"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Monthly Archives: August 2011

In the classic film “The Graduate” there is that one memorable scene between Dustin Hoffman’s character, Ben, and Mr. McGuire, a business associate of his father as they briefly discuss Ben’s future in the world of “plastics”.   The world of plastics has come full-circle since that cinematic prophecy in 1967.

Too few knew then what we know about this chemical “marvel” today that is intertwined in our everyday lives.  From the food we eat, the medicines we depend upon, the cars we drive, the planes we fly and the furniture we entertain on, plastic has indeed become the future as Mr. McGuire predicted.  But with it comes the problems it also entails; the problems that the plastics industry has been battling for years now.

Amongst these problems is the convenience by which plastic containers, with their  durable light-weight composition in the form of bottles and shopping bags, have become too accessible for modern consumers who are always on the move and who have little time and regard for the waste product these become when the consumer is through with them.

  • Of the 5.1 billion polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and jars available in the U.S. for recycling in 2009 only 28% were actually recycled.  The rest go into over-capacity landfills which in 2006amounted to almost 30 million tons, or they wound up in the nearest bodies of water, allowing the PET to leach into the ecosystem that marine life feed off of.  SOURCE
  • Over 1 trillion plastic bags are used every year worldwide with about 100 billion of those being used in the U.S.  A single plastic bag can take up to 1,000 years to degrade and remain toxic even after they break down.  Every square mile of ocean has about 46,000 pieces of plastic floating in it.   SOURCE 

But according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC) there are advantages of plastic shopping bags that need to be impressed upon people.  So anxious is the ACC to convey this information to the consuming public that they have lobbied to have this information implanted in our young people’s minds as a part of their environmental curriculum found in school text books.

According to a recent article by Susanne Rust of the California Watch group, “In 2009, a private consultant hired by California school officials added a new section to the 11th-grade teachers’ edition textbook called “The Advantages of Plastic Shopping Bags.” The title and some of the textbook language were inserted almost verbatim from letters written by the chemistry council.” (emphasis mine)

“Although the curriculum includes the environmental hazards of plastic bags, the consultant also added a five-point question to a workbook asking students to list some advantages. According to the revised teachers’ edition, the correct answer is: “Plastic shopping bags are very convenient to use. They take less energy to manufacture than paper bags, cost less to transport and can be reused.”  SOURCE 

According to the article by Ms. Rust at least one state legislator, Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica, is irate about the industries comments being slipped into public school text books without her being made aware of it.   Sen. Pavley is the author of the 2003 legislation requiring that environmental principles and concepts be taught in the state’s public schools.

This is but one more example of where the private sector tries to assimilate it’s ideas into the public school system to act as a counter weight against the negative aspects of their products on human health and the habitats we all live in.

We will likely see more and more of this as corporate interests in this country work to push their image of being equal to real people, a perception that was recently strengthened by the conservative majority in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC.  I cited a similar example by the fossil fuel industry’s’ attempt to make the increase of CO2 generated by our growing consumption of oil, coal and natural gas as more a benefit than a threat to the climate change extremes the world is seeing more and more of.

One solution for this issue, in California at least and any other state that wounds up using the text book with this industry provided information, is to challenge it directly with the facts in the classroom.  By diminishing the assertions made here the industry may look even more foolish than had they left things alone and made their arguments separate from the public school curriculum.

Teacher’s can and should get their students to employ critical thinking skills to evaluate if there really are advantages of plastic bags mentioned by the ACC in contrast to the greater environmental hazards they pose?  Let’s take a look.

  1. Plastic shopping bags are very convenient to use.
  2. They take less energy to manufacture than paper bags.
  3. They cost less to transport and
  4. They can be reused

Perhaps the greatest argument for using plastic bags is their convenience.  But if we take a closer look we can see this argument is weakened by several factors.  How inconvenient is it to avoid using a plastic bag when purchasing only one or two items?  Choose paper bags where you have the option but only if they have been made from recycled materials and you fully intend to either recycle them after your use of them or hold on to them and reuse them several more times.  70% less energy is required to recycle paper compared with making it from raw materials, not to mention the tree life it destroys.

Better yet, buy the cheap fabric bags most supermarkets are providing to replace disposable bags.  For the price of a dollar these bags can be used for hundreds more purchases and when you do dispose of them they are made of organic material that will decompose quickly also.  Or go on-line and purchase EarthTotes. They cost much more but are more durable and will last almost a lifetime if not abused.  I’ve been doing this for a couple of years now and the only inconvenience I experienced at first was remembering to bring these bags with me when I shopped.  I started leaving some of them in the car for a while until it became routine.

The argument that plastic bags take less energy to manufacture than paper bags is something of a red-herring.  Both use vast amounts of energy to manufacture so there is no win-lose option here.  It’s like being asked if you prefer to be hit in the head with an 8 ounce ball pein hammer or a 16 ounce one.  Since plastic bags take nearly 1000 years to decompose that means they can be used over and over.  There’s no shame in bringing back your used bags to shop with except for those who see you taking such action and regretting they had not thought of this.  Well perhaps thoughtful people.  There will always be the ideological sluggards who will feel such sound environmental action is a conspiracy by latte’ drinking liberals

The same can be said about the lower cost of transporting plastic bags over paper bags.  It’s a false equivalence because both of their uses pose a threat to the environment and in the case of plastic bags, they are more likely to kill toddlers and other creatures when improperly placed by adults.

And lastly, though the notion of recycling anything is a positive step to curb the ill-effects of our over consumptive natures, the economics of recycling plastic bags are not appealing.  First there is the fact thatonly 5.2% of plastic bags are recycled.  Then, according to the people at the reuseit.com website who research this information,

Recyclers would much rather focus on recycling the vast quantities of more viable materials such as soda and milk bottles that can be recycled far more efficiently. If the economics don’t work, recycling efforts don’t work.

For example, it costs $4,000 to process and recycle 1 ton of plastic bags, which can then be sold on the commodities market for $32.

