Print This Post
Jun
30
Strickland, Fisher, Espy, Brown, Sykes and Brunner in the ‘hood 7/9
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
From the 6/29/06 Chagrin Valley Times (but not online):
Event in Woodmere hosts Democrats
U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, Democratic candidate for governor, and running mate Lee Fisher will headline a candidates event to be held from 2 to 5 pm July 9 at Eton Chagrin Boulevard in Woodmere. Other Democratic candidates to be on hand are Ben Espy, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Sykes and Jennifer Brunner.
The public is invited to meet the candidates. For more information, contact Woodmere Mayor Yolanda Broadie at (216) 831-9511 or Clover Elliott at 831-5909.
“Eton Chagrin Boulevard” (28601 Chagrin Boulevard) is also known as Eton Collection and was developed by Bob Stark of Stark Enterprises, who is also known for Crocker Park. Here are Stark’s ideas for downtown Cleveland.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:58 pm June 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
30
Strickland, Fisher, Espy, Brown, Sykes and Brunner in the ‘hood 7/9
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
From the 6/29/06 Chagrin Valley Times (but not online):
Event in Woodmere hosts Democrats
U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, Democratic candidate for governor, and running mate Lee Fisher will headline a candidates event to be held from 2 to 5 pm July 9 at Eton Chagrin Boulevard in Woodmere. Other Democratic candidates to be on hand are Ben Espy, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Sykes and Jennifer Brunner.
The public is invited to meet the candidates. For more information, contact Woodmere Mayor Yolanda Broadie at (216) 831-9511 or Clover Elliott at 831-5909.
“Eton Chagrin Boulevard” (28601 Chagrin Boulevard) is also known as Eton Collection and was developed by Bob Stark of Stark Enterprises, who is also known for Crocker Park. Here are Stark’s ideas for downtown Cleveland.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:58 pm June 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
30
Strickland, Fisher, Espy, Brown, Sykes and Brunner in the ‘hood 7/9
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
From the 6/29/06 Chagrin Valley Times (but not online):
Event in Woodmere hosts Democrats
U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, Democratic candidate for governor, and running mate Lee Fisher will headline a candidates event to be held from 2 to 5 pm July 9 at Eton Chagrin Boulevard in Woodmere. Other Democratic candidates to be on hand are Ben Espy, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Sykes and Jennifer Brunner.
The public is invited to meet the candidates. For more information, contact Woodmere Mayor Yolanda Broadie at (216) 831-9511 or Clover Elliott at 831-5909.
“Eton Chagrin Boulevard” (28601 Chagrin Boulevard) is also known as Eton Collection and was developed by Bob Stark of Stark Enterprises, who is also known for Crocker Park. Here are Stark’s ideas for downtown Cleveland.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:58 pm June 30th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
30
"Freedom of the Press loses"
Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments
For some background and the text of the U.S. House of Representatives’ resolution to condemn media for telling the public about possibly illegal privacy violations, see this earlier post.
From The Nation’s blog, The Notion, an account of the House passing the resolution this evening:
Voting to take a swipe at the Constitution were 219 Republicans and Louisiana Democrat Charlie Melancon.
Voting to protect and preserve the First Amendment were 194 Democrats and Shays.
…
Just to make his point clear, Oxley [OHIO Republican Congressman Mike Oxley, author of the resolution] explained to his colleagues that the intention of his resolution was to signal that the government “expects the cooperation of all news media.”
That sounded a little like a pronouncement from a Communist Party Congress in Beijing to Congressman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House. Both the United States and China “seem to be eager to clamp down as much as possible on their journalistic critics,” Obey explained before voting “no.”
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the New York Democrat who co-chairs the House Future of Media Caucus and is one of the chamber’s stalwart defenders of civil liberties, told his colleagues, “This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration, which continues to violate the law. This president is in favor of releasing classified information to the press when it’s to his political advantage and condemning the press when information reveals that the administration may be violating the law.”
Added Hinchey, “Freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy in this country. However, this White House along with this rubber stamping, Republican Congress are impeding the press’ ability to report the news and making it difficult for the public to understand the truth.”
Congressman James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, was blunter. The representative, whose district is home to thousands of federal employees — many of them involved in intelligence gathering — referred to the resolution as “nuts.”
Moran is, of course, correct.
