Introduction

As much as people complain about have to write papers and making speeches, there is not any other assignment that can help prepare people for their futures as much as essays and speeches. In modern society, nothing is more important than communication skills. These skills can only be honed through writing and public speaking. The ability to communicate is something that can separate the successful from the unsuccessful, the employed from the unemployed. Although today's modern society puts value on fast, short communication, rhetoric, pathos, logos, ethos, kairos, and exigence are more important than ever. Rhetoric allows people to do the three most important types of discourse: inform, motivate or persuade. Pathos can be especially helpful, as it appeals to a person’s emotions.  Logos appeals to logic.  If an argument does not make sense, it is not likely that anyone will agree with it. Ethos refers to the trustworthiness or credibility of a writer or speaker.  Without tone and style, ethos hardly exists.  Even if the argument is sound, if the audience does not trust the writer or speaker, the argument is pointless. Kairos is a word meaning the right or opportune moment. Possessing a skill like this can make an argument stronger, but it could also make it worse. Lastly, exigence is the reason discourse even happens, as it is the issue, problem or situation that causes someone to speak.  The job market is competitive and the more skills someone can demonstrate, the more likely they are to be successful.   

Communication is vital to any career path one chooses.  Effective communication can only occur through intelligent discourse, and by having control of these different elements, especially when it comes to writing and public speaking, success is not far off.

Link to Keirstyn Marcucci's e-Portfolio

What I've Learned

For our last post, I decided to stay away from what we did in class or read in the book. I thought it would be more appropriate to make this reflective.

Personally, I feel I learned a lot this semester in LA 101 H, and I don't just mean in terms of "rhetoric" either. Yes, I learned the definitions of pathos, ethos, logos, exigence, along with many other things, but I learned that applying to rhetoric is not all that easy.

The class also let me learn a lot more about the things I love, remember times that I loved, and taught me that sometimes, things may not be great, but work through them and you can have a really awesome project that you're extremely proud of.

I got to write weekly blogs about the place that I grew up and love, and for me, it made me a little less homesick.

I got to talk about how I developed a relationship with the most important man in my life, my step-dad, in my "This I Believe."

I gave and speech and wrote an essay on the place that makes me happiest, Disney World, and share some of my love and excitement about that magical place with the entire class.

I got to make a 10 minute media project on Photoshop, and how it's negative effects are causing an increase in eating disorders, something that I truly care about and have experienced myself (shout out to Molly, we're finally done!)

And next I get to write an essay and give a speech about something I love, the arts.

This class has basically allowed me to talk and write about everything I care about. It's given me the chance to find out so much about my classmates too. What's important to them, their hobbies, and I'll always remember the day we told our awkward moments for the question of the day.

The Media

We've all been there, just sitting on the couch watching some TV,  wishing the commercials were over. Then suddenly you hear "in the arms, of an angel," with the cutest little dog.

I don't know about you, but I reach for the remote as fast as humanly possible and change the channel. I can't tell you the amount of times I've cried watching that commercial, it's like two minutes straight out of hell... but with cute, sad looking animals.

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad. I myself own the world's cutest dog (please, there is no use in arguing with me, I know it's true).  But after doing our projects on ad analysis, I've started to view the commercial as a ploy.  I don't think anyone can really argue that it doesn't draw on pathos... unless you hate animals I guess.

In a way, it's kind of awful that companies abuse these types of images and songs, which draw highly on emotion. Yes, it may be for the greater cause of getting donations, but in a way companies like SPCA are exploiting the animals they are showing.

This led me to think about if the commercial is actually effective.  Yes, our hearts bleed for these animals, but how many people have actually picked up the phone or gone on the computer to donate money? Most of us haven't.

Is it okay for a commercial to use techniques like this solely to bring in money, even if it is for the animal's own good?

Another example of this is the KONY12 video. The video draws on pathos, just like the SPCA commercial.  Millions of people posted about the KONY12 video, but no one actually did anything to solve the problem, a problem that has been going on for years.

