RSS Feed

April, 2015

  1. Rhetorical Analysis of Sizzler Commercial

    April 23, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    sizzler

    The 1991 commercial promoting the restaurant, Sizzler, is packed with rhetoric. Although the commercial is quite humorous, the strategies used by the marketing team who created the video are very in depth.

    To begin, the audio of the commercial serves the rhetorical purpose of emphasizing Sizzler’s dedication to the American tradition of freedom. The voiceover says that a “quiet revolution” is occurring in America, where more parents are working and raising families, where life is moving faster than it ever has before and where Americans are redefining quality in their personal lives and in their business lives. The idea of the “quite revolution” coming from a voice similar to that of a male politician, is complimented later when a chorus of singers claims that Sizzler is ‘holding to tradition,” while “changing with the times.” The male who is doing the voice over is meant to present ethos. Viewers trust his patriotic voice and believe that they should follow his words, much like they would a persuasive politician. The audio is very American, emphasizing motifs of freedom and liberty. The chorus singing also creates a group dynamic, in which audiences feel the need to join in. Just having one person singing may not produce the same effect. Sizzler’s is a nationwide choice, and to not join other American’s in choosing Sizzler’s is to deny American ideals.

    The visuals also serve various rhetorical purposes. A man throwing a Frisbee to his dog emphasizes an American theme of loyalty. A little girl hitting a ball with a baseball bat emphasizes the American dream, the American tradition of baseball, and a breaking of gender roles. She represents tradition as well as the changing times. The construction worker emphasizes the building of freedom and the construction of freedom in America and in the Sizzler restaurant. The patriotic sailor saying goodbye to his girl elicits sympathy as well as rallies morale for the heroes of America. Sizzler uses the image of a sailor to show that they support the war efforts of this great nation; the war efforts meant to maintain the freedom of this nation. The grandparents watching over their grandchild who is riding a bike produce several rhetorical elements. First, they show the importance of the elderly. They also further represent the idea that with changing times, more parents are working, but the family dynamic is maintained when the grandparents watch the grandchildren. Finally, the cowboy and the cowgirl represent traditions of Western romance.

    “Sizzler is the choice of Americans” because it provides a grill, as well as a buffet. The “friendly” smiling staff invites all Americans. No one is discriminated against because all ages, races and genders are portrayed in the video. In the end, the commercial emphasizes Sizzler’s dedication to tradition as well as ingenuity. They use the bandwagon effect to draw customers in. The idea is presented that not going to Sizzler’s is denying the freedoms that countless American’s have fought and died for. Sizzler’s is the patriotic thing for all Americans to do.


  2. Paying College Athletes Debate

    April 23, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    college athletes

    The deliberation surrounding whether or not athletes should be paid was very relevant, especially because of the extensive revenue brought into Penn State as a result of the football team and many other sports for that matter. It appeared that just one student was mediating the group of 30 or so, and he did an excellent job.

    There were three approaches that the mediator facilitated:

    Approach 1 – Athletes should not be paid because they are students.

    Approach 2 – Athletes should be paid because they are valued as students.

    Approach 3 – Athletes should be paid because they are valued as employees.

    In the first approach, the main point of discussion was that athletes are technically already “paid” in scholarship money, and to pay them beyond that will decrease the value of education. One participant brought up an intriguing question that if the NCAA is compared to semi-professional leagues, is this really what we want in higher education? Universities will begin to focus only on athletics rather than academics, problems will arise when it comes to paying different teams different amounts of money, and it is possible that the gender gap will further increase if athletes are paid. Also, where is all of the money to pay these athletes going to come from? Will colleges increase tuition to compensate their athletes? Currently, no money from tuition at Penn State goes to athletes. The earnings from the sporting events goes to the coaches and to the building of new stadiums, but what will happen in the future if we begin to pay athletes? In the end, this approach concluded that it would be very hard to distribute the money evenly to each sports team and to each player and to each gender. As a result, there will be unnecessary tension and discrimination.

