I think this image is particularly powerful as it address a topic that is often overlooked in today’s society. There is a lot of focus on domestic violence between husband and wife or physical violence against parents and kids (with things like hitting and spanking) but not a focus on the emotional abuse a parent can give to a child. It is often overlooked as many parents do not realize the pain they are causing and the cold and how nonchalant they are about the whole deal.

The first thing I find important to analyze is the mother in the image. Looking at her face in particular she seems unbothered by what she is doing to her child. In fact, she seems to be more bothered by the effort she has to exert to open her mouth rather than what she is saying or how her child feels about it. Her eyes are closed and she is not even assessing the circumstances of what is upsetting her child.

Another important thing to analyze is the demeanor of the child in the image. They are clearly crying out in pain, probably due to some type of situational event, but also compounded by the treatment they receive from their mother. A critical aspect to note is where the child is looking while they are crying. It would seem most natural that a child would look to a parent for sympathy while they are in pain- yet the child in the image is not looking in the direction of the mother. This is because due to the mothers previous emotional abuse to the child they know that they will receive no sympathy or support; in fact they will probably be yelled at more so it is best to look a different way.

Finally, the last thing to analyze in the image is the imaginary hand that is grappling the child by the head. This hand, made up of words from the mother, is causing the child an immense amount of pain. It is meant to call to attention how unacceptable this type of abuse is. One wouldn’t be ok with seeing a parent physically do this to their child, yet just because their isn’t a physical act of violence society seemingly turns a blind eye to the issue.

Overall, this image argues that emotional abuse of a child is an unacceptable action that causes irreparable harm to a young child. It illustrates that it is as damaging to a child as normal physical abuse would be. And despite this, the image claims provokes the thought that people do not care about this form of abuse as it is not as noticeable and that most people accept it as a normal part of parenting.

TED Talk: 5 Transformational Policies for a Prosperous and Sustainable World

The main idea behind this TED talk is the idea that we can still build a sustainable global system for our planet that would meet the goals signed by various sates a few years ago (such as the Paris agreement and some other agreements) despite the relatively little progress we have made in regards to those goals so far. 

To me, some of the most important take-aways from the speech was how doomed the global system is if we carry on the way that we are currently doing to try and improve conditions of living for people around the world as it is having a large negative impact on the Earth as a whole. Another thing that stood out to me was how even if society worked hard to meet the current goals it has set out to accomplish it still wouldn’t be enough to have a good and stable Earth. Furthermore, I thought that the ideas that he put forth in his talk were quite interesting, albeit somewhat radical, but also promising for how much they had the potential to help change the world and improve the overall condition of the planet for future generations.

The speech expanded my knowledge on the topic by providing me with details about the specific goals that states were setting out to achieve- as I had always heard people talk about the Paris Accords but I never really knew what that document actually outlined as goals that it wished to perceive. I think that the speech educated the listener very well as it was educational but for the most part it wasn’t educational to the point of confusing the average listener.

I think that the presentation had a strong intro and conclusion and a somewhat solid middle with a well-timed joke about scientists, but there were definitely some shaky parts of the talk where I was beginning to zone out as I was getting bored. I think that although the presenter did a good job describing the problem facing society and the potential solutions to it, he failed at truly connecting with the audience and he looked at his note cards too much.

I think that this is a great example of a difference between a speech and a presentation, as had this been given at a scientific conference in front of a podium amongst peers in his field this speech would have been a huge success. Due to the fact that this was a TED talk, however, and a live presentation that requires a more animated delivery I think that it feel a little flat to the audience. 

I would describe this as more of a speech because it is very straight-forward and filled with important information from beginning to end which doesn’t leave the viewer with much time to think in between facts. Additionally, it is very much just the presenter giving facts and doesn’t really engage with the audience during his presentation which thereby categorizes his delivery as more of a speech than a presentation. 

In 2015 Viola Davis became the first African-American woman to win the Emmy award for Best Actress in a Drama. Thus, as one could expect, her acceptance speech was one that was powerful and emotionally-charged. Therefore, there were many different points to analyze about her speech.

Right out of the gate Davis goes to establish her credibility as a black citizen and relate to the rest of the population in the same conditions as her. She begins with a quote from Harriet Tubman, an iconic hero and abolitionist, that describes the struggle of her people to cross the line and get on the brighter side of the situation. Viola goes to prove that although she may be a wealthy celebrity, she has still experienced the common struggle that the rest of her people have as well.

Another very important thing to analyze about Davis’s speech is her voice inflection. It is evident that this award really meant a lot to her and many members of the audience. In this manner Davis develops a strong pathetic appeal as the way she delivers her acceptance speech makes everyone listening not only sympathize with her but also be inspired her as well.

In a sense of organization Davis starts with that past (that being her quote from Harriet Tubman and the struggles of her people at the time) and then jumps to the future and how Tubman’s quote is still applicable to today’s society due to the fact that there aren’t roles for people-and specifically women- of color and thus Hollywood and its awards were still a white women’s club.

I found the article to be quite interesting and shed light onto an important issue facing modern society. Often times people will just throw around statistics and evidence from studies without context of their situations. It’s a cautionary tale that one needs to consider when gathering evidence to support their essay; one must always carefully exam the research used to draw the conclusions being discussed. I think that the article does take it to a certain extreme as it seems to claim no conclusions from studies can be trusted, but I feel as if though this is incorrect. I did find the article to be ironic as it utilized a study to debunk other studies, so perhaps before we begin to discredit the applicability of studies there should be another study conducted on this. This article reminds us that we should stick to using credible sources for our paradigm shift essay as well as (if possible) verifying the conclusions made in it in another source or article.

