Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we all have witnessed the gross abuse of sensationalized news media, political commentators and people in general. Even the smallest of things get amplified and distorted to the point where a mole hill becomes a mountain to serve someones interest. Often our news and information is "tailored" to fit a given audience and presented in a fashion that guides the human mind to the conclusions its presenter wishes it to. This is essentially marketing.
In conjunction with marketing news and information to people, there is the use of language that is far more subtle, but probably even more effective. How something is worded, the context that is used or referenced, as well as the level of veracity all contribute to emphasizing certain emotions or to illicit a desired response.
For example, the Defense Department used to be called the War Department. Now the problem with calling something the "war department" is that these words together imply an agency dedicated to war, whereas calling it a "defense department", conveys a sense that this agency is not about war but about defending America which is seen as noble. Problem we see today is that of the trillions of dollars we have spent under the pretense of "defense" spending, nearly all of it has been used for offensive purposes. It managed to accomplish this in part because people believe it is defense, since it says so on the label.
Take the world propaganda, which in todays usage has an almost conspiratorial or negative connotation associated with it. There is a reason for this, the Nazi's of WWII primarily. However, propaganda is just information that has been spun to extract a certain desired emotional response from the consumer in order to guide their views in a given direction. Well surprise, this is exactly what marketing is and in todays language we call it Public Relations, which is just a nice way of saying, propaganda.
We see the wars of language taking place everyday on this forum for example. Think of how the words Liberal or Republican are used. Not to cite a given political philosophy or ideology, but instead are used as a negative pejorative. In part because people do not see these in terms of legitimate positions or views but as enemies to do battle with, condensing the world down into absolutes and good and evil. Quite effectively I might add.
Now consider for a moment the word government, and how rarely anyone ever asks, what exactly is government and what is it's purpose.
Definition of GOVERNMENT:
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
Yes I realize this sounds booga booga, but when you have large masses of people in a collective forming a society, they need to be controlled through laws and social contracts of etiquette, etc... However, unlike in situations of a dictator or monarchy or similar governing fashion, our democratic manner of governing only allows for so much when it comes to telling the people what they can and cannot do. Societies such as these are to a large extent dependent upon public will and sentiment, so one way of achieving this is through of course, marketing and the guiding of public opinion.
The following is a 4 part series that ran on BBC some time back and while I realize most folks probably have neither the time or interest to watch it fully. However for those that might appreciate or even enjoy the use of public relations, psychology and sociological uses of language and information, then you will very much enjoy this.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings. His influence on the twentieth century is generally considered profound. The series describes the ways public relations and politicians have utilized Freud's theories during the last 100 years for the "engineering of consent".
Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy, commodification and its implications.
I think we all have witnessed the gross abuse of sensationalized news media, political commentators and people in general. Even the smallest of things get amplified and distorted to the point where a mole hill becomes a mountain to serve someones interest. Often our news and information is "tailored" to fit a given audience and presented in a fashion that guides the human mind to the conclusions its presenter wishes it to. This is essentially marketing.
In conjunction with marketing news and information to people, there is the use of language that is far more subtle, but probably even more effective. How something is worded, the context that is used or referenced, as well as the level of veracity all contribute to emphasizing certain emotions or to illicit a desired response.
For example, the Defense Department used to be called the War Department. Now the problem with calling something the "war department" is that these words together imply an agency dedicated to war, whereas calling it a "defense department", conveys a sense that this agency is not about war but about defending America which is seen as noble. Problem we see today is that of the trillions of dollars we have spent under the pretense of "defense" spending, nearly all of it has been used for offensive purposes. It managed to accomplish this in part because people believe it is defense, since it says so on the label.
Take the world propaganda, which in todays usage has an almost conspiratorial or negative connotation associated with it. There is a reason for this, the Nazi's of WWII primarily. However, propaganda is just information that has been spun to extract a certain desired emotional response from the consumer in order to guide their views in a given direction. Well surprise, this is exactly what marketing is and in todays language we call it Public Relations, which is just a nice way of saying, propaganda.
We see the wars of language taking place everyday on this forum for example. Think of how the words Liberal or Republican are used. Not to cite a given political philosophy or ideology, but instead are used as a negative pejorative. In part because people do not see these in terms of legitimate positions or views but as enemies to do battle with, condensing the world down into absolutes and good and evil. Quite effectively I might add.
