Compassion
In the story Compassion by Babara Lazear Ascher there are three quotes that really stood out to me. The first quote is the first sentence of the story, it says "The man's grin is less the result of circumstance than dreams or madness." This quote stood out to me because it means that a homeless person's smile isn't because of the circumstance that he is in but more of the dreams that he has or because he is crazy. This quote is true because you are constantly finding homeless people who smile and you always ask yourself why is he smiling shouldn't he be depressed and sad he's homelss. Ascher on the other hand seems to beleive that he is smiling either because of the dreams he says or because he is crazy. Another quote that stood out to be was the quote "Raw humanity offends our sensibilities." What Ascher means by this is that when we see homeless people it offends us because it's proof that what we have can just go away in a blind of an eye. She believes this is why we give them money when they ask she says that we do it out of fear and so they could go away. The last quote that stood out to me was the quote "There, but for the grace of God, go I." This quote stood out because it's true. Most people give homeless people money out of the kindness of their heart they believe in this quote because it says that they gave homeless people money out of the grace of God. They did it because of God.
Homeless by Anna Quindlen
This story is about homeless people and how they are looked at by society and people who have homes. Quindlen says "You are where you live." When she says this she is talking about a homeless person who she once talked to. She says that the women gave her a picture of a home that she once lived in to prove she was somebody and that she wasn't homeless. Quindlen says "You are where you live" to say that the women was somebody. Another quote that stood out to me was the quote "Home is where the heart is." In this quote she is using the homeless women as in example of how home is where the heart is. She talks about how all homeless people would rather live in the streets and sleep in subways then to go to a homeless shelter because it's not where their heart is. The women that Quindlen was talking about proved this because of the picture she showed Quindlen. She was saying that that house was her home and no where else. The last quote that stood out was the quote "Homes have stopped being homes. Now they are real estate." With this quote Quindlen says that homes aren't what they used to be. Back then you lived in a home because your parents and grandparents lived there. They used to belong to you. Now you got the government always trying to take that away from you. Your home belongs to the government not to you anymore. That's the reason why we have homeless people in the world, because they are constanstly loosing your home to the government.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Summary & Response 3
In the article "But Enough About You", by Brian Williams he talks about how things like the internet and all other electrionic devices are taking over things the tv and movies. For the first couple of paragraphs William says "Americans have decided the most important person in their lives is ... them, and our culture is now built upon that idea." He is basically saying that people how now and days only care about themselves and now that's how the whole world thinks. In the next paragraph Williams talks about people today have to share every single aspect of their lives. He says that if they think it's important to them, than it defintely should be shared to the whole world. He says "The implied message is that if it has do with you, or your life, it's important enough to tell someone". Williams believes there is something wrong with this because people really don't care what happens in other people's lives, those things should be kept to themselves. He says personal and intimate things that used to be in diares are now posted in blogs for the whole world to see. Williams basically believes that nothing is kept secret anymore, everybody knows everybodys business. In the next paragraph Williams talks about tv and how we were once taught by characters like Barney and Elmo how important we were and how that's basically instinct. The next paragraph is basically a responce to objections. Williams knew some people might question the fact that he too has a daily blog so he says that we writes about his work. He says "While the media landscape of my youth, with its three television networks, now seems like forced national viewing by comparsion, and while I anchor a broadcast that is routinely viewed by an audience of ten million or more, it's nothing like it use to be." With this William is saying that even though he works for a television show that has a decent amount of aduience members he says its not like it used to be. He goes on to say that he works just as hard as other media things but they don't get as much attention as it should. He says he works so hard on his televisions shows just to let lured away about other things like the internet. For the next couple of paragraphs he talks about how now you have things like Ipod's and the internet that you can choose to watch and listen what you want listen to. Overall Williams arguement is that now and days people can choose what they want to listen to. He says that television is now hardly ever watched. He says the reason for all this is that people only want to watch what they want to watch and with tv they don't have that option. He says this is also the reason why things like the internet and cell phones are famous is because people can choose what not to listen to or see.
My Response:
My response to this article is that I agree with Williams. I agree with Williams idea that things like the internet and cell phones are overrated. He says that these things are taking away what television used to mean. He also says that people have the tendency to spread their business out through these things and that's what sparks everyone's interest. He says there's something wrong with that concept of people wantingto hear other people's business. Even though he says it's wrong for people to even spread their business in the first place. I think he's right. Everywhere on the internet all you see is how people feel and what they go through. It human nature to look at it and be interested because you may be going through the same things. With the internet you have the option to look at things you want to look at, with television you don't. That's why people don't watch it hardly anymore. Once you've seen the same things over and over again it get's boring. That's when the internet comes in. It's more entertaining. But what happened to those days when we learned our ABC's from the television. We learned how to talk and about basic social skills from the television and now we have our kids learning it from the computer. Television producers try to keep up with today's demand but they always get beaten by the internet. I believe that if somehow the television was a little more like the internet people would pay more attention to it.
