E-Portfolio

E-Portfolio: bengoodyear.weebly.com

Have a good summer, Ben!

The Father, Son, and Bill Maher

                I don’t know whether or not any of you have seen (or have heard of) the 2008 movie “Religulous,” but it’s the topic of my discussion today. The gist of the movie is essentially that Bill Maher, comedian and host of the show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” goes out and interviews numerous people of varying religious backgrounds and affiliations, asking them about their beliefs and why they hold them. Now Maher makes it no secret that he is far from religious; some might say he is anti-religious. Whatever the case, the movie is a bit misleading for me. While it presents itself as a documentary, I find the discourse in this movie to be pretty frustrating, and quite far from civic.

                For some reason, I can't embed the clip I want to show you, but you can find it here. Maher is, obviously, the guy with the slicked hair asking the questions to the truckers from the pulpit. Now I understand that Maher is a comedian, and he has an audience in mind that is going to be expecting comedy, but it bothers me that he isn’t really doing a documentary so much as he is simply making religion look foolish. As much as I love comedy, and Bill Maher is no exception, I also really like discussing religion. Now this isn’t an invitation to comment on this blog with your idea of what is “right,” I’m just stating this because the movie creates a conflict for me. I’ll admit it, many parts of the movie are funny, and I think Bill Maher is a smart guy, but in this particular clip, as is the case in much of the movie, he doesn’t try very hard at all to portray two sides to an argument; it just seems here like he’s trying to pick a fight with a few guys that probably aren’t educated enough to defend themselves properly. But what do you think? Is this only classifiable as comedy, or is there actually something to be taken away from this?

Haha, "Santorum"

                I realized this week that it doesn’t take much to understand political motivation. Rick Santorum, who just this week dropped out of the Republican Primary, is a perfect example. If one would pay attention to what he says and actually consider it from speech to speech, one would start to wonder how much he cares about policy as opposed to simply gaining office. For weeks, Santorum has been campaigning against Mitt Romney, portraying himself as a conservative alternative to the former Massachusetts governor. Consistently, he has placed himself at odds with Romney, and has called him everything from “liar” to “flip-flopper” to name a few of the pathetic bids seen here [ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/santorums-romney-attack-script-fodder-obama/story?id=16116627 ]. He has criticized nearly everything about him and has been constantly eroding Romney’s character; understandably so, since he was running against him. My problem here is that despite it all, throughout everything that has transpired, Santorum will never have me convinced that he wants the best for America. Why?

                Santorum said that, if asked, he would “of course” be Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate. Seriously? He has nit-picked at everything, has called him “the worst Republican in the country” [http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/27/santorum-of-course-i-would-serve-as-romneys-vice-president/], and has shown by running for the nomination against Romney that he clearly doesn’t want Romney to be president. So he tells the Christian Broadcasting Network that he would gladly serve as his Vice President? How does this make sense? The exigence has suddenly changed from “Romney must lose” to “Romney ain’t half bad.” It is clear to me that this was a kairotic moment for Santorum’s campaign. It is no coincidence that he said this shortly before dropping out of the race; Santorum seems to have realized that he couldn’t win for whatever reason, so now he’s cutting losses and planning to jump aboard the Romney train. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, I suppose.

Meat Isn't Murder, but it May Murder Us

                I found this video recently while perusing the internet. You don’t have to watch the whole thing; the general gist of the video is that we as Americans consume around eight times more meat than we need to, and Mark Bittman lays out a very succinct timeline of how this happened and why it is bad. Now I know what you’re thinking—Oh, great, another bleeding heart hippie telling us why meat is murder. Don’t jump to conclusions, though; the argument he makes isn’t the typical vegetarian argument.

                Now first and foremost, what made me believe what he was saying is that this man himself is a food critic for the New York Times. When I see that as someone’s credentials, I’m pretty willing to believe just about anything they say about food and diet. This alone is all he needs in my mind as an ethical proof. His logical proof is atypical as well—While I was expecting him to make a number of arguments about how inhumane the meat industry is, he completely ignored the ethics of meat and instead opted for numbers arguments. The amount of land wasted on livestock, the power the meat industry has over the very government departments that are supposed to be monitoring them, the amount of meat we eat vs. the amount we SHOULD eat, and so forth make for a compelling, fact-based argument that was difficult to disagree with. He makes quite logical and believable points, and it was easy to access as someone who doesn’t have a lot of prior knowledge of the meat industry. The best part though that really contributed to his credibility (for me, anyway) was that he said at the end that, yes, he has eaten quite a bit of meat in his life, and yes, he will probably continue to do so. It proves his point perfectly, because his point isn’t that meat is bad, per se; he just points out that we consume too much, a point with which I can agree after viewing the entire talk.

