November: Advertising

During the month of November, we started to examine the use of language in advertising. Constantly, we are subject to a stream of different catch phrases and slogans that are attempts to persuade potential customers to purchase a certain project. We examined these tactics by watching different documentaries and reading different texts based on certain strategies as well as created our own advertising poster that demonstrated our knowledge of advertising lingo and ideas. Our posters were made to target audiences other than the usual audience of a specific product.

I really liked how much I learned about "weasel words," words that allow an advertiser to make false or irrelevant claims, as well as all the advertising techniques. I became aware of how often these techniques were used, surprisingly all the time, as well as how I can disregard certain claims or elated truths. I didn't like the poster project however because many of my peers found a project I created with another classmate as "offensive and unrelated to the topic" yet I felt it was very on par with what we were doing. Our poster, seen below, was an ipod advertisement for the deaf, which I feel is a perfect poster when targeting unlikely audiences but many found our poster needed to be changed, so minor changes were made to make the language more mild.

Essay 2: Prop 10

“Vote YES!” “VOTE NO!” A very aggressive, very unappealing proprietor of a proposition and an extremely loud activist are screaming into the face of Mr. Smith, an average man who is in transit from his job to his apartment. Though he is unsure which of the paths these two men offer is a better choice for his kids’ future, all these men are doing are causing confusion. Isn’t it just easier to read the bill? Unfortunately, one of the most influential propositions on the ballot for Californians in the year 2008 is the most deceiving proposition ever written.
Currently, the energy crisis is at an all time high. Politicians preach the importance of the nation withdrawing from its oil dependency for freedom from terrorist groups, while environmentalists stress the infallible truth that humankind is running out of such precious resources. Scientists predict bleak observations of what will happen to the human race in the future because of the effect that fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses have on the environment and the disposable tendencies of United States’ products. Every person in the country wonders, “What can we do next, despite the hopelessness created by the economy and our destructive tendencies?”
Supposedly, California has come up with an answer. On the ballot, coming up along with the presidential election, is a proposition meant to solve all problems with the environmental conflicts. Proposition 10 is a referendum that is intended to help wean Californians off of vehicles powered by foreign oil, which is exponentially rising in price. This initiative cites many progressive strategies to solve the problem with oil and ways that California can incorporate them into its very strong research programs. The text reaches out to the scientific community and extends an offer to the important minds that are working on creating renewable energy vehicles and more efficient ways of transporting the average population in an economically efficient and environmentally friendly fashion.
Thus, the referendum contains key elements towards saving both the economy and the environment. The text of the proposition expands on ideas of how to get renewable energy at the head of the scientific community. In Section 26417 of the proposition, it states that "the sum of one billion dollars...shall be awarded for grants and other incentives for the research, development, construction and production of advanced renewable electric generation technology for the purpose of reducing the cost and greenhouse gas content [ of vehicles in California" (Paris 9) creating motivation for successfully crafting a project that will solve the electric vehicle problem. Renewable energy has had a notorious history of being shut down by large corporations and lobbies in the interest of money, but this proposition will help propel the research into safer legal and fiscal territory. Electric cars were a possible solution to the problem until the automotive industry went through extreme measures to get rid of all electric vehicles that were purchased, because of the cohesive nature of the car companies and the oil lobbies. The proposition defined seems like it is the only hope of creating an immunity for such vehicles to exist on the roads of California.
Additionally, the proposition has a defined plan for creating the budget to fund the procedures defined in the text. Proposition 10 proposes that $5 billion will be taken out in General Obligation Bonds to provide for rebates on clean vehicle purchasing and research. General Obligation Bonds as defined by Investopedia are "municipal bond[s] backed by the credit and 'taxing power' of the issuing jurisdiction rather than the revenue from a given project" meaning that the money will be paid back with funds from statewide taxes and overall revenue generated by the projects proposed in Proposition 10. The proposition's text says that "the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and the interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335" (Vogel) which will be all of the money needed to cover the proposition if it is approved. Though the costs of the process would be more money added to the debt of California, it would seem obvious that the total benefits of pushing this proposition outweigh the disadvantages of taking out the money needed for it.
