Framing My Speech (SPE-270)

When trying to decide how I was going to argue my side, I found it difficult. The issue that I'm discussing is whether or not there should be a ban placed on cell phone use and texting while driving. At first I thought I should argue for a ban, but then decided otherwise. I decided it would be more interesting and thought-provoking to advocate against the ban. I thought it would be easy to hide behind statistical evidence, and figured that I will examine the evidence and critically analysis whether or not it was relevant and conclusive.

A lot of supporters of a ban use tragedy stories of families that have been affected by a driving accident that involved a cell phone, however if you look at the causes of driving accidents, most deal with other distractions on the road. Distractions like lack of sleep and adjusting the radio are among just a few of the factors that are higher on the scale of danger.

Bans are also very ineffective at stopping behavior -- consider the speed limit. Very rarely is it followed to the 'T.' And when looking at enforcing a ban against using a cell phone in the car, police will have a hard time trying to find those breaking the law. Instead of the police looking for those breaking more severe laws like drinking and driving, they'll be distracted by looking for people talking on their phones. The ban would also be even harder to enforce when looking at hands-free cell phone systems in cars. How can police tell if the drivers have both hands on the wheel and look as those they are fully focused on the road.

Instead of a ban, I will argue for better education. Teaching teenagers in high school and college students who are the future drivers on the road, the effects of cell phone use while driving, and how it may limit their attention. It's easy to argue against cell phone use, because seriously, who would support more distractions on the road, but it's more important to look at educating and enforcing distractions as a whole -- not just cell phone use.

Magazine Advertisements (SPE-370)

You know, I had some fun looking for an interesting magazine advertisement to pick apart. Mostly because there were so many cool choices to pick from, however in the end I decided on this beauty.

Wow. The 70's never looked so drab.

There are a few reasons for why I chose this, one of which being how ironic it is. Video calling is the hype right now with cellphones, but in the end, nothing is original. What you're looking at is Western Electric's "Picturephone," which debuted on the market in 1970. Obviously it failed, but it's fun to look back on our past and see how things repeat themselves.

Anyway, I digress -- let's get to picking this apart graphically. What makes the ad "interesting" (to some maybe) is the fact that it plays with point-of-view. We're supposed to be tricked into the illusion that we are the one's holding the telephone receiver and looking into the camera. However, the illusion fails on so many levels. First off, are we all supposed to be middle-aged women, because that's what the ad is banking on for the illusion to be successful. Secondly, the camera isn't even pointed at us in the angle that is depicted on the screen (but I'll let that slide since it was a different and perhaps less critical time period).

The font pops out, since it's white on black, though doesn't leave much of an aesthetic impression. It's centered and placed at the top just like every other headline. There's also another tag line of text next to the screen, which reads:

"Someday you'll be a star!"

I find that line pretty humorous, as if it were to tell us that just because we're on a screen, we're movie stars, but again -- I think I'm just being cynical. The lighting also places the focus of the reader to look right at the product. There isn't any other supercilious objects lying around, it's just the Picturephone sitting on a desk.

Nonetheless, it's an ad that makes me smile every time I see it.

Corporate Logos (SPE-370)

NBC Universal's recognizable peacock logo.

To be completely honest, I got excited when I heard we'd be talking about corporate logos, because I've always found them fascinating. I also immediately knew which one I was going to analyze because I eventually want to work for them doing motion pictures. As you can clearly see from the picture on your right, I'm going to be talking about NBC Universal, and a logo that has changed a lot throughout time.

NBC logos throughout time.

Although the NBC logo featuring the peacock is most recognizable, there have been a bunch of variations back in the day. Originally NBC's logo was a ribbon microphone with their initials printed on the side. It had radiating waves all around it. On the right the waves symbolize the spoken voice, and on the left it symbolizes voice translated into electrical waves by the microphone. Then with the invention of color television, NBC updated their logo to feature vibrant hues and made sure to use the logo as often as possible on air -- hoping to remind the viewers how beautiful NBC programming was in color. It was in 1956 when NBC first presented a peacock as their logo. It had more hues than before, showing how broad of a spectrum of color they could reproduce on television, and was easy to recognize and remember. From 1959-1971, they went for a more corporate and modern logo that was clean and sleek, though it was boring and was quickly abandoned for the logo that is currently used today.

Enough about the history, let's take an in-depth look at the current logo and figure out why it's so memorable and effective at branding the corporation.