We feel awful about these problems, but do nothing to stop it, so is really necessary for these commercials and videos to be made? It doesn't seem like it.

Rhetoric in Music

So it's no secret to a lot of people, even people that I hardly know, that I'm obsessed with country music. I guess I understand why people don't like it, it has very hick tendencies.

But when you put that aside, it really does tell a story. Some are about breakups, some are about marriage, children, drinking beer. Name anything along those lines and there is probably a song about it.

Something that a lot of these songs do are make an argument. They do not necessarily occur in duet form either. Singers sing about trying to convince their ex boy or girlfriend to take them back, or list the reasons why they're wrong, or try to persuade other's to do what they want.

Yes, the songs that focus on these types of persuasive arguments tend to be sad, but they're amazing. Someone especially known for music people can relate to is none other than Taylor Swift. Although I don't consider her country, for some reason that's the branch of music she falls under.

Her songs list the reasons as to why relationships failed, why they worked, or why they should just try them again. They're powerful songs too. She evokes an emotional response without really doing much of anything other than writing down the words in her head. Yet she's amazing at getting those emotions--and those arguments down.  She calls on pathos to help her audience, and the person she is specifically singing to, understand where she is coming from.

She's not the only one that does this though.  Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood's duet "Remind Me" also appeals highly to emotions.  The words, the voices, the music make the song drip with pathos. Not only does create emotions between those singing, but even to other people listening. The song makes you think of the past, and remember things that you sometimes try to forgot (plus they're both beautiful, why wouldn't you want to listen... like seriously take a look at Carrie Underwood).

If you don't fall for Taylor, Brad or Carrie, there has to be something wrong with you.  Because, believe me, if someone was singing those same songs to me, I'd take them back in a heartbeat.

A Little More on Controversy

As I struggled to come up with something to write about this week, I realized that all that I could think about when the topic of LA101H came up was controversy.

I definitely did not think it would be hard to think of a topic for our project.  It was hard to think of something that everyone could really agree was a controversy.  While debating topics with my group, it got me thinking: what exactly defines a controversy?

Dictionary.com defines it as "a prolonged public dispute, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So something that the media really harps on; turn on the news and there are ton of these. The second definition was "contention, strife, or argument." This definition basically says it can be anything a person does not agree with.

To me it seems as if these two definitions clash. One says it must be a focus of public dispute, but the other just says it has to just be one simple argument.  I also think that when it comes to public controversies, most people strongly stand on one side; there is less middle ground.

But isn't controversy partially in the eye of the beholder?  Who says that just because one person is offended by something that others will agree? How do controversies really begin?

For some reason, I can't seem to think up any good reasons for these things.  I guess that's part of controversies, they all seem to come out of no where, especially during a year like this: an election year.

I guess part of 2012 will be a constant conversation about controversies about what Democrats vs. Republicans have to say. Although it might not make sense, that just seems to be part of the word.

Controversy is Everywhere

No matter where we are, controversy is all around us. From the littlest things, like if Kim's "marriage" to Kris was real to things that have an effect on the entire nation like the war in Iraq, almost everything done in the public realm turns into some sort of controversy.  The most recent one that seems to be blowing up the news, the internet, Facebook and even Twitter seems to be Obama's birth control mandate.  If you are not familiar with this, here's a clip of him talking about it:

Now I understand that people can be against this. I understand that it is against the beliefs of the Catholic Church.  But I'm sorry, this is a secular society. The church shouldn't have anything to do with it. You heard Obama say it: contraceptives save lives, prevent disease, and save families money. Frankly, more people could benefit from using said contraceptives (yes, I'm talking about you Snooki).

I'm not saying everyone should be for birth control or anything-- you are welcome to have your beliefs and so am I. The point I'm trying to make is that Obama's small decision to mandate something that almost all companies already do created a huge controversy. What is more important than that is the timing. It's an election year, will this hinder him or make him more popular? I think it's a combination of both. He probably gained lots of feminist voters, but may have lost some religious men and women.

