Persuasive Speech Critique

Upon reviewing my speech, I have pinpointed the strengths and weaknesses of my presentation. While I do make use of relevant resources and data, I do not offer many counter arguments, making my speech appear biased. This could have been prevented by supplying opposing viewpoints that support drug war policies.
Following the slide layout provided some structure on the history and impact of drug war policies. The format does not have a consistent flow, leaving some slides up longer than others, and some slides did not necessarily relate specifically to what I was describing. It is hard to communicate and expand beyond what is on the slides without having a script or outline to read from.
The speech goes well beyond the 5 minute limitation, proving that I did not efficiently discuss my ideas in a sequential and connected flow. Having a more basic yet still thorough slide structure perhaps would have kept me more on course for delivering the speech in the appropriate amount of time. Following a more simplified structure would have provided a better organizational strategy for the audience, as well as for my own benefit of staying on track.
My attention is focused on the audience, but not 100% of the time, as I am seen looking toward the computer and projection screen to help combat my speech anxiety. This is not a productive or attractive method for maintaining interest from the audience. My transitions are clumsy and need to have better bridges to connect together my main points.
Overall, I feel that my performance was too casual and wandering. My strength is that I clearly state my position, but my weakness is that I do not provide alternative viewpoints in order to better support my position. I will be mindful of these characteristics in order to improve and develop my speech writing and delivering skills.

Response to Athavi's: Organic Food: Is it Worth the Price?

Athavi's post is a very interesting and also relevant for all of us, since we all eat food. Her position is that we should try to stay away from pesticides and other dangerous food cultivation processes. Money should not take precedence over the quality of food, especially when there are unknown consequences for the ingestion of food treated with toxic pesticides. While those against organic farming point at high prices and perhaps an increase in danger since the USDA does not check organic produce, there seems to be a void in that argument. In order for one farm to gain organic certification, it takes years and years of work and investment. On top of time and money invested, the farms also have a greater loss of produce when disease or insect invasion occur, therefore prices have to cover for the loss of produce that may not have happened if pesticides were used.
For consumers, it comes down to how tight a budget a person is on while shopping for groceries. If one can afford organic, I’m not sure why you would prefer commercial agriculture over organic. There are claims that organic foods may be dangerous to consumers because of the “natural” fertilizers are actually more hazardous than conventional fertilizers. Apparently for consumers, we have a choice between harsh chemicals or natural toxins, or which farming method you approve of.
Athavi’s blog post was very clear, and connected her personal thoughts with resources on both sides of the organic food debate. Her sources could have been a little more recent than 2007 and 2008, but they are sufficient. I agree with her thoughts that money should not trump quality, but fresh, quality produce that does not hurt the people or the land should be the ideals of consumers and farmers alike.

Fake Mashed Potatoes

Mashed potatoes are a common dish, but today, hardly anyone has time to make homemade mashed potatoes, right? Well, eating the fake version of mashed potatoes for few years may force you to go running back for Grandma's simple recipe. The taste of fake mashed potatoes does not compare to the real form. The texture and density of the fake mashed potatoes are inconsistent, with pockets of powdery explosions hidden in the mix.
While the ingredients of the fake form may mimic real mashed potatoes, they do not add up to the same amount of nutrients (especially vitamins C and B6). It is not a total loss, but it appears that any metabolic change to food, reduces the amount of nutrients. This includes flash freezing of potatoes. The time saved by cooking fake mashed potatoes may seem worth it, but you are losing out on taste and nutrients.
I made the switch to eating fake mashed potatoes when I came to college. Time is a valuable commodity and if I could save 30 minutes by not skinning, cutting, and boiling the potatoes, I would go for the instant mashed potatoes. Instantly, meaning assembled in less than 10 minutes. I can't take fake mashed potatoes any longer. (I may be broke, but I am not tasteless!) Plus, real potatoes, milk, and butter are not very expensive. Therefore, price isn't the motivation behind purchasing instant mashed potatoes; it is the convenience and the time saving.
An article professes that mashed potatoes can be marvelous despite coming from a box or package. I have to disagree as a loyal fan of the real mashed potatoes, only on the grounds that fake mashed potatoes do not resemble the real version whatsoever. The writer proclaims "Cooking with instant mashed potatoes is a good way to save on time and effort. Though its taste and nutrition do not match with the freshly mashed potatoes, yet it is very convenient and easy to prepare." I must proclaim that we need a return to real foods, and the less pressure or processing or cooking you put your food through, you are generally going to have more flavor and more nutrients.

