Recent comments

  • Reply to: Living Off the Fat of the Land   15 years 8 months ago
    is my friend!!!! There are those is the size acceptance movement who lament that the Center for Consumer Freedom is getting involved in this issue. While my opinion of the later is hardly favorable, I say it is high time someone takes on the pharmaceutical companies. For years there have been health professionals who have questioned the automatic association between obesity and poor health. Their voices were stifled by both the pharmaceuticals who pay off journalists and a popular prejudice. No grass roots group has the power to stand up to a behemoth like the Robert Woods Johnson foundation who makes megabucks off antiobesity hysteria. I am glad both sides of the issue are coming out, let this debate at least be examined critically and fairly. And let the corporations go at it against each other and use up all their resources. Since all the benefits of moderate fatness have been suppressed, this may be one war which benefits a more balanced exhange of information.
  • Reply to: Britain's Nuclear Option   15 years 8 months ago
    As a passionate environmentalist myself, and an engineer who happens to dabble in psychology, I firmly believe that the only way OUT of an environmental catastrophe is to develop nuclear power. Nuclear power is scary because it's big, but if you were to do a full analysis of safety considerations, it's probably the best option between fossil fuels, "natural" renewables, and nuclear. Fossil fuels I probably don't have to argue with this crowd. Renewables are a terrible land usage, and to generate enough energy we'd have to use far more land dedicated to these renewables than we would to nuclear disposal. It's scary, but true. Wind farms in enough quantity to alleviate the energy load use up enough land to cause birds significant problems, though they make excellent supplemental power. Solar power is absolutely terrible land usage, as it effectively turns its installation into a desert of sorts. Appropriate for some deserts, of course, but not enough to alleviate the problem. I think the reason nuclear power is so scary is simply because it's so concentrated. With solar power, the huge land loss required is less scary to most people, but has a far larger implication to the natural world. Rolling back human power use just ain't gonna happen. I would encourage anyone skeptical of this view to post some numbers about land usage, environmental impact, and power generated. I'm planning on doing that myself, because this is just my intuition - even though I hope I'm wrong! I'm barking mad about environmentalists who use their emotion before their heads... -Gary
  • Reply to: Looking for Leads on an Environmental Story   15 years 9 months ago
    Sheldon, I wasn't able to create a trackback with the given URL, https://www.prwatch.org/trackback/3629 ... I posted your request at <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2005/4/27/205140/606">BoomanTribune.com</a>, in a diary.
  • Reply to: Bush Wins Earth Day Greenwashing Award (If There Were One)   15 years 9 months ago
    The problem is any agenda which might inconvenience powerful corporate interests will never see the light of day in main stream media. Here's why: http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=354&dt=1
  • Reply to: The FCC on "Fake News": Who's Trying to Persuade You?   15 years 9 months ago
    Paul McLeary has written a [http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001456.asp|nice critique of the FCC statement] for CJR's CampaignDesk blog: <blockquote> Nice try, but producers and station managers likely see little to fear in statements like "operators generally must clearly disclose ..." This borders on the nonsensical. What exactly is meant by "generally?" Most of the time? Some of the time? At least six times out of 10? Worse, the notice also says that "No sponsorship identification is necessary with regard to material that is furnished to the licensee 'without charge or at a nominal charge.'" Since many VNRs are already given to stations for free, or at worst for a "nominal charge," the new language basically means it's business as usual.</blockquote> Also at CJR, Brian Montopoli points out that "[http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001452.asp|these high-profile transgressions don't exist in a vacuum]" but actually reflect the common journalistic practice (in print as well as on TV news) of having reporters rewrite news releases into actual news stories: <blockquote> For what, really, is the point of just rewriting a press release? If you're just regurgitating PR, you might as well just send the press release itself over the wire, or print it in the newspaper -- isn't that ultimately more honest? (Although, admittedly, probably not that good for circulation.) Reshaping a press release into story form without adding any real context, pertinent information, or countervailing opinion isn't journalism, appearances notwithstanding. It's actually not all that different from what a Karen Ryan does -- packaging PR so as it give it the imprimatur of editorial legitimacy.</blockquote>

Pages