Doc,
The ALF was created with $100s of millions of pass through money from tobacco. From the tobacco consumer to the cigarette companies to the states to ALF or directly to ALF. Seven years ago ALF did not exist. Now they have assets and investments of almost $1 billion. If I am not mistaken per the MSA the intitial set up funding phase has now ended. All that loot and they are still searching for more. ALF investment interest is bringing them $10s of millions a year. If I am not mistaken this is the outfit that just gave their head honcho a $1 million dollar low interest loan for a new home. I suggest these people have become more dependent on tobacco than smokers. Their addiction is greed/money and at the expense of the very people they claim they want to help which 70% of those same people they want to help have household incomes of under $50,000 a year. Which the nearest most of these people have ever came to a million dollar home was driving by from a distance. Now they want more money to save the kids of the same people thay are ripping off. More proof that it is about the money for many of these people and always has been. The whole TC movement has been one of deception all the way back to 1950s. They even slammed RA Fisher when he suggested back then it was all about money. After 50 years of deception both in the science and the ethics. Why would they change now? I do not think it is the rest of the story. The whole story has been lack of truth. Where I come from it is called a lie.
"Ending smoking by American children and teens is crucial to the health of our nation, said Louis Sullivan, M.D.”
If this is true then why in God's name isn't he calling for prohibition? The health of our nation is at stake and he wants to leave it to ALF to save us?
Btw, I found the whole article hilarious. What a bunch of buffoons.
And what about that piece you did some time ago Dr. Siegel about ALF lying about the results of their work?
But aside from the deceptions, what stinks on the face of it all is the censorship and the transfer of wealth by dictate from one to another. Anti-Smoking does indeed fly the Communist/Socialist/Fascist flag(s) over their headquarters.
This is just another prime example of anti tobacco being corrupt and as devious as the very group it abhors.It is time that all of these companies come clean and provide audited financial reports that are transparent.There should be no tax free status granted to any company involved in anti tobacco .They are nothing more than a legalised version of the "mob".
What's wrong with the PM ads anyway? Not shrill enough for them?
Oh what a tangled web we weave once we practice to deceive. This comes as a shock to you? I have heard and read it almost daily on this very same blog.
Off topic, sorry Bill, but did anyone see 60 Minutes last night? They did a segment on how the medicare pharmacutical bill got passed and all the rules that were broken to get it passed. Then it exposed 15 Government employees, many Senators, who left their Government jobs to become lobbyist for the pharmacutical companies at a mere salary of 2 million a year. Now I am worried about their future when the pharmacuticals fall.
Jalestra, now you know why Gov. Perry signed the mandate for all preteen girls to get that cervical immunization.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...in2625305.shtml
60 minutes link
Has 60' done a piece on ALF? LMAOROTF
“Ending smoking by American children and teens is crucial to the health of our nation,” said Louis Sullivan, M.D., President Emeritus of the Morehouse School of Medicine, Secretary of Health and Human Services under President George H.W. Bush and a member of the Citizens’ Commission"
I don't understand their want to 'save us'. How do they think this country was home to the 'greatest generation'(many of them smokers) that defeated fascist Germany; and they cannot seem to get back to the tenants of that type of existence for us in the US fast enough.
They have set up a cottage industry of this kind of back scratching and they will not give it up easily.
Doc,
I thought the Truth campaign was set up under the terms of the 1998 settlement, but the agreement was that the campaign would not denigrate tobacco cos and smokers. Yet the truth cmapaign did both, and therefore funding was cancelled because the truth campaign violated the terms it was set up under the 1998 settlement.
Is this right?? Dave K
“Ending smoking by American children and teens is crucial to the health of our nation,”
America is doomed then, smoking will not end.
This 'group' called "Citizens' Commission to Protect the Truth" seems to be run by commisars rather than citizens. It smacks of "Peoples Commision to..."
Dave K,
I believe the funding for ALF was for a minimum of 5 years and could run longer depending on BT's market share.
And IIRC Lorillard took them to court for violating what you're talking about, but lost.
The Citizens' Commission to Protect the Truth
Is this a joke? Made up of a bunch of fear mongering healthists? Where are the real citizens in this group? You know, the ones who can actually think for themselves and aren't afraid to look at all sides of an issue? The ones who prove, through living and being healthy, that these claims are bogus.
We have given organizations and government far too much power, and as was bound to happen......power corrupts.
The fact that no one but us lowly smokers can actually see this, really scares me more than anything else.
