Visual Rhetoric

As we have learned, visual rhetoric is very powerful. I will be looking at the visual rhetoric of a Juice Plus ad.

Have you ever drive pas a McDonald's and on a big print decal on their window is this chicken wrap with all sorts of unhealthy item poking out of it? Alas, that obviously unhealthy item is surrounded with a green background which makes it seem more "healthy" JUST because of it's green surroundings. So here we are with Juice Plus, and as you can see, the two bottles are surrounded by a good variety of fruits and vegetable. Stuff that you would eat and be proud of how healthy you are eating. Red and green are two very important and strong colors when it comes to advertising I have noticed; they seem to try and correlate the item that it is associated with leafy greens and say tomatoes. Look at almost anything labeled as "healthy" and you will see what I am talking about. Juice plus commends to draw in the wanna-be health nut or already health nut by displaying all the goods to get you thinking these pills are good for you. Then at the bottom of the ad you will notice they wrote "the next best thing to fruits and vegetables". Notice the words "fruits" and "vegetables" are highlighted in RED. It is also written in what I could consider a more "serious looking" font. It's cursive or script like how thye have it on the capsule bottle. As I have mentioned red and green draw you in to thinking something in a more healthy manner. Then above on the right (in green.....) they list where you can find Juice Plus on big time television networks perhaps adding to their "credibility".

Basically, this ad (to me) everything a comopny would need to draw in attention about being healthy. A plethora of fruits and vegetables behind a green and red capsule bottle claiming to be the next best thing.

What do you think of this ad by Juice Plus? Did they come across how you think they wanted to?

Juice Plus, or Minus?

One of my scholarly articles I plan on using for WP#3 came from the PubMed.gov. Normally a “.gov” website would be deemed just credible, but this website provides studies, articles and all sorts of texts related to the health field so it more so depends on what you have found while searching on their website.

The article I chose is titled, “Juice Plus of Toxicity Plus”. It was published in The American Journal of Medicine and it was a “study” conducted by three different doctors at The University of Texas MD Anderson cancer center in Houston, Texas. This article is more directed at the fact that sometimes natural or alternative medicine can have unforeseen side effects, especially with those taking prescription medication whilst getting treated for cancer. An elderly woman with endometrial cancer (uterine cancer) and was referred to the MD Anderson hospital for treatment. Her initial assessment showed normal liver function and just days prior to her clinical trials she had started taking Juice Plus. During her trials, the doctors noticed chronic inflammation and hepatotoxicity of the liver; they found the effects on the liver reversible after discontinuing the woman’s use of Juice Plus.

Overall this article does convey a good message. However, this is based on one woman in one clinical trial at one cancer center. There is not a whole lot of research on the subject, but this is certainly a start that might be a real effect of Juice Plus and certainly I will look for more articles on the subject or related topics for backup.

Have any of you ever taken Juice Plus? If you have, have you noticed any differences in your health?

Aggie Agendas

I got a little story for ya, Ags. In case you have not heard, here at Texas A&M University a bill was presented to our student Senate that has left GLBT (Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender) activists and their resource center feeling discriminated. The bill is asking any students "who object, for religious purposes, to the use of their student fees and tuition to fund this center to opt out of paying an amount equal to their share of the Center’s funding from their fee and tuition bills." Yikes. 

The Bill is targeted at the GLBT Center specifically, since we as students do not get to opt out of funding any other student organizations that they do agree with. Chris Woosley, the supporter of the Bill, stated that the bill allocates students "who object, for religious purposes, to the use of their student fees and tuition to fund this center to opt out of paying an amount equal to their share of the Center’s funding from their fee and tuition bills." If we as students were to choose not to give funding to the GLBT Center, it would save us the occasional $2 from our tuition bill. Double yikes. Have the Aggie Conservatives really resorted to using religion as a mask to discriminate? That is one masquerade ball I will not be attending. 

I myself grew up in a Christian household and going on mission trips was as common to my family and I as taking a trip to the mall. Religion is no foreign concept to me, and I am as straight as they come.  With that said, I fully support those who do not believe in the same things that I do. I do not care if you are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, straight, Christian, atheist, or a purple alien, I will treat all people with the same amount of respect and love because THAT is what religion should be about. The fact that a student group is in fact using religion to try and discriminate makes me nauseous. It comes to no shock to me when people scoff at the mere mention of Church or Christians. Some of them are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing. 

