E-Portfolio

Welcome to my E-portfolio!

My name is Benjamin Ruiz de Gamboa.  I am currently a first year student in the College of Liberal Arts at the Pennsylvania State University.  Please allow me to introduce and present myself further through this e-portfolio.

About me

Fall 2011 - Spring 2012
My collegiate career really began while I was still in high school.  I started taking AP classes in my sophomore year.  Technically, I am actually a sophomore at Penn State with all the AP credits that transferred into University Park.  Through my high school experience, I brought in 21 credits to college.  Growing up, I always pictured myself going to law school to study either constitutional or civil law.  However, my first year in school has enlightened me to think about whether I should pursue graduate study in mass communications.

Introduction

This e-portfolio will serve as a space for a compilation of works throughout my collegiate career as a student.  These works include written, verbal and interactive forms of communication.  Its main focus is to encapsulate who I am as a student.  For any inquires, or if you would like to just reach me in general, you can send me a message through the methods listed in my contact page.

E-Portfolio Link

Summer Breaks in College

What ever happened to those summer days with hanging out with friends everyday?  Remember those summers of constant sleepovers and hanging out everyday by the community pool.  Is it that when we grow up that things change and people change along with it?  Or is it attributed to the fact that we just grow up and these things are less appealing.  Ever since I entered high school I have been working.  Summers now are less for fun and games and more to develop experience for the real world for when we leave college.  I hate to say it because I miss those simple times, but it is what it is.  Summers nowadays involve taking courses over the break, internships, or full time paid positions.  What ever happened when we were kids are just mere memories.  I hate to sound like I am reminiscing about the past because that makes me sound like a grumpy old man, (which I hope to never be) but it is the truth.  When I graduate I plan to take one full month off and relive some of these childhood memories.  I urge everyone to do something similar because everyone is always still in some capacity a kid at heart.  It is probably said somewhere that we must let our inner child relax at some points in life.  I bet some Freudian psychologists would argue that.  I know I would.  I know the first thing I am doing this summer after I unpack and stuff is to hit up some of friends and see what they are doing.  Maybe I can convince them to do something we used to do as kids in the summer.  That’s going to be plan.  I hope it works.  Have a great summer break!

Truth About Natural Gas

Recently I saw the documentary, Gasland in my Media and Democracy class.  It was quite compelling because it showed the real dangers with fracking natural gas.  For those unfamiliar with the process, hydraulic fracturing is pretty much drilling a hole into a well and pressurizing or pumping the water into the ground to then extract the produced water that contains mixtures that form natural gas.  The problem with this system, however is that it leaves environmental impacts on the environment.  This process contaminates water supplies and pollutes the air.

Companies like Halliburton and EnCana Oil & Gas take advantage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 because this bill exempts fluids used in hydraulic fracturing from policies like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.  It wasn't until last year, after the documentary was released that Congress proposed the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act to make it so these companies disclose the types of chemicals they use for these processes.

Unfortunately, one year later Congress still has not passed the bill. I wonder if it is for political reasons (We are in an election year and gas companies are major lobbyists and campaign contributors on the hill).  So what are the repercussions to "fracking?"  Well for starters fracking leaves detrimental effects on drinking water.  Gas companies request to lease the land of private citizens to drill for gas in exchange for a nice check to landowners.  What they do not know is after they agree to that, their health will start to deteriorate.

Gas companies say it is safe to drink from the tap, but it is not.  After they agree to lease their land, the water becomes contaminated.  In the film, they show some families whose water had become flammable.  And if it isn't the water that leaves, lasting neurological and physical effects, (i.e headaches, brain damage, fatigue, cancer) it is the air pollution that surrounds fracking sites.  After extraction, they have something called "produced water" that is whatever is left after the fracking process.  Typically the companies let the water to evaporate if they do not put it in streams or rivers.  After a while the water does evaporate, but it ruins the quality of the air because it emits tons of gases like methane and such into the air.  This can then create acid rain which can affect vegetation.

I just found this documentary shocking and inhumane as it looked into some eyebrows it raised because the government is not fully protecting its citizens.  Certain policy changes can and should be enacted to change this.  I find it mortifying that thousands of Americans have to live like this.  The whole video is on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E61okw2RlzE

Multimedia Devices: Helping or Hurting the Youth of America?

