text:
Freedom & Democracy => Who CAN you trust? => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 24, 2013, 11:24:52 pm
Title: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
Post by: AGelbert on October 24, 2013, 11:24:52 pm
Large Corporations (like McDonald's in the following video) LIE as POLICY and the MEDIA then proceed to cover for them. Conclusion: You CANNOT TRUST LARGE CORPORATION Mouthpieces (EVER). They will only be truthful when they are forced to (something that RARELY happens >:().
And that goes double for the Corporate Media!
Joseph Lamour
Ever Hear About The Lady Who Spilled Coffee On Herself At McDonald's, Then Sued For Millions?
It's really unbelievable what happened to Stella Liebeck. You just have to watch to see how the media turned on this little old lady who lived in Albuquerque. Obviously a villain, right? And at 5:00, prepare to see what the coffee actually did to her. It's not pretty. Well ... nothing in her situation was
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE&feature=player_embedded
https://www.upworthy.com/ever-hear-about-the-lady-that-spilled-coffee-on-herself-at-mcdonalds-then-sued-for-millions?c=upw1
Title: Seven misleading words you'll run into and truth behind the advertising
Post by: AGelbert on October 25, 2013, 12:17:06 am
Don't be fooled by packaging. Here are seven misleading words you'll run into at restaurants and grocery stores … and how to find the truth behind the advertising.
The Lie: Healthy Fast Food
From salads to oatmeal to grilled chicken, plenty of fast food restaurants offer a handful of so-called healthy alternatives to the fried, cheesy, and bacon-y stuff. Turns out those healthy-sounding options aren't necessarily even any healthier than the regular items on the menu. Take McDonald's for example: the New York Times found that their oatmeal contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than their cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin. And the grilled chicken in their Premium Caesar Salad? Surprisingly, it contains rib meat, along with a bunch of additives.
Get the Truth: Always read nutrition labels and look up the ingredients and nutritional info when possible (readily available online when it comes to chain restaurants) before you chow down. If something as simple as grilled chicken has 11 ingredients you can't pronounce, move along.
The Lie: All Natural
Plenty of food products, from soda to granola bars, have "natural" or "natural ingredients" on the label … and it definitely sounds healthy. But what does it actually mean? Unless it's meat or poultry, whatever the company behind the product wants it to, for the most part.
Get the Truth: Unlike meat and poultry, which is regulated by the US Department of Agriculture, other products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. And it turns out, the FDA has no official definition of the term "natural" or its derivatives. They only go so far as saying they don't object to the use of the term "if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances" which gives companies pretty generous leeway. Before being fooled by a food that's labeled "natural," ask yourself: can I make this in my own kitchen? If you can't pronounce half of the ingredients on the label, let alone define or find them in a supermarket, they're probably not as natural as the branding would like you to believe.
The Lie: Whole Grain
Whole grains have been shown to reduce your risks of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, and cardiovascular disease. So bring on the whole-grain crackers, right? Not so fast. Some products labeled "whole grain" actually contain very little of it—and some contain none at all.
Get the Truth: Look on the packaging for stamps and certifications from third parties like the Whole Grain Council. And make sure a whole grain (like whole oats or whole barley flour) is listed first on the list of ingredients. Ingredients are always listed in a descending order, from greatest amount to least amount. If it's second, it may make up as little as 1 percent of the product.
The Lie: Multi-Grain
Multi-grain is touted on food packaging as if it's healthy for you, but all "multi-grain" means is that there are multiple kinds of grains in the product—often the unhealthy refined kind. And the kind of grain is more important than how many there are.
Get the Truth: Flip the package to see if whole grains are listed first in the list of ingredients to get the most health bang for your buck. And make sure "whole" is in front of every grain listed.
The Lie: Artisan
The "artisan" label evokes images of small-batch cooking and skilled chefs perusing farmer's markets for fresh ingredients. But it's a word not regulated by the FDA, which means anyone can use it any way they want, even with bulk quantities of frozen food. Case in point, an "artisan egg sandwich"… made by Wendy's.
Get the Truth: Dig to find out how a food is made and what it's made from. If it's filled with artificial flavors, trans fats, and additives, cooked by microwave, and produced in mass quantities for huge chain restaurants and fast food place, there's likely nothing "artisan" about it.
The Lie: "Made With Real…"
Cheesy crackers made with real cheese. Snack bars made with real fruit. Sure, they're made with real cheese and fruit… and plenty of other stuff too. Take Kellogg's Nutri-Grain raspberry bars—"real fruit" is on the label, and they even added "no high-fructose corn syrup" to make it sound healthier. But really, the "real fruit" is listed as raspberry puree concentrate…and it's only third on the list, after invert sugar and corn syrup.
Get the Truth:Get the Truth: Look at the ingredient list, not the packaging. And remember that even if the list does include real cheese or real whole fruit, it still may be sharing space with a whole bunch of junk. If a product has to cover its package in claims that it's "real" food, be skeptical.
The Lie: "Made with 100% real/pure…"
But surely 100% real must mean something, right? Not really. Whether it's sugary juice drinks made with 100% real fruit juice or a Betty Crocker casserole-in-a-box made with 100% real potatoes, the packaging doesn't tell the whole story. The "made with 100% real" is a particularly deceptive kind of trickery, because it intentionally reads like the entire product is 100% made up of that ingredient. For things like fruit juice, that's easy to buy into—until you read the label.
Get the Truth: Yep, I'm going to tell you—again—to read the list of ingredients! Take juice for example—the fruit juice inside may indeed be 100% fruit juice, but often it's also mixed in with extra sugar, and the 100% real fruit juice only makes up 50% of what'll end up in your drink.
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/7-lies-the-food-industry-sells-us.html#ixzz2ihaMqRuT
Can you now understand why food processing corporations "lobby" the government to NOT have to put all the ingredients on the label? It's because they want to con you into buying something that you think is something else of much more value! Can you now see why Libertarians against government oversight and regulations are idiots?
Coca-Cola and Pepsi 'change recipe to avoid putting a cancer warning on their labels' (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)•Both firms to alter the way caramel colour is produced
•Changes will take place in the U.S
•But not in UK as the drinks meet European safety rules (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112335/Coke-Pepsi-change-recipe-avoid-putting-cancer-warning-labels.html#ixzz2ixlHXiHX)
Pepsi, Coke, Nestle Pump Millions Into Anti-GMO Labeling Initiative >:( (http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2013/10/19/pepsi-coke-nestle-pump-millions-into-anti-gmo-labeling-initiative)
Title: A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 1
Take a look at this seemingly well intentioned and informative article urging people to confirm what they read.
Something is REALLY MISSING here. Can you tell what it is? How about the upiquitous (and mostly surreptitious) government efforts to manufacture consent when they aren't financing astro-turf fake grass roots popularity, **** and sensationalism to keep people distracted?
See my comment after the article. My remarks are in red in the article as well or my opinion is voiced with an emoticon. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
How the internet is breaking ;) journalism ;D (and what it means to you)
Article by Leo on the Ask Leo web site.
When it comes to journalism and other information that you read on the internet, there's a very strong argument that things are seriously broken. The result is that we all need to be more vigilant than ever to separate the truth from falsehood and recognize what's important as opposed to what's popular.
Last week's revelations, investigations, and clarifications regarding Microsoft Security Essentials really made me realize something very critical about how the internet works today and how broken it is.
The assumptions that readers are making about the information that they find online – even at relatively "reputable" sites – are wrong. The internet is breaking what "journalism" means. As a result, it's become even more critical for online information consumers (that's you and me, by the way) to take on a burden that we have not been trained to even concern ourselves with until now.
The burden of confirmation.
I've written about it before, but the sad fact is that you just can't believe everything you read on the internet. And it is now your practical responsibility to do the legwork to confirm whether something is, or is not, true.
And yes, I agree, that's totally broken.
And it's partly our fault. ???
What drives the internet
Most websites on the internet measure traffic. More visitors equals more success. It's as simple as that. Whether the success is measured in advertising revenue or product sales, the bottom line is that more eyeballs are critical to most site's success.
And I'll admit that this is true for Ask Leo! More visitors make my endeavor more successful.
So, how does one get traffic? Uh... Shouldn't there be a discussion of, like, ETHICS HERE ??? So this "traffic" thing is ONLY about MONEY, Leo? >:( Product quality, content, Good will, reliability, no ad overload, no spam, no cookies, good fact checking, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining traffic? >:( ??? :P
My approach has been relatively straightforward: write articles that I think are helpful and informative, that answer real questions asked by real people, sprinkle them with my own editorial and other content, and hope that people discover me via the search engines when they're looking for an answer to a problem. Unfortunately, that approach isn't as effective as it once was.
Perhaps as a result, more and more sites use different techniques to attract site visitors or "clicks."
Attracting clicks
Perhaps the most common approach to generating traffic these days is the sensational or salacious headline – one that says something so strong or outrageous that you just have to click through to read more.
"How the Internet is Breaking Journalism" might be considered such a headline, although I think it's fairly mild in comparison to some that I've seen. (I'm not really very good at headline writing.) I get it Leo. You are mild, milquetoast and extremely non-confrontational because that would be bad for business.
The resulting article may, or may not, deliver on the headline's promise. Many do not. I hope this one does. We'll see.
The headline served its purpose: it got you to click, the site got a "page view," and perhaps an ad was shown. Mission accomplished. The fact that the accompanying article was total rubbish or content-free is immaterial. (I hope this one isn't one of those).
Many go further, continuing with provocative and typically unsubstantiated information – all to get you to spend more time on the site, click through to additional pages, or even better, recommend the article to your friends.
All at the expense of what we often refer to as the truth, accuracy, or occasionally balance. And future clicks TOO, LEO! Why didn't you mention REPUTATION in your zeal to brand us as pavlovian dogs?
The truth is often boring and doesn't generate page views. (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)BULLSHIT.
Continued in "A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 2" (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corporate-mendacity-and-duplicity/msg175/#msg175)
Title: A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 2 (final part)
A Short Course in Clever Propaganda Part 2 (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/121.gif)
When it comes to the news, however, there's another factor at play.
News in internet time
Because the internet is instantaneous, there's tremendous competitive pressure to get your article published as quickly as technologically possible. So the NSA data mining has no bearing on the decisions to manufacture propaganda or some other mendacious bit of distraction? PRESSURE TO MEET A HEADLINE? I don't think so.
This often happens at the expense of facts, replacing them with rampant and sometimes wild speculation. Speculation that is often presented or interpreted as fact. Yeah sure, facts get "lost" because of "pressure" to meet a headline. LOL!
Confirming facts takes time and resources. DUH!
The immediacy of internet publishing has taken away the luxury of time and budget; other constraints erode the resources required to even do the work. It has? ??? Truth is now the casualty of headline pressure (time and money) as well as the first casualty of war?
News and other sites that cover current events are often faced with a very simple choice:
Speculate today,
Be correct tomorrow. Leo CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT that this is precisely the propaganda TOOL disguised as "rushed headline inaccuracy" used by the New York Times and several other "reputable" matrix mouthpieces to push for War as far back as the Spanish American War and as recently as the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" FRAUD, Iranian atomic boogeyman Israeli pushed fraud and the false flag terrorist child massacre instantly (and fraudulently) blamed on the Syrian government.
Getting something out today almost always wins. Accuracy be damned. BULLSHIT! When they set out to twist some news to suit a government approved narrative, they deliberately set up a fake fact check or bought and paid for scholar to back up the lies in the article. It takes LONGER to set up the mendacious propaganda than just post the news without filtering it for "acceptable" content. To assume EVERYTHING going out from the allegedly "reputable" web sites isn't thoroughly massaged before it goes out is Santa Claus propaganda by YOU, Leo. The only place I agree with you is when a manufactured headline (used to demonize some ethnic group) deliberately claims large numbers of victims of said ethnic group NOW, only to place a correction" in small print a week or so later.
Why you and I are part of the problem (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)Yeah, right, WE are the problem... (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
Satirical news parody site, The Onion, nailed it with an article, Let Me Explain Why Miley Cyrus' VMA Performance Was Our Top Story This Morning.
The article is a fictitious "explanation" of why a major news site – CNN.com – highlighted on its home page the antics of the singer at the previous night's music awards show. (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif)
The only thing fictitious about the article is its attribution. Everything else is frighteningly accurate. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif) Leo wants me to think the consumer of manufactured mendacity and/or truthful but unimportant distractive silliness is there because WE ASKED FOR IT, not because SOMEONE has worked their Orwellian asses off for about a century to keep us from thinking.
News sites are simply giving us what we apparently want (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)as measured by what we'll click on to read. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
It's all about clicks and page views and time-on-site and advertising revenue and … well, you get the idea. Yes, and the Native Americans are a bunch of irresponsible drunkards because we gave them liquor and took their land. And the African Americans are "lazy and prone to thievery" because that's just the "way they are", right Leo? It's ALL OUR FAULT, right Leo? Gee, I think I read that about the financial crisis right after 2008, too. >:( Giving the public guilt trips is such fun... YES. LEO, I think I understand what the IDEA you are pushing is. ;)
The fact is simple: you and I are much more likely to click stories about the outrageous antics of a pop singer than we are to click stories about what one might consider "real news," such as atrocities happening elsewhere in the world. (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)
Sure. sure, we are all brainless Pavlovian dogs...We don't care about truth, corruption, pro-war propaganda, fossil fuel piggery and poisons, massive voter disenfranchisement, CEO fraud and theft, etc...
News sites are simply giving us what we apparently want as measured in clicks. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
At least that is what YOU want us to believe, LEO.
The same is true for the salacious headlines, fact-free articles, and sensational speculation-as-truth that's littered all over the internet. Ahh! We have arrived at the money quote! You are claiming anything that is hard hitting is equivalent to cheap **** and hysterical fear mongering. Clever, clever, clever.
We don't click on boring, and we don't fact check anything. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
Yeah, you boyz in the mild Santa Claus propaganda mills are a bit upset at the FACT that the populous isn't buying the "everything is just hunky Jake" line you are used to force feeding us. SO you are now claiming we aren't rational. I guess you will leave it to the more strident propagandists to start calling us 'unpatriotic' and 'traitors' too!
I have no solution, but… Translation: It's human nature to be Pavlovian dogs. Take a pill. Relax. Only believe mild, politically correct, everything is "hunky dory" type news and everything will be fine. (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)
I'm not about to change journalism, or human nature.
People will click on what we're going to click, and website owners are going to respond as they see fit for their business.
As an information consumer, however, I want you to be aware of two exceptionally important things:
Your decisions and actions drive the internet. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
You may believe that it's big (or small) business doing whatever it is they want to make money, but the fact is they can't do that without you. The more that you visit certain sites, the more you're implicitly endorsing what they do and how they do it. As a result, they're going to do more. You left out surreptitious government funded and fossil fuel funded astro-turf and fake popularity, Leo. How come?
Seriously. That's exactly how it works. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)Only for a small niche, not for non-consumer goods truthful information. People read news a lot more than they shop! The predatory capitalist corporations that run most Western governments are bending, folding and mutilating the news 24/7 but you are pretending WE get that crap because we asked for it. BULLSHIT!
You can't believe everything you read on the internet. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)
OR anywhere else, for that matter. Water is wet. Is this some kind of, 'I'm on your side' type of con?
This pains me deeply because while almost everyone says this, it seems like no one acts like they understand it. It's absolutely amazing the wild and wacky stuff that people will believe if it's published online. The fact is even those sites that we consider reputable will fall into the trap of publishing inaccurate and misleading information1 – and yet people believe it all without question. Yes Leo, a large percentage of Homo SAPs have low IQs and are easily led astray. That's blame the victim logic. What about the very intelligent evil bastards with a lot of mainstream credibility that push war, fossil fuels and a host of other horrors destroying the biosphere in general and Homo SAPs in particular? Are you telling me that the silliest. most ignorant among us CONTROL the message on the internet? BULLSHIT!
And that's what has to change.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
Boilerplate. What has to change is that people in government and private enterprise engaging in activities that poison the planet and kill people must be FORCED to stop lying about it on the internet.
You must question everything (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)
Most people do. It's people like you who limit our choices in the media about what is "believable" or not and bore us to death with pop singer topics, ****, or lockstep propaganda day in and day out. The world is a big place but you can tune in any of the main stream media news casts and they are basically running the SAME stories. Can you say, controlled media? And don't tell me that doesn't happen on the internet.
This is where I really believe that internet journalism is really letting us down. This is how the internet has broken journalism. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
I think what is REALLY bugging you is that people don't believe the bought and paid for main stream media 'journalists' any more. That's THEIR fault for lying so much. The INTERNET has destroyed their credibility. GOOD! Tough luck for you, Leo.
You and I, we have to now do the legwork that we could in the past assume that journalists and authors had at least made an attempt to do themselves. Boilerplate. You are setting readers up to be herded into NOT believing the Santa Claus version of history.
It's horrible. It's awful. It's frustrating. It shouldn't have to be this way.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/tissue.gif)
And yet, it is what it is. You and I must (and I do mean must) take everything that we read online with a grain of salt. Nothing can be believed without question. DUH!
You and I must do the job that in the past we might have relied on good journalism to at least begin to do for us: confirm the truth, check sources, clarify statements, and see through the hyperbole. Right... Anytime strong wording is use, it must be hyperbole. A propaganda rag with deep government pockets cannot buy cred and false statements to give some astro-turf pseudo scientific or fake goody two shoes historical narrative the aura of respectability while disparaging a truth teller without government funding... ;)
Of course, the practical reality is that we can't actually do that for every single thing we encounter. As a result, we develop relationships with sources that we trust – venues that have proven themselves to be honest, accurate, and at least somewhat diligent about presenting truth as truth, speculation as speculation, and avoiding the temptation to do just about anything for a page view. Ah yes, the RELATIONSHIPS...."sources that we trust – venues that have proven themselves to be honest, accurate, etc.". I get it Leo. If DA GOOBERMENT ain't backing it, it isn't "believable". (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
Naturally, I hope Ask Leo! is one of those sites. I admit I have gotten a few good tips on computers here but the total absence of perspective about real world conditions is misleading. Leo NEVER exposes any of the many scandals in the computer industry including back doors by Microsoft and others on behalf of the government. I have had to go to other sites to get anything that isn't extremely mild. He does provide pretty good data BUT it is seldom complete and you need to go to less restrained computer geeks to find out the total story. Leo worked for Microsoft for WAY TOO LONG. ;D
But even for those sites that you trust, you must keep up your guard and do your own due diligence. Accidentally or not, it's very easy to get it wrong. That is the one statement here I agree with. However, in the light of what has already been said, I consider it disengenous. Mixing truths with falsehoods is the bread and butter of successful propaganda.
And if I ever start posting about the antics of half-naked pop-stars, slap me. Hard. As if that was the main problem with the internet. Defense of bullets and bombs is doing much more damage than bulbous boobs ever will. >:(
http://askleo.com/how-the-internet-is-breaking-journalism-and-what-it-means-to-you/
Agelbert comment to Leo: (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif)
I'm sorry Leo, I must take issue with you on this assumption:
Your decisions and actions drive the internet. You may believe that it's big (or small) business doing whatever it is they want to make money, but the fact is they can't do that without you. The more that you visit certain sites, the more you're implicitly endorsing what they do and how they do it. As a result, they're going to do more.
Seriously. That's exactly how it works.
NO, it is definitely NOT how "it works.". I can quote you chapter and verse from the 1950s to the 1990s on how the overwhelmingly high percentage of stories were NOT "when it bleeds, it leads" or simple sensationalism appealing to the lowest common denominator of readership.
I can bring you proof of funding of pro-war, pro-fossil fuel, pro-predatory capitalist practices, active suppression of news about criminal activities by our own government in order to keep the people in the dark about said activity.
Don't tell me they wouldn't be "interested" in reading that and would prefer Hollywood scandals and other mindless entertainment. You are a knowledgeable man. Study Operation Mockingbird.
Follow your own rule (and mine as well!) and CONFIRM all the following statements rather than tossing them aside as mendacity before you responsibly investigate them.
"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -- William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy
"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don't need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level." -- William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible." -- The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein
"Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number." -- Jim Hougan, Spooks
"For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations." --former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition
As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insidious lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself
Leo, it is cruel joke to believe the many idiotic, prurient and sensationalistic web sites out to keep people distracted and dumbed down on the internet are not every bit as FINANCED with government funds to provide the appearance of popularity as the main stream media propaganda outlets. Pravda and Izvestia are alive and well in our media. As a matter of fact, those old Russian propaganda rags have probably more truth in them since the Soviet Union collapsed than CNN does.
It costs money to run web sites but you fail to mention that the government funds web sites surreptitiously for the purpose of manufacturing public consent. Noam Chomsky is NOT a "conspiracy theorist".
Sure Leo, we have a small niche where we do the old "compete for popularity" thing. But presenting that niche as "exactly the way it TOTALLY works" is a disservice to your readership.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
Operation Mockingbird may have a different name in the internet, but the modus operandi has not changed and if you don't know that, it's time you did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Title: Characteristics of Manipulative People
Post by: AGelbert on November 01, 2013, 03:52:39 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UzqmvEngPo&feature=player_embedded
Title: How to deal with Cunning Deceitful Manipulators
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_UyuMVCFQc&feature=player_embedded
How to deal with Cunning Deceitful Manipulators
Title: Mens Rea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99siSbqTX8&feature=player_embedded
Senator Elizabeth Warren unwittingly describes the Wall Street deliberate impoverishing of Americans for over 40 years. Maybe she cannot bring herself to say the expression, "MENS REA" in regard to Wall Street and most of their pet politicians from Reagan on down.
But I'll say it! And it describes the conscience free behavior of people like Mking PERFECTLY! These prevaricators are not stupid; they just wallow joyfully in Malice and Aforethought continuously. Why? Because, to them, humility, honesty, cooperation, the golden rule and altruistic thinking are WEAKNESSES. (http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg)
In a century or so, if we don't "reform" (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png) the Mkings among us, a few sad ETs will gaze on the brown, dead ball that was once a vibrant place full of life called Earth.
They will discuss the timeframe for a seeding procedure to attempt bioremediation based on a several thousand year time scale due to the presence of DNA destroying radionuclide contamination of the soil and the oceans. They will lament the Homo SAP tragic and suicidal fixation with caloric intake and concentrated power that blinded them to the vital, non-optional requirement for inter-species and intra-species cooperation and altruistic behavior in order for the sustainability of a complex biosphere to be a reality. They will wonder how, with so much knowledge of the life processes around them, humans failed to realize the fragility of the biosphere they so depended on.
One ET specialist in endocrine systems and biochemical signaling considered the possibility that the sugar reflex was behind most of the human excesses that blinded that species into the belief that hoarding and storing energy was a viable strategy, even when taken to extremes that resulted in excess "fat", creating analogous "anoxic" conditions in the biosphere, even as excess fat in a human liver brings necrosis from lack of oxygen, that began to destroy them.
Perhaps their brains became intoxicated from the toxins present in too much caloric intake.
Perhaps they weren't as intelligent as they seemed.
Homeostasis, if applied to their biosphere and industrial civilization, would have saved them. But, like a primitive primate given the choice of **** over food, would always pick **** until it died. :(
Attention then turned to the next planet on their survey and the quandary of the seemingly intelligent humans with such incredible lack of foresight was shelved for a future discussion.
(http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef016306595840970d-500wi)
Renewable Revolution (http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif)
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php)
Title: Why is Google Funding ALEC?
Post by: AGelbert on December 06, 2013, 07:38:26 pm
Surly said,
if you want the truth, follow the money. Certainly corporate interests are far more astute in covering their tracks these days, laundering their efforts through middlemen, foundations, shell companies, etc....
(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)
And speaking of MONEY and the habit of some (allegedly green) large corporations of putting money in GW denial organizations while pushing a certain amount of renewable energy in what APPEARS to be schizophrenic behavior but is ACTUALLY a TAX and REGULATION avoidance strategy, see what GOOGLE is doing with some money...
Why is Google Funding ALEC?
SustainableBusiness.com News
Petitions with 230,000 signatures have been delivered to Google asking the company to stop supporting ALEC, which it joined this year just as 60 other corporations cut their ties with the right-wing extremist organization.
Google is a bright light in the corporate world taking strong advocacy positions on climate change and renewable energy and walking the talk on those positions by investing heavily in the field - some $1 billion since 2010. It's an innovator on energy efficient data centers, uses green building practices extensively, serves organic food in its cafeterias, all of which is actively opposed by these organizations.
This year, Google tied for first place for leading the tech industry on addressing climate change.
So it crushes our trust when they simultaneously fund a slew of organizations - ALEC is one of many - that are working relentlessly to prevent action on climate change and obliterate the renewable energy industry.
In its blog, Google says, "Why are we making these investments? It's simple: we believe in a clean energy future, and we think that companies like ours can help make it happen," says Kojo Ako-Asare, head of corporate finance for Google. "We invest in these projects because they make business sense, because they help put more renewable energy on the grid and because they have a positive impact on the local economies where they operate." ::)
Google has extensively mapped a changing planet to bring peoples' attention to climate change:
Google time lapse
"Google should Google ALEC's agenda. Funding right-wing extremists at ALEC is a guaranteed way for Google to undermine its own admirable clean energy goals. It's like building a new house only to set it on fire after defunding the fire department," says Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra Club.
"Google's support for ALEC is part of a disturbing embrace of the climate denial machine by a company that professes to fight global warming," says Brad Johnson at Forecast the Facts. "It may be time to pronounce Google's famous 'Don't Be Evil' motto dead."
Next year, ALEC has its sights on killing state Renewable Portfolio Standards, state net-metering laws, the Northeast cap-and-trade program (RGGI), and federal level restrictions on power plant emissions.
Who's Who List of Right-Wingers
Google financially supports the who's who list of right wingers from infamous climate denier Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
This year, organizations that received "substantial" funding from Google for the first time include Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the Federalist Society, the American Conservative Union (best known for its CPAC conference), and Heritage Action - the political arm of the Heritage Foundation that led the charge to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act.
All these groups are heavily supported by the Koch Brothers.
Google's PAC, called Google Inc. Net PAC, contributed to Ted Cruz's Senate campaign and already contributed to his next senate race even though it's five years from now.
Agelbert Note: And HERE is where following the MONEY LEADS TO: (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)
As for why it supports Grover Norquist's "no taxes ever" pledge, to "shrink government to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub," that's pretty clear: Google creatively shields some $2 billion a year from global taxes, reports Bloomberg. and is holding $33 billion offshore to avoid US taxes. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif)
The company even sponsored a recent fundraiser for the Federalist Society, a network of right-wing judges and lawyers that includes Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png), John Roberts, (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png) Antonin Scalia (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png) and Clarence Thomas. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)Justice Thomas was the guest of honor at that event, for which Google was listed as a top-tier "gold" sponsor. Google names the Federalist Society on its list of groups receiving its most substantial grants in 2013, (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)reports the Center for Media & Democracy.
Sure, Google would say it also funds progressive groups and after all, it's just looking after its business interests. But "there really aren't two proportionate sides to the facts about the climate changes that are underway, as to whether working people should be paid a living wage, and whether corporations should have to pay taxes just like working people do. By funding extreme groups on the right under the guise of a false equivalency, Google is enabling groups that seek to undermine government," counters Lisa Graves, Executive Director of Center for Media & Democracy.
"Political spending for corporations is purely transactional. It is all about getting policies that maximize profitability, (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) so even ostensibly hip companies like Google invariably spend lavishly to support groups and politicians that pursue decidedly anti-democratic policy outcomes. It is why sane democracies strictly regulate or even prohibit such spending, regarding it accurately as a cancer for democratic governance.", notes Bob McChesney co-founder of the media reform group Free Press and author of How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy.
Website: www.prwatch.org/node/12319 (http://www.prwatch.org/node/12319)
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25385
Title: Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
Post by: Surly1 on December 06, 2013, 07:58:40 pm
"By funding extreme groups on the right under the guise of a false equivalency, Google is enabling groups that seek to undermine government," counters Lisa Graves, Executive Director of Center for Media & Democracy.
Take it to the fking bank. Incomprehensible.
??? >:(
I feel the same way. The only way to make heads or tails of this is that the GOOGLE big shots believe THEY are the Government. >:(
They see representative democratic government as a "competitor" to be undermined. This is Libertarian, Randian, Predatory BS based on the LIE that the "ELITE Galts" would do a better job of governing the rabble than the one the rabble elects.
These cheap, relativistic, self justifying greed based mephisto-"philosophies" will be the death of us.
I overheard Lucifer make this remark in a fit of depression the other day. It surprised me that Satan isn't more peppy in these times when everything seems be going his way. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)
In the last several centuries, the only new SIN I've been able to come up with is Advertising... :(
Yes, we know good old Mephisto-Prince of the Earth just "does what he does", but the issue is REALLY NOT ABOUT HIM, but about US.
As long as HOMO SAP continues to believe in fairy tales about sliding scale ("SITUATIONAL") ethics and other cockamamie silliness as a magic wand to justify doing any damned thing he wants to do (I'm NOT swearing here! ;)), every place we dwell in is totally trashed. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png)
Isaiah used a bit of hyperbole in threatening his stiff necked and arrogant fellow Jews but he generally established proper cause and effect in human ethics. (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png) Everything else is pseudo sophisticated "modern" BULLSHIT. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif)
Here's Isaiah giving it to us with both barrels,(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif) fully loaded with 100% truth, ethics and the effects of ethical and non-ethical behavior in Homo SAP:
Isaiah33:1 Woe to you who plunder, though you have not been plundered;
And you who deal treacherously, though they have not dealt treacherously with you!
When you cease plundering,
You will be plundered;
When you make an end of dealing treacherously,
They will deal treacherously with you.
The sinners in Zion are afraid;
Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites:
"Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?"
He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly,
He who despises the gain of oppressions,
Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes,
Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed,
And shuts his eyes from seeing evil:
He will dwell on high;
His place of defense will be the fortress of rocks;
Bread will be given him,
His water will be sure.
What most Homo SAPs that LAUGH at the words above DO NOT GET is that those words are not about big daddy God kicking our ASSES IF WE ARE "BAD".
These words are CAUSE AND EFFECT in human relations! You can call it karma or any other wistful, fate like term you want to dream up. The fact remains that, in this universe, ethics are NOT NEGOTIABLE if you want to perpetuate your species. The non-self aware life forms are on automatic pilot so they don't have the CHOICE of forking it up.