Due to the poor economics, the local market for recycled plastic bags is limited. There simply aren’t many manufacturers using the recycled material to make new products. This leaves the U.S. with a surplus of bags collected for recycling.  SOURCE


Ultimately the good that plastics serve us are often the culprits of a far greater threat that is not as clear for most people who use them.  The fact is, most people who are even slightly aware of the problems plastics pose for humans and their environs feel uncompelled to restrict their use of this petroleum-based product.  To do so would be viewed as an interference with patterned behavior they are accustomed to.  Unless there is a real and present danger they can see, most people simply don’t care enough to make necessary changes.

The American Chemistry Council is surely aware of this but the added insurance of a little subtle brainwashing while mental faculties are still developing for our children will aid in prolonging any wide spread enlightenment to the contrary.   Our public school systems are being invaded more and more by the special interests of for-profit organizations like this whose practices, when fully exposed, could diminish their influence over consumers.  Corporate CEOs and their powerful investors will not stand for this.

RELATED ARTICLES

Is the Battle Against Plastic Bags Gaining Any Ground? 

The Plastic Bag Wars


In the summer of 1971 I had been out of the service for 2 and half years and the music genre was changing from much of the sounds I was familiar with before I entered in 1966.    The British wave was intact in 1966 and though I liked much of what I heard I was still more familiar with the songs of Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison, The Supremesand Chuck Berry.  By 1971 the “hippy” movement was making its way into the Dallas/Ft.Worth area where I was raised but it would be another year before I started letting my hair grow long.

When I first heard Paul & Linda McCartney’s “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey” I was still searching for something concrete to focus my post-Vietnam attention on.  I seemed to bounce from job to job either working at gas stations as my dad had done all of his life after WWII or worked in shipping and receiving departments for large manufacturers in Dallas.

The song really struck me as being unique from anything that came before it.  Its variations in tempo and sounds along with its laid back lyrics seem to break down my earlier conditioned biases toward many of the conservative views I was raised with.  Within the next year I would go to college at a local junior college and experimented with pot and a few other “mind-expanding” drugs like quaaludes and speed.  Thankfully it was not obsession that many of my friends at the time seemed engaged in and who I eventually broke with, not seeing most of them pretty much for the rest of my life.

This piece from an early Wings album was one of those that helped create a mindset in those days that encouraged me to “live a little, be a gypsy and get my feet up off the ground.”

We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert,

We’re so sorry if we caused you any pain.

We’re so sorry Uncle Albert,

But there’s no one left at home

And I believe I’m gonna rain.

We’re so sorry but we haven’t heard a thing all day.

We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert.

But if anything should happen well be sure to give a ring.

 

We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert,

But we haven’t done a bloody thing all day.

We’re so sorry, Uncle Albert,

But the kettles on the boil and we’re so easily called away.

 

Hands across the water. (Water)

Heads across the sky.

Hands across the water. (Water)

Heads across the sky.

 

Admiral Halsey notified me,

He had to have a berth or he couldn’t get to sea.

I had another look and I had a cup of tea and butter pie.

(Butter Pie? )(The Butter wouldn’t melt so I put it in the pie.)

 

Hands across the water. (Water)

Heads across the sky.

Hands across the water. (Water)

Heads across the sky.

 

Live a little be a gypsy, get around.(Get around)

Get your feet up off the ground,

Live a little, get around.

Live a little be a gypsy, get around.(Get around)

Get your feet up off the ground,

Live a little, get around

 

Hands across the water. (Water)

Heads across the sky.

Hand across the water. (Water)

Heads across the sky.


I realize the title of this article is an oxymoron since the Republicans really don’t have a genuine plan to create jobs and yet this is one of the things they promised they would promote with great earnest during the 2010 elections.  Here’s the Republican/Tea Party plan for creating jobs in a nut shell – Let the free markets be free markets.  If that sounds something similar to the mantra of “Let Reagan be Reagan” by the former president’s supporters it is because such quirky bumper sticker slogans that mean very little to the general public is the best that Republicans can offer when challenged with serious issues.

Reagan was blindly worshipped by most conservatives of his day so the expression to let Reagan be Reagan simply meant that anything he wanted to do was okay.  The mere mention of his name by many today brings up visions of a saint who had no faults, though a close look at the record will show that Reagan was a far cry from the second coming that his supporters credit him with.   Blind loyalist only see what they want to however and those who put the concept of “unregulated free markets” out there as the infallible answer to all of our economic woes fail to see the short comings of such a position in today’s global economy.

Perhaps when Adam Smith wrote his tome, The Wealth of Nations nearly 250 years ago, there existed an environment where unregulated free markets were perhaps able to meet the basic needs of most people and then some, especially the millions that were gradually freeing themselves from the chains of monarchies and serfstatus in Europe.  Businesses were for the most part relatively small and local in nature.  Entrepreneurs and their customers either knew each other personally or were in close proximity of one another to have a face to face meeting if they so chose.

We are way beyond this today as anyone who owns a credit card can tell you.  It is likely some young individual barely out of high school or college with no real human interaction skills is handling your questions or concerns over the phone and who is most likely not to live in your community but may be a foreign national on the other side of the world.  This was part of the job-killing action here in America where many businesses outsourced such jobs that Americans were proficient in but where foreign labor markets were cheaper than what your neighbor or an American was getting paid and who also understood the culture.

This isn’t a culturally racist statement.  It’s reality merely points out that our economic world has changed since Adam Smith first introduced us to the concept of free markets.  Markets are global now. Most products are handled by very large corporations that often have production facilities around the world and administrative headquarters in Geneva, Tokyo, London or Brisbane.  The simple process of making a product that meets the demand of consumers involves great complexities and special “deals” today that sometimes overlook the safety of its workers and the quality control necessary to make sure consumers are not being sold something less than the claims manufacturers make about their product.  How much do you trust the foreign food exports from Indochina without an FDA in place to make sure it is safe for consumption?

Regulations insure that the free markets do what they claim and have the consumer’s well-being in mind more than their profits.  If all men were honest there would be no need for regulations – nor for churches, mosques and synagogues and the religions they arise from to point out our human weaknesses, amongst which greed is probably at the top of every one’s list.

