Philip Nichols' E-Portfolio

My name is Philip Nichols and I am a student at Pennsylvania State University (Class of 2015). I am majoring in International Politics with a focus in National Security, and I hope to minor in German, Security and Risk Analysis, and Global Security. Throughout the completion of this degree, I hope to use this e-portfolio as a collection of my best written work, speeches, and blogs. I plan to continue to add to this e-portfolio in the coming years, so by the end of my education here at Penn State, this will be a full overview of my best work.

Here is a link to my e-portfolio: Philip Nichols' E-Portfolio 

Rhetoric of having a Nuclear Weapon

Everyone that has grown up in the United States has interpreted the possession of nuclear weapons as a bad connotation. Then why do other countries pursue the possession of a nuclear weapon as if it is the Holy Grail? The real answer, it is looked upon as a measure of prestige, but not only that, it is looked upon as a measure of defense. There is a very tight knit club in the world that has the possession of nuclear weapons, and other countries that aren’t in that club look upon it with envy. This club is one that lists as its members the most powerful nations in the world, so what nation wouldn’t aspire to its membership? The next and more important reason is that the possession of a nuclear weapon deters potential attackers. Just knowing that your enemy has a nuclear weapon will cause you to think twice about attacking them, because then they could use their nuclear weapon against you. This aspect was key in Libya, as Gaddafi had relinquished his nuclear weapons efforts several years before the Arab Spring. Some argue that if he had kept these nuclear weapons, the U.S. wouldn’t have proceeded in its aid towards Libya’s rebels. These two aspects, a symbol of prestige and as a defense, are the two major reasons why a country will attempt to gain control of a nuclear weapon. So if nuclear weapons are sign of prestige, why does every American grow up seeing nuclear weapons with a negative connotation? The answer is that other countries having possession of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable in the mentality of the U.S. The U.S. and other countries that are a part of the closely knit group that possess nuclear weapons, believe that they should be the only ones to have possession. They feel that other countries cannot be depended upon to use their weapons wisely. The images of death and destruction are what comes to an American’s mind, because in America they are solely seen as such, while in North Korea nuclear weapons are seen as prestige and power. This difference really comes from the spin the governments of these respective countries put on their efforts to attain such weapons, and that is why the connotation is so different in these countries.

Rhetoric of North Korea

This week my SRA professor called the North Koreans “Masters of Extortion”. It took me a second to think about, but this is very true, they absolutely are Masters of Extortion. So it made me wonder, how can they get away with all that they do? For example, only a month or so ago North Korea made a deal with the United States so that the US would give them food and in return they would suspend their nuclear weapons testing. This looked like a promising proposition to the US, but now in the coming days North Korea plans on testing a “missile”. Many feel this breaks the contract between the U.S. and North Korea, so how are they able to get away with it? In the simplest terms, North Korea is too crazy and erratic to predict. If the US attempted to punish North Korea, North Korea might very well retaliate with a nuclear weapon, one can never know. It is the last part of that sentence that scares the U.S. and other major world powers from punishing North Korea. The consequences of punishing North Korea far exceed the consequences of just continuing on the same course. So in the end will North Korea get away with this “missile” test? Of course. Why? Because they have mastered the art of extortion. The ethos they have surrounded themselves with is one of confidence, they are renowned as mavericks. Their style of government also allows them to continue this tradition. Recently political scientists have found that the North Korean leader only needs to satisfy about 70 people and he can stay in power. This allows the North Korean leader to pretty much run the government as he sees fit as long as those 70 people are satisfied. This definitely aides his ability to create the ethos that he has created surrounding his government.

