Reading Quiz Week 10

1. What is the connection between HIV and e coli?
E coli is a newly emerged pathogen whose spread has been facilitated by recent social and technological changes, similar to the was HIV spreads and causes AIDS. Both people infected with HIV and cattle infected with e coli show very few signs of illness for years after they first contract the disease. (196)

2. Why have Republican politicians been so intent on weakening the inspection standards for meat? What is the political philosophy behind their efforts?
Republican politicians have been so intent on weakening the inspection standards for meat because higher standards on the meatpacking firms make more work and raise costs for the firms. The Republican party recieves numerous large donations from the meatpacking firms to persuade them to vote to lower the standards. (196) The political philosophy behind their efforts is to appease the meatpacking firms, and in return the Republican party will gain support from employees of the firms, their family and friends.

3. Choose one thing you have learned from the chapters and then analyze its meaning to American society and/or culture.
One think that i have learned from these chapters is that e coli can be very easily spread throughout the cattle because they live so closely. Also that a lot of this harmful meat has made it as far as the grocery store shelfs, or more frequently, local fast food chains. This means that people need to be very cautious when eating at a fast food restaurant becuase you never know where the meat has come from. Also that if a specific restaurant has a bad track record in having meat from diseased cattle, people should not go there regaurdless, because there is a higher chance of them having bad meat again.

Group 2: McCain

In McCain's ad "Troops", several negative claims are made against Obama, specifically with regard to his perceived lack of judgment or experience in foreign policy. First, it is claimed that Obama has "never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan", and "hadn't been to Iraq in years" ("Troops." Advertisement. John McCain. July-Aug. 2008.).
While technically both points are true, contextually, neither have much merit. Specifically, it was the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not the subcommittee to which Obama was a member that held hearings on Afghanistan (Jackson, Brooks. "The Truth on Troop Support." 22 July 2008. FactCheck. 27 Oct. 2008). It is interesting to note that Obama, although not a member of a committee holding hearings regarding Afghanistan, did in fact attend one of them, while McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee, which did hold hearings, did not attend. While also technically true that Obama hadn't been to Iraq in "years" (2006 was his last visit prior to the airing of "Troops"), he was actually in Iraq when the ad hit the airwaves. In this case, the claims made by McCain's ad are not just misleading; they're dead wrong.

Additionally, in "Troops", it is claimed that Obama voted against funding American troops ("Troops." Advertisement. John McCain. July-Aug. 2008.). The inference is made that Obama has voted to reduce funding for needed supplies consistently and on multiple occasions. This is false. Although Obama did vote against a funding bill, once, he did so because the bill did not contain language specifying a timetable for troop withdrawl. On at least ten other occasions, Obama voted for more troop funding (Jackson, Brooks. "The Truth on Troop Support." 22 July 2008. FactCheck. 27 Oct. 2008).

A second ad, "Housing Problem", attempts to tie Obama to developer and convicted felon Tony Rezko. The ad claims that Rezko helped Obama buy his home, and that he received "politcal favors", including $14 million from Chicago taxpayers ("Housing Problem." Advertisement. John McCain. 21 Aug. 2008). Again, the facts in this ad are misleading and colluded.

It is true that Rezko purchased a plot of land next to the home Obama bought, but the land wasn't purchased for Obama-- Rezko's wife purchased the commercial plot, and later sold, at a profit, a portion of the land to Obama (Miller, Joe, and D'Angelo Gore. "Rezko Reality." Rezko Reality. 22 Aug. 2008. FactCheck. 27 Oct. 2008 ). As far as the $14 million dollar favor the ad alludes to; Obama wrote a one page letter to the city housing commissioner supporting the development of an apartment project for low-income senior citizens. The project was funded with taxpayer money, and Rezko headed the development. To be clear, Rezko did not receive $14 million dollars, as is implied in the ad-- his net profit was closer to $855,000 dollars after expenses related to construction and development. Most damning to the claims made in "Housing Problem", however, is the fact that Rezko never asked Obama for his letter of support-- Obama sent the letter without any conversation or agreement taking place between the two men (Miller, Joe, and D'Angelo Gore. "Rezko Reality." Rezko Reality. 22 Aug. 2008. FactCheck. 27 Oct. 2008 ).

