Yes, Punk

Looking at both the Yes Men and Punk culture was interesting. I felt that the Yes Men movie was entertaining as well as informative. I never really knew anything about the WTO, so this was my first impression of them. The way these men went about their cause was creative. Humor is always a good tool to use when getting a point across, something I also admired about the Guerilla Girls. The satirical methods of the Yes Men captured my attention and lured me in to what their ultimate goal was, which was to make the people aware of the absurdities and faults of the WTO. Appearance, as far as fashion, was not as big of an issue for them as it was for the Punk article. The only real 'appearance' related idea was the gold suit that Andy (or Mike) wore in the first conference. That was meant to be a joke and to expose the ridiculousness of the WTO's ideas. The Punks used appearance as a part of their life and it was the main angle of their protest, besides the music itself. The Yes Men seemed to be less concerned with fashion.
Despite some successes, I still feel the Yes Men could have given more facts and actual evidence to go with their satire. The last 'bit' they did in the movie was more serious and definitely more factual then their previous escapades. This could hurt their ethos for people who are very fact-oriented and more serious. Overall though, I enjoyed their tactics.
The Punk culture on the other hand was also pretty cool to me because I know very little about the rock genre in general, so that was some nice history. I feel that it was admirable how the Punk followers started out. They went against the ideas of what society deems normal and popular. To be yourself and stand up when others are following the crowd is a cool thing. I am however a little questionable about the intentions of people who dress like that and falsely claim their punk lifestyle. There are always posers and fakes in every group, so its not surprising to me. The claims and ideas have to match the lifestyle in order to be respected and taken seriously. People should dress how they want, whatever style fits them. The only thing is you shouldn't call yourself something that you're not.

Don't eat the gorillas!

Looking back at the two protest examples of PETA and the Guerilla Girls, I can definitely say I had a more positive feeling about one more than the other. For me, the Gorilla Girls definitely has an advantage as far as strategy and overall appeal to the people.First off, my reaction to reading about PETA was mixed. I had a good idea of where they were coming from as far as the cruelty done to animals. No animal, I feel, should be tortured and killed in the manner that is practiced in many factories around the world. Not to mention the horrible conditions of those places. There are just better ways to go about getting your meat. I however disagree with their bold beliefs that a person who eats meat or wears material made from animals is careless and cruel. Who are you to judge people (that you don't even know) when everyone has different views and opinions about different issues? I eat meat but I have a respect for animals. I wouldn't harm or torture them, but I see nothing wrong in eating meat that has been packaged, processed and cooked for me. That's just life. There is a food chain, and I guess humans are at the top of it.
Either way, PETA and their supporters should have the respect to respect other people. It's good that you believe what you believe, but do not attack. One celebrity quote I read said 'anyone who wears fur is an a-hole'. That's pretty extreme.
In contrast to this, we have the Guerilla Girls. I felt this group was definitely less hostile and preachy. They do have their strong beliefs, but they present them in a way that is not as demanding. They are not trying to tell you what to do. I liked how this group presented facts and figures. Its effective because they are indisputable. Looking at the billboards and posters, I was interested in what they had to say. There was a nice humor present in alot of them which kept my attention and eased my initial skepticism. The 'anatomically correct' oscar idea was great to me. They were basically just giving you the truth, but in a comical way. Guerilla Girls understand the idea of logic and reasoning more than PETA. They don't make claims about the Queen eating her subjects, or dogs not being interested in voting. Also, I liked how this group wasn't just about feminism, but also race. It really reaches a broader audience this way.

Are we traffic?

The critical mass is a very interesting topic to me because it was something I knew nothing about before. Seeing the We Are Traffic' video was cool because it was amazing to see so many people coming together doing the exact same thing...riding bikes. It was like a parade, but it wasn't a parade. It was this giant movement of free flowing individuals, some of whom wanted to make a statement, while others just wanted to ride their bikes. Looking at something like this made it kind of hard for me to determine if it was a protest or not, but then I realized (after someone mentioned in class) that they said in the video, it was just a celebration and they did not want for the members to come in with angry protest intentions. I have some mixed feelings on the whole event. I like the fact that so many people are doing this and seem so united. It is fun to just look at. Most of them seemed to be just having a good time doing what they love to do. The signs on the bikes are also pretty funny as well. However, I do feel there was a point in the video where they just seemed inconsiderate of the people with cars, knowing they were blocking traffic. I can see where some frustrated drivers are coming from when they get upset. People might be in a hurry to get home, make an appointment, attend to an emergency, etc. That is hard to do with a hundred bikers slowing you down.
At the same time, you can look at the bright side of the whole thing and appreciate the mass for what it is. I really see it as a movement in which people join and ride for purposes specific to them. There is no one reason to ride for the critical mass. If a person wants to do it strictly for enjoyment or strictly for raising awareness, it doesn't truly matter. Also, the lack of established leadership allows for more freedom, such as thoughts and ideas about what a rider wants to do. For me personally, if I was a bystander watching this movement, I would probably be smiling because I enjoy watching events where large groups of people are moving together towards a common goal, ideally or physically (parades, races, flash mobs). I guess, as long as the riders are being safe and respectful, just keep on moving.

