Lauren Zychowicz's E-portfolio!

Welcome to my portfolio! My name is Lauren Zychowicz and I am an undergraduate student at Penn State. I am currently pursuing a major in Crime, Law, and Justice and a minor in Psychology. My studies at Penn State reflect a preparation for my intended future goal of going to law school and eventually becoming a criminal defense attorney. Although many courses seem follow the routine textbook lecture, I’ve found that my law classes are of a different genre. The law is constantly changing, so textbooks are continuously changed and updated. A lecture on one concept one day might consist of entirely different material the next time it is given. Thus, these classes serve a different purpose: to teach you about the intrinsic skills needed to become a successful lawyer and a general informed citizen. The most meaningful advice I’ve ever been given throughout my courses has been to appreciate the importance of communication. The ability to communicate effectively is essential not only for the success of a lawyer, but also as an individual living in a democratic society. It is through the power of communication that the ability to change laws, beliefs, or customs is attainable. However, effective communication would be lost without the use of rhetoric. Rhetoric allows communication to become persuasive, opinionated, and valuable. It has the capacity to foster the growth of a healthy and civil public discourse. The ability to voice, listen to, or understand an opinion is what makes our society malleable upon progress. As a lawyer, it is essential that I understand how to use rhetoric effectively. The act of voicing my opinion and persuading others to consider my sentiment is the essence of my career. At Penn State, I’ve had the opportunity to really delve into the fundamentals of rhetoric. This portfolio features some of the work I have completed that address the aspects of rhetoric and communication through several different approaches. I encourage you to take a look through some of my blogs, written work, or speeches! Feel free to contact me for more information. Thanks!

Lauren Zychowicz E-Portfolio

Bleh, Research

         Throughout my college career, I’ve had to write numerous research papers. I’m currently even taking a course on social research methods. Conducting or studying research can be somewhat of a burden after countless hours of reading and writing on issues that I don’t even really care about in the first place. Because research has become so customary to my courses, I’ve passed the ideals of research off as another stressor to my life. I’ve never really appreciated research for what it’s worth until the topic came up in our rhetoric and civic life class. Research surprisingly has a lot of parallels to the public rhetoric and arguments that we’ve been discussing all semester. Our text mentions research as a social action. Through research, we are able to consolidate society and base our opinions off of evidence founded by research that addresses our societal ideals. Just as arguments and debate in our society builds off of opinions and justifications, research allows people to form those opinions and uphold their justifications through evidentiary support. Research builds off of existing theories, either supporting or disproving them. In public discourse, we gravitate toward other individuals who hold opinions that support our own, and argue against people who disprove our opinions. Ethical considerations of research also must be taken into consideration. A civil discourse necessitates individuals to share opinions with an open mind, listen to others’ views, and share our faults in forming or supporting our opinions. These considerations can be considered “ethical” in the sense of breeding a civil society. In research, ethical dimensions take a strong importance. While conducting research, I’ve learned that it is necessary to state both sides of an issue, using a literature review to help provide the background for such sides, just as we share and listen to others’ opinions with an open mind. In research, we must respect our sources and the larger society, just as we must respect others’ opinions in a public discourse setting. Most importantly, after conducting research, it is necessary to state whether there are any shortcomings, drawbacks, or unsupported hypotheses, just as we should share the shortcomings of our opinions during a debate. Research and public rhetoric share many commonplaces and parallel each other when considering the larger perspective of society. In addition, they lend themselves to each other: research allows us to support our opinions while engaging in public discourse, while public discourse creates the theories and hypotheses we test while conducting research.

Take a look at this article summarizing the benefits of undergraduate research:
"Undergraduate Research as a High-Impact Student Experience"


Photo courtesy of http://www.patmoslibrary.michlibrary.org/eshelf-research 

Coca-Cola Border Patrol

As we were picking our ads to analyze for our speeches way back in February, I was torn between two: the Xoom which I chose, and a Coca-Cola commercial which aired during the Superbowl this year. I didn’t get a chance to truly analyze the Coca-Cola commercial, so I thought I’d choose this week’s post to analyze that ad!

Within the first few seconds of watching the commercial, you automatically get the feeling of “two distinct sides pitted against each other”. You have one man in red protecting his side of the border and another man in blue protecting his. The two men are grumpy, stiff, and definitely do not like each other. Then, we see a little piece of paper fly from one side of the border to the other, thus getting both men extremely worked-up over it. Finally, the red man opens up a Coca-Cola bottle and we see the blue man become intrigued by it, sending the message that he wants one too. The red man notices this gesture, sympathizes, and attempts to share a Coke with the man dressed in blue.. He primarily attempts to hand the Coke over the “border”, but then the two decide it would be better to keep it concealed and pass the Coke under the border, ultimately erasing the traces of this arrangement.

