Author: bcp5201

We frequently find ourselves leaving our lights on, trashing our recyclables, or turning up the heat in our house just for our own comfort and convenience. It is uncommon for us to proceed with such actions having even the slightest thought of the detrimental effects being forced on our environment. The course of our thoughtless actions ultimately leads to excess fossil fuels that add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere. The greenhouse gasses then trap heat in our planet, which creates extinction among animals, melting ice caps, and rising sea levels.

In the picture above, it is clearly highlighted that the polar bear is stuck due to the thin, melted ice it has to stand on. The severity of the polar bear’s situation is used to emphasize that many animals, especially the ones up north, are being harmed by the melting glaciers. These arctic animals are losing their homes, families, and lives.  

What we do not realize from the picture is that it is not just the arctic animals losing their homes. In fact, Many animals all over the globe feel the wrath of the climate change. With the shift in temperature comes discomfort for almost any animals because they are not biologically predisposed to deal with the temperatures we have in today’s society. In the end, the problem has caused many extinctions and significant population loss among a variety of different species, which continues to become more and more of an issue.    

Moreover, as an effect of the melting ice caused by global warming, sea levels are rising. We have seen a loss of land and a substantial impact on the aquatic life because of the rising water. Many sea animals fail to adjust to the changing conditions of their homes and fail to survive. Furthermore, the opposite is occurring to our lakes. Since the temperature is rising, lakes are beginning to evaporate quicker than they can refill, killing even more aquatic life.

Overall, the picture represents the often overlooked harmed we are creating through our abundant, typically unnecessary overuse of energy. Hopefully pictures like the one above will help us realize what we are doing and make people conscientious about climate change in our environment.

 

https://www.ted.com/talks/judson_brewer_a_simple_way_to_break_a_bad_habit#t-558297

A Simple Way to Break a Bad Habit by Judson Brewer

At Judson Brewer’s Ted Talk, the main purpose of his speech was to describe how being mindful and cognitively acknowledging our bad habits will allow us to better avoid them in future occurrences. He went on about how we are often overcome by an unconscious urge to initiate in a bad behavior such as smoking or overeating when we feel stressed or down. We then automatically fulfill this urge to make ourselves feel better without even thinking twice about the consequences. Brewer uses research based facts to relay the point that when we step back and realize just how detrimental the urge may be, cognitively avoiding the habit can be just as fulfilling as actually succumbing to the habit. 

Brewer explained where habits come from within the brain and what causes the desires, which I had no understanding of before. The speech made me step back and realize how often I actually think before doing something bad — almost never.  I often just give in to my urge to eat an extra dessert because “it has been a long day.” From now on, I want to do what Brewer recommended to avoid these bad behaviors by truly thinking deep before I act.    

I thought that the speech was done extremely well. First of all, Judson Brewer excelled in using tremendous voice fluctuation to keep the audience engaged in his speech. Furthermore, he walked around stage at an ideal pace and looked at everyone in the audience to make them feel that he was addressing them directly. I can say with confidence that Brewer gave a well delivered speech rather than just doing a presentation because there were no note cards, he had the attention of the audience the entire time, and his facts were not highlighted by slides. 

If I could use one word to describe Brewer it would be intelligent. Not only because of the impressive knowledge he displayed on the topic of his speech, but also because of his ability to confidently memorize and relay his speech flawlessly. In an ideal world, I would want my Ted Talk to mimic the perfect style and knowledge that Judson Brewer displayed in his speech.    

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tAGrW5A4Tg 

In recent controversy, Penn State football received a letter of criticism over junior Jonothan Sutherland’s dreads. The letter claimed that the junior’s hairstyle made the team look unkempt and presented a poor image for the group. In response to the letter, James Franklin spoke on the community and inclusiveness within the Penn State football program. Franklin refused to consider the letter, but instead promoted the opposite. In his speech, Franklin commented on his acceptance and desire for difference among every player in the locker room.  

Through strong vocal variety, proper volume, and timely pauses, James Franklin used a dynamic speech delivery to convey his point all the more powerfully. Rather than using a consistent, monotone voice, Franklin would fluctuate his voice at a pleasing volume to maintain the attention of his audience. Furthermore, Franklin would often pause to allow his powerful message to sink in and resonate with the viewers. 

From an organizational standpoint, Franklin defines the togetherness among players for almost the entirety of his speech. Then, to conclude his speech, Franklin defines the outstanding character of Jonothan Sutherland. Not once does James Franklin actually address the letter. His organizational strategy is effective because it allows for listeners to understand the true comradery that football brings and the absurdity of the letter.  

Finally, Franklin used pathos by addressing the family-like environment within the football that he knows and loves. His frequent pathos attacks the emotions of the audience, for it allows viewers to feel the acceptance for each and every player. 

Altogether, the speech utilizes superb delivery, flawless organization, and exceptional persuasive appeals to undermine the letter and portray the acceptance of differences amidst Penn State football.

 

It is human nature to think before we do — to find the first solution and run with it. We allow speed to overpower accuracy; however, accuracy is very rarely accompanied by quickness. 

