The Plastic Plague

Image from BBC

Is there a more relaxing place on earth than the beach? For some the answer is yes, but for many, a trip to the beach is the epitome of a vacation. Now, most beaches that people go to that are a hot tourist destination, are groomed and cleaned, removing the litter, out of sight out of mind as they say. But unfortunately that is not an option to many that are off the beaten path. Many of those such beaches, beaches marine animals like sea turtles and endangered species of shore birds need to survive, look like the beach at the top of the page, filthy and covered in trash. This image is making a clear argument that plastic pollution is out of control and needs to have something done about it. If all beaches looked like this people would demand action as no-one wants to relax in a place that looks like a land fill, The same goes for animals, they don’t want to live in an environment that looks like this either, but for them there is no choice.

This is an unattractive image and it brings about a sense of revulsion to the mind as when one looks at this, there can only be one culprit capable of destroying an ecosystem such a manner, humans. Ironically, the same beings that created the mess in the first place are the only ones with the capacity to restore the ecosystem to its former glory. This is what the image is trying to accomplish, by instilling a sense of revulsion in to the people who view the image, it provides that small spark of anger and it is a broadly accepted idea that they best way to motivate people to do something is to make them angry or feel guilty. This image is able to do both simultaneously and is thusly a perfect tool to attempt to restore some semblance of cleanliness to this man made mess.

The fact that this is such a normal looking beach, one that would look familiar to anyone who has gone to a beach along the Atlantic coast on the United States and not some beach in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia makes the image have a more direct impact on many people with the means, in a monetary sense, to do something about it. The plastic epidemic plaguing our worlds oceans, slowly killing them like the toxic side effect of a parasite needs an antidote before it gets to the point where no amount of restoration will have an effect. That antidote is small contributions by every person. This picture is showing you what happens when you toss your plastic water bottle, Walmart bag, or in this case a cooler, into the river and watch it float away, and it is urging you not to do that by displaying the consequences.

The main thesis of this speech is that the way we have been looking at marine conservation is wrong. We base things off science and assume that everyone will just get on board with broad and sweeping ideas that ignorer peoples situations to save certain species of marine life. What I learned from this speech that the solution isn’t complete bans of fishing, but rather, temporary “safe” zones that reopen in a few months. most target fish repopulate very quickly, minus big game fish like tuna or marlin. I learned that the key to saving marine life is working with the people that are directly affected the most and that it is not the small scale fishers that are overfishing areas like many believe, since they make up 90% of the worlds fishing fleet, but rather industrial trawlers that pull everything out of an area and leave it behind to become a lifeless abyss.

The way he provided information was very well done. He included visuals that really connected what he was saying to the eyes of the viewers. To back up what he was saying he included the amazing transformation that occured in these areas to show that change can be done to save certain species and areas. For awhile I believed that the ocean was doomed and there was little we could do to save it, as the corporate, industrialized fishing fleets are very difficult to combat, but this speech changed that. As he described during his speech, keeping large boats out of an area and having it only open to indigenous peoples to fish responsibly really makes a different.

This speech was really well done, in my opinion. He presented ideas, showed how the traditional model did not work, and then showed how after seeing the benefits of conservation people began to respond. He backed up what he was saying with facts and showed the vast improvements an area can experience if conservation tactics are put in place. This is a good example of a speech. I think that most of the information he presented came from listening to him talk and that the pictures he incorporated only serve as a back ground toot eh information he was presentation in an oral form. A presentation is when someone puts up pictures and explains them, or uses them as the main method for conveying information. Thats not what the did and I his speech was really well done.

I did my analysis on the first two minuets of this speech.

