Brooke Abrams E-Portfolio

Brooke Abrams-E Portfolio

Men vs African American men

My friend is a Crime, Law and Justice Major. She is currently taking a CRIM class. She was informing me of all of the statistics on those who commit crimes and all the various crimes one can create. She then told me that the book speaks mostly about African Americans who commit those crimes. My friend proceeded to tell me about the different biases in the book and mentioned that the book separates the word men and African American men. Basically when the book talks about crimes committed it touch on the percentages of men vs. African American men.

How I take it is that they are saying that African American men are not men which hurt a lot. As a person who is mixed and who embraces both sides, I know what my ancestors have been through. I think it is disgusting that the book groups men this way. I think it is even more disgusting that the University would allow such a book to be used. I understand that there is probably valuable material in that book and maybe it was even used purposely to explain prejudices. Even so, I think it is wrong.

It is very apparent that racism still exists. If you say it doesn't you are quite blind. I think it would be better to acknowledge the fact that it still exists then pretend it does not and then see what my friend saw in her book. I just think that for it to be published for everyone to see, and for college students to study from, is unreal.

I wonder if the University or even the Professor has control over what he shows his students or even what book he can choose to teach his material from. I remember one time my friend asked my why there is African American history and why there is American History. The only way I've ever looked at it was that blacks have a lot of accomplishments and have come a long way. But then my friend said, "Aren't blacks American and don't their accomplishments contribute to American accomplishments?" "Accomplishments are accomplishments no matter which race contributes." I now look at things much differently.

"What adults can learn from children"

http://www.ted.com/talks/adora_svitak.html

This video is beyond commendable. If you watch the video, you will see that Adora Svitak was twelve years old at the time of this presentation on "Ted Talks." Yes she was twelve on "Ted Talks". Adora was convincing her audience that adults should not underestimate the immense knowledge they can gain from children. Prior to her appearance on "Ted Talks" she was writing short stories since she was four and publishing her work at the age of seven. Adora also spoke at hundreds of schools and was the key note speaker at many educational programs.

This presentation is specifically hinting on the fact that adults can learn a great deal from children contrary to the stereotype of a typical learning setting: the adult teaching the lesson to their students. But if you look up the definition of a teacher from the Marriam-Webster Dictionary, a teacher is one that teaches; especially one whose occupation is to instruct. An occupation is simply a job or profession. In either of those definitions, neither of them express age limitations nor state "child" or "adult." This is simply the point that Adora Svitak is trying to make. She is even insinuating that, if you look in history, many children have made some of the most impacting changes that have helped the world progress or be at some type of advantage today. She uses a lot of thoughtful tactics to persuade her audience that, in fact, adults can learn from kids.

To capture her audience, she uses humor, irony, and satire. Humor comes in to play as she says things like, "We are the next generation who will bring this world forward...in case you don't think this has meaning for you, remember that cloning is possible and that involves going through childhood again in which case you will want to be heard just like my generation." This humor implies action. She hints that adults can learn from kids and that we need to consider this concept because we are the next generation. That is how she establishes need and why this matter should be taken seriously. She uses a lot of visuals with quotes on the screen, visuals of crafts that children have done and have won awards for, and even pictures of children who have made American history. She establishes her credibility by speaking on how long she has been writing and teaching adults by stating the statistics: "speaking at hundreds of schools and being the key note speaker at educational programs." The irony comes in when she was first trying to publish her short stories at seven years of age and the publisher had said they did not work with children. Adora responded, "really, a children's publisher not working with children, I don't know you're kind of alienating large client there."

I absolutely loved watching this entertaining presentation. She kind of makes my public speaking skills look amateur. But I will give her credit. After all, I learned something very valuable from her and I am legally an adult. Sometimes, age is literally ONLY a number.

Public Policy: Federal Funding of Research and Development Issues

http://www.asme.org/about-asme/advocacy-government-relations/programs,-public-policy,---society-policies/federal-funding-of-research-and-development-issues

Tomorrow in class, we will be discussing ideas for our argumentation paper on public policy. I researched public policy issues and one of the policies that actually seemed important was the Federal Funding of Research and Development Issues. This policy basically covers Obama's 2013 Fiscal Budget request to increase funding for research and development enterprise on science, technology, engineering, and math. The increase would be over two billion dollars higher than the spending on these matters in 2012.

