How Do We Get People To Vote?

And now, I present to you, a case of society failing to engage its citizens civically.

As most of us know, last Tuesday was Election Day. This was a very important election for the state of Pennsylvania, where a gubernatorial race occurred that saw the incumbent governor, Tom Corbett, deposed by newcomer Tom Wolf. This Battle of the Toms was not the only important political event that happened on Tuesday, though. The GOP took control over the U.S. Senate, and kept its hold over the House of Representatives. This is sure to change the way that the remaining two years of President Obama's final term play out.

With momentous occasions such as these occurring, you would expect many people to get out and vote to support their favored party or candidate. Sadly, you would be wrong. In fact, the voter turnout last Tuesday was the lowest it has been since WWII. While the linked article makes the argument that this may be due to recent voting restrictions passed in certain states (which I could write an entirely new article about), most of the lack of turnout can safely be attributed to political apathy. Apathy, especially with young people, is strong--even moreso during midterm elections such as this year's. Not only do younger people vote less than older age brackets, they also tend to not care about politics in general. I know that I experienced a lot of political apathy on Election Day. I heard people complaining about any sort of political talk happening at all.

This apathy is obviously a problem; how can our population be accurately represented if not even half of us go out and vote in early November? This is a problem that many campaigns try--and fail--to solve every year. Obviously, there needs to be some rhetorical change made in our strategies. Maybe teachers can help kids register to vote in their high school government classes? How about adding direct incentives? If you guys have any thoughts, let me know in the comments.

The Danger Of A Single Story: My Response

Here is a link to the video if you haven't watched it yet:



In this talk, Adichie talks about how most people seem to fit those of other demographic groups into a single, one-size-fits-all mold. She used very good examples about her experience at an American university, where Adichie herself broke this mold many times over. Many of the students--and even professors--had only one image of an African person that they would accept: poor, uneducated, probably starving, and so on. Adichie was very intelligent, in good health, and, for all intents and purposes, very "un-African". One example of this simple story that Americans are subscribed to is when her professor critiqued a novel of hers set in Africa for the characters not being "African" enough. In his mind, they should have all been impoverished and hungry; in her book, Adichie made the characters relatively middle class, driving cars and conducting business.

When she referenced this single story, I realized that--while I would like to think that it is not to the extent of most Americans--I am subscribed to this same story as well. I like to consider myself open-minded, but I still often find myself passing judgement on someone just because of some social group that they fall into. This is especially apparent when I think about entire countries. It is hard as an outsider to not think of them as a singular entity. I often forget to wrap my head around the fact that, no, they aren't just "Canadians", but 35 million living and breathing individuals--each with their own thoughts, ideas, emotions and values. I feel like the reason we blanket large groups under one single story is because being completely open-minded is HARD. Stereotyping people is easy, and you can skip the huge step of actually analyzing a person by subscribing to a single story that represents everyone in their group.

From now on, I will make sure to remember that no matter how much truth there is to a stereotype or story, there will always be little quirks and outliers that I need to take into account. Not every McDonald's employee is unskilled or unintelligent. Not every Brazilian is a crazy party-animal. Not every computer programmer is a socially-incapable geek. Not every story is the sole story you should believe.

Remaining Mindful

All of this talk about TED Talks in class made me look back on the many that I have watched over the years. I was reminded of my favorite TED Talk--one that has been pretty influential in my life. It is a lecture by Andy Puddicombe on the nature of mindfulness meditation.


In middle and high school, I was your typical attentionally-challenged kid. I was lost in thought for most, if not all, of the day, and my grades suffered. I didn't know that this was somewhat of a bad thing until, one day, I got a 0 out of 16 on an algebra quiz because I didn't pay one bit of attention to the lecture. After that, I made it a point to pay attention in class more often, but telling myself to pay attention wasn't going to make it happen immediately.