My Response:
My response to this article is that I agree with Williams. I agree with Williams idea that things like the internet and cell phones are overrated. He says that these things are taking away what television used to mean. He also says that people have the tendency to spread their business out through these things and that's what sparks everyone's interest. He says there's something wrong with that concept of people wantingto hear other people's business. Even though he says it's wrong for people to even spread their business in the first place. I think he's right. Everywhere on the internet all you see is how people feel and what they go through. It human nature to look at it and be interested because you may be going through the same things. With the internet you have the option to look at things you want to look at, with television you don't. That's why people don't watch it hardly anymore. Once you've seen the same things over and over again it get's boring. That's when the internet comes in. It's more entertaining. But what happened to those days when we learned our ABC's from the television. We learned how to talk and about basic social skills from the television and now we have our kids learning it from the computer. Television producers try to keep up with today's demand but they always get beaten by the internet. I believe that if somehow the television was a little more like the internet people would pay more attention to it.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Essay 3-The Message of Music
My ideas for Essay 3 is to let people know the truth about music today. My goal is to try to convince people that music should go back to the days where it had an actual meaning. Also, i want to prove that music today is fake. I plan to do this by using the song "Where's the Love?" by Black Eyed Peas. This song will help me prove my claim because it is one of the only songs today that has a meaning to it. This song speaks the truth about the world today and all it's struggles. It doesn't talk about sex,money, materialistic things. I mean it does talk about these things but only to say that these things are taking over the world. Its making people do bad things and the reason why people today want these things so bad is because the music idustry makes it seem like without things like money, nice cars, and clothes, you are nothing. With this essay I've discovered that music today does need to change. I never realized before this how negative music is today. I listened to songs like "The Message" and I realized that music has really changed for the worse. Instead of talking about real life struggles and pain, music today talks about material things. As if it was the most important thing in the world.
The process of writing this essay is a long and troubled journey. You have to take it step by step because if you dont you will loose out on the most important details. First you have to bring down your song verse by verse and grab the meaning to it. After you do that, you have to decide weither or not you agree with the song. If you dont, you got to explain what exactly you don't agree with and make a claim. If you do, you got to tell all the things you like about the song, and make a claim. After you've made you're claim, you have to find sources to support your claim. Your song is only one support, you need things like articles, magazines, newspaper selections, you support your claim. For me this was the hardest part. I had to literally listen to alot of different songs just to find one negative enough to suppport my claim. After you do all that, it's time to cite your sources. After you've got all your scoures and everything you have to write the paper. I haven't gotten that far yet,but I know when I do I'm going to have to get extra help.
The process of writing this essay is a long and troubled journey. You have to take it step by step because if you dont you will loose out on the most important details. First you have to bring down your song verse by verse and grab the meaning to it. After you do that, you have to decide weither or not you agree with the song. If you dont, you got to explain what exactly you don't agree with and make a claim. If you do, you got to tell all the things you like about the song, and make a claim. After you've made you're claim, you have to find sources to support your claim. Your song is only one support, you need things like articles, magazines, newspaper selections, you support your claim. For me this was the hardest part. I had to literally listen to alot of different songs just to find one negative enough to suppport my claim. After you do all that, it's time to cite your sources. After you've got all your scoures and everything you have to write the paper. I haven't gotten that far yet,but I know when I do I'm going to have to get extra help.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Rap Fans Desire a More Positive Product
The Three Sentences that I think really stood out in this selection, was first when Greg Jones said "Many People wonder why anyone should make a big deal out of negative rap music, because they believe it is only entertainment. " This sentence stood out because he mentioned the oposing side. Greg Jones knew many people would disagree with him but, he was well prepared for the agruement . After he said this he says that most people know that artists like Jay Z and Dr. Dre don't really perform the activties they claim. In other words, what people think is real entertainment is fake because these artists don't really do the things they rap about.
Another sentence that I thought stood out in this selection was when Greg Jones says "Record exectutives don't want positive images seen or heard, because it will interfere with the millions they make off young, uneducated, and misled black rappers from the inner cities of America." This sentence stood out because it supports his arguement that what rappers rap about nowdays are fake. He says that the record companies force them to rap about negative things, even though none of it is true. Greg Jones's other claim is that the reason why rap has changed so much is because record companies force their singers to say negative things just to make more money. Jones seems to believe that this idea is misleading and wrong.
The last sentence that stood out was when he started talking about how America can change the way of rap. I can't just mention one sentence because to me they all stood out. He starts naming positive artists like Common, Black Start and Dead Pres and says that they should all get more requests on the radio and on tv. He says music fans should turn off the television and their radio when they hear negative songs. He also says that music listeners should send emails to record company executives and complain about their negativity. He believes all these things would change the way rappers sing and what record companies seem to believe. I like this because it's true. People should change the way they listen to music, it's not right to listen to something that's fake, and doesn't exist.