For my paradigm shift essay I plan on focusing on the rise and fall of institutional liberalism in the international political system.  I think that it would be a very interesting topic to talk about because a lot of people seem to think that the recent rise of nationalism has seemingly sprung out of nowhere with no cause but by analyzing the usage of institutional liberalism throughout history you would see some very interesting ideas come forth. It would analyze the reasoning behind various different political movements and trends across the decades and how they reflect the international state system. I think this is a significant story to tell because many people are uninformed when it comes to the political system of their own country- let alone the political system of all the states working together. I think by writing this essay it will help clear up confusion as to why certain events are happening all around the globe and why globalization seems to be on the decline- a trend that no one predicted. As far as a timeline goes I plan on reviewing the time immediately following the Cold War up until the present day. This would be a very interesting timeline, I feel, because immediately after the Cold War it was believed that the only form of government left would be a liberal, capitalistic, democracy and we would all live in peace and work together; but now you see movements like the Brexit that seem to argue we no longer want to be a connected human race.

The artifact that I have chosen to compare my original artifact to would be the logo for the No Child Left Behind program. The NCLB was initiated in 2002 and received bipartisan support. The bill had been initiated by sitting president George W. Bush. It stemmed from the realization that the current US education system was no longer internationally competitive. This artifact sets out to argue that it is the governments responsibility to guarantee a strong education to all of the youth in the USA so that the country may remain the top educator of the world.

I was drawn to this artifact because it holds a strong similarity to the Nicaraguan education program. Both of the programs are centered around the idea of the country’s spot in the international community. I think that it is particularly interesting to analyze the structure of the logo for the program. It has a strong similarity to the American flag; in this sense it invokes a strong sense of nationalism as does the poster for the literacy campaign in Nicaragua. It also features a strong pathetic appeal in its images as well due to the fact of the image of the child that the logo also features. An important thing that I think would be in a part of the comparison of the two artifacts is the kairos of both of these programs; the time period that they stem from and the underlying causes of each program.

This bumper sticker clearly spells out the word coexist; being a call to action to be kind to one another. At a glance it is obvious that is what the word says; however upon further inspection one can see that there are many different levels of coexisting in society. It features the symbol of islam, a peace sign, the two genders, the star of David, a pagan symbol, the yin and yang, and a cross for Christianity. These symbols have often conflicted with each other in the past, often inciting violence. Hence, they were all merged together to form a word and symbolize that it is possible for them to all become united and lively peacefully. The ideology behind this sticker is that everyone should live in peace and accept and care for one another. This ideology, however is misplaced in my opinion. I think it is an interesting thing to point out that they chose the word coexist, as coexisting merely shows that you tolerate the existence of the other ones. It does not imply that you have to accept the other cultures, ideologies, or beliefs just that you have to live in the same world as the other ones do. Overall I think the short message works to a decent extent; most people seeing that would agree it’s a good thing to coexist with others but they don’t really think about what it would further mean. They don’t think about the various cultures clashing together or what this mixing would actually be like; they just simply read it and think to themselves “yes, coexisting is a good thing they have their customs and I have mine” but they would never go as far as to imaging what it would be like to cross cultures with them, as that would be too much coexisting for the average person.

New York Times The Truth Is Hard

This ad for the New York Times ad has a strong appeal to Kairos. The ad was aired during February of 2017; roughly one month after President Trump was sworn in. The ad goes through a sequence of listing various truths; all of which (or nearly all) contrast against what President Trump has said. This moment is a good example of Kairos because it calls attention to an issue of the moment: what is actually true and what is false. This issue was not only relevant at the time that the ad was aired (and is still now), but it was also deeply divided with people on both sides of the argument. However, just because the ad was especially fitting during this time doesn’t mean that it isn’t applicable to the future as well, something that the ad alludes to towards the end of it. The ad certainly contains a strong sense of urgency because it basically states that if we stop doing research and reporting what is actually happening in the world around us and just accepting things at a face value we will be led amiss and be fed false information. Because the ad was created by the New York Times most people would believe that it has a certain level of credibility to it; however some groups of people across the nation or world may found it to be false. I believe that they use a emotional appeal as they select relatively controversial topics to flash across the screen. This was designed to fill the viewer with a strong emotion- either positive or negative. In my opinion, the ad was able to motivate the target audience it had in mind: people who believed that actual truth was at risk of going extinct.

In the spring of 2002 Starbucks unveiled a new promotion for their beverages that was intended to feature their frozen drinks for the spring and summer. Due to the timing and appearance of the ad it was met with heavy backlash as it seemed to replicate the scenario of terrorist attack on New York on the 11 of September. At this point 9/11 just a few months old, still fresh in people’s mind, people still dealing with the grief and trauma it caused them.

The first thing wrong with this advertisement is located within its choice of word. Primarily, the choice of the word “Collapse” in the tag line of the ad. Collapse was a bad choice because it is the same verb that would be used to describe what happened to the twin towers. Of all the verbs that could be used to describe this action they selected the worse possible one.  I’m not sure how this ad managed to pass through all of corporate with no one objecting to it.

The second mistake that was made in the creation of the ad was the design of the dragonfly in the background. By the way that it is positioned on a downward slope and heading towards the two main cups in the picture it is eerily resemblant to the image of the planes crashing into the twin towers. There was a multitude of different spring bugs and locations and positions to have them in, yet once again the marketing team at Starbucks seemed to possess no common sense.

Finally, the design of having two large cups that stand out distinctly from the shorter square grass stalks below is another clear representation of the scene in New York on that fateful day; the twin towers were much larger than all of the buildings around them; further proving once again that the marketing team at Starbucks is awful. This ad is a clear reflection of the events that unfolded on September 11th and I remain impressed that seemingly no one in the Starbucks corporation raised any flags about it.

Images courtesy of Snopes.com