TOW #10 "You Won't Hear It Coming" Visual Text

 

My dad has always become most angry at me for listening to music while I either work, walk, or wonder around the house. He claims that I'm not "paying enough attention to the world around me". Well, I hope he never finds this picture, because my case is sunk if he does. The advertisement is rather simple. The title is "You Won't Hear It Coming". An equation, set to a plain green background, combines a car and a man listening to his iPod to make a man in a wheel chair listening to his iPod. The message simply states "iPod. Use responsibly."  That message is an allusion to the warnings one medication, alcohol, and casino commercials have to put to levy them from blame if the person using the product sustains injuries.  Even though the advertisement does not relieve blame from Apple, the goal of the blurb is to make people pay more attention when using their iPods.  If you are told to use a medication responsibly, you make sure you read the directions and check to make sure you are taking the right dose.  The advertisement is hoping that the viewer will make sure that they are paying attention when using their iPod, especially since the iPod takes away the sense of hearing. 

Without the sense of hearing, humans would be at a disadvantage in the outside world.  The equation presented in the picture clearly shows that.  The simple addition of the variable (the car who relies on sound to warn of its presence and the man who cannot hear because of his music) to an unfortunate outcome (life in a wheel chair) touches on appeals to logos.  The logical argument is that when driving, a driver will blow his horn to warn someone to get out of the way.  If the person cannot hear, he would not be able to get out of the way in time.  Also, if someone gets into a car accident, there is the very real possibility that their lives could change forever negatively.  In this picture, losing the use of your legs is the result. The logic is pretty air tight.  Now back to wandering the high way listening to “Hello” by Evanescence at full blast.

IRB Intro #2 "The Blind Side"

Let's get something straigh: I do not like sports.  Never have, never will.  You might then ask why the pasty white nerd chose to read The Blind Side by Michael Lewis, a book entirely devoted to sports.  First off, let's establish that I love to watch movies.  And in my desire to watch a movie back in 8th grade, I stumbled upon the movie The Blind Side, which I watched with my cousins.  I immediately fell in love with the heart-warming story of how one woman's kindness saved a poor young man and helped him to accomplish fame and the oppertunity to be successful.  Then, I discovered that the movie was based off of a book.  Let's get something else clear, I love reading more then I love watching movies.  I find that usually, books are better then the movie, which I assume many people do as well.  And if this book is better then the movie, I am in for a treat.  I will enjoy starting to read The Blind Side.

TOW #9 "Magic Mushrooms" Article Post

I always wanted to go into a biological field when I grow up.  In order to better keep in touch with the science advances going on,  I am going to start reading more scientific articles.  Of course, some of those articles contain words that I would have to look up, then look up the words in the definition.  So, I'm starting small.  So, I went to my favorite search engine (google) and typed "science articles", which lead me to live science, and headed directly to an article about magic mushrooms.  Fungi have always been super interesting to me.  They function like plants, but eat dead things like bacteria and they produce some of the worst toxins known to man.  This article actually talks about the effects of mushrooms on the brain.  The drug "magic mushrooms"'s active ingredient, psilocybin, apparently changed the brain's connections, linking networks not normally connected.  This explains the "trippy" feel one gets when taking magic mushrooms

To help the average reader, like me, who might not understand all of the scientific terms, the article usually defines them for the reader.  For instance, the author writes "Psilocybin may create a brain state akin to synesthesia, a sensory effect in which one sense stimulus (such as a number) always gets paired in the brain with another (such as a color or a sound)".  Now, I know exactly what synesthesia is, so I can gain a greater understanding of the article.  Also, they article uses expert testimonial to gain ethos for their arguments. When talking about the connections made in the brain under magic mushrooms, the article quotes "study co-author Paul Expert, a physicist at King's College London".  Since the man they are quoting is both the study author and a physicist at a prestigious college.  It makes what the article is saying believable and credible.  I'm guessing a lot of scientific writing is building up credibility to successfully argue a point.  The article seemed to hint that psilocybin might be useful in treating depression.  That could be a real world application of the knowledge listed.  I guess science articles usually present the fact, then apply the knowledge to the real world.  I will definitely look for these in the nest article I read.

http://www.livescience.com/48502-magic-mushrooms-change-brain-networks.html 

TOW Post #8 "IRB Post #2"

There are very few nonfiction stories that were as good as In Cold Blood. True, the story pushed the limits of nonfiction. Actually, I think that the reason I liked this story was that it was not some dusty, crusty almanac from some even dustier, crustier library. It was modern and definitely pushed some boundaries.  One thing I loved was the parallel story lines between the killers and the victims/towns folk.  The parallel stories help keep the story interesting right up until the end. 

To establish the difference, when talking about the townspeople and the Clutter family, the writing style resembles a nonfiction reporter type of writing.  When discussing the death penalty, Capote writes, “Kansas abolished capital punishment in 1907; in 1935, due to a sudden prevalence in the Midwest of rampaging professional criminals… the state legislators voted to restore it” (311).  By using dates, which establishes logos, it sets up the formal tone of this part of the parallel story. 