Unfortunately, Proposition 10 is more slanted than it seems. The text was written by paid professionals under the supervision of T. Boone Pickens, a Texas natural-gas tycoon, with the intent to raise the demand of natural gas and manipulate the market. Pickens is the founder and chairman of British Petroleum Capital Management and has become infamous through many different lawsuits during the past ten years, though he is also known for trying to pursue alternative energy- specifically wind- so that America can shed its dependance on foreign oil. Pickens was the driving force behind the writing of Proposition 10 and put more than $3 million dollars into writing and promoting the referendum to the Californian populace. Richard Holober, a leading expert in renewable energy, labels the proposition as "fuel" for Pickens' Clean Energy Fuel Corp. Pickens made sure to write the bill to give more emphasis on natural gas, one of his prime products, than on cleaner and more renewable sources of energy by offering more subsidies for a consumer to buy a natural gas vehicle than any other vehicle, including other vehicles proven to cause less damage to the environment (Holober). A bill with seemingly good intentions actually shows that a rich oil tycoon is trying to manipulate the economy with technical wording and deceptive writing in the bill.
Even more than the motives behind the bill, natural gas is not an acceptable solution for such an intense environmental problem and makes the proposition even more unsuitable. Natural gas is a resource that will soon run out, like the oil reserves that are slowly trickling away. The Merriam-Webster definition of renewable resources are resources that are "capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices." Natural gas is a limited resource, so it cannot be replaced by an ecological cycle or fit into the description of renewable energy and should not be grouped with solar energy, wind power or water power.
Additionally, even if Proposition 10 were less bias towards natural gas, it still has fiscal flaws. The bill proposes that California takes out $5 billion in General Obligation Bonds for rebates on vehicles and subsidies for successful research in renewable energy. Despite its good intentions, California has more than $60 billion in accumulated debts, and Proposition 10's proposed plan would raise the debt by another $10 billion for a quick solution to the current energy crisis. The debt would be paid off in 335 million dollar chunks every year, which would cause the debt to continue on to the next generation, most likely years after this proposition would stop being prevalent(Vogel). Had this referendum been transparent and not driven by selfish motives, it would have been a financial mistake and would have driven California debt by a hefty 17% of its current financial disaster. The proposition also lacks justification for how the General Obligation Bonds will be paid off. The idea is that the bonds will be paid off by the revenue of the project, but the revenue of the proposition is intended to give large subsidies to consumers who purchase a natural gas vehicle; taxes will not be able to make up for the huge debt that this proposition unloads. If there ever is a more feasible proposition that is not bias towards a specifically non-renewable source, then it needs to have a more sound fiscal plan.
Therefore, this Proposition is very deceptive to the Californian reader. Superficially, the text asks for money to fix an important problem and would accomplish the process realistically. Its a shame that a proposition like this was solely written to benefit one rich man's selfish motives and that the real motives behind the text were not. The proposition didn't feasibly assess the situation to progress into the next age of automotive transportation and hardened the hearts of many of the educated voters in California who may not trust another bill that will be written to promote renewable energy cars. California needs a new energy plan, one that can creatively work around the Californian budget crisis while still offering an effective solution to a problem that grows every single day.

Habits of Mind

Hemingway and the Bells

The theme in this novel is that expectations don’t always pan out. It is expectant of a new soldier to see war as exciting and something that will bring them purpose, when in the end, all it does is jade the said soldier. It really is for whom the bell tolls, ruining a given perception of a reality and purpose.

The reason anyone would read this book is that it is magnificent. I read this upon recommendation of Pam Baker (you!) instead of Farewell to Arms. From what I’ve read, I wasn’t too enthusiastic to read something by Hemingway, but I really enjoyed his writing style. Hemingway is extremely descriptive, though not in (fellow American) Steinbeck’s fashion. Everything in the world of For Whom The Bell Tolls is vivid and interesting.

The most important thing Hemingway is trying to say is that it’s difficult to have expectations and live them through. Robert James goes through the novel trying to fight for a cause he believes in, even jeopardizing his citizenship in his home country to battle in the name of the Republic. But as he begins to fight the war, he sees what he is really fighting for, and his purpose loses its meaning. Hemingway really shows the tolls of fighting on a battlefront and what constant fear and sorrow can do to the human race.