Free markets are humanly created systems.  And because they have the imperfections that we as human beings bring to them, you would like a series of checks and balances [that are also imperfect]. It is precisely why you need to regulate behavior.”  - Rebecca Blank, Robert S. Kerr Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution

So what does all of this have to do with the Republican plan for job creation?  Well according to Eric Cantor, Republican House Majority leader from Virginia, the GOP/Tea Party wants “to create jobs by killing regulations on companies and passing tax breaks for small business and government contractors”.  According to a recent Newsmax report,“The initiative aims to reduce the stubbornly high 9.1 percent unemployment rate — the top concern of voters ahead of next year’s congressional and presidential elections.”

Newsmax, a conservative publication, conveyed a part of this GOP job initiative that belies a conflict with the GOP/Tea Party’s recent fight to reduce the deficit.   “One of the Republican tax proposals would give small businesses a deduction equal to 20 percent of their incomes. Cantor said this would free up funds for those businesses to hire new workers and to invest in their firms.  Cantor did not provide details on lost revenues if his proposal, which was unveiled about a year ago, became law.”.

Remember Cantor was the one that didn’t want to spend federal funds on emergency relief  in the aftermath of the tornado that wiped out about 400 businesses and killed around 140 people by the massive F5 tornado that swept through Joplin, Mo. last May, unless spending cuts from other sectors of the federal budget could be found.  Now he wants to reduce revenue even further needed to pay down the deficit by further tax breaks to small  businesses.  Would he be willing to eliminate huge tax breaks from the large corporations to help their smaller brethren create jobs?   They don’t seem to useful in creating jobs for them.  Lord knows they have the money since profits for most of the largest companies in America have seen their highest levels in quite some time.

I really don’t have a problem with this notion to help small businesses with a job-stimulating tax break, but Cantor presumes that giving such businesses a tax break like this will ensure job growth.  It won’t.  In fact, the best he can offer on this is that it will “empower them to hire more workers”.    Would a small business that’s been struggling for the last couple of years use this added income to hire new people as opposed to clearing some credit debt or tucking it away as profit?

Rather than cut that much more from the federal treasury to pay for the workings of government that we all benefit from, this tax credit should be granted ONLY if those who are eligible for it do in fact hire new people, or at least rehire those that they had to lay off when the economy went south three years ago.  If we are going to be asked to grant such actions that will have a negative impact on the deficit, we should at least be assured that there will be a quid pro quo in the form of actually hiring people.

Job creation can positively impact the deficit by bringing more wage earners into the fold who will pay taxes.  I’m not sure that if a company of 100 employees hires only one person that we will get our money’s worth (the federal government views businesses with less than 500 employees as a small business).  Thus, this tax credit the GOP is recommending should be scrutinized to make sure that enough people will be hired vis-a-vis the tax credit to balance out the lost revenue it creates with its implementation.

This would be the smart thing to do but as we have seen over the last few years, Republicans and their Tea Party cohorts are more concerned about ideology than they are about smart legislation.  

The belief that only spending cuts with no tax increases will erode the budget deficit is a notion that most economist scoff at and yet Cantor and his feckless leader, John Boehner continue to bow to this nonsense that conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute promote and that are funded by anti-regulation billionaires like the Koch brothers and Richard Melon Scaife.

Don’t be fooled by this head nod of Cantor’s regarding job creation.  Unrestrained free markets may or may not create jobs but they can also create unemployment through mismanagement and monopolies.  The very reason federal and state regulations exist to begin with ought to be as obvious as the nose on your face.  The markets are not always free as long as there are those who would manipulate them for their own personal gain.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year 

Rich People’s Taxes Have Little to Do with Job Creation 

GOP and JOBS – Stiff Arming the American Worker(woodgatesview.wordpress.com)


You’ve heard about the notion that pets tend to take on the looks of their owners.  Well some people have taken it a step further and anthropomorphized the feelings and attitudes onto their pets.

In a piece by Tara Kelly in the Huffington Post we discover that there are those owners who spend millions on changing the appearance of their pet to  ‘improve a dog or cat’s quality life.”  This of course does refer to the need to make physical changes to a pet that suffers physically but for some owners , it’s all about the animal’s self esteem.

“Jim and Jaime Davenport of Atlanta, Georgia opted for the testicular implants for their English Bulldog. In an ABC News interview, the couple explained that it was just too “out there” that their dog, Munson, had been neutered.”

The Davenports were apparently extrapolating a failed sense of Munson’s manhood and thus decided he needed a neuticle transplant.   Neuticles are “the fake, bean-shaped testicles made out of solid silicone, which come in a range of sizes for the neutered dog to maintain pride and self-esteem.”

Really?  Pride and self-esteem for animals lies in their appearance?  Sounds a bit like human vanity to me and a poor explanation to put their pet under the knife; a practice that organizations like the ASPCA says can be life-threatening.  I have two dogs who are considered a part of our family.  I have always had pets since I was three years when our grandpa bought us a Collie pup that we named Zip from the kindergarten reader “See Zip Run”.

I have never seen any of my pets are those of people I know who have ever spent time primping themselves or admiring their features in mirrors.  Animals may have sense of themselves as it relates to other animals but for some humans to automatically assume it is line with how Homo sapiens see each other is the height of narcissism.

Your pet could be a three-legged mutt with one ear shorter than the other and they only thing that matters to them that I can honestly attest to is how their owners treat them.  Treated with care and affection my pet is most happiest when I give them attention on a regular basis.

People who “neuticle” their male animals or pay to have a tummy tuck done to “Princess” the poodle are only affecting a sense of self-esteem within themselves.  Failing to realize that it is the affections and acts of love that gives their pets a sense of value speaks volumes to the fact that such people who put appearance over deeper human values of compassion, wisdom and tolerance.

If pets could talk might we not hear something like this.

