Skid Row

When I saw the video last Thursday on skid row, I was truly surprised. I had been to Los Angeles before. I passed through it when I went around California and I would never have thought that such a pretty place would have such a large center of homelessness. It really did impact me how there were all types of people on skid row. There were children who grew up there and they had no idea of another life. It really surprised me how such a rich city could have such a large number of homeless people living on the streets. The people who made the video, truly pulled off a convincing argument. At least I feel they did. They took all of their facts and statistics of the population that lives on skid row to appeal to their audience's logos. I felt as though their purpose was to try and convince people how even though there was all this richness in Los Angeles, the wealth is not being spread out evenly and the economy is only benefiting the upper class. I believe that the people who did this video wanted for everyone in Los Angeles to notice the truth that their city is not so pretty when you go a little south of the downtown area. They were trying to tell people that although it is up to the people on skid row to clean themselves up, it it the responsibility of the civilians to clean up their streets and help these people to clean themselves up as well. Any of us can end up in the same position and they just need a helping hand.

The producer of this video appealed in many ways to their audience, which was civilians of Los Angeles. He appealed to their sense of pathos by showing the amount of children who are homeless on skid row. The producer shows how some kids do not know any other life outside of skid row because they were born into it and they dont know any other way around it or how to make it happen. Children usually appeal to everyone's emotions. 

They were very convincing in their argument and used comparisons between two cities, Los Angeles and New York to show how much homelessness has increased in one city and declined in the other. This part showed the producer's solution to the problem that he believed to influence everyone. He showed that by building larger and more centers for homeless shelters, homelessness decreased in New York city when it had the same number of homeless people. Although the producer gave a convincing argument, he also did not convince the civilians of Los Angeles exactly why this was their problem. Because skid row is away from the main center of Los Angeles, nobody sees it. Therefore, why would they fix something they dont need to see on a daily basis? He appeals to the audience's pathos, but he fails to explain why this is a problem to the civilians outside of skid row.

Overall I believed that the video was effective to a regular person who has emotions. However, to a money hungry super power, they may not see this as their problem, and raising taxes to build homeless shelters and clean up the streets is just seen as an inconvenience for them and their wallets.

We are all equal?

I'd like to think so. But truth of the matter is, that there's always going to be that group that for some reason has it's exceptions. Why? I think it's because we make excuses for ourselves...We possibly can't be wrong, so of course they are. It's so messed up. It's like the KKK still existing in the 21st century. Just ridiculous. Why does human nature have to be so completely egocentric as to view everything out of the ordinary as weird and wrong? Besides how do we know that we're right? Maybe we're the one's with the wrong ideas in all of this. 

How long is it going to take for people to realize that in a situation where you're going to try to put yourself higher than someone else, you will eventually loose it all. In segregation, white Americans thought they were better. I mean they said everything is separate but equal. How is that even possible? It's ironic...why would you classify something as separate but equal? It just doesn't make sense. At the end though, it's always the so called "weirdos" that prevail. It may take a while...but it always ends up pulling through. What I also don't understand is what makes a man and a woman more suitable to adopt a baby than two men or two women. I mean are there specific standards or something you need to raise a child. No matter what humans are humans and heterosexual or homosexual, people make mistakes. People will always wonder if how they're raising their children is the best way possible. What makes one couple more loving to their children to than the other?

Like Natasha said, yeah maybe you're trying to protect the child, but what happens when the cookie-cutter wife and the businessman husband get divorced? Wouldn't a child be happier with two parents who love each other regardless of their differences? It's a very complex issue and I could keep going for hours. I just don't understand why people would want to get in between two people who love each other. I mean does a homosexual couple try to get in the way of a heterosexual couple? Are there any laws being banned against the union of one woman and one man? If there was, do you think the homosexual population would be voting to ban it? I don't think so.

What's up with School?

So I feel I have questioned almost everything our government has done so far...until I saw the arguments made on the law that was passed on education...Up to this point I thought that maybe that was the one thing government could not manipulate...how much knowledge we attain. Now granted, I am exaggerating a little. But in a way they really are controlling how much we learn. Its like they want all students to be like robots and do and learn everything the same way. Its like theyve forgotten other important factors like individuality and uniqueness in an individual. I mean arent those all important factors also? Just because one person knows how to compute numbers in their head doesnt mean they are as knowledgeable about the world when compared to a painter or a plumber. Besides, being knowledgeable doesnt necessarily mean being smart with numbers. Some people are smart with numbers and others are more artistic and prefer to use their minds for other things that relate to them. I really enjoyed and actually understood the argument that the teacher made. At first I thought maybe it was a little weird starting off with a grin and "welcome to the dark side". HUH? I was a little confused but the facts she threw out at me were kind of shocking. I had never really heard of this law...pretty much because I was just always pretty content with what was being given to me. What can I say? I didnt know any better and frankly as I was concerned I didnt really care to know any better. I felt it didnt concern me...when in reality it was all about me and students like me... I dont understand why the government in some ways is putting such high standards on school expectations...yet short standards on student progress. Ive never really understood the laws that have been passed by the government and maybe Im too naive to know or to want to know...but at the same time I want to know everything so that Im not manipulated because that I wouldnt want. So its one or the other...which to choose?