I am pretty sure that what I believe is still in the making. I am young and have loads of things to learn, but as for right now my most affirmed belief plays out kind of like this...

I believe that experience is the most powerful and honest source of knowledge. Doing things is always better than, listening to them, or watching them, or reading about them. Yes, in some cases waking up hungover seems worse than just listening to your parents advice not to drink, but then there is always that what if, that lingering question in the back of your mind. I believe that without personal experience than nothing is fact or truth or even real. When someone is there, all wrapped up in whatever it is, there is no out and no excuses, no room for judgment or persecution, the situation is what it is and that is all. Whether I am talking about prejudices, breaking the law, religious dedication, sexual orientation or simply an everyday lifestyle I believe that no outsider should be entitled to make any judgments on that person or their choices. I believe that differences are what make the world keep spinning and without a firsthand account of a situation or person then there is no need, or room, for disapproving judgments.

I guess I will write about diversity day whoops i mean community day...

I will have to admit I was more impressed today than I was with previous diversity days. I am going to refer to it as diversity day from now on because I kinda feel like community day is a just a cop out for whatever really is going on. I enjoyed the rubber ducky small group activity, i definitely didn't want to share mine with my group or the entire school but it was interesting where people actually went with there poems. In my group some kids actually got really deep and stayed "real" as Dooley referred to it and others basically blew it off. We also had a really meaningful and intelligent discussion regarding the two pieces about the Holocaust. I don't really think that our discussion was exactly relevant to the general theme of the day but it was really interesting and introspective. The speaker was alright I guess just very redundant and I don't see why we needed to listen to the same guy talk about the same things twice, but that is just me I guess he was entertaining and somewhat woke the crowd up. I like the idea of having these days but I still don't feel like the execution is all there yet. The movie the juniors watched was kind of out there and to be honest the activity we did after it was unproductive. I am also not sure whether the last 3 weeks of school is the appropriate time to spend a day not in class. Finals are approaching, projects deadlines are coming up, and I know personally I would rather be doing productive things in class. I feel like the attitude of the diversity day needs to change, because so many kids mock and ignore what is trying to be accomplished a lot of the day goes wasted. I am not really sure what changes need to be made but this years is better than last so I guess we are getting there.

So I am getting really excited for summer! My sister came home last week from IU and I am way jealous every morning when I walk past her room and she is snoozing away. I feel like we are in school a lot longer than most other kids this year and we started earlier so I am not really sure how all that worked out hopefully we get out early next year. My summer is going to be pretty busy, I am working my first legitimate job, going to France, running a day camp for 3 weeks, and also playing a ton of soccer, so I will be busy, but to be honest summer gets boring when you sit at home all day everyday. This probably will make it go by really fast which sucks but I am getting to do a bunch of really cool and new things so whatever. It is kind of weird to think I only have one year left of high school I am really excited for college but one year seems like nothing! But in order for me to get into college I need to pay attention to Dr. Vesper's lecture in pre cal right now so that is all I guess. Yes, this blog was lame.

Another random blog… I am kinda running thin on the random blog ideas and I would complain about still even having to blog, but I desperately need other people to blog so that I can get my 15 extra credit comments done so I guess I will do my part too...

I had to babysit my obnoxious foul-mouthed adorable 3-year-old little brother last night and he never fails to entertain me! We were jumping on the trampoline in the backyard when my dog barreled through the fence and ran away, his stupid invisible fence collar battery had died so there I was, Crew, on my back in his Hulk Smash underwear running down the neighborhood street yelling for that little Fucker I mean Tucker. We finally caught him 3 blocks away; his previously white body was now brown, covered in leaves and sticks. My neighbor who happens to already hate us was sitting outside with her perfectly matching daughter and son, drinking lemonade on there front steps, drawing with chalk as their groomed dog lie next to them sleeping, how freaking wonderful, when Crew jumped off my back pulled down his underwear and started peeing in my front yard announcing that he could make a circle and right his initials! Cute, hilarious, typical? Yes, but the scorn from Mrs. Perfect implied I go inside and stop “corrupting” her innocent children. Sometimes I wish I had the guts to just tell her off, but my mom would probably be furious considering they take the same tennis class two days a week, ha. The 30 bucks my mom slips my way after babysitting is nice, but sometimes I think Crew entertains me more than 30$ ever will!

