This I Believe

http://soundcloud.com/mzs5450/mj-this-i-belive#

How High

If we can agree that spirituality is intimate, and that intimacy is personal, whose to argue the means by which someone else taps into their own spiritual sense? The ad attached below illustrates this question by placing two joints in the shape of a cross and including a line that reads “does is matter how you achieve your spiritual high?” I like this ad for a couple reasons. First and foremost, it’s bold. I like that the people behind WonderCafe.ca, the website originally responsible for posting the image, weren’t afraid to ruffle a few feathers with this one, and while I don’t think the purpose of this ad was to offend anyone, I believe it effectively entices the willing viewer to further investigate their site. It does more than this though. In addition to drawing people in, this ad makes you think, it evokes emotion and provides a forum for rational debate. Sure, it’s probable that someone somewhere was offended by this and that some people may even argue it’s morally wrong to illustrate a cross of weed, but, at the end of the day, isn’t that kind of the point? This ad challenges traditional forms of rhetoric by proposing a unique twist. Instead of jamming a one-sided message down the viewer’s throat, this particular ad places more value on the viewer’s expected response to the ad than the ad itself. All the ad does is beg a question, and because of this, it forces the viewer to get involved. It, in my opinion, successfully asks the viewer to establish an argument, a stance, a rhetorical claim if you will. And so, does it really matter how you achieve your spiritual high? It’s a loaded question and unfortunately, I think it’s a question generally answered too quickly. If you put two random people in a room, showed them this ad, and asked them to answer the question it asks, I believe they’d have their answer ready in less than a minute. What they say is irrelevant, that’s not the point I’m trying to make, instead, I’m trying to shed some light on a problem I feel too many people are effected by: blind allegiance to a stance they may not quite understand. Spirituality is complicated people! Religion is beautiful and it’s a mess and it happens all at the same time. You can’t think your way through life in terms of black and white or right and wrong, life’s just not that simple. So before you go and call this ad disrespectful or blasphemous, you might want to consider the idiocracy in sticking a label of something without taking the time to think first. If drugs are wrong and doing wrong is sinful, how do you explain the hundreds of religions who’ve incorporated cannabis into their practices? This ad makes you think, and because of that, whether you like it or hate it, it’s rhetorically successful.

A Sad Day in Happy Valley

As far as voicing opinions go, I’m a big believer in cooling off periods. I think time’s important, without it, lines can get blurred and sometimes your intended meaning gets misconstrued. Emotion is human nature, it’s healthy and natural...but it’s also powerful. Because of this, the immediate reaction is always more intense than the rationalized after thought. For this reason and many more, I’m a little nervous about commenting on today’s events regarding the passing of Joe Paterno so soon. However, regardless of how strongly I feel about the importance of waiting things out, I also believe that sometimes, ever so rarely, truth and love can unite people and when that happens, it, above all else is worthy of our most immediate attention. And so, I write.

Instead of tackling Joepa’s Memorial Service as a whole, I’d like to focus in on one particular speech, Phil Knight’s speech to be exact. I loved this speech. From Knight’s opening joke, insinuating that Paterno may consider his forty-eight year commitment to the Nike Corporation that of a “short-timer”, Knight was poised and strong in his presentation. Knight credited Joe’s reputation, explaining that of all the coaches he’d worked with, Joe was deferred to most frequently and respectfully. He also took the time to share a personal story, with which he successfully transformed mood of an audience of over 12,000 into that of an intimate group.

I think the most powerful part of Knight’s speech was when he spoke of the final months of Joe’s life, the time when his character was questioned and the world seemed to turn on the man we all love so much. Knight said what we as Penn Staters believe, he shared our message with eloquence and grace, stating that if there was any villain involved in how the University responded to the horrors of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, the villain “lies in the investigation. Not in Joe Paterno’s response.” Knight set the record straight once and for all, explaining what Joe actually did, compared to what so many blindly believed. Knight referred to Joe as his hero, a notion I think we can all relate to in this hour of sadness. With regard to textbook rhetorical components, if the exigence of this loss was Joe’s passing, the audience is not merely the Penn State community, but the entire world. Joe’s legacy lives on, you see. It’s in the hearts of everyone he touched and those they touched as well. The morals he instilled in his players and the example he set for all of us will live on in our minds and consciouses for generations to come. To answer Knight’s final question, Joseph Vincent Paterno was and still remains the true trustee of Penn State University.