I wanted to touch on this policy and its importance in my opinion. I think funding for developmental programs and businesses would not only create jobs for those who have a degree in these fields with no job, but also prospective students seeking a future job with a concentration in these fields. I feel there is a high demand in science, technology, engineering, and math based careers. Furthermore, if the overall goal is to repair the economy, funding in these areas would do the job. It is known that jobs in these fields pay significantly higher than those with Liberal Art Degrees. If our society can generate people who major in these fields, they can graduate college and make a higher salary which might help in re-establishing a middle class again. Additionally, our world today is advancing in medicine, in the degree of difficulty in math, the instruments and new discoveries in science, and most importantly technology. I believe in order to succeed in this world, our generation must know as much as possible in these fields and be willing to apply that knowledge in the workforce.

Although it is a ton of money on just this one policy, I think it will be a great investment long-term wise. Maybe short term issues may arise but if it works out well in the end, why will it matter. Or does it?

Racial Political Cartoons

I was Googleing pictures of Trayvon Martin, and I think it is ironic that this political cartoon appeared along with many others. I had to analyze the cartoon as it does fit to the current controversy on the Trayvon Martin Case.

The black lettering at the top left corner of the cartoon says "How A Racist Calculates". Now notice the white handwriting. To me, I automatically thought this was coming from an African American's point of view towards a white man. The white lettering is actually in the form of a formula that corresponds to the overall case. Trayvon Martin was the black kid, he was in a white neighborhood, and the result was that he got shot. Not only is the writing white, but also the outlining of the pictures are white that correspond to the "formula." When I look at that, I think innocence. Let's direct the attention to the focal point of the entire cartoon: the male who shot Tray. Most of the image is black which portrays darkness. His features are very distinctive and manly. He definitely fits the image of a "bad guy." His facial expression insinuates that he knowingly has a gun in his hand and is about to use it. The darkness all the way up to his actual facial features shows race. He appears white. The background colors are white and red that, when they meet, blend together eventually. I believe those colors were used to help put the cartoon together; bloodshed of an innocent child. To add to my credibility, if you have every seen the movie "Open Season", it is a comedy about two wild animals that convince each other to leave their homes and venture the real world. Corresponding to the incident, Tray wasn't in his original neighborhood, he was visiting a family member. He ventured out to the grocery store, and unfortunately experienced more than he should have--death.

I am not sure how this is affecting the rest of the public or anyone at Penn State, but it just goes to show that the government still does not do its job of serving justice. Additionally, it publicizes racism and events that should not be justifiable. I feel for Trayvon and his family, and I hope one day "we" can get things right.

Contextual vs. Textual Writing

I'm pretty sure everyone who thought they were a great writer established that assumption in High School, however; it's a whole different ball game when college starts. I was one of those people whose view drastically changed when reaching college. When I think of my writing process, I think of how easy creative ideas come my way but also how difficult the overall construction of the paper. I like sentence structure variation, but I know one of my weaknesses is writing in a round-a-bout way.

I always thought there was only one concept in writing a rhetorical analysis. But ofcourse I was wrong here too. There are two concepts to keep in mind when writing a rhetorical analysis: contextual and textual analyzing. Yes, they are totally different from eachother in a writer's world.

A textual analysis encompasses the actual material being analyzed. A textual analysis consists of some background knowledge on things such as the time period and societal issues. Analyzing the text with these elements creates the deeper meaning an analysis should have.

It is difficult because I feel there is a fine line between textual and contextual. I also think there is a fine line between analyzing something and flat out over thinking something. Maybe from a Professor's point of view, I want to know what are some pointers a student can use to make their analysis deep? Even though we incorporate quotes in a paper to support an idea or a concept, can those quotes be contextual? Why is a contextual analysis better than one that is textual? From a student's point of view, how did you do in writing your rhetorical analysis? If you did well, what tips could you give your peers? If you didn't do so great, what questions are still unanswered? Because I don't think the difference between contextual and textual is obvious. But obviously my grade proves otherwise.

The Effectiveness of Rhetorical Appeals

I am sitting in my room writing my rhetorical analysis. Throughout the speech, analyzing, pathos, logos, and ethos are very clearly portrayed as effective rhetorical mechanisms to persuade the audience. What I wanted to know is which appeal is most effective when trying to draw the audience in and feel what the writer feels. In order to fairly assess the appeals, I decided to take a look at the JFK's Inaugural Address.

To immediately draw attention to him, he starts his speech off by calling, "Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman..." instantly appealing to ethos. I think Kennedy did this to show his relationship with these people: all important and popular figures of the time. This is kind of a way to say hey I know these people, they have contributed something to our society and so will I. Beginning any speech by incorporating ethos is important because the audience wants credibility. We want other sources that back up the persuader/speaker.