Now consider for a moment the word government, and how rarely anyone ever asks, what exactly is government and what is it's purpose.
Definition of GOVERNMENT:
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
Yes I realize this sounds booga booga, but when you have large masses of people in a collective forming a society, they need to be controlled through laws and social contracts of etiquette, etc... However, unlike in situations of a dictator or monarchy or similar governing fashion, our democratic manner of governing only allows for so much when it comes to telling the people what they can and cannot do. Societies such as these are to a large extent dependent upon public will and sentiment, so one way of achieving this is through of course, marketing and the guiding of public opinion.
The following is a 4 part series that ran on BBC some time back and while I realize most folks probably have neither the time or interest to watch it fully. However for those that might appreciate or even enjoy the use of public relations, psychology and sociological uses of language and information, then you will very much enjoy this.
I think governments have always understood that perception was as important as actions. But one of the aspects of modern government is the government's perception that it has to control the public's perception. Older governments took steps to influence public perception in a positive way, but perhaps the development of modern education has created in a government the more urgent need to control its image with the public.
I think governments have always understood that perception was as important as actions. But one of the aspects of modern government is the government's perception that it has to control the public's perception. Older governments took steps to influence public perception in a positive way, but perhaps the development of modern education has created in a government the more urgent need to control its image with the public.
I'm inclined to believe that is as much about fleecing the American people for as much as they can possible squeeze from them. There are three distinct classes in America, the working class, the ruling class and the corporate class. The latter two are cyclical on many occasions and often move between stations, but the working class is by and large stuck.
To prevent the working class from getting too angry or worried or whatever, public relations is about keeping them distracted, minds sufficiently numbed and willing to buy into the program, whatever program they may be pushing that day. So in a sense, I suppose you are right, in that as the working class has better access to independent information, it requires greater sophistication in methods to guide public perceptions.
(chuckling) evolution exist! A soon as the mice beat the trap, build a better mousetrap.
The first time I watched The Century of the Self, I have to admit, I had no clue as to the levels of sophistication used in marketing and public relations. Talk about an awesome force.
I think we all have witnessed the gross abuse of sensationalized news media, political commentators and people in general. Even the smallest of things get amplified and distorted to the point where a mole hill becomes a mountain to serve someones interest. Often our news and information is "tailored" to fit a given audience and presented in a fashion that guides the human mind to the conclusions its presenter wishes it to. This is essentially marketing.
In conjunction with marketing news and information to people, there is the use of language that is far more subtle, but probably even more effective. How something is worded, the context that is used or referenced, as well as the level of veracity all contribute to emphasizing certain emotions or to illicit a desired response.
For example, the Defense Department used to be called the War Department. Now the problem with calling something the "war department" is that these words together imply an agency dedicated to war, whereas calling it a "defense department", conveys a sense that this agency is not about war but about defending America which is seen as noble. Problem we see today is that of the trillions of dollars we have spent under the pretense of "defense" spending, nearly all of it has been used for offensive purposes. It managed to accomplish this in part because people believe it is defense, since it says so on the label.
Take the world propaganda, which in todays usage has an almost conspiratorial or negative connotation associated with it. There is a reason for this, the Nazi's of WWII primarily. However, propaganda is just information that has been spun to extract a certain desired emotional response from the consumer in order to guide their views in a given direction. Well surprise, this is exactly what marketing is and in todays language we call it Public Relations, which is just a nice way of saying, propaganda.
We see the wars of language taking place everyday on this forum for example. Think of how the words Liberal or Republican are used. Not to cite a given political philosophy or ideology, but instead are used as a negative pejorative. In part because people do not see these in terms of legitimate positions or views but as enemies to do battle with, condensing the world down into absolutes and good and evil. Quite effectively I might add.
Now consider for a moment the word government, and how rarely anyone ever asks, what exactly is government and what is it's purpose.
Definition of GOVERNMENT:
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
Yes I realize this sounds booga booga, but when you have large masses of people in a collective forming a society, they need to be controlled through laws and social contracts of etiquette, etc... However, unlike in situations of a dictator or monarchy or similar governing fashion, our democratic manner of governing only allows for so much when it comes to telling the people what they can and cannot do. Societies such as these are to a large extent dependent upon public will and sentiment, so one way of achieving this is through of course, marketing and the guiding of public opinion.
