The Hypocrisy of Political Correctness

More news from Virginia (reprinted with permission):

Hi, Frank and Michael –
Well, my living situation is still pretty ugly when it comes to being harassed for smoking – (loud, nasty comments about me made right outside my door, among other things), BUT – one good thing happened. I have an aide who comes four times a week, who was told by her doctor to wear a mask when she comes into my apartment because my smoking would make her rheumatoid arthritis worse. She pretty much believes everything told to her by “authority figures” and the TV.
So yesterday she comes in WITHOUT the mask. Starts talking right away about a new client of hers. This client is a senior citizen, extremely physically disabled and frail, who lives in a huge HUD apartment building. This building is in a not-so-nice part of town, and houses a wide range of low-income of people, not just seniors. So her client lives on the third floor, pretty far from any exit. Anyway, my aide (Amy) told me the first thing she saw when she drove up to the building was a very large crowd of people, looked like hundreds of them – many of them unsavory-looking – hanging out across the street from the building, on the street itself and in a dirty vacant lot, and it made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe. So she goes up to see her new client, and the elderly woman right away says, “Come on, let’s go,” and takes Amy on a walk through the several long hallways that Amy said stunk of poo and pee, to an elevator, which took forever to arrive. Amy asked her client where they were going and the elderly woman said, “I want a cigarette.” And to have this cigarette, she had to leave the building entirely and go across the street to that dirty vacant lot. Took about fifteen minutes because not only is the property huge but the elderly woman uses a walker and moves at a very slow pace. When they got to the vacant lot there was nowhere to sit, and the sun was beating down on them. It was 97 degrees. At least a hundred people were standing there smoking.
Turns out the building recently converted to NO SMOKING ANYWHERE ON PROPERTY. No one was grandfathered in. It’s a harsh, unforgiving rule. ANYONE smoking on the property will be immediately evicted. No second chance.They have to go all the way across the street to the vacant lot. There will be (there already are) frequent apartment inspections for anything having to do with smoking or tobacco. Any tobacco product found in an apartment will be cause for eviction. Any smell of smoke will be cause for eviction. (Hey – doesn’t matter that the hallways smell of poop and pee!) If any smoke is smelled in a hallway, there will be an investigation as to where it came from. I am not exaggerating. And – this is a huge building and the majority of adult residents are smokers. Hm – does this have anything to do with the Children? Seems more children would see hundreds of smokers standing outside.
Well, the good thing is that Amy finally understood what smokers are up against. She was truly horrified that her frail, disabled elderly client had to go through so much crap to simply have a cigarette. Her viewpoint on smoking changed just like that. She now believes that adults have the right to smoke in their own apartments. So that is wonderful! :)

Smoking bans like these are prime examples of Political Correctness. What’s more Politically Correct than smoking bans? And I was reminded of something I read earlier today by some country musician (Chely Wright) about people ‘whining’ about political correctness.

“Something I’ve noticed on social media is that those who continually mock and complain that “political correctness is rampant and ridiculous– yada yada yada” are most always straight, white, Christian males. They’re people who’ve never had to rely on others to speak up for them to protect and correct systemic injustices that society has leveled upon them.
What they fail to understand is that there is a valid and profound reason that the term “political correctness” exists. The term was born out of a desperate need to aid and to render fairness and safety. So many straight, white, Christian men have a lot of fun throwing the words “political correctness” around as a pejorative, but to me and many others it only serves to identify them as a person who lacks empathy and kindness.
Additionally, I’d bet my eye teeth that these men were often the big, mouthy bully on the playground at school who picked on the poor kid, the handicapped kid, the gay kid, the kid with glasses, the black kid and the kid with a single parent.

Well, yes, it’s true that I’m a straight, white, Christian (by upbringing) male. And it’s also true that I’ve never had to rely on others to speak up for me to correct systemic injustices that society has levelled upon me: I can do it myself. And I was never a school bully.

This country star seems to think that Political Correctness means standing up against systemic injustice, aiding and rendering fairness, and demonstrating empathy and kindness. And opposing Political Correctness means being a loudmouthed bully.

I wish it was. But it isn’t. It’s actually completely the other way round.

