TOW #30 Letter to future APELC Student

Dear Future APELC student,
     So you have decided to take APELC! Good choice! AP English is a tough course, but by the end of the year you will be super glad that you decided to take it. Over the course of the year you will grow as a reader and a writer. You'll be surprised by the quantity of the things you're writing and the difficult texts that you are able to read and digest. The first few weeks may be tough, and you might not be seeing the As or Bs you're used to, but stick it out, it gets a lot easier as the year goes on!
     If there is one thing you should learn to do early on in the year it is to manage your time. You might be used to putting work off until the last minute, but that is definitely a habit you want to kick early with this class, or any AP class really. A lot of times assigned texts to read are several pages long, and difficult to understand. You will probably want to split it up, and pace yourself, reading a little at a time, not it all in one night. You may even need to read things more than once in order to really understand it. Mr. Yost usually puts up assignments way before they are do, and I would definitely recommend working ahead to avoid becoming overwhelmed, especially if you are taking other heavy-reading AP classes, like APUSH. Also when you, make sure to highlight, underline, and add notes. Mr. Yost always says, "There's no such thing as just reading" and also "There is no such thing as just highlighting." Make sure to come prepared for class with your reading materials so you can participate in discussions.
     In addition to not leaving reading to the last minute, also defintiely don't leave studying to the last minute either. There are very few opportunities in this class to earn points and boost your grade, so you'll want to take advantage of the opportunities you get. I would recommend always taking notes on class discussions of the text, and then reviewing them before the test. Also before the test, revisit each of the texts on the test and make sure you understand the author's purpose and the rhetorical devices used to achieve that purpose. Also know the main ideas in Language of Composition.
    Another piece of advice I would offer would be not to be afraid to ask for help. Mr. Yost and Ms. Pronko always offer to conference with students on their essays to help them improve. Their advice can be very helpful and valuable, so don't hesitate to ask for their help. That being said, try to show up to conferences with specific questions, instead of just being like "How do I make it better?" Also understand that essays usually require several drafts. You don't want to write it the night before, or even two nights before.
     Overall, good luck! You'll do great in this course if you put in the time and hard work that it needs!
Sincerely,
Past APELC student

TOW #29 Why We Fight part 2

     Why do we fight? For freedom? For justice? For equality? That's what we've always been told are the driving forces behind the wars we get into. However, is the idea of fighting moral wars a realistic one? Or is it simply propaganda? Though wars are often painted as idealistic fights, the real reasons behind them are often economic and political.
     In his farewell address from the presidency in 1961, President Eisenhower discusses the growing focus on the military in the United States. While he stress the importance of having a large military ready for the defense of America, he also warned against the military-industrial complex. He said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He recognized that the growth of the military and it industry was becoming so large that the need for war and subsequently the placement of power of who could and would support and declare it would become skewed. Years later, the evidence of this military-industrial complex would become very evident. Large cooperations responsible for the production of weapons drive the economy and employ millions of people. Thus the desire for war increases in order to allow these cooperations to thrive and the reasons for war are less moral and more economic.
    Besides economic reasons, there are various political reasons that factor into war. Though the US gave up their imperialistic goals decades ago, often the government still desires for control in certain spheres of the world. This is especially true in oil rich regions, like the Middle East. Some people speculate that a main force behind going into wars in the Middle East was oil. Especially after the scary oil embargo of Nixon's era, the last thing oil-dependent US wants is to be cut off from its oil. This is why the US wanted to set up military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, to keep a presence there even after the wars were over. While no politician would want to admit that oil was a main reason for going into these wars and putting many lives at risk, it is very plausible that it was.
     Do we fight for the right reasons, or the wrong reasons? It is a very tricky question, on that we would hope to answer confidently with the former. However this is not always the case, and many reasons can drive motivation for war.

