Original, Yes... But Effective?

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

A commercial was recently brought to my attention. It is a commercial for the Kia Soul and it consists mainly of hamsters. It's one of those things that makes animal-lovers say, "Awww!!! They're so cute!" I thought it was not only a cute and funny commercial, but very clever. I have never seen a car advertisement with that angle and it really caught my attention and made me wonder how effective it would be in attracting customers.

Beside all of the cute hamsters, the first question that entered my mind as the commercial progressed was, "what is this commercial advertising?" Not until the final three seconds of the advertisement does the viewer know what the purpose of the commercial was: it was advertising the Kia Soul.

The second question that came to my mind as I thought more about the commercial was its effectiveness. It is a clever and creative approach (and new/fresh is always fascinating, right?). But who is the projected audience? Is it just animal lovers? If so, that would be a very limited audience, and would most likely prove ineffective in the long run.

The final thought that I had that's worth commenting on is that before this commercial I viewed Kias as cheap and low quality cars. I don't know where I got that impression (it could be a false impression), but it is the impression that stuck in my mind. After seeing this commercial, though, I have a new perspective. Kias are now associated with cuteness in my mind. Was the purpose of this commercial to replace bad impressions that many people may have of Kia? It's a competitive world out there, especially in the car industry at this point in time. It seems that Kia is stepping out and trying to make an impact on its potential customers.

So, what is the intended impact that Kia wants to make with this commercial, and how effective will it be?

Emily T.

Romance...in schools?!

We pursue a Lockean education at Moorestown High School, as we've been told by Dr. Bjornstand many a time. That means that we generally follow a neoclassic system in the classroom in which we leave religious matters out of the classroom. Our schedules are well-rounded agendas that consist of systematically run classes that could have been hand-picked from both the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. So, when we began to discuss Romanticism during class, I became curious as to what would happen if our cirriculum changed and suddenly entailed romantic studies.

We'd study tons of poetry and artwork...materials created and composed for the sake of art, itself. We'd base our understanding on emotion. But since, according to Hayakawa, the emotion driven by our intensional and extensional worlds is completely subjective, there wouldn't be any grading system for this kind of school, would there? Without grades, could a school carry out its proper functions? It wouldn't be able to match up to schools that host a Lockean education, but what if all schools became romantically based in their education? Would they be able to function? What would happen without grades?

On another note, how do you feel about a "pass/fail" system as opposed to the letter-grade system (pluses and minuses included) that we operate by?

(Samantha Maliha)

Feedback Loop

Today we discussed how the media tends to distort and exaggerate events and help create the "mood" of a nation. As we know, the media often manufactures drama as much as it reports it. As people read about negative events in the newspapers, their own mood is adversely affected, which then also is reported in the newspapers, which is then read again by other people, and so on... A feedback loop is created by the media and the public, in which the media continually reads, amplifies, and reflects back the feelings of the public.

Occasionally the media helps report a truly tragic event. The one that comes to my mind is the shootings at Columbine, especially since its 10th anniversary occurred recently. This was one of the first events in which the media provided ongoing coverage during the event itself, and later dug deep into the lives of the two killers, attempting to find an explanation. Although some felt that the media was providing a service by trying to find reason within this chaos, others felt that the media was only glorifying and exaggerating the event, exploiting it for readers. After all, the killers had wanted undying infamy for committing their actions, and the media gave it to them.

When tragic events such as Columbine occur, should the media give such intense coverage to the event and gratify the fame-hungry killers who perpetrated it? What do you think?
-Eric W

Super Size Me

In health class, we are watching the movie Super Size Me. Many of you are probably familiar with it. It's about this man that decides to go on a 'Mcdiet,' where he eats nothing but McDonald's three times a day for a month. He does this in order to see just how detrimental eating all that fast food is to the body. At many points in the movie, he talks about the lawsuit brought up against McDonald's.

Basically, these two girls grew extremely obese and said that it was due to McDonald's food. McDonald's defended itself by saying how they are not forcing anyone to eat their food and that it is common knowledge that fast food is bad for your health. While I agree with them, I was interested to see some of the arguments brought up against this grand fast food chain.

