Personal Blog Project (link)

http://jkisner7.blogspot.com/

Multimodal Rhetorical Analysis

Jessica Kisner

Engl 191 – 17

Jack Hennes

Oct. 01, 2012

Welcome to Proactiv Now Faster and Gentler Than Ever Before

For as far back as the media goes there has always been tactics used by big companies of all sizes in order to attract consumers and to sell their products so they can make a large profit. No matter if it’s a television commercial, a billboard, a magazine article, etc.; advertisers will do all they can in order to get people to buy their products, whether those products actually work or not. A great example of this method is a product that millions of people know about, are familiar with, and may even use on a daily basis. The product is Proactiv, the most popular skin care method on the market today. When visiting the home page of this very large company a person can see this first hand. The Proactiv home page is very effective in getting people to buy their product by appealing to the consumer's logic, winning them over with the authority of the experts and finally making them feel something by targeting their emotions. It uses a combination of words, pictures and videos as well in order to prove what a wonderful product it is. Proactiv’s tactics have thus far proven successful in drawing in millions of customers, and the website’s multimodal homepage has a great deal to do with it.

When it comes to the process of buying something, people tend to listen to those who appeal to our logic, the "experts" in other words. Affecting a person's logical appeal is defined by the term logos, this means persuading someone by the art of reasoning. Logos tend to look at the claim that is made, in this case if you use Proactiv then your acne will go away, then it evaluates the accuracy of said claim. Logos will also assess the effectiveness of any supporting evidence such as facts and statistics. Because of these experts targeting our logic we are told to invest our time listening to them and then eventually invest our money in their product. Millions of people fall for this tactic every day. To them, ordering this product seems the smart and logical thing to do. In the specific example of the Proactiv homepage logic is being used very obviously. If you type in "www.Proactiv.com" in either the search bar or Google you will be taken directly to the homepage of the website. Your eyes are greeted by friendly looking faces playing on a slideshow that alternates with quotes from popular beauty magazines such as Seventeen, Teen Vogue, or Allure. The slideshow is almost enchanting, or could be described as such to someone with acne. The faces are beautiful and clear, an ideal image of the skin that every teenage girl or boy would want. What's even more captivating however is the words and quotes presented on the page. The way the website presents its product through words that target our logic is quite impressive. For example, the quotes as mentioned before that play in the slideshow say things such as "Best Acne Product", by Seventeen, "Best of Beauty" by Allure, and "Best Acne System" by Teen Vogue. It is clear that the website thinks Proactiv is "the best" and uses quotes from these articles to prove this and to get deep into our minds, brainwash us in a sense. Although logic is a very large part of the advertisement it would hold no credibility without the sources they used.

Proactiv's website has the amazing ability to win its customers over with the authority of the experts that have dedicated so much of their time to creating this product. On the multimodal home page you will see a specific tab just for looking more in depth at the history of the product and the people behind it. In doing this we tend to gain the feeling that these two dermatologists have a great amount of credibility and can be trusted. This is Proactiv attempting to hit home with our ethos. The part of rhetoric that has to do with the ethical aspect of persuading people, the legitimacy of the speaker, how credible they are, and how much authority they have. For example on the bottom left of the homepage, the website viewer is shown a kind face of a woman who is obviously a dermatologist. It has a heading titled ‘Expert Skin Care Advisors 242/7’. Then next to her photograph is a few snippets of sayings with things such as ‘Our experts want to help you achieve the best skin possible’, ‘NEW Proactiv 365. Care and support: Every Minute Every Day’ and ‘for more benefits’. Seeing this makes a person feel as though the dermatologists and experts that vouch for the company are legitimate and have the maximum credibility possible. It is possible when analyzing the Proactiv Homepage to research the Founders of the product in order to find out what they’re all about

Guthy|Renker is one of the largest and most respected direct marketing companies in the world, with distribution in 68 countries. Since 1988, Guthy|Renker has discovered and developed dozens of well-loved, high quality consumer products in the beauty, skincare, entertainment and wellness categories. (“About Guthy|Renker”)

It was over 15 years ago now that two men Bill Guthy and Greg Renker set industry standard and produced Proactiv Solution. It has now become a bestselling acne treatment not just here in the US, but all over the world. It has achieved its main goal of helping millions of people reach their ideal clear skin. Without this multimodal homepage consumers would know none of this and be kept in the dark. Being able to learn about the people who created their favorite product appeals to their ethics and justifies them spending their hard earned money on it. However, in addition to logos and ethos, the role that pathos play is also significant.

