Essay on Advertising

In recent years, advertising has become ever-more pervasive as new companies mushroom all around the world. There are many different viewpoints as to the benefits and detriments of advertisements. Some say the benefits outweigh the detriments, and vice versa. In my opinion, the negative aspects of advertising outweigh the positive aspects.

The nature of advertisement is such that it leaves many loopholes to be exploited. One definition of advertisement is a method of appealing to people in order to persuade them to buy a product or service. There are many examples of how companies achieve this. The Olay brand of shampoo and conditioner relies on emphasising their expertise through qualified staff like Francesca Fusco and Thomas Taw. The Nike brand of shoes appeals to the emotional tendencies of people to buy their sports shoes. The list goes on. However, one should remember that advertising is essentially propaganda and as such is never entirely accurate. Companies have been known to misrepresent evidence. For example, real estate companies in Singapore have been known to present a distorted image of a house for sale, leaving consumers to discover the trickery. One should also remember that the advertiser always has a private agenda when creating the advertisement. Thus, it cannot be entirely trusted as there is intent to sway your opinions.

Advertisement also has its detriments. Firstly, advertisement has become so commonplace that its impact on consumers has greatly diminished. The average American sees over 3000 advertisements in a day. It seems rather improbable that one advertisement out of this 3000 will significantly influence a consumer’s decisions. Also, advertising through various forms of media is generally expensive. The company could be spending this money on improving existing products and services, pushing out new products or adding to their financial reserves. A reduction in advertisements would also mean more time for news programs on television or articles in the newspapers, both of which are more significant than advertising.

Some might argue that advertising has benefits like creating healthy competition. While I agree that such competition is beneficial to the economy, I must point out that in most cases, the larger companies can completely flood out the smaller companies by taking up a significant amount of space for their advertisements. This does not contribute to competition at all, and has a very minimal effect on the competitiveness of the economy. Others might contend that advertising can introduce people to new products or services. However, the impact would be insubstantial as many people do not read advertisements. Also, humans are creatures of habit. It is unlikely that we will change our shopping preferences even when we read about other advertisements.

As advertising becomes more prevalent, I believe that beyond a certain point, providing advertising in bulk fails to have a significant impact on consumers. I think it would be better for some of the advertising funds to be diverted to the research and development sector, used as a financial cushion or used to pay dividends to shareholders.

Sorry Ms Huang that this is late.

A day in the life of World War II

Dear Diary,

It's really been too long since I wrote in you. We got a telegram from Dad again. Mum didn't let me read it, but she seemed really relieved. She told me Dad wouldn't be coming home again this week. He's on a business trip, by the way. All my classmates' dads went on business trips too, just one week ago. Mum told me a business trip was when people went somewhere far away to do business. She seemed really sad when I asked her why Dad had to stay away for so long. Why can't they go on business trips at home? Then we could all be together again. I asked Mum where Dad went. She told me he went to Germany, and he's enjoying himself with lots of great food and living in a nice house on the grass. I asked her when we could go join him. She told me we couldn't, not yet.

And this morning, Mum was reading the newspaper and I was eating my buttered bread. I saw some words on the front. Mr Richards hasn't really taught us to read yet, but I knew some of them. One was "Germany". Mum said Dad was there, so I read some more. Mum caught me looking, and dropped the newspapers. She told me it was for grown-ups only, so she went to her room and closed the door.

Dad's chair's been empty for a real long time now, and I miss him tucking me in at night. He used to tell me stories, and I would go to sleep. Mum tells me stories too, but she doesn't tell them like Dad does. And Mum always walks me to school now. Dad used to drive me there in his car, but Mum can't drive, so we walk instead. I like it, because Mum's a great joke-teller. I miss Dad though. I wish he would just come back from his business trip. When will Dad come home?

Descriptive parargraph

It was over. The final bullet had been fired, the final platoon had retreated past once verdant hills, the final soldier had fallen bravely in his last stand. They were returning home tomorrow, pulling out of the war-ravaged land that was Germany. Two men lay in the wreckage of the aftermath, spending their final day before they were recalled. Dead bodies clad in green and brown littered the carnage, corpses lying like ripened fruit all over the ground. The acrid stench of decomposition suffused the air as it combined with the piercing burn of gunpowder that made one wrinkle his nose in disgust. There was an eerie silence, save the occasional screech of carrion eaters and the distant, whispering rustle as heavy boots trudged over them. One reached out, his hand softly coming to rest on his dead comrade's neck. He knew he was dead, knew he would not come back, knew he had gone past the point of no return. No comforting pulse was felt, sending a lance of pain into his heart. His only consolance was that his friend had died bravely for his country and his family would never want again. The other crouched a few feet back, looking on in sorrowful sympathy. A single tear wet the dead soldier's uniform. Then they stood up, gravel crunching under the stomp of army boots. With a crunch of boots on gravel, they left, never to return.