TOW # 28 Why We Fight

     The documentary Why We Fight is a film by Eugene Jarecki, and discusses the United States' reasoning behind declaring war in Iraq. Many Americans believe that the reason for fighting the war was as a retaliation for the terrorist attacks on 9/11, or in order to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime. They would be surprised to discover that these are only the sugar-coated reasons presented to them by the government, who has a hidden imperialistic agenda. In his film, Jarecki, who tries to remain objective but at the end of the film very clearly shows his liberal colors, points out that there were several reasons the government wanted to declare war, like control of the oil rich middle east, that caused them to exaggerate the Iraqi ties to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and their possession of weapons of mass destruction. Jarecki also explains the overpresent "military industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell address. War is such a mass industry in America. Large cooperation that produces weapons make tons of money from the government, and also sometimes bankroll politicians. This leads to lots of corruption and also a over willingness for war. This film came out in 2005, a few years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and while the US was still in war in Iraq. In context, this film was aimed at the American public, most of whom had no clear idea of why their country was involved in a war overseas. The purpose of the film was to explain to the American people the true reasons behind the war, and that they had been mislead by their government.
     One way Jarecki conveys his purpose is through testimonial. Throughout the film he interviews several people. One person he interviews is a cop from New York who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks. Another is a young man who just signed up for the military. Another is a woman who formerly worked a the pentagon, and a man who formerly worked at the CIA. These testimonials provide a diverse look at the issue at hand. From the point of view of civilians we see the view the government has wanted to present, and from the point of view of the experts we get the real scoop. These testimonials have the effect of adding credibility to the film, but also show the disconnect between what the public knows and what the government knows. By doing so, the film shows just how sometimes things are not always what they seem, as is the case with why we fight the wars we fight.
     Jarecki also creates parallelism. On of the interviewees, the NY cop, served in Vietnam when he was a young man. In the interview, the cop emphasizes the shock and anger he felt when he discovered that may of the details of the war had been exaggerated in order to maintain public support for the war. The view cannot help but to draw parallels to the exaggerations made present day to keep morale up for the Iraqi war. In fact, the cop even explains the anger he felt when he was duped once again by the government, saying that they exploited his feelings of patriotism and tragedy following the 9/11 by exaggerating the ties Iraq had to the attacks, making many Americans call for war. By drawing the parallels, the film explains that the misleading by the government is something that has occurred before and something that will occur again. The parallels help make the audience aware of the government, and wary for the future

TOW #27 Reflection

    Looking back over my past TOWs I can clearly see massive improvements. Starting out, my posts had no organization. As the year went on, I learned how to set up my Analysis essays, and began to treat the TOWs as mini analysis essays. From then on my TOWs were remarkably more well organized, especially with a clear thesis. I also really improved on finding rhetorical devices within texts, and being able to articulate how they appeared and what their effect was, and how that helped achieved the purpose.
     I think one way my posts could still improve is in the quantity of evidence. Often I will only cite one example to back up a point, when it could be strengthened with multiple examples. Overall, I think these TOWs helped me improve on my Analysis essays. They kept me sharp throughout the year when we moved onto learning other essays. I am not sure how much they helped me in gathering material to add to my arsenal of knowledge, but I still think they were useful.

TOW #26 Mio GPS ad

Reading goal: visual text
Writing goal: good intro

     In the past when people would go on road trips they would take along a big fold out map. If they got lost they would have to either stop and ask for directions, or sprawl the map across the hood of the car and figure out the best route to take. Nowadays, in the age of technology, these giant maps are becoming obsolete, replaced by electronic maps and direction-givers: GPS. One brand of GPS, Mio, released an ad that features a several roads looking like they have been tangled up and tied in a knot. In this ad, Mio used metaphor and hyperbole to convey how well Mio GPSs give directions.
     Pictured right in the center of the ad is a giant metaphor: roads being depicted as a tangled knot of yarn or string. The metaphor of the roads being tangled like string serves to emphasize the feelings of helplessness and anxiety that people associate with getting lost. When one doesn't know where he or she is going, then the roads might as well be tangled up into a knot. Luckily, the add presents a solution to this problem: a Mio GPS! Through the metaphor, Mio explains that their GPSs are top-notch, and can get people to where they need to go.
     The metaphor is strengthened through the use of hyperbole. The extent to which people get lost is clearly exaggerated. Sure people ma take a wrong turn or two, but the roads are never tied up in a knot. The hyperbole has the effect of conveying that a Mio GPS is effective at giving directions even in the unlikely worst-case-scenario, and has the effect of emphasizing just how good the Mio is at giving direction.
     This ad appeals to the basic human desire to save time by getting where they need to go. Through metaphor and hyperbole, the ad presents a way never to get lost again: the Mio GPS. It even pointedly asks in the corner "Lost?" Well perhaps if you had a Mio GPS you wouldn't be.

