We use millions of tons of plastic every year. We utilize plastics in garbage bags and shopping bags, containers, boxes, cups, toys, and many other everyday products. Plastic can be found literally everywhere. However, we usually ignore the common knowledge that the material can never break down or go away, and so it will remain in the environment for decades- harming our surroundings, oceans, and animals everywhere. 

In terms of the picture shown above, a young innocent boy dressed in white seems to be crouching down to lift up the edge of the bright blue shore. Beneath lies multiple plastic bottles, grocery bags, and other products made from plastic. In front of it lies a dejected crab and some snails seeming to be running from the ocean. Essentially the picture, in itself, depicts all of our oceans. A large floating garbage disposal. 

In the photo, we can see how on top, the ocean seems like a clear, blue typical ocean we usually picture when thinking of the body of water. However, the picture is showing you what our oceans actually consist of. The point is that underneath the beauty of our oceans lies our dreadful actions. It is common sense that littering is wrong, it’s just not really a secret. But it’s just nonsensical how we still do it and consciously know that it is harming our oceans. The image is showing how we are the ones who are damaging our oceans, by using plastic materials and not caring enough about how to dispose of them. It is true that we only see what floats, however the image wants us to look further and realize that the real damage lies beneath. 

The image shows how oceans and beaches are seen as “pristine” and “calming” however when you walk on those beaches, no matter where you go there is trash littered everywhere. The animals fleeing from the ocean shows how the plastic thrown into it can harm animals and potentially kill them. It conveys how littering can lead to the death of animals and how many of them need to escape from their own habitats in order to be alive. 

As for the young boy depicted in the photo, I view him as the foundation for a change in the way we use plastic. I believe the author of the photo wants to depict how our upcoming generations have the power to understand the effects of pollution and the real harm it brings to our oceans and animals. By dressing the boy in white, it may express the message that he is the change our oceans need, and that our world has some hope for the future in which we become more aware of our actions and try to protect our nature.

The TED speech I viewed is Dan Ariely’s “Self-control.” 

I needed to view this TED Talk for my Criminology class, as we were relating crime to a lack of self-control and how versatile offenders do many different kinds of crimes because of their low self-control. They ultimately commit crime impulsively and without thinking about their short term actions. 

Regarding Ariely’s actual speech, he speaks of how in order to achieve long-term goals, we must possess self-control. It’s ultimately the key to success and happiness. We as humans have desires for ourselves in the long-term- we want to be successful, fit, financially stable, and so on- but in the short-term we fail to take the action that will lead us to those results. 

He relates this message to when he was hospitalized for Hepatitis C. In order to be cured, Ariely needed to take part in an FDA clinical trial. He was to take three injections a week for a year and a half. However, 16 hours after taking this medication, unpleasant side effects would ensue. However, if Ariely was not persistent with taking the injections, he were to die from liver cirrhosis.

Ariely explains that he was the only person in the FDA protocol who always took their medication on time. He did this by practicing reward substitution, or finding an intriguing reward that you can give yourself in the present to focus on, in order to get yourself to take the action that will get you a much larger reward later. Ariely proposes that this is the key to self-control, coupled with the ‘self-control contract.’ Different from reward substitution, this is a situation in which we know we will be tempted. And we’re doing something to make ourselves not able to be tempted. Ultimately, it’s another version of dealing with self-control. 

This speech really expanded my understanding of self-control because of how Ariely really seemed to know what he was talking about. Due to how he related it to his own self and problems, I felt as though I could connect to him- which allowed me to understand his ideas on a deeper level. Although Ariely sits for most of the TED Talk, he stills gives a strong presentation. He does this by moving his upper body to emphasize his points and really focuses in on the audience. He addresses the audience directly multiple times throughout the speech which allowed them to engage into what he is saying. He speaks from his mind and doesn’t have any notecards or outline to aid him, which makes it different from just delivering a speech. Ariely also makes sure to change his tone of voice to have it fit into what he’s saying, which also is helpful in doing a presentation. To add, his visual aids also helped him in giving a strong presentation. Each slide gave the audience a better understanding of his ideas, since each related perfectly to what he was saying.

In the conclusion of ‘The Verdict,’ Frank Galvin addresses his closing argument to a jury at the end of a seemingly grueling case. From the beginning of the video, you can tell how passionate and empathetic Galvin is. Right off the bat his stance is bold, tall, as if he were the only person in the room, allowing everyone to pay attention only to him. His voice exerts dominance due to its loudness and firmness in what he is saying. His voice never unwavers, and he makes sure to take his time to present every word with clear importance and power. He’s not rushing at all, and although long pauses sometimes allows for distractions and uninterest, his in no way does this because his message is clearly well crafted and he knows what he’s talking about. It also helps that the scripted speech contains words that are powerful and poetic, which really draws our attention.