The way smokers are now being treated is a clear example of systemic injustice, devoid of empathy or kindness. And who are the people doing it? Why, the Politically Correct! Sure they’ll (pretend to) stand up for the poor kid, the handicapped kid, the gay kid, and the kid with glasses. And then they’ll walk round the corner and start laying into smokers as hard as they possibly can. And gloat over it.

There’s no empathy or kindness in Political Correctness. There is instead one set (rainbow?) of ‘approved’ victims of injustice – the poor, black, gay, disabled, etc. – on whom care and attention is lavished, and there is another set of ‘disapproved’ victims of injustice, outside the visible rainbow – smokers, drinkers, fat people – ,who they’ll treat worse than garbage. And in fact it is their very public show of care and concern for the ‘approved’ victim group which grants them the moral licence to treat the ‘disapproved’ group with open hatred and contempt.

The hypocrisy is blatant. And utterly disgusting.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to The Hypocrisy of Political Correctness

  1. Jariel says:

    “There’s no empathy or kindness in Political Correctness. There is instead one set (rainbow?) of ‘approved’ victims of injustice – the poor, black, gay, disabled, etc. – on whom care and attention is lavished, and there is another set of ‘disapproved’ victims of injustice, outside the visible rainbow – smokers, drinkers, fat people – ,who they’ll treat worse than garbage. And in fact it is their very public show of care and concern for the ‘approved’ victim group which grants them the moral licence to treat the ‘disapproved’ group with open hatred and contempt.”

    True. But what happens when the groups overlap? Like what if there’s a black, gay, disabled, poor, smoker? The fact that he or she SMOKES kicks this person out of the “visible rainbow,” far more so than obesity or alcohol-drinking does. Like the HUD building mentioned above – extremely low-income residents drink alcohol and do drugs and drug deals openly all over the property and aren’t in danger of losing their home. But if they smoke one cigarette on the property they’re immediately evicted.
    There is a man who lives in my building who never bathes. He happens to be a non-smoker. He is African-American, although I don’t know if that’s really relevant to anything. Because he never bathes or washes his clothes, he stinks worse than any smoker ever could. He is incontinent but refuses to wear an adult diaper and often pees and poos in the elevator. If you happen to be in the vicinity when he opens his apartment door, well, it’s gag-inducing, and the horrible odor permeates the floor he lives on. He’s also an alcoholic who roams the hallways day and night, plays loud rap music with his window open, and hoots and hollers out his window at women, and at nothing at all, day and night. About six months ago, he brought in a severe infestation of bedbugs and cockroaches to this previously vermin-free building, which was only resolved a few weeks ago. All his furniture had to be burned, and the apartment building’s corporate office, in an unprecedented move, bought him all new furniture. If anyone complains to the building manager about his disruptive behavior or his body odor, they are told to “mind their own business.” He has never once been threatened with eviction. But if anyone says a word about smelling my smoke in the hall, I am immediately called on the carpet. No one tells the complainers to “mind their own business.” If I’m harassed over my smoking, nobody does a thing, no matter how nasty the harassment gets. Yet if people say or do anything to hurt this man’s feelings (like wrinkle their noise at his odor, or ask him to take a bath, or suggest that he wear adult diapers, or move away when he sits next to them), they are sternly chastised by management.

    What happens to a low-income person if they are evicted because they smoke? They become homeless. Are they elderly and frail, disabled or both? Too bad. If they have no family that will take them in, they’re screwed. They can go to a shelter. Which are generally dangerous environments. Which are non-smoking environments. Where the sad, scared, stressed-out residents are subjected to anti-smoking lectures. What happens if a middle-class or upper-class person lives in an apartment building or condo that bans smoking? Easy. They buy their own house. Or they move to a building that allows smoking. Sure, it’ll be an inconvenience to them, and they may not be as comfortable financially as they were previously, and they’ll bitch and grumble, but they won’t be out on the street.
    It is incredibly stressful to always have in the back of your mind the fear of being homeless, and the stress is relieved by having a cigarette, and the single cigarette that eases that stress can render you homeless.
    It increasingly blows my mind how much negative societal impact being a smoker has on one’s life, and especially, I imagine, if you have no choice but to live in a government-sponsored environment. It is so bad that I have been entertaining the thought that I should quit smoking because I can’t stand the escalating smoking-related harassment and hatred directed my way, and I’m terrified of losing my housing. However, right after the “I should quit smoking so they’ll leave me alone” thought, I get enraged at the long arc of social engineering that has led up to this point. Damn, I tell myself, I’m a senior citizen who’s had a long, full, productive and, unfortunately over the past decade, difficult life which has, certainly through no choice of my own, landed me in the disabled/extremely poor category. So please, people around me, leave me the hell alone to drink a cup of coffee and have a cigarette and don’t toss me out in the street because of it.