    In the second approach, where it was assumed that athletes should be paid because they are valued as students, the group decided that a trust should be set up for athletes to receive when they graduate. This would motivate them to perform academically, as well as athletically, and the purpose of higher education would be maintained. For the most part however, most people feel that athletes are already given enough perks to begin with, and that if athletes are paid more, than top academic students should be paid as well. 1 percent of the athletes on college campuses actually go pro. Also, athletes are given free Nike apparel and weekend stipends, and they have access to tutors. They are already financially supported above and beyond most college students, and the academic playing field should be maintained first.

    Finally, in the third approach, there was a great deal of discussion about the University of Alabama. At this university, revenue from football topped the combined revenue of 30 NFL teams. There is immense favoritism for schools to combat if athletes are paid as professionals. Although they can receive stipends on top of their scholarships, of up to $5,000, this is not nearly as much as what the athletes are bringing to the school. Alabama brought in 158 million dollars last season, and the players did not see any of it. They are the ones doing the work to bring in the money, and they should be compensated, but the lines are very blurred.

    It is very easy to see why athletes should be paid because of the immense revenues that they bring into the school, but the tension that will result will be too grand. Students and professors will feel it, and paying athletes could result in quite a toll on the purpose of higher education. In the end, the group concluded that athletes should not be paid because scholarship money and their stipends are more than enough.


  3. Vocational Schooling Models

    April 16, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    In my last blog post, I discussed the stereotypes in regards to vocational schooling. Many believe that vocational schooling is the inferior path to take in terms of educational achievement. However, I discovered that most of the stereotypes are based on wrongful statistics and that vocational schooling is a very viable option for many students. President Obama would agree with this sentiment. In 2012, Obama asked Congress to appropriate $1.1 billion to improve vocational and technical education at the secondary-school level. Obama also proposed spending $1 billion on high-school programs that train students to be able to work in information technology and healthcare industries. If the President of the United States is specifically requesting for legislation in full support of vocational schooling, why are we still so automatically opposed? How do we overcome this ignorance? Is it possible to make vocational schooling a widespread movement if public approval were to be gathered?

    Vocational schooling is not a new concept. However, in the eyes of the public, supporting vocational schooling and regarding it with respect is a rather new endeavor. The best way to ease the public into rendering support is by showing excellent examples. There are several models to examine, both internationally and in the United States. In Switzerland, education is free. With the American mentality in mind, one would think that most students would take full advantage of free secondary schooling. In reality, most Swiss students choose to immerse themselves in vocational training. Statistics show that 67% of Swiss students, after completing 9 mandatory years of compulsory education, willingly choose to enter vocational schooling. What is drawing them to this field, in quite the opposite manner of American students? In one TIME article written by Helena Bachmann, she describes a man by the name of Jonathan Bove. At the age of 16, he decided to enter vocational training at an insurance company. After three years of vocational training he received a job at a telecommunication company where he earns a starting salary of $52,000 per year. His beginning salary is incredible and that is due to the rigid standards set by VET schooling in Switzerland. Students who choose the vocational schooling track are offered a dual education where they work as an apprentice at a host company, while also taking classes at a VET school. (There are currently 80,000 apprentices for 58,000 host companies.) Switzerland puts in a lot of research and effort to determine the best job markets for their students, and they push to have these students enter a promising field. As a result, only 3% of young people in Switzerland are unemployed, which is one of the lowest percentages in 30 of the industrialized countries. What has allowed Switzerland to be so successful? Businesses invest 5.4 billion dollars into the VET programs each year, and they make a return of 5.4 billion dollars with a surplus of 400 million dollars.

    Is this type of schooling feasible in the United States? Switzerland truly is doing education right. However, in America, there would be two major roadblocks to this type of system. One, business regulation is much more complex and rigid in the United States and it would be harder to get businesses to work with VET schools. Even if the business issue was overcome, the question still remains, “Will society ever be content with sorting high school student onto different tracks?”