Lynda F
"You know, the ones who can actually think for themselves and aren't afraid to look at all sides of an issue?"
I don't believe there is such an animal in that zoo.
The fact that no one but us lowly smokers can actually see this, really scares me more than anything else.
Perhaps it's the clearer thinking as a result of our addiction. s/
Unbelievable.
I don't believe there is such an animal in that zoo.
OH? Well, guess that really makes me weird then, for I do look at all sides of an issue.
It's the reason I have no problem with reasonable restrictions......it's the fair choice that allows all to choose.
Lynda F,
I was refering to the The Citizens' Commission to Protect the Truth' (the zoo I was talking about)
Sorry I wasn't clearer. Free choice is what I really am going to miss in all of the nonsense.
Not a problem with any private establishment (or publically funded) saying "sorry no smoking permitted"
it's that blanket coverage of NO WAY NO HOW NO PLACE. We are still citizens of this country.
Further Lynda, This sounds a bit goofy, but I have often wondered what it would be like if instead of restricting smoking everywhere, It was mandated (from some on-high)that smoking MUST BE PERMITTED in any and all places. Regardless of what private property owners wanted or any other objections. I don't see that as fair either.
That is always my issue with say abortion, how can we honestly want the government regulating (forbidding) it, and then not expect that they could at some point insist on them demanding abortion (as in China) Sorry for going on so.
You should see the situation in Ontario!
This week there was a "supposedly anti tobacco group". What the reporters, and public don't realize is that the funding for this group comes from The Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Health promotion (1).
The whole hub bub was about should smoking be allowed in multi unit dwellings. (2) What the public didn't realize was that the Ministry funded background work for this whole issue! They first gave "special funding" (3) for the implementation strategy, and methods. Then the provincial gov't paid the health units to go into apartment buildings to "Promote the strategy" further, by doing pilot projects, and "advocating" thru health units. (3)
(1)Support grows for smoke-free apartments -ON
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4096
(2) Ontario Tobacco-free Network org chart
http://www.theotn.org/OTNOrgChart.pdf
(3)Development of the Smoke Free Homes Program
http://www.ptcc-cfc.on.ca/rds/
sp...ee_homes005.cfm
(3)Smoke free Homes
http://www.ptcc-cfc.on.ca/rds/
sp...ee_homes001.cfm
l.dugay,
so much for truth in any manner or form! Really depressing.
Dave K-
James is right. The lawsuit by Lorillard claiming that the truth ads violated the anti-vilification clause in the MSA was shot down by the courts. The funding for the campaign is dwindling not because of that, but because there was a sunset provision that severely reduced the tobacco companies' payments for the campaign if the market share of non-participating manufacturers rose above a certain level. It reached that threshold and thus the provision came into play, reducing the payments severely. This is why Legacy is looking for funding sources to keep the campaign going.
It reached that threshold and thus the provision came into play, reducing the payments severely. This is why Legacy is looking for funding sources to keep the campaign going.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 04.02.07 - 2:28 pm | #
ALF really ought to be careful about biting the hand that feeds it, considering that Philip Morris has been carrying their water for a few years now forcing the non-signatory companies to pay into the MSA.
PM goes into a state that is proposing a cigarette tax increase an makes a deal they will not oppose the tax increase if the state demands the payments from the non-signatory companies. They have pulled that stunt in many states, and in Virginia (their home state) there was nothing covert about it - it was in all the newspapers.
James and Dr siegel, thanks for the info. Dave K
AAmerican Legacy Foundation from form IRS 990 filed 11/2005
Net worth just over $1 billion.
SectionIV
Receivables due office
Cheryl Heaton CEO
Amt $967,500
Int rate 4.99%
Purpose purchase reisidence
Beginning balance $877,074
Section V
Investments Security
U.S. Equity Securities $67,833,412
U.S Gov Securities $360,828,225
Inflation Hedge $195,650,721
Non-US Equity $132,481,511
Merging Markets $60,776,806
Absolute Hedge Funds $91,624,641
Total $909,195,316
Interest earned over $24 million
Some ALF contributions
Amer. Heart Assoc Galla Ball $5,000
Amer. Lung Assoc Galla Ball $10,000
Cancer Research Inst Awards Dinner $10,000
JFK Symphony Orchestra Opening Ball $10,000
Kennedy Centers Honors Gala $53,000
National Council Le Reza Annual Conference $35,000
They passed out a total of $998,279 in walking around money that year. As we can see the tobacco users are funding everything under the sun and I am sure they will add a excise tax on tobacco users just for being in the sun.
