For my E-portfolio project, I intend on using the website creator, Wix. I have created multiple Wix webpages for school projects previously and have found it to be a simple tool for creating interesting content. I am fairly comfortable with the software and feel confident in creating a design for my portfolio. My audience focus is primarily targeted towards high school and college age students, with a possible interest in American football. On my website, pieces I want to include are my résumé, my NFL passion blogs, and any core essays or projects I’ve worked on in my two semesters at Penn State. I’m considering adding my rhetorical analysis, civic issues writings, and issue brief essay. The rhetorical analysis provides in depth examination of a Super Bowl commercial while the two other essays delve into the disfunction of our current government. Finally, I plan on having an extracurricular section which describes my involvement in Penn State business clubs and tennis.

For my Advocacy Campaign project, I will be expanding on the civic issue described in my Issue Brief. The filibuster has become a major issue as future legislation has been halted due to political party standstills. Specifically, I will utilize pathos as the delay in COVID-19 relief Congress affects everyone in the United States. Americans are losing money as their state of living is rapidly decreasing. Furthermore, ethos is evident as a disruption of legislation due to personal beliefs and not the well being of the country is ridiculous.

I consider Photographer as Witness: A Portrait of Abuse both a form of art and piece of advocacy. At first glance, these pictures may look like any other selfie. However, a closer look into the purpose of the artwork reveals advocating for victims of physical violence. I don’t believe anyone would argue that violence against another human-being is unethical. Despite attempting to advocate for victims, taking photographs of people who have endured violence can be considered unethical as well. We have to consider the victim’s needs and how others may react to these pictures.

Reexamining The Filibuster

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an extraordinary life-altering event that has greatly impacted everyday life all around the world. The year 2020 was largely defined by the shutdown of numerous business and public locations in an effort to provide increased health and safety related measures to the general public. Due to global wide restrictions, citizens were forced to stay home and limit public interactions. In many instances, they were left without work and pay because their jobs and ability to earn a living were negatively impacted by the onset of the virus. Particularly, the poorer and disadvantaged segments of society appeared to be stuck the most while attempting to cope with the ongoing pandemic. The inability for bipartisanship within Congress delayed supplying the much needed stimulus aid to individuals and families for many months while in the midst of the tragic occurrence of the pandemic. Partisan policies which often leveraged the filibuster have delayed the ability for Republicans and Democrats to come to mutual agreement with the goal of legislating meaningful public policy that benefits the public at large. It is becoming clear that something needs to be addressed with the usage of the filibuster. While Congress should have been focusing on the needs of their constituents, they regularly appear to become deadlock in a complete stalemate with the opposing side. In the end, all parties lose as nothing gets accomplished in an expedient and efficient manner.

Filibusters are planned and prolonged deliberations by members of Congress utilized in order to delay or block legislation from being passed. Historically, we have witnessed filibusters used in both the House of Representatives and Senate before ultimately being changed to only allow the Senate to have unlimited length debates.

In the most recent decade, filibuster usage within the Senate has skyrocketed. During Clinton’s presidency, filibusters were utilized to block his policy or delay a nominee’s confirmation only fifteen times. From 2009 to 2017 under President Obama, this increased to 175 instances of the filibuster usage. Under President Trump, filibusters were conducted another 314 times which nearly doubled the rate under his predecessor. With regards to historical precedents, the number of examples of filibusters being used under President Trump numbered 70 times more occurrences than all of the previous administrations combined. Before the Trump administration, the filibuster was only leveraged on 214 occasions combined during the time period from Johnson to Obama. Obviously, the usage of this tool by both political parties has gained enormous traction in recent history. Both sides, when not in the majority, have instituted the filibuster to stall certain agendas. While the idea of the value of maintaining a system of checks and balances is something that most people would agree upon, the current disturbing trend of bringing almost everything to a complete standstill must be adjusted in order to truly serve the public.

The majority of the public oppose Congress’s usage of the filibuster as we have witnessed in most recent history. The filibuster has become weaponized by both parties at times to alter the course of movement for various pieces of legislation. According to a survey conducted by The Hill, 47% of American citizens believed that there should be more restrictions against the filibuster while 41% think it should remain the same. The general public has experienced the outcomes associated with the filibuster and increasingly believe that something needs to be done to restrain the practice by both parties.

