I sense there is a need to clarify a bit from my last post. First, personal network contacts I consider germane to Wikipedia, are not connected to each other, and to my knowledge, are not in contact with each other (i keep my personal contacts tightly to myself). It does not represent some weird cabal. They are just people, who at some time in my past I contacted, and with whom I still occasionally communicate, who have also offered personally acquired insight regarding Wikipedia.
Secondly, several times I've tried to work changes in Wikipedia's article, always from the talk pages, never from the main stub, I've been portrayed as some sort of enemy to Wikipedia. In contrast, Sourcewatch has not cast any dispersions upon my motives, even though some of my muses placed upon article talk pages have been both provocative and raving. It is also noteworthy that Sourcewatch members have seen fit to leave it up to me as to when these muses should be removed. Sometimes, I've discovered this through search engines when doing research, much later, and much to my embarrassment.
I did not say that Wikipedia is necessarily broken, only that the consensus among persons I communicate about Wikipedia seems to be this. I've not gone that far yet, but I am currently in agreement with another consensus amongst them, and that is the recommendation that I simply walk-away from it, the path to change it is not mine.
It may be that the infant formula industry is only motivated by greed. It may be that Thomson only cares about protecting their interests. BUT, headline grabbing, fear mongering ads DO create guilt. It is so sad that these alleged health crusaders just don't seem to get that! They are motivated by the same simplistic notions and internal conflicts that drive fundamentalistic Christians.
I don't know if this was the same situation as Richard Carmona's ( one ofthe worst surgeon generals the US has ever had) needles and respirators ad, but it sounds like it is in the same vein. That concept was absurd! It would have either scared some moms to death, or turned off others completely with its overstatement. Or course, Carmoron tried to convince us obesity is a great threat than terrorism. Not only is that complete bull, it follows a long line of counterproductive scare tactics surgeon generals have been using since the 1950s. I am getting sick to death of my tax dollars wasted on those who have no clue what does and does not motivate people! And what makes things worse. Geez, can't they take psych 101!
It may be that the infant formula industry is only motivated by greed. It may be that Thomson only cares about protecting their interests. BUT, headline grabbing, fear mongering ads DO create guilt. It is so sad that these alleged health crusaders just don't seem to get that! They are motivated by the same simplistic notions and internal conflicts that drive fundamentalistic Christians.
I don't know if this was the same situation as Richard Carmona's ( one ofthe worst surgeon generals the US has ever had) needles and respirators ad, but it sounds like it is in the same vein. That concept was absurd! It would have either scared some moms to death, or turned off others completely with its overstatement. Or course, Carmoron tried to convince us obesity is a great threat than terrorism. Not only is that complete bull, it follows a long line of counterproductive scare tactics surgeon generals have been using since the 1950s. I am getting sick to death of my tax dollars wasted on those who have no clue what does and does not motivate people! And what makes things worse. Geez, can't they take psych 101!
It's no secret that the neocons wanted to knock off Saddam all along. But Bush Senior didn't want to bite off more than he could chew, and Cheney agreed at the time -- or was he just waiting until he could gain more influence over a more manipulable president?
Anyway, during the years between Gulf War I and O.I.F. the public got constantly reminded of how big a threat Saddam supposedly remained, at the same time we were bombing targets in Iraq and squeezing it with sanctions. By the time Osama bin Laden obligingly served up the "Pearl Harbor event" the neocons were waiting for, Saddam's regime was as well softened up as anyone could wish for and the American public was ready to believe anything about Saddam and Osama.
I'd say "...and the rest is history," but you can't take for granted what anyone will or won't accept as "history" these days.
I came across an old ABC News report from 1999 on YouTube the other day and it shocked me! Not only did the propaganda piece suggest links between Al-Quida and Saddam Hussien, but it also stated ,flat out, that Saddam intended to provide OBL refuge! The date of this information raises disturbing implications in relation to future events and I encourage others to view this clip!