We do. We did. We need to stop being STUPID or it is OVER.
Just an inspired rant, AG.
BTW, just because of the post above, I spent the morning coming up to speed on Operation Mockingbird. I saw no indication from anything I have read that it was ever ended.
Murrow> Jack Anderson? Really?
Apparently there were cold war battlefields we didn't even know about.
Glad you liked my rant. ;D
As to Operation Mockingbird, yeah, they've got that one down to a fine art. I think they are so jaded by their success that they are unaware of the nearly total laughing stock the MIC mouthpieces are to the up and coming generation. Remember that the GOAL of manufacturing consent is to manipulate the behavior of the masses so they will be conditioned to BELIEVE anything you say. That is why they are so assiduous about wanting to know about our every activity (as a check on the behavior modification success of the propaganda mill). They THINK it is working but IT ISN'T WORKING. (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)
These goons are SO impressed by their sophisticated data mining techniques that they forget that people just don't care much about privacy like they used to. People are posting their life histories out there with abandon and the goons probably think it is a gold mine of data. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif)
Well, they don't understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to human relations. Here's the deal, Surly. If I KNOW you are watching my every move and I ALSO KNOW that I cannot avoid you watching my every move because you control the technology I use to be more efficient about my daily activities, as long as I am an average Joe, after a while I cease to care.
I am the OBSERVED object. As the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states, once the object is OBSERVED, it's behavior changes. Hence the OBSERVER will never truly understand what makes the OBSERVED TICK (the goal of all observer goons is therefore frustrated).
To the average Joe, it's like going to the bathroom or not. You undress in the bathroom and you wear clothes outside. Well, the internet is now a giant bathroom where a thousand cameras are on us and we all get to bask in the joys of exhibitionist behavior (this drives the goons batty! ;D).
The average Joe/Jane has also figured out that the MIC mouthpieces are bullshit factories for the 1%. That too drives the goons crazy because the whole "credible source" thing they have always relied on to con the rubes has been flipped on its head. What's more the average Joe/Jane, now living in the functional equivalent of a red light district with 30 con artists arrayed along his path continuously, is forced to adopt improved critical thinking skills or lose his shirt and have his identity stolen too! We are ALL becoming STREET SMART to the MIC media's dismay.
The average Joe/Jane is now like the bacteria that have adapted (NOT "EVOLVED"! LOL!) to all those antibiotics and become superbugs! We are a fricking VIRUS! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif)
Back to Mocking the Mocking Bird Mechanism. ;D
There's a dude that had about nine wives and died recently. This guy was king of the intelligence agencies hill. He stayed out of the news but was a key figure in Operation Mocking Bird from the START. He sold his media outlets to Murdoch in 1985! Nice HAND OFF to the next "king", eh? ;)
Check John W. Kluge out for a fun story.
Here's the boilerplate PUFF PIECE:
John Kluge ranked as one of the least known but most powerful moguls in the modern television industry in the United States as Chairman of the Board for Metromedia International Group.
Born in Chemnitz, Germany, in 1914 John Kluge served in U.S. Army intelligence, 1941-45 after Immigrating to U.S. in 1922. Kluge proved a group of independent TV stations could make millions of dollars. His Metromedia, Inc. pioneered independent stations operations through the 1960s and 1970s. In the mid-1980s Rupert Murdoch offered Kluge nearly $2 billion for the Metromedia stations, which then served as the basis for Murdoch's FOX television network. This deal made Kluge one the richest persons in the United States.
It was the food business that led Kluge to television. In 1951 he invested in a Baltimore, Maryland food brokerage enterprise, increased sales dramatically, sold his majority stake in the mid-1950s, and began to look for another industry that was growing. He found television. In 1956 Kluge was too late to enter network television, but saw possibilities with independent TV stations. He assembled an investment group and purchased the former DuMont stations. He ran Metromedia on a tight budget, saving rent, for example, by headquartering the company across the Hudson River from New York City, in Secaucus, New Jersey. He seized upon the programming strategy of simply re-running old network situation comedies and low budget movies. And Metromedia made millions with relatively small audiences, because costs of operation were so low.
Under his stewardship, Metromedia grew into the largest independent television business in the United States. Thereafter Kluge purchased assorted businesses to add to his Metromedia empire. Over the years he acquired the Ice Capades, the Harlem Globetrotters, music publishing companies holding such titles as Fiddler on the Roof, Zorba the Greek, and Cabaret, television production and syndication units, Playbill magazine, and a highly profitable direct mail advertising division. But he did make mistakes. One disastrous misstep was Kluge's 1960s purchase of the niche magazine Diplomat; another came with his proposal for a fourth TV network. Neither project succeeded, nor the failures cost Metromedia millions of dollars.
Kluge reached his greatest successes in television by buying the syndication rights to M*A*S*H. With this asset he finally gave rival network affiliates a contest for ratings in the early fringe time period. Not one to sit still, during the early 1980s Kluge cooked up a deal to take Metromedia private. In 1984, by structuring a $1.3 billion leveraged buyout on unusually favorable terms, Kluge ended owning three-quarters of the new company and pocketing $115 million in cash in the process. Now private and in full control, Kluge did not hesitate when Rupert Murdoch approached him with $2 billion to buy Metromedia's television stations.
Out of TV, Kluge attended to his other businesses. Under the Metromedia name, he began to manufacture paging devices and mobile telephones. In managing these telecommunication ventures, Kluge retraced the steps he took in his television career: buy a license in a major market at an affordable price, then wait as the market evolves, and finally cash in.
In 1995 the Actava Group Inc., Orion Pictures Corp., MCEG Sterling Inc. and Metromedia International Telecommunications Inc. signed an agreement to form a global communications entity to be named Metromedia International Group Inc. Kluge already owned a major stake in Hollywood's Orion Pictures. The new four-part alliance merged wireless cable and Hollywood production skills to sell all forms of mass communication to citizens in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Republics.
Kluge attended Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, and earned a B.A. in economics, Columbia University, 1937
John W. Kluge passed away on September 7, 2010, and is deeply missed by all at EWI.
http://www.ewi.info/john-w-kluge
I don't have the time. I wish you would do an expose on Kluge. I'll bet that guy was hooked up with Bush even before 1963, if you know what I mean. (http://i1.wp.com/gas2.org/files/2013/05/stupid.png)
Don't worry. the CIA won't go after you. Kluge is dead and they can deny everything you say. The new method used today is to just get some bribed bullshit artist to write a book counteracting every factual and solid piece of history about some intelligence goon and make it an instant "New York Times Best Seller". ::)
I would enjoy reading it and I'm certain you could come up with some fascinating anecdotes about Kluge. I mean, NINE WIVES?!!! This guy has some juicy stuff in his sordid past.
Just tracking down the "HEALTH PROBLEMS" of his ex-wives would be most illuminating and informative...
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.luxist.com/media/2010/05/kluge-estate-580cs052810-1275085228.jpg)
www.luxist.com - 580 × 243 - Search by image
Billionaire Patricia Kluge to sell the contents of her home, Albemarle House ...
(http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2010/09/16/1931682/john_kluge1-200x0.jpg)
Operation Paperclip? Operation MockingBOID? Never HEARD OF IT! And I don't SPEAK GERMAN either! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)
The Gates Foundation's hypocritical investments (http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/wemeantwell-23439-20130307-234.jpg)
Excellent Infographics laying out their profits over planet piggery! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-121213224458.jpeg)
The INVESTMENT in ExxonMobil IS GIGANTIC compared with just about everything else! THAT SAYS IT ALL! (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)
May God DAMN every Lying A__HOLE that uses the phrase, "I'm a BUSINESSMAN" to abandon all ethical conduct! >:(
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-gates-foundations-hypocritical-investments/
Published on Monday, December 16, 2013 by Common Dreams
Seven Ripoffs That Capitalists Would Like to Keep out of the Media >:(
by Paul Buchheit
What capitalism likes to keep quiet about itself would fill a book... or an evening news hour. (File)
Tax-avoiding, consumer-exploiting big business leaders are largely responsible for these abuses. Congress just lets it happen. Corporate heads and members of Congress seem incapable of relating to the people that are being victimized, and the mainstream media seems to have lost the ability to express the views of lower-income Americans.
1. Corporations Profit from Food Stamps
It's odd to think about billion-dollar financial institutions objecting to cuts in the SNAP program, but some of them are administrators of the program, collecting fees from a benefit meant for children and other needy Americans, and enjoying subsidies of state tax money for services that could be performed by the states themselves. They want more people on food stamps, not less. Three corporations have cornered the market: JP Morgan, Xerox, and eFunds Corp.
According to a JP Morgan spokesman, the food stamp program "is a very important business to JP Morgan. It's an important business in terms of its size and scale...The good news from JP Morgan's perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.."
2. Crash the Economy, Get Your Money Back. Die with a Student Loan, Stay in Debt.
The financial industry has manipulated the bankruptcy laws to ensure that high-risk derivatives, which devastated the market in 2008, have FIRST CLAIM over savings deposit insurance, pension funds, and everything else.
But the same banker-friendly "bankruptcy reform" has ensured that college graduates keep their student loans till they die. And sometimes even after that, as the debt is transfered to their parents.
3. Almost 70% of Corporations Are Not Required to Pay ANY Federal Taxes
And that's even before tax avoidance kicks in. The 'nontaxable' designation exempts 69% of U.S. corporations from taxes, thus sparing them the expense of hiring tax lawyers to contrive tax avoidance strategies.
The Wall Street Journal states, "The percentage of U.S. corporations organized as nontaxable businesses has grown from about 24% in 1986 to about 69% as of 2008, according to the latest-available Internal Revenue Service data. The percentage of all firms is far higher when partnerships and sole proprietors are included."
In recent years the businesses taking advantage of the exemption include law firms, hedge funds, real estate partnerships, venture capital firms, and investment banks.
4. Lotteries Pay for Corporate Tax Avoidance
This means revenue comes from the poorest residents of a community rather than from billion-dollar corporations. Many of the lottery players don't realize how bad the odds are. Fill out $2 tickets for 12 hours a day for 50 years and you'll have half a chance of winning.
Some astonishing facts reveal the extent of the problem. Low-income households spend anywhere from five to nine percent of their earnings on lotteries. A Pennsylvania survey found that nearly half of low-income residents planned to **** at a newly-opened ****. America's gambling losses in 2007 were nine times greater than just 25 years before.
5. The National Football League Pays No Federal Taxes
One of the most profitable organizations in America, with billions in tickets, TV rights, and merchandise sales, and with an NFL Commissioner who earned more money than the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and AT&T, is considered a non-profit. It has a tax-exempt status.
It gets even worse. While the individual teams themselves are not exempt from federal taxes, they enjoy multi-million-dollar subsidies from their states for new and refurbished stadiums. Fans - and non-fans - of the Washington Redskins, the Cincinnati Bengals, the Minnesota Vikings, the Seattle Seahawks, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Pittsburgh Steelers are among those who pay taxes for their hometown football fields. New Orleans taxpayers paid for leather stadium seats. For the Dallas Cowboys, a $6 million property tax bill was waived.
A Harvard University urban planning study determined that 70 percent of the capital cost of NFL stadiums has been provided by taxpayers, rather than by NFL owners.
6. Live on Park Avenue, Get a Farm Subsidy
A disturbing but fascinating report called "Farm Subsidies and the Big Dogs" lists Washington, DC, Chicago, and New York City, in that order, as the worst offenders.
•In New York, "Many entities receive the federal subsidies at their downtown office buildings, such as 30 Rockefeller Plaza, or at their million dollar residential condos."
•In Chicago, "Nearly every neighborhood in the city receives federal farm subsidy payments - including the Gold Coast, Downtown-Loop, Lincoln Park, and even the President's neighbors in Hyde Park."
•In Washington, "Even U.S. Senators are receiving farm subsidy checks."
Perhaps more of us should become farmers. In Florida, according to Forbes, "anyone could legally qualify their land as farmland by stocking it with a few cows." Wealthy heir Mark Rockefeller received $342,000 to NOT farm, to allow his Idaho land to return to its natural state.
7. Profit Margin Magic: Turning a dollar into $100,000
Which costs the consumer more, printer ink or bottled water? Calculations by DataGenetics reveal that the ink in a $16.99 cartridge comes to almost $3,400 per gallon. The cost of a gallon of cartridge ink would buy enough gasoline to run the average car for over two years.
Water seems to cost less, until the details are factored in: we're paying for our own public water, which we've given away almost for free, and which comes back to us in no better condition than when it started.
For every 100,000 bottles sold, Nestle pays the proceeds from ONE bottle to those of us (the taxpayers) who own the water.
So This Is Capitalism..
Consumer-exploiting, tax-avoiding, profit-maximizing, responsibility-shirking, winner-take-all capitalism. An economic system which, as Milton Friedman once believed, "distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people."
Paul Buchheit
Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.
Title: Fascist Modus Operandi in Puerto Rico (it's pretty much like Facism HERE!)
Post by: AGelbert on May 01, 2014, 03:10:50 pm
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010514145332.bmp)
Title: The ONE TIME LBJ had it RIGHT!
In our pursuit of growth and greed we have allowed poverty levels in America to creep back toward where they were before his War on Poverty reduced them appreciably. We have allowed inequality to soar to its highest levels ever.
We have allowed the destruction of beauty and nature. We have built an ugly America enslaved to the demands of commerce, where strip malls and billboards line our highways and blight our vistas, and everything we see is flooded with commercial appeals.
We have sacrificed the leisure Aristotle thought essential to the good life to pointless busyness, impatience, time stress, and boredom, perpetually seeking the newest gadget or virtual connection that might drive lack of meaning from our minds.
Moreover, the competition that greed entails has brought back with a vengeance the scourge of racism, hidden by code words until a redneck rancher like Cliven Bundy attempts to rehabilitate slavery, exposing still festering wounds.
By John de Graaf
That time Lyndon Johnson made a killer case against unbridled growth (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-045.gif)
http://grist.org/politics/that-time-lyndon-johnson-made-a-killer-case-against-unbridled-growth/
Title: Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity: Climate Change in Your Cereal?
Post by: AGelbert on June 05, 2014, 08:59:59 pm
Tony the Tiger: "We need to talk"
June 5, 2014 Posted by Chris Hufstader
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVEaTHsU9gY&feature=player_embedded
http://firstperson.oxfamamerica.org/2014/06/tony-tiger-need-talk/
Title: Walmart: Pay Up to Families of Workers Killed at Rana Plaza !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ntCS7wDwiU&feature=player_embedded
(http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif)
Kalpona is a tireless advocate for workers in Walmart's supply chain. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif) In 2011 and again in 2013, she traveled to Arkansas for the shareholder meeting to lift up the concerns of workers who sew for Walmart. Today she's at home in Dhaka, but is making sure to keep the pressure on Walmart!
Show your solidarity with Walmart workers everywhere during our Twitter storm today!
Here are some sample tweets:
Families of ppl killed sewing for Walmart are waiting for their fair share walmartdeathtraps.com #EndDeathtraps #walmarteconomy #WMTShares
#RanaPlaza victims are still waiting for Walmart to #PayUp! Sign at walmartdeathtraps.com #walmartstrikers #walmarteconomy #WMTShares
From the US to Bangladesh, worker solidarity! http://www.laborrights.org/walmarteconomy #EndDeathtraps #walmartstrikers #walmarteconomy #WMTShares
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/p526x296/1958454_10152461397851153_189468422456876986_n.jpg)
To learn more about the Pay Up campaign, watch this video in which three Rana Plaza survivors speak out.
Liana Foxvog
Post by: AGelbert on July 31, 2014, 06:45:37 pm
(http://images.dailykos.com/images/97292/lightbox/1199ckCOMIC-chagrin-falls---corporate-sky-deity.png?1406684497)
Post by: AGelbert on August 21, 2014, 10:00:59 pm
Citizens United, The Movie, is NOW in full production, taking on the issues of corporate personhood, money as speech , and more!
https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/1262645/video-430232-h264_high.mp4
We just posted another video update above, showing off Scene 2 of the CEO of Vanguard Aerospace (fictitious 2nd largest military defense contractor) yucking it up with his PR consultant about their two faced new ad coming on like their corporation is "the People."
For the purpose of this clip we pick up the end of our founding fathers scene, and their concerns about corporations acquiring too much unchecked political power, and juxtapose that with the latest footage shot, to make a powerful point about how corporations have commandeered the concept of the People as their exclusive domain.
And by leading into the faux TV spot with the contempt these executives have for their own advertising, we are hoping that people will do more questioning of ads of this kind when they see them in the regular media. Indeed, our faux ad is so faithful to the form of these kinds of things, one person actually asked us why we were showing an ad for a real defense contractor.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1849636481/citizens-united-the-movie-day-4-shoot
Post by: AGelbert on September 07, 2014, 09:53:07 pm
Dr. Vandana Shiva TAKES SPECTER'S PRO-GMO HIT PIECE APART! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183515.bmp)
Snippet (of a 4 page thorough article!):
Invoking imagery of a quaint India reveals an ethnographic prejudice that fits right into the strategy of seemingly 'helping' India while extracting, like colonizers, capital and natural resources from the colonies. In ways other than the obvious, Specter sounds like an Angrez Sahib (English Sahib) describing the 'natives' in 1943, when he notes
"skin the color of burnt molasses and the texture of a well- worn saddle" (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)
One can only hope that he may overcome his disdain of non-white, non-industrial populations, Indian farmers, and farmers in general, because he seems to view them as inferior and incapable of feeding themselves and their growing population even though the Food and Agriculture Organization reports that 70 percent of global food comes from small farms.
Seeds of Truth: A Response to Michael Specter's Article in The New Yorker
Dr. Vandana Shiva (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)
http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/29/vandana-shiva-michael-specter-the-new-yorker/
Agelbert Comment: Specter wrote a hit piece with some "polish" in the service of Profit over Planet, PERIOD.
I totally disagreed with his article and said so at the time.
Specter's "technique" is really old hat arrogant racist imperialism disguised as "erudite analysis" and "constructive" criticism. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
Fake Meat and Other Tainted Food in China Exposed on 'Wikipedia' Website
Anastasia Pantsios | September 12, 2014 12:03 pm | Comments
From time to time there's a scare in the U.S. about food imported from China, with the pet food incident that sickened and killed thousands of animals the best known.
Wu Heng, (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif) a graduate student from Shanghai, launched a website to aggregate and disseminate information about tainted food in China.
Some Chinese aren't any happier about questionable food produced in their country than Americans are, especially after the 2008 adulterated milk scandal that killed six infants and hospitalized tens of thousands.
That scandal attracted the interest of Wu Heng, a graduate student from Shanghai. As more incidents of tainted food were publicized, it eventually led him to start a website, launched in May 2012, to aggregate and disseminate information about tainted food. The site, Throwing It Out the Window, or Zhi Chu Chuang Wai in Chinese, takes its name from a story about President Theodore Roosevelt throwing a sausage out the window after reading Upton Sinclair's 1906 book The Jungle about the horrors of the meat-packing industry.
The website details such appetite-killing incidents as pork colored with chemicals to look like beef, restaurants using cooking oil recovered from dumpsters, "lamb" that turned out to be rat, and expired meat or meat from already-dead animals being mixed with good meat.
Wu has now turned those posts into a newly published book, also called Throwing It Out the Window ;D. It collects some of the information from his site and provides advice on how to avoid the worst of the tainted food, although he says it's virtually impossible to avoid it entirely. :P
Wu describes the site as a "Wikipedia," but it's basically a database of news articles and government press releases about food safety incidents, warnings, and recalls. Prior to launching the site, he and about three dozen other students analyzed and categorized more than 17,000 news reports. Categories included fake food, expired food, food containing potentially unsafe additives, food containing foreign matter, problem packaging, food sold without a license, substandard food, food that has not passed quarantine inspection and unhygienic food.
Full article at link below:
http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/12/wu-heng-china-food-website/
Title: Does evil exist?
Does evil exist?
The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything? The professor asked.
"Yes sir", the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name — Albert Einstein.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp#g2jeTWb5lsy4PXl1.99 (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp#g2jeTWb5lsy4PXl1.99) The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
The professor sat down. (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png) ;D
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180914172817.png)
Agelbert NOTE: Apparently Einstein, reputed to have said the above, DID NOT say the above. SAY WHAT!!?
;D I still think it is valid but I wish to give you worthies the REST OF THE STORY. It's an urban legend with a few interesting and fascinating variations. ;D
Origins: For those looking for a quick answer to the question of whether this item is literally true, we'll state up front that it is not. Nothing remotely like the account related above appears in any biography or article about Albert Einstein, nor is the account congruent with that scientist's expressed views on the subject of religion (in which he generally described himself as an "agnostic" or a "religious nonbeliever"). Einstein's name has simply been inserted into an anecdote created long after his death in order to provide the reading audience with a recognizable figure and thus lend the tale an air of verisimilitude
As to what this account says from a standpoint of faith, one of the most troubling conundrums is the question of how evil and suffering can survive in a universe created and managed by a loving supreme being. Postulated explanations of this paradox are known as theodicies, and such answers have been for centuries handed out by members of many belief systems when challenged to provide logical answers to the question of how it is possible that a just and moral God can co-exist with evil. Among these answers are:
• Free Will: God gave his children the right to make up their own minds as to who they would be, and some chose to be rotten.
• Imperfect Supreme Being: God struggles valiantly to cope with a universe filled with random events (chaos), but as powerful as he is, he can't undo every awful thing the moment it happens.
• The Devil: An evil entity preys upon the weak of will, winning many of the flawed to his side where they are first welcomed, then sent out to do his bidding. While God is ultimately fated to win the final battle against this adversary, until that time the entity's minions wreak havoc.
• Incomprehensibility: "Good" and "evil" are human constructs born of Mankind's limited understanding of the universe. Were people capable of seeing things through God's eyes, they would grasp the morality and rightness of all that now leaves them aghast in horror and riddled with unease at its seeming unfairness.
The Internet forward quoted above draws upon yet another possible explanation: that evil is the absence of God, in the same way that cold is the absence of heat, and dark is the absence of light. This argument has been around for a long time, as has the legend about the pious student using it to squelch an atheist professor.
The name of Einstein gets used in legends whose plots call for a smart person, one whom the audience will immediately recognize as such (i.e., modern tellings of an ancient legend about a learned rabbi who switches places with his servant feature Albert Einstein in the role of esteemed scholar). This venerated cultural icon has, at least in the world of contemporary lore, become a stock character to be tossed into the fray wherever the script calls for a genius.
Likewise, "the atheist professor" is a figure common to a number of urban legends and anecdotes of the faithful: he gets flung into the mix where there's a need for someone to play the role of Science Vanquished in Science-versus-Religion tales. But he is not inserted merely to serve as an icon of learning to be humbled in tales that aim to teach that faith is of greater value than provable knowledge; he is also woven into these sorts of stories for his lack of belief. Just as the villain in oldtime melodramas ::) had to have a waxed moustache, a black cape, and an evil laugh, so too must the bullying professor of such stories be an atheist: it would not be enough for him to be merely an insufferable, over-educated git arrogantly attempting to stretch the minds of his students by having them question something deeply believed. No, he must instead be someone who rejects the existence of God, an assignment of role that re-positions what might otherwise have been a bloodless debate about philosophy as an epic battle between two champions of faith and denial and sets up the action to unfold as one putting the boots to the other.
"The atheist professor" plays his expected role of getting his pants kicked in the Dropped Chalk tale, where he (once again) challenges his browbeaten students on the topic of God's existence. He is also pivotal to these following tales, which are yet other variations on the same theme:
A college class was led by an atheist professor, and every day he'd stand in front of his class and say, "Have you ever seen God?" to which nobody would answer. Then he'd ask, "Have you ever felt God?" and nobody would answer. Finally he'd ask, "Have you ever heard God?" and, like the other times, nobody would answer. He then would say, "It is obvious that there is no God."
One day a Christian student had been having an extremely bad day; her car broke down, her mother was sick, her boyfriend was out of town, and she'd gotten a bad grade on one of her exams. She had been fed up with her professor's little act every morning, so she decided to do something about it.
While the professor stood up at the beginning of class and did his thing, the student had an idea. She got up and said, "Professor, would you mind if I said something?" He said, "Of course not. This is an expressive classroom, and I think it would be fine if you spoke your mind."
The girl said to the class, "Have you ever seen our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Then she asked, "Have you ever felt our professor's brain?" and nobody answered. Finally she asked, "Have you ever heard our professor's brain?" and, like the other times, nobody answered.
She then said, "It is quite obvious that our professor has no brain."
An atheist professor was teaching a college class and he told the class that he was going to prove that there is no God.
He said, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!"
Ten minutes went by.
The professor kept taunting God, saying, "Here I am, God. I'm still waiting."
He got down to the last couple of minutes and a Marine just released from active duty, and newly registered in the class, walked up to the professor, hit him full force in the face, and sent him flying from his platform.
The professor struggled up, obviously shaken and yelled, "What's the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The Marine replied, "God was busy, so He sent me."
Navy SEALs are always taught
1) Keep your priorities in order and
2) Know when to act without hesitation.
A Navy SEAL was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU. One day he shocked the class when he came in, looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."
It got down to the last couple of minutes when the SEAL got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-c o c k e d him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The SEAL went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.
The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the SEAL and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"
The SEAL calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid thiings and act like an i d i o t. So He sent me." The key to understanding the allure of these tales lies in this one line from the "evil is the absence of God" story:
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Faith can't be proved (or disproved); if such validations were possible, those concepts would stop being matters of faith and start being matters of fact. Unfortunately, this leaves those who are convinced of the existence of God without an incontrovertible, irrefutable answer to those who challenge them to provide evidence of the veracity of their
belief systems' tenets, or to demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that their inner direction is the right one to those who insist on independently verifiable proof of that which can't be proved.
That God permits evil to exist (and some would say to thrive) is taken by non-believers as an inarguable sign that there is no supreme being. This puzzle is pointed to by them as the unanswerable fallacy that proves the negative: they reckon that a loving, all-powerful God would have stamped out evil, ergo He doesn't exist, or He is not all-powerful, or He is not all that enamored of His children. As such, this paradox can be disquieting to those who do believe: not only do they themselves have to wrestle with the seeming disconnect, they are left unable to convincingly answer their critics when this topic comes up. They find themselves similarly hamstrung when pressed to prove the existence of God.
Stories about atheist professors being bested by true believers who did have answers at the ready are both ventings of this frustration and expressions of delight in finally seeming to have been armed with deft responses to fling back. These are tales of affirmation, modern-day parables of trials overcome and fierce adversaries bested by those who held fast to what they believed in, even in the face of ridicule rained down by authority figures. Like parables, they are meant to inspire similar resolve in those with whom they are shared: should those members of the flock ever find themselves in like circumstances, they should feel moved to emulate the brave students of legend who stood up to the atheist professors.
Barbara "lamb nanny and the professor" Mikkelson
Last updated: 3 April 2014
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp#zwDiojBuMj6ZjpF6.99 (http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp#zwDiojBuMj6ZjpF6.99)
For those who think atheist professors don't deliberately set out to mock students who believe in God, you are WOEFULLY mistaken. I am a VETERAN of LENGTHY back and forth with this type of debate in college biology (hi Darwin!) classrooms (Where PHILOSOPHY is NOT SUPPOSED to be PUSHED by a PROF!).
See this SELF SERVING QUOTE from the above narrative casting ATHEIST PROFS incorrectly but cleverly as VICTIMS of irrationality:
it would not be enough for him to be merely an insufferable, over-educated git arrogantly attempting to stretch the minds of his students by having them question something deeply believed.
No, he must instead be someone who rejects the existence of God, an assignment of role that re-positions what might otherwise have been a bloodless debate about philosophy as an epic battle between two champions of faith and denial and sets up the action to unfold as one putting the boots to the other.
Sorry (NOT! ;D) to rain on the atheist parade, but that is EXACTLY what the prof is doing to try to UNDERMINE belief in God in order to CONVERT his students to the RELIGION of "modern" science ( DARWIN's Atheism based Theory of Evolution! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)). (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)
Surly,
I totally disagree that this quote below is anything but an arrogant bit of pro-atheist puffery disguised as measured, objective prudent logic:
"The atheist professor" plays his expected role of getting his pants kicked in the Dropped Chalk tale, where he (once again) challenges his browbeaten students on the topic of God's existence.
If you CANNOT see the clever RIDICULE aimed at the Theist in defense of the Atheist, you are the one not being objective.
Consider what an objective person (someone who logically and reasonably questions the appeal to authority that doesn't know Einstein from Adam) does when he reads the name Albert Einstein. He thinks, well, that dude must have been a famous person known for his intelligence and his name could have been placed there as an appeal to authority (a fallacious logic debating technique).
So, he looks up EINSTEIN QUOTES to see where Einstein was coming from WITHOUT taking Snopes' OBVIOUSLY pro-atheist SPIN as valid regardless of whether Einstein said the quote or not.
It is absolutely necessary at this point in analysis to DIVORCE the quote validity from the appeal to authority. The QUOTE is to be studied as to its merits, not on whether Einstein, said it, but whether it is a valid statement.
Nevertheless, one must accept that the appeal to authority, if Einstein DID NOT say it, is fallacious logic and taints the statement's integrity.
But the Snopes' article attempts to add two and two and get FIVE! :evil4: :emthdown: Because the appeal to authority CANNOT BE PROVEN, therefore the QUOTE is not to be taken seriously. BALONEY.
Einstein quotes:
1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
2.Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
3.My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
4.The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
5.Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
6.The scientists' religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
7.There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.
8.The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
9.The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
10.We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
11.Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.
12.When the solution is simple, God is answering.
13.God does not play dice with the universe.
14.God is subtle but he is not malicious.
15. A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.
16.Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
17.The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.
18.Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
19.Only a life lived for others is a life worth while.
20.The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
21.The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.
22. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
23.The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.
24.The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
25.True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.