Furthermore, a survey issued by Data for Progress discovered almost just as many Republicans dislike the filibuster as Democrats. Approximately 59% of Democrats strongly supported eliminating the filibuster compared to the 56% of the Republicans. Throughout history, both political parties have attempted to utilize the filibuster to their advantage when the opposing party has control of the office. The attitude towards the filibuster by both parties has changed based upon whether or not they have a majority vote in Congress. When they have majority power, they are in favor of less restrictions. When they don’t have majority power, they want the ability to enact more restrictions. Republicans attempted to use the filibuster during the Obama administration to limit the passage of Democratic backed legislation and judicial appointees. During President Trump’s presidency, Democrats used the filibuster in September and October 2020 to halt Republicans from passing COVID relief legislation immediately before the run up to the November presidential election. Now that the Democrats have control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they are ramping up rhetoric to end the filibuster to allow them increased ability to drive policy decisions. Therefore, we can see that party perspectives about the filibuster have a way of flip flopping back and forth over time depending on the current political landscape and composition.

The Senate Cloture rule was formed after anti-war senators prevented a bill to arm United States vessels against German submarine warfare in World War I. The original Senate Cloture rule mandated that in order to end a filibuster, two-thirds of Senators were required to be agreement to end the debate. In subsequent years, this policy has been tweaked and small adjustments have been done to reflect changing viewpoints. The current Senate Cloture rule mandates that 60 members of the U.S. Senate must agree and vote to end the debate. All too frequently that threshold creates a significant obstacle towards enacted legislation. Proponents of the tactic argue that it forces opposing sides to collaborate and work together towards a greater good. However, even though on its merits that sounds good, in practice quick resolutions seem increasingly hard to produce. We need to find a solution that promotes positive progress while still maintaining the ability for each side to have a say in matters of public policy. The knee jerk reaction to dissolve the filibuster in its entirety will only ensure a single party rule which could have disaster implications as it would limit our system based on checks and balances in decision making processes. In order to attempt to create a better process, I would recommend lowering the threshold from the current 60 member agreement to something like 55 members. In the scenario in which we currently find ourselves today with a 50 50 split in the Senate, this would lower the barrier to progress while still motivating members to collaborate and find some level of mutual agreement.

Additionally, I think that anonymous voting could help alleviate some of the pressure from members of Congress to vote purely along party lines. Under this scenario, political figures wouldn’t have to worry about their constituents finding out they voted against party ideals when they believed it was in best interest of the people. Today, members of Congress feel compelled to vote along party lines as their vote is known and they become fearful that varying from the party vote would be used against them in a damaging fashion in the future. Conversely, some people would argue for the need to maintain transparency and the need for the public to be informed about the voting records of their elected officials. For this reason, I think that this alternative might be less likely to gain momentum versus the idea of reducing the current 60 vote threshold to a more reasonable number while still embracing incentives for parties to work together towards common goals.

Many people might contend that altering the existing filibuster rule would violate existing traditions and present a danger to our democracy since any one party would be able to push forward their agenda without any input from the minority party. While, we definitely still want to encourage a system based upon a good set of checks and balances, it has become obvious that the current situation is not really producing much benefit for anyone. Perhaps, by just slightly ratcheting down the 60 vote threshold, we might be able to change the deadlock in Congress and direct efforts toward meaningful new legislation that is focused on delivering relief to those in a time of need. The current COVID pandemic has necessitated the need to move rapidly to respond to the ever changing landscape. With just a small tweak downward on the 60 vote threshold, our elected officials will still need to work together in a bipartisan fashion. However, we can reduce the stalemates that have recently been developing that function as a significant barrier to accomplishing much for the people.

Reexamining The Filibuster

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an extraordinary life-altering event that has greatly impacted everyday life all around the world. The year 2020 was largely defined by the shutdown of numerous business and public locations in an effort to provide increased health and safety related measures to the general public. Due to global wide restrictions, citizens were forced to stay home and limit public interactions. In many instances, they were left without work and pay because their jobs and ability to earn a living were negatively impacted by the onset of the virus. Particularly, the poorer and disadvantaged segments of society appeared to be stuck the most while attempting to cope with the ongoing pandemic. The inability for bipartisanship within Congress delayed supplying the much needed stimulus aid to individuals and families for many months while in the midst of the tragic occurrence of the pandemic. Partisan policies which often leveraged the filibuster have delayed the ability for Republicans and Democrats to come to mutual agreement with the goal of legislating meaningful public policy that benefits the public at large. It is becoming clear that something needs to be addressed with the usage of the filibuster. While Congress should have been focusing on the needs of their constituents, they regularly appear to become deadlock in a complete stalemate with the opposing side. In the end, all parties lose as nothing gets accomplished in an expedient and efficient manner.