First off, the colors. The rainbow of hues in the peacocks feathers allows the logo to pop out against a white background, and visually is attractive to the eye. Secondly, there aren't many lines in the logo -- it's comprised of just colored feathers, which have been cut out in the center to make the body of the peacock, and a bold sans serif font. The font isn't fancy, it's sleek and crisp, which gives a modern and professional feel to the logo (something perhaps salvaged from the 1959-1971 logo), without making it feel as though the company is operated by a bunch of stiff and stoic white-collared people.

*Snores*

I believe it effectively matches the company's corporate image. It illustrates that NBC is a colorful and thriving business that is greeting the new era of television with an imaginative, yet thoughtful, outlook. It doesn't date them at all, and actually feels refreshing in comparison to CBS and ABC's logo, which haven't changed much since their creation.

Evidence Assessment (SPE-210)

So, I've decided to pick cellphone-use while driving as my issue to persuade on, which I've found out, has a lot of research already published! I chose five of the best sources of evidence that I could use and decided to analyze whether or not they would be effective in my argument.

Source 1:
GHSA (Governor's Highway Safety Association) State Cellphone and Texting Law
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Published in March 2011 and updated in 2012, this website documents all state laws pertaining to cellphone-use including talking and texting. It states that Pennsylvania does not have any laws prohibiting talking on the cellphone while driving, but it does prohibit texting now. It'll be useful for me in formulating my argument and allow me to compare and contrast PA's laws with nearby states that students could possibly be from.

Source 2:
GHSA Review on Distracted Driving Research
http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/pressreleases/2011/20110707_sfdist.html

Published July 7, 2011, and defines what effects cellphones have on drivers. Mentions that driving is an emotional action, and that cellphone use distracts the driver's emotional attention away from the road, which can be extremely hazardous. It'll help me use research studies to solidify my case to promote laws towards banning complete cellphone-use in PA.

Source 3:
Harvard Medical School Article
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/September/why-cell-phone-conversations-distract-drivers

Article published by researchers at the Harvard Medical School, and discusses the medical side of this issue -- how the brain is effected by cellphone-use. It also mentions and defines the differences between typical cellphones and hands-free devices. Overall it concludes that they are just as dangerous despite what most people think. This information is helpful to clarify the issue, and allow my audience to realize that despite what device they use, cellphone issue can be distracting and potentially life-threatening.

Source 4:
New York Times Article: "Driven to Distraction"
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/technology/series/driven_to_distraction/index.html

Article from the New York Times that outlines pertinent statistics about cellphone-use and driving. Also links to other similar articles on the issue. Again, it supports my cause with statistical evidence that allows my audience to better understand.

Source 5:
TIME Article: "Should Talking, Texting Be Banned?"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1916291,00.html

Hypothesizes whether or not cellphone-use should be banned completely across the board in the U.S. Currently it's a state issue, and varies around the nation. Some ban all use, some ban just texting, and so forth. Basically this is a great resource for me because this is the overall question that my argument faces. It also uses sources from other universities who did studies to test if cellphone-use is as dangerous as perceived by the public.

Fonts. (SPE-370)

Typesetting has been around for a long time -- centuries even -- dating back to around 900 A.D. At that time, it was reserved for publishing and reproducing religious documents, but over time the use for font types have grown.

To quote Rick Poynor, a prominent British writer on graphic design, typography, and visual culture, 

“Type is saying things to us all the time. Typefaces express a mood, an atmosphere, they give words a certain coloring.” 

His words bring up an interesting point -- describing type as a palette of colors that can evoke different emotions and feelings. It’s an eye-opening statement, that allows everyone to understand that type is much more important than first understood.

Serif font with the serifs highlighted in red.

If one were to explore typesetting further, they would find that it’s more humanistic than anything. For example, serif fonts have the jutting ends on each corner due to the fact that it was easier for Romans to chisel into stone. It allowed carvers to neaten the ends of each stroke and hide error in the font. Humans are drawn to the ability to express themselves, and typesetting allows them to do that. Observe the following examples:

“No,” she snapped.

“No,” she snapped.

By making the second version bold, italic, and in a different font, it immediately gives the reader some motivation for how to read it in their head. The second example has a greater impact and seems more intense than the first because it pops out against the other font.

An example of "Helvetica."