Coincidentally, my friend and I started becoming interested in Buddhism and its many facets around the same time period. He and I would always have phases of interest, and this was one of those phases. However, in my research of Buddhism, I found out about mindfulness meditation. While mainly helping with those that are stressed and anxious, it also addresses the problem of wandering thoughts. Seeing this, I definitely wanted to start trying it. My friend and I would tell our cross-country coach that we were going on a run, head to the woods, and meditate for a while. Each time after these sessions, I noticed that I was much calmer. Also, my senses seemed to be heightened, Of course, since I was only a beginner, I wasn't using the most efficient meditative techniques possible, but even these baby steps had a noticeable effect. The mindfulness meditation sort of wrenched my focus away from my wandering mind and toward the real world.

Nowadays, when I have the time, or if I feel that I especially need it, I will sit down and meditate--sit upright, take deep, regular breaths, and practice my focus. Whenever a distracting thought pops up, you aren't supposed to freak out and try to suppress it--this will stress you out more. Calmly acknowledge all of your thoughts and emotions, take note of them, and then let them pass. Stress is a reactive state of mind; things don't stress you out, you stress yourself out over things by reacting in a negative way.

All in all, this talk had about as much an effect on my life as a TED talk could. It only lasts around ten minutes, but in it, Andy Puddicombe covers a very intriguing and influential topic. I would recommend anyone to watch this video and, if you have the time, to try out mindfulness meditation. I still find myself lost in thought much of the time, as this isn't some sort of miracle cure that works after a week or two, but there is no question of its positive effects.

Intro to Paradigm Shift Essay

Mental illness has always been one of the more controversial aspects of health and healthcare research. For a very long time, ancient peoples thought that mental illnesses were the products of demonic possessions, angry gods, or even witches. Even after they were understood to have actual health problems, the mentally ill were often times just shoved into an asylum and institutionalized; they rarely received any therapeutic care, unless you count electric shocks or bloodletting as "therapeutic". It wasn't until the Civil War that the general public started showing great interest in mental care--soldiers were coming home with what we now know as PTSD. Now, obviously, we know much more about mental illness than we did in the 19th century. We've named many more disorders, and have developed therapeutic techniques and pharmaceuticals to help treat them.

As our knowledge of these diseases progressed, as did the number of those diagnosed. Of those diagnosed, over half have started taking medication--either coupled with talk therapy or instead of it. A question that many have been asking is: why are more people getting diagnosed with mental disorders? Could it be that our knowledge is progressing, and therefore we know more about the symptoms of these diseases, or could it be something more? There has been some research that suggests something more. Societal changes, as well as environmental, could have an impact on our mental health as a whole. This notable and sudden increase in the diagnosis of mental illnesses can possibly be ascribed to changes in our way of lives, such as occupations, environment, and technology.

PSU Commonplaces Pt. II

Time to riff on another set of commonplaces that I have noticed in Happy Valley. As I have noted countless times in my blogs, Penn State is a school noted for its strong sense of tradition. Here are three more of these traditional views/commonplaces that I have noticed throughout my short time here:

1. BIGGER is better
This one is huge (no pun intended) on our campus. This may be a commonplace of American culture in general, but I feel that it especially holds true here in State College. Here are some examples of typical conversation at Penn State :

"Bro, that party that we threw last night was HUGE"

"Dude, I drank, like, about a million beers last night haha"

"Oh my god, bruh, I hooked up with so many girls this weekend, they could fill a LECTURE HALL"

"Yo Dylan, you'll never believe how much I just squatted....wait, how did you know it was 700 pounds? Were you watching me, bro?.......... You were at the gym with me? Oh well I drank an entire handle of Jack right before so I was probably too WASTED to remember huhuhu"

"Our frat house is bigger than yours"

You probably get my point by now. This extra-large commonplace is especially common among males, where every dude feels like he has to out-dude all of his bros in order to gain acceptance within his group of dude-bros. Even our university supports this cause. We have one of the biggest stadiums in the entire country, as well as one of the largest student bodies. Overall, this is one of the most prominent commonplaces out there.

