Category Archives: communications/media

CISPA

by

Electronic Frontier Foundation has this up. 

The internet should be viewed as a private transaction between the user and the internet.  I don’t understand the thought that because you’re on the ‘net, you’re automatically abdicating the Right to Privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

~~~~~~~~~

 

Blood Medicine

by

I’m watching Kathleen Sharp on BookTV (yay, Book TV) that has written a book called Blood Medicine about a cancer drug, Epo,  that did a great job of helping red blood cells to grow….

….unfortunately, it also helps cancer cells to grow.

Yes, yes, it is freaking amazing that this drug is on the market with serious issues such as suspected of killing people.

The operation was a success.  But the patient died.

Sharp describes a cancer patient was helped by the drug with his cancer fight, but died because he began bleeding out the nose and mouth.

Sharp is adamant against pharmaceutical companies being able to advertise on Tv.  I  believe she said that we and perhaps another country are the only developed countries that allow these commercials.

In Communications, they go to great lengths in order to sell the product.  Advertising agencies will do a study of the targeted audience to see how to construct the message for the best impact — i.e., to get the target audience  to request it from their doctors. or perhaps I should say demand it from their doctors.  They are convinced by slick advertising that *this* drug will help them get healthy again.   As someone who has been *there*, it really doesn’t take much in convincing if you’re so ill that you would do almost anything to regain your health.  Sharp didn’t even touch on the fact that these doctors who are prescribing these drugs, may be invested in these companies, and therefore, have a financial interest to prescribe these drugs.  I’ve seen how pharma works –they are not legally supposed to buy doctors lunches and other gifts….so they have “information sessions” and just happen to have it during the lunch hour….and have lunch brought in.  Ahem.

A sunshine law is part of the Obama health plan.  We’ll see if it does any good.  I’m pessimistic because the whole culture surrounding the FDA and the pharm industry and the billion dollar lobbying by Big Pharma…

More history here.

And here.  How can we forget Bush appointment, Dr. Hager,  and his ex-wife’s allegations of marital rape?

Sharp mentions the revolving door between the pharm industry and the FDA.

A man calling himself  John calls in and is identifying himself as a neonatalogist whom immediately states that Sharp has “poorly researched” her book. (red flag that this guy is perhaps an industry exec or someone tied to the billion dollar industry).   She states that there are some uses for the drug, but  the consumers are not aware of the dangers and that needs to change.

~~~~~~

While researching this, I found this link.  People were protesting Monsanto back in 1994….but Bill Clinton was busy in the Oval Office….something about an intern with a blue dress…

Thatcher

by

The comments here are priceless on Margaret Thatcher’s passing.  Gah, I used to think so well of this woman in my repub daze.  Arrgh.

And even if I had the money, I would not have seen Meryl Streep’s version of her.  I was afraid that the worst would not come out, and from the comments on the movie, my guess was accurate.  Trying to make her into someone to admire?  Wow, Streep has gone so far away from Silkwood. 

The comments on feminists praising Thatcher as being a woman that “made it” is spot on.  One doesn’t have to look any farther than Hillary Clinton to see that.

I mean, really, Clinton makes a big deal about being asked about her clothes, and there are feminists who applaud that thinking she’s being assertive. Pfft.  Men are asked about the suits they wear.  I wouldn’t know what an Armani suit was if not for that.  And a man could not walk into a courtroom, to use the above example, in jeans and flannel shirt and expect to be given the same consideration from a judge that he would if he were wearing a suit.  Men notice other men’s suits, but they’re not as obvious about it.  It may come out as “hey, nice suit” and left at that.

Should a person be judged by appearance?  Absolutely not.

In my personal observation, we are becoming worse about judging folks by the outside instead of the inside.  Our cultural programming, from watching shows like Survivor, among other things,  buys into the notion that others are superior.  Some see clothes as an indicator of superiority.  I remember that it wasn’t so much so before we moved away from an agricultural (family farm) culture.  I remember when Levi’s became the preferred jean and you were “uncool” if you didn’t have those jeans.  Uncool = lesser person.  This also coincides with “poor person”,  btw….

Somehow our culture became twisted along the way and “rich people” became associated with “good people”.  Being poor, one comes to assess folks not on their bank accounts, but on their actions.  What do they do with their funds?  Do they help others or spend their time degrading others and, like the Kochs, do their best to make sure that they have it all?

 

Anyway, Margaret Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan were the architects of what we’re dealing with today–the culture of greed.  “I’ve got mine, screw you.”   or “I’ve got mine, and I want yours, too.”

More on the Arkansas spill

by

You know, there are days when I wish that I was wrong, and this is one of them.

So…my first inclination was right–that they were trying to control the message and access to the area by the press….it would appear that the press corps are going to have to start having body guards.