More proof of the great rip off of the MSA.
These people are not only liars they are just out and out thieves! Eniugh already!
Thanks for the insight, nemo31.
JFK Symphony Orchestra Opening Ball, with my money?
Diane, Perry is mandating vaccine in a little buddy back scratching considering his very good friend is the Texas lobby for Merck.
The truth campaign is doing more to increase youth smoking than Phillip Morris ever had. Anyone who took a Psych 101 class (and paid attention) knows the old Don't eat the apple routine. Tell anyone they can't and they go out of their way to prove they can. They go to such lengths to tell kids why they have no business smoking, and the kids go to find out for sure.
I'm sorry but I like PM's commercials. TALK to your kid, communicate. Encouraging open discussion...ooohhhh..now I see the problem..PM isn't showing parents beating their kids with razor straps and shoving their faces into tombstones.....they should be more forceful and condescending...
The apartment house ban stories (above) are scary for more than the obvious reasons ( that smokers will soon be made homeless as well as jobless.) Scarier still is the naked truth about human nature (its penchant for hysteria, it's love of hate, its eagerness to see-- or is it smell? the Emperor's clothes) that we're once again being forced to accept.
Can't wait for the Leni Reifenstal (sp?) movie ("Triumph of the Shrill"?)
I'd like your take, Dr. Siegel, on the latest outdoor smoking ban. Surprise, surprise, it's at a community college. Apparently the college doesn't give a damn about making the campus hostile to its student body. It goes so far as to ban smoking for students and part-time faculty, but NOT for full-time faculty.
What do you think about the doublespeak and "let's force change through social intolerance" seen here?
http://www.ocregister.com/
ocregi...cle_1635097.php
***SMOKING BAN: Chris Dominguez, of Yorba Linda, right, exhales as he smokes a cigarette between classes at Fullerton College. J.R. Burns, left, of Anaheim, and Melanie Ponce, center, of Fullerton join in on the morning break Tuesday in Fullerton. The college may ban smoking on the campus.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Colleges aim to tame smoking on campus
Increasing numbers of colleges nationwide are banning or limiting smoking.
By MARLA JO FISHER
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
FULLERTON – Smoking has become a mighty hot topic at a growing number of the nation's community colleges. Increasing numbers are banning the practice.
Fullerton College passed a ban for students earlier this month, but it's is only the latest among dozens of two-year schools around the country now nixing tobacco on campus. Even one community college in North Carolina – epicenter of the tobacco industry – is in the process of going smoke-free.
"California is leading the nation, definitely," said Kimberlee Homer Vagadori, college project coordinator for the California Youth Advocacy Network. "We have a lot more campuses and a lot more work to be done."
Unsurprisingly, many smokers are skeptical if not downright hostile to the changes.
"People who want to smoke are going to do it anyway," Fullerton College student Melissa Baker, 19, said. "If I get in trouble for it, then I'll just go to another campus. There are plenty of other community colleges."
Opposition from employees has been a major impediment to anti-smoking advocates, since generally they are the only people on campus all day long.
Students spent years trying to win a smoking ban at Fullerton, but employee unions balked. The new campus prohibition slated to take effect July 1 will effect students and part-time employees, but not full-time workers.
To date, three California campuses have completely banned smoking indoors and outdoors. Nine others allow lighting up in parking lots."***
Oh, yes, "students" "spent years" trying to get a smoking ban through, but the only opposition was from those big, bad (let's be honest: scummy, low-class) employees who stopped it.
Um, did you notice that student smokers who violate the rules could face this:
***Individuals who do not conform may be subject to a hold on their academic records and even suspension.***
Source: http://media.www.fchornet.com/me...s-
2784050.shtml
Excuse my profanity, but WTF is going on when we've gotten to the point where institutions of higher learning are willing to deny community college students attendance at college, and HOLD THEIR ACADEMIC RECORDS HOSTAGE for smoking OUTSIDE?
I'm so disgusted I can hardly type straight.
Josh
My letter to Fullerton College, and the Orange County Register:
"To the Trustees of Fullerton (Community) College:
Please see that my email is distributed to the President's Office, the Faculty Council, and any student government organizations. I could not find their contact information on this site. Thank you.
