cultural rights

Wright believes that because of his culture he is allowed and supposed to hate jews. He thinks that because he's black that all these things are set up the way they are and he has to follow them. He doesn't argue against them, just goes with them. Whether it's hating jews or fighting with white boys, he just goes with it and accepts what is expected to be of him.

Hunger

So, in the book "Black Boy" Richard talks a lot about his hunger. But what exactly is he referring to? Well, you can look at it in two ways. Obviously there's the literal way that since his dad left, his family can't afford buying food everyday to feed themselves.
But on another level, there is the metaphorical definition. That's his yearning, or hunger, for the things that he wants. Things like not being bored, or a place that he can live with food, or what ever else he feels he needs.

Is school really necessary?

Well to get right to the point, I think there is only one thing that school is necessary for. Everything else we can achieve by being educated at home, or learning it in the real world. That one things is social structure. while its true that in home schooling you can become a social person, nothing prepares you for the real world quite like living in that social structure everyday. This is important because people need to understand how society is structure, even if it flawed and bad. People still need to understand something, even if they want to take it down. Its kind of like that saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Anyways, besides that one part of life, I believe everything else can be learned outside the structure of a school system. Whether it's in the real world, or being taught at home, school isn't truly necessary to create the kids into the bright minds that they can be.

Do School's really help?

In and out of school, we are gaining knowledge that can be considered 'non-academic'. I would define that as being something that you gain such as personal beliefs and value that you life up to everyday of your life. They don't have to be something like religion, just something that you feel strongly about. Some value that you hold dear and want to uphold.
Anyways, the question is 'do we value these non-academic education the we are learning in school'? I would have to say that it can be both yes and no. There will always be the start students out there that do everything perfectly and never mess up, but less face it most of us aren't like that. And i think the majority of people in high school don't value this non-academic education. How can you say you are, when you feel that you should be different other but still conform to what they say? These are the people who will be destined to the bottom after high school is out. they are brainwashed of what should be their unique values and can only conform to what they are told to do.

Stores have a hidden flavor

Many stores have their own way of influencing you, whether it's in defining who you are, or more probably what you buy. Stores try to influence you in this way just for the main reason that they want you to buy their products. Their main reason for doing anything like this is that if you think you need something you will go to where it is that you would buy it. I don't believe that this type of advertisment or 'subliminal advertising' really works that well. But I guess that's the point.

And Giants ftw!!!

I have to say that this year's super bowl ads were very weak compared to past years, but at least the game was far more interesting than the last two. I guessed the decided to reverse it this year or something. I digress, the three commercials that stand out to me are one's for FedEx, Amp, and Go Daddy.com.
The first FedEx played off of a lot of what they have done in past years, using humor that really isn't offensive to anybody to make a commercial that gives you a good laugh. My favorite will still be last year's with the dinosaurs, but this is definitely up there. FedEx has given an example f a commercial that can be effective, funny, and generally clean.
The second is the Amp commercial. Amp is an energy drink made by the same people as Mountain Dew, so I guess a lot of people are going to assume that it is automatically inappropriate for some reason or another. While I do admit that this specific commercial was a bit weird and really out there, it definitely wasn't as bad as other commercials out there. For anybody out there who didn't see it, the whole thing was that this woman's battery died in the middle of a dessert and a guy in a tow truck comes up to restart her battery. But instead of attaching it to his car, her attaches it to himself on the nipples and starts drinking amp. The energy in the drink then proceeds to pass through him and into the car. Now I know that someone out there is going to find some way to make that sexual, but honestly I don't see it as extremely inappropriate. While attaching cables to yourself is pretty bad, it is by far and away, at least in my mind, not a lean towards a sexual innuendo, as much as showing that amp gives you a ton of energy.
The final one is definitely the weird and completely ineffective, for me anyways. I don't understand why anyone would think that doing an ad like that would be good at all. I just think that it's stupid and a waste of a whole lot of money.

Finally, congrats to the Giants. And I hope the patriots never win another super bowl, or game for that matter.

Reflection, but not the one in the water

In class, many good and thought provoking points were brought up. A few of which swayed me to see the argument from a different point of view or in a way that I didn't even know existed. I've always thought that a heated debate, well not exactly heated but more of a passionate debate, always bought out the best point in an article or rhetorical piece and brought more sense to the article for all who were involved. I feel though that the discussion in class really didn't go that exact direction.
The way I feel our discussion went was beyond the piece itself into a different plane to talk not about the piece, but about the topic it was covering. At times it seemed that we went into areas that the piece never even mentioned or discussed, not that it's a bad thing though. This way I felt better point and a more lively discussion was brought out of the topic and the people who were involved in it.