At least there is one aerial photo of the mess here.

New resource from PR Watch

by

PR Watch has this press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 4, 2013
CONTACT: Nikolina Lazic, nikolina@prwatch.org, (608) 260-9713

A REPORTERS’ GUIDE TO THE “STATE POLICY NETWORK:” THE RIGHT-WING THINK TANKS SPINNING DISINFORMATION AND PUSHING THE ALEC AGENDA IN STATES
New Resource Details “Think Tanks” Tanking Americans’ Rights

MADISON, WI — The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), the publisher of the award-winning ALECexposed.org investigation, is releasing a new web resource, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:State_Policy_Network for reporters and citizens about the activities of Tracie Sharp’s State Policy Network (SPN) and its state “think tank” members. Although the funding of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is approximately $7 million a year, funding for SPN, its 59 state operations and the controversial Heartland Institute — an SPN ally like ALEC that tries to change both state and federal law — has topped $80 million in recent years. And these SPN operations often function like an echo chamber of the corporate-funded ALEC agenda.

CMD’s three-month investigation, http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/11909/reporters%E2%80%99-guide-%E2%80%9Cstate-policy-network%E2%80%9D-right-wing-think-tanks-spinning-disinform uncloaks some of the major funders of SPN’s expanding operations in the states and raises major concerns over whose agenda these groups are advancing in the state:

1. Mystery Funds. This investigation identifies hundreds of thousands of dollars, and perhaps much more than that, which Sharp distributes to these organizations but that is not disclosed to the IRS as passing through SPN’s books. It is possible that Sharp is distributing or designating funds made available via the Koch-connected “DonorsTrust” and “Donors Capital Fund” or some other stream of cash for the state operations she helps grow. However, some of the big bucks at her disposal did not show up in SPN’s 990 form in the same year it was distributed to an SPN group. See the SourceWatch article on SPN Funding for more.

2. Even More Koch Money Than Previously Known. This guide also flags that substantial funding for some SPN state operations has come from Koch Industries itself and not only the Koch family foundations. That is, hundreds of thousands of dollars, at least, hav been spent by the privately held energy conglomerate controlled by two of the richest billionaires in the world, Charles and David Koch. The total amount is secret because it is not passing through the Koch foundations, which are required to disclose their disbursements. The total amount of Koch money spent on SPN-related efforts to change state laws and spin the news is understated by analysis of their foundation spending alone. See the SourceWatch article on SPN Funding for more.

3. Trying to Change the Law, but Reporting Little or No Lobbying. Like ALEC, SPN and its affiliates seek to change state laws, but report little or no lobbying. That means that corporations and individuals (like Koch Industries and others) that fund their operations can get a tax write-off for funding SPN efforts. See the SourceWatch article on the SPN Agenda for more.

4. SPN Funders Help Some Interests Get Multiple Votes on ALEC Bills. The relationship between SPN affiliates and ALEC is strong and is funded by some of the same donors. That means that some corporate interests like the Kochs get, in effect, multiple votes to change the law on ALEC task forces, where corporate lobbyists and special interest groups like SPN operations vote as equals with elected officials behind closed doors. A particular ALEC task force may have multiple Koch-funded operations — including a lobbyist from Koch Companies Public Sector, a special interest representative from an SPN operation like the Goldwater Institute, and reps from national Koch-controlled or fueled groups like David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Charles Koch-founded Cato Institute, along with the Heritage Foundation, a long-time ally of the Koch agenda. Through ALEC, SPN helps write templates to change state laws; then ALEC members vote in secret for those bills; and then SPN supports the introduction or adoption of those bills as law, sometimes with help from David Koch’s AFP echo chamber in a state.

5. SPN Funders Have Included Some of the Richest and Most Ideological Families in the Country. Fueling SPN-related efforts is a bevy of right-wing billionaires and foundations beyond the Koch brothers and including the Bradley Foundation, DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund (large donor-directed funds), the Olin Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation (the Amway fortune), the Coors-related Castle Rock Foundation and the Adolph Coors Foundation, the McCamish Foundation, the JM Foundation, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. SPN-related activities are also funded by the Roe Foundation, the charitable arm that is part of the legacy of Thomas Roe, the man who helped launch SPN over two decades ago, after telling one of his allies, “I’m going to capture the states,” just like Ronald Reagan was going to capture the U.S.S.R.

6. SPN’s Legislative Agenda Is Frequently Buttressed by Its Forays as “Press” and the Echoes of Its Allies in the Growing Right-Wing State “Press” Corps. As CMD was one of the first to document, SPN groups like the Goldwater Institute are hiring people to act as reporters, and the legislative agenda of SPN is increasingly echoed by the growing right-wing infrastructure of groups that pose as press. Some even get their stories or “reports” picked up as news and delivered to state newspapers as a “wire” service like the Associated Press, as with the Franklin Center’s Watchdog.org groups and the Ryun brothers-allied “American Majority” and “Media Trackers” operations.

