So to pick on this wonderfully 90’s ad, I thought I would focus in on on specific (not so great) aspect: the soundtrack. Now believe me, I’ve heard some interesting soundtracks, but this one might just take the cake. I’ll do my best to rhetorically analyze it and keep my own comedy out of the rest of this post, but I can’t promise anything… As a small side note, to help me be focused solely on the sounds you hear while listening, I played the video while looking at another tab. And believe me, this killed two birds with one stone. Not only did I get to focus on the audio, I didn’t have to endure the unbelievably cheesy images!!

So the ad starts off with this slowly rising tune in an obviously major key. The strings play beautifully in the background just as this majestic choir comes in as backup. Honestly, it reminds me of when the high school choir sings God Bless America before the start of the homecoming football game. Actually, it might be more like a bunch of nine-year-olds on the Fourth of July. Regardless, these two aspects come together to give the ad a very bright, optimistic mood. Which, when you think about it, makes sense given the claim they’re making. They want to be thought of as “America’s buffet restaurant” (yeah, I know, what an American dream), and using these tonal devices they actually help to create the right atmosphere. The visuals, though, might challenge this success.

Carrying on, though, the lyrics to the song provide another interesting feel. One part in particular grabbed my attention. As the music crescendoes and builds toward a key change, the singers echo “We will make the most of all, the best that freedom brings.” And again, this coincides with the idea of portraying the restaurant as the American restaurant. At least they’re consistent, because the cheesiness of these lyrics defeats the purpose. Perhaps it’s just because I wasn’t even close to born when this was released, but I find the lyrics to be so unbearably ridiculous that if I were watching the ad, I’d turn it off.

If I were a brave soul and decided to leave the god forsaken ad on my tv, though, I would be somewhat impressed by the audio after that point. The narrator, whose name I can’t identify, adds a nice touch, as the deep voice complements the trumpets and other horns in the background. He also describes the restaurant in a less-ridiculous way. Don’t get me wrong, his societal analysis of the 1990’s goes a little over-the-top, but I won’t critique him too much when there’s so much other cannon fodder. Overall, the narrator does his job without making the audience roll their eyes too much. Much appreciated, Mr. Narrator, sir. Unfortunately, though, the singers come back on to explain how the countless choices make Sizzler the choice for those who endorse freedom. Now I get it, choices equate to freedom. That’s what freedom is all about, right? Right. But again, the fact that someone took the time to compose this musical score probably has J.P. Souza rolling over in his grave!

In summary, I actually have mixed feelings about the advertisement. The music is actually well composed. The sounds blend well, especially from the horns. Not to mention, the voices singing aren’t as deplorable as one might expect on a 1990’s tv ad. However, the excessive cheesiness just drives the whole musical/auditory component to bits. The lyrics go way too far, and for that reason, I have to say that on the whole, the auditory component of the ad fails to effectively recruit business by conveying Sizzler as the “restaurant of freedom.”

Ok, so just as a disclaimer, the Working Together rap came out 6 years before I was born. And as much as I’d like to think that I know something about 90’s rap, let’s be real. Especially in this post, I’ll be sticking much more to they lyrics than to who is saying them. With the exception of Will Smith and Ice-T, of course. Gotta love the two of them, especially now that Ice-T tries to be a cop on Law & Order SVU. So yeah, let’s get to it.

The rap starts off with this image of children gathering around to hear the wise words of Quincey Jones (I think that’s him). And what he says really opens up the main idea for the rest of the rap. He states (I’m paraphrasing of course) that toxic waste is “serious business” and that we can improve the world, but we all have to do it together. So the main thing that I saw here is that toxic waste becomes the main focus, as opposed to something a bit more general, such as recycling, or turning off lights, or conserving water. And I think this comes from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, which happened the year before this video was released. I’d even argue that this video came out as a response to the spill, almost as a criticism toward Exxon for how they handled the spill. Queen Latifah also brings this up later in the song as she asks “how many oil spills, will it take, to awake?” It seems as though the underlying theme here revolves around handling toxic substances more appropriately.

Just to make sure I don’t entirely focus on those two, let’s talk about the Fresh Prince himself. One interesting line that I took from Smith’s rap is that he’s “recognized for being humorous” and not recognized for his environmental advocacy, but that he’ still behind the cause. It’s an interesting form of ethos, but I’d argue that it’s rather effective in motivating young people of the time. He gets across that recycling and/or conservation are issues that concern everyone, including world-famous rappers. Not that I’m really a child of the 90’s, but maybe if the Fresh Prince were my idol and I heard that he recycled, I’d decide to throw away my soda bottle just to be like Will.