After watching the commercial, my mind went straight to how Coca-Cola is using its commercial as a reflection of our own society. Immediately, the red and blue color contrast seems to address the political polarization we see in our democracy. The two men are placed in a desert where there is ultimately no people, no buildings, or nearly anything around. Further, there is no dialogue or conversation, just a droning musical score. Yet, the two men are pitted against each other for what seems to be no apparent reason. A little paper crosses the border, and the two men become distraught by it. Coca-Cola may be suggesting how pointless this polarization is and how people are going against each other for no valid reason. Finally, the climax of the commercial appears as the red man shares a Coke with the blue man. The two men find a way to pass the Coke successfully under the border, without crossing it “illegally”. Lastly, we watch the two men enjoy their coke, each other, and then snap back into reality and assume their pitted positions once again. Coke’s message in the larger perspective seems to propose that its soda can bring people together no matter how different they are. Coke is the catalyst to friendship and enjoyment; it acts as a common ground. Because we see the men return to their designated positions even after enjoying their drink, Coca-Cola suggests that our society may never change completely, but buying Coke is the first step toward accomplishing civility. 

Tin Soldiers and Nixon Coming...

         After discussing the components of visual rhetoric in class and reading a chapter on the subject equivalent to the length of War and Peace, I feel as though I have gained an understanding of what makes a visual aesthetically pleasing, lasting, and rhetorically effective. Visual rhetoric is just like verbal discourse—it conveys an argument or message persuasively by using the elements of ethos, logos, and pathos, however, solely using and manipulating images or text. Visuals help people to internalize the issue since the analysis of visuals varies considerably upon the interpretation of the viewer. Understanding the underlying message of a visual is not as simple as it could be deduced from hearing a speech directly; you have to infer the message for yourself based upon what you interpret the meaning of the image to be. Why do some images automatically convey the same message to people? What constitutes an “iconic image”? In class, we looked at a few examples of famous images that mostly everyone was probably familiar with. In my opinion, images become iconic when each viewer can interpret the same meaning from the picture. For some reason, this image stands out and makes a lasting impact on the viewer. Iconic images do not rely solely on their explicit underlying message to impact the viewer, they use a strong sense of rhetorical elements, like pathos, to help the viewer connect directly with the image, and thus internalize the same emotion felt by the subject of the photograph. In this sense, the iconic image takes advantage of the kairos represented by the picture, and allows the viewer to feel as though they were there at the time the photograph was taken. In my experience, iconic images always seem to appeal to pathos, capturing an emotion that was felt at the time the picture was taken. Let’s take a look at some examples:

This image is extremely iconic not only because of its historical background, but because of the strong emotion felt by the woman behind a dead student on the ground. This Pulitzer Prize winning photograph was taken during the Kent State shootings in 1970. The appeal to pathos in this photograph is overt. The agony felt by Mary Ann Vecchio standing over Jeffrey Miller is extremely authentic. Thus, we as viewers can internalize this emotion and almost feel the agony for ourselves.

Let’s take a look at another iconic image that goes along the lines of Vietnam War protest, however is portrayed in a completely different light:

This image is from Woodstock in 1969. Amongst the other iconic images of Woodstock, this one really strikes me. In the background, we see people sleeping in blankets and trash scattered everywhere on the mud-laden ground. In the middle of the photograph is a couple embracing amongst the unfortunate conditions of the festival portrayed behind them. Their embrace, and the image depicting it, represents what Woodstock’s message was all about—peace, love, and happiness.

Finally, let’s take a look at another iconic image:

In this photograph, Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine, is captured walking into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. This image is extremely striking to me. The image portrays the bravery of Elizabeth Eckford as she walks into the school despite the crowd of white protestors yelling at her from behind. I don’t know about you, but my view automatically centers on the white woman directly behind Elizabeth screaming in outrage. This is another palpable appeal to pathos—the expression of the white woman versus that of Elizabeth describes the kairos of the Civil Rights Movement and the struggles faced by African Americans toward events that seem so trivial to us now—such as simply walking to school. 

