On Skid Row

Watching “On Skid Row” came as a shock to me when I watched it in class. I always had a heart for the homeless, tossing spare change to them when I caught a red light at an intersection. The video helped a lot in clearing up a stereotype that is placed on the homeless. The generalized stereotype is that those who are homeless hit a serious problem that caused them to lose their money and now they have given up and don’t want to try anymore. Their spirits are broken and now they want others to fix it for them, instead of giving their all. The video took a different approach on the travesty escalating in Los Angeles. It really hit home and made me want to go out and voice an opinion on the matter. You see human beings suffering beyond belief! For God’s sake there are little children starving in the street! If this doesn’t scream intervention, then I don’t know what does. I loved how it had that piece on the teenager that gave his story on the matter. It was extremely nice to see that sponsors bought the boy a camera so that he can record behind the scenes on skid row and the life he lives day in and day out.
The author of “On Skid Row” effectively targeted the issue as a serious concern and one that needs to be addressed asap. The purpose of the video was to address the turmoil that the homeless and economically poor are suffering in south LA. The genre being used in this video is a documentary. The audience that is trying to be reached is those living on the rich side of LA. The documentary shows how on one side of LA you see huge corporations and tall buildings and just down the street you see buildings and people in shambles. You can even make the argument that the audience also was for those who seek to help out those in need. Any agency that works on providing care to those in need would be their target so that awareness can be raised on this terrible matter.
The rhetorical triangle is used in full effect in this video. From the start you logos being used when statistics on how New York and Los Angeles are compared. The argument is that these two cities were statistically the same years back, however now they are not. Due to New York’s plan to clean up the streets, they have significantly reduced the number of homeless on the street. In Los Angeles, however, the number has significantly grown since. The video uses pathos when it shows clips of how the children are suffering and the environment they are growing up in. A prime example of this is when you take the little boy who witnessed a murder from the window sill next to him. It is hard to fathom as a young adult what that could do to me, let alone an 11 year old boy. Lastly, he uses ethos when he named organizations that were trying to help the situation. He interviewed people living in these predicaments and got a first-hand experience of what it was like.
All in all I found the video to be very persuasive and effective. The video’s strongest arguments were those of logos and pathos. Using statistics from the start to support its claim were very intelligent. From the onset, you had the emotions showing clips of these poor children suffering in dire need of help. It gave me a feeling of guilt and helplessness, like I wasn’t doing enough to help justify this cause. The video brought awareness to a cause that needed attention extremely bad.

Amendment #2

Wow, there are so many ways to target this issue on today’s blog. I guess the best way to start this one off is by pointing out where I stand against gay marriage. Personally, as being raised a Catholic my whole life and going to a Catholic school, I am against it. That really isn’t what this article is about. The point is, if you go by what your religion is telling you, mine being Catholic as stated, then to males or to females should not be allowed to get married. In doing so, this disallows them to have the same rights as heterosexuals. That leaves me with another question. If we are supposed to be preaching morals and ethics to our children, based on the church, how can we discriminate against those who are different than we are? The argument is still raging on, as to how someone turns out to be gay. At this point, we still do not know exactly how one becomes a gay individual. The question is, does one become this way due to genetics, or is it a matter of how they were raised. As far as we know, the individual may not have had any choice as to whether or not he or she is heterosexual or homosexual. Like Natasha’s blog stated, “there are no sources to show that heterosexuals provide a safer home or a home where growing up, is better than a homosexual home. I have an uncle who is gay; and when he is with his boyfriend he is so ecstatic. Who are we to strip someone of their happiness? This is one of main factors the Declaration of Independence professes. People should have the right to the pursuit of happiness!
I do have to state that even though there is no concrete proof as to which home provides a better environment, I do feel having a male and female present provides a different and more wholesome atmosphere. No matter what you want to say about equal rights, the way a man approaches a problem is different than a female. The woman will definitely be more nurturing than the male. She will always tend to be gentler of “mothering” to her children than a male. Even in the animal kingdom, it is the mother who protects their chicks, cubs, etc… We are supposed to be at the highest level of the animal chart
To play devil’s advocate though, from the church’s standpoint, the reason why a marriage is to be strictly sacred between a man and woman is because that is how God intended it to be. When he made Adam and Eve he made them with a purpose to pro-create and to populate the land. One of the MAIN reasons for a marriage is to pro-create. Marriage is for the bonding of two people to become one and produce a son. Now ask yourself, if God wanted for homosexuals to be together, wouldn’t you think he would make it so that they could reproduce together if they got married…hmm. The reason why you have to get the church involved in this is because it is an ethical issue. Now most people are saying “separation between church and state.” The truth is there is that nowhere in the Constitution does it state for a separation of church and state. During the time of Thomas Jefferson you had a letter being sent to him at night to add it to the Constitution, but it got lost and therefore was never added. So essentially that statement has no bearing on the case and should bring the Catholic church involved into this matter. . I believe that gays and lesbians should have equal rights. I just do not believe they should be married.

Education is imperative

What an “ideal” world we would have, if all our children could receive the same, quality education. You have to be living in a dream world if you think that everyone is treated equally and fairly. The quality of education is so far apart, when you compare those children who live in the ghetto and those children who live in the upper class area. Do you really think your best and most qualified teachers are sent to Bed-Sty or Harlem? I don’t think so.
When Bush enacted the “No child left behind ACT,” in 2002, he may have had a good idea, but the results surely point a different way. The teacher who presented her argument, clearly stated all the ills of the bill. She was oh so right when she stated that one cannot learn in an atmosphere of fear. This is exactly what this ACT is promoting. The entire testing system is so flawed. The state tests comparing children of the fifth grade to the year before is totally absurd. Nothing good has come from this ACT that President Bush put into action. I have to agree with the teacher, that nothing good has come from this ACT.
As far as the poet is concerned, Lamont Carey is 100% correct. When we give our children an I for incomplete and adjust the grades so everyone gets promoted, what benefit does that children get? It is a well known fact that children in the poorer areas do not receive the same education as those in the so called, “better areas.” What Mr. Carey is trying to point out is that we cannot just give these children grades without merit. What kind of society would we have if all children are not given the same opportunity? They start to give the kids I’s instead of grades. How is that going to prepare them for the future? They can’t possibly get good enough scores on their SAT’s at this rate.
As the article just opened up, it stated how important education is for the future of our country. How is it that as far as education is concerned, we are one of the worse counties in the world? This type of grading is a type of Affirmative Action for children. It promotes those who are in a lesser category, just to meet a quota. What kind of self-esteem can this be for that particular individual? He cannot feel that great about himself if he gets promoted even if he is not qualified. We all know how well Affirmative Action worked. Not so good!
I have to say, both of these articles really brought to light how poor the education system is in America. Our future depends on the children. If we take such a nonchalant attitude about such a serious matter, the United States will surely lose all credibility throughout the world. We really should make sure that education gets pushed up to a higher priority than it is today.