The following is a 4 part series that ran on BBC some time back and while I realize most folks probably have neither the time or interest to watch it fully. However for those that might appreciate or even enjoy the use of public relations, psychology and sociological uses of language and information, then you will very much enjoy this.
Kinda like congress when they give a proposed bill a name to make you think the billis about what the name applies. The Assault Weapons Ban comes to mind. The bill went after many,many guns that were not assault rifles.
And the Stimulas bill which by name was meant to stimulate the economy, which it didn't.
Kinda like congress when they give a proposed bill a name to make you think the billis about what the name applies. The Assault Weapons Ban comes to mind. The bill went after many,many guns that were not assault rifles.
And the Stimulas bill which by name was meant to stimulate the economy, which it didn't.
Exactly. While the I believe the stimulus bill was to stimulate the economy, it was also much more, like lining the pockets of a variety of special interests and groups through a variety of pork and earmarks. However, you get exactly what I'm saying and it applies to a whole litany of subjects, not just government either.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security. Do we not have a NSA, or National Security Agency? FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DEA, CIA, etc... etc... It is as though we needed yet another Federal Agency because our homeland was not secure. Yet when we look at the reasons cited in the 911 commission, the main one was that the information did exist but that it wasn't communicated effectively with all the other bureau's. So what do we do, create another bureau to add to the overhead of bureaucracy.
Another example, the 2009 Food and Safety Act. I actually took the time to read this entire behemoth, and the first thing that jumped out at me was all the additional licensing fees. (original draft) If I were to sell a tomato out of my garden by the roadside, I would be required to get a federal license to do so. Sounds more like a money grab to me.
The other thing was that it stated we needed to better secure our nations food infrastructure. Yet funding for agencies like the FDA and its ability to enforce already created laws and regulations was hindered by lack of funds and lack of employees. So our response was not to improve an existing agency already in place, but to create yet another agency. It is bizarre.
Incredible film series Tn, thanks for bringing it to my attention. They've managed to articulate some of my own queasy feelings about politics today.
It's a peculiar cunnundrum humankind finds itself in relative to civilization. Funny you should mention defense-- part of that defense from a managerial perspective is imagining worst case scenarios. In the arena of 'defense' are the development of weaponry that are designed for offense. Whomever has the most offensive weapon is the dominant alpha. Once we invent it and it's known, we must then invent an even more offensive weapon to outdo the previous. It's a vicious hole of paranoia defending it's own right to perpetuate escalating capacity for violence in the name of peace. The film series shows me something I've already known trying to advise some WV college kids angry about the stereotype America stamps on their resumes and they wonder if they'll get a job as a result. The more we try to understand the human mind trying to get around a bully or cure mental illness, the more those tools get used for nefarious purposes (perfect bullies, create mental illness). Invent a gun for self defense, a robber picks it up to offend. Invent an airplane to liberate people from the constraints of human effective range, unwanted elements are invited in and an airplane is used as missile. Pool a community's resources too tightly in one spot it becomes a dinner bell for predators of all sorts.
Freud was required reading for me, and the conclusions Freud made in his own book ("Civilizations and it's discontents") were not the same as my own conclusions upon reading it- perhaps because of my religious upbringing? Nevertheless, my conclusion was that both the individual and the civilization are in a perpetual balancing act with one another, because at core is a symbiotic nature of life. Individuals seeking out too much freedom for themselves lose benefit of civilization, are prone to self destruction or make themselves hypocritical predators. Civilization viewing individuals as chattel to muscle over for absolute conformity yields a society that's ill and not worth saving/ preserving. I despise HOA's but I'm glad they exist for those so in need of a box to cling to that they refrain from demanding the entire planet live in ecru as they do. I'm grateful the Amish exist too.
Doing what's best or appeasing the desires of the masses? Isn't this related a bit to how the relationship of parent and child changed over the past 60yrs? On the one extreme children, wives and families were looked upon as property to own. On the other extreme children were viewed as miniature adults not obliged to conform to anything at all. Freestyle upbringing, the parents role changed to 'being their best friend', and being your best friend means telling you everything you want to hear? Always being agreeable cultivating false esteem? Children raise themselves? It's a complete abdication of authority that was always necessary, in service to the child's ultimate wellbeing & eventual autonomy. "Nanny state" accusation mantra gone too far produces what? After viewing those 4 films do you see my utter disgust with Tea clearly now?