26.Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/ (http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/)
Could Eintein have made the QUOTE that Snopes says Einstein never made? From the above study of Einstein's ACTUAL QUOTES, I say, CERTAINLY (See quote number 17 and 11 = Atheist Professor. But there are LOTS more!)! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)
And for the Cherry Pickers that will jump on quote number 4 with both feet :icon_mrgreen:, I suggest you balance that LOGICALLY and REASONABLY with the OTHER 25 QUOTES before inserting your evolutionary foot in your mouth. "Evolution" to a veggie diet is NOT what Darwin had in mind. LOL! So be REAL CAREFUL when you talk about Einstein and the word "evolution". :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEUwq4chgcY&feature=player_embedded
Let's Not Inadvertently Support GMO Companies
We give certain products the benefit of the doubt. A product like Tom's Toothpaste seems like it comes from a smaller, well intentioned company that is trying to offer us superior, healthier products. The package says it's made by "Tom's Of Maine"
Lets look a bit closer. Tom's Of Maine is owned by Colgate. Odwalla juice is owned by Coca Cola...and Kashi 7 Grain Cereal is owned by Kellog's. :P
This video does some of our homework for us and offers an amusing presentation. Let's pick up where this leaves off, by paying attention and educating ourselves so we can make sure our dollars go only to the companies we want to give our money to.
--Bibi Farber
- See more at: http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/food-choices/brands-you-didnt-know-were-owned-by-giant-corporations.html#sthash.MUEVfJ3K.dpuf (http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/food-choices/brands-you-didnt-know-were-owned-by-giant-corporations.html#sthash.MUEVfJ3K.dpuf)
Title: Fossil Fuel Profit over Homo SAPS with TOXIC FOOD DYES!
Fossil Fuel Profit over Homo SAPS with TOXIC FOOD DYES!
Toxicology of food dyes. :o (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
Kobylewski S1, Jacobson MF.
Food dyes, synthesized originally from coal tar and now petroleum (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)color], have long been controversial because of safety concerns. Many dyes have been banned because of their adverse effects on laboratory animals or inadequate testing. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)
This review finds that all of the nine currently US-approved dyes raise health concerns of varying degrees. :o :P
Red 3 causes cancer in animals, and there is evidence that several other dyes also are carcinogenic.
Three dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) have been found to be contaminated with benzidine or other carcinogens.
At least four dyes (Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) cause hypersensitivity reactions. Numerous microbiological and rodent studies of Yellow 5 were positive for genotoxicity.
Toxicity tests on two dyes (Citrus Red 2 and Orange B) also suggest safety concerns, but Citrus Red 2 is used at low levels and only on some Florida oranges (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp) and Orange B has not been used for several years.
The inadequacy of much of the testing and the evidence for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and hypersensitivity, coupled with the fact that dyes do not improve the safety or nutritional quality of foods, indicates that all of the currently used dyes should be removed from the food supply and replaced, if at all, by safer colorings.
It is recommended that regulatory authorities require better and independent toxicity testing, exercise greater caution regarding continued approval of these dyes, and in the future approve only well-tested, safe dyes.
Agelbert NOTE: Always, remember, the PETROLEUM industry is ONLY supplying a DEMAND from us piggies... As you can see above, they have "fastidiously" tested all their products to insure SAFE consumption for us. And anyway, if they've broken the law, don't worry. Eat your pretty colored food and consult our justice system for a "proper" remedy if an isolated incident occurs. You only need about $4,000,000 for a proof of human toxicity test that the FDA will back in court room. And , of course, if you ain't dade (the big cucks are wrongful death, don'tcha know?), don't expect to much of an "award" (Gee, I used to think it was compensation or a damages remedy. My how times change :icon_mrgreen:). It's always better to have your day (?) ;) in court than tar and feather fossil fuelers poisoning you and your children for profit! Lawyers ($$$,$$$.00 ;D) agree! Gott mit uns! Have a nice day. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png)
Title: To be filed Under: Do ethics free humans CHEAT? (see do bears poop in woods)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEAGdwHXfLQ&feature=player_embedded
From the makers of the much-praised Quants: the Alchemists of Wall Street and Money & Speed: Inside the Black Box. Now the long-awaited final episode of a trilogy in search of the winners and losers of the tech revolution on Wall Street. Could mankind lose control of this increasingly complex system?
http://tegenlicht.vpro.nl/backlight/wall-street-code.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agwigv-lExM&feature=player_embedded
The Banks Brought down the economy with their Criminal Mens rea Modus Operandi
Years later they pay a fine which is MUCH less than what they were BAILED OUT with at NEGATIVE interest (i.e. Bernake GIVE AWAYS funded by we-the-people >:(). We-the-people PAY 24/7 with increased inflation, lack of jobs and a destroyed economy while NOBODY goes to jail that committed this MASSIVE amount of fraudulent transactions. So it goes.
Democracy, my ASS! (http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png)
The corporate (greed is good and so is profit over planet) 'business' model is suicidally psychopathic yet most people think that is the proper and prudent way to be (The Conquest Mindset instead of a Caring Mindset). The BRAZEN and corrupt reality that big money and power CRIME PAYS in the USA, as you observed in the above video, will destroy this country if we don't DEMAND prison for these criminals AND damages awards for we-the-people in the form of direct checks to American citizens!
We have a grave situation where our environment AND OUR DEMOCRACY have both been degraded to a mere caricature (for propaganda purposes - see lipstick on a predator pig) to keep we-the-people in our state of ignorance about our 24/7 fascist fleecing.(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
Greed is bad. It's a cancer on society and the biosphere.
We either change the way we deal with each other and the other life forms that inhabit this planet in order to survive and thrive or we continue our suicidal and psychopathic path of conscience free conquest and mendacious accounting tricks criminally contrived to convince logic challenged economists that "creative destruction" is not an oxymoron.
Don't expect help from our Corrupt and irreparable Court System; it's bought and paid for by the 'greed is good' corporate+government (see the definition of Fascism) elite.
You don't believe me? You think this is hysterical hyperbole?
The Corporate Business Model is Psychopathic (ONE MINUTE):
http://viewrz.com/video/the-corporate-business-model-is-psychopathic
All about Fracking LEGAL chemical POISONS (3 minutes 31 seconds):
http://viewrz.com/video/all-about-fracking-legal-chemical-poisons-1
Fossil Fuel Fascism in Action (3 minute lesson on our Orwellian world):
http://viewrz.com/video/fossil-fuel-fascism-in-action
Fossil Fuel Fascist Jolly Roger "business" model (8 minutes):
http://viewrz.com/video/fossil-fuel-fascist-jolly-roger-business-model
Fossil fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of Stupid" Video:
http://viewrz.com/video/fossil-fuel-government
FDR on Trickle Down "Economics"
http://viewrz.com/video/fdr-on-trickle-down-economics
Here's a modern example of what happens when you trust the Court System to do what they are supposed to. There is NO Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium any more in the USA when it comes to environmental damage that brings sickness and death to people and other life forms.
The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL Court System is its HANDMAIDEN
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2122/#msg2122
How about Corporate control of what you eat by manipulation of our "LAWS"? See Big Ag Fascsit Heaven below:
Fascist Big Ag uses Food Disparagement Law and the Patriot Act to threaten Truth tellers!
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/sustainable-food-production/msg2033/#msg2033
Read what this giant polluter and OWNER of most of the fracking machinery says about how to 'handle' environmental legislation:
Schlumberger N.V. (SLB): The BIG OIL Planet Polluter you never heard of
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-propaganda-modus-operandi/msg2088/#msg2088
Yes, the plutocratic marriage of corporate and government power over the Court System has been there for quite some time. But now our survival is threatened by this unsustainable paradigm of the worship of Conquest:
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. on what the LAW is ALL ABOUT
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corruption-in-government/msg2045/#msg2045
In any LAW dictionary you will learn that the term "Legal" is the antithesis of the term "Equitable". Look it up if you do not believe me.
The Lady Justice Legal Scales mean the OPPOSITE of what you think they mean
Don't count on our Court System to defend Americans from Fascism - Here's why the solution to Corporate Profit over Planet is EX CURIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYtSMLgaW6U&feature=player_embedded
Yellen (Federal Reserve elite CROOK) gets a tongue lashing. ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfRWj3MKqFk&feature=player_embedded
Another reason to believe human ingenuity is used more for cheating than for honest effort. :emthdown:
(http://www.hookingupsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hare-300x223.jpeg)
(http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/The-Wisdom-of-Psychopaths.jpg) (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)
(http://media.tumblr.com/c6492e4b47cfdbd50e74d285fde3c53e/tumblr_inline_mm3g4yCaZc1qz4rgp.gif)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M3WJQbnHKc&feature=player_embedded
"It's Just That Pollution Isn't Counted." >:(
Vandana Shiva, the activist, author and scholar gives a fascinating talk here about the idiocy, the tragedy and fallacy of speaking about "growth", which connotes progress and triumph - in terms of the GDP.
"I'm not an economist and that's why I can look at GDP and growth from the outside, where it hurts... where it hurts nature, eco systems, local communities. And it's at that level that our models of growth which are driving not just our economic paradigm, but the paradigm of how society should be, is creating poverty at so many levels." she says.
"The problem with the GDP as an abstract number is, it insulates itself from feedback- and no matter what scale of destruction takes place, there is no way to feed it back in... if you take China's and India's growth and add the destruction of the rivers- just our water bodies and our rivers because of pollution, we would be having a NEGATIVE growth. It's just that pollution isn't counted."
We love you Vandana! (http://dl5.glitter-graphics.net/pub/3328/3328805eipbi6o30e.gif)
This video was produced by Festival Of Dangerous Ideas
- See more at: http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/what-isnt-working-1/growth-poverty--vandana-shiva.html#sthash.3gi1AHhx.dpuf
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2015, 10:45:45 pm
Quote from: Surly1 on January 12, 2015, 11:45:18 am
(https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1495535_10151950926227621_95143154_n.jpg?oh=e23caf0496a83a63545ba94aa55d8297&oe=5535723A)
How appropriate! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183515.bmp)
Post by: AGelbert on February 14, 2015, 04:07:07 pm
(http://health.abc4.com/images/articles/tasty_propaganda.jpg)
Ab Initio Mens Rea Modus Operandi of our Corporate Profit over People and Planet Overlords REQUIRES that we NOT believe a word they say until they can prove otherwise. IOW, the corporatists are GUILTY of fraud, mendacity, doubletalk and general conscience free criminality until proven innocent on a strictly case by case basis.
But the lawyers that defend these liars might disagree, of course. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)
The following article informs you of the truth. I recommend you save it and use it as a reference in your daily food purchases. It will help you live a longer and healthier life. Consider it a prudent and informative bit of caveat emptor. (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)
Here are 20 nutrition facts that should be common sense (but clearly aren't).
1. Artificial Trans Fats Are Not Suitable For Human Consumption
Trans fats are nasty.
Producing them involves high pressure, heat and hydrogen gas in the presence of a metal catalyst.
This process turns liquid vegetable oils into a thick, toxic sludge that is solid at room temperature.
You have to wonder what was going through the head of the person who actually thought of putting this stuff in food and selling it to humans. It is baffling, really.
Of course, trans fats are more than just unappetising. Studies have shown that they are incredibly harmful as well, linked to a drastic increase in heart disease risk (1, 2).
2. You Don't Need to Eat Every 2-3 Hours
You really don't need to be constantly eating in order to lose weight.
Studies have actually looked at this and found that smaller, more frequent meals have no effect on fat burning or body weight (3, 4).
Eating every 2-3 hours is inconvenient and completely unnecessary for the majority of people. Just eat when you're hungry and make sure to choose healthy and nutritious foods.
3. The Mainstream Media Should Never be Trusted For Nutrition Information
The mainstream media is part of the reason for all the nutrition confusion out there.
It seems like every week there is a new study making headlines, often contradicting another study that came out just a few months earlier.
These stories often get a lot of attention, but when you look past the headlines and read the actual studies, you find that they are taken way out of context.
In many cases, there are other higher quality studies that directly contradict the media frenzy (which rarely get mentioned).
4. Meat Does Not Rot in Your Colon
It is completely false that meat rots in the colon.
The human body is well equipped to digest and absorb all the important nutrients found in meat.
The protein gets broken down in the stomach by stomach acids, then the rest of it gets broken down in the small intestine by powerful digestive enzymes.
All the fats, proteins and nutrients are then moved past the digestive wall and into the body. There is simply nothing left to "rot" in the colon.
5. Eggs Are Among The Healthiest Foods You Can Eat
Eggs were unfairly demonized because the yolks are high in cholesterol.
However, studies show that cholesterol from eggs doesn't raise blood cholesterol in the majority of people (5).
New studies that include hundreds of thousands of people show that eggs have no effect on heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals (6).
The truth is, eggs are among the healthiest and most nutritious foods you can eat.
Almost all the nutrients are found in the yolk, and telling people to avoid the yolks (or eggs altogether) is one of the biggest mistakes in the history of nutrition.
6. Sugary Drinks Are The Most Fattening Aspect of The Modern Diet
Added sugar is a disaster, and getting it in liquid form is even worse.
The problem with liquid sugar, is that your brain doesn't compensate for the calories by eating less of other foods (7).
In other words, these calories don't get "registered" by the brain, making you eat more calories overall (8).
Of all the junk foods, sugar-sweetened beverages are the most fattening of all, and that is saying something.
7. Low-Fat Does Not Equal Healthy
The "low-fat" diet promoted by the mainstream nutrition guidelines is a miserable failure.
Numerous long-term studies show that it doesn't work, neither for weight loss or disease prevention (9, 10, 11).
What's more, it led to a plethora of processed "low-fat" foods to be brought to the market. Because foods taste bad without the fat, the food manufacturers added a whole bunch of sugar to them instead.
Foods that are naturally low-fat (like fruits and vegetables) are great, but processed foods with "low-fat" on the label are usually loaded with unhealthy ingredients.
8. Fruit Juice is Not That Different From Sugary Soft Drinks
A lot of people believe that fruit juices are healthy.
It seems to make sense, because they come from fruit.
However, fruit juices contain just as much sugar as sugary soft drinks like coca cola (12)!
There is no fiber in them and no chewing resistance, making it very easy to consume massive amounts of sugar.
A single cup of orange juice contains just as much sugar as two whole oranges (13, 14).
If you're trying to avoid sugar for health reasons, then you should avoid fruit juice as well. It is just as bad, and the small amounts of antioxidants do not make up for the large amounts of sugar.
9. Feeding Your Gut Bugs is Critical
Did you know that you are actually just 10 percent human?
The bacteria in the intestine, known as the gut flora, actually outnumber human cells 10 to 1!
In recent years, research has shown that the types and number of these bacteria can have profound implications for human health, affecting everything from body weight to brain function (15, 16).
Just like your body's cells, the bacteria need to eat, and soluble fiber is their preferred fuel source (17, 18).
This may be the most important reason to include plenty of fiber in your diet, to feed the little guys in the intestine.
10. "Cholesterol" is Not The Enemy
What people generally refer to as "cholesterol" isn't really cholesterol. ;D
When people talk about the so-called "bad" and "good" cholesterol, they're actually referring to the proteins that carry cholesterol around.
LDL stands for Low Density Lipoprotein and HDL stands for High Density Lipoprotein.
The truth is, cholesterol is not the enemy. The main determinant of heart disease risk is the type of lipoproteins that carry cholesterol around, not cholesterol itself.
11. Weight Loss Supplements Almost Never Work
There are tons of different weight loss supplements on the market.
The problem is that they almost never work. They are claimed to lead to magical results, but fail when put to the test in actual studies.
Even the ones who do work, the effect is too small to really make a noticeable difference.
People who promote magic solutions like weight loss supplements are actually causing harm, because this distracts people from the things that actually matter.
The truth is that the only way to lose weight and keep it off, is to adopt a lifestyle change.
12. Health is About Way More Than How Much You Weigh
People focus way too much on just weight gain/loss. The truth is that health goes way beyond that.
Many obese people are metabolically healthy, while many normal weight people have the same metabolic problems associated with obesity (19, 20).
Focusing just on body weight is counterproductive. It is possible to improve health without causing weight loss, and vice versa.
It appears that the area where fat builds up is important. The fat in the abdominal cavity (belly fat) is associated with metabolic problems, while the fat under the skin is mostly a cosmetic problem (21).
Therefore, reducing belly fat should be a priority for health improvement, the fat under the skin and the number on the scale don't matter as much.
13. Calories Count, But You Don't Necessarily Need to Count Them
Calories are important, that is a fact.
Obesity is a matter of excess stored energy (calories) accumulating in the form of body fat.
However, this does not mean that people need to track or count calories, or monitor everything that enters their bodies.
Although calorie counting works for a lot of people, there are many things that people can do to lose weight, without ever having to count a single calorie.
For example, eating more protein has been shown to lead to automatic calorie restriction and significant weight loss. Without restricting calories (22, 23).
14. People With High Blood Sugar and/or Type 2 Diabetes Should Not be Eating a High-Carb Diet
For decades, people have been advised to eat a low-fat diet with carbs at 50-60 percent of calories.
Surprisingly, this advice was extended to include people with type 2 diabetes, which can not tolerate a lot of carbs.
People with type 2 diabetes are resistant to insulin and any carbs they eat will cause a big rise in blood sugar levels.
For this reason, they need to take blood sugar lowering drugs to bring their levels down.
If anyone benefits from a low-carb diet, it is diabetic patients. In one study, a low-carb diet for only 6 months allowed 95.2 percent of patients to reduce or eliminate their blood sugar medication (24).
Although the advice is changing (slowly), many "mainstream" organizations around the world are still telling diabetics to eat a high-carb diet.
15. Fat Doesn't Make You Fat, but Neither Does Carbohydrate
Fat has often been blamed for obesity, because fat contains more calories per gram than protein and carbs.
However, this doesn't really have any practical meaning.
People who eat a diet that is high in fat (but low in carbs) actually end up eating fewer calories than people on low-fat, high-carb diets (25, 26).
This has conversely led many people to blame carbs for obesity, but this is a mistake as well. Plenty of populations have eaten high-carb diets but remained healthy.
As with everything in nutrition, this depends on the context.
Fat can be fattening, carbs can be fattening. It all depends on the rest of the stuff you are eating and your overall lifestyle.
16. Junk Food Can be Addictive
In the past 100 years or so, food has changed.
People are eating more processed food than ever, and the technologies used to engineer foods have become more elaborate.
These days, food engineers have found ways to make food so "rewarding" that the brain gets flooded with dopamine (27).
This is the same mechanism employed by drugs of abuse (28).
For this reason, some (but definitely not all) people can become addicted and completely lose control over their consumption (29).
Many studies have looked at this and found similarities between processed junk foods and drugs of abuse (30). (Agelbert NOTE: Anyone NOT wanting to use CFS to also recognize the similarities between drug pushers and processed food manufacturers is either delusional or complicit in the legalese hair splitting mendacity the food processing corporations engage in to cover theirab initio - from the very beginning! mens rea.)
17. Health Claims on Packaging Should Never be Trusted (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)
People are more health conscious than ever.
The food manufacturers (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg) are well aware of this, and have found ways to market the same old junk to the health conscious people as well.
They (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif) do this by adding misleading labels like "whole grain" or "low fat" on their foods.
You will now find all sorts of seriously unhealthy junk food with health claims on the label, such as "whole grain" fruit loops and cocoa puffs.
These labels are almost always misleading, and are used to trick people into thinking that they're making the right choice for themselves (and their children).
If the packaging of a food tells you that it is healthy, then it probably isn't.] (Agelbert NOTE: But this mens rea doubletalk is LEGAL. >:( in our UNLAWFUL corrupt court system. >:()[/i][/color]
18. Refined Vegetable Oils Should be Avoided
Vegetable oils, like soybean, corn and canola oils, are extracted from seeds using harsh processing methods.
These oils contain large amounts of Omega-6 fatty acids, which are biologically active and humans never consumed in large amounts during evolution (31).
Studies show that these oils can cause oxidative stress and make the LDL lipoproteins in the body become oxidized, potentially contributing to heart disease (32, 33, 34).
19. "Organic" or "Gluten-Free" Does Not Equal Healthy
There are many health trends in the world these days.
Organic food is popular, and going gluten-free is trendy.
However, just because something is organic or gluten-free, it doesn't mean that it is healthy. For example, you can make all sorts of junk foods out of organic ingredients.
Foods that are naturally gluten-free are fine, but gluten-free processed foods are often made with seriously harmful ingredients that are even worse than their gluten-containing counterparts.
The truth is, organic sugar is still sugar and gluten-free junk food is still junk food.
20. Blaming New Health Problems on Old Foods Doesn't Make Sense
Heart disease didn't become a problem until about a hundred years ago.
The obesity epidemic started around 1980 and the type 2 diabetes epidemic followed soon after.
These are the biggest health problems in the world, and it seems pretty clear that diet has a lot to do with them.
For some very strange reason, the health authorities started blaming them on foods like red meat, eggs and butter.
But we've been eating these natural foods for thousands of years, while these health problems are relatively new.
Doesn't it make more sense to suspect all the new stuff instead? Such as all the processed foods, added sugar, refined grains and vegetable oils?
Blaming new health problems on old foods simply doesn't make sense. *
* Agelbert NOTE: UNLESS you are a corporate propagandist in the service of profit over people and planet. >:(
http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/12/nutrition-facts-that-should-be-common-sense/
The next time somebody uses the expression "everybody knows", put on your baloney protectors. 8)
Post by: AGelbert on February 22, 2015, 01:18:37 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Prylnj4NQ8&feature=player_embedded
Empowering Citizens
The Community Rights Movement, as host Janaia Donaldson points out, is one of the most exciting movements of our time. 150 communities in 9 states have passed ordinances that stop corporations from moving in.
This means these communities have been able to stop natural gas fracking, huge factory farms, and other big business.
"We The People" have and can exercise our authority to govern ourselves." says community rights educator Paul Cienfuegos.
Hear a few inspiring stories here of how people across the United States are taking their power back!
This video was produced by Peak Moment TV, Locally Reliant Living For Challenging Times For a full list of shows and more information, see http://peakmoment.tv/
- See more at: http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/community/local-communities-dismantling-corporate-rule--part-1.html#sthash.LyRhyLSu.dpuf
Post by: AGelbert on March 19, 2015, 02:21:13 pm
Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs (http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/)
And that is where our tax dollars go. Just this morning, I came across this article that demonstrates why corporations spend so much money on lobbying; it's because it is far and away the most profitable things they can do:
Corporations Lobbying Government Reap 76,000% Return on Investment (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/11/17/fixed-fortunes-biggest-corporate-political-interests-spend-billions-get-trillions/)
Nice to be able to spend billions, and get trillions in return.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S1VVQZtIduY/VQmlv7_wXdI/AAAAAAAAl0I/KrEFXZn5DlA/s1600/Lobbying-ROI.jpg)
Agelbert NOTE:The corporate math doers are, of course, highly offended at any spurious, specious, defamatory, unfounded, witch hunt, lacking evidence (etc., and so on - see our law firms for more adjectives (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)) allegation that a corporation would engage in unethical behavior...
(http://image.blingee.com/images17/content/output/000/000/000/6a0/604681651_739399.gif)
Meet Theranos, Inc. – The Blood Testing Company with Henry Kissinger and a Cadre of Military and Political "Elite" on its Board
Michael Krieger | Posted Tuesday Jul 22, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Kissinger deserves vigorous prosecution for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, and for offenses against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture.
A good liar must have a good memory: Kissinger is a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory.
– Christopher Hitchens in The Trial of Henry Kissinger
I first heard of Theranos, Inc. in the fall of 2013, when the Wall Street Journal published a piece titled, Elizabeth Holmes: The Breakthrough of Instant Diagnosis. However, it wasn't just me. It was the first time pretty much anyone on earth had heard of the company, because despite having been founded a decade earlier in 2003, it maintained a level of secrecy more characteristic of classified military operations.
Here are some excerpts from that original article:
Ms. Holmes, a 29-year-old chemical and electrical engineer and entrepreneur, dropped out of Stanford as an undergraduate after founding a life sciences company called Theranos in 2003. Her inventions, which she is discussing in detail here for the first time, could upend the industry of laboratory testing and might change the way we detect and treat disease.
Ten years ago, Ms. Holmes was working out of the basement of a group college house, a world away from her current headquarters at a rambling industrial building in a research park just off campus. The company's real estate was one of the few Theranos facts known to Silicon Valley, but one suggestive of the closely held business's potential: The space was once home to Facebook, and before that Hewlett-Packard.
Agelbert NOTE: The above paragraph is TEXTBOOK puff piece mendacity laced with the NOT SO HIDDEN message to the reader that THIS IS A BUY - GET IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR WHEN THE IPO COMES OUT - THIS IS A HORATIO ALGER SUCCESS STORY- USA, USA! ::)
The secret that hundreds of employees are now refining involves devices that automate and miniaturize more than 1,000 laboratory tests, from routine blood work to advanced genetic analyses. Theranos's processes are faster, cheaper and more accurate than the conventional methods and require only microscopic blood volumes, not vial after vial of the stuff. The experience will be revelatory to anyone familiar with current practices, which often seem like medicine by Bram Stoker.
A Theranos technician first increases blood flow to your hand by applying a wrap similar to one of those skiing pocket warmers, then uses a fingerstick to draw a few droplets of blood from the capillaries at the end of your hand. The blood wicks into a tube in a cartridge that Ms. Holmes calls a "nanotainer," which holds microliters of a sample, or about the amount of a raindrop. The nanotainer is then run through the analyzers in a Theranos laboratory. Results are usually sent back to a physician, but a full blood work-up—metabolic and immune markers, cell count, etc.—was in my inbox by the time I walked out the door. (Phew: all clear.)
It's the kind of modern, painless service that consumers rarely receive in U.S. health care, though Ms. Holmes makes the point the other way around: "We're here in Silicon Valley inside the consumer technology world . . . and what we think we're building is the first consumer health-care technology company. Patients are empowered by having better access to their own health information, and then by owning their own data." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__fishing.gif) (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)
Will patients really "own their own data?" (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif) We certainly don't seem to in any other aspect of life any longer. :( Why will it be different in this :evil4: instance? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-310714182509.png)
And a Theranos clinic may be coming soon to a pharmacy near you. On Monday the company is launching a partnership with Walgreens for in-store sample-collection centers, with the first one in Palo Alto and expanding throughout California and beyond. Ms. Holmes's long-term goal is to provide Theranos services "within five miles of virtually every American home." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__fishing.gif) :evil4:
So who could argue with that story right? A bright young prodigy emerges from Silicon Valley, drops out of Stanford and ten years later develops a product that could disrupt the healthcare industry for the better. So what's the catch? Well, as the Wall Street Journal itself noted later on in that very same article:
Ms. Holmes declines to discuss Theranos's future plans, though one may speculate. There could be military applications in the battlefield, especially given the numerous framed American flags across the Theranos office and the presence on its corporate board of retired Gens. Jim Mattis and Gary Roughead, former Defense Secretary Bill Perry and former Secretary of State George Shultz.
It was this paragraph that raised a red flag for me back then, but I more or less brushed it off and forgot about the story. Until today, when I came across an article by Robert Wenzel titled, What is Henry Kissinger and Gang Up To Now? It was here that I realized there are far more shady members of the board that was initially reported. We can now add to the list:
•Henry Kissinger
•Richard Kovacevich- who served as the Chief Executive Officer of Wells Fargo & Company from 1998–2007 and Chairman of the Board from 2001-2009.
•William Perry- Former Secretary of Defense
•Riley P. Bechtel -Chairman of the Board and a Director of Bechtel Group, Inc
•Bill Frist- Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader
•Samuel Nunn- Served as a United States Senator from Georgia for twenty-four years and as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Yes, this whole thing becomes very creepy, very quickly. You can accuse Henry Kissinger of many things, but being a humanitarian isn't one of them. Furthermore, you'd think there'd be more healthcare professionals or businesspeople on the board, but it's almost all military men and politicians.
Even worse, in a USA Today story earlier this month titled, Change Agents: Elizabeth Holmes Wants Your Blood, Kissinger seems downright giddy:
"Elizabeth's iron determination and great intellectual ability turned me from a mild skeptic to an enthusiast," says Kissinger, adding that he was introduced to Holmes by his friend Shultz.
"We aren't exactly a group of people who give away our time lightly, :evil4:" Kissinger says with a laugh. "But we are impressed with her commitment to lowering health costs and bring this advance to developing nations. Elizabeth may make a lot of money, but that is not her motivation."
I have no idea what these military men and war criminals are up to, but it probably isn't good. When there's smoke, there's fire. And there's a lot of smoke here.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/07/22/meet-theranos-inc-the-blood-testing-company-with-henry-kissinger-and-a-cadre-of-military-and-political-elite-on-its-board/ (https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/07/22/meet-theranos-inc-the-blood-testing-company-with-henry-kissinger-and-a-cadre-of-military-and-political-elite-on-its-board/)
I agree with Micheal Krieger. Also, Holmes has about as much "fear of needles" as she has of Swiss Bank accounts. Just for the Hell of it, I Googled "fear of needles". You should too. This phrase is the KEY to EVERYTHING published about this population tracking and control police state M.I.C. maneuver presented to the public as a "private" Corporation for better living through cheap blood tests. LOOK for this kind of inane and friendly sounding "She (or he) is such a regular person just like you" BALONEY to make you believe the rest of the TRIPE (See Bill Gates left Harvard because he "liked to gamble." :evil4:).
EVERYBODY remembers those phrases. THAT is why the clever propagandists seed the propaganda with them. They are PSYOP mnemonic devices. The phrase causes your brain to REMEMBER the details of the stuff they want you to remember AND puts your caveat emptor circuits to sleep.
Theranos is the M.I.C. Potemkin front for heinous police state population tracking and control program. That is the answer to the Conspiracy Quiz I posted yesterday. Learn or be burned, people. 8)
Posted by Agelbert March 23, 2015 at the Doomstead Diner Forum
Now for today's conspiracy quiz. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif) (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)
PSSSST! I have, in my zeal to uncover nuggets of fascist Agnotology (predatory capitalist scams disguised as good deals which are ACTUALLY police state control and population tracking and bioweapon targeting programs) for the benefit of you fellow mushrooms out there (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif), hit upon a VERY INTERESTING bit of information.
Now before anyone accuses me of being a paranoid whacko, I wish to advise you that
1) You need to take a number because there is a line for that.
2) I was trained in Military Intelligence.
3) Every setup con job ALWAYS looks like a good deal to the naïve rubes.
4) The elite fascists ALWAYS set up corporations that will perform skullduggery as
a) Run by a person that has the best interests of mankind in mind
b) Stumbled, by accident, on this "great new technology" because they were ( long list of inane, silly, "why I am late for school" excuses your teacher would not buy but the mushroom public is supposed to buy - See "fear of needles" :evil4:).