To view the picture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8492000/8492777.stm

Socrates

Socrates was a renowned Greek philosopher who lived in ancient Greece. He contributed much to the field of ethics, creating the Socratic method of discussion. The Socratic method was much like a real debate would be today. However, there was no arguing, but rather asking and answering of questions, to stimulate critical thinking and to bring out ideas embedded in the seemingly mundane. He also contributed much about epistemology (thinking about the limitations of knowledge) and logic. The influence of his ideas and theories also provided the foundation for much of Western knowledge that followed afterwards. I would like to discuss one of Socrates' more prominent quotes below. "One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him." - Socrates. I think this applies very well to "To Kill a Mockingbird", in the context of the book. I feel that the main cause of the conflict between Negroes and whites began with the manifestation of retaliation. Althought the whites displayed this form of hatred the most prominently, it was seen in the Negroes as well. For example, a Negro woman tried to stop Scout and Jem from entering the Negro church, on the grounds that they were white children. This displays that some Negroes still hated the whites for their oppression. I feel that if the Negroes had forgiven the whites their wrongdoings, the conflict would have immediately died down. However, I do not think all whites hated the Negroes. Atticus Finch was one person who did not consider Negroes inferior to whites. Another was Mr. Link Deas. I think that the main reason the blacks did not physically retaliate was because of people like Atticus who treated them kindly and fairly. I feel that the whole conflict could have been resolved sooner if both parties had been willing to forgive the other for their trangressions. In fact, it was only years later that people like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were able to look at things objectively and with a compassionate and caring heart. Martin Luther King endure hate mail, death threats and derogatory insults while Nelson Mandela was thrown in prison for 23 years. Despite all these wrongdoings against them, they did not hate the whites and forgave the whites unconditionally.

My LA Comments:

Here are the links of blogs I have commented on. My identity is "ohcoolwhatzthat". Ms Huang, if you see this, my comment on Jian Shern's blog may not be confirmed yet as it is still awaiting confirmation.

http://yapjianshern.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/reflection-on-the-phrase-anyone-is-guilty-who-watches-this-and-does-nothing/#comment-19

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-kill-mockingbird-childhood-memories.html#comments

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/superstition.html#comments

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/fair-judgements-to-kill-mockingbird.html#comments

http://leonard-languageartsblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/description-of-beach.html#comments

(I did this out of initiative and not part of the "structured" blogging in class.)

http://2i121.blogspot.com/2011/02/superstitions.html#comments

http://lablogbypar.blogspot.com/2011/02/to-kill-mockingbird-personal-response.html#comments

http://spongebobsayshitoyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/ending-of-to-kill-mockingbird.html

http://spongebobsayshitoyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/putting-yourself-in-another-persons.html

http://language-artist.blogspot.com/2011/02/movie-mississippi-burning.html#comments

Thank you all for suscribing to "My LA Blogspot". I'll see you guys again next term.

"Anybody is guilty who watches this and does nothing."

The above phrase means that anybody who sees something wrong being done and does not do anything to stop it is also contributing to the injustice. To a certain extent, I agree with this phrase. If someone sees a robbery being committed and does not try to stop it, the person is also contributing to the robbery by not acting against it. If the person at least calls the police, then an action is taking place to try to stop the robbery. However, it is not fair to equate inaction with guilt. In certain situations, to act would exacerbate the situation, so we should remain quiet. For example, if a student is being scolded unfairly for punching someone else when he was provoked, it would exacerbate the situation to point out that someone else punched him. Then, two students would be in trouble instead of just one. Allowing this would motivate the student to remain calm and composed instead of retaliating.

However, I feel crime and discrimination in particular is very hard to prevent. It is not just as simple as punishing those who act on their discrimination. There is no perfectly objective person. Even though we may not realise it, we are acting based on certain discrimination that was imparted on us through the years. For example, if you ask an American whether he thinks whites or blacks are better, he will reply that both are equal. However, if you dig deeper and ask him to recount stories of great people, more likely than not he will give more white people as examples than black people. Also, in chess White moves first, followed by Black. White also has a positive connotation, like pure and innocent, while black has a negative connotation, as in black-hearted and a black abyss.

"Mississipi Burning"

Good day to my avid readers. Today I will be discussing a film named "Mississipi Burning".

"Mississpi Burning" is a movie based on prejudice and discrimination against Negroes. It is set in the 20th century in the southern part of America. It mainly focuses on the predominance of apartheid psychology during that time period, thus in the movie blacks are discriminated against. Segregation also takes place in the movie.

I have mixed feelings towards the movie. I like it because it is based on real life facts. It is rare that the truth is interesting or exciting or captivating. However, this movie has managed to capture excellently the horror that blacks faced in the 20th century, especially the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The KKK was a white supremacist organisation that lynched blacks, burnt down black churches, and raided black homes. They did not spare children or old folks, killing them indiscriminately. Although I already knew about how blacks were shunned and killed during the 20th century, it was a whole other thing to watch explicit graphic detail of how the KKK killed and tortured the negroes. I also like it because of the change that occurs. The movie started off with three civil rights activists being shot dead by police officers. However, at the end there was an integrated mourning of those activists and the people who had been mindlessly killed by the KKK.

That said, the movie also has flaws. My opinion is that it is not very suitable for easily frightened people, since the gory details would scare them. I also felt quite frightened and horrified when the KKK lynched a negro in the movie. As the Negro was being lynched, blood spattered everywhere, and it was a very gory scene. I also do not like it because the transition seems too abrupt. The movie starts with shooting, then it deteriorates into the arson of several different negro homes and churches. Finally, the masterminds are arrested, and suddenly people think negroes are not so bad. It would have been better if it did not change so abruptly since there is no significant change in life that occurs abruptly.