    • Frank Davis says:

      It is so bad that I have been entertaining the thought that I should quit smoking because I can’t stand the escalating smoking-related harassment and hatred directed my way, and I’m terrified of losing my housing.

      If they succeed in getting you to stop smoking, they’ll just switch to something else they want to stop you doing. Because what they really want to do is to take away your freedom, and replace it with perfect obedience. And cigarettes are little candles of disobedience, little flames of freedom..

      And I think they always have been, somehow or other. Authority has never liked smoking, and freedom has always loved it. I think that the cigarette is the very emblem of freedom and independence. Which is probably why antismokers always try and associate it with addiction and slavery, thus reversing its meaning.

      And I also think that tobacco is not only what America’s wealth was first founded upon (and where else in America than Virginia), but also America’s first and greatest gift to the world. Eradicating smoking means eradicating America. And that is also something the enemies of freedom wish to do.

      • edith482 says:

        Well said Frank.

      • Jariel says:

        Well, this is just me-related, but if they take away my right to smoke in my own apartment then I don’t know what else they can take away from me. Well, okay, they can take away any money I might earn. My rent just got raised 20 dollars a month because last year I earned 50 dollars a few times doing musical work for the synagogue. Alcohol? I don’t drink. Playing loud music? I have an aversion to loud noise and never, ever play loud music, and anyway, I listen to music through earphones. Already we can’t put anything on our windows or windowsills, we’re not allowed to use our own window coverings but must make do with the thin, cheap blinds provided for us, which crack easily, and when they fall apart we must pay for them to be replaced. We can’t use over-the-door storage (like those things with pockets you hang over your closet door to hold shoes), women can’t wear perfectly decent and non-pajama-like muumuus outside their apartments (one woman was given a warning for wearing a fancy party muumuu in the hallway – a muumuu that she’d worn all over Hawaii, and to many parties), people can’t wear what might be construed as bedroom slippers in the hallways – even if they have something wrong with their feet and they have a doctor’s note stating they must only wear slippers for a while. If we should happen to spill something on the carpet, we are not allowed to clean it ourselves, but we must pay for the maintenance staff to clean it. We must not have too little or too much food in our freezer. The list goes on and on. And this is an Independent Living building, meaning the four-person staff (two maintenance people, the building manager and her assistant – just like any regular apartment building) is only here during business hours. We are allegedly free to live here as we would in any other non-government-owned apartment building, But we are not. From what I’ve heard from long-term residents, when they first moved in here, it was a wonderful place where they could truly make themselves at home in their final years. The few rules that existed were normal apartment-living rules. But then more rules were handed down from the powers that be. When I moved in here two years ago, there were a lot of rules, but I didn’t care because none of them affected me personally. But then came more rules. And more and more and more and more and more rules – especially in the past year – some of them ridiculously arbitrary.
        Now – I have heard the argument by antis that we financially impoverished people should be deeply grateful to the government for providing us with housing, and we should gladly follow any rules they give us, especially the rule to not smoke, because smoking ruins the property that the government pays for us to live in. Well, I will tell you that we ARE grateful to have a roof over our head. We ARE grateful that we are in a sparkling clean and aesthetically pleasing environment – well, at least THIS place is sparkling clean and aesthetically pleasing. But if anything in our apartment is damaged, WE pay for it out of our own pockets. Even if we ourselves didn’t cause the damage – even if it’s a tiny inexplicable flaw like a small white dot on a black stove burner found during an inspection (which happened to me – and I only use the microwave and had never even turned on the burner), we are written up, and charged for said damage. That half-a-grain-of-rice-sized white dot on the burner cost me $30.00. If there is any nicotine damage, or what is thought to be nicotine damage (and, hey, just about anything could be construed as that by an anti), WE pay for it. If there is a snag found in a 9-year-old carpet, WE pay for it. So all this crap about the government paying to fix the damage caused by smoking tenants is just that – CRAP.
        I guess what they can take away from me personally is my right, in my final years, to live without unnecessary rules and restrictions, and without my lifestyle and comfort being increasingly monitored and constricted because I’m 1)old 2) poor 3) a smoker.