Response: Jake's Why Process Water

Jake's blog post deals with the growing trend to drink bottled water over regular faucet-style water. The article he includes also reflects Jake's opinion: bottled water is wasteful, not any healthier for you, distracts authorities from properly managing faucet water sources, and is expensive. Many of his points are supported and well defended, but I do have a few critical observations.

While bottled water is wasteful (water bottles do create waste, but they can also be recycled) and may not be any healthier than tap water, some are concerned that our water supplies are tainted with chemicals (hormones, drugs, consumer products, etc.) that are unable to be removed during the filtration process. The source of these abnormal chemicals is people dumping medications or other chemicals down the toilet or sink. Tiny trace amounts of these chemicals may not be harmful, but who knows if there will be a scientific study that will prove otherwise. Even if bottled water is only filtered tap water, it may give people reassurance that they are more protected against an outbreak that may occur in their town's tap water.

Your well water experience sounds much more pleasant than mine. I grew up with well water for about 7 years and I absolutely despised the smell and taste. I grew accustomed to it, but my friends and visitors always complained about its irony taste. So while your well experience was fine and dandy, others may not be so lucky. Still, it does not mean that if you have disgusting well water that you need to buy tons of bottled water. There are many other alternatives like buying a personal filter (Brita, Pur, etc.) or something like a Culligan water cooler.

All in all though, I do feel like you make very valid points. I have fallen victim to our times so I can't say I never buy bottled water, but I do feel like it is a waste of money for the most part. It seems to be better to buy something like a Gatorade or Vitamin Water to give something extra besides just water. Then again, you can make your own Gatorade mix in your own reusable bottle if you wanted to cut back on wasteful bottle tossing.

Downloading Is Not A Crime

There are very few people in the United States that have not heard about downloading free music and many other forms of media. On the one hand, you have the music recording industry, represented by The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), who condemns this as virtual stealing. On the other hand, you have a growing body of people who only download music for free and don't purchase CDs or online downloads. This has been a growing problem for the RIAA and the music industry at large for over a decade, and there appears to be no end in sight.

I have taken a look over the RIAA's FAQ information on their website and tried to compare and contrast it with a consumer's response to the issue of illegal downloading. The RIAA has a strong stance that all illegal downloads are the same as shoplifting from a store and has a negative consequences on the artists, producers, and distributors alike. Music is a product that requires money to produce, and if consumers are illegally downloading the artist's music, than that artist, record company, and the like are being held up like musical robbery.

In comparison, I have looked at a blog post that briefly tackles this issue, utilizing it as a voice of the consumers of illegal downloads. Michael Arrington declares that downloading free music is the wave of the future, and that the music industry will have to surrender to the will of the people. He argues that music should be free, and just because technological advances have given more control the the listeners and consumers of music, doesn't mean that their conduct is illegal. He likens the internet downloading and streaming wave as the new radio. No one pays for radio, except through listening to commercials, and internet streaming and downloading have eliminated those old fashioned advertising techniques.

My personal opinion on the matter has not changed dramatically since reading these articles. I do understand the sense of fear and anger from the music industry over illegal "pirating" of music. At the same time, I am empathetic toward those pirates since I can relate to not wanting to spend $10 to download a digital album from iTunes or Amazon.com when I can get it for free. I believe that musicians barely get any of the sales revenue from their CD sales anyway, therefor they are forced to make their money through touring or other non-traditional forms of earning revenue. I would much rather spend $30 to see live music than spend $15 on a CD that I might not like or barely listen to. I don't think that illegal downloading will stop the entertainment industry, but it has provided some interesting changes and challenges to the world of media production, distribution, and consumption.

Demonstration Speech Self-Evaluation

To begin, I tried to explain the uniqueness of glassblowing while also emphasizing that our class should take advantage of this opportunity. My organization and flow of my speech was sporadic, casually moving through the rough steps of glassblowing. A more succinct and progressive approach would have better served my speech in terms of delivering the informational content.
My presentation was slow, monotone, and stagnant in terms of my physical presentation. My body language is disinterested and feels slightly unmotivated. I could have made more direct eye contact with the audience instead of focusing on the video in the background. There appears to be a lack of enthusiasm signaled by my monotone voice.
My visual aid of a glassblowing video did provide some nice illustrations of the process, but it also may have been distracting for the audience, especially since I primarily addressed the computer screen instead of facing the audience. Therefore, my visual aid was a double edged sword; illustrative but it also may have diverted attention.
I would choose the same topic again, but I would focus more on my organization and delivery. My visual aid could be switched to a power point that gives better structure to my presentation, instead of trying to describe the glassblowing process through a video. I would add a more concrete structure and also more enthusiasm, allowing the audience to better understand the information. By the end of my presentation, I should have sparked an interest or at least made the class curious about working with glass.

