Thanksgiving in my family

Malcolm X- “The Ballot or the Bullet”

So we're trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Any way we go, we find that we're trapped. Any every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap. But the political and economic philosophy of black nationalism…the economic philosophy of black nationalism shows our people the importance of setting up these little stores, and developing them and expanding them into larger operations. Woolworth didn't start out big like they are today; they started out with a dime store, and expanded, and expanded, and expanded until today they are all over the country and all over the world and they getting some of everybody's money. Now this is what you and I – General Motors, the same way, it didn't start out like it is. It started out just a little rat-race type operation. And it expanded and it expanded until today it's where it is right now. And you and I have to make a start. And the best place to start is right in the community where we live.

My Thanksgiving mimic

So my family is loud, very loud, very very loud. Anywhere we go we are told that we’re loud. You can only imagine how loud and rambunctious we are on Thanksgiving. But we do have some deep and meaningful conversations at dinner….we talk about the economic state of the United States and we talk about politics, primarily about how Obama is doing his job. Occasionally my snobby cousin talks about what amazing designer dress she’s wearing; what designer clothes she’s getting, and has, and what gifts she’ll get on Christmas, and currently what shoes are to die for and what aren’t and of course brag about her new iPhone 6. Now my other cousin and I- we just nod our heads, pretending to listen, occasionally throwing in some replies. And then there’s dessert and that’s of course my favorite part. And that’s always what goes the fastest and there’s never any left overs. And the best part is that I’ll be having an assortment of Italian and Arabic desserts.

Churchill vs. Hirohito vs. Goebbels

In the short time of a week, I have read three drastically different speeches, or so I thought. Although all the philosophers are addressing somewhat different topics and different audiences, they do have many rhetorical devices, claims and fallacies in common, in fact they even use them in close to the same ways. The most distinct similarity was the scare tactic and slipper slope used: if we don’t do something then we will die and eventually all of human civilization. Oh, and all the speakers were experts in making their country the victims.

In all cases they use slippery slope to say that they are doing the addressed action to make sure that the end of civilization does not happen, their actions are a benefit of the world.  Specifically, Emperor Hirohito was surrendering, and in some way said that this would benefit the rest of the world, “Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.” But he also didn’t make it sound like a complete surrendering speech..he made it sound almost neutral, like there great loss was supposed to happen. In ways such as saying that the war was “not necessarily to Japan’s advantage…”, which was a complete litote. However Winston Churchill is talking to the British Empire to do the exact opposite, he needs everyone to stand up and take action, fight back! The beast has been awakened! Churchill says almost the exact same thing as Hirohito: “Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal.” And with that being said Joseph Goebbels also had the fact that he was rallying his people up in Berlin, Germany in common with Churchill, but also said the end of civilization was near if they did not do anything.

All parties also use the royal “we”, creating a sense of unity, making sure the society is united in whatever they do whether its surrendering or fighting back!

Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

            The major differences in these two pieces of work are power and freedom, while Thoreau advocates that the government shouldn’t have so much power and the society should stray from the majority, Machiavelli believes in making the society fear the ruler (or government) establishing the power, giving the society very little freedom. Both authors establish two different perspectives as to how a society should act and how it should governed.

Machiavelli believes in belittling citizens, making them feel small, intimidating them, establishing that he is in charge and no one should even think to cross him or they will face the unknown consequences. He also says that lying before being put into power is okay, you have to do what you have to do, once you’re in power you can you’re your real colors. We discussed in class that, in some ways, this is how real politics works. Many candidates that run for any position promise the people many things just to look good, gaining votes. Now are these lies bad? Are the necessary? That was something we came to a dead end with. There’s no way to stop these “white lies”. Machiavelli addresses this when saying a ruler should show his generosity, spend his own money giving back and such, but once elected as ruler, use the citizens money for whatever he may be showing his “generosity” towards.

Thoreau, however, almost argues the exact opposite, the government shouldn’t have as much as power as it does. He even goes on to say that the government treats the citizens, and any government employers as “puppets”. He expresses in a sense that militants are government puppets that have lost all humanity, who will do anything for the government at any costs. This creates and evokes his readers, what if we are really just puppets for the government? Thoreau even goes to the extent of not paying his taxes to get his point across….he suffered those consequences.

            

Dear Manuel J. Rivera, Superintendent of Schools

I understand that the current lunch protocol does not allow high school students to leave school for lunch, but as the time changes so should the laws and restrictions. In order to let students distress in their only free time of 45 minutes for lunch, they should be able to leave school to be in a comfortable, stress free environment.

In order to ensure the well being of our students, we should be allowed to leave school for the 45 minutes out of the 7 hours we spend in school. Leaving could simply mean going home to eat our own food and relax, or go to a food restaurant to eat and study. The 45 minutes we have for a lunch period should be a free time for us to relax, unwind and maybe even get ahead on some homework, in a comfortable environment like Starbucks or Panera, or maybe even just our own home. We clear our minds and take a break so that by the time we have to be back at school, our minds are recharged and ready to take on the rest of the day. Many students do not like the lunches the school serves; in fact some even find it unsanitary and not very edible. Why should we deprive our students of having an edible meal of their choosing?

Should you be thinking about how to make our schools a better place, think of this; letting our students leave for 45 minutes would allow the school to be a happy environment, everyone would come back from their lunch break refreshed and ready to take on the rest of the day.

Best regards,

Savannah Kayal

Stress Relieving Lunch Time

            High school is the most stressful place there is for the normal teen, and if you ask adults today they would never want to be a high school student now with all the work, deadlines and restrictions we have today. Open lunch or off campus lunch is a very common thing that many high schools have, unfortunately mine does not. The open lunch idea is a stress reliever. What high-schooler doesn’t want to leave their school for the 45 minutes (or so) that they have free, to go get coffee, or food that is actually edible? The 45 minutes we have for a lunch period should be a free time for us to relax, unwind and maybe even get ahead on some homework, in a comfortable environment like Starbucks or Panera, or maybe even just our own home. We clear our minds and take a break so that by the time we have to be back at school, our minds are recharged and ready to take on the rest of the day.       

            19.3 percent of high school students have seriously considered killing themselves, and 14.5 percent of high school students made actual plans for committing suicide, from being so stressed from school and from depression in many cases. If we could be granted the permission to leave just for our lunch break to de-stress and relax, maybe even just to go home and eat lunch, this high school student suicide rate could decrease.

A free lunch break is the normal life of a businessman or woman who works on Wall Street. They leave their office for their 30-60 minute lunch break to free their mind of all the stressful work they have. So by the time they do go back to their job they return with a clear mind and in turn the employer get a refreshed employee who can work at 100% capability. They are allowed to leave and go do whatever their hearts desire; as long as by the time this lunch break is over they are back sitting at their desks as if they never left.

          In the real world if you’re allowed to leave for your lunch break then why can’t high-schoolers, preferably upperclassmen leave too? Highschools expect us to be able to make decisions about our future. How can we be able to predict or plan our future when we can’t even leave the school for 45 minutes just to distress?

Preferences

§

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

-

=

Backspace

Tab

q

w

e

r

t

y

u

i

o

p

[

]

Return

capslock

a

s

d

f

g

h

j

k

l

;

'

\

shift

`

z

x

c

v

b

n

m

,

.

/

shift

English

Deutsch

Español

Français

Italiano

Português

Русский

alt

alt

Preferences