TOW #25 IRB Post

 Reading goal: IRB
Writing goal: connect to thesis

   April 15th, 1865 was a fateful day in America. Famous actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed beloved president Abraham Lincoln, just as the Civil War was coming to a close. This single gunshot had far wider ramifications than the death of one man. In fact, the entire politics of Reconstruction were changed by the absence of Lincoln's strong leadership. How on earth did Booth manage to assassinate the most important man in America? James L. Swanson explains exactly how in his book Manhunt. In Manhunt, Swanson integrates primary sources accounts to inform people how Booth planned and succeeded in killing president Lincoln.
     Swanson integrates a wide variety of primary source documents into his book, like diary entries and letters to give a very accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the people surrounding Booth and Lincoln at the time of the assassination. For example, Swanson includes a letter from Booth to his mother, as well as a recalled snippet of dialogue with a friends, found in the friend's journal. Booth expressed a desire to both of them that he had a strong hatred for Lincoln, who had dismantled the Confederacy of which Booth was so fond of. (7, 37). He even said to his friend that he had the opportunity to kill Lincoln at his inauguration: "What a great opportunity I had, if I had wished, to kill the President." With quotes and primary sources, the audience to able to discern exactly what Booth was feeling, since they are his own words. The same goes for the dozens of other people quoted in the book who viewed the assassination first hand. These sources increase the accuracy of the book and also the audiences understanding.
     Swanson, of course, was not at Forbe's Theatre in 1865. He did not witness Lincoln getting shot, or Booth running away, yet he is able to write as if he did. Since Swanson incorporates so many primary sources, it seems like he has the knowledge as some one who was there, and makes the reader feel like they were too. Through his book, Swanson keeps the memory of this event alive.

TOW #24 Howard Zinn "Or Does It Explode?"

Writing goal: lots of examples for each deviece

Reading goal: something a little bit longer   

     There are always two sides to every story, but often one side's story is louder than the other thus more well known. In history, we often do not hear the voices of those who are oppressed. The atrocities they face or faced are often sugar-coated or watered down, because if they were exposed for what they truly are people would be distinguished by their country and the people they are supposed to idolize. Howard Zinn, a renowned historian, feels that it's his duty to give people an accurate representation of history, atrocities and all. In his book A People's History of the United States he retells history that often vastly contrasts the one people learn in school. In the chapter "Or Does It Explode?" Zinn discusses the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's and the racism highly prevalent in the country and the government at the time. Zinn uses real accounts and statistics to explain the true extent of the discrimination black citizens felt during the 1960's.
     Howard Zinn is not a black man, and did not live during the 60's, but provided several accounts of those who did. He tells the tale of a black teenager named James Crawford, who was taking elderly black citizen to the courthouse to register to vote. There, Crawford was confronted by the deputy registar, who threatened to "[put] two bullets in [his] head."(Zinn 3) Zinn provides an actual primary source from the encounter, for another worked had taken notes on the conversation and then had them published. Zinn tells not only the account of Crawford\, but of many others as well. He recounts the story of four girls killed in a bombing of a black church, and three civil rights workers, one black and two white, who were beaten and shot by police officers after being released from spending the night in jail (Zinn 3, 4). The accounts add specificity to Zinn's writing. He does not simply say "many blacks were horridbly mistreated". That statement is makes the extent and frequency of the mistreatment hard to comprehend, and all come across as unsubstantiated. But, with the addition of several real accounts, Zinn not only gives a face to the oppressed, evoking emotions, but also adds evidence to his claim, making it undeniable that blacks faced horrendous discrimination while fighting for their civil rights.
       Zinn includes specific numbers and statics, which compliment the accounts by painting a picture of just how frequently such discrimination occurred. He explains that "[o]f 22,000 back people in Albany, over a thousand went to jail for marching, assembling, to protest segregation and discrimination" (3) and that in 3,600 people, both black and white, were confronted with violence and were arrested during sit-ins (2). These numbers add to Zinn's credibility as an author, by provide data to back up his claims, but also help the audience comprehend just how widespread the discrimination was. Many people were beaten, jailed, and killed for peacefully expressing their opinion, and the statistics show the extent of this discrimination by quantifying just how many "many" is.
     History is not always what it seems. In America the government is praised for being just, and offering freedom to all, but unfortunately this was and is not always the case. Through personal accounts and statistics Zinn portrays the discrimination faced by the black population as they were fighting for this freedom that they were promised by being an American citizen. The picture Zinn paints is quiet different than one found in a history book, but as Zinn says, "the memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away." Those who were oppressed will never forget, and neither should we.

