American people believe in freedom of choice above all else, but not all Americans consider the effect that their choice has on those around them and the population as a whole especially in regards to vaccination and world health. When parents are deciding to vaccinate their children they tend to consider only what is best for their child, not what is best for the population at large which is unfortunate because the two are deeply intertwined.

Consider a simpler example: imagine you are a farmer with sheep. When you first buy your farm you vaccinate every sheep against all of the horrible diseases that are out there because you only want the healthiest sheep and you care about them. After a few years of vaccinating the population, major diseases have been eradicated and its time for lambing season. This year you decide that your sheep are healthy and thriving so there is no need to put the new lambs at risk by giving them the vaccine; your herd is healthy. The next year, the farm next to you goes out of business and you decide to absorb the herd into your own, they have all been vaccinated and you perceive no threat. What you do not see is that some of these sheep carry the disease into your farm and the next week an epidemic breaks out; it spreads quickly through all of the sheep you chose not to vaccinate who have never even been exposed to this disease and it kills most of the yearlings and then begins to infect the older sheep even though they have been vaccinated due to weaker immune systems. You lose a lot of sheep.

Much like the sheep in the previous example, children do not choose whether or not they get to be vaccinated and like the farmer, parents do not always perceive a threat to their child much less the population. In recent years more and more people are questioning whether or not to vaccinate their children and are relying on herd immunity to keep themselves safe from disease. The problem with this is that when the individual considers immunity they think only of themselves, they perceive the disease as something abstract and if everyone else is vaccinated then there is no way for it to spread and an extremely low chance of contracting it. As crazy as it may seem they are not the only person who is thinking this way but there is no way for them to know that. They rely on everyone else’s immunity but if everyone has the same idea then in the future there will be less and less of this “immunity” to rely on.

People are beginning to wonder where outbreaks of the measles and tuberculosis are coming from and they can look to the affluent and well-educated population who are relying on the immunity of others for the answer.

 

 

 

After the sexual revolution “liberated” the act of having sex from something that happened in secret, behind closed doors to a more open act free of the confinements of marriage and the stigma of being a “dirty” act; other things have begun to surface too. As sex has become liberated so have stories of domestic violence and rape that used to be kept behind the same closed door as sex. It’s like Pandora’s box, when opened up the sexual revolution that began in the 1920’s had unintended consequences that may be the driving force behind rape culture in America today.

Now that sex is seen as a more casual act it has begun to appear everywhere. Books, movies, and magazines all elude to or include sexual acts which has normalized it in today’s society but in some cases this normalization has gone too far and some have even begun to see sex as something they have the right to which brings us to today’s issue which is that of consent. This emerging aspect of culture and fear that rape creates in women and men alike, has caused a bit of regression in some views. Sex may be a good thing but it is not without consequences as it seemed in the 70’s and love isn’t free if you don’t have consent.

Recently a new campaign has begun called “Me Too” in which women who have been sexually violated have begun to make threads on Twitter and Facebook where they comment “me too” if they have been a victim at any point in their life. The results have been astounding and the campaign has grown swiftly, showing the magnitude of the issues caused when consent is not given. While sex is still viewed in a positive light in today’s society, it is also receiving backlash and the ramifications of making sex “no big deal” are beginning to catch up with this generation. This reinforces the pre-revolution commonplaces that say sex can be dangerous while also separating sex into two distinct categories: wanted and unwanted. The idea is that sex is a choice not a given right and society is shifting to recognize that this choice makes all the difference.

 

Watch the video of Alyssa Milano supporting the Me Too movement

To vaccinate your child or not to vaccinate your child? This is the question that continues to be debated in society and as outbreaks of measles and tuberculosis begin to occur the argument is a hot topic.

When the first vaccines were created not many people questioned them. Everyone wanted relief from the chicken pox, measles, and other infections that spread quickly through the population and were highly contagious. In today’s society people are beginning to question it. Many mothers are concerned that vaccines may not be helping the child but harming them instead and some even continue to spout that vaccines cause autism despite that myth being debunked. So why are some still leery about vaccination and are those opting out of immunity the ones causing the reemergence of diseases that were borderline eradicated a decade ago?

In my paradigm shift essay I want to analyze the shift from vaccination to non-vaccination and explore the reasoning behind people’s newfound wariness. Recently people have begun to shift their entire perspective of health back to homegrown foods, organic shampoos, and the idea that everyone wants to know exactly what they are putting into their body. This shift to a more holistic and natural lifestyle is directly represented by the fear of vaccinations and distrust of medical professionals and protocols. Not only that but people are beginning to realize that we have no idea as to what effect these vaccines will have in the future or how long this immunity will last. As a child who never had the chicken pox because I was vaccinated should I be worried that in 50 years my immunity will be weakened and I’ll be exposed to a disease that I have no antibodies for?