I am disgusted to read your campus is banning smoking outdoors. This is a purely punitive, moralistic crusade aimed at showing disapproval for smokers, in sync with the current social fashion for making smokers social pariahs.
Shame on you. There is not one ounce of evidence that smoking outdoors will harm anyone but the smoker. You know that, even though you won't admit it publicly (and you know I'm right, even as you read this, deciding how to spin your answer to me). You have no business dictating what your students can and cannot do, as long as they're not endangering the college community.
Before you hit "reply" and tell me "smokers are endangering everyone's health," take a minute to find the research showing that smoking in the great outdoors poses a threat to anyone. It doesn't exist. Your own common sense will tell you that even if the vastly diluted smoke in the open air were a threat (which it isn't), that you could easily find areas on campus to designate for smoking that would not bother anyone.
A truly humane community of people would find space for everyone. A truly humane community would balance the rights of one group with another. A polite, well-intentioned group of people would focus on how to find ways for everyone to get along without ostracizing one group to satisfy the hysterical demands of another.
You chose the low road. In prohibiting smoking on your campus, you pander to neo-prohibitionists to bolster your "cred" with the fringe wing of the public health crusade. Obviously, you don't care about how many intelligent, ambitious students you've just denied a stepping stone to higher education.
Don't give me the usual crap: "Students can choose not to smoke while on campus." You know damned well your policy is going to force some students to quit your school, and will discourage some others from even joining. Is that, perhaps, your ultimate goal? Would you like to see your community college populated by the more "respectable" middle class who quite properly abhors smoking?
Shame on you again. As a graduate of a top-tier liberal arts college (Sarah Lawrence, 1999), a smoker, a taxpayer, the director of a nonprofit public charity, and an all-around contributor to charitable and civic causes, I rebuke your policy. You degrade the mission of institutions of higher education by discriminating against a portion of the very people you should be striving to serve.
May I suggest you stop focusing on "cleaning up" the "indiscreet" and "socially unacceptable" behaviors of your students (whom you obviously hold in very low regard) and concentrate on higher education?
With disgust, and not a little bit of contempt,
Joshua Slocum
Vermont "
Josh,
I join you in your opposition to these policies which completely ban smoking on college campuses. This one cannot even pretend to be a policy that aims to provide an overall healthy environment on campus, since it only applies to students, but not to faculty. What kind of a message does that send? And you're right, that kind of hypocrisy is quite inappropriate.
Josh;
I submitted a comment at the link you provided as follows.
Perhaps a new topic for discussion Michael might consider. Something we as smokers can find in common with non smokers who really seek a solution, which embraces integrity and honesty in the messages being distributed.
My submission;
Has it been considered by anyone the ban may be reflective not of a benefit to the reputation of the College? In my opinion the ban is a result of punitive measures reflecting isolation of its target group. Completely reflective of the quality of education the College provides.
I can demonstrate with many recent studies as a direct result of the hate campaign targeting smokers, being demonstrated here, the steady declines in smoker prevalence have stalled. When we take into account the rise in population we have to recognize smoking is again rising for the first time in 50 years.
The effects of a targeted action of Tobacco Control groups are being paralleled to prohibition in its post peak effectiveness stage.
The obvious dehumanizing of smokers is lessening their ability to quit. It takes internal fortitude to walk away from cigarettes. The descriptions in popular spin having the addiction more potent than Crack or Heroin lessens ones ability to find the courage it takes to quit.
Smokers need support not anguish and barriers they certainly do not deserve isolation from community in a community inciting hate.
Perhaps the authors of this policy need to rethink the approach, which implies others could be harmed by casual exposure when the applied science and timeline observation of the past 50 years absolutely precludes any such conclusions.
Quoting Professor Simon Chapman editor of Tobacco Control at the British Medical Journal, From an article published in the Australian March 20 2007; in an effort to ask members of Tobacco Control to retain a modicum of integrity, it was suggested members should refrain from allowing this dangerous impression to prevail.
In his opinion
" Some experimental work has shown that even brief, acute exposure to second-hand smoke can cause measurable physiological changes in those exposed. This evidence has been important in demonstrating the basis on which cumulative exposure is pathogenic. But the evidence of acute exposure being harmful to all but the most exquisitely sensitive is poor. "
We need to adjust those attitudes because as you can plainly see the cure has become the poison and hatred is never a cure.
Josh wrote:
"Shame on you again. As a graduate of a top-tier liberal arts college (Sarah Lawrence, 1999), a smoker, a taxpayer, the director of a nonprofit public charity, and an all-around contributor to charitable and civic causes, I rebuke your policy."