Rhetoric of Hacking

              With the mass growth of computer technology in recent years, hacking has become more and more a common problem amongst all computer users. There is a negative connotation around the realm of hacking, because by its very nature it is criminal. Hacking is the stealing of information by one person from another. But when is it acceptable? Over the past few years, Sky News has been caught hacking into emails in order to get information for their news stories. Sky News Chief, John Ryley, deems this acquiring of information as “responsible journalism”. Only later they did turn in the information they had found to the authorities. Is this an instance where hacking is acceptable? If they hadn’t hacked into the emails they, including the authorities, may have never gotten the information, but on the other hand they delayed in giving the information to the authorities so that they could publish their articles first. Another very recent instance is the Wikileaks problem. Was that an acceptable hacking? In my opinion that hack was the biggest stab to the back that America has had in a long time. Of course anyone can say they were doing it for the people of America. That is the ignorant thing to say. At the end of the day some secrets need and must stay secret, for the benefit of the world not just the American people. Wikileaks screwed over a lot of hard working diplomats that already have a tough job as it is.

 It is my opinion that hacking is wrong, but in the same manner that stealing or lying is wrong. Is it bad? Yes. Is it going to happen? Of course it’s going to happen. China and the US have currently been going through their own personal hacking war. Although this war has been kept in the shadows, do not be fooled that it does not exist. Hacking is one thing that will never lose its negative connotation, no matter how much it “helps the good people of the world.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/murdochs-news-intl-challenges-sienna-miller-over-legal-costs-person-close-to-case-says/2012/04/05/gIQAaqrxwS_story.html

Rhetoric of Obama and his Mic

 I will never understand how for the second time Barack Obama has been caught speaking off the record while his mic was still on. The first time was bad enough when he was speaking to French President Nikolas Sarkozy about how hard it was to deal with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. How President Obama wiggled his way out of that awkward situation I will never know, but now for the second time he has been caught. This time he was caught talking to current Russia President Medvedev about his future career as President. President Obama was trying to bargain and reassure Medvedev about the new missile defense system, which is great, but it should be left behind doors. This should absolutely not be talked about literally right in front of the spotlight.  I really want to see how President Obama tries to talk his way out of this situation.  

            Immediately after finding out about his mistake, Obama played it off as a necessary part of politics. He tried to say that such bargaining is very crucial to the implementation of international policy. This is absolutely true, but he missed the part where that was not the time or place for that bargaining. Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney attempted to take advantage of the situation by tearing down Obama for making such a mistake. This was a clear move to garner more votes from the far right, but in the end it was to no avail. Mitt Romney overplayed the issue, and in the end he looked like the bad guy. So instead of the media looking at Obama’s mistake, they focused on Mitt Romney’s clear over-step. This seems to be the only way Obama was let off the hook. It was not his own words, as some could argue his answer was merely a generic response, but it was his enemy that took away the spotlight.  Obama was just lucky that Romney over-stepped his boundary, and in the end it will only be Romney’s ethos that will really take a hit.

Rhetoric of Why the Grass is always Greener

What does that old saying mean “the grass is always greener”? Well in general it means that no matter what position you are in presently, there is always some place elsewhere that is better. So why is the grass greener? The grass is greener because it is a signal of hope. When people are having a sub-par day they can always think to themselves that their lives will be just as good as the places that they dream of. In a time of economic turmoil and constant fighting, I can guarantee that a lot of Americans have been thinking about where the greener grass is, and why wouldn’t they? Dreaming about faraway places give people the hope they need to continue working. Without the hope of living a better a life, there is no point to living. Without that hope people wouldn’t fight for freedom or work those 2 or 3 jobs to get their kids through school. Hope is what drives the core human need to better themselves. To humans, nothing is ever good enough. There are will always be problems. That distant tropical island with a beautiful beach has mosquitoes with the West Nile Virus and stands in the middle of hurricane season. By dreaming, people forget their problems because problems are infectious to the mind. Dreams are meant to be happy, and problems destroy happiness faster than Palin destroyed McCain’s campaign. Happiness is the source upon which hope exists. Hope is the sole driving force of continuing to live, and that is why the grass is always greener.

