The Yes Men wear suits and have a professional look. It seems that they while they are rebellious they try their hardest not to look like it. However I think that the reason they dress the way they do is because they are trying to get inside information. Its not necessarily that they are trying to create a good ethos but rather a method of executing their plan. I really don’t think that it relates to their values. The Yes Men are very open about the illegal activities that they perform and dressing up like “good citizens” I think just helps them in their task. The Punk Rock movement I think varies from person to person. Some people may see it as a form of protest against society’s norms or what not. However many people I think just want to create a sense of individualism or uniqueness. I think that the Punk Rock group likes the fact that they are getting the attention they deserve. Over time it seems that the Punk Rock look has become more of a fad than anything. There are a lot of negative stereotypes with the look, but when you think about it negative stereotypes come with every look or idea. For example a hip hop look may be associated with being gang of drug related, a gothic look may be associated with being anti-life and a “preppy” look may be associated with being stuck up, arrogant or snobbish. I think appearance often times does create a sense of appearance one way or another, however if people are willing to look past that it doesn’t necessarily have to. Many times appearance actually serves the very purpose of creating an ethos.

Both PETA and the Guerilla Girls use the internet in order to spread information about their ideas and values. This may limit the audiences to only those who have access to computers and internet. However, both organizations also use billboards, magazines and celebrity influence in order to get their names out. Certain mediums are effective for certain groups. For example, it wouldn’t make sense for PETA to put an ad in a Hunting magazine just as it wouldn’t make sense for the Guerilla Girls to put an advertisement in Playboy or Maxim. I do not necessarily agree with the idea that one’s opinion about PETA has to be one way or the other. I seem to have a gray area opinion. While PETA does tend to go to the extreme on certain topics ( such as no milk at all, no meat at all etc.) they do tend to have a point on some issues. In many places animals are an important part of one’s lifestyle for food, companionship amongst other things. Many medicines are also developed. Also if animals are studied in captivity, scientists and animal researchers can be better equipped to help them in the wild. However, people can cross the line. An example would be the case of football player Michael Vick’s dog fighting case this summer. PETA expressed their utter disgust at the acts and tried to educate people about the stereotypes associated with pit bulls. It is worth noting that many of the issues that people agree with PETA on such as dog fighting, cock fighting and animal cruelty are illegal anyway. I think it is good that PETA tries to educate people, but at the same time give people the freedom to make their own choices without making them look like criminals. (Unless they actually are as in some cases) What is particularly striking about the Guerilla girls is their ethos. They fight for women’s rights but try to do it in humorous ways. I think the humorous billboards are effective because they show a sense of “personality” behind those gorilla masks and show that they are not just unhappy radical protesters.

Critical Mass started in San Francisco in September of 1992 in order to promote the rights of Bike riders on the road. One of the key elements of critical mass is that no distinct leader is appointed. Everyone has the right to speak and make his or her point heard. Although Critical Mass originally was started to promote the rights of cyclists on the road, it can be used as a form of protest for anything. The Critical Mass website states that Critical Mass is an idea not an organization. For example, if people were wishing to spread the word of global warming Critical Mass is a possible method. People can direct attention towards themselves while at the same time encourage people to ride bikes instead of drive cars. When I first watched the movie that we watched on Monday, I didn’t understand what the point of Critical Mass was. As an avid biker I thought it was great to promote the rights of bikers but why at the expense of innocent motorists? Are they bad people for needing to be somewhere at a given amount of time? However when I visited the website I found out that this isn’t the intent of Critical Mass at all. It clearly encourages the members to socialize with the motorists and spread the word. It also encourages bikers to leave a lane open for the cars and let the motorists know when exactly the next ride will take place so they can be prepared in advance… or take part themselves. Critical Mass can be an effective form of protest. I do think that biking should be allowed on the streets but not at the expense of the motorists. In fact, in many cites in California bike lanes are present and have been around for a while so the concept isn’t knew at all. This prevents the bikers from impeding the motorists and in turn provides safety for the bikers.

Malachai Richter was a big fan of the local music scene in Chicago. However, he was also very outgoing in the issues that he was passionate about. Although he was popular with other fans of underground music in the Windy City, he didn’t establish many deep friendships. I think the fact that he was popular with many, but close to so few established an ethos of acquaintance but not necessarily a strong sense of relation. The fact that he went through a process of self immolation did wake up many of the locals in Chicago and some of the people across the nation. However, many people thought Richter may have been just as mentally disturbed as he was passionate. I think that because he seemed to be somewhat of a loner below the surface, it contributed to the uncertainty of Richter’s motives. Cindy Sheehan on the other hand is the mother of a fallen soldier who was killed in the line of duty. Sheehan admits to being against the war from the very beginning, but never started preaching anti-war activism until her son died. I think the fact that Sheehan is the mother of a fallen soldier arouses a sense of pity and empathy. Sheehan refers to Bush and his staff not only as bad decision makers but also murderers. On the background information page it refers to her as calling Bush a “bigger terrorist than Osama Bin Ladin.” Both Richter and Sheehan want to convince people that the war is unjustifiable, however their methods and character are quite different. If I was forced to choose I would have to say Sheehan’s ethos is more persuasive because one can relate to her better, whereas Malachai is someone that we are familiar with mostly on the surface.