Recent comments

  • Reply to: Sierra Club: Is Selling Ford Selling Out?   14 years 11 months ago
    "What Would John Muir Drive? Maybe This SUV 'For years, we've pressured Ford to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks,' says the Sierra Club's Dan Becker, 'Now they have begun to, and we want to help them succeed.'" So reads the post to the 300,000-strong Sierra Club email list, overtly promoting a Ford SUV. To be fair, any vehicle that gets better gas mileage is good news. However, a closer look reveals that Ford will only produce 2,000 of these vehicles in the 2006 model year. This represents three one-hundredths of one percent of Ford’s estimated 2005 sales of nearly 7 million vehicles. And still, Ford is in last place in fuel efficiency among the world’s major automakers. The fact is that America can no longer afford to support Ford's oil addiction. If you agree, go to www.FreedomFromOil.org and sign the Declaration of Independence from Oil. Meanwhile, the campaign to Jumpstart Ford continues with a full page ad in today's New York Times. Q: What do Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, Dick Cheney, and Bill Ford Jr. have in common? A: They all love gas guzzlers.
  • Reply to: Doctored Health News   14 years 11 months ago
    I founded my company, NewsMD Communications on the very principle that health news is vital and should be reported by health journalists and not public relation personnel. In producing video news releases, I conduct independent research,interview multiple sources as well as analyze and critique information before doing so. Many health reporters contact me for stories because they know I review stories with the same critical eye that they would if they had the time. It's the production -- not the control of content that is paid for. There's a big difference. But, that's no excuse for the health producer or reporter to not get on the phone to do actual research on the story themselves. If they don't then they're simply not doing their jobs. I know I don't allow anyone to control editorial content.
  • Reply to: Rhetoric vs. Reality in London   14 years 12 months ago
    Please let me add a few somewhat cynical observations about the bloggers you survey. As you observe, these web pundits seem determined to show that the tragedy in London validates our current policies and practices in the war on terror. Less than two weeks ago, the same bloggers were celebrating the wisdom of Bush's flypaper strategy– "better to fight them over there, than over here." Now that "over there" is London, however, these self-proclaimed voices of conservatism have fallen back to "liberal-bashing"--the tried and true tactics of distortion and misrepresentation developed during the Clinton years. In fact to be consistent, these bloggers should be celebrating the attack in London as further vindication of Bush's wisdom. If only we had this level of outrage in 1998 during the American embassy bombings in which 250 people were killed. A concerted effort then to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and to dismantle Al Qaeda, would made 9-11 and subsequent attacks a non-possibilty. But our same self-proclaimed ultra-patriots were more interested in the Starr Report and impeaching Clinton for having sex with an intern. Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996; he issued an even more vehement fatwa in 1998. Karl Rove claims that "conservatives prepared for war after 9-11." Only three years after the embassy bombings, and five years after war was declared on us. Personally, I think no more damning indictment can be made against the Bush neocons and their supporters than Rove's own words. Iraq was the wrong war with the wrong enemy at the wrong time. Now, to defend this failing policies and practices, we have "liberal-bashing" once again: the tried-and-true tactics of distortion and misrepresentation. This failed our nation in 1996, in 1998, and is failing our nation now.
  • Reply to: Rhetoric vs. Reality in London   14 years 12 months ago
    A minor point, but you said: "As for Galloway's suggestion that England should pull its troops out of Iraq...". As Galloway is Scottish, I would doubt very much that he made the mistake of believing that England (which has no dedicated government, and no army) could pull its troops out of anywhere. There is a British army (which contains many British people who are not English), controlled by a British government. Britain and England are not synonymous.
  • Reply to: Spin Doctors   15 years 3 days ago
    I'm planning to organize a panel on ethics at the next meeting of the International Federation of Science Editors in Melbourne, Australia in 2006. Suggestions about qualified speakers in the medical field who might be intersted in participating would be welcome.

Pages