Self-Eval

A common saying goes, “you’re only as strong as your weakest link”, so I’m gonna start this self-analysis with all the weak points in my presentation. First of all, I’d like to make the statement that its unbearably hard to watch oneself perform. Like, I had to stop the video whenever I saw someone even passing me, because of the embarrassment it brought. I’m sure there’s a psychological explanation for why I feel this way; like the ID acting out to protect itself or something, but this blog is not the venue for that discussion.

The first think I noticed reviewing myself, was that I need to speak slower. It seemed as if I was in some SAW movie, with a bomb strapped to my leg that would go off if I didn’t complete my speech in a certain time. This speedy talking may get me out of a speeding ticket, but it only leaves the audience in a “wait a minute….could you repeat the 8 points you just made in 3 seconds?” state of shock. In my defense, whenever I practiced my speech, I took over 6 minutes, so I knew ahead of time that I needed to be speedy. Lesson #1 learned: slow down speed racer, set a steady pace.


I’m not sure if the camera’s audio reflected reality, but if it did, I need to have a better understanding of the level of my voice. The other big problem I had watching it was my conclusion… or lack there of. I just wanted to get done and sit down, so I skipped over my conclusion. Lesson learned #2: Take the time to conclude everything you just said.

Now for some positives: I think I did an alright job of explaining my topic, I could have expanded on relevance a little, and I think my steps were organized. Overall, I think this speech was par for the course..

Peer Response #2

Today in the world of SSST’s Blog: a response to Kat Saltarelli’s blog about celebrity endorsements.

Saltarelli opens her post by making a statement concerning the ridiculous appearance of models – being too skinny, too made-up, etc – and how those models create an unrealistic image for young women across the country. She uses this opening to explain why Serena Williams endorsement with Nike goes against the mainstream of celebrity role models.

She says that Williams is confident, powerful and uncaring of criticism, and is thus a role model to be looked up to for young women. Her achievements and “cool” make her a wholesome athlete that little girls can aspire to be like when they grow up. And for this reason, Nike made the right decision to endorse her and her image.

I don’t know much about Williams’ character; if she’s as calm and confident as Saltarelli proposes, so I’ll just have to take her word for it. The only thing that still bothers me is that Serena still has the “looks” that all those little girls envy. I’m not attacking Serena for looking good and being a good person, I’m just making the point that little girls will still be in envy of her “beautiful athletic body” (see picture above - a little more modesty would be appreciated Ms Williams). Saltarelli even says in the post that unlike many other women tennis players, Williams has a body that she can and does “flaunt”. I think its almost a cop-out to picture her as a perfect role-model, just for the reason that she still fits the description of what a model should have: a glamorous body. This still creates an unrealistic view of how a female body should look for little girls, despite the fact that Williams is a nice person.

In the future, I’d like to see Nike endorse a “normal” looking athlete, so that girls can see that they don’t have to be an hour-glass to be beautiful and successful.

Response to Mr. Behling

In this latest installment of SSST’s LSC 100 Blog:

I will respond to Mr. Frank Behling’s blog concerning Michael Pollan’s introduction chapters.

Mr. Behling’s blog concentrates on Pollan’s attack on the food industry for being unable to scientifically manufacture a superdooper food that has all of the nutrient powers as unaltered food. Behling brings up the point that no matter how much scientific information we have, all of our technology and information still is no match for mother’s homegrown garden (go figure, mother still knows best). When I read this, the image I got was that montage scene in Rocky IV (I still can’t believe they made that many movies with the same plot; Rocky is down in the dumps, a new opponent steps into the picture, montage, and Rocky wins something in the end. Come on Hollywood. Lets get original) where Rocky trains under “old school” techniques, while that Russian Aryan has all these professional trainers using science to push him to the limits of the human body. I’m not gonna spoil the ending, go watch the movie, but as for the food match, the old-school home-grown food wins.

Mr. Behling then makes the point that Pollan is a bit too…..sassy with the food industry. Pollan, stop your tirade. The food industry isn’t the devil. It’s okay for them to be interested in how our body and food interact and then try to make it better. That’s called science. It’s not going anywhere. Deal with it.

All in all, Mr. Behling establishes many good points about Pollan’s strict way of thinking about food.

Blog #2 Celeb Endorsement

Nothing says artery clogging, industry processed burger like two really famous guys playing basketball. McDonalds has somehow recruited two of the NBA’s top players to star in a commercial in which the two duke it out in competition. What’s at stake you might ask? A McDonalds meal. That’s right. Nothing says top physical fitness and athleticism like a Big Mac. This commercial, featuring Lebron James and Dwight Howard, is a remake of another that starred Michael Jordan Larry Bird that aired in the early 90’s (oh, sweet memories of childhood).

I can totally understand why McDonalds picked two talented and fit basketball players for an endorsement deal. I mean, if you can convince the public that you’re everything that you’re not, then you’ve pulled a Shallow Hal over their eyes (not to take away from the message of that movie, I absolutely loved it). If McDonalds wanted to be genuine and honest with their customers, they’d choose this guy for their add campaigns (have you seen Supersize Me??).

As to whether or not this campaign idea will be successful, I am unsure. If people were smart, they would see the hypocrisy right away. But if people don’t use their brains, like so many of us fail to do these days, they’ll believe anything they see on TV, and will most likely be in line for a Big Mac right now.

To be fair, I’ve posted an official article on the topic from NBA.com. In the article, Lebron states his reasons for working with McDonalds have a lot to do with working with the Ronald McDonald House. Touché Mr. James, touché. If this is the reason why Lebron betrays his athletic image with the devil in disguise food, then I have nothing to say. If there’s one reason to join the McDonalds’ side, it’s to help children with cancer. Good form, sir.