To make this story understandable to even the most illiterate, it’s about a guy who goes to Spain. And in this country, he fights in a war and tries to get a group of people to win, but in the end, doesn’t want those people to win the war.

This story was written in the midst of World War II, during the late 30’s and was published in 1940. The book came out before the bulk of the communist scare, yet the Capitalist United States was still against the Red countries. This book really examines the state of a country and its rebellion during the unsure period of the world after the first world war. The book takes place in Spain during the revolution of the “Republic” - a communist society that is extremely anti-fascist.

What I would have changed about the story is the length. The problem is the dense nature of the story. It’s a great concept with really good ideas, but the story goes on for a very long time, and Robert James has a lot of different flashbacks to create his character. And while these flashbacks are great at portraying Robert James and his position, they are very extraneous sometimes and tend to drone, typical of mid-20th century American authors.

The conflict in the story is between the idealist Robert James and his actual struggle with the small group of revolutionaries working in the hills. James needs to bomb a bridge, and falls in love with one of the girls in the cave that they stay in. He spends a considerable amount of time struggling with the burnt-out bandleader Pablo and his mistress Pilar.

When the bombing of the bridge happens, chaos ensues. Pablo’s band are all dead, and he is blamed by Fernando that he killed them all on purpose and Robert Jordan’s horse gets struck down, only to land on his leg. Robert gets left behind and tells Maria to go, and sacrifices himself for his love. Robert Jordan makes an ultimate sacrifice, not committing suicide and taking aim at the Fascist commander that has come to capture him, being able to take out an important leader in the attack.

As soon as they go to explode the bridge, the story becomes more tense. Everything starts to move more quickly, and things happen left and right; the death of the old man, Pablo’s band dying, more men of the cave dying and things going right and wrong.

The ending was not what I expected at all. I was really thinking that Robert Jordan was going to be able to leave the place where he ends up dead. It was not predictable and it was a really great ending to a really great book.

2 Books, 3 Responses. War.

All Quiet on the Western Front

The main character so far is the narrator of the book. Paul Baümer, the main character, joined the army with a group of his friends. He is a very transparent narrator and really conveys the emotions of the people around him. The first part of the book got me to really care about the characters because of the intimate emotional relationship between them. In the second chapter, when Kemmerich dies, Paul really becomes emotionally inflicted by the health of his friend, trying to get both Kemmerich and himself to believe that Kemmerich will become healthy and be able to go home. All of the characters are familiar with eachother from past experiences, so each encounter is personal for each character.

The conflict in the story is the feelings each soldier has towards the war. Paul at the beginning of the novel seems very torn. He talks about the war with nostalgia, about the bonds made between those who joined and the way they lived behind enemy lines, while he sometimes slips into the cynacism and sadness normally associated with war. I feel like this conflict will not be resolved and that the central idea of the book is the torn feelings towards battle in general.

All Quiet on the Western Front
(2nd Response)

The characters in this book have gone through a jaded transformation. When they entered the army, they were hopeful that the world had much to give them and that service would lead them to understand new things about life. Once they had become experienced to the grotesque nature of battle, they suddenly realized that life had nothing in store for them; the world seemed like such a terrible place to them. The front lines really caused them to change because they see men turn into cowards and military prospectives become hallowed and frightened by the normal explosions and gunfire. I can’t really relate to these characters only because I have not been in such a war.
The outcome of the story is going to be the characters leaving the army in one peace; the greatest curse of all. In the beginning of the book, there is a quote about how those who survived the war really died inside. Paul, the main character, continually becomes jaded throughout the novel and sees horrors that no young adult should really see. Once he leaves the army in a time of “peace,” he will not have the desire to do anything with his life and never really will live.

All Quiet on the Western Front

(3rd Response)

Personally, I cannot find any change to my life because of this book, but I do begin to understand the plight of the enlisted man. I have never been in the army and avoid it at all costs and this book seemed to justify my reasoning. Throughout the book, the main character Paul talks about how the men who are fighting in this war have nothing against one another and nothing to gain for themselves. I really liked the writing in this book and the anecdotes were emotionally intense but I didn’t like how depressing the book was as well as the fact that the main character had the tendancy to drone about the sadness associated with war. I would recommend this book to others for the sole fact that it is an enjoyable novel that has a very strong emotional tie to the human plight in warfare, but it is definitely not an optimistic book.

