TOW #22: Campaign against drunk driving in Brazil (poster, visual text)

How intimidating can a mere can of beer get? In a drink driving campaign poster done by Fiat, the can of beer carries the scariest message that a driver could think of. The poster puts two pictures of a beer can right next to each other: the first one with the can unopen, and the second one with the can open. The first can, with its golden top reflects an image of someone riding a bicycle towards the can. On the top it says, “Agora Você Vê?”, which translates into “Now you see it.” On the second picture with the can open, the opening of the can blocks the reflection of the man riding the bicycle coming towards the can, and says, “Agora não”, meaning “Now you don’t.” This carries the meaning that when drivers drink even a can of beer, they would not see the surrounding pedestrians and thus precipitate a deadly accident. This very subtle image without any traces of blood or fatality carries the strongest and scariest message. This ad is especially significant because it was done by Fiat, an Italian automobile company and contains many brands like Ferrari, Maserati, Fiat, and Alfa Romeo. With this advertisement, Fiat could build its credibility among customers that it supports safe driving and wants to prevent car accidents that were due to drink and driving. In this advertisement. Fiat uses rhetorical devices such as juxtaposition and appeals to pathos. It uses juxtaposition by putting two very different images side to side, one that is very subtle and the other that carries a deadly message of possibly killing someone due to one’s own actions. With juxtaposition, Fiat also uses appeals to pathos. Fiat knows that drink driving accidents are done by people who doubt that they will be the ones who would actually get into car accidents when they drink and drive. Fiat successfully targets those people with the subtle juxtaposition. Fiat does not make things more dramatic by using bold colors or images; Fiat just tries to show the truth. This subtleness has more impact on the audience, as Fiat leaves the conclusion to the audience’s imagination.

TOW #21: The New Abolitionism by Christopher Hayes (written, non-fiction text)

The Civil War was a war not only of slavery, but of economy. By this, it means for Southern states, their loss would mean the loss of approximately 10 trillion dollars as they would lose their main work force, slaves. Hayes compares the modern issues of eliminating fossil fuels for the environment as those of slavery during the times of civil war at an economic level. Hayes asserts that the public would simply not risk ten trillion dollars just for the environment. Ultimately, Hayes is advocating for the stop of fossil fuel drilling, and he does it with uses of logos and by responding to possible counter arguments. He first uses logos to state that unlike slavery, which had some benefits for the economy as there was no input for the amount of labor they received, fossil fuels actually cost money as it is difficult to drill underground. He also addresses to investors to stop the investing for fossil fuels that investors “have reason to be suspicious of the fossil fuel companies. Right now, they are seeing their investment dollars diverted from paying dividends to doing something downright insane: searching for new reserves. Globally, the industry spends $1.8 billion a day on exploration” (Hayes, 50). Hayes explains how this is a waste of investment for investors as there is only limited supply of fossil fuels and the companies are only spending the investment on looking for new reserves. Hayes responds to possible counter argument that it is outrageous to compare anything to slavery by commenting “It is almost always foolish to compare a modern political issue to slavery... Humans are humans; molecules are molecules” (Hayes, 12). He adds that he is merely comparing the economy behind each issue. His argument was different from other environmental articles in that he did not purely argue for the environment and how fossil fuels can endanger the future Earth and how our next generations would not have a place to live as other nature advocates stress in their writings. He tried to make supporters of fossil fuels realize that the investment that they put in is actually a waste for them. He took a different direction in that he focused on what the supporters of fossil fuel actually care about: money. However, this could also have been his weakness. He did not put in any pathos, which could have weakened his argument towards the general public. But since his main audience was the investors, his argument was very effective.

TOW #20: Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America by Barbara Ehrenreich (IRB, written)

How many times have you heard the trite saying, “Think Positively!” when you have to deal with the worst situation? This week, I read Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America, which successfully argues against positive thinking and for realistic thinking. Despite the encouraging saying “Think Positively,” Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America reveals that positive thinking does not alleviate the situation. She uses logos to prove her points, particularly a study done in California. The study proved that there was a high correlation between death of children and positive thinking. Positive thinking leads to more frequent risk taking tendencies. Also, more realistic teenagers are less likely to become depressed. These teens are more able to deal successfully with the harsh realities. Here, Ehrenreich notes again, the dangers of positive thinking. People naturally avoid the negative truth, because they are scared to get hurt by the negative truth. Ehrenreich does not argue for negative thinking either. She believes that the best is to see the reality. We have to be aware of the reality, and try to make things better, not fall into positive fallacies. Ehreich started to question positive thinking when she was first diagnosed with cancer. She was disturbed by the positive thinking during her years of struggle. In my opinion, I think Ehrenreich’s strategy worked. She argued against the fallacies of positive thinking very effectively with uses of realilife examples. Also, she successfully responded to counter arguments by proving that she also does not support negative thinking. If she did not note positive thinking, her arguments would have been less effective. However, at some points, she is a bit too negative, she does not allow any whiners. In conclusion, we want objectivity. We expect doctors, teachers, or anyone that we pay to get service from to be objective. We should expect no less from ourselves; we should be objjective when dealing with our own struggles and problems.

