Face to Face and Leaves Some Space for Rhetorical Questions
School dance steps look like foreplay
FROM THE HART | Texas town bumps, grinds over the issue for their teens
By Betsy Hart

The author of the article shares that recently in Texas controversy occurred about whether or not teens should be allowed to dance provocatively at high school dances. The author went on to say that she will chaperon all her children's dances and not allow them to dance provocatively. She also believes that common sense would indicate to parents that allowing your child to grind at dances may be a cause when they get sexually assaulted in the parking lot after the dance. The author's main point is parents should know whats going on at their child's dances and everywhere else they go and should be ready to protect their child from them self and others. The author's main point is mostly correct. Parents should know a lot of what there kid does and have an idea of what they are doing, but they do not need to know everything, especially if there child is with people the parents trust. Parents should also always be ready to protect their child from any thing that could harm there child.
The rhetorical question "If the "$400 dress girl" had been sexually assaulted in the parking lot after the festivities because the dance wasn't a "dud," would her mom be happy, or suing the school?" strengthens the authors point because it shows the mom doesn't really care that here daughter didn't have fun but more that she wants to cause trouble for the school system.The rhetorical question supports the author's main point because it shows that the parents don't keep track of their kids and they don't know the dangers of letting their kids dance provocatively. The rhetorical question shows that the parents are irresponsible do not know the danger the kid could be in after the school dance. The question shows that the girls parents do not want to take responsibility for their daughter, but rather blame it on others when something, like their daughter getting sexually assaulted, goes wrong.

Laureen Stiller Rikleen: How do we spell relief: I-m-u-s

Don Imus should be put back on the air because he has served a long punishment and if listeners tune in to him again, then he is forgiven and there is not any legitimate reason to keep him off the air. I also agree with the author because she says he apologized for the incident in this phrase: "He immediately took ownership of his horrible comments, expressing repeated embarrassment for what he said. In fact, it may be one of the few public apologies in recent time not steeped in the “mistakes were made” sobriquets relied upon by so many public figures to deny responsibility for their own actions." Imus made a mistake, took full responsibility and now will be back on the air, because he should be. By examining the article, many more reasons to put Imus back on the air exist, and few reasons to keep him off the air remain. In my opinion his remarks were poor , but he should not have been taken off the air for making them.

To most effectively prove her point that Don Imus needs to be placed back on the air, media watchers should react "with great relief the author uses the example of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. By using Clarence Thomas as an example she is able to show the necessity of Don Imus on the air . Without Don Imus, "the tough questions" don't get asked and people are able to dodge the questions they don't want to answered. Clarence Thomas never had to answer for attacking Anita Hill, so he did not have to take responsibility for his words. The author effectively proves her point by showing the need for Imus so that cases like Clarence Thomas cannot slip away unnoticed.

This is me owning at Cross Country, just as I attempt to own at A.P. Language 11.