A few moments after Galvin begins speaking, he appears to only be speaking to the Judge. But then he recognizes that the correct audience he should be addressing is the jury. He does this by pointing at the jury when stating “But today, you are the law.” This makes the jury focus in to what he is saying because he’s concentrated everyone’s attention to the jury. It’s good to remember that he wants to win the case, and the only way to do this is to appeal to the jury. Galvin does this by utilizing pathos. His impassioned argument speaks to the jury in a compelling and intimate way. He knows we all have a shared desire for justice, and he uses this to make the jury look within themselves to find justice. He makes eye contact with every single person on the stand, and makes sure to make it seem as though he is talking to then, rather than delivering a closing argument. His most powerful point is presented when he focuses in on how the jury, only for a moment, are now the law and they are the ones who have the power to find and serve justice. 

At the end, he really begins to pause after a few words and his body language is again, making it seem as though he is speaking intimately with the jury rather than delivering a speech. His is very close to the jury, and personalizes what is saying with the jury. When the camera zooms in closer to his face, you can see how passionate his eyes are and how his facial expressions are shaped to give a greater understanding about what he’s saying. His words are emotional, and the downcasted look on his face really makes us and the jury combined to sympathize with him and his client. 

Ultimately, this short speech was a great opportunity for me to see how much impact a person can have in such a short space of time. Frank Galvin does an excellent job in clarifying what he wants to say through his powerful and short speech. And for the record, Galvin does end up winning the case. 

Should we trust the research studies we read about? This is a question I constantly ask myself whenever I must research a certain topic. Studies are usually your “go-to” when looking for information to support or help your opinion or stance in a dispute. As the article, “Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows” by Andy Kessler, exclaimed- “studies show” are the two words we most use when trying to present an argument or belief. However, we are the ones who construct what conclusion a study should show. Studies “show whatever someone wants them to.” We tend to be biased whenever we read an article because we already have certain expectations and we like to see when something or someone agrees with our views. We also tend to believe studies drawn by “men in lab coats” because that is what we’ve been shaped to do. However, we must be skeptical and remember that even though must studies assume correlation, that does not mean it is a causation.

For example, many articles like to assume that the act of playing violent video games is correlated with aggression and crime. However, even though there may be a factor video games play into aggression, that still does not mean it is a causal factor. The use of studies constantly misinforms us to the point where we do not know what the truth is. This also explains why we cannot believe everything we read on the internet. I believe studies are changed or altered to influence our views on certain topics. As the article suggests, the use of studies is truly dangerous, and I will certainly take this into account when creating my paradigm shift essay. I will attempt to make sure that which ever study i decide to use in my paper is not manipulated, or reflective of popular beliefs. My shift is centered on the legalization of marijuana, so the use of studies is incredibly important for my topic. Therefore, I must pay close attention to which sources I choose because many just like to shape their study to fit their views or influence others as well. I plan to search for the cold, hard facts and look to avoid biases that may be present in the study. I will also try to eliminate my own expectations so that I will not be affected by a certain study.

We are currently at a point in time where the support of the legalization of marijuana in the United States is at an all-time-high. Over the course of multiple decades, Americans, both young and old, are showing more tolerance of the use of marijuana, both recreationally and medically. Support for legalization rose from 12 percent in 1969 to 31 percent in 2000 to 64 percent in 2017. With this ongoing support and tolerance, the number of states that have taken up legislation to allow residents to use the substance has also grown. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have passed laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form.

In the 1980s, marijuana was grouped in with a kind of “unholy trinity” with cocaine and heroin in article discussions about drug dealers, drug smuggling and the like. However, during the 1990s, articles discussing marijuana in criminal terms became less common and the number of articles examining the medical uses of marijuana slowly increased. By the late 1990s, marijuana lost its association with other Schedule I drugs and was rarely talked about in the context of drug trafficking and drug abuse. Steadily, the stereotype about the typical marijuana user shifted from the stoner wanting to get high for fun to the aging boomer seeking pain relief. And now that this public support is consistent across U.S. regions, legalization could spread to new areas in the future.

The specific question I hope to tackle in my essay is: Why are Americans becoming more tolerant of marijuana use? I will focus on the actual medical uses of marijuana and how this accounts for America’s support, the shift in the way the drug is marketed and sold (the marijuana industry used to operate underground, but now storefronts are arising on main streets in cities and towns across the country), differences in media portrayal of marijuana from before versus now, how people thought the criminal justice system was too harsh and the laws imposed on marijuana usage were unfair (related to the late 1980s “war on drugs” and sentencing reform laws), and how Americans’ views on marijuana is similar to that of their views on same-sex marriage over the past couple of decades.

