Recent comments

  • Reply to: Attack of the Living Front Groups: PR Watch Offers Help to Unmask Corporate Tricksters   15 years 3 weeks ago
    A simple way to compare front groups from the left and the right is a comparison of the number of human persons as opposed to corporate "persons" in their memberships.
  • Reply to: Front Group Defends Tar Sands as "North American Energy"   15 years 3 weeks ago

    Consumer Energy Alliance is a coalition of more than 120 affiliates and nearly 200,000 grassroots supporters. Its objective is to advance an "all of the above" strategy for meeting our nation's future energy needs -- from wind to waste, oil to gas, solar to tidal, nuclear, biofuels, and everything in between (including conservation).

    For a complete listing of our members, please visit http://consumerenergyalliance.org/affiliates. And to learn more about our LCFS campaign, which stands at significant odds from the characterization offered above, visit http://secureourfuels.org

  • Reply to: Beyond Advertising: The Pharmaceutical Industry's Hidden Marketing Tactics   15 years 4 weeks ago
    I am disturbed by many of the ads for pharmaceuticals I see, especially those on TV. Among other negative effects they have, the ads are part of the reason for the high prices for drugs in the US. I am wondering what other countries besides the USA allow these television commericials?
  • Reply to: An Open Letter to Nancy-Ann DeParle   15 years 4 weeks ago
    RAM
    Thank you for doing your best to publicize this unbelievable problem.
  • Reply to: Wendell Potter: Rally Against Wall Street's Health Care Takeover   15 years 1 month ago
    but thats all it was. it may as well have been written by David Axelrod. I support single payer in theory, but i am skeptical that it will ever be realized. A bill like that which cuts out the middleman will never make it through joint committee. as for the "public option" id have to agree with Mr Gurda there, i 100% oppose it... it would provide no real options at all. As for the substance of my comment: While i object to Mr Gurda's characterization Of Potter as "McCarthy-like," many of the comments here have responded to him in exactly the same vein. If you are going to criticize someone, be specific. Vague epthets get the debate nowhere... is that kind of inane bickering that plagues our federal legislature today. We also need to realize who Mr. Gurda really is: A small carrier who does not represent "big corporate america," in fact he most likely represents small business owners who are the heart of the american economy. Note i am taking his claims at face value because this is the web - i cannot go up to him and ask him for his business card. And for the record, i think many of Gurda's comments were more apt than we care to admit. Was Potter not preaching to the choir, as someone else noted? A large group of public option and single payer supporters cannot possibly be broad based. Was he not horribly vague and rhetorical in his speech? There were no specific references except to the "front groups." I would rather have listened to his Cong. testimony, which I will probably have to wait about 2 months for CSPAN to release on youtube, after the bill has already been killed. Potter came off more as a demagogue than an advocate, although i would not go so far as to say "McCarthy-like" or eastern european. I guess this boils down to 3 things: let's try to keep the comments civilized, so we can get down to the substance of an argument, instead of throwing around useless rhetoric like the GOP. always be skeptical of what a person says! think of their background, their interests, be it financial or political or both. but stay away from ad hominems. respect opinions that differ from your own. i dont agree with Mr Gurda much, but i respect him more than anyone else on this forum for encouraging democratic debate. And the issue itself? Health insurance a complex issue that for me (and many)is often too hard to grasp coherently. i guess that is how "the wall-street takeover" has occurred - the public has been kept confused through series of convoluted and incessant paperwork. But if we think of it as an institution dominated by big-business, and recognize that it needs to be changed, then we should recognize that almost every facet of our economy is like this, and was built to be this way. And if we are to change that, we have to change the very economic structure of the country itself. And this would indeed be socialism. Are you ready to do that? Because if not, then Congress sure as hell isn't.

Pages