IRB Intro Post #4

This marking period I will be reading Manhunt by James L. Swanson. This book chronicles the "12-day chase for Lincoln's killer." It explains how John Wilkes Booth, famous American actor during the Civil War Era plotted and then executed his fateful assassination of President Lincoln, then how he spent twelve days on the run before being caught. The book includes primary accounts from journals and documents of the era. I chose this book because my dad reccomended it to me, and also because I love American history, and am excited to gain a more in depth understanding of an event that had such a drastic effect on our nation's history.

TOW #23 "Getting A Degree in Victimhood" excerpt

     In 2011, UCLA altered its requirements for English majors. Instead of being required to take courses on Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton, English majors must take a total of three classes in classes like: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies. Victoria Mac Donald, a journalist at the Wall Street Journal, is outraged at this curriculum change, and notes how it exemplifies just how obsessed our society is becoming with "victimhood". Especially in schools, we have been focusing too much on the oppression of the past, and the circumstances of certain people rather than the great work they have produced. In her article"Getting a Degree in Victimhood" Mac Donald use negative diction and testimonial to condemn UCLA for focusing too much on victimhood rather than the more important aspects of the humanities.
     Mac Donald is not shy about using extremely negative words to attack UCLA's decision to change their curriculum. She writes, that "Course catalogs today babble monotonously of group identity" and "The UCLA coup represents the characteristic academic traits of our time: narcissism, an obsession with victimhood, and a relentless determination to reduce the stunning complexity of the past to the shallow categories of identity and class politics.". With negative words like "babble monotonously", "narcissism", "shallow categories", the author talks about the change in an extremely derogatory way, belittle the board at UCLA and their decision. The audience gets a feeling about just how foolish their decision to change the curriculum was, as well as the ridiculousness of the movement in education that it is reflecting. Thus with her negative diction Mac Donald condemns UCLA.
       Mac Donald also uses testimonial to show UCLA's mistake in the ciriculum change, by quotes W.E.B. Du Bois. She quotes him saying: "Du Bois, living during America's darkest period of hate, nevertheless heartbreakingly affirmed in 1903 his intellectual and spiritual affinity with all of Western civilization: "I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas. . . . I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension." With the inclusion of this quote, Mac Donald asserts that UCLA's decision is not only foolish, but unnecessary. If they are doing out of a case of white guilt, well even prominent African-American rights leader, during a times of segregation no less, advocated the merit in these writers. Quoting Du Bois gives Mac Donald's argument more backing, helping her condemn UCLA.
      Mac Donald's article explores a very interesting trend in education, one that she is not happy about. Her discontent is evident throughout her article with her use of negative diction and testimonial. 



Shakespeare=Empire? 

