Too bad people on the left do not have any multi-international corporations supporting these acts, these are most likely funded by real grassroots groups. Besides, protests of paid organizers is like comparing someone who has one beer every so often to an alcoholic.
You also forgot that CMD is an organization dedicated to making analysises "of what's inaccurate in what "front" groups are saying.". This is an article to help regular people do what CMD does professionally.
Missing from the discussion of this deceptive practice is the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, NAMI. Journalists and politicians regularly quote NAMI members and press releases as from "advocates." NAMI gets $3 million each year from drug companies to promote drug treatment. They say they fight stigma but do nothing to assert the rights of persons with disabilities. They exploit vulnerable persons as clients in need of treatment.
TennMom says "for every study the ACS, ALA, AHA, etc., release to demonize tobacco, particularly the harm of second hand smoke, there is a study to debunk their claims" but she doesn't mention that most if not all of those studies were paid for by tobacco companies and do not hold up to peer review. I find it unsettling that otherwise intelligent people can become so deluded as to believe smoking and passive smoking are not the extremely harmful and dangerous activities that medical science has proved them to be. I believe such people have been BRAINWASHED with tobacco industry propaganda by some very unscrupulous people.
The fact of the matter is that tobacco kills twice as many people as AIDS, illegal drugs, alcohol, car accidents, homicide and suicide combined. Each year tobacco kills more Americans than died in the whole of World War II. So when people like TennMom come along and spout this sort of crap, I can only conclude that they are terribly misinformed and likely they are in a very deep state of denial about the harm they are doing to themselves with their smoking. This is what allows them to believe such nonsense, they can't face the reality of what they are doing to themselves.
In a Previous reply, I was taken to task for not being completely clear on who I am. I have an insurance agency that sells Health Insurance. It is the super-majority of our business. I am not a shill for any insurance company and have very little loyalty to any of them, and they feel the same way about me.
I would also like to speculate that if and when the "public option" is replaced with the term "co-op" or "health Insurance exchange", that Mr. Potter will be in support of the bill. I believe that Mr. Potter is biased towards nationalizaiton of the industry and will change his writings to say whatever moves towards that goal.
I am against the "co-op" or "exchange" because it will attract insurance companies to issue policies from States in the States where the laws do not offer consumers the same protections that their own State might. For example, in Illinois, children are covered to age 26, mini-Cobra is 12 months, Mamograms are covered at 100%, birth control pills, fertility, mental health, and rate protection. States will be incented to lower their consumer protection to attract insurance business to their State. Carriers offering policies in States without those benefits If Indiana has less extensive pollution laws, versus Illinois, BP might expand their plant to dump into Lake Michigan from Indiana. Co-ops and exchanges will simply encourage minimization of consumer protection.
I know by a few comments that I am percieved as an angry right-winger. I am not. (Well, check that... I am not a right winger)
"Somehow, promoting beer as a less water-intensive beverage choice doesn't quite seem to meet the World Water Week goal of "advancing the water, environment, health, livelihood and poverty reduction agendas."
The paragraph above had me laughing histerically and cringing all at once. I guess we should definitely suspect something is up when beer makers are trying to present themselves as a "less water-intensive" at a water summit. The immediate logic seems to be: "I guess we should all become alcoholics so we can conserve the world's water supply." This is outrageous. It is also troubling to know that these corporations are taking the discussion away from focusing on the devastation of the world's water supply as a result of climate disruption and turning it into a beauty pageant of faux "social responsibilty" among beverage companies. How could anyone expect a hard-hitting conclusion on policy to come out of such an event?
TennMom says "for every study the ACS, ALA, AHA, etc., release to demonize tobacco, particularly the harm of second hand smoke, there is a study to debunk their claims" but she doesn't mention that most if not all of those studies were paid for by tobacco companies and do not hold up to peer review. I find it unsettling that otherwise intelligent people can become so deluded as to believe smoking and passive smoking are not the extremely harmful and dangerous activities that medical science has proved them to be. I believe such people have been BRAINWASHED with tobacco industry propaganda by some very unscrupulous people.
The fact of the matter is that tobacco kills twice as many people as AIDS, illegal drugs, alcohol, car accidents, homicide and suicide combined. Each year tobacco kills more Americans than died in the whole of World War II. So when people like TennMom come along and spout this sort of crap, I can only conclude that they are terribly misinformed and likely they are in a very deep state of denial about the harm they are doing to themselves with their smoking. This is what allows them to believe such nonsense, they can't face the reality of what they are doing to themselves.
Pages