A diamond is Forever!

A Diamond is forever

By

Samuel Friedman

Whenever you turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, or read a magazine from Thanksgiving to Valentines’ day, you cannot help but to find a diamond advertisement. They use various techniques to make us believe that the only way we would ever keep the love of our life is by buying her a diamond. They play on the insecurities people have when it comes to keeping someone they love. Diamond advertisements also create artificial relationship problems, which would not exist, if they were not paraded in our faces all of our life.
The diamond people make many assumptions in diamond advertisements. The two diamond advertisements I have attached are perfect example of playing on the insecurities of love. They use multiple logical fallacies in all of their advertisements to make us think that buying a diamond is the only way we will be happy with the one we are ‘destined’ to be with. They clever public relations people make us believe that if we don’t buy the one we love a diamond, there love they have for you, would evaporate. This in most cases is not true. If this was the truth with your partner and she believes that she needs a diamond to love you, than it probably is not love at all and you should just run as far away from that person as you can. Love should not be bound by a physical symbol. Love is an emotion and a feeling and should be completely separate from physical objects. Love is shown through your everyday actions and the words you use, not something you find in a store, which may or may not be drenched in the blood of the continent it comes from.
They use multiple logical fallacies in every inch of their advertisements. The one they love to use the most, but not limited to are false analogies. They scare you into thinking that if you don’t buy the one you love a diamond, she will cease to love you. This is very prevalent in the “She wants you” advertisement that is attached. They are saying if you want more time for yourself and you want her to leave you alone, buy her a diamond and you can go out and drink with your comrades. They compare things that are not comparable. A good relationship should be built on letting one another be happy, while not being selfish. You should not have to buy your girlfriend or wife a diamond, if you want to go watch the game. The advertisement makes it seem, she will leave you alone to go drinking with your buddies as long as you buy her an expensive diamond, which is fundamentally flawed thinking process.
In the “Lisa” advertisement that is attached, they use the logical fallacy, Bifurcation, which is a logical fallacy that makes the thoughtless think they have only one option in a situation, where other options exist. The public relations perpetrators do it in that advertisement by saying that if you want to keep Lisa ‘spellbound’ and keep her from cheating because she has a “wild imagination” that you have to buy her a diamond to keep her from straying from the pack. The advertisement portrays that there is only one choice. You have to shove a diamond on her hand or she is gone and out of your life forever. They are playing on the insecurities one has when it comes to love.
The diamond companies spend millions upon millions of dollars to convince us that the only way to find love in our depressing existence is tied to expensive diamond jewelry. They have advertisement executives think of new ways everyday to tell us we are less of a love to our significant other if we don’t buy them a diamond that cost two or three months of salary.. They have been very successful in convincing the population that this sentiment is true. They use logical fallacies and propaganda to convince little girls that diamonds are a symbol of love. They also make little boys think that the only way they can maintain love with another person is by buying them an expensive piece of jewelry. They convince us love is shown through objects and trips, not through words and actions, like it ought to be.

On The Road to Freedom

In the near future, Benazir Bhutto’s death will be written about in the history books. The United States and the Pakistani government both used her life and death to shell out there messages. To the United States, she was seen as a way to get into north western Pakistan. The United States also thought she would be one of the people to end the militant rule in Pakistan and bring democracy to the region. To the Pakistani government she was seen as a sellout to the west, trying to bring the United States into Pakistan, something a militant government would not want in their country. See the Iraqi war for more details on that. Both sides have used her life and her assassination to further the causes of the two governments, not the people.
The United States has not come out and said that the Pakistani government killed Benazir Bhutto, but numerous reports say that the circumstances and the actions taken by the government after the fact are ‘simply bizarre’. On the other hand the Pakistani government is saying they had nothing to do with her death and that the west is using her death as propaganda to invade Pakistan. One thing is certain about this whole situation are that in the coming months, it does not seem that the relationship between these two countries will be pleasant, when a new president is sworn in.
In the Chicago Tribune’s article by Kim baker, who is their foreign correspondent to Pakistan, she discusses the facts of the case. She claims that the Pakistani government is simply covering up the assassination and trying to pass the blame of her death. The governments report states that she had died from blunt force trauma to the head, even though that is directly contradicted by a video showing a bullet hitting her and her dropping. She also says that within the hour of her assassination the government was hosing down the area where she was killed. The author is puzzled why the Pakistani government was treating Bhutto’s assassination with so little care and disregard. A few hours later the Pakistani government would announce the case closed and said that terrorists in Pakistan were to blame.
The Chicago tribune services the fine people of Chicago. The paper has had a long tradition of backing a Republican for president, they have done that since 1872. The last democrat they backed was a former republican. They supported George W Bush’s election bid in 2004. Throughout his terms as president of the United States, the Chicago tribune has brought him and his administration’s to task for their records on civil liberties, the environment, and many portions of its foreign policy, though they still supports his presidency.
The purpose of this article is to show the uphill battle the United States must fight everyday to stop religious extremist and non democratic regimes from doing whatever they want to their people and to the rest of the word. The article paints a picture of a shadowy government covering up and concealing information that surrounds the assassination of someone who was going to bring democracy to a region that lacks it. The article insinuates numerous times that they think the militant government was involved. There is also a section in the article were the Journalist quotes Bhutto saying that if she was ever killed, rouges from the government would be responsible for her death. This articles purpose can be one of two things. It could be war mongering by the United States government who wants to invade Pakistan or it could be an investigative report into the death of a political figure, whose government is trying to cover up its own dastardly deeds. Which one it is, we might never know.
The way the information is presented, reminds me of the four stratagems of influence. The first stratagem they use is to take control of the situation and make a favorable situation. They did this by saying they solved the case within hours and giving the cause of death. It is hard to believe that within three hours of her death that they allegedly found out who did it, how it was done, and how she died, without having a hand in the assassination. They were so quick with their investigation that they washed the crime scene an hour after her death.
The second thing they must do is establish credibility, they did this by blaming the Islamic terrorists and saying the United States was using her death as propaganda so that they can come into Pakistan and use military force. I am sure the people of Pakistan do not want to be ‘liberated’, especially knowing the job the United States is doing ‘liberating’ the people of Iraq.
The third part is to focus the people on a message. The Pakistani government is doing this by saying they had no part in her death. If it is found out that the government killed her, they would lose the people, something no government could afford. The way they are keeping the people on their side is by saying that all the questions around her death are all acts of western propaganda. They are convincing the people of Pakistan that the United States wants to come into their country and play house. They are using fear tactics for control, which is a pretty effective tool.
Fourth is to manipulate the situation to provide the outcome the aggressor wants. They do this by making the illusion of an election. If it is found out that the government is involved, they would have set it up perfectly. She was killed during her return to Pakistan for the February election. The expected results were going to be against the militant government, so they let her return to Pakistan without proper guarding and preparation. She was eventually assassinated. This gives the impression that the Pakistani goverment achieved the outcome they were looking for. They were going to let the election happen without letting it happen for real. The idea of the election was an illusion for the people, which the Pakistani government never intended in doing
Benazir Bhutto’s life and assassination are clouded in mystery and intrigue. There is no way to know where the United States or Pakistan is going to do during the aftermath of the situation. Could Pakistan be the new Iraq? Will the United States liberate another country, once they become unmanageable? These and other questions are the only thing that comes out of this situation. We know one thing for sure is that Pakistan’s road to democracy will be a long one, with bodies and blood making it happen. It seems it won’t be a peaceful transition.

References
1. "Chicago Tribune." Wikipedia. Wikipedia. 31 Jan. 2008 .
.