Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Center for Consumer Freedom: a slice of corporate propaganda

By afree87 in Op-Ed
Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 07:01:14 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The July 1st edition of Newsweek ran an advertisement from the Center for Consumer Freedom that consisted of a quote from a thoughtless PETA spokesperson and an appeal for donations. At first blush, the Center appears to be in favor of unbiased information and views, similar to the Consumers Union and other non-profit organizations. However, a further investigation reveals their murky and basically unexplored roots.


The advertisement in Newsweek invites you to visit ConsumerFreedom.com and "find out more about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other extremists". You can visit their website to find, on any given date, a number of news headlines both attacking environmental activists and supporting the purchase of all sorts of foods. Advertisements in other magazines have apparently included the headline You Are Too Stupid (to make your own food choices), pressuring against the "fat tax" proposed by the U.S. Surgeon General, which ran in U.S. News. Immediately, this aroused suspicion. It's hard to believe that any normal organization would want consumers to eat lots of junk food. But, indeed, the CfCF attacks the "food police" and the threats of "class-action lawsuits against restaraunts for serving America's favorite foods and drinks." They also have a body mass index calculator that pokes fun at anorexics with near troll-like quality: "Listen Calista, we told you to stop taking this test. Now go home and eat a cheeseburger or two. You need some meat on those bones." What's going on here?

Despite their detailed descriptions of how activists get their funding, nowhere on their website does the hypocritical Center tell its readers how it gets its funding. Further investigation, however, reveals the truth; the Center for Consumer Freedom was formerly called the Guest Choice Network. A search for the Guest Choice Network at Philip Morris' public access document site gives about 200 results, most of which are the sort of pamphlets and advertising the CfCF is producing today. The missing link can be found at freedomofexpression.com and prwatch.org: Guest Choice was started with $600,000 in funds supplied by Philip Morris, and is currently funded by a lobbying organization called Berman & Co. These websites also note some other organizations Philip Morris has a controlling hand in: the Employment Policy Institute, which attempts to stop the minimum wage from being raised, and the American Beverage Institute, which attempts to stop legislation on the selling of alcohol.

The source of the Center for Consumer Freedom's funding should not invalidate the studies and investigations they do. However, if there is to be any honesty in the debate over the environment and food market, the Center, along with Philip Morris' other child organizations, should reveal who they're being funded by when they present their evidence.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Propaganda
o Anti-environmentalists do it 3%
o Anti-environmentalists do most of it 12%
o Both sides do it 70%
o Environmentalists do most of it 6%
o Environmentalists do it 1%
o Neither side does much of it (!) 1%
o Greenpeace members do it the old-fashioned way 1%

Votes: 102
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o ConsumerFr eedom.com
o You Are Too Stupid (to make your own food choices)
o body mass index calculator
o descriptio ns of how activists get their funding
o Guest Choice Network
o public access document site
o freedomofe xpression.com
o prwatch.or g
o funded by a lobbying organization called Berman & Co
o Employment Policy Institute
o American Beverage Institute
o Also by afree87


Display: Sort:
The Center for Consumer Freedom: a slice of corporate propaganda | 66 comments (46 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden)
Extremist vs Extremist (3.77 / 9) (#1)
by DesiredUsername on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:00:38 PM EST

On the one hand, obviously I'd like everyone to be fair and rational at all times, especially over vital topics such as national health and the environment.

On the other hand, I can't help but giggle with glee that someone has the balls to be as extreme as PETA and Greenpeace but in the opposite direction. The former have been around so long they have started to seem kind of normal, this website is a great counterbalance to that. (great as in large immense, we mean it in the pejorative sense)

I'd also like to note that on the BMI calculator I had to reduce my weight down to 185 to get it to be "normal" for my 6'1" frame. That is in fact utterly ridiculous, I've never weighed that little and I used to be quite fit.

Play 囲碁

Oh man! (3.60 / 5) (#2)
by DesiredUsername on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:04:02 PM EST

I don't care what political agenda these guys have, they are hysterical! Check out the radio spots: "According to the latest study, it is inhumane to eat meat but it is perfectly humane to taunt, rob or kick someone in the jimmies who does."

