I was looking back at what we’ve had to read for class throughout the semester, and one of the articles that really caught me both then and now is the one about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The article discusses code-switching, which is when a person speaks in very different ways depending on who they are around. Usually this involves multiple languages (English and Spanish, for example), or it can also include different dialects of the same language (y’all, ain’t, etc). AOC wasn’t pretending to talk a different way, rather it’s most likely the way in which she spoke and interacted with people in her community growing up. There are a number of people who do this, and some don’t even realize that they’re code switching. It’s similar to how the language you use in an academic paper is vastly different from what you might use on Twitter or Facebook. There’s nothing technically wrong with the language people are using, but certain dialects end up being regarded as ‘lesser’ than what someone might consider ‘standard’ English. While politicians or advertisers might occasionally try to use a different dialect to appeal to different voters, it usually ends up sound weird when they say it. It’s obvious that they aren’t code-switching, rather they’re making an attempt to appeal to a different audience. Most people are able to pick up on this, and it can have quite the opposite effect of what was intended with the speech or ad. Audiences can feel when a connection to something like code-switching is genuine, and when someone’s doing it to try and get you to support them.

Viewing certain dialects as formal and others as informal ends up being a harmful practice, often rooted in racism. There’s nothing wrong with different dialects and languages, or switching between various ways of communicating with others. There also tends to be something of a superiority complex that can come in—in which people feel that they’re more educated than others based mostly on how someone speaks. The way someone speaks, however, is often not reflective of their education. Just look at how people talk to each other through text versus how they write their academic papers. People are using language that’s appropriate for the situations that they are in. The article notes “. . . language is fundamentally designed for connection. People often not that their speech tends to meld itself to the speech of those around them . . .” (Jackson 4). Dialects change and vary as you move across the map, but certain dialects are no better than other dialects. Each is just a way in which communities connect and express themselves. Code-switching isn’t a bad thing, and people who use code-switching aren’t necessarily doing it just to appeal to certain audiences. Language is meant to be used to connect with other people and to express ourselves, so why should we limit the ways in which people are allowed to speak their minds?

(And, just for fun, here’s my gecko, Saura. Pet pictures always make things better.)

The issue from my group’s discourse project had to do with the American health care system. In terms of rhetorical strategies, the article for the Right used sarcasm and informal language to appeal to readers. The Center article focused on analyzing and explaining the health care plans proposed by Democrats without adding bias into the article. The Left article presented almost a guide based on questions regarding each plan, with some sarcasm mixed in. I’m focusing in on using sarcasm for this parody. I’m mimicking those old chain email/text messages, you know the ones—“Send this to # people or you’ll be killed by the ghost at midnight” kind (was there any other kind?).

(The plain text version: THIS EMAIL HAS BEEN CURSED, ONCE YOU READ IT YOU MUST PASS IT ON
Do not take this lightly . . . Once opened you must continue reading . . .
Once there was a man who had no health insurance. And that was how he liked it. One day he received this email and ignored it . . . That night, the ghost of Health Insurance came to him . . . and showed him hundreds of options . . . and explained what plans would work best for him . . . The man was horrified. The ghost wanted to make a choice for him. He tried to chase the ghost out of his house, but couldn’t touch it. The man ran through the house, trying to find something to scare the ghost away. The only thing that worked was the garbage disposal in his kitchen sink . . . The man has not seen the ghost since.)
Forward this email to 15 people in your contacts list, or the ghost of Health Insurance will come to you tonight at midnight and go through the various health care options that you qualify for.
A few explanations: This is based on a Breitbart article, in which the author had an extreme disdain for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and made fun of how she was not a fan of how many health care options there were, and how apparently she had never lived somewhere with a garbage disposal until she was an adult. He also notes at the end of the article that he doesn’t have health insurance at all—by choice, not for lack of qualifications. My intention with this chain mail parody was to emphasize how silly being against health care reform can sound—being shown too many options can be overwhelming, and with all the legal jargon it can be difficult to understand, so it makes sense that there are many people calling for a reform or something more universal. I think this succeeded relatively well, but I also think some of the jokes that needed explaining work better for people who would have read the Breitbart article. The chain email genre hindered this a bit in that most chain emails are more focused on a vengeful ghost that was murdered rather than someone who is trying to sell health insurance. The use of the ghost however worked well for a parody of people who are so totally and completely against any sort of health care reform.

