http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnxpdUdD0Ro&feature=related

        I watched this commercial for the first time today, as I had never even seen it or heard about it. It seemed to fall under the category of banned/controversial ads. In the commercial, you see a couple enter a room and begin to have sex. When the man lifts his head up, you recognize him as the face of evil, Hitler. The video is then followed by a message in German that reads, "AIDS is a mass murderer."
       Personally, I think that this is a very effective and ineffective at the same time. The fact that the message following the video was in German, clearly means that the ad was meant to be shown in Germany. For Germany, Hitler was a very embarrassing and awful part of their past.
       The fact that they, and most of the world, associates Hitler with evil, is a very effective way to promote AIDS prevention. This is where both ethos and pathos come into play. When people see the recognizable face of Hitler, they obviously have a certain feeling towards them, hate. The ethos here is very effective for the message that they are trying to send. Also the pathos is directed correctly since most people do not have good feelings towards Hitler or AIDS. The commercial is also kind of ineffective in the fact that it is pretty controversial seeing as how Hitler has become a taboo for most society. That is probably why the commercial ended up being banned from TV.

ASPCA

For a while now, I have been seeing a lot of commercials on TV for animal rescue organizations. Recently, one in particular has caught my attention and I'm sure that you have seen it too. Here is a link to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc
This ad features Sarah McLachlan, a Canadian singer and songwriter, talking about rescued animals while one of her sad songs plays in the background and just absolutely depressing pictures of animals are shown. This commercial really effectively uses pathos in order to appeal to our emotional side. I mean, what kind of cold-hearted bastard would not give money to these poor animals that you just watched. Well, I for one would fall under this category. Its not that I hate animals or like to see them suffer, in fact its just the opposite of that. I think that this commercial is actually really ineffective with its use of pathos, or at least it is in my case. Every time that this ad would come on TV, I would just immediately change the channel. I just can't stand sitting on my couch in a good mood while this commercial plays on TV. It's just far to depressing for me to deal with, especially since I don't have enough money that I can just give it to them, plus the fact that I can't even watch the commercial long enough to find out haw to give to them. I also think, at least in my case, that the commercial also fails in its attempt to use ethos with Sarah McLachlan, since I had never heard of her before the commercial. Now all I know her as is that lady from the sad commercial with all the animals. I don't know if its just me, but thats how I feel.

More Angry Rhetoric

               I recently stumbled upon another article that discusses the use of angry rhetoric. I recently just did a blog on FOX news and how people are criticizing, and I feel rightly so, the news hosts continual use of "angry" rhetoric. A common example of this is their use of the word Nazi and I have already discussed how I do not believe that this should even be qualified as rhetoric, which has many forms, but what I think of as a nice discussion or debate between two people who both get a chance to adequately give their points and listen to the others. There is also the chance that one of the people will change their minds on a subject, which rarely happens on TV nowadays or is even given a chance.
               This week, I came across an article that begs people to stop using this form of rhetoric as it is causing violence in itself. The call was made by a Democrat in response to the shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords this past month. I wholeheartedly agree with this man in his call to stop this senseless waste of perfectly good rhetoric. If people just learned to stop being so narrow minded and opened themselves up to a different view, instead of just berating people who don't share the same view, we could learn a lot from each other and stop the violence.

Fox News

     I recently came across an article about peoples calls for Fox News to stop using its so called "angry" rhetoric. Fox responded by saying that if were to have to do this, they would have to fill 24 hours of air time due to lack of content. I thought that this was a pretty funny statement and would just like to make a comment pertaining to their use of angry rhetoric. I would definitely agree with the word angry to describe what constitutes as their programming. There are a lot of angry words that are spewed over the airwaves from the mouths of its television hosts. Words like Nazi, as I mentioned in my previous blog, is a favorite word of theirs.
    Although I do agree with the first word, I do not agree with the second. What takes place on this channel can hardly, if at all, be called rhetoric. Nowadays it is hard to find real news that does not sacrifice it's rhetoric to appeal to its audience. People just like to see a host bash another person that doesn't share their ideas and not even giving them a chance to state their point. Even Glenn Beck said that if he gets the boot, he'll just have to go back to standing in the back of crowded theaters and yelling, ‘Fire.’” 

The Nazi Defense

I think that nowadays, one of the most common and annoying things that a person in an argument can do is pull the Nazi card out of their sleeve. It has become much to popular of a defense to just call someone a Nazi whenever you feel threatened. When I think of this a certain news station, FOX, comes to mind as they have garnered a reputation for doing this. Most recently, FOX News chief Roger Ailes called NPR executives Nazis for terminating the contract of a news analyst, Juan Williams. This defense is not a good one because it really draws the attention away from the problem at hand and almost completely removes the opportunity for a reasonable and rational argument. Not only this, but almost all of the time, the action that calls people to relate a group to Nazis really is not nearly as bad or could even be compared to the atrocities that were committed by the Nazis.

State of the Union

One thing that I found very interesting about the President Obama's State of the Union address is the way he seemed to challenge America. If there is one thing that America loves most of all, it would be the spirit of competition. Our TV's are full game shows and reality shows in which we love to watch people compete against each other. In his speech, the President urged America to bring that spirit of competition into the real world, he proposed us to out build and out educate countries like China that seem to be coming to the forefront of the world stage. I thought this was a very interesting and wise strategy that will hopefully bring on a new sense of American pride.