“Get a life you bi-pedal twit.  I’m a freaking canine.  Give me a place to lick my ass, sleep and wide open spaces to run until I drop and I’ll be as happy as those people who spend way too much time in front of that reflector glass altering their image, maybe happier.  Oh Yeah.  Could you clean my water bowl out every now and then.  If you really cared about my self-esteem you wouldn’t force me to drink from where you’se guys relieve yourself”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


It has been a long tough slog but corporations have finally cajoled their way into the concept of personhood.  If only they were really flesh and blood people they would understand that there are things more important than money.

Since the founding of this country there have been battles fought in the courts that have, bit by bit, stretched the principles of the Constitution to a point that ultimately sought to achieve a human status for the creations of mankind, that which has historically belonged solely to the human race.   It is the “unalienable right” asserted in the Declaration of Independence as being the self-evident possession of humankind “endowed by their Creator”.  Can a corporation that answers primarily to investors and a CEO of the corporeal realm take on the characteristics of those whose source of faith is alleged to be a higher supernatural power be seen as an equal?

Following the recent decision of the conservative-heavy Roberts’ court in the Citizens United vs. FEC, words alone that emanate from the diaphragm as it pushes air from human lungs through the vocal folds in our larynx is no longer viewed as the only form of “speech” to which the Constitution applies.  By some immense stretch of the imagination, this controversial Supreme Court decision has declared that M-O-N-E-Y has now become a legitimate mode of speech,  which corporations have vast sums of compared to most real people.  This action ignores the conflicting reality that some of the humans who make up a corporation are now somehow separate from their individual human status by legal fiat and can have essentially two voices that the rest of us do not.

 

The legal whizzes that not only argued this case for corporations but who on the court accepted it, use a form of linguistics uncommon to most of us.  I won’t venture into a debate over the legalese that only a select few engage in.  I haven’t the time or inclination to argue the merits of this lunacy with people who have only their own self-interests at heart.  What I do want to discuss though is the perception that came out of this that corporate citizen are on a level playing field with the rest of us.

I attended a recent city council meeting in my hometown of Denton, Texas that was specifically arranged to address the issue of extending the current ordinances in place for drilling natural gas wells within the corporate city limits as well as any “Extraterritorial Jurisdiction” (ETJ), stated in the information the city provided for those individuals interested in attending these hearings.  Denton, and the county it’s in, set atop the northeast sector of the Barnett Shale in Texas.

The special city council meeting was for the sole purpose of gathering human citizen input on how best to proceed to extend existing city ordinances that govern the exploration, development, and production of natural gas wells.  An all volunteer 3-member panel Citizen Task Force had been selected to gather this information and present it and their recommendations to the City Council

Denton gas well task force members below from left to right areTom LaPoint, Vicki Oppenheimer and John Siegmund 

The meeting, one of several to be held over the next few months, took place at Denton’s Civic Center, including members of the city council who were present only as a formality in that location to accommodate an anticipated large crowd that the council chambers couldn’t.  It seems this was’t necessary after all.  There were roughly 50-60 people there including some media and representatives from the natural gas industry.  By in large though, it was mostly citizen activist who were there to voice their concern on how natural gas wells should or should not be allowed to exist in close proximity to their homes, their school, churches and parks.

It was a good mix of people, from the two college students who represented the generation that would deal longer with the effects of gas wells in this community to long time residents who were now contending with the odors and environmental impacts of gas well noises and toxic waste water open pits.  In total, 19 people came before the committee to convey their concerns and opinions.

 Citizen Joyce Pool has dealt with

 the problems of gas well noise and

open waste water pits for over a decade

Real Estate agent Phyllis Wolper brought attention to diminished land values that occur when gas well are drilled next to homes and other commercial developments

After most of the local citizens had their say, Gilbert Horton, a representative of Devon Energy, “one of the world’s leading independent oil and gas producers” and Martin E. Garza, a Dallas attorney who specializes in real estate and land use/zoning issues who has been representing natural gas interests since 2001, gave their assessments to the task force.  These two men and one citizen named Ben Claybore conveyed the industry’e viewpoints, essentially expressing their concern that creating too many hindrances for gas drilling interests would deprive the industry of their constitutional rights and could have negative “economic consequences” for the area.

   

Devon Energy Representative Gilbert Hooten and Dallas Lawyer Martin Garza

Horton said there is a “growing body of fact-based research” that supports the safety of hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracing) and prompted task force members to consider this above “the emotional comments” many who had come before him had made.  Garza reminded the task force members that there are state and federal guidelines that may conflict with adaptations to the city’s ordinance and that prudent measures utilizing cost-benefit analysis should also be weighed before imposing new regulations.

Clearly these are legitimate arguments that ultimately the city council will have to consider as they eventually review the task force’s considerations based on such hearings.  But the degree to which they should be considered in light of not only the equally legitimate concerns many voiced that evening about the ill-effects of drilling and the fracing method used to extract the product is a topic of concern that poses a challenge to the rights of men and women versus the newly proclaimed rights of corporate citizens.

  

Do human citizens’ concerns about the negative impact of fracing and the use of local water supplies out weigh a need to provide jobs for some and enlarge the city’s tax base?  Those who convey and support corporate interests always take the tact that the corporate citizen is a partner in the community since they do provide jobs and pay taxes.  But unlike flesh and blood citizens they ultimately owe their loyalty to outsiders that make up stock holders and executives at corporate headquarters in another state or even another country.  Some of these headquarters are deliberately located in countries that serve as tax havens for businesses who seek to keep more of their capital for stock holders and bonuses for top executives.  That’s what businesses are primarily expected to do; make profits and expand their wealth and sphere of influence.

Their contributions to the community in the form of financial grants to education and other vital social services is indeed a welcome benefit to these entities but it also serves as PR to community leaders that can be influential in giving an unfair advantage to their voice over those citizens whose separate financial contributions are a legal obligation that come in the form of mandated property and sales taxes.  Except for the very wealthy philanthropist, most human citizens are unable to give above and beyond what their taxes cover for consideration in the eyes of those who “make the rules”.

