De Beers and visual imagery.

The above advertisement from De Beers, found in a magazine, is one of many from the diamond company that have recently used this type of layout and straight-forward messaging. The following critique will use Sonja Foss's rhetorical schema for critiquing visual imagery, and will work to properly identify and evaluate this ad's function. This critique wants to examine what makes this ad for diamonds stand out from other advertisements; how do the presented elements encourage its audience to view the quality of De Beers diamonds differently from diamonds of Zales or Kay Jewelers?

An easily identifiable function of this ad is to sell diamonds, specifically, De Beers diamonds. The sparkly diamond ring centered at the top of the ad draws our attention, and the text below the ring explains why we need to buy De Beers diamonds.

The visible elements of any visual message have the important task of communicating the ads function. The colors of this ad - black and white - create a simple and modern aesthetic, and focus our attention on the ad's image followed by the text. The clean-cut lines maintain our focus, and the thick, black border of the ad directs our attention to inside the border - a big, shiny, beautiful three-stone diamond ring. 

What makes this De Beers advertisement unique, in my opinion, is the placement and visual of the diamond ring. In most jewelry ads, the rings are in a "standing up" posture so one can see the intricate detailing and metal work of the ring, as well as the diamond's position and size. This ad, however, is only about the diamond(s). The ring's band is barely visible, and the large and sparkly diamonds directly face their audience as a small spotlight presents the treasured rocks as stars of the ad. This ad isn't about selling a ring as much as it focuses on selling De Beers diamonds because of their products' beauty, size, and grandeur.

So how do we evaluate the ethics of the function to buy De Beers diamonds because they are like no other? If we were to rely solely on the visual elements, I think this ad would be ethical or fair in carrying out its function. Such luxury items are greatly valued, and De Beers serves that value in the primary function of this ad.

What makes me question the integrity of this ad and how De Beers views the purchasing of such an item for someone is the text of this ad, "She already knows you love her. Now everyone else will too." The text isn't essential to understand what this ad is functioning to do, but it's presence eludes to De Beers purpose for this particular luxury item. Directed towards men and printed in all-caps, the text says a De Beers diamond ring is a must if you want "everyone else" to know how a man feels about the woman he loves. What most would consider true love is not properly represented in this ad; it concerns itself more with what one's peers think and know of the relationship rather than how the two involved in the relationship feel. How much a man loves a woman is reduced to what type of jewelry he buys her and making sure everyone else knows it, too, and De Beers positions itself as the company to trust for a man to accomplish that.

Toyota and Social Responsibility

Corporate social responsibility has received much publicity the past half decade due to increased public interest in corporate world. Different experts claim the recession, multi-million dollar executive bonuses, the green movement, and global outreach encourage society to more closely analyze how large corporations "do their part" in the world.

Sonja Foss proposes a critical method called rhetorical schema. Schema is used to identify and evaluate an artifact's function. Function seemingly serves a collaborative role between purpose and effect, and sums up the action an image communicates. Using the schema, I hope to answer how the above Toyota Prius commercial functions as an example of corporate social responsibility.

A primary function to establish Toyota's reputation of environmental responsibility seems evident. Toyota vehicles claim and are commonly known for fuel efficiency and comfortable space, two things the commercial states via narrator. The commercial directly states another function:  "harmony between man, nature, and machine." The use of pleasant music and colorful animation promotes happy feelings among viewers as they watch the Prius travel down a winding road. We see various elements of nature - flowers, grass, and waterfalls - come to life as a sun rises in the background. All elements of nature, except for the city, sky, and road, are composed of people costumed accordingly to match that certain element. 

I think the visual elements communicate the identified functions effectively. The people acting as nature's elements position human life in direct correlation with its environment, and the Prius serves as a vehicle (literally) that maintains the harmony between the two. The bright colors, pleasant background music, and smiling faces of nature encourage viewers to think of the Prius' objective as maintaining harmony between the vehicles we drive and the environment our vehicles affect. The Prius gives "you more power, and more space." Therefore, "the world gets fewer smog forming emissions."