The other part, when referring to the criminals Dick and Perry, uses more of a fictional narrative style.  This is mostly achieved through use of dialog.  Dialog is almost impossible to write for a nonfiction story, because unless there is a transcript, it cannot be totally real.  For instance, how did Capote know that Perry said exactly “That’s all.  Somebody he could work their guts out and never have to pay them one hot dime.  No, Bobo, I’m talking. Shut up or I’ll throw you in the river” (185).  Because dialog from real life cannot be exact, it seems more like fiction.  These aspects of fiction definitely made the story easier for me to read.  I think my problem with nonfiction is that the facts seem endlessly drilling into my brain, as the cheesecloth I my head tries to save as many acts as possible for use later.  Capote presents the murder as if it was fiction, which means the facts are not as focused on.  It makes it easier for me to understand, and altogether, more enjoyable. 

TOW Post #7 "On Being a Cripple" Article Post

As you're well aware, we had to read one of five essays to do a rhetorical analysis paper on.  I picked "A Plague of Tics" by David Sedaris, but something felt wrong.  All the other essays seemed so sad, so alone, so unread.  Then, I changed that by reading "On Being a Cripple" by Nancy Mairs.  In this essay, Mairs descrbes her life as disabled, stressing the fact that she likes the word "cripple" more.  She says that cripple has "an honorable history" and is "a clean word, straightforward and percise".  This no-holding-back style of writing is shown in the blunt, straightforward title.  From the title, I know that this essay will discuss both the advantages and disadvantages to being crippled in society.  The difference between other authors about disabilities and Mairs is that Mairs views her multiple sclerosis as bad.  Most people will try to convince the reader that their disability has "helped" them through life and how is has made them a "better" person.  As a person with a disability, I can say that disabilities are not fun, nor do they change your life for the better mostly.  BUT, Mairs also describes how her life is normal, which makes her happiest of all.   She has a husband and children, and even with the occasional flare-up of her MS, she trudges on.  She really puts a disability in perspective.

As with most essays about disabilities, her essay relies mostly on her own narratives, such as the bathroom incident to introduce the essay.  This ethos of having dealt with the disability makes the reader trust what she says as truth, rightfully so, because Mairs has experienced MS first-handedly.  Also, the plight of a crippled person trying to survive in a society that seems to get more cut-throat every second definetly pulls at the heart strings.  An effective use of pathos can make the audience simply feel bad for Mairs.  But she establishes early on that simpathy is not what this essay is about.  "On Being a Cripple" is the tale of Mairs coming to grips with MS on her own terms. Instead of feeling bad for her, the audience cheers her on, hoping that she can forget about her MS and live like a normal person.  I mean, isn't that what everyone wants?

TOW Post #6 "Progressive Commercials" Visual TOW

So, let's get something straight.  For some reason, car insurance commercials are the most entertaining commercials out there.  Truck commercials are too stereotypical, shampoo commercials share the same problem, and food commercials are ok, but they are so fake when you know what goes into making the food look that good.  BUT, car insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, E-surance, Progressive, Farmers)  advertise their products in a unique way, only shared on such a scale by cereal companies.  They feature characters that everyone knows and actually likes.  My personal favorite is Flo from the Progressive commercials.  First off, by creating the fun, lovable, positive Flo, the company gets automatic recognition as soon as the advertisement starts and we see the smiling face of Flo.

Now to the specific commercial, names "Choices".  Click the link to view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7nl2AuG6G0

In the advertisement, Flo is explaining the choices one has under Progressive when one gets in an accident.  An element of humor is used when the middle aged woman pretends to think before choosing the attractive men at the Progressive service center.  Also, Progressive is using logos when saying "Progressive makes it easy, because we give you choices."  The logical assumption is that when a person picks something, they pick what is right for them.  Also, the idea of freedom of choice is one of the fundamental building blocks that our nation is built on.  We as Americans listen as soon as the word "choice" is involved, because it gives us a higher degree of not only freedom, but control in our life.  This commercial tells the audience "choosing the right coverage will improve your car insurance buying experience." It is a very convincing advertisement because of the humor, the lovable Flo, and the solid logical arguments made on freedom of choice.  Thesis.  I'll end on this note: if I had to buy insurance right now, I would probably go Progressive to be honest.

TOW Post #5 "How to Protect Yourself Against Ebola" Article Post

I have always loved reading the Onion for it's witty, satirical, and up-to-date view on American and worldly affairs.  Logically, the Onion would soon weed out and use people's fear of the new plague, Ebola, as a source of one of their humor articles.  In said article, the author discussed some ways that a person can avoid catching ebola.  The main rhetorical device is humor in the form of hyperbole.  In one of the suggested ways to avoid ebola, the article claims you should "regularly examine your DNA under an electron microscope for any indications that Ebola has attached itself to your cell membrane."  By showing the ridiculousness of trying to find out if you have Ebola, the panic of the disease is lessened.  Now some would argue that laughing at a very dangerous disease is blasphemous and just plain rude.  But those people have obviously not close-read anything before.  When looking at the suggested ways to keep safe from ebola, such as "boil all bodily fluids before consumption" or "avoid eating bat soup", one realizes that the Onion is not parodying the disease itself; no, it's parodying peoples reaction to the disease.  Whenever an epidemic breaks out, people tend to panic, even with no logical or factual evidence to constitute worry.  The article is saying "look, Ebola is scary.  We get that. But unless you live in Africa or in Dallas, Texas, you should be fine.  Also, don't eat bats (the means you Ozzy) and avoid drinking blood (that means you Edward).  That's what humor's job is.  To calm the masses when they fall into panic.  Humor makes us reexamine our false ideas and makes them seem ridiculous.  I know I am a lot less scared knowing exactly how to avoid Ebola.  To bad that soup tip didn't come one day earlier though...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/how-to-protect-yourself-against-ebola,37085/