The World of Emojis

Putting words into emojis was difficult because not every word has an emoji and some emojis can only be seen on certain devices or apps so in order to allow my audience to try to decipher this in emojis I had to screen shot it. I also feel that it could have been seen as more meaningful either said or in standard English, because emojis makes the viewer have to decipher and decide what your points are as opposed to making your statements clear and precise. When using emojis you have to decide what emoji is the best and clearest to have your audience decipher. and older generations who may not understand emojis or certain symbols will have a highly difficult time so it limits my audience. I had to compromise words and originally I was hoping to get 100% of it in emojis but that proved to be a more difficult task then I originally thought. I loosed my professionalism using emojis and I also lost part of the audience and comprehensibility. Standard English is necessary to because if people constantly wrote in emojis I'm not sure if I could understand them. Originally I thought dialects were just as good as any other English but I realized that it is valuable but it can be difficult to understand especially in a professional atmosphere. Anzadua makes a valid point that tex-mex and other languages although different are still a language and Jordan makes the same point as well these languages are valid and people us and speak them but the establishment of modern English makes more sense in the fact that we do have to have a basic standard in order to communicate whether it be across a country or to those learning English.

Axe

In an ad for axe, there are two images split in the middle one girl and one guy on opposite sides. The guy is showering with axe while the girl has whip cream wrapped around her. Although the men and women are in the same position, the same dark room, and the same style of foam/cream; The focus of this add is the people although the product appears on the bottom center is not the main focus it is the second thing you see. The ad expresses to the viewer the “cause and effect of the product”, the slogan written across the bottom of the ad is “the cleaner you are the dirtier you get.” They use the dark colors to form a mysterious sense of the correlation between pictures.

Although it’s advertising a shower gel for men it uses women to get the males to guy the product. By doing that it dehumanizes the women and just makes her the side effect of using this product. Although, it is not directly saying that axe makes you get women, its implying that women will come to you if you use axe. Also it is a common fact that if you smell good people will like to be around you, and by using that common knowledge it is persuading you to use axe. They’re selling this product by sexualizing the effects of good hygiene in their ads, as opposed to many female body soaps where they offer soft skin and healthy, axe offers sex to its customers.

But this is common in ads intended for males they often advertise by sexualizing its ads. It shows a male model the standard for good looking guys and it shows a good looking female as well, if the female wasn’t good looking the ad wouldn’t sell because its not what the consumer wants, this has happened before to other companies like Wendy’s. Skinny, healthy people on ads sell, if the models were over weight or slightly cubby the ads don’t sell as well, because they don’t fit the ideal women or man of that generation. Many men associate smelling good to getting women so axe simply assist that knowledge that by using axe you smell good and get more women.
Not only is it sexualizing and degrading women but axe's parent company is Dove. Dove claims to be "women positive", but how can we believe them if they make ads for Axe which degrade women, where they make women an object but in Regular dove ads they claim every women is beautiful regardless and in these Axe ads they have flawless most likely photoshopped women to persuade men into buying there product. In dove ads they say we're all beautiful to persuade women to buy their products.
Regardless of what their selling they use there audience say what their audience wants to hear to get them to buy their product. They're just another company who wants to make a profit wether or not it changes the social ideology or not. Dove and Axe have completely opposite messages to the opposite sex, but regardless of the message they want consumers, not many people realize the correlation between the two companies but once they do you start to question if they're actually supporting women or using them or supporting the men or just lying to them. 

Rugrats in Paris

Remember those lazy afternoons without homework where you could lie down on the couch and watch Rugrats. Well during break that's exactly what I did except I did have homework, I had turned on Netflix and spent the net hour and a half watch and analyzing the Rugrats in Paris. I watched a group of toddlers go on an adventure around Reptar land and watch as they tried to stop a wedding and succeeded, and most of the time it’s just the kids on there own adventure without supervision. Although under most circumstances the adults play only a minor role in most shows, they actually play a big role in this movie they’re why they go to Paris in the first place and end up with different problems the kids try to solve.