This speech is argued by some to be the speech that made Barack Obama president. It was highly moving, allowed the people to connect to what he was saying, and full of energy. When making the speech, he uses hand gestures to make his points have more emphasis. He gestures with his hands early and often throughout the speech and there is something that is just captivating about watching the man speak. It is almost as much a treat to the eyes as it is to the ears. This speech is very persuasive, through mentioning his father who lived in poor conditions as a child he draws sympathy although he doesn’t ask for it, it come naturally, and that is designed to happen. He paints his family as great American patriots, his grandfather fighting in WWII and his grand mother, finding a way to help the war effort on the home front by assembling bomber planes and raising his mother at the same time. Before the war, his grandfather had worked on a farm as a day laborer, or in the oil fields during the Great Depression. This is showing that his family has first hand experience with hardship, that they are hard working Americans, just like everyone else. Throughout the speech, he makes Americans feel as if they had something to prove. He says he got his name from an African word meaning blessed. He does not apologize in any way for his name, but rather wears it as a badge of honor. This promotes his idea of wanting to make American people feel more accepting by saying that his father had said in a tolerant America, your name is no barrier to success. He says this in a way that it manages to encapsulate race as well, since his name is a historically black name. My overall assessment of his speech is that it is excellent, it is after all a speech that made a man the president. he was able to garner sympathy, but remain strong, he was able to embrace his African culture in a way that did not alienate white people, he made America want to be the tolerant America that his father had described to him, where your name, and thusly your race is not a limit on what you can achieve. And he proved it, he became the first man of color to become the President of the United States.

Studies Show

Image from Baltimore Outloud

The article talks about how people site studies to prove a point. This seems like the smart thing to do when debating or arguing with someone. Once you produce a study backing what your are saying, how could someone argue with proven facts? Well, in todays world, they just produce a different study that was conducted that backs their opinion. This relates to the fact that a study can be manipulated to give the results that the person conducting the study wants. If you are conducting a study on Trump’s approval ratings and only ask people with a MAGA sticker on their truck, the approval rating will be exponentially higher than if you only ask people with a “Feel the Bern” bumper sticker on their car.

This is especially important when doing research into different topics that you have no previous knowledge of. When thinking about how many studies cannot be replicated it is they are biased or were conducted improperly. When dealing with studies that seem to be biased one way or another bias, it is imperative that you check multiple studies to confirm the findings of the first. In essence, you need to conduct your own study to see if the study you are studying is accurate. This plays a significant role when doing research into your ted talk, as you obviously don’t want to misrepresent what is really happening within in your topic accidentally due to flawed or biased research. In my opinion, this is a real pain because when people conduct a study to confirm the beliefs of the person conducting the study, they will be different if someone had just done the study with the intent of actually understanding what is happening. All of these different studies showing conflicting results or results that cannot be replicated do is muddy the water and lead to more argument, disagreement, and further the divide between people who are just seeking plain, unbiased, knowledge.

Image from Business Clan

The age of the smart phone has come, and with it the rise of a new generation, igen. Technological advancements have fundamentally changed the way people behave and view them selves. Social networking has never been easier than it is right now, and this is a great thing, for the most part. People are more able now than ever to be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world. Gone are the days of having one phone in the house that runs a party line that your neighbor can listen to. Gone are the days of Polaroid picture albums, and normal face to face interaction. When the iPhone was released in 2007, the world and society we live in Changed.

As more and more people got smart phones the need to actually talk to someone face to face has diminished. Even children less than nine years old spend more than two hours a day on a screen.                                   Image from CNN

The whole of society has changed. And it hasn’t just changed the way people communicate, but rather how people behave. With the rise of smartphones came crypto currency that has allowed people to be more discrete in their purchasing of goods and no longer have to know someone to get something. As I have just recently seen, people are also less likely to Carry Cash, something that was pessary for every interpersonal interaction that was done not that long ago.

Image from Dominos AP via The Washington Post

Now, instead of splitting a pizza with both parties involved by giving one person ten dollars to cover your half, you just Venmo them. People no longer want to meet face to face when they are buying something, but would rather just transfer the money and have you send whatever it is they are buying.

It is also a known fact that social media and the like has Influenced Society as a whole. As I said in a previous blog, I think the effects are much more concentrated in certain areas than others, but there is no doubt that the tendrils of social media has wrapped its fingers around everyone in the newest generation. People are now more self conscious than they have ever been, and some say that is due to seeing the IG models everyday. People are also less likely to seek their independence at the same age as their parents did on a national level.

This change has happened faster than most significant societal changes in history and has, and will continue to have far reaching effects on a national level. For now, as I see from my own personal experience, the effects are more relegated to more urban areas, but there is not doubt that they will eventually creep into every corner of our society. If we as a generation want utilize technology, something I assume most due, I think that it is important on understanding why it is impacting our society the way it is and how it can be better used to combat the toxic side effects that come with social media and instant messaging being so prevalent in everyones lives.

Image by MacRumors

It obviously shown through national studies that the attitudes of teens and their use of technology has incurred a drastic shift in their behavior and can be linked to the advent of smart phones. I think that it is clear that a paradigm shift has occurred in the way teens communicate, interact, and socialize with one another. There is a plethora of evidence that one can observe in the article and it would be difficult to argue that, on average, the attitude towards social activities hasn’t changed drastically since our parent were kids.

