Persuasive Speech Self-Evaluation

Deforestation has become a direct threat to both our planet's health as well as our own. While it has already made a huge impact on our planet, it does not receive a large amount of attention and often, most people know little to no information about the pressing topic. For my speech, I not only wanted to inform my audience of the problem at hand, but also persuade them to take a firm stance against deforestation efforts that greatly harm our environment.

I feel that the better parts of my speech included my visual aid, the organization of my material, and my speaking ability. While I could always improve on my overall speech presentation, I believe I fairly good job at presenting and persuading my audience to agree with my overall point: deforestation efforts must be stopped, and sustainable methods of harvesting such resources must be used.

My powerpoint presentation helped me get my point across by providing visual examples of the problem and also organizing my arguments in a clear, concise matter. I did notice that some of the slides ran a little heavy on words but I don't think that this was distracting. I divided my presentation into first benefits and then second, the costs deforestation comes with. I used a stacked approach for laying out my arguments because I feel that they all played on each other and would become a stronger argument if presented together.

As a whole, my voiced seemed clear but I spoke very fast most of the time because of the large amount of information I wanted to get across. I was able to understand what i said but I think that without any room for pauses, information may have not had enough time to actually make an impact on my audience. I also, distractingly, "talked with my hands" the entire presentation and I found it to become distracting to a point. This may have been due to the fact that I did not use note cards or read off an outline and therefore my hands were free to move the whole time. Next time, I would really try to avoid this.

All in all, my point may have gotten across and my "call to action" gave the audience many different ideas on how to act on this issue, but I feel I could have given a stronger performance if I had more time and just slowed down. Syncing the amount of information and the time to give it in is important and that would be something I need to work on for the future.

Would you like to try the dip?

"I know you don't like tofu, but trust me this will be good" the conversation started. I always look forward to Thursday night dinners with my older sister and nephew; it's become tradition since I've started college. We rotate turns picking "recipes" and this particular last Thursday she chose tofu tacos and guacamole, attempting to persuade my taste buds to like the former. Well, that never happened but we sure had a meal to remember.

Time to go to the store and I had to get tomatoes, lettuce, bell peppers, and avocados. Needless to say, my half went smoothly as planned. My sister was in charge of the remaining ingredients, including the tofu. So meal time comes and we start cooking.

Sister - "The tofu is cooking right."
Me - "Maybe you should turn the temperature up."
Sister - "OK"
(5 minutes go by)
"Nope, still not right."
(she looks at the packaging)
"This isn't tofu, it's feta cheese!"

So we ended up having a large assortment of dips and chips for dinner. Salsa, guacamole, and a feta cheese/bean/pepper medley. Definitely not as expected, but I was perfectly content with the way things ended up. I, after all, managed to escape the tofu for at least another three weeks.

Michael Pollan and what is known as the "Slow Food Movement" urge us to eat responsibly and take time preparing and eating our meals. I agree that slowing down our busy days at meal time may be better for our overall level of hunger, stress, and physical fatigue, but I don't think it would be possible for our Thursday night tradition to become one of every day. Between busy schedules, it just wouldn't be convenient. I don't know what is set in store for the future, but I hope it somehow consists of these sort of meals. They're delicious and healthy.

Photo Credit: www.fotobank.com

Getting High on the Down Low: Mixed Messages

The legalization of marijuana has been a reoccurring discussion since the day it was first outlawed. Both sides of the argument have valid points and I feel that Mike Sorenson's review of two articles regarding marijuana policy shows the weakness with which the first article was written, and I believe that any one reading its arguments could see where it fall flat. While I do agree with his ultimate point, that marijuana should not be legalized, I think that there are some kinks that need to be worked out of the whole system regarding marijuana. If the first article was written with less bias, its points would be better showcased.

The first problem with article one is that its summaries at the end of each paragraph make assumptions. For example, the first summary states, "the government should not tell individuals what to do as long as they do not harm others." Yes, there are no reported deaths reported that are directly linked to only marijuana, but the truth of the matter is that marijuana does affect your state of mind and could in turn affect your decision making. The other summaries in article one make similarly large assumptions.