Be Bold

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX5YsU8sir4

                While searching Youtube for a commercial to scrutinize and pass off as a blog, I found this commercial for the new Blackberry phone. The commercial alone is somewhat worthy of analysis I suppose, but that wasn’t what made the commercial rhetorically interesting for me. So first, the basics.

The commercial has an ethical appeal through the hip young people doing something offbeat and “rebellious,” like riding a glowing bicycle at night in the city. This could appeal to a younger audience by possibly associating with them, or it could even appeal to an older crowd that wants to feel younger, so they’ll buy that phone. The pathos of the commercial is a little primitive if you think about it; a bunch of pretty lights and colors that catch the eye and excite the viewer in a base manner. The logos comes in where the product is actually shown performing one of its functions: texting. It’s not a very ambitious attempt on the part of the commercial, but let’s face it: how are you going to have a Glowing Night-Bike Fleet In The City Party without this Blackberry? Also included under the logos-umbrella was the use of the Blackberry logo in the end, with a pleasing baritone voice introducing the product by name. Seems like a pretty standard commercial, no?

Truth be told, what really caught my eye was the comments section of the video. Out of the ten most recent comments, nine were about the bikes and not about the phone. The two top-rated comments were as well about the bikes, with one of them even saying “all I want now is a glowing bike… not some phone from a failing company.” Ouch. So to put this in perspective, this commercial, albeit cool, really did not seem to reach this audience. So what was the problem? Were the glowing bikes too distracting? Are Blackberrys just not popular enough? Was it just a shitty advertisement? Is it just Youtube? What do YOU think, Reader???

That's How I Beat Shaq

                I first saw the above commercial while watching a college basketball game on television. This is yet another commercial for a product that has virtually zero information about the product, but includes ethos and pathos bids that somehow get the product sold. I’ll discuss the rhetorical points about the commercial, and though I would like to avoid a diatribe, I want to point out this commercial as a trend in advertising.

                Shaquille O’Neal was a famous basketball player that retired recently, who had a decorated record in the NBA. This gives the advertisement a good angle for ethos, since he is so well known as a basketball player and celebrity. Not only is this important as far as the credibility of the advertisement, but the kairos calls for a basketball player, since the commercial was aired during a basketball game. Aside from ethos, the pathos of the advertisement is satisfied by O’Neal’s the heartwarming recollection of coaching children, and the humor involved in the “defensive strategy” he talks about. So that’s ethos and pathos… But what about logos?

                The unfortunate truth is that there is little logos in the advertisement. Yes, there is some brand recognition by showing the Dove trademark, but otherwise, what does this advertisement say about the product it is pushing on its audience? Like the Geico commercial from a previous post, this commercial has just about no useful information about its product. So as a way to make this blog more interesting than a few words on a screen, let’s open discussion: Is the lack of logos in advertising these days a problem, and if so, does the root of the problem lie with those producing the advertisements, or those consuming the advertisements?

How to Understand Car Insurance

If you're reading this blog with the intention of understanding car insurance once finished, you are going to be sadly disappointed. Misled by the title? Yeah, that’s how I feel when I watch any Geico advertisement. Here’s an advertisement of a variety I see more and more these days:

Remember watching this commercial and saying “You know, that commercial really sold Geico car insurance; I now understand why most people would find this product more useful than its competitors”? Yeah, I don’t remember saying it either. This commercial is a good example of what many commercials these days seem to do. It really plays up pathos and ethos, but it is quite scant indeed in the logos department. The pathos is obvious; while it may not be comedic gold, we all know some person that would find this commercial hilarious, and getting your funny bone tickled is pathos apealling to the emotion of happiness and to humor. The ethos is pretty blunt as well; that hairy cross-dressed individual makes it abundantly clear that he is speaking with an all-pro linebacker, Brian Orakpo, a star in what I assume is football. By including a character in the commercial that an average Joe may be familiar with or that he can admire, the product sells better. So where’s the logos? Sure, they mention that you COULD save 15% or more by switching to Geico, but how can you know if you qualify for such savings? Do they give you a statistic? Do you hear about their benefits? No. Geico commercials are notorious for cramming numerous characters, in-jokes, and nonsense into their various ad campaigns, but they are frequently lacking when it comes to facts. So this leads to my question: If Geico constantly airs advertisements like this one, why are they the third biggest car insurance company in the country? Don’t people want more facts about their insurance before signing up?