AOW twelve (advertisement)

This advertisment, as most are, is based on audience reaction. There is a cute dog in a very strange situation. The most effective advertisements are the ones that require second glances. At first glance all that gets accross is the dog, then at the second glance it is understood that there's a tiger rug biting its leg. This requires that second glance, because its unusual, and not a normal image that we can match with our daily lives. The strangeness of the situation is all thats required to attract the audiences attention. After that second glance, there is the question. Why is a tiger rug biting the dog? This is what leads you to the small unobtrusive text at the bottom advertising batteries. Obviously after seeing this advertisement, you are not going to leap off your couch and run to the nearest cvs to buy a battery, but it does imbed the image of that battery in your mind. Its an image you will not quickly forget, and it is now associated in your subconcience with a Kodak battery, therefore making it more likely you will choose that particular battery when you next need one. There all of these different aspects to the advertsiment that are taken in in a meer second. It all apeals to the questioning nature of humans, and the tendency for curiosity to form around objects that some how draw aur attention (such as cute animals).

Unit 2 Reflection

Argumentative/Persuasive Essay on Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, or Rousseau- Reading Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, or Rousseau, one gets a similar view of mankind but with different suggestions for its management.Using your own critical understanding of contemporary society as evidence, write a carefully argued essay that explains your support of either Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau.

If political views were placed on a spectrum, Machiavelli and Rousseau would be on opposite ends. Hobbes and Locke would be the lesser extremes. Machiavelli and Hobbes have the more “real” perception of people. They believe them to be naturally bad, whereas Locke and Rousseau think the opposite. Rather than fret with how people would have naturally been before they became a society, we should view how people are in the present. Rousseau believes that by creating a strong central government inhibits the personal rights of citizens, and their naturally good ways are strangled. Although, we shouldn’t dabble in what people might have been if they never joined into any sort of social contract. After observing the way the world of humans has changed and evolved marked by bloody wars and conflicts, it would be difficult not to admit that human nature is not as good as Locke and Rousseau seem to think. So if we establish that humans are inherently bad, a form of government and its management should be formed that counteracts that agreed upon fact.

            Machiavelli is spot on with his opinions on how a ruler should rule. He speaks of how a ruler cannot always act “good” if he is going to keep order in a society of people who are not naturally good anyway. Men are simply selfish, so if a social contract is not enforced newfound individualism would breed chaos and anarchy. People need to be conformed under one goal and under the order of a single powerful government if they will be shaped into the most that they can be.

            As put earlier, men are bad and selfish. A ruler has to resort to harsh methods at times to keep people in order. For without harsh consequences, which create fear, men will have no reason to invest themselves in any sort of social contract to better the community. What needs to be called to mind is reality. People will not just help their neighbors out of the goodness of their hearts; they need to have a hand held over them to lead them in certain directions. It is almost like a game. Governments have to predict the motives of both their enemies and their own people. Order can easily crumble if someone is bribed enough to take out the keystone, and without any sort of consequence the bribe price will not be so high. Rousseau and locke seem to float in their ideas for a dream world, whereas Machiavelli just states how it is, and what needs to be done to manage it.

Article of the Week #11

The Hollywood life and mysterious death of Natalie Wood revisited 30 years later

Fatal Thanksgiving boat trip with Christopher Walken and hubby Robert Wagner

see article here

                                                         

This article revisits the strange death of Natalie Woods. Either it was an accident with alcohol as the main culpret, or there was murder in the air. The way the author presents the story, the whole situation seems a little strange for it to have just been an accident... The author David Hinckley, a journalist for the New York Daily News, chose to write this story in time for thanksgiving, which was when the unfortunate event took place 30 years ago. He captures the attention of his audience with the hook:

she was dead.
Mysteriously dead.
Dead face down in the cold, dark ocean.

Dead after a night of drinking with two handsome men, one her husband and one not her husband.
Beautiful dame, tragic end. It’s a story as eternal as Hollywood.
It’s also a story in search of an ending.

