I spent a lot of time searching the internet for a bad speech to write about, hoping I could find one from a movie I liked, or at least one I had seen before. After an hour of searching, I came upon this train-wreck of a speech and honestly it made me laugh. If you have the time, please do me a favor and watch this poor kid struggle — I think we can all relate to him just a little too much.

First, I never really picked up what his topic was. He started off talking about food for thought, and then all of the sudden he is comparing himself to an egg. Informing your audience of the topic of your speech clearly and promptly allows them to follow along much easier. Even if you don’t state it right away, make sure to state it at some point instead of having a bunch of random points stuck together in a paragraph and calling it a speech.

This speaker’s excessive hand movements are very distracting. Moving around a bit and small hand gestures can add some character to your speech, but this kid is having an entire conversation with his arms. Personally, I either chose to move around a little when I speak, or add some minor hand movements — but not both.

To top it all off, this speaker did not have his speech memorized, and neither did he have note cards. People forget— it’s normal! But not only did he forget, he was also visibly uncomfortable and insecure. Even if you forget what you are meant to be saying, at least say the fake stuff with confidence! No one will know the difference if you believe what you’re saying is true. If there was a perfect opportunity for using the phrase “fake it ‘till you make it,” this would be it.

Speeches do not have to be perfect, and let’s be honest, they rarely are. But with just a few quick notes, this kid’s speech about how humans are like eggs (?), could have been inspiring instead of making me crack up.

After reading “Studies Are Usually Bunk, Study Shows”, my mind started to go over every piece of information from a study that I have believed. Anything from the best way to study, to how global warming is effecting our country, and everything in between — there is a study on just about everything. Because of the scientific lingo and statistics, it is easy to believe anything that these write ups talk about.

But in reality, one must look at all of the aspects of a study. This is something I have learned in both my high school and college statistics class. One must look at the population that the data is being pulled from and if the question is biased or not. That can heavily influence the outcome and can make the data coming from the study either more or less applicable to your life. And when it cannot be applied to your life, what good does the information do?

“More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments,” the survey report concludes. “And more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.” This quote from the article just goes to show that no matter how much research goes into the data research, it can still be luck of the draw. If it can’t be repeated, how much can we actually trust it?

What it all boils down to is knowing just how reputable a data set is. If it is not valid, then nothing good can come from it. But most people don’t think to look at how these studies were conducted and just believe whatever researchers type up. This leads to so many more problems which could have been avoided, plus people are now walking around with false ideas in their mind — what could be more dangerous than that?

The shift from a geocentric model of the solar system to a heliocentric one was a major shift in the history of astronomy and our planet. For years, other ancient civilizations used the geocentric model. While all of the science to prove it was right at the fingertips of the people, the new idea of the sun being in the center of the system was a very new concept and one that went against the beliefs of many people during that time period. Copernicus was the hero (or villain, depending on your religion) of the century and was able to theorize and research the new heliocentric model.  Eventually, the proof outweighed the prior theory and society began to recognize the sun as the center.

Although the shift was merely from one theory to another, the steps that it went through to fully become what we understand it to be today was much more complicated than letting go of an old belief system that was very profoundly proven wrong.

The geocentric system was first thought up by Ptolemy around the second century. No one ever thought to challenge it until Copernicus came about in the 16th century. He published a book about his theory that the sun was in the center of the solar system, which did not go over very well. Unfortunately, he died the same day his book was published and left all of the backlashes to his followers and people who were going to continue on his work. As his work was continued, the Catholic Church began to oppose it more and more, as it went against their beliefs and the words of the Bible. They believed that God created the universe, and when he did so, he did so perfectly. In order for the universe to be perfect, the Earth must be in the center and the planets must have a circular orbit. Eventually, his theory was proven and there was enough evidence that everyone believed it, even the Catholic church.

Today, there are people that believe the Earth is flat. Despite what society learned from the scientific advancement of heliocentrism, people still challenged proven scientific research. They are somewhat like the Catholic church was when there was a shift to heliocentrism; even though there was plenty of evidence to prove otherwise, they refused to believe science. And to those people, we are able to share this example as a little bit of proof that it’s okay to doubt science, but it usually isn’t wrong.