In recent years, the polarization of modern politics has displayed the inability to successfully create new legislation even when the party controls both the presidency and a majority in congress. Delivering COVID relief packages to American citizens was in a state of gridlock for majority of the summer and leading up to the presidential election in November. Now, with the new administration, we still have significant challenges to come to agreement on stimulus packages. Re-evaluating the current filibuster rules offers the potential to create a solution that could facilitate reducing legislative impasse.

This pandemic has trusted our nation into an unprecedented economic and social set of circumstances that mandates swift action to address immediate needs of the people. The longer that the pandemic rages on, and the longer that our leaders are unable to work together, negatively impacts the wellbeing of the country.

Often times, bipartisanship becomes an obstacle to delivering immediate help to the people that most need assistance. The COVID-19 pandemic has been an enormous life-altering event that has greatly impacted many people in a financial capacity. People have had their ability to earn a basic living negatively impacted as a result of some enacted limitations including lockdowns that were aimed to protect public health and wellbeing. Bipartisanship has delayed supplying much needed stimulus aid to individuals and families.

This issue can be considered a mechanical cause due to the inherit nature of the bureaucracy associated with our legislative system. Partisan legislative processes can often create barriers to effectively produce positive results for the community. In modern politics, the two sides become extremely polarized and are challenged to work together in a meaningful way.

Our policy will be built upon a foundation of capacity builders which focus on shaping awareness and education of working collaboratively to solve immediate issues and problems. Members of Congress should be educated about the benefits of working rapidly to develop collective agreements aimed at producing stimulus aid.

My passion blog will cover NFL Playoff games, the Superbowl, rumors that circulate duriong the NFL postseason, and any breaking Dallas Cowboys related news. The Dallas Cowboys will be the main focus along with any other major ground breaking news.

My Civic Issues blog will detail about current political topics that affect modern society. A few topics that interest me from “Party Politics” is the ideas of Gerrymandering and the crossing of party lines.

From a young age, I have believed that you need to take risks in life and continue to experience the unknown. Initially, it may be a bit unnerving to step outside your comfort zone. I have found that the benefits far outweigh the initial risks.

While I don’t remember many specific details about my childhood, some events have left a vivid impression upon me. I do recall one instance that sticks with me to this day as if it just happened yesterday. It was the Friday before Thanksgiving. I woke up to my Mom hollering that I had to get up, brush my teeth and get dressed in fifteen minutes! I quickly made myself presentable and stumbled downstairs to find neatly stuffed suitcases and backpacks lined up in front of the door.

It turns out that my parents had planned a surprise family vacation to Walt Disney World. Upon visiting the Hollywood Studios park, I glanced up to view the large Hollywood Tower Hotel structure that seemed to reach up into the clouds. The center of the hotel appeared to have been charred by some sort of explosion. It was a menacing site to behold at such a young age.

The Tower of Terror soared over and completely overshadowed me as we walked towards the attraction. I pointed my finger towards the ride while telling my parents I wanted to go on that ride. As we approached, you could hear the screams of the passengers as the tower doors opened up to give the riders a bird’s eye view of the park before it plunged down in a free fall many stories to the base of the hotel. Going on the ride seemed risky, but my curiosity pushed back my fear of the unknown. We got in the line queue and made our way inside. I can still feel the knot in my stomach as they buckled us into our elevator car. Before I knew it, our car was at the top of the tower and the doors opened to give us a view of the entire park before plunging down to the base and back up a few times. I screamed at the top of my lungs as we dropped in a complete free fall!

As we disembarked, my parents looked to see what I thought. I exclaimed that I wanted to do it again! The experience of riding the Tower of Terror taught me to never turn away from a challenge that initially might seem risky. From a young age, I wouldn’t hesitate to take risks. By living life in the moment, I have discovered that some of the things that I feared the most, actually turned out to be my greatest joys. Thomas Jefferson is quoted with saying, “With great risk come great rewards”. I have found that to be true and it helps to form my approach to life. Yes, it was initially uncomfortable to venture onto that ride. I did so full knowing that I would become stronger as a result. Mark Twain also said that “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did”. I am glad that I took the step and got on the ride during that November morning in Orlando. Actually, it has become one of my favorite attractions at the park. I continue to believe that we need to take risks in our daily lives. The enrichment potential is much greater than simply “remaining comfortable”.

