems that parents are just starting to become aware of the behavior of their perfect little sons and daughters. What might appear as a night at a harmless school dance to mom and dad, could be defined more along the lines of “bumping and grinding”, as if in a club, to teenagers. Hart exploits this issue, hoping to convince parents to support in controlling the conduct of their teens. She wants them to be aware of the situation at hand, and put a foot down when it comes to their teenagers’ behavior.

Betsy Hart claims that parents need to step up and take action over the behavior occurring at school dances, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I agree that there needs to be restrictions put on dances. Teens don’t realize the way that they portray themselves by the choices they make. What might seem fun and familiar to them doesn’t look appropriate to others, especially adults, and isn’t a way in which they should want to be viewed. On the other hand, I don’t think the restrictions should be as extensive as Hart makes them sound. Although safety is a primary issue, from the teenage perspective, putting a limit on the types of music that can be played at dances or setting too many rules and regulations really can ruin a dance. The respectable teen would know how to conduct themselves in a school environment. For those who don’t, consequences should be enforced, but not at the expense of the other students.

The most effective rhetorical question used by Hart in her article is “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 uses this to prove that parents need to primarily be concerned with their teens’ safety. It supports her point to convince parents to control the conduct of their teens. Also, it shows how some parents need to become more attentive to their child's security, not their desires. Hart pointed out the issue of inappropriate behavior and concern for the safety of teenagers, and now it’s the parents’ obligation to fulfill their responsibilities in protecting them.

Should Imus Be Allowed Back?

I disagree with the article by Laureen Stiller. Imus should not be allowed back onto the air. He deserved to be fired as a consequence of his statement. The words he chose to use were demeaning and offensive, and someone who decides to speak of others in such a way should not be employed at a position where others are able to listen to them do so. Although Imus did apologize for his actions, that does not make up for or change what he said. He should not be able to return to the air.

The best example used by Stiller is the one of New York Knicks coach, Isaiah Thomas, because it most closely resembles the main point. Thomas also used senseless and derogatory language when referring to how men speak to women of different races. He says that certain words are okay to be used by black men towards black women, while they aren’t as accepted when used by white men in the same way. The fact that Thomas wasn’t punished supports Stiller’s point to why Imus should be allowed back onto the air and accepted once again as a radio host. It proves that others have not been punished for their words, while Imus was. Although this helps to support Stiller’s point, it does not make it okay to use that type of language. It is not right for women to be labeled by disrespectful words, no matter who is stating them.