Shared Responsibility

Anti-drug ads are becoming more and more commonplace in America. However, this ad has nothing to do with America or even Americans. This ad is almost exclusively targeted at Colombians and uses two of the three persuasive techniques to proclaim the true effects of Colombia's drug production.

The most obvious persuasive technique used is Pathos, or emotional appeal. This ad hits home immediately because kidnapping alone brings strong emotions in most, if not all, parents. The fear showing in the body language of the girl in the house gives goose bumps to a reader. I mean, what parent does not fear for the well being of his or her own child? No parents. Feelings of guilt are also coaxed out into the open in this strong ad. Past, or ever current cocaine users have or are funding the terrorist kidnappings currently ravaging the country of Colombia.

Instead of the usual celebrity or expert endorsement, this ad mixes things up a bit. The designers use ethos in a negative way. They portray a "business man" with only one giant nose. This symbolizes his use of cocaine to stay awake all night partying. This ad implies that any purchaser of cocaine is just as bad as the one holding the gun, as the man is holding an assault rifle. This negative ethos makes the reader not want to be like the "business man" in the picture.

Interestingly enough, logos is not used in this advertisement. Given that the creators have probably been trained in persuasive techniques for years, this is quite odd. However, the main target for this advertisement is a cocaine user. There are so many health warnings about drugs in the world today; any drug-user probably has lost all common sense. The picture is supposed grab the reader and captivate in a short time period, not burden their minds with health warnings.

This anti-drug ad has effectively used pathos and ethos to make a strong impression on any reader.

Present or Future?

Many people live in the now, that is they only think about what is currently happening and not about the future. This, I believe, is a problem. Too many people take for granted what we, people, have now and do not think about what would happen if these were lost. This past month, I read a novel that addresses just this.


In One Second after by William Forstchen, an Electromagnetic Pulse Device (EMP) is detonated over the United States, causing all electronics to fail suddenly. The reader follows a family in the mountains of North Carolina. In this book people have not taken necessary steps to live without technology. This causes massive "die-offs" where in some cities only 5% of the population survives.


While reading, I never understood the title of Forstchen's novel. Then, just yesterday, the meaning hit me like a brick. Just one second after a disaster of this magnitude occurs, the effects are immediate. All events that have occurred until this point become almost meaningless. One second after, the fate of the United States and the rest of the World is changed forever. One second after, the lives of millions of people are changed forever.

People should be living in a state of mind where the future is the most important part. This causes the one second after thought to be less dramatic and catastrophic as it was in One Second After.