Many people mentioned the psychological effect that McDonald's has, especially on children. A lot of their advertising is based on appealing to kids and getting them to come in. They mentioned how there was a cartoon for McDonald's, how at many McDonald's restaurants there are play grounds, and that Ronald McDonald himself was just another way to appeal to these kids. To show the influence of this character, an experiment was conducted where a group of first grade girls and boys were shown cards with different faces and asked to recognize the figures. I was surprised to see that while few were able to recognize George Washington and none were able to recognize the Wendy's mascot nor Jesus Christ, all of them were able to recognize Ronald McDonald.

Looking at this large influence on children, do you think that McDonald's, or other fast food chains, can be blamed for the growing obesity of these children?

Mary Quien

J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur

The advertising theme came up quite a few times in class today, but maybe that wasn't such a bad place to end up. J. Hector has obviously written this document to appeal to neutrals in Europe. By using the "Just Plain Folks" propaganda, he highlights the successes of American in contrast with Europe's failures. The following excerpts illustrate my point:

Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kinds, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a very visible one...Some few towns excepted, we are all tillers of the earth, from Nova Scotia to West Florida.

Here, Hector promotes the equality (or "egality") of all men. He even makes the comparison when speaking of employers who regard their employees as equals, rather than submissive workers. On the same note, we can draw a contradiction similar to the one we stumbled upon in class. Hector says, "For instance, it is natural to conceive that those who live near the sea, must be very different form those who live in the woods; the intermediate space will afford a separate and distinct class." He continues to differentiate between the people in areas near the sea and those of the middle settlements who "are purified by their cultivation of the earth" with the rash, aggressive people of the great woods. If America is a nation of nationalism and unity, why were citizens categorized by their inhabited regions and provinces?

On a different note, two excerpts really seemed to contradict one another.
What attachment can a poor European emigrant have for a country where he had nothing? The knowledge of the language, the love of a few kindred as poor as himself, were the only cords that tied him.
From this passage, I think I can make the generalization that Hector's ideas regarding language differ from Hayakawa's. Hayakawa felt that language was the glue that held a society together, the basis for a group of people. It seems that Hector finds language to be something that may be quickly forgotten; it is not binding.

Later, Hector continues:
The inhabitants of Canada, Massachusetts, the middle provinces, the southern ones will be as different as their climates; their only points of unity will be those of religion and language.
Now it seems that Hector and Hayakawa's ideas about language are more similar. I can't be too sure, though.

(Samantha Maliha)

Bidding Farewell to Spring Break

Well, Spring Break has come to an end. Unfortunate, isn't it? Looking back, I had promised myself to accomplish so many things throughout the week. Now, I am absolutely regretting having wasted valuable time. It's not as if I hadn't seen this coming, though. I knew I'd be feeling this way the Sunday night before school, but as I've heard many times before, "Old habits die hard!" Some teachers refuse to assign work over break, insisting that it provides us with time to relax and socialize with our families. Yet on the other hand, other teachers insist that it provides students with a week to catch up on their studies and possibly get ahead. Which, to us, is more beneficial? Do our minds deserve a few days of relaxation, or should we be expected to work our way up to the finish line? Think about our upcoming AP exams alone...yikes!

It has been proven that people who live in a constant environment of fatigue and stress suffer from a more rapid deterioration of brain functions than would an average person. Some experts recommend listening to classical music (especially Mozart), engaging in breathing excercises and meditation, keeping good posture, exercising, and taking vitamin and mineral supplements. More and more, patients who frequent the doctor's office are complaining of psychological problems, most often the result of acute or chronic stress. According to WebMD Health News, however, life expectancy hit a new record of 78.1 years (four months longer than it was in 2005) for babies born in 2006 as of June 11, 2008. Even cases of heart disease, stroke, and cancer decreased in 2006. These statistics puzzle me, though. I feel that life has become more stressful for more recent generations. I've heard tales from my parents' childhoods, and they all seem like stories of innocent, carefree fun. What can we accredit this to other than advances in medicine?

(Samantha Maliha)
P.S. Hope you all had an awesome Spring Break!