Josh isn't even a California taxpayer, nor is he a student or alum of Fullerton College.
If Josh was truly interested in freedom, he'd respect the autonomy of Fullerton College to set their own policies.
Bill states....'Josh isn't even a California taxpayer, nor is he a student or alum of Fullerton College'
Can you prove that Josh is none of the above?
You Bill do not respect any autonomy of any person place or thing. LOL You stampede acrossed this country jamming your agenda down every state and community in our nation.
"If Josh was truly interested in freedom, he'd respect the autonomy of Fullerton College to set their own policies." - Godshall
Pretty much what the south said north concerning slavery, right Bill?
Bill if you were truly interested in freedom you would refrain from rigging ballots and sending letters to all asunder in your state and let those genuine people decide for themselves.Remember your letters demanding a cigarette tax hoik in the whole of PA.Your Godly Godshall announcement site has offered pre vamped letters for your brethren to sign for out of state venues,so stop being a pompous hypocritical smokehater and consider your house own being in order before you criticise others,if that is remotely possible of course.
If Josh was truly interested in freedom, he'd respect the autonomy of Fullerton College to set their own policies.
Bill Godshall
What the others above stated to this.
When do you plan on starting to follow your own advice there, Bill? Huh? I notice the respect for autonomy and freedom of a business owner to make their own policies ONLY applies when those policies are what YOU want them to be? I didn't hear you standing up for the bar and restaurant business owners right to set their own policies. You go out of your way to get laws passed that FORCE
Hypocrite.
ooopS................fingers got carried away there. To finish.....
FORCE business owners to set YOUR policies, NOT their own.
Hypocrite.
"If Josh was truly interested in freedom, he'd respect the autonomy of Fullerton College to set their own policies."
OK - I might as well weigh in here as well.
If Fullerton College were discriminating against women, or blacks, or any other group, would we say that people should respect the autonomy of Fullerton College to set their own policies?
Of course not. Josh is not only entitled to comment on a policy of an institution that he finds discriminatory, but I would argue that it is indeed not only his right but his responsibility to do so. If more people spoke out against discriminatory policies, perhaps we wouldn't have the kind of problems witht discrimination that we have.
Bill's argument does seem hypocritical to me. After all, Bill and I wouldn't argue that we should allow companies to set their own policies regarding the conditions of the employment of their workers when those policies affect the welfare of the workers (i.e., the right to smoke on the job). We have no problem telling the University of California what it should or should not do regarding accepting tobacco money. In fact, we seem to not have a problem even telling individuals what they should or shouldn't do regarding accepting tobacco money. We don't have a problem telling parents what risks they should or should not expose their kids to.
Yet it is inappropriate to speak out against a discriminatory institutional policy?
Josh isn't even a California taxpayer, nor is he a student or alum of Fullerton College.
Dang, I always come in late for those.
Exhibit A:
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/
247587.html
Bill is neither a New Jersey taxpayer nor a gambler(at least I hope not?) Bill should respect the freedom of casino owners to establish laws as they please.
Oh wait. Bill's one-upping Josh. He's encouraging others to meddle.
The hypocrisy, the hypocrisy.
Or am I wrong, and if we were really interested in freedom we'd respect your wishes to state your case free of opposition?
I appreciate all of you who defended my right to comment. I suggest you don't even address Bill when he makes such statements. The level of hypocrisy and tortured reasoning from him is beyond satire.
I missed it at first Bill, but what about the smoking TAX PAYER. We have no say in where we might be able to smoke without being shoved by the likes of you into a criminal corner.
Lynda F is right is calling you HYPOCRITE>
I'd like to point out that the incorporation of Big Business into the educational system has been a major concern for some time.
Multinationals tend to impose their agendas, period - and the anti-smoker attack is coordinated, global, vicious and sustained, tearing deeper with every bite into our liberty and lives.
Smoking banned on campus and degrees dependant on toeing industry lines?
Gee, who'da thought.
Big Pharma spends more on advertising - influencing - than on research, typically preferring to buy up entire companies for their more promising patents (and removing competition) than to produce new drugs itself.
In many respects, a common attitude is that the product matters little, with only the bottom line considered and all heads involved blindly jammed deep within.