Now that Joe has discovered a way to communicate, his isolated, trapped, and unconnected feelings are slowly diminishing, but he must make a decision on how he is going to live this new life that was forced upon him through his service to the country. Joe could move on, look for his friends and family and attempt to put his life back together as much as possible. Yes, this would evolve into something much different than how he interacted with them previously, but at least he would have the opportunity to rekindle those connections. Instead Joe chooses to use his story and physical body as an example of failed war choices, he wants to get out and prove his points regarding combat and service. I kind of feel like this life path would benefit neither the recipients of his story or himself. Why would he want to continue to relive those treacherous and damaging years of his life? I also think that people would continue to volunteer for war even after listening to his story, most servicemen are aware of the risks before hand and that is part of the honorable job as a participant in the army. I don't agree with Joe's desires after living in the hospital for 6 years. I would want to put back the pieces as best as I could and try to relive those last 6 years if I hadn't gotten hurt. I know it is unfair for me to pass judgement but I can't see myself leaving behind everything I had ever developed to try to expose the flaws of war.

In Psychology Kenzie and I are partners for our final, which is a social psyche project. There are not many requirements, and the topic is completely optional to us. We discussed dancing obnoxiously in the middle of the mall to see strangers reactions, we thought about freezing in the middle of a busy area, and finally we came up with a slight less embarrassing idea. We are making a test that surveys levels/ideals of prejudice among high schools across Indianapolis. We are going to create 5 different characters and list 7 characteristics of each but not give their race, sexuality, gender, occupation, hometown, or education level. Then the test taker will have to guess each one of the 6 qualities we didn't give. We want to find out what exactly are "give away" qualities and also if different schools extend different results or if midwestern Indiana teenagers are roughly the same when it comes to stereotyping. I am not 100% sure that this will accurately work, simply because knowing that you are taking a test, and it will probably be obvious that it is for a psychology class, students are going to be less likely to be honest and open about their prejudices. Hopefully, we are able to misrepresent it as a test that isn't testing exactly stereotyping, but we haven't really come up with any successful ideas yet.

Beveridge believes that America is the ultimate example of a successful government and he thinks that because we are so successful that we should try and govern all other nations outside of America. He begins he essay talking about how "God" has given us this flawless gift and that we should want to share it whether the recipient wants it or not, he talks about how antagonists against his belief are relying on trivial reasons such as, distance, he refutes this by listing multiple other nations who currently govern other bodies of people from far away. Beveridge sees the American representative democracy as the best system of control and he doesn't understand why some people want to limit our capabilities only to America. This is relatable to Johnny Got His Gun in the sense that Joe disagrees with it. He has gone to war but never really understood or supported the reasons for fighting. Like I talked about in my previous blog, soldiers are asked to risk their own life for the objectives of their nation, and if they do not agree with or even comprehend why they are there the success of the army will decrease. Beveridge is close minded in the fact that he fails to consider other systems of government and he doesn't seem to understand that not all people will or do agree with American customs and government methods. Joe is an example of someone who has gone to fight for his country trying spread America's form of a democracy, but he still doesn't necessarily whole-heartedly want to do it or believe it is right.

D'Souza believes that America has been successful in the past directly because of the confidence and pride that the people have toward their nation. He is very patriotic and believes that this quality results in victory in war. Without knowledge of what you are fighting for, a person is unable to fully commit themselves to the national goal therefore failing in combat. This is similar to Joe's feelings in Johnny Got His Gun because Joe has been injured from war severely, and now laying in bed paralyzed and distraught he is questioning why he went to war himself. He shows some qualities of nationalism when he talks about longing for his home and comfortable environments and being taken care of by people whom is familiar with, but he also is confused and to some extent angry because he never had a physical reason for going to war. Joe says he wasn't exactly against the war from the start but even once he left for service he didn't know why he was there or if he believed in why the nation was there.

I guess I will talk about what I am going to do this summer. I am kind of stressing out about it, actually. My sister came to me March and asked if I wanted to run and set up a horse summer day camp with her. She is in college majoring in business and it is semi part of her class semi a method of cash for this summer. We both got really excited, but that was way before we actually started planning advertising, writing up release forms, and everything else that is consuming my life right now. Audrie is taking care of the horse part, considering she has been teaching since she was 15 and has ridden since she was 5, but I basically have to do everything else. We have made a website, yard signs, brochures, banners, and flyers. About a week ago we had only filled 7 of the 30 spots because we are doing 6 different sessions, but we have had 17 more applicants so it is getting better. I never really understood how much goes into entertaining young kids for 7 hours a day and definitely never realized how much work and effort is needed in making a semi-real business. Hopefully we make a lot of money and it is worth it.

The book and the essay are similar because both of their intentions are to explain to the readers that soldiers and people who fight for their country are not necessarily in agreement with what the physical war is debating, and that armies are an extension of only the government. In the essay he talks about how conformity of the government is creating too much control. He writes. "government is best which governs least," his ideal government would be unachievable for society today, but idealistically he would have the government, govern not at all. Thoureau doesn't limit his argument only to the idea of war and its soldiers, but it is evident that he sees warfare participants as conformists who don't necessarily agree with what they are fighting for. He talks about majority, but points out that majority is still not fair and just because not all actually agree. In Johnny Got His Gun, Joe is struggling with the idea of why he even fought or why any soldiers fight for their country. H is pondering whether war is valuable unless their is something tangible to fight for. It connects because Joe is pointing out that the soldiers are fighting but they are told they are fighting for freedom, but Joe says freedom is undefinable, and how can soldiers fight for something that don't even know what it is and Thoureau is saying that government is based off of conformed people who are actually ignorant to the amount of control and lack of say that each person has, basically in Joe's eyes himself, and other soldiers.