We do not have leaders in service to a higher calling of what's best. We have leaders being led around, mostly I believe as a result of entrenched corporatism arching the globe, shape shifting in and out of jurisdictions at will. The elect are in service to power for power sake, in service to ideology, but most have lost sight of the spirit of the law the same way Christendom has lost sight of it's own core spirit. Read the following passage below, it should frighten you to realize a bigger theme going on in our culture.
Quote:
...they typically deny responsibility, minimize the seriousness of their offenses, blame their victims, react with outrage when accused and redirect attention away from their behavior. They are self-centered and often exhibit a sense of grandiosity -- a belief that they are above accountability.
In that passage you'll hear the unrelenting complaint of liberals against current 'reformulated' brand of conservative, correct? Read it again and know that this is the source... The inner workings of a hierarchy with a sex offender mentality | National Catholic Reporter These are practicing Catholics critiquing non conformity of Biblical teachings. These types of critiques are in turn being personally attacked by conservative Catholics, claiming them to be 'termites' of the Church ruining solidarity/ loyalty to Hierarchy. They're being stonewalled by Hierarchy just as Law Enforcement officials in USA have been. The Church has been partaking the same tools of Madison avenue to fulfill it's mission of spreading the word, but the ethics come up as lacking in Religion as they do in Governance as they do in science rendered junk or outright toxic. You may think this is all unrelated but I cannot help but continue to point out this family values party having a sickening history of attracting pedophiles in their ranks desirous of blind allegiance authority.
Western civilization is being trained to be predators & serve vice. The rewards in America are given most to those raised as veal. An entire generation living in la la land sims games, muscles atrophy, empty calorie non-foods being called food. Bookish predators rule the rules and masterfully use the masses of innocents as human shields. Can't fire or imprison the bank that owns you.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security. Do we not have a NSA, or National Security Agency? FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DEA, CIA, etc... etc... It is as though we needed yet another Federal Agency because our homeland was not secure. Yet when we look at the reasons cited in the 911 commission, the main one was that the information did exist but that it wasn't communicated effectively with all the other bureau's. So what do we do, create another bureau to add to the overhead of bureaucracy.
This is why I call them the dept of homeland terrorism. Seems to me they inspire more terrorism within America than solve. I also feel the Patriot act needs to be renamed "the Slave of safety act". Give me all your freedoms and protections under the law and I'll accept your protection money. Why did we not approach this in ways that empower ordinary citizens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Another example, the 2009 Food and Safety Act. I actually took the time to read this entire behemoth, and the first thing that jumped out at me was all the additional licensing fees. (original draft) If I were to sell a tomato out of my garden by the roadside, I would be required to get a federal license to do so. Sounds more like a money grab to me.
Government was given a mandate of sorts from the masses that programs need to pay for themselves (ala carte services gov't) to avoid raising taxes. The behemoth you see is the result of that mandate tempered by the corporate class first in line for profits. Whatever hits the floor is good enough for small biz. The benefit is already built into synergy of largess, but it's nothing they satisfy themselves with when x$$ investment in legislation produces x$$$$$ returns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
The other thing was that it stated we needed to better secure our nations food infrastructure. Yet funding for agencies like the FDA and its ability to enforce already created laws and regulations was hindered by lack of funds and lack of employees. So our response was not to improve an existing agency already in place, but to create yet another agency. It is bizarre.
I think the problem with the after-the -fact law enforcement tactics is that laws of accountability have been watered down enabling recklessness. LE would rather not play the cat mouse games, however, if the liability were reinstated to prevent an asbestos manufacturer from introducing that product for mass consumption until it was known to be safe, mesothelioma would not exist. There would not be the volume of distressed properties ruined by lead paint and asbestos languishing away with few means available to economically remedy the situation. How many drugs have been recalled? Why were they permitted to be on the market? What happens if the vaccine targeting HPV in teen aged girls harms their reproductive system in the process? What are the potential negative consequences of the HARP program? How big a mess should BP be allowed to make for the instant gratification mentality oil serves?