In topics as debatable as this, I try and see both sides to be fair. Now I have to ask, would the GLBT and it supporters want to pay for a center that only supports heterosexual couples and lifestyles? 

Regardless, I really hope this bill is not passed. I do not feel it is reflective of the Aggie Family, nor does its content portray "family" in any way. If I disagree with the Bill and what the Aggie Conservatives are doing, can I opt out of giving them their occasional money? That would be fair. Or if one is an atheist, can they opt of giving money towards religious groups? That would also be fair. 

What do any of you think? Should the Bill be passed? Is it or is it not discriminatory? 

Kiwis

I have never been so intrigued by a culture before as I have been by New Zealand. Both of the times that I have visited this little country down under, I sit and watch in awe of watching its people; two completely different cultures that have fused together over time. 

Let me give you a brief history of the Land of the Kiwi's: Voyagers around 1300 came to New Zealand which was then dominated by solely the Maori (from Polynesian roots). The Maori had founded tribes and were very agricultural. The British began to make consistent contact with the little island around 200 years ago and after British immigration began quickly to New Zealand through out the 19th Century. The new British colonists enormously impacted the Maori, bringing in British culture, religion, and technology, as well as the English language (does this story sound familiar?) The European New Zealanders, who we call the Pakeha, kept strong ties with their Mother Country for a while but due to a loss of access to British food goods, the Pakeha began to evolve into their own identity: a more rural lifestyle. This is still in effect there today, New Zealand has a lot of rural countryside with farms for agricultural means. 

The very first "picture" I saw of anything related to New Zealand was of their professional Rugby team, The All Blacks, something along these lines: 

My immediate thought was, "what the HECK are they doing..." I came to learn that this is called the "Haka" and this dance comes from the Maori culture, which warriors used to do before any wars in battle as a sign of a challenge. I very much admire that New Zealand embraces the original culture so well. Walking around the streets in Tauranga down in the Bay of Plenty, I hear British accents intermingled with the Maori language, and at times, if you listen closely, you can hear a hint of an Australian accent as well. 

My favorite nickname for the people of New Zealand is... the Kiwi's. How adorable is that? This nickname comes from their native bird, The Kiwi bird, which is also the national symbol for New Zealand. Not only that, New Zealand grows the most delicious Kiwi fruits.

Have any of you been to Australia or New Zealand or possibly know a Kiwi yourself? 

No Jambo?

We have all seen Mean Girls, right? Cady, the new girl at high school who just moved to the US from Africa, experiences culture shock and the mean arena of high school. I’m sure she was a little shocked when she said  “Jambo!” to the African American table at school and got very weird looks. Well, I’ve done that too. I was confused; how did my peers not understand me? What did I say that is so “weird”?

Now, I did not grow up in Africa, however my mother spent a couple of months out of the year for years in Nairobi, Kenya. She would bring their language back to me, along with their ways of dressing  and some ideals. It was the language that really stuck. I am by no means fluent, I only know basic words but my family and I used it in almost everyday life. I will never forget being at my elementary school one school year; I was 8 years old and I was rocking my new Nairobi Java House t-shirt my mom had just brought back for me from her most recent trip. My group of friends were sitting by the playground swings and I excitedly went up to them and without thinking anything of it I said, “Jambo!” Oh yes. Cady Heron style.

 

I (embarrassingly) had to explain to them that ‘jambo’ was Swahili for ‘hello’. My best friend Charlotte looked at me and asked, “don’t you only say that in Africa?”. No matter how much I tried to explain it, they never understood. Needless to say I never spoke a nick of Swahili unless I was with my family in a home setting. The language I used at home could not be used outside of that bubble. It did not affect me in any negative connation, but it is interesting to see that I let that one instance “prohibit” my language of the home. What about you? Have you had any similar experiences with language of the home versus language of school?

Mercury or MAC?