I am trying to help you fellow diners out. If you don't want to "play this game", that's cool. But what I am about to present in the form of a quiz may enable you to avoid a LOT of trouble and pain for you AND YOUR LOVED ONES sometime in the future. (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-013.gif)
So here it is. If you read the following about a NEW corporation, worth 9 billion dollars, allegedly founded by a nineteen year old, with a fear of needles ;), for the good of mankind (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg), whould you think this is just another Horatio Alger example of the meritocracy of opportunities for prosperity in the land of the free and the home of the capitalist brave?
OR, would you think, perhaps, that something is not quite kosher here? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)
Agelbert NOTE: PLEASE, use your brain before you plug the following into a Google Search in order to poo pooh the horrendous stink coming from the names of the people mentioned below. THINK, God DAMNIT! The ASS you save may be your own! (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif)
In July 2013, the composition of the GUESS! directors changed markedly, with departure of Channing Robertson (emeritus professor, chemical engineering, Stanford University), experienced pharma and biotech executive Robert B. Shapiro (former chairman/CEO of the Pharmacia, Monsanto, and G.D. Searle group of companies), and financier Pete Thomas (principle, ATA Ventures). Remaining from the original board were GUESS! President and COO Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani and former Secretary of State George Shultz; added to the new board were Riley P. Bechtel (chairman of the board at Bechtel Group), Richard Kovacevich (former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO), Sam Nunn and Bill Frist (former U.S. Senators), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), William Perry (former Secretary of Defense), William Foege (epidemiologist, former director U.S. CDC), James Mattis (General, USMC, retired) and Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired), several of whom are members of Stanford's Hoover Institution, with medical doctors Frist and Foege, and lawyer/executive Bechtel being added most lately (in 2014).
If the above is not a rogue's gallery of some of the most evil fascists connected to the dirty energy industries, war profiteering, bioweapon experimentation on US citizens (DON'T forget 9/11 - yes there are threads that link MOST of them to that TREASON as well - they are not done DOING WHAT THEY DO), then I do not know what is.
More on this Corporation offering a "good deal" to Americans after I see the responses. 8)
Yes, sigh..., I know certain people here will be looking for the a way to make a buck out of this.
That cannot be helped. Most diners have a conscience. But some don't. I post this for those who, like GO, do.
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,559.msg71028.html#msg71028
A side note about Theranos
Theranos is licensed to open blood testing services at pharmacies in all U.S. States. However they Only have a one or two in Palo alto, California and FORTY in Phoenix Arizona. They get the oldy goldies suckered FIRST. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__fishing.gif) These tell their offspring that it's "such a good deal" and AWAY WE GO!
The M.I.C. Psyop bastards do their homework, I'll give them that (see getting YOU to pay for your own enslavement). 8)
Theranos disclosed to Inc. magazine that it initially targeted its blood testing services at new-to-market drugs involved in clinical trials, because frequent testing is required to indicate whether a new drug therapy is efficacious or causing adverse reactions.[11] Since this disclosure, Theranos has begun to offer services directly to consumers via Theranos Wellness Centers located inside Walgreens stores (beginning in 2013),[27][28] with, as of January 2015, one posted location in Palo Alto, CA, and forty posted locations in Phoenix, AZ.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos)
And, YEAH, opening forty locations in Oldy Goldy town is a clever COVER STORY to claim they are targeting old folks because they are the "ones most in need" of cheaper services! Theranos knows how to polish its halo! (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif)
Learn or be burned, people. 8)
How to beat Theranos at their M.I.C. agenda game
The key to understanding what Theranos is REALLY all about is the "fear of needles" phrase that shows up EVERWHERE in regard to the esteemed, humble, hard working, lover of humanity, youngest billionaire on the Forbes list, Ms. Holmes. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)
They KNOW people generally are not too fond of needles. They will claim that it's just another silly "conspiracy theory" that they are working for the police state M.I.C. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif)
They will claim that they have no interest in your blood data, and if they did, the government already can get that data from any and all labs in the country using the "Patriot" Act. ;D
Yeah, that is true. BUT Theranos, unlike all blood labs, is going to use a finger lancet device to get your blood for all of its tests (except for the urinalysis, of course - which they also offer - gotta make everything look above board, ya know!).
Now suppose I was a Monsanto/CDC/M.I.C. Dr. Strangelove that wanted to INJECT people with a sleeper nano-agent that could be activated with some aerosol in the atmosphere (later on) to produce certain physical effects or mental dysfunction on those injected on cue? (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)
What would I do to make up a reasonable excuse to introduce the agent into a person's blood stream?
Well, any medical doctor knows that any break in the skin, no matter how tiny (see tsetse flies and mosquito disease vectors) can permit a serious invasion of our cardiovascular system and compromise our immune system.
Said Dr. Strangelove might "patent" a handy dandy FINGER LANCET DEVICE that ACTUALLY has it's tip laced with the nano-sleeper bio-agent. Of course I would have to sell people on the idea that NEEDLES are a BAD thing and PEOPLE ARE AFRAID OF THEM, would I not? So how would I do THAT without bad mouthing the medical establishment that relies 24/7 on the use of needles?
Why, I would cleverly and disinenuously claim the FOUNDER OF THE CORPORATION IS AFRAID OF NEEDLES! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)
HOW do you test Aglebert's wild "conspiracy theory"? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014182447.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif) ??? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)
Well, when you walk in to Walgreens to save a bundle on your blood tests with Theranos "miracle microfluidic technology", BRING YOUR OWN FINGER LANCET DEVICE ;) ;D.
If the attendant claims that will "not do" because antiseptic conditions cannot be "guaranteed" and shows you their neato finger lancet wrapped in air tight clear plastic (for your health and benefit - not to keep a nano-agent viable, of course ;)), I suggest you pull out the other finger lancet device (that you purchased earlier somewhere else) that is also wrapped in plastic to see their reaction...(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)
There are lots of lancet devices on the market. This is just one of several.
(http://store.mcguff.com/Images/Images550/007668%20Lancet%20Device,%20Adjustable%20Tip,%20BD,%20Each%20McGuffMedical.com.jpg)
For diabetics, there is even a laser device that DOES NOT break the skin that measures your glucose levels. (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)
If they have no issues, then my conspiracy theory is baloney. But if they refuse to allow you to lance your finger with your device, then I suggest you connect all the M.I.C. propaganda and skullduggery DOTS in the "fear of Needles" phrase dog and pony show AND THEN make an excuse to get TF out of there, pronto.
Theranos is NOT about Therapy plus diagnostics (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corporate-mendacity-and-duplicity/msg2877/#msg2877)
I applaud all efforts to teach the proper Homo SAP math to that self worshipping, IQ challenged fellow that continually attempts to justify the conscience free view that the only way to be is to TAKE CARE OF NUMBER ONE while he, in true cognitive dissonant fashion, masquerades as an intelligent, responsible Homo SAP. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)
Someday, when his nominal friends and family all studiously avoid him because of his egocentric, society destroying world view, perhaps he will remember all your sound advice and finally DO THE MATH. (http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png)
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif)
Post by: AGelbert on April 14, 2015, 11:23:48 pm
All of the barriers that are meant to protect our children–the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agencies, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children–have been removed, and there's only one barrier left, and that's the parents, and we need to keep that in the equation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U14ITEFqrlg&feature=player_embedded
Robert F. Kennedy Jr on Vaccines: Big Pharma has Captured the Scientific, Regulatory, Law-making Processes
http://www.aircrap.org/2015/04/13/big-pharma-monopolizes-vaccine-law-making-process/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtzyA_tbuI0&feature=player_embedded
Seasoned Investigative Journalist Exposes Inside Strategies to Censor News
April 26, 2015 | 184,020 views
You can choose to ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Most of us rely heavily on the media for information, not realizing that 90 percent of it is controlled by a mere six media giants.
Sharyl Attkisson, a five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist whose television career spans more than three decades is one of my personal heroes. She was the reporter who, in 2009, blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was completely unfounded and manufactured.
(http://josephnewton.com/images/sized/images/work/Aug6o9_Savage_Mislead_LG-440x501.jpg) (http://fallacyaday.com/images/62.%20Misleading%20Vividness.png)
One of the examples in Sharyl's book that really hit home for me was when Hillary Clinton ran against Obama for president, and while on the campaign trail told reporters she had dodged sniper fire on a trip as First Lady, 12 years prior, when she visited Bosnia.
It seems like a silly thing to lie about, but lie she did. Sharyl and other journalists had been on that trip, and they all knew no one had dodged sniper fire, least of all the First Lady. Fortunately, Sharyl had archived videos of the event to prove it.
"It couldn't be farther from the truth, the idea that we had been shot up by sniper fire," Sharyl says. "There are a couple of choices – just being untruthful for her own benefit, or was she delusional, which is a little frightening. But I think the public got past that because they accepted her as the Secretary of State."
Intimidation and Harassment of Journalists
True investigative journalists, such as Sharyl, have also become targets of intimidation and harassment. For example, at one point her computer and phone lines were hacked to find out what she was working on.
I assume there are a handful of journalists who do that sort of critical reporting on the government, and on this administration in particular, that they wanted to watch.
They never dreamed I would luck upon the resources to have the computer examined by experts that could find the software they deposited in my computer.
This software was proprietary to a government agency, either the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)...
They had my keystroke data... They could look at all my files. They used Skype audio – I didn't know this was possible – but they could turn it on invisibly, without you knowing it, to listen into conversations. They could also remove files using Skype... We were able to confirm these highly sophisticated long-term, remote intrusions."
Another interesting book for anyone interested or concerned about matters such as these is Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It by Marc Goodman. The book discusses in great detail how this type of hacking can occur, and more importantly, what simple measures we can do to protect ourselves. It's a reality. And if they're doing it to top-notch investigative reporters, certainly everyone is a candidate.
On Astroturfing...
"Astroturf" is the effort on the part of special interests, whether corporate or political, to surreptitiously sway public opinion and make it appear as though it's a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda, when in reality such a groundswell of public opinion might not exist. Sharyl explains:
"They turn to things like social media – Facebook and Twitter – using pseudonyms and multiple accounts to spread things around. They use their partners who blog for them, write things, and pick up on one another's work until sometimes it's been picked up in the mainstream media as if it's a fact.
It's all intended to make you feel as though if you hold a certain opinion that they don't want you to have, you're the outlier. Everybody else agrees with 'X' except you ;), and that may not be the truth. This is a huge business... There are actually PR firms that specialize in these sorts of tactics.
Astroturfing is now more important, I am told by lobbyists and PR firms, to many clients than the direct lobbying of Congress because it's so effective to reach out to the public. They may have someone write a letter to the editor and you don't know that person is being paid by a special interest to advance a certain opinion.
They may start as a nonprofit without saying out front that they're behind the nonprofit. The nonprofit may then look like a charity that's advancing a certain opinion, which is actually acting on behalf of the corporate interest or the special interest. Again, it's very widespread..."
Hallmark signs of astroturfing include using key language—words such as crank, crack, nutty, pseudo, conspiracy, and other language that's effective with the public to try to make you dismiss an argument they don't like. Another hallmark of an Astroturf campaign is attacking those who are questioning authority, such as reporters who are exposing the truth, whistleblowers who dare to step forward, and people asking tough questions.
It's important to be aware of these kinds of concerted efforts to distort the truth, and to understand how they're done, because these "faux concern" campaigns can have a profound influence on your perception of reality.
Why Conventional Media So Rarely Tells You the Truth About Health
One industry that wields a great deal of power within the media today is the pharmaceutical industry. It's rare to sit through an evening of television without viewing several drug ads. They also advertise heavily in print and online media. The advertising dollars they spend not only generates sales, it also gives them the power to influence what's being reported in the news. Here's just one example:
"There's a story in my book about former executive producer of mine who got a phone call from the sales division, which was very inappropriate. He said the sales person from CBS was kind of screaming at him because we'd been doing a lot of stories looking at side effects and problems with the very popular and billion-dollar-selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins.
The advertisers didn't like that. Therefore, someone from the CBS corporate apparently didn't like that, and called down and said something like, 'If you keep doing these stories, it's going to be really, really bad for CBS...' (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)
I think that happens more often than we know explicitly. But this time, it was followed by what I see as all of the media backing down on pharmaceutical-related stories. We were doing very aggressive coverage of problems within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – not just me, but all the networks and a lot of print publications – about vaccines side effects, and about other medical issues. That all has virtually stopped.
You can almost point to a time period when it seems someone made a phone call and said, 'That's it fellas. There are advertisers.'
And you won't see these stories now even when there's a multi-billion-dollar criminal settlement against drug companies for mismarketing drugs that are commonly used. That's a huge story that should be leading the news in my opinion. But most people probably never heard of it because those are things that offend the sensibilities of advertisers, who now control to some degree the editorial content of networks, publications, and print publications that are advertising.
And, as you know, they have several lobbyists for every member of Congress on Capitol Hill so they can make sure certain hearings don't happen. As recently as last year, they were able to stop a planned vaccine-related hearing. The control is almost total in my view. That's just one example of a corporate influence."
Full interview in video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB3_JPBBUH4&feature=player_embedded
Seasoned Investigative Journalist Exposes Inside Strategies to Censor News (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/04/26/media-obstruction-intimidation-harassment.aspx?e_cid=20150426Z1_SNL_NB_art_1&utm_source=snl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20150426Z1_SNL_NB&et_cid=DM75079&et_rid=930434424)
Federal ruling paves the way for GMO trial
John Herrick Apr. 27 2015, 7:50 pm 9 Comments
A federal judge Monday dismissed an attempt to block the implementation of Vermont's law requiring the labeling of food containing genetically engineered ingredients. (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)
U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss dismissed a preliminary injunction brought by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg), which contends that Vermont's GMO labeling law is unconstitutional.
The ruling also denies the state's motion to dismiss the case, which clears the way for a trial. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)
Reiss rejected the Grocery Manufacturers Association's request for an injunction that would prevent the Vermont law from going into effect while the case is litigated. She ruled Monday that Act 120 can be implemented July 1, 2016, despite the ongoing lawsuit. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)
The multibillion dollar trade group representing food, beverage and pesticide companies sued the state last year after the nation's first GMO labeling legislation was signed into law by Gov. Peter Shumlin. The Vermont Attorney General's Office finalized the regulations to implement the law this month.
The order is not a final ruling :(, but Reiss decided on several key constitutional questions raised by the lawsuit. She also said the state's prohibition of the use of the word "natural" on genetically engineered foods may be unconstitutional. (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)
Nonetheless, Attorney General Bill Sorrell said Monday there is a lot to like in Reiss' order.
"On the fundamental heart and soul issues of the law, and that is the mandatory labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients, the plaintiffs are going to have a very difficult time seeing that that is struck down by this court," Sorrell said.
In a statement, GMA said it is reviewing the decision and considering its legal options. gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp[/img]
"While we are pleased that the District Court found us likely to succeed on several of our claims, we are nevertheless disappointed by the court's ultimate decision to deny our Motion for Preliminary Injunction to block the implementation of the Vermont GMO labeling law – Act 120 – on grounds that the manufacturers had not yet shown a sufficient degree of harm," the statement said.
The trade groups argue that the labeling requirement violates free speech protections ::). They say the legislation's "politically motivated speech regulation" compels manufacturers to use labels that frighten consumers from purchasing safe, nutritious, affordable foods that are no different from counterpart organic, the order says. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
Because the law compels speech, the trade groups argue the state must prove there is a "compelling government interest" to require the label, such as a public health threat.
The state says the labeling requirement compels only factual, noncontroversial commercial information and furthers governmental purposes beyond only satisfying a consumer's right to know whether food products contain genetically engineered ingredients, the order says.
Reiss rejected the trade groups' request for a higher legal standard of review. She applied the less stringent Zauderer precedent, which was derived from a 1985 court case.
"Because the State has established that Act 120's GE disclosure requirement is reasonably related to the State's substantial interests, under Zauderer, Act 120's GE disclosure requirement is constitutional," the order says.
The state's law also prohibits manufacturers from claiming their products are "natural" or using "words of similar import" if the product contains genetically engineered ingredients. Reiss said the law does not define this term.
"Not only does Act 120 fail to define 'any words of similar import,' but it refers to its undefined 'natural' terminology for guidance," Reiss said.
She also dismissed arguments by the trade groups that Act 120 violates the Commerce Clause and federal pre-emptions.
No trial date has been set.
http://vtdigger.org/2015/04/27/federal-judge-denies-industry-motion-in-gmo-case/
Agelbert NOTE: Well, how about that! A judge with SOME CFS. However, her "issues" with the term "natural" are RIDICULOUS. If it is PATENTED, it CANNOT be considered "NATURAL", unless the Supreme Arseholes decide to do ANOTHER Orwellian trick on the English Language on behalf of their FASCIST interpretation of the Constitution.
(http://barbwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/torches-and-pitchforks.jpg)
I remember hearing a phrase during Occupy, "If you won't let us dream we won't let you sleep". What happens when real opportunity for everyone below $100k evaporates entirely? What happens when people can't find decent paying jobs that they can afford to live on? What happens when people have had enough?
I don't want things to get that bad. I have often tried my best to get out in front of the problem before it gets worse. I don't have the resources or clout to be heard, my lack of money as speech prevents that, but Nick Hanauer does, and he is spelling it out for his uber-rich compatriots, cut the **** out before you unleash all hell on yourselves.
No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27/1309994/--The-pitchforks-ARE-coming-A-billionaire-warns-his-fellow-Oligarchs-what-is-coming-down-the-pipe
Chipotle Under Attack for Going GMO Free (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)
(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)
Ronnie Cummins | May 20, 2015 2:38 pm
Since when do the mainstream news media, in a country that worships at the altar of capitalism and the free market, launch a coordinated attack against a company for selling a product consumers want? When that company dares to cross the powerful biotech industry. How else to explain the unprecedented negative coverage of Chipotle, merely because the successful restaurant chain will eliminate genetically modified foods (GMOs)?
The biotech industry (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg) has a long history of discrediting scientists who challenge the safety of GMOs (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif).
That intimidation campaign worked well until consumers connected the dots between GMO foods (and the toxic chemicals used to grow them) and health concerns.
Once consumers demanded labels on GMO foods, the biotech industry responded with a multimillion dollar public relations campaign. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif)
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwx7wy0tIK1qd9a66o1_500.jpg)
Yet despite spending millions to influence the media, and millions more to prevent laws requiring labels on products the industry claims are safe, Monsanto has lost the hearts and minds of consumers (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png). The latest polls show that 93 percent of Americans support mandatory labeling of GMO foods. ;D
Chipotle has made a sound business decision(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif), which has forced the biotech industry to stoop to a new low: vilifying businesses. Sadly, the mainstream media appear all too happy (manipulated?) to go along with the attack.
Only in the U.S. does the biotech industry wield such power, which is arguably having a negative effect on the free market. Take McDonald's. In the U.S., the fast-food chain is in trouble. In Britain (and other countries), where McDonald's is GMO-free, it is profitable.
In March, 17 leading cancer researchers concluded that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, widely used on GMO crops, is a "probable" carcinogen. In 1985 :o, Environmental Protection Agency scientists drew the same conclusion. According to hundreds of scientists worldwide, there is no consensus on the safety of GMO foods. (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif)
A growing number of consumers don't want GMO foods. Chipotle is responding to that demand. Biotech's attack on Chipotle is an act of desperation. The mainstream media's complicity is a failure of the institution of journalism.(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)
http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/20/chipotle-under-attack-gmo/
Agelbert NOTE: The mainstream media's complicity is EVIDENCE of the corporate criminal reality recognized by Chris Hedges in the quote below.
"The rich executed a coup d'état that transformed the three branches of the U.S. government and nearly all institutions, including the mass media, into wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state." -- Chris Hedges
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC2DpGaykaI&feature=player_embedded
Video: Neil Young Takes on "Fascist Politicians and Chemical Giants Walking Arm in Arm"
By BY DANIEL KREPS / Rolling Stone May 31st, 2015
Neil Young Unveils Starbucks-Mocking Music Video ;D
Rocker takes aim at GMO giant, defends Vermont in first single off 'The Monsanto Years'
Neil Young and Promise of the Real have shared the full music video for "A Rock Star Bucks a Coffee Shop," the first single off the rocker's new anti-GMO concept album The Monsanto Years. The video for the song, originally titled "Rock Starbucks" before it was changed to something more playful and less infringing, stars Young and his backing band, featuring Willie Nelson's sons Lukas and Micah, working on their new album and defiantly tossing Starbucks cups.
http://www.constantinereport.com/video-neil-young-takes-fascist-politicians-chemical-giants-walking-arm-arm/
The full movie, "The Idiot Cycle", is available to watch free online. It's about five years old. Everything in it is even more applicable today. >:( :( :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUaRi7CHASo&feature=player_embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuUOPSveJIY&feature=player_embedded
Post by: AGelbert on June 20, 2015, 01:54:27 am
David Zuckerman (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
The bill before congress is not spelled out here. It would not create a federal system, it would create a Federal, voluntary labeling system. That would not give consumers the necessary information to make their decision.
This $10 million per day letter and the threat of not selling their food here are more extreme examples to scare Vermonters. I recently read a letter to the editor in the Free Press that also included scare language from the industry. It claimed that Vermonts' law would cost the average household $400 more per year for their food.
That is a very miss-leading interpretation of the study that was done. The study actually said that if a family does not change its purchasing then the cost would be negligible. IF a family chose to by all non-GMO or organic then it would cost them approx. $400 more per year. But those decisions can be made individually, day to day as consumers prioritize how they want to spend their money.
The industry deceptively used that same statistic in millions of dollars of advertizing to kill labeling laws in states with referenda. They wanted to create fear, and they succeeded and won. But here, they could not use that miss-information to "fool the masses" and we passed it.
Now, they are overstating the scale of the "problem" to try to fool Congress (made up of a majority of Republicans who supposedly believe in States rights), in order to override our state law.
Our law is clear and the AG office worked with the food industry to write the rules in a way that was clear and the court ruled that it can go forward. This is a responsible law that is being implemented fairly and, chicken little, the sky is not going to fall.
sandra bettis (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
Funny that they can label their food that they sell to the rest of the world but can't label the food that they sell here in the USA….
Pam Ladds (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
"Here's an idea for the industry: Just label your products. All of them, nationwide. 64 countries already do it. I'm sure the food industry in America could summon the moral imagination to be the 65th," Shumlin said in a statement. "Plain and simple Vermont's law is about giving consumers the right to know what is in their food."
'Just label your products' Shumlin tells food industry
Tom Brown Jun. 18 2015, 3:27 pm
http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/18/just-label-your-products-shumlin-tells-food-industry/ (http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/18/just-label-your-products-shumlin-tells-food-industry/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvvPTksIJ4&feature=player_embedded
Flavor Manufacturers' Trade Group Is the De Facto Regulator of Flavor Additives in the US
Were it not for added flavors—be they synthetic or derived from natural substances—there would be no processed food industry, as most foods would quite simply be unpalatable.
As it stands, flavor companies develop additives that not only taste good, but that are "craveable" if not outright addictive.
The fact that processed foods contain added ingredients that aren't necessarily food isn't secret knowledge. But would it surprise you to find out that flavors added to processed foods are "regulated" by the industry itself?
This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. As explained in the featured video, a legal loophole may have introduced a huge number of flavors and other additives of questionable safety into the American food supply.
Who's Responsible for the Safety of Food Flavors in the US?
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2099/12/31/food-additives-safety.aspx
Food cops bust Whole Foods for shady prices
By Eve Andrews on 24 Jun 2015
I hate to tell you that you can't go home tonight, because your boyfriend has just been validated in every single grocery trip argument you've ever had ("Brad! It's worth it for the farmers!"): Whole Foods really is too goddamn spendy, and falsely so! (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif)
A sting operation conducted by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs checked out the pricing of pre-packaged products at eight Whole Foods locations, and found that "every label was inaccurate, with many overcharging consumers" according to the New York Daily News. Let us now reflect on the state of crime in New York: Authorities are now running sting operations … at Whole Foods.
More from the New York Daily News:
[T]he notoriously pricy chain was the most egregious offender — leading DCA to open a full-blown investigation of its pricing practices last year, said Commissioner Julie Menin.
"Our inspectors told me it was the worst case of overcharges that they've ever seen," :o Menin said.
The overcharges ranged from 80 cents for a package of pecan panko to $14.84 for a container of coconut shrimp, [agency spokeswoman Abby] Lootens said.
First of all: If you're buying coconut shrimp at Whole Foods, or pecan panko at all, that's on you! Make coconut shrimp yourself — it is basically impossible to **** up, because fried shrimp is never going to taste bad.
To review, you have walked away with three new pieces of knowledge: Whole Foods is full of liars (at least in New York); coconut shrimp is very easy to make; and grocery trips are never, ever worth fighting over, because one day you will be proven indisputably wrong.
http://grist.org/news/food-cops-bust-whole-foods-for-shady-prices/
Post by: AGelbert on September 03, 2015, 12:08:12 am
(https://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/coca-cola-kills.jpg)
Coca-Cola Funds Front Group to Peddle 'Nonsense' as Science
While the tobacco and chemical technology industries are notorious for these kinds of tactics, the food industry is using the same playbook.
For example, Coca-Cola Company was recently "outed" by the New York Times for funding a front group by the name of The Global Energy Balance Network. (http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg)
The aim of this group appears to be to confuse consumers about soda science, and divert attention away from the mounting evidence showing that sweet beverages are a major contributor to obesity and diseases associated with insulin resistance, such as diabetes.
As reported in the featured article:
"Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugary beverages, is backing a new 'science-based' solution to the obesity crisis: to maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise, and worry less about cutting calories.
The beverage giant has teamed up with influential scientists (http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg) who are advancing this message in medical journals, at conferences and through social media...
'Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, 'Oh they're eating too much, eating too much, eating too much' — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks, and so on,' the group's vice president, Steven N. Blair, an exercise scientist, says in a recent video announcing the new organization.
'And there's really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.'"
In response to, and in support of, this exposé, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, signed by 36 leading researchers, scientists, and public health officials, noting that Coca-Cola is blatantly ignoring the "well-documented evidence that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes."
Protecting Profits Through Misdirection (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)
Last year, Coca-Cola made a $1.5 million donation (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png) to two universities where the leaders of the new front group are employed. Since 2008, the company has also funded projects led by two of the group's founding members, to the tune of $4 million.
Coca-Cola is also the registered owner and administrator of the Global Energy Balance Network's website and, according to an editorial7 announcing the creation of the Global Energy Balance Network, the group has received an "unrestricted education gift" from Coca-Cola.
"Critics say Coke has long cast the obesity epidemic as primarily an exercise problem... Now, public health advocates say, Coca-Cola is going a step further, recruiting reputable scientists to make the case for them," the New York Times writes.
"Barry M. Popkin, a professor of global nutrition... said Coke's support of prominent health researchers was reminiscent of tactics used by the tobacco industry, which enlisted experts to become 'merchants of doubt' about the health hazards of smoking...
The group says there is 'strong evidence' that the key to preventing weight gain is not reducing food intake... 'but maintaining an active lifestyle and eating more calories.' To back up this contention, the group provides links to two research papers, each of which contains this footnote: 'The publication of this article was supported by The Coca-Cola Company...'
[T]he Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana announced the findings of a large new study on exercise in children that determined that lack of physical activity 'is the biggest predictor of childhood obesity around the world.' The news release contained a disclosure: 'This research was funded by The Coca-Cola Company.'"
I will have more to say on this topic in early October as I am interviewing Dr. Marion Nestle for her new book Soda Politics that is released on October 3.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/02/coca-cola-soda-obesity.aspx
The GMO bastards want to do the same thing to the whole country that the Fracker bastards did to a town in Texas that banned Fracking. These corporate biosphere math challenged bastards, though producing completely different "products", share a disdain for level playing fields, consumer protection laws and competition.
(http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-John-D.-Rockefeller-competition-is-a-sin-42310.png)
This Law Would Make It Illegal for Any State to Mandate GMO Labeling (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)
Timothy Wise, Tufts University | September 8, 2015 2:57 pm
If recent history is any indication, Sheldon Krimsky should expect to be slammed as a "science denier."
The current vehemence is the product of a well-funded campaign to "depolarize" the GMO debate through "improved agricultural biotechnology communication," in the words of the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science. And it is reaching a crescendo because of the march of the Orwellian "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015" (code-named "SAFE" for easy and confusing reference) through the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23 on its way to a Senate showdown in the fall.
In an April New York Times op-ed, Alliance for Science affiliate Mark Lynas follows the party line, accusing environmentalists of "undermining public understanding of science," even more than climate deniers and vaccine opponents. Slate's William Saletan goes further in his July feature, calling those who want GMO labeling "an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science."
Who would have known that depolarization could feel so polarizing—and so stifling of scientific inquiry.
Precaution and the Public's Right to Know What We Eat
The SAFE law sounds like it promises what polls suggest 99 percent of Americans want, accurate labeling of foods with GMO ingredients. It likely guarantees that no such thing will ever happen.
Backed by biotech and food industry associations, SAFE would make it illegal for states to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws. It would instead establish a "voluntary" GMO labeling program that pretty well eviscerates the demand for the right to know what's in our food. It would undercut the many state level efforts.
Vermont now has a labeling law that survived industry opposition, threats and a court challenge, which may explain why the industry got busy in Congress. If you can't beat democracy, change it. The Senate is expected to take up the bill after its August recess.
As written, SAFE is truly the labeling law to end all labeling laws.(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif)
The biotech industry is acting desperate for a reason. It's seen Europe and most of the world close its regulatory doors to GMO crops, for now, insisting on the same "precautionary principle" enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That principle calls for a relatively high level of precaution before the introduction of a new technology, to avoid the kinds of unintended consequences that have caused such harm in the past: tobacco, thalidomide, DDT, PCBs and other cases of industry-backed claims of safety that, in retrospect, proved deadly.
Not SAFE for Science
In a sane world that respects scientific inquiry, we would be engaged in a debate about the appropriate levels of precaution that we as a society want for a technology as novel as genetic engineering. That would be constructive, not to mention depolarizing.
Instead, we get pundits like Lynas and Saletan tarring anyone who dares call for precaution with the stain of being another science-denying zealot who ignores the scientific evidence that no one has been harmed by all the GMO foods consumed in the U.S.
