Argumentation of Celebrity Endorsed Advertising

 What Sue Jozui stated is logically concluded. Celebrity endorsed advertising can be insulting to the audience, but her opinion is self-centered. Jozui based others' opinions off of how she feels which is unethical. Though her opinion is agreeable she lacks any statistical/numerical values to prove her point. The use of celebrities is a company's tactic to increase the number of buyers. If a company wants to use a celebrity and said celebrity agrees to the notion then that's a personal choice. Promotion is a necessary economic benefactor and its commercial use doesn't directly harm the audience making the idea of boycotts seem arbitrary.

     Jozui's argument states "Am I going to buy the newest SUV because an attractive talk-show host gets paid to pretend he drives one? I don't think so" which is biased to herself. Jozui is using how she feels as a basis for how others feel, but her opinion doesn't reflect others without evidence. It's clear that Jozui's argument is based off of her emotions which could fluctuate on any given topic. Sure, a talk-show host gets paid to drive a car, is that a bad thing? Is he being forced to? Does he hate that company? Obviously not if he's promoting the car. It was out of his own free will to promote the car just like it is the audiences own free will do to pay attention to the advertisement.

     Jozui states "we should boycott this kind of advertising and legislate rules and guidelines for advertisers" which is far too vauge. The use of "we" is arbitrary for it fails to state whom those people are. They could vary from those who just want celebrity advertisements out-ruled to those who are looking for enormous changes in the entire marketing industry. this vaugeness calls for people to be more attentive to what she is writing. She lacks evidence to support her claim and fails to provide us with a quick yet more in depth view on her opinions.

     One more thing Jozui does is make a statement without supporting it, which is wrong. Jozui says "This kind of marketing is misleading and insults the intelligence of the audience." But how? In what way is this form of advertisement offending the audience? Jozui implies that people are being offended but fails to state by what exactly and also who is being insulted. Jozui's arguement has the proper structure for discussion, yet in itself fails to be discussed.

                This overly vague, unsupported, under developed argument leads to the question of whether Jozui is well-informed on the topic or if she is just formally stating her opinion. People can be insulted but how someone takes an indirect insult is obviously a personal decision. the companies do not strive to insult the audience on purpose, what would be the point of advertising if this was the case. Abraham Lincoln once said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." In this lies the message that one can never fool everybody and celebrity endorsed advertisements fool no one, for it can not fool all of the people.

  Joan Didion Text

Didion displays a very ominous view of the Santa Ana winds. She opens with solemn words like, "uneasy" ans " "unnatural" then ends in a very sad tone. Her choice of words show her anxiety and distrust for against the Santa Ana winds. Beginning with her opinion she then migrates over to a chosen quote by Raymond Chandler. After the quote she moves on to examining some science and statistics of the wind and its causes. Many of her adjectives are objective towards the winds.

Throughout her writing Didion uses words like,  "consciously, ominously, and malevolent" to convey her emotions. This diction represents a strong uneasy feeling towards the winds. Each of those words (with many others) are emotionally packed and are used to give the reader some of the same feelings as of those in one of her quotes. Every single paragraph repeats these emotions with new words to reinstate the feelings. Some might describe the winds as refreshing where as she carefully uses her words to show us that the Santa Ana winds are not just an ignorable factor of life. She shows these winds mean something and that something is an untrustworthy force.

In addition to her diction, Didion effectively pairs words with imagery. As Didion says, "We know it because we feel it. The baby frets. The maid sulks. I rekindle a warning  argument with the telephone company, then cut my losses and lie down." Didion's choice of imagery reflects one of submission to the winds. She uses the actions of people to personify the winds as a higher being. The wind isn't just a current of moving air, but a reflection of "a deeply mechanistic view of human behavior." By using this imagery Didion allows the readers to consciously recognize the effect of the winds. Didion says, "the heat surreal. The sky had a yellow cast, the kind of light sometimes called earthquake weather". This ominous and dream-like state of being is an unhappy and foreshadowing tone. One can only imagine what it is like then and there in that foreboding time but is left to ponder the results of the description. Beginning with two short paragraphs Didion then goes on to a longer, more complex, more detailed view on the winds. This structure is preparing the reader for a buildup of emotion, that is let go with, "one cannot get much more mechanistic than that". This style tells the reader that more has yet to come, that Didion is not finished but whens she does finish it will still reflect the truth of her opinion.