TOW #22 PETA

PETA is known for creating outrageous ads that are meant to outrage people, or guilt them into being more environmentally and animal friendly. In this ad, PETA uses appeals to guilt and celebrity endorsement to convince people that wearing fur clothing is wrong.
     The ad uses guilt by featuring a picture of a bunny, along with the caption "Try telling him it's only a fur trim". Bunnies are often viewed as a symbol of innocent, or if anything, universally acknowledged as cute. The ad implies that in order to have a fur trim on clothing, the bunny must be killed. Most fur-wearers would just shrug this off by saying "it's just a little fur trim." By putting the bunny in the ad, PETA asks the fur-wearers to confront the bunny, putting a face to the fur, and making them feel more responsible for the murder of an innocent creature. By making the audience feel guilty, PETA makes them less inclined to wear fur.
     PETA also uses a celebrity endorsement, Natalie Imbrugulia, an actress and singer. By having her in the ad, PETA asserts that she is an advocate against the use of fur for clothing. Since people look up to celebrities, having one tell them directly that something is wrong would make them less likely to do the thing, like wear fur.
     This ad is one of PETA's less graphic and dramatic ads, but it still heavily plays with people's emotions. Through guilt and celebrity endorsement, this ad forces people to address the issue of fur in fashion, and hopefully makes them less inclined to support animal-cruelty businesses by boycotting fur clothing.

TOW #21 Political Cartoon

Writing goal: Strong tie to thesis
Reading goal: Political Cartoon

     It is shocking that even today people hold prejudices and are filled with hate. Though they have gained rights in many states, members of the LBGT community face discrimination each and every day. Unfortunately, this discrimination extents to brave men and women who are willing to risk their lives in the military. Gay and lesbian soldiers often have to serve "in the closet", or keep their sexuality a secret out of fear of being discharged or demoted. This political cartoon attacks the prejudices faced by gay soldiers. It uses symbolic imagery and a rhetorical question to establish that a soldier's sexual orientation is not important.
      The cartoon features three coffins, each covered in an American flag, a powerful symbol of service to the American military. The covered coffin is a symbol of sacrifice in America, as it represents a serviceman or servicewoman who has died in the line of duty. Showing them in the cartoon is intended to generate feelings of admiration and respect for the fallen heros of our military. Since these people gave the ultimate sacrifice, their life, it shouldn't matter whether or not they were gay. The only thing that should matter is their bravery and loyalty to their country.
     However, this powerful conclusion would not be reached without the aid of the rhetorical question at the bottom of the cartoon, which reads: "Which is the gay one?". The question is effective because it cannot be answered. There is no way to tell which of the three soldiers was gay, and that is the point. In the end it doesn't matter if they were gay or not, as they did the same service and gave the same sacrifice as straight soldiers.
     This cartoon shows through symbolism and rhetorical question that a soldier's sexuality does not matter. A person should be judged by their character not by the gender of the person they love. It's sad that people who are willing to risk their lives are scared to be themselves because of some of the very people they protect. Hopefully someday we will live in a world without this kind of discrimination.

TOW #20 JFK Speech Following MLK assassination

Reading goal: something different and new. Maybe a speech?

Writing goal: identify several and applicable devices.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html

    On April 4, 1986, a great American hero, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed in Memphis TN. Many Americans were shocked at this act of violence and hatred aimed not only at King himself, but all African Americans who were fighting for their civil rights. The death of MLK may have made the split between black and white seems even larger. President Kennedy delivered a speech later that very day to address the assassination, and rally the American people. Throughout his speech, Kennedy uses collective pronouns and repetition to unify Americans in the face of this tragedy.
     Kennedy's use of pronouns like "we" and "us" exemplify unity. He says Americans have two choices: "We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization" or " we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence". Through the use of collective pronouns he represents Americans as a collective unit, one united people, and tells them they can react to the death in a certain way. Of course the more appropriate way to act is to allow the tragedy to bring Americans together at the united people we are, as exemplified by Kennedy's collective pronouns.