Katie Mullins

Blog entry 3

18 February 2020

            In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion about certain animals being considered pests or nuisances in neighborhoods. Many people complain that they don’t understand where these animals are coming from, until it’s pointed out that the land we have been building on was, at one point, that animal’s home. This is happening across the United States, but for the sake of this blog entry, we’ll just look at Florida and their relationship to crocodilians.

            In an article in Smithsonian magazine, Naomi Shavin notes the problems that are now facing the native crocodilian species. Climate change and habitat destruction are pushing humans and crocodilians closer and closer together in proximity. As one might guess, living nearer to all sorts of alligators and crocodiles poses a problem to both humans and domestic animals. Considering this situation with terms from class, the rhetorical situation here would be the issue of humans living too close to crocodilians. While a number of people want to preserve and save these species, there are also a number of people who think that all crocodilians are bad, bloodthirsty killers, and wouldn’t miss them if they suddenly disappeared.

The exigence in this case is what can be done to protect these species from climate change and habitat loss. Pushing humans and crocodilians into close quarters with each other is a terrible idea. While not always dangerous, when these reptiles attack, it often ends up being deadly. However the other issue that arises with that is that crocodilians are an essential part of the ecosystem, and we can’t just eliminate every single alligator living in Florida, especially since there are estimated to be 1.2 million of them (Shavin).

The determinate response from people would be the natural fear that most people have of any member of the crocodilian family. Reptiles are a common fear, and given the harm that these species can cause to humans makes it logical that some people might be uncomfortable living near or physically being around them. The indeterminate response comes from whether or not people care about habitat loss. With the divide in opinions on climate change in the U.S., it’s difficult to tell whether people will think destroying part of a natural habitat to build something else is a good or bad idea.

The main audience here, perhaps, would be Florida residents who live the closest to the areas that crocodilians are starting to move into. These are the people who would have to worry about their children or their dogs being outside with one in the yard. In that same vein, the audience for this rhetorical situation probably is not people in states that are not facing this problem. There could be similar cases in other states that might make those residents also part of the audience; perhaps people who have trouble with bears or coyotes. The fact remains that the only people who really have a say on changing any of this is the residents of Florida. The constraints for this situation, in terms of what could change, would be environmental regulations or species protections. Certain areas cannot be destroyed if they are protected, much in the same way that hunting of some crocodilians may be illegal. However, some crocodilians are not protected under various wildlife preservation acts, and that could be used to the advantage of some hunters who think that they can lessen the problem.

Works Cited

Shavin, Naomi. “Forced Closer to Humans, Crocodiles Face Their Greatest Existential Threat.” Smithsonian Magazine. July 26, 2016.

Hickey blog entry—

Metaphors heard in life—

1. Hard as nails. Describing how tough someone is, usually to imply that someone shouldn’t be messed with. That person’s attitude can also be sharp or abrasive, like the point of a nail.
2. It’s either feast or famine—with regards to how busy we are at work. More than once on my employee evaluations it has said that whether it is feast or famine, I’m able to find some kind of work to do. There always seems to either be too much to get done, or not enough to do during a shift at work. There’s never an in between.
3. Blind as a bat. Difficult to see things. Either that it’s literally dark outside or that it’s hard to see without the aid of glasses or contacts. Mostly I hear this used with relation to people’s eyesight.
4. Quiet as a mouse. Someone who doesn’t talk a lot. Alternatively, someone who’s normal speaking voice is very quiet.
5. Mad as a hornet. Someone with a hot temper. Someone not to be messed with, like how hornets are spiteful bugs.
6. I’m so rich everything’s free. Someone high in society with a ridiculous amount of money. The speaker also probably is relatively stuck up if they’re mentioning something like this in the first place, or at the very least has little regard for things like fines or price tags.
7. Tired as hell. Beyond being ‘regularly’ tired. This implies a deep tiredness, and usually also implies that someone might also be in a bad mood.
8. Glued to their phone. This is usually used in reference to teens/tweens who spend a lot of time with their phones. Adults often complain of how much time younger generations spend looking at a screen in some way, shape, or form.
9. Head in the clouds. Someone who isn’t paying attention, but not always in a bad way. This is a person who may be easily distracted.
10. I need this like a hole in the head. Used to imply that something is unnecessary to the point that it’s detrimental to them. This is something that the speaker wants absolutely no part of or in.