Not only is it worrisome to think about the impact of the original shift to vaccinations and the future ramifications it may have but we now have to worry that with less people getting vaccinated, the idea of herd health may fail. Disease is able to build up in those un-vaccinated who may be carriers and eventually infect others who have been during points where their immune systems are weaker. Cases of measles and whooping cough are beginning to reappear and we must not only question whether or not to vaccinate but also the paradigm shift that caused the changes in attitude towards vaccines and the advancements in technology and health awareness that contributed.

“You can’t rush love” has been a commonplace for ages and even when hearing stories about love at first sight there is always the undertone that to truly love someone it takes time and effort in order to get to know them. Or does it? In this day and age we rush everything. Food is faster, Internet speeds have been steadily increasing (thank goodness) and your Uber driver can be at your door in the blink of an eye so it only makes sense that this generation is attempting to streamline the dating process in order to find a suitable match in half the time.

Think about it. When you open up most social media apps you tend to see at least one ad for a dating service whether it’s Tinder or Bumble, it doesn’t matter. They’re all designed to help you find love, or at the very least a date, within moments. It’s as easy as swiping right. Within a week you can have a new boyfriend or girlfriend and there’s a very real chance that you have never even met in person. With the rise of instant messaging and Facetime you can talk to a person anytime, anywhere which makes getting to know someone seem easy and painless. You can even screen them as a potential match without an awkward first date or a large investment of time. The dating pool has increased immediately, you no longer need to wait for the boy/girl next door to notice that they like you or hope for a chance encounter that turns into something more because there are hundreds of options at your fingertips.

Why wait when you can go out and find it yourself? This generation is all about efficiency and making the most out of their time here on Earth whether it is finding ways to travel and work simultaneously or creating driver-less cars so they can type a few extra emails on the commute so it was only a matter of time before they found a way to shave a little time off of the search for a soulmate. Maybe we cannot manufacture love but we certainly seem to be finding new ways to help it along.

“Kids these days don’t know how to listen” is a common phrase that people of older generations love to tout every opportunity that arises whether it pertains to politics, religion, or even simple friendship. Nobody listens, they’re simply awaiting their own turn to speak. I believe instead of criticizing a generation notorious for not listening, we should be asking ourselves why. Why is nobody listening? In a world where the news is deemed fake and technology makes live-streaming important events possible there is plenty to listen to. But is it worth it? What makes a rhetor worth listening to? What makes a good speaker and why is speech important in civic life today?

In its most basic form speech is the key to effective communication of ideas and concepts. It’s the sharing of knowledge and feelings and the easiest way for one to articulate their logos, pathos, and ethos. Without speech there would be no sharing of information and without speech on a larger level, at events such as inaugural addresses or Supreme Court rulings actions would be pointless because no one would understand the significance. Even at events of import, listening to speeches of great significance, people still do not always take the rhetor’s words to heart and this has a lot to do with whether or not they are a good speaker.

Ethos, pathos, and logos along with a physical presence that exudes confidence constitute a good speaker. People listen when they have an emotional connection to the speaker created by pathos. If an audience is able to relate to and empathize with the speaker they are more likely to take the message to heart and remember it later. After gaining the sympathy of the audience the rhetor must also establish that they are a person of reputable character and are trustworthy. Would you listen to the argument of someone you don’t trust? Finally, the rhetor must lay a solid foundation using logos, if your message does not make sense then it will not matter whether the audience trusts your information or not. Along with these if the speaker is confident in their ability and is passionate about the content of their speech then they have all of the components of a good speaker and the people will listen.

 

                                                      

Che Guevara versus Uncle Sam, the ultimate showdown between revolution and authority… or is it? These two images, when shown side by side, have a remarkable amount in common. Both posters feature leaders of a cause, hats that signify their authority, the typical color scheme of patriots and both evoke strong feelings from an audience. However, the ideals that lie behind these two artifacts are anything but similar.

Before any further comparisons take place I would like to provide a portion of Che’s backstory and what he means in today’s society. To begin with, Che was an Argentinian med student traveling through South America. Healing the sick and helping the poor, he was a man of the people. This is where his legacy began, as he was traveling it grew increasingly difficult for him to ignore the brutality of the governments and the harshness of life for the poor and soon he was a prominent political activist within Argentina and its neighboring countries. Not long after he gathered a following, he became friends with Fidel Castro and played an integral part in the Cuban Revolution and Cuba’s relationship with the Soviet Union. Later he was killed while attempting to begin a revolution in Bolivia and cemented his role as a martyr and legend among people.