Neither can individual common people entice political leaders with appeals to their selfish nature in the form of generous campaign contributions and positions of status and generous incomes in the businesses sector once they leave the public domain.  Large corporations also have deep pockets to create legal challenges to public-conscious politicians that the average citizens doesn’t.  Such litigious challenges are intended to wear down battle-fatigued public officials to abandon the fight if victory is not soon apparent.

For the most part, only those individual citizens who share a common interest and join together as a single entity have the capabilities to fight on a level playing field with the corporate citizen; but only to the degree they sustain a cohesive front of the multiple individual self-interests of members who are willing to tough the fight out over the long haul and provide financial resources to match those of their corporate counter part. Such endeavors that have been successful and have played their cards appropriately have forced the corporate citizen to weigh the cost-benefit measures of doing battle with such public grass-root efforts, forcing them to concede to the organized ban of citizens.

 Not all citizens are the same. 

Say hello to a corporate neighbor

But where this public opposition fails to crystallize as a large body, the corporate citizen is usually the victor.  And even then there is less hope for such grass-roots organizations if local politicians have already developed favorable relationships with the corporate entities. Thus the lone individuals or even a very small group find it difficult to fight a monolith that combines corporate and political interests.  On a true level playing field each “citizen” should be able to protect their life, liberty and property against the wants and desires of the corporate citizen.  They often lack the wherewithal to fight the notion that claims corporations serve economic benefits that outweigh the quality of life for individuals.

If our neighbor is engaging in activity that threatens our health and means of production the courts are quick to act in favor of those people who will be impacted by such practices.  But if that neighbor is a corporate citizen then there is a different standard that seems to apply.  Asking the corporate citizen to cease and desist those practices that threaten our quality of life gets special consideration because what they are doing creates jobs and tax revenue, benefitting more than just themselves.

This is a sound argument until you add the elements of costs to individuals in the short and long terms that impact their health care costs and other out-of-pocket expenses they incur to offset the damage done by the corporate citizen, not to mention the toll on a human’s quality of life.  In the case of gas drilling, the fracing process injects known toxicants into our drinking water supplies and allows deadly chemicals to escape into the air we breathe.  The process destroys the land on and around it for decades making future development of any kind unlikely, lowering the value of homeowners in the area.  The serenity of neighborhoods are diminished and even removed as the noise from production takes away from the neighborhood that which was once a major appeal to homeowners – the tranquil sounds of nature and children playing in that natural setting.

We need the businesses that free markets create and their needs to be limits and guidelines by which they can peacefully coexist with the real people they find themselves among.  Most small businesses fit in perfectly with this scenario as they become  assimilated into the local human matrix and are genuinely welcomed.  But when the mammoth scale of corporations intrude and try to pass themselves off as “one of us”, they do so with only the intent to make a profit where they can and then move on to the next locale to manifest their business model.

The people who work at these large corporations are routinely the locals themselves.  That in itself is sufficient to have someone represent the company in terms of local appeal.   But when top management that headquarters and lives outside that community as well as their investors, they shouldn’t be allowed to double their representation in the form an individual defined in our founding documents as those who possess unalienable rights “endowed by their Creator”, unless everyone is willing to redefine “Creator” in such documents as commercial, for-profit entrepreneurs.


Whenever I have little to write on I can depend upon my good friend Donna Cavanagh to fill the void with interesting and humorous anecdotes, as she does here.

The shaking and rattling is not quite over and already conspiracy theorists are lining up to give their version of why the Virginia-centered earthquake hit.  And before I go on with this, let me tell you that you can forage through all these theories from people who rely on a wide variety of sources for their knowledge, but if you don’t have time to dig through all the “evidence” of the conspiracies, you can just go to You Tube.  As we all know, if it’s on You Tube, it must be true.

You Tube has hundreds of videos on how the US government’s experiments with radio waves have altered weather patterns, caused natural disasters and succeeded in controlling the minds of moods of unsuspecting people.  What are these experiments?  Well, Google:  HAARP conspiracy or just plain HAARP and you will find out. In a nutshell it goes like this:  The government is responsible for the Virginia earthquake along with the recent earthquakes in Chile, New Zealand, Haiti and Japan not to mention every other misfortune that has occurred throughout the globe. The reason for implementing evil science: power. Allow me to say that I have an open mind, but when conspiracy theorists get their own Facebook group and produce third-rate You Tube videos to prove their point, they make my brain and stomach hurt which forces me to shut the door on all their ideas.

But lots of people do believe these theories. Many of them look for these conspiracies because they cannot accept the randomness of the Earth and universe and they don’t trust the government – and that I totally understand.  I guess to help you make up your mind, we should take a brief look at HAARP and why all the controversy.

Started in 1993, The HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is a scientific endeavor that studies the properties and behavior of the ionosphere with the purpose of understanding how it could be used to enhance communications and surveillance systems. It is a cooperative effort between the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska, and the Defense Advanced Researched Projects Agency or DARPA. The HAARP complex is situated on a 23-acre lot in a relatively isolated region near the town of Gakona, Alaska. When the final phase of the project was completed in 1997, the military had erected 180 towers that were 72 feet in height that formed a “high-power, high frequency phased array radio transmitter” capable of beaming in the 2.5-10 megahertz frequency range, at about 3,981MW.

So, the conspiracy theory people purport that HAARP uses radio waves to not only bring about natural disasters such as earthquakes, but uses them also to experiment with mind control.  The anti-HAARP people or those who believe in the conspiracies, also say that there is visual proof of HAARP’s activities right before natural disasters. Apparently, there are charts and aura type manifestations that show HAARP’s activities. Some conspiracy theorists point to the origins of this HAARP technology and patents filed in the early 1900s which show the government’s interest in this research.

Yes, there are books, a million websites and political commentary about the evil origins of HAARP and why it exists today, and on the other end there is the HAARP website that is so blah and benign, it makes me wonder what they are hiding  because no government research program can be that vanilla and that innocent.

Hey, I admit to not being a scientist so my mind is open especially since this project sits in the middle of Sarah Palin country. Plus, technology is a tool, so it is plausible that it can be used for selfish reasons and political gains. Do I believe that HAARP is behind global warming and climate change?  No, I believe we did that to ourselves and it’s up to us to fix it.  As far as fabricating earthquakes and natural disasters, I don’t see why the US would destroy so much and then hand over billions to help countries get back on track. If our goal was to destroy, why help out later?

