Opinion
DAIRY PRIDE for a dying industry
Congress is at it again, attempting to pass bills that make no sense to the average person and are a waste of government funds.

In January, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) proposed the “Defending Against Imitations and Replacements of Yogurt, milk and cheese to Promote Regular Intake of Dairy Everyday Act” or DAIRY PRIDE Act for short. The bill could be better summarized as “ridiculous.”
​
In a press release, Baldwin said labeling non-dairy products “milk” is hurting the dairy industry because it misleads consumers into thinking they are buying a product with the same “high standards for nutritional value” as traditional dairy products.

There is a high standard for nutritional value in plant-based milk alternatives. That’s why consumers can find more calcium and less cholesterol for a lower cost. The last time I went to the grocery store, I noticed that organic milk cost at least $1 more than the average non-GMO plant-based milk, while average milk and non-dairy milk prices were about the same.

Yes, one can make the argument that most non-dairy products do not match up with the protein in milk (unless it’s soy), but protein is not the reason why most people drink it.

The “Got Milk?” ads all praise dairy for its high levels of calcium, but according to the “Save Our Bones” program, due to the acidity of milk, it actually depletes calcium from individuals’ bones, making them more susceptible to fractures.

Plant-based milks, specifically almond milk, are alkalizing, which keeps the body from having to balance itself out.

Not only that, the dairy industry has added antibiotics and hormones such as rBGH, which are linked to certain cancers, autoimmune diseases and allergies.

According to Britannica, the overexertion of dairy cows from being milked 24/7 cuts their life span by 80 percent. By the end of their lives they can barely walk. What does that say about the milk they produce?

What is this “high standard” Baldwin keeps pushing?

There is none.

Baldwin proposed this bill to protect dairy farmers and attempt to boost their sales, but it was a pathetic attempt if you ask me.

Plant-based milk products have their market. It’s for those with dairy allergies or those who know about the health detriments of milk.

According to Michael Moss, author of “Salt Sugar Fat,” when there was a high supply of cheese in the 80s, rather than the industry cutting down on production, Washington D.C. said they’d help sell it.

Flash forward 30 years later, the dairy industry is hurting, so what is Washington doing? They’re promoting dairy sales once again. It’s the same cycle.

Trying to push for more consumption of one product is just going to make the other side angry. There is already an online petition to stop DAIRY PRIDE Act from passing.

But let’s be honest, if passed, this act is only going to waste money by forcing non-dairy products to be relabeled and change their advertisements.

Plant-based products are not going down anytime soon, so the federal government, dairy industry and beef industry should stop trying to tear them down. To me, this bill just proves that these industries are scared of going under due to lower demands.

Baldwin’s bill focuses on an industry with years of unethical practices and known health detriments. It forgets about the other companies striving to reach their market.

Wouldn’t this be a sign that society is progressing away from animal-based products, and dairy farmers should look into alternative measures?

According to a University of Minnesota study, the amount of water and feed it takes to produce dairy could instead be used to reduce hunger in the U.S. This would lead to lower prices of plant foods, making them more accessible to low income families.
​
If Congress passes the DAIRY PRIDE Act, they shouldn’t be surprised when this conflict of interest ultimately fails in the long run.
Streep’s Golden Globes speech didn’t say much at all
After witnessing the Green Bay Packers demolish the New York Giants, my friends and I decided to flip to NBC and watch the Golden Globes. We tuned in just in time to watch Meryl Streep be presented with the Cecil B. DeMille Award.

Her acceptance speech was nothing more than an excuse to bad-mouth the then-president elect and all who voted for him. Because, what kind of Hollywood award show would it be if no actor pushed their political agenda?

The so-called “brave” actress gave her speech in front of an audience who did not boo her or tell her to be quiet. In fact, this group shares her view point. That’s not being brave. That’s called feeding your confirmation bias.

While Streep has every right to say how she feels, the listeners also have the right to not be fed false information and be fooled by the hypocrisy in her statements.

“Vilified” Hollywood is at it again by making the claim that they are victims and nobody likes or listens to them. Well, my twitter feed begs to differ.

Do not pretend that this film company does not contribute to an election or political party’s standing. After all, it was Hollywood, in 1972, that stuck the far left with the ‘elitist’ label. Hollywood also holds responsibility for former President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage when stars were not making donations due to his lack of response on LGBT issues.

So when Streep cries out about being hated and written off, remember that she contributes a lot more than the average politician.

Streep called out the President’s plan to deport  illegal immigrants by stating Hollywood is full of foreigners and “if you kick ‘em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but Football and Mixed Martial Arts.”

You know what contributes more than the famous actress and politicians combined? Football and MMA.

While we may hate to admit it, without the NFL, the United States would be out $5 billion. What would happen to the 110,000 jobs supported by the industry if it did not exist? Hollywood would not take its place, that’s for sure.

Whether you support them or not, both sports are immensely popular in this country. The Superbowl is the most watched televised event, surpassing the Oscars by a landslide.