Focus on the Family: Tim Tebow's Pro-Life Superbowl Commercial

There was a ambiguous commercial that aired during the most recent Superbowl featuring Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam, in support of Focus on the Family, a Christian pro-life advocacy group. The commercial seems to only be advertising the group's website to learn more about the Tebow story, but it also has a tagline: "Celebrate family. Celebrate life."

While people have their own opinions on abortion, having a celebrity appear in a commercial or promotional video can alter how people receive the intended message. The commercial focuses on Pam Tebow, allowing her to briefly express the troubles she faced with her son's pregnancy, but more importantly, how she was able to tough it out and overcome the issues that surround pregnancy and parenthood.

Viewers of the commercial may have felt uplifted, enraged, or passive, but the goal of the commercial was to highlight the benefits of choosing life without explicitly mentioning abortion or pro-life expressions. The message could also be viewed pessimistically; don't have an abortion because your child may end up being a star. On the other hand, it can be viewed positively; choosing to have a child can result in a wonderful and gratifying experience for both mother and child, even if the mother is faced with complicating circumstances during pregnancy.

Tim Tebow's religious personality has been discussed by journalists, mainly because he represents an altruistic athlete committed to Christianity and abstinence. He stands in contrast to stereotypes of athletes as promiscuous macho men. Therefore, he seems to be an appropriate candidate for the position on a pro-life television commercial. His personal views and lifestyle are in accordance to the pro-life mentality. Tim's personal story of his birth requires further research, but his family was stationed in the Phillipines during Pam's pregnancy. It has been reported that she was recommended an abortion by one of the doctors there, even though abortions are strictly illegal in any form.

The overall message of the commercial seems to communicate that having and raising a child is not easy, and can even be dangerous, but the rewards of being a parent are well worth it. Tim Tebow's football star persona gave this commercial the appropriate celebrity endorsement, since it was aired during the Superbowl. The problem appears to be that the commercial did not succeed, despite all the hype that it was given prior to the Superbowl. Also, there were people who criticized CBS for approving a pro-life commercial, while denying a commercial for a dating website geared for gay men. People have proclaimed that CBS was hypocritical for allowing a pro-life commercial but not allowing a homosexual ad.

In my personal response, I feel that both pro-life and homosexual advocates have the right to advertise. The current TV climate tends to favor more Christian messages

In Defense of Food Response

Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto offers a critical perspective on the rise of “nutritionism” within the Western diet. He argues that most of the nutritional advice over the past sixty years has been detrimental to our health and diets. The industrialization of foods in America has lost the traditional, real, whole food items that used to contain two or three ingredients, taken over by processed, food-like mutations that hardly include recognizable ingredients. Pollan distrusts science or industry in determining what’s on the menu, notably for their failure to fully understand the science behind food.
I am supportive of his claims, but there seems to be more questions and criticisms than actual solutions and answers to the problems that surround the Western diet. The rise of highly processed foods is not a hopeful or progressive path for the industrialization of our food. The biggest concerns for Pollan seem to revolve around these changes: “The rise of highly processed foods and grains; the use of chemicals to raise plants and animals in huge monocultures; the superabundance of cheap calories of sugar and fat produced by modern agriculture; and narrowing the biological diversity of the human diet to a tiny handful of staple crops, notably, wheat, corn, and soy…lots of processed foods and meats, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything—except vegetables, fruits, and whole grains.” It is no wonder this diet causes sickness and obesity in our society.
The article "The Hidden Danger in Your Food" discusses the dangers of MSG (monosodium glutamate) and how it exposes humans to toxic levels glutamate, especially in children and infants. The main issue is that MSG has invaded most processed foods, fast food, and cafeteria food in some form. While the FDA has stood behind their scientific studies that show no harmful effects of MSG, other scientific studies around the world claim that MSG is a proprietor of obesity, especially among children, who are more vulnerable to MSG damage. Obesity is rising exponentially and MSG is a likely culprit.

Wow, I have a Blog!

This is unbelievable, blogging for the first time in cyberspace. What an amazing sensation this is, spreading knowledge and learning across the globe. While I am not Mark Twain or J.D. Salinger, I hope to discuss, transcribe, and propagate knowledge of the lesser known kind.