Category Archives: RCL

Self-reflection on my TED Talk

I’m going to be one hundred percent, completely honest about how I did on my TED Talk: I don’t know how I did. It’s almost as though I have this condition where I remember the first five seconds of a presentation, relapse into memory loss, and then remember the last two seconds (this condition has a name: nerves). I felt as though I did not espouse a lot of confidence even though I practiced the talk extensively, simply because I had nerves. However, this just could me being hard on myself because I dislike the sound of my own voice (who doesn’t). I had a minor mishap with the visual aid in that I forgot to switch to my first (and least important) slide early on in the presentation, but I did well with the PowerPoint otherwise I feel, as I switched at times when I needed to be switching, and I did not base very much of my talk off the aid (emphasis on the fact that it was aiding my speech not doing it, which I have heard some people let it do).  I had a few stumbles here and there but did well overall because of the fact that I had practiced it so extensively, did research for it and my paradigm shift, and was interested in my topic. I felt I was in the middle of the pack with regard to the group I presented to, as no one’s was significantly worse or better than mine I thought, and that we all did well overall. Overall, I would most definitely consider my TED Talk a success as the pros (that I did very successfully deliver a talk) outdo the cons (few stumbles, PPT mistake) by a considerable margin.

Birke Baehr: What’s wrong with our food system

To acquire some inspiration for my own TED Talk, I went onto Google Search and searched TED Talks organic food as a starting point. Google brought me up with three choices, two twenty-minute long videos, and a five-minute long video. Guess which one I watched. :). (Haha I watched the other ones too.) What really stuck out to me in the five minute video, however, as opposed to the twenty minute ones, was the speaker, an 11-year-old named Birke Baehr, and the topic: organic food. The topic was quite literally my topic, and the length of the video was quite literally my length, and that kid, at age 11, could have easily been (a much smarter version of) me.

Here is the link: Birke Baehr: What’s wrong with our food system

This TED Talk’s helps me figure out the setup of my own future TED Talk. Birke starts his off with his view of farms from a young age. He says that he thought that farms were beautiful places where animals existed with great freedom and cartoon-like actions: chickens pecking feed, cows grazing in wide green fields, and pigs happily rolling in mud and grime. What he really knows now is that corporations block animals in, prevent them from truly living their lives, and treat all food with chemicals. This TED Talk actually helped me decide stuff to research as well because it made topics within my topic more obvious and searchable. The part of the speech I cannot really replicate is the whole childish enthusiasm and cuteness part. This relatively cute 11-year-old is not delivering his talk to his peers, like I am, but rather is delivering his talk to adults far older than him who will almost condescendingly laugh at him and make him feel more comfortable despite his young age. Overall though, this talk is good for helping me set up the content of my essay.

Birke Baehr

Birke Baehr (no clue why it’s so distorted)

Pair o’ Dime Shift

Matt Becker

Outline of Paradigm (or as my friend calls it pair o’ dimes) Shift

  1. Intro:
    1. Hook: Imagine a world where the food we eat is basically cardboard and is produced most efficiently for human consumption
    2. Background Info.: Food is more and more of an industry ran by a very large corporation that seeks to maximize profit, not really feed the world.
    3. Thesis Statement:
      1. Topic: How food production, sale, and consumption change over time.
      2. Purpose: To show how the food was made organically and locally, went to industrially-produced, and is slowly making its way back to local
      3. Subtopic #1: For the longest time, food was made locally, organically
      4. Subtopic #2: Shift to industrial level food productions
      5. Subtopic #3: Slight (emergent) shift back to organic, local foodstuffs
    4. Body Paragraph:
      1. Topic: Organic as dominant for longest time, no other possibilities
      2. Supporting detail: Local farming only way to get grains, crops
      3. Supporting detail: Dairy was given by milkman who was from local dairy farm http://naturallysavvy.com/eat/food-then-and-now-how-nutrition-has-changed
      4. Supporting detail: Animals were the butcher’s or were from local farm, were not given steroids, etc.
      5. Concluding or transitional: TECH: makes it possible to industrially create food efficiently and with great success rate, ruins originality, localness of food
  • Body Paragraph:
    1. Topic: Shift from local to industrial in culture (local: dominant to residual, industry-level: emergent to dominant)
    2. Supporting detail: meat now given steroids, put in houses, raised to die.
    3. Supporting detail: Veggies given drugs, DDT to stay efficient and produced with no strange (natural) deformities
    4. Supporting detail: when first introduced, no one cared, was a great invention had great results, also no one had any looks (no media coverage, secret corporation/gov’t protected) at the means with which the ends were being achieved
    5. Concluding or transitional: People start to question where food comes from, start getting grossed out by chemicals, horrible conditions, start to morally question the technology’s means to an end
  1. Body Paragraph:
    1. Topic: Morals come into question finally, as well as a counterculture that prefers natural production
    2. Supporting detail: chemicals are unnatural, destroying our world, the natural order of things
    3. Supporting detail: more of a Bohemian culture developing in developed countries in which mass-produced food is the old dominant culture
    4. Supporting detail: people have interesting ideas that organic is healthier amongst the obesity epidemic
    5. Concluding or transitional: interesting to see if organic and local with truly become dominant again or if it will stay emergent for a long time once more
  2. Conclusion Paragraph:
    1. Summary of main points: all the different kinds of food were originally organic, then got mass-produced as tech allowed it, but then people deemed that tech unacceptable
    2. Emphasize message as a whole: technology and then the catch up of the right-side of the brain (humanities) makes us realize that this food mass-produced might be the wrong way to go about getting our sustenance.
    3. Lead to related thinking or action: Develop things like farmers markets and spread the idea that organic food is naturally free of chemicals (but not necessarily nutritionally better for you) and this will spur organic from re-emergent to dominant again
Hahah