While I was growing up, my parents used to lecture me about how privileged and blessed I was.  This was due mostly to all the things that my generation developed around.  In my parents’ time, there was no such thing as a mobile phone, a computer, or an iPad.  If my parents seeked any form of entertainment, they went outside and played.  If they wanted to communicate with someone they would actually talk with them.  Unfortunately, nowadays if you were to tell a kid that, it would be the equivalent of speaking a foreign language to them.  With the use of multimedia devices, it has become so easy for people to forget some of the most basic things we do as human beings.  That is to socialize.  Now could be that we are moving forward in how we socialize? I doubt that is the case.  Could it be that we live such busy lives that sometimes we choose the convenient way of sending a text or posting something on someone's Facebook?  This could be true.  Technology is always finding more ways to make our lives easier, yet is it really helping or hurting our social interactions with others? My question is, does this having lasting implications on the youth of America that is getting more involved with these processes?

Going back to my parents, I think I can relate more to their childhoods because up until maybe middle school we used to entertain ourselves.  We were self-sufficient in that regard.  Prior to that, we didn't have cell phones.  If given the choice between going onto the internet and having a "play date" we'd take the play date.  I have a little seven year old cousin.  My uncle is contemplating getting her a blackberry.  I didn't get a cell phone until I was twelve and guess what it was a hand-me-down Nokia in black and white with no keyboard nor camera.  I was only allowed to use it for emergencies.  The thing is kids these days are growing up in a much different world compared to the one people my age grew up in.  That was not all that long ago and if you look at the future, you have to wonder if there any damaging effects from this on kids.  I mean kids are socializing in different ways through texting and Facebook at much younger ages, but is verbal communication and physical interaction being overlooked?  I think it is called our formative years for a reason.

Rhetoric of Lewis Black

(Courtesy of hometheaterinfo.com)

As many of you may know, Lewis Black is a comedian.  For those of you that have not heard of him, he is your typical Jewish, liberal comedian.  I have been a fan of his work for several years and I just saw him here at Penn State tonight in the Eisenhower Auditorium.  And I thought to myself I have to blog about him for this week.  About 95% of the time he was communicating his messages through comedy, but when he wasn't cracking jokes he was communicating his thoughts like your average speaker.  As a speaker, he establishes his creditably with his audience through his jokes.  When he is not using profanity, hyperbole or satire to try to make the audience laugh, he is speaking to the crowd like an average Joe.  And yes he persuaded me!  While I was watching him tonight I realized that even though he is incredibly funny.  He relies mostly on these methods to make the audience laugh, yet the only person this had consequences for was himself.

At some points his hands were shaking so much from his constant yelling, convulsions, and gestures.  For someone that also suffers from anxiety, I can relate.  Although, I do not have anywhere near a case as he does.  I really wanted to get him a Valium or something.  I mean he is sixty three and he may be a little old for that kind of stuff.  I guess those are the kinds of things you notice out of people speaking, especially if it is for a long amount of time.  He was truly great though.  He spoke about the rhetoric of his generation compared to ours, our world with regards to social media and how Congress does not get shit done.  So it was pretty much the usual topics of discussion.   Nonetheless, it was quite an entertaining performance and in the end he got a standing ovation from the crowd.  For those of you not familiar with him, you should check him out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbt_sqeW4ko

Marijuana in the Public Mind

So what is the first impression you get from this title?  Oh great this kid does weed.  Well rest assured, I have never smoked marijuana before in my life.  However, I like many others, regardless whether or not they do smoke have opposing views on it.  Should we legalize it? Should we not legalize it?  Personally it is indifferent to me, but could others with stronger views say the same.  Recently, in my Media and Democracy class we discussed the commonplaces held by society over the use of Marijuana.  It is clearly not portrayed correctly in movies and popular culture.  Is it right to make fun of it?  Is it wrong to condone it?  To answer that question you really need to know its history.  I recently watched the movie, Grass to get a better sense of the role of the drug throughout the years in society.  I felt I understood the issue more.  The controversy it is has caused and the lasting implications of it.  Through it, I was able to view the different thoughts of people in society.  Some may think, "Hey if I am not harming myself nor hurting others, why should I be told that I cannot do it?"   Others may think, "It leaves permanent effects on the human mind and it is a gateway drug to others." Personally I do not think it will be legalized at least anytime soon.  The reason for that is that there is no way to regulate it.  I do not mean the regulation of it through taxation.  I mean the regulation of it in terms of a legal limit that can be distributed or consumed.  For instance, breathalyzers are used to indicate the level to which someone is intoxicated when they are under the influence of alcohol.  But what is out there to see the level to which someone is high off of weed?.....not a damn thing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1450016703688449604

