This is a wonderful interview. I translated it in chunks copying and pasting into babelfish. http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
I recommend doing this because the interview is very blunt and compelling.
"[Honest skeptical research"? It's time to confront reality. I'm sorry to tell you but not all scientists and science writing is of equal stature. And then there's the money trail.
And it seems that at times some skeptics rely upon the ignorance of the public of what a model is.
Hi Lisa, I thought I tried to leave links in my last message but my comment was not accepted, maybe I misunderstood that I could leave the message as long as I answered the captcha question.
This is an exciting time, although in a bad way. I have discovered some new internet resources that are discussing Chase Bank home loan modification shenanigans.
Here are my four blog links that will lead you to many excellent internet resources.
If you have an official blog address I can add you to two of my blogs and anytime you post a new article your link on my site bumps to the top of the blog article column.
http://www.daily-protest.com
http://www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com
http://www.thecatwhoatechasebank.com
http://www.robotsagainstchase.com
Dear Alessandro:
I often receive comments with links on blog entries, and we review almost every comment we receive. If you'd like to submit a comment to PRWatch about Chase and the financial issues with links, please do so. I'd welcome your input and help with building the movement.
Lisa
... when a corporation secretly drafts and arranges the introduction of legislation designed to benefit its bottom line, all the while scheming to keep its fingerprints off both the bill and an organized effort behind getting it through the legislature, as Philip Morris did in Colorado with SB69.
Moreover, in PM's 1987 confidential document, <em>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vvm88d00 Project DownUnder Conference Notes]</em>, a discussion of strategy for fighting smoking bans, [[Philip Morris]] recognized that there is no such thing as a legal right to smoke, saying "We won't be able to establish 'the right to smoke.' No legal basis for this 'right.' " [2021502106].
In October (2009) the Institute of Medicine issued a statement concluding that exposure to [[secondhand smoke]] significantly increases the risk of heart attacks among both smokers and nonsmokers. IOM also found that a reduction in cardiac problems begins fairly quickly after smoking bans are instituted, and that exposure to low or even fleeting levels of secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular problems. Therefore there is definitely a compelling public health reason to ban smoking in public places.
See [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/science/16smoke.html Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks and Disease] from the October 15, 2009 issue of the <em>New York Times. </em>
Anne Landman
Pages