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
I don't find that hysterical (4.25 / 4) (#3)
by greenrd on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:09:10 PM EST

Making fun of the ongoing animal holocaust is not a good joke in my book.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

I have an idea (4.00 / 5) (#5)
by wiredog on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:13:41 PM EST

First, we stop eating meat. Then we kill all the formerly meat animals, since we will no longer have a reason to keep them around.

Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]
Soylent Green is People! (3.75 / 4) (#10)
by Bad Harmony on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:43:58 PM EST

Let's eat the vegetarians. They did say that they wanted to be low on the food-chain.

5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

Mmmm, long pork (3.50 / 2) (#11)
by wiredog on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:45:23 PM EST

The other white meat.

Hey. If vegetarians eat veggies, wouldn't that make us humanitarians?

Can't sleep. The clowns will get me.
[ Parent ]

Humaitarians (none / 0) (#37)
by abdera on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:04:29 AM EST

Are perfectly at ease eating vegitarian fare as long as only free-range vegitarians are used.

#224 [deft-:deft@98A9C369.ipt.aol.com] at least i don't go on aol
[ Parent ]

no no... (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Work on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 03:41:41 PM EST

send them over here. then i'll be set for life :)

[ Parent ]
Did you read the second part (2.50 / 2) (#7)
by DesiredUsername on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:17:54 PM EST

of that sentence? Where it says it's "perfectly humane" to "kick someone in the jimmies"? Or are you too busy being outraged to have a sense of humor?

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
What was that you said? (4.63 / 11) (#12)
by leviramsey on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 01:46:14 PM EST

I was too busy eating my Wendy's Classic Triple hamburger in my fur coat with leather interior. I need the energy to return to chasing bunnies around their cages so I can drip sulfuric acid into their eyes.

:o)



[ Parent ]
Ok (4.85 / 7) (#13)
by greenrd on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 02:03:20 PM EST

I laughed despite myself.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Eating animals (4.00 / 5) (#20)
by jmzero on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 03:48:26 PM EST

Is all about drawing a line in terms of "How intelligent does an organism have to be before I won't eat it?"

I don't eat people or gorillas or dolphins.  If you draw the line at dogs or at cows or at celery, I wholly respect that.

Note: If any member of a class passes my intelligence threshold, I treat all members of that class as inedible.  Thus, I wouldn't eat a baby dolphin, as stupid ape, or CarrotTop.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Holocaust (4.00 / 1) (#32)
by PresJPolk on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 01:23:10 AM EST

No, it's no joke.  It's just food.

They deserve it anyway.  They live like animals after all.  No sense of decency or respect.  When they move into a neighborhood the property values just plummet.  Did you ever live next to one?  That smell...

[ Parent ]

Yes, the ongoing animal holocaust. (4.00 / 2) (#34)
by Kugyou on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 07:48:29 AM EST

You mean the one being perpetrated by cats? Read down that page again, look at the wonderful bit where the author says that it will be mankind's destiny/right/whatever to get rid of carnivores so that our cute widdle herbivore friends don't have to get eaten. And I have to invoke Godwin on the part where cats/mice are compared to Nazis/Jews. Mentioning the ongoing animal holocaust is a pretty damn good joke.
-----------------------------------------
Dust in the wind bores holes in mountains
[ Parent ]
LOL @ lead article (4.00 / 5) (#18)
by wji on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 03:33:55 PM EST

Read it, it's hilarious. Greenpeace -- with it's 23 million dollar annual income, ARGH! -- has links to the Ruckus Society. ECO-TERRORISTS! That's right, climb someone else's building or give a fake name to a cop and YOU TOO can be an eco-terrorist! Ooh, and it gets better. By showing the contamination that would result from blowing up various chem plants, Greenpeace "may be treading on treasonous soil...actions that could give al Qaida cells blueprints for terrorism...akin to painting a gigantic bull's-eye on the facility's roof and providing the terrorists with snipers' rifles...It is doubtful [but not, I guess, ridiculous] that Greenpeace is actually tied to Middle Eastern terrorists, but it did join with a number of domestic eco-terrorist groups including Monkey Wrench, the Ruckus Society and the Black Bloc anarchists...Protesting a major U.S. corporation is, of course, a constitutional right. Showing terrorists how to attack a hazardous chemical plant and perhaps, slaughter millions of innocents, is a far different matter. Protesting a major U.S. corporation is, of course, a constitutional right. Showing terrorists how to attack a hazardous chemical plant and perhaps, slaughter millions of innocents, is a far different matter."