This Reporters’ Guide details how SPN works, who funds it, what the network’s groups do, and looks at some of their legislative goals, including undermining workers’ rights and weakening unions as well as undoing renewable energy laws and expanding ways in which tax dollars are redirected to the private sector, for example through funding so-called “virtual schools.”

Key resources include:

1. PRwatch Special Report with Key Findings: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/04/11909/reporters%E2%80%99-guide-%E2%80%9Cstate-policy-network%E2%80%9D-right-wing-think-tanks-spinning-disinform

2. State Policy Network Main Portal: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:State_Policy_Network

3. SPN Funding: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SPN_Funding

4. SPN Ties to ALEC: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SPN_Ties_to_ALEC

5. SPN Members: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SPN_Members

6. SPN Agenda; http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SPN_Agenda

7. SPN_Founders,_History,_and_Staff: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/

Exxon interfering with coverage of the Arkansas spill

by

Exxon is interfering with our right to know and the First Amendment–the right of the news crews to fly over the spill to document it. And my guess that the reason I haven’t heard of it on the news is becoming obvious–trying to shut down the news of it so that the Canadian XL pipeline can go through without protest… (note again the Hillary Clinton connection to XL…)

…and as I said, the real reason they don’t want *outsiders* taking the ducks and other wildlife to rescue centers is to thwart attempts to document the damage with photos of the dead and suffering wildlife….

(I say outsiders with just a little sarcasm…as if the American public were outsiders in their own country….but increasingly made to feel that way, eh? )

Hansen leaving NASA

by

Common Dreams has this up on NASA scientist James Hansen leaving the agency to work actively against climate change.

What’s really depressing about this article is that Hansen has been telling Congress since 1988 that climate change was real and a growing problem.

1988….twenty-five freaking years ago….and we’re still dragging our feet?  It is so depressing at all that has happened since then and how much better off we would be now if action had been taken at that time!

 

Freud’s Legacy

by

In our building, we have a small library with some good mysteries (which I love), and we all share the books between us.

I like to read them before bed, and this last one just is over the top in stereotypes.  I quit reading trashy romance novels because of the way women were portrayed as always needing rescued and in some of the cases, the women were…how to put this…gently raped.  Or perhaps I should say date raped….the last romance novel with this in it had portrayed a Native American woman as a princess (there is no such thing) that was  in love with a European guy who thought she was seeing someone else.  He proceeds to throw her on the bed and rip her clothes off….and you get the rest.  This was so offensive that it pretty much turned me off of them (some exceptions are ones where the woman is independent and doesn’t need rescued, but enjoys having a companion to share her life).

So…long intro story into the book I just finished—

This mystery was about a serial killer that was attacking women in a certain area.  I’ll spare you the gruesome details (also not one of my favorite reads–I prefer the kind Agatha Christie wrote that focused more on analytical ability than the gore).  But essentially these women were connected to a domestic violence recovery center and three of them disappeared and two bodies were recovered.  A third survived, but would be blind and deaf for life.  I liked the fact that the book somewhat highlighted centers that helped women to recover from abusive relationships–absolutely get that, BUT that was briefly talked about.  The other women characters, save for our one heroine and the lady running the center, were textbook misogyny.  As Freud did, the acts of the brutal men were blamed on the women in their lives.  The killer, a professional man whom nobody suspected (except me–I had him nailed after the first few chapters), was driven to the horrible crimes by his overbearing, career driven wife.  The book brings up a real life serial killer (whose name escapes me right now) whose mother was so controlling that it drove him to his crimes.   Another woman married to a man who commits domestic violence on her and their child was portrayed as an alcoholic who did not help her son or try to seek help at said domestic violence center—a curious part of the plot.

The heroine of the book was a teacher.  Now, most teachers I know are dedicated as this one was portrayed.  But to portray only her as “a good woman” just left me depressed as women have to be perfect in order to be considered “good women”.

The career woman was a complete bitch who did not care about her child or husband.  I’m not saying that those women don’t exist, but it was just sooo over the top.  And to blame her for the violent actions of her husband was pure Freud.  Anything wrong in the relationship or the man acts in anti-social ways?  Well, then, blame the woman he’s with or his mother….case closed!

As I’ve said before—there are plenty of people who have been abused as children and don’t go on to abuse others as adults.  They make that choice not to repeat the abuse….

…which leads to the question of why do some folks go on to abuse and others do not?   Compassion?  Why don’t those that go on to abuse others have that compassion?  Free will plays in this, I know, but why do they choose violence?

Thanks for letting me vent.  End of rant