e-Portfolio Introduction

My name is Gabby Rosenblum and I am an undergraduate student at the Pennsylvania State University with a projected graduation date of 2014. I am a double major in Comparative Literature and Spanish and I am minoring in Hebrew. This e-Portfolio displays examples of my coursework. This includes examples of a paper, speech, and blog entries that I have completed as a Penn State student. 

Specifically, I have themed this e-Portfolio to exhibit work that directly relates to the ideas of civic life and of being an informed citizen. Each of the pieces that I have chosen reflects these ideas, including a paper that discusses Youth Court as a sentencing alternative to first time youth offenders and a speech discussing the importance of family. Likewise, you will find blog entries in which I examine what it means for a politician to be effective rhetorically as well as posts in which I address the importance of staying informed on world issues and of voicing these opinions. 

As an additional resource, this e-Portfolio contains a copy of my resume. Not only do I believe in examining the ideas of engaged citizenship through writing and alternative media in the classroom but I also believe in living by these beliefs. This resume includes descriptions of various organizations at Penn State in which I am an active member.

By following the tabs on the right, you will easily be able to navigate this e-Portfolio. I invite you to take a look at my work as a Penn State student and to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Gabby Rosenblum

Link to Gabby Rosenblum's e-Portfolio 

Clear Delivery

It is never easy to speak in front of a large group. It may get easier over time but I don’t think that anyone can go to speak in public and be completely calm. Still, public speaking is an incredibly important quality. I was recently at the elections of one of clubs that I am involved with. One of the candidates bravely stood in front of the crowd and delivered his message as to why we should vote for him. The problem was that I could not understand anything that he was saying. He was mumbling and speaking very quickly and so I couldn’t hear a thing. I felt bad because this candidate could have been suggesting the best policies and the best message for our club, but I had no way of knowing. 

While I strained to hear what the candidate was saying, I felt terrible because I knew that there was no way that I could vote for him because I could not hear what he was saying. I had no way of knowing what direction he was suggesting for the club.

After observing this candidate speak I truly came to appreciate the importance of the delivery of a speech. This candidate put himself forward and ran for a position that he was clearly passionate about but his difficulties in delivery cost him my vote.

Jersey Shore: Do We Really Want To Remember It?

I am not an avid follower of “Jersey Shore.” I will watch an episode here or there and I like the mindlessness of it, but I’ve never watched more than two episodes in a row. Really, it just isn’t my type of show. After spending close to a semester talking about rhetoric and what ideas we put forth/how we come across (and keeping in mind that I am not a “Jersey Shore” fan to begin with), I was a little disheartened to hear that there are two “Jersey Shore” spin-offs in the works: one with Pauly D and the other with Snooki and JWoww. 

Americans look at orators such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Oprah, President Kennedy, and President Obama as examples of great American speakers who have eloquently put forth public appearances and highlighted the values that they stood for. “Jersey Shore” is best known for it’s phrase “Gym, Tan, Laundry.” I’d hardly say that this is on the same rhetorical level with “I have a dream.” Granted, the cast of “Jersey Shore” isn’t using the show as a platform to advance any political or societal stances. But, will we look back on our generation and only remember the fights that Sammi and Ronnie had or the time that Snooki was arrested on the beach? I would hate to think that the message we are leaving with society is one so closely related to tanning, drinking, and casual sex.

We find rhetoric in every aspect of life and it is the impression that this rhetoric makes that is remembered by other countries and generations. Are we really helping America or the controversial Italian-American stereotype by glorifying shows such as “Jersey Shore”?

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/two-jersey-shore-spin-offs-set-for-2012/?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Farts%2Ftelevision%2Findex.jsonp

Freedom Of (knowing information written by) The Press

I’m not sure when my love affair with the New York Times began but it is the only paper that I can spend hours reading. It is set as my laptop homepage though I usually read tons of articles at my leisure all from the convenience of my Blackberry. When I heard that there would be changes made to accessing the paper online I didn’t think twice about it. I didn’t think that it would effect me. So imagine my frustration when opened my web browser, clicked on an article, and was told that I couldn’t read it.

The New York Times recently changed their policy regarding online subscriptions. Internet users can now read only 20 free articles per month on the computer and must pay to view additional articles. I probably read more than 20 articles in one day. I don’t usually read the paper thoroughly on my computer but I love browsing through them in my spare time. And now they are telling me that I need to pay for a service that I am so used to getting for free?!