To reinforce how duped or dumb the American public is, they point to a Pew Institute poll indicating that 88 percent of scientists think GMO foods are safe, while just 37 percent of the public thinks so. The gap is repeatedly cited as a measure of how science-deniers are winning the public relations battle and how ignorant the U.S. people are on the issue. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
Maybe not. Is it really a surprise that nearly nine in ten scientists think a new invention is good for society? Not really. As Joel Achenbach explained in his otherwise good piece on science denial in National Geographic, we all suffer from "confirmation bias," the tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm our existing beliefs. True enough and guess what group scores high for confirmation bias in favor of new technology? Scientists. Honestly, I'm shocked that 12 percent of scientists (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif) think GMO food isn't safe.
What about that skeptical public? Are they really just ignorant and brainwashed? (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif) Or is their confirmation bias perhaps informed by their repeated experiences with big corporations telling them something is safe or good for them and finding out it's deadly. Who in the U.S. has not lost a family member or friend to smoking-related disease? Given the negligence of U.S. regulatory authorities in accepting industry claims of safety, is the public really so foolish to be skeptical, of both industry and government? (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif)
Washington University's Glenn Stone drove the scientific point home nicely about how long the process of scientific discovery of hazards can be. He documents how DDT was suspected as a cause of breast cancer but studies kept failing to find a link. This is, until 2007, when an intrepid researcher thought to ask if girls exposed to DDT during puberty had a higher risk of breast cancer. More than half a century after they were exposed, she found what no one else had: a five times greater risk in such girls and a significant additional risk in their female children.
On GMOs and labeling, Stone asks if all the evidence is really in just 20 years into this experiment. Are there comparable studies of GMO effects on pregnant or lactating women and developing infants and children? No, there are not.
No Consensus on Food Safety
For those still willing to look past the campaign slogans and slurs, science is still happening. My colleague at Tufts University, Sheldon Krimsky, examined peer-reviewed journal articles from 2008-2014. Contrary to the claims of consensus, he found 26 studies that showed significant cause for concern in animal studies, among many studies that showed no harm.
He identified clear evidence that proteins transferred into the genome of another plant species can generate allergic reactions even when the original transgene did not, a scientific finding that undermines industry claims that the transgenic process creates no instability in the genome. (Scientists even have a name for such a gene: an "intrinsically disordered protein)."
Krimsky found eight reviews of the literature and they showed anything but consensus. Three cited cause for concern from existing animal studies. Two found inadequate evidence of harm that could affect humans, justifying the U.S. government's principle that if GMO crops are "substantially equivalent" to their non-GMO counterparts, this is adequate to guarantee safety. Three reviews suggested that the evidence base is limited, the types of studies that have been done are inadequate to guarantee safety even if they show no harm and further study and improved testing is warranted.
What about the much-cited consensus among medical and scientific associations? Krimsky found no such agreement, just the same kind of wide variation in opinion, which he usefully ascribes to differing standards, methods and goals, not ignorance or brainwashing.
Krimsky goes out of his way, however, to document the industry-backed campaigns to discredit two scientific studies that found cause for concern and he warns of the anti-science impact such campaigns can have. "When there is a controversy about the risk of a consumer product, instead of denying the existence of certain studies, the negative results should be replicated to see if they hold up to rigorous testing."
That would have been a refreshing and depolarizing, industry response to the recent World Health Organization finding that Roundup Ready herbicides are a "probable human carcinogen." Instead of calling for further study to determine safe exposure levels, the industry called out its attack dogs to discredit the study.
Who here is really anti-science? (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/08/safe-gmo-labeling/
Agelbert comment: The "SAFE" law is duplicity in the Orwellian tradition of Empathy Deficit Disordered idiots that continue to corrupt our government and the media with double talk and dissembling.
Don't let them get away with it. Do your part to BANKRUPT the GMO corporations.
And don't forget to do your part to BANKRUPT Coca Cola. They have a very similar modus operandi.
"... Coca Cola is blatantly ignoring the well-documented evidence that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes." (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corporate-mendacity-and-duplicity/msg3706/#msg3706)
Huge corporations like Monsanto that have suspect agendas - such as selling poisons worldwide and screwing with the very fabric of Nature - have learned long ago how to implement a number of dirty tricks designed to fool authorities and the public into believing that their methods and products are safe.
One of the ways this is accomplished is through enlisting the services of "independent experts" who publicly back the claims of a company, assuring everyone that the products and practices of such a company have been proven to be safe or harmless through their own impartial scientific research.
The problem is that far too often, these so-called experts are anything but independent. In many cases, they are nothing more than paid shills who are hired to stack the deck in the company's favor.
Independent expert or corporate shill?
A recent case involving Monsanto and one of these allegedly objective scientific researchers is a perfect illustration of just how far from being independent many of these "experts" really are.
An August 6 article published by Nature.com details some of the results of an ongoing investigation by activist group US Right to Know, which aims to reveal "collusion between the agricultural biotechnology industry and academics who study science, economics and communication."
Part of the focus of the investigation is on a website called GMO Answers, which is financed by GMO industry giants including Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta.
One of the frequent contributors to the site is a University of Florida plant scientist named Kevin Folta, who labels himself as an "independent expert" in the field of GMOs.
Through the use of freedom of information laws, US Right to Know has been able to obtain the contents of thousands of emails exchanged between scientists such as Folta and GMO Answers, whose site the activist group considers a "straight-up marketing tool to spin GMOs in a positive light".
Folta's email correspondence revealed that he accepted a $25,000 grant from Monsanto last year and was told that the money "may be used at your discretion in support of your research and outreach projects."
He maintains he has no ties to Monsanto. As recently as two months ago - well after receiving the grant, the existence of which Folta has never personally disclosed - he said: "I have nothing to do with Monsanto." Earlier this year (also after receiving the money), he was quoted as saying that he has received "no research money from Monsanto, never any personal compensation for any talks."
He has avoided direct questions about the grant and has gone to lengths to deny any compensation, ridiculing allegations to the contrary.
It also appears that Folta was being prompted about what to say regarding their agenda by Monsanto's PR firm, Ketchum, which operates the GMO Answers site. In some cases, Ketchum even scripted his "responses" on the website.
From Nature.com:
...Folta's e-mails show him to be frequent contributor to GMO Answers. Ketchum employees repeatedly asked him to respond to common questions posed by biotechnology critics. In some cases, they even drafted answers for him. 'We want your responses to be authentically yours,' one Ketchum representative wrote in a message on 5 July 2013. 'Please feel free to edit or draft all-new responses.'
Part of Folta's response to this allegation was "I don't know if I used them, modified them or what."
It's abundantly clear that in this case, a private-sector scientist has completely compromised his credibility by denying that he was a paid propagandist for Monsanto. If it weren't for the efforts of US Right to Know, we would probably have never learned the truth.
What's important to understand is that Folta is just one of many sellouts who receive compensation from companies like Monsanto. Of course, the industry and the recipients of such compensation do their best to conceal their ties, but often legislators and regulation agencies depend on the the testimony of these scientific prostitutes when determining which policies to implement.
Pushing for transparency in these matters is an important part of the fight against Frankenfood companies like Monsanto. Organizations such as US Right to Know deserve the public's wholehearted appreciation and support.[/size][/color]
GMWatch.org (http://gmwatch.org/)
NOTE: This is posted here because Corporations are littered with psychopaths.
(http://www.spring.org.uk/images/psychopaths.jpg)
Which Professions Have The Most Psychopaths?
Are there 'successful psychopaths' amongst us?
According to a survey conducted by psychologist Kevin Dutton—called the Great British Psychopath Survey—here are the top 10 professions with the most psychopaths:
1.CEO
2.Lawyer
3.Media (TV/Radio)
4.Salesperson
5.Surgeon
6.Journalist
7.Police Officer
8.Clergyperson
9.Chef ( Agelbert NOTE: This is the only one that surprised me. Bon appetit! :P )
10.Civil Servant
And here are the professions with the least psychopaths:
1.Care Aide
2.Nurse
3.Therapist
4.Craftsperson
5.Beautician/Stylist
6.Charity Worker
7.Teacher
8.Creative Artist
9.Doctor
10.Accountant
Although people tend to think of psychopaths as killers—indeed about 15-25% of people in prison are psychopaths—in fact many people with psychopathic tendencies are not criminals.
Here are some of the traits of psychopaths:
◾Self-confident
◾Cold-hearted
◾Manipulative
◾Fearless
◾Charming
◾Cool under pressure
◾Egocentric
◾Carefree
If you look through the list of professions, then you can see how a few of these traits might be useful.
None of this means that every CEO or lawyer is a psychopath, nor should the suggestion be that having psychopathic tendencies is helpful in any of these jobs (although it may be!).
Rather, there is an overlap between psychopathic personality traits and the types of people who go into those professions.
Successful psychopath? : (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp)
A few people try to talk up the benefits of psychopathic personality traits, saying that there are such things as 'successful psychopaths': people who benefit from being that way.
But many psychologists have questioned whether there really is such a thing as a 'successful psychopath'.
That's because research has found that psychopaths generally do worse at the things that are often associated with success: their relationships are worse, they earn less money and do not generally attain high status (research described in Stevens et al., 2012).
Maybe the standard for a 'successful psychopath' should be lower. We should simply be amazed that someone with little or no fear response, unlimited confidence and without fellow-feeling can live outside of an institution, let alone become a respected professional. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)
http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/07/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths.php
10 Largest Companies 'Obstructing' Climate Policy
Cole Mellino | September 17, 2015 12:24 pm
New research reveals that nearly half (45 percent) of the world's 100 largest companies are "obstructing climate change legislation." And those that aren't actively obstructing climate policy are members of trade associations that do. A full 95 percent of these companies are members of trade associations "demonstrating the same obstructionist behavior."
With help from the Union of Concerned Scientists, UK-based nonprofit InfluenceMap has released a report identifying the best and worst of the world's major companies when it comes to climate policy.
"More and more, we're seeing companies rely on their trade groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive climate policies," said Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst at Union of concerned
Scientists. "Companies get the delay in policy they want, while preventing nations from acting to fight climate change. It is unacceptable that companies can obstruct climate action in this way without any accountability."
The researchers found that corporate influence over climate policies extended "beyond the activities normally associated with lobbying, including intervention in the public discourse on climate change science and policy via advertising, PR, social media, and access to decision makers, as well as the use of influencers, such as trade associations and advocacy groups."
The companies were graded on an A to F scale. None of the companies received an A. The top three companies, which all received a B, were Google, Unilever and Cisco Systems. GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Telekom, National Grid, Vodafone Group, Nestle, Apple and Anheuser Busch InBev rounded out the top 10. But even Apple, which has been praised in recent months for its sustainability efforts received a paltry C+. It should also be noted that of those top 13 companies, only three are headquartered in the U.S.: Google, Apple and Cisco Systems. The rest are headquartered in Europe.
"There is a lack of detailed analysis available in this area and sadly great companies sometimes do bad things by lobbying against government action to avoid dangerous climate change," said Paul Dickinson, executive chairman of CDP.
As mentioned early, nearly all of the companies (95 percent) are members of trade associations that are fighting against climate action. Those associations include BusinessEurope (recently under attack in the UK for their obstructionist stance towards climate legislation) and the secretive U.S. industry group, NEDA/CAP, "who have been suing the U.S. EPA to prevent them using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," according to InfluenceMap.
Other trade associations include the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), European Automobile Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Council of Australia and Japan 2 Business Federation.
InfluenceMap's research found that "despite their public communications, few corporations have actually supported the progressive climate policies being proposed by governments globally. There also remains a lack of transparency around their relationships with trade associations, with very few companies willing to publicly challenge them despite clear misalignment between their climate positions and the actions of the associations."
The companies receiving the lowest grades come as no surprise. Among them are major fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, BP, Duke Energy and Phillips 66. And at the bottom of the list is climate denying extraordinaire Koch Industries. Interestingly, two media companies even make the list: 21st Century Fox and Comcast.
Here are the 10 worst companies on InfluenceMap's list:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/ (http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/)
Agelbert Comment: Also obstructing the massive and drastic government action required to reduce the present high probability of N.T.H.E. (Near Term Human Extinction). due to the failure of incremental measures to prevent deleterious positive feedback loops (that will produce catastrophic climate change) are the irresponsible and criminally negligent people that continue to defend incremental measures.
The responsibility to care for and preserve the biosphere on behalf of future generations, including returning it to the healthy state it was in over a century ago when we began to severely pollute it, is not optional (unless you are an Empathy Deficit Disordered Evolutionary Dead End).
Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, a world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.
The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo)
France + Russia Ban GMOs ;D
Lorraine Chow | September 18, 2015 11:40 am
According to RT, Russia is stamping out any GMOs in its entire food production.
"As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have made decision not to use any GMO in food productions," Russia's Deputy PM Arkady Dvorkovich announced at an international conference on biotechnology in the city of Kirov.
Dvorkovich added that there is a clear difference between the use of GMO-products for food versus scientific or medicinal purposes, RT reported.
"This is not a simple issue, we must do very thorough work on division on these spheres and form a legal base on this foundation," he said.
Russia already has hardline policies against GMOs. In 2012, Russia banned imports (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) of Monsanto's corn after a French study linked the company's GMO-product to tumors in lab rats (the study was later retracted). Last year, the country banned imports of GMO products, with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying the nation already has the resources to produce its own non-GMO fare. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
"If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don't need to do that; (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food," said Medvedev. (And in case you're wondering, Russian president Vladimir Putin is also anti-GMO). ;D
The percentage of GMOs currently present in the Russian food industry is at a mere 0.01 percent, RT observed.
Russia's latest move comes after similar news pouring in from Western Europe in recent weeks.
On Thursday, France followed in the footsteps of other European Union countries—Scotland, Germany, Latvia and Greece—and has chosen the "opt-out" clause of a EU rule passed in March that allows its 28-member bloc to abstain from growing GMO crops, even if they are already authorized to be grown within the union.
Specifically, the country wants to shut out the cultivation of nine GMO maize strains within its borders, according to yesterday's joint statement from Ségolène Royal, France's Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, and Stéphane Le Foll, the Minister of Agriculture and Energy.
"It is part of the very important progress made by the new European framework on the implementation of GMO cultivation in which France played a leading role," the statement reads (via translation from Sustainable Pulse). "This directive makes it possible for Member States to request the exclusion of their territorial scope of existing authorizations or of those under consideration."
France's latest GMO-sweep also singles out Monsanto's MON 810 maize, the only GMO crop grown in Europe, and is currently under review at the European level, Reuters reported.
France, which is the EU's largest grain grower and exporter, is further cementing its anti-GMO sentiments with this latest move. The country already prohibits the cultivation of any variety of genetically modified maize due to environmental concerns.
Monsanto, which maintains the safety of their products ;), has said it will abide by the requests from the growing wave of European countries turning their backs on these controversial crops. The agribusiness giant, however, recently accused Latvia and Greece of ignoring science and refusing GMOs out of "arbitrary political grounds." (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)
In a statement, Monsanto said that the move from the two countries "contradicts and undermines the scientific consensus on the safety of MON810."
Meanwhile, much-maligned company didn't have a total loss this week. According to Politico EU, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety—a key committee in the European Parliament—"rejected a proposal Tuesday to halt an extension in the use of the world's most popular weedkiller," aka Roundup, Monsanto's flagship herbicide. >:(
http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/18/france-russia-ban-gmos/
County in Oregon Sued for Banning GMO Crops
Just one day before Josephine County, Oregon made history by enforcing a ban on genetically-modified foods, two farmers filed a lawsuit against the county for its GMO-Free regulations. The lawsuit was filed on September 4 by Robert A. White Jr. and Shelley White, two farmers who grew genetically-engineered sugar beets, just one day before the county became completely GMO-free. In addition to getting the regulators to overturn the "Genetically-Engineered Plant Ordinance", the lawsuit requires that Josephine County suspend their GMO-free regulations until the lawsuit has been decided.
In their lawsuit documents the farmers state: "The Ordinance conflicts with Oregon State law, and, among other things, requires farmers to destroy valuable crops they have planted, cultivated, and plan to sell. The Ordinance also, among other things, prohibits the growing of GE plants in the future and thereby interferes with the livelihood of many farmers." (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif) However, the ordinance was passed on May 20, 2014, giving the farmers two seasons to grow and harvest their genetically-modified sugar beets and switch to a different crop or a non-genetically-modified beet crop.
The "Oregon State law" cited in the legal documents likely refers to Oregon's new legislation which bans local bans on genetically-modified crops which came into place after Josephine County passed its law banning genetically-modified crops from its county. However, there are allegations that the state legislation may have been illegally backdated in an effort to stop Josephine County from becoming a GMO-free zone. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)
This isn't the first lawsuit the county has faced after passing the anti-GMO legislation. Syngenta, one of the world's largest genetically-modified seeds manufacturers and crop chemical producers, spent $800,000 in an effort to force Josephine County, a county of approximately 83,000 citizens, to overturn the legislation. Syngenta moved its genetically-modified sugar beet crops out of Josephine County and moved its warehouse and offices out of the region.
The lawsuit documents state that the Ordinance "prohibits (the Whites) from engaging in a livelihood which, but for the Ordinance, (they) have a right to engage." Only sentences later, the same documents indicate that they are continuing their work as farmers, having "now planted with a much less lucrative crop."
Additionally, the lawsuit documents insists that the court force Josephine County to declare their Ordinance "invalid and unenforceable" which if decided in their favor would force the county and its residents to be further subjected to genetically-modified crops and any possible health or environmental damage that may ensue. That requirement would allow the growing of crops like Bt corn (short for Bacillus thuringiensis corn), a form of genetically-modified corn which, according to reports, actually "produces insecticidal toxins from inside every cell of the plant."
Genetically-modified crops may also subject the residents of the area to pesticides like glyphosate, which goes by the brand names Roundup (manufactured by Monsanto), Accord (manufactured by Dow Agrosciences LLC), Touchdown (manufactured by Syngenta) and Rodeo (manufactured by Dow Agrosciences LLC). Earlier this year glyphosate was declared a probable carcinogen to humans by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer.
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/county-in-oregon-sued-for-banning-gmo-crops.html#ixzz3m9CzJaTu
(http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2.jpg)
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png)
VIDEO: Bernie Sanders Champions Democratic Socialism in Major Speech at Georgetown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slkQohGDQCI&feature=player_embedded
Agelbert COMMENT: Ever since Bernays got the cigarette companies to pay women models to march with "libery torches" in the early 1930's, Americans have been continually convinced to act against their health and their democracy for the profits of the elite predators.
In a sane world the average person would OBVIOUSLY favor Socialism. But Bernays Propaganda, through Madison Avenue, and FUNDED by all the elite enemies of democracy (fossil fuel, mining, chemical, tobacco, cancer -see useless nuclear medicine and nerve gas derived chemotherapy - industries, etc. et al) have succeeded in making Americans believe that GREED IS GOOD and GREED IS GOD.
So, of course, Americans continue to shoot themselves in the foot. The ethics free predators have succeeded in colonizing American brains with fecal coliforms. IOW, most Americans, especially those who would benefit most from socialism, have been brainwashed with bullshit.
The elite predators laugh all the way to the fossil fuel government fascist bank.
The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL Court System is its HANDMAIDEN (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2122/#msg2122)
Learned ethics free counselor tell us how Exxon did what they did, as if that's just fine and dandy: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Vol. 18:151 The purpose of this comment is to describe the history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle mass environmental litigation. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2123/#msg2123)
The USA has a Selected, not elected, Representative Government representing the WILL of the elite Oligarchy (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corruption-in-government/msg2365/#msg2365)
Business-Managed Democracy: The Transnational Class (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif)
It would be a mistake to assume that today's global elite is defined by solely by its wealth. Rather it is a transnational corporate class made up of top corporate executives wielding power founded in the giant institutions they command together with individuals and families who have derived great wealth from business enterprises.
This transnational corporate class organises and runs the business coalitions where common goals and strategies are worked out; coordinates the public relations specialists, think tanks and media outlets that manipulate public opinion; sets the agendas for policy groups; guides their policy recommendations onto government agendas; fills executive positions in successive government administrations and as government advisors; and thereby ensures public policy outcomes that are conducive to the business interests they favour. In this way governments are intimately connected with this business power elite. [1]
Since the 1970s corporate executives have begun to act as a class with a shared ideology rather than a collection of competing companies with some common business interests. In his book The Inner Circle, written in the 1980s, Michael Useem claimed that whilst "a sense of class affinity based on company stewardship can hardly be said to be new, the strength of the bond has increased and a select circle of those in corporate power are now far more willing to work towards goals that serve all large companies." His study of the US and UK found that even at that time large corporations were becoming more and more interrelated through shared directors and common institutional investors. [2]
The inner circle are powerful within the corporate community because of their top level management positions within large corporations, their board membership of other large corporations, and their leadership positions in business associations. Because of these multiple positions they are able to network with others in similar positions and mobilize resources and express support for political goals shared by others in the circle. Their views tend to "reflect the broader thinking of the business community" rather than the concerns of an individual company. [3]
Susan George has referred to this inner circle as the Davos Class (referring to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos). She describes them as "interchangeable, international, individually wealthy, nomadic, with common attributes, speaking a common language and sharing a common ideology".
Interlocking Directorates - See more at: http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=7593#sthash.Bcm2mt19.dpuf (http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=7593#sthash.Bcm2mt19.dpuf)
Post by: AGelbert on April 12, 2016, 12:08:08 am
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find, PROOF that those fine folks who control the University of Texas investment strategy are biosphere math challenged fossil fuelers. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
University of Texas hopes to cash in on falling shale production costs (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp)
Staff Writers April 8, 2016
The University of Texas is hoping to leverage falling upstream costs to boost the value of its oil and gas assets.
In an interview with Bloomberg, University Lands executive vice-chancellor for business affairs said UT is looking to take advantage of falling shale production costs to adjust its lease model, a move the university hopes will boost the value of the 2.1 million acres it currently holds.
"In the new scheme of things, not only do we have 2 million acres of land, but if there are two to four plays based on various depths in the shale formations, we might have the equivalent of 6 to 8 million acres of land," Kelley said.
University Lands is under the direction of the Office of Business Affairs of the University of Texas System and is responsible for managing the Permanent University Fund lands and the Trust Minerals.
Oil revenues earned by UT are placed into the Permanent University Fund.
There are currently about 9,000 wells operating on university land and consultants for University Lands have identified an additional 21,000 potential sites, Bloomberg said.
According to data compiled by Bloomberg, UT and Texas A&M earned about $800,000 in oil and gas royalty revenue per day in 2015, down from a peak of just over $1.1 million in 2014. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif)
University Lands CEO Mark Houser told the news agency that he is also focused on renegotiating leases for sites that have not been drilled yet. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp)
"We've got to know our assets better. We need to understand what the potential is," Houser (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif) said.
http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/04/university-texas-hopes-cash-falling-shale-production-costs/
University Lands CEO Mark Houser has his morning Joe.
Puerto Rico: Where Wall Street Perfected the Neoliberal Asset Stripping Mens Rea Modus Operandi
(http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-11-at-10.03.46-AM.jpg)
John Oliver: We Have to Start Treating Puerto Rico Like an Island of American Citizens (Video)
The "Last Week Tonight" host outlines the Puerto Rico debt crisis and calls on Lin-Manuel Miranda, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and star of the Broadway hit "Hamilton," to explain just how dire the situation in the U.S. territory is.
https://youtu.be/Tt-mpuR_QHQ
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_we_have_to_start_treating_puerto_rico_like_an_island_20160425 (http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_we_have_to_start_treating_puerto_rico_like_an_island_20160425)
How Puerto Rico became a Corporate Goldmine - while Simultaneously the Corporate Media peddled the LIE that it is an economic basket case (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corruption-in-government/msg4135/#msg4135)
Meet The Gene Police
The World According To Monsanto is the film that puts all the pieces together: How Monsanto Gets Away With It. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif)
https://youtu.be/aK7gAZS0lbY
The background is explored-- and exposed. Monsanto started out as a chemical company, the largest one in the 20th century. This is their history: how scientific studies were falsified, how whistle blowers were destroyed,how farmers all over the world are being served lawsuits, their livelihoods crushed...and we are eating the Frankenfood.
They have established a new and terrifying norm: that seed can be owned as property,
The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the "revolving door". One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company's vice president for public policy. How convenient.
Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted genetically engineered foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety.
In this film you will actually see George Bush Sr. joke with Monsanto higher- ups about their products coming to market: "Don't worry, we're in the dereg business!"
Indiana farmer Troy Roush, who's life and farm of three generations was devastated when Monsanto claimed he was saving their seed says: "They've created an industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers lives. They want to control the seed. They want to own life. These are the building blocks of food we're talking about. They are in the process of owning food. All food."
See this film and spread the word to everyone you know. It is crucial that we understand this is not a science fiction movie: this is true, and going on now.
This film was produced by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin
- See more at: http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/what-isnt-working-1/the-world-according-.html#sthash.DQqTfnjQ.dpuf
For sale: Systems that can secretly track where cellphone users go around the globe (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp)
The technology works by exploiting an essential fact of all cellular networks: They must keep detailed, up-to-the-minute records on the locations of their customers to deliver calls and other services to them. Surveillance systems are secretly collecting these records to map people's travels over days, weeks or longer, according to company marketing documents and experts in surveillance technology.
The world's most powerful intelligence services, such as the National Security Agency and Britain's GCHQ, long have used cellphone data to track targets around the globe. But experts say these new systems allow less technically advanced governments to track people in any nation — including the United States — with relative ease and precision.
Users of such technology type a phone number into a computer portal, which then collects information from the location databases maintained by cellular carriers, company documents show. In this way, the surveillance system learns which cell tower a target is currently using, revealing his or her location to within a few blocks in an urban area or a few miles in a rural one.
It is unclear which governments have acquired these tracking systems, but one industry official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive trade information, said that dozens of countries have bought or leased such technology in recent years. This rapid spread underscores how the burgeoning, multibillion-dollar surveillance industry makes advanced spying technology available worldwide.
Security experts say hackers, sophisticated criminal gangs and nations under sanctions also could use this tracking technology, which operates in a legal gray area. It is illegal in many countries to track people without their consent or a court order, but there is no clear international legal standard for secretly tracking people in other countries, nor is there a global entity with the authority to police potential abuses.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/for-sale-systems-that-can-secretly-track-where-cellphone-users-go-around-the-globe/2014/08/24/f0700e8a-f003-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html?wpisrc=nl_az_most
2000 Groups Urge Congress to Reject TPP Trade Deal
While action on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal has been dormant during the presidential primary, 450 environmental groups just sent a letter to Congress, urging them to reject it.
The letter follows one from 1525 civil society organizations in May, which points to threats to American jobs and wages, the environment, food safety and public health.
President Obama hopes to have the TPP ratified before he leaves office and Congress is expected to vote on it after the November elections.
The environmental community fears the TPP will kill the movement on climate change because it would make it so easy for fossil companies and polluters of all kinds to challenge government regulations and gains made by grassroots activists after long fought battles.
(http://otherwords.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hightower-TPP-backroom-deal-for-one-percent-GlobalTradeWatch-600x450.jpg)
VIDEO: Scientists under attack: Sinister operations by Monsanto
Science is neutral, right? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)
Companies like Monsanto use gangster tactics to go after scientists who publish studies calling the safety of GMOs in to question.
This is a very difficult movie to get your hands on. It's taken down often. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)
If you think you know how bad companies like Monsanto are, you don't know the half of it.
http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/gmo-food-politics/scientists-under-attack.html
PLEASE watch this video and PASS IT ON. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif)
Senator Elizabeth Warren took Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf to task yesterday
Ever since the "Greed Is Good" era of the 1980s, the motto for big business in America has been simple: forget the employees, forget the customers, forget the products, forget the environment, forget the community, and forget ethics in general. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif)
Forget all of those things, the new motto is "do whatever it takes to pump up the stock value and guarantee big payouts to the CEO and senior executives".
And if anything goes wrong, like it did at Wells Fargo, there's plenty of scapegoats at the bottom of the business who can take the fall.
"[Y]ou squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket. And when it all blew up, you kept your job, you kept your multimillion dollar bonuses and you went on television to blame thousands of $12 an hour employees who were just trying to meet cross-sell quotas that made you rich. This is about accountability. You should resign. You should give back the money that you took while this scam was going on and you should be criminally investigated by both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission."
Warren's right to call for a criminal investigation, but without more support from Republicans in Congress, this may sadly just have been another impassioned speech rattling around the halls of Congress, and not a catalyst for real change.
How To Take On the Banksters
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/09/how-take-banksters
(http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/monsanto-roundup-cancer-696x497.jpg)
Monsanto's Roundup Must Carry Cancer Warning Label, Judge Decrees (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif)
February 14, 2017 | 137,632 views
Roundup isn't the only weed killer that would have to bear the Prop 65 warning label. Glyphosate is also found in Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, Aquamaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp,Touchdown, Total Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II and others.
'The pesticide industry recognizes it's on the defensive,' said environmental lawyer Charlie Tebbutt. 'It's doing everything it can to transform reality.' As the post-truth Trump team (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) looks set to dismantle environmental regulations and the protections they bring to the public, it's likely the chemical industry will only continue to elevate alternative facts. We all will need to work harder than ever to see through the spin."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/02/14/monsantos-roundup-cancer-warning-label.aspx
UN scientists denounce 'myth' that we need pesticides to feed the world
Alexandra Gerea March 8, 2017
A surprising report from the UN warns of the catastrophic consequences pesticides can have (and are already having) on the world. The report claims that due to 'systematic denial of harms' and 'unethical marketing tactics' pesticide usage is doing more harm than good and the idea that we need pesticides to feed the world is a myth.
"Defined as any substance or mixture of substances of chemical and biological ingredients intended to repel, destroy or control any pest or regulate plant growth, pesticides are responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, 99 per cent of which occur in developing countries, where health, safety and environmental regulations are weaker and less strictly applied," the report starts out. "Despite the harms associated with excessive and unsafe pesticide practices, it is commonly argued that intensive industrial agriculture, which is heavily reliant on pesticide inputs, is necessary to increase yields to feed a growing world population, particularly in the light of negative climate change impacts and global scarcity of farmlands."