So I play soccer and I love it, but i love soccer and not all the other bullshit that comes along with it. That actual feeling of not being able to catch a breathe but still sprinting after the ball, or looking down to see the skin ripped from your knees after a goal saving tackle, slapping hands at the end of the 90 minute game with the same girl you just trashed talked. Those are the moments that I keep playing for but the pressure beyond the field sometimes get in the way of the simple game. At this level of play collegiate soccer is next, but recently i have chosen not to even try to make a team. Knowing that next high-school season will be my last pretty much freaks me out, but am I willing to give up all my summer vacations, all my weekends, spring break christmas break, and every other moment of free time to play soccer? I am not convinced it's worth it. Decision making definitely isn't a strength for me, but I am actually proud of myself that I, by myself, have decided not to play. Yes, the college coaches are alluring and yes, its a little embarrassing when my teammates ask me if I have committed yet yes, it is scary to think I will never get to feel that competitive rush of walking on the field again, yes I feel like i am disappointing my parents and coach a little, and yes occasionally i question whether or not i am even making the right decision, but as of now I think it is the right one and for once I am going to just go for it.

So I really have no ideas as to what I am going to blog about ....

I probably could blabber on about my pathetic struggle in math class because I should be doing that homework right now but I have no idea how to do it. Just to give you a little history, I used to enjoy math class. In middle school it probably was up there with P.E and Recess, I was good at it so I liked it. Yea well not so much anymore. I despise that stupid class room and its not because of anything but the actual subject matter. The five 45 minute classes I sit through every week are somewhat worthless, almost every lesson goes in one ear out the other and its like a giant pyramid of information building up on each other that i am expected to know and I still have no understanding of the foundation. Yes I am complaining and whining but I had nothing else to blog about. So, now I am gonna go stare at my pre-cal book until the numbers somehow begin to mean something

I would define gender as what a person is biologically born with, either they get a blue hat or a pink hat in the nursery. At this point in people's lives gender is simply anatomical. Yet, I believe that gender can change as a person evolves into an adult and into their role within society. After you have been "nurtured,"have it be your parents, school, media, or peers, gender becomes in my opinion decided by the mind and characteristics of that specific individual. In my case, I have never felt like I was different than what god gave me at birth, but I have felt the pressures of trying to fill the role that America determines as acceptable for each sex. In elementary school I would much rather go play a soccer game in the mud and pouring rain, than go shopping at the mall with my friends and their over protective mothers. At recess I didn't play house on the jungle gym, I threw the football with the boys. At that point in my life physical activity was much more enjoyable for me than any other activity defined as "girly." I obviously wasn't conscious of this decision not to conform to feminine traits, I simply would rather go to a Pacer game than the spa with my mom, but media has become more and more influential within my life. I'm not saying that without the media I would still be rolling in the mud and playing outside when it was storming, but I don't know if that change to become more "girly" would have happened as quickly. It is easy to look at magazines and T.V shows and question your own behavior and characteristics and wonder if you are acting the way you are "supposed" or "intended" to.

I think that the media played a large role in Ortiz Cofer's longing to fit the American ideal of women. Her struggles with her body image came about as she moved from Puerto Rico, where her petite frame was admired, to America where muscular strong women were seen as attractive. Her perceptions were created by the media. She referred to comic strips and specifically Wonder Woman as her ideal body or role model and she was willing to take drastic measures to achieve this body type or persona. It is evident that the images planted in her mind of "attractive" women were seeded by media and american societies view of women, but it is also notable that those perceptions of women demonstrated by the society is influenced by the media just as much as Cofer was when she arrived.

Wolfson defines marriage as something that is universal, I especially like how he used a sense of language to convey that no matter where you live or how you communicate that every society has a word for marriage. He also declares that it is a public statement of your commitment and love for another person, he says that is signifies and enables a relationship between your intimate partner and the government, and also that is has spiritual significance. Although he goes in to depth with other aspects of the definition of marriage the part that stood out most predominately to me was the idea that it was ideally accessible to everyone. Wolfson proved that all people, including guilty criminals, have the right to marry and reap the significant benefits it administrates, all people except homosexuals. His definition is not only sensible and fair, but it is completely inclusive and covers almost every crevasse of marriage, the benefits and the downfalls. By first defining what it means to have a marriage Wolfson successfully conveys the importance of marriage within multiple different crucial elements of life. I think commonly people who appose gay marriage are looking at marriage as simply a formal bond of an intimate relationship, which in my opinion is still very trivial and uneducated, but they obviously fail to recognize the other benefits it brings along. Once he points out those monumental benefits it is even more difficult to understand why same sex marriage is not permitted, or more accurately addresses why same se couples can not engage in marriage.