     He reminds Americans of the goal they should be working together unified towards through the use of repetition. He repeats certain words throughout his speech, like understanding, justice, love, and compassion. These words all coincide with King's teaching. By repeating them, he reminds Americans that what King wanted was for people to come together peaceful for justice. In doing so, he calls Americans together to continue his teachings so that he will not die in vain. By using the words, he helps unite the people.

     With such a tragic event, it would have been hard for many black Americans, as well as white Americans, to remain true to King's nonviolent teachings. People would ave been angry, and blacks would have felt even more separate than white. So, JFK felt the need to unify American people, and encourage them to keep moving in the right direction of civil rights. He does so in his speech with the use of collective pronouns and repetition..

TOW #19 "O Captain! My Captain!"

     Reading goal: Read something different than you have before (I choose a poem. I have never analysed a poem for a TOW before, and often find poetry challenging to understand and analyze.)
    Writing goal: Connect each point back to the thesis.

        Literally only days after the end of the civil came to a close, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater. It was truly a tragedy, for in the aftermath of the war, the country was in physical, social, and political shambles and desperately needed Lincoln's strong leadership to keep the union united. Walt Whitman, a prominent poet of the era, recognized the full extent of this tragedy. In his poem "O Captain! My Captain!", Whitman uses an extended metaphor and repetition to illustrate the enormity of the loss of Abraham Lincoln.

            Throughout the poem Whitman does not directly mention Lincoln or the assassination, but instead uses an extended metaphor to describe the tragedy. He describes a boat, that having weathered many storms, finally emerged victorious, only to find the Captain dead on the deck (lines 2-10). Whitman is alluding to Lincoln and the war, equating Lincoln to the Captain, and the ship to the Union. He demonstrates that just as a ship is lost without her captain, the United States will be lost without Lincoln.  By using this metaphor, Whitman relays just how crucial Lincoln is to the country and helps the audience comprehend the true extent of Lincoln's loss.

            Whitman reiterates this loss through the use of repetition. Though he discusses the American people celebrating the war's end, he abruptly reminds them of the loss by ending each stanza by describing Lincoln's death with the line "fallen cold and dead." The simple syntax of the phrase illustrates that there is no way to sugarcoat such a horrible event. The line is repeated three times throughout the poem, making the vivid imagery of Lincoln "fallen cold and dead" stick in the mind of the reader, most likely intended to generate an emotional response in the people. The repetition of this gruesome line reminds the reader that Lincoln's death was a monumental loss that will not easily be forgotten.

            President Abraham Lincoln was the first American president to be assassinated, and his murder shocked and appalled many Americans, especially Northern Republicans. Whitman was among them, and described the profound loss of the President in his poem through the use of metaphor and repetition. On the other hand, many Democratic Southerners rejoiced at the death of Republican Lincoln, for they did not have the hindsight that Whitman had in recognizing that the country would struggle in the absence of Lincoln's leadership. As weak-leader VP Johnson and anti-South Congress took over Reconstruction the South would come to recognize the true tragedy in the absence of Abraham Lincoln that Whitman describes in "O Captain! My Captain!".

The Poem:

1 O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!	5
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.
O Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells;
Rise up—for you the flag is flung—for you the bugle trills;	10
For you bouquets and ribbon’d wreaths—for you the shores a-crowding;
For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning;
Here Captain! dear father!
This arm beneath your head;
It is some dream that on the deck,	15
You’ve fallen cold and dead.
My Captain does not answer, his lips are pale and still;
My father does not feel my arm, he has no pulse nor will;
The ship is anchor’d safe and sound, its voyage closed and done;
From fearful trip, the victor ship, comes in with object won;	20
Exult, O shores, and ring, O bells!
But I, with mournful tread,
Walk the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