Another sentence that I thought stood out in this selection was when Greg Jones says "Record exectutives don't want positive images seen or heard, because it will interfere with the millions they make off young, uneducated, and misled black rappers from the inner cities of America." This sentence stood out because it supports his arguement that what rappers rap about nowdays are fake. He says that the record companies force them to rap about negative things, even though none of it is true. Greg Jones's other claim is that the reason why rap has changed so much is because record companies force their singers to say negative things just to make more money. Jones seems to believe that this idea is misleading and wrong.
The last sentence that stood out was when he started talking about how America can change the way of rap. I can't just mention one sentence because to me they all stood out. He starts naming positive artists like Common, Black Start and Dead Pres and says that they should all get more requests on the radio and on tv. He says music fans should turn off the television and their radio when they hear negative songs. He also says that music listeners should send emails to record company executives and complain about their negativity. He believes all these things would change the way rappers sing and what record companies seem to believe. I like this because it's true. People should change the way they listen to music, it's not right to listen to something that's fake, and doesn't exist.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sex,Drugs,Rock'n'Roll
Summary & Response
Summary:
The first paragraph talks about the White House and how the President doesn't really have any idea of the life of a teenager this days. He says that the President doesn't know enough to have a conference about sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, even though the President has his own experience with it. He says that we were the first to question authority etc. Paragraph 2 gives an example of what a teenager would say to the President if asked what they thought of how they thought about growing up today. He talks about violence in the school, and states that even though juvenile violence decreased since 1991 that now we have to worry about schoolyard shootings. The author says that we shouldn't have guns and that schools were well funded back then. Starsburger goes on to talk about that we should add an extra $100 to the school budgets instead of using it to build new F-16 fighter planes. The third paragraph talks about drugs and how it really affects teenagers these days.. The author says that it's not drugs that are killing teens but that it's alcohol and tabacco that's killing them. He says that why if this it true aren't there any anti alcohol and tabacco commericals on tv? He basically says its awkward that the government would put so stress on drugs like marijuana and cocaine but won't put any stress on the things that are really killing teenagers i.e tabacco and alcohol. The next paragraph talks about sex and how sex education makes teeagers smarter about sex about doesn't increase their rates of sexual activity. He says that birth control doesn't make teenagers sexual active either. Next paragraph he says that back then there were no Mtv, no bad things yet they still did the things they did. He believes that MTV has no affect on teenagers , that's why adults allow things to be shown to their kids. Finally he wraps everything up by saying that today's teenagers are good kids, just as they were back then. He basically blames the adults for the way teenagers act. He says that adults know so much how to avoid the bad things but yet they do nothing.
Bascially this author is saying throughout his whold essay that teenagers aren't as bad as people/adults think. He seems to believe that everything a teenager does that' s bad is the parents fault. He doesn't think things like drugs, alcohol, and sex, are infulenced by tv but by the parents themselves. He says if teenagers are bad today that they have always been because everything a teenager does today, the adults did it back then. Teenagers haven't changed, society has, and that's the truth.
My response:
I agree with this author's idea to an extent. I do agree that most teenagers today are good kids, but they are a few of them that aren't good. I agree with the fact that birth control isn't a free ticket for teenagers to have sex. I don't think that teenagers see it that way anymore. I also agree with the fact that sex education only makes a teenager aware of the consenquences it doesn't increase the rate of sexual activity. It only lets them know what sex is and what it could do them. I think if a teenager is going to have sex they are going to do it regardless of what they hear or see, regardless if they have birth control or not. And, if they are having sex with birth control then it's a good thing, not a bad thing. People thing birth control is bad because it gives the teenager the okay to have sex, but what they don't know is that a teenager is going to do what they want regardless, wouldn't it better if they were protected why their at it?
I also agree with the fact that the government should stop worrying so much about drugs like marijuana and cocaine and start focusing on things like slcohol and tabacco. He states that "in the most recent data 31% of 12th-graders have engaged in binge drinking within 2 weeks of being surveyed and nearly 35% smoked cigarettes in the past month." He says this is what is killing teenagers today, and I agree. Most car accidents are caused by teenagers who have been drinking and driving. Yet, the government seems to ignore this. They put a drinking age limit, as if that's going to stop them. Teenagers have this tendency of doing things only because their not supposed to. They like the thrill. If smoking and drinking was a law I truly think it would decrease drastically.
What I don't agree with this author is the fact that MTV has no effect on teenagers. I do think it does have an effect. Where else would they get the idea to dress and act the way they do. They go celebrities letting kids know it's okay to do the things they do, yet you don't seem them getting arrested. You see young men and women from the street getting arrested and beat up by the cops. Celebs are basically telling all their business out there and kids see nothing happens to them so they automatically think it's okay. This is where the influence comes in and where we got those rebel teenagers out there. Violence is another think that teenagers get from those celebs. Rappers talking about that they killed this one, beat that one, and yet there they are. Teengers follow their example and end up jail. How is this? Why is this? It's all about money. The government is so money hungry that will do anything to save money. Even if it means a few lost lives.
