America in the 1990s was a simpler time, filled with hope, freedom, and the rise of buffet chain restaurants. Hoping to gain influence among the American public, Sizzler released a promotional advertisement in 1991, highlighting the strengths and values of the company and the service it provides to its customers. While the advertisement appears to be serious and valued by the company, it comes off as a parody, with cliched scenarios, awkward staring into the camera or off into the distance, and questionable scenes. Even with this amount of confusion and hilarity surrounding the advertisement, they do portray an American society that cherishes and supports the freedom of “choices.”

The advertisement begins with a montage of different groups of American citizens. From a construction worker, to a girl playing baseball, to a fisherman, Sizzler attempts to depict the diversity of American public, gaining credibility as their restaurant caters to these various groups. With the emphasis of “choices”, Sizzler depicts the company to be a proponent of liberty and freedom “reaching out across the U.S.A.” With the images of happy citizens, we are introduced to Sizzler’s image of a country that embraces their restaurants, which fit the “quiet revolution” that Americans appear to be undergoing. The narrator indicates the need of the American to seek out “good, basic home cooking” at reasonable prices, which Sizzler expresses they are the restaurant to do that by creating an image of freedom, peace, and enjoyable dining.

When the advertisement focuses on the interior of the restaurant, the audience is presented with the opportunity to enter an establishment that represents America. The lyrics describing Sizzler’s dedication to customer satisfaction, as well as keeping American ideals, matches the shots of the customers being intrigued and excited to be eating at Sizzler. While the “choices that can add a little freedom to your life” are alluded to, the audience rarely sees the people eating the food, as the advertisement focuses on the people. The people are the ones that make the “choices”, but the audience is unable to see this consistent choosing in the advertisement. The choices at Sizzler should reflect the choices of the American citizen, and the audience is left wondering how the “choice of America” is illustrated in the customers choosing the food. However, this does not detract from the patriotism that the advertisement displays, as the company proves that there is nothing more American than a value buffer restaurant.

The advertisement closes by the narrator expressing the different qualities of Sizzler. By proclaiming that the restaurant is “bold” and “unique”, the narrator influences the audience to choose their restaurant for a different dining experience, mirroring the change in the United States that citizens search for throughout history. The ad implies that without Sizzler, our nation would be stagnant and be missing of “choices” that are a characteristic of our nation’s prosperity. An ending montage sums up the commercial, filled with the familiar and relatable faces that we see day to day exercising their freedom.

Sizzler’s advertisement, while ridiculous and corny, portrays the simple times of the 1990s, where patriotism was vibrant and citizens indicated their “choices” in peculiar ways. Although the audience may laugh at the advertisement today, and Sizzler may be unknown to viewers, it remains an artifact for the United States by reflecting the values and beliefs that our nation adheres to.

Last week, I was able to attend the deliberation concerning whether college athletes should be paid. Although I was interested in the extra credit, I was interested in the conversation and the different viewpoints that other Penn State students have on this topic. In an age where college athletes are becoming even more famous and generating extraordinary amounts of money for the school, it seems that NCAA policies should be altered to assist these athletes during their time at school. However, the ethics behind these actions are tricky, and students were quick to discuss whether athletes should be compensated.

The first approach focused on not paying the student athletes at all, maintaining their amateur status and having their scholarships be their only source of payment. The argument for this approach is that the athletes choose to have this lifestyle, the value of education would not be diminished by being paid, and universities are not economically prepared to pay for athletes. Students noted that many of the athletes that want to be paid play the most popular sports, such as football and basketball. If these athletes are the ones paid, then it would give the incentive for other sports not as popular to ask for payment, which could start a vicious cycle of athletes being more concerned with money than athletics and academics. Being paid also takes away from their academic studies, as their payments represent that they have made it and they can go farther into professional leagues, disregarding their teachings that is the main reason for attending college.

The second approach focused on paying athletes, but valuing them as students. Athletes would be paid for their services, giving them the incentive to stay in school and receive their degree if they happen to lose their scholarship. Universities appear to value sporting events and athletic success than academic success, and this approach would change the mindset by providing athletes compensation for their commitment to school. Students were reluctant to support this approach due to the limited budget that schools have, and how some larger and more prominent schools would have more to provide for their athletes. Schools would have to cut athletic scholarships, and recruiting, which should focus on the recruit’s ability to choose, would turn into a unjust bidding war between larger schools. This approach was seen as difficult to implement, as schools would have to seriously commit to altering set budgets to cater to athletes who most likely leave school early.

The third approach also focused on paying athletes, but valuing them as employees. The argument that student athletes are employees of the university is drawn upon in this approach, and athletes should receive compensation for their services for the university. It appears unfair that schools are generating massive amounts of revenue for athletics, but the athletes will never see any of this because of NCAA policies that restrict players from receiving benefits. The recent behavior of colleges was also analyzed, as schools are swimming in money from different agreements between cable and clothing retailers, and this money is being used for athletics, not educational value. It appears that the NCAA should regulate the amount of money used for coaching salaries and stadium funding to pay these players and lead them to earning their degree. Students were skeptical of this approach, as it would have ripple effects throughout college athletics and cause some sports programs to be dropped due to lack of funding. Athletes in less popular sports would live under the threat of having their scholarship or program cut, diminishing the unique athletic talents throughout the nation. The question of how these athletes would use their payments was also brought up, as athletes would lose some fiscal responsibility with more money.