Pathos throughout the speech is most evident. Phrases such as "To those old allies...", "To those new States...", "To those peoples in the huts and villages...", "To our sister republics outside of the border...", etc. all appeal to a broad audience which is a technique of pathos. Using these phrases draws in every viewer because he points out many different groups. He also uses "...my fellow citizens", ..."...in your hand more than mine..."...but let us begin...", and many more all give everyone who is tuning in a sense of community. And if communities can feel united by one speech, then they can feel united by the changes he will enforce as President. If you look at politicians' promises, almost all of them are broken. If he can persuade the public that he is in this fight with us, that appeals to the sense of not being alone which was very affective after the Great Depression.

Finally the appeal to logic. Always, logos is strictly statistics incorporated to quantitatively make a statement stronger. Sometimes it is put in a way to reinforce something or reassure an action. JFK says, "...All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration...." This is simply logic. We all know that one person cannot change everything the people are asking for in a matter of days, weeks, months or even years ESPECIALLY after the Great Depression.

In conclusion, all devices are quite effective. But I believe that in order to reach out and gain one's attention, pathos is the way to go. It always depends on the audience and what the subject is but almost always, the audience wants to feel a connection to the speaker. They want to feel they can trust them.

What Rhetorical appeal do you deem most effective and why?

"...I'm Lovin' It"

We have been learning about analyzing advertisements, directing our attention to the rhetoric appeals. We are learning to keep the audience in mind; and although we should feed off of what the ad shows us, we are learning to investigate what it does not. From the print to the colors down to the font size we consider the immense amount of detail, or lack of. I figure while we are rhetorically analyzing these ads in the classroom, why not practice some more.

This is a McDonald's ad as you can see. If you look at the colors of the clothing and even the lighting in the picture, you can infer that this is an old advertisement. Also, if you look closely, the father's pants start to open up wide in the end which you can also infer are bell bottoms that were worn in the 70's and 80's. They choose the yellow border because of the feel you get when looking at this ad, happy. But, the yellow is not just applied any way. It serves as a thick border around the picture which I feel emphasizes the good time they are having eating McDonald's. This particular McDonald's ad is appealing to both pathos and logos. Pathos because of the family smiling. You get the sense of togetherness from the "We do it all for you" and "Give our best to your family". Words such as "we" and "you" give a personal feel to any ad because it lets us know they keep customer's interests and feelings in mind.

You may or may not be able to see it but Logos is used in the fine print. It just talks about McDonald's and its pure 100% beef probably leaner than the kind you serve at home. This also can give you the feel that this is somewhat of an old ad because we all know today, the meet McDonald's uses is not the cleanest nor the healthiest, and certainly not leaner than the kind served at home. It further goes on to note McDonald's "perfect french fries and pipin' hot pies" which appeals more to the customer because of the use of alliteration and appealing adjectives.

Is there anything in this ad that you think they purposely left out and why?

Coloring Outside the Lines

I am sitting here reading chapter 7 in our "Rhetoric and Civic Life" book. I am reading about the arrangement and the careful strategies of planning a rhetorical analysis. I am reading that people do not just write papers, they format them incorporating the appropriate style, audience, invention, and rhetorical resources.
It's funny because I used to just freely write; thinking that I could be more effective, and appeal to those who like to "color outside the lines". Now, when I say "coloring outside the lines", I mean taking a chance to be free in hope that it might just make a masterpiece. Most artists' pictures are never clear, clean, or perfectly thought out; they are creative. I figure if I creatively piece experiences together and make it so that anyone could relate, I could create a masterpiece.

This is what famous artists consider fabulous, amazing, opaque, yet very intellectual. This is a famous oil painting from China. One could not really tell what it is, yet they can make it whatever they choose to see. I guess that is the purpose of some artists' artwork. They produce work in which anyone can relate to that do not have a direct message; hence making it what you choose to see.

But I guess this is not art. This is not poetry nor spoken word. I am no story-teller. I want to be an effective communicator and persuader. I want to be an interpreter. I want people to not only hear, but also listen.

Maybe I am crazy for comparing art to writing, but both are masterpieces. Now that I really think about it, both are planned, just planned differently with a different motive. Both have an audience. Comparable to speeches; there are five organizational components that will make a speech successful. I mean maybe artists have components that will draw in buyers and other artists. And maybe it seems like I am rambling or that I being totally contradicting; but really I am typing and at the same time learning: correcting my mistakes along the way but not erasing them. Whether in a paper or on a canvas, "coloring" outside the lines is simply beautiful.

Have you ever had a time in life when being spontaneous (coloring outside the lines) was more effective than being concrete and straight forward or vice versa?

TIB Podcast

http://youtu.be/kVyg_5xbsnc

It's Just a flyer...RIGHT?