In rhetorical writing pathos is the term used to represent an appeal to the reader’s emotion. Humans have dozens of emotions so it’s not hard to believe that pathos are the most commonly used and easiest to point out in any form of writing. When it comes to Proactiv, specifically the homepage, it is clear that this is most likely the main focus in order to make customers buy their products. Recall the slideshow that was previously mentioned; it is not filled with just any ordinary friendly faces; they are celebrities. For example the beautiful face of Naya Rivera is shown. Her name is in bold letters, then also in bold letters below her name and pictures are the words “Proactiv Customer” then in fine print underneath that is her status “Actress, Glee”. This tells us that this beautiful girl with perfect skin, an actress from the hit TV series, Glee, is just like the rest of us and uses Proactiv. Also shown is Melissa Claire Egan, also an actress, and Julianne Hugh, a very well known singer, dancer, and actress. These three women’s pictures alternating with the magazine review quotes are the very first things you see when opening the page. This company knew how large of an impact they would have. Teenage girls see their favorite actresses, singers, dancers, etc and see that they use Proactiv. It not only makes them feel better about having acne, but it is also incredibly gratifying to know you’re using the same product as these people. This fact is almost irresistible and continues to draw millions of customers in. However, the viewer’s emotions are not finished being targeted; on the bottom right of the screen is a video. If you click on it, the first thing you will notice is the very dejected and sorrowful music. The music fades to the background and an average girl, plain and simple looking, begins to tell her story. She tells of how she struggled her entire teenage years with unclear, and not so pretty skin. It made her constantly self-conscious and was beginning to ruin her life: until she got Proactiv. As a person struggling with acne watches this, they can easily relate and feel as if this girl is speaking directly to them. It makes them feel as if they are not alone and finishes with giving them a silver lining, that glimmer of hope that their skin can look like the beautiful women that flash before their eyes on the very same screen. If one continues to explore the homepage after watching the video, various links can be found at the top as well. The very last tab is one titled “Success Stories”. People are drawn to these sort of things, if they can be presented with valid evidence that this product works for average people everywhere as well as celebrities, it gives them that very strong hopeful feeling that it will work for them as well. Proactiv has the amazing ability to target those emotions deep in our core, it can make us envious of those beautiful actresses and in the same minute make us hopeful that we could have the clear skin they have.

Logos, Ethos and Pathos can be found at the base of almost every multimodal aspect we come across, and even some that are not multimodal. These three themes are constantly being targeted and there is no exception with Proactiv. We are drawn in by the logic of it all, held fast by the credibility of those explaining the logic, then finally convinced after we are forced to feel something. The combination of words, pictures and videos plays a huge role in this website’s effectiveness as well. Each part is crucial and pulls the whole thing together very nicely. The Proactiv homepage is an ideal example of multimodal rhetoric at it’s finest. In analyzing it, it becomes very clear that a fair amount of time and energy is spent in order to sell the product. But one must take a look for themselves to really understand, so go ahead, “all you have to lose… is your acne” (Acne Treatment).

Works Cited

"Acne Treatment & Skin Care | Proactiv® Official Site | Special Offer." Acne Treatment & Skin Care. Guthy-Renker LLC, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. <http://www.proactiv.com/>.

  "About Guthy|Renker." Guthy. Guthy-Renker LLC, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. <http://www.guthy-renker.com/about/>.

Group Wiki Project (link)

http://teamzombie.wikispaces.com/Why+The+Spread+of+Zombies+Would+Fail.

Researched Argument Essay

Jessica Kisner

Engl 191-17

Jack Hennes

Nov. 14, 2012

Human Experimentation – Is it Ethical?

“From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose. And repose can only be found in everlasting principles.” - Charles Summer. From some of the most well known cases, to the ones that are swept under the rug and hidden from us, human experimentation dates back as far as our own history does. It has not just been present, but also very common. Our world has advanced far and wide in the medical field, but this was not without some sacrifice and a dark history containing many untold secrets. First it is necessary to look back on cases of human experimentation that took place in our somber past. Second, we must examine why this is unethical and defies every basic human right we are given. Then the counterargument must be presented; many people believe human experimentation is justifiable. Next, more recent cases will be discussed and continuing on, human experimentation will be tied to the story of Henrietta Lack’s. Finally we will look toward the future and where human could possibly still lead us. The emphasis however, is that any type of experimentation on a human-being is utterly atrocious. It has destroyed millions of lives and continues to today.