To summarize the two previous paragraphs, I think the commercial's functions are to a) establish both Toyota's credibility as a socially and environmentally responsible corporation, and b) more clearly define the relationship, as the commercial states, between man, nature, and machine. I judge the ethical foundation of Toyota's, specifically the Prius', functions as sound. Toyota has continuously worked to produce safe, comfortable vehicles that are eco-friendly. While the price of a Toyota Prius is subjective to opinion, Toyota maintains a positive reputation concerning vehicle life and quality, apart from brake issues two years ago. Coming from an environmentally conscious perspective, I appreciate the company's sensitivity to nature in manufacturing vehicles that do less harm to nature.

Football and politics.

 

As TV campaigning for local, state, and federal political offices recently finished, Kenneth Burke's notion of dramatism and pentadic analysis seem appropriate in critiquing the nature and motive of campaign messaging. 

Essentially, dramatism is defined by Burke as the understanding that we (humans) use language strategically to deal with life, and that language is a real and influential device of our world. In the formation of dramatism and pentadic analysis, Burke made two assumptions. First, the presence of motion, or the human's basic biological/animalistic components. Second, action, which exercises our capacity to do something with purpose, distinguishing action from purely animalistic motions. 

The artifact of this week's blog is a campaign commercial from South Dakota's Republican Senator, John Thune. In many eyes, Thune is a well-rounded, morally and financially conservative rumored to be a significant candidate for the 2012 presidential election. Thune served in Congress for six years before winning a seat in Senate, and remains there today. 

Aired in 2004, the commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTJFdDCPXKw&feature=related) directly opposed Tom Daschle, a Democrat competing for one the South Dakota Senate seats. Below are the five identified elements of Burke's dramatistic pentad:

Act:  political campaign for John Thune.

Scene:  the South Dakota 2004 elections for Senators

Agents: Tom Daschle (main), and John Thune

Agency:  a 1940s-esque football highlight reel

Purpose:  persuade South Dakota voters to make a decision/judgment about Tom Daschle, and vote for John Thune to be Senator

In Rhetorical Criticism, Sonja Foss suggests applying ratios to the elements to determine which element(s) is/are controlling or determining another. Regarding this commerical from Thune's 2004 campaign, the scene and purpose are the main terms. The scene - 2004 South Dakota Senate elections - establishes motive for Thune to campaign, therefore creating this commercial depicting Democrat Daschle as a "blocker" of policies and laws that would benefit the South Dakota population. The commercial uses a well-known setting or agency - highlight reel from a football game - to fulfill its purpose, a public statement working to impress a negative judgment about Daschle and persuade voters to vote instead for Thune. The purpose, persuading South Dakota voters that Daschle will block any beneficial bills, determines Daschle's representation in the commercial. Without the scene of 2004 elections and the goal to prevent a victory for Daschle, the commercial would have presented different elements, changing the act, agent, and agency identified in this critique.

Does the nice guy really finish last?

Communication theorist Kenneth Burke is recognized as the expert concerning dramatism, a notion that humans use language strategically to deal with life, resembling acts of drama. Derived from Burke's work with dramatism surfaces pentadic criticism, which focuses on five essential elements:  act (what took place), scene (background/context), agent (who's performing the act), agency (means of performing the act), and purpose (goal of the act). Once a critic has identified the five elements, they can then further analyze the artifact to locate its dominant term or idea everything else centers around. This blog will consist of a brief attempt to apply Burke's concept of dramatism and pentadic analysis to the film "Charlie Wilson's War." 

 

"Charlie Wilson's War", a 2007 picture directed by Mike Nichols and starring Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, displays one of the most covert operations in U.S. history. The film tells the true story of Charlie Wilson, a congressman who collaborated with CIA members and other countries to save Afghanistan from communist Soviet Union invasions during the Cold War, a time when the U.S. was in a "neutral" position. 

Necessary for pentadic criticism is the initial identification and explanation of each element, in this case, from the movie-makers view. With those elements, I will attempt to answer what point or worldview the move maker works to get across.  

Act - well-intentioned, well-known, wealthy people working for the rescue of victims and citizens in Afghanistan suffering from violent and cruel attacks of the communist Soviet Union.

Scene - Afghanistan and the U.S.

Agent - Charlie Wilson, CIA operatives, and Joanne Herring, Charlie's friend that primarily encourages and arranges for him to address the issue in Afghanistan.

Agency - "Charlie Wilson's war"/ allied countries of the US, Pakistan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia helping the Afghan population through providing appropriate weaponry and training to Afghan guerrillas.

Purpose - point out the irony in the U.S. endangering relations with the Soviet Union to help Afghanistan during the Cold War, and suffering one of the worst terrorist attacks, led by Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan's Taliban, in 2001.