Anyway, along with all the many, many people who believe in the HAARP agenda I ran across a lot of counter arguments for the HAARP conspiracy.  Since, I don’t plan on spending my life going through each one, I am going to go with Pervez Hoodbhoy, a  Physics professor in Islamabad who I thought explained the non-conspiracy argument in very simple terms plus he does not appear to be a big fan of the US, so I thought his arguments had to be somewhat  balanced.

Hoodbhoy says that weather change simply cannot be caused by HAARP’s radio waves. The effects of a puny 3.6MW radio transmitter on the ionosphere can only be detected with sensitive instruments.  He also says that radio waves cannot move massive tectonic plates and cause earthquakes. The only way the waves can affect the plates is if they are used to tickle awake a subterranean monster and in so doing, the movement of the monster would move the plates.  To be honest, I sort of wished this theory were true because I would love to see the You Tube video of the monster.  I guess it would look sort of like the Godzilla movies where the prehistoric monster stomps around Tokyo.

Anyway, back to HAARP.  I know people love to find conspiracies in everything, but sometimes there are not evil forces out to destroy the earth and our enemies. I don’t see the point of causing natural disasters.  An earthquake in any country is now a global event that impacts all of us negatively.  Do I think that there are evil mad scientists out there? Yes, I do–just as there are evil postal workers and evil nurses and evil teachers and evil writers.  Every human being has the potential to do evil, and you would have to get a lot of evil people on board to not only develop natural disaster technology but to keep it secret. And no offense to all the conspiracy researchers out there,  but if it was that big a secret, I don’t think you could get your smoking gun proof just by using Google and your laptop.

SOURCES:

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html

http://thesop.org/story/science/2009/02/15/a-haarp-striking-a-powerful-chord-earthquake-machine.php

http://www.sacw.net/article1692.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23vUPSziHdE

 

Donna Cavanagh

Donna’s work has been published in More.com, SOP.org, Divine Caroline and First magazine and local and national newspapers as well. This year, her first two humor books were published. Life On the Off Ramp is a collection of her earlier humor columns and Reality: Fantasy’s Evil Twin is a look at the contrast between how we imagine relationships to be and how they truly are.

 

 

 

 


For all the faithful who have believed as the Tea Party-controlled GOP wanted, that our deficit issue was a spending issue and not a revenue issue, the latest news out of Washington reveals a truth that appears to debunk that myth.

The opening lines from an Associated Press article by Charles Babington  says it all

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.

Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different “temporary” tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a “payroll tax” on practically every dime they earn.   SOURCE 

This means that the GOP wants to remove the tax break that working people are getting to reduce the deficit while trying to sustain a tax break that benefits mainly wealthy individuals whose income comes largely from non-labor sources like investments in the stock market and capital ventures using other people’s money.

Remember this comment from an Op-Ed piece by billionaire Warren Buffet

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your [income tax rate] percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine” — most likely by a lot.  SOURCE 

In other words those who make an income for services rendered in the form of their labor are paying higher rates of taxes than those who “make money with money” such as bankers, investors and hedge fund managers, who among the top 25 in this country benefitted from special tax cuts that put about $4 billion more in their pocket last year.   This means working people will be asked to continue making sacrifices for the sake of lowering the nation’s debt while the wealthiest 5% who own nearly 70% of the financial wealth in this country are spared.

I don’t know if there is something in the drinking water that Republicans drink but there has to be something to explain the sheer gall of making such a suggestion just a few short weeks after they threatened to shut down the government and derail any inkling of a recovery by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless they got a budget that had NO tax increases in it.  These are the same people who have signed Grover Norquist’s  pledge that demands they not raise taxes in any way, shape or form.

To keep this payroll tax cut in place will cost the treasury another $120 million a year Babington tells us in his report, but this is if you combine all three types of payroll taxes which consist of income tax withholding, Social Security and Medicare taxes and Unemployment taxes.  Based on payroll taxes I incurred my last full year of employment in 2008, the income tax withholding was roughly about two-thirds of my total payroll taxes.

It makes sense to reinstate the taxes for Social Security/Medicare and Unemployment benefits during these tough economic times.  With high unemployment and the increasing numbers of baby boomers retiring, these two areas need not be cut at this critical point.  That leaves the income tax withholding portion, an amount that can easily be covered by ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% in this country.

Is the haze clearing for you yet?  The signal I am getting from this willingness by Republicans to reinstate the tax revenue lost by cutting payroll taxes is indicative of someone who sees the need to use tax revenue to pay down the deficit.  This goes against the mantra of those on the right that say the deficit is a spending issue, not a revenue issue.

 

We have people in Congress who claim they want to keep taxes low so it can stimulate the economy but this is cover for those tax cuts that essentially benefit wealthy and corporate tax payers.  It was the cutting of taxes twice during the Bush administration that aided in depleting the surplus he inherited from the Clinton administration (see chart above) as it failed to generate any kind of significant job growth over seven years. It did however succeed in handing Obama a $1 trillion budget deficit in 2009.   The wealthiest people in this country not only benefit from an over all lower tax rate but see extra benefits from lower estate taxes, capital gains taxes and investment income taxes – all the tax cuts that the large majority of Americans will never find themselves in need of.

The GOP’s heart felt concern for the wealthy has always been transparent and now their lack of concern for the rest of us is equally clear.  How else would you describe a need to reinstate the higher poll taxes, which by their own definition, as Babington points out, amounts to a tax increase. 

 

 


Ken Thomas with the Associated Press has a piece out this week that hits a chord with many Progressives and our despair over how poorly President Obama has failed to take advantage of the political capital he was given in November, 2008 to effect change that only the most extreme elements on the right would actually categorize in the ugliest form of partisan politics.