Before directly answering the question, I want to acknowledge how arrogant and close minded this haughty man is, yes these are two adjectives often tagged alongside conservatives like Senator Wade, but in my opinion they couldn't be more accurate in describing this man. Maybe my disagreement stems from a close family friend who lives with his partner of 31 years and raises their teenage son, who quite frankly is more stable than most kids I interact with today, or maybe from my cousin who has seen his dad twice in his entire life, yet has a full ride to USC and is a star baseball player that has worked a job since the 9th grade, but Wade, if even having a defendable argument, didn't present his case well. If I didn't agree with his position before the essay I sure as hell don't now. Dr. Wade's metaphor comparing a single parent family to an airplane that isn't guaranteed a safe landing is unconvincing. He is implying that a single parent home can take a child's life, the result in most cases when a plane fails. The connection couldn't be more irrelevant. A questionable airplane has some sort of technical and physical flaw or mishap that hampers the flight, how can you tie that to a single parent home or a homosexual relationship, there is no technical flaw, no loose screw or missing bolt that would cause the child's life to be ruined. In some cases the time spent with you child could be less due to necessary working hours to support your children, but the difference is in no way comparable to a missing piece of a plane. Maybe I am being subjective but I don't see how he draws this comparison what so ever. When I first read it before I had even looked at the blog's prompt I was bemused, I went back and read it again and frankly from that point on I though he was a nut. Wade goes on and on about how committed and dedicated his family is too each other, he basically is trying to get us to believe that if we live like him our lives will be perfect, this man who claims he has a utopian family should broaden his horizons and see that successful childhoods and safe families exist far beyond a traditional two parent heterosexual relationship.

The purpose in Vazquez waiting to disclose the fact the both Mickey and Brian were heterosexual is to emphasize to the readers that antigay and lesbian violence is not only damaging to the homosexual communities but to all men and women. These men were being attacked because they "acted" like gay men, not because they were. When the reader understands that the violence they presumed to be directed toward only gays and lesbians, is capable of happening to straight people, the intensity of the violence is simply that much larger. Not to devalue or discredit the brutality of antigay violence directed at homosexuals, but when a straight person is reading this essay it only magnifies the threat and danger if they know it has potential to effect them physically as well. The point of her disclosing it at all is similar to the reason why she waits to disclose it at the end of the anecdote. The issue is amplified. When the threat is tangible to a much wider scope of people and more people are aware of the fact that the danger is able to harm them then the problem and violence is increased and treated with the seriousness that is needed.

No I do not think that Eustace Conway is a transcendentalist. Although he appreciates and lives off of nature he doesn't believe that the trees and the rivers and the animals have souls and are capable of demonstrating discipline. Eustace also doesn't believe that nature earth holds a spirit or divinity to god that is overpowering to all life. Transcendentalists, like Emerson, hold nature and all living things as equal to human kind. I think that both men appreciate nature and recognize the importance of it, but Emerson has a different idea about nature's spirit. Eustace finds spirituality within himself through nature, but Emerson believes there to actually be spirits in nature.
Gilbert doesn't think Eustace is a transcendentalist either. She knows that he uses it and recognizes its beauty but Eustace doesn't do this because he has deliberately thought about it. He personally experiences life in nature and is able to form this bond with it through his personal experiences. Emerson on the other hand is being philosophical about it. He isn't emerged in nature as Eustace is he rather is being hypocritical and telling people how important and valuable nature is and how they should be connected to it because they are part of nature.

"Every appearance in nature corresponds to some state of the mind, and that state of the mind can only be described by presenting that natural appearance as its picture. An enraged man is a lion, a cunning man is a fox, a firm man is a rock, a learned man is a torch. A lamb is innocence; a snake is subtle spite; flowers express to us the delicate affections. Light and darkness are our familiar expression for knowledge and ignorance; and heat for love. Visible distance behind and before us, is respectively our image of memory and hope." Here Emerson is talking about how we have created a world where the actual correspondence between things have become translated through words and language into an intangible or metaphorical relationship. Here he is saying that we ARE nature and that the natural and spiritual facts are one in the same. Without a human to analyze nature and without nature to allow the relations to happen neither exist. This is in some ways similar to Conway's attitude toward nature. He doesn't t see the animals he kills for food as any lesser than himself, when he kills the deer he gruesomely slashes his throat and later drenches himself in the blood of the animal, simply to show his appreciation and spiritual passion for his relationship with the other living objects around him. Emerson is doing the same by acknowledging the direct and actual correspondence between nature and human kind.

