I heard of one of those 'covert appearances':
www.democracynow.org/2007/5/25/somebody_had_to_speak_out_if
"Major General John Batiste was offered a promotion to become a three-star general, the second-highest-ranking military officer in Iraq. Instead, he quit over the war. After he appeared in a commercial for VoteVets.org, CBS News fired him as a paid news consultant. MoveOn.org collected 230,000 signatures on a petition demanding he be rehired."
Funny thing about this "dissident general" - he's still for the Iraq War:
"AMY GOODMAN: Do you think, General Batiste, that it was wrong for the United States to invade Iraq, March 19, 2003?
MAJ. GEN. JOHN BATISTE: You know, that’s all hindsight, and we certainly could debate that forever. The point is, we are where we are."
That's a funny kind of dissent... probably it was all just a staged event, part of the "new strategy" PR line put out around that time.
Why don't you start by providing some evidence that Big Chlorine "concocted the entire 'anti smoking' crusade"? I've heard this mantra repeated dozens of times, mostly in relation to Big Pharma, but have yet to see any proof.
I find criminalizing soft drugs like cannabis and tobacco a poor solution for reasons I won't go into here. The best solution to the tobacco problem is strong regulation: tobacco companies should not be allowed to advertise or promote their products in any way whatsoever. To that end, they should not be treated like other companies; they should be treated as what they are, companies in the business of addicting and killing people.
As a start I propose the following: tobacco companies' books should be open to the public; we should know where every dime they spend goes. That would go a long way toward stopping the practice of promoting tobacco through third parties. Combine that with warnings on DVDs for movies showing smoking (that's where they get most of their revenue now) and I think you will find a lot less smoking in movies, which I agree is a very effective form of advertising (whether it is paid for or not).
I predict we would also see a lot fewer smokers' advocacy organizations and supposed "citizens groups" which promote the tobacco industry's agenda thinly veiled as issues of "freedom" and "choice."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smokers'_rights
Socialist is (or used to be, before your time perhaps?) pink. Red is flat out Communist. Red (not the TV election map red, of course) means violent overthrow of the existing order.
In contrast to the peaceful change pursued by pinks and greens (between whom there might be less overlap than you think), real red would mean CEOs keelhauled under their supertankers and lobbyists hanging from every lamppost inside the Beltway. And no, that sort of red wouldn't be very green, either.
What pinks and greens both understand is that things that can't go on forever, don't. The best example of that is the prime imperative of your beloved capitalism: More, more, more, more, more, more, MORE! More wealth for the rich, more poverty for the poor, more species extinguished, more poisoning of the water we drink and the air we breath. One way or another, it can't go on.
Oh yes, and by-the-by, no one really thinks of Al Gore as any kind of Pope. That's just dumb.
Well I am doing my part as Marlboro will lose thousands because I quit smoking for over a month now and do not intend to go back to that nasty habit. Sad though more people are picking it up than are quitting though..
Why don't you start by providing some evidence that Big Chlorine "concocted the entire 'anti smoking' crusade"? I've heard this mantra repeated dozens of times, mostly in relation to Big Pharma, but have yet to see any proof.
I find criminalizing soft drugs like cannabis and tobacco a poor solution for reasons I won't go into here. The best solution to the tobacco problem is strong regulation: tobacco companies should not be allowed to advertise or promote their products in any way whatsoever. To that end, they should not be treated like other companies; they should be treated as what they are, companies in the business of addicting and killing people.
As a start I propose the following: tobacco companies' books should be open to the public; we should know where every dime they spend goes. That would go a long way toward stopping the practice of promoting tobacco through third parties. Combine that with warnings on DVDs for movies showing smoking (that's where they get most of their revenue now) and I think you will find a lot less smoking in movies, which I agree is a very effective form of advertising (whether it is paid for or not).
I predict we would also see a lot fewer smokers' advocacy organizations and supposed "citizens groups" which promote the tobacco industry's agenda thinly veiled as issues of "freedom" and "choice."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smokers'_rights
I've fallen for BS, before, too. It's OK, just try not to let it happen again.
Socialist is (or used to be, before your time perhaps?) pink. Red is flat out Communist. Red (not the TV election map red, of course) means violent overthrow of the existing order.
In contrast to the peaceful change pursued by pinks and greens (between whom there might be less overlap than you think), real red would mean CEOs keelhauled under their supertankers and lobbyists hanging from every lamppost inside the Beltway. And no, that sort of red wouldn't be very green, either.
What pinks and greens both understand is that things that can't go on forever, don't. The best example of that is the prime imperative of your beloved capitalism: More, more, more, more, more, more, MORE! More wealth for the rich, more poverty for the poor, more species extinguished, more poisoning of the water we drink and the air we breath. One way or another, it can't go on.
Oh yes, and by-the-by, no one really thinks of Al Gore as any kind of Pope. That's just dumb.
Pages