Real Vs. Fake Foods

I was at my friend Conor’s house when I first discovered margarine. I had opened the fridge looking for a little butter to spread on my toast and to my displeasure found none. When I asked Conor, “where the hell is the butter,” he lacked my urgency and told me it was, “in the white tub on the shelf”. After looking around for a while longer he finally came over and pulled out the container labeled “Margarine”.

There was nothing else so it was going to have to do. I opened up the tub, scooped out some of the margarine and spread it about my toast. I took a bite and then came my initial reaction, “I can’t believe you call this butter”.

Yes it spread well, and it was salty, but this was not butter, and nor could it replace it. Butter is creamy and has a sweet yet salty taste that warms your mouth and stays with you. Margarine is like a butter tease, salty yes, but fleeting. Once you it touches your tongue it turns to liquid and vanishes, without that amazing melts in your mouth feeling. Healthier by volume? It may help reduce cholesterol, but the process of hydrogenation results in high saturated fat content. But what difference does it make? In order to get half of the experience of true butter the margarine has to be piled high otherwise its buttery flavor lasts only seconds.

I was not a fan of margarine my first time as I may have made clear, but I did not give up on it. Although margarine is an unworthy substitute as a topping for toast, I have found it valuable for cooking. With a healthier content, the same taste can be acquired using margarine to pan fry such things as grilled cheese. Because the buttery taste is cooked into the toast in this case, there is no need for butters irreplaceable texture and margarine is a valid replacement. I am content with my methods for now, and although I have found use for margarine I still only carry butter in my own fridge. Butter has earned my loyalty, however, when I cook at Conor’s I am not averse to the option of margarine.

Response to Natalie's Abortion Counter Arguments Blog

http://npustinalsc100s10.blogspot.com/

In her blog, Natalie chose to address whether abortion is a moral practice or not. She immediately reveals her stance on the matter as pro choice. She qualifies this though by saying she is pro-choice because no child should be raised in an environment where they do not have the opportunity to be happy. This leaves two questions unanswered for me however. If the woman does have the means to raise a child happily, but does not feel the desire to have a baby, does Natalie find it appropriate to have an abortion? Furthermore, if a woman cannot raise a child in a healthy environment, is it the mother’s responsibility to abort the child?

The pro-life article that Natalie references identifies an inconsistency in the law. They find that it is unfair for a criminal to be charged twice for beating a pregnant woman, once for the woman and once for the unborn baby. If the unborn baby is treated as a recognizable individual, how if it that a woman cannot be charged for “killing” the developing fetus.

The second article brought to refute this argument was a pro-choice article, which considers the scientific evidence. During the first trimester, the fetus is dependent on the mother. The developing baby cannot live independently from the mother, so it is still a part of her. In addition, the nervous system is not developed at this time, so it has yet the ability to feel.

I myself am pro-choice. I find that a woman undergoes certain changes when she becomes pregnant so she has the right to control those. This is a matter of right to privacy of her body, and I believe that during the first trimester, while the baby is yet recognizable as an independent individual, the woman should have the right to choose. In response to the pro-life argument, I would argue that if the woman is carrying the baby knowingly, she most likely has the intent to give birth. Abusing her baby would damage the baby and curtail her pursuit of happiness, Thus charging the criminal twice would be appropriate,

Conflicting Views on Health Care Reform

The recent passage of health care has stirred up controversy among progressives and conservatives, in some cases leading to threats and attempts of violence. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) voiced their support for the bill after its narrow passage in the House. They believe that this reform will offer many advantages to middle class Americans, making health care more affordable and accessible to everyone. The NAACP says that this bill, which has been at the top of Obama's agenda since inauguration, will help more suffering people, "avoid prolonged sickness, injury or death from lack of insurance." It will be achieved by forbidding companies to deny people with "preexisting conditions insurance, reducing costs for people who already have insurance, and making insurance more affordable who do not have it". In doing so premiums will go down and the deficit will be closed. The NAACP successfully convinces me in their statement that health care will help cover middle class Americans, while only raising taxes for the upper class.

In opposition of Health Care reform are such people as Rick Crawford, candidate for Congress in 2010. Crawford's primary argument is against the plan economically. He holds that is is unwise to tax the American people during the time of a burdened economy. Despite progressive's view that Health Care reform will make insurance more affordable to the middle class, Crawford points out that if we extend coverage to 31 million Americans, taxes will have to be raised to cover the cost. Crawford simply thinks the Democrats have disillusioned the public into believing that the bill will cut costs for middle class Americans. If coverage is extended, someone must pay.

Both articles are effective in conveying their point. Being very progressive in my political views though, I tend to side with the NAACP. Although Crawford may be right about rising taxes he does not recognize the fact that this burden will mostly fall upon the upper class who can afford it. Even if taxes do get raised though, I am willing to have my taxes raised in order to provide coverage for those who suffer but can not afford coverage or are refused it all together.

Response to Paula's Celebrity Endorsement

http://pbohllsc100s10.blogspot.com/

In Paula's blog, she chose to analyze using Brett Favre to endorse Wrangler Jeans. She argues that Favre was a smart choice for the advertising campaign and cites increases in revenue which she attributes to the advertisements. Paula also identifies numerous characteristics that make Favre a good choice. She argues Favre is hardworking, perseverant, and mentally tough. Through all of these qualities though, Paula identifies the main goal of the adds is to exhibit Favre as the epitome of the blue collar working man.

It is no secret to any football fans or anyone who knows anything about a football players salary that Favre has plenty of money. Yet despite Favre fiscal success the add campaign revolves around an idea of dependability and value. That the jeans give more "bang for their buck". And over time, such has been the image painted of Brett Favre. At age 40, Favre was out on the field competing for the NFC championship. When people questioned whether he could still be competent, he not only proved people wrong but had one of his best years. Paula intelligently points out the fact that as it got deeper into the playoffs, the commercials played more and more often. This is because the connection seemed to make more and more sense as Favre succeeded in more and more important situations.

Overall I think Wrangler has stuck with a consistent message in their advertising, and their choices for who to have endorse their products has helped them. Wrangler Jean company aims to appeal to the average working class man, more concerned about performance than style. The jeans are meant to cost less and perform better. Although Brett Favre and Dale Earnheart Jr. are both athletes and make millions of dollars, the way they are portrayed, and the way they conduct themselves make them relatable characters for people who purchase Wrangler Jeans.