http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver#t-214217 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Write your response to these six questions:1. How is this speech organized? Look in Ch. 16 for pat

http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver#t-214217 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Write your response to these six questions:

1. How is this speech organized? Look in Ch. 16 for patterns (485-489). 2.

2. Does he successfully use presentation aids? How?

3. Does he consider his audience? What kind of audience is it? How do you know?

4. What did you think of Jamie's body language and non-verbal skills?

5. What strategies doe she use (page. 476 and up)?

6. Was he credible? Were there any logical fallacies (page 482-484)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch this Studio C video, an extended joke about a rehab center for people made infamous by YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVOo6LoosgY&list=PLGVpxD1HlmJ_jJsbKpbBWG5rrkWq8Wx4Q&index=83 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Minimize Video

This is obviously a funny video, but did you ever think about how now when someone makes a mistake it can be instantly visible by so many others? Write about a case or example where this may have happened. Why do people like watching these types of videos or reading about other's mistakes on blogs or Facebook?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please read the following speech and respond to the questions that come after it. Please use proper grammar and usage in your responses. 

Testimony against Legalized Gambling before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee

By Reverend Tom Grey

Reverend Tom Grey was the executive director of the National Coalition against Legalized Gambling (NCALG). He spoke with passion and eloquence, supporting his arguments with convincing hard data. By doing so, Grey helped many communities defeat efforts to expand legalized gambling. On September 29, 1995, Grey delivered this persuasive speech while testifying before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in support of a bill to fund a national study on the effects of gambling. As you read his address, note how he frames the issue of gambling expansion as a battle between its well-funded promoters with hidden political connections and ordinary citizens trying to protect their communities. He supports his claims by citing a combination of independent studies, statistics, and specific examples. Which arguments do you find most personally convincing? Which arguments are based on public policy and which are based on personal morality? Which of the two is most effective?

Chairman Hyde and distinguished Members of the Committee:

            A battle is raging across our country.  Ambitious gambling promoters have been invited into our communities by some state and local officials under the guise of prosperity, economic development, jobs, and a painless new source of government revenue.,

            Armed with unlimited capital and hidden political connections, these gambling promoters insist that gambling is productive, that it meets the desires of the public, and that the growth of gambling throughout America is inevitable.  They pledge that by the year 2000, every American will live within a two-hour drive of a gambling casino.

            Ladies and gentlemen, these gambling interests are wrong.

            The recent, rapid spread of gambling was never the result of a popular movement.  Rather, it was driven by self-interested gambling pitchmen with money, high-priced lobbyists, and pie-in-the-sky promises.  Cash-starved municipalities and legislatures, eager for a way to increase revenue while avoiding voter backlash, were vulnerable to the prospect of something-for-nothing.

            Individual citizens questioned whether this “free lunch” program could rationally achieve its promise.  And as the guarantees of economic prosperity evaporated, state and local groups spontaneously sprang up across the nation to oppose the further spread of gambling.  In 1994, these varied citizen groups created the National Coalition against Legalized Gambling (NCALG).

            What is the National Coalition against Legalized Gambling?  NCALG is a grassroots movement.  Our members span the entire political spectrum from conservative to liberal.  Our coalition encompasses both business and labor, both religious and secular, with concerned citizens in every state.

            Our arguments against the expansion of legalized gambling are based on public policy, sound economics, and quality of life within our communities, not on personal morality.

            I have attached to my written testimony references to objective, academic studies showing that the expansion of gambling is bad for families and businesses.  These studies show that:

• gambling enterprises cost more jobs than they create;

• gambling misdirects prudent government investment away from sound economic development strategies;

• gambling sucks revenues from local economies;

• gambling establishments tend to attract crime; and

• gambling addiction destroys individuals, undermines families, and weakens our business community.

            If the members of NCALG were to base our opposition to gambling on personal morality, we would lose in the political arena.  After all, a majority of Americans gamble.  But because our arguments are based on cold, hard facts, our organization and its affiliates have consistently beaten the gambling interests on ballot questions and in state legislatures over the past year—winning fifteen major battles and only narrowly losing the remaining two.