In order to better understand the ethical and moral issues surrounding human experimentation, it is crucial to establish knowledge of past incidents. One of the most well known but also one of the most horrific was the Holocaust. Although nearly everyone has at least heard of this tragic event, most cannot begin to fathom the circumstances or begin to feel what those individuals felt. The Holocaust is one of the most infamous human experimentation examples in our history, but is it justifiable? Of course not.

On January 30^th, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany with a Jewish population of 566,000 (The History). From that moment on, panic and terror was instilled upon this country. Jews were isolated, alienated and terrorized. Then on March 22^nd of 1933, just 51 days after Hitler took power, the very first concentration camp named Dachau was opened. From then on millions of Jewish individuals were forced to spend their lives in this camp, or ones similar to it. (The History). While being sustained in these camps Jews were subjected to dozens of inhumane and torturous experiments for the Nazi's benefit. They did not simply murder every Jew, they put them through hell first by testing the body's limits in ways never done before. For example, the freezing and hypothermia experiment was popular with the Germans who had fought in war. They wanted to know the effects of extreme cold on the body and how to prevent them, due to the fact that hundreds died from freezing on the Eastern Front. In order to do this they administered experiments to the Jewish men in their camps. The freezing experiments were divided into two parts. First, to establish how long it would take to lower the body temperature to death and second how to best resuscitate the frozen victim (Medical Experiments). The first part consisted of submerging the body in an icy vat of water or leaving them naked outside in the bitter cold, then forcing a thermometer in the rectum to record body temperature. Most victims lost consciousness and died when their body temperature dropped to 25ºC (77ºF). The second part, the resuscitation of the victim, had multiple options. Victims could be placed under sunlamps so hot they melted the skin, or perhaps have boiling water irrigated into the stomach, bladder, and intestines. However, Jews in Nazi Germany suffered through dozens more experiments such as this and discussing them all would take ages. Those who were murdered right away, or died quickly could almost be considered lucky. A man by the name of Dr. Josef Mengele became known as “The Angel of Death” and would carefully observe as prisoners arrived and got off the train at the camps. He would then select any individual looking even slightly different and take them with him to endure his cruel tortures. Specifically, he had a liking for twins who were often murdered and then dissected limb by limb. Nonetheless, any and all Jews were likely to be subjected to experiments of freezing/hypothermia, genetic testing, being infected with diseases, torture through interrogation, high altitude tests, sterilization, surgery practices and traumatic injuries, only to name a few (Medical Experiments).

Keep in mind as well, that the Holocaust is only one specific case in the entire world. Many others must be highlighted as well, remembering too, that these are not the only ones, simply the most heard of. They include: The Stanford prison experiment, The Aversion Project, North Korean experimentation (which greatly resembled those of the Holocaust), The Tuskegee syphilis study, Unit 731 in Japan, and of course the Nazi Experiments. With each of these cases millions of innocent souls were tortured. The lives lost were not only great in number, but offered so much to mankind. How could we do this to our fellow human beings? Under no circumstance are these events ever tolerable, for many reasons.

First and foremost human experimentation is downright wrong, especially in the extent that it has been previously carried out. It tends to be based upon some sort of discrimination. Typically one group is singled out by a more dominant group, is deemed unworthy and inferior, then falls victim to these cruel tortures. Discrimination could include race, gender, age, religion,etc. But we are all human, the same species just with our own variations. Differences in any physical demeanor do not make someone less than another and this is not a reason to be violated and mistreated. It dehumanizes, brutalizes, alienates, and when it comes down to it, simply destroys a person, a family, or even an entire culture. It is barbaric to say the least. Also making it unethical is the fact that it is frequently used only to benefit others. For example, the Tuskegee studies, where black men with syphilis went untreated despite the doctors knowing of their condition only so the effects of the disease could be studied. Another example is the practice of illegal surgery on humans in order to establish the right techniques for later patients. The list goes on and on of other instances as well.

Human experimentation, particularly when it is against a person's will, raises fundamental questions of medical ethics that date back to the ancient Greeks. In ancient Greece physicians adopted the Hippocratic Oath, which made all doctors swear to do no harm to one's patient, or indeed, they shall bare the consequences (Hamblin). This clearly exhibits that medical experiments have almost always been surrounded by ethical concern, and when those lines are crossed it is known to be unacceptable, improper and misconstrued. Therefore, those who carried out the horrific acts must face their punishment. The Nuremberg trials demonstrate this fact very well.

