
Today, we talked about the kid who made the sign and held it up before the Olympic parade that read, "Bong Hits For Jesus". Although I agree with the school giving him a suspension for displaying references to drugs (which was a school policy), I am slightly confused at where the supreme court decides where student free speech ends. In a CNN article I read, one of the lawyers added, "...While the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school." I think that this is just one case, but where does free speech really end and begin? This really made me think about what we are truly allowed to say and display at our schools. In freshman year, my advisory was going to make sweatshirts with my advisor, Ms. Hayes, and it was going to say Purple Hayes (like the song). But the idea was turned down by the principle. But if we had made those shirts...what would that lead to? If that kid can't make drug references, can we even joke about it? where is the line, and should it even be drawn?
In one of our discussions about puritan life after they left England, I started to question the puritan beliefs in God vs. the Devil and who was going to heaven or hell once they died. After hearing the puritan views on life and, I began to wonder what the intention of all of
In class, we had a discussion about comercials on TV during certain sports events and other events where the media takes advantage of races and ethnicities to advertize to. One advertizement that really sticks out to me is the "Army of One" comercial trying to recruit people to the army. One thing I have always noticed is that the comercials are always of young people, and promnently young black and hispanic men. Rarely you will see a woman or a white person on the screen. This made me think about what is really being advertized on our army recruitment ads. For one thing, it is a well know judgement that most people who live in the ghetto are black. It is also a common judgement that most black families are from low incomes, and do not aim for college. This, I think, is a main reason that the army comercials on TV, target young African American boys who are in need of extra money to get to college and a career, for that matter. The comericals for An Army of One, are about a young black man who talks with his parents about joining the army. I think this is really wrong . One, I think the army should not target kids from low income families, just becasue they don't have a lot of money. Most kids don't have any idea what they are signing up for in the first place, because the comercials they see are about people running and looking very brave and heroic. They don't see the blood and death and pain that really happens inside the army. Secondly, I think that the army is trying to take advantage of a situation in their favor. They are targeting kids of a single ethnicity becasue of a jugement that African Americans are poor and have nowhere to go, but to the army. So how strong, is army strong?


In class, we had an intersesing discussion about how people's appearance has become a major factor in deciding who is on the news and who anchors are. It used to be that all anchors were middle aged white men with english and journalism degrees, but today, it seems that even if an anchor is terrible or rude (AKA Nancy Grace), it only matters if they are good looking and camera friendly. Today, people like the presidents press secretary, have become sudden celebrities. People on CNN shows such as Glen Beck, Anderson Cooper 360, and Robbin and Company are all beautiful and flawless people that all have their own time on the news. Our discussion made me really think about what goes on behind the scenes of hireing anyone for a job. I admit, it is easier to watch someone that is good looking, but should looks be the only deciding factor in hiring newscasters, and anyone that is on TV for that matter? If you read my blog, what do you think about our journalists today becoming celebs? 



