The photo above shares a powerful, relevant message that argues against gun rights. It incorporates several different messages that advocate for gun control. With not including any words on the picture, the ad does a great job at expressing its argument.

The first thing that drew me to this picture was really just seeing a baby in close contact with a gun. You never think that someone so innocent, like a baby, should be interacting with something so dangerous, like a gun. However, the contrast between the baby’s innocence and the gun’s danger is one of the powerful messages in this ad. By having the baby and gun so close together, the ad argues that in today’s world, people are losing their innocence more quickly than ever. Though a baby is probably not capable of actually using this gun, we see teenagers using guns in harmful ways way too often. For instance, Nickolas Cruz and Dimitrios Pagourtzis, both teenagers, were perpetrators of two separate school shootings in 2018. And though teenagers can be a pain sometimes, we never associate them with gun violence, or at least we shouldn’t have to; instead, we like to think that these young adults don’t have the power or will to commit such an act. This one part of the picture clearly effectively shows how guns have been taking away people’s innocence in today’s world.

Another important aspect of this visual argument is the baby’s hand and eyes being so close to the gun. The baby’s ability to be just inches away from a gun represents how easily accessible guns are. Again, the probability of a baby owning a gun is extremely unlikely, but it shows that guns are not that hard to obtain, and this needs to change.

Lastly, the visual does a great job at illustrating how what goes on in today’s world truly does affect young kids. In front of the baby is a gun and toy blocks, yet the baby is more focused on the gun rather than his toys. Though there could be several different reasons why he is drawn more towards the gun, I think one assumption can be because of how often we hear about gun violence. Because of this, we have become so familiar with guns that we don’t always view them as a weapon anymore, and we forget how dangerous they truly are. So, maybe this baby thinks of the gun as another toy like his blocks, and he unfortunately cannot distinguish the two.

As much as I agree and support this visual argument, I do the ad could be more effective is a young kid was shown rather than a baby. I wouldn’t be surprised if this ad was seen as a joke by many, because there is little to no relationship between a gun and a baby. But, a young kid, maybe between 7-10, is able to have an understanding of what guns are and can know their effects. In order to express this ad’s messages in a more effective way, I think a young kid would have been a better fit for this ad.

School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

After winning the People’s Choice Humanitarian Award, Ellen Degeneres gave a powerful speech (5:30). Ellen utilized many effective speech strategies that allowed her to get her inspiring message across. Not only was this speech funny, but it was sincere and inspiring as well.

Throughout Ellen’s speech she was able to evoke many emotions, making her speech more powerful. In the beginning of her speech, Ellen starts off with many sarcastic, funny comments. For instance, right away she jokes that this award was so well deserved and that she started her talk show to become rich, and the audience is laughing. Of course, if anyone knows Ellen, you would know that these are just many of the funny types of comments she makes. After making the jokes, Ellen expresses how grateful she is for this award, and how she finds it crazy that she won an award for being kind, when in reality, we should be kind to everyone on a daily basis. After hearing Ellen’s message on kindness, she evokes a different emotion in us; we now feel inspired and uplifted. Ellen’s speech captured her personality: being funny and inspiring. The way her speech was able to incorporate both humor and seriousness allowed her message to play on both of these sentiments. The audience could laugh and enjoy themselves, but still retain the sincerity of Ellen’s message.

I think we can all say that if we unexpectedly won an award and had to talk in front of thousands of people, we would be a bit flustered and scared. However, Ellen’s body posture and her eye contact say otherwise. Throughout Ellen’s speech, Ellen stayed very calm and composed, maintaining eye contact with the audience. Her cool and collected nature enabled her to fully communicate her message to the audience. When Ellen makes eye contact and speaks clearly, an important connection is established between the speaker and the people listening. It enhances Ellen’s credibility, and the audience is more inclined to trust what she is saying.

Another important component in Ellen’s speech is the rate in which she speaks. Ellen’s timing of words allows for her audience to really process and understand her message. After Ellen makes a funny remark and share her powerful message on kindness, she takes big pauses, allowing the audience to really soak in her message. A lot of times, we see speaker’s give their speech at a very fast pace and taking few pauses. Unfortunately, sometimes the speaker’s message can end up getting lost. However, the timing of Ellen’s pauses play an important part in getting her message across.

Overall, Ellen does a great job at evoking multiple emotions, maintaining composure, and timing her words. By achieving all of this, it allows for her message to stick with the audience. Her message of kindness truly why Ellen deserved this award.

Ellen receiving the Humanitarian Award

In the article, Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows, author Andy Kessler suggests that we stay skeptical and be aware of the studies we look at. I agree with this; it’s important to not always be convinced by one study. However, I thought Kessler’s analysis of debunked research wasn’t as informative as it should’ve been, and I disagreed with many of his thoughts.