For Whom the Bell Tolls

So far the main characters are very mysterious. The main character is a man named Robert James; he is an American who is fluent in Spanish and is fighting on the side of the Republic against the Fascist government. His job is to blow up a bridge that will prevent reinforcements from arriving. Robert is a very quiet character, who only does what he needs to do, thinks about the things he is not supposed to think about and trusts no one. I like his logic as a character, but I would find it tough to like him as a person; he doesn't seem like the kind of person I would want to be around.

On the other hand, another main character is Anselmo, an strong old man who is Robert's tour guide. Anselmo is kind and likable, while he provides a strong base for Robert's mission. He knows what he is doing, but does not distrust others like Roberto.

The conflict in the story could very well be the fact that Roberto is an American fighting in Spain. He is in a war against a fascist power and technically has no bias; but he has very tough responsibilities put on his shoulder. Roberto must gain the trust of whoever he fights for, and be able to do what he needs to do, as well as keep himself sane in the forever battleground he is in.

For Whom The Bell Tolls
(2nd Response)

The characters have all become a lot more intertwined since the first third of the book. Robert Jordan has started a relationship with the working girl Mary, while he is starting to doubt his place on the Republican side. Robert Jordan originally joined the Republican side to help fight the fascist government but is soon figuring out that he doesn’t agree with the side he’s fighting on. His existence in this book is starting to question the saying, “An enemy of my enemy is a friend.” He sees that their morays are incorrect, and that all of the resistance relies on the idea that they can live in the hills forever.

I definitely understand Robert Jordan’s plight. I have joined a cause many times in my life only to find that I didn’t know what I’ve signed up for. It’s almost as if I understand how Robert Jordan feels disappointed that his expectations were blown out of proportion. I feel that the rest of this story will have to do with Robert Jordan trying to get out of his position in the conflict.

For Whom The Bell Tolls
(3rd Response)

By the end of the book, the message of this book is quite apparent: just because you share intentions with a cuase doesn’t mean that everything about the cause is perfect. In the book, Robert Jordan left his post at a college, risking his American citizenship only to find that the “Republicans” are just another group of vicious, yet cowardly Communist torturers. Additionally, every character in the book is mentally ravaged by the war- Maria by those who raped her, Robert Jordan through his distaste of communism, Pablo in his dissapation of his resistant emotions.

I really liked this book, not only because of the lush writing and intelligent themes, but the underlying messages that made this book more relevant than All Quiet On The Western Front. The messages (about suicide, war, human emotions) have to deal with how people interact in the modern world as well as how they hurt the people currently in war. I felt a lot more emotional connection to the characters in this book than All Quiet and the writing was incredible.

Essay 3 Revisions

Lead-in
Before, my lead in was not as relevant and had a more passive tone. In the revised sentence, I am directly comparing Hitler and the US Government instead of hinting that Hitler, the US Government and Acronyms might be similar. Now the lead-in ties in more to the essay than just stating an opinion.

Thesis
Once again, I changed the language to be less passive, as well as more precise and defined. To say that the three things stated are connected strongly versus an undeniable comparison is a huge difference.

Organization
If the Beyond Feelings example is moved into the paragraph about Hitler, there is less jumping around as far as its relationship to Nazi Germany goes. Before, Ruggiero’s book was its own example, but I referred back to the previous paragraph to use it and made the essay seem to stray off topic. Now its a more steady flow, and allows for use of another example.

Transitions
I changed some key transition words to make the ideas flow logicially. Instead of Hitler’s similar use of euphemisms as the US government being coincidental, its logical. Ironically became the link to the sentence linking

Use of Examples
Once the example from Beyond Feelings was moved, it became more potent. Additionally, now that it is part of the Hitler paragraph, I was able to add a new paragraph that referenced uses of acronyms by the government in another paragraph, giving my three examples in a more logical sequence.