Another reason to be frustrated with the people elected from Ohio, and the people that vote for such individuals who are elected.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:46 am June 30th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
29
Per Foxnews.com (of course): House to vote on NYT condemnation resolution tonight
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Read the resolution here (hattip to OPEN).
Read the Fox report here. Note that no newspaper or journalism or news industry people are cited or quoted as to their opinion as to what should be done nor about what was done. No university academics, no thinktank people – from either side, no nonbipartisan or bipartisan media watchdog groups, no retired and revered individuals from the industries or currently respected professionals. Just House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a lot of Republicans.
Yup. Fair and balanced.
Not.
Although it doesn’t contain anything truly subversive or surprising, here is the Society of Professionsal Journalists’ press release as to their position on the matter. Disclosure: I’m a member of SPJ.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:38 pm June 29th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
29
"Freedom of the Press loses"
Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments
For some background and the text of the U.S. House of Representatives’ resolution to condemn media for telling the public about possibly illegal privacy violations, see this earlier post.
From The Nation’s blog, The Notion, an account of the House passing the resolution this evening:
Voting to take a swipe at the Constitution were 219 Republicans and Louisiana Democrat Charlie Melancon.
Voting to protect and preserve the First Amendment were 194 Democrats and Shays.
…
Just to make his point clear, Oxley [OHIO Republican Congressman Mike Oxley, author of the resolution] explained to his colleagues that the intention of his resolution was to signal that the government “expects the cooperation of all news media.”
That sounded a little like a pronouncement from a Communist Party Congress in Beijing to Congressman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House. Both the United States and China “seem to be eager to clamp down as much as possible on their journalistic critics,” Obey explained before voting “no.”
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the New York Democrat who co-chairs the House Future of Media Caucus and is one of the chamber’s stalwart defenders of civil liberties, told his colleagues, “This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration, which continues to violate the law. This president is in favor of releasing classified information to the press when it’s to his political advantage and condemning the press when information reveals that the administration may be violating the law.”
Added Hinchey, “Freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy in this country. However, this White House along with this rubber stamping, Republican Congress are impeding the press’ ability to report the news and making it difficult for the public to understand the truth.”
Congressman James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, was blunter. The representative, whose district is home to thousands of federal employees — many of them involved in intelligence gathering — referred to the resolution as “nuts.”
Moran is, of course, correct.
Another reason to be frustrated with the people elected from Ohio, and the people that vote for such individuals who are elected.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:46 pm June 29th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
29
"Freedom of the Press loses"
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
For some background and the text of the U.S. House of Representatives’ resolution to condemn media for telling the public about possibly illegal privacy violations, see this earlier post.
From The Nation’s blog, The Notion, an account of the House passing the resolution this evening:
Voting to take a swipe at the Constitution were 219 Republicans and Louisiana Democrat Charlie Melancon.
Voting to protect and preserve the First Amendment were 194 Democrats and Shays.
…
Just to make his point clear, Oxley [OHIO Republican Congressman Mike Oxley, author of the resolution] explained to his colleagues that the intention of his resolution was to signal that the government “expects the cooperation of all news media.”
That sounded a little like a pronouncement from a Communist Party Congress in Beijing to Congressman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House. Both the United States and China “seem to be eager to clamp down as much as possible on their journalistic critics,” Obey explained before voting “no.”
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, the New York Democrat who co-chairs the House Future of Media Caucus and is one of the chamber’s stalwart defenders of civil liberties, told his colleagues, “This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration, which continues to violate the law. This president is in favor of releasing classified information to the press when it’s to his political advantage and condemning the press when information reveals that the administration may be violating the law.”
Added Hinchey, “Freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy in this country. However, this White House along with this rubber stamping, Republican Congress are impeding the press’ ability to report the news and making it difficult for the public to understand the truth.”
Congressman James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, was blunter. The representative, whose district is home to thousands of federal employees — many of them involved in intelligence gathering — referred to the resolution as “nuts.”
Moran is, of course, correct.
Another reason to be frustrated with the people elected from Ohio, and the people that vote for such individuals who are elected.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:46 pm June 29th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
29
Per Foxnews.com (of course): House to vote on NYT condemnation resolution tonight
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Read the resolution here (hattip to OPEN).
Read the Fox report here. Note that no newspaper or journalism or news industry people are cited or quoted as to their opinion as to what should be done nor about what was done. No university academics, no thinktank people – from either side, no nonbipartisan or bipartisan media watchdog groups, no retired and revered individuals from the industries or currently respected professionals. Just House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a lot of Republicans.