Che was a revolutionary who wanted nothing more than for people to join his cause and fight with him. Totally different from Uncle Sam, right? Wrong. Even the message from these posters; the idea that they need your help to fight, be it for the government or against the government stems from the commonplace that “being a part of the group is important”. Nobody wants to feel left out and these posters serve as an invitation to be a part of something greater than one’s self. Isn’t that the ultimate goal? To make a difference in the world? You can do that, you just have to join the cause.

The difference between these two artifacts is the cause they support. Che is a pop culture symbol of rebellion and the far left movement, even if Americans do not know exactly who Che is or what his historical significance is, they want to be a part of his revolution. Che supports the commonplaces that “everyone deserves freedom” and “people should control the government”. Uncle Sam is the symbol of patriotic pride and authority, and while pop culture does use him to make points about other issues and flaws within society, the original message is still there: America needs you on the side of the government and your country. Sam supports the commonplaces  “the government can give you your freedom through rights” and that “Americans have a duty to their country”.  Although these commonplaces contradict each other, both artifacts achieve their goal of bringing people together to fight against a common enemy because, while they draw upon conflicting smaller commonplaces as their argument, both arguments lead to the larger commonplaces that “being a part of the group is good” and “everyone should help to make a difference in the world”. Whether you are a revolutionary or a defender of government does not matter in the end, you still fall victim to the need to be a part of something bigger than yourself.

https://party9999999.deviantart.com/art/Che-Revolution-Poster-190372940

“That was insensitive”

When I first heard these words from a close friend I was in shock. Did she really have the nerve to call me insensitive as I gave her my most well thought out advice? Unfortunately, it was too well thought out and, what I had considered to be insightful and useful advice, she had viewed as insensitive. Initially I was confused as to how she had misinterpreted my advice as insensitive or an indicator that I did not actually care about her problem but upon further analysis it quickly became apparent where we disagreed.

Instead of using all of my tools as a human being; head, hand, and heart, I had made the unfortunate error of speaking too quickly using only my head and hands. As a lover of science and facts it can be easy for me to focus only what is the most logical conclusion given the facts using my head and then deciding on a course of action to take that would fulfill what my head said. In this particular argument my friend was not looking for the most logical course of action. She did not want me to suggest that she reevaluate the terms of her current relationship or to seek counseling. What she wanted was a friend who listened to what she had to say with their heart and not their head.

By not paying attention to the needs of my audience, or in this case a good friend, I failed as both a rhetor and a friend. Even though I thought out my response and chose how to respond to her carefully I was still missing the feeling that was required in the situation. As a result of choosing my head over my heart I hurt her feelings and gave the impression that I was not empathetic to her needs. Although as humans we generally act and speak with the best interests of ourselves and others in mind, it is easy to forget that there are three tools in humanity that need to be utilized not just the ones that we prefer to use.

https://www.iiconservation.org/

 

The Creamery Commonplace

Here at University Park, there is truly only one way to ensure that students will attend an event: Creamery ice cream. Regardless of whether or not the guest speaker is known to be exceptionally boring or if the meeting has absolutely nothing to do with your major, as long as the flyer or email says “free ice cream”, students will make it a point to go. The real question is “why?” What about “free ice cream” motivates Penn State students? The truth is, it is not the free ice cream that is the motivator in this situation. Motivation is derived from the commonplace that “PennState Berkey Creamery ice cream is the BEST ice cream”. While this commonplace may seem specific only to fans of Penn State it is actually closely related to the idea that “food brings people together” which is a concept that spans humanity’s past. The correlation between the presence of free ice cream and higher attendance levels is no coincidence; food serves as a reason to gather and the commonplace that this specific ice cream is the best only enforces people’s belief that they must attend the function.

Not only does this commonplace serve as a way to bring people together physically, but it also serves as one of the many forces that unifies Penn State students as a whole. For example: today in class I overheard someone say that they were not only excited to be a student here because of PSU football but also because it has the BEST creamery which implies the belief that Creamery ice cream is the BEST ice cream. Now, instead of simply implying that the ice cream serves as a reason for gathering, this student has also made it a part of their identity here and incorporated this belief into their concept of Penn State as a whole. By accepting this commonplace, students here are able to gain a better social standing by attending events with free ice cream and they are able to better assimilate themselves into a university that really loves ice cream.