Language is weird. Humankind is so dependent on each other that it only makes snese that we'd need to speak with one another, and yet we find ourselves completely stumped when we come across an individual from another land who speaks to us in a gibberish that you can't even wrap your mind around. You feel alienated, a sense of discomfort that can only come as a product of one not understanding another. After all, how can one possibly call gargling and breathing heavily letters in the alphabet of a language (looking at you, Arabic)? Immediately you see this person as an outsider, but little do you know that the feeling is mutual. Who's to say they aren't confused about this "heavy b" that you use (the letter "p") doesn't exist in Arabic. Language is just too diverse for everyone to understand each other and it is because of this that we create our own understandings of those who don't speak our language. This creates a disparity that will remain present as long as different languages are spoken.

It may be hard to believe, but the previous portion of this post is entirely written, and edited, on my phone. What typos I had were corrected and when I used "textese", like "u" in place of "you" for instance, it was corrected back to "you". Technology has advanced to the point of practically writing for the writer, which is something to be feared. Sure, the convenience is something to make mention of, but when you start to think in "textese" it becomes a problem. We've all experienced some sort of text-talk some time in our lives, whether it be you or someone you know text-talking. This is as simple as saying "LOL", which I'm sure you've heard once or twice this week. When you see autocorrects in texts, you often ignore them. For instance, I know that my friend who was texting me didn't mean to say Onondaga. Now, I had no idea what the intended message was, but I do know that that wasn't it. So I made sure to clarify with my friend, and lo and behold, she really meant "on Monday". People have adjusted very well to the autocorrect/suggest generation. We can easily tell when someone clearly didn't mean what was sent to you. However, this is strange. If autocorrect is just something that we most often end up ignoring, then why is it even there? Well there are those times when you actually need it, but that isn't quite often if you're looking at your phone as you text. Autocorrect seems more like a nuisance then an aide, which is why I try my best to write well in texts. I personally try my best to avoid using text talk, and go out of my way to write with some level of sophistication in texts (which made writing this feel unnatural and weird), but I know for a fact that there are people out there that have adopted     text-talk as normal talk. Unfortunately, as technology continues to improve its convenience, human language will continue to develop an English-text-talk hybrid. 

This Advertisement: A Truly Effective Methodology

Lately, advertisements have grown bolder in their statements, whether it be about sex, food, hair loss, etcetera, advertising teams always seem to find a way to make their ideas seem bold and new. This particular advertisement brought to you by Subway (Eat Fresh) approaches the concept of capturing the audience’s attention with as alarming a hook as they can imagine: sex. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t tend to associate any meal I eat (despite it being a footlong sub in this scenario) with any form of sex or anything of the like. With that in mind, to make the biggest word on the billboard such a peculiar one considering the product being advertised seems strange, especially when you notice the Subway logo at the very bottom. What is their game? What are they trying to accomplish with these unorthodox tactics? However, the line following the giant “SEX!!” which is inevitably what will catch your eye first upon seeing this billboard explains it. It mentions that now it has the audience’s attention, which is of course meant to suggest that they wouldn’t have it otherwise without the “SEX!!”, although that could be understood with the droll beige background they chose for their ad. It also serves to show that Subway is making fun of itself. It knows that SEX!! is a surefire way to catch an audience's eye, and to bring it back to reality by appearing self-aware will not only make the ad more level and funny, but it will also make Subway seem relatable, as now you know that they know how weird this situation is.

This advertisement is funny. I would absolutely argue for its effectiveness, as its main catch is its appeal to mankind’s most primeval instinct: to mate. Sex in itself has become a concept that is only really spoken about among friends or to a therapist or in similar scenarios, so to see such a huge statement out in the open is sure to catch the eye of the commuting consumer. This ad does a good job of making itself memorable, despite its otherwise mundane appearance, predominantly due to the fact that using sexual appeals in such an upfront manner is nothing short of unorthodox in this society. We are used to seeing sexualized food ads with pictures of skinny women and things of the like, yet we almost never see simply text that we are forced to believe is sexual. Because of this specific use of the concept, however, we as an audience are not drawn to the idea of sex being a good or bad thing, nor are we inclined to believe in any roles being set forth in the ad. No, we are just left with the idea that sex is nothing more than a concept, albeit a rare one, of everyday life. Subway managed to share a common theme with its other food-based advertising rivals, but this deviation is certainly what makes it stand out, and ultimately makes it more successful.