I am a part of an organization on campus called Black Student Union and I also serve as one of the executive members. Our purpose is to unify the black community at Penn State, educate Penn State's campus about black history and culture, and provide professional and career oriented resources/opportunities to ensure the success for African American students at Penn State. Although we are a new organization as of this year, we are well-known for the educational and professional programs on this campus. We are also known for our successful events as well as our professionalism on our executive board.

We are having a huge party of the year--something different from the school crap. This is our flyer for our upcoming party. For some reason, a person from another African American organization started to complain about our flyer saying it is too provocative and unprofessional. Also that it sends a message contradictory to our org's purpose. I automatically figured "this girl is just trying to make something out of nothing". A lot of people like the flyer, PLUS I see no reason to change it because of one person's opinion. I figure, just don't go to the freakn party; it's just a flyer...right?! My Exec board and I spoke more about it on the text group we have. I thought everyone would agree, however; few thought that if it was her opinion than it could be someone else's and we do not want to give others the wrong message. They argued that even in a time of fun, we still need to keep our professionalism.

Still I think it is just a flyer and did not understand the controversy. The girl is only showing a little cleavage and don't females dress like this when they go out anyway; making our party more attractive and enticing. Now if this girl were not on it, I do not think the outcome of the party will be as significant as if it had the female on it. Now, I don't believe in degrading women. But, I do not think accepting this flyer says I do. I figure even if we do change it, people will still say, "yo did you see that flyer BSU had up...they took it down but it was inappropriate." People are going to talk whether you change or stay the same. Am I being blind just because I want a bigger turnout, or was that girl from the other Org getting somewhere? It's just a flyer...RIGHT?!

Monsters and Flowers

When you watch the news, what appeals more to you: the negativity or the positivity? Personally, I would rather listen to how and why someone is on trial than where someone is planting a new garden to assist in the "let's go green" movement. Why is this? Society feeds off of negative energy. We like to engage in activities that excite and stimulate us. We enjoy having something to talk about and, after a while, the "going green movement" gets boring.

I say all of this because I wanted to take a moment and touch on how media portrays situations, events, and people through the media. More specifically as it relates closely to us Penn State students, I wanted to discuss the manner in which us students were portrayed through media when we found out Joe Pa was fired.

When I was watching the news after everything happened, I only recall seeing students screaming and rioting. I only saw the cops macing the crowds of the "uncontrollable" students. More unforgettably, the flipping of the news van. It is funny how the News captured that aspect of the student's effects. Now, I was there (not participating, but observing) and I remember everything; not just what I wanted to remember. I remember the PROTEST because that is how it started. I remember the students just walking in the streets crying in sympathy for Joe. And what will never slip my mind is how the football team stood at the corner of Beaver sulking because they could not shake their coach's hand for the last time before the big game. Of course the reporters did not capture those moments because they want to sell "a" story and not "the" story; and negativity sells. And as soon as the calm, open talks at Old Main turned into crazy riots, you saw the journalists running in excitement with a pen and pad to capture it "all" on paper. It is hilarious because they sold the story all over ABC NEWS and FOX NEWS, and every other channel they could get it on; and the public bought it.

Rhetoric and Civic Life

Rhetoric is beauty. Rhetoric is the key to communicating effectively, and communication is beautiful. According to dictionary.com, rhetoric is: the ability to use language effectively. What is communication if it is not effective? I believe it is just words. The way in which people write things can determine how it can be understood. Incorporating pathos, logos, and ethos are strategies people utilize to draw others in to what is being said. Or it can be to persuade someone to partake in certain activities or feel a particular feeling. Advertisements are a perfect example. Most use emotion and logic (facts) to get the public to believe and buy into a product. That is why Rhetoric is power. If used effectively, it can have an empowering effect or a negative impact. Rhetoric has the capability to make you buy a product, adopt a practice, live a certain life, or change what you believe in. Rhetoric comes in different forms. It is especially popular in music. The way songs are put together, song writers persuade us to dance a certain way, dress in a specific manner, and even make us believe that only if we follow suite, we can be as prominent as them. I can even attest that I feed into their language. I have fallen into materialism because they convince me it will reflect a more cunning image, when in reality it shows insecurities. I believe rhetoric correlates with the audience. If your audience is interested in your language than they will be more interested in being persuaded to do something. How else does rhetoric tie in to civic life, and why do you think we use rhetoric strategically rather than accidentally? Do you think that if there was no interest from an intended audience that language can be persuasive, and inturn effective? What ways in society do we use it besides in writing? Lastly, how do you use rhetoric to effectively communicate in your life? I ask this because the way you use rhetoric can be the difference between landing a huge corporate deal or failing in your attempt. Rhetoric is simply effective communication. If you can communicate effectively, you can network. If you network with the right people, life-changing opportunities will arise.