Rhetoric of Social Media

For the millions of users on Facebook and Twitter, It is a commonplace to share and express their ideas through words, images, tweets, etc.  However, how credible is social media and how much information should we put out there for others to see?  Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter use the Internet and once something is on the Internet it stays out there forever.  I remember in high school when I disabled my Facebook for a while because I just didn't want someone, somewhere keeping tabs on me, but then I realized in a Google search something.  It still was the case.  Even though I closed my Facebook I found all the info I had public on there on a Google search.  My first impressions were great.  That is quite reassuring.  Then I did more searching on Google.  There were county swim records there, honor roll mentions, and even articles on other random things I had forgotten about.  So I came to the conclusion that I might as well be like everyone and have one to use as a form of communication.  I thought it really did not matter whether I had one or not because my stuff was already out there.  That was close to four years ago when social media was just starting to get hot.  Nowadays on Facebook there is that timeline shit.  I refused to get that crap until about 3 weeks ago when Facebook forced me to.  I don't know how that came to be because there are plenty that still do not have it, but one day it said “make changes to your timeline before it goes public in 5 days.”  Anyways now with that it is even harder to delete posts and stuff.  Whatever is there is meant to stay.  The thought of that is scary folks.  Wow I just checked out things on my timeline from prior years and there are things I remember deleting that are coming up.  Social Media is pretty shady and with all that information in the wrong hands that cannot be good.  It is a good thing I keep Facebook clean, but you have to feel sorry for others.  I am referring to those that put things out there that they do not want potential employers to see.

The Rhetoric of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Earlier this week, in my Media and Democracy class (Comm 110) we analyzed the roles of comics like Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert in the media.  The role of comedians like Jon Stewart in the media is to lead people to think again about the type and quality of information they are being given, by whom, and for what purposes.  These comics in turn provide outlets to deliver news information by exposing the absurdities in the media and government.

Jon Stewart incorporates rhetorical devices constantly to appeal to the American public in a comical manner.  Yesterday were the Michigan and Arizona Primaries.  In this episode from February 29, 2012, Stewart analyzes clips from the 24 hour major news networks: Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.  Jon Stewart’s intentions are to poke fun into the candidates’ speeches and the behind the scenes work of the major news networks.  One of the particular clips he makes fun of is Rick Santorum’s speech.  Santorum continually uses the phrase “from the bottom up” to help his claims in subtle manner.  Stewart makes fun of how ridiculous Santorum sounds to the American public.  Stewart effectively communicates to his audience through his satirical roasts of government and its major media outlets.  The true question is this a form of comedy or can this be a considered a substitute for the news in a satirical fashion?  This question cannot be answered by a simple yes or no response.  All news will have a political bias.  These comedic shows just essentially help viewers to see and make sense of politics and the media.  So the next time you watch a comedic talk show like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I implore you to look at the exigence.  Why are they speaking and what are the motives behind their arguments?

Volkswagen Tiguan Commercial

I really enjoyed last week's assignment for rhetorical analyzing an advertisement.  I recently saw this advertisement commercial for the new Volkswagen Tiguan and I immediately felt compelled to blog about it for this week.  Volkswagen has recently been releasing advertisements with reoccurring themes with regards to safety in their vehicles.  This advertisement does the same. 

The Ad shows a sophisticated upper middle class women going to the grocery store in a tuner sports car that is probably not street legal.  My first reactions to this commercial were “What the hell is going on here?”  (I’m sorry but I do not think you will ever see a woman presented as such ever driving that type of car.)  Well it turns out this woman, is a mother who gets home around the same time as her does with her boyfriend.

 

This particular advertisement appeals mostly to logos and pathos.  At the end of the clip, the boyfriend asks the daughter, “Why do always have to take your mom’s car?” and then they present the new Tiguan, which a top IIHS Saftey pick.  It appeals to logos because it suggests the sensibility of the viewer to see when compared with the illegal street car this must be safe.  The car that is presented is black.  This is done intentionally to appeal to pathos.  Black represents authority, strength and stability.  It adds to the claim that when people see this advertisement they will see this as a safe vehicle that can be driven.  Through the color of the car and the morals of the mother, the advertisement is effective in emphasizing the safety of the vehicle. Maybe the song by Chamillionaire, “Ridin” also has an effective role throughout the clip because it is played while the mother is in possession of her daughter’s boyfriend’s car.

Valentine's Day: Commercialism, Love, or Both?

