Cigarettes are the only product that when used as intended, kill. Isn't it better to force manufacturers to convey truthful information about cigarettes, than to keep consumers in the dark? For decades, tobacco companies promoted a fake idealism around their products, used "aspirational marketing," romanticism, exploited peoples' insecurities and used other strategies to lure people into smoking. 90 percent of users start while they are children, under the age of 18. Fifty percent of smokers will die from it. The product's addictiveness is chemically enhanced. Is it not better to warn users at every turn about the very real dangers of this product? Real freedom is having all the information you need to make an informed decision. Graphic labels are part of conveying that information.
I have been fighting climate denial for years and I even wrote a book called Fuel Free but it now appears that the denialists were right. Sunspot cycles affect cloud cover which accounts for the climate changes we have seen nicely. We have been cooling since 1998 and will continue for another 20 years in spite of our CO2 habit. La Nina (cold Pacific due to cloud cover) has caused the recent weather disasters. The IPCC made a big mistake and now they are in denial about it. ALEC may be evil but they are on the right side of the global warming debate.
Here is an article on the CERN news, published in Nature, by a former New Scientist editor:
http://calderup.wordpress.com/
You don't get it, do you? The trouble with the IPAB board, and others like it, is that the members are not elected and therefore can't be chosen by those who matter--the corporate "persons." Of course, those who choose the members of such boards are themselves chosen by the corporations, but this indirect control is irritating to those used to direct manipulation of puppet strings. There is a threat that board members might be influenced by that contemptible mass of organic, animal-type persons, the humans.
Smoking is a choice and they start teaching the kids in first grade about the dangers. The government has taken it too far. Perhaps they should put photos of blown up soldiers on Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine advertisements and applications. And photos of grossly obese people on bacon and ice cream. And damaged liver photos on all alcholic beverages. Need I go on? Where is our freedom?
As a former Executive Chef I can certify that yes the students were defrauded , promised salaries you obtain only after decades in the trade .
For us the Scam worked like that , Chef give the student a B , the student is happy , the councelor leave you alone , the Dean is happy, the CEO is happy ,the boardmenbers make money , the share holder make aprofit , who care about the students after they graduate it's their problem .
I have the clear recollection of a meeting in which I stated the changes could jeopardize the school accreditation , I was told none of your businmess we will tell them it is for career enhancement they never check , we will do it with or without you
they did it without me .
There were no alumni service or was very mediocre , placement ? what is it ?
The mismanagement of the CCA did not stop there it also affected every Chefn and instructor , I had signed for a 401k and for years tried to get them to roll it over , the berlin wall would have been softer and it only happen when someone liquidated the fund , to illustrate how bad it was an Instructor had an account and when she passed away the peoples liquidating Her estate tried for years to get that 401 k and were unsuccessfull
Cigarettes are the only product that when used as intended, kill. Isn't it better to force manufacturers to convey truthful information about cigarettes, than to keep consumers in the dark? For decades, tobacco companies promoted a fake idealism around their products, used "aspirational marketing," romanticism, exploited peoples' insecurities and used other strategies to lure people into smoking. 90 percent of users start while they are children, under the age of 18. Fifty percent of smokers will die from it. The product's addictiveness is chemically enhanced. Is it not better to warn users at every turn about the very real dangers of this product? Real freedom is having all the information you need to make an informed decision. Graphic labels are part of conveying that information.
Smoking is a choice and they start teaching the kids in first grade about the dangers. The government has taken it too far. Perhaps they should put photos of blown up soldiers on Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine advertisements and applications. And photos of grossly obese people on bacon and ice cream. And damaged liver photos on all alcholic beverages. Need I go on? Where is our freedom?
Pages