      • beobrigitte says:

        If they succeed in getting you to stop smoking, they’ll just switch to something else they want to stop you doing.

        Indeed. Today’s theme on BBC news was SUGAR – again. According to some weir… erm… ‘expert’, our daily sugar intake must not exceed 7 teaspoons and the bad, bad food industry hides soooooo much sugar in our food…..
        Naturally, in their infant manner, they call for legislation. Legislation is a rather costly process, isn’t it? And it does wind up the food industry as well as all the members of society who class themselves as being an ADULT, hence the government can expect adults to make THEIR OWN decisions.

        That does remind me of yet another BBC news item: Care for the elderly. The BBC lamented that with an ever increasing elderly population the cost of their care cannot be met in the current austerity time.
        Excuse me? I thought smoking kills? Where do all these old people then come from? Has the anti-smoking population hiding for the last 60 years on some undiscovered island decided to enter Britain by climbing into the back of a lorry in Calais?
        What is it? Is there an increasing elderly population NOW or is the BBC extrapolating the number of elderly people in this country when their dictating lobby whispers in the BBC’s ear that SMOKING PEOPLE (they all caught pneumonia or were drugged, raped and killed etc. etc. etc. when being kicked outside a pub to smoke) NO LONGER EXIST?

        When it comes to basic maths the Brussels head of the EU indicates that it never entered/passed at GCSE level.

  2. Harleyrider1978 says:

    You nailed it frank. Politically incorrect and proud

  3. Alex says:

    Do you seriously think that abandoning “political correctness” is going to make those anti-smoking-Nazis one iot better? Or that beating up a few fags is going to make smokers lifes easier? Sorry, but that text is nonsense.

    Some people need an enemy they can hate fight. Now that hating and fighting Jewish and LGB-people has gone out of fashion, it’s smokers and fat people. It’s not two sides of the same coin – it’s the same side of the same coin, just the contemporary edition.

    • John Watson says:

      “Now that hating and fighting Jewish and LGB-people has gone out of fashion”

      I think you make a valid point Alex however with regard to the Jews and LGB community two things stand out.

      60.000.000 people died in WWII indirectly ending the persecution of the Jews, The creation of the State of Israel, whether it was right or wrong, simply transferred hatred toward a nation and away from the Jewish faith.

      With the LGB community the did what the smokers will not, they got organised, they made and still make a lot of noise to further their cause, They played the victim card for decades until they got their equality and they still do ( just as the anti-smokers have and do).

      While there is evidence that the Anti-smokers are falling from grace, that people are beginning to get fed up with the relentless government interference in private lives on behalf of certain Ersatz Charities, and a few scientists are raising beneficial tobacco papers we as a smoking community can and should learn and apply the lessons the LGB community provide, not only to end discrimination against smokers but prevent it happening over and over again.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The fight against gays never ended it got forced down our throats thru the courts and by leftist politicians. Nobody ever said they accept gay marriage or even gay anything. The moslems still hate jews and Christians and kill them every chance they get even in America after yesterdays killings in Chattanooga tn 4 marines and 1 cop killed by a Kuwaiti. Obama and company is trying to call him a domestic homegrown terrorist for damage control.

  4. Joe L. says:

    The hypocrisy is blatant. And utterly disgusting.

    Amen, Frank. Related: The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism

  5. Lepercolonist says:

    Chely Wright is a typical SJW (Social Justice Warrior).

    “Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.”

    http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

  6. Lepercolonist says:

    A great quote from the cigar loving professional golfer, Miguel Angel Jimenez :

    On his smoking while on the course:

    “If I want to have a drink, I have a drink. Why shouldn’t I? Is it illegal to drink alcohol? Is tobacco illegal? So why should I care if people see me smoking? I do what I do out in the open. If people have a problem with that they can stick their tongue up their ass and let the rest of us do what we want to do.”

