I heard on the news they are using a genetically altered
product in place of transfat! How do we know that is any better? It was the health zealots who called for the switch from saturated fat to trans fat in the first place. I remember the evils of butter and the virtures of margarine. (Funny how this fact gets forgotten.) These petty fears we have over food keep us from looking at the big picture. Speaking of which, let's say it does reduce heart disease. Are the food reformers also going to fix social security? All the pension funds in jeopardy? Ease consumer debt so people can start saving for retirement? Bring back high wage jobs? Or are they going to continue to nag for more spartan food restrictions so we can all live as long and as impoverished as possible?
What difference does it make what spin NBC Corporate Communications puts on this? The issue is the structural interlocking of today's giant media owners. The idea of some "dark conspiracy" is just a red herring. No response from NBC will change the facts of interlocking media ownership and conglomeration, or its impact (intended or not) on the squeezing or burying of information that is important for public debate and citizenship. To say that the broadcasting of some types of information or some types of commercials is rejected purely for business reasons in no way justifies a media system that deprives the public of important information. If the present corporately owned media, and their profit-driven imperatives are not conducive to the open dissemination of all forms of knowledge and information, then we need to oppose these systems at every turn. Let's not try to mask these fundamental structural issues behind superficial protocols of journalistic "balance."
I do think this is a bit of a stretch. We're talking about a decision about whether to accept a commercial, not a news item or a program. Every broadcaster has its own standards by which they evaluate any commercial proposed to them. And you know, rather than worrying about what their corporate parent might say, they may just feel that the commercial violates their standards of decency and fairness and might even turn off significant portion of their audience in the time period it was to run.
Rather than looking for dark conspiracies, journalistic integrity would call for asking for a comment from NBC. No sign you did that.
Big pharma should rebuild it's public image.Recent survey shows only about 9% of Americans trust them,this is the same rating as the tobacco companies.
They have an estimated 90,000 drug reps in the USA promoting to doctors.Enough is enough!
Eli Lilly has a rich humanitarian history,but if you do a blog search of "Eli Lilly and "zyprexa (their blockbuster) keywords you will find much negative blogging.
Some of it is from claimants of their Zyprexa settlement like myself who developed complications and are still awaiting promised resolution.
---
Daniel Haszard Bangor Maine
I have not read the Congresspedia page yet, but I will later if I have time.
But as far as corruption in high places, I am learning that it is extensive, and it reminds me of what I once heard someone say --- that quite often extremely inept people will actually climb to the top (of corporations or government or such), simply because they are good at knowing how to make it look like other peoples' good work is their own --- "stealing thunder" of a sort. Also they are "good" at making it look like their own ineptitude and other flaws are that of other people --- they know how to skirt and shirk blame, and shift facts around, or perception of facts, that is.
And, sometimes it is the people who are the best at losing jobs that learn to be the best as to how to get them, just through extensive practice at initial impressions.
Okay sometimes these corrupt people in high places have been appointed by someone, instead of having been elected. I am very curious who appoints these people, such as commissioners who end up doing prison sentences, etc. Whoever appoints them seems to be a carefully guarded secret --- nothing much is made of this aspect publicly, especially when the corruption is uncovered. But I would about bet that whoever appointed them appointed them for being assured that that person would make a good puppet or pawn --- or essentially, they knew that they could count on them to be corrupt and manipulatable.
For instance a state commissioner might be very good at using the initial presumption of the public that the commission is aloof of being inept or corrupt itself, preying upon the public's wish for a fatherly or minister-like figure to come in and comfort them. Meanwhile, such a commission does not protect the public (in the least) nor care, but rather is a pro at shooing the blame onto some totally innocent party.
Through the grapevine, I have heard of too many of these sorts of things. And it gets to be ridiculous. But I have to live in this world until I die, so what do I do? Act like it doesn't happen?
Hypocrisy is so popular as a modus operandi. It is just ridiculous that people want to live such lies. They have no concept whatever of laws or rather, the spirit of laws, or things like that it is an abomination in the eyes of God, or against spiritual principles (if they don't believe in God), to lie about other people. They have no concept whatever that "what goes around, comes around," which I believe is an old slave saying.
Which incidentally, that is what much of corruption is all about: keeping people in slavery-type situations, even if they are not obvious slaves. Well this could be discussed and pondered ad infinitum. But it all comes back to the same unfortunate truth which every con man knows, that hypocrisy not only exists but abounds. It (hypocrisy) is a very convenient lure for the lurid.
They have to have a totally innocent "Christ" type figure to presume blame upon, when the facts get the least bit complicated for busy people to understand. What it is, is like a looting of one's good character and good intentions. It is bizarre. But it happens.
I heard on the news they are using a genetically altered
product in place of transfat! How do we know that is any better? It was the health zealots who called for the switch from saturated fat to trans fat in the first place. I remember the evils of butter and the virtures of margarine. (Funny how this fact gets forgotten.) These petty fears we have over food keep us from looking at the big picture. Speaking of which, let's say it does reduce heart disease. Are the food reformers also going to fix social security? All the pension funds in jeopardy? Ease consumer debt so people can start saving for retirement? Bring back high wage jobs? Or are they going to continue to nag for more spartan food restrictions so we can all live as long and as impoverished as possible?
Big pharma should rebuild it's public image.Recent survey shows only about 9% of Americans trust them,this is the same rating as the tobacco companies.
They have an estimated 90,000 drug reps in the USA promoting to doctors.Enough is enough!
Eli Lilly has a rich humanitarian history,but if you do a blog search of "Eli Lilly and "zyprexa (their blockbuster) keywords you will find much negative blogging.
Some of it is from claimants of their Zyprexa settlement like myself who developed complications and are still awaiting promised resolution.
---
Daniel Haszard Bangor Maine
Pages