The first TED Talk I watched was given by Ziyah Gafic, who talked about the victims of genocide in Bosnia and the everyday items they carried with them. He discusses the "mundane, everyday objects" that they carried with them such as combs and keys because "they had no idea what was about to happen to them." Gafic tells us how these everyday items can be used to identify the bodies and victims of these crimes and wishes to see no victim left unidentified.
I believe Gafic was very effective with his speaking. It certainly helped that he had interesting information to present, but it was the way he presented this information that really brings it home. Gafic is very effective with his hand motions, using his hands to add to his speaking. He keeps his hands moving in a way that almost allows him to speak with his hands. It makes it pretty easy to see that he is very comfortable up there speaking to his audience. Some people who are uncomfortable with speaking may fidget with their hands or just put them in their pockets, which takes away a bit from their speech. Gafic is very good about moving his hands and using them to almost add an element to his speaking. Another big part of his speaking, possibly the most important, is his use of visual aids. He presents many images of everyday personal items that were carried by the victims. The audience is able to see exactly what he's talking about and can see the variations between these items and how they can be used to identify victims of the genocide. This provides the audience with a clear image of these items that we may take for granted but were quite valuable to these people.
The second TED Talk I viewed was given by Terry Moore. This talk was about how to tie your shoes. Yes, you read that correctly. It's ridiculous to think that people paid a lot of money just to see a man tell them that if they simply go the other way about the loop, their shoes will be better tied. His speech was not exactly brilliant. His speech was plagued with stuttering and he was a bit awkward with his hands.

JENNIFER LAWRENCE NUDE CLICK HERE NOT A SCAM

Almost every headline you read this week has something to do with the recent slew of naughty photos of celebrities that have been leaked to the public. People are all babbling about Jennifer Lawrence and Ariana Grande and whatever other TV and movie stars have been hacked and are now able to be seen nude on the internet. Scott Mendelson's article on Forbes makes a very good point about this event that's got everyone talking. Although many people are calling it a 'scandal,' Mendelson believes it is a straight up crime.

In his article, Mendelson talks about how some are putting the blame for this huge leak of nude photos on the celebrities themselves. "It's their fault for taking those pictures in the first place!" they're all saying. Mendelson sees it another way, putting all the blame solely on the criminal who hacked and released these photos. This is made very apparent when he states "What occurred yesterday is a theft and a crime, plain and simple." He also says that "[t]he victims involved have committed no crime and committed no sin." He is arguing that in this day and age, it is not up to women to protect themselves from the perverts of the world, but rather to "[lessen] mens’ 'demand' to view women as purely a disposable commodity."

As I began the article, I undoubtedly shared the same first thought as any other college guy to read it: "I bet [insert female celebrity] looks damn good naked." However, as I continued, I found myself agreeing with the author on just about every point. I will definitely agree that what was done, with the hacking and publishing and humiliating, was a crime of pretty large proportions. Sure, the guy didn't murder anyone, but he has invaded the privacy of many women and stolen their private property and released it to the public for all to see. It's pretty hard not to agree with him on that statement. However, I didn't agree completely when he said "the shame of that act should be, nay must be, wholly on the perpetrator of said crime." Yes, the guy who hacked these photos and released them is a complete creep and should take most of the responsibility and shame. However, in a world of technology where everything can be accessed so easily and anything you say or do can never be erased, everyone knows that taking such scandalous pictures is very, very risky. I understand that they took them with confidence that they would be safe and hidden, but we've come to know better, haven't we? I mean, Jennifer, you couldn't have just taken something a little more classy?

 Mendelson also brings up a very good thought when he talks about how we, as a society, focus too much on how women can protect themselves, rather than focusing on how men can treat women properly. Personally, I am all for the notion that women are just as capable and deserving as men and should be treated as such. I agreed with just about every point he made on this topic; women aren't just objects or something for men to stare at. 

Scott Mendelson's evaluation of the latest celebrity 'scandal' was very interesting to read about. He makes some very good arguments and it's clear that he is firm in the stances he takes in his article. Reading it gave me a new perspective on the event and I found myself siding with him for much of the article.