Images courtesy of: the-reaction.blogspot.com, articlesnydailynews.com, amcop.blogspot.com

Google's Crisis Response Page

            When national disasters occur that impact the lives of millions of people, it is instinctive to observe the reactions from our families, our peers, our news stations, our President, and our world as a whole in order to form an opinion or gain awareness about the disaster. As the crisis in Japan continues to escalate following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, many people have offered their reactions and help to those suffering from this disaster. Like most people upon hearing a disaster of this nature, I turned to Google to type in “Earthquake in Japan” into the search bar to gain information about what was happening across the world. Before I even pressed “search”, something caught my eye that was more appealing than the countless articles offering the author’s two cents that would have appeared on the second page. Under the Google search bar was a sentence exclaiming that an earthquake had struck Japan and that more information would be available by following the link to the Google Crisis Response page. I assume that for most people, Google is habitually used as a catalyst for obtaining the latest information about a catastrophic current event. Never have I used Google itself as a source for obtaining such information. I followed the link to check out Google’s awareness efforts. What I found was an abundance of logos, ethos, and pathos splashed across their headlines.

            As an appeal to logos, Google used (and is still using) the most up-to-date statistics on the magnitude of the earthquake, the death toll, the number of missing people, and more. Like any source reporting a natural disaster, statistical use is necessary and crucial to raise awareness about the destruction the natural disaster has caused. Thus, I was not particularly surprised by their abundance of statistics. However, what really shocked me about Google’s Response page was their ethos. Google’s page efficiently allows people to do what they can to help. Google provides telephone numbers to consult about missing people, designates spaces for people to offer donations, and displays other resourceful information such as shelter residents, radiation and health information, transportation statuses, and Japanese translations of their Crisis Response page. You can also access their “person finder” to help with those suffering from missed family or friends in Japan. Google really outdid it this time. By allowing people to easily and effectively engage in relief efforts, the credibility I had already given Google has soared. Finally, Google uses pictures of the disaster and emotional responses as an appeal to pathos and to allow for people to grasp the extent of the disaster and thus subsequently offer their help through donations and the like. By using appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos, Google uses rhetoric to effectively relay the situational crisis facing Japan and to help people gain awareness in an effort to offer support to those suffering. To say the least, I applaud Google for their efforts!

Check out Google’s Crisis Response Page:

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html

When Public Discourse "Crosses The Line"

           Today, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8:1 decision that anti-gay protests and picketing at military funerals is protected by the First Amendment as a form of public discourse. Those of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas have subjected the nation to major debate and controversy surrounding their radical protests at funerals for their extreme stances against homosexuality. We know protests are forms of free speech, protected by the First Amendment, but are the Westboro Baptist Church members crossing the line from free speech to illegal activity? Chief Justice John Roberts holds that Westboro’s protests relate to the public, and not private matters, which thus is a matter of public and political discourse. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. has a different opinion. He was the only person in the Supreme Court to object against Westboro’s protests. Obscene language is not protected by the First Amendment and Alito suggests that the Westboro Baptist Church uses personally painful and publicly offensive language during their protests. The debate with this issue plays upon the matters of when to restrict political and public discourse, and when that speech is “crossing the line”. John Roberts contends that once you start banning offensive speech, you start banning other forms of speech until you lose the rights protected by the First Amendment—a fundamental right of being an American citizen.

            Being a student as a Crime, Law, and Justice major, you’d think that I would have agreed with the ruling toward the First Amendment’s protection on “political” protests. However, I honestly think this is completely absurd. An 8:1 ruling? One dissenter? I first watched a video about the Westboro Baptist Church about two years ago and I was blown away by it. HOW CAN YOU PROTEST AT SOMEONE’S FUNERAL? Are they kidding? Talk about a lack of morality and concern for fellow American citizenry. The Constitution is the foundation of American law and the larger American society in general. The Westboro protests are held at funerals of military soldiers who DIED FOR OUR COUNTRY, and yet, the Constitution is allowing the protestors to call this American hero a “homosexual” and that “he deserved to die”. It simply is too contradictory to be realistic. Personally, I do not think that protests are forms of public discourse. Public discourse is about sharing your opinions in a responsible and civil manner, allowing for the growth of our democracy in a healthy way. I think that the Westboro protests are offensive, insensitive, and do not add anything to the progression of our civilization. Yes, everyone should be entitled to free speech. However, if the free speech publicly subjects others to the degree of personal hurt that the family members attending the funeral must feel, I absolutely think that it crosses the line for protection by the Constitution.

How Far Can You Take Your Opinion?