The Regular Show: Anything But (or is it?)

A couple years ago, Cartoon Network let loose a bunch of shows onto the air that are absolutely ludicrous. I'm talking about shows like "Adventure Time", "Chowder", "The Amazing World of Gumball", and the list goes on. One show in particular caught my attention. "The Regular Show" features a bird named Mordecai and his best friend, a raccoon named Rigby. They work at a public park, and hilarity ensues. Of the bat, you notice that the name is obviously ironic. No show starring low-wage-working animal roommates can be regular. Instantly the idea that this show is out of the ordinary in just about every way is implanted in your mind.

Watching the pilot, and consequently being introduced to every character that you will have to know, will give you a lot of information about what this show is all about. It starts off with Mordecai and Rigby messing around in their room, and immediately putting a hole in the wall. They freak out, and you realize that they don't own the house they're in, but only the room. Then, they complain about how they can't do cool things because they don't have money. Thus, they go to their boss, a gumball machine named Vincent, to ask for a raise. Now, here's where the first hint of suspicion comes in. Is this show really about zany characters doing zany things, or is it about making the mundane magical? These characters are so colorful, but then you remember that they all work at a public park in the real world with real problems (mostly monetary). These issues start off simple, Mordecai and Rigby are bored, are tired, need to make some extra cash for concert tickets, the list goes on. But they blow up into insane scenarios. In one episode, for example, the duo needs to get a grilled cheese for Vincent, and they end up posing as astronauts and trying to fix an exploding nuclear reactor. Every episode has an absurd chain of events, but it's the source of the chain that makes me question whether or not this show may actually be regular. These completely (for lack of a better word) regular tasks get absolutely blown out of proportion. This creates a sort of image for the show that promotes a fantastical, imaginative outlook on life. The show almost seems to preach that you can find wonderment in just about any daily event, you just have to look for it.

Dunkin Donuts: Streamlined Delight

Dunkin Donuts: The coffee/donut behemoth of the Northeastern seaboard. What's its appeal? Is it that it's so efficient? No, it's not, but it certainly attempts to create the image that it is. Let's take a look inside one to really prove my point. Seeing as how I visit this one just about every day, we'll analyze the Darien Dunkin Donuts on the Post Road. Upon entering the building, which has an exterior almost entirely consisting of windows, you are greeted by a (half) smiling employee ready to take your order. If you're like me and stop by this building every single morning, then the cashier will already have your order put into the register. Should you order food, then you walk in a straight line from the register to the pickup counter. The counter is striated horizontally, so as to suggest that you are moving so quickly that you create speed lines as you move towards the counter. As you wait for your food, you can turn to see the TV in the corner playing today's news. You are effectively multitasking, waiting for your food as well as getting caught up on your current events. When you receive your food, you turn around and walkout in yet another line, accentuated by an island table that also seems to be designed to make you feel fast, with its flowing, rounded edges that emanate a faint purple glow underneath them. You are out of the restaurant, leaving though the same place you came in. Between opening the door to get in and to get out, you spent a grand total of 8 minutes in that building. 8 Minutes that you could be using to drive to school, or work, or whatever it is you need to do. Wow.

Now, why does Dunkin focus so hard on making sure your process is as expedited as humanly possible? Because, you think, "America runs on Dunkin". RUNS - key word. (Almost) Everything about them is fast. This is the image they need because in this day and age, especially in this place in the world, time is money. Time spent somewhere you don't have to be is money wasted. The bigwigs at corporate DD know for a fact that if their integrity, being that they promise to be fast, is compromised, then they will lose a large portion of their business. They managed to be fast back when they were smaller, but now that they are the goliath of their industry, the constant flow of people from opening to closing (unless they're open for 24 hours, which is becoming increasingly common) has slowed them down. In attempts to cover that up, they made the design of their shops look "fast". You accomplish so little in that store, but the striated counter, the news, and the island table make you feel as though those 8 minutes were the fastest you've ever experienced. What seems like a quick, harmless trip through a coffee store is actually a veritable coffee-based ordeal, and Dunkin does a great job of covering it up. 

Conforming Through Necessity: The Individual Versus Society

            Imagine you're in a diner for the first time and you're alone. What on Earth do you do? Do you catch the attention of the woman with the flustered expression on her face and clipboard in hand? Do you wait for someone to come to you? You are lost, and you know that only society can give you the answer.