            Turning the political tide.

            In November 1994, the issue of gambling was on more state ballots than any other issue.  Of ten statewide referenda, NCALG won six at the ballot box (Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wyoming) and two in the courts (Arkansas and New Mexico).  Most of our victories were by landslide margins.

            After their November debacle, the casino companies targeted legislatures in seven states.  But this year we completely shut them out.  The casinos lost major battles in Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

            Virginia illustrates the dynamics of the current gambling debate.  In Richmond this year, over a dozen casino companies pushed to legalize riverboat gambling.  They hired more than fifty lobbyists, bought newspaper ads, and even aired television commercials.  While the casinos spent over $800,000 on direct lobbying in Richmond and millions more on indirect lobbying across the state, thousands of citizens, armed with the facts, mobilized at the grassroots level against the casinos.  When the smoke cleared, the gambling bill was crushed in committee.

            The political tide has turned.  What had been forecast as inevitable has now become undesirable.  But why?

            The tide turned not simply because all of the major conservative Christian groups oppose the expansion of gambling, although they do.  It is not simply because mainline churches—liberal, conservative, and moderate—are almost universally opposed to more gambling, although they are.  Resistance to government-sponsored gambling is growing because voters from every walk of life recognize that legalized gambling is, based on the facts, poor public policy.

            Gambling feeds voter cynicism.

            For the past three years, I have traveled across the nation and talked to countless thousands of Americans about this issue.  You know that voters are angry and cynical about government.  Let me tell you, the expansion of legalized gambling has fed that anger and cynicism.

            To many Americans, government’s promotion of gambling is a cop-out and a double cross.  We see public officials sacrificing our communities to a predatory enterprise—for money.  Citizens see government living off gambling profits, taken from the poorest and weakest of our citizens, instead of facing up to rational choices regarding budgets and taxes.

            We see massive amounts of money pumped into pro-gambling lobbying efforts.  Public officials have been answering to these outside monied interests while ignoring the voices of their own constituents.  This leaves citizens to wonder who government really represents.

            Worse, people see scandals like the one unfolding in Louisiana, where lawmakers are being investigated for taking bribes from gambling promoters.  The payoff was made not merely to usher in gambling, but to prevent a voters’ referendum to keep gambling out.

            When the right of the people to be heard is bought and sold, we become convinced that the bedrock foundation of democracy—a government of the people—is under attack.

            Now, I believe strongly in democracy.  I fought for it as an infantry captain in Vietnam, and I continue to protect it as an active member of the Army Reserve.  But in order for democracy to work, you as elected officials have to win back the trust of average citizens.  And you can start here.

            Enact H.R.  497.

            H.R.  497 is a very modest measure.  Twenty years ago—when the contagion of casino gambling was quarantined to two geographic areas—a federal commission conducted a study of legalized gambling.  An enormous amount has changed since then—the contagion has spread.  It’s time for a fresh inquiry.

            The National Coalition against Legalized Gambling supports H.R.  497, as well as S.  704, because we believe that a national study will allow citizens to make an informed decision about the expansion of gambling in America.

            And frankly, we are astonished by the opposition to this bill by the American Gaming Association.  If they believe that the spread of gambling enhances our national economy, then what is it about an objective study that makes them afraid?

            When everyone is fully informed, we’re glad to let this issue be decided the good, old-fashioned American way, at the ballot box.

            Mr.  Chairman, thank you.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the general purpose of this speech? What is the specific purpose? What is the thesis?

2. How would you describe Grey’s credibility? How would you describe the credibility of the arguments that he presents?

3. Did Grey adequately gain his audience’s attention during the introduction of this speech?

4. What type of claim—of fact, of value, or of policy—does the speaker argue?

5. Do you find any logical fallacies in Grey’s reasoning?  Cite specific arguments from the speech to support your answer