Some of the claims made in these ads are so blatantly false or contextually shallow that they resemble "truth" only in passing. It is obvious that these ads are meant to throw up a veil of doubt about Barack Obama, rather than clear the air. With the days between now and Nov 4 dwindling, only the most crippling political blows can be dealt. The average voter can no more trust the advertising of a politician than they can the advertising of a late night infomercial, and the closer to election day we get, the wilder the claims become.

Group 3: Obama

"New Energy"
1a) Claim: McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil.
2a) Facts: This claim, while technically true, is misleading. Although McCain's tax plan would give tax breaks to big oil, those tax breaks would be part of a larger corporate tax cut that would also benefit companies that provide alternative energy solutions and other big corporations such as WalMart.
Sources:

"McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil." PolitiFact.com. 08 July 2008. St. Petersburg Times. 27 Oct 2008 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/563/.

"The Whoppers of 2008." FactCheck.org. 25 Sept 2008. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. 27 Oct 2008 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008.html.

3a) This claim is designed to associate McCain with the disliked big oil companies who are generally perceived as uncaring profit machines. It does not specify that the tax breaks would be part of a larger plan because that would detract from the attempted association.

1b) Claim: McCain has voted with President Bush 95% of the time.

2b) Facts: True; McCain's 2007 "presidential support" score as stated by the Congressional Quarterly shows that this is an accurate statement.

Sources:
"John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time (last year)." PolitiFact.com. 03 June 2008. St. Petersburg Times. 27 Oct 2008 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/512/.

3b) This ad is also designed to associate McCain with an entity that the public does not like, in this case President Bush.

"Out of Touch"
1a) Claim: McCain owns 7 different houses.

2a) Senator McCain actually owns 8 different houses.

Sources:
"Rezko Reality." FactCheck.org. 22 Aug 2008. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. 27 Oct 2008 http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html.

3a) This ad was in response to McCain's claim that Obama was spending too much money and time on his personal housing issues. It shows that this was a hypocritical statement for McCain to make, and portrayed Obama in a favorable light.

1b) Claim: McCain defines middle-class as making $5 million a year.

2b) Facts: This was a joke made by McCain (admittedly in poor taste) at the Saddleback Church presidential forum.

Sources:
Powers, Ryan. "McCain Jokes About His Definition Of The Rich: ‘How About $5 Million?’." ThinkProgress.org. 17 Aug 2008. Center for American Progress Action Fund. 27 Oct 2008 http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/mccain-defines-rich/.

3b) This ad uses an out-of-context quote in an attempt to alienate people, especially middle-class families, from McCain.

candidate

2000 - Bush/Gore

Candidate - C.W.
Carter vs. Ford (1976)

comparing ads

Uh, I don't know what happened to that last post.

We chose the republican ad from 1968 that used a quote from Robert Creel, founder of the KKK, saying that he supported candidate Barry Goldwater.  The ad from 2008 we chose was a republican ad criticizing Obama for being associated with revolutionary William Ayers.  Both ads use the tactic of guilt by association.  Goldwater is "associated" with the KKK because Robert Creel says that he supports him and Obama is a crazy terrorist because he has called Ayers "respectable" and "mainstream."  Both ads want to scare people into believing that the candidate they're attacking will let these bad things happen again.  Goldwater will turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the KKK and Obama will not protect the country against terrorist attacks, both foreign and American.  Immediately people think back to 9/11 when they see the Obama ad.  The 64' ad uses a haunting image of members of the KKK and a burning cross moving across the screen to evoke fear and terror in viewers.  The 08' ad uses a mirage of images of both Obama and Ayers, so we immediately link the two in our heads.  It also uses images of old newspaper clippings and still shots of the Weather Underground.  At the end of the ad both Obama and Ayers are shown on the screen side by side.  In the 64' ad neither Goldwater or Creel are shown, but the quote the narrator uses is enough to develop a relationship between the two and a negative image for Goldwater.

comparing ads