After eight years of Bush/Cheney policies that ruined the middle class as it favored the very wealthy, Obama was swept into office to not only halt the direction we were going but to turn it ever so slowly back to a more sane approach and to do what it reasonably took to get the economy back on track.  Even the most fervent liberal supporter had no delusions that all of the changes we sought would be totally achieved and that some would actually be sacrificed to move us forward.  But few of us realized that on the most critical issues of health care, financial reform, entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and most important, jobs, that we would have someone who it turns out to be something close to the empty suit many on the right accuse him of being.

The straw that broke the camel’s back for me was his recent caving on the debt ceiling issue.  Everyone except the Tea Party crowd knew that this was a manufactured crisis the GOP threw up as a smoke screen to cover their lack of effort to create jobs.  A recent CNN/ORC poll showed that jobs was and continues to be the top priority for most Americans and that the federal deficit placed about 15 points behind this concern most of this year.  Concern about taxes averaged a meager 5% rating over the same period of time.  Yet the President failed to take the initiative and drive home this point, rallying his supporters and winning over Independents who provided his victory nearly three years ago.

The same weak attempts were apparent with the health care reform bill, financial reform and ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% last December.  In all of these efforts polls constantly showed that voters wanted more than the GOP was offering and what Obama was willing to give away.  It’s not that we find fault with efforts to work through important issues like this in bipartisan fashion.  This was one of the things we screamed about when the Republicans had control of the three national branches of government most of the first 8 years in this century as they rammed legislation through to satisfy their base.  Some give and take is part of the political machinery that makes up this democratic-republican form of government.  What we don’t expect is the constant giving and not getting that has become characteristic of the Obama White House.

Like some liberals I don’t believe that Obama is the flip side of a GOP coin.  I am cognizant too that many things have been achieved since Democrats gained control of the White House and Congress but most of this has been low-lying fruit and thinned out pretty much to accommodate Obama’s efforts to be bi-partisan.   What I am seeing however is that he lacks the courage and determination to take a fight to its apex when he has the support of most Americans behind him.  It’s as if he has become obsessed with this notion that it is best to look bi-partisan, even to the detriment of losing his base.  He is hooked on a notion that liberals will stay with him simply because they can’t stomach what the Tea Party-controlled GOP offers and that he must show the Independents out there that he is always willing to compromise.

It is true that liberals will not vote against Obama and many of the Democrats in 2012, but as Ken Thomas aptly states, the President can lose essential support from the Progressive camp that could diminish his efforts, making it a tighter race than is necessary.

The president faces no serious primary opponent, and polls show him faring fairly well within his party. Few liberals are likely to support a Republican for president next year.

But angry liberals could refuse to volunteer to knock on doors or make phone calls, a pivotal grass-roots role for a candidate’s base of supporters. Disaffected Democrats could keep their wallets closed, hampering small-dollar fundraising over the Internet. Or they could just stay away from the polls on Election Day.

“They want to love him, but he’s given them little evidence and his rhetoric is running out of steam,” said Princeton professor Cornel West, who campaigned for Obama in 2008 but has become a fierce critic. “We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. He’s going to need high levels of enthusiasm among his base, and it’s going to be hard to do that with speeches and no real serious actions or policies.”

I think too that Obama also misreads the moderates and Independent voters.  Many of those that support the programs that Obama wimped out on were not just liberal Democrats.  Many of those polled were working class families of no strong political persuasion who are simply tired of seeing their income shrink while spending cuts hit sectors that affect them more than the higher income groups.  Most Independents want the government to be aggressive in regulating the financial industry to prevent another banking failure as it saw in the late summer of 2008.  They want health care reform that looks more like Medicare for all than some washed down bill that completely resembled what the Republicans called for in 1994.  But most of all, they want to see someone in positions of responsibility do what it takes to get Americans back to work.

As much as you hear about how bad Obama and the Democrats are doing, it is even worse for Republicans.   Grumblings from the middle class about how low-income people seem to get more attention from Congress than they do is minor in comparison to their attitudes about how much attention the rich get.  Study after study shows that wages for the lower 95% have seen very little increase over the last few decades while those for the top 2% have increased dramatically.

One study put out last summer by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, whose findings are often based on the work of independent, nonpartisan authorities such as the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Government Accountability Office, found that the “gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007.   Their data also conveys the fact that though the rich do technically pay the greater share of taxes in this country, their income has elevated to a point where their after-tax income doubled during this same period, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent.

There are other studies out there that also show that the wealthiest do not necessarily reinvest any income increase from tax cuts back into the economy to create jobs and that through legislation that benefits the wealthy, many tax breaks have allowed the wealthiest to pay a lower rate than others who make far less.  This disparity and failure to promote a sense of “shared sacrifice” by the rich was brought home recently in an editorial by one of the wealthiest person’s in the world – Warren Buffett.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.   

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.  SOURCE

For Obama to think somehow that Independents would side with the GOP and their kowtowing to a mindset that opposes efforts to level the playing field for most Americans and implementing reasonable regulations that keep those who control the wealth and means of production in check from abuses that hurt our incomes, retirement savings and long-term health, simply isn’t in tune with his constituents.

It’s a different day today than it was during the Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt had an equal or greater control over his messaging than Obama does via the internet and social media outlets of today.  Yet this factor can work for Obama as much as it can against him.  Many of the claims being made by his adversaries our straw man arguments that are easily knocked over with the facts.  Obama needs to connect with Americans much like Roosevelt’s fireside chats did.  He needn’t fear that the independents will abandon him if he points out the blatant weaknesses in the GOP and Tea Party talking points.

  

Obama could stand to emulate the courage of some of his predecessors 

By constantly getting the message out that there are those who are defending positions that exclude people of great wealth from shared sacrifice necessary to pay down our debt, blocking efforts to generate jobs and effective health care reform as well as efforts to curb industry practices by some that pollute our air and water as it contributes to conditions that negatively impact our climate, Obama can be seen more as a true leader.

Even in the face of adversity he needs to be seen as the one who is always fighting for those who lack the resources and status to protect themselves and their families.  It is the fight that inspires people.  Not the ruminations that lack actions.  There may still be time left before the 2012 elections to restore the image he presented to voters in 2008 but it will take more than clever, articulate speeches this time to convince many of us to devote our energy and money to his cause this go around.