Kessler mentions Malcolm Gladwell’s book, “Outliers,” and brings up Gladwell’s argument of “studies show no one is born better than anyone else.” I agree with Gladwell’s point, but Kessler argues it by suggesting that Steph Curry might be naturally better than someone else at basketball in the first place. I understand Kessler’s point, but I think that it was practice that made Curry so great, not him being natural at it. Also, Kessler goes against Gladwell’s argument that no one is born better than anyone else by only suggesting the Steph Curry example.

Kessler then mentions another one of Gladwell’s books, “Blink.” In this book, Gladwell shares studies that suggest “we are all unconsciously biased sexists, racists, genderists, ableists…” Kessler quickly refutes this claim, especially when Hillary Clinton said that we all have an implicit bias problem, and then acts as if he is offended by this generalization. That’s it; all he said is that people should speak for themselves, and that this generalization is too far basically. I personally think that a lot of us have a bias problem, whether we want to believe it or not, and especially in this day and age. For example, I think that we all have a media bias. A lot of Republicans watch Fox News, while Democrats stick to CNN. 

Overall, I agree that we need to stay skeptical and open minded when trusting research and studies. I will keep these points in mind when doing my research on my paradigm shift essay. Because a majority of my essay contains facts, studies, and information, it’s important I choose the right websites to use, and I will try to avoid using bias information. However, I didn’t like the fact that Kessler was so vague and offered no solutions. All he did was refute a lot of arguments that studies show and offered no solutions to how we should work around studies that are bias. I think if you are going to go against something, you need to have a strong alternative, and Kessler did not.

Andy Kessler

Malcom Gladwell

I decided to watch Jason Shen’s Ted Talk, Looking for a job? Highlight your ability, not your experience, because I though I thought this topic would be really helpful, and it was. As we progress into our college years and move forward in our lives, a lot of us are going to search for a job, and who’s going to be faced with all of these new faces? Companies. Companies are handling so many new faces at once that it can be challenging to distinguish individuals. Jason helps us overcome this challenge by identifying three ideas to consider when hiring.

His first idea was to expand your search. He explains how we shouldn’t just only consider people who attended ivy leagues or prestigious organizations, and instead we should expand our search. By doing this, and I think this is a super important learning point, companies can develop a diverse work area, and new ideas are able to be passed around.

Jason’s second idea is that companies should hire for performance. Instead of just looking over someone’s resume and recognizing their credentials, companies should see the person in action. Whether that be by asking them to analyze a sheet or asking for their ideas on a new product, it’s a good way to see if the individual is well suited for the job.

Lastly, Jason suggests that companies need to get the bigger picture. Jason makes a really great point by suggesting that we don’t truly know an individual within a short period of time, and we are quick to make flawed judgements. Jason hopes that companies will leave the door open for all people, and I think that’s a really special message.

As a current student, I was on the other side of wall for this Ted Talk, but it was still super helpful. In a few short years, I will be searching for a job, and while I might not be the person hiring, Jason’s Ted Talk helped me understand approaches companies can take when hiring, and he also gave me a lot of confidence knowing that there’s not one specific type of person suited for a job.

Not only did I really enjoy the content of Jason’s speech, but I also enjoyed how his presentation was given. It was extremely simple, he didn’t sway, he made eye contact all across the audience, and he used good hand gestures. He did a lot of the little things that added up to make this presentation really good.

I definitely feel like I learned that speeches are a lot more personal, and presentations contain more information. While Jason incorporated some personal stories, he overall shared a lot of information. His slides and the information that was given helped to distinguish his talk between a speech and a presentation.

I really enjoyed this Ted Talk, and I recommend it for everyone!

For my shift, I have chosen to discuss the evolution of skincare, from sunscreen, to botox, to synthetic free products. There have been many key moments throughout history that have played a huge role into understanding skin care. I hope to start in the 1930s, when tanning was super popular and desired by many. Also in the 1930s was the invention of sunscreen, which was a huge moment. Another key moment I want to address is the invention of botox in the 1970s. Lastly, I want to conclude with modern day beliefs on skin care. While there are many approaches to skin care today, Tata Harper’s values and beliefs for clean beauty are something I think everyone should be aware of. The evolution of how we have treated are skin has changed dramatically and has affected an overwhelming majority of us in some way or another.

In the 1930s, everyone was all about having tan skin. Coco Chanel, a fashion and beauty icon, is credited by many for starting the trend of tanned skin, and it was during the 1930s when colored tv and movies were being created, so people felt the need to look their best during this time. For many, they thought looking tan and glowy was the perfect way to achieve this look. Women and men would spend hours out in the sun, laying on the beach, to achieve that perfect tan. Because this look was so desirable, it was easy to completely disregard the consequences that sun exposure can cause. Fortunately, though, later in the 1930s, sunscreen was invented. Eugene Schueller’s invention of sunscreen started a whole new approach to skin care, as numerous other sunscreens were invented.