In my opinion Gilbert is glorifying Eustace's lifestyle and attitude towards nature. It is obvious that Gilbert becomes enthralled and amazed at the way he lives his life and she is determined to pass on his lessons through her writing. I'm not exactly sure whether she seems them feasible for the entire nation, knowing that realistically not all people are willing to make such a big step backwards, but it is undeniable that she wants to please Eustace or maybe rather assist him in achieving his life goals, despite the fact that she is knowledgeable of the fact they might not be realistic. There is a long passage in chapter five that describes multiple "Men of Destiny" and how Conway some way simulates or is like these admirable men. By including this I feel like her intentions are to humble and slow down her readers, maybe not insist that they change, but enlighten them that people like Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone still exists and there is more to life and the world than living in a mass production fast paced social climate. I think through her relationship with Eustace she has gained a better sense of her world and a larger appreciation for nature, and by writing this book and titling Conway as "The Last American Man" she is both educating her readers, but also leaving them with contemplation over the idea of their current lifestyle or Eustace's and which is really better.

At the end of the novel Richard Wright is attempting to reunite and reconcile with his old friends from the communist party, he was earlier kicked out of, he approaches them, only to be ignored, at the May Day parade. Two white men beat him up and throw him out of the parade, and instead of intervening the black members from the communist party sit by and watch, failing to intervene or stop this.
Wright is baffled at their lack of courage or awareness and eventually comes to a powerful realization. Formerly he was trying to evoke a sense of unity among his black peers, but comes to understand that uniting the entire black population to stand up against the whites and fight for their justice is pointless, because in reality his life has shown him no sense of even "human life," that really it is all people within the nation that are "going down the same drain." Within this realization he understands that his only way in freeing himself or enabling himself to feel connected to the world, was to try and create a "echo" an awareness or knowledge that he has gained through his experiences, and his most effective mechanism is to write and allow his thoughts to become tangible through words.

Yes, I agree with Wright's theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles, both the types of approaches demonstrated and the essential intended goal is very different. Artists are creating some sort of visual/audio object that is intended to evoke emotion within its viewers, the specific emotion that prevails doesn't necessarily matter to the artist. The primary purpose of most artists is to influence. They have a much more expansive range in which they can reach the people, and their success is not determined ultimately by "pleasant" or "approving" reactions to their art. Politicians on the other hand have a shit load of pressure allocated upon their shoulders. If they don't satisfy the public they won't have a job and their ability to influence people quickly diminishes. They are working to provide their community with what the people living within it want. Their amount of freedom is much more limited and the scope of evaluation is much more direct and explicit.

A group is definitely able to be influenced by one single individual, especially when the group is either apprehensive and undecided or if the issue is irrelevant and their attitude is slightly indifferent. It is centrally decided on power, and the individuals ability to exercise their power effectively upon the larger group. The same can occur in opposite roles, I think this is more common but both are powerful and drastically persuasive. The issues range from life changing political influences to petty decisions made by a coach, when a strong figure is presenting ideas with a meaningful approach and strongly supported evidence the group is almost unable to oppose it or question the proposal. Wright was influenced by the "communist" groups and they too were influenced by Wright's attitude and ideas.

The passage at the top of page 267 was powerful in my opinion. He is verbalizing the notion that he has feared for so long, the terror Wright writes about at the end of Part I is becoming the truth and reality of his own life. Before experiencing the North, specifically Chicago, on a first hand basis he has a utopia picture of the culture there and is moving solely to seek a better relationship with his community, including self worth and equal rights. But, living in Chicago he only realizes that racial boundaries are ever present there as well. "I was going through a second childhood; a new sense of limit of the possible was being born in me. A dim notion of what life meant to a Negro in America was coming to consciousness in me, not in terms of external events, lynchings, Jim Crowism, and the endless brutalities, but in terms of crossed-up feeling, of psyche pain. I sense that Negro life was a sprawling land of unconsciousness suffering, and there were few but Negroes who knew the meaning of their lives, who could tell their story." In the South Wright had learned that blacks were expected to act a certain way and their behavior must be submissive toward white people in general, he knew that he must get out, hoping to find equality in the North and a meaning in life other than through suffering, but he only comes to the fact that his idealistic views of the North are wrong and he quickly must find ways to diminish and forget those hopeful dreams of finding an inclusive society, being a black man.

Wright's decision to move north in my opinion was a positive change in his life. Living in the South as a black man requires an attitude of one's self-worth that is explicitly dictated by the white people of that community. The standards they expect the blacks to live in is patronizing and limiting. Because Wright questions these unmoral behaviors and refuses to allow himself to be scrutinized and belittled consistently by his principles, co-workers, and employers he had to find an escape and seek a home that is closer to equality and demonstrates a higher amount of human respect. Chicago will not ultimately eliminate the discrimination aimed towards him, but it will tone it down and I think Wright's well being will become more positive and stable.