I remember the days when life was more carefree. Remember the days when you used to go around to all your classmates giving everyone candy in the shape of a heart with a card around it? It was in those days when you were innocent to the idea of what Valentine’s Day really was about. What is Valentine’s Day? Can it not really be questioned as a holiday without sounding or giving the impression that you are currently not in a relationship? Probably this is the reason why I am writing this.

In my opinion, Valentine’s Day is a day to show appreciation for the significant other or someone special in your life that you love. However, the meaning of Valentine’s Day differs upon place to place. Corporations use it as a strategy to get you to buy that “special someone” that special something. Others see it as the only other day next to Halloween where it is acceptable to eat ridiculous amounts of chocolate. There are even some that deem the alternative of it to be, “Singles Awareness Day” because those that are not in relationships see how many are currently in relationships and vice versa.

But what is Valentine’s Day? Most of us know it has something to do with St. Valentine, but is it now something different than what it was originally intended to be. I learned in catholic school that Valentine’s Day was originally a day to celebrate the saint, Valentinus, but are kids in school even being taught that now a days? I would not be surprised if this were true.

I feel Valentine’s Day is really overplayed as a holiday now. In the old days, (I feel old just for saying that) cards for Valentine’s Day used to be made by hand by the person giving the valentine. Now greeting card companies like Hallmark see it as a way to make even more money than what they normally make off of overpriced cards for major holidays and birthdays. People used to go and pick up flowers for their significant others and give the flowers to them. Now florists just deliver it to them at their work or place of residence. I guess times have changed.

The Rhetoric of the Military

Is the American Military really protecting our borders throughout the world or are we considered a super power to many because the military itself acts as a business that requires profits?  This week in my Media and Democracy class (Comm 110) we discussed the difficult relationship between the U.S. Military and the U.S. Media across history and across many points my professor allowed me to see differently regarding the Military and why we have so many military bases throughout the world.  One of the points raised was that lobbyists rally in Congress to have war or to be situated overseas to acquire defense contracts or for CEO's to obtain large bonus for their companies, but what is the percentage of the those in Congress and CEO's of large companies that have family members fighting overseas?  It is only somewhere between 1-2%. 

Many would also say that it benefits not just companies and their employees, but also Americans because it produces jobs on both ends in the private sector and in the military.  However, do the costs outweigh the benefits?  First I would like to note that I hold members of our military in the highest of regards and I have the most respect for them for what they do for our country, but is war really the answer?  When we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Why did we stay?  Could it of been because we wanted to maintain a sphere of influence in Iraq. 

My professor told us a personal account of his father and the Post Traumatic Disorder he acquired while fighting in World War II.  It was pretty emotional and difficult for my professor to describe events and situations in which he had to help his father go through.  I will not go into the gruesome details that our professor explained to our class, but I will say that his religious father is unable to accept the fact that he killed 11 men.  He told us that he had to wake up his father from numerous dreams in which he was back in the war.  For many religious Christians, there is an afterlife.  He is afraid of going to hell once his time comes.  PTSD is very common from those that come back from war, but can PTSD be prevented for many if there were no agendas in Congress to fight overseas.  Formally we have not been in a war since World War II, but thousands have given their lives for their country since then and many have returned home with PTSD.  The Military is not to blame at all whatsoever.  It is Congress and its agenda.  The military answers to them not the American people.

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998

This I Believe Podcast

Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich

Earlier this week, we discussed Kairos in class.  I wanted to make a note of Kairos from last week’s Republican GOP debate in Florida.  Throughout the debate, the Republican GOP hopefuls were talking about the issues that Americans were facing today.  CNN had the main coverage of the debate and were giving a question and answer type poll for all registered Republicans in the audience of the debate. At one point in time, Republican GOP candidate, Newt Gingrich decided on questioning Romney about his finances and what he paid in taxes the past year.  

The crowd seemed very displeased with Gingrich and felt that really it was not the right time to be discussing what the finances were of one of the candidates and really they were right.  Even though, he made accusations of Romney as to whether he made enough in taxes prior to the debate.  During the debate, he refused to talk about explaining his accusations to his opponent because he was afraid of facing him there next to him instead of in an interview.  I am neither in support of Mitt Romney nor his beliefs towards current issues, but how is talking about someone’s personal finances relevant to what the candidates were debating about.  How is that relevant to answering the questions of registered Republicans in the audience? Or to the current issues that many Americans face?  While many may feel that tax reforms should be made for those with higher incomes, I feel it was not relevant to answering the questions of Republicans in the audience.  I felt it was wrong for the interviewer to interrogate him like that, even though he is wrong.