2. Don't be a try-hard, but make sure you try hard

I remember getting called a try-hard in middle school. Back then, it was the worst insult anyone could throw your way. Nobody wanted to seem like they cared about anything; apparently the ideal human being to these middle-school pseudo-bullies was an unresponsive sack of meat. I was surprised when I found this commonplace here at Penn State as well, but now it comes with a new clause: don't ever become a try-hard, but make sure you get all of your work done. succeed, get good grades and land internships every summer, plus a job in your field of choice after school. This Catch-22 of a commonplace leaves most people no choice but to be ridiculed by at least someone. Some people can find great success without doing any work, however, and to those people I say, "I admire you very much as a human being. Do you want to get married". For the rest of us mortals, we need to subject ourselves to a little stigmatization in order to get what we want.

Again, if you have any ideas, if you disagree with me, or if you want to comment on the style of this disconnected rant, hit me up in the comment section.

I'm Shifting Between These Two Topics

So, for this assignment we are doing in this class, we have to discuss a paradigm shift that has happened over time in society. There are many, many options to choose from, since society is so free-flowing and ever-changing. Society hasn't remained at a standstill for a very long time; there are always aspects of our culture that are changing as we learn and progress. There are two paradigm shifts, however that stick out to me:

1) Today's youth are obviously very different from past generations. One thing that is different about today's youth, in my opinion, is that we are less rebellious. Past generations of teens actively went against anything their parents said, going out and getting in fights, getting drunker than today's kids, and getting pregnant at MUCH higher rates than our generation. Today's kids obviously rebel, but at lower rates than other decades and generations. Just look at social movements: the 60s had the hippie counterculture, the 70s had punks and anti-war activists, the 80s were notorious for casual cocaine use, and the 90s had the grunge and alt-rock movements. Often coinciding with music movements, countercultures such as those haven't sprung up among millenials. While radical social changes are happening in our lifetime, they are being facilitated by business leaders and politicians of our parents' generation and older. We haven't really done anything as a youth that has changed anything on a large scale, nor have we really had large movements of rebelling against society, or our parents. This idea would need more work, but it is something I could go on about.

2) This is one that I talked about in class. The advent of the Internet has caused many things, but one that I have noticed is the proliferation of underground culture among anyone and everyone. Anyone nowadays can research and experience any part of an "underground" culture in our country. In past generations, you would have to find the right people or stumble upon the right clubs in order to find people as weird as you and create culture. Nowadays, anyone can let out their inner "weird" and listen to alternative music, watch hipster movies, and read bohemian literature. This allowed for "hipster" things to become cool in mainstream culture. This is a very interesting paradigm shift to me because I like things that are traditionally underground.

PSU Commonplaces

Here at Penn State, we have one of the most tight-knit student bodies in the entire country. We unite in times of triumph and in times of loss. Like, our main chant is "We are Penn State". If that doesn't show unity, I don't know what does. Because of how tight-knit we are as a school, our culture is one of long-standing tradition and, in turn, many different commonplaces. As a freshman, I've caught onto a decent amount of these commonplaces, and will attempt to list some of them here:

1. Football is life.

My dad was not a large watcher of sports. At home, we would turn on ESPN to see the Olympics and the World Cup; nothing else. This ended up being my general outlook on watching sports as well. I would go to high school football games when possible, but it wasn't the end of the world whenever I missed one. Here, things are much different.On the first day of classes, I tossed a football around with some of the kids on my floor. I definitely grew up in a soccer household, so my football-throwing skills are decently sub-par. When my floormates witnessed my inability, I could feel the seething disdain hitting me in the temple like a gamma ray. Also, I never knew how much of a big deal Sunday Night Football was to the general male population until I spent my first weekend here. I could hear people screaming from my open window every time. Do I even need to venture into the realm of PSU gamedays?