The “shortcut” thought process is exemplified in the article “Studies are Usually Bunk, Studies Show” by Andy Kessler. In his article, he claims that many studies are inaccurate because of the weak sample chosen to do the experiment. He uses the example of college grad students doing research on other, hungover grad students because it is easy and available. The students are then using the results from these experiments to represent a population, which can be quick and effortless but often provide skewed results. The article states, “‘More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments,’ the survey report concludes. ‘And more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments’” (Kessler).

After reading the article, I found it interesting that even extremely well educated researchers fall victim to the common fault of the shortcut. The article brings upon skepticism on what I can and can not believe when I stumble across the words “studies show.” 

The article applies for my paradigm shift Ted Talk because I now know that it is important to be on edge when researching because of the inaccuracy of many studies. I have no interest in providing my audience with false information, so I have to be positive the facts are actually true before incorporating them into my talk. Additionally, the article allowed me to look into the issues with shortcutting research. When researching my topic, I will not take any quick and easy routes that may lead to false information.

In all, the article brought to light the skepticism necessary when researching, and was very helpful in aiding me with what not to do when fact-finding for my paradigm shift Ted Talk.   

 

In the past couple of years, e-cigarettes have taken the teenage generation by storm. For my paradigm shift project I plan on discussing the shift in the use of e-cigarettes. I will describe why the e-cigarettes came to be, the harm they can cause, the recent spike in usage, and the statistics and case studies on the issue. My goal is to bring light to the issue and how we can prevent it in the future. The time period will span over the existence of e-cigarettes — just a few decades.

The shift is significant enough to merit close investigation and attention because it has become a serious issue recently, especially among teens. The e-cigarette was invented as a safer alternative to regular cigarettes; however, many young adults are becoming hooked to e-cigarettes without ever even trying a real cigarette. If these kids understood the negative health effects and damage done by the e-cigarette, they may never even become addicted in the first place.

 

In the past decade or two, technology has taken the world by storm. With the appearance of smartphones and tablets, the most recent generation of teens and preteens have become all consumed by such devices. In turn, these time and energy taxing screens have caused a significant paradigm shift between the most recent generation, “iGen,” and past generations.  

By definition, a paradigm shift is a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions, and the transition in societal tendencies caused by smartphones supports the paradigm shift definition perfectly. As stated in the article “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation” by Jean Twenge, she makes mention of how iGen has notably higher levels of loneliness and depression, which is linked to the progressive increase in the use of smartphones. According to the The Monitoring the Future survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Teens who spend more time than average on screen activities are more likely to be unhappy, and those who spend more time than average on non screen activities are more likely to be happy” (Twenge).

Furthermore, kids have been mentioned to have much lower social skills compared to other generations. The article quotes, “12th-graders in 2015 were going out less often than eighth-graders did as recently as 2009” (Twenge). Teenagers lack of leaving their home is one thing, but it is also mentioned that they have less sex, date less, and have no desire to drive. 

Finally, the article acknowledges that teenagers today sleep less due to the frequent vibrations combined with teen’s inability to put their phone away when going to bed. There are references to such lack of sleep by claiming that “Fifty-seven percent more teens were sleep deprived in 2015 than in 1991. In just the four years from 2012 to 2015, 22 percent more teens failed to get seven hours of sleep.”

In short, smartphones and tablets have caused a paradigm shift for the worse; teens today are overcome by the struggle technology brings rather than the benefits.

 

Growing up, I was constantly surrounded by the achievements and moralistic success of a man by the name of Milton Hershey. He was a small business owner that used his success as a way to help others and ultimately form my hometown, Hershey, PA. For my comparison to The Hershey Company, I decided to relate one company to another company rather than use text or an artifact as a comparison. I chose to compare the success and charity of The Hershey Company to that of a larger scale company that we are all familiar with, Apple.

Founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs, Apple’s immediate purpose is to create and distribute advanced technology available to the masses. Their argument is that, as a company, they make a good product, and they contribute some profits to a better cause. I am drawn to Apple because of its large size relative to almost any other company, the impact it has had on a global scale, and its rapid growth from the beginning. I am also drawn to Apple because there are so many parallels and differences between Hershey and Apple. Moreover, I believe Apple is appropriate for in depth analysis because of the endless amount of information on the company that can be found so easily with a quick internet search. 

I am mostly curious to explore how Apple grew its success so rapidly, but I additionally want to dive into what Apple has done from a charity standpoint. I want to answer what such a large company can do for those that are in need. Therefore, comparing each company’s overall impact on society and their charitable contributions are going to be the main focus of my essay. My goal will be to center my essay around the idea that we often overlook all the beneficial contributions a company makes and focus more on what the company is hurting. Furthermore, I want to contrast each company’s impact based on their size and upbringing. Overall, I hope to develop a strong essay that brings charitable contributions within each company to light for my audience.

 

Perhaps bumper stickers are one of the most overlooked means of advertising social issues, for countless people look at our cars on a daily basis, even over the course of a short car ride. Although they are sometimes used for other reasons, bumper stickers can be a way to promote virtuous behavior or combat negative actions. So, why not make a point to post something we believe in on the back of our cars?