It's interesting that such small decisions have the ability to create so much talk. Personally, I think it was a smart step for Obama. In the middle of all of the Republican primaries you really are not hearing too much about Obama. With all of the focus on the Republican party, Obama needed something to get the news talking about him once again. I think he might have done this better than ever expected. A topic like this causes people to take sides, something that really helps controversy along.

Then again, people like to argue, so anything really can be made into a controversy.

Bad Speeches

I know that I absolutely hate public speaking. So when we were given the speech assignment last week, nothing but nerves filled my body. While giving my speech on Thursday, I was pretty sure my nerves were visible.

I'm sure I wasn't the only one to feel this way. I could overhear many people in the class expressing how nervous they were as well. Well good news, the speeches were great. Everyone knew what they were talking about, picked amazing commercials, made eye contact consistently, and kept good body posture.

Even  if you aren't very confident in your performance, at least you can take pride knowing that you are a better public speaker than our former President, George W. Bush:

Politics aside, George W. Bush is a terrible public speaker. He received harsh criticism from almost everyone for his inability to pronounce words, how often he stumbled on words, and his thick accent, which can be extremely hard to understand. Although you can blame some of this on nerves, President Bush probably should have learned to get rid of them after eight years in office.

He is one of the best examples of what not to do in a speech. In order to be successful when publicy speaking, you must make sure you're confident enough in yourself to keep from letting nerves harm your speech.

The only way to guarentee this confidence is practice, practice and more practice. It is also helpful to know when you plan to make eye contact, move your hands and body, and make sure you do not include any words that may trip you up when the nerves do kick in. If necessary, practice in front of a mirror. That definetly helped me when I prepared for our ad analysis speech. Do whatever it takes to have some confidence in yourself. 

So maybe you aren't able to enstill this confidence in yourself. At least you can take pride in knowing that you're probably a better public speaker than a man that once ran our country.

I love reality TV. All of it. I know that most of it's stupid, but I honestly get a kick out of watching people fight. Whether it's Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiaras, Jerseylicious, Worst Cooks in America-- fights are pretty hilarious, no matter what. Maybe that's just me though.

The interesting thing about these fights is that, in a good majority of them: the people fighting actually listen to what the other is saying... Are these seemingly immature people actually employing some form of rhetoric?

Technically, the aren't really fighting to do anything but make the other person angry, whereas rhetoric is supposed to be used to inform, persuade or motivate an audience to do something, reality show stars usually aren't doing that. But sometimes they do employ ethos.

My favorite of all the reality shows is Dance Moms, a show about, well, dance moms, at a studio called Abby Lee's in Pittsburgh. The children in the show are exceptionally talented, but the mothers are really the focus of the show. No episode is complete without at least one huge fight between the moms or with the instructor, Abby Lee. The moms are out for blood. They don't just attack each other, they bring their children into it. I may not be a mother, but one thing I know is that when you talk about someones kid, they're going to get really mad, and emotions get dragged into it.

Sometimes they even use pathos, and take some swings at each others parenting ability, or attacking their character in some other way. It's just too much to handle. I know that if I were in their position, I would be mad, but watching it I can't help but being entertained.

A recent episode included a same sort of fight, here's a clip:
Dance Moms "Aftermath"

Yes, they yell, but their aware of what the other is saying, which is more than I can say about some political debates. The fights continue week after week and get worse as they progress, yelling always occurs, but they always respond to what the other says. 

They may be mindless fights, but they sure are entertaining.

Put Your Dukes Up

I'll be the first to admit it: I am an awful person to get into an argument with. I'm incredibly stubborn. I really could care less about how other people feel about certain things. I'm aware that saying the above makes me sound like I think I'm entitled, but it's more that I just have very strong opinons.

Somehow I've started to change my ways.  I've started listening more, not yelling over other people, and not saying anything I'll regret when arguing. The more I listen to debates, conversations, fights, etc, I realize that it's important to care about what people have to say. 