Makeup. The eyeliners, eye shadows, lipsticks, blushes, and mascaras we girls can all turn to to ignite confidence. It is one of the simplest things to use that can quickly turn your self image around. Then I began thinking, how has makeup changed over the years? Some still go for the “retro” look but I’m not talking about the way it is put on,  I mean what is in the makeup and how it all got started.

Back in ancient days, makeup was to be worn by the elite, upper class.  People would go to extremes which to get the look they were going for. Women would crush berries to use to stain their lips. Sometimes they would use mercury (yes, mercury) to lighten their skin; they also used leeches to suck their blood to drain, literally, the color from their face. OUCH! As we progressed to the Middle Ages, makeup was still only seen for the wealthy upper class or for actors. As the 20’s approached, Estee Lauder followed by Max Factor, and L’Oreal Paris made their way into the scene. Max Factor created a “grease paint” (sounds great, right?) that went on smoother than what was used by actors and that did not crease. It was then that Hollywood celebrities started to call Max factor wanting to try the new makeup and thus a makeup revolution for everyone was born.

We have come a long ways since the ancient days and using poisons or berries for a flush (or lack of) color. Makeup now a days has to go through many tests to account for safety measures before you will ever see it in a Sephora or beauty store.  Some may call makeup vain and superficial, but I feel that we women all want to be accepted in one way or another. If that means strawberry lip gloss, I’m down! What do you think about how makeup has progressed?

Bondshell

I still remember sitting on the living room floor with my dad when I was very young and watching “Dr. No”. I wanted a white bikini, dagger attached at the hip, just like Honey Ryder when she emerged from the sea which in turn made one of the greatest entrances in Bond history. Then in 2002, Jinx (Halle Berry) emerges from the ocean in her introductory scene in an orange bikini, dagger at her side. This brings me to question, have the Bond girls changed over the past 50 years as our society and culture has evolved?

From what I have seen from franchises, rather it be from movies or TV shows, the characters (from clothing, the way they speak, and overall demeanor) adapt to the current time period’s way of doing things. The language becomes riskier, the amount of clothing becomes less, and controversial issues are brought into play. However it seems with the longest running franchise in history, the Bond girls have remained the same over time, just different faces. Looking back at Goldfinger’s ever famous Pussy Galore, which came out in 1964, I think the risqué name speaks for itself especially for back in the more conservative days. Back to my example of Jinx, she was quite the seductress and the sensual relationship between her and Bond was undeniable, as it always is. The revealing, sultry gowns and makeup have remained consistent from “Dr. No” all the way to “Skyfall”. Bond girls have always been ultra glamorous and classy, and they all have their susceptibly to the charm and wit of Bond himself. Looking at the way some girls dress nowadays and what is considered acceptable is unfathomable. Bond girls may show skin, but it is never trashy. I would be shocked if I ever saw a Bond girl looking like Snooki from Jersey Shore.

It is nice to see that despite changing worlds and views, Bond’s girls have remained ideally the same despite changing standards and shifting of principles. What do you think? Have the Bond girls adapted to culture over time in your opinion?

Beyonce can invoke some ssssssssssserious emotion!

Leave it to PETA to be on the fur coat trail of those anywhere near the animal clothing kingdom. Recently Beyonce gave a breathtaking performance at the Super Bowl halftime show, but alas, her outfit was made from cow, iguana, and python. The majority (ok all) of the blog posts on the matter were defending Queen Bey and took to the defensive side of the matter.

If you have ever had to stick up for a best friend after they have gotten picked on/slammed at all, you would definitely recognize the tone and emotion used in Monica Roberts blog post ‘PETA’s hatin’ on Beyonce’ (http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2013/02/petas-hatin-on-beyonce.html) Monica very much stuck up for her “Houston homegirl” using a plethora of pathos to back her girl up and she is seemingly trying to use diction and emotion to convey her disliking of PETA from the start. So, not only does she not like PETA already, they are slamming her girl for her outfit! Monica starts off her post by referencing to the animal rights group as “the racist fools at PETA.” I have never once thought PETA was racist. That is a dense word to use as a label for PETA. Monica includes a quote from PETA on the matter:

"We would take a bet that if Beyoncé watched our video exposés ... she'd probably not want to be seen again in anything made of snakes, lizards, rabbits, or other animals who died painfully."