Hahah

Responding to Chimamanda

I really thought that Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk was a very effective way to communicate her idea of a single story not being the truth. I really liked how she communicated her idea to the audience on a personal level, since she used several examples from her actual life of when a single story manipulated people’s views on a certain topic to one (often incorrect) side. For example, I really liked her very first story, which was on how she thought that all literature in the world had snow, girls with blonde hair and blue eyes, and discussions about the weather.

I also really liked her dry sense of humor/sarcasm, as it made the speech purely more enjoyable. Her cool and collected shutdowns of people with ridiculous notions (like her one fan who commented that it was such a shame that every man in her nation was a wife beater) makes the audience (like me) feel that she is for real and is a complete, no-nonsense person.

Her speech seemed very consistent and well-worded the whole way through, as opposed to the other TED we watched in class, where the talker seemed nervous about talking about engineers and scientists talking to the common folk. I would really like to know how much Adichie practiced her TED Talk. I have this weird feeling that she practiced it far less than one might expect because she seems so personally passionately involved in what she was speaking about (and she also seems smart, and used to giving speeches in front of large audiences).

Overall, I feel that Adichie’s TED is a very good ideal model for our eventual paradigm shift TED Talk, even though ours will be much shorter and in front of a much smaller crowd (with no cameras connected to the national cable networks of America).

Rhetorical Essay Rough Draft

Rhetorical Analysis Rough Draft

A man in a suit starts off a televised address with a solemn “Good evening.” Not a cheerful hello to his audience or even one that makes one feel happy and confident in oneself. The man in the suit’s “Good evening” is one that he says with a negative connotation, and he sounds tired and saddened as he talks. Even a child can understand that what the man has to say is probably not going to be happy or forgettable.

The date of this speech is September 11, 2001, one of the most unforgettable days in the American identity. The man, of course, is none other than President George W. Bush. And his tone is one of solemnness, for he has to address the American people about the occurrence of a tragedy, of something that not just took away his people’s countrymen, but also their peace of mind and confidence of the invulnerability of his (and their) nation. Bush tells America “our citizens, our way of life, and our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.” Bush slowly gets angrier as he progresses along in his speech, tagging on statements with regard to how common Americans, people much like his populace, died innocently and were killed by “despicable acts of terror.” Bush tries to keep his anger under control, so as not to seem overly emotional and lose his cool, but he wants his people to see that he too is angered by the tragic loss of everyday Americans. Bush repeatedly comments on the horror of the events of 9/11, but his goal is not to scare Americans or report miserable statistics to them; Bush’s goal is to inspire his people, the American people, who are much like his children, to fight back and stay motivated and proud and, most of all, American, in the dire hours of September 11.

The terrorists chose the targets of their attack very well. The World Trade Center was a symbol of American beauty, confidence, and economic power in one of the most American cities in the world, New York City. The terrorists, true to their name, terrified Americans all over the country with their despicable hatred and dispatched great uncertainty and fear into the previously fearless American people. Americans, in the moments of despair in between the attacks and Bush’s address lost their resolve. But Bush, knowing this, got it back for the people he loved. Bush conveys several commonplaces and ideologies to his listeners to reinvigorate them with the glory of the United States. “Our country is strong,” followed immediately in Bush’s no longer solemn, but rather confident voice by “A great people have been moved to defend a great nation” certainly makes Americans feel good about the state of themselves and their nation.