2. Late-night Dining

Establishments that are open past midnight in State College are treated as a Garden of Eden to socially active college kids. Canyon Pizza is about as legendary as any eatery could possibly be among a group of people. When I Googled "most famous restaurants", next to nothing came up, and that proves how peculiar of a phenomenon this is. Places like Gumby's, DP Dough, and Wings Over all enjoy almost equal amounts of fame as well. This is another example of how strong the sense of tradition is here at Penn State.

3. Greek Life is Amazing/Awful

Greek life is a very polarizing issue at our school. Everyone that I have talked to seems to either love it or hate it with the force of 10 supernovae. Of course, this may just be a product of selection bias (people who feel strongly about it are more inclined to talk about it), but nonetheless I have seen many examples of this trend around campus. Common arguments used by proponents include brotherhood, networking, and social status, whereas GDI radicals (god-damn independents) usually refer to hazing, expensive dues, and all-around personality of your typical "frat star" as reasons to hate the Greeks. I am one of the few that I've met that seem to be on the fence about the whole thing, so this apparent commonplace intrigues me. Now, this commonplace is only applicable to fraternities. I haven't heard much in terms of arguments for or against sororities, so I'm not ready to lump them into this hypothesis.

These are just three of the commonplaces that I have witnessed at this beautiful school. You can expect me to revisit this topic after spending more time with this incomparable student body. If you have noticed any more, feel free to post them in the comments below!

Kairos and Comic Timing

Today in class, we talked about an aspect of rhetoric that we experience almost every day: kairos. Kairos, in short, is the golden opportunity for something. An example was used in class of getting into an argument with somebody, and then HOURS LATER thinking of the perfect comeback to something they said. While it can be aggravating when you miss a good opportunity, utilizing kairos in a great way is one of the most rhetorically powerful things a person could do. Something about getting the timing of a statement precisely correct makes it that much more powerful.

This concept especially holds true in the realm of comedy. Any comedian worth his weight in laughs knows the utter importance of kairos in any act. Timing is the x-factor that can either murder your jokes, or send you to the moon on a wave of fame and fortune. All of the most famous humorists have been masters of comedic timing. One of the most lauded comedians of all time, Rodney Dangerfield, was very well known for his mastery of kairos utilization. Here is an example:




Here you can see his rapid-fire delivery best at work. Rodney's style was that so his punchlines would come out before the audience even had a chance to comprehend the buildup. If you pay close attention, there is a half-second pause in between the delivery and the crowd's reaction due to his speedy verbalization. This adds to the effect of the jokes due to another property of good comedy; wording the joke so it takes a second or two for it to click in an audience's head.

Comic timing as good as Dangerfield's can be taught in some cases, but some people just have an inherent knack for it. Below is an example of one comedically-gifted person (my personal favorite comedian, TJ Miller), and a bunch of not-so-gifted individuals. DISCLAIMER: there is exactly *one* use of a foul word in this clip, so if you are offended you can skip past it and read my reflection:




In this video, Miller remarks on a conversation he had with a man who implied that he drank champagne "erryday". After lampooning the man's use of this word, the audience started to respond "erryday" to everything Miller said. The first time, it is agreed upon that it was kind of funny. After repeated usage, however, the kairos diminishes exponentially, eventually leading to Miller making fun of an audience member who kept trying to force the phrase into conversation, and even sarcastically referring to the "golden opportunity" of using "erryday", in turn recognizing the bad use of kairos by the woman.

Clips like these show how powerful the use of kairos can be in a rhetorical setting. You don't even have to be a comedian to be able to utilize kairos--as long as it is used effectively, it can do great things for you and the idea that you are trying to get across.I would like to end this post with a very short example of a kairotic situation where a spectator brings a trumpet to a parade and absolutely knocks the comic timing out of the park. Enjoy:

How to Speech "right". Get it

I'm someone who is at home in front of an audience. Be it singing in front of auditoriums full of people on stage or blurting out an almost-funny joke in the middle of a crowd, I have never really been afraid to put myself out in front of people. This lack of stage fright is weird to many people, and my friends find it too good to be true. Many of my classmates posted about being nervous for their speech, which makes it all the more admirable that they did so gosh darn well with their speeches. What I lacked in nerves, though, I made up for in procrastination. In this regard, this speechwriting assignment was a learning process for me.