The bumper sticker above states, “Watch out for TEXTING DRIVERS The IDIOTS are EVERYWHERE!” The quote is a stripped-down appeal to logos because of the sheer amount of people who are texting and driving and the considerable amount of accidents that are caused by such drivers. 

As the bumper sticker claimed with the term “everywhere,” texter and drivers are quite literally everywhere. In a more advanced analysis of the logos appeal at hand, according to an article on texting and driving written by Edgar Snyder and Associates, “at any given time throughout the day, approximately 660,000 drivers are attempting to use their phones while behind the wheel of an automobile.” Additionally, The National Safety Council reports “that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year,” and “1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving.” The statistics are daunting. 

Explicitly, the grand purpose of the bumper sticker is to call attention to the logic behind texting and driving as a safety hazard. However, the sticker portrays an additional appeal as well, using the term “idiots” to form an application to ethos. The goal behind the term is to make those that do text and drive feel ashamed of their behavior, as “idiots” is a derogatory word that people often try to avoid being called.   

To consider how simple it is to put our phones down and wait until the end of a long car ride to text, and then realize how many people still place their lives in danger to send a meaningless message is truly baffling. No wonder the bumper sticker calls these people idiots! If you happen to be one of the few that restrain from the detrimental habit, keep it up, you are saving the life of yourself and others.

 

As a society, we often tend to procrastinate our responsibilities and necessary actions until the final seconds of opportunity. Perhaps it has to do with the concept of kairos, the proper moment for decision or action. Perhaps we feel that moment does not reveal itself until the approaching deadline. No matter the circumstance, there are a great deal of developments today that must be addressed, as they are in their moments of kairos.

One of the most prominent issues of today, requiring immediate action against, is pollution. In the image above, we see a plethora of various plastics, cardboards, and clothes all isolated in one area. The waste lies right below the feet of a young child, who is seen forced to live in such brutal conditions. Clearly, the kairotic appeals are evident in that we must take action against pollution immediately to prevent such horrible, unsanitary living conditions and sheer lack of beauty. 

The image captures a sense of urgency since, pollution is illustrated not as becoming out of hand, but rather is already beyond what anyone could imagine. Taking action is not a question, it is a must. 

There is an obvious appeal to pathos through the use of the child in the image. The young kid is standing in trash with a sorrowful expression across his face, which allows us to receive a feeling for the pain he is in — the struggle he is enduring. Less noticeably, the body of water in the background flooded with trash appeals to our emotions as well. What is not shown in the image but relatively inferred is the pain the pollution inflicts on the aquatic life, as much of it has most likely already died off. 

Furthermore, the image appeals to our ethos because we have always been taught that polluting is a wrongdoing, and to view the horrifying scene pollution can create furthers our ethical stance against polluting.

Altogether, the image motivates me to clean up my waste, recycle when I can, and never litter. I struggle to see someone else’s environment look like that, and would hate to see mine become the same way. 

The only question I’m left with after analyzing the image is, how many places actually look like this? The picture only shows one small place, so how am I supposed to know that highly polluted areas such as the one illustrated is a common issue globally? Not to say I do not believe pollution is a global issue, I would just like to further research the issue.

 

It’s August 26th, 2016; fans and players from all around the world are in the midst of the NFL preseason. Thirty-two NFL football teams have been preparing all year to take the field as week one of the regular season is right around the corner. Fantasy leagues are drafting, players are focusing, anticipations are high; but, in this particular year, something else stole the show. 

The sun was glowing over Levi’s Stadium on a beautiful Friday afternoon as the Green Bay Packers and San Francisco 49ers warmed up for their NFL preseason game. As the national anthem began just moments before the game, something out of the ordinary took place. The San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kapernick, took a knee.

Now, fast forward two years, and Nike took the initiative to capitalize on Kapernick’s inspiring yet questionable stance. In order to advance their “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s goal was to illustrate Kapernick’s actions with the purpose to inspire people to stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences that may follow. Despite their positive intentions, many people across the US found the advertisement very offensive.

For one, many perceived kneeling during the national anthem as disrespectful to the US. In 1916, president Woodrow Wilson announced that the national anthem should be played at all official events out of respect for our country’s freedom, rich history, and fallen soldiers. To try to stand against such a long-lived and unifying tradition was thought by many to be extremely disrespectful, especially to those that have lost their lives making our country the prestigious “land of the free and the home of the brave” it is today.

Moreover, the advertisement presented the NFL with a terrible image. Around the time Nike’s advertisement surfaced to the public, kneeling for the national anthem was becoming a movement around the league, a movement the NFL was attempting to discontinue. Despite the obvious counteraction against the trend by the NFL, Nike went and promoted such actions in the middle of it all, hoping that the whole controversy would be perceived as a good thing and thus completely undermining the NFL. 

Lastly, let’s not forget forget about Nike’s bias, as their advertisement clearly only pertained to one specific audience, those of aferican american decent. The whole purpose behind Kapernick’s stance was to fight for African Americans that were thought to be treated unjust, which left many other people feeling the advertisement assumed them racist and excluded them from the campaign.   

However, despite all of the discussion, at the end of the day, Nike made six billion dollars in revenue following the advertisement, so who am I to judge?