In conclusion Starsburger's idea is a good one. I do think they that teenagers are good kids. I don't think they have changed as much since back in the day. If anything back in the day was worse. They had racism, sexism, etc. People killing people because the color of their skin and because of who they choose to make love to. I don't blame the parents for the way the teenagers act today. I mean in a way it is their fault but you got to remember that teenagers are going to do whatever they want regardless of what their parents say. If there wasn't so much bad influence on tv and around the world, the teenagers wouldn't have anybody to copy.
Summary:
The first paragraph talks about the White House and how the President doesn't really have any idea of the life of a teenager this days. He says that the President doesn't know enough to have a conference about sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, even though the President has his own experience with it. He says that we were the first to question authority etc. Paragraph 2 gives an example of what a teenager would say to the President if asked what they thought of how they thought about growing up today. He talks about violence in the school, and states that even though juvenile violence decreased since 1991 that now we have to worry about schoolyard shootings. The author says that we shouldn't have guns and that schools were well funded back then. Starsburger goes on to talk about that we should add an extra $100 to the school budgets instead of using it to build new F-16 fighter planes. The third paragraph talks about drugs and how it really affects teenagers these days.. The author says that it's not drugs that are killing teens but that it's alcohol and tabacco that's killing them. He says that why if this it true aren't there any anti alcohol and tabacco commericals on tv? He basically says its awkward that the government would put so stress on drugs like marijuana and cocaine but won't put any stress on the things that are really killing teenagers i.e tabacco and alcohol. The next paragraph talks about sex and how sex education makes teeagers smarter about sex about doesn't increase their rates of sexual activity. He says that birth control doesn't make teenagers sexual active either. Next paragraph he says that back then there were no Mtv, no bad things yet they still did the things they did. He believes that MTV has no affect on teenagers , that's why adults allow things to be shown to their kids. Finally he wraps everything up by saying that today's teenagers are good kids, just as they were back then. He basically blames the adults for the way teenagers act. He says that adults know so much how to avoid the bad things but yet they do nothing.
Bascially this author is saying throughout his whold essay that teenagers aren't as bad as people/adults think. He seems to believe that everything a teenager does that' s bad is the parents fault. He doesn't think things like drugs, alcohol, and sex, are infulenced by tv but by the parents themselves. He says if teenagers are bad today that they have always been because everything a teenager does today, the adults did it back then. Teenagers haven't changed, society has, and that's the truth.
My response:
I agree with this author's idea to an extent. I do agree that most teenagers today are good kids, but they are a few of them that aren't good. I agree with the fact that birth control isn't a free ticket for teenagers to have sex. I don't think that teenagers see it that way anymore. I also agree with the fact that sex education only makes a teenager aware of the consenquences it doesn't increase the rate of sexual activity. It only lets them know what sex is and what it could do them. I think if a teenager is going to have sex they are going to do it regardless of what they hear or see, regardless if they have birth control or not. And, if they are having sex with birth control then it's a good thing, not a bad thing. People thing birth control is bad because it gives the teenager the okay to have sex, but what they don't know is that a teenager is going to do what they want regardless, wouldn't it better if they were protected why their at it?
I also agree with the fact that the government should stop worrying so much about drugs like marijuana and cocaine and start focusing on things like slcohol and tabacco. He states that "in the most recent data 31% of 12th-graders have engaged in binge drinking within 2 weeks of being surveyed and nearly 35% smoked cigarettes in the past month." He says this is what is killing teenagers today, and I agree. Most car accidents are caused by teenagers who have been drinking and driving. Yet, the government seems to ignore this. They put a drinking age limit, as if that's going to stop them. Teenagers have this tendency of doing things only because their not supposed to. They like the thrill. If smoking and drinking was a law I truly think it would decrease drastically.
What I don't agree with this author is the fact that MTV has no effect on teenagers. I do think it does have an effect. Where else would they get the idea to dress and act the way they do. They go celebrities letting kids know it's okay to do the things they do, yet you don't seem them getting arrested. You see young men and women from the street getting arrested and beat up by the cops. Celebs are basically telling all their business out there and kids see nothing happens to them so they automatically think it's okay. This is where the influence comes in and where we got those rebel teenagers out there. Violence is another think that teenagers get from those celebs. Rappers talking about that they killed this one, beat that one, and yet there they are. Teengers follow their example and end up jail. How is this? Why is this? It's all about money. The government is so money hungry that will do anything to save money. Even if it means a few lost lives.
In conclusion Starsburger's idea is a good one. I do think they that teenagers are good kids. I don't think they have changed as much since back in the day. If anything back in the day was worse. They had racism, sexism, etc. People killing people because the color of their skin and because of who they choose to make love to. I don't blame the parents for the way the teenagers act today. I mean in a way it is their fault but you got to remember that teenagers are going to do whatever they want regardless of what their parents say. If there wasn't so much bad influence on tv and around the world, the teenagers wouldn't have anybody to copy.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Won't You Be My Friendster?