  7. Rose says:

    A missive from on high.

    Smoking in vehicles

    “Update on new law on smoking in cars and other vehicles with someone under 18.

    From 1 October 2015 it will be illegal to smoke in a car (or other vehicles) with anyone under 18 present. The law is changing to protect children and young people from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

    Both the driver and the smoker could be fined £50. The law applies to every driver, including those aged 17 and those with a provisional driving licence. The law does not apply if the driver is 17 years old and is on their own in the car.”

    …….

    – Questionable Anti-smoking stuff-

    ……

    “The law applies to any private vehicle that is enclosed wholly or partly by a roof. It still applies if people have the windows or sunroof open, have the air conditioning on, or if they sit in the open doorway of the vehicle. The law won’t apply to a convertible car with the roof completely down.”
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/smoking-in-vehicles

    Department of Health.

    “or if they sit in the open doorway of the vehicle”

    That’s the bit I wanted to know.

    So they do want you standing outside for the purposes of denormalisation.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Rose you just have to ask, no demand what kind of government would pass laws like this against its own people…………..Its more than just insanity it borders right on past Nazism.

      • Rose says:

        There you are, Harley, The Department of Health says I may not perch even so much as an inch of my bottom on my own car seat while sitting in the open doorway of my own car whilst stationary.

        Perhaps even they might find legislating on the exact position of people’s bottoms just a little presumptious if they thought about it for a moment.

    • beobrigitte says:

      From 1 October 2015 it will be illegal to smoke in a car (or other vehicles) with anyone under 18 present. The law is changing to protect children and young people from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

      That is Wales, isn’t it? The rest of the UK hasn’t got this anti-smoker single digit IQ idiocy. (?)
      If it has I will have to let the youngsters I pick up on my round parents’ know that my cigarette is the reason they will have to make other arrangements.

      Funnily enough – the first (and only) anti-smoking nut I met and answered back rather amuse across a distance appears to have disappeared. And I wasn’t even annoyed because she was too predictable and I was in the mood for a laugh. Next time such an encounter happens I might not be and I might just be in the mood to brush the hair on my teeth….

  8. slugbop007 says:

    Uber Nazis.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Physicians testify for tobacco companies that years of heavy smoking did not cause cancer cases

    Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, a small group of otolaryngologists have repeatedly testified, on behalf of the tobacco industry, that heavy smoking did not

    http://www.news-medical.net/news/20150717/Physicians-testify-for-tobacco-companies-that-years-of-heavy-smoking-did-not-cause-cancer-cases.aspx

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, a small group of otolaryngologists have repeatedly testified, on behalf of the tobacco industry, that heavy smoking did not cause the cancer in cases of dying patients suing for damages, according to a study by a Stanford University School of Medicine researcher.

      “I was shocked by the degree to which these physicians were willing to testify, in my opinion in an unscientific way, to deny a dying plaintiff — suffering the aftermath of a lifetime of smoking — of a fair trial,” said Robert Jackler, MD, professor and chair of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, referring to the physicians cited in the study as a “pool of experts willing to say over and over again that smoking didn’t cause cancer.”

      The study will be published online July 17 in Laryngoscope.

      Jackler, who holds the Edward C. and Amy H. Sewall Professorship in Otorhinolaryngology, conducted a year and a half of research, which included reading through thousands of pages of publicly available, expert-witness depositions and trial testimony. He then reviewed the scientific literature to see if testimony by expert witnesses for the tobacco industry was supported by evidence. Jackler said that a physician serving as expert has an ethical obligation to interpret the scientific data in a fair and balanced manner. The literature, he found, repeatedly repudiated the testimony. “The study found they used scientifically invalid methods to support their testimony,” he said.

      Salted fish, mouthwash — but not tobacco?