I propose the identified purpose as the film's dominant element, or goal for making this film. As identified, I think the movie maker's purpose for creating the film is centered around the irony of the U.S. and Afghanistan relations during the Cold War versus the 9/11 attacks. While watching "Charlie Wilson's War", I couldn't help but think how ironic the action of "Charlie Wilson's War" is. The country the U.S. took major risks and spending a total of $500 million dollars for during the Cold War houses the party that killed thousands of Americans two decades later in an extreme act of terrorism, and the country America finds itself in war with today.

This film encourages its audience to consider that no good deed goes unpunished. The U.S., with allied countries Pakistan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, acts as the “good guy” in this film, helping a country find its way out of a terrible, defenseless situation against communist invasion. This film and its movie maker seem to support the conundrum that the nice guy will always, eventually, finish last, and asks the audience to consider and evaluate how much good resulted from helping Cold War Afghanistan. Different opinions concerning the situation of Charlie Wilson argue that the weapons provided to Afghanistan guerrillas during the Cold War laid the foundation for Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Given the tragedy of the September 11 terrorist attacks, some say Charlie Wilson and the U.S. should have just stayed out of Afghanistan to begin with, rather than providing aid but wiping their hands clean of any after-math responsibility.  

Narrative and vision.

I spent last summer interning for Northrop Grumman (NG) Corporation, a global security provider. The corporate website states, "Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide" (http://www.northropgrumman.com/).  

NG's major business involves work with military forces, designing and manufacturing missile detection systems, infra-red countermeasures, and large equipment, like aircraft carriers. Such products function to keep our military safe while maintaining an advantage in any war. Simply, war generates large portions of NG's overall profits.

This analysis seeks to identify the purpose in NG's mission statement, and how that purpose is achieved through use of certain elements. The following section quotes the vision/mission found on NG's website:

"Our vision is to be the most trusted provider of systems and technologies that ensure the security and freedom of our nation and its allies. As the technology leader, we will define the future of defense—from undersea to outer space, and in cyberspace.

We will —

·         Conduct ourselves with integrity and live our Company Values

·         Deliver superior program performance

·         Foster an internal environment of innovation, collaboration, and trust

In so doing, Northrop Grumman will become our customers' partner of choice, our industry's employer of choice, and our shareholders' investment of choice.”

Multiple objectives make up NG's narrated vision. Keeping America and its allies safe, leading the defense industry with innovation and superior performance, and gaining society's trust resonate as active events and themes guiding NG's mission. Some societal groups/individuals view war as wreckless, destructive, and irresponsible. The words integrity, trust, choice, security, and freedom support the objective to maintain/restore NG's reputation. Using positive or god-terms helps NG tell a story that says, "No, we're not a company that promotes war because it ensures business and profit. We're a corporation here to protect and secure our nation and its citizens." The company's mission promotes NG, and also invites national support for the war-fighting support NG offers the nation.

Considering coherence (internal consistency) and fidelity (identification or a shared experience/opinion between the audience and narrator), the mission of NG may be effective or inefficient depending on the audience. The coherence between the coporation and its customers or those it supports will probably be on the same page, because they are all working towards the same goal - to fight and eventually finish war(s) as the victor. The story lived by NG is represented in documents like the above vision/mission, and other messaging like the "Statement of Corporate Responsibility" found on their website.

NG's story and fidelity are rely on situation. Ideally, the utopia for the world would be the cease of all wars, eliminating any need for defense contractors. However, that currently isn't the case. Many countries do find themselves involved in wars, making the context of NG's narratives and business appropriate. 

While appropriate and necessary to protect our nation's citizens, opposition to corporations like NG is expected and happens. Society and NG may be living in the same story to a certain degree, but there are and will always be parts of the audience that disagree with NG's corporation-specific story. The situation NG's story currently resides in is contextually appropriate, but worldviews of audience members that both agree and disagree with NG's story will have different views of NG's story's fidelity.

The adrenaline of luxury.

The above advertisement from Land Rover brings together two things valued in American society:  luxury items, like nice vehicles, and sports.

If you stay at all informed with top luxury products, you will find that the Range Rover, a vehicle made by Land Rover, is a popular and expensive luxury vehicle. This vehicle isn't for the middle-class family; it's a vehicle for those of wealthy or celebrity status.