Doing what's best or appeasing the desires of the masses? Isn't this related a bit to how the relationship of parent and child changed over the past 60yrs? On the one extreme children, wives and families were looked upon as property to own. On the other extreme children were viewed as miniature adults not obliged to conform to anything at all. Freestyle upbringing, the parents role changed to 'being their best friend', and being your best friend means telling you everything you want to hear? Always being agreeable cultivating false esteem? Children raise themselves? It's a complete abdication of authority that was always necessary, in service to the child's ultimate wellbeing & eventual autonomy. "Nanny state" accusation mantra gone too far produces what? After viewing those 4 films do you see my utter disgust with Tea clearly now?
We do not have leaders in service to a higher calling of what's best. We have leaders being led around, mostly I believe as a result of entrenched corporatism arching the globe, shape shifting in and out of jurisdictions at will. The elect are in service to power for power sake, in service to ideology, but most have lost sight of the spirit of the law the same way Christendom has lost sight of it's own core spirit. Read the following passage below, it should frighten you to realize a bigger theme going on in our culture.
In that passage you'll hear the unrelenting complaint of liberals against current 'reformulated' brand of conservative, correct? Read it again and know that this is the source... The inner workings of a hierarchy with a sex offender mentality | National Catholic Reporter These are practicing Catholics critiquing non conformity of Biblical teachings. These types of critiques are in turn being personally attacked by conservative Catholics, claiming them to be 'termites' of the Church ruining solidarity/ loyalty to Hierarchy. They're being stonewalled by Hierarchy just as Law Enforcement officials in USA have been. The Church has been partaking the same tools of Madison avenue to fulfill it's mission of spreading the word, but the ethics come up as lacking in Religion as they do in Governance as they do in science rendered junk or outright toxic. You may think this is all unrelated but I cannot help but continue to point out this family values party having a sickening history of attracting pedophiles in their ranks desirous of blind allegiance authority.
There is a lot more I wish to respond to but one thing that jumps out at me. Also, I haven't watched this in its entirety for over a year, but I'm hosting a gathering coming up with some of my peers, to which we sit around and watch things like this, pig out on a feast, have some wine and spend the rest of the evening discussing it. So I'll better debate it later when I refresh. A real party animal, I know...
Anyway, to the first bolded portion, this is where I take some issue with the 60's generation that promoted individualism to break free from the ultra conformity in society during the 50's. (the may in the grey flannel suit) This aspect of Liberalism were a mindset grew up that "don't let the man tell you what to do", whatever it is, it is ultimately about you. As this generation of people grew up, their children became the "ME" generation of the 80's as is commonly known today.
This resistance to authority in the name of "ME" as opposed to some cause is about the same time we have seen a serious malfunction in things like school shootings, schools struggling to educate, both parents working and kids growing up in day care, then in front of a nintendo. Florida at one point even suggested they remove the "F" grade from report cards because, it instilled a sense of failure in children and hurt their feelings. Same reason we don't keep score at Tball games. We let kids play organized sports for the parents benefit as all kids want to do is look at bugs in the grass, but we don't keep score so as not to hurt their feelings if they lose. First time many kids face failure is at their first job and when confronted with a boss being what most bosses are, they are dumbfounded and become angry and resentful because no one has ever told them no.
I happen to see government having gone through this same transformation as individuals have. The government in this case is supposed to be the parent, as in a Republican form of Democracy, we elect these people to vote our best interest, and sometimes "our best interest" are not "my" best interest. Yet our politicians wish to be seen as the parent who reasons with the child, who pats their head when they are feeling blue, kisses their knee when it is skinned and is their very bestest friend in the whole wide world.
In some respects, America is becoming more pure Democracy than it has ever been and this presents new dangers. We the people, the children, are telling the parent, the government what to do, how to act and what is in our best interest. Today, our political leaders spend as much time polling people, reading twitter, facebook, and every other gage to sense the winds of opinion and in doing so, their positions shift and change like the wind. It is essentially mob rule by choice.
One of the biggest reasons the people like Palin are so popular today is because they are from "real America" and real America are the folks posting on places like this forum. Imagine how empowering it would feel if we woke up each day and there was a poll sitting on the top of this page and depending on what choices we participants made, determined what our President was going to do that day. Well when it is just the people pushing buttons, you can elect a ham sandwich or no one at all but a digital avatar and rule the country by online polling.
Should we go to war with Iran today, if yes press 1, if not press 2, if you don't speak English press 1 anyway.