    John Klein, a writer for TIME magazine, argues that societal views will change slowly, but in the meantime, the United States should pursue vocational schooling. According to Klein, there are several vocational schools in Arizona that are very well-funded. The East Valley Institute of Technology and the Career and Technical Education Program and Monument Valley High School are great models for the American public to examine. Klein believes that through parental education on the positives of vocational schooling will relieve a great deal of the stigmas associated with vocational schooling, and allow the public to render a model similar to that of Switzerland.

    Upon examination of all of the facts, the Switzerland model is very viable. As far as business regulations go, for the time being, I do not think that the United States is anywhere near being able to follow suit. However, that is not to say that progress cannot be made in the future. If society gets on board, by looking at good models and by being educated by policy makers, it is possible that the stereotypes and stigmas can be relinquished. Currently, Britain and India are both striving to adopt the Swiss model, and while it might not be feasible in the present, it is good food for thought for the future. What do you think?

     

    Backmann, Helena. “Who Needs College? The Swiss Opt for Vocational School | TIME.com.” World Who Needs College The Swiss Opt for Vocational School Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

    “Obama Calls for Focus on Vocational Training.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.

    “Why Should We Care About Vocational Education?” Edutopia. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.


  4. Legalization of Marijuana Debate

    April 15, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    marijuana

                The legalization of medical marijuana versus the legalization of recreational marijuana debate was hosted by Penn State’s economic students and professors. On each debate squad, there were three students and a professor. Each side was allowed to present an opening speech about their topic. From there, the debate was organized so that one side would speak for 3 minutes and the other side was given the opportunity to rebuttal for 2 minutes.

    The debate team representing the legalization of only medical marijuana presented several major themes to carry their argument. They believed that the decision needs to be taken out of the hands of the politicians and placed into the hands of the doctors. There are so many unknowns with marijuana use. For instance, “how will marijuana affect motor skills and productivity and what will be the costs to society?” The medical marijuana team believes that the best option is to allow doctors to regulate and prescribe, reducing the chance of facing negative unknowns, while working to save lives. This team did a great job of using clear and organized rhetorical strategies. One team member provided a story, about a little girl named Mackenzie, suffering from cerebral palsy. This little girl faced 20 seizures per day, and the medication she used was not only extremely expensive ($35/day) but it also only reduced her seizures by half. Medical marijuana has not only taken away her seizures, but it is also much less expensive at $15 per day. The debater completed is rhetorical speech, filled with pathos, but arguing that now Mackenzie’s father has more money to spend on her specialized education needs.

    The debate team representing the legalization of recreational marijuana argued for politicians to give the people what they want. They claimed that by allowing marijuana use to remain illegal, freedoms are being taken away, prisons are being wrongfully clogged and the war on drugs is only gaining strength, in the process increasing taxes and propagating racism. The debate team also argued that legalization would allow for enhanced tax revenues, possibly allowing more money for education. This group was not as rhetorically sound as the medical marijuana side. The members talked too quickly, and they did not use a lot of statistical evidence for support. They came in knowing that a majority of the audience would be in favor of their side to begin with, considering 51 percent of Pennsylvania residents, ages 18-25, have tried recreational marijuana. As a result, instead of providing sound reasoning, they just counted on the audience for support. Their best argument was in regards to hemp. They claimed that when President Nixon made it illegal to grow hemp, because of the marijuana that can result, America lost the ability to export 25,000 different products. Now, America must import their hemp products from Canada, which has caused a great financial deficit. However, even though this was an interesting point, it still did not provide any reason for recreational usage. “Giving the people what they want,” is not a valid theme to build a debate off of.

    In the end, I found the medical marijuana debate team to be the most effective. They spoke clearly, they caught my attention, and they had valid support and rebuttals. I found it frustrating that the other side used their superficial advantage to carry them through the entire debate. When we voted at the end, it appeared that the recreational use side was going to win. That is no big surprise, but it is still important to note that the medicinal side was more well-researched and equipped for the debate.

