It's quite nice to see a writer admit mistakes and make corrections. It makes one trust this site to search out the truth wherever it may lead. Thank you.
Any product intended for human consumption should be regulated; especially if research shows that the product is harmful to human health.
The difference between food and cigarettes is food is necessary for human survival while tobacco is not. Potato Chips are not bioengineered to be some of the most addictive substances on earth; while cigarettes are. Tobacco companies have probably spent billions of dollars over the last 55 years on this pursuit alone. That is how they get customers for life. Tobacco companies are some of the biggest and most successful corporations in America.
Furthermore, secondhand potato chips kill or injure no one. While secondhand smoke kills and injures more people annually than all alcohol
related auto accidents in the United States. I have been diagnosed with lung cancer and heart disease recently even though I have never smoked in my life. My downstairs neighbors of 9 years however have a pack a day habit (at least). I wish it was legal to harm or kill them in some way as they have me. I am not a mean or vindictive person, but their addiction and complete disregard for others has literally destroyed my life.
I might further add that our government is largely responsible for this, by making alchohol and cigarettes legal and Marijuana illegal. If Marijuana had been legal all these years, there would likely be many fewer (addicted) tobacco smokers out there. Furthermore there would be not only a cure for cancer (and other diseases), but likely a much lower
prevalence of cancer and other diseases. Our government, and the corporations and rich individuals who lobbyed (bribed) congress, are directly responsible for the needless death and suffering of millions of Americans.
Sure they have, a $700 billion-dollar tax cut.
"Speaking of Republicans at a fund-raiser in a wealthy community near Dallas on Monday, Mr. Obama told Democratic donors, “What you see is a governing philosophy on their part that basically comes down to ‘We’re going to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us’ — folks who don’t need those tax cuts and weren’t even asking for them, which would cost $700 billion.”
Study Looks at Tax Cut Lapse for Rich
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html
Who will eventually end up making up for those tax cuts worth $700 billion for those billionaires ? Everyone else.
When you count in the corporate welfare, we're all being screwed, except the top 2% of taxpayers, and corporate 'persons' that the GOP seems more concerned with,
"When you add it all up—state and local taxes, federal taxes, sales taxes and excise fees—it turns out that the rich, the poor, and those in between all end up with about the same tax rate. That’s the conclusion of a 2007 study by Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson. They summarized, “The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.”
from The 9 Biggest Conservative Lies About Taxes and Public Spending
Here are the things the corporate media won't tell you about the tax-cut rhetoric in Washington.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149265/the_9_biggest_conservative_lies_about_taxes_and_public_spending?page=entire
According to David Cay Johnston, the wealthy super-rich can hide their incomes while everyone else's is reported on W2 forms to the IRS.
Ms. Judith Levine is so clearly wrong that I wondered if she even read the whole report. Any reasonable person even glancing through the report must conclude that Fox News systematically misinforms its viewers, in one case (scientific basis of global climate change) by a spread of 47% compared with NPR and 30% on average. This bias is not due to chance and is highly statistically significant. In fact, a recently leaked internal Fox News memo showed an executive directing news staff to slant climate change coverage against accurate reporting. See http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/231930.asp
As far as showing Fox News misinforms its viewers, I quote from page 20 of the World Public Opinion report:
"There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."
This section is followed by several pages of statistics showing that Fox News viewers topped the list of most misinformed people on each and every topic surveyed. It appears that unreality has a neoconservative bias (to paraphrase Mr. Colbert).
Any product intended for human consumption should be regulated; especially if research shows that the product is harmful to human health.
The difference between food and cigarettes is food is necessary for human survival while tobacco is not. Potato Chips are not bioengineered to be some of the most addictive substances on earth; while cigarettes are. Tobacco companies have probably spent billions of dollars over the last 55 years on this pursuit alone. That is how they get customers for life. Tobacco companies are some of the biggest and most successful corporations in America.
Furthermore, secondhand potato chips kill or injure no one. While secondhand smoke kills and injures more people annually than all alcohol
related auto accidents in the United States. I have been diagnosed with lung cancer and heart disease recently even though I have never smoked in my life. My downstairs neighbors of 9 years however have a pack a day habit (at least). I wish it was legal to harm or kill them in some way as they have me. I am not a mean or vindictive person, but their addiction and complete disregard for others has literally destroyed my life.
I might further add that our government is largely responsible for this, by making alchohol and cigarettes legal and Marijuana illegal. If Marijuana had been legal all these years, there would likely be many fewer (addicted) tobacco smokers out there. Furthermore there would be not only a cure for cancer (and other diseases), but likely a much lower
prevalence of cancer and other diseases. Our government, and the corporations and rich individuals who lobbyed (bribed) congress, are directly responsible for the needless death and suffering of millions of Americans.
Ms. Judith Levine is so clearly wrong that I wondered if she even read the whole report. Any reasonable person even glancing through the report must conclude that Fox News systematically misinforms its viewers, in one case (scientific basis of global climate change) by a spread of 47% compared with NPR and 30% on average. This bias is not due to chance and is highly statistically significant. In fact, a recently leaked internal Fox News memo showed an executive directing news staff to slant climate change coverage against accurate reporting. See http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/231930.asp
As far as showing Fox News misinforms its viewers, I quote from page 20 of the World Public Opinion report:
"There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue.
Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:
most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)
most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)
the economy is getting worse (26 points)
most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)
the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)
their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)
the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)
when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)
and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)
These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."
This section is followed by several pages of statistics showing that Fox News viewers topped the list of most misinformed people on each and every topic surveyed. It appears that unreality has a neoconservative bias (to paraphrase Mr. Colbert).
Pages