Love is what makes Subaru a Subaru

Subaru likes to make very heartwarming commercials.  I actually remember them most of the time because their commercials really pull at my heart strings. 

 The one I saw recently depicts a dad giving up the keys to his daughter to take the car out driving.  The first frame had the Dad looking kind of torn because every parent is scared to see their own kid growing up and driving out on their own.  Then the frame switches to the daughter who looks about 5-8.  Its a little funny to see such a little girl in the drivers seat, but then later on I realized that the daughter was actually in her later teens and she was only a little girl in the Father's eyes. 

This commercial appeals to the need to nurture.  One giveaway is that a small child appears on the ad.  It targets parents, which have strong maternal and paternal instincts. By showing that the Dad was willing to let his precious daughter drive away in the Subaru, the company is letting its consumers know that the car is safe.  The message it sends is that parents can feel at ease when their children drive this car because the car will take care of the child in place of them.

Subaru also branded itself with an identity.  It uses the ambiguous word: LOVE, which can mean so many different things to different people.  Love has a positive connotation and makes me think of a mix of happy emotions.  Although I know that Subaru is not what love is, nor can it give me love like parent would, I like their commercials and have a positive view on the brand. 

Are You a Mushroom?

So on Friday, there were some solicitors passing out little newspapers in front of the school. My friend showed me the article and I realized that these people were campaigning pro-life ideals. They were informing us the "truth" behind abortion because many people are ignorant to what it "really" is.  The issue of the article was whether abortion should be illegal or not. It gave examples supporting how abortion was wrong.  and cleared up any exceptions such as if abortions should be accepted for women who were victims of rape.  

The article first established pathos by connecting with the values of the reader.  Pro-life obviously values life of human beings over choice.  The word life has a very positive connotation, which would automatically pull in readers to agree with their position.  The article seemed kind of degrading towards the readers.  When I read, it made me feel like I was stupid for either not knowing what abortion really was or not agreeing with the authors position.  It attacked my value system, but then gave a solution to fix it.  No person wants to feel immoral or ignorant so by attacking our value system it made us want to fix ourselves and also adopt pro-life ideals. The article established logos by giving statistics about how women felt emotional holes, depression, and suicidal thoughts after aborting. The statistics also had an emotional factor, but the numbers behind it give the readers a sense of logic and feel that it is the only sensible thing to stop abortion. The article also established ethos by stating how doctors agree that abortion is murder since lie begins at contraception.  Once again this argument relies on pathos, but it is also ethos since doctors are trusted in society. 

Although all the facts given were entirely true, I believe that the article was poorly written.  It used words such as "crap" to describe the arguments behind pro-choice and it was severely one-sided. The support behind why rape victims should not have an abortion was one real-life account of a woman who felt better to keep her child.  I didn't find it supportive enough however because it was only one account and didn't take into consideration that many women have different mentalities.  Of course "abortion doesn't unrape a woman" as the article argued, but a women might not want to be reminded everyday of their rape if they were to keep the child. 

I have always been pro-choice, but for me there is a very unclear line of when it is okay and when it is not okay. The question I have is why does it have to be conditional? Even I don't understand...

Do you think I am a mushroom?

Politics and the English Language:

Question: George Orwell argues against the "belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes". Explain why you do or do not agree with Orwell's position.

I agree with George Orwell that language should be an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.  The use of language is the way people express themselves.  And every person is an individual. There are several different ways that a greeting could be said.  For instance, a  person might say "hello" or "hi" or "hey".  They could even say "what's up?".  All four of these greetings mean the same thing however they all have a different tone.  In order from left to right each greeting gets more casual.  Depending on the personality of the person or how they want other people to perceive them, dictates the difference in their use of language. Language can create an image for oneself.  If a person wanted people to know that they were laid back and friendly they might choose to say "what's up?" over other options.    This is why language is a instrument--because the words create the sound of music (the tone) that the user wants people to hear.