Analysis and Explanations
Moving the Beyond Feelings example caused the analysis and explanation of Nazi Germany to be more thorough and important. Additionally, I added a new example to the two I previously had, and it provides more explanation and analysis on the topic.

Word Choice/Grammar
At many points in my essay, my language is too passive. Instead of stating a point, I am just hinting at possible connections, which makes everything seem less potent and apparent. By changing the language, it makes my lead-in, thesis and use of examples much stronger.

All the changes that I made to the essay that I wrote in class are things that would have been revised had this been just a regular out of class essay. Because I was under the stress of a limited amount of time, I was unable to locate my off-topic examples or passive language because I needed to churn out an essay in the required amount of time.

Essay 3: Dehumanization and Euphemization

Common Ground of Lies
(Corrections made and numbered in BOLD)

(1)How have Hitler, and the United States Government acted in the same way? Throughout the ages, humankind has found reasons to explain its actions, no matter how horrendous the consequences are. Though many leaders do not subscribe their policies to Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” all the world’s governments follow Machiavelli’s most tried and true principle: “The end justifies the means.” In his article “Dehumanizing People and Euphemizing War,” Dr. Haij Bosmajian- a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle-states that dehumanization effectively disarms allegation of inhumane treatment in his article. The article correctly cites politicians that used this technique and its effectiveness. (2)The connection between dehumanization, language and power is undeniable; they are all in exact proportion to one another.

The more relevant example of the relationship between euphemism and power stems from a current crisis and its comparative conflict. In the early twenty-first century, the Bush administration announced an invasion of Iraq to “find terrorists groups.” In the mid-1960’s, the Johnson administration declared a “police sanction” in Vietnam. What is similar about these two conflicts? The language used differed, while the inhumanity remained constant. The Vietnam War started out with powerful language needed to gain support; President Lyndon B. Johnson depicted the Vietcong and communist groups as regular “Commie Scum” and made them into unwanted objects while euphemizing mass killings. “When government officials talked of ‘regrettable byproducts' ... (they meant that) civilians (were) killed by mistake,” (Bosmajian 2). The difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraqi Conflict? Stronger language and less associated imagery with the killings. President Bush started the conflict by stating the governments intentions as trying to “smoke (terrorists) out of their holes” making them appear to be common garden pests. Unlike Vietnam, (6) no longer is there the ability to see video footage and photography from the warfront. The only source of what is happening in the war is the controlled and privately funded media as well as here-say from various independent sources. The war in Iraq has very little footage of the destroyed civilization and mutilated populace, separating and isolating the disturbed culture from the actions of the United States Military by eliminating the power of video footage and exhibiting the true power of words. (4)Ironically, the United States’ actions in Iraq are unquestionably similar to the actions of an empire that is deemed the antithesis of America.

(4)Logically, the Third Reich’s leading political group achieved their power and following in the same way that the American government gathered their political backing. Hitler’s propaganda so efficiently dehumanized the Jewish people; any politically outspoken human rights activist in Nazi Germany would have been fighting for a lost cause. The Nazi Party “As Richard Grunberger points out in The Twelve Year Reich: A Social History of Germany the German government (, was able to achieve) the incessant official demonization of the Jew (and) gradually modified the consciousness of the most humane people’” (Bosmajian 1) preventing reason from being a factor in the treatment of Jews. Hitler’s strong language gave him the power to control an entire group of people with resistance or protest. Hitler was able to obstruct the truth from the common folk, allowing Nazi’s to seize the power they needed. (3, 4, 5, 6) The truth is a very fragile idea that needs to be understood to retain power. Obstruction of the truth makes any action justifiable as a device to carry out “rightful” causes and “responsibilities.” The trick to keeping power over language- and therefore over people-is to understand that truth is discovered and not created. In Vincent Ryan Ruggiero’s Book, Beyond Feelings, he states that “our ideas and beliefs are unavoidably influenced by other people’s” (36), revealing the true nature of truth. No one person in Nazi Germany decided that the Jews were evil; the “truth” came from propaganda generated by the leading political party.