Finally Didion ends her writing with a solemn tone and "mechanistic" description. Didion closes off with the same feelings she began with. The Santa Ana winds are not to be opposed, they are a force that should be feared and closely watched.

 Analysis of "How To Tame A Wild Tongue"

 "How to tame A wild tongue" by Gloria Anzaldúa begins with the story of a visit to the dentist. At the dentist, it is found that the patient has a strong tongue. This tongue is unrestrained and uncontrolled and will introduce the main idea of the writing. How does one control a tongue that can't be restrained? They cut it off. Anzaldúa goes on to use the pervasiveness of rhetorical devices like analogies, pathological appeal, and ethical appeal to support her argument that there needs to be a respect and representation for her people (Chicanos, Tijuanas, etc). Her points are effectively developed through personal experiences and even makes reference to our constitutional amendments. Not only is she familiar with the United states history, she is also familiar with the history of her people. It's easy to feel the emotion Anzaldúa strives to convey in her writing.

The use of analogies help Anzaldúa to express her feelings and draw a closer relationship to the readers. Anzaldúa says, "To be close to another chicana is like looking into the mirror" which reflects self-awareness. When an analogy like this is used its easy to see that she wants to relate an every day thing to a personal experience. The mirror represents something all the readers can relate to while, "to be close to another chicana" emphasizes the point that Anzaldúa is giving her people an equal representation. The reader is quick to establish a connection with this sentence creating a stronger feel for the writing. This technique is repeated different ways through out "How To Tame A Wild Tongue" This leads to our next rhetorical device: pathological appeal.

Pathological appeal addresses to a readers sense of emotions. Strong emotions can be found in abundance when Anzaldúa refers to her earlier college years, and those as a child. A pathological sentence would be one like, "I remember being caught speaking Spanish at recess-that as good for three licks on the knuckles with a sharp ruler " packed with emotional stimuli. The consequences for doing something as natural as speaking your native language can now fully be understood by the reader. A punishment for speaking like Anzaldúa says, "attacks on one's form of expression with intent to censor are a violation of the first amendment". Now the reader can feel the emotion Anzaldúa felt, not only of getting retribution for speaking her native language but her rights as an American citizen being violated. It's easy connect to a person who shares an experience but it's even easy to connect when they share ones natural rights. Her knowledge and background

 help the reader to correct through another one of her strategies.

 Anzaldúa's ethical appeal satisfies the readers need to know get importance. Even when emotionally packed, it's easy to refute an author whom lacks proper credentials. The reader is further persuaded by Anzaldúa when finding out that she went to college and argued for a focus in her heritage's language, "I had to 'argue' with one advisor after the other, semester after semester before I was allowed to make Chicano literature an area of focus" which shows great determination. Anzaldúa was not just a writer of her heritage but a well educated woman who know how to analyze multiple languages. Her education is consistent and allows for her to be a trust worthy source. Once the reader establishes this trust with her, they become more invested in finishing her writing. Now the reader understands that they aren't just reading any average writing, but one that has been well researched by an author who has been greatly invested in her writing.

These rhetorical devices help to interest the reader further in depth with Anzaldúa's work. The analogies, pathos, and ethos are clearly evident in her writing, and successfully capture the readers attention. After capturing the reader's attention the persuasion of the devices works in shifting the reader's views. In her writing Anzaldúa clearly shows that her tongue is unrestrained and she will convince the reader of her well-organized thoughts. Throughout Anzaldúa's trials at American life she shows that she refused to let her tongue be cut off.