His abrupt statements and repetition of the word dead instantly makes the readers sympathize with the tragic ending of the beautiful and talented actress. The rest of the article that comes to follow builds up to that question; what happened? The fact that we still don't know the answer to that question is like reading a novel and then refusing to read the last chapter. I think the authors purpose is infact to make us question the death of Natalie Woods. When the incident occured it was believed to be an accident, but its been reopened. The author gives us reason to question the death. He also presents Natalie Woods in a way that makes the audience regret her death, wishing she had been able to make her comeback  in the movie world. As a result of this regret, it fills the audience with the desire for maybe even vengence on the person who might be responsible. The author did succeed in creating the gaps that allow enough room for doubt. The entire incident is.... a peculiar one.

                                                    

IRB choice # 2

Title: An Everlasting Meal
By: Tamar Adler

Break down:
Section 1: pages 0-90
Section 2: pages 90-180
Section 3: pages 180-250

Why? "I've read few books that ask us to think about food with this kind of elegance, whether discoursing on how to cook an egg or how to set a table." An author who can describe the art of boiling like poetry, must be worth reading.

Article of the Week Ten

Comparing two articles on the same topic:

Why do parents buy chicken pox lollies?  see link here

Vs

Swapping chicken pox-infected lollipops is illegal  see link here

Both of these articles are on exactly the same topic and yet they take them in opposite directions. The article "Swapping chicken pox-infected lollipops is illegal" describes how dangerous and stupid the practice is, whereas the article "Why do parents buy chicken pox lollies?" acknowledges the dangers but then goes on to describe why parents would even consider it. "Swapping...illegal" is very onesided, it doesn't acknowledge the opposing side once. This makes it a much less appealing article because it doesnt establish a great quantity of credibility. It also establishes a very negative and rude tone towards anyone who could be on the otherside of the controversy. Either the author did not seem to have in mind the reactions of his audience while writing, or he wanted to have that reaction from the audience. The "Why" author does establish that he sees the practice as dangerous and uneducated, but he goes on to describe why the other side may be willing to make the risk. The author sympathizes with the opposing side. This makes me much more inclined to side with the author, and believe him to be more credible. The tone of this article is more...calm. The author seems to say, this is what I think, this is why, this is why what others may say is not what you should think, but you can decide for yourself what you will think (obviously though, what I think is right). He includes plenty of facts and data to further support his view and his overall presentation or delivery is much more pleasing than the previous article. The author for for the "why" article therefore was more successful in turning his audience to think his way than the other.

Final Independent Reading

A Walk in the Woods

By Bill Bryson

Part 1 of A Walk in the Woods describes the struggles and the adventures of Bryson and Kats as they take on the Appalachian Trail. They start at Springer Mountain in Georgia. When they reach Gatlinburg Bryson catches a glimpse of a minimized map of the trail, out of 4 feet of map they had only traversed 2 inches. This is the moment when they realize, they won’t be able to travel the whole way. So they choose to skip over a stretch and begin again in Virginia. Part 1 ends when they reach Front Royal, Virginia. In Part 2, Bryson and Kats part for the summer. Bryson spends much of the summer trying to keep up his momentum by walking day hikes and taking short camping trips in the Northeast section of the trail. In August, Bryson is reunited with Kats to brave the hundred Mile stretch in the wilderness of Maine. Each Chapter focuses on a specific event, a place (such as Gatlinburg), or a person they encounter (like Mary Ellen). This organization keeps up the momentum of the story which presents the factual narrations that might have been dull in a more interesting manner. The Hike through the Trail focuses mainly on the strikingly contrasting worlds that are located so closely. The woods that stand 2 miles from the car can be a scary and treacherous place, as well as an environment of peace and beauty. It is difficult for Bryson and Kats to adjust to this strange world, but when they leave that world they leave with a new perspective. The world of gas stations and K-marts are not so appealing, although it is much easier to adjust to the comfortable beds and Television. Through Bysons humorous language, his narrative style, and effective integration of facts he was able to remind us of the wonderful world that stands in our back yards and to nurture an awareness of how to be mindful of the extent of resources we take from it.