      The study reports that six board-certified otolaryngologists were paid by one or more of the tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris and Lorillard to serve as expert witnesses. These physicians gave testimony that indicated a multiplicity of environmental factors, ranging from exposure to cleaning solvents to the consumption of salted fish to the use of mouthwash, were more likely to have caused the plaintiff’s head and neck cancers than years of heavy smoking. The cases occurred between 2009 and 2014. One physician said he was paid $100,000 to testify in a single case. Another admitted that her opinion was written by tobacco company lawyers and then approved by her. Still another rejected reports from the Surgeon General as authoritative sources.

      Together, the six otolaryngologists in this study helped to defend the tobacco industry in more than 50 cases.

      “Evidence shows that this testimony, which was remarkably similar across cases, was part of a defense strategy shaped by tobacco’s law firms,” the study said. “By highlighting an exhaustive list of potential risk factors, such as alcohol, diesel fumes, machinery fluid, salted fish, reflux of stomach acid, mouthwash and even urban living, they created doubt in the minds of the jurors as to the role of smoking in the plaintiff’s cancer.”

      The study said the physicians were “well-coached” by tobacco lawyers, and their testimony was “faithful to the tactical narrative that there are many, many causes of head and neck cancer — and that factors other than smoking must have caused the plaintiff’s disease.”

      fallacy’

      The study said: “An obvious fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that literally billions of nonsmoking people are exposed regularly to gasoline fumes, use cleaning solvents, eat salted fish or live in urban environments. Were these causative factors for head and neck cancer, with even a minute fraction of the potency of tobacco, the rate of head and neck cancer among nonsmokers would be much greater than what has been observed.”

      Jackler has for years conducted scholarly research focusing on the tobacco industry’s influence on public health. He has published multiple studies on the impact of the tobacco industry’s advertising, marketing and promotion.

      In this study, he reviewed nine cases that resulted from a 1999 Florida class-action suit (Engle v. Liggett) in which an award of $145 billion was reversed on appeal. The Florida Supreme Court decision in 2006 that upheld the Engle jury decision of widespread wrongdoing on the part of the tobacco industry enabled individual cases to proceed.

      “The addictiveness of nicotine, the dangers of tobacco and the track record of industry deception and misconduct are considered factual in subsequent trials,” the study said. “This has resulted in thousands of individual Engle progeny cases. Because the cases primarily focused on whether tobacco caused the plaintiff’s diseases, expert testimony was crucial.”

      Plaintiffs’ cancers

      For the study, Jackler examined the small fraction of these progeny cases that involved head and neck cancer. Patients in these cases had cancer in sites such as the larynx, the mouth and the esophagus. All of the plaintiffs in these cases were long-term, heavy smokers — more than a pack a day for many years. The key issue in these lawsuits was whether it was more likely than not that smoking caused the individual plaintiff’s cancer (greater than 50 percent probable is the legal standard). Although since the 1990s tobacco companies have admitted that their products cause cancer, in litigation they vigorously argue that smoking did not cause an individual plaintiff’s cancer.

      “Otolaryngologists in this study routinely expressed the opinion that, more likely than not, tobacco did not cause the smoker’s head and neck cancer,” the study said. “It is not credible that even a lengthy list of these causes come even remotely close to approaching the greater than 50 percent cause.”

      In contrast, the scientific literature demonstrates that tobacco directly contributes to head and neck cancers at a greater than 50 percent likelihood, Jackler said.

      “The tobacco industry identifies the best experts that money can buy, trains them in their well-honed narrative to manufacture doubt in the minds of the jury and makes use of them over and over in case after case,” the study said. Given the ethical traditions of medicine, it seems likely that these physicians believe their well-compensated testimony on behalf of tobacco companies occurs in the shadows, out of view of their families, friends and professional colleagues, Jackler said.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The study said: “An obvious fallacy of this argument lies in the fact that literally billions of nonsmoking people are exposed regularly to gasoline fumes, use cleaning solvents, eat salted fish or live in urban environments. Were these causative factors for head and neck cancer, with even a minute fraction of the potency of tobacco, the rate of head and neck cancer among nonsmokers would be much greater than what has been observed.”

        Funny nobody mentions the likeliest of all causes………..individual genetic disposition regardless of any environmental exposures or the biggest factor of all OLD AGE!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          The author doesn’t even go into HPV and CMV infections in causing cancer in head and neck cancers at all. Why would you do that knowing the almost proven pathways of these viruses to cancer outcomes.