There was one point in the speech, however, when I did agree with the actress. We need journalists. We need actual journalists, but we do not need Hollywood to “safeguard the truth” because of what she said only moments earlier.

Streep referenced Serge Kovaleski, the disabled reporter Trump is accused of mocking in a speech. In a story run by “New Standard Press” it’s reported that  the President has been seen making the same type of gesture while mocking others, including Senator Ted Cruz and General George Stephanopoulos, both are able-bodied men.

Like Streep, these are details most of the press also left out. Not to mention, sources such as ABC did not show a video of Kovaleski, who is not as “spastic” as Trump is seen being in his speech.

The Hollywood star said it “sank its hooks” into her heart and she could not help but feel stunned after watching. I could not help but feel stunned when I saw a clip of Streep standing up and applauding at the 2003 Oscars for Director Roman Polanski, who was charged with the rape of a 13-year-old girl and fled the country after he pleaded guilty.

Is it not hypocritical to preach on the immorality of others but refuse to take a step back and look at how you compare? Applauding for a rapist is just as appalling as making fun of someone with a disability. Preaching on the importance of the truth, when the candidate she supported disregarded it like it was nothing, contradicts the message.

Stating that disrespect incites disrespect is a valid point, but when this entire speech held no sort of respect toward the other party, does it do it any justice?

While we all have the right to protest, when are we going to actually sit down and talk to one another? Why do we insist on blaming the other side for our issues when we keep using the same rhetoric over and over again?
​
With this new term starting, let’s try to have some faith that there will be some positive change, and let’s not go around insulting everything. Remember, go Packers.
Praise of Cuba’s Castro is cringe worthy
In case it was overshadowed by the fires in Tennessee or the incident at Ohio State University, a political figure died on November 25. Some, such as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, remember him “fondly.” Others, such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, praise him for being a “larger than life” leader who “served his people.”

Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, paid the best tribute overall, calling this leader a “beacon of light all over Latin America.”

I, along with other Cuban-Americans, refer to this political figure as the Caribbean Hitler.

Fidel Castro was not a leader who served his people. He was a leader who served himself. If he radiated any form of light, it would be compared to the anglerfish that deceives its prey with a pretty light before causing their downfall. That is the Castro I know.

This power-hungry, communist dictator came to power on Jan. 1, 1959. He was seen as a revolutionary who would change the country for the better. He did the opposite.

For the last 57 years, Castro has forced about 20 percent of Cubans into exile, sending them floating through shark-infested water on rafts. Thousands died on the week-long journey without food or water, while others tried to avoid the possibility of having to return to the country if they were caught at sea.

Concentration camps were built on the island for members of the LGBTQ community as well as other “undesirables.”

In the memoir Before Night Falls, which is about these prison camps, Reinaldo Arenas, an openly homosexual Cuban author, wrote, “Gays were not treated like human beings, they were treated like beasts. They were the last ones to come out for meals, so we saw them walk by, and the most insignificant incident was an excuse to beat them mercilessly.”

It can be said that this was in the past and that Castro apologized for his mistreatment. However, in November 2010, Cuba was the only Latin American country to support the removal of “sexual orientation” from a list of prejudicial motives for murder at the United Nations.

He sent out his apology for his mistreatment of the LGBTQ community a few months before this vote was cast. Only a fool would say he meant it.

The ones praising him fell for his claim that his repressive measures were necessary to keep his “free” social projects. They easily forgot about Fidel’s 20 properties, private island, yacht, and all the other big, personal expenses he used government funds to buy.

The school systems he set up were not focused on educating students, especially because the educated were the first to be persecuted by this regime. Instead, these schools thrive on indoctrinating students with their political, Communist beliefs. The regime will also incarcerate any parent who teaches their children contrary doctrines.

Those with “poor” political standings, meaning that they are not in agreement with the government beliefs or its practices, are blacklisted and unable to further their education.

Radio personality Tariq Nasheed tweeted that he’d be better off living in Cuba than in the United States. If he sent out the same tweet but bashed Cuba while living on the island, he would be hauled off to jail.

Fidel imprisoned and killed over 100,000 of his own people. He began shortly after gaining power.

In the summer of 1959, a Cuban family was in the customs line at the airport in Havana returning from vacation, when a military personnel looked around for a “Ruben Lamadrid.” The father said, “I am Ruben Ortiz Lamadrid, but not Ruben Lamadrid.” The officer said, “You’re not the one we’re looking for,” and he left.

At the age of 15, my grandfather almost witnessed his father, my great-grandfather [Ruben Ortiz Lamadrid], arrested for working as a journalist.

That was the moment they knew they would not be safe if they stayed, so they fled the island with nothing but the clothes on their back.

Now, you tell me, does that sound like a man that can be remembered “fondly?” Does that sound like a man who “served his people?” Can it even be argued that “he did so much for health care” when it was a two-tiered system with inferior care for most Cubans and superior care for himself and his oligarchy?

If we begin to praise a dictator who lead through fear and selfish motives, then we are accepting his values and what his regime has done to its people.
​