Papa

The last couple of days, I was doing community service in Camden. During that time, I got to hear from the thoughts and basically life stories of a lot of people. One day, there was a trip to Philly, where I got to hear the story of a thrift shop owner. I don't remember his real name, but I do remember that everyone there called him 'Papa' because he's such an important male figure in the lives of many children. Now, before we even went to his shop, we were told that Papa had ADD and would be going off all these different tangents while speaking. However, even though he was doing this, I was able to understand him perfectly. In fact, I found his story really entertaining, and I was surprised. In debate and other speaking classes that I've attended, I was taught to always be organized and to stay on topic when speaking. The way Papa spoke was almost the exact opposite. He would jump from the present to the past to the future. He would start talking about his personal experience and go completely off topic. For example, he was talking about his experience with explosives one minute and then suddenly shifted to talking about all these different kinds of bullets. His style of story telling is so different, and yet it works effectively. Do you think that it is possibly more effective?

Something else that I noticed was that he told us that he had ADD and was crazy (many times, actually). Also, he was constantly making these random references and jokes so that we would laugh and pay attention to him more. It actually took me a while to catch on to some of those jokes because of how randomly he put them in. This reminded me of the comic book presentation. As you remember the guys that were presenting it were also telling all these jokes in order to catch our attention. In fact, both speakers were trying maybe a bit too hard (all the jokes were really corny and kind of lame). However, unlike in the comic book presentation, I was actually finding Papa's jokes funnier. Of course this is just my opinion, but is there some element I didn't see?

Mary Quien

Judging a Book by Its Cover

I was thinking back to the presentation in class today, and I remembered all the different covers and art work that they showed us. It got me thinking of that phrase: don't judge a book by its cover. I don't think anyone really does this. When you are looking for a book to read, you tend to look at the one that has a cover that is the most interesting to you. And it's obvious that these book/comic companies have picked up on this. They try to make covers that catch people's attention.

Do you think that the cover art is so important that it takes away from the actual quality of the book? Also, couldn't these companies make a cover that catches people's attention effectively but have nothing to do at all with the content of the comic? I mean, it's not impossible for them to do that, but do you think that they would? After all, in the end, don't they really care about how many copies of their work get sold?

Mary Quien

Deja Vu

Deja vu, coming from the French expression meaning "already seen," is used to describe the moment when an eery sensation of familiarity comes over you. It's a light-bulb moment when you feel that you're experiencing something that you've already gone through. How is this stimulated? Is it the actual physical environment? Is it dependent upon the language used by the people you are with? I personally think it's a little bit of both.

Just today, as we were getting ready to leave the AP Biology room, Mrs. Ericson made sure to wish us a "safe and happy holiday." Suddenly, I was overcome with the same sense of deja vu. The phrase "happy holidays" holds a certain connotation in my mind. It does not relate to Spring weather or to the month of April at all. Rather, the phrase, when spoken, gives me a sense of the holiday season celebrated in December through January. It reminds me of Christmas ornaments and dreidels and hot chocolate and snow! (We musn't forget the snow.) So for a split second, I had to come back to reality and realize that the winter season is gone. I guess connotations are pretty powerful and rather strongly attached to language. What other phrases can you think of that, to you, strongly represent one thing but may also represent another?

(Samantha Maliha)

Stream of Conscious

In Euro, we were talking about how Freud and other philosophers of the late 19th Century believed that humans had a "Stream of Conscious", which basically means that we never truly focus on just one thing, but rather have many ideas in our head at one time. For example, while your reading this, you are probably also thinking about other things, like perhaps a possible comment you could make. We went on to talk about how this is sometimes used in advertising. In order to get your wandering attention, there are many advertisements that have almost nothing to do with the product but throw random things at you that you may later associate with their product. Is this an effective way of advertising? I know personally, many times when I see this type of advertising, I myself feel that it is ineffective because they're not really promoting their product. However, this type of advertising is not meant to be rational, but on the other hand, it is supposed to get at the irrationality of the human mind.

Thoughts?
(Arvind Kalidindi)

West Side Story: En Español

As many of you might know, recently there has been a Broadway revival of "West Side Story." Interestingly enough, in this version, much of the dialog and the songs are conducted in Spanish. Although this appears to be a gimmick at first, it prompted me to think about the motives behind this decision.