The Rhetoric behind Kony 2012

This week I watched the video behind Kony 2012. This is quite an interesting and new way to approach the problem of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa. It seems that the creator behind this network and campaign took a whole new approach to tackle his problem. Initially, he met with the children of Uganda, and that is where he saw the effects of Kony’s terror in Uganda. He saw that Kony would kidnap and force children to fight in his army. He had been doing this for years, but the creator of Kony 2012 became determined to stop it. In the beginning he took the same routes that many other people with problems had done before; he went to the U.S. government. But the US government could not and would not send aid to Uganda. This is the point where most people give up, but instead of giving up, Kony 2012 was created. This campaign was created to bring attention to Kony and the terrible acts he has committed against the children of Uganda. This innovative campaign has become very successful, and recently the U.S. sent several military advisers to Uganda in order to help them capture Kony. The next part of this campaign is very critical. The creator set a time limit for Kony’s capture. He set midnight of December 31^st as the deadline for Kony’s capture. He understands that without a timeframe for the articulated goal people will lose interest, and Kony understands this even better. Kony’s main strategy now is to evade capture long enough for the world to forget about him. Most campaigns these days revolve around sweeping generalizations, such as “Cure World Hunger” or “World Peace”, which will be accomplished some amorphous day in the future. The problem is that people aren’t as dedicated to these campaigns because they have no end in sight, and that is why it was critical to that the creator of Kony 2012 set a deadline. This is the number one reason why Kony 2012 is as successful as it is, and I can only assume that it will continue to become more popular as that deadline approaches.

Rhetoric of SEAL Team 6

Earlier this week I read an account of the killing of Bin Laden by the commander of the SEAL Team 6. The main reason why the commander released his own account was because he felt that the description of the event as released to the public by politicians was very different from how it actually occurred. SEAL Team 6 felt that the politicians had portrayed them as a kill squad, and as one of the SEALs stated, “I’ve been a Seal for 30 years and I never heard the words ‘kill mission’,” he said. “It’s a Beltway [Washington insider’s] fantasy word. If it was a kill mission you don’t need SEAL Team 6; you need a box of hand grenades.”

            In addition to being angry that they had been labeled as a kill team, SEAL Team 6 was also upset that all of the intelligence they had gathered at the Bin Laden compound was rendered irrelevant when President Obama went on national TV to declare his death. All other high-officials of the al-Qaeda network would have immediately left their hiding places for new ones. Any potential leads that the team had acquired at the compound to capture these criminals immediately became useless as a result of the President’s public announcement. The Team felt that the public announcement should have been held off for a couple of days for other branches of the military to attempt to pursue those lead developed at the compound. Unfortunately, instead it became a political game of who could claim credit for the kill first.

The SEAL account raises the question, why did the politicians on Capitol Hill do what they did in releasing the information prematurely if they knew it wasn’t in the best interest of the country? Why would they label the team as killers, when in fact the only people to die were the ones who pointed guns at the SEALs? The truth is that all of the politicians on Capitol Hill are solely looking out for their own political careers. They don’t care about who gets hit in the crossfire so long as they come out looking like victors. Their primary concern is their own reputation and electability. The only reason that President Obama went on the air was to be glorified as the President that killed Obama. He didn’t want anyone else to deliver the news, even if there was a possibility to completely unhinge the al-Qaeda network. Although this posturing is a shame, it should only be expected as business as usual in Washington.

Rhetoric of Branding

The effect that ethos has on certain products is extraordinary. This morning my friend asked if he could use a Q-tip? I said sure, but when you think about it they aren’t “Q-tips” they are cotton swabs. Q-tip is merely the name of the brand created by one manufacturer.

                                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Q_Tips_plain_BG.jpg

This isn’t the only everyday item whose brand name has been absorbed into the vernacular. Most people ask for a “Kleenex” when they want a tissue, and once again “Kleenex” is merely a brand of tissues.

                                           http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/201004/kleenex-in-psychotherapy

 

It seems that the publicists of these companies should be given gold medals for their efforts in branding their products. They have orchestrated their products to a point where their brand name is the only name associated with that product. These publicists have engineered the level of ethos of their products to a point where everyone commonly refers to the product by its brand name. It is truly a marvel to contemplate. Nowadays, new technology is branded but is never commonly associated with its everyday name. In the future, I can guarantee that no branding will be as dominant as the branding done here by Q-tip and Kleenex.