When we see an image, our reaction is complicated and varies from person to person.  With an image like the Twin Towers or the famous kissing in NYC photo, most people probably imagine the events that led to this scene.  In the case of the Twin Towers, one might think of terrorists and the Middle East.  Seeing the sailor photo might lead one to think of the war and the struggles that sailor endured before returning home to his lover.  But I think the visualization goes farther than that for most people.  It becomes more personal.

For me, seeing images of the World Trade Center takes me back to that day in September and my seven year-old self.  I imagine my teachers’ reactions.  I remember being confused by what I was hearing and not understanding the explanation once I received it from my parents after school. I didn’t comprehend why people would do such a horrible thing to innocent people.  I also remember how my views and understandings changed as I grew up into a less naïve version of myself.  I associate those images with the knowledge I have now.  All of this happens in fractions of a second when I see an image of the WTC on 9/11.

As humans, it is our natural instinct to form connections and make sense of the world around us.  Because of this, when we see an image, we connect it to any and all knowledge we have about the subject.  For 9/11, I think about what led to the event.  I think about how it happened, how the people involved felt, how I felt, and what it would have been like to have been in that situation. I think about my own reaction to it, the reaction of the nation and the reaction of the world.  I think about what September 11^th means to America and to the world today.  I think about last December when I visited the new memorial with my parents.

Despite the fact that these are my own thoughts and mental processes, I don’t feel like there is anything unusual about them.  In fact, I tend to think quite the opposite.  I think my reactions and thoughts are basically human and that most people go through a similar process when shown an image.  In my opinion, this is what makes images so powerful.

First of all, I would just like to say…THANK GOODNESS THE ELECTION IS FINALLY OVER. Phew, I’m sorry.  I had to get that out there.

With the conclusion of the 2012 Presidential Election came two speeches: one of defeat and one of victory.  Despite two distinctly different intentions, these two speeches really were more similar than one would initially think.  Both Mitt Romney and President Obama were eloquent, classy, passionate, gracious and positive.  The men thanked their wives, campaign teams, running mates and the American people.  Also, within the first few minutes, both men mentioned the fact that they had spoken with the other on the phone just before giving the speech.  However, the most interesting similarity between the two was the call for bipartisan cooperation by both men.

Despite the fierce battle between the two that lasted for several agonizing months, in the wake of the race, the tension vanished. For the first time in recent history, Obama and Romney looked like real, genuine people up on the stage again.  Over the course of the election, it was as if the men were lost in the chaos of the election, becoming larger than life.   On Tuesday night, they were relatable again.  The both focused on the fact that America needs to move forward.  Romney wished Obama the best of luck.  Obama claimed he will be meeting with Romney in order to figure out how the two can work together in the future.  The post-election speeches put the ugliness of the campaign behind them and concentrated on how to fix the United States.  As people, one can identify that Romney wished the positions were switched, but from his speech, one would only see that he was grateful for the opportunity to run and offer his help to the country.

Overall, I was rather impressed with the two speeches.  I though Romney was extremely tasteful in his address.  I also thought Obama looked more like the Obama we saw in 2008.  His delivery was fierce, powerful and encouraging.  He looked more ready to lead the country than he has in weeks.  Better late than never, I suppose.

Since we haven’t really discussed the TED talks that thoroughly, my topics are very tentative.  Hopefully as we discuss the speeches further, I will get a better idea about what kind of topics would be best suited for the project.  I am considering a few different topics and I will mostly likely pick one of them after I am more sure of what the TED talk exactly involves.

One of these topics the impact of the 1992 United States’ men’s basketball team, more commonly known as the “Dream Team.”  This extraordinary group of athletes dominated every single game they played on their quest for the gold medal.  The reason this team is so significant is because they were really the first group of professional athletes the United States sent to an Olympic games.  The Dream Team set a precedent that is now almost exclusively followed in the United States.  The athletes that compete for the United States team are almost exclusively professional athletes whose lives revolve around their sport.  The Dream Team’s participation in the 1992 Summer Olympics drastically changed the dynamic of the United States’ team and increased the level of play in sports across the board.

Another topic I might discuss for my TED talk is the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States.  There is so much to discuss here, but I’m not entirely sure how to go about presenting it.  The difference in training between the athletes from each country is just one of the many controversial topics.

The last issue I could possible discuss is the extravagance and overall cost of the 2012 London Olympics.  I feel like this has the possibility to be the most interactive because it happened recently and many people would be able to relate to the topic.  If the TED talk needs to have audience interaction, I think this may be my best option.

True to the times, I felt the need to write about the 2012 Presidential campaign again this week.  I’m not writing about it because I feel like there is really anything important to say, but quite the contrary.  At this point in the campaign, nothing productive is happening.  For the sake of everyone, November 6^th needs to hurry up.

For the past several months (even though it seems like years), news stations, talk shows and news anchors have talked the 2012 campaign to death.  Regardless of whether or not rhetoric was previously used, there is absolutely no hint of rhetoric to be found in the political discussions you hear today.  The candidates have been so thoroughly analyzed and assessed, there really isn’t that much left to cover.  (Well, the actual issues could be discussed, but no one wants to listen to that.)  Because we live in a world of 24-hour television, round-the-clock radio and social media, the political discussion is allowed to endlessly circulate with no end in sight.