Certainly, it serves as a reminder that here in America, despite what many would like to believe, we are multicultural and multilingual. Although many people still support the "One Nation" and "One Language" ideology (including the "Thomas Paine" imitation we watched a while back), just hearing the songs performed in Spanish reminds us that we cannot ignore the numerous facets of American culture. Hearing the songs spoken in Spanish gratifies those who have taken the time to understand it, and reminds others that they cannot focus on one version of America at the expense of others.

Do you believe that it was a good decision to change parts of the play's lines into Spanish? Does it actually serve any real purpose, or is it just an artistic gimmick designed to freshen up the play?

-Eric Wei

Is Fantasy Your Reality?

Some would say that our world is pretty fascinating. Look how much science and education has progressed in just the last fifty years, let alone this century. Technology is a wonder. Medicine is miraculous. But why do I feel that, sometimes, we need something more? Is materialism no longer appealing? I'd rather sit by the fireplace and and reminisce with my parents and little brother rather than turn on the Wii and start driving virtual monster trucks across virtual race tracks. I'd rather smile at a stranger from across the street than explore intricate applications on the iPhone. Or what about that feeling when you just finish a series of books and want to erase your memory so you can go back and read it again and have twice as much satisfaction as you did the first time? I always find myself wanting to be a character in the book, wishing that I could somehow interact with vibrant personalities begging to jump off the page. I wouldn't say this happens because the characters are ideally portrayed or because they happen to know the exact course of their lives. Rather, maybe we're just not satisfied with what we have. We're often scolded for not "appreciating" what we're given. It seems that I've had this discussion with so many people lately; maybe we're all running on a similar frequency. So what is this telling us?

Are we really shoved so much into the corner that we've come to admire fictional characters? What is it that we truly need, and why is it so hard to find? It's a shame that fantasy and reality can't mix. So if you could be any character from any fictional work, who would it be?

My main point here is that despite what we're offered (even on a grand scale, at times), we perpetually seek something "more." What is this more, and how can I find it?

(Sam Maliha)

Students and Teachers

So I was watching the movie Accepted. It's about this one kid who wasn't able to get accepted into a college. Instead of telling this to his parents, he and some of his friends make up a college on their own. They fix up an old building, make a website for the 'college,' etc. In the end, they manage to pass off as an actual college and accept all of these different students. Of course, they eventually get caught and the kid who founded the college had to go to court. However, he did not just give up. He tried to argue that what he and his friends built had all the requirements necessary to be considered a college. One of these requirements was having a faculty, and when the judge asked the kid to present the members of the faculty, all of the students at the college stood up. The judge was definitely not convinced and insisted that students could not be their own teachers.

This got me thinking about our school. Now, I definitely recognize the importance of teachers in our classes, but what about in our clubs? It is a rule that clubs at our school need to have at least one adviser, but is it really necessary? Isn't it possible for students to be able to function on their own? I acknowledge that it is helpful to have an adviser when the students don't know how to complete a certain project, but isn't that all part of the learning process? One of the major goals of high school is to help prepare us for situations in our future lives. In this case, wouldn't it be better to not have advisers so that students have the experience of figuring out how to solve problems on their own? They would also benefit from the extra leadership experience and the experience of relying on their co-workers.

This reminded me of what we discussed about work ethics of our generation. Is it possible to fix this problem if schools start emphasizing programs and activities where students learn first hand how to face difficulties on their own? Should we start making students become their own teachers?

Mary Quien

Colonial Williamsburg

I was doing some SAT prep, and I came across this passage about two different views of Colonial Williamsburg. For those of you who aren't familiar with Colonial Williamsburg, it is essentially a historical district that contains buildings are from about 1700. There are also many actors there that pretend to be normal people from that time period, who provided information about the time period to tourists.

One of the views in the passage looked very favorably on this concept. He said that it is an important part of our culture and provides a new and creative way of teaching others about that time period. Also, because the actors are not forced to read from scripts, they are able to convey history in a way that there audience will understand and remember.

The other person viewed Colonial Williamsburg as a sort of scam. He argued that because these actors are not forced to read from a script, they are not reliable in terms of the information that they provide. He also pointed out that in the process of making this site, many buildings that were actually from that time period were destroyed. He also brought up the point that Colonial Williamsburg provides a limited view because it seemed to freeze around that single point in time.

Which view do you agree with?