At the beginning of 1940, the Polish government-in-exile asked the British and French governments to condemn the German invasion of their country. The British initially declined to do so; however, in April 1940, a joint British-French-Polish declaration was issued. Relatively bland because of Anglo-French reservations, it proclaimed the trio's "desire to make a formal and public protest to the conscience of the world against the action of the German government whom they must hold responsible for these crimes which cannot remain unpunished. (Nuremberg Trials)

The Nuremberg trials sought out to make the most prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the Nazi Germans pay for their crimes. So on November 1^st, 1943, the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union published a document warning that they would pursue the Nazi's to the “uttermost ends of the earth... in order that justice may be done”. The trials began November 20^th, 1945 and continued until sentences were read on October 1^st of 1946. Twelve of the accused were sentenced to death by hanging, 7 received prison sentences and 3 were acquitted. Of the twelve to receive the hanging, two were not hanged. Hermann Göring committed suicide the night before and Martin Bormann was killed in his attempt to escape in May, 1945 (Nuremberg Trials). The medical experiments conducted by German doctors and prosecuted in the so-called Doctors' Trial led to the creation of the Nuremberg Code to control future trials involving human subjects, a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. The millions of lives lost through sick and twisted operations can never be replaced, and to explain how unfair and misguided human experimentation is, is impossible.

Yet we must still analyze the other side of the argument. Somehow, there are people not only from the past, but from today’s age, that think human experimentation is a 'necessary evil' and is for the benefit of future generations (Hamblin). These people defend that it has helped advance our medical field and teach us the right ways in order to treat diseases, care for wounds, operate on a patient, prevent hypothermia, etc. In essence, human experimentation argued that way, is okay. In the case of Nazi Germany it was found acceptable because they were so blinded by their hatred for Jews that they felt what they were doing was to better the world. It is unclear whether they ever felt sympathy for the crimes they committed, but at the Nuremberg Trials many reported regrets, but those may have just been their last desperate attempts to avoid the death sentence. Another viewpoint is that these operations will someday help in our future and our kid's futures and then somehow we will all be better prepared for whatever ills may be thrown our way. In this context then, that statement holds true. Technically experimenting has advanced our world, especially in the field of medicine. These advancements, yes, have changed the lives of billions of people around the world – Sometimes for the better, as in the case of finding a cure for malaria and other epidemic diseases (Veracity). However the fact remains that there are more positive alternatives and we must carefully examine them because these problems are still existent today.

In fact, we may be severely underestimating the amount of people in this world that find human experimentation acceptable and may even still practice it. Dozens of articles can be found on recent and even current cases occurring. In 1965, which was still only 47 years ago The Department of Defense used human test subjects in order to test the radiation of a VX nerve agent in Alaska. According to Native American scholar Dr. Andrea Smith, “... Alaska Native populations were ideal laboratories because they were geographically isolated, and no scandals would come out because no one knew what was going on there” (Hansen). This simply goes to show that we are amazingly undereducated about how many things like this still occur. Society is kept so in the dark as this continues on right under their noses. Two other modern examples, occurring only in the 1990’s reveal bone-chilling cases. The first of which took place in Uganda. Doctors funded by the United States traveled there with the task of treating the country’s HIV-infected women. However, when they were there the doctors withheld the AIDS drug AZT to all of the women, which left their unborn children unprotected and at risk as well. In the other case, Pfizer representatives traveled to Nigeria to test drugs on 200 children during a 1996 meningitis epidemic without their parents consent; 11 died while others suffered mental retardation. When Nigeria’s attorney general pressed charges, Pfizer hired investigators to dig up any evidence of corruption against him to pressure him to drop the case, according to U.S. cables leaked in 2010 (Hansen). Just because these cases that are kept from us are not as severe as more infamous cases, such as the Holocaust; does not make them any less important or devastating. Innocent lives are being taken advantage of and it is sickening and wrong. There is one particular life that was also taken advantage of that is important to note when discussing human experimentation, consent, and all that it encompasses. This one person’s name is Henrietta Lacks.