The first option for my This I Believe podcast focuses on the belief that as American citizens we should provide better treatment and care to veterans and their families. Growing up, my grandfather served in the US Army while my Poppop served in the US Marines. I’ve heard countless stories of their sacrifices and dedication while serving to keep our country safe. In addition, soldiers often return home to their loved ones with various health related issues that warrant longer term care. I believe it is our responsibility as a nation to care for our soldiers. The second choice for my podcast centers on the value of spending with your family. When I was little, my family used to travel to Orlando, Florida to visit Disney World every year. Despite my parent’s busy schedules, they would carve out two weeks to take a family vacation. We would spend the time exploring the magnificent parks and entertainment rides. It also contributed towards building long lasting family bonds that we cherish to this day. As a child, I experienced both the fear and happiness resulting from trying new things. Riding the Tower of Terror and Rock & Roll Roller Coaster when I was three years old taught me to take risk in life and try things that you might initially be apprehensive about. I came to discover that some of those things that I feared the most, turned out to be my favorite joys.

My passion blog for this semester will expand on the Dallas Cowboys blog I began writing in the fall. Obviously, the Cowboys season is over this year and I will focus on writing excerpts covering the NFL Playoff games, the Superbowl, rumors that circulate during the NFL postseason, and any breaking Dallas Cowboy related news. My preferred category for the Civic Issues blog is politics. Obviously, politics are very relevant in modern society as many people are very polarized about current issues. For the blog, I intend to delve into current political topics of the day while examining the prospective beliefs from both parties related to their positions on happenings of the day and how they might differ and agree on issues.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan delivered the Challenger Speech to address the events that occurred earlier in the morning and to comfort not only the victim’s families, but the entire population of the United States. That morning the Space Shuttle Challenger was scheduled to take off from Cape Canaveral, FL on a mission carrying five NASA astronauts and two payload specialists. Unfortunately, the shuttle experienced a catastrophic failure 73 seconds into its flight and disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean while people watched it live on television. The speech was directed to the families of those lost during the accident, the people involved with NASA and the space program, school children that watched it, the citizens of the country, and the world in general. Due to the horrific tragedy of the challenger explosion, Reagan decided to postpone the State of the Union address in order to address the nation about the morning’s events. As President of the United States, Reagan possesses strong ethos due to his worldwide popularity and recognition. He was a very passionate and motivational speaker who was often referred to as “the great communicator”. Reagan confronted the American population as a concerned fellow American citizen, not a world leader. Reagan utilized the words “our” and “we” to relate with the audience. In his speech, Reagan identified himself as nothing more than the average American citizen. He genuinely conveyed a sense of loss and morning for the lives lost in the tragedy. As a result, he was able to establish a strong personal connection with his audience of listeners who were struggling to come to grips with the national disaster related to the Challenger explosion.

The underlying primary purpose of the Challenger speech is to provide a remembrance for those that we lost and to begin the healing process for a nation that was mourning. Reagan expressed how the deaths of the seven astronauts was a national loss and the entire country will continue to mourn and remember their sacrifice. He highlighted the special grace and spirit that the astronauts possessed. Reagan talked about their hunger to explore the universe. President Reagan also wanted to reaffirm the future of the United States and space exploration. He proclaimed that the NASA astronauts were fully aware of the dangers of the job. These employees decided to face the challenge and serve anyways despite the significant risk because they were driven to explore the universe. He referred to the astronauts as “pioneers” who have worked diligently in the space industry for the past twenty-five years. Unfortunately, the loss of their lives is part of the process of exploration and discovery. When he directed his attention towards the school children, he explained that it was 19 years ago that we lost astronauts on the ground and that this was the first time we lost anyone in the air. Further, he emphasized that this is part of exploration and discovery. He concluded on a positive note while attempting to uplift the nation. Reagan spoke of our transparency and that despite this setback we will continue to follow our hopes and dreams. The future belongs to the brave was one of his key messages as we moved forward.