Tons of cosmetic companies test their products on animals before releasing them to the market. It is for this reason that ENPA released the ad pictured above to send a message about the cruelty that animals face at the expense of products released on the market. Each year, more than 100 million animals -including dogs, cats, rats, hamsters, monkeys, and birds –   are killed in U.S. laboratories due to experimentation. The above ad shows the terror behind this reality. The ad ironically uses red cosmetic products in place of blood that seeps from an animal when they die. It also utilizes pathos with the suffering of the small dog as a way to appeal to the audience. The ad is blatantly obvious without the use of text – the idea that any animals’ life should be sacrificed in place of a ‘safer’ cosmetic product for humans is ridiculous. The ENPA advocates for the cruel testing of all animals to halt in any experimentation at the expense of a product being better for humans.

Because the ad utilizes a small, innocent puppy in their ad, they utilize innocence as a way to relay their message. it is for that reason that anyone looking at the ad should take action out of guilt, fear for animal testing, and perhaps horror (knowing what really goes on in labs and experimentation). If the ENPA used another adult animal, perhaps people wouldn’t pay as much attention to the ad. However, the ENPA solely shows the innocence that is snatched away from anyanimal subject to experimentation, especially for something as unimportant as cosmetic products.

In “Your fingerprints reveal more than you think”, Simona Francese speaks about powerful technology that is emerging in the advancement of research and work done by criminologists. Francese’s main theme centers around chemicals that remain on fingerprints and how criminologists have industrialized a new way to look at the molecular makeup of fingerprints and use that to catch criminals. She centers her TED talk around a specific rape crime with 3 suspects, and uses her fingerprint analysis to narrow it down to the person who actually committed the crime. What is strong about Francese’s presentation style is her visuals; she uses high-tech, yet easy to understand pictures to help explain her research and the innovation behind it. However, what is more difficult to understand about her presentation is the speech itself. Frances uses a lot of molecular terms that everyone watching may not know or have heard of before. A couple examples range from mass spectrometry, paracetamol, and more. This makes her speech a little harder to understand for the average listener who doesn’t have much of a science background. However, Francese’s presentation is highly sophisticated. This adds a lot of ethos to her presentation and adds value to the information she is relaying to the audience. These examples clearly show that there is a difference between delivering a speech and doing a presentation. In giving a speech, it is harder to establish a relationship with the presenter. However, like in Francese’s case, her presentation allows for her audience to respect her and the work that she does on the daily.  Francese’s presentation and speech overall enhanced my understanding of the innovative technology being developed in forensics and how advanced the field is really becoming.

In his TEDxMileHigh speech, Gerardo Lopez opens up about his experience with being a MS-13 gang member and how he eventually was capable of escaping the violent lifestyle he had come to know. In the first two minutes of his speech, Lopez establishes his calm, engaged, and inspirational persona through his obvious comfort in front of his audience. Lopez engages with his audience through his placid gestures. He limits his movement to hand gestures and occasionally takes a couple steps in each direction of the stage. This adds to his speech because it makes his story more about emotion, rather than violence. Through this, he connects with his audience. He also keeps eye contact with the audience through all parts of his speech. This makes his audience focus solely on him and his story. Lopez’s eye contact drew his audience in and forced them to listen. He also shares photos, but he elaborates on each one. He limits his photo usage and through this, he is able to tell his story, rather than show it.

Lopez’s organization also makes his story easy to follow. He talks about his main point, but then adds a lot of background to prove it. He elaborates on most major topic he mentions. This adds to his delivery because he can further connect with the audience in a way that makes sense to anyone listening. Lopez uses vocal variety to change the tone of his speech. When talking directly to the audience, he uses a more light-hearted tone. However, when he begins to tell his story, his tone is serious, almost dark. This adds to the depth of his story and overall message established in the beginning.

Overall, these skills are important to use when delivering a speech with an important message. It’s especially vital during the TED talk when the speaker has to emphasize a dramatic shift in society (and even more important for a shift that isn’t as well known). Gestures, such as eye contacts and relaxed body language, will overall enhance the presentation and allows viewers to truly listen.

In the article “Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows” by Andy Kessler, he summarizes the idea that any scientific study can usually show what the researcher wants it to show and that a lot of them can be biased. His main idea? Correlation does not prove causation, an idea that is often overlooked by researchers. I definitely agree with Kessler’s point. When students are researching for papers, or people are looking up statistics on the internet, there is always a chance that the phrase “studies show” is falsely used. Since a lot of science can be prejudiced, it is hard to know whether your research is 100% accurate.