I could go on and on about each rapper’s lines and persona, but the more interesting part of this video, at least to me, is the audience and the overall atmosphere. Think about it: Seven or eight black guys (and Queen Latifah) are walking down the middle of an urban street singing to a massive crowd of people who seem to represent every race other than black. What kind of city is this? Ice-T’s cop killer album came out two years after this. He’s not the kind of guy that I’d expect to be hanging around in broad daylight talking about the planet. Additionally, the ages of people in the crowd fall into one of two groups. Either they’re over 75, or they’re under 25. I can’t figure out what city block has this composition, but ok. Looking at it rhetorically, I can only guess that elderly people who can’t dance for their life were recruited to show the upper end of the spectrum. Maybe the idea was that even though this won’t be their planet for too much longer, they’re still invested in the cause for the sake of their kids and grandkids. I can’t decide why nobody in the crowd can dance, but I’ll hypothesize that maybe they represent the general public, who obviously can’t dance as well as Will Smith and Tone Loc. However, they’re in the video to show that they still participate because they appreciate the cause and want to save the planet.

I could go on for hours about all of this, but I’ll try to rap it up. Pun intended. Sorry, Dr. J, I had to. The main idea here is that celebrities and the general public alike must come together and start “workin’ together” to rescue the planet from toxic waste and pollution. The lyrics really show some creativity and clever lines, while also keeping the pop culture of the early 90’s alive.

Alright, so I’m not entirely sure if I need to be doing this blog post, but why not do it? It might help me to better understand my own scattered ideas. That being said, after attending last week’s formal debate on the idea of paying college athletes, I came into tonight’s public deliberation expecting to hear a rather balanced argument for each side. I could not have been more wrong. Personally, I don’t think college athletes should receive a paycheck, but I almost found myself advocating for it tonight just to get the place going. I was really surprised by the homogeneity of opinions. Not a single person said that athletes should receive monetary compensation when we did final/closing thoughts, which really shocked me. So seeing as there isn’t too much to talk about there, I think I might as well dive into my own thoughts on the matter.

As I was walking from the deliberation to another meeting, I had an epiphany. And no, Simpsons fans, it is not that bananas are an excellent source of potassium. If you get the reference, good for you! Regardless, the main controversy that I’ve noticed with paying college athletes (aside from where that money would come from) seems to revolve around preserving their education. Now if you ask me, I really doubt that likely-top pick in the NBA Draft Jahlil Okafor really cared about a Duke education. He left after one season. But still, let’s be idealists for a moment. Why not pay athletes in revenue-generating sports (football, basketball, occasionally hockey and wrestling if you go to PSU) a set amount per credit hour in which they achieve high grades? It’s out there, I know, but part of the idea tonight seemed to be about keeping athletes in school for more than one season, which appeals to me. Again, I’m being an idealist. I get that a lot of them don’t want to stay in school, but I’d like to think that Jahlil’s acceptance to Duke was just as valuable as some suburban kid’s from outside Durham. So… why not force athletes to earn a degree before being elegible for the draft, and just give them their scholarship (or payment) when they successfully complete classes? Or, build it so that they receive a cost-of-attendance scholarship for their work on the field, but any additional stipend that they want must be earned in the classroom. I think it has potential. Maybe I’m totally crazy and an idealist, but I just might be onto something here.

Long story short, I’ve just rambled for a while, but the general consensus tonight was that colleges should not pay athletes. Maybe athletes should be allowed to receive endorsement deals, but we couldn’t really get anywhere with that idea. Perhaps that could be an entirely separate deliberation for next year (Dr. J this is a golden idea). Either way, I was happy to see that so many other college kids believe that being an amateur still means something, even if many of them said that only because they think that a cost-of-attendance scholarship is enough, which it very well might be!!

P.S. This might just be my last blog ever on this sight, so farewell!! If it isn’t I’m going to look like a bumbling idiot, as if I don’t do that enough already!

So earlier tonight (Thrusday the 16th), I had the opportunity to watch the PSU debate squad (all both of them) take on two of Pitt’s competitors in a debate on whether athletes should receive payment or not for their performance on the athletic fields/pools/courts. Going in, I personally felt that athletes should not receive payment, because as soon as an athlete receives an actual monetary compensation, he/she is no longer an amateur. Call me naive and idealistic, but I still think that college athletes should be amateurs at least for the time that they are in school (even if that’s only one year). Regardless of my allegiance, both sides made some valid arguments, but I saw no competition when it really came down to who had the better argument. PSU made some great points about why compensation should NOT be offered, and I just didn’t see the same kind of strength out of Pitt’s points. Either way, let’s jump into what was said and my reactions.

Pitt’s proposition was that colleges should have the option to grant scholarships to players that cover the entire cost of attendance in addition to $11,700 per year that the student would only receive upon commencement and the earning of a legitimate degree. Full cost includes not only tuition, but also books, room/board, travel expenses, meal plans, literally every cost associated with attending college. In addition, the $11.7k number came from the federal poverty line. The main argument here was that college DI athletes are putting in 43+ hours per week, and that they deserve to be compensated, especially when they miss exorbitant amounts of class to do so. They also seemed to argue that the money exists in most budgets to provide this funding, but I still have not been sold on the idea.

