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? 

Nicki Minaj and . . . the Pope?

                        http://www.theboombox.com/2012/02/12/nicki-minaj-grammys-2012-red-robe-pope/

I will willingly admit that I have a hankering for those gaudy celebrity magazines and televisions shows during the awards seasons.  I eat it up---who wore an $18,000 Armani suit and who fell in their Christian Louboutin heels, it’s a bit of an addiction.  

But as I watched the stars fawn over the cameras on the red carpet just before the Grammy’s, one celeb’s entrance baffled me.  Musician, Nicki Minaj arrived wearing a long, hooded, red caped Versace gown.  The Little Red Riding Hood getup was shocking on it’s own, but everyone is talking about her date: a man dressed up as the Pope!  

What does it mean?  I’m still trying to sort out what she was trying to convey by attending the Grammy’s with an imposter of the leader of the Catholic Church.  Clearly, she was utilizing visual rhetoric to say…something. 

The most agreed upon statement was that her entrance was “the egg moment of 2012,” comparing it to the awards show that Lady Gaga showed up to, incubating in a giant egg.  Maybe Nicki Minaj was simply showing up Lady Gaga?  Perhaps it’s the crazier the outfit (and entourage) the wilder the statement?

No one knows what exactly that statement is, but we can all agree that people will be talking about until next year’s Grammy awards.  Nicki Minaj didn’t need to say anything in order to call us to respond.  Some are offended, others are making Internet memes, and still others are simply talking about what a mistake it was.

People want to criticize and gossip about Minaj’s wardrobe and choice of date, and that is most likely exactly what she wanted!  If it was all a publicity stunt, she certainly succeeded.  Nicki Minaj was clever enough to realize that a little bit of shock and controversy was rhetorically the right move to boost to star-status. 

Media Attacks Against Dr. Mann

Due to my uncharged iPod, I was subjected to listening to the radio as I sat on the CATA bus last week.  I tuned in and out to the running advertisements until one in particular caught my attention. A deep, authoritative voice commanded attention, saying that Penn State is “going through a rough time” and that the university “needs to be careful as to whom they association with."

 The ad protested Professor Michael Mann, who gave a speech regarding global warming last night (February 9^th), as part of Penn State’s Forum Speaker Series.

                              source: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.php

In case you’re not aware, Dr. Mann is a professor at our university who has been at the center of the ‘Climategate’ controversy.  He allegedly falsified data to support his political views on global warming.  However, Dr. Mann was cleared of all supposed scientific wrongdoings by both Penn State and the National Academy of Sciences (among other investigations). 

The Common Sense Movement (CSM), a coal industry front group with a PAC called the Secure Energy of America Political Action Committee (SEAPAC), sponsored the advertisement.  Essentially, they campaign to implement doubt about global warming and the negative effects of coal and natural gas.

The advertisement attacked the professor’s credibility and called him “disgraceful,” as well as urged the public to call President Rodney Erickson to protest his upcoming talk. 

CSM attempted to invoke our logos, or logic, in order to scare us into believing that this man and his work are a threat to our way of living.  Interestingly, our community has rebelled against the campaign.  The intended audience has found their own exigence or call to make change.  They have attempted to hijack CSM’s letter-writing campaign, gone to their Facebook fan page (which has now stopped fans from leaving comments), and urged WBUS to yank the commercial.  Other people called President Erickson to voice their support of Dr. Mann, and blog posts are popping up all over the Internet about it. 

Our university is challenging the pricy and politically motivated advertisement, and I’m proud to be part of an institution that is invoking such change and support.  One little ad has summoned an entire group of people to speak out and incite rhetoric everywhere.  

After Hours in the Supermarket with my Mom

Based on NPR's This I Believe, I wrote an essay based on one of my beliefs---check it out! I 100% promise you'll laugh (probably until you cry).

Crashing and Burning Rhetorically

source: http://doninmass.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/wolverton-4.jpg

As the upcoming presidential election looms nearer and nearer, we are bombarded by the messages and words of hopeful politicians.  Though, some of those politicians might want to brush up on their rhetoric before stepping out in the public eye.    

Last week, Republican candidate Mitt Romney released his income tax return for 2010 and his estimate for his taxes last year on his website.  It showed that his combined income for both years was $42.6 million and that his tax rate was just under 14%. 

This meant that he made an average of $57,000 a day whereas the average American made $50,221 per year.  What was most notable was the fact that he paid a much lower tax rate than most Americans (average is 35% and above) because his income mostly came from investments.