Yup. Fair and balanced.
Not.
Although it doesn’t contain anything truly subversive or surprising, here is the Society of Professionsal Journalists’ press release as to their position on the matter. Disclosure: I’m a member of SPJ.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:38 pm June 29th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
29
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco (an “indirect wholly owned subsidiary” of Reynolds American Inc.) now sells cigarettes adultered to taste like alcohol:
Buoyed by its success in pushing candy-flavored cigarettes, Reynolds has now introduced alcohol-flavored smokes. To make them appealing to our kids, Reynolds has marketed them with names based on gambling lingo as well: ScrewDriver Slots, BlackJack Gin, Snake Eyes Scotch and Back Alley Blend (a bourbon-flavored cigarette).
Despite the prevalence of national and state anti-smoking campaigns, 4,000 kids under 18 will try their first cigarette today, and more than 1,500 other children and teens will become addicted. These are the replacement smokers Reynolds and other tobacco merchants need to fill the shoes of adults who have been killed or crippled by smoking, or who have quit.
Check out RJR’s executive officers and board.
Check out their marketing philosophy, pertinent part here:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R.J. Reynolds) believes that cigarette smokers are at significantly increased risk for a number of diseases and conditions, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease (including heart disease) and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (emphysema and chronic bronchitis). Our company’s philosophy is to operate as if smoking is a cause of these diseases. As a result, R.J. Reynolds firmly believes that children should not smoke or be exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke or any other airborne irritant.
Additionally, we are not interested in trying to persuade any nonsmokers to begin smoking or in persuading any smokers to not quit. We also believe that pregnant women should not smoke.
R.J. Reynolds supports minimum-age laws, which are on the books in all 50 states, for the purchase and/or possession of cigarettes. We support enforcement of minimum-age laws and meaningful penalties for minors and retailers who violate these laws. The company does not and will not advertise in youth publications. And, we abide by the letter and the spirit of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which was signed by R.J. Reynolds and other major cigarette manufacturers with the states in November 1998.
Among many other things, the MSA formalized R.J. Reynolds’ long-standing policies and practices by prohibiting ” … any action, directly or indirectly, to target Youth … in the advertising, promotion or marketing of Tobacco Products, or … any action the primary purpose of which is to initiate, maintain or increase the incidence of Youth smoking … . ” [emphasis mine]
I’d suggest you check out which ad and marketing agencies are responsible for their ads and marketing, but I can’t find any that will admit they do tobacco.
So, I’m just wondering here:
How many of the people on these lists do you think have kids? How many do you think smoke? Gamble? Drink? How much do you think they pay for mental health coverage? How many do you think have experience with addiction, have family affected by addiction?
How well do you think they sleep at night?
How many of them think they’re ethical, moral people whose corporate behavior and decision-making fails to negatively impact culture enough to make it worth their not selling cigarettes that smell like fruit flavors and alcohol because the dividends of ignoring the impact of such heinous products are too high?
Jerry, you think I’m crazy? These people are far more powerful and far crazier than me because they have the intent to make money through what I consider to be unethical, repulsive, manipulative means.
Worse yet? The evidence is right in front of us, not in any AT&T, SWIFT or mental health record. And the U.S. government isn’t doing a damn thing about it, except giving those companies free market free reign.
Thus, I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion written by Joseph A. Califano Jr. (president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, secretary of health, education and welfare in the Carter administration and secretary of health and human services under President George H.W. Bush):
To us, hawking candy-flavored cigarettes is child abuse. It’s time for the public, parents, and state and federal officials to demand an end to it.
See also Tobacco Marketing and Kids.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:02 pm June 29th, 2006 in Politics | 7 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
29
Per Foxnews.com (of course): House to vote on NYT condemnation resolution tonight
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
Read the resolution here (hattip to OPEN).
Read the Fox report here. Note that no newspaper or journalism or news industry people are cited or quoted as to their opinion as to what should be done nor about what was done. No university academics, no thinktank people – from either side, no nonbipartisan or bipartisan media watchdog groups, no retired and revered individuals from the industries or currently respected professionals. Just House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a lot of Republicans.
Yup. Fair and balanced.
Not.
