Archive for June 10, 2009

The New Bipartisan Front Against Sexism

It’s true – conservatives discovered feminism about the same time they discovered Sarah Palin, and they’re about a half-century late to the party. But we shouldn’t fault them their motivations or their tardiness, when they get things right.

Kudos, then, to Caleb Howe at RedState, who’s quite right to knock David Letterman for some bizarrely and unnecessarily sexist remarks about Sarah Palin. I’m no fan of Palin either, but progressives like us can defeat her ideas on the merits, without having to resort to rape “jokes.” Sexism is sexism, and even if used against anti-feminist women, it’s still degrading, which is why I find Feministing’s silence on the subject so odd.

Although I don’t hold out too much hope on the subject, we should also welcome the chance to transmute the right’s newly-found outrage over sexism into genuine, useful support of feminist policy. While the gap on choice is likely to remain, we can aspire to draw from conservatives the recognition that, in fact, the abortion issue is more nuanced than they currently admit. Small progress, sure, but a step above Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly.

Comrade Reagan: Photoshop Contest!!

According to the Republicans’ new definition, Ronald Reagan was a Communist: Reagan raised taxes on gas in 1982, on payrolls in 1983, on general taxes in 1984, and on corporate taxes in 1986. Put into Palin rhetoric, he “went after” the middle class (small businesses), and outright assaulted corporate America! That’s not change we can believe in!!

So, to remind the Republicans that their favorite talking point implicates their hero, and per Kris’ suggestion, we’re going to host a Photoshopping competition. Whoever makes the most compelling insertion of Ronald Reagan’s image into some communist propaganda piece will win our undying adoration, and probably something cool too. You can e-mail submissionstoacandidworld@gmail.com, and feel free to use this blank template. Readers, tear down this talking point!

In Bed Together: Insurance and Big Tobacco … and You’re Out on the Couch

From Scientific American last week (Their links, my bold):

Health and life insurance companies in the US and abroad have nearly $4.5 billion invested in tobacco stocks, according to Harvard doctors.

“It’s the combined taxidermist and veterinarian approach: either way you get your dog back,” says David Himmelstein, an internist at the Harvard Medical School and co-author of a letter published in this week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

***

In total, seven companies that sell life, health, disability, or long-term care insurance, have major holdings in tobacco stock.

Why is it a big deal? “If you own a billion dollars [of tobacco stock], then you don’t want to see it go down,” says Himmelstein, “You are less likely to join anti-tobacco coalitions, endorse anti-tobacco legislation, basically, anything most health companies would want to participate in.”

Last week the Senate passed the cloture motion (84 to 11) to end floor debate on the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1256). The legislation paints the gruesome role tobacco plays in U.S. public health by detailing 49 findings and (in part):

Requires tobacco product manufacturers or importers to submit to the Secretary: (1) a listing of all ingredients [and additives] … (2) a description of the … nicotine in each tobacco product; (3) a listing of all constituents, including smoke constituents, identified by the Secretary as harmful or potentially harmful to health in each tobacco product; and (4) all documents developed that relate to the health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of tobacco products and their constituents, ingredients, components, and additives.

….

Requires the Secretary to publicly display and annually publish a list (that is understandable and not misleading to a lay person) of harmful or potentially harmful constituents in each tobacco product by brand and quantity.

….

Prohibits a cigarette or any of its components from containing as a constituent or additive any artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or any herb or spice (including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, and vanilla) …

….

Prohibits distributors from taking any action that would reasonably be expected to result in consumers believing that a tobacco product or its smoke may present a lower risk of disease or is less harmful than other tobacco products.

The imminent introduction of next-generation smokeless-tobacco products into the domestic market with their inevitable infiltration into the under-18 demo is of major concern to regulation supporters. Opponents of the legislation are singing their usual song: The last thing the tobacco companies want is kids using their products. Trust us.

I watched reruns of some of the debate on CSPAN, and I caught Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) giving an elaborate presentation with charts and a marker! The gist of his argument? How can we logically say we need to regulate against a demographic’s use of a certain product that hasn’t even hit the market when we don’t even know yet if that demographic is going want to use that product?

Yeh. Teens have always HATED clever packaging and the procurement and use of illicit products.

When I checked back in on the debate, Dick Durbin (D-IL) was up with an advertising poster for Camel’s SNUS, pointing out a main feature of the product’s marketing campaign: new, covert use:

“You can receive pleasure anywhere.”

“Be the first one on your block to try Camel Snus, a different way to do tobacco.”

Where is SNUS targeted? Areas that have passed clean-air/smokeless-indoor legislation. And don’t worry, R.J. Reynolds has packed SNUS with lots more nicotine, so they can get that extra staying power once in the market.

And you thought tobacco in this country was on life support. (After the jump.)

Continue reading »