As Sonja Foss states in her textbook Rhetorical Criticism, "A metaphor joins two terms normally regarded as belonging to different classes of experience" (267). This advertisement brings together a high-priced luxury item and an athletic experience that can be enjoyed by any socioeconomic class. All people of all genders, income, and culture can enjoy sports, and experience the adrenaline of playing them.

This ad is quite simple, including only one metaphor - a Range Rover is like the pure adrenaline of being an athlete. A metaphor typical has two distinguishable parts: the tenor, or subject being explained, and the vehicle, the lens suggested to view that subject through. In this ad, the tenor is the Range Rover, and the vehicle is the adrenaline experience of being an athlete. The experience of a Range Rover is like an intrinsic and physiological function of our bodies.

A goal of metaphors is to suggest a certain attitude towards a subject. Metaphors can tell us how to carry ourselves, and ask us to accept the presented claim. A simple question I propose to this ad is, does this ad successful convince its audience luxury has no bounds, just like the ability to experience sports-induced adrenaline, or any adrenaline for that matter?

My opinion is no, I do not think this metaphor convinces its audience that owning a Range Rover experience is pure adrenaline that everyone is capable of experiencing. We see that agenda being pushed by Land Rover in this advertisement, and rather than bringing two worlds together, this metaphor actually excludes itself even further into the luxury-product realm. The Range Rover has a clear-cut audience it can appeal to - those able to afford the $85,000+ vehicle. In my opinion, the tenor and vehicle of this ad are more closely related than what may be typical of metaphoric advertising. Luxury items, as I previously said, tend to be associate with the wealthy of our society - white-collar doctors and CEOs, celebrities, and professional athletes, as is depicted in this advertisement. Luxury items aren't really marketed for the blue-collar workers of our society. They wouldn't be luxury if they were consistently affordable for society's majority.

This ad does perform the basic functions of metaphor. It brings two different elements together in a depiction. But, I suggest that instead of there being an equal "position" between the tenor and vehicle, this ad more dominantly supports the elements of the tenor - the Range Rover and other luxury products. The metaphor of this ad may bring two classes or ways of thinking together, but I think it more clearly separates them by using a luxury item pictured with the audience it often works to target.

"Once you kill it, put some pink on it."

Breast cancer awareness campaigns have received a lot of talk as their cause-related marketing campaigns recently have become more sensitive and, in some senses, controversial. Susan G. Komen for the Cure (a.k.a. "Komen"), the world's largest breast cancer charity, has spent over $1.5 billion in its lifetime on research, education, and health services. The above ad is an artifact from a 2007 Komen marketing campaign, and encourages its audience to view breast cancer in a much more aggressive way compared to other campaigns.

The general layout of this ad isn't much different from Komen's normal. The focus of their breast cancer awareness ads are often centered around the chest, or objects that resemble the shape of a woman's chest. This ad differs, however, in it's lack of color and the tone it sets. Breast cancer awareness ads are typically dominated by pink color schemes, directly connecting with its female audience. What seems to best represent an ideology, though, is the text of the ad. The words covering the front of the ad model's shirt read, "When we get our hands on breast cancer, we're going to PUNCH IT, STRANGLE IT, KICK IT, SPIT ON IT, CHOKE IT, AND PUMMEL IT UNTIL IT'S GOOD AND DEAD. Not just horror movie dead, but really, truly dead. And then we're going to tie a pink ribbon on it." The all-caps words indicate the text in the ad that stand out the most through all-caps and bold font.

This ad seems pretty violent for an advertising campaign that concentrates on womanhood, and maintaining that womanhood throughout the battle and hopeful defeat that is breast cancer. Rather than simply referring to breast cancer as an enemy for all women to be aware of, this message uses multiple forms of violence to threaten and kill breast cancer. And society isn't killing breast cancer like characters are killed in horror films, because then it wouldn't actually be dead. This time, Komen and its followers are killing breast cancer for real.

This ad wants the audience to experience feelings of violence-until-death towards breast cancer, and by using words of violence as God-terms to address how we should feel towards breast cancer, the Devil-term, the ad itself seems to invite a more masculine approach and audience rather than the usual females pulled in by all-pink color schemes and soft layouts.