This idea is important to consider when writing the paradigm shift essay. A lot of the essay centers around research from the past in comparison to the present. Also, some paradigm shifts may not be as obvious as others, so there may be some opinion involved. Therefore, it’s important to know all of the true facts when it comes to doing your research. For me, I’ve been looking into a lot of different sources that revolve their research around the same time period. Because of this, I’m able to see if the facts are lining up to each other. It’s also important to have trustworthy sources. You can’t simply take a statistic someone said on yahoo answers and paste it into your essay. All of your sources must be reliable.

One bias that is likely to occur when researching a paradigm shift is when scientists select subjects that are more likely to generate a desired result. Some researches may twist their findings to result in something readers want to see, rather than what the actual results are. Another bias that can arise in paradigm shift research is culture bias, or assumptions about influences that are based on a cultural lens. This is something I’m especially looking out for because a lot of my topic has to do with culture and the way society views women in sports.

Overall, for me, research bias is something that I need to look out for. While there are statistics about women’s involvement in sports, it may be hard for me to find valid opinions about why women involvement has been so low in the past.

For my paradigm shift essay and TED talk, I plan to focus on the history of women in athletics and sports. I would like to expand on the paradigm shift seen in the importance of gender roles in the past and present. The involvement of women in sports began early in the 19^th century and continues to prevail to this day. Legislative milestones have been made, including Title IX, stating that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”, the Basic Act on Sport, and so many other actions that lead to the way women are seen in sports today.

In my essay, I plan to focus on multiple characteristics of the paradigm shift seen within my topic; the history behind women in sports, the Olympics, cultural shifts, social shifts, and present-day differences. The shift seen throughout history of women in sports is enough to merit my analysis because there are so many ways to go with the essay. So many things have changed in so many different aspects that it is important to briefly touch on all of them. I think my topic is something that people don’t think about all too often; maybe because women have become extremely accepted into the athletic community. But I think it’s important to educate myself, as well as my audience, on the struggles women had to go through to get to now. While most audiences know about women’s suffrage and other past legislative struggles, not a lot of people know the full story behind women in sports, including myself. For my TED talk, I would also love to touch on my experience in sports, only because I’ve been engaging in them for so long. Up until I was 16, I played on an all-boys ice hockey team and I think I can relate some of struggles of women in the past to my own experience in a stereotypical male sport. However, overall, I don’t want to get too broad with my essay and talk, only because my topic isn’t extremely specific. Nevertheless, I think my topic is about something that a lot of people should hear about, and recognize the difference between years ago and now.

A paradigm shift is prevalent when a certain practice or way of thinking has been altered since past times, replaced by a newer or different way of doing things. The article, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a generation?” by Jean Twenge describes exactly that. Twenge elaborates on not only a generational shift, but a freedom, independence, responsibility, and overall mental health shift in teens as well.

The overarching generational changes that Twenge describes can most definitely be considered a paradigm shift. Things are obviously not the way they were 20 years ago.

The introduction of smartphones on its own is a shift in technology, simply because no one could have ever imagined a pocket-sized computer being a realistic invention until it was released. This innovation brought along serious side effects, such as mental health and societal changes.

Twenge describes that “it’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones”. Lots of teens have experienced serious mental health effects since the introduction of smartphones and social media. Obviously, screen time is taking a serious toll on teens’ overall happiness. This effect is a paradigm shift because before smartphones, social media wasn’t as popular as it is now. Therefore, more teens weren’t spending as much time alone, glued to a screen. Because of the increased use of social media, mental health states have been seriously affected. Research has shown that “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 nonscreen activities are more likely to be happy”. Therefore, before social media and smartphones existed, teens were generally happier and more sociable. The paradigm shift in technology has caused a social shift in the way teens are using their free time, which is ultimately causing the average teen to feel more unhappy on a cellphone than teens who, growing up, didn’t have access to the internet as easily as most do now.

There has also been a paradigm shift in the way teens carry out adulthood responsibilities and independence. Before smartphones, there was a significant number of teens who had a job during their years of high school. Now, many don’t. According to the article, “in the late 1970s, 77 percent of high-school seniors worked for pay during the school year; by the mid-2010s, only 55 percent did”. This is seen as a paradigm shift because younger teens have changed the way they spend most of their free time. Instead of working, earning their own money, and learning what it’s like to make (somewhat of) a living, teens are now spending more time on screens and replacing their opportunity to work with time on their cellphones.