Mary Quien

America and France: Butting Heads

Today in French class, we began to discuss how pressured we've all been feeling lately. Mrs. Shourds, always looking to keep us calm, joined our conversation by drawing a dissimilarity between our culture and the general French/Europen culture. She told us that as Americans, we live to work, but that the French work to live. I think that this statement defies any of the hypocricy we identified during our discussions of the "American Dreams and Nightmares Unit." If we work so hard, then we should expect to be rewarded, right? Capitalist thinking really supports the American dream, doesn't it?

Because we "live to work," is that what fuels our economy? Think about what would happen if we advocated the "living to work" sort of idea. Would people do the bare minimum and move on? I think part of the reason we are so motivated now is because we know that it in some way, it guarantees a bright future. We're always looking to the future. What happened to the present?

A few days ago in AP Euro, a few of us were discussing how much our lives would be simpler if MHS didn't offer any AP courses. Does this mean that we feel obligated to take them? Is there no longer a joy for learning? Is our eye on the prize? Phillis Wheatley, although discriminated against, wrote because she loved poetry. Yes, she sought acceptance, but nothing more than equality, a now "inalienable" right. I'd say that people like her have unsullied intentions when it comes to doing what they love. I'm not so sure that applies to our generation, though.

(Sam Maliha)

Seatbelts, Skydivers, and the Bailouts

Well, I'm sure all of us know that seatbelts make us safer. The invention of them by Volvo, about 50 years ago, surely has saved lives, right? Certainly millions of Americans have been protected from whiplash and other injuries due to them.

And yet, interestingly enough, we have to remember this: some accidents may have been caused exactly because the drivers were wearing seatbelts.

One of the ideas floating around in academic circles is of risk tolerance, the idea that humans possess an innate tolerance for risk, and that as we feel safer, we tend also to take more risks. A sense of (perhaps false) security can be surprisingly dangerous. Some studies have shown that drivers wearing seatbelts tend to drive faster than those who do not, and that the seatbelt has led to increased deaths of bicyclists and pedestrians that had been hit by reckless drivers. Since seatbelts decrease the amount of risk present, as humans, we tend to drive more carelessly to make up for it. Hasn't the idea run ever through your head? "Well, yes, I'm driving way above the speed limit, but hey! I'm wearing my seatbelt! That makes it okay."

Similarly, despite advances made in ripcords and parachutes, skydiving accidents have not decreased. Aware that their parachutes were less likely to snag and were better at slowing them down, cocky skydivers started pulling their cords a little too late.

It's understandable. Aren't you more likely to act carefully and cautiously when you know something is dangerous? On the other hand, if you know that something is supposed to be safer, you act more recklessly. This idea applies to flood victims and Wall Streeters as well. Aware that stronger levees have been built and that the government will provide disaster relief, more and more people have built their homes on the vulnerable flood plains. Hence, after one hurricane hits, people start building in the same place again. Bankers, feeling overconfident due to their hedges and insurance, and the fact that the federal government wouldn't let them fail, may have taken unwarranted risks. Who knows?

-Eric Wei

Phillis Wheatley's Columbia

Is it simply human nature to appreciate what may seem intangible? To yearn for the unreachable? To want what we simply can't have? Phillis Wheatley fought long and hard for acceptance in America, or "Columbia", as she called it. Even two years after her death, in 1786, when Poems on Various Subjects was published in America, it was not welcomed warmly. In London, however, the book was circulated quickly.

As our packet tells us, "As an exhibition of African intelligence, exploitable by members of he enlightenment movement, by evangelical Christians, and by other abolitionists, she was perhaps recognized even more in England and Europe than in America."

The truth of the matter is that Phillis Wheatley met many abolitionists in England (Barron George Lyttleton, the Earl of Dartmouth) who accepted and embraced her talent, despite the color of her skin. In America, however, publishers rejected her work right and left. Yet still, Wheatley was intent about penning the glories of "Columbia" in her ingenious couplets organized in the iambic pentameter and heroic fashions. Did she want what she couldn't have?

Auspicious Heaven shall fill with fav'ring Gales,
Where e'er Columbia spreads her swelling Sails:
To every Realm shall Peace her Charms display,
And Heavenly Freedom spread her golden Ray.

She even makes mention of freedom in relation to America in this excerpt from her pamphlet entitled "Liberty and Peace."

(Samantha Maliha)