What's also interesting is that by suggesting violent human acts to defeat this disease, breast cancer seems to take on more of a human rather than medical role. After the first sentence, breast cancer is referred to as 'it'. It has now become something we can beat up, something we can kill and then make our mark on with a pink ribbon. This ad connects actions of violence with feelings of gentleness as it pulls in the ideas of harmful physical acts and the soft touch of what Roland Barthes would call a 'signifier' in the pink ribbon that is known to mean support for breast cancer patients and survivors.

This artifact isn't asking us to view breast cancer as only a disease, but as some sort of physical being. The ideology behind this ad is centered around the disease, but is pushing the audience to see breast cancer as something more than a medical diagnosis. Breast cancer is now something that we can do physical damage to, something that we can kill, and something that we can make our mark on to let others know who the champion is. Komen seems to think that breast cancer has become the opposing gladiator, and whoever kills the other first wins.

Smiles, frowns, and ideology.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m56F4EKN9hg

A minute-long American Express (AX) commercial recently caught my eye. As theorist Fredric Jameson would possibly do with the commercial (link found above), I am going to provide a brief ideological criticism of this artifact, focusing on our consumerist American society. 

Aesthetically, the commercial is comprised of 24 images showing common material objects as smooth and upbeat music plays in the background. The commercial begins, and the first 11 shots capture neutral-colored objects like a wallet, a vacuum, and a purse "frowning." The next 13 images are of brightly-colored objects "smiling." The only way of knowing that this commercial is for AX is through the narration, except for the end, when we see a picture of an AX credit card. The end is also where we see the slogan, "Don't Take Chances. Take Charge."

Important to notice is that the commercial is not focused on pushing consumers towards a certain brand, as is most of advertising. AX doesn't want this commercial to get viewers thinking about brand names or logos, which justifies that lack of any visible brands or logos in any of the commercial's image. This commercial, rather than telling us not to take chances when we must decide which brand to buy, is instead telling us not to take chances in our shopping experience altogether; rather, "Take charge" with AX. In a society obsessed with having the most expensive and most quality possessions, AX is suggesting that shopping no longer needs to be an experience with any element of fear, uncertainty, or chance.

The commercial also states, "The smallest things in life can become our biggest enemies," referencing the images of various products shown in the commercial. Again, they avoid the mentioning of specific brands, and focus more on shopping altogether. And, "Happily, there is the American Express charge card." The AX charge card is here to save the day; it allows us to "Take charge", or take control of a situation (shopping) that may be seen as out-of-control in America today. Only with this charge card can consumers eliminate all elements of surprise in their shopping; rather, they can be in command of their shopping with AX.

It seems that the ideology supporting the AX commercial is that we as consumers have lost control of our shopping experience in a highly consumerist society. Shopping with any card but AX is a gamble. AX is focusing less on the shopper's ability to decide which purchases to make, and focusing more on ensuring that those purchases are made with the best option possible. The commercial is suggesting that it is unacceptable for consumers to shop with anything other than an AX charge card. Other credit cards are mediocre and undesirable. The shopping experience is only right with AX.

"...it was human to be inhuman."

The title of this post is a quote from Elie Wiesel during a speech at Buchenwald Concentration Camp. On June 4, 2009, Wiesel stood before a crowd on a stage with President Barack Obama and Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, and spoke of a few harsh realities from his fight for life, as well as his father’s, during the Holocaust. His quote referencing the normal or “human” feeling of considering oneself to be inhuman was said in the context of life in concentration camps, where those in the depressing and unimaginable captivity were not seen as humans by camp officials as the prisoners themselves began to eventually see in themselves inhumane emotions. For more on Elie Wiesel, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel.

My second premature blogging attempt at rhetorical criticism will try to briefly analyze Wiesel’s speech using a cluster criticism. A cluster criticism seeks to do exactly as its name says:  criticize a speech by identifying clusters of main points, terms, or ideas around a central worldview or even a single term. In the case of Wiesel’s speech, a central idea he focuses on is humanity and the recollection of historical events to bring the change our world today seeks but doesn’t see occurring. Wiesel makes a memorable attempt to answer, “What must we do to see the change we desire for our world, for improving the human life in a troubled world?”

For Wiesel, he sees remembrance of such events like the Holocaust as key to saving humanity. In the following quote directed to President Obama, he makes this worldview clear:

Mr. President, we have such high hopes for you because you, with your moral vision of history, will be able and compelled to change this world into a better place, where people will stop waging war – every war is absurd and meaningless – where people will stop hating one another; where people will hate the otherness of the Other rather than respect it. But, the world hasn’t changed.