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
Greenpeace.... (4.25 / 4) (#21)
by thelizman on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 03:54:14 PM EST

lost it's status as a non-profit in Canada because of its excessive political activity. Their annual report demonstrates that expenditures on fundraising rank higher than actual environmental action. They're a joke. I'm writing a story on Paid Activism...Greenpeace is one of the better examples of a sham (right up there with Nader).
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Explain this to me (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by wji on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 04:23:45 PM EST

I'm not trying to be argumentative or flippant here. Just what is wrong with activists fundraising, and with people who work full-time on causes getting paid for it?

Perhaps it is true (and I have no idea) that Greenpeace is top-heavy with too much administration, but coming from the right wing I rather doubt that criticism is intended to lead to reform of Greenpeace with more grassroots activism.

And what makes Greenpeace and Nader a sham? They raise money, and they invest it. They're not getting rich for themselves. Yeah, it sucks they can't do everything themselves with volunteers, using hemp fibre and recycled glass bottles and shit. But again, coming from the right wing, that criticism is bullshit. It's only intended to shut the Greens down.

And if you want to accuse them of hypocrisy, I should point out that Nader's platform is New Deal social democracy, not socialism. Nader wants to restrict private wealth and power, not abolish it.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]

Nader & Greenpeace put the "Sham" in (3.50 / 4) (#28)
by thelizman on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 06:48:48 PM EST

I'm not trying to be argumentative or flippant here. Just what is wrong with activists fundraising, and with people who work full-time on causes getting paid for it?
Follow me on this one: Activisim is a fundamental excercise of philosophical merit. I want clean air, so I write letters to encourage my electric coop to install scrubbers. Do I get money out of this? Hell no. I get clean air. Then there is the class of people who get paid to pretend they care about something. Now, when its a lawyer, lobbyist, or prostitute, we know what we're looking at. But when it's a bunch of punk college kids and homeless people who are using 30 year old chants, the untrained cynic assumes that there is popular support for something. When the fact of hte matter is that the only reason there are 1000 protesters out somewhere is because they're serving free coffee and doughnuts, it becomes a much different story.
Perhaps it is true (and I have no idea) that Greenpeace is top-heavy with too much administration, but coming from the right wing I rather doubt that criticism is intended to lead to reform of Greenpeace with more grassroots activism.
Your doubt it well justified. Environmentalists in general as mind-numbed dumbasses - Lenin's "useful idiots" at best. The real work in cleaning up the environment is being done by conservationists, most often from the affected communities. Greenpeace has moved from one cause to the next since their founders got booted out of the Sierra Club in the 70's.

I live in Arizona. We've got over 120,000 acres, 300 homes, and 16 businesses laying in smoking ruins right now because "environmentalists" didn't allow the community to manage the forests (remove underbrush, allow small fires to burn themselves out, etc). To any self-proclaimed environmentalists who think their policies were for good, let me ask you: Do you like your spotted owl in regular or extra crispy - there's plenty to choose from thanks to you.
And what makes Greenpeace and Nader a sham? They raise money, and they invest it. They're not getting rich for themselves.
Actually, Nader and the folks on the top of the Greenpeace pyramid scheme are living quite comfortably. But more importantly is that they don't want money, they want power. Power comes in two ways: You earn it, or you take it. By scaring the shit out of everyone (even if they have to manufacture the scare), these types have generated enormous amounts of "power capital", which translates into monetary capital when they need it liquidated.
And if you want to accuse them of hypocrisy, I should point out that Nader's platform is New Deal social democracy, not socialism. Nader wants to restrict private wealth and power, not abolish it.
This last bit is irrellevant, naive, misguided, and without predication by my statements. Nader isn't a sham because of the ideas he's offering, he's a sham because he doesn't even stand by his own ideals.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Not a sham (4.33 / 3) (#30)
by wji on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 11:04:14 PM EST

Follow me on this one: Activisim is a fundamental excercise of philosophical merit. I want clean air, so I write letters to encourage my electric coop to install scrubbers. Do I get money out of this? Hell no. I get clean air.