Overall, the creation of the smartphone has caused a tremendous societal change. My parents and I often talk about what is was like to be in high school when they were young compared to what it has become today. They like to tell me stories about going to the park to hang out with friends, riding bikes around their neighborhoods with a big group of people, or things simpler like having a face-to-face conversation with someone, rather than texting them to see how their day went. My experience as a teen compared to theirs is extremely different. There has ultimately been a change in society, the way people think, how people spend their free time, what people see as important, and overall how happy people are. The paradigm shift from when our parents were kids, to the life we live now is most likely one of the largest that has existed in society.

Watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDZJPJV__bQ

For my civic engagement essay I have chosen my other artifact to be Beyoncé Knowles’ music video/song “Formation”, released in February 2016. She essentially created the music video to sheds light on the more relevant police brutality cases in the past, as well as the history of racial oppression in earlier American history. The song, and eventual music video, marked Beyoncé as not only an entertainer, but an activist for African American rights as well. Her music video is among the most politically direct work she’s done in her career, with implicit commentary on police brutality and black financial power. This video is arguing that African American culture needs to be more accepted in America while she also urges viewers to take an action against the horrific forms of police brutality that have recently become more prevalent nation-wide. I am drawn to this artifact because it fits perfectly with Childish Gambino’s “This is America”. Both Gambino and Beyoncé are extremely popular black artists who have had the courage to speak out about problems in America. Beyoncé’s video has the potential for an in-depth analysis because, like Gambino’s video, she has multiple symbols that can be applied to past and current racial oppression in America. Beyoncé’s video also dives deeper into black history and culture, which I also think will add to my analysis. I expect to explore more about the reasoning behind her standing on top of a sinking New Orleans police car, the line of riot-gear-clad police officers surrendering, hands raised, to a dancing black child in a hoodie, and the graffiti that sprawls a city wall reading “Stop Shooting Us”. I’m also interested in exploring more of the meaning behind Beyoncé’s lyrics. She talks a lot about her heritage, her family, and what her fame means to her. Unlike Gambino, who sticks to one main message in his lyrics, Knowles branches out and covers more about black history, rather than current political situations. Overall, I’m excited to uncover more about the true meaning behind the release of Knowles’ video and the message she spreads to her millions of viewers.

Link to bumper sticker: https://thebluedeal.com/products/there-is-no-planet-b-bumper-sticker

There is obviously an issue with the way we treat the earth. Trash scatters the streets, pollutants fill the oceans and air, and not enough people seem to care about the future of the earth. The saying “there is no planet b” reiterates that we only have one earth, no plan b, no way to opt out of the planet we are living on. As our current time on earth isn’t long, it is our responsibility to plan for the future generations that will be living here billions of years from now.

According to the  World Ocean Network ,6.5 million tons of litter enter the world’s oceans each year, 50% being non-degrading plastic that poses a large threat on marine life. We’ve all seen ads on TV and learned about pollution in school but I don’t think the human population knows or cares about how serious it is.

As of right now, pollution is one of the biggest global killers as it affects over 100 million people. In upcoming years, scientists predict that this number will continue to rise. If we, as a human population, don’t start to take these issues more seriously, we will immensely affect future life on this earth. This ad uses Kairos to implement urgency into their message: we only have one earth and we need to act now. The message also works logically as it sends the message that if we take care of the earth, we will sustain its livelihood for much longer than if we continue with our habits.

https://www.adsoftheworld.com/media/print/moms_demand_action_for_gun_sense_in_america_red_riding_hood

https://www.adsoftheworld.com/media/print/moms_demand_action_for_gun_sense_in_america_dodgeball

https://www.adsoftheworld.com/media/print/moms_demand_action_for_gun_sense_in_america_kinder_egg