Paragraph 1- Gives an example using anarration of personal experience to give an idea of what she is going to argue about. Also he uses description.
Paragraph 2 & 3-Uses description, uses examples. Using Classification by talking about all social sites and what they can do.
Paragraph 4 & 5-Again using a personal experience to support her claim, using description as she describes that experience
Paragraph 6- Uses Persuasive and Argument to state her position that networks foster connectiion action within physical community. Uses a narrative personal experience to support it.
Paragraph 7-Uses Cause and Effect. Compare and Contrast. How the social ites can be good thing but also a bad thing?
The essay Won't you be my Friendster, is a good example of an argumentative essay because it gives her claims and argues it to the fullest. She gives her claim, and throughout the whole essay she gives reasons for why she thinks this. It stays on topic, and gives personal experience and examples. A good argumentative essay should have all these qualities. The writer should know exactly what he or she is talking about and should convince the reader to do the same. In this essay, she argues that social websites aren't always bad. She begins with the fact that she herself was a skeptic. She believed social websites were a waste of time, but that after she tried it she saw it had its good things too. She goes on to give about 3 or 4 good things about social websites, and connects it to her own personal life. This right here gives the reader insight. It's always good to support your claim with personal experiences, it's really hard to argue them. Another good thing about her essay is at the end she reminds the readers the bad things about social websites. She knows they aren't always good and states a few things that are wrong. All the while using it to support her claim. She never gets off topic, always stays with her claim.
Paragraph 2 & 3-Uses description, uses examples. Using Classification by talking about all social sites and what they can do.
Paragraph 4 & 5-Again using a personal experience to support her claim, using description as she describes that experience
Paragraph 6- Uses Persuasive and Argument to state her position that networks foster connectiion action within physical community. Uses a narrative personal experience to support it.
Paragraph 7-Uses Cause and Effect. Compare and Contrast. How the social ites can be good thing but also a bad thing?
The essay Won't you be my Friendster, is a good example of an argumentative essay because it gives her claims and argues it to the fullest. She gives her claim, and throughout the whole essay she gives reasons for why she thinks this. It stays on topic, and gives personal experience and examples. A good argumentative essay should have all these qualities. The writer should know exactly what he or she is talking about and should convince the reader to do the same. In this essay, she argues that social websites aren't always bad. She begins with the fact that she herself was a skeptic. She believed social websites were a waste of time, but that after she tried it she saw it had its good things too. She goes on to give about 3 or 4 good things about social websites, and connects it to her own personal life. This right here gives the reader insight. It's always good to support your claim with personal experiences, it's really hard to argue them. Another good thing about her essay is at the end she reminds the readers the bad things about social websites. She knows they aren't always good and states a few things that are wrong. All the while using it to support her claim. She never gets off topic, always stays with her claim.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Needs & Myth of Doomed Kids
In Thomas Sowell’s essay “Needs” he basically argues that most think they need things when in reality they just want them. He says we can live without needs so instead of being needs they become something we want. In Depaulo’s essay “Myth of Doom Kids” she says that children do not NEED both parents to become well adjusted adults. These two can compare because both believe that people don’t need things. They just wanted them. Depaulo’s idea is basically that kids do not need to have two parents in the household to be good adults. Some kids might want them, but it isn’t necessary. This is where Thomas Sowell’s essay comes in. They both seem to believe that just because you think you need it doesn’t mean you can’t live without it. Sometimes you have no choice, like some children have no choice, but they can just be as good off as kids with both parents if they apply themselves correctly.
I agree with this. I don’t think children need two parents to be well off adults. I think it’s just something that they want more than something that they need. Most children with only a mom or dad act out because of this “want”. They seem to believe that they can’t live without that need, so they act out because they feel they have no choice. They feel hopeless. I know this I myself went through the same thing. As a young child my dad left us, so I felt like it was my fault. I felt that I couldn’t be normal like other kids so I too acted out. After about a year or rebelling my little sister was born and it changed me. Her father left too, and I didn’t want her to come out wrong like I was doing. I don’t think kids need both parents, because I became a well off young lady without my father. Then again, I also know children who didn’t change. I know kids who live without their dad and rebel, especially when it’s a young man living with only his mother. He feels like he needs to be the man of the house and support his mom so he goes and does illegal things and actually believes he has to do it. He believes his mom needs him, not the other way around. So, basically kids do not NEED both parents to be well off adults. I think it’s more of a want, than a need. They can be just as good without both parents.