A paradigm shift is defined as a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions. This is clearly such case. As the article stated, kids don’t behave in the same manner as kids of the previous generation did. They are more likely to feel lonely, and less likely to go on dates, to parties, or even get their driver’s license. This clear shift in attitude from previous generations preceded by the advent of the smart phone constitute a paradigm shift in teens attitudes.

Now this being said, I believe the scope of this shift this may be more location based. Take me for example. I grew up in a very rural area; I graduated with 82 kids from a public school. I didn’t see such a widespread and as drastic of a shift from traditional behavior practiced by our parents as the charts and national polls show. When my dad was a kid, he got his driver’s license the first day he could, my parents hung out with their friends on weekends and played sports or worked during the week. When my dad wanted to hang out with his friends they went camping, hunting, fishing, or drove their dirt bikes, or later cars to each other’s houses. As a member of the generation that the article talks about, I don’t think that I, or most of my friends really fit the mold the article describes. Everyone I knew had their learners permit the day they turned sixteen and had their drivers’ license as soon as they could. When my friends and I got together we didn’t just sit on our iPhones inside, we went out and did stuff. We all played sports, we went hunting together, when nothing was in season, we went fishing. We used to go camping when it was possible to sleep outside. Our favorite place to go didn’t even have cell service. Every now and then and, if someone had to call their parents or talk to their girlfriend, they had to walk almost a mile to get even two bars of 4G. We were always together and when we were, almost no one was on their phone, unless it was to change the song we were listening to. When we got bored, we got together and did stuff outside. Last year we built a log cabin in the woods near one of my friend’s house.

Overall, you can’t argue with the data included within the article, but I would say that the effects of this shift depend a lot upon where you live and what you and your friends like to do together. Although, one obviously has to go with the data and the data is clear, the rise of the smart phone clearly led to a paradigm shift in the youth of this countries attitudes towards their social life and mental health.

Image by Carol M. Highsmith

The World War Two monument was under construction between 2001 and 2004. It was unveiled to the public on April 29, 2004 and had its dedication one month later, on May 29. It was designed by Friedrich St.Florian and was meant to pay tribute to all those that died during the course of the war (Murray).

The memorial is meant to show us the price of victory and freedom, and that the unity of the country during this time was paramount in the U.S. wining the war. I think that I am drawn to this civic artifact due to the fact that I was always interested in American history and the concept of national unity, something that is rather uncommon to find today. This artifact is an apt comparison for the Minuet Man statue in Concord because they both reflect unity and patriotism. They both show that brave Americans went and fought and died for our freedom as a nation. I think that soldiers, especially the ones that made the ultimate sacrifice, deserve to be honored and remembered. There are many aspects of this memorial that can analyzed into how they relate to the civic providing more than enough material to cover in a comparison to the Minuet Man statue.

Some of the more intriguing aspects of this memorial are the gold stars on the “Freedom Wall” at the west end of the memorial. there are 4000 golden stars on this wall, each signifying 100 American lives lost in the war. There were a total of 400,000 Americans killed during the course of WWII. Another interesting aspect of the memorial is the bronze braided rope that runs between all 56 granite pillars surrounding the memorial. Each pillar represents a U.S. state or territory and D.C. involved in the war effort. The bronze rope signifies the unity binding all of America together during this time (Murray).

Involved within in this monument are several rhetorical devices. One obvious such use is the use of enthymemes. While it is know the the monument is meant to memorialize WWII, one must have prior knowledge to understand some of the smaller parts of the monument. The rope for example, I know what it means because I have done research on the monument but the average passerby may not without prior knowledge. Another such example is that of the golden stars, or that of the 24 bas-reliefs along the edges half on the north and half on the south represent the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. It also relies on pathos to convey it message. With no feeling of loss at the death of so many, and pride in the fact that so many volunteered to defend our nation, the whole notion of the stars and the rope would be lost. There would be no point in remembering something as tragic as WWII if there was no emotion shown on the home front. It also hints at ethos. While there is no fact check at the plaques recalling the victories of American forces, a simple google search can confirm what they say, and with knowledge so readily available and it being in such a public and high profile place, it would be impossible to lie about something, as someone would have caught such a fault right away and it would have been national news.