Although not all the characters are main characters no two characters are alike, the twins mom is energetic as apposed to her husband which is timid and there kids the twins are just as energetic as the mom, Stew is inventive while his wife makes rare appearances and their kids Tommy and dill are more quiet but inventive, Angelica’s mom is all business no play and her child the oldest of the group Angelica well she’s the evil mastermind and teases the kids, while Chaz, Chuckie’s dad, is always gloomier then the rest. Like father like son, Chuckie is the same, they both want a new mother and wife, and this is where the story comes in.
For this movie Chuckie is the main character and like Reptar he is misunderstood and just wants someone to care for him. After hearing the story of Reptar and how the princess understood him and cared for him, Chuckie and his friends go on the search for the princess in hopes that she will be his new mother. While this occurs the villain, despite her dislike of children, is luring Chaz into marry her for her own selfish reasons, and Chaz falls for her tricks and is lured into believing she is the one he wants to marry. The kids a furious and want to stop the wedding so they steal a giant robot Reptar fight off the evil servant and stop the wedding where Chaz realizes its not her that he wants to marry, but instead he wants to marry her kind assistant that likes kids. After back home they do in fact marry and although it’s not the princess mom he wanted his new mom ends up being someone much better.

The core of all this has to be that adults are just bigger kids and they make mistakes too like Chaz and almost marring the villain and the adults for losing the kids. Not only that but the rugrat’s motto is “A babies gotta do, what a babies gotta  do” meaning if you want something you have to go for it and do it, after all without the kids teamwork Chuckie’s dad may have gotten married to the wrong person, which wouldn't have resulted in a happy ending. But racially there is a lot of diversity around them like asians and europeans but not many spanish or african americans, actually I didn't see any spanish people in it; also the important characters are all Caucasian. the only diversity added to the group are Kimmy and her mother but they are only added in at the end of the movie. The grown up in this movie are all adults with with stable middle class jobs, there are no tragic events in the family or  imigration, they are the average middle class american living in a suburban area. Theres no mention of money problems, they all are fully capable of taking a week off there jobs and going to paris and paying the trip by them selfs and for their family. Overall these families seem to be the perfect family, with parents and grandparents and one or more children. Also there is rarely any missed children or mixed marriages or gay couples. This show follows the social norm of the time period it was made and the expectations of what a normal family and community should be like.

The Center of School Life

The cafeteria, the most interesting or the most boring rowdy place you've ever been, but this all depend on your point of view. The cafeteria in McMahon the center of school life and drama, and the only place to hold a huge swarms of ever changing cliques is nothing more then a huge two part room with a kitchen attached which cooks “food”, and a wall consisting of window to the outside so you feel more free.

            “Classy” it rhymes with glassy, it must be what the architect was going for right? Considering he also built the bridge and the back section of the school filled with the most brilliant glass looking down on the field and hill. He must have been aiming to make the school “that school you wish you could go to” the one that looks pretty and cool and sophisticated. He succeeded every friend I have brought to this school and even I am amazing at all the windows and the view, honestly it makes me feel more free and apart of the school atmosphere even if I’m just looking out of the window at the sports team, I feel like “yea that's my sports team practicing to win, this is McMahon”. Maybe that wasn't the original purpose of the architecture but it worked.

            By putting the windows in the cafeteria he created an eye grabbing experience along with a more airy, spacious feeling, like the tables of people never end it continues to outside because the windows are floor to ceiling everything seems to go on. This appeals to everyone to new students, old students, especially visitors; it’s dramatic and sophisticated just what you would want in a cafeteria. The windows provide a distraction as well they overshadow any posters on them or around them because it is the highlight of the room, with a beautiful well maintained field as its back ground and a pretty sky it is eye grabbing. After the window you notice the bar stools and columns and its fairly impressive, and then after all of that you notice the tables and people (if there are any). The cafeteria was made to impress.

A Messy Dinner

Excerpt from The Reluctant Fundamentalist

Simple indeed. I glanced about me to see how my fellow trainees were responding. There were five of them, in addition to myself, and four sat rigidly at attention; the fifth, a chap called Wainwright, was more relaxed. Twirling  his pen between his fingers in a fashion reminiscent  of Val Kilmer in Top Gun, he leaned towards me and whispered, "No points for second place, Maverick.""You're dangerous, Ice Man," I replied---attempting to approximate a naval aviator's drawl---and the two of us exchanged a grin.

Messy of course. I look around the table to see how my family was reacting. There were 6 of them, excluding myself, and 5 of them held back gags at the taste of the food; the sixth, a sarcastic guy i call my brother was more amused. Pushing his food around with a fork resembling a kid who doesn't want to eat his vegetables vegetables he leaned back in his chair and said, "This food is just remarkable, Meg.""You're a great assistant chef, Dylan," I replied---attempting to pass on the blame---and the two of us watched the disaster at hand.

Machiavelli Vs Thoreau

Machiavelli and Thoreau are very different especially when it comes to writing, what their writing about is not so different, it is just about making your life better for you. They go about doing this two completely different ways, at first it seems like they have nothing similar but they do but they have different target audiences. In Civil Disobedience its directed to those for do not agree with the government. But in Machiavelli’s it’s directed toward those who will be at the top of the government or who aim to be there.

