Milking it for all it is worth

When we are young, we are told to believe a few things, without question. We are told our bed time. We were told to always eat our vegetables and we are told that if you don’t drink your milk you won’t grow up to be a strong boy. Sorry to your mother and father, but the part about milk is complete Hogwash. Milk has done a lot to make you believe “Milk Does a body good!” They have donated millions to Washington lobbyist. They have made celebrities endorse and convince you that milk will make you a superstar athlete or actor .Now if that is not bad enough, they have the world believing that milk is the only source of calcium know to man and that it is good for you to consume. In my paper I will discuss the propaganda operation the milk companies have put on the everyday consumer and why milk is bad for you. I will also discuss the cruel and torturous practices milk farmers, put their cow through. This is going to be forage into the world of milk and the harm it does to do the everyday milk-drinker here in America.
People are not the only animal struggling here in America. The Milk cow has gone through an immense amount of torture for our consumption. The average milk cow’s life is 25 years. The average milk cow in America lives to be 3 or 4. This is because of the terrible cycle the milk cow is put through. Cows produce milk because they have to nature their young, just like humans do. So on the first day of the new calves life, he is ripped away from his mother and fed a milk substitute, that contains calf blood, than if the calf is lucky enough to become a milk cow, it will than eventually be introduced to the vicious cycle of milk production. The cycle starts when the cow turns 1 year of age. It starts in the beautiful setting of a concrete room and a small stall, where the cow is forcefully artificially inseminated by the farmer. After given birth, cows lactate for 10 months. So after the rip the calf away from the mother, they hook up the cow to a machine for about 10 months, which pumps the cow for its milk. This will be the life a milk cow knows until it can’t do its job and they bring it out back and euthanize it around the tender age of 3 or 4. If you are a male calf, your luck is no better. The farmer ties you up and makes sure you are unable to move and then give you the cute title of “Veal”, not tied up baby cow, like it should be. If this was the worst of it, I probably could deal with it, but this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to milk production, by today’s dairy farmer.
Here is a little riddle for you. How can Milk production go up from 116 billion pounds to 170 billion pounds, while the number of milk cows is 8 million cows, down from 14 billion milk cows in 1950? The answer my friend, is drugs, genetic manipulation and artificial hormones, that makes a cow a milk producing machine. The average milk cow, which has not been fed these super drugs produce about 16 pounds of milk a day, enough to feed their young. A super cow produces up to 50 pounds of milk a day. These drugs make the cow suffer immensely. They become infected with a disease called Mastitis, which is the number one reason given to the slaughterhouse, when they bring the cow to be slaughtered. This is basically a painful inflammation of the cow’s milk glands, but it has some very interesting side effects on the cow. You cannot look at a cow and tell if there is something wrong with their milk. They do this by taking blood and checking the milk’s somatic cell count or SCC. The SCC consists of all stuff shed from the cow’s udder, which include white blood cells or more commonly known as pus. The government does however regulate how much of this pus can be in our milk. But like with most things there is a loophole to the rule. If the milk has more than the allowable amount of SCC or Pus, the way the farmers can make the milk drinkable is by adding more milk until the number is acceptable. They say it is rare for milk not to pass inspection. So to summarize the paragraph, the Food and Drug administration is letting us and our children drink an allowable amount of pus. God bless the USA.
They myth of milk and calcium is quite the crazy situation. In a study, even though American woman consumed more calcium than woman in China, they were still at a higher risk of developing Osteoporosis. One of the differences between the two people was their source of calcium. The American woman drank milk, which builds strong bones; I mean we all have seen the build boards and the Chinese woman got their calcium from plant sources. The milk lobby also spends millions of dollars on convincing people that they need milk after they are infants. Humans and animals humans feed are the only species on this planet that consume milk after infancy. These two points are where the milk propaganda machine comes in. They spend millions upon millions of dollars convincing us we need milk in our everyday life. They have created groups to lobby congress to pass food disparagement laws like the one under which, American superhero, Oprah Winfrey was sued in Texas for. She made a comment about beef and she got sued. This is how powerful this lobby is. If they can go after Oprah, without anyone caring, what chances does the average consumer have?
They have used various Logical fallacies to convince us milk is a healthy and a nutritious drink for the everyday person to drink. Their most famous advertisement campaign with our question is the “Got milk?” campaign. This campaign uses celebrities, famous people and super athletes for their appeal. They then have them wear a fake milk mustache and take a picture and plant the words “got milk?” somewhere on the advertisement. Got milk slogan is a blatant use of accentus, which is a fallacy that uses an ambiguous phrase that is constantly mentioned as if it is true. The athlete is used as an Argumentum Ad Verecundiam which is the argument that simply breaks down to if Tiger Woods is seen drinking milk in an advertisement, maybe if I drink milk, I can hit the ball like he does. Even though it is widely know that not everybody that drinks milk will be able to hit the ball like Tiger Words, but the milk companies play on our love of famous actors and superstar athletes
Milk is one of the most dangerous products we consume as consumers in America, yet the milk industry is growing and making profits. Cow’s milk is designed for baby calves that have four stomachs and grow 100 pounds in a few short months and we wonder why we have a problem with childhood obesity. There is also an allowable amount of Pus in our milk, but we still drink it. We know that there are other sources of calcium, some even better than milk and yet we still drink milk. This has to do with the lobby in this country and the millions upon millions of dollars milk spend on advertising and tricking us into thinking we need them. It is science that milk is bad and until this information is widely accepted, they will continue to implore even worse practices on their cows. The scariest thing about this whole milk problem is that they have no problem slowly poisoning and lying to us, right to our face about the benefits of Cow’s milk.