TOW #19: Saigon Execution by Eddie Adams (visual, photograph)

Taken by Eddie Adams during the years of Vietnam War, this photograph was the turning point of public opinion in the United States and other countries. Eddie Adams, one of the world’s top photographers at the time, claims that he did not intend to stir up any strong pro or anti war feelings in America. He took it as another cliched war photo. However, for the public, this photo symbolized the horrors of Vietnam War. In the photo, the general of North Vietnam aims a gun to the innocuous citizen of Vietnam. This aroused more hatred towards communism and Northern Vietnam government in the America, as the public was disgusted and shocked by the ruthless treatments of the Northern Vietnam general. Additionally, the deserted background of the photo suggests the horrid reality of Vietnam War. This picture also made many Americans worry about our own soldiers dying on the foreign soil of Vietnam. The black and white color also has an impact of signifying the dullness and fogginess of every war. It makes the war seem lifeless and somewhat distant. The civilian looks even more harmless and innocent, as he is unarmed and he has his arms hidden backwards, as to indicate that he has no intentions of harming the soldiers. Adding even more emphasis, it is not only the general who is standing against the civilian, but also other soldiers are standing behind the general. This adds to the threatening tone of the photo.

Although this photograph had an immense impact for the public of 1960s, I do not think it would have the same impact now. The public has become increasingly stoic and unemotional as they have watched numerous war videos and photos. Back in the 1960s, this photograph could connect people with the soldiers suffering. However, the current public lacks so much care and nationalism that they would rather take this photo lightly. Also, in contrast to the thin and gaunt civilian, the general who is aiming a gun at the civilian looks well-fed, bold, and daunting. This further reveals the horrors of Vietnam War that most Americans were unaware of.

TOW #18: "The Moses of the Colored Men" by Andrew Johnson (written, Speech)

The period after Civil War was full of chaos with reconstruction. Although slaves were lawfully freed in all slave states, there was some tension and objections at such a radical idea among Americans. In 1864, the military governor Andrew Johnson delivered a speech to proclaim freedom to every man in Tennessee, which was still found with racism and harsh treatments towards African Americans. Johnson uses powerful tone to deliver his speech that enforces his beliefs that all men have freedom. He especially uses short anecdotes to give life to his stories of racism to prove that a law to protect the African Americans is necessary. He said that when slaves were officially freed, “Thank God! thank God! came from the lips of a thousand women, who in their own persons had experienced the hellish iniquity of the man-seller’s code” (6).This appeals to pathos of those former slaves who have actually experienced this rush of joy. He also utilizes repetition to respond to counter argument. He claims that the freed slaves should get a share of the lands of the rich landowners of the South. Expecting harsh objections from the South who would claim that he has no right to take away the land that was officially given to them with various paper works and money, he repeats, “I am no agrarian” (3-4). He explains how it would be just to distribute land to the new citizens by taking away the land of the rebels, who, in actuality, did not have to compensate for anything. Although this is a very powerful speech that attracted many Northern supporters as well as former slaves, this speech was not as effective as it could have been. It silently alienates the Southerners as the rebels, and at some points, treats them as like a threat to the Union because of their former acts to secede. He should not have described the Southerners as “them”, because at the end, both Northerners and Southerners are citizens of the United States. He should have avoided using invectives such as “representatives of the corrupt, this damnable aristocracy” (5). This only opens bad feelings of the South towards the North. His speech was too polarized in favor of the North, and this is dangerous when speaking publicly to all states of United States as it could only provide further bitter feelings between the two already divided regions.

http://www.nps.gov/anjo/historyculture/moses-speech.htm

IRB intro #3: Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America by Barbara Ehrenreich

For my IRB #3, I chose Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America by Barbara Ehrenreich. I read a review of this book on the Internet and it seemed interesting. The author of this book argues that positive thinking, often overly stressed by Americans, actually causes detrimental consequences to America, especially the economy. I am not sure how the book is going to be divided: whether it would be composed of short articles or all of the chapters will be one story. If it is just one story, I am excited to see how that would work out.

TOW #17: The Art of Failure by Malcolm Gladwell (written, non-fiction text)

When placed in a stressful situation, people fail all the time even when they have never made the same mistakes before. However, do all failures result from same types of mistakes? No. There are two types of failing: choke and panic. Choking happens when the explicit system, or thinking about things too much instead of relying on your instinct takes over. Panicking is the vice versa; it happens when the implicit system, being unable to think takes over the brain and people act instinctively. To get his point across, Gladwell utilizes anecdotes, specific happenings that demonstrate choke and panic. To explain choking, he uses example of Novota, the champion girls tennis player who failed due to choking. “She seemed like a different person–playing with the slow, cautious deliberation of a beginner–because, in a sense, she was a beginner again: she was relying on a learning system that she hadn’t used to hit serves and overhead forehands and volleys since she was first taught tennis, as a child” (6). Novota just choked, due to her nervousness, she had returned to a beginner, that carefully thinks over every step of tennis. Panic is just the opposite. When a pro diver Morphew had water rushed into his hose instead of air, his “hand reached out for my partner’s air supply, as if I was going to rip it out. It was without thought. It was a physiological response. My eyes are seeing my hand do something irresponsible. I’m fighting with myself. Don’t do it” (8). Morphew, in contrast to Novota, acted instinctively, he was unable to perform well-thought out action. These anecdotes effectively explain the two different types of failures, choking and panicking. However, despite the types of failures, all failures are detrimental and are met with unavoidable consequences. Gladwell wants to get that point across, failures can be never hopeful.