Wright says that he "had begun coping with the white world too late," and by this I think he means that he is finally understanding that he is incapable of lowering his self standards to fill the role that the whites have created for him. He comes to this realization after working several petty and trivial jobs in these two chapters. He is unable to conform and become conditioned to the behavior expected of him. When a white employer or white co-worker is rude, patronizing, and racist toward him he simply moves jobs. Wright hadn't been raised in such a segregated and demeaning kind of place so he isn't accustomed to the idea that this is normal and expected. Also, because he has recognized the injustice that so bluntly occurs, and realizes that the cause is unjustifiable he refuses to except it.

Yes, I do, very much so. Wright was simply trying to share with the audience his experience with school,whether it be an educated one that created an articulate well spoken student or an uneducated inadequate one, he wanted to give his speech to show what the school made of him, and the principal, the black principal, was only considering the opinions of the white audience members. This goes to show that not only are the black students under the control of the white superiority, but also black men with higher positions and a stable occupation have to sink down to the level that white people hold for ALL black people. Wright refuses to conform to the "way you act around white people" that his principal is trying to teach him. Wright also becomes irritated with the idea that another black man is trying to teach him this behavior, he has learned to expect it from his white peers but if baffled that another black person would encourage these values and behavior. He doesn't understand why his principal feels it is okay for black people to act and feel inferior just because they are not white.

After Uncle Tom asks Wright, as he is waking up a question, Wright replied with an unfit answer, and Uncle Tom began to threaten Wright with a beating. Wright quickly became very angry because he was once again being physically hurt by something he didn't justifiably deserve. He felt like his uncle had no power or control over him, and he had no right to beat him because of that lack of respect between both of them. Wright's relationship with his uncle was that of two strangers almost, and Wright knew that his uncle was no person that he should be learning from. His anger not only stemmed from the actual threat but he also was infuriated at the idea that someone could do this, and consider it logical. He didn't defend himself physically but when he talked about never wanting to become like his uncle, it was affirmation that Wright is looking for the bigger picture and striving to overcome the racist and abuse he experiences now.

Wright's Response to his Mother's Paralysis

When Wright's mother falls ill after a major stroke, he initially begins to take care of the household. Richard begins completing the chores his mother previously did. Instead of sulking, becoming depressed, and somewhat lost like a typical young child would do in Wright's situation he matures through his mother's illness and starts to become more of an adult male figure in the house. Instead of receiving gifts, such as food, with open arms, he realizes that by accepting these charities it makes himself look inadequate and unable to provide for his family, so he refuses the meals, even though he is in desperate need of food and is starving.
Once Granny arrives Wright's behavior shifts. He stops visiting his mother and ultimately avoids the situation. Because he has continuously been "hungry" and declined affection and love he feels as though this is simply another loss. The death of his mother is simply another inevitable in Wright's life.

Wright feels that his behavior toward Jews is justified because of the way they influenced history. Jews are believed to have been the people who crucified Jesus, and because of this, as a culture they have suffered. Wright's cruel comments and discriminating actions are simply a reflection of his peers and the adults in his life. The black community feels as though they can put the Jewish people down because Jews don't believe in Jesus, and Wright is basically following along. This is especially ironic because Wright continues to question the differences between whites and blacks and why skin color can determine the way others treat you. In chapter 1 he becomes puzzled because he doesn't understand why a black boy can't have a white father. Although his mothers explanation doesn't make things clear, he realizes that racial differences are apparent in his society. Previous to this encounter he is basically colorblind and unaware of injustices due to skin color. The way white people are treating blacks in this time is the same way blacks are treating the Jews of this time. I think the mechanism used is trying to lift up the self esteem of the race or religion being cruel to the so called "inferior". Wright is unaware of the consequences of his actions and unaware at the foundation of the beliefs, he is just a young child following the lead of the role models in his life, and most likely won't realize them until he is mature enough to see the relationship between his actions towards Jews and whites actions towards him, and other blacks.

Wright excessively refers to his state of hunger. In some instances yes, he is actually hungry for physical food, but within other more symbolic instances he is searching and longing for some kind of genuine affection. The change from literal meaning to symbolism comes after Wright's father leaves. Before when his dad lived with him there was food, the father would go and work and bring home food for their family. But now, because he has left Wright is not only physically starving he is also being deprived of a father figure. "I had been glad that he was not there to shout his restrictions at me. But it had never occurred to me that his absence would mean that there would be no food." pg. 15 Wright automatically makes the connection of hunger to the absence of his father. So as the chapter continues, Wright's longing for actual food morphs into a longing for his father or for what his father had provided for him in the past.