I do very much agree with one point you have made in several postings and that is the need for balance. I happen to be rather fond of Taoist views and have much of the Tao De Ching committed to memory, not for religious reasons but merely as a philosophical approach to most subjects. I do get frustrated most of all by what I see is utter imbalance and absolutism in both view and approach. Its scorched earth and I find it rather regressive.
I was glad to have come across these DVD's again (videos hosted in full by google) as it was this program that led me to studying evolutionary psychology and social behavior. In fact, not long ago, someone sent me the following link which I found quite fascinating and you may enjoy it as well. I was surprised to see it in the NY Times.
Another benefit I found from watching this series was that from then on, every time I watched the news or TV, I found myself asking... what are they really trying to convey here and why did they use this manner of language, etc...
So, this administration, more than any other in my lifetime (I'm 59), has tried to change the language but it is my observation that none of it sticks. Have you really heard anyone in the media use the phrase "overseas contingency operation" for the war on terror or "man-caused disasters" for acts of terrorism in the media? Those Obamaisms are the New Coke of our time. Just yesterday, I read a news article on global warming and thought, gee that memo to use "climate change" must have missed his desk. Did H1N1 really catch on over "swine flu" or did it die along with the other attempted rebranding?
Some stuff seems to stick like the change from pervert to sex offender.
I think the change from War Department to Defense Department was a good intention with a poor choice replacement. After all, the department is more than about war and more than about defense. But, it stuck. I don't hear anybody still calling it the War Department.
I really don't know why some rebranding sticks and others fail miserably.
This is why I call them the dept of homeland terrorism. Seems to me they inspire more terrorism within America than solve. I also feel the Patriot act needs to be renamed "the Slave of safety act". Give me all your freedoms and protections under the law and I'll accept your protection money. Why did we not approach this in ways that empower ordinary citizens?
This is one area where my conservative side wants to pull its hair out with todays contemporary GOP. While many today chide Obama and Democrats for this bizarre Socialist nonsense they keep repeating along with this dire need for self sufficiency, get the government out of our lives, yaddayadda. Yet when it comes to security or war issues, the right wing in America is the first group to the trough to feed. Oh please Mr. Government, take care of me, keep me safe, protect me from the Muslim invasion, socialism, global warming nuts, etc... If I didn't know any better I would swear that 97% of todays Republicans were 8 year old girls. I've never seen a bunch of namby pambies in my life.
Yet right in front of their very eyes, the Federal government expanded more than at any time since FDR and the right was not only mute, they opened both arms and embraced the Patriot Act, DHS and every other draconian anti-liberty slab of clap trap to come down the pike.
Quote:
Government was given a mandate of sorts from the masses that programs need to pay for themselves (ala carte services gov't) to avoid raising taxes. The behemoth you see is the result of that mandate tempered by the corporate class first in line for profits. Whatever hits the floor is good enough for small biz. The benefit is already built into synergy of largess, but it's nothing they satisfy themselves with when x$$ investment in legislation produces x$$$$$ returns.
I think the problem with the after-the -fact law enforcement tactics is that laws of accountability have been watered down enabling recklessness. LE would rather not play the cat mouse games, however, if the liability were reinstated to prevent an asbestos manufacturer from introducing that product for mass consumption until it was known to be safe, mesothelioma would not exist. There would not be the volume of distressed properties ruined by lead paint and asbestos languishing away with few means available to economically remedy the situation. How many drugs have been recalled? Why were they permitted to be on the market? What happens if the vaccine targeting HPV in teen aged girls harms their reproductive system in the process? What are the potential negative consequences of the HARP program? How big a mess should BP be allowed to make for the instant gratification mentality oil serves?
Honestly, my take was that the 2009 Food Safety Act was little more than a corporate give away. Again, more government bloat that isn't needed as most of the elements to keep us safe are already in place, if we just enforce and fund them properly.
I do not want to have to think about whether my food is safe or fit for consumption and our government already has went to great efforts to ensure national standards and food safety. I do not wish to have to hire a food tester is some free market scheme where people selling bad things will eventually be removed from the market by market forces. Only after a few hundred or thousand people die, yeah, great idea.
Again, there is a balance to be struck between regulations and business being free to make money. Too much of their is not a good thing for Joe Consumer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