Kinder eggs, ‘Little Red Riding Hood’, and dodgeball all have something in common: at one point or another they’ve been ban from American schools because of the supposed threat they have on child safety. These 3 ads, all created by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA), are all a part of one of the many gun violence campaigns in America throughout the last 5 years. MDA begun their campaign in 2013 when it was reported that the US lost 30 people per day to gun violence (2). Still, to this day, America faces huge challenges with gun control, gun violence, and public and school shootings. Now, seeing as these issues have practically elevated since then, 96 Americans per day are killed with guns, and many are injured (1). Obviously, gun control is an extremely relevant political topic. MDA uses Kairos in their ad as they press gun control urgency in their message. As the two children pose, one holding what everyone thinks to be something innocent (i.e. a dodgeball), the other with an assault weapon, it represents a sense of emotional appeal as well. The children are young, innocent, and one of them is holding something deadly. This only adds to the Kairos appeal more. People looking at these ads are likely to feel a sense of perseverance to change the way they look at assault weapons. The caption at the bottom of each ad especially contributes to pathos as they read: “We ban the game dodgeball because it’s viewed as being too violent. Why not assault weapons?”, “We keep ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ out of schools because of the bottle of wine in her basket. Why not assault weapons?”, and “We won’t sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety. Why not assault weapons?”. All 3 ads target gun violence and relate it to school shootings. The question left at the bottom also depicts urgency and push the audience to do something to stop these violent actions from happening again. The ad is extremely effective in pushing its audience to think about the amount of school shootings we hear about on the news as well as the daily shootings that happen in America and take a plan of action to do something to change it.

1. https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/president-obama-gun-control-push

In the early years of the 20^th century, Americans began to use the phrase “protest” to demonstrate their opposition to the government, a form of action that would soon be used as a mass civil disobedience infrastructure. However, in the famous Pepsi commercial featuring Kendall Jenner (released in 2017), the intent is the exact opposite.

The commercial begins smoothly, as a young cello player pops open a can of Pepsi amidst clips of a young, diverse group of people walking along the street, laughing, dancing, and smiling. It isn’t until about 20 seconds into the commercial where things start to get confusing; Is this a block party or a protest? What exactly are they ‘protesting’ for? The same queries arose as over 12.5 million proceeded to watch and question the ad. Little did Pepsi know that their ‘Live For Now’ campaign would create such a backlash.

Watch the commercial here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA5Yq1DLSmQ

Problem #1: The Protest

Pepsi’s intentions were understandable. After they released a statement about the commercial and how it was supposed to signify “peace, unity, and understanding” their intent was clearer. Nevertheless, the message was poorly created. While many viewers infer that the ‘protest’ was centered around the Black Lives Matter campaign, the actual point of it is indistinguishable. As people in the commercial hold signs with hearts and peace signs, it seems that all relevant civic issues were thrown into one big dance party with Jenner as captain. The protest clearly does not shed light on one individual problem, and because of that people were extremely offended. Jenner’s demonstration is essentially depicting ‘protest’ as something to do for the fun of it, not for the more important matters at hand.

Problem # 2: Branding

Pepsi essentially turned a political protest into a branding opportunity, a cruel way to market their product. Rather than calling attention to any relevant social issues, they instead used the commercial to disrespect those who have legitimately fought for what they believed in and paste their brand all over it. The icing on top of the cake? Pepsi took it upon themselves to feature someone as irrelevant as Kendall Jenner, a woman who has no significance in society other than to stand in front of a camera and look pretty. Quite frankly, if the point of the commercial was to call attention to protest, political action, and ‘standing together’, they should have featured an inspiring political figure, not a model.

Problem #3: The Message

Perhaps the most detrimental part of the commercial is the message at the end. After Jenner hands an unarmed policeman a can of Pepsi, he opens it, takes a sip, and smiles toward the crowd as they all scream and cheer. A can of Pepsi can apparently solve all the world’s problems, right? This was essentially the message that people took away from the commercial, whether Pepsi intended it to be that way or not. The last scene was also associated with another famous image from a police brutality protest. The original image shows Ieshia Evans, a protester for black rights, moments before being arrested for blocking highway traffic. The 2 photos are almost splitting images of one another. Many were offended by the similarity between the two because Jenner hasn’t experienced the same caliber of anguish that Evans did. Evans was essentially standing up for something she believed in (so much so that she was arrested for it) while Jenner can cure the world of its problems with a can of carbonated soda.

After the commercial was released on YouTube, many people took their anger to Twitter. Bernice King, youngest daughter of Civil Rights Movement hero Martin Luther King Jr., even took to Twitter to call out Pepsi and their disrespectful message. She tweets, “If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi” with an image of her father being held back by authorities. This goes to show how many people Pepsi truly offended.

The Pepsi commercial was an overall marketing failure. The protest, branding, and message all contributed to the online outrage that followed. The commercial was eventually pulled offline and Pepsi released multiple statements apologizing for their commercial. While they did see it was wrong and offensive, never forget that the next time you’re at a protest, hand the police officer a Pepsi and everything will be at peace.