Henrietta Lacks was a woman living in the ’50’s who suffered from cervical cancer. Looked at from one viewpoint, it is possible to say Henrietta was a human experimentation subject herself. From the opposing side, it could be seen as doctors attempting to help her, and save her life and prevent future cases such as hers. However, lines drawn tend to get hazy when it cones to ethical issues. Technically Henrietta signed a piece of paper giving permission to use her cells; but when she signed she was only thinking about saving her children because the doctors told her donating her cells would help them in the future. She had no idea her skin would turn black as coal, and she would be in the most pain of her life due to the doctors testing different treatment methods on her. And then her cells became famous, were launched into space, cloned, tested with nuclear radiation and so much more. Henrietta’s cells became a huge part of history and advanced our medical fields in ways we never imagined possible. But some would argue it was without her consent. So does the fact that she advanced the medical field compensate for her never knowing what they actually were doing with her cells? It turns out to be a matter of opinion in the end.

The experimentation on humans without their given consent is simply put, a crime against humanity. It has given our world a dark and disturbing past that many choose to ignore due to their own selfish ways; they feel no remorse and will never know what those people suffered through leaving them obtuse and close-minded to it all. Some may argue human experimentation is ethical, but it is not. It is an insult to who we are and what we stand for. We are taught the difference between right and wrong and should know better. Even when the EPA paid volunteers to breathe in concentrated diesel exhaust for up to two hours at a time, they should have known better. Many of the participants were elderly, some already had asthma and one woman was obese suffering with heart problems (Ahlert). The EPA conducted this experiment knowing full well what they were doing, and this was just in October of this year. There is no way to say what the future holds and if the practices will ever stop. However, we can only hope that with each passing day more people begin to realize how many lives they alter for the worse, and that there are other alternatives.

Works Cited

Ahlert, Arnold. "The EPA’s Disturbing Human Experiments." FrontPage

Magazine. FrontPageMag, 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

Hamblin, Jacob D. "St. Cloud State University." Library Proxy:. ABC CLIO, 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

Hansen, Terri. "Unethical Medical Experiments Still a Possibility, Experts Say."

Indian Country Today Media Networkcom RSS. Indian Country, Mar. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

"The History Place - Holocaust Timeline." The History Place - Holocaust Timeline.

N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

"Medical Experiments of the Holocaust and Nazi Medicine." Medical Experiments of the Holocaust and Nazi Medicine. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

"Nuremberg Trials." Nuremberg Trials. The Library of Congress- Military Legal Resources, 16 July 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.

Portaluppi, Francesco, Michael H. Smolensky, and Yvan Touitou. "ETHICS AND METHODS FOR BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH ON ANIMALS AND HUMAN BEINGS." Chronobiology International: The Journal of Biological & Medical Rhythm Research 27.9-10 (2010): 1911-929. EBSCOhost. EBSCOhost. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

"Search Results for Human Experimentation." Quotes.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

Veracity, Dani. "Human Medical Experimentation in the United States: The Shocking True History of Modern Medicine and Psychiatry." Human Medical Experimentation in the United States: The Shocking True History of Modern Medicine and Psychiatry (1833-1965). Natural News, 06 Mar. 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.

Research Paper Proposal

Research Paper Proposal
Jessica Kisner
ENGL 191-17
Jack Hennes


The topic I have tentatively decided on for my research paper is experimentation on humans. There are multiple reasons as to why I chose this topic; the main one being my fascination with it. Since I first began learning about it in grade school it has always struck me, and I find it astounding that such a terrible thing could be part of our history. But it is, and I think it’s vital that we know more about it and are educated on the topic and shown how wrong it is.
I will approach this paper from an argumentative perspective, and with the view of course, that it is wrong, cruel, and should never happen again in any way shape or form. I will look back on the history of human experimentation and different cases of it, the most infamous ones at least. I will then tie it in to the story of Henrietta Lacks and how she was experimented on. Maybe not to the degree as the others, but it was still wrong. I will then compare how severe it was back then to today, and analyze whether it is still present
I have not yet formed a clear outline yet, but I have a general idea of  the subtopics I will use. (Although I may end up altering them). The ones I have somewhat in mind are a brief summary of human experimentation and its history. Then other subtopics will be 3 main cases most people will know about. The Holocaust, The Nuremberg Trials, and what happened at Tuskegee as well. Then I will have a paragraph dedicated to tying human experimentation in with the book Henrietta Lacks. Then my last topic before the conclusion would be comparing and contrasting then to now, and perhaps looking towards the future. In all with the intro and conclusion I should have 7 main subtopics. Again, this may be altered though.
My tentative thesis for now would be something along these lines: Human experimentation is not something we focus on a lot in today’s day and age.  It is cruel, wrong, and we must be sure it never happens again. This thesis is VERY tentative and can use a lot of work, but it is the general idea that I have thus far.

