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.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
