Here is a political ad supporting Herman Caine. In recent months he has been a highly criticized republican candidate for his tax plans for America that will ultimately benefit the rich, and provide miniscule assistance to lower, and middle class Americans. Herman has been reprimanded because of his self -presentation as an ‘Uncle Tom’ like figure for the Republican Party, and his belief that a successful career as a CEO for Godfather’s Pizza can be applied to politics without any former experience in the field. The ad showcases Herman’s chief of staff Mark Block, expressing the usual political rhetoric to encourage more support; he also parrot’s the popular, arbitrary phrase “We can take this country back” just before the end. What does this statement actually mean in a political context, or any context at all? Who or what has taken over the country, and how has it been invaded? Is there some implicit message that Herman Caine wishes to communicate by using a smoking, informally dressed polotician to represent this ad? Does Mark Block’s image strengthen the ad, or weaken it?
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Childhood Obesity
Childhood obesity has become more prevalent in these past years, and many people are wandering who is to blame. Many schools, such as the one in this video, are taking steps to help prevent childhood obesity by giving the students better food choices and having more time for exercise. These steps have helped keep students on track for a healthy weight, but is it only up to the schools to help the students? Or is it the parent’s responsibility to control what foods kids eat? What type of community programs should be made to help prevent kids from becoming obese? What other steps should be taken to help prevent childhood obesity? Who is the audience CNN is trying to reach in this video? How do the video clips help make the argument that kids need to be healthier? Why are the experts used helpful to support the argument?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StRoOpZWzW0
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy Wall Street
Click on Title to access link.
This is an article about the rush of Occupy Wall Street. But, rather than focusing on the specific effects on the residents and Wall Street business, it spreads the focus to the nation and considered it as a reconsideration of the national business system. The author of the article, Douglass Rushkoff, argues that these protestors are hardly the lazy generation of weirdos taking part in incoherent protests that the media makes them out to be.They are normal Americans who are upset with Wall Street. What do you think of this movement? What makes this a special movement? What will it end with?
This is an article about the rush of Occupy Wall Street. But, rather than focusing on the specific effects on the residents and Wall Street business, it spreads the focus to the nation and considered it as a reconsideration of the national business system. The author of the article, Douglass Rushkoff, argues that these protestors are hardly the lazy generation of weirdos taking part in incoherent protests that the media makes them out to be.They are normal Americans who are upset with Wall Street. What do you think of this movement? What makes this a special movement? What will it end with?
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Student Athletes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16yWeCFI1rg
Student athletes have so many rules and regulations put on them by the NCAA. As OSU students we have seen, first hand, the repercussions of the NCAA when their guidelines are not followed. This video brings up a very controversial topic among sport fanatics, should college athletes be paid? As it is stated in the video, for OSU, the basketball and football teams make enough revenue to fund most, if not all, of the other athletic programs. However, some athletes receive scholarships and stipends to help them out, but are those enough? The video goes on to say that many of these athletes put in just as much, if not more, time into their sport as the Toledo Mud Hens, a minor league baseball team that does get paid. It can be argued that this would be focusing too much on the athlete part and not enough on the student part of student athlete. College is supposed to prepare you for a job, right? Well what about those who go on to play in the NFL, NBA, MLS, NHL and other major league teams where the sport is their profession? Additionally, this argument seems nearly exclusively focused on basketball and football players. How would that be fair for all the other athletes at OSU? Where would you draw the line of who gets paid, and how, or should all athletes get paid, perhaps varying based on the revenue that they make?
Student athletes have so many rules and regulations put on them by the NCAA. As OSU students we have seen, first hand, the repercussions of the NCAA when their guidelines are not followed. This video brings up a very controversial topic among sport fanatics, should college athletes be paid? As it is stated in the video, for OSU, the basketball and football teams make enough revenue to fund most, if not all, of the other athletic programs. However, some athletes receive scholarships and stipends to help them out, but are those enough? The video goes on to say that many of these athletes put in just as much, if not more, time into their sport as the Toledo Mud Hens, a minor league baseball team that does get paid. It can be argued that this would be focusing too much on the athlete part and not enough on the student part of student athlete. College is supposed to prepare you for a job, right? Well what about those who go on to play in the NFL, NBA, MLS, NHL and other major league teams where the sport is their profession? Additionally, this argument seems nearly exclusively focused on basketball and football players. How would that be fair for all the other athletes at OSU? Where would you draw the line of who gets paid, and how, or should all athletes get paid, perhaps varying based on the revenue that they make?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
There's an app for that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k3zvI2tyPM
One of the most common phrases when one thinks of a new Smartphone is “There’s an app for that.” This commercial depicts the apps that an iPhone has as useless and invasive. How exactly does this commercial undermine our typical attitude toward apps? A Smartphone has nearly become a necessity to most people, instead of an indulgence. Considering how heavily many people rely on their phones, who is the audience for this ad? In this particular dramatization, the man uses his phone to stalk his ex-girlfriend. Although a little exaggerated, many people use their Smartphones for a wide variety of uses, such as social networking, navigation, and shopping. What commentary does this ad make about people who are 'addicted' to their phones? And what does the ad say about the necessity of all the apps Smartphone users access on a regular basis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)