But you're criticising people at Greenpeace who work full time in the environmental movement. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think you get a job at Greenpeace for the money. I don't know them personally, but I doubt Greenpeace employees are there for wealth or career.

Regarding Arizona, I'll quote the Boston Globe:

Concern from Western lawmakers that appeals and lawsuits are delaying or blocking wildfire prevention projects across the nation prompted a report from the General Accounting Office last year. Environmentalists contend that the report shows they aren't to blame for the wildfire crisis.

The GAO found that of the 1,671 ''hazardous fuel reduction projects'' during fiscal year 2001 that the Forest Service was moving ahead on nationally, 20 had been ''appealed and none had been litigated.''

The call by McCain and the Forest Service to scrap or amend federal environmental laws and policies to promote restoration logging is drawing harsh criticism from some circles.

''Look, 80 percent of the Southwest has been logged already, so when the Forest Service says if we could only log we could prevent fires, that doesn't have much credibility,'' said Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson. ''If logging prevented fires, then 80 percent of the forest would be fire-proof.''

As for the rest of what you said, I can't make head or tail of it. At best, it's a bunch of far-reaching accusations with no evidence supporting them, at worst, it's just you trying to rationalize your own prejudices with fancy words. I can play that game too, but what's the point? Please explain what you are talking about, and support it.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
Hardly Tangible (none / 0) (#50)
by thelizman on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 04:15:32 PM EST

But you're criticising people at Greenpeace who work full time in the environmental movement. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think you get a job at Greenpeace for the money. I don't know them personally, but I doubt Greenpeace employees are there for wealth or career.
If that were the case, and Greenpeace were truly an activist organization, they would have broken up before they were formed. The history of Greenpeace is that the founders were kicked out of the Sierra Club because they went beyond the Sierra Clubs mandate in protesting nuclear testing in the Aleutian Island chain (using the paranoid fear that the nuclear detonation would trigger an earth quake that would deluge the west coast of Canada with a tidal wave). After that issue went a way, a true activist would have retired. Greenpeace instead went on to find another issue as an excuse to keep the significant power they had alive. These people ARE making a career of activism, and while they're not doing it to get rich, they are acquiring power - as I pointed out previous power is more important than money.

Regarding Arizona, I'll quote the Boston Globe:
No offense, but fuck the Boston Globe: It's about as informed a source as I would expect being on the opposite side of the country. The trees got burned, but the trees aren't the fuel. In this case, the fires were fueld by underbrush and dead growth. Environmental legislation and executive orders in place prevent the removal of this brush because it provides cover for a certain not-quite-endangered ground squirrel. It also prevents nature from doing its job because the Forestry Service is apt to snuff out any fire, no matter how small.
As for the rest of what you said, I can't make head or tail of it. At best, it's a bunch of far-reaching accusations with no evidence supporting them, at worst, it's just you trying to rationalize your own prejudices with fancy words. I can play that game too, but what's the point? Please explain what you are talking about, and support it.
As I already have said, I am writing a report on it. I'm not going to explain it to you here now, especially as you have demonstrated your predisposition towards dismissing any such claims summarily. Sorry, but you'll have to wait patiently along with everyone else.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Business vs Non-Profit.... (none / 0) (#35)
by Elkor on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 08:35:17 AM EST

I believe the point being made is that any organization that spends more time raising money than doing "work" can't be viewed as a non-profit entity.

Otherwise, I am sure a lot of companies would declare themselves environmentalist because they allocate 10% of their budget (less than the taxes they pay per year) for environmental activities and still make money off of it. While I am sure I, as a person, would be fine with that, the government loses income by letting that happen.

So, there has to be some kind of standard. Canada has apparently decided the standard is 50%.

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
Of course it can (none / 0) (#48)
by wji on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:15:08 PM EST

For profit / non-profit comes down to motivation. Greenpeace and Nader aren't in it for the money, and they aren't buying sports cars with it. If you think Greenpeace spends too much on glossy ad campaigns or some such, fine, but that doesn't mean they're "for profit".