I sense there is a need to clarify a bit from my last post. First, personal network contacts I consider germane to Wikipedia, are not connected to each other, and to my knowledge, are not in contact with each other (i keep my personal contacts tightly to myself). It does not represent some weird cabal. They are just people, who at some time in my past I contacted, and with whom I still occasionally communicate, who have also offered personally acquired insight regarding Wikipedia.
Secondly, several times I've tried to work changes in Wikipedia's article, always from the talk pages, never from the main stub, I've been portrayed as some sort of enemy to Wikipedia. In contrast, Sourcewatch has not cast any dispersions upon my motives, even though some of my muses placed upon article talk pages have been both provocative and raving. It is also noteworthy that Sourcewatch members have seen fit to leave it up to me as to when these muses should be removed. Sometimes, I've discovered this through search engines when doing research, much later, and much to my embarrassment.
I did not say that Wikipedia is necessarily broken, only that the consensus among persons I communicate about Wikipedia seems to be this. I've not gone that far yet, but I am currently in agreement with another consensus amongst them, and that is the recommendation that I simply walk-away from it, the path to change it is not mine.
It may be that the infant formula industry is only motivated by greed. It may be that Thomson only cares about protecting their interests. BUT, headline grabbing, fear mongering ads DO create guilt. It is so sad that these alleged health crusaders just don't seem to get that! They are motivated by the same simplistic notions and internal conflicts that drive fundamentalistic Christians.
I don't know if this was the same situation as Richard Carmona's ( one ofthe worst surgeon generals the US has ever had) needles and respirators ad, but it sounds like it is in the same vein. That concept was absurd! It would have either scared some moms to death, or turned off others completely with its overstatement. Or course, Carmoron tried to convince us obesity is a great threat than terrorism. Not only is that complete bull, it follows a long line of counterproductive scare tactics surgeon generals have been using since the 1950s. I am getting sick to death of my tax dollars wasted on those who have no clue what does and does not motivate people! And what makes things worse. Geez, can't they take psych 101!
It may be that the infant formula industry is only motivated by greed. It may be that Thomson only cares about protecting their interests. BUT, headline grabbing, fear mongering ads DO create guilt. It is so sad that these alleged health crusaders just don't seem to get that! They are motivated by the same simplistic notions and internal conflicts that drive fundamentalistic Christians.
I don't know if this was the same situation as Richard Carmona's ( one ofthe worst surgeon generals the US has ever had) needles and respirators ad, but it sounds like it is in the same vein. That concept was absurd! It would have either scared some moms to death, or turned off others completely with its overstatement. Or course, Carmoron tried to convince us obesity is a great threat than terrorism. Not only is that complete bull, it follows a long line of counterproductive scare tactics surgeon generals have been using since the 1950s. I am getting sick to death of my tax dollars wasted on those who have no clue what does and does not motivate people! And what makes things worse. Geez, can't they take psych 101!
Here's a link to that clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uxVYN-5iY
It's no secret that the neocons wanted to knock off Saddam all along. But Bush Senior didn't want to bite off more than he could chew, and Cheney agreed at the time -- or was he just waiting until he could gain more influence over a more manipulable president?
Anyway, during the years between Gulf War I and O.I.F. the public got constantly reminded of how big a threat Saddam supposedly remained, at the same time we were bombing targets in Iraq and squeezing it with sanctions. By the time Osama bin Laden obligingly served up the "Pearl Harbor event" the neocons were waiting for, Saddam's regime was as well softened up as anyone could wish for and the American public was ready to believe anything about Saddam and Osama.
I'd say "...and the rest is history," but you can't take for granted what anyone will or won't accept as "history" these days.
I came across an old ABC News report from 1999 on YouTube the other day and it shocked me! Not only did the propaganda piece suggest links between Al-Quida and Saddam Hussien, but it also stated ,flat out, that Saddam intended to provide OBL refuge! The date of this information raises disturbing implications in relation to future events and I encourage others to view this clip!
Pages