I agree with this. I don’t think children need two parents to be well off adults. I think it’s just something that they want more than something that they need. Most children with only a mom or dad act out because of this “want”. They seem to believe that they can’t live without that need, so they act out because they feel they have no choice. They feel hopeless. I know this I myself went through the same thing. As a young child my dad left us, so I felt like it was my fault. I felt that I couldn’t be normal like other kids so I too acted out. After about a year or rebelling my little sister was born and it changed me. Her father left too, and I didn’t want her to come out wrong like I was doing. I don’t think kids need both parents, because I became a well off young lady without my father. Then again, I also know children who didn’t change. I know kids who live without their dad and rebel, especially when it’s a young man living with only his mother. He feels like he needs to be the man of the house and support his mom so he goes and does illegal things and actually believes he has to do it. He believes his mom needs him, not the other way around. So, basically kids do not NEED both parents to be well off adults. I think it’s more of a want, than a need. They can be just as good without both parents.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Myth of Doomed Children
Malissa Lisojo
Summary & Response
September 30, 2009
Myth of Doomed Kids
The first paragraph is about how children who live with a single parent are expected to fail and be a delinquent. Second paragraph states that the author took a survey of children with single parent homes and drug abuse and talks how children with single parent homes are the most at risk. Third paragraph the author talks about the fear of children of single parents home being addicted to the substance and not that the children will try it. She talks about the side effects and how it can affect those children’s lives. Fourth paragraph talks about the survey itself. The survey she took a survey was not only of the single family home but also, the mother and father, the mother alone, the father alone, the mother and stepfather, and father and stepmother homes. She shows the percentages of substances abuse of children in each family. Fifth paragraph she talks about how in each family most of the children do not have a substance abuse. Also, even with this being true, children with mother and father homes do better than others. Next she talks about how even though culture has said that children with single family homes do a lot worse with substance abuse she says that it’s not much of a difference. For the rest of the excerpt she basically talks about that even though single parent homes do worst then the homes of both mother and father she believes that it doesn’t mean those kids have no one to care, love, and spend time with them. She says that people believe the kids with single parent homes are neglected and abused and that’s why they have substance abuse but she believes they do have other people who care for them. Though it’s not mommy or daddy they all have a least one other relative or person who cares for them. She says that just because children have a home of a mother and father doesn’t mean they aren’t neglected. That doesn’t mean both mom and dad always have time for them and that explains why the percentage of children between the two homes who have a substance abuse problem is not much less than the percentage of children with a single family home. Basically this author is trying to prove that kids with single parent homes aren’t always doomed. They are to an extent but it isn’t to the extreme.
My Response
I agree with this author. She believes that kids from single parent homes aren’t always doomed for failure regardless of what society may believe. Yes, they do cause some type of problem but, they aren’t as different as kids that come from homes with a mother and father. I believe the same thing because I myself come from a single mother home. I do have a stepfather but he is not someone who has any authority over me. All my life it has always been me and my mother. When I turned 10 my mom got pregnant with my little sister and a few years later, her father disappeared too. My dad left because my mom had an affair, that affair ended with my little sister. Anyways when my sister came along my responsibilities, my life, changed. Even before my sister, when it was just me and my mom I never acted out. I was never a problem because my mom knew what she was doing. After my sister came I took over, and even though my mom wasn’t around much after giving birth because she was working two jobs, my sister was hardly a problem either. We both turned out alright, something statistics say shouldn’t happened. My mother was never on welfare, always took care of us by herself.
The author also states that even children with mother and father homes do badly too. Though not as bad she says being a single parent isn’t the reason why children act up. The author states that “4.5% of them have substance abuse problem, compared with the 5.7% if the adolescences living with only their mom. It’s a difference, but not much of one.” What she means by this is that the percentage of kids with substance abuse of single parent homes isn’t too much more than the percentage of kids with substances abuse of a home of both mother and father. She’s basically saying that it doesn’t matter that much if your from a single family or a family with both your mom and dad it’s still a chance your end up with a substance abuse problem. I agree with this too. It doesn’t matter if you have either your parents or just one parents, you’re going to have a substance problem regardless. If you choose to be a problem your going to be a problem rather you have one parent or both. Though some children actually do have a problem they do it on purpose just for attention. Most children let that go, now the difference between the two isn't that high.
Summary & Response
September 30, 2009
Myth of Doomed Kids
The first paragraph is about how children who live with a single parent are expected to fail and be a delinquent. Second paragraph states that the author took a survey of children with single parent homes and drug abuse and talks how children with single parent homes are the most at risk. Third paragraph the author talks about the fear of children of single parents home being addicted to the substance and not that the children will try it. She talks about the side effects and how it can affect those children’s lives. Fourth paragraph talks about the survey itself. The survey she took a survey was not only of the single family home but also, the mother and father, the mother alone, the father alone, the mother and stepfather, and father and stepmother homes. She shows the percentages of substances abuse of children in each family. Fifth paragraph she talks about how in each family most of the children do not have a substance abuse. Also, even with this being true, children with mother and father homes do better than others. Next she talks about how even though culture has said that children with single family homes do a lot worse with substance abuse she says that it’s not much of a difference. For the rest of the excerpt she basically talks about that even though single parent homes do worst then the homes of both mother and father she believes that it doesn’t mean those kids have no one to care, love, and spend time with them. She says that people believe the kids with single parent homes are neglected and abused and that’s why they have substance abuse but she believes they do have other people who care for them. Though it’s not mommy or daddy they all have a least one other relative or person who cares for them. She says that just because children have a home of a mother and father doesn’t mean they aren’t neglected. That doesn’t mean both mom and dad always have time for them and that explains why the percentage of children between the two homes who have a substance abuse problem is not much less than the percentage of children with a single family home. Basically this author is trying to prove that kids with single parent homes aren’t always doomed. They are to an extent but it isn’t to the extreme.