Throughout high school, I was a bad procrastinator. I know many people say this about themselves, but it was especially apparent in my case. I would start my weekend homework at midnight on Sunday night, and usually end up finishing it 5 minutes before class started, if at all. In high school, it was easier to get by while doing this, but college is a whole different monster. I started my speech at, like, 11 p.m. the night before, and WOW was that a bad decision. Let's just say it was one of my latest nights yet, even considering the fact that I'm a chronic night owl. In some ways I'm almost glad I did this, however. It taught me a very important lesson about assignments and time management.

This assignment also taught me how to write an effective speech. In high school, I never took into account the rhetorical strategies that I was using when writing essays or lectures. Now, every time I write I will pay close attention to the interplay between the ethos, pathos, and logos of my rhetoric. Up to this point, I was a firm believer in only using logos to convey my message (even though I had no idea what the word logos meant; nor did I know that it even existed.). This class made me realize that ethos and pathos are very important as well-pathos perhaps even more so. When speaking to a crowd, you can't just throw cold facts at them and expect them to no stare out the window the entire time. All of history's best speakers used language, volume oscillation and dramatic pauses to give their listeners the "chills" that accompany an effective and historic speech. From now on in my writing, I will make sure to utilize all three corners of the rhetoric triangle. Who knew that I would actually learn things at Penn State?

Rhetoric in Debate

I'll admit it. I'm a man who loves to debate. Some may even call me slightly argumentative at times. My personality type is the most prone to debate as well (check out the first post on my personal passion blog once it is up). With this in mind, it is obvious that I was intrigued when, in Chapter 3 of our RCL text, the topic of debate sprung up. My curiosity piqued, I soldiered on and read the chapter in one quick sitting--slightly unheard of from me, let alone most college students in general. In it, I found very interesting points; the first being that many modern Americans tend to distrust any sort of rhetoric, associating it with conniving politicians and other schemers. Granted, this is a character-type that has been explored many times in fiction, from Iago in Othello to Wormtongue of Lord Of The Rings fame. This distrust also goes along with the fact that, when engaged in a debate, the American values facts and references over any artful use of the language. However, I believe that we should open up and utilize rhetoric the way the ancients did.

While we cite tired commonplaces in argument, ancient rhetors made their viewpoints clear through inventive use of language. Through this, debate becomes a more productive matter, as opposed to a disruptive one. While engaged in argument, I've always tried to use my own logic to get my point across. Maybe it's my hatred of all-things overdone, but I've always felt that referencing a mental library of common knowledge and beliefs during debate serves only to shut down any invention involved in the matter. Another problem with the contemporary style of debate is that it tends to eventually lead nowhere. I agree with every statement Jon Stewart made while on the set of Crossfire, an episode which was referenced in the text. He made clear what debate had devolved to on that show: two talking heads spouting and shouting empty facts without even listening to the points being made by their opponent.

These men and women on the show were engaging in a form of debate with questionable merit--a form where neither party went into the ordeal planning to even listen to the other. When this is the case, there is no point in arguing to begin with. In ancient Socratic seminars, discussions involved two parties coming together and bouncing their ideas back and forth. The two parties would alter their thesis slightly after each round of discussion until the group reached an inevitable compromise and/or conclusion. Nowadays, debate only ends after the two participants get tired of yelling, or after the allotted 24 minute time-slot runs out. Can you see why I call for a return to the ancient ways?

Welcome to My Blog!

This blog is written for CAS137H at Penn State University. It studies the connection between rhetoric and civic life.