This has become especially vital when fighting with the roomie. Don't get me wrong, we get along, but there are some things we just do not see eye to eye on.  Like State Patty's Day for instance.

The rule says ONE person. ONE. Last time I checked, one and seven are not nearly the same thing. So when my roommate nonchalantly asked me if I would "stay somewhere else" that weekend, it got my attention. My first response was to get angry. But I've slowly picked up on the fact that yelling doesn't actually get you anywhere. So I looked up and let her explain her case:

"Because... if you aren't here, then I can pass off one of my friends as you. And then I only have six extra people."

There are pretty much 100 reasons why that wouldn't work, but instead of being sassy and telling her off for how, for lack of a better word, dumb that is, I smiled and explained by reasoning.

First off, none of her friends look like me.  Second, I'm pretty sure if my RA, who happens to be one of my best friends, would realize that "Keirstyn" is, in fact, not me. 

After telling her my obviously logical reasons, she got mad, but never once yelled. We were both angry, but always listened to the other. Eventually she calmed down and apologized, realzing that she was a little bit off base.

I have never had a fight solved so easily before. By keeping control of what I was saying and making sure I listened, it really made it seem like I was interested in how she felt about the situation, which kept her from having further reasons to get mad at me. I didn't yell. I didn't say anything rude. Each of us had our chance to talk and it led to us being able to quickly figure things out.

Using rhetoric can lead to great outcomes. Quicker fights, logical outcomes, no one gets hurt, everyone gets a chance to talk. Although I didn't get her to budge on how many people will be living out of my room State Patty's Day, I did get my bed back. So maybe I'm crossing my fingers that she gets caught and her guests get kicked out, at least I kept it to myself.

I Believe In French Fries On Sandwiches

For LA 101 H, we were required to create a "This I Believe" podcast like NPR does.  I wrote about the time I first bonded with my step-dad at Primanti's and how from that night on, our relationship changed.  Take a listen below!

"You look really Liberal"

I never really thought clothing had too much to do with politics. Well, apparently it does. Supposedly I have this "sort of hipster" thing going on, although that's not how I like to describe myself.  In order for this story to make sense, I guess I have to explain what exactly I was wearing. Today, after waking up 8 minutes before class started, I threw on yoga pants, high socks, military boots, a sweater, fingerless gloves and a necklace. After making my way through two classes, I made my way to Sackett to get ready for my German oral exam.  I greeted my other classmate, who was also studying her note card cautiously. 
"So wanna hear a cool story," I heard Jen (that's what I'll call her for the benefit of story telling) say, "well maybe you won't think it's cool, you're kinda hipster so I mean.. you look really liberal."

"I'm sorry... what?" I replied, not trying to show any emotional response to her seemingly passive aggressive comment.

"Well, I mean, you obviously aren't conservative, and most liberals aren't exactly 'into' politics" she casually responded.

I sat there dumbfounded. Really, liberals don't care about politics? Hmm okay.

"I mean, I am an international politics major.. so I follow everything I can" I snapped. There goes that whole 'not trying to show any emotional response' thing.

"I was at this Republican lunch thing today..." she started her story with and telling me in excruciating detail about how she's about to become "DC's next big sandal" or something like that.  She finished her story with "I guess you wouldn't really understand anything about the republican party though.

Newsflash, I already told you I follow politics. So yeah, I do know a thing or two about the republican party, so I proceeded to tell her: "Actually my parents are republicans, so I've been keeping up with the debates and primary elections."

"Awe, you're in the rebellious period!"

I'm sorry what did you say to me? Because no. I'm not. I've known my political views for a while now. So I told her that. Thank god my professor came and got me before she could even reply to my comment.

This led me to a few questions:
1. How can you possibly guess someones political opinions based on clothing and
2. how did she become so good at belittling a person using rhetoric?