... but there are other aspects to consider, just as vital to our global food security. For starters, Hilal Elver, the UN's special rapporteur on the right to food, says that much of the world's crops are not being used to feed the people, but rather to support cheaper products in the developed world. Commodity products such as soy (often used to feed animals) and palm oil (used in everything from pastry to pre-cooked meals) are taking the place of other plants, which could be used to feed local communities. This, says Elver, is the main blame of the corporations:
"The corporations are not dealing with world hunger, they are dealing with more agricultural activity on large scales."
http://www.zmescience.com/science/agriculture-science/pesticides-feeding-08032017/
4 Tactics Used by Monsanto to Undermine Potential Link Between Glyphosate and Cancer
By Genna Reed
Genna Reed (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png) is a science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Emails unsealed in a California lawsuit last week reveal that agribusiness giant Monsanto engaged in activities aimed at undermining efforts to evaluate a potential link between glyphosate—the active ingredient of the company's popular herbicide Roundup—and cancer. The documents reveal the company's plans to seed the scientific literature with a ghostwritten study and its efforts to delay and prevent U.S. government assessments of the product's safety.
Many corporate actors, including the sugar industry, the oil and gas industries and the tobacco industry, have used tactics such as denying scientific evidence, attacking individual scientists, interfering in government decision-making processes and manufacturing counterfeit science through ghostwriting to try to convince policymakers and the public of their products' safety in the face of independent scientific evidence to the contrary. This case underscores the urgent need for greater transparency and tighter protections to prevent these kinds of corporate disinformation tactics that could put the public at risk.
High Stakes in Glyphosate-Cancer Link
The case centers on the scientific question of whether glyphosate causes a type of cancer known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the California lawsuit in which the key company documents were unsealed, plaintiffs with non-Hodgkin lymphoma claim that their disease is linked to glyphosate exposure.
The science is still unclear on this question. The EPA's issue paper on this topic said that glyphosate is "not likely carcinogenic," but some of its Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) members point to critical data gaps and even suggest that there is "limited but suggestive evidence of a positive association" between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemical Agency have both concluded that scientific evidence does not support classifying glyphosate as a carcinogen. More than 94 scientists from institutions across the world have called for changes to EFSA's scientific evaluation process.
It's complex. What is clear, however, is that independent science bodies should be conducting their assessments on glyphosate without interference from outside players with a stake in the final determination.
The stakes for public health—and for Monsanto's bottom line—are enormous. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. Sold by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup, it is the company's flagship product. U.S. farmers spray nearly 300 million pounds of it on corn, soybeans and a variety of other crops every year to kill weeds. It is also commonly used in the U.S. for residential lawn care. As a result of its widespread use, traces of Roundup have been found in streams and other waterways and in our food and farmers and farmworkers are at risk for potentially heavy exposure to the chemical. (More on the ramifications of its agricultural use and the related acceleration of herbicide-resistant weeds here).
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F66PxaSGNyM/UsVwtcJMdRI/AAAAAAAA9uE/2t2MW9yYTrw/s1600/11shark-lawyers.gif)
Setting the Scene for Science Manipulation
In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began a compulsory risk assessment of glyphosate as part of its pesticide reregistration process. The agency's process risked the possibility that the chemical could be listed as a possible carcinogen, as the agency is required to review new evidence since its last review in the mid-1990s and determine whether it will cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment and human health. From Monsanto's standpoint, such a classification change posed a clear threat for its lucrative product, possibly resulting in changes to labels and public perception of the product's safety that could tarnish the brand's image.
Compounding the companies' woes, in March 2015, the United Nations-sponsored International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released an assessment concluding that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen after evaluating the available scientific research on glyphosate's link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and myeloma. IARC recommended that glyphosate be classified as a 2A carcinogen, along with pesticides like DDT and malathion. IARC's was a science-based determination, not regulatory in nature. But the IARC assessment, the pending EPA review and a slated evaluation by yet another U.S. agency—the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—appears to have spurred Monsanto to use at least four separate tactics to inappropriately influence public perception and the assessment process.
(http://i.imgur.com/9DqiHlb.png)
Tactic 1: Suppress the Science
In one disturbing revelation, the emails suggest that Monsanto representatives had frequent communications with a U.S. government official: Jess Rowland, former associate director of the Health Effects Division at the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and chair of the agency's Cancer Assessment Review Committee. Internal Monsanto emails indicate that Rowland tipped the company off to the IARC assessment before its release. The emails also quote Rowland as saying he would work to quash the ATSDR study on glyphosate, reportedly telling Monsanto officials: "If I can kill this I should get a medal." The emails suggest that Monsanto was working with staff inside a U.S. government agency, outside of the established areas of public input to decision-making processes, in a completely inappropriate manner.
Tactic 2: Attack (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) the Messenger
Immediately following the IARC assessment, Monsanto not only disputed the findings but attacked the IARC's credibility, trying to discredit the internationally renowned agency by claiming it had fallen prey to "agenda-driven bias." The IARC's working group members were shocked by Monsanto's allegations questioning their credibility. IARC relies on data that are in the public domain and follows criteria to evaluate the relevance and independence of each study it cites. As one IARC member, epidemiologist Francesco Forastiere, explained: "… none of us had a political agenda. We simply acted as scientists, evaluating the body of evidence, according to the criteria." Despite Monsanto's attacks, the IARC continues to stand by the conclusions of its 2015 assessment.
(http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg)
Tactic 3: Manufacture Counterfeit Science
In perhaps the most troubling revelation, emails show that in February 2015, Monsanto discussed manufacturing counterfeit science—ghostwriting a study for the scientific literature that would downplay the human health impacts of glyphosate and misrepresenting its independence. William Heydens, a Monsanto executive, suggested that the company could keep costs down by writing an article on the toxicity of glyphosate and having paid academics "edit & sign their names so to speak" and recommended that the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology be contacted since the company "had done such a publication in the past" at that journal.
The 2000 paper Heydens referenced, the lead author of which is a faculty member at New York Medical College (NYMC), cites Monsanto studies, thanks Monsanto for "scientific support," but fails to disclose Monsanto funding or other direct involvement in its publication. That paper concluded that, "Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans." After a quick investigation to assess the integrity of this study, NYMC announced that there was "no evidence" that the faculty member had broken with the school's policy not to author ghostwritten studies.
Tactic 4: Undermine (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/shame.gif) (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg) ;) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) Independent Scientific Assessment
The emails and other court documents also document the ways in which Monsanto worked to prevent EPA's use of a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to review the agency's issue paper on glyphosate's cancer risk and to delay and help shape the SAP findings through suggested changes to the composition of the panel. Within the unsealed emails, Monsanto mentioned that it opposed the EPA's plan to create a SAP to review glyphosate because "the scope is more likely than not to be more comprehensive than just IARC … SAPs add significant delay, create legal vulnerabilities and are a flawed process that is probable to result in a panel and determinations that are scientifically questionable and will only result in greater uncertainty." This is a bogus claim. Scientific Advisory Panels, when they are fully independent, are a critical source of science advice.
EPA's SAP meetings on glyphosate, scheduled to begin in October 2016, were postponed just a few days before they were slated to start. This occurred after intense lobbying from CropLife America, an agrichemical trade organization representing Monsanto and other pesticide makers, which questioned the motives of the SAP looking into the health impacts of glyphosate. CropLife submitted several comments to the EPA, including one that attacked the integrity of a nominated SAP scientist. The agency subsequently announced the scientist's removal from the panel in November 2016, one month before the rescheduled meetings took place.
Simultaneously, Monsanto created its own "expert panel" (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif) in July 2015 composed of 16 individuals, some scientists and some lobbyists, only four of whom have never been employed by or consulted with Monsanto. Who needs independent assessments when you have ready, willing and substantially funded agribusiness scientists who call themselves "independent"?
Defending the Scientific Process
The revelations from the unsealed Monsanto emails underscore the vital need for independent science and transparency to ensure credibility, foster public trust in our system of science-based policymaking and prevent entities like Monsanto from undermining objective scientific assessments. Clearly, better controls and oversight are needed to safeguard the scientific process from tactics like ghostwriting and more transparency and accountability are needed to ensure that scientific bodies are able to adequately assess the risks and benefits of any given product. Given what is now known about Monsanto's actions, the need for independently conducted research and impartial science-based assessments about glyphosate's safety is more important than ever.
http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-cancer-link-2326735532.html
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Discusses Monsanto skullduggery - the surfactants in Glyphosate are even MORE dangerous than the already known carcinogenic glyphosate! >:( - Glyphosate is in BREAKFAST CEREAL! :o
https://youtu.be/gR98BFdQ02s
Thom sits down with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Chief Prosecuting Attorney - Hudson Riverkeeper and President - Waterkeeper Alliance, Author - Framed: Why Michael Skakel Spent Over a Decade in Prison For a Murder He Didn't Commit) to talk about the dangers of glyphosate, a major ingredient in the pesticide RoundUp (a Monsanto product).
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100216204839.gif)
As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes more silent
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016
(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/d2.gif) (http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1375371542_tumblr_m7jevgcaFm1qzqdem.gif)
Mediamatters.org, March 17, 2017
In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.
Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016
Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50 minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of about 66 percent.
*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program
As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in 2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015 to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27 minutes in 2016).
Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016. Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on "a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election" given the stark contrast between the candidates' views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues, including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump pledging that he would put coal miners "back to work" and Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016, including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as "the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy"); the signing of the Paris climate agreement and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far; and investigations by state attorneys general into whether ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The Huffington Post, 9/8/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; Media Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post, 4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]
ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a significant amount of coverage to Trump's presidency, airing 25 segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of these segments aired after the election. Examples of post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about Trump's selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt's history of climate denial and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump's promise to roll back President Barack Obama's executive actions on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News, 11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]
**We included citations of specific shows when we described the content of a segment. We did not include show citations for general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available online but listed only the date for those that were not.
PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham discussed "what a Clinton or Trump administration might mean with regards to climate change" with The New York Times' Coral Davenport and The Washington Post's Chris Mooney. And a September 22 segment explored "what the early days of a Trump presidency might look like" and featured Judy Woodruff interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour, 9/22/16, 9/7/16]
***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a week and is a half hour longer.
Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed election-related issues coverage on the major networks' weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report defines election-related issues coverage as that which "takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy." [The Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report, 10/25/16]
Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November 8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per week.
Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants And Wildlife.
Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have sounded the alarm on climate change's connection to national security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence community stated, "Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years." And following Trump's election victory, "a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump's transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security," E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of climate change never came up in any of the networks' climate coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American, 11/15/16]
PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state's carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington's shellfish industry "has left the state and gone to Hawaii because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much." And on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham reported that 365 American companies "have written to the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords and warning -- quote -- 'Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.'" [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16, 10/20/16, 11/17/16]
Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public Health.
The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all concluded that climate change has a significant influence on human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate Signals found that "climate change creates new risks for human exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive." However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the link between climate change and public health -- no other network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, "Researchers are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing certain mosquitoes populations to grow." And a July 4 report about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, "The debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth, but scientists say there are many factors including population growth and climate change." [World Health Organization, accessed 3/21/17; CDC.gov, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment, accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News, 1/18/16, 7/4/16]
CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather, While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires -- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called "the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy." Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central, 11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]
PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On Plants And Wildlife.
PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting included a "Climate Diaries" segment on CBS Evening News about how climate change is "taking a toll on endangered mountain gorillas" in Central Africa by making their food supply less predictable and forcing human populations searching for water into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment reporting that "two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related pollinating species are heading toward extinction" thanks to "a range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change to habitat loss." [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News, 5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]
Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage Outside Of PBS
The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants and serves as the linchpin of President Obama's program to meet the nation's emissions reduction obligation under the Paris agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the Democrats' focus on the plan is an example of how "environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic Party this year," because Trump carried coal-dependent states in the election. But contrary to Lane's claim, numerous polls conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue and favor government action to address it. On nightly news shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two segments). [DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15; The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media Matters, 11/29/16]
PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195 nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing the climate accord. In Trump's first major speech on energy policy, in May, he vowed that he would "cancel" the Paris climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York Times, "I have an open mind to it." Despite these developments, PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16; The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; BBC.com, 5/27/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 5/26/16; The New York Times, 11/23/16]
CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All. During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than average and would "increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming" from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL's link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider, 9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]
Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016, citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by saying that he would "ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he stands on climate change." After returning from a commercial break, Wallace said to the Trump, "Let me ask you a couple specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Army just stopped?" To which Trump replied that he was "studying" the Paris climate agreement and would "have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly" when he takes office. ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments, respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News Sunday, 12/11/16]
Major Networks Completely Ignored The "Exxon Knew" Story. Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon's own scientists had confirmed by the early 1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became known as the "Exxon knew" scandal. The reports prompted the attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]
CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png)
CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News Sunday's climate-related segments included climate denial. In every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting denial.
• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26 presidential debate in which Clinton stated, "Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real," and Trump interjected, "I did not. I did not. … I do not say that." Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the veracity of Trump's statement that climate change was a hoax. [CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]
• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on world leaders' reactions to Trump's election victory, correspondent Margaret Warner reported, "Also in question is America's participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in place for ignoring it." And in a report on the ways in which Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated, "Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: 'The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.' Two years later, he wrote: 'Global warming is an expensive hoax.'" In neither instance did the correspondent note that Trump's statements are at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]
• Shortly after Trump's interview with The New York Times in which he stated that he had an "open mind" (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif) on climate change and the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace asked Trump's incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus answered that as "far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png), but he'll have an open mind and listen to people." Priebus then moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And during Wallace's interview with Trump on the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that "nobody really knows" whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace didn't challenge Trump's claim that blatantly misrepresents the consensus of the world's leading scientific institutions that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16; NASA.gov, accessed 3/21/17]
Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these statements were at odds with established climate science.
• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8 edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, "Pruitt is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues, including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing in the National Review this year, he said: 'That debate is far from settled. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.' In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas emissions." And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour, Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director for the Republican National Committee, "Does the president-elect still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the science behind climate change is still not settled, in other words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely correct?" Spicer replied by denying the consensus on human-caused climate change, stating that Trump "understands that there's elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is something there is some dispute about within the community, not just science, but within the industry." [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16, 12/14/16]
• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump's EPA transition team featured footage of Trump calling climate change a "hoax," followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, "President-elect Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil fuels." [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]
• The December 14 edition of ABC's World News Tonight featured footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying climate change by arguing, "There was overwhelming science that the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community." Correspondent Brian Ross introduced Scaramucci's comments as "a Trump transition official continu[ing] the public assault on established science." [ABC's World News Tonight, 11/14/16]
Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science, they were not counted as denial in our study.
Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC's World News Tonight … Again
For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC's World News Tonight Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC's World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.
Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in 2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their climate-related coverage.
PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that featured scientists explaining climate change's influence on wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research, including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments on climate-related research, and ABC's World News Tonight aired just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS Evening News, 3/4/16]
Sunday Shows' Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent
Every Network's Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows' climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four minutes).
Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up climate change significantly more often than the hosts themselves did. ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, and NBC's Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows. Because our study counted only those segments where a media figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.
Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015
NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately 73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of 46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes. ABC's World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes in 2016.
For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five), CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour's climate coverage decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related segments.
CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage In Early Months Of 2017 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg) ::)
In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its "Climate Diaries" series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]
In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016. In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as much as the show aired for all of 2016.
This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week, compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows (PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention "climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate change; because the segment provided other clear indications that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.
Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure) about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage. However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows, which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics, we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute. Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other networks' nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.
Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to this study.
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/23/how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-change-2016/215718
Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist Wrecking Crew (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) is in such a hurry to DEFUND PBS. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/be/bead363502f8e7564038c7072c490cfc0da55bf30c42bb1f04983157e9ae7125.jpg)
Agelbert NOTE: As a former Air Traffic controller, I can tell you that "privatizing" ATC is an insane idea. WHY do the airlines want it? Because the major air carriers will then arrange to get priority for landing and to to elbow out small operators, and small aircraft too, form being able to use airports. THAT means LESS frequent flights, LESS choice for flights AND HIGHER coast for flying. Have a nice day.
https://youtu.be/-0y5EZgD9q0
Some of the hardest info to find on earth
This is not a short video, but it is very clear and very well presented. Please take the time to watch it.
This is some of the hardest info to find on earth...
What US food packagers actually put in their "food products."
If you are vulnerable - and many millions are - you may be being set up for serious neurological problems.
This especially effects small children, the elderly, and the chronically ill, but it's a danger to all.
Why haven't you heard this before?
The packaged food industry is bigger than the oil industry and they employ floors full of attorneys and public relations scammers to suppress this information.
Even Ralph Nader couldn't stand the heat when he approached this topic.
The author is a retired neurosurgeon, and author of the book "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", Dr. Russell Blaylock.
Essential viewing for your health
The every day poisons in packaged food
https://youtu.be/tTSvlGniHok
http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/food-choices/essential-viewing-for-your-health.html
Court Rules Against General Mills Motion to Dismiss, Says It's Reasonable Consumers Wouldn't Consider Glyphosate-Containing Nature Valley Granola Bars 'Natural' (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif)
Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides announced Monday that the District of Columbia Superior Court has rejected General Mills' motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the three nonprofits against the maker of Nature Valley granola bars. The recent ruling upholds the right of nonprofits to bring these types of complaints against corporations. It also reinforces the notion that consumers can reasonably expect a product labeled "100% Natural" to be free of herbicides.
These three nonprofit groups sued General Mills in August 2016, for misleading the public by labeling Nature Valley brand granola bars as "Made with 100% NATURAL whole grain OATS" after tests revealed the presence of the chemical herbicide glyphosate, an ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and hundreds of other glyphosate-based herbicides. The suit was brought on behalf of the nonprofits' members in Washington, DC, under the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
"This is a huge win for consumers," said Organic Consumers Association's international director Ronnie Cummins. "In making this ruling, the judge reinforced the right of consumers to have reasonable expectations about what a company means by 'natural.' The 'natural' food industry is estimated at $90 billion a year. By slapping the word 'natural' on products that contain pesticides and other unnatural substances, corporations deceive consumers, and cut into the market share for authentically labeled healthy and certified organic products."
Key findings from the DC Superior Court ruling include:
The Court recognized that the 2012 Amendments to the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) may have expanded the means by which nonprofits may bring representative actions.
The Court rejected General Mills' argument that courts should defer to the FDA on possible future ruling re: "natural" food labeling, holding that it was up to the courts to decide what is or isn't misleading to consumers.
The Court also noted that it does not appear likely that the FDA will issue a ruling on "natural" anytime soon—rejecting a common argument made by so many food producers seeking to avoid liability for their misrepresentations.
The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that General Mills' "Made With 100% Natural Whole Grain Oats" claims were misleading to consumers.
"When a customer chooses a food product that says 100% Natural on the packaging, they do so because the food manufacturer has communicated to them, with that claim, that their products are without harmful, man-made chemicals," Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, said. "We are very pleased that this case will be heard and misleading labeling will be addressed."
Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, agrees. "In this case, consumer law is critical to rein in companies that deceive consumers with 'natural' labeling when their products contain ingredients that are grown with pesticides," Feldman said.
https://www.ecowatch.com/general-mills-glyphosate-2464624927.html
DieselGate in Germany heats up!
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/all/themes/clew/logo.png)
Der Spiegel / Spiegel Online
The cartel (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)
Germany's most important carmakers have met in "secret workshops" since the 1990s in order to coordinate their exhaust gas treatment systems and collude to fix technology, costs and suppliers, weekly news magazine Der Spiegel and associated website Spiegel Online report. "This could amount to one of the largest cases of cartel agreements in Germany's economic history," Frank Dohmen and Dietmar Hawranek write on Spiegel Online.
A "sort-of voluntary disclosure" made last year by the country's biggest carmaker VW revealed that Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, BMW and Daimler have all been implicated in the secret meetings in which "agreements were made to systematically undermine free competition", the article says.
What might turn out to be especially troublesome for Germany's most important industry is that the carmakers apparently also agreed on important technical details of their diesel exhaust gas treatment and therefore jointly "laid the basis of the diesel scandal".
Appearance and reality
Almost no other country hosts as many important car manufacturers side-by-side as Germany and, with about 800,000 employees nationwide, the industry "has an invaluable social responsibility", Thomas Fromm writes in a commentary for Süddeutsche Zeitung.
In order to stand out from their national competitors, German car brands have long sought to promote their uniqueness and "sell emotions alongside steel sheets and horsepower", Fromm argues. "One has to bear in mind this strategy of distinction to comprehend why the latest allegations over forming a cartel strike the industry at its core," he writes.
If Germany's most important carmakers have colluded to fix technology and costs since the 1990s, "they not only would have fooled their customers. They would also have ridiculed their precious brand-claims and thereby their company's identity as well". (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)
(http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080719200951/uncyclopedia/images/e/e0/Downarrow.PNG)
BMW, VW and Daimler shares take hard hit
Shares of German carmakers BMW, VW and Daimler were falling substantially on Monday after allegations emerged on Friday that the companies operated a cartel, followed by an EU probe into the affair, news agency Reuters reports.
"The European Commission said on Saturday that European Union antitrust regulators had received a tip-off about another possible cartel," the article says.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/autokartell-den-deutschen-autokonzernen-droht-der-identitaetsverlust-1.3599725#redirectedFromLandingpage
We Are The Product! Cartoonish Evil From Equifax (w/Guest Bill Black)
https://youtu.be/96u15E0kLv8
Sep. 12, 2017 2:33 pm
Thom talks to Professor Bill Black (professor of economics and Law of Missouri-Kansas City and author) on the Equifax scandal which may have put your sensitive information in the hands of hackers, and you won't be able to find out either... unless you give away your right to sue!
Corporations (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif)
Don't Want Us As Customers We Are Their Products (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)
https://youtu.be/uS9ByRLt8lM
Thom takes on the Equifax scandal to reveal a growing business model where you are not the consumer but the product being traded and sold by corporations.
BlackRock CEO Calls For Social Justice In Corporate Culture (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif)
January 17th, 2018 by Steve Hanley
(https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2018/01/Laurence-Fink.jpg)
Laurence D. Fink (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)
Laurence D. Fink may not be a household name, but he is a very influential person. When Mr. Fink speaks, others listen. Why? Because as the founder and CEO of BlackRock, he controls more than $6 trillion in assets. That's the kind of clout that gets a person noticed. On January 16, the chief executives of most of the major business corporations in the world received a letter from Laurence Fink telling them they have to develop a social conscience if they wish BlackRock to continue investing in their business.
A Letter, But So Much More
"Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate," Fink writes.
What? Has the ghost of Ayn Rand finally been interred? Has Milton Friedman's bust been removed from the Economists' Hall of Fame? Has the entire Chicago School of Economics philosophy that the only duty of a business corporation is to make money for its shareholders been tossed into the dustbin of history? Not quite, but close.
BlackRock wields enormous power in corporate boardrooms. In many cases, it gets to decide who sits on those boards and who does not. In recent years, it has taken a more activist role, which includes siding with ExxonMobil shareholders who demanded the company be more open about its exposure to climate change related risks. That initiative would have failed without BlackRock's support.
What are the implications of Fink's letter? Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, tells the New York Times he has seen "nothing like it'' before. "It will be a lightning rod for sure for major institutions investing other people's money," he says. "It is huge for an institutional investor to take this position across its portfolio.''
The Social License Concept
The letter suggests that a business that does not serve the community may lose what is known as its "social license to operate." According to Investopedia, "The Social License to Operate, or simply social license, refers to ongoing acceptance of a company or industry's standard business practices and operating procedures by its employees, stakeholders and the general public. The concept of social license is closely related with the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.
"Social license to operate is created and maintained slowly over time as the actions of a company build trust with the community it operates in and other stakeholders. A company must be seen operating responsibly, taking care of its employees and the environment, and being a good corporate citizen. When problems do occur, the company must act quickly to resolve the issues or the social license to operate is put in danger."
In his letter, Fink comes close to taking a swipe at the current administration, saying "many governments [are] failing to prepare for the future, on issues ranging from retirement and infrastructure to automation and worker retraining." He added, "As a result, society increasingly is turning to the private sector and asking that companies respond to broader societal challenges." If a company fails to respond, however, "it will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders."
A Contrary Opinion
Not everyone is thrilled with Laurence Fink's newfound social conscience. CleanTechnica writer Tina Casey pointed me toward a story on CNBC in which another billionaire, Sam Zell, described Fink and others who think like him as "extraordinarily hypocritical." Zell heads one of the largest real estate investment firms in America and is CEO of five corporations listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He describes himself as a social liberal but a fiscal conservative and he maintains the bottom line is the raison d'être of business and makes no apology for his point of view.
"They talk about the fact that they're in effect going to do exactly what the market does," says Zell, "and then they put up public policy statements that suggest that they're going to advocate the market doing things other than what happens every day. Either they're a passive fund that follows the market or they're a leader that's setting the tone. I didn't know Larry Fink had been made God."
The Milton Friedman Fallacy
Zell's remarks set up the struggle between capitalism and social responsibility perfectly. Back in 1970, Milton Friedman told the New York Times, "What does it mean to say that 'business' has responsibilities? Only people can have responsibilities. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades." Ebenezer Scrooge couldn't have put it any better and his words mesh well with the poisonous social ideas being promoted by the Koch brothers and their ilk.
And yet, a curious thing happened between 1970 and now. In 2010, in the landmark Citizens United case, the US Supreme Court blithely asserted that corporations have the right of free speech because they are a "person" within the purview of the Constitution. That "fact" was presumed by the court to be one of those self-evident truths that any person of ordinary intelligence would agree with. The Citizens United decision puts an odd twist on Friedman's pronouncement. If a corporation is just another "person," does it not follow that it owes the same duty that real people have to not pollute the lands, rivers, skies, lakes, and oceans?
Greed Is Maybe Not So Good After All
And that leads us back to the fascinating discussion about untaxed negative externalties (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/16/carbon-fees-mystery-untaxed-negative-externality/) we have been having here on CleanTechnica recently. It is one thing to say a corporation has only one obligation — to make money for its investors. It is quite something else to say a corporation should be allowed to pass off some of the costs of doing business so others have to pay them.
For instance, Walmart pays its workers so poorly that many of them qualify for food stamps and other government assistance programs. That means the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart's business. Why should that be the case? Why should "Always Low Prices" translate into a license to tap the public fisc for the general benefit of Walmart's owners?
Milton Friedman's "greed is good" philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some. Otherwise, the accounting just doesn't add up, which is the idea behind the triple bottom line concept. Laurence Fink is pointing out that the corporate community is cooking the books and he is calling them on it. What impact his letter will have on corporate policies and procedures won't be known for some time, but it is, if nothing else, a good first step and long overdue.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/
Agelbert COMMENT:
Milton Friedman's "greed is good" philosophy may be the distilled essence of capitalism, but it only works if businesses are required to bear all of the costs they impose on society, not just some.
Exactly RIGHT! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)
Unrestrained Capitalism is the goal of every Capitalist. Laurence D. Fink and his elite friends aren't turning over a new "We need to be responsible to the community" leaf. What they are doing is attempting to insulate the oligarchs from the cost of mitigating all the environmental damage they have profited from by adopting a "responsibility" PR meme. They know what Catastrophic Climate Change will do to society and they do NOT want to pay their fair share of the mitigation efforts.
It's like this:
Theresa Morris wrote an excellent Essay that fleshes out what the leaders of society must do if they are serious about acting in a socially responsible manner. I added graphics to underline the importance of her essay and some comments at the end, but the work is hers and it deserves to be broadcast far and wide.
I am posting here two of the graphics I included in my comments on Theresa's Essay in order to explain to readers how TPTB, who are well aware of the dangers inherent in climate change (though they won't admit it), plan to make all the rest of us pay for what those actually DOING over 90% (about ONE percent of the world population) of the damage are liable for (i.e. environmental damage through government policies subsidizing polluters actively and passively through mendacious happy talk propaganda born of corporate corruption). (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120716190938.png)
IOW, those responsible for the damage plan to spread the cost to further enrich the oligarchic polluters that got us into this mess in the first place. The operative phrase is "Fragmentation of Agency".
The "Agency" definition here is the responsibility for harm and the consequent responsibility to pay for mitigating said harm.
"Fragmentation" refers to what percentage of all those with Agency in doing the harm are responsible to pay to mitigate and eventually repair said harm.
Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should look like this:
The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world's 100 largest corporations, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart to look like is as follows:
The above graphic is how TPTB polluter enablers will try to pass most of the buck away from themselves and onto we-the-people.
We either adopt the common sense ethical recommendations of visionaries like Theresa Morris, or we are toast.
What it Means to be Responsible - Reflections on Our Responsibility for the Future by Theresa Morris, State University of New York at New Paltz (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg8731/#msg8731)
Quote from: Eddie on January 17, 2018, 07:46:03 pm
Quote from: agelbert on January 17, 2018, 07:31:49 pm
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/17/blackrock-ceo-calls-social-justice-corporate-culture/)
I saw the headlines on the Fink story. I figured him for an apologist looking to absolve himself of a little billionaire guilt, so I didn't read it. Still, to me he compares very favorably to the Mercers, Kochs, and Trumps of the world.
I don't think people who have become billionaires have a clue what guilt is. The bill for all this biosphere damage is coming due. They want to socialize the costs while continuing to privatize the profits, period. Sure, their PR is better than that of the in-your-face fascists like Mercer, Kochs, etc. et al , but IMHO it's just CYA to set we-the-people up for the MASSIVE (REALLY MASSIVE!) socialized costs that Catastrophic Climate Change will, do not pass go, do not collect NOTHING, saddle human civilization with.
I'm am not buying Fink's line UNLESS he puts a LOT of Climate Change Mitigating Money where his mouth is. I have seen ZERO evidence of that. Money talks, and bullshit walks.
from: Eddie on Today at 07:46:03 pm
The King is a Fink
Yeah, I guess so. I doubt he plans to give his fortune for climate change mitigation. Or that he thinks through the process of how guys like him have so much more impact on the environment than most people, because their money supports a global extractive colonial economy. He's just some amateur social theorist with the bully pulpit that comes from being the richest guy in the room most places he goes.
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png)
UK sugar tax starts today — here's what it means
LAST UPDATED ON APRIL 6TH, 2018 AT 6:46 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI
A groundbreaking sugar tax enters into force as of today in the United Kingdom, which joins a handful of other countries which have already introduced similar taxes.
