Analysis of Michelle's Song Analysis

I chose to analyze Michelle's song analysis because I had never heard the song that she chose so I was very interested in hearing it. I think Michelle did pretty good job analyzing the song. She also chose good words of importance. I agree that the audience is Christian mothers, Christians, and even people who do not believe in God. Michelle also said what the singer's claim was and I agree with her as well. She also explained what each stanza meant and what the chorus meant. Michelle's analysis of the song "Held" is also unbiased which makes her analysis strong.

Just one thing I would add is that the gentle music and comforting lyrics/text alson influences who the audience would be, which is Christian mothers.

I believe Michelle made a strong, in depth and unbiased analysis. I would give her an A!

"Underwear"

"Underwear" is supposed to be just that, clothing that you wear under your clothes! I absolutely hate seeing guys that have their boxers exposed. It is a complete turn off because it even affects the way that they walk. They have to hold up their pants and many times they hold up their pants around the crotch. I really do not care to see guys grabbing their crotch area! However, I think this law can also go for girls as well. Some girls actually let their thongs and g-strings show on purpose. I think it's pretty disgusting and just not respectful. I've even seen girls who wear their pants so low that you can almost see their "area". I think it's just unecessary. There's a time and place for everything and if you are going to wear revealing clothing, then wear it to clubs and not such public areas such as school, malls, grocery stores etc...
As for the law that is trying to get passed, I am personally almost for it. However, I'm not so sure it will work out. First of all our government is a democratic and capitalist. It's not a dictatorship and a law like that would lead people to argue about it. Also since this is America, everyone is all about the word "freedom," especially when it pertains to ourselves. We also have the right of the "pursuit of happiness" in which many people will argue for. And it will be interesting to see how this will be enforced. I can see how it will be enforced at schools because it is a more closed enviornment but what about general public areas? If a police officer sees someone with saggy or revealing pants, are they going to stop them and give them a fine? Honestly, even though this whole pants issue bothers me, I would much rather have a police officer fightning crime than taking their time to fine someone and missing an opportunity to arrest a criminal. Plus, I don't think anyone would really learn their lesson unless the fine was extremely expensive because the odds of them being caught everyday are slim. Once again, that would mean having more police officers around when they could be trying to catch a crime.
So, in conclusion, I think the concept of the no sagging pants law is a good one but I just do not think it would work very well because when it comes to a stupid issue like this, Americans like to take our law and the constitution seriously and literally.

No Child Left Behind

I completely agree that the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be either revised over abolished. The fact that if your school fails their standardized test they get funds taken away defeats the whole purpose. That's maybe when the school should get more funding so that they can help their students succeed. And it's ridiculous that they have to take it in March. They might as well stop going to school after that, if they are already supposed to have been taught all that they needed to know that year. Two weeks for testing? That's absolutely crazy. And I'm sure that teachers have to spend way more than two weeks before the actually testing to review with their students. I also do not agree with how they evaluate. They should be evaluating how much the child has learned since their last school year and not comparing their scores with the scores of children from the previous year and the same school grade. It does not make sense. I would have liked to hear about what the teacher was going to say about private schools. I myself went to private school my whole life except for now. First of all, I feel lucky that I had the priveledge of going to private Catholic schools. My mother worked very hard so that she could send my brother and I to Catholic school and I appreciate it. We did have to take testing every year as well but it did not count against our funding. It was called the ITBS test. It tested us on english math science and probably reading and geography. We were tested on it for a week. But I do agree that it is not fair to the students because the test also decides if they can go on to the next grade or not. That really is not fair because there are students who will always just not do their best on testing.
I also saw the clip of what some of the democratic candidate hopefuls thought about the No Child Left Behind Act. I completely agreed with one of the candidate's thoughts about making a teacher's minimum wage 40,000 a year. Teachers definitely need to get paid more! Sure there are a lot of great kids but there are some pretty crazy ones. They don't get paid enough for what they have to deal with and what they are doing for the future of America. The same candidate also said that he wanted the fine arts program to be better in schools which I am 100% for! Not everyone can be star athletes! Yes we do need to promote being active but we needs to promote fine arts because there are so many kids out there with artistic,musical,and theatrical abilities but they can't show their abilities and get scholarships for them because their school's fine arts program is either horrible or non-existant.
So all in all, I think the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be completely revised!