My Response
I agree with this author. She believes that kids from single parent homes aren’t always doomed for failure regardless of what society may believe. Yes, they do cause some type of problem but, they aren’t as different as kids that come from homes with a mother and father. I believe the same thing because I myself come from a single mother home. I do have a stepfather but he is not someone who has any authority over me. All my life it has always been me and my mother. When I turned 10 my mom got pregnant with my little sister and a few years later, her father disappeared too. My dad left because my mom had an affair, that affair ended with my little sister. Anyways when my sister came along my responsibilities, my life, changed. Even before my sister, when it was just me and my mom I never acted out. I was never a problem because my mom knew what she was doing. After my sister came I took over, and even though my mom wasn’t around much after giving birth because she was working two jobs, my sister was hardly a problem either. We both turned out alright, something statistics say shouldn’t happened. My mother was never on welfare, always took care of us by herself.
The author also states that even children with mother and father homes do badly too. Though not as bad she says being a single parent isn’t the reason why children act up. The author states that “4.5% of them have substance abuse problem, compared with the 5.7% if the adolescences living with only their mom. It’s a difference, but not much of one.” What she means by this is that the percentage of kids with substance abuse of single parent homes isn’t too much more than the percentage of kids with substances abuse of a home of both mother and father. She’s basically saying that it doesn’t matter that much if your from a single family or a family with both your mom and dad it’s still a chance your end up with a substance abuse problem. I agree with this too. It doesn’t matter if you have either your parents or just one parents, you’re going to have a substance problem regardless. If you choose to be a problem your going to be a problem rather you have one parent or both. Though some children actually do have a problem they do it on purpose just for attention. Most children let that go, now the difference between the two isn't that high.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Images for Response
The picture I picked out is called untitled, by William Eggleston in 1965. It's a picture of a young men pushing grocery carts together at a grocery store. I think this picture was taken to show people how hard it was back then. I think Eggleston took this picture to prove that everybody, even young men such as this, had to work to support their family. The young man looks about 16 or 17, and you could tell he works there. He is wearing an apron, and he is pushing three carts together. Looking at the time of day, you could tell its the afternoon. The young man probaly just started working. He shows a little sense of trouble. His facial expression shows that he is having trouble doing what he is doing. The old lady in the backgroud looks at him, but says nothing. This proves that it is usual to find young men working in those days. The young man is Caucasian. This shows that even white people in those days had to work to earn a living. Segregation had just ended five years prior, so it was still a little unusual to find a find a white man doing what they saw as a black man's job. This could be another reason why Eggleston took the picture. To show how segregation changed the world.
William Eggleston was known for his color pictures. He started experimenting in 1965, so this picture was one of his experiments. By the 1970's, Eggleston began being famous for his work. This all shows how brilliant he was at color pictures. This picture was one of his first color pictures, and it shows so much detail. He loved bringing his pictures to life, and that's exactly what he did in this picture. Just by putting his pictures in color, he bring the story of this young man's life to the surface, it brought anybody who looks at this picture to another world. An American artist Edward Ruscha, said it himself about Egglestons work "When you see a picture he’s taken, you’re stepping into some kind of jagged world that seems like Eggleston World.”
William Eggleston was known for his color pictures. He started experimenting in 1965, so this picture was one of his experiments. By the 1970's, Eggleston began being famous for his work. This all shows how brilliant he was at color pictures. This picture was one of his first color pictures, and it shows so much detail. He loved bringing his pictures to life, and that's exactly what he did in this picture. Just by putting his pictures in color, he bring the story of this young man's life to the surface, it brought anybody who looks at this picture to another world. An American artist Edward Ruscha, said it himself about Egglestons work "When you see a picture he’s taken, you’re stepping into some kind of jagged world that seems like Eggleston World.”
Monday, September 14, 2009
Only Daughter
Questions on Meaning:
1) What do you take to be Cisnero's main PURPOSE of this essay?
I think Cisnero's main purpose of this essay was to let people know how and why she became to be who she is today. She basically says that she felt her father neglected her when she was younger. She says that when her father went out to public places he would tell people that he had seven sons instead of six sons and one daughter. She also says she felt that she let her father down when she didn't get married right away. She says she became a writer to get her father's approval. She says everything she's ever written has been for him. I think that she felt like she had to become someone in order to get his love. She felt that maybe if she was someone important her father would forget the fact that she wasn't married and love her as much as he loved her brothers.