Although it doesn’t contain anything truly subversive or surprising, here is the Society of Professionsal Journalists’ press release as to their position on the matter. Disclosure: I’m a member of SPJ.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:38 pm June 29th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
29
Government can access your mental health records to protect us from terrorism
Filed Under Politics | 6 Comments
From the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s webpage titled, Medical Privacy:
Disclosures for National Security
Covered entities are permitted to disclose PHI [Protected Health Information] to authorized federal representatives for conduct of intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities, as well as to provide protective services to the President and others. These disclosures do not require individual authorization and do not become part of the Accounting for Disclosures. HHS [Health and Human Services] states in the Preamble to the December 2000 Privacy Rule that the Rule does not confer any new authority with regard to disclosures related to national security or protective services because it does not compel covered entities to release information for these purposes. Of course, if new law is passed that requires disclosures of PHI for national security purposes, these disclosures would fall under provisions for disclosures required by law, and covered entities would have to comply with these requirements.
Ever seen a guidance counselor in elementary or secondary school? How about college? What about an EAP (Employee Assistance Program)? Ever done more dedicated research into who you are and why you are the way you are with a mental health clinician of any sort?
Well, remember that, if we let the argument that AT&T’s business purpose includes helping the United States government protect the U.S.A from terrorism and therefore can provide without a subpoena any and all information generated as a result of their relationship with customers stand, why not use this argument for any health care entity that deals in mental health?
Because if you want to find people who talk about doing nasty things to people in the name of pretty much anything, looking through mental health records would certainly be a good place to start, don’t you think?
Oh, well, you know, the patients might be delusional or have some other mental deficiency that makes their plans unlikely to ever be followed. But we want our government to follow all those leads.
Then there are the anti-social diagnoses, the anger management problem folks, the narcissists and egomaniacs who will say and do anything to make themselves sound and seem omnipotent.
But the government shouldn’t trust trained and experienced mental health professionals to judge whether or not someone’s plot is real or just surreal. Nope, let’s get a whole bunch of government functionaries looking at everyone’s mental health records because then we can really find the danger within.
Anyone want to wager whether there’s an exception to access for members of Congress and the executive branch?
Here are some others resources. I’ve not read through all of them thoroughly yet. But because I analogize much of what I read about access to records to my experience in the mental health profession (as a lawyer and social worker), it occurred to me that the government may in fact be doing this. I do not have any specific knowledge that it is. But should we be checking that out?
The new threat to your medical privacy
Technology Is Used to Access Mental Health Care and Information
New Federal Privacy Regulations (Updated 4/29/02)
Bush Administration Modifies Federal Rule On Medical Records Privacy
Final Comments on Proposed Federal Rules on Privacy of Health Records
Of particular interest from this last document:
Law Enforcement (164.510(f))
The proposed rule, while it creates the illusion of legal barriers before records are to be provided to law enforcement, establishes no meaningful legal process. Law enforcement agents may issue written demands that will require doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to provide individual, identifiable health care records. Although the written demand must assert the relevance and narrowness of the request, there is no requirement for judicial review of those assertions and no mechanism for the individual to contest this disclosure.
Another provision in the rule allows release of patient information whenever the police are trying to identify a suspect, which would allow all computerized medical records to be used by the police as a huge database through which they may browse at will to seek matches for blood, DNA or other personally identifiable health traits. The proposal to allow disclosures of “limited identifying information” is an unjustified exception to the legal process requirement. This language should be deleted.
The national security exceptions are also too sweeping and should be revised to reflect the status quo limits on law enforcement access for intelligence and national security activities. Under the proposed rule, the Secret Service could demand the complete medical records of all individuals receiving mental health services without first demonstrating that any particular individual poses a threat. [emphasis mine]
Substantial revisions are needed to this section of the rule. In all instances, a judicial procedure should be required before law enforcement officials can access identifiable medical records. We also urge that individuals receive notice of proposed searches, as under the federal privacy law, the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
You don’t mind, right? Because if you’re not, you know, disclosing to people who have a statutory obligation to keep your words confidential anything about doing something evil to anyone that might be interpreted as terrorism or aiding terrorism, then you don’t have anything to worry about and you don’t care that they see all your mental health records, right?