Machiavelli is not the guy you go to help you when you fall down, he would be the guy to tell you this is why you tripped. He’s all about helping yourself before you do something that will cause your downfall. Also Machiavelli doesn't care about the people, the everyday people, he says most men are “ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain,”(Mach 461). Machiavelli only cares for his intended audience, the princes, but from what power Machiavelli says they have then they are actually kings and only calling them princes to compliment them, which is very possible to compensate for the snobby know it all tone he seems to be giving off.

Where as Thoreau is not using a snobby tone, although he is still giving of this you should be selfish vibe. Thoreau’s intended audience is anything but the people attempting to get in power, he’s a rebel not paying his taxes and living how he wants to live, maybe that's admirable considering he’s though of to be ideological and well known by many all over the world. He is noble compared to Machiavelli, in fact Machiavelli said being noble and chasing virtue will be your downfall. Where as Thoreau is saying to rid yourself of things that affect and do harm to your honor and will bring shame to you, Thoreau cares less about the people’s opinion and more about yourself. Machiavelli does not care for the people but cares about the people’s opinion in order to maintain power.

These two writers are very different in their beliefs of how to live your life whether it be as a free man or as a “good” prince. How they achieve there goals are not to different in the sense of being selfish or maybe its just caring for ones well being. Machiavelli goal is to maintain power no matter how you must act, and Thoreau is more to maintain ones clear conscience and being good to yourself not to others.

My Rhetorical Analysis Outline of Malala’s Speech to The UN

Purpose:  Is to inform those people unaware of the situation and the dire need to let boys and girls receive an education without the fear of being attack like Malala was.

Audience: everyone at the UN, the world globally, the people who must raise there voice and fight for education, and the people who can help them in their need of education.

Context: Malala Yousafzai a 16 year old girl spoke at the UN after being shot in the head by a Taliban member. Malala is a believer of free, compulsory education for every child. This was due to the fear of receiving an education in Pakistan due to the Taliban.

Section1: Intro/acknowledgements

Purpose: To address and Thank all of those who have helped her this far and in doing that it helps her ethos.

Appeals: Ethos

Section 2: The real beginning of her speech

Purpose: to turn the subject to what she thinks is important also to set the tone.

Appeals: pathos

Technique: uses a sense of unity=”Dear brothers and Sisters”. Uses poetry and repetition to focus on the main issue= “so here I stand-“.

Effectiveness: its very effective she automatically makes you feel like a brother or sister just because you are listening or reading the speech. And the repetition really makes those points about peace, equality, and education really stand out.

Section 3: Background as to why she is continuing to fight

Purpose: To inform those why she continues to fight even after her ordeals  and encourages other to fight along side her.

Appeals: pathos, sympathy and builds up her ethos

Technique: she continues to use repetition to address the audience as her brother, sisters, or even friends = “Dear ~~” almost like a letter to a friend. She belittles the fact of she got shot and follows it with the fact she is not the only one and that through the death of fear becomes strength and power =illusions. Also there are illisions/refrerences to important people such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

Section 4: The Call to Arms

Purpose: To reach out and unite everyone similar to her to fight and let their voices out to speak up

Appeals: Pathos and Logos

Technique: illusions = “ we realized the importance of pens and books when we saw the guns”. References to sayings “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Giving the audience a reason why this is happening and what they can do to fight back = Taliban is afraid of books because they cant read them so we pose a threat to them so by using education as our weapon we can defeat them. Calling on past memories = “there was a boy in our school-“.

Effectiveness: it makes those who can relate take up this call to arms and want to fight back with education.

Section 5:

Purpose: to sum up the finally and truly start a revolution

Appeals: Pathos

Technique: a lot of repetition = “we call~”. She tries to unite everyone with using “We”. Builds motivation using lines like= “No one can stop us” “We will bring change” “One Child, one teacher , one pen and one book can change the world. One thing can change everything.

Effectiveness: it varies depending on who you are students such as many American students may not agree with her final sentence “Education First.” But there are many people out there who would agree with her point of view and her solution.

General Evaluation:

 Malala is still a young writer with more to go but she has a good tone and uses many illusions to gain her point. I have much respect for her maybe it is because of the pathos she has built in her speech. Unfortunately she has not persuaded me to fight her cause so the effectiveness of the piece on an audience member such as me did not work in all aspects. She primarily uses pathos and that does not reach to all members of the audience. She does not have much logos to her speech but she attempts to captivate her audience and to motivate them for her cause. To make this speech reach more members of the audience more logos is needed.