Describe The Differences Between Pollan And John Ortberg

In these speeches that both great minds gave there is some things that are alike then there's some differences . Some likes and differences are obvious and others are really hard to figure out. For some who have trouble paying attention, listening to the speeches it’s harder for them and for those who can listen to it over and over again and still understand it , it's easy for them. Then there's those who try to pay attention because they are important to the history of Americans, but just can't pay attention so they are a little of both problems.

The main similarity between their speeches was that they both agreed that compromise was sometimes necessary. They also agreed that fighting and standing up was also sometimes necessary. They both agreed on doing what they thought was best for their country.

The speaker was a very tall man standing about 6’0 feet tall in height. He was a slim man built like a runner. He had short, sandy blonde hair slicked back. He had a fair complexion with emerald green eyes and wore black glasses. He did not were any jewelry. He wore a navy suit with a crisp, white shirt with a rose colored tie. The preacher spoke with a deep baritone voice. He spoke loud and clear and delivered his sermon at a great pace. His speech was well prepared and easy for everyone to understand. He had the appropriate amount of eye contact with the audience and connected well with the audience in ways that made you feel comfortable. His facial expressions were right on point with what he was saying. Sometimes a more serious look, and at other times, very calming looks. The pastor moved back and forth during the whole sermon, sometimes waving his hands all over the place. He used PowerPoints to get his message across to the audience. He also used note cards and the Bible to deliver his

He wants to look into the recent focus on organic food, as it is one of the most rapidly expanding product lines in America’s supermarket. Instead, he finds himself looking into Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farm in Virginia. Salatin does not label his food organic. He argues that organic food has become a part of the process in which food is shipped from one region to another. In Chapter 9, Pollan considers whether an organic TV dinner is a contradiction. Once again, he has returned to the supermarket, but this time he visits a Whole Foods market. In many ways, the pastoral narrative represents the ideals of the organic foods

For example, they differ in the language that they present and the diction that they use. Both X and Henry use powerful diction throughout their speeches however, X’s diction is meant to be more emotion provoking. Henry does attempt to provoke thought as well as emotion from the delegates, the difference is that the delegates have a job that mandates them to look at things objectively. On the other side of the coin, X uses diction that is focused towards a large black audience. The choice of words do not have to be as carefully selected as Henry’s, he has already won over the crowd on past events and is using this speech to further influence them, which is not the case in Henry’s speech. X continually uses words like “Afro-American”, “Uncle Sam”, “cracker”, “Uncle-Tom-handkerchief-heads”, in order to relate to the audience. The words that X uses have purpose to them; these words are important to the audience because each word has a meaning to it. When X talks about “Afro-Americans” the black community feel that they have been labeled in a good way and are different. During this speech, X uses the name “Uncle Sam” three times when referring to the government and the white man that runs it. Using “Uncle Sam” lets the black community know that this is their enemy and the one that continuously oppresses them. Ultimately, each one of these profound speakers use diction to persuade the crowd in their own way

First off, both are very passionate in the way they express themselves because it is clear they both believe highly in what they are speaking about. For Fitzhugh was hard for me to think of him as an avid speaker of what he believes in because what he was preaching was so wrong to me that at first, I couldn’t look past the terrible things that he was saying. But as I moved through the text, I

Compare the views of these two scholars by answering the following questions. Be sure to find specific examples in the selections to support your answers.

What Pollan studies, interestingly, is something that escapes most of us. The author goes above and beyond previous endeavors to find out where the food we see in supermarkets is truly born. What he finds may be shocking to most, and Pollan states, without a doubt, that everything boils down to corn. The meat we see is corn, for instance, because

Cesar Chavez and Frederick Douglass were both activists of their time. Both of them wanted to reform the churches. They wanted to change different things in the church to make it better for their people. In doing so, both of them wrote speeches. Both speeches were similar in some easy and different in the others. Chavez wrote his speech and gave it at the end of his fast. He was fasting to gain more support from the Catholic church. Douglass wrote his speech “The Church and Prejudice” and delivered it at an anti-slavery gathering.

One thing in common both men have is the hatred for slavery, this propelled them to make their speeches. They may have many differences such as their background and skin color, but they both had the same purpose which is really what mattered. This led to two great speeches, one coming from a future president, one coming from a former

This is an example of how he uses diction within his persuasive appeal of ethos. By presenting himself as a fellow American who is also experiencing both the “omnivores dilemma” and the national eating crisis, Pollan builds trust with the reader. He also uses many rhetorical questions in the beginning which cause the reader to begin to think about what to eat. He builds credibility by revealing an understanding of the situation while appealing to the emotions of the readers who can relate to this issue and who have been told lies and conflicting information about their food. “What should we have for dinner? (1) is the opening line of the book. This is a question that establishes relevance between what is written in this book and the real life of the reader. He also used more detailed questions, “the trans fats or the 'not butter'?” (5), that dive deeper into the appeal to emotion that he uses because many people are confused by the options and mixed messages that the food companies are sending them. Pollan offers his book as a aide to sorting our this dilemma and establishes empathy that thew audience appreciates and

The first chapter addresses the Bible in the connection of its surroundings and its commitment to society. Oswalt expresses that there are numerous commitments to the way the Western world perceives reality. The Bible, be that as it may, is the most essential contributor.

Giving a successful speech, in any language, is a difficult yet gratifying skill. Great speeches can be inspiring, compelling, and even revolutionary – indeed, these speeches are deliberate, succinct, engaging, and unforgettable. Two examples of such great speeches in both literature and in history are Mark Antony’s eulogy in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Robert F. Kennedy’s On the Death of Martin Luther King. Through the speakers’ use of parallel structure, caesuras, and personal references – three stylistic devices and techniques – not only were both speakers able to embellish their speeches; it also allowed each speaker to deliver an even more powerful speech. In these speeches, the use of repetition through the anaphoral and

I took a public speaking class at NAU; however, I merely enrolled in this course because it was a requirement and I failed to fully embrace the meaning of the concept. This capstone, on the other hand, has accomplished in convincing me of the true power in communication. Professor Stroh arranged for several guest speakers, each with their own unique communication style, to address our class. I admired the abilities of each speaker and acquiring their skillset is a primary goal I have for the future. For example, Paul Melcher spoke eloquently, his lecture was well-structured, and he did not rely on notes for support. Consequently, I will strive to incorporate his strengths as a speaker in my effort to establish a dialogue with

well as the author of this book.  One can notice that they both share a fairly