TOW #18 Pedigree Ad

      Dog is said to be man's best friend. For many people, their dog is just that, and it part of the family. Thus, people of course want the best for their beloved pets, and value what it is that they feed them. One dog food brand, Pedigree, advertises their dog food as one that makes dogs stronger. Through the use of hyperbole they promote their product, convincing dog owners to purchase it.
      The ad uses hyperbole by featuring a do digging a hole in asphalt to bury its bone. The act of digging the hole is not in itself an exaggeration, for this is normal behavior for dogs, but the idea that a dog could dig a hole in an asphalt road is quite ridiculous, for it would not be nearly strong enough. The caption above the dog reads "For strong dogs", implying that this dog is strong enough to dig through asphalt because it was fed Pedigree dog food, which is of course is a wild exaggeration. The hyperbole takes a quality that Pedigree wishes to highlight, that it makes dogs stronger, and emphasizes it. So, even through the reader knows that it cannot make their dog strong enough to dig a hole in asphalt, the image of the super strong dog will stick in their mind, and they will associate Pedigree with strength. This association will make them more likely to purchase the food, because they want their dog to be strong.
     The ad uses hyperbole in a humorous way to exaggerate the best qualities of the product. This then appeals to the pathos of loving dog owners, who want Fido to be the best dog that he can be. At the very least, the ridiculousness will make the ad memorable for the audience, who then will be more likely to recall the ad and purchase Pedigree dog food when strolling the dog food aisle at the grocery store.

IRB Intro #3

This marking period I will be reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Since I already read two memoirs, I wanted to mix it up with something more scientific. I also love biology, and will hope this will relate to some of the things I am learning in AP Bio. This book presents Dawkins theories on social evolution, which I think sounds fascinating. It discusses how those with tendencies to be more selfish tend to survive more, and thus are favored by natural selection. Yet, altruism still exists in nature, so why is that? As I read I hope to find out!

TOW #17 Mark Bitman NY Times article

People often think that becoming a vegetarian means adopting a bland, monotonous diet that exclusively grains and vegetables. However Mark Bittman, New York Times Food journalist and author of How to Cook Everything Vegetarian: Simple Meatless Recipes for Great Food, constantly contradicts this line of thought by producing articles and recipes that highlight the clear benefits of vegetarianism, as well as its exciting palate. In the intro of his book How to Cook Everything Vegetarian, Bittman uses exemplification and non-judgemental tone to introduce vegetarianism to his readers as beneficial and painless practice that they should incorporate into their lives.

Many people incorporate becoming a vegetarian with a lack of variety and options, but Bittman contradicts this with exemplification. He writes that his book "contains everything you need to know to cook every vegetable, fruit, grain, legume, and dairy product you can readily find," as well as "everything from plain rice, to things you may have never heard of, like seitan." By including several examples, Bittman displays that being a vegetarian does not mean your diet is revered for vegetables, and can include a variety of delicious and exotic foods. Bittman also uses exemplification to explain the benefits of vegetarianism. He explains that not only is it healthier, but leads to better treatment of animals and a reduced environmental impact. Bittman exemplifies the variety, as well of the benefits of vegetarianism, making the practice appeal more to his readers.

Despite all of the political and environmental issues surrounding vegetarianism, Bittman has a reserved and nonjudgemental tone. Assumedly most of his readers are mothers, who may feel like switching to vegetarian may be a hassle in their already busy lives. He writes that he is not trying to convince them to become a full fledged vegetarianism, but that they can incorporate meals with less meat into their lives. This approach is likely to resonate with mothers, instead of one that accuses them of feeding unhealthy, meatfilled meals to their children, an approached used by many vegan and vegetarian advocates.

TOW #16 IRB post #2

David Sedaris did not have a glamourous childhood, yet his memoirs in his autobiography Naked are compelling and attention-grabbing. As Sedaris writes about who he is, and how he came to be the man he is today, he recounts his humble beginnings. Through contrast and and humor, he tells the story of his childhood in an interesting and through-provoking manner.
The first essay of the book is titled "Chipped Beef". The essay starts out by recounting Sedaris's "anit-childhood", the childhood he wanted but did not have. He talks about his rich family, who is so beautiful they are asked to sit in the front row of church, as to not distract those attending the service, and are often stopped on the street and asked for autographs. The memoir is actually quite confusing at first, though very amusing. One is not completely certain that Sedaris is not speaking truthfully about his childhood until his mother wakes him from a dream, and Searis is brought back to reality.
The reality of his life if quite different than his fantasy. His parents have many children, and struggle to support them all. Sedaris is angry at his life sometimes, wanting a more luxurious one. This stark contrast, which is sharpened by the humor of his "dream" paints a picture for the reader of Sedaris's lot in life, allowing them to better understand where he
 comes from.