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
There's a basic problem with activists... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:41:22 AM EST

Seriously, and it's a problem with all kinds of activism - from Greenpeace to the Michigan militia - after a certain period of time they become more interested in preserving their own existance and power base than in solving the original problem.

I'm not saying we don't have environmental problems (or civil rights problems, for that matter) but even the successful organizations (March of Dimes for example) start redefining the problem rather than just declaring success and going home.


--
I feel like I've lived my live in screensaver mode....


[ Parent ]
But this is a good thing (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by mudhog on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:31:31 PM EST

I for one am glad that activism decays into establishmentarianism. It may take a generation or two, but sooner or later, the fire-breathers transform into mere victims of halitosis. Hurrah!
"And if you complain once more, You'll meet an army of me." --Bjork
[ Parent ]
To be fair... (3.33 / 3) (#24)
by jxg on Tue Jun 25, 2002 at 04:23:18 PM EST

If you input such a weight that your BMI was >100, it returned "Oh Dear God.  You've got issues." with a rather grotesque picture of two gigantic sumo wrestlers grappling.

Rather amusing, even though I disagree with their message and their way of "expressing" "themselves".

alternatively (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by jerfgoke on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:33:02 AM EST

You can enter your weight as 666 and it will display a picture of a man in a devil costume.

[ Parent ]
funding (3.33 / 3) (#31)
by mlong on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:07:46 AM EST

Against PETA....for junk food...quite obviously they are being funded by McDonalds. And now I'm getting hungry for some nice cow meat...probably a cow that wasn't treated ethically too. Yummy

Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Trepalium on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 07:30:40 PM EST

There's never been anything even remotely resembling a cow in a McDonald's burger. Grease, cardboard and some shreded lettuce. Flavour is all in your head.

[ Parent ]
I choose freedom. (3.25 / 4) (#38)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:32:36 AM EST

Fat tax. Tobacco tax. Sin tax. Fuck it.

Freedom is good forcing me to make the choices you want me to make is EVIL.

Can I say that any more strongly? Oh, wait, Thomas Jefferson said it better:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That includes the right to eat a goddamn triple-bypass cheeseburger if that's what I want! Nothing is stopping you from buying a small order of fries instead of the mondo version.


--
I feel like I've lived my live in screensaver mode....


Sin taxes (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by dipierro on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:36:32 PM EST

That includes the right to eat a goddamn triple-bypass cheeseburger if that's what I want!

As long as you give up your right to public health care, and inform your health insurance company so they can raise your rates and not mine, fine with me.

Fat tax is bad because a little fat is probably a good thing. It's a lot harder to say that about cigarettes.



[ Parent ]
Does the USA *have* public healthcare? (3.00 / 1) (#46)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 02:58:09 PM EST

Last time I checked, I paid for all my own healthcare.


--
I feel like I've lived my live in screensaver mode....


[ Parent ]
US Public health care (none / 0) (#47)
by dipierro on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:11:46 PM EST

Medicare and medicaid. But then there's the fact that public ambulence services and hospitals won't turn you down from life-saving procedures just because you can't pay. 911 is free, and costs the public money. If you want to discontinue 911 service and wear a medical alert bracelet which says "Do Not Resuscitate Without Prepayment" then I don't really care what you eat.

[ Parent ]
Do I get a rebate on my taxes if I opt out? (none / 0) (#52)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 04:59:16 PM EST


--
I feel like I've lived my live in screensaver mode....


[ Parent ]
You should (none / 0) (#53)
by dipierro on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 05:15:01 PM EST


In capitalism, man exploits man. In socialism, it's the other way around.
[ Parent ]
Irrelevant (1.00 / 1) (#59)
by kurtmweber on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 03:20:09 PM EST

Fat tax is bad because a little fat is probably a good thing. It's a lot harder to say that about cigarettes. Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. It's your own damn body--you have every right to put in it what you please, and government has no place trying to sway your decision one way or the other.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Public health care (4.50 / 2) (#60)
by vectro on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 03:56:56 PM EST

I agree, individuals should be allowed to do whatever they like to their bodies (including suicide), but forfiet any right to state health care by doing so. Nationalized health care creates a compelling state interest in people's health.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
One problem (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by kurtmweber on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 11:27:09 AM EST

That assumes that government should be providing health care in the first place.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
[ Parent ]
Read more carefully. (none / 0) (#64)
by vectro on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 12:57:41 PM EST

My comment assumes no such thing. If there is no state health care plan, then my comment merely becomes the null statement.