Overall, students were not still not open to the idea of paying college athletes, as they believed that it would too much of an economic investment into athletics that schools may not have the funds for. In a new era of students leaving school early for professional leagues, it appears that paying athletes would influence them to further disregard their studies, which is the primary reason that they should be in college. This topic will continue to be left up for debate, but for now, student athletes should remain members of the university and respective athletic programs and focus on competing in the sport they love to play.

Besides the required deliberation that I attended put on by the other group in our class, I was able to attend another one, this time regarding the party culture surrounding Penn State. A couple of my friends were moderating the discussion, and I was intrigued to see some of the solutions that my fellow students had about the party scene at our school. After attending, I realized that students have different thoughts on how our drinking habits should be handled and who should be held responsible.

The approaches all focused on what parties should do more to alter how students go about binge drinking on the weekends. The first approach focused on limiting alcohol access to minors, since many parties on campus cater to underclassmen. The discussion focused on how younger students may use older students to buy them alcohol, and how those older students should be held more responsible for the actions of the minors. Many students voiced concerns that access is generally very easy if you have a connection and money, which can be dangerous if these younger students are not careful. While more measures are being made to track how alcohol is purchased and where it ends up, stricter enforcement should be made to restrict minors from having access to alcohol.

The second approach focused on law enforcement altering their laws and cracking down on underage drinking. The discussion was focused on the current laws in place regarding underage drinking, and how the police can enforce these laws on the weekends. With a large campus population going out on the weekends, it would be impossible to crack down on every underage student. However, the students believed that law enforcement should be better educated to handle drunk students to ensure they don’t become reckless or violent. It appeared that many students were in favor of increasing the role of law enforcement towards these situations, but there was disagreement over whether individuals or groups of drunk students should be targeted by the police.

The third approach focused on the university having more sponsored events to pull students away from drinking on the weekends. The group mentioned that Late Night at the HUB was already in place for students that do not drink, but many students do not see it as a viable alternative to drinking on the weekends. The discussion had concerns that the university needed to provide more for students to turn them away from drinking, even if it is not the popular thing. Things like the university paying bars to close on State Patty’s were seen as effective to preventing drinking, but the university should put more measures in place to focus on fixing the drinking reputation on campus.

As I attended the deliberation, I thought that the recent KDR scandal seemed to bring about more opinions of stopping the drinking problem, but it appeared that they individuals began to go into territories of fixing fraternities instead of drinking. While I agree that KDR was unjustified and sickening in their actions, the drinking atmosphere should not be to blame. I also thought the deliberation focused on what groups should do to assist in the problem on campus, but they never directed the conversation towards personal responsibility. The focus on binge drinking is understandable, as many students that go to parties engage in this, but how light drinking among students should be handled. If the group was able to include this deliberation, I think that the solutions to the problem would have been stronger and more comprehensive, incorporating how any level of drinking could be addressed.

Overall, I thought the group’s deliberation went smoothly (although one instance did become heated and uncomfortable between two attendees), and they presented facts and possible solutions effectively. I was pleased to attend this deliberation, and it helped me to reevaluate my thoughts on how students can go about drinking on the weekends.

Even though it was close to three months ago, I had the pleasure of attending Sarah Koenig’s speech. Coming into the speech, I was unfamiliar with Koenig’s work and her podcast “Serial”, which appeared to take the country by storm. However, after hearing her speech to a packed Schwab Auditorium, and listening to the podcast itself, I began to appreciate Koenig’s investigative approach and search for the truth.

Koenig began her lecture by retelling the third episode of “Serial” that detailed the finding of Hae Min Lee’s in a Baltimore’s Leakin Park in 1999. She chose this episode because she felt that it was one of the most important in the series, indicating evidence of Lee’s disappearance and starting her murder investigation. Koenig went through the process of a truck driver named “Mr. S” pulled over and went into the park to urinate, but ended up finding the mangled remains of Lee buried in dirt and grass in the forest. Once police found the spot, they began to question those involved with Lee’s disappearance, including her ex-boyfriend Adnad Syed. The discovery of Lee’s body led to a series of events that culminated with Syed being found guilty of Lee’s murder. Koenig retelling this episode was effective to those that were not familiar with the podcast to understand the storytelling and structure, as well as how she interplays narration with audio recordings to convey the investigative tone.

After going through the episode, Koenig went into detail of how she was able to gain the evidence for this case, and how she began to question the guilty verdict of Syed. She discussed how she was able to look into court documents and police reports that related to the case and gave Koenig the information to investigate this case. Her most important piece of evidence came from a 2,000 page report, obtained from the Maryland Public Information Act, that included everything that related to Syed’s case, including driving and phone records that gave a timeline of events. Throughout the podcast, Koenig consistently referenced the timeline of events surrounding Lee’s murder, so it was interesting to see how Koenig could analyze the evidence to create a compelling and investigative podcast.

Her question and answer session was intriguing, as the question came up as to what she would do for a follow up. She clearly stated that she was not going to do another murder case and that she would only do a season once she found a story that truly peaked her interest. This further revealed her journalistic side for searching for the right story to tell and discover. She also indicated her displeasure with the Saturday Night Live parody, even when I thought it perfectly captured her style and how the podcast developed.

Overall, I thought that Koenig’s presentation was interesting and thought-provoking, expressing that our society should always search for the truth and never be satisfied with every outcome that appears unjust. Her podcast does a service by pointing out the flaws in a serious murder case, and opens up questions that may force the case to be reopened and reevaluated. America needs more people like Koenig, who will delve into controversial subject matter to find the truth. While her approach may be polarizing and annoying to some, I think that Koenig’s style lays a path for investigative journalism, and it won’t be long before we hear podcasts similar to “Serial” become common.