I agree that there should be tax reform laws, but I do not think it was the right point in time bring up someone's finances or the little they paid in taxes the past year.  Ultimately, I felt he paid for his accusations in the end, because people were chanting, “Romney! Romney!!” once the debate was over.  These chants for his opponent were reiterated on Tuesday when Republicans voted.  Mitt Romney ultimately won the Florida Primary and Newt Gingrich came in second.  I guess the moral of the story is to think before you speak. 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-wins-florida-primary-newt-gingrich-places/story?id=15484049#.Tys0yFz2a_h

Even Our Heroes Are Not Perfect

Today I noticed something quite important while I was attending the memorial for Joe Paterno.  Amongst the Bryce Jordan Center, I felt a sense of unity.  It was the identity I felt with Penn State from the beginning when I first chose to come to Penn State.  During all the speeches and emotions that were expressed throughout the memorial, I came to conclude that, aside the scandal that was revealed a couple months ago, Joe Paterno impacted the university tremendously in many ways.  He influenced the lives of many, not just his football players, but people he did not even know.  He donated and invested so much into the university as a whole.  He donated money to buildings, the library and helped to start the Paterno Fellows Program.  That program helps and allows students to achieve greater success.  It was founded on his belief of “success with honor”.  I am currently a Paterno Fellows aspirant and never have I felt more proud of my university and for all that Joe Paterno did for the school.  One of the speakers, Phillip Knight, who is the co-founder of the sports brand Nike, said that throughout his life he had heroes and for the last eleven years Joe Paterno was his hero.  It was then and there that I noticed the rhetoric in all of this.  The irony to everything that followed this is that no human is perfect.  Even someone as loving, charismatic, generous and unique as Joe Paterno can fall.  Until then, I was one of the few there that resented Paterno for knowing what Sandusky was doing and not having done enough to stop it back in 1999.  Maybe my beliefs on the molestation of children to be worst crime known to man influenced that belief and maybe I came to see this irony because I was influenced by the many sadden by his loss because there was something there in the air.  The celebration of his life and legacy allowed me to see that the mightier and bigger they are, the harder they fall.  No one is perfect and unfortunately Joe made a big mistake but that doesn’t necessarily make him a bad person.

http://www.gopsusports.com/blog/2012/01/a-memorial-for-joe-honors-a-legend.html 

Is Civic Engagement Really in Decline?

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, there was much concern regarding the amount people that participated in society.  Things such as the percentage of people writing letters to newspapers to express their concerns and signing petitions to voice concerns to representatives in Congress declined steadily through to the beginning of the twenty first century, but is civic participation is still in decline?  Is the tireless phrase, "the land of the free and the home of the brave" now just some words on paper because Americans are showing apathy with the world around them?  I beg to differ.  In fact, I believe that most people are turning to the internet to stay engaged in society.  As we move further with technology, more people are looking to more convenient ways of staying engaged in society.  Many people, especially in this country look to search for news online in the digital age.  Many people now have technology like smart phones that have apps which provide news at the touch of a screen.  Blogs like this one and social networking sites such as twitter and Facebook provide a medium for people to communicate their concerns with others.  However, there are others that feel the internet should not be a method of civic engagement.

Currently there is legislation in Congress that if passed, may constrict people to what they may say or do on the internet.  This may affect the more modern approach to being an active citizen in society.  Yesterday many internet websites had "blackouts" to voice their concerns to the public about the intentions of some politicians on Capitol Hill. Many websites wanted to show their visitors what the web maybe like if Congress passes such legislation.  Wikipedia pages were restricted to this image on every one of their pages.

(Source: Dylan Love/businessinsider.com)

Wikipedia used the rhetoric device pathos to convey their opposition to the bills.  "Imagine a World Without Free Knowledge" is powerful and emotional.  It makes the observer think of future censorship of the internet.  The color of the background helps to insinuate a "world" that is dark and cold.  The outlook of future censorship of the internet does not look to foretell something positive.  This and other efforts really proved that people are not passive and indifferent to the thought of Civic Engagement.  Other websites such as Google also played a role in helping to oppose SOPA and PIPA by getting over 7 million signatures through their online petition in just one day. The awareness made by these websites really did help to express and maybe accomplish the goals of those that played active roles.  Due to these recent efforts by active citizens, some members of Congress have rethought their support of the bills.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/after-wikipedia-blackout-lawmakers-struggle-to-keep-anti-piracy-bills-on-track/2012/01/19/gIQAqc9ZBQ_story.html