Much more than cavities
Sugar has been linked to a number of health issues. A 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) technical report provided evidence that high intake of sugary drinks (including fruit juice) increased the risk of obesity, and since then, the evidence has piled on. Simply put, eating lots of sugar makes you fat, and if you're thinking 'but I don't really eat that much sugar' — then think again. Sugar is embedded into a surprisingly large number of processed foods, popping up in most things you'll find on the shelves. Not least of all, sugar is typically present in large quantities in sugary drinks, and, as a result, sugary drinks are one of the main drivers for obesity in several countries.
Backed by a mountain of scientific evidence, the WHO says that society needs to curb its consumption of sugar to fight the upcoming obesity pandemic — and this is where the sugar tax comes in.
The levy will be applied to manufacturers, and whether they will pass it on consumers or support the tax themselves is up to them. From now on, drinks with a sugar content higher than 5g per 100ml will be taxed 18p ($0.25) per liter, and drinks with 8g or more will be taxed 24p ($0.34). The tax is expected to act on several fronts.
Firstly, manufacturers are expected to reduce the sugar content of their products, which many have already started doing (Fanta, Ribena, and Lucozade have cut the sugar content of drinks, but Coca-Cola has not).
Secondly, consumers are expected to be somewhat dissuaded by potentially higher prices, and therefore reduce their consumption.
Lastly, an expected revenue of £240m ($340) is expected to be raked by the government — that money will be invested in schools sports and breakfast clubs.
However, products such as cakes, biscuits and other foods are not covered by the tax. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp)
Of course, taxes are never popular, and so far reactions have been mixed. Many argue that having a Coke or whatever other sugary drink is a personal choice and shouldn't be taxed — however, similar taxes have long been applied to alcohol and tobacco (among others) in most parts of the world. Similar taxes have been applied successfully in countries like France, Norway, or Denmark.
It's important to note that a recent study has shown that the sugar industry was aware of the negative health effects of sugar for decades, but it simply swept them under the rug. 😠
Coca-Cola has been under fire since 2015 when emails revealed that funding for scientific studies sought to influence research to be more favorable to soda, and research funded by soda companies is 34 times more likely to find soda has no significant health impacts on obesity or diabetes.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/uk-sugar-tax-award-06042018/
(https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/c_crop,d_placeholder_euli9k,h_1687,w_3000,x_0,y_0/dpr_1.5/c_limit,w_1044/fl_lossy,q_auto/v1552489211/190313-Messer-Vicky-Ward-tease-_c1476y)
Extended Conversation with Vicky Ward (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif)(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185038-16442135.gif) on "Kushner (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png), Inc."
Web Exclusive MARCH 22, 2019
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/22/extended_conversation_with_vicky_ward_on
investigative journalist and author of Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
Web-only extended interview with investigative journalist Vicky Ward, author of "Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump."
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Our guest is Vicky Ward, investigative journalist. Her new book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
Why don't we just begin with the title, Vicky?
VICKY WARD: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: Kushner, Inc.
VICKY WARD: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: Why did you call it that?
VICKY WARD: Because I think that, you know, all roads, in the book, lead back to the Kushners' giant financial problems and that everything Jared and Ivanka have done in this White House is about self-service, not public service. You know, these are people who both grew up in cultures that have extraordinary disdain for rules, including the rule of law. They think that rules only apply to other people. You know, I mean, Jared has very strong feelings about government, going back to what happened to his father in 2004, when, you know, he pled guilty. The government, Chris Christie and his team of prosecutors in New Jersey, had extraordinary leverage. And I think that from—
AMY GOODMAN: Why don't you tell that story, for those who are not familiar with what happened? This is before Chris Christie was governor, prosecutor in New Jersey. And what happened to Charles Kushner?
VICKY WARD: Well, Charles Kushner pled guilty to basically three counts: tax fraud, illegal campaign contributions, but the most sort of scandalous and notorious thing was that he set his own brother-in-law up in a very sordid sting involving a prostitute, that was witness tampering. And Christie had a lot of leverage over him, that I go into in the book, about his personal life that Charles Kushner did not want out in public, which is why he pled guilty so quickly. And Jared was aware of a lot of this. And I think that—you know, I included it in the book because it's the only way that you can understand the intensity of the hatred that I think is engendered in Jared towards Christie, but towards the system. Right? This is—you know, there's a Kushner mentality, and Charles had it, too, that, you know, we're not here to—you know, we don't wait to be accepted by Harvard; we pay our way into Harvard. You know—
AMY GOODMAN: And explain that.
VICKY WARD: So, Charles Kushner's company sent a check to Harvard University for $2.5 million. Jared Kushner ended up going to Harvard. He was, at his high school, in the third track of the—in his class, there were five tracks. He was in the third. No, it was unheard of for anyone in the third track to go to any Ivy League school, let alone Harvard. And I quote one of his classmates, who was in the first track, getting—being rejected by Harvard and crying when she heard that Jared had got in. And a lot of the teachers were crying. They thought it was such an abuse of the system.
The Kushners are used to buying—buying their way through life. They think that money buys everything they need. You know, during Charles Kushner's legal troubles—there's a lawyer I quote in book who said, with their money, they virtually got him fired. You know, he said that they knew how to use money. So—
AMY GOODMAN: They got who fired?
VICKY WARD: They didn't get him fired. He's a guy called Theodore Moskowitz. He was involved in Charlie Kushner's legal dispute with his brother.
But you asked me a bit bigger question. So that, yeah, there is this mindset, when Jared and Ivanka go into government, that rules are for other people. And I think that this is why you see the unfairness in, for example, the divestment, right? Everyone—you know, Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson sell everything in order to go into the government. Jared Kushner and Ivanka don't. I mean, they put most of their things into a trust run by family members. And, after all, they both come from family businesses.
And then Jared does something extraordinary: He closes the White House logs, the White House visitor logs, so that no one can see who he's meeting with in the White House. And we only discover a whole year later, when John Kelly says, "No, no, the White House logs have got to be open," that he's met with Citigroup and Apollo, who have meanwhile given his family firm loans, and he's met with Lloyd Blankfein, then the CEO of Goldman Sachs, at a time when Goldman Sachs had an investment in a company that Jared had not only actually put—he hadn't put it on his White House disclosure form, and he hadn't divested. I mean, this is—I mean, this is just remarkable. And no one knew. And the American people have a right to know who's going in and out of the White House.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Jared Kushner's father, Charles Kushner, has just written a piece in The Washington Post titled "Here's the Truth About My Family and Our Business." Charles Kushner writes, quote, "When he left the company, Jared took several steps to preclude conflicts of interest. At the recommendation of his legal counsel, in consultation with the Office of Government Ethics, he divested from more than 80 partnerships, including 666 Fifth Ave., at a substantial financial sacrifice. We walled off Jared from receiving information on the company, and he resigned as the controlling partner in more than 100 entities. This was all done out of an abundance of caution," Charles Kushner wrote.
VICKY WARD: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this also was in response to your book?
AMY GOODMAN: It was today.
VICKY WARD: Yes. I mean, I think it's just sad. I mean, there's the—it's just—this is a fantasy. This is version of what Charles Kushner wishes had happened. I mean, it's almost more interesting for the things it leaves out than for what it actually says. You know, he starts off, and he portrays the Kushner family as sort of like this cookie-cutter family. No mention of the sordid scandal and him going to jail. He talks about the fact that it's legal to seek foreign investment to finance trophy buildings in New York. He doesn't explain that he had to seek foreign investment, because no one in America would touch this thing with a 50-foot barge pole. He talks about the fact that he was bailed out with a 99-year lease. He doesn't say that that lease was paid up front. I mean, that's just unheard of, and which is why Congress is investigating it. And—
AMY GOODMAN: And you're saying that Qatar is involved with this lease?
VICKY WARD: Yes. The Qataris have a $1.8 billion stake in Brookfield. And, you know, Charlie Kushner has bragged about his relationship with the Qataris. I knew they were always there. And the Qataris—if the Qataris want to do this, Brookfield is not going to turn around and say no. I mean, to pay a 99-year lease up front, I mean, you'd have to have—any businessperson, you'd have to have your—for a building that's worth—you know, would be better if it was just dirt, you'd have to have your head examined. It makes absolutely no financial sense.
And to the last point about Jared having no appearance of conflict of interest, how can he wall himself off from his family? I mean, this is a family business. And I also say in the book he has—you know, he's also had, in the past, a profit-sharing agreement with his brother, by the way. You know, clearly, the security agencies don't agree with Charles Kushner, because that's why they wouldn't give Charles—Jared Kushner a security clearance.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the significance of that, that only recently sort of exploded again, the whole issue of how Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump got security clearances, Ivanka Trump going on television recently and outright saying Trump was not involved in her security clearance, when in fact—what do you understand happened?
VICKY WARD: Well, Trump had to override everybody. Absolutely everybody said, you know, they're not—they cannot have security clearances. The—
AMY GOODMAN: You mean everyone in intelligence, who is—
VICKY WARD: Sorry, sorry. Any, yes, career intelligence agency. And, you know, Trump had to override this. And then, as we know, he lied about it, and Ivanka lied about it on television. I mean, for this to be the new norm in our leadership strikes me as just extraordinarily troubling and dangerous. I mean, you know, how do you even begin to right a system that's so broken and is so dangerous?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to turn to Ivanka Trump's recent appearance on Fox News criticizing the Green New Deal's proposal for guaranteed jobs for all Americans.
STEVE HILTON: You've got people who will see that offer from the Democrats, from the progressive Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—"Here's the Green New Deal, here's a guarantee of a job"—and think, "Yeah, that's what I want. That simple." What do you say to those people?
IVANKA TRUMP: I don't think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something. They're—I've spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get. So I think this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want. They want the ability to be able to secure a job. They want the ability to live in a country where there's the potential for upward mobility.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Ivanka Trump speaking to Fox News. Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter saying, quote, "As a person who actually worked for tips & hourly wages in my life, instead of having to learn about it 2nd-hand, I can tell you that most people want to be paid enough to live. A living wage isn't a gift, it's a right. Workers are often paid far less than the value they create," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted—
NERMEEN SHAIKH: —in response to Ivanka's comment. So—
VICKY WARD: Right, right, right. Well, I mean, how out of touch is she? But, I mean—but, you know, we see this. I mean, you know, what Jared and Ivanka, I think, don't realize is that everyone else in the White House sort of views them as like Inspector Clouseau, like bumbling incompetence. And the only people who are aware that—you know, who don't realize how incompetent they are, are themselves. I mean, they live in a reality distortion field.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can we switch gears completely and talk about what you understand happened with the firing of James Comey—
AMY GOODMAN: —and what Jared Kushner's involvement was?
VICKY WARD: Yes. So this is really important. And I think, you know, one of the most important reveals, actually, in the book was that Jared Kushner—the story that Jared Kushner had met with the Russian ambassador and a Russian banker connected to the Kremlin during the transition started to come out in the early spring of 2017. And it was noticed and reported that Jared had not put any of these meetings, or any of the other meetings he had with any foreigners, for that matter, on his security clearance form. That is—that could well be—that's a felony.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I mean, you suggest, in fact, that it was Jared Kushner who was responsible for removing the White House logs—
VICKY WARD: Yes. So—
NERMEEN SHAIKH: —so he could not—you know, so he would be protected from people knowing about all the people who were coming to see him at the White House.
VICKY WARD: Yeah. Well, that's a slightly different thing. This, that is indeed true and also extraordinary. But the Comey thing is a little different. You know, Jared's normal sort of way of operating with the president was to take him aside and talk quietly to him. But when it came—so, but once these reports were out that he hadn't disclosed these meetings on his security clearance forms, and by this time the FBI had got—then run by James Comey—had opened its investigation into whether or not there was collusion with the Trump campaign and Russia, Jared, unusually, in front of everybody, in front of a large group—Bannon was there, but so were lots of others—made an impassioned plea to the president to fire James Comey. He gave a three-pronged argument. He said, you know, "The FBI doesn't like him. The Democrats don't like him. And your base will love it." Steve Bannon, who is—you know, whatever we all think of his politics, he's a wily strategist—thought this was a disastrous idea, and pushed back. But, obviously, you know, it was Jared who, I say in the book, was "gung-ho" about this. I mean, he was very atypically impassioned. Jared swayed the president. And hence you have Robert Mueller. I mean, James Comey goes, and, you know, hence we have everything—you know, the extraordinary events of this ongoing investigation, the special counsel.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let me ask you about Ivanka Trump's defense of her father after Charlottesville. We have this famous moment after the horror of Charlottesville and the killing of Heather Heyer, the Ku Klux Klan/neo-Nazi march, where President Trump says this.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think there's blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it, either. And–and—
REPORTER 1: But only the Nazis—
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And—and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
REPORTER 2: One side killed a person. Heather Heyer died—
REPORTER 1: The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville. They showed up in Charlottesville—
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me.
REPORTER 1: —to protest the removal of that statue.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They didn't put themselves down as neo—and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group—excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park, from Robert E. Lee to another name.
AMY GOODMAN: That's President Trump. "There were fine people on both sides."
AMY GOODMAN: Explain where Ivanka Trump then fits into this story.
VICKY WARD: So, I mean, to me, this is the heart of the book. It's the sort of absolute tipping point, because I think it's just the most shocking reveal of all. Gary Cohn, whose grandfather was a Holocaust survivor, an immigrant, came over here, Jewish—very, very upset by what the president had said.
AMY GOODMAN: His top economic adviser.
VICKY WARD: Yeah, sorry. Yes. And so upset that he decides he's going to resign. He goes to New Jersey, where the president has a home. So do Jared and Ivanka. And he stops in to visit Jared and Ivanka and explain that he's going to resign. And Ivanka—Jared, rather typically, says nothing. Ivanka, to his amazement, says, "no, no. You know, you don't get it. My father is—you know, my father didn't mean any of that." But then she says, "No, my father didn't say that."
Gary Cohn had been part of the circle of advisers trying to manage Trump's response to Charlottesville, and he knew that not only had Trump said it, that Trump had said it deliberately. He had gone against the advice of his advisers. He had picked out—pulled out a piece of paper. He said those words quite deliberately. He was horrified at what—at Ivanka's response. And he never felt the same way about Jared and Ivanka again. He didn't resign, but the reason he didn't resign was he talked to Rob Porter, then the staff secretary, who he's close to, and Porter said, "You know, we need you to try and get tax reform through Congress."
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Vicky Ward, investigative journalist. Her new book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. We were speaking to you about Ivanka Trump the last time you were on Democracy Now! You were investigating her business interests from China to India. What about Jared Kushner's links to China? Can you explain them more fully, as you do in the book?
VICKY WARD: Yeah. So—
AMY GOODMAN: And especially talk about the holding company Anbang Insurance.
VICKY WARD: Yeah, I think this is one of the things that actually triggered me to start thinking about writing this book, is what happened, what we started to learn about Jared and the Chinese. You know, it was—so, no one knew this. None of his transition or White House colleagues knew anything about this. But Jared, the first weekend of the transition, and his father had a dinner with a major Chinese insurance firm, Anbang, that they were hoping would bail them out of the 666 Fifth Avenue, this disastrous money pit. But at the same—in the same time period in the transition, the Chinese government flew in, because they were so concerned about what the president said—had said about Taiwan. And Jared—
AMY GOODMAN: This is before he's president.
VICKY WARD: Yes, this is the transition.
AMY GOODMAN: Just in the period—the transition period.
VICKY WARD: And Jared and a group of others meet with the Chinese government officials at the Kushner Companies headquarters. The whole thing is, you know, wildly, wildly inappropriate. But Jared doesn't mention the fact that he's got these ongoing talks with this Chinese insurance company, by the way, whose CEO has gone to jail for a life sentence. And on, I think it's January 9th, The New York Times reports news of this dinner. And all of Jared's colleagues—you know, Gary Cohn, Priebus—are just horrified. And Gary Cohn says to Jared, "You know, you realize, Jared, that from now on, whatever you do, everyone is just going to assume you're here to enrich yourself."
AMY GOODMAN: The Palestinian negotiator, Erekat, what did he say about Jared Kushner, as he pushes a, quote, "Middle East peace plan"? Something around the issue of "he sounds like a real estate agent"?
VICKY WARD: A real estate, yes, exactly. He did. And, of course, Jared pushes back and says, "Well, maybe you need a real estate broker to solve Middle East peace." I mean, it's—you know, again, we come back to this idea, the sort of entitlement, the disdain of rules, rule of law, the sort of the personal agendas, self-interest, not the public interest. I mean, and—
NERMEEN SHAIKH: You could say that's something that's true of a large number of people within the Trump administration. The distinction is that Trump and—that Jared and Ivanka Trump are relatives of Donald Trump. I mean, would you say that's the main problem with them? Therefore they're not in formal positions for which they could be faulted for the things that you're pointing out, but rather they're relatives who have access to Trump in a way that, first of all, gives them power, but without granting them some kind of formal authority.
VICKY WARD: Well, I think it's more complicated than that. I think it's to do with transparency. I think that the other members of the Cabinet and the administration are sort of held to a greater public scrutiny. I mean, you know, all these things, you know, that Jared has the power to close the logs and operate in darkness, the fact that he's—the foreign policy is conducted in darkness, that it's the—it's that they're kind of—they, unlike everyone else, are out of the system. And this is what Reince Priebus couldn't manage. You know, everyone else, it's sort of a bit more transparent, you know, their conversations with the president. I think the problem with these two is, we don't—there's so much that we don't know.
AMY GOODMAN: Even though they have official titles, as a senior advisers.
VICKY WARD: Right. And that's not OK. I mean, look, if she was just the first daughter, not a problem. But she's not. And that's where there is a real problem. You know, you can't go into government and run it like a family (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718205808.gif) real estate business. But that is exactly what's going on.
AMY GOODMAN: Talking about the family real estate business, what about the Trump International Hotel, down the street from the White House, and how it's being run, who goes there, what they pay, and then what they're getting in return?
VICKY WARD: Well, that's an obvious example of exactly what we're talking about, just an extraordinary conflict of interest, that's in plain sight. I mean, famously, you know, anyone—all the foreign entities who are looking to curry favor all stay there. I mean, you know, and again, Ivanka and her—the Trump children each have a 7 percent share in that, which actually is surprisingly little, that Donald Trump didn't give them more equity. I mean, that, I think, explains, to some degree, why Ivanka was so keen to hold onto her fashion line for so long, even though it was completely inappropriate that she do that, because Donald Trump gives his children surprisingly little. It's an unusual arrangement for a New York real estate family business. They have surprisingly little equity in his assets.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what about the House Oversight Committee, Judiciary—
AMY GOODMAN: —now that Democrats control the House? What is being—what do you think should be exposed about Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump? What do you think they are most vulnerable on, as the—as, for example, House Judiciary has demanded—
AMY GOODMAN: —documents from 81 businesses and people, but Ivanka Trump is not one of them?
VICKY WARD: No, but her businesses are—I mean, come up, and there are a lot of questions about her businesses, as there are about Jared and his businesses. You know, I hope that House Oversight asks more people. I mean, I think that it'd be—you know, I that talking to Jared's brother—I mean, there are questions about conflicts of interest. You know, just a question. And, you know, it seems clear that Gary Cohn would be a useful person to interview, given that he had a prior knowledge of some of the Kushner brothers' partnerships.
AMY GOODMAN: Because?
VICKY WARD: Because Goldman Sachs, which is where Gary Cohn used to work, was an investor. So, I hope that—you know, I think that one way to look at it is that the investigations coming out of Congress now are going to give us a road map. They're the sort of what. And I hope that my book is the why, if that makes sense.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me ask you specifically about another issue, very important: BFPS.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain what that is, how this ties into the whole debate around healthcare, Obamacare, around the Affordable Care Act.
VICKY WARD: Right. So, BFPS is on Jared Kushner's White House disclosure forms. It stands for "brothers first, partners second." The way he described it to someone he was trying to hire, three years ago, before he went into the government, was that it's a profit-sharing vehicle with his brother Josh, whereby each brother splits 50 percent of each of their businesses with each other. Charles Kushner, I report in the book, liked this arrangement, because Charles Kushner had a famous disastrous feud with his own brother about money. So he thought it would be great if these two split their profits 50-50, avoid any fighting.
Now, Josh Kushner says that currently there is no profit-sharing arrangement between them—very precise use of the tense. But Gary Cohn knew that they still had—you know, that Jared still has a stake in a company called Cadre, that he founded with Josh Kushner, his brother, and he kept that stake when he went into the government. He didn't disclose it on his financial forms. Instead, he rolled it up in BFPS.
AMY GOODMAN: Brothers first, partners second.
VICKY WARD: Yes. So, yes. So—
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking about Thrive. We're talking about Cadre. We're talking about Oscar insurance.
VICKY WARD: Oscar—well, so, it's a little tricky. So, Oscar Health insurance is a business that Josh Kushner started. It's a health insurance business that's worth—or it was worth, at the time, at the beginning of the administration, $2.7 billion. And because Gary Cohn knew that there was this web of entanglement, or that certainly existed in the past, and he knew—he did know that Jared still had a stake in Cadre with his brother, he was very concerned when Jared kept bringing up his brother's name during discussions of repeal-and-replace. And, you know, Jared—
AMY GOODMAN: Repealing Obamacare.
VICKY WARD: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Jared—because Josh's business, the success of it, is entirely predicated on Obamacare, it'd be disastrous if it had been repealed, for Oscar, this $2.7 billion business. So when Jared kept saying—you know, mentioning Josh, Gary Cohn was really, really uncomfortable. And then Joel Klein, who works for Josh, reached out to Gary Cohn with suggestions of how he thought healthcare should be shaped. And Gary Cohn says in the book that he was really uncomfortable about this. Now, Joel Klein says, "I was just doing—I was doing what anyone in my position would do." You know, but given the background and given these business partnerships, I think Gary Cohn was really troubled. And rightly so.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you don't name a lot of your sources.
VICKY WARD: No.
AMY GOODMAN: And that's one of the criticisms of the book—
AMY GOODMAN: —is that it's based on so many unnamed sources. Why?
VICKY WARD: Well, if you look at any book about a White House that's written contemporaneously, they're not on the record. I mean, even the great Bob Woodward is full of anonymous sources. And with this White House in particular, that is known to be so punitive, people are very frightened to go on the record. You know, Washington is an ecosystem. These people's livelihoods depend on their relationship with the White House. So the only way you can get around—you know, you can really try and be as accurate as possible is to double- or triple-source everything. And, you know, so I made it a point of principle not to take one person's word—you asked me earlier about Steve Bannon—absolutely never to take what somebody like he might have said, you know, as gospel, that it had to be run past other people who had direct knowledge of what happened in the room.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: But there are a couple of moments where you say, "He thought to himself," Bannon thought to himself. That can't possibly be verified by anybody else.
VICKY WARD: Yeah, it's a—so, that would have been checked. I mean, that's not in there without, you know, yes, I would have known. I would have had access to what he thought in those instances, and he is aware of that.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we'll leave it there. At the end, an unnamed source says to you, "Wait until they're out of power."
VICKY WARD: Oh, yes.
AMY GOODMAN: "I'll tell you the real story then." Vicky Ward, investigative journalist. Her new book is titled Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
To see Part 1 of our discussion (https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/21/kushner_inc_vicky_ward_on_how), go to democracynow.org. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
Beto O'Rourke: Corporate or Progressive Democrat?
O'Rourke is a member of the New Democrat Coalition, a caucus with close connections to the finance, insurance and real estate industries; Beto calls himself a progressive Democrat – with Jacqueline Luqman, Norman Solomon and host Paul Jay
https://youtu.be/IHNJc73EArE
https://therealnews.com/stories/beto-orourke-corporate-or-progressive-democrat
Agelbert NOTE: Beto is a stalking horse for the Fossil Fuel Industry. He will lie about EVERYTHING just to get elected. Follow the MONEY that gave this crook all his support and you will see through Mr. O'Rourke's BULLSHIT.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2W28Ik1wiRY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Facebook (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png) 'Accidentally' (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718202127.gif) Scrubs Years Of Mark Zuckerberg's (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif) Old Posts (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-30/facebook-accidentally-scrubs-years-mark-zuckerbergs-old-postsmeline)
Facebook 'accidentally' deleted old posts by CEO Mark Zuckerberg during pivotal periods in the company's history" (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png)
... " Mark's posts were mistakenly deleted due to technical errors. The work required to restore them would have been extensive and not guaranteed to be successful so we didn't do it" (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-191017140758.jpeg)
Yeahhhh, restoring files from a back up is extremely cumbersome and thus never done. So ... we truly understand. (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)
Thankfully, though (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp), the "technical errors" only targeted specific posts and periods in Marky's timeline and not everything ... unlike those "technical errors" that continually take down the entire accounts and histories of anyone who has an independent thought that goes against the (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418203402.gif) establishment or that FB's "independent and wholly objective 🐉🐵👹reviewers🦍😈🐍" deem worthy of (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040718162656-14241872.gif) extermination.
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014183629.gif) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818204546.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115234833.gif)
People of every culture, religion and ethnicity have believed that Evil exists in some form. Zuckerberg is a handmaiden to the Anti-Christ or whatever ultimate form of evil you believe in. This dude is seriously bad.
True. (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png)
(https://ofcommonsense.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/free-choice-not-consequences.jpg)
https://youtu.be/pEqWCH_4srU
Wednesday April 03, 2019 · 9:55 AM EDT
Elizabeth Warren: Corporate executives (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png)(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418193910.gif) must face jail time (http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/exagerent/police/enprison.gif) for overseeing massive scams (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/4/3/1847417/-Elizabeth-Warren-Corporate-executives-must-face-jail-time-for-overseeing-massive-scams)
Post by: Surly1 on June 29, 2019, 09:51:45 pm
On our way down the drain, at least we'll know our scores. Well, maybe some of them.
Everyone's Got a "Surveillance Score" and It Can Cost You BIG Money (https://www.theorganicprepper.com/everyones-got-a-surveillance-score-and-it-can-cost-you-big-money/)
(https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/surveillance-score-text.jpg)
Current Events Featured Posts
By Dagny Taggart
In these Orwellian times, when it is revealed that yet another government agency is spying on us in yet another way, most of us aren't one bit surprised. Being surveilled nearly everywhere we go (and even in our own homes) has become the norm, unfortunately.
Yesterday, it was revealed that the NSA improperly collected Americans' call and text logs in November 2017 and in February and October 2018 – just months after the agency claimed it was going to delete the 620 million-plus call detail records it already had stockpiled.
But this article isn't about that.
It is about something far more insidious.
When it comes to spying on people, the government has competition.
The Chinese government is currently implementing a social credit system to monitor its 1.3 billion citizens (China already has 200 million public surveillance cameras). Facial recognition technology and personal data from cell phones and digital transactions are being used to collect intimate details about people's lives, including their purchasing habits and whom they socialize with.
The gathered data is used to create mandatory social credit ratings for every citizen. These ratings will score citizens' "general worthiness" and provide those with higher scores opportunities like access to jobs, loans, and travel. Those with lower scores will not have access to those opportunities.
While the United States government has yet to implement such a system, companies in the country are, reports The Hill:
Consumer advocates are pushing regulators to investigate what they paint as a shadowy online practice where retailers use consumer information collected by data brokers to decide how much to charge individual customers or the quality of service they'll offer.
#REPRESENT, a public interest group run by the Consumer Education Foundation in California, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday asking the agency to investigate what the group is calling "surveillance scoring" of customers' financial status or creditworthiness. (source)
Companies are using Secret Surveillance Scores to evaluate you.
The opening paragraphs of the 38-page complaint are chilling:
Major American corporations, including online and retail businesses, employers and landlords are using Secret Surveillance Scores to charge some people higher prices for the same product than others, to provide some people with better customer services than others, to deny some consumers the right to purchase services or buy or return products while allowing others to do so and even to deny people housing and jobs.
The Secret Surveillance Scores are generated by a shadowy group of privacy-busting firms that operate in dark recesses of the American marketplace. They collect thousands or even tens of thousands of intimate details of each person's life – enough information, it is thought, to literally predetermine a person's behavior – either directly or through data brokers. Then, in what is euphemistically referred to as "data analytics," the firms' engineers write software algorithms that instruct computers to parse a person's data trail and develop a digital "mug shot." Eventually, that individual profile is reduced to a number – the score – and transmitted to corporate clients looking for ways to take advantage of, or even avoid, the consumer. The scoring system is automatic and instantaneous. None of this is disclosed to the consumer: the existence of the algorithm, the application of the Surveillance Score or even that they have become the victim of a technological scheme that just a few years ago would appear only in a dystopian science fiction novel. (source)
These scores are used to discriminate based on income.
Written by lawyers Laura Antonini, the policy director of the Consumer Education Foundation, and Harvey Rosenfield, who leads the foundation, the complaint highlights four areas in which companies are using surveillance scoring: pricing, customer service, fraud prevention, and housing and employment.
"This is a way for companies to discriminate against users based on income and wealth," Antonini told The Hill. "It can range from monetary harm or basic necessities of life that you're not getting."
Antonini and Rosenfield argue that the practices outlined in the complaint are illegal – and that consumers are largely unaware that they're being secretly evaluated in ways that can influence how much they pay online.
"The ability of corporations to target, manipulate and discriminate against Americans is unprecedented and inconsistent with the principles of competition and free markets," the complaint reads. "Surveillance scoring promotes inequality by empowering companies to decide which consumers they want to do business with and on what terms, weeding out the people who they deem less valuable. Such discrimination is as much a threat to democracy as it is to a free market."
Stores are using this scoring system to charge you higher prices.
Here's more detail, from The Hill:
The filing points to a 2014 Northeastern University study exploring the ways that companies like Home Depot and Walmart use consumer data to customize prices for different customers. Rosenfield and Antonini replicated the study using an online tool that compares prices that they're charged on their own computers with their own data profiles versus the prices charged to a user browsing sites through an anonymized computer server with no data history.
What they found was that Walmart and Home Depot were offering lower prices on a number of products to the anonymous computer. In the search results for "white paint" on Home Depot's website, Rosenfield and Antonini were seeing higher prices for six of the first 24 items that popped up.
In one example, a five-gallon tub of Glidden premium exterior paint would have cost them $119 compared with $101 for the anonymous computer.