She continues on her pathos-hatred-for-PETA-rampage by saying that African Americans no longer listen to PETA’s “racist behinds” and that PETA has disrespected black celebrities by “attacking” their wardrobe.  I give Monica an A+ on her use of pathos, she very well portrayed certain feelings toward PETA but I feel it was a bit too much and dramatic.

In the blog post, ‘PETA Rips Beyonce for Super Bowl Outfit’ from Newshound by Gayne C. Young, (http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/02/peta-rips-beyonce-super-bowl-outfit) Young takes a more realistic and less dense view on PETA’s attack on Queen Bey. Young, while being notably sarcastic in his post, he used logos to rationalize the clothing scandal with Beyonce. “I wonder if PETA knows what a football is made out of.” Ouch. Logically, however, it makes sense. Why not slam the NFL every single time they play with a cow hide based football?

What are your thoughts on the author’s use of pathos and logos?

If you are physically present but mentally absent, where are you exactly?

It is a complicated but seemingly simple answer to me; you’re at home in a foreign place. When (most) people leave what they claim as “home” for however long, they still never fully escape it. Home is also in that little 4.5” tall rectangle permanently stuck in your hand or the iPad that cannot leave your sight.  It doesn’t matter if you are shopping in Paris, riding the subways in New York City or skating on ice ponds in Iceland, your home is with you and for the most part inescapable.

There I was, roaming the streets of Paris one summer, the city I had been dreaming of since I was 5 years old. I could hear all the beautiful accents that I could only sadly try to imitate; I could smell the fresh baked bread and the espresso that is to die for. Who would think that in the famed city of lights that I would be on my iPhone looking at ways to redecorate my bedroom on Pinterest? Certainly I never did! Unfortunately, it was like this with most everyone else around me and it is like this everywhere you go in the world (that has technology etc).

It did not matter that I was thousands of miles away from my home, I was still connected to it in some way from the moment I left it; that being a text from a friend, a Facebook message or wall post, loading and reloading Twitter, or checking Pinterest to see how I could update my home once I got back to it. I never truly got to experience Paris. I was physically present, but my mind was back at “home.” A quote that came from “Always On” by Sherry Turkle helps to reinforce my point.

“Leaving home has always been a way to see one’s culture anew. But what if, tethered, we bring our homes with us?”

What do you think? What would you call a place that you are physically in but your mind is lost in technology elsewhere?

What is culture, you ask?

Take a look around you. Your room, your house, your neighborhood, your school, your city... that, to me, is culture in a nutshell. Culture is different people fitting together in their own unique ways based on experiences, lifestyle choices, and how one views life. To be “cultured” is to live in a specific bubble and to do the things that make you fit into that specific bubble; it is what makes you "fit in" so to speak in that particular setting.

When I first asked myself “what is culture?” I envisioned in my head many different things. The way different tribes dress in Africa, the spicy Thai food in Thailand, the way business’ in New Zealand close at 5 p.m. and how in Jamaica “there are no problems mon.” All of these places are different. In my opinion what differs one place from another is their culture; the way that they do things, experiences gained over time, knowledge passed on from one generation to the next and how they live their day to day lives. Naturally, the excerpt that I agreed with most was “Culture is Ordinary” by Raymond Williams.

“The making of a society is the finding of common meanings and directions, and its growth is an active debate and amendment under the pressures of experiences, contact, and discovery, writing themselves into the land.”

Someone who lives in fast-paced New York City taking cabs and subways to their skyscraper office building would feel slightly out of context if they moved to College Station and a cowboy hat was placed on their head.

From my perspective, we become “cultured” in where we live and spend our time. College Station is a very country city; to “fit in” to College Station’s society you need a pair of cowboy boots and a love for country music, excluding Taylor Swift. I grew up  in a city where the style was converse and skinny jeans and I have noticed since I moved here four years ago, I have molded to College Station’s way of dressing. I find myself tolerating the idea that a banjo is considered an instrument. I have become “cultured” to College Station’s lifestyle.

Do you agree with my definition of culture or do you think culture has a more narrow meaning? Does it have a more broad meaning? Do you think it is just one specific idea?