The second problem with article one is that it needs to be written in a more formal, matter-of-fact manner. Instead of barreling on about the "lies" police officers spread about drugs in schools, there should be a less attacking style used and an acknowledgment of the side against marijuana legalization. The article also fails to provide an explanation on whether marijuana would be regulated like alcohol, which leaves me with a disgruntled attitude towards the writers

Mike simply states the arguments like they are, and in turn makes article one look much shabbier than the opposing article. The problem I see with this topic as a whole is that there is no middle-ground for the two sides to come together at. Regulating marijuana for strictly prescribed medicinal use could be the middle-ground between the two parties, but neither side seems like it is willing to budge any time soon.

Photo Credit: www.freedomsphoenix.com

To Bottle OR Not To Bottle?

With all the ideas of how we can become "greener," the bottled water industry has found itself under attack and not very "green" at all. In the following two articles, reasons for and against bottled water are given and I feel that while the reasons to use bottled water are compelling, they are just as achievable without the use of bottled water, rather just water in a reusable water bottle.

The first article explains the reasons why bottled water is increasing and why it is necessary. One reason is that tap water may be contaminated and can therefore be hazardous to health. Another reason is that tap water may taste and/or smell "bad." The article also argues that the bottled water industry is one of economic opportunity. While all these reasons may be true, plastic water bottles are not the solution.

The next article gives reasons not to buy plastic water bottles. In short the arguments were: that bottled water is not a good value, it is no healthier than tap, bottled water means more garbage, there will be less attention to public systems, and that water, what many deem to be a natural human right to have safe and affordable access to, is becoming a corporation. All of these reasons can be backed by proven and studied facts.

The arguments from the first article can also be backed by facts, but rather than making bottled water the solution, the reusable water bottle industry should be more actively suggested. By using reusable water bottles, unnecessary plastic bottle garbage will no longer be created, a focus will remain on public water filtration systems because consumers will use their own tap water to fill their bottles, and there will still be an industry for a product - a much "greener" product.

Photo Credit: www.mnn.com

"I'll have the fresh... food at the farmer's market."

Kat Saltarelli's blog post "Let's Keep It Real" is in part the story of my life. I say "in part," because while I very much agree with Kat's partial attitude towards natural or "real" food, I believe that processed or "fake" food has become an important staple in the lifestyles of people today - mine included.

While I'd love to maintain a diet of only fresh, organic, healthy foods, it simply is not possible given my current position as a college student, short on extra budget space to buy "real" food all of the time. The truth is, fast food is cheap.

I do agree with Kat's view, as I can sympathize with her feeling of being "stuck" with previously canned corn, broccoli, or what have you; I know of the situation she mentions at Pop's Cafeteria. I too am fond of sweet, summer corn-on-the-cob and wish it could replace the rather mushy veggies on my plate. Luckily, we are not the only ones to feel this way, and thus opportunities to buy "real" foods are still available, even at a reasonably low price. The local farmer's market is a great source of reasonably priced healthy food, and in the off season, when the farmer's market does not take place, smart shoppers can find ways to cut costs at local supermarkets like the newly opened Madison Food Market.

I am familiar with Kat's mentioned source, Dr. Leslie Van Romer, using her same article in my previous blog post. Dr. Van Romer argues we have the choice of what to eat. While cost is a major determining factor of our choice, there are ways, like those previously mentioned, that can serve to fill the fresh-food starved college student, or anyone for that matter.

Overall, Kat's article addresses the feeling many college students have concerning "real" food, but there are healthy, affordable, options students can have if only they "make the choice" to find them.

Photo Credit:
Farmer's Market Logo - www.smgov.net/farmers_market

Demonstration Speech Self-Evaluation

My demonstration speech was a basic introduction on the parts of a guitar and a number of beginner techniques. Within my speech I identified the guitar as a great tool used to communicate ideas, share emotions, and forge relationships. Being a fairly common musical instrument, it has been used in many cultures both past and present to do such things and playing guitar can also be a great hobby.