The consumer - a renewable resource costing nothing to farm - matters only in regard of function; a particularly dangerous assumption not only where chronic ill health forms the market exploited, but where such corporate attitudes infect government intended to be of, by and for the people and honoured with a degree of trust of which they prove unworthy.
As Big Pharma, also entwined with toxic industry interests in a multitude of ways, is evidently set on driving the tobacco stock price down and attaining global precedence and monopoly including control over the population, it's hardly surprising that the bizarre and totalitarian ideology of global industry appears in an educational system now, more often than not, existing and producing for industry purpose.
In most cases, anyone not in conformance with the industry line is probably in danger of being smuggled into the nearest lab to be turned into a GM toad.
If you can find time to work your way through these various articles, a number of things should be - if not already so - obvious.
http://www.commondreams.org/head...s01/0626-
01.htm
http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/
engl...stleblowers.pdf
http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/...-3pp142-
149.pdf
'A newer trend is "financial arrangements with corporations that limit student's rights and choices" (Corporatized 1997)'
http://www.cspinet.org/
integrity..._conference.pdf
http://
www.californiaprogressrep...t_reich_on.html
http://www.sgr.org.uk/
SciencePol...enParty2004.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/head...s03/1203-
11.htm
The creation of published research specifically for use in directing social views and court decisions is hardly new.
Once industry-created agendas become implanted as 'accepted wisdom' they are typically unquestioned, the more so as the sheer ugliness of orchestrated suppression of evidence and dissent is so devastating to those accustomed to a sane response.
Yet this very extremity makes it all the more imperative that not only the tactics but the overweening assumption (in both senses) of power so abrogated be dealt with; otherwise the bully is effectively taught that his tactics are 'accepted' and progressively worsens; escalation becomes standard with new heights endlessly sought.
"...when the same story is repeated over and over - judges are part of society. Whatever shapes your beliefs will shape theirs."
'In at least one case, Exxon cut off funding for research that didn't match its interests.'
Industry is a self-interest committed to specified, limited goals often in conflict with the public interest and has no place in forming public policy or academic teaching/science.
The tactics used against us are used elsewhere, standard industry practice.
However, in our case, the very contempt with which we're treated is likely part of the strategy, as is typical in the targeting of a population sector for extermination.
And as Michael neatly demonstrated earlier, push the right anti button and the automatic response is that of one deciding what the 'Master Race' will do to the lesser beings, and how this will be imposed and continuously expanded.
This is hardly sane thinking.
http://www.biotech-info.net/
ACE_...ACE_report.html
http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/u/FMPr...ryid=7483&-
find
"...the most apparent and perhaps most important is the bias from industrial sources."
'...those who control the study can control the outcome.'
http://campusprogress.org/featur...ption-on-
campus
http://www.the-scientist.com/new.../display/44525/
http://www.corpwatch.org/article...le.php?
id=12066
(Don't miss link to excerpt from University,Inc.)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...4/2/103716/
4550
(And do see the full text.
I personally feel that Communism is restrictive and not a viable political alternative but found other links to be of great interest, with that caveat.)
But it is evident that when education, research and medicine are controlled by commerce that results desirable to these may be easily produced and often in such a manner as to become almost instinctive belief systems.
Another matter is of the control and direction of not only medical treatment but of attribution of disease, when corporations literally hold the patent on molecular disease study.
And when the myriad facets of concern instanced here within institutions of learning with corporate global ownership and control of information as well as research, complete with censorship, redirection and restriction, can be outbalanced by an industry-fed concern with the personal choices of others;
when those literally destroying the world - but to be protected from those they secretly injure - are automatically compared to a single 'worst' industry alone subject to encouraged attack on all sides for well advertised and voluntary risk;
when giant industry exposed as chronically corrupt buys into and affects nearly all centers of learning which then find greater concern in the acceptance of no-strings funding from one of the outsiders smeared in ongoing hate campaign strategy - a slip in logic is showing.
Big Mcademia has been altered at the cellular level and up, through all complex processes and interactions and cannot be claimed to be substantially the same as academia.
Worse, it's now self-replicating and contagious in its new and unstable forms of the moment.
Bush burns the history of science and the record of industry's destruction of our health and environment in the EPA's once-publicly accessible libraries.
New research will be industry-produced to suit commercial agendas.
The truth is still out there, but likely to be copyrighted for purposes of suppression and kept secret as 'Confidential Business Information' on the grounds of (if released to an outraged public) prospectively causing harm to industry profit gained from the melt-down of our future - preventably, if the truth were known.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