Confronting a Fetal Abnormality response

In reading this article I got the general sense that the doctor was very insensitive to the families wishes.
He seemed to get frustrated at the lack of fluent communication, when really they were trying their hardest. Then he said that he did not have the time to let the husband pray. I thought that was very insensitive and rude. We all know that different cultures and religions have different practices. If he was in that big of a hurry (which is understandable seeing as he IS a doctor), he could have let the man pray and then came back or something at least. The fact that he cut him off was unfair and uncalled for. Lastly, I found it very rude that he would go and tell the mother when he was asked repeatedly not to. The husband and mother both begged the doctor to wait until the woman was in a better state of mind to break the terrible news to her. But he was in such a rush or whatever that he told her anyway, even after specific requests not to. I thought that was awful. It is the patients choice, and he even said that to them. I guess I just didn't understand why he would do that.

"Welcome, Freshmen. DNA Swabs, Please" - Reaction

If the DNA Swabs were for the student's use only and it was 100% optional then I think it would be okay. Some college students would want to know how much alcohol they can safely consume. But if the tests were done as mandatory, or as the article says, as "a way of introducing incoming students to their classmates and to their college" then in that case I think it is a little wrong. No harm is coming to the student, but it still comes down to the fact that everyone should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
I could argue this either way. The article looks at the bigger picture and how it gives students the wrong idea when it comes to medical testing and such, however most kids are not going to see it that way. It's a very debatable and controversial topic and it's hard to determine what is right and what is wrong.

Possible Source - Research Paper

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp



This website is dedicated completely to the Nuremberg Trials. There is no direct information on the page of the link I provided, but it provides dozens of other links. Everything from the legal proceedings, the legal documents of the case, key documents used, and much more. It has a link for the testimony, the proceedings of the trials and so on. This website would be very useful to anyone looking more in depth at the trials themselves and what happened.

Write Prompt 10/19/2012

If investigators had taken cells/tissues from one of my family members without consent, honestly I don't think I would be as upset as they were in the book , specifically talking about Deborah. Despite what she thinks, no harm came from taking the cells. Granted they probably treated her worse because she was black and intentionally didn't inform her because of this. But what it seems to come down to is the money issue and that most of the family (excluding Deborah) wanted compensation for it. I understand why and their point of view. I also understand that everyone has rights to their body and what happens to it, and yes I agree with this. However looking from another view point.. if someone is asked to donate their cells to science, I feel as if most people in today's day and age would say yes. Why wouldn't a person want to? What possible reason would someone have for not wanting to help and possibly advance science? Especially if it meant that it could potentially help their children and grandchildren one day. This is why Henrietta agreed to what she did. The doctors told her it could help her children and prevent them from getting the cancer that she had.

Although, what the doctors did may have been very unethical, it was also unintentional I think. They had no idea what would happen when they took those cells. Plus in that day and age laws did not exist as far as consent went, and the lines drawn for that were not very clear at all.
We read the book and look at Henrietta's case and we think it was so wrong because of all the ethical issues and all the laws in place today. But if we put ourselves in that time period would it still seem so bad? I doubt  it. It was a common occurrance, no, that does not make it right. 

I guess I would say that I'm kind of on the fence with a lot of these issues. I could argue them either way.

Multimodal Rhetorical Analysis Brainstorming

Intro
Thesis: The ProActiv homepage effectively uses a combination of pictures, videos and text in order to target the customer's emotion, appeal to their logical reasoning and win them over with the authority of the experts.

1. Logos {Logical Appeal}

a.Experts

• We should invest all of our trust/money into them (why?)

b.Use of phrases/wording

• "If you use ProActiv.. THEN" typical 'logos'
• Use of statistics to back up phrases "If you use ProActiv.. Then your acne will go away like millions of other satisfied customers"

2. Ethos {Honesty/Authority of the Speaker}

a.Guthy-Renker LLC (company)

• Who they are (background)
• How ProActiv came about
• Credibility

b.Actual users

• Examples of them (video)
• Credibility

c. Celebrities

• Examples of them
• Credibility (are they actually credibile?)