Against School Response

I was a little confused after reading "Against School" considering the fact that the author is basically bashing every part of institutionalized government funded schooling, when he himself spent 30 years of his adult life as a teacher. I definitely think that our education system has its a downfalls, as he bluntly points out. Public schools especially have become notorious for letting kids "fall through the cracks," and that statement reassures that somewhere along the line we made a mistake or left out a necessity, but it obvious that school is part of this nations foundation and it is a vital part at that. Yes, the majority of the day one could find 17 out of the 20 students unengaged staring off into the colorless walls or mesmerizing floor panels, but if you think about it, there really is no alternative. Boredom is part of everything, whether it be playing a sport, learning a musical instrument, life isn't all about excitement and if you really think about it nothing would be "fun" if there wasn't any boredom or downtime. As much as I would enjoy doing whatever the heck I wanted every single day, I probably wouldn't get too far in our society. School instills qualities that have become critical to survival and success, but that doesn't mean that school is the end all be all. I think in reality Gatto is simply seeking another form of schooling, one which he refers to as an education. Commonly these words are interchangeable but the connotation of them distinctively separates them. I agree with the fact that schooling is only effective to a certain level, and that there comes a time when the passive learning just doesn't work anymore. Active engagement is what occurs outside of the four walls in a class room and those are the kinds of lessons that should be taught between them.
I disagree ultimately with his statement disregarding school in general, but I do believe that adjustments to be made are necessary for public schooling to offer an education rather than just 9 years of one long cram session.

I definitely value my 15,000 dollar a year private education, but I also don't really have any other experience to compare it to. I couldn't imagine walking down the hallway or sitting in a classroom second semester not knowing who I was sitting next to. Not only do the social differences set a school apart but in the classroom it is reassuring to know that your teacher can tell you your name rather than refer to you as #1287. I feel like the institutions I have been privileged enough to attend are trying to accomplish a bigger goal or aim for a broader target. They aren't just trying to teach you about our founding fathers or how to find the length of a 30, 60, 90 triangle they want us to be well rounded citizens with a wide scope of the world and they hope to instill qualities among us to be successful beyond the doors of University High School. I know that when I leave high school I will have the tools to be a contributing and productive person, and I am confident enough to say that not all 18 year olds leaving Pike, Carmel, or Fishers will feel the same way about themselves.

This is the question that I can never really reach a definitive side on. I know that we are supposed to defend an argument and that the whole " I kinda agree with both sides" thing isn't what your looking for but, I feel like this argument is similar to, who came first the chicken or the egg? Obviously the media has to reflect the culture to some degree, but it is also, obviously apparent that society is influenced by what the media chooses to produce. Kendall is in entire support of the claim that the media is shaping us, but I definitely feel like she needs to "chill" as Eryn put it in class today. Who am I or who is Kendall to decide, truly there isn't an ultimate place to distribute the blame. I do agree with her claim entirely about how the media portrays false hope or unachievable success. The majority of television shows are documenting a lifestyle intangible for the common person, but they are most definitely glorifying it and making is seem as though it is right around the corner for the couch potato seeking 30 minutes of escape, where as though the shows that do include some qualities of a "middle class citizen" the attitude of the show is mockery and the point of them to poke fun. Whether or not this racks up credit card bills I'm not so sure that irresponsible spending can be blamed on advertisement and media sources, the person not paying the bill or unable to pay the bill probably knew they couldn't afford it well before they confidentially swiped that magic piece of plastic.

Reaction to Rhetoric Presentations

The "sharing" in class today wasn't as bad as I was expecting. My favorite picture and explanation of the argument being facilitated was probably Erin Borts and Chris Dobbs. I liked Erin's mostly because I think I fall into the trap and play into the rhetoric devices they are using at American Eagle, not so much that I will develop a relationship like the one in the photograph but because I go into the store and look for the articles of clothing in the display. Chris's was interesting because I took a similar photo that was conveying order and a physical appeal that a high authority would like the people to portray, in his example a business like attire for the basketball players, and in my case a picture of my soccer team wearing identical practice uniforms. I basically felt like I saw examples that I expected to see. The idea of wealth, artistic uniqueness, and order were all apparent and the locations where the pictures were taken didn't really surprise me either. Carmel consistently demonstarted affluence, and broadripple represented an edgy artistic side.

