Peer Response to Jake's "Tiger" Post

Jake wrote about Tiger Woods and his Gatorade endorsement. Jake first talks about how Gatorade gave Tiger his special series of Gatorade and said that regardless of his off-the-course misconduct he is still the right person to endorse their product. Jake thinks that Tiger will come back and return to dominate the game like he did so few years ago.

If you've followed the Tiger Woods affair saga, you've probably heard the worst of Tiger. In my opinion, Tiger Woods is golf. When I was a kid, my dad forced me to watch golf on the weekends. It was torture. I love golf, don't get me wrong, but watching it on TV is comparable to watching NASCAR in my opinion. You have to be doing it to enjoy it. That was the take I had on golf until I first watched Tiger. He evolved the game of golf into what it is today. He is one of the most, if not the most, phenomenal golfers of all-time. My point is that the PGA (Professional Golfers' Association) owes the little rankings it has to Tiger Woods.

This is the reason why I feel Tiger got a bad rap. Yes, his off-course actions have consequences. He made mistakes, admitted to making them, and apologized. He's not the only professional athlete to have his personal issues brought public, but his is very damaging because he had probably one of the cleanest resumes of all. Tiger's personal issues should not have been displayed the way they were. His golfing prowess greatly outweighs his personal faults. He never used enhancing drugs to make his performance better. He never had any advantage over any other golfer, except his God-given talent and hard work.

For these reasons, I side with Jake, and I think that Pepsi made a huge mistake in dropping Tiger until everyone can see how it has affected him once he returns. I have nothing but respect for Tiger as a golfer and as a person: everyone deserves a second chance.

Celeb Endorsements

Katy Perry, Julianne Hough, and Kelly Clarkson. What do these three singers/songwriters all have in common? Besides being successful in their own respects, they have all done commercials for the product called Proactiv Solution. Proactiv Solution is a product that involves several steps to clear up unwanted acne and other skin issues in adolescents and adults. More information can be found about this product here.

These three artists talk about their skin problems mostly triggered by their busy schedules and active, on-the-go lifestyles. Even though they are considered celebrities, they have the same problems with their bodies that most young Americans do.

Many adolescents watch TV later at night, often when these commercials are shown. Since these women are highly successful and have good public images, I feel that they are good candidates. Kids see the celebrities using it, and many young girls probably feel more confident knowing that someone they look up to uses the same beauty product as they do. At the same rate, parents may not be happy about spending money on an expensive product just because the kids see the celebrity endorsement. However, this battle is ongoing with parents and children.

Since the artists in the commercial have used the product and have had acne problems in their pasts, they have the proper expertise to show the product. Proactiv seems to be a very productive company, as they have several commercials on nightly, which can't be cheap.

In my experience with using Proactiv, it worked just as well as other acne products that I had previously used, so it didn't have much of a different effect on me. I'm past the point where celebrities influence my buying decisions to an extent. What I mean is that I don't see a commercial and instantly go out and buy that product just because my favorite celebrity endorses it. If that were true, I'd have a whole lot of pairs of Wrangler jeans.

Demo Speech Self-Eval

After looking over my demonstration speech of the different pitching positions and pitch types, I thought it went well. I showed strong points within my speech, but there are some things I need to work on for further speeches.

Baseball is a very subjective sport; many either love it or hate it. I, personally, have a great passion for the game and everything about it. One thing I should've done better was to somehow incorporate the audience into my speech and make it less boring. Also, I could've done a better job explaining things baseball-related, even though it would've been difficult to do with the five-minute time limit.

Some strengths I possessed included posture, physical demonstration, voice projection, and eye contact. I am often told that I'm not a quiet person, so voice volume was the least of my worries going in. I played baseball for at least fourteen years, and I'm a freshman baseball coach and assistant pitching coach. The physical demonstration was textbook as to how pitching is taught to young players and old. As far as the visual aid was concerned, I used all the necessary items needed to do this presentation.

If I could do another speech, I think I would choose something more relevant to the whole group that I'm presenting to. This would've been very appropriate to show to a group of baseball players or coaches, but it wasn't as effective in this setting. I guess it was just something that I felt I could do a good job as far as the presentation goes. I would also try to project more enthusiastic energy to try to light up the room.

If I had to specifically perform another speech on the same topic, I might make sure it can be done outside and ask a person from the audience to catch the ball. This would have maybe gotten the audience more excited about the topic.

All in all though, I think it went well.

Peer Response to Natalie's Post on IDOF

Natalie begins her post by stating Michael Pollan's arguments on the issue of scientist intervention into the food industry. She states that Pollan believes that scientists can't give us the proper nutrients that the foods can give us without being modified. I agree with this completely. For the longest time science has tried to make everything more efficient and "better" for you when they've failed in many places in my opinion.

Natalie then goes on to talk about Pollan's idea of how social culture and tradition has shaped food and its consumption. It is true that back in the past decades people ate what they had at their disposal, and they had less heart disease and other problems that we are encountering today. A lot of the troubles Americans are experiencing come from the food choices they make and the new choices we have offered to us. Our ancestors would probably roll over in their graves if they saw what we stuff our faces with today.

I definitely understand Natalie when she talks about not having many stay-at-home meals. I had similar, always-working parents and oftentimes we'd throw in a pizza and watch TV in our respective rooms. When I eat, I always seem to watch TV just so I feel at home. The nights we did get to sit down were nice, but they were far and few in between occurrences. I have a big extended family, and the one thing I'm very thankful for is our holiday dinners. My grandma and aunts prepare all the food and we get to talk and hang out. These are the times I cherish most: family and food.

Natalie closes with Pollan's comparison breast milk and baby formula. He brings up valid arguments in that natural breast milk is the best thing for a mother's baby. The article that Natalie cites by Dr. Sears also nails home the issue of breast milk and its advantages.

Post 2 "Real" vs. "Fake"

Pineapple. Pear. Cherry. Peach. Orange. These are all fruits that as a kid I ate in their "real" form as "real" foods are defined by Michael Pollan. He also talks about the Western Diet and how it's damaging our health. Agreeing with Pollan, David Gutierrez talks about the Western Diet and its link with heart disease. My mom always had the house full of these fruits as well as apples, kiwis, and bananas, and I always reached for these foods on a daily basis. At the time it was just a tasty treat after practice or play, but as I got older I realized that my mom had a purpose for putting those out on the counter.

As I grew and began to understand the concepts of cost, timeliness, and laziness, I found the processed fruit section in stores. I tried my first "fake" fruit cup when I was in high school during sports. It was originally my friend's who decided that he didn't want it on a long bus ride. He seemed surprised that I had never had one before.

The "fake" peaches that I consumed smelled kind of like a peach syrup, and there was a lot of sugar in that little cup. It was a very convenient way to eat peaches though, being that there was no juicy mess, no hurting teeth after you accidently bit too far in and caught the pit, or no skin to chew on. The peaches tasted a lot sweeter than the ones Mom used to bring home, and they looked kind of mushy being cramped in that tiny cup. They still tasted satisfactory though.

This "fake" food provides some nutrients probably, but nowhere near the vitamins gained by eating the "real" alternative. The packages don't argue that their processed food is as good or better, at least not with fruit that I can recall. Nevertheless, the "real" food is the way to go.

Now that I'm in college, I have a counter full of processed fruit in cans, cups, and bags. The main reasons I buy processed fruit are based on cost, convenience, and storage. When I get out on my own place though after college, I plan to switch back to the way that my mom tried to instill in me: "real" fruit.