            The Indiana Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Cox, was recently fired for comments he made on his Twitter last week. He suggested that Wisconsin police should use deadly force when dealing with protestors. He also stated how a “black teenager was ‘deservedly’ beaten up by police”. When questioned about his comments, Cox said that his posts were meant to be political satire and that they shouldn’t have been taken literally. Obviously, his remarks were extreme and uncalled for and he knew that he would be getting many people upset by his remarks. Although I recognize the obscenity with respect to his comments, I do have to wonder if he should have been fired from his job. Twitter is a public website, and each “tweeting” person has their own personal account. Should someone not be able to share their own personal views on a website like this? Cox was engaging in free speech and political discourse (which he said was satirically based—but I find that hard to believe), and as a result, was fired from his job. If you’re in an elected position, should you limit and censor your opinion? Engaging in public discourse is key to the rhetorical process of civility. If everyone is limiting their opinions so that they can uphold approval from society, will our democracy go anywhere?

             Cox fired back toward those outraged by his remarks by asking if public employees maintain their First Amendment (free speech) rights once hired by the government. He brings up a good point. If an everyday citizen were to tweet such views, they may spark heavy debate amongst their followers, however, in no such way would their personal life, such as holding a job, be condemned. Just because Cox is an elected official, he is limited to engaging in public discourse. Obviously, sharing such views may threaten his overall reputation, however, was it fair that he was actually fired from his job because of this? Again, I know this is an extreme example and many people would not share such opinions by “tweeting” them, however, I do think this is an interesting debate that goes unnoticed most of the time.

What do you think?

See the article for yourself here: 

 http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/24/indiana-deputy-attorney-general-jeff-cox-fired-over-threatening/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C46454

At Least I Know Three Words In Greek....

           We’ve been talking a lot about the appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos, so I figured it’d be appropriate to use this post as a further discussion of each. All three approaches can be used in writing, speeches, or anything else where rhetoric is involved. The commonality between them lies in their effectiveness. Ethos, logos, and pathos all lend themselves to making the writing or speech more credible, useful, and relevant. In general, they all help the reader or listener get a more substantive and enjoyable experience by allowing the writing or speech to successfully permit the implied or underlying message to become readily appreciated by the audience. If we rewind back to January of 2009, one of the most important days in history came alive. Yes—the first African American president was sworn into office as the 44^th President of the United States. Again, that was back in 2009. Since then, I’ve become more familiar with ethos, logos, and pathos, so I decided to look at Obama’s inaugural speech to see its various appeals to each, if any. Now, obviously, we recognize Obama as a brilliant rhetor so I expected to see each appeal conveyed effectively throughout his speech. I was right—in the first two minutes of the speech, all three appeals were already distinguished. Let’s take a look at the first two minutes:

            The first thing I enjoyed about this speech was his opening sentence with “my fellow citizens”; this automatically sets the distance between Obama and his audience in a way that suggests that we are “one”. As the speech continues, Obama emphasizes certain words that suggest honorific language as an appeal to pathos. He states he is “humbled by the task before us”, “grateful for the trust you’ve bestowed”, and other words such as “mindful”, “cooperation”, “prosperity”, and “peace”. These words allow the audience to embody and feel these values as an emotional output. In contrast, Obama uses pejorative words such as “crisis”, “violence”, and “hatred” when talking about the war. These words allow for strong emotional responses that effectively communicate toward the audience. Obama can use this emotional appeal to get the American audience to grasp, “hey, this is something bad and maybe it’s about time we end this war,” whether you are a Democrat or Republican listening to the speech.

            In addition to a strong sense of pathos, Obama also uses some logos to get the audience to understand and listen to what he has to say. Obama uses reason when he says that the “economy is badly weakened”, “lives have been lost”, “homes have been shattered”,  “health care is too costly”, and that “the way we use energy threatens our planet”. These facts allow the audience to fathom Obama’s underlying logic that, yes, something needs to be changed (and that the change will come with Obama!). He also states that these are all “indicators of prices subject to data and statistics”. The use of facts and statistics are a main component of logos, and Obama effectively conveys them.

            Any person analyzing an Obama speech would have a difficult time excluding his appeal to ethos. I think this is one of Obama’s strongest abilities and is, in my opinion, the reason he is considered to be such an intelligent rhetor. As discussed in class, ethos is composed of competence, likeability, integrity, and confidence. Obama’s likeability is hard to ignore; I especially get a sense of his amicable personality when he uses the second person, such as: “I say to you”, to allow the audience to get a sense of a closer and more personal relationship to him. Obama’s integrity and honesty is evident when he states that the “challenges we face are real” and that they are “serious” and “cannot be solved in a short amount of time.” However, while recognizing this, Obama comes back with competence and confidence during his final sentence from this clip when stating: “know this America—they will be met!”. Obama is capable of taking on these challenges, and is assured that he can overcome them. 