And besides, who are we kidding? That statutory obligation about confidentiality? It’s just statutory. Any state legislature can repeal that old thing.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:54 am June 29th, 2006 in Politics | 6 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
29
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco (an “indirect wholly owned subsidiary” of Reynolds American Inc.) now sells cigarettes adultered to taste like alcohol:
Buoyed by its success in pushing candy-flavored cigarettes, Reynolds has now introduced alcohol-flavored smokes. To make them appealing to our kids, Reynolds has marketed them with names based on gambling lingo as well: ScrewDriver Slots, BlackJack Gin, Snake Eyes Scotch and Back Alley Blend (a bourbon-flavored cigarette).
Despite the prevalence of national and state anti-smoking campaigns, 4,000 kids under 18 will try their first cigarette today, and more than 1,500 other children and teens will become addicted. These are the replacement smokers Reynolds and other tobacco merchants need to fill the shoes of adults who have been killed or crippled by smoking, or who have quit.
Check out RJR’s executive officers and board.
Check out their marketing philosophy, pertinent part here:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R.J. Reynolds) believes that cigarette smokers are at significantly increased risk for a number of diseases and conditions, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease (including heart disease) and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (emphysema and chronic bronchitis). Our company’s philosophy is to operate as if smoking is a cause of these diseases. As a result, R.J. Reynolds firmly believes that children should not smoke or be exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke or any other airborne irritant.
Additionally, we are not interested in trying to persuade any nonsmokers to begin smoking or in persuading any smokers to not quit. We also believe that pregnant women should not smoke.
R.J. Reynolds supports minimum-age laws, which are on the books in all 50 states, for the purchase and/or possession of cigarettes. We support enforcement of minimum-age laws and meaningful penalties for minors and retailers who violate these laws. The company does not and will not advertise in youth publications. And, we abide by the letter and the spirit of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which was signed by R.J. Reynolds and other major cigarette manufacturers with the states in November 1998.
Among many other things, the MSA formalized R.J. Reynolds’ long-standing policies and practices by prohibiting ” … any action, directly or indirectly, to target Youth … in the advertising, promotion or marketing of Tobacco Products, or … any action the primary purpose of which is to initiate, maintain or increase the incidence of Youth smoking … . ” [emphasis mine]
I’d suggest you check out which ad and marketing agencies are responsible for their ads and marketing, but I can’t find any that will admit they do tobacco.
So, I’m just wondering here:
How many of the people on these lists do you think have kids? How many do you think smoke? Gamble? Drink? How much do you think they pay for mental health coverage? How many do you think have experience with addiction, have family affected by addiction?
How well do you think they sleep at night?
How many of them think they’re ethical, moral people whose corporate behavior and decision-making fails to negatively impact culture enough to make it worth their not selling cigarettes that smell like fruit flavors and alcohol because the dividends of ignoring the impact of such heinous products are too high?
Jerry, you think I’m crazy? These people are far more powerful and far crazier than me because they have the intent to make money through what I consider to be unethical, repulsive, manipulative means.
Worse yet? The evidence is right in front of us, not in any AT&T, SWIFT or mental health record. And the U.S. government isn’t doing a damn thing about it, except giving those companies free market free reign.
Thus, I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion written by Joseph A. Califano Jr. (president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, secretary of health, education and welfare in the Carter administration and secretary of health and human services under President George H.W. Bush):
To us, hawking candy-flavored cigarettes is child abuse. It’s time for the public, parents, and state and federal officials to demand an end to it.
See also Tobacco Marketing and Kids.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:02 am June 29th, 2006 in Politics | 7 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
29
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco (an “indirect wholly owned subsidiary” of Reynolds American Inc.) now sells cigarettes adultered to taste like alcohol:
Buoyed by its success in pushing candy-flavored cigarettes, Reynolds has now introduced alcohol-flavored smokes. To make them appealing to our kids, Reynolds has marketed them with names based on gambling lingo as well: ScrewDriver Slots, BlackJack Gin, Snake Eyes Scotch and Back Alley Blend (a bourbon-flavored cigarette).
Despite the prevalence of national and state anti-smoking campaigns, 4,000 kids under 18 will try their first cigarette today, and more than 1,500 other children and teens will become addicted. These are the replacement smokers Reynolds and other tobacco merchants need to fill the shoes of adults who have been killed or crippled by smoking, or who have quit.
Check out RJR’s executive officers and board.
Check out their marketing philosophy, pertinent part here:
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R.J. Reynolds) believes that cigarette smokers are at significantly increased risk for a number of diseases and conditions, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease (including heart disease) and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (emphysema and chronic bronchitis). Our company’s philosophy is to operate as if smoking is a cause of these diseases. As a result, R.J. Reynolds firmly believes that children should not smoke or be exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke or any other airborne irritant.