We discussed something similiar to this subject in Geography 124.  Women are judged solely on their clothes. Although what I wear has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, how smart I am or anything of that matter. So lay off what I'm wearing, because I could judge you by your sweatpants, stringy hair, tennis shoes and Vera Bradley backpack, but I have the respect to keep from doing that.  Your terrible personality gave me enough to judge you on.
I think this was the first time since I got to school that I can truly and distinctly remember someone acting like this towards me. When class first started, I couldn't imagine that rhetoric was really used in negative way, it didn't seem like there was anything wrong with it. But today, I became part of a first-hand attack of rhetoric gone bad.  Frankly, I never want to be in that place again.  It makes you feel pretty bad, and I really had no reason to feel that way. It was rude, unnecessary, and maybe she thought she made herself sound really smart, but to me, she just sounded uneducated. 

It wasn't even just the words she used. It was the tone. I think that was the worst part of it. I could tell she was enjoying tearing me down, even though it was completely off base. To me, that's pretty messed up. How could someone enjoy doing that to another person? That's not exactly how I like using rhetoric.

Sorry that you think you're better than everyone because you're a senior, but I could just as easily use rhetoric to belittle you too.  It doesn't make you better than anyone, frankly it just makes you worse.

When Debates Get Out of Hand

I call myself a Democrat, but being an International Politics major, I still have a pretty big interest in politics.  This November will be voting in my FIRST election, and I want to make sure I do it right.  Although I agree with little that the republican candidates have to say, I enjoy watching the debates. In the past week, I have watched two debates, both happening in Florida.  The questions have been so interesting, my personal favorite was when the candidates were asked about a national language, talking about how all of them want English to be the national language, but how Gingrich and Romney are sending out campaign advertisements in Spanish. Check out the responses below:

I think the video makes a good point, and says a lot about rhetoric.  Usually in debates, you see candidates biting each others heads off. But this is one of the few examples where the actually agree. After listening to Gingrich speak, Romney quickly agrees with Gingrich. Hold on to your seat kids, this rarely happens.                                              

I was pretty interesting to see if all debates have been like this, because well, I can’t lie, this is the first week I’m REALLY trying to follow them.  I guess it’s hard to follow something that I’ve never really had any reason to think about before.  So I started doing some research.  During the Iowa debates, which occurred around the Christmas season, show something of the exactly opposite behavior.  Check out this next video:

Republicans' mudslinging turns off voters - Americas - Al Jazeera English

 

So most of the debate has been completely negative.  This just once again proves how modern rhetoric is the dominant type.  No one listens to each other, except when it's convient too.  To me, that doesn't make me want to vote for any of them.  They all need to step back, think about what others are saying, and try to make this election less negative-because in the end, the least negative candidate probably has the best shot at winning.

Rhetoric In Rehearsal

Getting ready for a show in two weeks cannot really be described using any other word than the word hectic.  All of the time we spend together setting up, rehearsing, and tearing down the set has led to a lot of talking—and a lot of debating.  Half of the cast is from Pittsburgh; the other half from Philadelphia. Most of the arguments are about who has better sports teams, if Wawa or Sheetz is better, which city is cleaner, accents, and thousands of other things that don’t even make sense.  No one really even listens to the other talk.  We take sides, yell over each other, and when someone says something rude about the others hometown, we get really offended.  Basically it just becomes a roast of what the other loves.

All of this just demonstrates how rhetoric really is used today.  It’s not about opinions, it’s not about listening, and all we care is saying what we want and not paying any mind to what anyone else has to say.   This also relates to the video what we discussed in class, as the debates demonstrate how we link our opinions to our personalities.  As cliché as it is to say, most of us can dish it out, but few of us can really take it.  As the book says, we no longer use rhetoric or debates to discuss others opinions, or learn new things, we use it as a way to get out our own opinions, without caring at all about what other people have to say.

Although most see rhetoric in a political and negative tone, the recent debates my cast mates have been partaking in has only showed me how rhetoric can really be used in any setting.  Even though most people tend to see rhetoric from a serious viewpoint, it is actually a something that can be used in an entertaining way—and has definitely made the long rehearsals so much better.

Welcome to my blog!

I'm really excited to be in this class!