            What kind of advice will you take to solve your dilemma? Goebbels would tell you not only to grab the waitress, but to make it meticulously clear what you want (5 buttermilk pancakes, no syrup), as he did in his address to the German people during WW2 (. Hirohito would tell you to wait, as you don't want to come off as aggressive and get yourself in more of a pickle than you already are, that being that you don't know what you're doing, as he did in his address to the Japanese at the end of WW2. What these two have in common is that they both are commanding the people, are setting a sort of a standard for many to follow, and many will, as what other options do they have? What else can they do? They have no idea what they're doing, so they'll listen to whoever tells them what to do, to whatever social standard is implemented. Society has given their word, and the individual, having no other known option, is forced to follow.

             Let's switch gears for a second. Being in a tight spot is like taking a math test. You approach a problem on a test, and you find yourself surprised to see that you have absolutely no idea what you're looking at (Let's say it's Trigonometry, why not?). We've all been there. We know what it feels like to be totally lost, as you are now. Wait... The light bulb goes off. Of course! That formula that your teacher taught you! That formula that your teacher taught you because some dude a hundred years ago was playing around with numbers (who does that?). A^2+B^2=C^2 Of course! You look at your triangle, and it hits you. How in god's name would you be able to answer that question without knowing that? The answer is simple: you wouldn't. Without the knowledge that society has given you (in this case, you've been given the theorem), you'd be lost. One cannot function without the norms and regulations, or formulas, of society. Unfortunately for you, there is no formula that tells you how to order your pancakes.

            So what do you do? You've weighed your options, and the time to make your decision is now.  Are you sure you want to wait? Sure, it's the easier way out, but you could always assert yourself and get the food faster. You could try to work out all the possibilities based on social norms, but that implies that you know the norms to begin with, and do you really? You know that society has given you a host of answers, and it's up to you to get your bearings. So go ahead, order your food, because in the end, you know that's what society wants you to do.

An Outline of Ataturk’s Speech at the National Convention of the People’s Party of the Republic

By Brian James

Purpose: To cover his tracks and to explain to the people of Turkey his methodology after the fall of the Ottoman Empire

Audience: People at the National Convention of the People’s Party of the Republic, those who may be looking to Ataturk for a source of guidance, those who are angry at him for the downfall of their home

Context: The Ottoman Empire has fallen after WW1 and Ataturk did his best to do damage control in order to maintain a stronger Turkey, but his actions were frowned upon and in one case even resulted in revolt

Section 1: Introduction

Purpose: to give a little history, maybe the background stuff that people didn’t really know, then to lock down and shed some blame on a group of people

Appeals: History = hardcore logos. Frequent references to things he did makes him seem like he had his act together, building ethos. Biting words at the end against Society of the Friends in Britain adds to pathos, fear and anger being big emotions

Technique: Sequential, breaking into lists to help the audience understand the situation. Emotion slowly builds throughout the section, making it seem more urgent at the end.

Effectiveness: Does its job to set up the speech, but few instances of faltering authority make it a little weak

Section 2: “The Army Situation”, “My Decision”, and “Independence or Death”

Purpose: To give a little history, then follow it up with the crux of the speech, the real emotion

Effectiveness: Moderate. Emotion at the end is quite strong, but once again, there is too much inconsistency in tone. Bouncing back and forth between “I” and “we” leads to a juxtaposition that really confuses the reader

A.      “The Army Situation”

Appeals: Lots of ethos, calls the audience out on a question they may have for him before he even gets asked. Rhetorical question in the middle adds to logos. No pathos

Techniques: Rhetorical Question, used to illustrate his point that a decision was hard to make

Whole section leads up to the following section, making the transition very smooth and easy

B.      “My Decision”

Appeals: Ethos, victimizing himself to help himself out. Pathos, heavy word choice, starting to see real emotion, fear and anger primarily

Techniques: once again employs rhetorical questions, varying sentence structure helps illustrate his feelings, yet the addition of an either-or fallacy at the end takes away from his credibility

C.      “Independence or Death”

Appeals: Pathos. The harshest language in the speech is found in this section of it. Phrases like “…to admit to a lack of all human qualities; it is to admit to weakness and incapacity” really capture his true feelings on the matter

Techniques: Nothing other than sheer word choice. The strength there is enough to carry the rest of the section

Section 3:  “Educating the People” and “Contacting the Army”

Purpose: To bring it back to history. Falls away from the emotion and quickly gets back into capturing the series of events

Effectiveness: Moderately high. Does its job of “Educating the people” efficiently and clearly without giving much to the imagination. This gives the reader the feeling that they are reading an article, and not a speech, but it accomplishes its goal well nonetheless.

