The End of an Era (Or a Semester...)

At the Pennsylvania State University, I am working toward completing a duel major in Art History and French language, with a minor in Italian language. I am also a member of the Undergraduate Art History Association (UAHA), which is a group that promotes visual art, plans events and museum tours, investigates careers in the museum profession, and attempts to establish dialogue between the many facets of the visual art programs here on campus. I plan to graduate in the spring of 2015, and will pursue a Masters of Arts degree in Art History. Ultimately, I strive to procure a job as a curator at a major art museum or gallery.

During my college career, I have been able to meld my love of the liberal arts with my rhetorical experiences via essays, blogs, and the occasional speech. Furthermore, as a creator and consumer of rhetoric (in multiple languages no less), the constant exposure to public discourse is integral to my career goals. To curate an exhibit is a means of expression; it embodies storytelling, design, and acute analysis.  As museum exhibitions intend to be consumed by the public, it is necessary for me to understand completely the interworking of visual and written rhetoric. 

This website features a collection of some of my favorite pieces of writing from this year. Under the guidance of some very meticulous and demanding professors, I have grown immensely as a writer and as a student at this university. I have diversified my writing skills, from formal analytical essays to a comical blog that narrates my experiences as a part-time waitress. So it is on that note that I welcome you to explore the content of my portfolio.

Link to Naomi Lazny's e-Portfolio 

Knowing Your Facts, Santorum!

         http://www.taxaccountantsanramonca.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/b9daa_rick-santorum-speech.gi.top.jpg

Once again, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief as I listen to the very public words of Rick Santorum.  If you remember correctly, not too long ago he called President Obama a “snob” for encouraging people to go to college.  (Mind you, Mr. Santorum himself has a bachelor’s degree, a law degree, and a business degree.) 

This past week, he dismissed higher education while campaigning in Wisconsin, citing California’s university system as an example of “just how bad it’s gotten in this country.” In his speech, he claimed that “seven or eight of the California system of universities” don’t offer American history courses. 

Frankly, it’s irrelevant what schools he was referring to, as both University of California and California State University (and all of their campuses) offer American history courses.  In fact, CSU students are required to take several of those courses in order to graduate.  Nine other undergraduate UC campuses (Berkeley, Irvine, San Diego, Los Angeles, Davis, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Riverside, and Merced) offer similar courses as well as graduation requirements. 

I’m sorry, but I can’t get over the lack of the lack of credible ethos that is Rick Santorum.  Three days before making this ridiculous claim about California universities, he gave a speech at the Jelly Belly Candy Company so voters would connect him to Ronald Reagan. 

Evidence literally pours out of the man’s mouth on a daily basis—not only does he fail to see and address the issues relevant during this presidential race, but also he lacks the necessary ability to present himself as a serious political candidate. 

The American public has no reason to believe that he is a remotely good candidate for the job.  Mr. Santorum lies, backtracks, and confuses most potential voters (not to mention that he has a wicked temper). 

Luckily for us, he is so far behind in the polls that it’s almost not even worth bothering with this “candidate” any longer.  

The Pragmatist in Politics

 http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rachel-Maddow-and-Romney-via-MSNBC-screenshot.jpg

Mitt Romney lies a lot as a presidential candidate and he seems to be entirely okay in doing so.  The really scary part is the fact that few are rebutting his blatant misnomers.  I have to wonder, as he becomes the Republican Party’s national leader by default, is his ethical standard on lying going to set the standard?  

While watching a political commentator on television last night, I witnessed one more slip up by the governor that had me wondering how American voters can honestly get behind this man. 

Romney’s past position on energy issues as a governor has sharply contrasted with those he’s now taking as a presidential candidate.  For example, as governor, Mitt Romney rejected a proposal that Massachusetts get rid of or suspend the state gas tax as a way of bringing gas prices down, because it was “a bad idea to encourage people to us less gasoline.” 

Instead, he raised gas taxes initially as part of the fund to clean up underground gas tanks at gas stations (though he eventually got rid of the fund and just applied it to the general coffers).

All of that stuff is totally contrary, totally opposite of what he is attacking President Obama for on gas prices.   

“Is that a case of selective amnesia?” asked Rachel Maddow on her show on March 22^nd.  It’s true—does Mitt Romney not remember what he has done, or is he simply hoping to God that people won’t bring up his past views?

Above being a politician, Mitt Romney is a pragmatist.  He looks at his campaigns and figures out what he has to do to succeed in that environment.  To him, it doesn’t matter if he needs to lie or flip-flop on his views and policies—he’s going to do whatever it takes to win the election. 