In using the WWII monument as my comparison to the Minuet Man statue, I have provided my self with an extraordinary amount of material to offer as similarities and explain how they both memorialize brave Americans who answered the call to duty and paid the ultimate price for their country and those that reside within her borders.

Murray, Lorraine. “National World War II Memorial.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2011, www.britannica.com/topic/National-World-War-II-Memorial.

The Sticker Shoppe

This bumper sticker is eight words long, yet through its use of rethorical devices, we already know the meaning and the beliefs that the person driving this car hold. While one my not agree with the message that is being displayed, they would know what it is saying.

This particular bumper sticker contains a very pro-military message and portrays this message both through the words and the choice of colors. The message, “Land of the Free because of the Brave” is reminiscent of our national anthem. In the national anthem it say’s in the last line, “O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” This message also implies that without our military we would not be free, and that, objectively speaking would be true. Without a military it is possible and very plausible, that we would still be an English colony. It is also true that, had we not had such brave and strong military, the allies would have lost WW1. We also could have been taken over by the Axis Powers in WW2 without the brave soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy and broke the Nazi strangle hold on France.

This bumper sticker appeals to the commonplace of every American who has ever heard the national anthem, which one could assume to be the vast majority. This is a clear message about being thankful for the sacrifices so many have made for our freedom as a nation. The ideology of many people across the nation is that without our military, we would not be free and freedom is very important to most everyone in the United States, no matter your stance on political issues.

It is very effective in portraying the message that we should be thankful and appreciative of out troops, the brave as they are refered to in this bumper sticker. It, in short, shows support for our military and presents the the idea that we would be unfree without them as fact. While not able to definitively prove this claim, we do have one of the strongest militaries in the world and, since we have never been concurred because of them, it is safe to assume that without these brave individuals willing to lay down their lives for our freedom, we would be living under the tyrannical yoke of another nation.

Image by Kevin Cox

Kairos is a greek word meaning “a propitious moment for decision or action” It translates literally to “opportunity”. Kairos is important in advertising because when a topic is at the forefront of peoples minds and they see this topic within an ad, it resonates with them immediately. The need for kairos in political ads cannot be understated. If the topic that is being displayed or how the topic is being displayed in the ad isn’t relevant to what is happening today, many people who see these ads will not think that they are important and will switch the channel, scroll past it in their feed, or click the skip ad button on Youtube. Kairos is incredibly important in todays political atmosphere because people have an increasingly short attention span.

Mr. Clean Ad

What makes an ad terrible? Is it offensive? Does it contain a stereotype against a certain group of people within the ad? Is it just so obviously an ad that will not go over well that one must scratch their head in wonder at how this was ever released for public consumption? There are several ads that fit some of these characteristics, but the one that I find that fits all of them is the 2011 Mr. Clean Mothers Day ad.

Is this ad offensive? Yes, yes it is. It uses the stereotype that a woman’s job, her real job, is within in the home cooking, cleaning and raising a family. These were values that, while still offensive, would have been socially accepted in the 1940’s, not 2011. Anyone who looks at this ad sees that message and not whatever message is trying to be portrayed. It is not difficult to see how this would not go over well with the vast majority of the public and it is a wonder how a brand as large and universally known as Mr. Clean can make such an egregious error.

It is an overtly sexist ad, ones who’s sexist message doesn’t need to be pulled from undertones within the ad or explained to someone who does not understand how it is sexist because any sane and normal person would have no problem seeing that within this ad. It is clearly one that makes the highlight reel of worst ads of all time. And not only is it offensive to women, but men as well. This ad is basically only a women can clean as it is not a mans job to do so, a popular thought in history up until the middle of the 1900’s. What message does that convey to stay at home dads that clean and conduct the domestic duties while their signifiant other goes and earns money? If I fell into that category, well, I would feel emasculated and ashamed of doing an activity that is perfectly normal for an individual of either gender to engage in.

Another thing that is not as obvious is that the image portrays a women and a young child, assumed to be her daughter. This is part of the reason it is a bad ad because it instills the sense that young girls must be trained to be good care takers, another popular mode of thought in the aforementioned time period. This again is not something that should be conveyed to young girls, actually some may even say it is counter productive with the recent push for women to enter the STEM fields.

All in all this is an ad that would have gone over just fine in 1938, but in 2011 when it was published, its producers should have known that there would be obvious backlash to such a sexist ad.