Wednesday morning, I turned on the television to hear what the “experts” were saying about the previous night’s debate.  I watched the debate and had formed my own opinions on it.  However, I wanted to see what the supposedly knowledgeable news commentators took away from it and how that compared to my own views.  Unfortunately for me (and the rest of America), there was little focus on the actual issues.  In the 40 minutes or so that I listened, I felt like all that was discussed was Romney’s comment about hiring women.  I heard the phrase “binders full of women” more times than I could count.  All I wanted to hear about was who won, which candidate handled the questions better, or how Tuesday’s debate compared to last week’s.  Needless to say, I was disappointed.

The point I’m trying to make is that America is out of material.  Because news is constantly available, these topics have been talked about for thousands of hours on air, in print, or online.  The actual issues “aren’t interesting” or are “over the public’s head.”  We have all heard these lines before.  So instead, news stations spend time making Big Bird jokes or polling viewers about their reaction to the phrase, “binders full of women.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate a good political discussion as much as the next person.  I also think it’s great that so many people in America are paying attention to the election and are going to go out and vote.  But personally, I can’t wait for November 6^th and for all of this nonsense to be over.

9:03- I thought it was interesting that the first topic discussed was a current event rather than a policy or an issue on the political agenda. The September 11 attacks in Libya were controversial for a variety of reasons, including the vague nature of the attack.  First the attack was a response to the ant-Islam video made in California.  Eventually though, the attack in Benghazi was dubbed terroristic.  I thought it was an unorthodox start.

9:09- “First of all, that’s a bunch of malarkey.” –Joe Biden.  Enough said.

9:15- I really enjoy watching the facial expressions of the candidate who isn’t speaking.  I suspect neither of these men is good at poker.

9:19- “It’s just a bunch of stuff!” –Joe Biden.  “What exactly does that mean, ‘a bunch of stuff?’” –Martha Raddatz

 9:24- As the debate goes on, I find myself making more observations about the physical aspects of the debate.  Biden is literally on the left of the screen and Ryan on the right.  Biden sports a bright blue tie and Ryan wears a red one.  All of this just in case you forget which candidate is which.

9:26- Paul Ryan’s fact about Scranton was curious.  On one hand, it played on emotions.  He attempted to make Joe Biden and in turn, Obama, look badly.  If Biden and Obama can’t even take care of Biden’s hometown, what will they do for me?  That is what Ryan was going for.  Unfortunately, when Ryan quoted the unemployment rates, he implied that this is a trend throughout the entire country.  The September jobs report clearly indicated a decrease in the unemployment rate.  This point at a glance was moving, but if you know the facts, it may not have supported Ryan’s point as well as he hoped.

9:35-The moderator for this debate is so much more efficient than the man who moderated the first presidential debate.  She keeps the two men on task and doesn’t let them go over their times.

9:50- Biden’s comment about getting his time just sends me over the edge.  He is presenting himself as childish by his condescending attitudes and constant laughing.  Making faces while the Ryan is talking displays nothing but disrespect.  Obviously Ryan doesn’t agree with everything Biden is saying but at least he has the composure to keep a straight face while Biden is speaking and appear to be listening.

Overall, I enjoyed this debate more than the first presidential debate.  I like that Biden, Ryan and Raddatz are all sitting down.  It creates an image of an “even” playing field.  I felt like Biden and Ryan really discussed the issues instead of dancing around the questions and bashing each other.  While there was a lot of eye rolling and disgusted laughter, this debate actually moved forward.

Most people encounter pathos on a daily basis without even realizing it.  Advertisements, speeches, and even normal conversations are filled with dozens of examples of techniques and phrases that appeal to emotions.  The encounter with pathos I will be discussing occurred last week when I watched a documentary called “Why We Dance.”

The one-hour documentary aired on PBS last Thursday night and featured Penn State’s own THON.  I am a member of the THON organization Springfield and a group of us gathered to watch the show together.  Because of this, I was especially able to observe the effect that the pathos had on others as well as myself.The film’s intent was to inform the public about THON, the student-run, philanthropic effort held every year by Penn State students at the BJC.  It informed the viewer about the history of THON, The Four Diamonds and Hershey Medical Center. It interviewed committee chairs, Penn State faculty, and volunteers.  It showed countless clips of exhausted dancers, enthusiastic canners and dedicated leaders.  But perhaps most importantly, it showed something else.  The one-hour program featured many THON family interviews.  Through the course of show, the viewer met parents whose children battled cancer and won, parents whose children lost their fights, parents and children who were aided by The Four Diamonds, and families that look forward to THON weekend more than Christmas.  It was these encounters that appealed to the emotions and tugged at the collective heartstrings of the audience.

Cancer is a pandemic that has spread across America and the world.  Each and every one of us knows someone who is battling the disease right now, someone who has lost her fight and someone who has persevered and won the war.  Fighting cancer is extremely difficult for the person who has it, but also for her family and her friends.  But this fight is even more difficult for children and their parents.  This is what the documentary illustrated.  “Why We Dance” gave its audience a raw look into the struggle involved when battling this disease.  The personal interviews and stories drew in the audience and really connected it to the families and the children.  We felt the pain, the sorrow and the appreciation they have for THON and The Four Diamonds.

