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

A Coach's Confident Connection

On Tuesday, 22 February, I had the honor of hearing Coach Herman Boone speak as a part of the SPA Distinguished Speaker Series. Coach Boone is best known for coaching the T. C. Williams High School football team in Virginia while it was being integrated in 1971. Many people recognize his story from the movie Remember the Titans, in which he was portrayed by Denzel Washington. Of course, while listening to his interesting speech, I immediately began to think of his delivery as a rhetorical situation

One of the most striking aspects of his speech was that he displayed incredible confidence while speaking. Of course, Coach Boone has had many years to become comfortable in front of crowds as he was a football coach and is now a public speaker. He did not show any nerves while he was on stage; his voice was calm, strong, and confident. As a member of the audience, I found it very easy to listen to him speak because his manner of delivery only enhanced his intriguing stories and the message that he was delivering.

Likewise, Coach Boone immediately connected to the audience and make his speech relevant to the Penn State community. One way that he did this was by referring to Joe Paterno and integrating Penn State jokes into the speech. Likewise, he recognized Larry Johnson Sr., a current Penn State coach and former player of his, which added to the personal feeling. Larry Johnson was sitting in the row behind me and so, every time that Coach Boone would make a reference to him, I would eagerly listen because I knew that I was sitting only a few feet away. These personal anecdotes made audience members feel like Boone was personally connecting with them and he thus captivated the entire audience and truly enhanced this incredible event.

Closing Arguments

Recently, my friend introduced me to Boston Legal, a show that ran on ABC from 2004 to 2008. I immediately was hooked because the show masterfully mixed two of my favorite things: law and classic television romances. While quickly breezing through the first few season I realized that rhetoric plays a great role in a trial. In these fictional portrayals, it became clear that the attorney Alan Shore predominately uses pathos during his closing argument to forge an emotional response from the judge and jury and to elicit his desired outcome.

Alan’s techniques are well established among the other individuals in the show. In one episode where he did not seem to have a case, he was advised to simply give a long closing argument, as was his custom, to pull on the emotions of the jury. By doing so, the individual told him that he would easily win. However, because his emotional appeals are well established, he has been warned on numerous occasions by judges that he just needs to just stick with the facts and focus on the trial at hand.

Of course, Alan has established his credibility and is often requested for trials because of his abilities. He also reviews a great deal of information brought up within the trial. In his closings, he also effectively leave the judge and jury, his attended audience, with a question to ponder. Of course, this reflects the issue of guilt and innocence. But he breaks their expectations by taking what generally seems to be a straightforward issue and making jury think twice. In a case in which a homeless man was arrested for cremating a friend and, while starving, went to eat the friend, Alan forces the jury to consider the defendant's cannibalistic actions as acceptable. In a case that may not have an explicit emotional appeal, Alan makes one by reminding the jury of the deceased wishes to be burned by his friend and the reminder that the deceased would have wanted the defendant to do all that was possible to survive.The firm went on to win the case not because the jury necessarily accepts the defendant’s actions, but rather because Alan Shore uses rhetorical devices to appeal to logic and emotion.

Boston Legal: Fine Young Cannibal (Episode 304).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1DUTrfF83I

(Alan Shore's closing argument begins at 37 seconds)

"Speech Is My Hammer" - A Response Filled With Rhetoric

         In Michael Eric Dyson’s, “Speech Is My Hammer,” a remembrance of Martin Luther King’s activism, he undoubtably calls upon rhetoric to emphasize his point. Most effectively, Dyson uses pathos to invest the readers in the message that he works to send. Immediately, Dyson states that King’s, “words still live in our memories” and that, “King also processed the gift to translate love into concrete political action.” These statements surely remind the reader of King’s actions and thus his immortality. This emotion is emphasized as Dyson believes that the reader can take these memories and work to emulate King’s activism towards social equality. 

       To further spread his message, Dyson also effectively recognizes his audience. Upon further research, I learned that Dyson is both a professor of sociology and an ordained Baptist Minister. Knowing this and knowing that King was also a Baptist Minister further explains the religious references. Though Dyson analyzes King’s legacy in general, an excerpt of “Letter from Birmingham Jail” precedes Dyson’s piece in the Rhetoric and Civic Life textbook. In this letter, King directly addresses his fellow clergymen. Just as King recognizes his audience as religious in nature, Dyson does so as well. However, his piece still has meaning for a variety of audiences. Dyson recalls that King made basic claims of “justice, love, and power” and how they must coexist for true effectiveness. Without a doubt, the remembrance of basic civil liberties and the good that King did in the social, economic, and political realms surely speaks to numerous audiences. Though King worked within the black church, his message, and thus Dyson’s, can be heard by all people.

State of the Union 2011

     On January 25, 2011, I turned on my computer to watch President Obama deliver the State of the Union Address. It did not take long to realize that the President successfully applied rhetoric to ensure that his speech was engaging and meaningful.

     Perhaps the most apparent and successful aspect of the delivery was President Obama’s use of tone. He used his voice to emphasize particular words and phrases. By doing so, he could convey feelings and ideas. For example, the President stated that:
          The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us. It should challenge us.               [...] America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. [...] We’re home to           the world’s best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any                 place on Earth.

While hearing the President speak this message, I was immediately inspired. His confidence alone made me believe that America is truthfully the best country, that Americans can compete in the job market, and that our country is doing well. While later reflecting on the President’s message, I realized that I would initially be inclined to believe anything that he says based on his optimistic, encouraging tone.

     Nonetheless, it was also noticeable that President Obama sometimes falls prey to a common pitfall. While listening to him speak, he occasionally allows his pitch to rise at the end of his sentences as if forming a question. While this was not an issue that occurred too often it was nonetheless noticeable when it did. This is a quality of the President’s speeches that has been spoken about often and has even been referred to humorously on Saturday Night Live skits. As a listener, it did prove to be noticeable, but I do not believe that it took away from the overall affect of the address.

     When I first accessed the live viewing stream through the White House website, I had the option to choose between the standard and enhanced versions. Though unclear of the differences, I chose the enhanced. This version allowed the viewer to see different graphs, statistics, and other visual aids to emphasize the President’s point. The President clearly did not see these visuals while delivering his speech so they did not affect him. As a viewer, I believe that they added greatly to the speech. Most importantly, they never became distracting because the visuals were only kept on the screen while they were relevant. As an individual that is always looking to better my own speeches and presentations, the successful use of visual aids gave another method to consider.

     Without a doubt, the 2011 State of the Union Address left me inspired by the successful use of rhetoric and how it was  used to enhance the President’s message.