--"When Dana Reeve became ill with lung cancer, she said she had never smoked. To imply that smoking caused her illness and subsequent death is misleading."
As one so knowledgeable about this, you also must know, but didn't state, that news reports at the time mentioned that her singing career necessitated years spent in smoke-filled pubs and nightclubs. To imply that [others'] smoking had nothing to do with her illness and subsequent death is misleading.
"The Death of Dana Reeve Raises Second-Smoke Risk Awareness"
http://toronto.fashion-monitor.com/news.php/health/2006030816dana-reeve-cancer
"What killed Dana Reeve?
"Did years of singing in smoky nightclubs kill Dana Reeve"
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/03/08/1141701556489.html
Interesting that you would emphasize sociology when industry and government uses all the social scientists for propaganda. Actually, it was my understanding that it was Sigmund Freud's nephew who played a critical role in getting women to accept smoking. He interviewd their psychoanalysts and found they felt smoking was a male privilege. So they hired fake suffragettes to smoke at voting rallies, calling cigs 'tourches of freedom." The woman began to equate it with liberation and took up the habit. Of course, with women's lib came weight oppression (give a freedom, take a freedom) and many women also started smoking as a means of weight control.
p.s. They may have been at least partially right about chocolate and tea!
p.p.s Want to do something more useful than almost a century old propaganda story? Please look further into SSRI antidepressants. In yet another school shooting, the kid went off either Prozac or Paxil. It is amazing how many of these recent infamous cases involve prescribed psychotropic drugs. Yet, it is spun over and over again as an unsolvable mystery why these things happen. This definitely demands attention.
Proceeds benefit charity, but it's [http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/02/17/news/casper/144a0871977259e8872573f20003edec.txt an API-sponsored event]:
[T]he 16th Annual American Petroleum Institute Chili Cookoff, which raises money for charities like the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Habitat for Humanity ... was themed "A Pirate's Life." ...
"Yaargh, it's really good," McKendree growled. "It's been brewing all day, aargh."
From whom did you hear that "the AAEI was going to channel the peace movement for the sake of the Dem party"?
Could you tell us more specifically how you worked to "crack rhe base of Republican support for the war"?
It's really too bad you didn't "target at least one Dem." Donna Edwards' unseating of Albert Wynn in the recent Maryland primary is very nice, but a few more like that would have been even nicer. The names Pelosi and Emanuel come to mind.
Seattle television station KING 5 has [http://www.king5.com/sports/stories/NW_021408OLY_beijing_charm_LJ.c08e301e.html a first-hand account] of how Chinese officials are wooing foreign journalists:
I spent five days in Beijing with photographer Ken Jones as guests of the Olympic Organizing Committee. It was dawn to dusk of show-and-tell, all designed to show us and have them tell us "everything's OK." They have it handled, and please come see the "New China."
And the British newspaper Telegraph notes [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/14/wchina214.xml a change in Chinese officials' response] to criticisms of the country's human rights record:
A foreign ministry spokesman said that while the government regretted Steven Spielberg’s decision to withdraw his support for the Games, it thought it "understandable" if critics did not agree with China’s policy in Sudan, and hoped for "dialogue" with them. ...
The new stance, which contrasts with previous statements saying the Chinese people would "never forgive" attempts to politicise the Games, may be a sign of the government’s fear that Spielberg’s boycott could trigger a bandwagon effect. ...
It may also be a sign of the influence of the international public relations consultants hired by the Games’ organisers.
Interesting that you would emphasize sociology when industry and government uses all the social scientists for propaganda. Actually, it was my understanding that it was Sigmund Freud's nephew who played a critical role in getting women to accept smoking. He interviewd their psychoanalysts and found they felt smoking was a male privilege. So they hired fake suffragettes to smoke at voting rallies, calling cigs 'tourches of freedom." The woman began to equate it with liberation and took up the habit. Of course, with women's lib came weight oppression (give a freedom, take a freedom) and many women also started smoking as a means of weight control.
p.s. They may have been at least partially right about chocolate and tea!
p.p.s Want to do something more useful than almost a century old propaganda story? Please look further into SSRI antidepressants. In yet another school shooting, the kid went off either Prozac or Paxil. It is amazing how many of these recent infamous cases involve prescribed psychotropic drugs. Yet, it is spun over and over again as an unsolvable mystery why these things happen. This definitely demands attention.
Proceeds benefit charity, but it's [http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/02/17/news/casper/144a0871977259e8872573f20003edec.txt an API-sponsored event]:
Your post is tantalizing, but a bit vague.
From whom did you hear that "the AAEI was going to channel the peace movement for the sake of the Dem party"?
Could you tell us more specifically how you worked to "crack rhe base of Republican support for the war"?
It's really too bad you didn't "target at least one Dem." Donna Edwards' unseating of Albert Wynn in the recent Maryland primary is very nice, but a few more like that would have been even nicer. The names Pelosi and Emanuel come to mind.
Seattle television station KING 5 has [http://www.king5.com/sports/stories/NW_021408OLY_beijing_charm_LJ.c08e301e.html a first-hand account] of how Chinese officials are wooing foreign journalists:
And the British newspaper Telegraph notes [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/14/wchina214.xml a change in Chinese officials' response] to criticisms of the country's human rights record:
Pages