Well, That's New...

            As we were ending class today, the Chrysler 200 Superbowl Ad came into discussion. However, we didn’t have time for the actual discussion part, just the showing of the commercial itself. Therefore, I figured I’d use this post to talk about probably one of the most effective ads the Superbowl had to offer this year. This commercial aired during the third quarter, which is the prime spot for a Superbowl ad to take place. Since everyone is done eating and catching up with friends at this point, the population is at its most attentive phase, not to mention that everyone is tuning in to who actually has the upper-hand on the game since the fourth quarter is rapidly approaching. Even if you were not watching the commercials, the opening sequence of this Chrysler ad was bound to get your attention. It opens with the narrator voicing: “I’ve got a question for you”. Already, the narrator sets the level of closeness between the commercial, himself, and the audience through the use of second-person narrative. Further in the sequence, the narrator uses the term “we” several times to infer that he and the population are one single entity, bound by something in common. What is the commonality they designate? America. It makes sense, really. With a population tuned into that which embodies an Americanized sport—football—the audience is bound to relate.  As the commercial continues, backdrops of industry machinery and city buildings are juxtaposed with patriotic emblems such as American flags and ordinary-looking American citizens. The color scheme is dark and dismal, and the feel of the commercial is grainy and unsteady, adding to the industrious scheme radiating off the advertisement.

            After establishing that the city is in fact Detroit, the narrator makes a direct comment toward the city saying that it’s been “to Hell and back”. This is the first reference to not only Detroit as a city, but also to its Detroit-based automotive company disasters such as General Motors and Chrysler itself. Cue the pathos. As the commercial continues, images of a fist, statues, and murals of working men are simultaneously shown with the narrator using words such as “heart of steel” and “hardworking”. With this, the representation of Detroit as a city of strength, capability, and creationism is overwhelmingly apparent. Cue the ethos. Not only is the narrator referencing Detroit, he is referencing America as a country and what potential it has to build and grow luxury. That’s when Eminem comes into the scene driving the new Chrysler 200. Eminem grew up in Detroit, so his ethos is incredibly obvious for this particular matter. Further, the narrator states how Detroit is nothing like New York City or Chicago—it is the “motor city”; automotive making is what the city does best. After Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” beat subsides, a chorus is shown singing in a theatre as Eminem walks in. Their voices are rising, and they are full of vitality. I took this to represent Detroit’s rising comeback, not to mention Chrysler as well with the production of this new model. One last time, the audience is connected directly with the commercial as Eminem points to the camera and says “This is the motor city. And this is what we do”.

            The ethos throughout the commercial continues to build until the end. Not only is the use of Eminem effective, the concept behind Detroit as “hard-working” and as the archetype “motor city” doing what it does best, successfully adds to Detroit’s credibility and character. Even though this was essentially an ad to promote the Chrysler 200, none of the features of the new model were shown besides its exterior. Thus, the ad was aimed more towards promoting the capability of Detroit’s auto industry in a heart-provoking and authentic way. The message of the commercial left me with an essence of pride in not only Detroit and what it has to offer, but what America has to offer as well. It’s time for us to regain our trust in the ability of American industry. Was the commercial effective? I’d say so. Cue the logos. Apparently Chrysler is leading the Sales Demand Index currently, going from 100 to 773 from January to February 7^th.

All this for a two minute commercial? Well done, Chrysler!

"I Want a Wife"

           This week for class we read Chapter 5: Understanding the Rhetorical Situation in our text. As I went through the reading, the whole “exigence” concept and how rhetorical discourse can improve or change political, social, or emotional problems seemed to take the main focus of the chapter. In one part of the discussion, the text implemented Judy Brady’s essay entitled, “I Want a Wife” (page 106 in the older-version of the text). Needless to say, this essay really struck me on both a political and emotional standpoint, as well as a rhetorical standpoint. Although many people might grasp the concept of the societal and domestic roles of females, Brady explicitly states all of the assumptions and expectations that being a wife entails. Therefore, this essay is effectively and rhetorically strong.