Bush’s voice throughout the entire speech adds not only the idea of emotional connectivity with his constituents, but also adds credibility to his speech. He is the leader of all Americans, which means he is one of the strongest people in the world. His voice is firm and he is in the Oval Office, proving his legitimacy. The fact that he is even in the Oval Office, not tucked away safely in some remote, unknown government location builds his credibility to the American people, as he stayed with them during the toughest of times and went so far as even to risk himself to be with them in their time of need. This move of Bush’s to actually stand with the American people lets his people also feel an emotional sense of camaraderie, as they feel that Bush is simply one of them, not some distant politician who has no touch or connection with the American people. This was a critical political move for Bush as well; Bush vacationed throughout almost all of August of 2001, and many political pundits and critics condemned his heavy vacationing. Bush’s decision, even with the political ramifications taken into account, is still a rhetorical strategy and not a political power play at its heart; it was a brave move made by a caring leader who had to do his duty.

Bush’s speech also has the objective of telling America what he plans to do with his country’s resources. Logos is behind all of his motivational comments on America’s strength, because in 2001, America’s might was a very real concept. Bush gives America a very short and sweet statement with respect to her military might: “Our military is powerful, and it’s prepared.” This direct quotation from the address is quite possibly the only statement that is not boisterous and heavily pro-American. America’s military at the time is not just powerful and prepared, it is the most dominant fighting force in the history of the planet, and is quite the force to be trifled with. It is a failure of rhetoric on the part of Bush to not emphasize the extreme military power to his angry, ready-to-retaliate citizens.

Bush’s other discussions on the uses of the resources of the powerful American government, on the other hand, are rather effective. Bush makes it exceptionally clear that the primary immediate concern of the American government is to safeguard and support the American people who need the most attention, specifically the injured and those who lost people close to them in the attacks. Announcing that he is giving aid and support to the weak and the wounded quite literally helps his purpose in the fields of ethos, pathos, and logos. It is logical, caring, and makes Bush look like a very respectable leader when he takes care of his weak to make his country strong and well-supported.

The decision to open up the entire government as if nothing happened is, however, a double-edged sword. The little opposition Bush saw immediately following the attacks felt that acting like nothing had happened to the country was unfeeling and disrespectful to the victims of the tragedy. His supporters (most of the country) on the other hand, saw his decision to keep everyday life going come September 12 as an act of defiance and one of progression because it made the terrorists see that their effort was in vain and that America was strong.

Bush has several pro-American sentiments and commonplaces scattered throughout his speech, but the end of his speech is the true place where he uses kairos and commonplaces to make Americans feel truly good about themselves in light of a tragedy. Bush, knowing that America needs spiritual peace and is a traditionally Christian country, “[asks] for [the people’s] prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.” Calling for prayer is a very good (if cliché) way to unite people and to make them feel respectful, appreciative, and proud of what they have. Pathos also comes into play with prayers because it is such an emotional activity, opening oneself to God or the higher power completely.

Bush repeats a psalm at the end of the address and adds commonplace credibility to his purpose once more by being able to do something all Americans should do: repeating the words of God with precision and in the correct context. The words of the Bible coming from the American commander-in-chief also cause tears in the eyes of many people and gives one final emotional spur to the American people to get through the rest of the day. Overall, Bush uses rhetoric very well to spur the American people through the heartbreak of the attacks on America on September 11, 2001.

Speeches, Speeches, Speeches

As is with most things, some people are very good at public speaking, and some are not. As expected among the top students at Penn State however, most speeches delivered in our ENGL 137H class were decent or better than decent. I honestly cannot give a gauge of how well I did on my speech. It really all seems like a blur to me honestly, something that happened and I remember happening, but something that I cannot really remember any specifics about. I would like to say that I looked comfortable and relaxed up at the podium but I really don’t think I was. I really never practiced my speech which was a big mistake. I very vaguely remember following the very first part of my outline and then proceeding to impromptu the rest of the speech like I typically tend to do. I have a strange feeling that the data I had was solid and I analyzed my artifact well, but that I had no effective organization because I abandoned my outline so early. The people who clearly read their outlines numerous times and came in with a plan and index cards had the best speeches I feel. There really is no substitute for hard work and practice. The “umm” and “uhh” and “like” syndrome, I feel, really was not present in any of these speeches save a few. People looked a little confused at times, but really no one had to add filler words to the point where the speech’s effect was completely lost. The confusion, it seemed to me, was borne of people not understanding the idea of civic and how it directly related to their artifact/interviewee. Civic is a very broad term, but while you would think it is easy to call something ciivc and analyze it under a very broad spectrum, the broadness of civic actually served to trip people up and make their speeches unfocused and imprecise.