This article, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” by Jean M. Twenge, was published in the Atlantic almost a year ago. Just by looking at the title, you know that the article is going to be just one more in depth read about how technology is changing the way children grow up, and not in a good way. While this article chooses to focus on smartphones in the beginning, by the end of the article the author talks about school work load, sexual activity, and drunk driving. Even though the article begins with your average discussion about kids growing up with iPhones and Snapchat, it is more like a shift in ideals more than a shift in technology. This is a perfect example of a paradigm shift.

When there was no technology like smartphones in the world, there was thought to be no need for them. As smartphones began to come into the technological world, people were skeptic, but quickly adapted them into their everyday lives. Now, some people can’t go 10 minutes without checking their phone. People would rather stay at home and interact with their phone rather than go hang out with friends or family. What this means for teens is that their lives are much different than their parents’ were in their teenage years. Growing up prior to iGen meant that getting out of the house and going to hang outs and parties was almost the only way to have fun. This resulted in higher drinking and driving accidents, along with higher teenage pregnancy rates. But if kids these days are at home on their phones instead of being out, there chance of drinking or pregnancy goes down tremendously. Even so, can we compare social interaction with the interaction we get through our phones? I say we cannot.

While I am not sure if this means that teenagers these days have a harder time creating relationships, it does mean that they chose not to more often. Even though they aren’t going out and participating in activities that aren’t the safest for them, they aren’t getting much human interaction either. So what is better? Some studies suggest that teenagers in this generation feel more depressed and alone because they or their peers aren’t socializing face to face. That was not as much of a worry when kids were getting out our their rooms and off their phones. Understandably, there are pros and cons to both sides of the argument and the way each generation grew up, but we have to recognize that the way of the past is in the past, and we have to learn how to adapt to that kind o f life with today’s technology.

This lovely little cartoon of Smokey Bear and the National Parks Service emblem was created to bring the seriousness defunding of the National Parks to light. When the service was defunded by the President, many programs, such as anything to do with wildfire safety, were cut. With national parks being one of the largest grouping of land that is also the most vulnerable to wildfires, the importance of their wildfire safety programs outweighs the need of one in other places. This illustration was created to bring the message to the public: only we can prevent wildfires now that there is no money or program for the National Parks to do it themselves.

While this artifact does argue that it is our duty to prevent wildfires now that the National Parks Service has been defunded, in all reality it has always been our duty to do so. Either way, it is now known that there is not any big organization that can handle it all for us. I believe that there is an underlying message if one chooses to see it, and that message is that the health and safety of our environment should not and cannot be left up to big companies and organizations. The National Parks Service is a very reputable organization with good intentions, yet even with their good morals, they were stripped of their funding. So really, who can we trust to take care of our planet besides ourselves? If each person holds this mindset in any aspect of helping our world, the outcome will be much greater than anything an organization could do.

Smokey Bear is the face of national wildfire prevention and the United States Forest Service. One of the reasons this artifact stood out to me is because of their use of the national icon. Smokey is known for his useful fire safety information, a family friendly approach to wildfire safety, and a welcoming and unbiased face. Yet here he is, taking a somewhat political stance and outwardly supporting an organization that didn’t create him. This stance comes with a message, saying that he cannot keep our forest safe alone anymore. I am very much aware that Smokey Bear is a character (he was real once, though!), but his message still rings true.

I chose this artifact as my addition in my essay because of the proof it brings to the matter of wildfire safety in California. People think that California is being lazy when it comes to doing anything about their wildfire epidemic, when in reality, they are trying their best with the lack of resources they have. If the National Parks Service is being defunded, there is no way CalFire has enough resources to cover what the National Parks did for them and continue to deal with their own deficits. The lack of wildfire safety knowledge and the safety precautions themselves in California is solely because of the lack of funding, not because of lack of effort.