RELATED ARTICLES

Obama’s Original Sin 

What Happened to Obama


While pressing the flesh in New Hampshire in his campaign for the presidency, Rick Perry of Texas was asked by a mom who was supposedly speaking for her son to explain “why he doesn’t believe in science.”  Without looking at the mom Perry tells the kid, “Evolution is a theory that’s out there.  It’s got some gaps in it but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution…”

When pressed again by the mom to encourage her son to explain why Perry doesn’t believe in science, Perry again looks directly at the boy who appears to be about 7 or 8 years old and says, “…because I figured you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”  SOURCE

Perry is right about evolution being a theory and everyone who accepts the premise of evolution knows it is not an absolute.  I don’t think we can say the same about how Perry and many of the fundamentalist Christians he mingles with regard their creationist’s view.

To rigid conservative Christians like Perry the Bible is “the inerrant word of God” and if the Bible says it they take a literal interpretation and claim it to be essentially an absolute truth.  According to scripture the Earth was created in 6 days a little over 5000 years ago, Adam and Eve were the first humans, dinosaurs roamed the earth with man and Moses stopped the sun from setting so they could complete their battle and go on to be victorious over the Amorites (Josh 10).  There is even a report in 2 Kings 20:9-11 that time went backwards.

 

If Perry thinks the theory of evolution has gaps in it he would have to reject the physical evidence that blows big old holes in these few examples of beliefs held by those who say the bible is a literal truth.  Through radiometric dating along with other non-radiometric dates of objects, such as historical accounts, tree rings, ice cores, etc., the results repeatedly demonstrate the validity of radiometric dating which shows earth to be around 4.5 million years old.  Even though creationists have challenged the reliability of this data they have used it themselves to verify certain biblical historical claims such as the “tunnel believed to be built by King Hezekiah and described in the Bible (Kings II 20:20; Chronicles II 32:3, 4), was dated using carbon-14 and uranium-thorium dating to show that it was built near the time of the Judean king (700 B.C.).”  SOURCE

There is no archeological evidence that shows humans were around the same time that dinosaurs were.  Some creationists try to refute this with the claim that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas.  The close scientific scrutiny of these sites however have disproved this contention to the point where most creationist “no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing ‘man track’ claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny.”

The notion that Adam and Eve were the first people is easily disputed by claims made later in Genesis that says Cain met his wife shortly after he was “driven out from the face of the earth.  And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Gen.4:16-17).  If he was the son of the first people, where did his wife come from?  Creationists can answer the question anyway they want but there is no evidence provided in the Bible to support them.

And lastly, for people to believe that the sun was stopped so Joshua could defeat the Amorites strongly implies that they believed the sun revolved around the earth.  We now know this is not true.  Even the hard-core fundamentalist will not argue this point today.  The next step to take would then conclude that the earth stopped its rotation on its axis, leaving the sun at a point in the sky and making it appear that it had stopped.   But for the earth to stop rotating meant that every living thing on the planet that was not tied down solidly would have gone floating out into space.  It is the earth’s rotation that keeps us on earth through the gravitational pull that occurs as the planet spins.

Is this really how fundamentalists see our universe? 

So, if the New Hampshire kid that confronted Perry by proxy is left to decide what is and isn’t sound judgment, it is likely that he will conclude Perry was an idiot.  Sadly many kids in Texas will be less likely to come to this decision because their young developing minds had to contend with the superstition that their eternal soul would be thrown into the fiery pits of hell if they accepted the physical realities over the creationist view.

By suggesting that religious notions contrived by ancient civilizations had a more realistic take on how we came to be, Perry has demonstrated that he is no smarter than a 5th grader.  Clearly though this doesn’t disqualify him to be President of the U.S. in the eyes of many voters.  George Bush, Jr. is living proof of this.


FDA using the same messaging tactic as cigarette companies to influence smokers.


In a surreal announcement by lawyers representing the tobacco industry, complainants are crying foul because the FDA is making them post unpleasant pictures of smokers  on cigarette packages they say exaggerate the claim about the ills associated with smoking.

The lawsuit said the images were manipulated to be especially emotional.  The tobacco companies said the corpse photo is actually an actor with a fake scar, while the healthy lungs were sanitized to make the diseased organ look worse.  SOURCE  

In what is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, tobacco companies want to deny the federal agency whose goal it is, among other things, to protect consumers against unethical business practices, to cease and desist using methods that exploit the emotions of their consumers.

 

I suppose cigarette ads like these appealing to women were realistic and not intended to ignore the health issues associated with cigarettes?

How about these older ads before there was a Surgeon General’s warning on the package that promised a sense of relaxation from the tensions of raising children.  What the hell does it mean to “never feel over-smoked”?

And of course every boy looked forward to being seen as a real man with a Marlboro in his hand or hanging from his lips like James Dean.  

You’re not a man until you hack like a cowboy.  Wayne McLaren, the Marlboro man for years in the ad above was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1990 at the young age of 49. He died in 1992. The cancer stricken cowboy spent the rest of his life campaigning against smoking.

These fantasy worlds that were exposed to all of us for years left many people with serious lung diseases or ailments.  I smoked for seventeen years.  I swore off of them after getting tired of waking up each morning coughing up green phlegm.  My mother died of emphysema even though she had quit smoking 15 years before her death.  She walked around with an oxygen tank for the last few years of her life.  My dad died of congestive heart failure that the doctors said was related to his pack and a half a day smoking.



The pictures being mandated by the FDA to appear on cigarette packages may not be the real McCoy but what they suggest is more apt to happen than any of the fantasies alluded too in cigarette ads down the years.

Smoking, when you look at it objectively says I believed the hype the ads promoted.  I really thought I would be more adult and more attractive to others with this thing hanging out of my mouth.  The fact is, I hung on to this phony image so long that now I’m addicted to the nicotine in it and would rather deny it’s potential harm to me than make the difficult effort to quit.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers