For this speech, I want to write about Goodwill Industries International. I have a stronger connection with their store than anything else, but recently I discovered that they do a lot more that sell used clothes.
In 2002, Goodwill started a project created to put millions of people in jobs by 2020. They not only provide for training of the individual for the job, but also they have options for child care services for people who can't work because they have to take care of the kids and have no money for day care. They also work to find careers for people with disabilities. Goodwill provides tutoring services for children who are homeless or disabled. They collect books for these children as well. This gives those chldren better opportunities in their younger years, which may give them the edge they need to find a career in adulthood.
Goodwill is also enviornmentally friendly. By selling used items, they keep them from becoming waste. What can't be made into selling condition is recycled in creative ways. For example, old clothes are cut into cleaning cloths for industrial buyers. I think it's pretty cool to think that that shirt you wore in your 8th grade school photo may be an industrial wipe.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Self-Reliance
Emerson writes that the only way to succeed is to reject society's traditions and work only for yourself. He says that consistancy is unimportant if the change is how you really feel, because to worry about consistancy is to put another's opinion before your own. Even if family disagrees with your beliefs, it doesn't matter because technically everyone is family if you go back far enough. In describing travel, he says that there is no use in travelling if it is only for pleasure because you will get nothing out of it that you didn't already have.
I disagree with what her writes. Success is far more complex than working for yourself to get ahead. Because we live in a social society, there is no way to succeed without respecting the beliefs and traditions of others. You can still disagree with them, but if you want to advance in society, you have to be able to see the basis for their opinions. In a work enviornment, if you offend the boss, you will soon be out of work. If you are unreasonable in social situations, no one will take you seriously, and you will be regarded as a fool.
By putting yourself first in every situation, you lose contacts and relationships, which are essential to getting ahead. Regardless of your knowledge in a subject, there will always be someone who knows more. You have to allow yourself to listen and take their advice or condemn yourself to ignorance and risk losing all that you have built. You can never fully reject the wisdom of your ancestors because without their contributions, the next innovations would be impossible.
I disagree with what her writes. Success is far more complex than working for yourself to get ahead. Because we live in a social society, there is no way to succeed without respecting the beliefs and traditions of others. You can still disagree with them, but if you want to advance in society, you have to be able to see the basis for their opinions. In a work enviornment, if you offend the boss, you will soon be out of work. If you are unreasonable in social situations, no one will take you seriously, and you will be regarded as a fool.
By putting yourself first in every situation, you lose contacts and relationships, which are essential to getting ahead. Regardless of your knowledge in a subject, there will always be someone who knows more. You have to allow yourself to listen and take their advice or condemn yourself to ignorance and risk losing all that you have built. You can never fully reject the wisdom of your ancestors because without their contributions, the next innovations would be impossible.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Class in America
Although Mantsios mentions mentions the idea of the rich exploiting the poor, I don't think that that concept influences much of his essay. He acknwoledges that the lower class must be poor in order for there to be such wealth in the upper classes, but that may not be necessarily because of exploitation, consciously anyway. The comfort and luxury of being part of the upper class is enough for the rich to justify a willful ignorance of what is really happening, but I think Mantsios implies more that the rich are choosing bot to help, rather than intentionally taking advantage of the poor.
One reason that the rich tend to get richer and the poor stay generally the same is that industry is designed to generate maximum profit. As incomming capital increases, the top (wo)men get hearty raises, while those who actually did the labor get the same pay check they had been getting. Now that nation's wealth has increased, prices on goods also increase. Now the big business is putting even more into the pockets of its CEOs, and the working people can't afford to buy the products they built.
Wow, now that I wrote that out it does sound an awful lot like exploitation.
Mantsios also discusses the issues with internal bias and what people are born as, race and gender in particular. For most, to discriminate against people because of race or gender is an unconscious exploitation. The person isn't necessarily aware of why they treat some people differently, or even aware of their change in behavior. Because there is no way to completely avoid stereotypes and snap-judgements based on people's appearance, there will never be a world in which all people have perfectly equal opportunity.
One reason that the rich tend to get richer and the poor stay generally the same is that industry is designed to generate maximum profit. As incomming capital increases, the top (wo)men get hearty raises, while those who actually did the labor get the same pay check they had been getting. Now that nation's wealth has increased, prices on goods also increase. Now the big business is putting even more into the pockets of its CEOs, and the working people can't afford to buy the products they built.
Wow, now that I wrote that out it does sound an awful lot like exploitation.
Mantsios also discusses the issues with internal bias and what people are born as, race and gender in particular. For most, to discriminate against people because of race or gender is an unconscious exploitation. The person isn't necessarily aware of why they treat some people differently, or even aware of their change in behavior. Because there is no way to completely avoid stereotypes and snap-judgements based on people's appearance, there will never be a world in which all people have perfectly equal opportunity.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Money, Success, and the American Dream
Stephen Cruz was able to pull himself up by his bootstraps, but not necessarily of his own merit. He was an intelligent, hard-working man, but that was not why he recieved job offers. e was given jobs because of his Mexican herritage. As he got promoted, he was "made visible." The business could show off its diversity by having a Mexican in a decent position.
This is actually a somewhat similar story to Ragged Dick. Both Cruz and Dick were given jobs based on something beyond their control: race in Cruz's case, character in Dick's. Dick would never had gotten the high-paying job he got had he walked into the office and presented his credentials. Stephen Cruz may have gotten offers were he white, but probably not as many as he did as a Mexican. It looked good to have a "good" minority.
Both Cruz and Dalton bring up the concept of being the "good" minority-of being compared to others of your biological kind rather than the entire group you're working with. From the corporate point of view, it leaves an impression to have a "good Mexican" on your staff to outsiders. It shows how as a business, you've transcended racial predjudice, when really, you hired the man specifically for this image.
Cruz and Dalton argue that the only way for the American Dream to exist is to completely eliminate things that a person can't help when applying for a job. Because everyone has a bias, stories like Ragged Dick will never exist. There is no way for a person to judge another person soley based on his or her merits.
This is actually a somewhat similar story to Ragged Dick. Both Cruz and Dick were given jobs based on something beyond their control: race in Cruz's case, character in Dick's. Dick would never had gotten the high-paying job he got had he walked into the office and presented his credentials. Stephen Cruz may have gotten offers were he white, but probably not as many as he did as a Mexican. It looked good to have a "good" minority.
Both Cruz and Dalton bring up the concept of being the "good" minority-of being compared to others of your biological kind rather than the entire group you're working with. From the corporate point of view, it leaves an impression to have a "good Mexican" on your staff to outsiders. It shows how as a business, you've transcended racial predjudice, when really, you hired the man specifically for this image.
Cruz and Dalton argue that the only way for the American Dream to exist is to completely eliminate things that a person can't help when applying for a job. Because everyone has a bias, stories like Ragged Dick will never exist. There is no way for a person to judge another person soley based on his or her merits.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Ragged Dick
When Dick jumps into the water to save that man's son, his reward is an amazing job opportunity. The author is making an implicit argument that the way to be successful is to be in the right place at the right time.
Had Dick not decided to take the day off, he would have still been working as a shoe-shine. Although he didn't know of the reward in store for him, when he jumped into the water he determined his destiny. Without doing that, he never would have gotten the job offer, or any job offer for that matter, considering the hard times.
There is another implicit argument in the story as well. One must be ready to take the initiative and be prepaired to do something without expecting a reward. Dick didn't know about the reward; all he knew was that he was a good swimmer and the boy needed him. Someone else could have easily beat him over the side of the ferry, but Dick didn't even pause to think about it.
Dick was in the right place at the right time and was ready to put his life on the line for a total stranger for nothing. For this he was heavily rewarded, and was given a job opportunity far greater than what he had been looking for in the first place.
Had Dick not decided to take the day off, he would have still been working as a shoe-shine. Although he didn't know of the reward in store for him, when he jumped into the water he determined his destiny. Without doing that, he never would have gotten the job offer, or any job offer for that matter, considering the hard times.
There is another implicit argument in the story as well. One must be ready to take the initiative and be prepaired to do something without expecting a reward. Dick didn't know about the reward; all he knew was that he was a good swimmer and the boy needed him. Someone else could have easily beat him over the side of the ferry, but Dick didn't even pause to think about it.
Dick was in the right place at the right time and was ready to put his life on the line for a total stranger for nothing. For this he was heavily rewarded, and was given a job opportunity far greater than what he had been looking for in the first place.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Visual Arguments
Whether or not visual arguments are more pursuasive than written arguments depends on the audience,the message, and the way the argument was produced. If society is already moving towards becoming exclusively visual, you probably don't need to worry about the audience since they'd already be getting used to it.
Today, most arguements are already visual; they're all implicit. Women who are naturally beautiful selling makeup will sell more makeup than average-looking women. People respond more readily to it because they don't even realize why they've decided to by the $30 eye shadow instead of the $5.
Visual arguements often appeal more to pathos than written arguments. If I were to tell you that 91,000 Ugandans died of AIDS in 2006, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as showing you the photo of a young girl with the disease. Although the number shows the greater catastrophe, the photo makes it personal for you.
One thing that makes the visual arguemt weaker, however, is the fact that if you don't encode it, the iconic (visual) thing your sensory memory percieved will only stay in your mind for .5 seconds. Echonic (hearing) will stay for 3-4 seconds. If all arguments were iconic, people would stop encoding them into their short-term memories, making them all less effective as a whole. Visual arguments are most effective in a world where most arguments are not visual.
Today, most arguements are already visual; they're all implicit. Women who are naturally beautiful selling makeup will sell more makeup than average-looking women. People respond more readily to it because they don't even realize why they've decided to by the $30 eye shadow instead of the $5.
Visual arguements often appeal more to pathos than written arguments. If I were to tell you that 91,000 Ugandans died of AIDS in 2006, it probably wouldn't have the same effect as showing you the photo of a young girl with the disease. Although the number shows the greater catastrophe, the photo makes it personal for you.
One thing that makes the visual arguemt weaker, however, is the fact that if you don't encode it, the iconic (visual) thing your sensory memory percieved will only stay in your mind for .5 seconds. Echonic (hearing) will stay for 3-4 seconds. If all arguments were iconic, people would stop encoding them into their short-term memories, making them all less effective as a whole. Visual arguments are most effective in a world where most arguments are not visual.
Ethics of Pathos and Ethos
Ethically, an author should be responsible for using facts as well as appeal to ethos and pathos. Without the facts, the argument becomes no more than propaganda. Arguments that are soley pursuasive can be extremely dangerous.
The media does not adhere to these ethics. Whenever you see an ad for a car, you also see an ad for a beauttful woman. The ad either says, "If you buy this car, this beautiful woman will want to ride in it with you," or, "If you buy this car, you will look like this beautiful woman." Although the ad itself may contain factual reasons to buy the car, psychologists have done studies that say if you show people ads of two comparable cars, one with a pretty woman in it, people will always say that the woman car is superior, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This implicit pursuasive argument could be considered unethical.
The government is also guilty of this. Campaign ads will often highlight a negative personal aspect of a candidate, rather than a flaw in his policy, and will flash unflattering photos of the target while the voice speaks. By pointing out personal flaws instead of holes in the candidate's policy, the person who wrote the ad targets the typical at-home voter who is more likely to be swayed by drawings of the characterists of a person. Someone running for office who looks good on stage will attract higher audiences. By putting picture of the person mid-yawn or sneezing, you show their human side, which puts light on the fact that they are not a god who can solve everybody's problems. The government also uses unethical pursuasion in ads to recruit for the military. When you see those ads with the great noble music in the backround, you think brotherhood and honor. The ads never show fresh-out-of-college boys dying.
The media does not adhere to these ethics. Whenever you see an ad for a car, you also see an ad for a beauttful woman. The ad either says, "If you buy this car, this beautiful woman will want to ride in it with you," or, "If you buy this car, you will look like this beautiful woman." Although the ad itself may contain factual reasons to buy the car, psychologists have done studies that say if you show people ads of two comparable cars, one with a pretty woman in it, people will always say that the woman car is superior, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This implicit pursuasive argument could be considered unethical.
The government is also guilty of this. Campaign ads will often highlight a negative personal aspect of a candidate, rather than a flaw in his policy, and will flash unflattering photos of the target while the voice speaks. By pointing out personal flaws instead of holes in the candidate's policy, the person who wrote the ad targets the typical at-home voter who is more likely to be swayed by drawings of the characterists of a person. Someone running for office who looks good on stage will attract higher audiences. By putting picture of the person mid-yawn or sneezing, you show their human side, which puts light on the fact that they are not a god who can solve everybody's problems. The government also uses unethical pursuasion in ads to recruit for the military. When you see those ads with the great noble music in the backround, you think brotherhood and honor. The ads never show fresh-out-of-college boys dying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