It's the difference between "You need to stop beating your wife" and "If you are beating your wife, you need to stop."

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

eh (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by strlen on Sat Jun 29, 2002 at 08:28:45 PM EST

deal away with public healthcare first. as for ambulances, you get an ambulance / emergency room bill to your insurance company, if you aren't insured, you pay out of your own pocket. and if they can't pay, i suggest incuring some sort of penalty to make them pay themselves. the bottom line is to leave the deal of funding health care between individuals and their insurance companies and their doctors. anything else, would mean that i don't have a choice but to have my food-intake regulated by someone else.

as for insurance companies, if you dont like paying higher premiums because i'm fat, find one which bans fat people (under an ideal system that should be legal, i oppose any sort of anti-discrimination laws, except those applying to government). if there isn't one, start your own, because there is no moral or constitutiunal right to a lower insurance premium. its something you have to use the free market to obtain. there _IS_ however, a god-given right for me to do whatever the fuck i want with my body (right to life/limb,liberty and property). unfortunately the days of gun ownership are gone (no way to defend my body or my property basically), so the anti-drug/anti-tobacco/anti-alcohol nazis have set in.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Insurance premiums (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by vectro on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 07:13:41 PM EST

Leaving aside the foaming-at-the-mouth libertarianism, there is no question that health insurance companies would prefer to discriminate on such issues as sex, gender, race, diet, driving record, ownership of a motercycle, marital status, income, or propensity towards mountain climbing. You see, all these factors affect your health (at least on a statistical basis), and the insurance companies would certainly prefer to offer lower premiums to those likely to incur fewer expenses.

One may, however, wish to consider the social consequences of allowing such rules. As for paying for an ambulance, who is going to pay when a homeless man steps into traffic and is hit by a car?

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

re: (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by strlen on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 09:02:21 PM EST

Leaving aside the foaming-at-the-mouth libertarianism, there is no question that health insurance companies would prefer to discriminate on such issues as sex, gender, race, diet, driving record, ownership of a motercycle, marital status, income, or propensity towards mountain climbing. You see, all these factors affect your health (at least on a statistical basis), and the insurance companies would certainly prefer to offer lower premiums to those likely to incur fewer expenses.

Yes, they'd prefer. I see no problem with that. In fact I see a problem with telling them to do otherwise, as the company is theirs, and there's no real right for us to tell us what to do with it. They however, wouldn't do it out of simple racist principles, and would have a much bigger review, which would be quite comprehensive, and this certainly won't have the same effect as segregation would -- companies aren't interested in racist theories, they're interested in bringing profit to the share holder. Generally, the way they bring a profit to share holder, is by giving their customers an offer to agree on, as to have the customer bring in money.

One may, however, wish to consider the social consequences of allowing such rules. As for paying for an ambulance, who is going to pay when a homeless man steps into traffic and is hit by a car?

Libertarianism doesn't necesserily mean complete chaos, and lack of basic public services. There's different ways of dealing with such. The way I'd like to see it, is a basic ambulance service, for the purpose of defending against communicable deceases (sp?), or traffic hazards, or basically other direct dangerous to people. Perhaps, the individual will be picked up off the street and into a hospital, to the point of not being a public hazard and not being simply left to die. The percentage of people without any insurance is going to be neglible, and there could be obstacles are free riders -- such as not-paying for hospital stays resulting in bad credit history / debt. There's also libertarians who would suggest that ambulance services could be paid off by voluntary housing / property owner associations, who are themselves in charge of keeping the area safe from germs.

As for social consequence, I'm much concerned with the social consquences of making it permissible and "nothing out of the ordinary" of punishing individuals who had caused no direct harm to any other individual, and only "questionable" doubt to society. Insurance companies can take care of such behaviour already -- by the use of higher premiums, or by refusing service. Do you really want politicians who know nothing about health (or know only what's been told to them by special interest groups who have no interest in you) telling you what to do with your bide? Or politicians who know nothing (or know only what's been told to them by GM lobbyists) about cars telling you what car to have, and telling the manufacturers how to build that car? Thats the social consequences I'm worried about: the fact that most every action I'll take will be regulated by someone who knows nothing about what I'm doing, and as often is the case could care less (as long as he gets his/her campaign contributions).



