Appearance Affects Protest

For Mike and Andy of the Yes-Men, their appearance is used only to deceive those around them into believing their fake identity, in order to actively criticize and demonstrate to the public the incompetence of specific organizations. Initially, they try to fit into whatever their setting is in order to gain the confidence of those around them. To do so, they normally have to dress in expensive looking business suits. However, once the confidence of their audience is gained in their setting, they change their appearance to poke fun at something or call out an inconsistency-as was exampled in the conference they attended pretending to be a member of the WTO prancing around in a giant golden spandex penis suit.
Punk rock culture, on the other hand, uses their appearance for no other reason than to look different. Just because they have the right to wear whatever they want, apparently they like to exercise it. They have no specific target to implement their protest against, other than the overbearing "man". Some punk rockers do actually have a cause and are sending a message of awareness through their music, and their appearance and attitude reflect their lifestyle, which is justifiable. However, much of the recent punk rock bands to come out in the 90's and 21st century reflect appearances that are created by using punk rock as a norm to dress, rather than dressing in whatever way expresses their individualism.
Punk fashion does not count as a protest. They should focus more upon the message that their music is sending rather than the appearance contorted with their genre. That is all.

Staging Protests in Different Mediums

I dislike PETA. A lasting impression has been ingrained in me about PETA- in Middle School they vehemently passed out flyers around my campus trying to condemn my fellow students and I for our food choices. I didn't get to the top of the food chain to eat leaves. Although I do not believe in eating large amounts of meat, I believe that supplemented with large amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables, one can create the most nutritious meals. I am a very health conscience person, and I eat chicken breast- a very high protein/low fat meat quite frequently. According to PETA, ideally I shouldn't be eating any meat. I don't need people telling me what I can and can't eat. I think that I have enough knowledge to know what exactly I want to put in and keep out of my body. I guess I'm one of those people who sides with the extreme hate stance towards PETA. In order to agree with PETA, I would feel I would be giving up too much of my own personal autonomy; something as simple as choosing what to eat.
The Guerilla Girls wear gorilla masks to create their anonymity, which is the most obvious aspect of their campaign that stands out to me. What, are they ashamed to show their faces? Or do the masks they wear look better than what's underneath?

Critical Mass

I enjoyed the video about Critical Mass, and I specifically advocate their ingenious organization in that there are no real "leaders" or hierarchy to the organization, leaving authorities with no target to clamp down on. Instead, the riders are an organized chaos in every motorist's face, rubbing in the fact that they are riding bicycles for multiple reasons. One reason, it obviously gets the attention of everyone around showing there are other ways to get around an urban city than personal automobiles. Riding a bicycle is great for fitness and it costs nothing. There are no pollutants expelled from a bicycle. I say all of this never participating or viewing a Critical Mass ride. If I were a motorist, driving to a set location and needed to be there by a certain time, I would definitely be upset by the complete stop in traffic that would occur as a result of the riders. However, I believe this device of protest is much more credible than others because it is non-violent, and increasing the health of everyone who participates. While it may inconvenience motorists trying to get to destinations, I believe if it were more accepted by authorities, they could make public announcements that way motorists could know in advance that there will be a delay, and have the option to find other transportation accommodations.

Ethos as a Means of Persuasion

Cindy Sheehan creates her ethos by using the tragic death of her son to gain sympathy which she manipulates into credibility. She protests the Iraq war, because she believes that it directly killed her son, who should have lived. After doing some more research on Cindy via the most credible source on the internet aka Wikipedia, I have some to the conclusion that she has too much time on her hands. She must be a credible expert grounded in the endeavors of US foreign policy and militaristic action, or else I don't know why anyone would listen to her, or give her all of her publicity. Yes- the death of her son is tragic, no- that does not give her the right to be plastered all over the public media sector as if she is on some crusade to stop the war. I do not find the ethos that Sheehan creates to be appealing. The most appealing ethos to me is credibility gained through service efforts and giving, combined with intelligence-whether gained from studying at a university or individually self-taught. This has led me to support most of the causes brought forth by Zach de la Rocha, with the backing of Noam Chomsky. Not to say that I support all their interests, but I do support some.

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos

Ethos, pathos, and logos are three literary devices used to convey ideas and messages through rhetorical means. These three devices are exampled in the speeches by Fannie Lou Hamer and Stokely Carmichael. Fannie Lou Hamer strongly employs the use of pathos in her speech in front of the credentials committee. She begins with an appeal to pathos by stating her full name, city, and address as to convey to the audience that she has nothing to hide-this also appeals to ethos, as the audience now fully knows her identity. Throughout the rest of her speech, Hamer appeals to pathos by narrating her own story about how she tried to stand up for her right to vote and was viciously beaten by police. Stokely Carmichael relies on his ability to publicly speak and the content of his words to convey his ideas. Specifically, Carmichael employs use of logos and ethos. Carmichael establishes his logos specifically when he says “…I am black and I am a human being. Therefore I have the right to go into any public place. White people didn’t know that.” He uses this same format to criticize the unjust laws and policies in the United States concerning the civil freedoms of blacks, always using the closing phrase “White people didn’t know that”. In short, the speeches by Hamer and Carmichael employ the uses of ethos, pathos, and logos to convey their ideas to the intended audience.