(5,6) Additionally, acronyms are used by politicians to hide what they are saying, while individuals use them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are stating. Many of the acronyms that we use in our everyday lives hide the true meaning of what they entail and Hasmajian states that “at one time cancer was the “Big C”; children have “to do a BM”; while “syphilis” may be difficult to utter, “VD” is less of a problem; the “SOB” may hand out a lot of “BS”; “HO” is to be dreaded; and of course we have our “F---” word” (2). These words, though, also translate to how the government may have deadly weapons that kill millions, yet are only known as WMDs or PMCs, a way of using technical jargon to make the meaning of these atrocities hazy. Unexplained acronyms are sprinkled liberally in public reports that are published by the government, disallowing and interpretation or understanding of what is being communicated amongst the leaders of the country. What messages are flying over the heads of the millions who have access to this information? All these texts really say, is that the government is taking hold of the population without saying anything at all. It empowers the political powers that hold the country to have liberty in analyzing and recognizing all represented uses of an idea or a concept.

Therefore, language and imagery hold the key to obtaining power over populations; deception creates vulnerability and many capitalize on this exposure. Hitler, Johnson and the Bush Administration took over this truism, giving them the power to control mass populations. The acronyms that the nation’s politicians use and that the general populace adheres to empowering language and shows that hiding the meaning of what is trying to be said only strengthens the intent behind it. What is said by the government can easily go over the most intelligent of civilian minds and the mind-controlling techniques of powerful politicians are incomprehensible until after they become relevant. There are many approaches to controlling people, but euphemisms and dehumanization are the strongest. Yet all these approaches only create deceit and mistrust. With such deceit comes the power of control.

A Handmaid's Tale: Fine Dystopian Literature

Reading Response #2: A Handmaid’s Tale

1. Describe the conflict in this novel. What causes the conflict? How might the conflict be resolved?

In the novel, the biggest conflict seems to be Offred’s unhappiness with the world she’s in. The horrible practices which she’s succumbed to are inhumane, but there is nothing she can do about it and is constantly at the will of anyone who has more power than herself. She becomes aware of the possibility of her not achieving her “cultural obligation” because of the quite likely infertility of the commander, while she cannot take the easy way out through way of the doctor. I don’t see the conflict being resolved, but what could happen is either Offred will be released in life or death or she will find some way to cope with her situation. Either way do not promise an optimistic end.

2. Describe two of the minor characters. Do you like them? Why/why not?

The two minor characters I like the most in this book are Rita and Cora. They are very contrasting views from two women who are barely socially above Offred. One, Cora, is very content with her position and has very specific reaction to the well-being of Offred. She had been the one to find the last Handmaid from the house, a woman who’s end consisted of a noose and a chandelier. The other Martha, Rita, is less content with her position. She is very outspoken about the harm done to Handmaid’s and forgiven by society and is more bitter than Cora. The two are both more kind to Offred than Serena Joy, so they are instantly more likable characters.

Reading Response #3

1. What did you think of the ending? Did it resolve satisfactorily? Why or Why Not?

For a Handmaid's Tale, I actually did not like the ending. I was expecting something new and fresh, to coincide with the novel's newer ideas in a dystopian world, yet it offered the same ending as 1984. Though the character has not solved any of their problems, a possible solution or problem has arisen and the author has not revealed anything about what has happened to the character. It doesn't resolve satisfactorily just because there really is no resolution; the main character just enters a vehicle and then the story is over.

2. What do you think of the character at the end of the novel? How has the character changed from the beginning of the novel?

I had a lot of mixed feelings about the main character by the end of the novel. It seems that in this world, this character is the only one who sees the civilization for what it is: corrupt and monstrous. Unfortunately, the validity of the character is put into question when the reader sees the emotional scarring caused by Offred's past experiences. The story is told through the view of someone in desperation, so it offers a very close-minded view of how this world could be.

3. Why is this considered to be a dystopian novel?

In the perspective of the storyteller, the society is ludicrous. Men are hung because of things they did in the past that were legal but now crimes and there are women whose jobs are to birth babies in wedlock. There is nothing sane about the society presented, between the constant paranoia of the government and using mind-controlling techniques and the consistent unhappiness of every person in ever tier of this world. This novel is dystopian because it is a possible path for society to take.