TOW #15 William H. Seward "Irrepressible Conflict" Speech

     In the 1850-60s in the United States, tensions revolving slavery were at an all time high. The country was almost evenly split, with the North calling for the abolition of slavery and institution of a Free-Soil system, and the South demanding to keep slavery. In his "Irrepressible Conflict" speech, Senator William H. Seward of New York noted that it was impossible for "two radically different political systems" to exist in the same nation. Though Seward is most notable for his idea that slavery violates a "higher law", (a very moral and emotional appeal), "Irrepressible Conflict" is a surprisingly rational argument. Through contrast and testimonials, he explains that slavery and free-labor systems can not both exist in the United States, and calls for the abolition of slavery.
     Seward exemplifies the negatives of slavery by contrasting it with a free-labor system. He notes that most of the world has abolished slavery in exchange for a free-labor system. He writes that free-labor is synonymous with "the strength, wealth, greatness, intelligence, and freedom which the whole American people now enjoy." (para. 5). This extreme praise of a free-labor system is very opposite to his description of slavery: "The slave system is not only intolerable, unjust and inhuman towards the laborer... but is scarcely less severe upon the freeman, whom... it denies facilities for employment." Seward praises the free-labor system, equating it desirable traits the American people would want, and condemns the slave system for not only being morally unjust, but also economically hindering for white Americans. Through the contrast of the two political systems, he illustrates how vastly different they are, and, explains, "they are more than incongruous-- they are incompatible." He proves this by quoting Napoleon, who held the same view when France was split between to vastly different parties, the Cossack and Republican parties. Thus Seward explains that the two cannot exist together, and that a free-labor system would be more beneficial in America, for slavery is not only morally wrong, but economically unsustainable as well.
 Seward then points out, through testimonials, that his views are not revolutionary, but in fact shared by many of the founding fathers. He says, "[The Founding Fathers] regarded the existence of the servile system in so many of the States with sorrow and shame, which they openly confessed, and they looked upon the collision of them" (para. 11) Seward goes onto explain that the forefathers knew that two separate abor systems in American would not work out, and that the two would eventually collide, which is why they included such provisions in the Constitution that would allow for the gradual abolition of slavery. By including the testimonies of the Founding Fathers, Seward makes his claims seem much more reputable and logical. Of course people think that the founding fathers knew what was best for the nation, and they thought that the best thing was to abolish slavery.
      William H. Seward makes excellent use of contrast and testimonials in order to advocate for the abolition of slavery. Seward was just one of many people who worked to abolish slavery in the United States in the 1850s. Though many advocated for the peaceful transition to a free-labor system, it would take a civil war to finally end slavery.

William H. Seward himself whoa

TOW #14 Prudential ad

This weekend I went to New York, and while on the subway I saw a series of Prudential ads urging people to consider retirement, avoid procrastinating, and start saving now. My favorite ad read: "Retirement in Miami, Florida looks a lot different than Miami, Ohio". The ad uses a strong compare and contrast to get people to consider retirement, especially one managed by Prudential.
The two Miamis are skillfully compared. The ad uses the same font and font size for both, and they are aligned one beneath the other. In this manner the ad does a nice job of humorously highlighting that the only similarity of the two is the name. It uses imagery of the beach for Miami, Florida, and greenery and foliage for Miami, Ohio, contrasting the two. The images are accompanied with the words "Where you retire has a lot to do with when you can retire". This blurb along with the contrasting options of tropical Florida and lush Ohio is intended to intrigue people about the different retirement options they have, as well as encourage them to start planning ahead, so they can have the retirement right for them. Of course, they should plan for their retirement with Prudential.
The ad is perfect for a subway because it is witty, and visual appealing, likely to stick in one's mind.