Green2Go

The Green2Go (not exact replica of mine) (credit: sites.psu.edu)

The Green2Go (not exact replica of mine) (credit: sites.psu.edu)

What you see above these words is the future of dining on the go. It is green (literally), environmentally friendly (so also green figuratively), and sleek (don’t ask me how). It is the Green2Go box and it is in a commons near you (even though the commons always feel so far away when you’re truly hungry). The Green2Go box represents the modern civic life of America, a developed country, very well because it is efficient and eco-friendly. I define civic as being something that helps improve the overall quality of life of all the members of a community. RCL defines civic as having something to do with everyday life, structures of attention, shared enterprise, and having an infrastructure. The Green2Go box fulfills all these requirements as well as my personal one condition, so I feel that it is civic and is involved in the civic life. Basically, the Green2Go box calls for people to either use or not use it, is in people’s dining halls and dorms, has a club and several people (one of which is my sister) behind it, supporting it, and has several adherents who spread its popularity to others in an act of shared enterprise. It fulfills RCL‘s conditions quite well. In fulfilling mine, it does in fact have a very eco-friendly feel to it, and most things eco-friendly improve not just American society, but the world as a whole. It embraces kairos quite well as well because it capitalizes on the new and popular idea of less is more and that eco-friendly is the cool, new way to do things. It takes advantage of the opportunity that trashing Styrofoam made by being reusable and not ending up in a landfill. The old ways, at least for the Green2Go, created kairos for the new ones.

Is There ANY Way to Make Strong-Willed People Change Their Minds

I have always loved going on roller coasters, but until about freshman year of high school, when I was fourteen years old, all of my close friends hated riding roller coasters and hated amusement parks in general. Every time I tried to convince my friends to come with me it was to no avail: “Don’t you like to go fast?” and “The food is so fun and yummy!” just had no impact on people, who, I realize now, already had their minds made up. And that’s when I realized that when anything is a matter of personal preference or opinion that people already have their views on, it is impossible, or at least almost impossible, to actually get strong-willed intelligent people to change their minds or even really concede ground. It also didn’t help of course that the majority of my friends have God complexes, and they believe, almost always, that their views are fact. I do not think I have ever changed my close friends minds on anything, and definitely not roller coasters and amusement parks.

How can you not like this?

How can you not like this? (credit: sixflags.com)

I now realize that petering people with questions and my own views is definitely not the way to yield results in people changing their minds.

I am a strong-willed person just like my friends, and I am perfectly willing to admit that I will basically never change my views on anything. One of my close friends, a strong gun enthusiast, constantly tries to convince me that arming Americans is a very reliable, plausible tactic to actually stop gun-related violence. He approaches me with thorough research and numerous facts and statistics, but still my mind will not budge. It is not that I am not open-minded (I tell myself at least), but that he is simply not appreciating all the facts: not everyone likes guns, guns, ultimately, are weapons that kill, and statistics he finds are off the biased NRA’s website. I think things like this and my opinion is not swayed. It is for this reason that I realize that strong-willed, independent, intelligent people will never truly change their minds without severe causation. Stubbornness is just too hard to overcome.

"Sorry, you're really just not my type." (credit: clinicallypsyched.com)

“Sorry, you’re really just not my type.” (credit: clinicallypsyched.com)

Why We Should All Be Civic

It is my feeling that America was founded by the Founding Fathers with the intention that men could be free to express their views on society and be incentivized by their democracy to make changes and improvements to society based on their views. In a nutshell, the Founding Fathers, extreme radicals at the time expected the citizens of the nation they were founding to be civic.

As an American, you literally can't say no to them

As an American, you literally can’t say no to them.

To me, civic, in one word, means involved. To be civic, one must be involved in his fellow citizens’ lives, involved in the state of her nation, and above all, involved in increasing the happiness of all people in a community.

The textbook Rhetoric & Civic Life presents the idea that civic-ness is imbued in people when civic activities are repeated, attended, shared, and supported and maintained. What the textbook does not mention is that civic activities, in their most raw form, are around for the sole purpose of increasing social and economic well-being, which according to economics, increases overall community utility, or happiness.

Possibly the greatest impact on my own sense of civic responsibility is my very own sister, someone who wants to make her own unique impact in her (and often my) community. Her civic responsibility, which includes thing such as replacing the styrofoam take-out trays with washable plastic ones, has a sort of domino effect on my own and on people around her.

I feel as though civic responsibility and civic-ness travel, like many phenomena, via the domino effect, where if one person acts more civically, then his or her peers act more civically, and then the starter’s peers’ peers act more civically and so on and so forth. All we need to be a more civic, and thus better off (and thus happier) society is a leader to catalyze our impulse to help our society.

Just like these dominoes, we all become more civic when someone catalyzes it.

Just like these dominoes, we all become more civic when someone catalyzes it.