I believe I presented my speech in a logical and easy to follow order, first giving a brief description of the main parts of a guitar, next a few accessories, and then finally onto a few commonly used techniques.

My overall physical presentation during the demonstration was fairly good. I maintained enthusiasm which is shown in the clear volume of voice and my positive body language (smile, eye contact). I do feel that I rushed myself towards the end as I probably had more information than was necessary to fill a six minute speech.

My guitar was both an essential visual aid as well as one that kept the interest of my audience. It is a rather engaging guitar with its sunburst finish and interestingly shaped bridge and inlays, and I can't forget the fact that it allows for the creation of some great music.

If given the chance, I would choose this topic again for a demonstration speech but I would definitely work with a narrower scope such as only the techniques and leave out defining the parts of the guitar. Although the parts of a guitar are interesting, omitting such information would allow for a better and more engaging explanation of actual playing skills. If I focused on just the auditory side of guitar, I would be able to keep my audience better interested and keep my presentation within the allotted time frame, which I did exceed by more than a minute.

Overall, I feel my presentation went rather well and came away from it with a better understanding of what it takes to give an effective presentation.

Photo Credit:
Guitar - www.maxguitarstore.com

Today's "Pop" Secret

Ever since I was a child, popcorn (to me) came from my mother's garden at the end of the driveway - in between the sweet corn and the sunflowers. Every year, I remember excitedly going out and picking the ears with dried up husks, starting the process of harvesting one of my favorite snacks, never knowing it was "real" food rather than "fake," if there could ever be such a thing. Michael Pollan argues that “real” food must make up the majority of our diets in order to allow for healthiness. Yet, now away from home and in college, I have discovered processed popcorn straight from the supermarket, and dare I say I find it rather delicious!

Pop Secret brand popcorn now holds the top spot when it comes to my favorite snack, extra butter to be exact. It has a more buttery smell, richer taste, and more golden appearance than the popcorn of my past but with the added enrichment comes more calories, a bucket load more. On average, a cup of homegrown popcorn contains 30 calories, add another 100 if drizzled in butter (Mother Earth News). In comparison, a cup of Pop Secret extra butter popcorn contains a whopping 170 calories (The Daily Plate). The processed snack does throw a slight kink into my fairly healthy diet, so I don’t eat it as much as I would like.

Upon returning home this summer, I will return to eating the “real” popcorn I’ve always loved. Although I do enjoy Pop Secret brand popcorn, I would rather eat homegrown popcorn.

Dr. Leslie Van Romer agrees with Michael Pollen thoughts on “real” food in that it must make up the majority of our diets. He says, "Today's modern world affords us many privileges, not the least of which is the privilege of choice.” He goes on to say, “These are the very choices that determine not only the number of your days, but also the quality of your days.” It seems that, indeed, Dr. Romer is right.

Photo Credit:
Popcorn Kernels – www.rareseeds.com

"Eat like an Olympian?" - Yes please.

In Alanna's blog post, "Eat like an Olympian?" she argues that McDonald's may not be a good supporter of the Olympics because the company really does not have a place in the realm of the Olympics and its competing athletes. I disagree with her opinion as I feel although she develops her argument well, McDonald's image as a whole may be overlooked because when viewed as a "globally connecting" company it could be seen as a perfectly suitable and respectable supporter of the Olympics.

The included commercial suggests that Olympians eat fast food, yet Alanna goes on to say that when contestants from the show "The Biggest Loser" visited the Olympic Training Center there was no fast food to be found. This may have been the case at the Colorado training center, as I suspect the center was used solely for training, but the Olympic Village in Toronto was used not only for the competition but also to accomadate the temporary residence for many athletes and spectators. In order to accomadate such guests, a restaurant would be needed - McDonalds filled the spot.