A.      “Educating the People”

Appeals: back to logos in this section. Ataturk becomes more concerned with letting the people know what happened than with explaining how what happened is good or bad

Technique: Brings it from “I” to we, trying to attract the people once more, but he goes back to “I” shortly after, leading to a little inconsistency. Not many rhetorical devices used in this section, but it is mainly transitional, so it’s okay.

B.      “Contacting the Army”

Appeals: Heavy logos, minor ethos. Entire section is based around recent history, so no real emotion shines through. As this is the bulk of the speech, it is a shame to see so much emotion early on only for it to be followed up with next to nothing

Techniques: Lots of varying sentence structure is used to keep the audience interested, but a reader of the speech is left hanging after all the emotion in the beginning.

Section 4: “Going to Sivas” and “Going to Erzurum

Purpose: To wrap up the story and to explain himself.

Effectiveness: Low. Finishes the history lesson as soon as it can, but leaves the reader with a confusing end that results in a loss of hold on the true intention of the speech.

A.      “Going to Sivas”

Appeals: Logos, Ethos. Same deal as “Contacting the Army” with maybe a hint of blame towards the very end

Techniques: see “Contacting the Army”

B.      “Going to Erzurum”

Appeals: Logos, Ethos, Pathos. Same fate as “Contacting the Army” till the end, which gives us a combination of vicious word choice and confusing ideas force the reader to question the motives of the leader, and make the speech altogether seem less organized.

Techniques: Rhetorical questions and harsh word choice form an emotional way to end a speech, if only for the confusing nature of the context.

General Evaluation

Ataturk knows how to tell a story. That much is clear in this speech. However, it seems as though he tried so hard to tell the people the order of events after the Ottoman Empire’s demise that he forgot to add any real emotion. This leads to an inconsistent speech, jumping back and forth from logos to pathos and back to logos, and more logos to boot. The ending leaves the reader questioning the point of the speech, which is the worst thing one could do if they’re trying to convince a person of an idea. Not a great speech, but a decent story.

From Malcolm X's "The Ballot or Bullet"

So I studied this man, Billy Graham, he preaches white nationalism, that's what he preaches. I say that's what he preaches. The whole church structure in this country is white nationalism. You go inside a white church that's what they preaching is white nationalism. They got Jesus white, Mary white, God white, everybody white - that's white nationalism. So what he does the way he circumvents the jealousy and envy that he ordinarily would incur among the heads of the church, wherever he go into an area where the church already is you going into trouble, 'cause they got that thing what you call it - syndicated, they got a syndicate - just like the rest of the Racketeers have. I'm going to say what's on my mind 'cause the churches are, the preachers already proved to you that they got a syndicate.

And when you're out in the rackets, whenever you're getting in another man's territory, you know, they gang up on you. And that's the same way with you ran  into the same thing. So how Billy Graham gets around that, instead of going into somebody else's territory, like he going to start up a new church, he doesn't try to start a church. He just goes on preaching Christ. And he says everybody who believes in Him, wherever you go wherever you find him. So this helps all the churches and since it helps all the churches they don't mind fight him.

My Thanksgiving, Paralleled

So my family likes this beer company, Yuengling Lager, they make good alcohol, that's what they make. I say that's what they make. The drinking scene on Thanksgiving involves the whole family. You go into my house that's what they drinking is just about anything. They got beer, vodka, tequila, every alcohol out there - that's good alcohol. So what they do the way they circumvent the underage drinking and alcoholism that is normally present among the members of my family, wherever they go into an area where the family is they going to make a profit, 'cause they want that thing what you call it - alcohol, they want alcohol - just like the rest of the families have. I'm going to drink what I want to drink because my family is, my family already proved to me that they got alcohol.

And when I'm out among my family, whenever they pull out another man's keg, I know, they are going to share that keg. And that's the same way with me pulling out my own. So how Yuengling Lager gets around that, instead of not being used during my family's holiday, like they going to make a new alcohol, he doesn't try to make alcohol. They just go on making beer. And they say everybody who drinks it, wherever you go wherever you find it. So this helps all the people in my family and since it helps my family we don't let it go.