To explore this topic even further, I took a quiz to determine which font best exemplified my personality. Though, the outcome was not much of a surprise. The quiz calculated that “Helvetica” was most similar to me. It went on to say, “you’re like an industry standard. Classic. Reliable. Okay, maybe a bit boring. But you don’t like the haters get you down -- after all, you’ve still got plenty of friends who think you’re the best.”

For the most part, it’s dead-on. I don’t stray from the rules often, and even when I do it’s conservative. I enjoy the same lunch everyday at exactly 10:50 AM in order to beat the crowd, and to tell the truth, I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m stalwart in the face of change, but not because I’m headstrong. It’s because whatever I do has worked for me, and why change something that has proven to be the most efficient?

Issue Identification (SPE-210)

Democrat Al Gore speaking about emissions.

Now I'm sure we can all look back and remember when this issue first came up in the political arena, and even today it's a debated subject -- I'm talking about global warming. Now it was brought to prominence in the 2000 presidential campaign by Al Gore, and even today it's unknown if global warming is a legitimate claim. As of today, the issue is argued both ways...

CO2 levels in the atmosphere over 3 centuries.

Liberals and conservatives both argue that there is a change in the Earth's temperature, but they differ in the reason for why there was a change. The liberal party states that global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas).  They point out that the U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world’s carbon dioxide. To fix the issue, they propose laws to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. and place them with high importance -- urging them to be enacted immediately to save the planet.


On the other side, conservatives argue that the change in global temperature is natural and happens often over long periods of time. They claim that research has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the Earth’s temperature. In contrast to the liberal perspective, they would say that proposed laws to reduce carbon emissions will do nothing to help the environment and will cause significant price increases for all.

Which side is right? Unfortunately, no one knows the answer to that question. There's significant scientific research that supports both claims equally.

Earth's temperature change over 2 millennia.

It's true that the U.S. contributes 25% of the world's carbon dioxide, and that the temperature has increased, but no one can say that there's a correlation between the two. Scientists can look back on the history of the Earth and see that the temperature has risen and lowered drastically throughout time. Who's to say this isn't just another natural phenomenon that is completely normal and unavoidable.


However it seems that only time can tell whether global warming a true environmental threat, and until then, we can only guess.

Dissection of a Comics' Lines (SPE-370)

This is probably my favorite blog assignment yet, so I hope I don't mess it up -- here goes nothing!

The main reason why I'm was so excited to write this blog is because I've grown up reading and drawing a lot my own comics. I love 'em! They're fast-paced, action-packed (at least the ones I read), and usually have fantastical story lines. One of my favorite comics is titled "Naruto." As you may have guessed, it's Japanese anime, but don't let that fool you into thinking it's some silly story about giant robots or sea creatures. It's really well written and the illustration in it supersedes all others.

Here's an example of one page...

Putting the story and dialogue aside, this single page is amazing. The author, Masashi Kishimoto, has done a lot in this page to make an art form that is perceived as stationary, have motion. He uses harsh directional lines to mimic the effects of movement and uses them to accomplish two things -- indicate the general plane on which an object is moving and emphasize urgency.

If you look at the prominent frame in the center where one character is pouncing on another mid-air, you can see how Kishimoto indicates the general plane on which they are moving. We don't know which direction they are moving, but we know it's vertical. From other clues like posture and context we can surmise that it's downward.

In the lower right frame with radial lines all pointing inward we can see how Kishimoto plays with those same directional lines to make us assume the point-of-view of the attacker. We are the one falling from the sky to ambush those on the ground, and even though we aren't literally falling we get the feeling as though we are moving down.

Kishimoto also uses textural lines to illustrate backgrounds like trees and rocks, as well as scuffs and dirt on skin and clothing. If you look at the characters closely you can see that he uses many tiny lines to indicate as though the skin is scratched and/ or bruised -- adding to the intensity of the scene.

And last, but not least -- there is the use of gestural lines. If you draw your attention to the top left frame there is obviously some sort of explosion -- the dramatic impact of the attacker being launched into the ground. The lines around the explosion are jagged and sharp, which gives the reader a sense for how severe the impact was. You can almost hear it in your head. It isn't a soft and poofy explosion, it's the kind of impact you imagine when you think of a missile rocket colliding with the ground. It's thunderous and deadly.

All together, I think Kishimoto is an amazing artist who uses different types of lines in ingenious ways -- helping the reader feel as though they are watching the events in his comics unfold in real life.