The next moment I hope to discuss is the invention of botox in the 1970s. I want to discuss this moment in history because it caused a long period of time where women were putting chemicals into their skin. We shifted from using natural sunlight and laying outside to sitting in medical offices putting chemicals into our skin. Over time, the use of chemicals to achieve glowy skin has been frowned upon, which brings me to the present day idea of skincare.

Today, there are so many lines and brands of skin care, and a majority are appreciating the use of natural ingredients. Tata Harper’s skincare line is a great example of today’s views on skincare. She has numerous products, and they are all synthetic free. She and her line highlight the importance of using safe and natural products to achieve healthy skin. She founded her line based on a personal experience. Her grandfather was diagnosed with cancer and was told to be cautious of what to put on his skin, and Tata took this advice and quickly realized that all her products contain harmful ingredients, so she created her own line. Her desire to create a synthetic free skin care line highlights the shift that skin care has undergone.

The iPhone is something so small, something that fits in the palm of our hands, yet it has had a tremendous impact on our society and generation today. The thing that we put in our back pockets has caused a decrease in activities that you wouldn’t even think of, like dating and driving. Unfortunately, iPhone usage also leads to a decrease in happiness and in increase in suicidal rates. All the effects that come with phone usage represent a major paradigm shift between generations, specifically between gen Z and all the generations that come before.

In Jean Twenge’s article, she explains all the shifts that have occurred because of smartphones. One shift she talks about is how gen Z is less likely to date, and I was very interested to hear what she had to say, because I really thought there was no correlation with the two. She explains how gen Z uses the term “talking,” which is extremely accurate, and how the use of this word has taken over “dating”  and erases the concept of it. It makes sense, but I never thought that the two would be related in some way, and it makes me really think about iPhones now more than ever.

Another shift that I think is really evident with phone usage is the way we communicate with one another. Of course we’ve gone from writing letters to our loved ones to sending them cute emojis over text, but I think phone usage has changed our vocabulary a tremendous amount, too. My parents and grandparents never say “lol,” “omg,” or “kk” out loud, and to be honest, if they did, I would be mortified. But because us iphone users use these words daily on our phones, we naturally start to say them aloud. I also think that iPhones have hindered our communication skills to an extent. In older times, people had to communicate one on one. People were forced to make eye contact. But now, through phones, we aren’t forced to do that, and a lot of times it’s easy for us to forget about making eye contact and being engaged in the conversation.

I know it sounds like I’m hating on iPhones, but I love them way more than I hate them. They’ve been such a big part in shaping our generation, and I’ve been able to learn so much through social medial. I have hope in gen Z growing into such a strong generation, but I do think it’s important to recognize the negatives that come with smartphones in order for that growth to occur.

For my essay, I have chosen to compare and contrast George Bush’s speech on 9/11 to Barack Obama’s speech on the Boston Marathon Bombings, which was my artifact in my speech.

On September 11, 2001, a tragedy occurred. Later that day, as Bush sat in the oval office, he immediately gave a speech to address the nation on this incident. His speech took less than five minutes, but it was very impactful. He tells the nation that he implemented the government’s emergency response plan and that we will stand against terrorism.

I am drawn to this artifact for mainly two reasons. One, I enjoy politics, and while his speech might not be very political, it definitely contains some elements of it. Second, though I was only one when this happened, his speech still has a big impact on me. I spend a lot of time in New York City; it has a special place in my heart, so Bush’s speech is something important to me. Even if you don’t spend time in NYC, or you have never been there, his speech is something everyone should hear and be aware of. This tragedy has influenced many policies that affect us in our daily lives. Bush mentions a lot in his speech, such as remembering the victims and implementing new policies, and I hope to explore these aspects of his speech more.  

There are a lot of similarities and differences between Bush’s speech andObama’s. For my essay, I hope to explain how each utilize pathos, ethos, and kairos differently or similarly. For instance, they both are credible individuals and take advantage of kairos. A difference, though, is how they utilize pathos. These differences and similarities are important in understanding and analyzing their speech.

This ad directly relates to a societal issue: smoking. There have been a numerous amount of ads created to try to stop people from smoking, and they all share their message in different ways. In this ad, a young man is shown trying to keep himself from being killed, or crushed, by a cigarette. The ad states that smoking “weakens you” and that “it ruins you.” The picture furthers this message by showing a man nearly being crushed by a cigarette. He can barely keep it up, implying that the cigarette is stronger and bigger than him at this point. The viewers of this ad are able to imply that the more the man smokes, the weaker he will get, and eventually, the cigarette will become more powerful than him and kill him.