Ethos, and its Appeal

Looking specifically at the two recent protests we examined, I would say that both had their positives and negatives as far as ethos is concerned. Starting with Malachai Richter, his protest was not as successful due to some damage to his credibility. Here is a guy who was known by those around him as a loner and a guy who seemed to not have a desire to form close relationships with people. Though his beliefs were strong, his final act of suicide is questionable. He was not a well known public figure, particularly outside of the Chicago music scene, and it was proven when the news media did not even cover his story until a week after. Many people who hear of his suicide might pass him off as crazy or someone who was just seeking attention. His own son even claimed he was an alcoholic and battled depression. Not to say that Richter had no passion or cause, but there could have been better decisions made.
In contrast to Richter, we have Cindy Sheehan. A woman whose ethos is a little stronger, and whose voice is a little louder. This does not excuse her from her mistakes however. The thing that helps her case the most is her first-hand experience with losing a son to war. The emotional connection with her and her supporters is present and allows for her to have a good level of credibility. Despite this, she does go overboard in certain instances regarding her protest. She comes off as overbearing and overcritical at times, especially when it comes to George Bush. She once claimed that he was an even bigger terrorist than Bin Laden, which is pretty extreme considering what the latter did to this country. It is one thing to feel passionate and emotional about a cause, but it is another to attack without good logic. This ties in with 'emotion without logic'. Her logos was not as strong as her pathos, which in turn may have hurt her ethos. Nonetheless, she garnered much attention and many supporters, through her courage, powerful voice, and ability not to back down.
Both parties, Richter and Sheehan, were not without faults, but each could be looked on as admirable for their strong beliefs and die hard support for a cause.
I feel as though in order to have the best ethos, one must have a good reputation with the people. This includes someone who is looked upon by others as a respectable, trustworthy person. Also, it is important for the individual to have experience with the subject of their protest. For instance, Fannie Hamer's first-hand experience with prejudice and abuse, or Stokely Carmichael working with Dr. King. This lends the emotional connection and establishes stronger credibility.

Logos, Ethos, Pathos

Going back to the two speeches, I believe each one had some form of all three different appeals. First off, there was the speech given by Fannie Lou Hamer. Her approach was very raw and to the point. She connects with the audience mainly through pathos and ethos. Her details and exact accounts allow her to have great credibility because she was there throughout the experience first-hand. Who better to trust than someone who actually went through it? For example, she makes a claim, "I was in jail when Medgar Evers was murdered". This historical reference adds more verification to the speech. Not to mention the fact that she gave word for word quotes when telling her story, which just further solidifies this credibility. As far as pathos goes, Hamer was able to use her vivid accounts to appeal to emotion, allowing for a sympathetic connection. "I laid on my face and the first Negro began to beat." You can just picture these awful images in your mind and better understand what she went through. The way she puts herself out there creates more trust between speaker and listener. She isn't afraid to open up.
As far as Stokely Carmichael goes, he definitely took a more radical approach, but I felt his speech used a great blend of pathos and logos. He had a good emotional appeal with his sense of humor and his bold claims. The connection to the younger audience was made possible through this. You wouldn't be too serious and methodical when dealing with college students, and Carmichael understood this. Nonetheless, that exciting emotional content was not without some serious logic, which is where he nicely blended in the logos aspect. He makes statements about how a person's freedom can't be given because freedom is something you are born with. This makes great sense because the idea of a person having the ability to 'bestow' freedom on another is ridiculous and goes against the ideas of what this country is supposed to stand on.
It is hard for me to say which of these appeals is most dominant because they all bring something different to the table. I would probably say pathos has a more lingering effect because of that emotional connection. What we feel and what touches our heart goes deeper than 'facts and figures' or who has a better reputation. Hamer is the best example of this because of the way she persuaded her audience through emotion, as did Carmichael. To me, it just makes the speaker/author seem more human, and less robotic when they have this particular appeal.