When you're on a roll ... roll them over!

I always suspected the term was hokey .... now I know for sure ->http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Smokers%27_rights

"Smokers rights" is a term used to spur what appears to be a "grassroots" American political movement, created and abetted behind the scenes primarily by tobacco companies, to preserve the social acceptability of smoking and preserve smoking in public places.

 

Why is this relevant? DCI: From Smokers' Rights to Patients' Rights ->

 

The DCI Group, a lobbying and public relations firm known for creating front groups for industry clients and Republican campaigns, is behind a new anti-health reform front group, the Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights (CPPR). "CPPR has been organizing lobbying efforts against health reform and publishing op-eds across the country with misinformation about the public option," reports Think Progress.

(http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/cppr-dci-astroturf/)

 

Yeah, smokers can fuck off. Smokers have no additional rights.

 

Now we know that the whole movement is funded by both the tobacco companies and elements of the American Right-wing - > Do not trust what they say because they are liars.

 

Reason # 5205782094785 why I don't watch American network television ...

...  http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907290009

 

Anyone that hosts this person has zero credibility. Both the host (show, network, media corporation, etc) and guest should be ignored and tuned out going forward.

 

But before you do ...

 

... see Orcinus for the details. He's documented how this person has deep ethics and integrity problems.

 

 

 

Time and Money.

It's an odd thing. It's been said that as one gets older, the only thing one is left with is time.

 

I think that's bullshit.

 

It seems I never have enough time. It seems as though I'm always on the go. Can't miss that bus, be on time for that meeting or dinner. And yes, I understand I have responsibilities and accountabilities to those who depend on me.

 

The only time I ever seem to have where I can do anything is after everyone is in bed.

 

Going online is fun (when our DSL line actually cooperates), but even that has its limitations. And not while not watching broadcast television is a good thing, I kind of get tired of watching the same set of movies and television shows out there.

 

Of course I could be doing more important things, like compiling ideas into plans, writing stories, recording music, reading, etc. Some of those have budget issues, and if I were more resourceful and determined, I could make it work. But even then, I come back to the issue of time.

 

Even if I had all the shows and movies I could watch. I have at most an hour or so (sleep is such a pesky but required thing). I cannot just watch something till the very end, because I know I have to get up in the morning and start they cycle again.

 

Maybe if I was a billionaire, it wouldn't be so bad. I wonder if the rich and affluent have the same issue?

 

On the other hand, would more money actually give me more time? Being rich would mean not having work (at least in my mind), which would free up my time to do the things I would want to do. So perhaps it's possible ...

 

... perhaps I also proved that time is in fact money? ...

 

But the reality is, money is not really equal to time. Money just buys me the capacity to use my time differently.

 

I guess if I had to choose between the two, right now, I would prefer having more time, than money.

A national health care option for Americans - why is this opposed by the right-wing?

Then - http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bill-kristols-1993-memo-calling-for-gop-to-block-health-care-reform/

 

and now as well.

 

Of course, it's not just those right-wingers in the Republican Party. There are those Democratic Party enablers as well -

 

(h/t to Benen)

 

The two reasons are obvious -

 

1. A viable, national, public health care plan option for the average American is not in the interests of the insurance corporations that like the system the way it is. They fear a viable alternative because it's actual competition to them. In this sense, they actually oppose capitalism.

 

2. And politically, if the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party succeeds in implementing such a plan, it would go a long way to ensuring they retain majorities in both Congressional houses through the 2010 mid-term elections (foreign events withstanding).

 

The American Right's actions (then and now) are just a reflection of the desperation these right-wing elements have in trying to stop this from succeeding.

 

Of course, the right-wing's own inability to govern effectively for all people is what has actually led to their downfall. The difference between then and now, is that things are a lot worse today.

 

People's lives are so messed up now, that they are actually starting to finally tune out these viewpoints.

 

The key for Obama is to stay focused and deliver the plan he's set in motion.

 

Never let compromise side-track a good idea.

Amazon drops '1984' into their memory hole.

You'd think someone at Amazon would actually read some of the books they sell to their customers on the Kindle before, you know, actually deleting them ... but apparently no.

 

Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

 

This little snippet says it all -

 

"Retailers of physical goods cannot, of course, force their way into a customer’s home to take back a purchase, no matter how bootlegged it turns out to be. Yet Amazon appears to maintain a unique tether to the digital content it sells for the Kindle"

 

I understand that another company uploaded a version of the book they may not have had rights to. But that doesn't change anything. You'd think Amazon would know their own technology better and handle the situation a bit more differently. You'd also think that, given that Amazon sells products online, they'd understand how the are different from other retailers who sell a physical product. That they can do this makes me wonder - does one really own what one is paying money for?