As the ad’s message suggests, smoking can kill you. It can also be implied from the message that it is better to not smoke than to smoke. It is important to prioritize your health and stay healthy. You should never put harmful products into your body, like cigarettes. All of these points that are suggested by the ad, make up the ideology behind the ad.

The ad’s short message works very well logically. The viewer is instantly looking at this image of a man being beat down and nearly crushed by a cigarette. Right away, we make sense of this and come to the understanding that smoking really does have the power to beat us down and crush us. In result, we form a negative connotation with smoking, which draws us away from the activity.

Scene in “Role Models”

In response to many of Donald Trump’s comments made during the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign released an ad, “Role Models”. Shown in a one minute video, this ad shows young children watching and listening to Donald Trump through the television. The kids hear Trump say, “and you can tell them to go f*** themselves,” and “when Mexico sends its people, they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists.” Towards the end of the ad, Hillary is shown saying “our children and grandchildren will look back at this time… and we need to make sure that they can be proud of us.”  Hillary’s message suggests that it is crucial to vote for the better role model, as young kids are watching and are aware of what is being said, and that it is up to the people to make this happen. The people, or the viewers, are under great pressure to paint a good image for future generations, which ultimately leaves us with a feeling of urgency and to respond and act upon this ad’s message. By releasing this ad with just less than four months until voting day, it further illustrates the importance of acting upon this message; there is limited time to choose what is best for America’s future, and we need to act now.

This ad is very effective due to its emotional appeals. From the very beginning of the ad until the end plays a slow, quiet, sort of sad song in the background. By having this music play in the background throughout the video, Hillary evokes the viewer’s feelings and puts them into a sad state already. When the comments made by Trump are heard, we unconsciously pair them with the music being heard, and we come to the conclusion that the comments are sad and hurtful and that this is not what a role model should be saying. Additionally, Hillary’s use of young kids evokes many emotions as well. Since many viewers of this ad are older and have kids, they are able to see how their decision directly impacts their kids. The different perspective offered through this ad can leave the viewers with a whole new feelings of emotions, whether it be happy or sad.

Though this ad was meant to be viewed before election day, I am still motivated by the ad’s appeal. Hillary’s message goes beyond just presidential elections; it can be and should be applied in everyday life. We should always strive to be the best role models we can be. We should always be accepting of everyone. And we should never place anyone below us based on race. Her message is so powerful, and it ultimately motivated me to be a better person.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

In 2017, Dove posted a three second advertisement clip onto their facebook page. After watching the clip, which shows a woman of color removing her shirt and becoming a white woman (see picture for reference), I felt very uncomfortable and disgusted.  Though the intent of this ad was to in fact promote diversity and show how the Dove product can work on all skin types, Dove failed at representing that.

Much of what makes this ad extremely wrongful is due to the visual tactics Dove used. The action of the woman of color taking off her shirt and becoming a white women suggests to many that white skin is cleaner. As a society, we associate changing a shirt when it is dirty or ruined, so we put on a cleaner one. Because of this, the audience watches this advertisement with the same mindset. Is the black skin dirtier than the white? Obviously not, but this ad leaves many to assume that’s what they are suggesting.

After watching this ad, I struggled in knowing who the intended audience was. Dove said it was intended for all women of color; however I disagree with this, and I think Dove failed tremendously at spreading their message to a diverse audience. I see the ad as only targeting white women. As the ad suggests, smoother, healthier skin is achieved if you are light skinned. By sending out this message, women of color feel left out and forgotten about. The smoothness and cleanliness of your skin has nothing to do with its color, and Dove should know this best. Yet they sent out the complete opposite message and disregarded all women of color.

Dove – a world renowned skin care company – has a well established credibility in their market. Their consumers are going to trust what Dove advertises and promotes. However, part of this well-established ethos got lost in this discriminatory advertisement. People began to look at this once well established company as a joke. Dove is not just guilty of creating a racist ad just once; Dove released an ad in 2011 that conveyed a similar message of white skin being cleaner than black skin.  No one wanted to be apart of this company anymore, and Dove lost a lot of credibility because of that.

Following all the hate and criticism Dove was receiving, the ad was taken down and an apology was sent out over twitter. Many accepted the apology, and many did not. It is 100% understandable for the people who did not accept. After all, Dove put forth a racist message. However, whether you continue to support Dove is entirely up to you.

                                                                   Dove Ad 

An image we recently posted on Facebook missed the mark in representing women of color thoughtfully. We deeply regret the offense it caused.

— Dove (@Dove) October 7, 2017

Dove’s Apology via Twitter