When I went on my little "adventure" it was surprisingly easy to find explicit examples of rhetoric. I think the main reason I found so many is because I spent most of my Sunday afternoon in Carmel, and it is obvious to both a resident like me, or a complete and total stranger to the town, that as a community the city of Carmel, and the people living here, enjoy emphasizing their ability to spend money. From the pointless, water fountains that are set to timers, syncing the time of the sun setting and the time of the neon lights illumination, that create a glowing effect as you drive around the 15 round abouts invading 116th street, to the mandatory mailbox regulations in multiple neighborhoods, it is an understatement to say that Carmel is focused on surface appeal. Not only does the city provide needless amenities but, the people engage in similar reverence toward material things. It is almost impossible to drive 1 square mile without seeing a house lavishly decorated in the upcoming holiday's decorations, or to find a street that doesn't have seventeen banners hanging above the garage door broadcasting that their child is a Carmel High School Greyhound football MVP or a Carmel Pups all-star Cheerleader.

Gitlin is arguing that the streams of american culture that pour into other nations are allowing them firsthand insight to things such as Hollywood icon's, Disney related empires, Coke, and American produced music that greatly influence the different countries into almost American replicas. It gives other countries a satisfied feeling of entertainment and allows them into our American easily accessible way of enjoyment. He also talks about how this gives young generation all the same dreams. Kids here in America are aspiring to be the same things that kids in China, for example, want to as well. Yes I agree. I don't know whether or not i feel like this is a good thing or a bad thing but it is obvious that it is happening.

The danger comes while depicting women and men because by depicting them we are valuing them at less than us, or less than human worth. Kilbourne writes that by doing this and allowing people to consider women as objects rather than as people we are able to justify the mistreatment of them. Similar to the times of slavery where white masters considered African American people as animals and treated them appropriate to what they valued their worth at. Im not saying by any means that the objectification of women is comparable to the cruelty of slavery, but the device that the dominant role uses to justify their actions are in some ways similar.
Women in particular are seen as sex symbols and not only are they being over-sexualized in advertising, their role in media, music, and television is primarily to catch the attention of sexually driven men as well. Kilbourne also includes the role being reversed by it is obvious that the majority of this is female oriented, and the harm greatly increases from the female perspective. Whether or not the objectification is focused on the man or the woman in all instances the man is in control and the dominant figure. The girl doesn't exactly physically have the means to stop it immediately when she prefers, and when the media promotes this behavior the male will always feel as though it is expected for him to be in control in sexual behaviors.
Do I agree? Yes to a great extent I do. You never seen girls walking down the hallway grabbing a guy's crotch or smacking his ass, but the reversal is common, and most the time the girls laugh their faces turn red and they act in some ways flattered. This is only a small example but the behavior promoted by the media is trickling down even into middle school hallways. But, I think Kilbourne may go a little too far in analyzing some of her examples, like the one where the little kids are wearing underwear jumping on a bed, I have a 3 year old little brother and he jumps on the bed playing every morning before school in his underwear, if that, and I'm wouldn't be surprised to know that most other toddlers do the same. If the advertisement wasn't trying to sell underwear maybe it could be borderline, but what are you supposed to show when your trying to sell small children's under garments. Obviously Kilbourne's argument is valid and an issue that needs to be exposed, she provides a plethora of disturbing horrifying ads but, I think she begins to reach a little too far making it seem as though she is over doing it looking for those maybe unintended sexual hints.

After watching the commercials airing during the Super Bowl it is apparent that the products being advertised are centrally directed towards a male audience, obviously a well chosen decision considering the majority of football fans are male. The ads continuously involved a male focused mentality, including half naked women, excessive amounts of cash, fast cars, cold beer and the occasional joke surrounding a dude getting hit in the crotch. The commercials also included many situations where the man in the ad contained some sort of inhuman like power, one more opportunity to make a couch potato avid football viewer feel like a "superhero" or an "all star athlete" if they buy what ever that specific ad is promoting.

The Bias of Language, the Bias of Pictures

The Bias of Language, the Bias of Pictures reminds me of our discussion regarding absolute truth, and the idea that we are unable to reach an absolute truth, and even if an individual could experience the truth they are limited by language to convey or share the truth. Postman's essay talks about how an event can occur but following the actual incident no two people will recall or remember the event that same, so when someone listens or relies on someone else to give them an account of what happened their memory won't ever be precisely correct giving the listener a false perception of the event. He also addresses that this problem is unavoidable and it is a responsibility of a viewer or listener to approach the documentation of events or news with knowledge that what they are saying isn't "absolute truth."
The point that stands out most from The Bias of Language, the Bias of Pictures is Postman's idea regarding the value of pictures vs. the value of words. He writes, "It is often said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Maybe so. But it is probably equally true that one word is worth a thousand pictures." Like he says, the beginning statement is much more commonly heard, and personally I always agreed with the little saying. But, after reading Postman's piece the idea that words can covey so much more because a little more realistic. His statement about how newscasts could be printed onto one sheet of paper, baffled me. News programs are an attempt to inform viewers about the world surrounding them and it obvious that that cannot be accomplished in one page of data and information.