In the wake of days of protest involving the injustices faced by the black community across the United States, one image has captured America’s attention: a photograph from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, of a calm-looking female protester standing opposite police officers in riot gear. The woman was later identified as Ieshia Evans. 

As the subject of my civic artifact speech, Iesha Evans is an icon in the social movement Black Lives Matters. Powerful and fearless as she is, her bravery has drawn similarities to other peaceful protestors, an important one being Jan Rose Kasmir. 

On October 21, 1967, almost 100,000 people marched on Washington, D.C. to peacefully demonstrate around the buildings of the Pentagon in protest against America’s involvement in Vietnam. Among the photographs of thousands of anti war activists, hippies, and students, a picture of 17-year-old Jan Rose Kasmir captured the public eye. In the photo, Jan confronts heavily armed National Guard soldiers with a flower held between her hands. The influential image has come to represent bravery and the power of peaceful protest, and it ultimately helped turn opinion against the Vietnam war. 

Like the more recent image of Iesha Evans taking a stand in Baton Rouge, the 1967 image of Jan Rose Kasmir juxtaposes one calm woman against the full force of authority. Both used peace and calmness as a means to confront violence and hatred. We are living in a world where everyone is completely blown away by what’s going on, and the only way to ease this franticness and desperation is by expressing that energy in protest. Both women seek to have others join in peaceful protests involving issues they are passionate about. People do resonate with peace and do resonate with goodness and hope. And the argument here is that a peaceful protest always wins.

I am drawn to both these images because they are relatable in a sense. An individual standing up to a more powerful group that seeks to oppress or suppress her is one that resonates with me and inspires me to defend myself when I am treated unfairly or put at a disadvantage. The women become a blank canvas in which you can place yourself. You, too, become a part of the struggle and the movement. The power these images hold is like no other. They force you to open your eyes and realize that we are the ones who need to act and protest for the rights of others. When something impacts a group of people, we too are impacted. 

At first glance, this happy-go-lucky t-shirt may seem like any other you find falling off a hanger at a Walmart, however take a look at its message again. Now think about a current issue that may reflect this t-shirt’s essence. If you guessed the prevalent societal issue of immigration, then you are correct.

The message at hand is probably pretty clear now. Families belong together. Immigrant families must be kept together. However, this undermines the logic the creators of the t-shirt used in order to communicate this important message. As humans, we have this innate ideology that you and your family should never be separated and should only be kept together. “Family is everything,” many would say. We have this sort of emotional and hurtful response whenever we are kept far away from our loved ones and we love to see our families together as a whole whenever we can. Take special occasions or holidays for example. The feeling of being with your family is like no other, and you loathe the idea of not spending a certain holiday with all of them there. Now let’s look at the issue of immigration again. Each year, thousands of immigrant parents are ripped away from their kids. There is even a current “zero-tolerance” immigration policy that separate undocumented children from their parents at the U.S.- Mexico border. If this doesn’t make you think about how inhumane and unacceptable the state of our humanity has come to, then I don’t know what will.

The creators of this t-shirt utilizes ethos to make this situation even more appalling to its audience. They are trying to humanize the debate and just the whole issue immigrant families are facing right now by making you think about its underlying message. Would you want to be separated from your families? Would you want to stay up at night thinking about the fact that you could never see or hear from your parents ever again? Would you want this to be overlooked just because you came from a different country? These are a few of the questions this t-shirt’s message hopes to raise. It’s a call for us to awaken and realize what is currently happening in our world and to not turn a blind eye to these thousands of families who are falling apart as we speak. It should just be a shared view amongst us that families do belong together, regardless of their racial background.

The t-shirt’s pithy statement wants you to think clearly and deeply about what’s hidden between the lines, and that is to place yourselves in the shoes of these immigrant families to understand what’s the bigger issue at hand. It’s a call to action. A call to protect the rights of immigrants.

 

 

Kairos may very easily be the most fundamental rhetorical concept a person can make. Whether this be in a commercial, speech, or film; the usage of kairos is essential in bringing attention or awareness to an issue that needs to be heard and dealt with. Kairos breaks down how a moment in time affects its significance. It is a word that expresses the “opportunity” and what is appropriate to say at a given moment in time. Take this anti-smoking ad for example. Ronaldo Martinez, face of the “Nothing Will Ever Be The Same” Campaign in New York, leads in the Anti-Smoking PSA “SWIMMING.”

Ronaldo had his larynx removed due to excessive smoking and speaks through an artificial voice box. In the video, Ronaldo speaks in his synthesized voice and addresses how he can no longer swim because his throat hole will make him drown if water were to get into it.