I get it: The New York Times is a business. Times are changing and people prefer to read the paper online as opposed to, well, an actual paper. And sure, there are ways around the wall that stops an over twenty article reader: you can switch browsers (such as going from Safari to Firefox) or do some technologically savvy techniques (something about clearing cookies or adding lines of computer codes, neither of which I understand). I guess that I could also either switch papers or stop browsing through articles on my computer and just keep to reading articles on my phone like I usually do.

There is another option: I can pay. ESPN does something similar with their website - you can read most articles but must pay for the “Insider” access. I don’t complain about that, but, then again, I am used to that system and I can access almost everything that I want. There is no way that I am paying for a service that I am used to getting for free. 

So, why am I enraged and spending an RCL blog and over 400 words venting? Yes, I am angry. But the press continually highlights the ignorance of the American public. Ironic, huh? How are we to remain informed if we cannot even access the information? 

Sounds like it has the makings for a public controversy to me.




UPDATE: The NYT has stopped allowing me to use it on my phone. Oh, NYT. It's on.

To Leash Or Not To Leash, That Is The Question

While reading the New York Times online, I came across an article that made me stop, laugh, and then think. On March 24, 2011, a discussion was presented on one of the NYT blogs about leashing one’s children. It referenced an article originally from the April issue of Parents magazine and was written by the author of one of the regular advice columnis, Judith Goldberg. The timing was too perfect since I have brought this up on multiple occasions among friends, though I didn’t see this article until afterwards. 

The blog describes that, “three sentences brought 100 e-mails.” I’ve provided a link to the NYT blog, but below is what was written in Parents magazine:

“Leashes are for dogs. You wouldn’t put your child in a crate, or let him poop on the sidewalk, right? If you have a bolter, invest in a cheap umbrella stroller with a buckle.”

Not only is this argument hilarious, but it also fits perfectly into an RCL blog post. Three short sentences acquired numerous responses from people with varying perspectives. But, while reading through these comments, it is not only her point that exasperates the readers but also her tone and manner of delivery. Her tone is interpreted as aggressive and even rude. As such, the responses are very defensive. 

I cannot help but wonder what wold have happened had the author used a different tone in her article. Her point would likely still have been met with counterarguments, but I doubt that they would have attacked her as personally, as well.

Regardless, it was fun read and interesting to see the many opinions!

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/are-leashes-for-children/?hp

International Rhetoric

It is interested that, when listening to someone speak, there are certain qualities that shine even through a language barrier. During our closing ceremony at the Hesed Community Center, the building that my group was painting during our Spring Break trip in Moldova, many volunteers shared their stories and extended their appreciation to us and we to them. Though the people that we were speaking with spoke Russian and we needed a translator to get our words across, the qualities of a presenter still shined through. 

No matter the language, each speaker spoke clearly and at a volume so that everyone could hear the speech, even if we didn’t understand it. The speakers varied in pace though each implied a nostalgic and appreciative tone.  Most importantly, we still maintained eye contact with one another. I thought that this was truly the strongest mode of communication between both parties. Even before we were given a translation, I could understand the message behind the words because the speaker "spoke" through his or her eyes. Rhetoric is important when giving a speech. But the delivery is just as vital. Even without knowing the meaning of the words, the delivery allowed me to understand it.

Words I Couldn't Believe That I Said...

As I was sitting with a friend, watching the 2011 Oscars, I uttered words that I never believed I would say. "Wow, Oprah has amazing rhetoric." Of course, what I meant was that Oprah's delivery style was great. But I could not help myself from drawing upon everything that I have learned during class and embarrassingly say it aloud. To make matters worse, my friend is also a student in LA 101H and immediately began to make fun of me.

But it is true. Oprah’s delivery was perfectly paced while informing the audience on the Documentary category and giving a brief overview of what the trials and messages of a documentary. Her voice rose and fell at the right moments. The part that really grabbed my attention was her emphasis on certain words, such as when she said that, “ but it has never been more important for us to see these stories to help us try to make some sense of the world we live in.” For a category that most people likely don’t care about, Oprah helped to draw attention to its importance and make people pay attention. She certainly made me appreciate what she was saying and also pay for it around my friends later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5s3zfR5d1Y