        • Joe L. says:

          Individual genetic disposition and old age are things that no one has control over. So, of course, nobody wants to hear about that – it makes them feel helpless and out of control. At least here in the U.S., modern society loves a scapegoat; a great deal of people seem to think they’re perfect, and refuse to accept responsibility for their actions (or their genetics). Thus, when they’re put in a bad situation, either by their own doing or something beyond their control, they need someone else they can blame (and most likely sue), in order to reassure them it’s not their fault and make them feel better about themselves.

  10. slugbop007 says:

    Gary Giovino, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Scholarship Fellow in his salad days, has now been appointed to the Tobacco Control board of the FDA. Loyalty pays.

    Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funds many of the antismoking lobby groups around the world. Some of the Public Health students that they nurtured through their widespread loans and bursaries program have invaded Canada, particularly at the University of Waterloo, Ontario (Propel). Several members of that group (Sunday Azagba, Bruce Baskerville and Ryan Kennedy) have been to Montréal in the past few years, masquerading as air quality experts. It took Ryan Kennedy only one year of intensive studies at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Health to get his MPh degree (Master of Public Health):

    Linkedin is a great place to find out the academic credentials of these frauds and charlatans.
    For example, Deborah Arnott. No medical background at all. Propaganda artist.

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/money/listorg.htm

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      He will be removed for the exact same thing Sammet was removed for………….in a federal court case.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Summary

        Dr. Giovino’s work has focused on surveillance of tobacco use and dependence among youth and adults in the United States. He more recently has facilitated the development of the Global Tobacco Surveillance System, with particular focus on the Global Adult Tobacco Survey and more recently on the Global Youth Tobacco Survey. In addition to his surveillance work, he is developing community-based projects on the use of lifestyle factors such as exercise and nutrition to facilitate smoking cessation. Giovino has received multiple national awards for his work.

        Professional Affiliations

        Global Tobacco Surveillance Advisory Group; New York State Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Program Advisory Board; Editorial Board – Tobacco Control; Expert Advisor to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health; Evaluation Task Force of the California Tobacco Control Program; Reviewer for various journals (e.g., Addiction; American Journal of Epidemiology; American Journal of Preventive Medicine; American Journal of Public Health; Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention; Health Education Research; Nicotine & Tobacco Research; Preventive Medicine; Public Health Reports; Tobacco Control).

  11. slugbop007 says:

    It takes only one year to get a Master of Public Health Degree at the the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University:
    http://www.jhsph.edu/academics/degree-programs/master-of-public-health/curriculum/core-courses.html
    By the way, medical journalist Sally Satel’s university studies were also subsidized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Boycott Johnson & Johnson products!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      bloomy tends to destroy so called researchers names faster than the assembly line of degrees can crank them out…………..junk science has its costs.

      • slugbop007 says:

        Maybe that’s why some of their graduate ‘researchers’ moved to Canada? Gary Giovino is a shill for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

    • beobrigitte says:

      It takes only one year to get a Master of Public Health Degree at the the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University

      In Britain it does take only one year (as post graduate) to get a Masters, providing you study full time. (No time for job as 8 hours lecture + lab work + write ups + reading/day)

      What the hell is a Masters in ‘Public Health’? It must be an MA…. Can’t class it as Science, I’m afraid.
      And, of course Pharmaceutical Companies names subsidizing University degrees are about the only ones cropping up; I do remember being told in my final year that “tobacco companies no longer are allowed to fund research but the pharmaceutical industry has offered to fill the gap”.

      This was in 1995.

      No, I am not a young person. I went to University when I became a single parent hell-bent to fund my offspring and my life state independent.
      It worked for me. But it was back then.

      My advice to youngsters considering University education nowadays is NOT to do it. I tell them to train up as e.g. plumbers and watch the money rolling in without starting work life being in a £30,000 – 50,000 debt situation. Next: how will you get a mortgage and start a family before the age of 40 when you, as a post graduate, work as an unpaid intern and then – if lucky – get a job that as a starter is worth £15,000 – 23,000 p.a.?

      Thanks, Tobacco Control&Hellthists!!!!