In terms of rhetoric, this makes him a very weak competitor.  His ethos is not strong because he never grounds his arguments and beliefs in logos or pathos.  He chooses to move around evasively on the current issues, and lie to the pubic outright even if he gets caught. 

Seeing as Romney refuses to acknowledge his lies, saying “look, you know, I wrote this book “No Apology,” all my views are in there,” I can’t imagine that we will hear any of the ‘real Romney’ any time soon.  I just hope that his method of winning does not, in fact, become the standard.

X-Rated Rick

http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/8c/2d/8c2d15_3462735.jpg

Oh Republican Party—you sure do give a girl a good laugh!  Rick Santorum recently reported that if elected, he intends to “go after pornography.”

Excuse me?  What does that mean?

Well, in the eyes of the senator, America is “suffering from a pandemic of harm from pornography,” and his administration would target porn distribution online, on cable, and in hotel rooms.  

Many people have been raising eyebrows at the issue that Santorum is perpetuating entirely by himself.  He isn’t just referring to obscenity laws or illegal material involving children, but he claimed outright that his purpose for cracking down on pornography is due to his personal belief that it is “damaging.”

It seems to me like Rick Santorum wants to abuse the powers of the executive branch to limit access to porn just because he thinks it’s bad for you (like contraception).  That right there is censorship.  He wants to eliminate the freedom of choice, and that is positively shocking and ungrounded.  The adult film industry is an industry like any other, and a legal adult should have the choice to decide what content they deem suitable for viewing.   

On a larger scale, the republican wants to ban abortion, contraception, non-reproductive, premarital and non-marital sex, and now dirty movies.  I think my favorite political commentator, Rachel Maddow, puts it best: “ . . . since Americans clearly have no appetite for adult content online or on television, this will no doubt help deliver millions of votes to the Santorum campaign.”

Certainly, throughout the campaign, his ethos is becoming weaker and weaker.  Rhetorically, Rick Santorum has not appealed to the American people through any reasonable (logos) means.  Instead, his publically known character (ethos) has almost become a point of ridicule in conversation.  We’re all talking about how absurd his desire to effectively confiscate the world’s supply of porn is! 

To reiterate last week’s point, how does Santorum intend to be taken seriously when his biggest concerns are so frivolous?  For that matter, he doesn’t appear to be a strong rhetorician or candidate in the political race, and these points of contention are not aiding him in the campaign trail. 

Feeling Ill, Rick? Do Explain.

I solemnly swear that this blog post will not be about Mitt Romney.  Though, I fully intend to devote this piece of writing exclusively to condoning one Mr. Rick Santorum.  I hope you’re excited to find out about what nauseates this presidential-hopeful!

To start from the beginning, you have to be aware of a speech that John F. Kennedy gave in 1960.  That year, Kennedy was running for office in hopes of becoming the nation’s first Roman Catholic president.  While it may seem inconsequential today, there were many fears at the time that JFK would be undermine his personal religious beliefs in his political work, should he win the election.

So during aforementioned speech, he proclaimed, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote."

The speech gained a lot of support from the public, and ultimately set a standard for religion, government, and politics from both political parties.  (What a rhetorician that JFK was! That’s some powerful stuff!)

But on February 27^th, 2012, Rick Santorum said during an interview that Kennedy’s 1960 speech made him want to “throw up.”

Before I go on any further, may I take a moment remark upon how utterly stupid a comment that was?  Santorum did not come off as a well-spoken, informed, or even intelligent politician (or man, for that matter).  His rhetoric was weak.

Santorum then went on the say that “ . . . people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?"

The man even called the speech an “absolutist doctrine.”

As I watched the interview proceed, I began to wonder if he really knew what he was talking about.  He urged viewers to read the speech—so I did.  I realized that Santorum’s argument was not only completely ridiculous, but he did not understand JFK’s words in the least.  Kennedy never said that religious people should not serve the public; rather, he restated the government’s neutrality concerning matters of faith.  (Smart political move.)

I mean, if Kennedy claimed that religious people should have no role in the public square, just how did he win the election two months later? 

It doesn’t take a lot to see that Santorum is an embarrassment to himself.  He should apologize for his ignorance and lack of propriety.  He can’t expect rhetoric like “throw up” to compete against others during the upcoming electoral season, can he? 

Mitt and The Ford Field Fiasco

I would apologize for constantly writing about Mitt Romney—but I’m not sorry in the slightest.  I can’t help myself; this guy is a machine for bad rhetoric and thus a goldmine for blog topics.  Moreover, I just get a kick out of this disaster of a politician.