References
1. D. Feskanich et al., “Milk, Dietary Calcium, and Bone Fractures in Women: A 12-Year Prospective Study,” American Journal of Public Health, 87 (1997) 992-97.
2. U.S. National Library and the National Institutes of Health, “Kwashiorkor,” Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia, 13 Jun. 2006.
3. Anne Karpf, “Dairy Monsters,” The Guardian 13 Dec. 2003.
4. Don P. Blaney, “The Changing Landscape of U.S. Milk Production,” Statistical Bulletin Number 978, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Jun. 2002.
5. Morten Dam Rasmussen et al., “The Impact of Automatic Milking on Udder Health,” Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Mastitis and Milk Quality (Vancouver: 2001).

Anyone can be the president! /?: “Is that a question or a statement?”

Anyone can be the president! /?:

“Is that a question or a statement?”

BY

Samuel Friedman

Since the beginning of human existence, abortion has been one of the most controversial subjects. There has always been controversy involving the subject. There are passionate people with beliefs that are either wrong or right depending what side of the argument you are on. This is a subject were you can have no middle ground. To put it frankly, you have two options, either you keep your pregnancy or you terminate him or her. This subject lends itself for propaganda attacks by both sides. Some of the most intense commercials on television are about abortion. Abortion is such a controversial subject that there are groups out there who have blown up abortion clinics and murdered doctors who have performed abortions on women. There also are websites where you can get the home addresses of abortion doctors to terrorize them and their family I have decided to go for an anti-abortion stance and to make a commercial that uses various tropes and scheme to get my anti-abortion message out. I am going to use fear tactics to get my message across. I think this is the most effective way of controlling people. The only way some people listen is to scare them to death. I plan on playing on people’s belief that in America, anyone can be President of the United States. This is an example of Circular reasoning and Secundium quid. I am stating that if you are born or if you don’t have an abortion, that your children will become president. We all know that not everyone born will be president. This is simply an example of a hasty generalization. The mere fact is not every child who is born will become president or even have the shot to do so here in the United States. Bifurcation is another tool I will use to present my commercial. I will give people a “black or white” option. You are either a “Murderer” or “Mother of a future leader of America.” This is one of the most effective tools in my message.

My commercial will be an anti-abortion commercial with a presidential theme. I plan on using a black background with Images of with the Presidents’ mother and I will even have the three candidates’ mothers that are trying to take the nomination for President of the United States in November in my Commercial. The announcer in the commercial is the key to the effectiveness of the commercial. My ideal candidate to be the narrator of my commercial would be Morgan Freeman or someone with his kind of voice. A voice that is deep and authoritative. I want a voice that people will receive as a trustworthy person. This is how I see the commercial going: The commercial starts out with a black screen, than the words appear and Morgan reads:
“Will your Child be the next one?”

“Will you give your child the greatest gift that a mother can give a child?”

Then I will have this picture will fade in after that:

As the picture is displayed Morgan would say, “Her Son made her proud by being the one. He is only repaying the greatest gift his mother could give him” Fade to black

Than fade in this picture:

“She had dreams of her Son doing things that no other African American has done and all he is doing is repaying the greatest gift his mother could give him” fade to black

Than this picture would appear

Morgan would State “She has dreams of her daughter achieving what no other Woman in history has done and all her daughter is doing is repaying the greatest gift a mother can give” Fade to black

Than these words would appear on the screen, while Morgan Read it:

Will yours be the next one?

What dreams do you have for your child?

Fade to black and then this would be the final shot. Morgan would read these final statements:

What is the greatest gift?

Choosing Life over Murder.

Stop Abortion

Every Kid deserves a shot to become president

Hopefully, your child can repay the greatest gift a mother can give a child!

LIFE!

End

Reflection
When I first started this project, I thought it would be fun to do and I was right. I kind of always wanted to do a Commercial with such a serious tone. I was flowing with it until the sentence
“This is a subject were you can have no middle ground. To put it frankly, you have two options, either you keep your pregnancy or you terminate him or her.”
When I first wrote the sentence I said “you terminate it” This actually brought emotion out of me. I actually was disappointed in myself for referring to a human being as “it” I don’t know what my view on abortion is. I don’t know if you should have the right to choose, but since I have never been put in a situation where I was forced to choose to abort a child or not to abort a child, I don’t know what I would do. Ideally I would like to think I would choose life, but I don’t know. It must be very difficult for people to present this message either way. I did not feel the full affect of my commercial until I read it in it’s entirely and now I am even kind of scared not to give my perspective child a chance. I find that using fear tactics, while integrating the various tropes and schemes are very effective way in getting your messages across and for your message to be effective to your audience.

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 .
.