            After my first reading of the essay, my cognitions were that of both realization and agreement. Every statement that Brady makes about what a wife should and should not do seemed to agree with my stereotyped expectations of what the “perfect wife” is. The tone of this essay is that of reality and sarcasm. Brady conveys the reality of the situation by explicitly stating the expectations of wives. Her use of sarcasm precedes and indicates her opinions against these roles and her support for their changes. Further, on a more personal level from a daughter’s standpoint, the wife that Brady describes seems similar to that of my mom. I always knew she was a super-mom, but man, did she really fit these descriptions! Although this may be flattering to mothers (and wives) who really try to be the best, Brady emphasizes a rhetorical exigence that underlies the message of this essay. As stated in the text, a rhetorical exigence is a problem. This problem can be political, social, emotional, etc., as long as it can be discussed and resolved through discourse. Brady’s essay is her way of using discourse aimed at the exigence of female-stereotyped roles and expectations. Even by reading the essay and realizing that nearly every sentence is a husband’s view of a perfect wife, you can tell that something needs to be changed. Societal roles are often overlooked, and I think that Brady’s purpose towards the audience was to get them to explicitly realize the problem at hand, and to start making independent action towards improvement. At least I can say that her aim worked for me, allowing me to realize just how hard my mom works to keep our family together!

            Further discussion: This essay was written in the 1970s. Do you think any change has occurred in these expectations? Or are they basically the same as they were back then?

Image courtesy of http://carlislehistory.dickinson.edu/wp-content/uploads/hswf.gif

I Believe in Tradition Podcast

http://www.zshare.net/audio/86045989b204d343/

Saturday Night Live: A Satirical Response to "Embracing Civility"

       Following my last blog post on the negative effects of political rhetoric, Saturday Night Live preformed a skit which enhanced my discussion on the subject by taking jabs at the rhetoric used by Fox News. Since this is such a heated topic on the current political front, I thought that I’d supplement by adding SNL’s take on the use of civil discourse in politics. My last blog post framed the question—do you think a renewal of civility could ever be achieved in reality? The answer to this question came through the use of the obvious satire employed by the SNL cast. The video is essentially a spoof of Fox News trying to tone down their political rhetoric and embrace “civility” into their network. In the beginning of the skit, Kristen Wiig (who plays Fox News host Greta Van Susteren) takes on an obvious satirical approach to the newscast attempting to “put aside heated rhetoric when discussing political viewpoints”. Right away, the notion of any restoration of civility into our society is framed as, simply, a big joke. If it only took about one day for SNL to fire a mockery against the view of “embracing civility”, my question has been answered. In reality, honest civility cannot and will not ever be attained in America. The skit continues as the cast tries to euphemize the word “job-killing” and fails horribly (and humorously) to do so. Finally, at the end of the skit, an answer to why the notion of “embracing civility” may never work in society is presumed. Fox invidiously introduces CNN’s James Carville (played by Bill Hader) and instantly, civility is diminished. James enthusiastically announces to the cast his day, which is filled with some of the primarily democratic ideologies such as the legalization of gay marriage and free x-rays under Obama’s healthcare plan. The Fox News cast, who has been stated to be conservatively biased in the past, becomes obviously agitated in reaction to each statement, suggesting that our political spectrums (and the media that employs them) may just be too polarized to ever reach a civil consensus. 

Obama Calls For a More Civil and Honest Public Discourse

            Following the Arizona shooting, much debate has transpired involving the potentially harmful effects of political rhetoric. It is not a surprise that our nation has become polarized due to increasing media attention and thus, the familiarity with political activists. In addition, the subsequent plotting of the parties against one another has become a standard. Because of this, our nation has started to shift away from honest public discourse towards that of harsh political debate centered on attacking one side of the political spectrum or the other.

            In response to the Arizona shooting, Obama took the time to speak directly on this issue, stating that our nation is in need of a healthier civic life. To Obama, a healthier civic life includes improving our democracy by listening to each other more carefully and allowing for humility. During Obama’s tribute to the victims of the shooting, he suggested, "At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -- at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -- it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds” (watch the video of Obama’s speech here-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmXQDIGA).

              Like our text for class exclaims, learning the value of rhetoric is beneficial to improving our citizenship and our personal lives. Rhetoric and discourse also include learning the strength of being open-minded to other’s opinions and allowing for healthy debate and compromise without attacking the other person or party. As Obama agrees, a renewal of our civility can lead to an improved citizenship and nonetheless, an improved democracy. Do you think this could ever be achieved in reality?