A similar pattern emerged on Walmart's website. The two lawyers found the site was charging them more on a variety of items compared with the anonymous web tool, including paper towels, highlighters, pens and paint.
One paper towel holder cost $10 less for the blank web user. (source)
To see screenshots of different "personalized" prices shown for items from Home Depot and Walmart, please see pages 12-16 of the complaint. The examples presented demonstrate just how much these inflated prices for common household goods can really add up.
The travel industry is particularly sneaky.
A few days ago, we reported on hidden fees that could be costing you big bucks. The travel industry is a particularly large offender when it comes to sneaky fees, and they are also implicated in this scheme:
Travelocity. Software developer Christian Bennefeld, founder of etracker.com and eBlocker.com, did a sample search for hotel rooms in Paris on Travelocity in 2017 using his eBlocker device, which "allows him to act as if he were searching from two different" computers. Bennefeld found that when he performed the two searches at the same time, there was a $23 difference in Travelocity's prices for the Hotel Le Six in Paris.
CheapTickets. The Northeastern Price Discrimination Study found that the online bargain travel site CheapTickets offers reduced prices on hotels to consumers who are logged into an account with CheapTickets, compared to those who proceed as "guests." We performed our own search of airfares on CheapTickets without being logged in. We searched for flights from LAX to Las Vegas for April 5 through April 8, 2019. Our searches produced identical flight results in the same order, but Mr. Rosenfield's prices were all quoted at three dollars higher than Ms. Antonini's.
Other travel websites. The Northeastern Price Discrimination Study found that Orbitz also offers reduced prices on hotels to consumers who were logged into an account (Orbitz has been accused of quoting higher prices to Mac users versus PC users because Mac users have a higher household income); Expedia and Hotels.com steer a subset of users toward more expensive hotels; and Priceline acknowledges it "personalizes search results based on a user's history of clicks and purchases. (source)
There is an industry that exists to evaluate you and sell your data to companies.
The complaint also describes an industry that offers retailers evaluations of their customers' "trustworthiness" to determine whether they are a potential risk for fraudulent returns. One such firm – called Sift – offers these evaluations to major companies like Starbucks and Airbnb. Sift boasts on its website that it can tailor "user experiences based on 16,000+ real-time signals – putting good customers in the express lane and stopping bad customers from reaching the checkout."
The Hill contacted Sift for comment, and the company was not able to respond. But, back in April, a Sift spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that it rates customers on a scale of 0 to 100, likening it to a credit score for trustworthiness.
While credit scores can wreak havoc on a person's ability to make big purchases (and sometimes, gain employment), they at least are transparent. Surveillance scoring is not. There is NO transparency for consumers, and Rosenfield and Antonini argue that companies are using them to engage in illegal discrimination while users have little recourse to correct false information about them or challenge their ratings.
We are being spied on and scored on a wide variety of factors.
"In the World Privacy Forum's landmark study "The Scoring of America: How Secret Consumer Scores Threaten Your Privacy and Future," authors Pam Dixon and Bob Gellman identified approximately 44 scores currently used to predict the actions of consumers," the complaint explains:
The Medication Adherence Score, which predicts whether a consumer is likely to follow a medication regimen;
The Health Risk Score, which predicts how much a specific patient will cost an insurance company;
The Consumer Profitability Score, which predicts which households may be profitable for a company and hence desirable customers;
The Job Security score, which predicts a person's future income and ability to pay for things;
The Churn Score, which predicts whether a consumer is likely to move her business to another company;
The Discretionary Spending Index, which scores how much extra cash a particular consumer might be able to spend on non-necessities;
The Invitation to Apply Score, which predicts how likely a consumer is to respond to a sales offer;
The Charitable Donor Score, which predicts how likely a household is to make significant charitable donations;
The Pregnancy Predictor Score, which predicts the likelihood of someone getting pregnant. (source)
The government isn't doing anything to stop these practices.
Back in 2014, the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on a practice they call "predictive scoring" but the agency has done little since to reign in the practice. Antonini said that their complaint is pushing the agency to reexamine the industry and investigate whether it violates laws against unfair and deceptive business practices, according to The Hill:
"It's far, far worse than when they looked at it in 2014," she said. "There's an exponentially larger amount of data that's being collected about the American public that's in the hands of data brokers and companies. Their ability to process that data and write algorithms have also improved exponentially." (source)
We seem to be past the point of expecting our data to remain private, The Introduction to the complaint begins with a passage that sums up reality for us now:
This Petition does not ask the Commission to investigate the collection of Americans' personal information. The battle over whether Americans' personal data can be collected is over, and, as of this moment at least, consumers have lost. Consumers are now victims of an unavoidable corporate surveillance capitalism.
Rather, this Petition highlights a disturbing evolution in how consumers' data is deployed against them. (source)
We can't go anywhere without being surveilled now.
It is now impossible to shop in any large chain stores without being spied on. Stores are starting to use "smart coolers", which are refrigerators equipped with cameras that scan shoppers' faces and make inferences on their age and gender. And, a recent article from Futurism describes how security cameras are no longer being used solely to reduce theft:
"Instead of just keeping track of who's in a store, surveillance systems could use facial recognition to determine peoples' identities and gathering even more information about them. That data would then be out there, with no opportunity to opt out. (source)
A new ACLU report titled "The Dawn of Robot Surveillance" describes how emerging AI technology enables security companies to constantly monitor and collect data about people.
"Growth in the use and effectiveness of artificial intelligence techniques has been so rapid that people haven't had time to assimilate a new understanding of what is being done, and what the consequences of data collection and privacy invasions can be," the report concludes.
Do you think it is too late to stop all of this surveillance? Does it concern you? Have you noticed surveillance cameras in your community and in stores? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.
Title: Why Facebook is so toxic
Why Facebook is so toxic
It was DESIGNED to be that way >:(
https://youtu.be/mV6HWDYQ56Y
Interview with Sam Vaknin
The original public Internet has a completely different character. Zuckerberg and company deliberately introduced psychologically toxic elements into its design to encourage "engagement" to generate maximum page views and advertising.
What it really did was empower 👹 psychopaths.
The complete interview is here. Pretty profound and worth a look:
https://youtu.be/dmXcjvL9VSc
http://www.nextworldtv.com/videos/health-and-wellness/why-facebook-is-so-toxic.html
(https://ci4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Z44iOjpLKZ8QHQKQbMvQXjK2GBIb1m27FJceyjmyfqQy0gO9TZx_oU3v8NMQFdfhTH4ZmUWyzJzAYKvupVYXhEBoMn_16iCy5ldx2aJ2LNG2VqY22Z63HSqDSTpj=s0-d-e1-ft#https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2019/August/EN-20190807-1.jpg) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-200419205434.png)
Coca-Cola (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) Wants to Add This to Sodas, Are They Serious?
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-111018132401-16881856.gif) It's nothing short of a hoax, as it will do absolutely nothing to change the detrimental impact of its beverages. Plus, the latest 'functional junk food' fad used to give the sweet stuff an aura of healthiness - where will the smoke and (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-080419191019.png) mirrors end?
Full article: (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200416.png)
Coca-Cola (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) seeks revision of fortification guideline (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/08/07/coca-cola-seeks-revision-of-fortification-guideline.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20190807Z1&et_cid=DM305824&et_rid=680877125)
Title: For Decades, Polluters Knew PFAS Chemicals Were Dangerous But Hid Risks From Public
For Decades, Polluters Knew PFAS Chemicals Were Dangerous But Hid Risks From Public >:(
As far back as 1950, studies conducted by 3M showed that the family of toxic fluorinated chemicals now known as PFAS could build up in our blood. By the 1960s, animal studies conducted by 3M and DuPont revealed that PFAS chemicals could pose health risks. But the companies kept the studies secret from their employees and the public for decades. Here is a timeline of internal memos, studies and other company documents detailing the two companies' history of deception.
View Timeline of Corporate (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) Deception: (https://www.ewg.org/pfastimeline/?emci=0c1bfae6-04d3-e911-bcd0-2818784d4349&emdi=61b11fed-04d3-e911-bcd0-2818784d4349&ceid=1975104&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=201909PFASNews&utm_medium=email)
Title: Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty exposes Mark Zuckerberg's civil rights blindspots
(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif) Ohio Rep. Joyce Beatty exposes 😈 Mark Zuckerberg's civil rights blindspots
2,314 views•Oct 23, 2019
https://youtu.be/betiae0_1H0
10.9K subscribers
Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH) grills Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on his seemingly apathetic views on civil rights and diversity.
Title: Sanders: Time to Break Up Facebook
Post by: Surly1 on November 07, 2019, 09:53:18 am
Time to 'Break Facebook Up,' Sanders Says After Leaked Docs Show Social Media Giant 'Treated User Data as a Bargaining Chip' (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/06/time-break-facebook-sanders-says-after-leaked-docs-show-social-media-giant-treated?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=AO&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_content=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email)
"As I have been saying the privacy frame is bullshit," said another critic. "Facebook is all about criminal behavior to monopolize ad money."
Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook, attends the Viva Tech start-up and technology gathering at Parc des Expositions Porte de Versailles on May 24, 2018 in Paris. (Photo: Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images)
After NBC News on Wednesday published a trove of leaked documents that show how Facebook "treated user data as a bargaining chip with external app developers," White House hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders declared that it is time "to break Facebook up."
When British investigative journalist Duncan Campbell first shared the trove of documents with a handful of media outlets including NBC News in April, journalists Olivia Solon and Cyrus Farivar reported that "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg oversaw plans to consolidate the social network's power and control competitors by treating its users' data as a bargaining chip, while publicly proclaiming to be protecting that data."
With the publication Wednesday of nearly 7,000 pages of records—which include internal Facebook emails, web chats, notes, presentations, and spreadsheets—journalists and the public can now have a closer look at exactly how the company was using the vast amount of data it collects when it came to bargaining with third parties.
Technically still under protective order in a California state civil lawsuit that the startup app developer Six4Three filed against Facebook in 2015, the leaked documents from the case include 3,799 pages of sealed exhibits, 2,737 pages of exhibits, 415 pages of related notes and summaries, and a 20-page memorandum (pdfs). More than 1,000 pages are labeled "highly confidential."
According to Solon and Farivar of NBC:
Taken together, they show how Zuckerberg, along with his board and management team, found ways to tap Facebook users' data—including information about friends, relationships, and photos—as leverage over the companies it partnered with. In some cases, Facebook would reward partners by giving them preferential access to certain types of user data while denying the same access to rival companies.
For example, Facebook gave Amazon special access to user data because it was spending money on Facebook advertising. In another case the messaging app MessageMe was cut off from access to data because it had grown too popular and could compete with Facebook.
All the while, Facebook planned to publicly frame these moves as a way to protect user privacy, the documents show.
Open Markets Institute fellow Matt Stoller tweeted in response to NBC's report Wednesday: "As I have been saying the privacy frame is bullshit. Facebook is all about criminal behavior to monopolize ad money."
The document dump comes as Facebook and Zuckerberg are facing widespread criticism over the company's political advertising policy, which allows candidates for elected office to lie in the ads they pay to circulate on the platform. It also comes as 47 state attorneys general, led by Letitia James of New York, are investigating the social media giant for antitrust violations.
The Week's national correspondent Ryan Cooper, who also responded to NBC's report on Twitter, wrote that "there are some practical (but not insurmountable) problems with putting antitrust regulations on say, Amazon. [But] Facebook you could just shut it down and the world would be a far better place."
The call from Sanders (I-Vt.) Wednesday to break up Facebook follows similar but less definitive statements from the senator.
One of Sanders' rivals in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), released her plan to "Break Up Big Tech" in March. Zuckerberg is among the opponents of Warren's proposal, which also targets other major technology companies like Amazon and Google.
Title: How "Essential" is Bottled Water? Ep. 6.163
How "Essential" is Bottled Water? Ep. 6.163
10,191 views•Dec 7, 2019
https://youtu.be/P8N0UNE2e-s
Steve Lehto
Michigan court of appeals shoots down the argument that bottled water is "essential" in the same manner as electricity and sewers.
http://www.lehtoslaw.com
Title: Walmart Store Holding Thanksgiving Charity Food Drive -- For Its Own Employees!
Post by: Surly1 on December 10, 2019, 07:22:47 am
Walmart Store Holding Thanksgiving Charity Food Drive -- For Its Own Employees! (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/18/walmart-store-holding-thanksgiving-charity-food-drive-for-its-own-employees/?fbclid=IwAR2jsd0nD8JCMILvEQNnTFXGvbXpypTzu9BSiJSxOhzC-bfj4inKdVV7swI#1b8b885e2ee5)
(https://b-i.forbesimg.com/rickungar/files/2013/11/walmart-555x416.jpg)
Rick Ungar
Recently, Yahoo's 24/7 Wall Street column sought to identify the nation's 10 worst paying employers, based on the methodology ultizied by the National Employment Law Project in its 2012 report, "Big Business, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage."
To the surprise of nobody, Walmart came out on top, achieving the distinction of being the worst paying company in America.
Still, when it comes to Walmart, there are certain analysts and observers who can't seem to remove the blinders. They continue to insist that Walmart pays its workers an average of over $18.00 per hour when even the company acknowledges that the average full time, hourly rate is $12.83—and that number includes the salaries of some of the highest paid employees in the averaging such as the CEO who earned $20.7 million last year.
Maybe, at long last, the blinders will come off when these deniers are forced to come to grips with the fact that Walmart associates are paid so poorly that a store in Canton, Ohio, located in the northeastern part of the state, now holds an annual, Thanksgiving drive to collect canned foods for fellow Walmart employees in need.
Walmart spokesperson, Kory Lundberg, thinks this is all just the most wonderful thing—bragging that the drive to collect holiday food for fellow employees shows just how much Walmart employees care about one another.
Do you imagine the spokesperson has yet to realize just how remarkable her statement is?
Surely, those in need at the Canton, Ohio store are benefitting from the good will of some fellow workers who care enough to drop off a can of cranberry sauce to help make their co-workers' holiday meal a bit nicer, even though they too suffer from earning too little to take care of their own families.
However, what about the other employees at Walmart—say, for example, CEO Mike Duke who could make this in-house charitable effort unnecessary by simply paying his employees a livable wage so that they might afford a decent Thanksgiving dinner on their own?
While spokesperson Lundberg seems to be feeling all 'Christmassy' as a result of the good works company employees are performing when it comes to their own modern day Tiny Tim story, other employees at the Walmart store in question are not quite so cheery.
One employee, who did not wish to divulge her name for fear of being fired, found the food drive containers in her locker a few weeks ago upon arriving at work. The employee, who found the campaign "demoralizing" and "kind of depressing", snapped photos of the containers which are now making their way around social media outlets as proof positive of just how bad Walmart's indifference to their employees' living circumstances has become.
If what is happening at the Canton, Ohio store is insufficient proof that this company's wages are too low, then there is clearly no measure or metric that could possibly serve to make the point.
Says Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell Univeristy's school of labor, "That captures Wal-Mart right there. Wal-Mart is setting up bins because its employees don't make enough to feed themselves and their families."
Of course, the start of the holiday season will not be grim for everyone at Walmart as there will likely be ample goodies of bonus checks and stock options in the stockings of top employees at the company, as Walmart's net income rose to $17 billion last year.
If your idea of American capitalism is of the "bah humbug" variety, then I'm sure that this story will leave you saying, "They're damned lucky they have a job at all!" But for those Americans who still believe that free enterprise means that working hard at a job should be compensated with a livable wage, I hope you will let your feelings be known.
And if you happen to live in the Canton, Ohio area, drop by and make a contribution. The folks at Walmart who are helping you to pick out that nice turkey for your Thanksgiving family gathering will appreciate your helping to give them some happiness on that day as their own Ebenezer Scrooge of an employer won't be dropping by with a Christmas goose.
Contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.
Title: Facebook🙈🙉🙊😈 biggest Child P O R N platform and HIDES Corporate Slavery Supply Chains!!
Is It Time To Reboot Facebook? (w/ Andrew Behar )
1,301 views•Dec 19, 2019
https://youtu.be/Aj5rw4nzK3o
Is it time to reboot Facebook so the company is no longer a danger to democracies or people?
🔴 Subscribe for more clips like this: https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...
Title: 👹 Amazon Warns Employees Who Spoke Out On Climate Change
BLACK BEAR NEWS: 👹 Amazon Warns Employees Who Spoke Out On Climate Change
473 views•Jan 8, 2020
https://youtu.be/pmpMklUwht8
#FridayGasStrike #ExtinctionRebellion #ClimateStrike
#GretaThunberg #ClimateChange #CompassionateDegrowth
#BlackBearNews
Amazon Warns Employees Who Spoke Out On Climate Change
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/amazon-warns-employees-climate-change_n_5e0e42bbc5b6b5a713b769a0
A Grim New Definition of Generation X
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/01/grim-new-definition-generation-x
What If...? | a spoof in which we make all the right decisions | Extinction Rebellion (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/profiles-in-courage/msg15124/#msg15124)
T-SHIRTS - http://redllamamusic.com/BlackBear.htm
Watch on Rokfin https://www.rokfin.com/BlackBearNews
Watch on Climate Crush TV: https://frozen.earth/tv/
So. Pasadena, CA 91031
Title: Boeing's fired CEO had $62 million payout on the day 2,800 laid off
Post by: Surly1 on January 11, 2020, 07:04:08 am
Boeing's fired CEO got his $62 million payout confirmed the same day
2,800 people in the 737 Max supply chain were laid off (https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-muilenburg-payout-same-time-thousands-layoffs-2020-1)
(https://image.businessinsider.com/5e192d32b2e66a4cfa14b212?width=2500&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
Kieran Corcoran
Dennis Muilenburg, the recently-ousted CEO of Boeing, is leaving with a $62 million payout, the company said Friday.
The substantial award comes despite being fired for poor handling of the fatal crashes, aftermath, and continued suspension from service of the 737 Max.
Also on Friday other workers lost their jobs because of the 737 Max: 2,800 employees of Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems.
Spirit said the workers had to go because there was no work for them in light of Boeing suspending production of the 737 Max while it is grounded.
Unlike Muilenburg, they did not get large exit packages, and will instead receive 60 days' pay.
Visit Business Insider's home page for more stories.
The recently-fired CEO of Boeing is leaving the company with a package worth $62 million, the company said Friday — just hours after 2,800 workers lost their jobs over the 737 Max disaster.
Payout details for Dennis Muilenburg, who was ousted from Boeing in late December, were made public in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Muilenburg lost his job over Boeing's disastrous handling of two fatal crashes by the 737 Max in which 346 people died.
The jet was grounded ten months ago, in March 2019. It has no firm date to return to service and Boeing has stopped building new ones.
On his departure, Boeing stripped him of his bonus, any severance pay, and other incentives worth nearly $15 million.
However, that still left him with a parting package of $62 million made up of Boeing stock, pension payments, and other deferred contributions.
Meanwhile, rank-and-file aviation workers in Boeing's supply chain were cut lose without anything like that kind of compensation.
Earlier on Friday, Spirit AeroSystems, a Kansas-based manufacturer, which gets more than half its revenue from the 737 Max, announced layoffs for 2,800 workers at its Wichita facility.
When Boeing froze the 737 Max production line, it promised not to lay off any of its own staff.
But the loss of work proved devastating for suppliers like Spirit, which said in a statement that the grounding and production freeze left them little.
"Spirit is taking this action because of the 737 MAX production suspension and ongoing uncertainty regarding the timing of when production will resume and the level of production when it does resume," the statement said.
Spirit said it plans to lay off an unspecified number of workers at two plants in Oklahoma, and may also have to shed more workers at its Wichita base if 737 Max production does not recommence.
The laid off are due to receive 60 days' pay, Spirit said.
Title: Big Pharma Won't Let Us Import Drugs From Canada, But...
Big Pharma Won't Let Us Import Drugs From Canada, But Insists on Sending Carcinogen-Contaminated Pills to the Public (https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/01/big-pharma-wont-let-us-import-drugs-from-canada-but-insists-on-sending-carcinogen-contaminated-pills-to-the-public.html)
Posted on January 11, 2020 by Yves Smith
Yves here. I understand the desire of Americans to be able to re-import drugs from Canada. But this is at best an interim strategy, since meaningful orders from Canada could easily cause problems with supplies for Canadians and could thus lead the Canadian government to restrict or bar shipments to the US.
The point would be to pressure the US government to do what every other advanced economy government does: negotiate drug prices. The fact that we don't when the US provides so much R&D support to Big Pharma is, as Lambert would say, wonderfully clarifying.
By Thom Hartmann, a talk-show host and the author of The Hidden History of the War on Voting and more than 25 other books in print. His most recent project is a science podcast called The Science Revolution. He is a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Big Pharma spends a small fortune every year buying politicians to make sure we can't import prescription drugs from Canada, but they're more than happy to sell us contaminated medications from countries with weak manufacturing controls and exploitable labor that ensure high profit margins.
A toxic compound that doesn't belong anywhere near medicine known as NDMA was first discovered in some blood pressure medications in 2018, and the FDA issued an alert and wrote a complaint letter to the raw materials supplier to Big Pharma companies. It turns out the meds follow the very common pattern of being made in India with raw ingredients coming from China. And they are sold by big companies for obscenely high prices to U.S. consumers.
More recently, NDMA contamination provoked a nationwide recall of the popular anti-heartburn medication Zantacand all its generic versions.
And now the world's most widely prescribed drug of all, which is used to treat and prevent Type 2 diabetes called metformin, is contaminated with NDMA.
NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine) is, according to the World Health Organization, produced by "the degradation of dimethylhydrazine (a component of rocket fuel) as well as from several other industrial processes. It is also a contaminant of certain pesticides."
And it's one of the world's most potent carcinogens, at least for humans and other mammals. Our livers produce an enzyme that converts it to methyldiazonium that then leads to O6-methylguanine, both of which alter a process at the cellular level called methylation that is a cancer turbocharger.
Because it's such a potent biological agent, NDMA is also extremely poisonous; a Chinese medical student put a few drops in his roommate's water and killed him. Ditto for a Canadian grad student, who injected it into a colleague's apple pie.
It's so poisonous that the FDA has set the "acceptable" amount for human daily intake at 96 nanograms, or 0.000096 of 1 milligram (a single grain of salt is about a milligram). In some of the generic brands of the blood pressure medication, just one tablet was found to have NDMA levels almost 20 times higher than the "acceptable" 96 nanograms, and nearly all were drugs that are taken daily.
Once it gets into groundwater, NDMA is wicked hard to get out, as citizens of numerous California cities found out in the late 1990s. Its "miscibility" (rapid solubility) with water is extreme, meaning that a few drops of it rapidly spreads through miles of underground aquifers or other water supplies in a matter of hours or days at most. Because of this, it's nearly impossible to isolate the contamination once it happens, the only solution then being radical and expensive water treatment everywhere in the aquafer, principally using ultraviolet light.
Ever since 1987 when Congress and the Reagan administration cut a corrupt deal with Big Pharma to ban the retail import of pharmaceuticals into the U.S., Democrats have pushed to allow Americans to get their prescription drugs from other countries when they're too expensive here (which is nearly always the case; we pay about twice as muchfor drugs as any other country in the world).
In 2000, Congress passed a law to allow imported retail drugs, but the Clinton administration, heavily funded by the health care industry, killed it administratively.
Nonetheless, progressive Democrats have pushed for years for the elimination of the ban. I first met Bernie Sanders when I lived in Montpelier, Vermont, around the turn of the century and he was organizing busloads of Vermontseniors to travel the two hours to Montreal to fill their prescriptions.
And now, in another popular policy position "borrowed" from progressive Democrats (who have also opposed neoliberal trade deals for decades), the Trump administration is talking about letting American consumers buy drugs from Canada or overseas.
The downside of this is that generic drugs sold in Canada are just as likely to be made in India and China, and thus just as contaminated, as drugs sold here. The upside is that because Canadian drugs will be cheaper, some of us can afford to buy the name-brand versions made in Germany, Switzerland or Ireland and sold in Canada, and not worry about getting cancer from NDMA in our generic drugs. (Yes, I mean this sarcastically.)
There was a time when virtually all drugs sold in the U.S. were manufactured here, including generics, or in Switzerland and Germany. Congress passed a special tax break for American drug manufacturers who'd move their factories to Puerto Rico, and for decades that was the hub of U.S. drug manufacturing. But in past decades neoliberalism has won out, and only a fraction of the pharma facilities in and around San Juan remain in operation.
Trump ran on the traditionally Democratic and progressive position of bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., a project that progressive senators including Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders have worked on their entire modern political careers.
It's time to apply it to manufacturing pharmaceuticals or at least insist on global regulations that can protect everyone.
Title: We don't need no silly Precautionary Principle 😇, say the rocket (☠ fuel) Scientists
Yep, it turns out that a component of rocket fuel (i.e. NDMA) can rocket cancer in humans. Who coulda knowed, say our venerable pinnacle of human intelligence evolution, superior, smart, sapient, genius (and so on) rocket scientists (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg). (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418200018.png)
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-240718213433-14592370.png)(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-250718210509.gif) (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163125-16722324.gif)(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185040-16582181.gif) This is just one more of a nearly continuous exposure of proofs, for the last 150 years or so (SEE: Industrial pollution suicide Revolution), that the Precautionary Principle has been 1000% ignored on behalf of profit over people and planet.
(https://khakispecs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/precautionary-principle.jpg)
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/styles/renewablerevolution/files/2989_post-26253-empty-swimming-pool-lYbC.jpeg)
Title: Debt will kill the global economy. But it seems no one cares
Post by: Surly1 on January 15, 2020, 02:23:07 pm
Debt will kill the global economy. But it seems no one cares (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/04/debt-will-kill-global-economy-pensions-ageing-population)
Phillip Inman Sat 4 Jan 2020 12.00 EST
Warnings from the IMF and World Bank have been dismissed. But even if they are wrong, a demographic crisis looms
The IMF says that large amounts of corporate debt in eight key economies could become unserviceable in the event of a recession. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters
The warning signs are clear. Debt is rising on every continent and especially in the business sector, which has spent the past decade ramping up its borrowing to previously unheard-of levels.
Last October, the International Monetary Fund said that almost 40% of the corporate debt in eight leading countries – the US, China, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Spain – would become so expensive during a recession that it would be impossible to service. In other words, tens of thousands of businesses, employing millions of people, would have gambled with high levels of borrowing and lost, making themselves insolvent.
Worse, the IMF said the risks were "elevated" in eight out of 10 countries that boasted systemically important financial sectors, adding that this situation was a repeat of the years running up to the last financial crisis.
Last month, the World Bank joined in. It said emerging-market and developing economies (EMDEs) had pushed their borrowing to a record $55 trillion (£42tn) in 2018.
Unlike the richer nations already mentioned, the 100 EMDEs across Africa, Asia and South America covered by the report were affected by rising private-sector debt coupled with higher government borrowing. And this extra state borrowing is not only larger, it has also changed in character. First, it has gone from being largely directed to investment spending to, more recently, being used simply to cope with the costs of health, education and welfare. Second, it is being more commonly borrowed from international investors hungry to lend developing countries cash at, relatively speaking, sky-high rates of interest.
There is little evidence that anyone is paying any attention to the dire misgivings expressed by either organisation. This year, the US S&P 500 stock market resumed its long-term (100-year) upward trend following a near 200% increase since 2010. Likewise, the German Dax has soared over the past 10 years from 5,500 to over 13,000 while the Paris CAC 40 has almost doubled to 6,000.
Britain's main market in shares has struggled to make any headway over the past three years while Brexit uncertainty dominated. Yet the FTSE 100 shows a gain from less than 4,000 in 2009 to 7,600 today.
Some analysts have argued that the IMF and World Bank are over-cooking their analysis after missing the last financial crash – seeing danger around every corner. Others dismiss them as archaic remnants of the postwar consensus that fail to understand how the global economy has entered a new phase, one that keeps stock markets humming along and bad recessions at bay.
Without higher interest rates, everyone can keep merrily borrowing
In the short term at least, the optimists could be right. And that is largely down to the actions of the US central bank, which was on course to repeat the mistake of 2005-07, when it matched rising debt levels (especially in sub-prime mortgage loans) with rising interest rates, triggering the kind of financial crash that the IMF and World Bank now fear is around the corner. This time, the Federal Reserve retreated after pushing base rates to almost 2.5% – still well short of the pre-crash normality of 4%-5%, but higher than almost everywhere else. After three rate cuts last year, the US economy starts 2020 with the base rate back in a range between 1.5% and 1.75%.
Without higher interest rates, everyone can keep merrily borrowing. And when, for most businesses, borrowing rates remain below their potential income growth rate – even when that is lacklustre – there is not the usual imperative to boost growth through investment in order to afford higher debt repayments.
But really, this is a back-to-front way of discussing the issue. Most of the problems afflicting the global economy relate to a lack of demand for goods and services, at least on average, compared with the years prior to the 2008 crash. And much of the weak demand relates to our ageing populations, which, in the main, focus more on storing up savings for retirement than on spending.
They are also in the habit of voting for governments that promise to keep taxes low and property prices high, allowing them to accumulate even more wealth. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson fit that bill.
Through their pensions and private investments they treat companies like cash machines, demanding a higher dividend every six months. Much of the borrowing by companies has been to pay these dividends, not to invest.
Baby boomers will pretty much all have retired by the end of this new decade, so most will have stopped investing and just be withdrawing investment funds. And it is this turn of the wheel of fortune that will wreck the global economy – if the accumulation of debt and the climate crisis haven't got there first.
Title: The Internet is Controlling YOU! (w/ Ramesh Srinivasan)
The Internet is Controlling YOU! (w/ Ramesh Srinivasan)
1,680 views•Jan 14, 2020
https://youtu.be/gMirp8O9000
Has anything changed since 2016 ahead of the 2020 election cycle? We use the internet and social media to keep ourselves up with the news and the world.
If those websites and social media sites promote fake news and lies, how can we trust anything? Algorithms are set to promote political lies with advertising and if you see enough, you will believe them to be the truth.
How is it that corporations like Facebook decide what you and I see and are they trying to control us?
Thom spoke with Ramesh Srinivasan, Professor and Director of UC Digital Cultures Lab – Department of Information Studies and Design.
📕 BOOK: Beyond the Valley - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262043130?t...
🔥 WATCH NEXT: Beyond the Valley
https://youtu.be/pCqd2r5BfoQ
⭐ Join our Membership and Support the Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...