Cisnero's also says that her brothers played a role in helping her become a writer. She says they often left her alone because they didn't want to play with a girl in public. She used this sense of loneliness to write. She says it allowed her to think, to imagine, and to prepare herself. It didn't bother her that they too neglected her, she used what time she could to write to get her fathers love.
Questions on Writing Strategy:
4) Perhaps a third of Cisnero's essay is devoted to a NARRATIVE and DESCRIPTION of a Christmas visit home. Why do you think Cisneros related to this incident in so much detail? What do we gain from knowing what was cooking, what her father was watching on tv, or what questions he asked as he read Cisnero's story?
I think Cisneros related to this incident in so much detail because it shows that her family didn't change. It shows that her family will always be the same no matter how much she, herself, changed. I think she tells what her father was doing and what he was watching tv to also show that he didn't change. Not even after all his daughters done he remains the same man he's always been. I think Cisnero's uses this to give herself confidence. She's about to give her father, the reason why she is who she is, a story that she's written and got translated into spanish. She gives them the story and he reads it. She doesn't expect him to read it, but he does. After he reads it I expect, she expects to be turned down. Instead he finally approves and asks her when can he get copies for his family. After Cisneros hears this you could tell she finally reached her goal. Her goal of getting her father's approval was completed and she was finally proud of herself.
1) What do you take to be Cisnero's main PURPOSE of this essay?
I think Cisnero's main purpose of this essay was to let people know how and why she became to be who she is today. She basically says that she felt her father neglected her when she was younger. She says that when her father went out to public places he would tell people that he had seven sons instead of six sons and one daughter. She also says she felt that she let her father down when she didn't get married right away. She says she became a writer to get her father's approval. She says everything she's ever written has been for him. I think that she felt like she had to become someone in order to get his love. She felt that maybe if she was someone important her father would forget the fact that she wasn't married and love her as much as he loved her brothers.
Cisnero's also says that her brothers played a role in helping her become a writer. She says they often left her alone because they didn't want to play with a girl in public. She used this sense of loneliness to write. She says it allowed her to think, to imagine, and to prepare herself. It didn't bother her that they too neglected her, she used what time she could to write to get her fathers love.
Questions on Writing Strategy:
4) Perhaps a third of Cisnero's essay is devoted to a NARRATIVE and DESCRIPTION of a Christmas visit home. Why do you think Cisneros related to this incident in so much detail? What do we gain from knowing what was cooking, what her father was watching on tv, or what questions he asked as he read Cisnero's story?
I think Cisneros related to this incident in so much detail because it shows that her family didn't change. It shows that her family will always be the same no matter how much she, herself, changed. I think she tells what her father was doing and what he was watching tv to also show that he didn't change. Not even after all his daughters done he remains the same man he's always been. I think Cisnero's uses this to give herself confidence. She's about to give her father, the reason why she is who she is, a story that she's written and got translated into spanish. She gives them the story and he reads it. She doesn't expect him to read it, but he does. After he reads it I expect, she expects to be turned down. Instead he finally approves and asks her when can he get copies for his family. After Cisneros hears this you could tell she finally reached her goal. Her goal of getting her father's approval was completed and she was finally proud of herself.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Critical Reading
There are many different methods that I find extremely helpful when reading. For one, I use the method of highlighting important ideas from the text. Usually, when I'm taking an exam and have a reading prompt to do, I would underline, as I read, what I think would be helpful at the end of the story. This is helpful because if I have to answer questions after the reading all the things I underlined would most likely help me answer those questions. I have used this method when I took the SAT and it helped me get a really good score in the reading sections.
Another method that I find useful is summarizing. Most people I know save this part for last but, I like to summarize after I read halfway through the context. I do this because it helps me get a better understanding of what I am reading. I don't like reading the whole story without stopping because it's confusing. Most of the time what I'm reading is something too confusing, or I never heard of it, so stopping halfway through and analyzing what I read gives me the chance to try to understand what the author is trying to say. I use this concept most when doing an exam because it gives me the upper hand in getting all the questions right.
Last but not least, the last method that I find helpful while reading is imagining that I am the author. For example, if the context that I'm reading is a short story I'm able to put myself where the author is. I'm able to be the author sort to say, and it helps me feel the author is feeling and think what the author is thinking. It's pretty obvious how this would help me say past an exam or help me better understand what I'm reading.
In conclusion, these are my three methods that I use when critical reading. These methods not only help me in English, but also in other subjects like Biology, Math, etc. It helps me break down anything I read so I can better understand it.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Purpose of This Blog
My name is Malissa Lisojo. The purpose for this blog is so I can write all my thoughts. It's so my English teacher can know my thoughts and feelings about curtain assignments that she gives us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