The change Wiesel is speaking of is characterized by words like memory, a sense of security, and bringing people together. Our societies cringe at the fact that the Holocaust happened, and yet tragic genocides in Rwanda and Darfur have continued to make depressing marks in our world’s history. Wiesel states that it’s not necessarily a lack of attention to such devastations, but rather a lack of memory that continues to tear our communities apart. According to Wiesel, “Memory must bring people together rather than set them apart…What else can we do except invoke that memory, so that people everywhere will say the 21^st century is a century of new beginnings, filled with promise and infinite hope, and at times profound gratitude to all those who believe in our task, which is to improve the human condition.”

The mini clusters of memory, humanity, and partnership are all in support of Wiesel’s main point – practicing the methods to make the much sought-after and needed change for this world happen. His speech invokes us to ask, “What am I doing to change and improve humanity and the world?”

For a video and text of this speech, visit http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/eliewieselbuchenwaldspeech.htm.

One of many attempts to restore BP's reputation.

As America suffered the results of a fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon that would result in what has become history’s worst oil spill, British Petroleum (BP) CEO Tony Hayward became the most-watched man. In numerous interviews, Hayward addressed the steps BP would take in repairing the extremely damaged surrounding environment and trying to compensate for all damages done. Approximately three weeks after the accident on June 17, 2010, Hayward addressed the U.S. House of Representatives Energy Subcommittee on the oversight and investigations surrounding the oil spill. 

The impact of this speech is hard to decide because of its recent timeline, but something to take note of is that Hayward announced his resignation July 27, and was under much public scrutiny and charged of “not caring” and “failing to address the situation responsibly, like a real man should”, according to various Twitter posts.

The canons watched for in Neo-Aristotelian criticism are:  invention, organization, style, delivery, and memory. Concerning invention, the logos, or logical argument, of Hayward’s speech seemed to begin with inductive reasoning as he shared his experience of mourning with family members of 11 deceased workers. Hayward then applied those feelings of anger and hurt to the rest of America’s population.

Hayward then establishes his ethos/credibility as a speaker by speaking of his work with President Obama, and also talks of his responsibility to the American people.

Now enters the emotional appeal, or pathos. Something has to truly identify Hayward, the CEO of a major company that has just royally messed up, with those hurting and looking to point the blame at someone. He shares the story of his experience at the memorial for the deceased workers. Hayward continues, saying, “I've been to the Gulf Coast. I've met with fisherman, business owners, and families. I understand what they are going through and I promised them, as I am promising you, that we will make this right…I give my pledge as leader of BP that we will not rest until we make this right.” 

It may be said that Hayward’s speech followed a problem-solution organization. He speaks of the tragedy resulting from the spill, and then speaks of BP’s goals to cap the leak and reimburse billions of dollars. The problem is the accident and gross amounts of oil polluting the Gulf’s environment. The solution involves monetary compensation and extreme engineering to cap the leak, not to mention good public relations to restore BP’s reputation.

Hayward’s style looked for the support and trust of America as he established BP’s reputation. Having “a responsibility to the American people”, Hayward reassured his audience that BP is a strong company, and would do everything in their power to get to the solution.

The speech was delivered from a manuscript, and omits the need to consider the canon of memory. As Hayward spoke from his manuscript, he kept an even tone, made consistent eye contact, and took pauses when necessary, especially after emotion-based statements. 

For the speech, go to http://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tonyhaywardbpcongressstmt.htm. 

I guess this is an introduction.

Hello to all reading this.

As you may or may not know, my full name is Ashley Rose Veurink. I am a junior business communication major at Trinity Christian College.  Blogging is something I've wanted to do for quite some time, but have never been able to imagine what I would blog about. This blog, although it's been started because of an assignment in a class, will hopefully become something I continue to do once the class is over.

The professor of my Communication Criticism class asked each of us in the class to create a blog where we will be posting entries concerning topics in communication. I'm not entirely positive how to explain what will show up in later posts, other than to say I hope it makes sense to those reading, whether or not they are in communication field.

I won't use this introductory post as a way to tell you more about myself. If you see my profile, you can learn a little more about me if you'd like. I hope you have a great day, and are blessed by the world around you.

A new blogger,
Ashley Veurink