 

 

 

Smoker's rights and Christopher Elliott's belief they deserve some when traveling.

Recently, I came across an article from a travel expert named Christopher Elliot entitled - "Lighten up! 3 reasons the travel industry should end its war on smokers"

Well  ... here's my response -

No -

• Smoking causes cancer.


• Smoking is addictive.


• Smoking pollutes the air.


• Smoking not only can kill the smoker, but can kill anyone around them.

In the article Elliot notes the majority of adults (3 in 4) do not smoke. Why should the majority of adults (and kids) be terrorized by the addictions of a few?

And I don't buy this argument that smoking is a choice. It was proven back in the 1990's that the tobacco companies were deliberating spiking cigarettes to keep people hooked.

Smokers do not have any additional rights, and should not be treated as such. The reason why I think the travel industry doesn't - and shouldn't - let up on them is because the majority of people who travel are sick of this bullshit. Airlines not only have an obligation to provide a safe environment to their customers (that is probably one of the reasons why passenger seatbelts exist on airplanes), but also to their employees.

If these smokers really and truly believe their second-hand smoke doesn't cause problems or health-related isssues on themselves or others, I have one piece of advice for them.

Don't exhale.

Why was Dan Froomkin really let go from the Washington Post?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/business/media/13froomkin.html?_r=1&ref=business (h/t to Steve Benen).

 

I tend to believe they really let go of Froomkin because of his continual criticism of W's Administration, more than a decline in web traffic. 

However this makes me wonder - why do so many people tune into right-wing columnists who are constantly wrong and/or dishonest in their writing? How do people like them continue to hold jobs at such media corporations, while people like Froomkin are let go?

Do these large media corporations have some right-wing slant? Perhaps they do, but I suspect it's something a lot less sinister.

It's the Howard Stern syndrome with these right-wing-slanted columnists. I suspect the a large bloc of their readers are people who tune into what they say and write are people who largely disagree with them, just because they want to hear what they say next.

The problem is in doing so, those people are only generating ad revenue for the corporations that pay them. So they remain and continue to poison the public discourse.

The ONLY thing these corporations understand is revenue. Stop supporting them by linking to them and others like Faux News, Politico, WashTimes, etc.

There's no point in linking to a group of individuals who collectively have nothing useful to contribute to any discussion on anything. They are either dishonest, ignorant, or both on the subjects they write about.

Let the folks at Media Matters spend the time correcting their lies and falsehoods.

The rest of society should spend more time focusing on the Obama Administration policies and working to ensure they are the correct solutions to the nations's problems.

 

 

Palin

I've largely avoided any comment about her resignation as Governor of Alaska. I think continually writing about her only feeds some craving she seems to have for attention.

 

That being said, I think it's important I spell out why I think she's leaving her job after only a couple of years, and leave it at that.

 

I think the Republican Party is forcing her out. Think I'm off-base? As if the GOP had enough reasons to force her out? Check this out and judge for yourself

 

(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/018961.php; emphasis mine) -

 

"I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said."

 

(This was her answer when asked by ABC News' Kate Snow, if she ever decided to pursue national office again, wouldn't she encounter the same sorts of reactions in the media and public).

 

Think the GOP wants someone like this running for President of United States? She has no idea about the basics of the structure of federal political offices are in the United States. And yet, it's rumored that she's eyeing at 2012 Presidential run?

 

I think it's plausible the GOP on some level forced her out of office. The reasons are obvious -

 

1. She doesn't really know anything - The above link demonstrates that.

2. By quitting her office now, she deprives herself of something even W could claim to have - governmental experience.

 

The majority of the country likely see her as W on high heels. While she might be popular among social conservatives, so was W. 

 

Her apparent lack of intellectual horsepower, her apparent desire to neither understand nor perform her current job would be politically disastrous for the GOP, and a complete disaster for the United States. She's already linked to the losing McCain Presidential ticket from 2008. Now in addition to being labeled a political loser, she's now a political quitter too.

 

Consquently, barring any major initiative failures or political disasters where any failures are directly attributed to Obama Administration, I don't think she's electable.  I also think the GOP knows this also.

 

Assuming Obama and his adminstration achieve even some of their political goals, if she were the nominee, the Republicans would be trounced in the 2012 elections, and perhaps cease to be a viable political party for the right-wing. They are already losing support, and becoming increasingly irrelevant on a daily basis.

 

All of this should not be too surprising to my bazillion readers though, as I think this previous quote demonstrates -

 

"As for Palin - all about ambition, nothing else. Her sad fake routine (very reminiscent of Bush) will fool only the incredibly ignorant. One can hope that the country, having endured close to eight years of this with Bush, will learn from that mistake once and for all. Her lack of substance demonstrated she really should not be in public office at any level."