First Draft: Letter to the Editor

March 31, 2009
Letter to the Editor: Teen Curfew Really THAT Bad?
Is asking impressionable teenage students to be in school from 9 am until 2 pm really that absurd? Is it really that big of a burden for parents to know where their children are during the day? Is it understandable that Dallas city residents do not want truant teenagers running through the streets? These basic questions are ones that I think local Dallas writer Michael Tate needs to consider before writing another piece about the newly enforced daytime curfew that will go into effect at the end of Spring 2009 here in Dallas, Texas.
According to Sharon Grigsby, an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, the new proposal would call for children (16 and under) to remain off city streets between the school day hours of 9am and 2:30 pm. The punishment for violating this ordinance could be as mild as a warning or as severe as a $500.00 fine and potential police detention.
The opinion piece by Michael Tate that was published through KERA has both some well thought out ideas and some poorly constructed thought processes that lack logistical and analytical thought. What is wrong with a daytime curfew for teens who are already supposed to be in class during those times? I agree with the stance that this is not way to fix the problem of truancy within the city, but does anyone propose a better idea for the current situation? If this curfew is so “absurd,” then why has no one come up with a superior solution? Sure, it is easy for all of us to complain about these teens, but no one is doing anything about it. At least the City Council took some initiative and proposed a new ordinance.
I also could not agree more with the comment that it is the parent’s responsibility of knowing where their children are all day long, not the local police force. There are graver issues for the limited and underfunded police forces to be dealing with other than rounding up children for a pow wow at the police station and talking to them about staying in school. This is an absolute loss of valuable time and limited resources. It is without question the parent’s responsibility to know where their children are and whether or not they are staying at school for the whole day. I would have offered parenting classes as a solution to the truancy problem seeing as the parents of those teenagers that are truants rarely care about what their children do with the rest of their lives, not to mention whether or not they graduate high school.
One item that particularly concerned me was the commenting of his “stint” occupation as a teacher that Tate attempted to use as a justification of his credibility when presenting his argument against the daytime curfew. When he remarks that some students in his classes didn’t need to be there because they were dropouts waiting to happen, I was absolutely appalled. “Great” I thought, that is exactly the attitude of an educator that I want teaching my son or daughter. I thought educators were supposed to support increased attendance by students?
I attended a public school in a very affluent community where almost every parent and educator cared immensely about the successes of each individual student; my parents were very involved as well. When I was in high school, I did my fair share of “cutting” or “skipping” class. I would cut class at least once a week, if not more, I never got caught and I was in the perfect learning environment. Now, although those teenagers growing up in the Dallas community compared to where I grew up in Northern California are experiencing a much different environment of teachers and parental guidance, the reason for truancy is still the same: the children are BORED. I was bored in class as a student because I wasn’t challenged and those who skip class in Dallas are also bored, but because they cannot find a reason why education will be valuable to them in the future when their own parents and role models may have not even graduated from high school. The underlying problem here is the truant’s parents and the School District Boards.
It is said in the editorial by Michael that the curfew does not make any sense and that it does not address any of the underlying problems of the issue and while I agree with that, it is a first step. I support the daytime curfew for teens because getting them to stay in the physical location of the school is the beginning stage of mentally involving them in education.
Rachel “Stop Complaining and Do Something” Kakures

Research for Rhetorical Case Analysis

I have changed my topic to Mexico Drug Wars and their influences on tourism.
It has been very difficult for me to find primary sources for my topic. Most newspaper articles that I found are just reports on information and the authors have not been directly involved. I have found a lot of good information, but nothing that would count as a primary source at this point. I think I may try looking at some blogs or see if there are any reports on travel websites as to individuals experiences in Mexico recently. The way a lot of sources, primary or not, approach the topic is from a neutral standpoint. The sources offer both positive and negative aspects of traveling to Mexico. I wish that researching was easier!
Another thing that is interesting is a lot of reporters are putting in suggestions to keep safe while traveling in Mexico. It seems like many people are truly concerned about the safety of Americans traveling to Mexico. The sources are very careful not to point a finger at the Mexican government but they are not shy about telling the American government to become involved by either increasing border control or placing more restrictions on the purchasing of illegal drugs, which causes the safety hazards for tourists.
I am struggling with trying to find primary sources but I hope that by looking for blogs or government information I will be able to expand my resources.

Chapters 2, 3 and 4 (45 - 101)

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
This website is a link to the commercial that Sarah McLachlan is in for the ASPCA. I chose this example because it is a clear representation of an organization using pathos, or emotional appeals to compel the audience to either donate to or support the ASPCA. When using pathos, just like any other way to make an argument, one must appeal to a target audience. The target audience for this commercial is probably females or males who have either owned, cared for, or even seen an animal. This commercial would apply to those who would feel the slightest bit of guilt by viewing animals in cages while hearing an emotionally taxing song in the background. Sarah McLachlan draws in viewers by stating that she too has an emotional connection to these animals and has even adopted one herself. This assures viewers that she identifies with public emotions that arise during this clip, making the argument even stronger. I do, however believe that this commercial lays it on a bit too thick. Every time that commercial comes on to my television I change the channel because I can't look at the faces of those dogs and listen to the song "In the Arms of an Angel" without feeling immense guilt for not contributing this cause. If I do see part of the commercial it sticks with me throughout my day and is constantly in the back of my mind, bringing down my day. Is the commercial effective? For me, yes. For others, probably not because they associate the ASPCA with a negative feeling that they experience after viewing the commercial. The commercial also uses logos, or arguments based on facts, when it presents the statistic of how many animals are abandoned a day or how many are still homeless running the streets. The logos is not nearly as effective as the pathos approach, but the majority of the time most reasons for arguments use multiple approaches.