3. Pathos (Emotional Appeal)

a.Peer Pressure

• Videos/Pictures show to be desirable = no acne
• Typical 'all my friends have it'

b. Stories

• Struggle - we all can relate
• Success - We all want that

c. Celebrities

• We want to be like our favorite stars
• The people chosen to be in commercials (age, popularity,etc)

People and Technology: Ever Changing...Ever Growing

Jess Kisner

Instructor: Jack Hennes

ENGL 191-17

04 September 2012

People and Technology: Ever Changing...Ever Growing

“I’ll never get this”, I sighed to myself as I leaned back in my blue plastic computer lab chair. I was frustrated, about to give up; and it was hot in there, almost too hot. As if the computers were radiating heat out of the slits in the side that also made that obnoxious humming nose. I was eight and learning how to type and navigate a computer for one of the first times in my young life. But they weren’t teaching us in any normal way. No, they covered our keyboards with cloth. It was supposed to help us find the keys on the keyboard without having to look. But we were eight, we slouched as far down in our little plastic chairs as we could and always peeked when the teacher turned her back.

We never imagined how something so boring, tedious… and itchy, could ever help us learn to type or be more efficient on a computer. At that age we didn’t care either. What would we need the computer for? All our homework was spelling sheets and solving math problems on good old-fashioned paper. To us computers were something complex, foreign. They were something that mostly the adults used and it didn’t bother us, to me it felt as if we had no super important use for them. They were in a sense, a luxury.

I sat there in that sweltering computer lab, with that itchy, puke green colored cloth covering my hands, gazing at the screen, but not really seeing it. The cursor blinked over and over, daunting me. My mind was somewhere else. I wanted to be outside in the crisp fall air, on the tire swing at recess. I wanted to be at home, having a snack with my mom while we sat in the kitchen talking. I wanted to be down the street at my neighbor’s house on her trampoline in the early fall sunshine. We would try to crunch the fallen leaves by jumping on them as they would occasionally flutter down from the treetops above. I wanted to be anywhere but stuck in front of this computer.

Years came and went as I passed through Elementary, Middle and High-School. As the years started going by, I began spending more and more time in many computer labs just like that first one. They eventually took the cloths away, but many still hunted and pecked just as they had before. Then everything began happening faster and faster as technology quickly advanced in on us. Soon, we were doing homework on the computer, taking quizzes and tests, and even using new learning tools our teachers discovered. I also remember when the first smart boards were moved in when I was in 7^th grade. Not too many embraced these new ideas and some even fought them, especially the more traditional type of teachers. It continued this way for years with new things being thrown at us all the time as we struggled to follow and keep up with all the new technologies

Next thing I know it’s the first week of my senior year in high-school and I’m lined up with a hundred other kids in the library to get our iPads. The way our technology has changed is astounding. Almost no one knew how to use their iPad the day we got them, by the end of the year we knew more about them than Apple itself. We could navigate those things like no one’s business. We had come a long way from hunting and pecking in elementary school. But now we had to learn a whole new way of typing, Typing on the iPads was something many of us had never done before but only a couple weeks later many of us were experts. Some struggled more than others and never really got the hang of it. It was a whole new and completely new experience for us. It began to change the way we understood and composed “text”. We typed papers on our iPads, printed from them, did in class activities from them. The computer labs went by the wayside. A trip to the lab was tedious for teachers in High-school when we could just use our tablets to complete the task.

My experiences writing using technology have changed so much since those days with the keyboard covers and huge computers. I recently got my own laptop and am already used to it. I have realized however, that my thoughts seem to flow better when I can type. It is faster and more efficient. If I am hand writing a paper I seem to lose focus and forget my points easier. If I jot down my thoughts and ideas and an outline on paper and then type it my ideas flow better and I don’t forget things. It used to be the opposite though. It used to be that hand-writing my papers was actually faster for me but as I became better at typing, things reversed. My experiences have shaped even my actual writing. My thoughts and ideas are more organized and put together.

I feel that those who say reading and writing on a computer is notably different are correct. However, the ones who say reading on a computer isn’t actually reading and writing, I think, are wrong. Our day and age is different and things are constantly changing. We need to be able to keep up with them and keep up with the times. Adjust ourselves accordingly or we are going to fall behind. Keeping up with all the new technologies may prove difficult but it will also prove to be worth it.