There's more than just news that's fake. Recently a tv producer sent out a call for sexologists who would appear on a reality type show; youth with sex "problems" that need solving. By the sexologist, and advertisers of course.
There will be lots of prurient material for the male viewer who is the primary target audience, who can watch this, punctuated by product shilling every couple minutes from the big money prime time advertisers the producers wouldn't get in the 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. slot. One of them may be a pharmaceutical company, pushing their deadly erectile dysfunction drugs. But most definitely the pseudo-profession of sexologist will get a huge boost.
This is spin. Pornography under the guise of health problems, now in prime time. Young women, especially, are being pimped. Is this of any concern at all to the anyone in the left? It sure isn't to the rightist corporate conglomerate who know a money maker when it was born on some marketing department lunch junket.
Keep 'em buying. Use women's bodies to move your product whenever possible. Make it a reality show to bring it under the wire and position it in a family time slot.
C'mon CW lefties! It's not baby seals or weapons of mass destruction, so it doesn't merit discussion here? This is corporate shill at its most incidious and destructive; pimping a generation of women to fill the shareholder's pockets.
<blockquote>...[T]here is absolutely no reason that Philip Morris/Altria has to stop funding the arts in New York City. </blockquote>
You seem to have ambivalent feelings -- you despise the source of the money but don't want to give up what it buys.
Easy for me though it is to say it, I think it's better in such cases to think of it like biting the bullet and quitting smoking cold turkey. Good riddance to 'em.
An Editorial in the October 9 <em>New York Times </em>titled [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09tue4.html?ex=1192766400&en=8f7be71290abb4a3&ei=5070&emc=eta1 End of an Era in Arts Funding], essentially agrees with this blog.
Incidentally, there is absolutely no reason that Philip Morris/Altria has to stop funding the arts in New York City. Just because their headquarters won't be there any more doesn't mean they have to pull these dollars. PM funds plenty of activities in places where it does not have offices, and PM can certainly can afford to continue offering its support, even from Richmond.
The reasons why PM/Altria pulls funding, particularly in such a visible way, are political. In this case, it is likely to make an impression on a locale that has taken significant steps in recent years to end smoking in workplaces and public places, thus helping to set a trend now being rapidly followed in the rest of the country.
Perhaps PM's philanthropy would endow a spellchecker in return for a little discreet non-derogatory product placement. ;-)
I hadn't known PM supported art other than billboards with lips blowing real smoke rings. Enlightening!
In October 2006, the Food and Nutrition Committee of the Institute of Medicine declared that eating fish and shellfish is associated with overall lower risk for developing heart disease. However, it called this finding “preliminary” since, “It is not certain whether this is because substituting the lean protein of seafood for fatty cuts of meat reduces consumers' intake of saturated fat and cholesterol or because of the protective effects of omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in relatively high amounts in many fish species.” Given the inconclusive nature of the potential relation between long chain omega-3 fatty acids and coronary heart disease risk and the mercury and other toxins prevalent in fish, we need scientific evidence about whether fish are really good for your heart or if fish eating is merely not as bad for your heart as beef eating. This evidence should be used to frame public policy statements.
Amy Lanou, PhD, Claudio Nigg, PhD and I co-authored a study of nutritional data, including long chain omega-3 fatty acid intake, from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. We found that fish eating (i.e., omega-3 fatty acid consumption) strongly correlates with eating more dietary fiber and less saturated fatty acids. This means that fish eaters consume more fruits and veges and less red meat and dairy products than non fish eaters. We concluded that the associations observed in previous studies suggesting a benefit of fish or long chain omega 3 fatty acids are probably due to fish eaters having an overall healthier dietary pattern rather than a long chain omega-3 fatty acid specific effect.
Cundiff DK, Lanou AJ, Nigg CR. Relation of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake to Other Dietary Factors Known to Reduce Coronary Heart Disease Risk. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99.(9):1230-1233.
There's more than just news that's fake. Recently a tv producer sent out a call for sexologists who would appear on a reality type show; youth with sex "problems" that need solving. By the sexologist, and advertisers of course.
There will be lots of prurient material for the male viewer who is the primary target audience, who can watch this, punctuated by product shilling every couple minutes from the big money prime time advertisers the producers wouldn't get in the 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. slot. One of them may be a pharmaceutical company, pushing their deadly erectile dysfunction drugs. But most definitely the pseudo-profession of sexologist will get a huge boost.
This is spin. Pornography under the guise of health problems, now in prime time. Young women, especially, are being pimped. Is this of any concern at all to the anyone in the left? It sure isn't to the rightist corporate conglomerate who know a money maker when it was born on some marketing department lunch junket.
Keep 'em buying. Use women's bodies to move your product whenever possible. Make it a reality show to bring it under the wire and position it in a family time slot.
C'mon CW lefties! It's not baby seals or weapons of mass destruction, so it doesn't merit discussion here? This is corporate shill at its most incidious and destructive; pimping a generation of women to fill the shareholder's pockets.
In October 2006, the Food and Nutrition Committee of the Institute of Medicine declared that eating fish and shellfish is associated with overall lower risk for developing heart disease. However, it called this finding “preliminary” since, “It is not certain whether this is because substituting the lean protein of seafood for fatty cuts of meat reduces consumers' intake of saturated fat and cholesterol or because of the protective effects of omega-3 fatty acids, which are found in relatively high amounts in many fish species.” Given the inconclusive nature of the potential relation between long chain omega-3 fatty acids and coronary heart disease risk and the mercury and other toxins prevalent in fish, we need scientific evidence about whether fish are really good for your heart or if fish eating is merely not as bad for your heart as beef eating. This evidence should be used to frame public policy statements.
Amy Lanou, PhD, Claudio Nigg, PhD and I co-authored a study of nutritional data, including long chain omega-3 fatty acid intake, from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. We found that fish eating (i.e., omega-3 fatty acid consumption) strongly correlates with eating more dietary fiber and less saturated fatty acids. This means that fish eaters consume more fruits and veges and less red meat and dairy products than non fish eaters. We concluded that the associations observed in previous studies suggesting a benefit of fish or long chain omega 3 fatty acids are probably due to fish eaters having an overall healthier dietary pattern rather than a long chain omega-3 fatty acid specific effect.
Cundiff DK, Lanou AJ, Nigg CR. Relation of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Intake to Other Dietary Factors Known to Reduce Coronary Heart Disease Risk. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99.(9):1230-1233.
Pages