Friday, February 24^th, Romney gave a speech at the Ford Field football stadium in Detroit.  In this 65,000-seat auditorium, he generated an audience of 1,200 people.  Not only were the stands empty, but also the ground around the campaign turned up pretty sparse itself.  Talk about embarrassing—it really draws on just how little excitement this presidential-hopeful is producing. 

But to get down to the nitty-gritty of my ever-expanding fascination with this guy, the speech was a total mess.   Not only did Romney repeatedly speak about the supposed appropriate height of Michigan trees, but he alluded to his fortune again when he drives “a Mustang and a Chevy pick-up truck,” and his wife Ann “drives a couple of Cadillacs.” 

That certainly won’t erase the current public perceptions of Romney as an out-of-touch, unapologetic elitist. 

In a larger context, it was almost ironic of Romney to make a campaign stop in Detroit and call it the “motor capital of the world” in light of his opinion three years ago.  In 2009, he advocated that we “let Detroit go bankrupt” in place of bailing out the failing companies in the auto industry.  Due to the recent speech at Ford Fields, many of Romney’s critics have begun to revive their former arguments against him. 

MoveOn.org released a new ad called “He’d Let America Fail,” and the UAW (United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agriculture Workers of America) rallied to protest Romney. 

I’d joke about how this guy is still in the running for the Republican nominee, but look at his competitors—Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul . . . none of them are praise-worthy in the public eye at the moment.  It’s more than a little worrisome. 

Romney's in the Dog House

If you aren’t up on the current political scandals, I’ll give you a brief rundown.  During a 13-hour car ride from Massachusetts to Canada in 1983, there wasn’t enough room in the family station wagon for Romney’s five young sons and Seamus, their pet Irish Setter.  So the politician put the dog in a crate on the roof instead. 

According to the story, the oldest child pointed out a brown liquid dripping down the back window, emanating from the Irish Setter, who had been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.  At that point, Romney pulled over at a nearby gas station, hosed down the dog and the car, returned the dog to the roof, and continued on the journey.

                   https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKdYtAisytb-S8k42EtpNdaY1AXBe7hNTe64M__tV0oabOEZJnQ4KeWVhZRRmrwH6sKB336PIDnWmHz_oEsi_I9lOChOF2hAxuPKSmc1v-sMUy4QHxYDLNRlEHr24N-8_sfCZ20jroXz2S/s1600/Seamus.jpg

During a 2007 interview, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Romney, “What were you thinking?”  The governor replied that, "This is a completely airtight kennel, mounted on the top of our car. He climbed up there regularly, enjoyed himself; he was in a kennel at home a great deal of the time as well. We loved the dog, it was where he was comfortable and we had five kids inside the car and my guess is he liked it a lot better in his kennel than he would have liked it inside."

Everything about this situation is wrong: morally, legally, and rhetorically.  Even today, Mitt Romney isn’t recognizing the extreme flaws in his behavior, and has done nothing to apologize for his transgression.  While shocking, it is causing an interesting rhetorical response.

There is a small but growing group of protestors who have been following Romney to campaign stops with stuffed dogs in crates attached to the roofs of their cars.  Police pulled over one such protestor in Colorado on suspicion of animal cruelty.

            http://assets.dogtime.com/cel_asset/image/4f33e95a41826967e20011aa/max_400_Dogs-Against-Romney.jpg

Furthermore, a social media specialist named Scott Crider founded a blog called Dogs Against Romney.  He has been documenting protests as well as informing the public about this specific case of animal cruelty.  Supporters of the website protested Romney outside of the Westminster Dog Show last week, which gained a lot of publicity and outcry. 

As people continue to hear about the Irish Setter’s roof-ride, former supporters of Mitt Romney are beginning to question his character.  Some ask, “If he’s going to treat his animal that way, what does he think of people?”

Certainly, his opponents think that this story has potential to be a weakness in his campaign.  Newt Gingrich launched an attack ad called “Pets with Newt 2012.”

Even David Axelrod, President Obama’s campaign communications director, tweeted a picture of the first dog riding in the presidential limousine with the president and the caption “how loving owners transport their pets.” 

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/6599476371/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Clearly this story is gaining more attention as Romney’s campaign continues, and with all the support it’s acquiring, it will most likely do some serious damage his ethos. 

All I can say is that I don’t want an admitted animal abuser to be the face of the United States.  Do you?