Additionally, we are not interested in trying to persuade any nonsmokers to begin smoking or in persuading any smokers to not quit. We also believe that pregnant women should not smoke.
R.J. Reynolds supports minimum-age laws, which are on the books in all 50 states, for the purchase and/or possession of cigarettes. We support enforcement of minimum-age laws and meaningful penalties for minors and retailers who violate these laws. The company does not and will not advertise in youth publications. And, we abide by the letter and the spirit of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which was signed by R.J. Reynolds and other major cigarette manufacturers with the states in November 1998.
Among many other things, the MSA formalized R.J. Reynolds’ long-standing policies and practices by prohibiting ” … any action, directly or indirectly, to target Youth … in the advertising, promotion or marketing of Tobacco Products, or … any action the primary purpose of which is to initiate, maintain or increase the incidence of Youth smoking … . ” [emphasis mine]
I’d suggest you check out which ad and marketing agencies are responsible for their ads and marketing, but I can’t find any that will admit they do tobacco.
So, I’m just wondering here:
How many of the people on these lists do you think have kids? How many do you think smoke? Gamble? Drink? How much do you think they pay for mental health coverage? How many do you think have experience with addiction, have family affected by addiction?
How well do you think they sleep at night?
How many of them think they’re ethical, moral people whose corporate behavior and decision-making fails to negatively impact culture enough to make it worth their not selling cigarettes that smell like fruit flavors and alcohol because the dividends of ignoring the impact of such heinous products are too high?
Jerry, you think I’m crazy? These people are far more powerful and far crazier than me because they have the intent to make money through what I consider to be unethical, repulsive, manipulative means.
Worse yet? The evidence is right in front of us, not in any AT&T, SWIFT or mental health record. And the U.S. government isn’t doing a damn thing about it, except giving those companies free market free reign.
Thus, I couldn’t agree more with the conclusion written by Joseph A. Califano Jr. (president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, secretary of health, education and welfare in the Carter administration and secretary of health and human services under President George H.W. Bush):
To us, hawking candy-flavored cigarettes is child abuse. It’s time for the public, parents, and state and federal officials to demand an end to it.
See also Tobacco Marketing and Kids.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:02 am June 29th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
29
Government can access your mental health records to protect us from terrorism
Filed Under Politics | 6 Comments
From the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s webpage titled, Medical Privacy:
Disclosures for National Security
Covered entities are permitted to disclose PHI [Protected Health Information] to authorized federal representatives for conduct of intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities, as well as to provide protective services to the President and others. These disclosures do not require individual authorization and do not become part of the Accounting for Disclosures. HHS [Health and Human Services] states in the Preamble to the December 2000 Privacy Rule that the Rule does not confer any new authority with regard to disclosures related to national security or protective services because it does not compel covered entities to release information for these purposes. Of course, if new law is passed that requires disclosures of PHI for national security purposes, these disclosures would fall under provisions for disclosures required by law, and covered entities would have to comply with these requirements.
Ever seen a guidance counselor in elementary or secondary school? How about college? What about an EAP (Employee Assistance Program)? Ever done more dedicated research into who you are and why you are the way you are with a mental health clinician of any sort?
Well, remember that, if we let the argument that AT&T’s business purpose includes helping the United States government protect the U.S.A from terrorism and therefore can provide without a subpoena any and all information generated as a result of their relationship with customers stand, why not use this argument for any health care entity that deals in mental health?
Because if you want to find people who talk about doing nasty things to people in the name of pretty much anything, looking through mental health records would certainly be a good place to start, don’t you think?
Oh, well, you know, the patients might be delusional or have some other mental deficiency that makes their plans unlikely to ever be followed. But we want our government to follow all those leads.
Then there are the anti-social diagnoses, the anger management problem folks, the narcissists and egomaniacs who will say and do anything to make themselves sound and seem omnipotent.
But the government shouldn’t trust trained and experienced mental health professionals to judge whether or not someone’s plot is real or just surreal. Nope, let’s get a whole bunch of government functionaries looking at everyone’s mental health records because then we can really find the danger within.
Anyone want to wager whether there’s an exception to access for members of Congress and the executive branch?