Huh. 

Romney used rhetoric to make his tax records available to the American public, his audience.  But did he think about what his intended audience would react?  Now, he is being politically ridiculed for how he is (or isn’t) handling responses.

During today’s difficult economic times, the audience is perceiving Mitt Romney’s message as him being a man who is capable of working, but has admitted that his sole income is making money off of money and capitally benefitting off of low tax rates.

While there isn’t a problem with being rich and running for president, the American people do care about whether or not a presidential candidate cares about public.  Not only do Romney’s taxes show that he has money in the Cayman islands and Luxembourg, but every time he isn’t scripted, he says things like $374 thousand is not a lot of money, or he tells a room of unemployed people that he is unemployed.

Does that sound like someone who understands the problems of the people of America?

Mitt Romney is digging himself in a hole, and this is something he will most likely carry with him through the election.  He did not know what the rhetorical situation was or who the audience was, and it may cost him the vote. 

Spoken So Absurd

George Watsky is one of the most innovative and persuasive public speakers of our generation.  His speeches range in content from the importance of voting for young adults to his own connection with religion.  George Watsky is also a beat poet who is best known his videos on Youtube.

If you haven’t seen listened to his fast paced, pop culture infused poems, I highly recommend you take a few minutes to watch “S for Lisp.”

He begins the speech by dedicating it to anyone who has ever been made fun of for the way that they talk.  But then he says that a stranger told him that he has a subtle lisp and that he sounds stupid when he says words with the letter “S” in them.  Instead of listing off clichéd reasons to explain why this was wrong, he said, “My lisp is not sinful, I’m not sorry on Saturday…” and he packed as many “S” sounds as could fit into a list of reasons why he is a better man for his subtle lisp. 

George appeals to the audience by articulating the sound that apparently marks him as an outcast.  He speaks expressively, with confidence, clarity, and stark changes in volume and speed.  The first time I watched this video, I found myself worked up by the end because of the connection I felt to his words.  Our ethos (character) and pathos (emotion) are drawn to his powerful arguments.  He isn’t just talking about lisps; he is addressing every person who had ever been convicted of being weird. 

“If you suppose your speech is normal,” he says, “it’s because your impediment is listening.  Speak for those with something special.” 

He let’s you know what he believes in, and he makes it powerful and relatable.  Even if you’ve never had a speech impediment, you understand the torment of being excluded and you feel justified by the end of George’s poem.  

That is only your opinion.

My knowledge of rhetoric previous to beginning LA101H consisted of very little.  In fact, it could be boiled down to my distaste for public speaking and formal debates.  I hadn’t considered anything beyond that to be a “rhetorical situation,” which is probably why I was so surprised to recognize rhetoric in use this morning amongst some friends.

Crammed together at a café table, I watched as two of my closest friends bickered about a popular movie called Pulp Fiction.  Is the film a classic or is Quentin Tarantino just an unoriginal director bent on supposed irony and clichés? 

The conversation was lively, if not a little hostile, until one of them proposed a new idea. “That is only your opinion.”  Suddenly, the conversation ceased to exist.  They were done with Quentin Tarantino and his pop culture references. 

That was when I remembered a section from our class reading about opinions.  A harsh comment about someone’s opinion implies that opinions are not very important.  Opinions aren’t facts, and therefore they don’t matter.  Another reason why my friends were so upset about their contradicting thoughts was because opinions are often tied to identities and beliefs.  To critique a person’s opinion is to attack their individual beliefs and values. 

So, this instantly became a far more interesting situation than simply the pros and cons of Pulp Fiction.  Why did my friends not want to continue their conversation?  Was it because they didn’t want to slander each other’s character, which opinions seem to be so carefully entwined with?  Or was it because they thought their opinions were unimportant?

The truly fascinating part about the whole debacle was the fact that the “that is only your opinion” line terminated the debate entirely.  Clearly, they both automatically assumed that opinions cannot be changed and they would not try to do so.  

This made me wonder—isn’t the whole point of rhetoric to persuade and create open discussion? 

If so, why is it that we are so intent on being correct, and why are we so terrified that our thoughts and ideas will hurt everyone we talk to?

Maybe rhetoric is more complex that I originally gave it credit for . . . 

Welcome to my Civic and Rhetoric blog! This is where I will be posting content for LA101H Spring 2012.