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Where's the extremism? (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by wji on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:41:38 PM EST

I read those quotes from PETA. One of them says they'd like to see all meat businesses "explode" tomorrow. Only a completely propagandized individual (so, most people who read the mass media) would think that is meant to include the people inside them. Nobody in America has ever been hurt by "eco-terrorism", and the cases in Europe might well have been state propaganda actions in the familiar style. In any case, the arson groups are not PETA. The other says the spokesperson would like to see a disease that doesn't affect humans infect American cattle, waking people up to facts about meat agribusiness. The full quote is "If that hideousness came here, it wouldn't be any more hideous for the animals -- they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it would wake up consumers...I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment." Anyone want to explain why that isn't rational?

No, I don't agree with PETA. But I hate seeing the huge campaign of propaganda to paint them as "hypocritical eco-terrorists who care more about lobsters than people". Haven't any of you realized that when one of the largest industries in the US is against something, it has an advantage?

Oh yeah, and for all you passionate libertarians who denounce PETA's anti-freedom tactics, farms get billions in direct state subsidies. HAND

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

T Shirts (5.00 / 3) (#55)
by CheSera on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 06:16:46 PM EST

I find it very amusing that the T-Shirts offered on this site are only available in Extra Large. This whole site could be an experiment in reverse psychology by PETA & Greenpeace.


============
**TATDOMAW**
============

Yawn, nothing really new here...no, wait... (4.66 / 3) (#58)
by caffeine1 on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:15:34 PM EST

At first, this looked like one extremist group going after another: pro-cholesterol activists gunning for PETA. Not that I have much of a problem with PETA getting blasted. Whether their cause is right or wrong, their tactics reveal them to be a bunch of idiots.

But what's really insidious is that we probably have some large multi-nationals posing as activist groups. I'd expect a lobbying consortium to do something like this, but it looks like the corporate Powers That Be are trying to co-opt grass roots activism itself.

Not that this was a smart attempt (too many omissions to even look honest), but it's still.. disturbing.

Alarmist and misleading article. (4.66 / 3) (#61)
by avdi on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 04:09:43 PM EST


However, a further investigation reveals their murky and basically unexplored roots.

Unexplored by who, you?  Just because you didn't know who they are, doesn't mean nobody knows who they are.


Advertisements in other magazines have apparently included the headline You Are Too Stupid (to make your own food choices), pressuring against the "fat tax" proposed by the U.S. Surgeon General, which ran in U.S. News. Immediately, this aroused suspicion. It's hard to believe that any normal organization would want consumers to eat lots of junk food.

Nice bit of misdirection there - changing an opposition to the "fat tax" into "wanting consumers to eat lots of junk food".  I can play that game too:  You don't support a ban on abortions?  You must want lots of babies to be killed!  What, you're against the War on Terrorism?  You must hate freedom!  What, you oppose the "disability tax"?  You must want more people to be maimed for life.  

Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  Believe it or not, I'm all for people eating healthy (I like people, and I want them to live longer), but I'm against the "fat tax".  I think people can and should make their own eating decisions, and face the consequences, without government coersion.  But I guess that's an impossible belief to hold, since according to your logic, if I'm against the "fat tax" I must support people eating lots of junk food.

My point?  You could have written a perfectly decent article revealing the slimy corporate sponsorship behind a "consumer group" (gee, what a shock!).  Instead, you pretty much invalidated yourself by using cheap rhetorical tricks to make your point.  Next time try not to get so emotionally involved with your subject.

--
Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir

detach emotions, engage brain (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by kstop on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 06:44:14 AM EST

People seem to be getting hung up on the personal freedom aspect. This is not what this is about. Obesity costs ye X amount per year, and a tax on the foods that cause obesity is the fairest way to recoup that amount.

The Center for Consumer Freedom: a slice of corporate propaganda | 66 comments (46 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!