McDonalds is known to participate in charitable campaigns and thus corralates with the Olympics, known to spread a message of "positive global relationsions." In this article by Laura Welden, the connection between the Olympics and McDonalds is found to be one of long-time support as McDonalds has sponsored the Olympics for 40 years and in 2008 launched the "Champion Kids" program. The program was designed to help children "receive a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to experience the Games first-hand."

Although McDonalds does not serve the healthiest food, typically associated with professional athletes, it works towards building community relationships and in this way serves to be a rightful sponsor of the Olympics. Alanna's cited author, Monika Evstatieva may want to change her quote to "If you want to eat like an Olypian, eat like one, train like one, and for heaven's sake, think about the positive aspects of McDonalds."

Photo Credit:
Ronald - www.huffingtonpost.com
Golden Arches - www.sportsfeatures.com

Celebrity Endorsements: Making an Impact

These days, it seems that every product or service is endorsed by a celebrity. Whether it be made by a famous actor, musician, or athlete, celebrity endorsements can make or break a new product campaign. Yet sometimes the focus is not always on selling a product, but rather supporting a cause. Lance Armstrong teamed up with Nike in support of the "It's About You" campaign, which is designed to "inspire and mobilize the world in the fight against cancer." The campaign advertisement, seen here, reminds the viewer of Armstrong's fight with cancer and of his perseverance to succeed against the odds.

I believe that Lance Armstrong is a great celebrity to support the campaign as his survivor story is both inspiring and motivational to current victims. Nike, known for its involvement with the community, provides a strong backbone to the campaign adding another image of health and strength.

Armstrong's endorsement of Nike during this campaign lends the company positive publicity, and therefore more viewers are likely to buy Nike products because they associate the products with both Armstrong and the "It's About You" campaign. Supporting charities has always been a fad among consumers and in this case I'm positive the campaign will prove successful for both Nike and Armstrong. He already has the respect of many because of his previous cancer awareness program and this new campaign will be sure to add to his popularity.

In this article, the authors have compiled what they believe to be the main factors having influence on a successful celebrity endorsement: credibility, attractiveness, and power. Armstrong has all three of these attributes as defined by the article. In this way, the campaign should prove to be successful for Armstrong, Nike, and "It's About You" program.

Photo Credit:
www.socialitelife.celebuzz.com

"Speak No More of Food, Only Nutrients."

As diet fads continue to rule Western culture, food industry takes full advantage of the consumer's weakness for anything labeled either "heart-healthy" or "nutritionally whole," or especially, "enriched with daily essential vitamins or minerals." Michael Pollan argues his opinion of Western diet in his book, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto. Within the first chapters, Pollen explains how food is no longer seen to the diet-crazed consumer as just a source of daily nourishment, but rather as an item consisting of individual nutrients.

I agree with Pollan, in that consumers, myself included, tend to focus directly on the nutrition facts label upon picking up an item at the grocery store. Shopping for groceries has transformed from finding everything on a list to still finding everything on a list BUT only while checking to make sure every item is "nutritionally sound." Yet, it seems like everything on the market these days is packed full of extra vitamins and minerals which leads me to another point of Pollan's of which I agree: scientists can find an antioxidant or additional nutrient in just about any plant-based food they choose to study, leading consumers to think they are purchasing best food available.

Many foods have gotten the "good nutrient" marketing treatment. Pollan's example of a pomegranate, "now [known to] protect against cancer and erectile dysfunction," shows the new marketing ploy to reel in more customers. Initially, I believe studies that show the advantages of eating certain foods do rely on proven facts, but during the marketing process of such foods, embellishment of facts can prove to be misleading. These interviews with everyday consumers clearly shows their preference to certain products strictly because those products have been given a "good nutrient" type of image, and backs up Pollan's assertion that consumers are prone to buy products that have been labeled as "healthy."

Michael Pollan doesn't beat around the bush when he states his argument that the food industry has exploited the consumer's attention to the nutritional aspects of food and he creates an awareness of the negative effects of wearing the "nutrition label blinders."

Works Cited:
Pollan, M. (2008). In defense of food: An eater's manifesto. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Photo Credit:
Google Images