According to a New York Times article highlighting this PSA, Ronaldo’s story “helped bring about a threefold increase in calls to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene from people interested in smoking cessation.” In 2007, the year this PSA was released, smoking was at an all time high. An estimated 19.8% (43.4 million) of U.S. adults were current cigarette smokers; of these, 77.8% (33.8 million) smoked every day. The organization saw this as an opportunity and released the PSA at a perfect time. They were able to understand their audience and catch their attention with a surprising and frightening story. The video uses intimidating imagery (clips where you can see the throat hole), story-telling, and an emotional appeal to get their message across. It made people question their own decisions and allowed them to consider life-saving options. The PSA was designed to “scare the cigarette out of the person’s hand.” And it definitely worked. Anti-smoking commercials like this have become increasingly popular since 2007, and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘current smoking has declined from 20.9% (nearly 21 of every 100 adults) in 2005 to 14.0% (14 of every 100 adults) in 2017, and the proportion of ever smokers who have quit has increased.’ The act of using the best time to discuss the specific argument of anti-smoking was what made this ad so successful and appealing.

Although I personally do not smoke, I think this ad would be enough for me to realize how detrimental smoking would be to my life. The emotional appeal of how Ronaldo’s story could resonate with any smoker will be enough to make someone quit, or at least help them find a way to try. I believe that any Anti-Smoking Ad Campaign is very effective in conveying their message. They use fear to encourage people not to smoke cigarettes for obvious reasons, including death. This constant reminder to stray from smoking is urgent to one’s life as well as the quality of it. 

On April 4th of 2017, the use of ethical awareness to sell products was reached with a (since pulled) Pepsi commercial, showcased alongside reality TV star Kendall Jenner. The commercial, released amidst the disputable Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM), unveils a secret advantage on how to combat police brutality: a can of Pepsi. 

The commercial begins with the opening of the carbonated soft drink and a man brilliantly playing the cello. Why? No clue. The camera then pans back and forth between a seemingly placid protest and Kendall Jenner. The signs held in the protest are not in any way profane or controversial to say the least. ‘Join the conversation’ is one that seems to appear more than often throughout the entirety of the commercial.

During the camera shot of the march, what comes out as obvious to me is how multicultural the ad already is. Evident when shots of a Muslim woman drawing is shown next. But of course, the main focus is the can of pepsi sitting right in front of her. The camera then pans over to Kendall Jenner, who just happens to be doing a photoshoot right next to the protest route. She appears amazed when she looks over to the march, obvious that she has never come in contact with a civil protest until now. Next, more random and unrelated shots of events during the protest ensues, and then we have Kendall who seems to appear very done with modelling and pulls off her wig to join the protest.

Let’s keep in mind that she has absolutely no idea what they’re protesting for, but does that really even matter in this time of age? When Kendall joins the protest, she instinctively grabs a can of pepsi from an assorted tub of chilled Pepsi that someone just happened to bring in the middle of a protest and of course, strides to the front of the mob with it in hand. The TV star ended inequality and racism when she passes the can to a curiously unprepared police officer who, realizing she is white, calls off riot control and thoughtfully accepts the soft drink. And alas! The protest has ended with one sip of the drink from the police officer. The crowd goes wild and the actual mission of the protest is long forgotten. 

A few questions that came to mind when I viewed this commercial are: What even was the message of this commercial? Why did they include Kendall Jenner instead of an actual person of color? Why did Pepsi decide to market their product by using issues that are currently being combatted? Why did Pepsi make it seem as though their product can bring world peace?

As expected, the commercial experienced a lot of backlash. The advert was severely criticized by people of the social media world for using a privileged, white, model to create peace between activists and law enforcement through a drink.

To me, this advert was just very foolish and unneeded. Although I can see how Pepsi used the protest as an emotional appeal to their audience since it is very similar to the protests occurring today (especially the BLM movement), I believe Pepsi could have used a different concept to advertise their product and did not need to bring in a very important and sensitive social issue into their commercialism. Thankfully, Pepsi has apologized for the controversial advertisement and has since not repeated the same mistake with their commercials.

 

Citations:

Victor, Daniel. “Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Apr. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad.html.

“People Are Not Happy about Kendall Jenner’s New ‘Tone-Deaf’ Advert for Pepsi.” Topics, https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/04/05/people-are-not-happy-about-kendall-jenners-new-tone-deaf-advert-pepsi.

Briese, Nicole. “Here’s What an Actor in Kendall Jenner’s Pepsi Commercial Has to Say About the Controversy.” Brit Co, Brit Co, 8 Apr. 2017, https://www.brit.co/heres-what-an-actor-in-kendall-jenners-pepsi-commercial-has-to-say-about-the-controversy/.