On the opposing team, PSU’s main arguments were that not enough funding exists across the board, and that, especially at smaller (non-power 5 schools), providing this kind of compensation would degrade the overall campus environment. Frankly, I agree. Never will there be enough funding for everything, and if you allow the wealthiest schools to offer all of this, the smaller, less wealthy schools (say, Idaho State, or Coastal Carolina) will be priced out of the competition. Really it’s a valid point. Smaller schools already find themselves struggling to recruit elite athletes when power 5 schools can offer better facilities, greater tradition and a better chance at winning titles. So what would keep the small schools in the game other than the fact that the max offer is basically the same from any given school: a full ride.

Some small disparities existed between the arguments made by either side, but they were rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things. One thing I would like to point out, though, is that first, and likely only athletes to receive this stipend would be the ones playing revenue-generating sports. At most schools, this is football and basketball. Here, it would include wrestling, women’s volleyball and arguably hockey. However, this is Happy Valley. We’re different. Regardless, what we would have, in my opinion at least, is a massive gap between all athletes. You would have your star QB making $2 mil per year at Alabama, while your fastest female swimmer probably would have her scholarship cut to make way for this. Yes, Title IX is an entirely different can of worms, but trust me, if you still gave field hockey, softball, women’s hockey, women’s basketball and women’s soccer full rides, Title IX would be fulfilled. From where I’m sitting, it wouldn’t work. Plus, you’d have to think about options such as workman’s comp for injured athletes, since they are theoretically employees if they earn a paycheck.

All in all, it’s too much. Let college athletes be student-athletes, not professionals who “go to school.”

So given that I have no life, I actually had some time this Tuesday evening to attend a lecture given by Dr. David Zaresfky, a Professor Emeritus at Northwestern. Really seemed like a cool guy. Regardless, I’ll do my best to get right into the meat of what he said, given that the only person reading this either really likes my blog (thanks mom, love you too), or is Dr. J, and I don’t want to waste her time with some b.s. about his background. Let’s get to it!

The first thing that stuck out to me about Zarefsky’s presentation is that he appeared to take the David J. Kutz approach to analyzing a given piece of rhetoric. He gave some broader conclusions and analyses to begin with, then did a serial dissection of the piece in a chronological order. Now he may have done this slightly differently, but for the most part it seemed to me as though that’s what he was doing. I appreciated this tremendously, because as a student who lacks intimate familiarity with Lincoln’s inaugural addresses, this allowed me to follow along with the transcript that I was provided. Lastly, the wrap-up and/or question session that Dr. Zarefsky had helped to tie together all of the concepts that he had been discussing. Overall I was rather impressed with what he had to say, especially the specificity with which he analyzed Lincoln’s qualifying terms.

One of the many interesting points that I took note of during the lecture was that Lincoln never explicitly defines the cause of the Civil War. Instead, he offers two somewhat different approaches. On one hand, he seems to ignore slavery completely (ironic, eh), while on the other hand he directly mentions that the institution of slavery was obviously a serious contribution to the war. Zarefsky mentions Lincoln’s attorney-cautiousness here, and I think he hit the nail on the head. Instead of overtly identifying any one cause to the war, Lincoln leaves it open to interpretation, even though 99% of people already had their own ideas at this point. The next note that I took while Zarefsky was examining the rhetoric was that this speech was incredibly spiritual. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a leader with a very strong sense of faith. But dude, Lincoln was quoting the Bible directly and indirectly all over the place, especially given the brevity of his speech. As a side note, I’m seeing a pattern with history’s great speeches. The Gettysburg Address was shorter than some of my paragraphs, this one was just over 700 words, FDR’s December 7th speech was also rather short… Just food for thought. In the words of Shakespeare, “brevity is the soul of wit.”

Back to the real stuff, Lincoln really plays with the idea of the Civil War being God’s punishment for more than two centuries of slavery. Really it’s a deep idea that I had never continued, and one point that Zarefsky made is that Lincoln was becoming more and more spiritual during his final years, and that from where I was sitting, Lincoln might have been just a bit off by this point. I could be totally off, but that’s sort of how I interpreted what he was saying. The final paragraph of this masterful speech is perhaps Lincoln’s second-most renowned quote, and I think Zarefsky analyzed it very well. Lincoln did not guarantee that God gave his approval to the Union. Instead, Lincoln guaranteed that God would give the Union the light to see as much as God saw fit, which again is a very abstract, very vague idea. However, I have every confidence that it’s exactly what Lincoln had in mind.