     

     


  5. Perfectly Imperfect

    April 15, 2015 by Nicole Luchansky

    true beauty

    This is the last passion blog that I will write for the Rhetoric and Civic life course, and I find it only fitting if I take the time to go back to where it all began. 9 months ago, I walked into Dr. J’s classroom. It was my 4th official class of my college career. One of the first assignments we were asked to complete, was a civic engagement speech, a speech that would motivate the future development of my anti-fashion fashion blog. For my civic engagement speech, I discussed Photoshop, and the unrealistic expectations that it places on female beauty. To support my argument, I used a video entitled, Dove Evolution, which was created as a part of the Dove Real Beauty Workshop for Girls campaign. The video portrays how Photoshop works to visually enhance appearance to the point where the person being edited is no longer recognizable. (You can view the video below) The embedded rhetoric in this video is very purposeful in exposing marketers’ use of trickery to convince us that we are failing if we do not have flawless skin and breathtaking bodies. With growing numbers of eating disorders in the United States, Dove has done a fantastic job of advocating on the behalf of women, and one of their most spectacular catch phrases is “redefining beauty as perfectly imperfect.” Ultimately, this semester, I decided to work alongside Dove’s efforts to show that inner beauty, the only true beauty, comes from actions, not physical appearance.

    For my anti-fashion fashion blog, each week, I chose a celebrity who used their fashion icon status to help others. Angelina Jolie, an elegant, tomboyish vampire (aka the Woman in Black), has performed more than enough charity work to make anyone speechless. Gabourey Sidibe is a celebrity inspiration who has taken the harassment she has received as a result of her weight and turned it into a reason to only grow more powerful and more confident with herself. She wears whatever she wants, when she wants. Demi Lovato uses nail polish on her pinky nail, as a part of a Dove campaign, to encourage anti-bullying efforts. Katy Perry used her fashionable singing voice to bring awareness to the domestic violence statistics plaguing this nation. Emma Watson shed her Harry Potter cloak, and has now become a major contributor to the gender equality initiative. Zendaya Coleman took the criticism she received over her dread locks and created a platform to speak out against racism, prejudices and assumptions. Nicole Kidman wore a pink bracelet, to a premiere of one of her movies, to support her mother’s breast cancer struggle. Pink posed naked to advocate for animals rights. Finally, Kellie Pickler shaved her head to support a friend going through chemotherapy. Each of these women is exceptionally beautiful. They are celebrities with amazing clothes and amazing make-up artists. However, whether I am analyzing Pink’s rocker fashion or Kellie Pickler’s country chic fashion, the only reason I see beauty is because of what lies beneath the clothes. These women have gone above and beyond their professions. They are not just another set of pretty faces to be photographed. They are women working to make a difference in this world. They go beyond skin deep beauty because they know there is so much more to this life.

    Now is the time to come full circle. Dove’s most recent campaign was to have a door with two labelled sides, “Beautiful” and “Average.” They then filmed the doors, and determined the percentage of women who entered the “Average” door and the percentage of women who entered the “Beautiful” door. According to Dove, 96% of women entered the “Average” door, and Dove has now coined the hashtag “#ChooseBeautiful.” We are all beautiful in our own way and it is time for everyone to recognize that. So, who is my celebrity for the final week of this blog? I have decided to choose the girls in my blogging group as my “celebrity inspiration.” Each of you is absolutely amazing, and it is time to pass on the message that all girls are capable of choosing the “Beautiful” door. Helena, you are an amazing artist, and you are going to be an amazing teacher someday, inspiring the youth of America. Taylor, you are probably one of the most knowledgeable people in regards to horror movies and soundtracks, and you have created some of the best artwork I have ever seen. I have no doubt that your work will be showcased someday. Lisa, you are going to be a rockin’ food scientist, and I cannot wait to see the epic food progress you make. (cricket flour?) And finally, Lillian, you are an amazing musician and musical enthusiast. Also, it is so wonderful how connected you are to your culture. You are all beautiful, inside and out, and I ask you all to continue the fight to redefine beauty as perfectly imperfect.

     

     


Skip to toolbar