Hickey discusses nonmetaphorical concepts with directional language like “up/down, back/front, and in/out” (13). One of the metaphors listed—head in the clouds—works well with this concept. While not listed, “up” is implied with that—“Their head is up in the clouds”. This is where my thoughts on this being a relatively happy or “good feeling” metaphor come from. Hickey mentions that when using the directional words, things like “up/down” can correspond with emotions, like “happy/sad” (13). If your head is up in the clouds, you’re day dream-y and happy, versus being down in the dumps and being sad. Looking at figures of speech and thought with Hickey, this is used to “embellish ideas” (3). This works well for “tired as hell”. “Hell” cannot be tired; it’s not a person, and has no feelings or emotions. Yet using this in a creative way shows the listener that the speaker is way past tired and needs time to rest. “Glued to their phone” works well with the idea of figures of speech as well, as people are not literally gluing their phones to their hands.

I’ll be taking a look into the class action lawsuit that was filed against DuPont, a chemical company that was a big name in the manufacturing of nonstick coatings. DuPont spent decades illegally dumping a byproduct from the process of making nonstick coatings into the ground, poisoning an entire community. The chemicals they dumped killed farm animals, and gave employees of the company as well as other people who lived near the plant various cancers and other ailments, and it caused numerous birth defects as well. This case has a lot of similarities to the Silent Spring which we discussed in class.

The rhetorical situation in this case is the lawsuit itself; the different angles being from the viewpoint of those filing it and DuPont. DuPont, of course, would maintain that they should not be held responsible for this. The people filing the lawsuit, however, would state that DuPont should be held entirely responsible and be made to pay a settlement.

Exigence in this situation is wanting settlement for damages done to property, animals or livestock, and the effect that the chemicals had on people’s lives, as well as the deaths that it caused. Exigence for this could also be wanting to bring the situation to light, after it having been buried and covered up for decades. It would bring about a change in the way that the public viewed the company.

One of the audiences in this case was the general American public; the New York Times published an article titled “The Lawyer who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” in 2016 detailing the horrid actions that DuPont had taken in terms of dumping chemical waste, as well as detailing the horrors of the aftermath caused by it on residents in the area and their farms. Without this article, the DuPont case likely would have flown under people’s radars, aside from those who either lived near the affected area or people who had a personal stake in this otherwise. Not to say, of course, that the case was unimportant or didn’t matter, but class action lawsuits go on in the background of our lives for a majority of the time without us noticing them. The audience with something like this reads and spreads the article around, generating a large public opinion on the matter. Opinions vary, of course, but as a whole this generates awareness of the issues that arose as a result of the actions that DuPont took.

The constraints in this case would be the damage that the chemicals brought onto the community. For the lawyers who presented this case, this constraint worked in their favor, as it was evidence of DuPont’s wrongdoing. This constraint was damaging to DuPont, because it was blatant proof of not only the affect that they had on generations of families, but it also showed how in the past they tried to cover up their involvement in the situation. Another constraint would be the fact that due to the volume of chemicals that were dumped in the water, there are still amounts of it left in the water. Chemicals in the water are typically measured in ppm (parts per million), and the amount of chemicals can be analyzed to work backwards and see how much might have been initially dumped.

Test post!

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.