“Why We Dance” in its most basic form was one giant and extremely effective use of pathos.  I watched the documentary in a huge room filled with college students.  Yet through the entire hour, all that could be heard was silence and the sniffling of each and every person in the room.  At the end, there was not a dry eye.  After viewing the show, the audience wanted to help and get involved in the fight.  It made me excited for canning and doing my part to aid in this fight for the children whose stories I had just heard.  My own reaction, along with the reactions of others, is exactly what using of pathos is supposed to do. In my opinion, “Why We Dace” was a truly perfect example of the use of pathos.

On Wednesday, September 26, the New York Times published an opinion piece titled “President Obama at the U.N.”  The piece discussed the president’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday and how he spent his time while visiting New York City.

I chose this editorial for a number of reasons, but primarily because of its direct relation to the use of rhetoric in modern times.  The writer discusses President Obama’s address to the General Assembly and explains the points made and the reasons for each point.

One topic the president addressed was the scandal and violence that resulted from the controversial anti-Islamic film made in California.  The film depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an extremely negative light causing much outrage in the Middle East.  President Obama by no means defended the message of the video, but he did whole-heartedly support Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In his argument, the president directly called for the widespread use of rhetoric. He said, “the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech-the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.”

He went on to address the issue of an international ban on blasphemy, being called for by a number of Islamic leaders.  To this, Mr. Obama said that such a ban would move the war of words in exactly the wrong direction.

The writer also focuses on what he believes was a missed opportunity by President Obama.  In the writer’s perspective, the president should have used his time in New York City much more wisely.  The author would have liked to see Obama talk with leaders of the Middle East and use his address to the General Assembly more efficiently.  “Six weeks before the election, the speech to an audiences of world leaders in the United Nations General Assembly hall was as much a domestic political appeal as anything else.”

This article was very interesting and revealing.  I found it to be doubly relevant because not only did it deal with Obama and his actions leading up to the election, but involved the use of rhetoric in politics and society.  The arguments made by both President Obama and the writer of the piece are solid and logical.  Near the end of the article, the author reveals what he believes Obama should have been doing while in NYC: meeting privately with world leaders “as presidents usually do.” This makes sense. Honestly, I don’t think the author’s demands are unreasonable at all. He is simply asking the president to do his duties and what those before him have done.

I found this article to be very interesting because it dealt with politics and rhetoric. I thought the arguments were logical and made sense. I enjoyed reading this op/ed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/opinion/president-obama-at-the-un.html?_r=0

As I was walking to the theatre last week, I was unsure of what to expect.  I had never seen a Spike Lee film, nor had I ever even heard of “Do the Right Thing.” From the title, I formed a preconceived notion that the film would be some type of feel-good documentary about people in a community making good decisions and impacting society in a positive way.  Needless to say, I could not have been more wrong.

Within the first ten minutes of the film, the viewer is plunged head first into Brooklyn, New York on the hottest day of the year.  The viewer rapidly becomes involved in the dynamics and drama of a neighborhood filled with diversity.   Within this “community,” the social tensions are unlimited and most derive from race issues.  Most of the residents are African Americans, while the business owners are Italian and Korean.

Despite the title, “Do the Right Thing”, hardly any character in the entire film follows this advice throughout the movie.  Each conflict is caused because every person in the situation does exactly the wrong thing.  Because of this dramatic and drastic perspective, the viewer gains insight into how not to handle situations.

As I was watching the film, my overall impression was that the film was just bad.  I was frustrated at the repetition of the dialogue, annoyed by the decisions of the characters, infuriated at the lack of continuity and flow from scene to scene and generally turned off by the excessive use of foul language. I left the theatre thoroughly confused and agitated.

It wasn’t until later that I realized what a truly astonishing work “Do the Right Thing” it.  While viewing the movie, I was uncomfortable, distracted and aggravated.  What I failed to realize at the time, was that these were exactly the feelings Spike Lee was attempting to invoke in viewers.  Astonishingly, he did so extremely successfully, so much so that I wasn’t even aware I was being influenced.

The point of this film was to frustrate the audience.  The characters did all the wrong things in a dramatic and over-the-top way. There was a complete lack of communication throughout the whole film and as a result, none of the characters were able to make any progress.  None of the groups were able to resolve their disputes because they were too busy screaming derogatory, racial slurs at one another.  Because of the repetition of this theme, it became clear to a viewer how foolish the characters were.  This was Spike Lee’s intent when making this film.  By simply exaggerating hypothetical situations to the point of ridiculousness, he issued a warning.  Lack of effective communication is a huge issue in today’s society.  The film acted as a warning of what could occur if nothing is done to correct this growing problem.

If you had asked me immediately after the film what I thought about this movie, I would have told you it was one of the worst I had ever seen. But after hearing the opinions and assessments of others and reevaluating my own experience, I came to a totally different conclusion.  “Do the Right Thing” is one of the most effective films I’ve ever seen.