  12. Barry Homan says:

    This is a creepy story, a Russian sleep-experiment from the 40s. I wish they’d try it today on Arnott, Chapman, Glantz and especially Banzhaf – what a laugh!

    • beobrigitte says:

      Unfortunately this video has ads in the middle which you can’t skip. I refuse to watch them.
      But I do know about this experiment.

      Indeed, I do wonder how Arnott et al had been subjected to this experiment. No sane mind produces what they can (and still do).

  13. waltc says:

    Ms Ariel
    Is your building administered by HUD? Your description of dogmatic, whimsical rules and anytime inspections mkes it sound like reform school. But I ask about HUD because I think my cousin’s husband still works for the HUD HQ in DC tho I’m not sure in what capacity. But I’d like to send him a copy of that post (with neither your name or location attached) to make him aware (and hope that he might make others there aware) of the petty restrictions, and achtung authoritarianism of the goverment’s Helping Hand. That is, if HUD has anything to do with it. So — post here and let me know if it dies and then let me know if sending it’s ok.

    • waltc says:

      Oy, should be “let me know if it does” . It won’t die unless somebody shoots it.m

    • Jariel says:

      Waltc –
      This building is partially administered by HUD and partially administered by a private philanthropic corporation. I would love you to send your cousin’s husband a copy of my post!! Thank you!!

      • Jariel says:

        Oh – as to “anytime inspections” – we have inspections every three months. They’re no big deal, really – the building manager and one or two of the maintenance people take a quick look through your apartment to make sure everything’s working properly and that the place isn’t an unsanitary mess. They’re only a big deal if something is deemed to be dirty/unsanitary or damaged. If this happens, you are given a warning letter and 10 days to fix the problem, at which time the staff checks to see if the problem was fixed. If you don’t fix the problem after 3 warnings (30 days) you can be evicted. I’ve only gotten two warnings in two years: one for a tiny white spot on my unused stove burner, which I had to pay $29.99 to replace, and one because they said they smelled my cigarette smoke all through this large three-story building (no one else’s cig smoke, mind you – just mine). Everybody gets an inspection-related warning at one time or another. The biggest problem with the inspections is that we are notified more or less at the last minute that they will occur. Other apartment buildings for low-income seniors notify their residents a week or two in advance, so they can prepare with a minimal amount of anxiety. When I first moved in here, the notification came three days before. Now it’s 24 hours or less. This doesn’t particularly bother me, as I keep my place clean, but it does negatively affect those who are ill and/or frail and/or mobility impaired and may have been unable in the past few days to keep up with their housekeeping.
        Although we only have formal inspections 4 times a year, the building manager can give you a warning for things like inappropriate attire in the common areas. But it’s what SHE considers inappropriate attire, which could be a beautiful long fancy muumuu. Or shoes that she thinks look like bedroom slippers. Once I walked a few steps down the hallway wearing black ballet shoes. The building manager was passing by and told me I couldn’t wear those shoes and had to go back into my apartment and put on regular shoes. Stupid and silly. Even in the fanciest apartment buildings, people wear slippers out in the hallways, to get their mail, etc.
        Sigh…

  14. Jariel says:

    More new rules in my building that have cropped up over the last year, that weren’t there when I moved in two years ago:
    1) If you have a pet (which can only be one cat or one small dog or one small rodent – fish are not allowed, not even a single goldfish – I’ve never figured that one out), its feet must never touch the floor in common areas. GOD FORBID THE FEET OF A POODLE SHOULD TOUCH THE HALLWAY FLOOR!) Your pet is not allowed to enter any other person’s apartment, even if that person invites you in with your pet. Your visitors must never bring a pet into the building, even if it’s in a secure carrier. This includes a certified therapy dog.
    2) If one of your visitors, or one of your aides, is “disrespectful” to the building manager, or what she sees as “disrespectful,” you yourself are responsible and will receive a warning.
    3) You must not have too little or too much food in your freezer. The food in your freezer must not in any way cover the motor thingy in the back of the freezer.
    4) You must not gossip in the common areas.
    There are more, but it’s 6:36 AM and my brain isn’t awake enough to remember them.

  15. Pingback: Victory in Virginia | Frank Davis

  16. Pingback: The Coming HUD Smoker Holocaust | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s