Demo speech review

So my speech on milking a cow wasn’t as good as I hoped, it was short and I felt unprepared. Anyway I felt my introduction and conclusion were adequate but I am unhappy with the body of my speech

I felt that I could’ve done a better job on my organization I had all the steps included but I forgot to mention the first step at the beginning but went back to it. I feel that I should have made an attempt to repeat the steps in an attempt to make the speech longer. I think that I could’ve used my visual aid which was a milking unit more effectively by showing how it is put on.

I believe that I was loud enough and that I was understandable in my word choice. In addition I think that I made good eye contact. However these good things probably won’t make up for the fact that it was only 3:07 long. I could’ve rambled on longer but I can’t stand it when other people do it so I wasn’t going to be a hypocrite. Since my speech was short I find it fitting to keep this post succinct.

21 vs 18

Recently there has been some debate about the merits of lowering the drinking age since 135 university presidents and chancellors signed the Amethyst Initiative. This initiative states that the 21 year old drinking age is not working.

The first article, Commentary: Drinking age of 21 saves lives, argues that against the lowering of the drinking age and is written by faculty members of the Minnesota School of Public Health. The article states that leads to less drinking problems and issues related to drinking on college campuses. There have also been fewer injuries and deaths as well as a result of the 21. The article claims that there was a decline in deaths and injuries when states increased the drinking age to 21 after lowering it in the 1970s. There are numerous other facts stated in the article that back up the statements made it the article. They argue that strict enforcement and communication with the community is the solution to reducing binge drinking.

The second article, Commentary: Drinking age of 21 doesn’t work, discusses why the drinking age should be lowered. The presidents that signed the initiative believe that a lower drinking age will result in less binge drinking. Binge drinking is the consumption of 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row. Studies have shown that binge drinking has stayed the same in college age males and has increased in college age females. They argue that the drinking takes places where it is very difficult to police. In addition there is no respect for the minimum drinking age.

Well seeing as I am college student I think that lowering the drinking age makes sense, because if someone who is underage wants alcohol it’s not that hard to get at least on this campus. I also agree that lowering the drinking age it would decrease binge drinking as students wouldn’t need to pregame before going out.

Steve's Rant About McDicks, Dwight Howard, and King James

Well, where I should begin as I dissect Steve Ticknor's blog post about the endorsement of McDonalds by LeBron James and Dwight Howard? Steve starts right off stating that he finds it hard to believe that McDonalds managed to recruit two of the top players from the NBA to do a commercial that promotes products that many consumers consider extremely unhealthy. He goes on to make the comment, “Nothing says Top physical fitness and athleticism like a Big Mac.” The commercial in question shows a slam dunk competition between the two top notch players and the winner would get to eat the meal while the other watched. The commercial is similar to a 90s commercial that featured Michael Jordan and Larry Bird.

Steve states that McDonalds’ strategy is very good one as it represents what they are not. He basically goes on to accuse McDonalds of lying to consumers. He suggests that McDonalds uses an image that adequately portrays what their products do to people (This isn’t the same guy that Steve was promoting but another candidate above which I found courtesy of the internet).

I agree with Steve that if people are smart enough then consumers will see through the charade and won’t believe that athletic success is the result of Big Macs and fries but alas that is too much to ask for with the brains of people being melted by TV.

The links that Steve provides are very helpful as they allow the reader to figure out what he is talking about. The link to the article on the NBA website is very insightful into why the basketball stars did the endorsement deal with McDonalds. Steve is right that the players may have done it for the right reasons but at what cost?

Lance's Michalob light?

There was an ad that stood out to me that I saw a couple of weeks ago, of course it wasn’t because it was a beer commercial (TV is full of them) or the celebrity athlete in it. It was the song that played during the commercial actually (Song 2 by Blur). On the other hand after seeing it few times I found it kind of ironic that Lance Armstrong is promoting an alcoholic beverage Michelob Ultra Light.

I doubt there has been any bottles of Michelob Ultra Light that have helped Lance Armstrong win any of the seven Tour de Frances that he won over his career. However I figure that the target audience is suppose to view Lance as a cool guy that would enjoy a beer on the weekend. The rest of the ad portrays people that seem to have some sense of athleticism and that theme is continued with Lance’s spot at the end. The commercial portrays that being athletic is cool. So using common reasoning that most people, who sit drooling in front of their TVs all day, I will become cool and be able to perform amazing feats of athleticism if I drink Michelob Ultra Light beer.

However it is doubtful that this will be the result unless you have shown hidden talents for athletics in the past. I think that the producer of the ad was successful in portraying that it’s cool to drink Michelob Ultra. The shows young energetic people having fun with their lives, in my opinion they put together a very good commercial. Personally I don’t think it is a very good idea to have athletes promote products unless it is something that is connected to the sport that they play. It’s even worse if they have to talk, because most don’t sound the smartest.

Response to Shelby Springer's Blog post

Shelby’s blog post begins by summarizing some of the arguments made by Michael Pollan in the first forty pages of In Defense of Food: An Eaters Manifesto. She mentions his arguments about eating whole foods such as meat, vegetables, and fruits, as opposed to consuming processed or modified foods. These foods are apparently making Americans less healthy and lead to many of the health problems that people experience.

Shelby goes on to discuss and defend Pollan’s argument against nutritionism which is the focus food scientists have on just the nutritional content of the foods that our society eats rather on the whole food instead. I agree with her stance that the large manufacturers of processed foods are benefiting from supply consumers with what they think they require for nutrients. The article that she links to is a very good source to get her point across about the size of the size of this segment of industry. The article states that in 1993 U.S. food processors “provided approximately $119.2 billion worth of processed foods to foreign markets.” Moreover, Shelby shows society’s reliance on these industries by pointing out the fact that most Americans don’t grow any of their own food

The second argument that Shelby supports is the fact that the information that consumers receive every day changes and that there is no consistency. This problem is amplified by the fact that most people find information about their health on the internet which is full of opposing points which of course can be confusing.

I have to agree with the points that Shelby defends in her blog post. I found it well organized and thought out with clear arguments that flow throughout the post

In Defense Of Food

After reading the first forty pages of In Defense of Food my perception has changed slightly as I now realize that Micheal Pollan is capable of making sensible arguments. The introduction and the first section of the book attack an ideology that Pollan describes as nutritionism where food science has focused more on the nutrients in foods than the food themselves. He also describes how the United States government came up with its nutritional recommendations, which were heavily influenced by lobbyists that worked for the major arms of the food industry, but hey thats nothing new.

The argument that the focus on nutrients has made us less healthy, strikes me as a valid point seeing as the food scientists have failed to create processed foods that are equal to their natural equivalents. Additionally most of the information that we have been told about what our diets should consist of, has been proven wrong by the time we have had the opportunity to publish studies on the diet trends. Furthermore it is ridiculous the way that food companies try to add nutrients to foods once the catch even the smallest hint of health benefits. However I don't believe that he should blame the food industry for at least trying to understand what our foods contain that make it possible for us to survive. It is just human nature because eventually there will probably be some sort of wonder food that will give us everything we need. On the other hand it would be more a more effective use of time to just advocate a diet that is balance that provides the nutrients required by our human bodies. Science should be used to distinguish what foods are healthier for you, and avoid trying to re-engineering them.