Here are some others resources. I’ve not read through all of them thoroughly yet. But because I analogize much of what I read about access to records to my experience in the mental health profession (as a lawyer and social worker), it occurred to me that the government may in fact be doing this. I do not have any specific knowledge that it is. But should we be checking that out?
The new threat to your medical privacy
Technology Is Used to Access Mental Health Care and Information
New Federal Privacy Regulations (Updated 4/29/02)
Bush Administration Modifies Federal Rule On Medical Records Privacy
Final Comments on Proposed Federal Rules on Privacy of Health Records
Of particular interest from this last document:
Law Enforcement (164.510(f))
The proposed rule, while it creates the illusion of legal barriers before records are to be provided to law enforcement, establishes no meaningful legal process. Law enforcement agents may issue written demands that will require doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to provide individual, identifiable health care records. Although the written demand must assert the relevance and narrowness of the request, there is no requirement for judicial review of those assertions and no mechanism for the individual to contest this disclosure.
Another provision in the rule allows release of patient information whenever the police are trying to identify a suspect, which would allow all computerized medical records to be used by the police as a huge database through which they may browse at will to seek matches for blood, DNA or other personally identifiable health traits. The proposal to allow disclosures of “limited identifying information” is an unjustified exception to the legal process requirement. This language should be deleted.
The national security exceptions are also too sweeping and should be revised to reflect the status quo limits on law enforcement access for intelligence and national security activities. Under the proposed rule, the Secret Service could demand the complete medical records of all individuals receiving mental health services without first demonstrating that any particular individual poses a threat. [emphasis mine]
Substantial revisions are needed to this section of the rule. In all instances, a judicial procedure should be required before law enforcement officials can access identifiable medical records. We also urge that individuals receive notice of proposed searches, as under the federal privacy law, the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
You don’t mind, right? Because if you’re not, you know, disclosing to people who have a statutory obligation to keep your words confidential anything about doing something evil to anyone that might be interpreted as terrorism or aiding terrorism, then you don’t have anything to worry about and you don’t care that they see all your mental health records, right?
And besides, who are we kidding? That statutory obligation about confidentiality? It’s just statutory. Any state legislature can repeal that old thing.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:54 am June 29th, 2006 in Politics | 6 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
29
Government can access your mental health records to protect us from terrorism
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
From the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s webpage titled, Medical Privacy:
Disclosures for National Security
Covered entities are permitted to disclose PHI [Protected Health Information] to authorized federal representatives for conduct of intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities, as well as to provide protective services to the President and others. These disclosures do not require individual authorization and do not become part of the Accounting for Disclosures. HHS [Health and Human Services] states in the Preamble to the December 2000 Privacy Rule that the Rule does not confer any new authority with regard to disclosures related to national security or protective services because it does not compel covered entities to release information for these purposes. Of course, if new law is passed that requires disclosures of PHI for national security purposes, these disclosures would fall under provisions for disclosures required by law, and covered entities would have to comply with these requirements.
Ever seen a guidance counselor in elementary or secondary school? How about college? What about an EAP (Employee Assistance Program)? Ever done more dedicated research into who you are and why you are the way you are with a mental health clinician of any sort?
Well, remember that, if we let the argument that AT&T’s business purpose includes helping the United States government protect the U.S.A from terrorism and therefore can provide without a subpoena any and all information generated as a result of their relationship with customers stand, why not use this argument for any health care entity that deals in mental health?
Because if you want to find people who talk about doing nasty things to people in the name of pretty much anything, looking through mental health records would certainly be a good place to start, don’t you think?
Oh, well, you know, the patients might be delusional or have some other mental deficiency that makes their plans unlikely to ever be followed. But we want our government to follow all those leads.
Then there are the anti-social diagnoses, the anger management problem folks, the narcissists and egomaniacs who will say and do anything to make themselves sound and seem omnipotent.
But the government shouldn’t trust trained and experienced mental health professionals to judge whether or not someone’s plot is real or just surreal. Nope, let’s get a whole bunch of government functionaries looking at everyone’s mental health records because then we can really find the danger within.
Anyone want to wager whether there’s an exception to access for members of Congress and the executive branch?
Here are some others resources. I’ve not read through all of them thoroughly yet. But because I analogize much of what I read about access to records to my experience in the mental health profession (as a lawyer and social worker), it occurred to me that the government may in fact be doing this. I do not have any specific knowledge that it is. But should we be checking that out?
The new threat to your medical privacy
Technology Is Used to Access Mental Health Care and Information
New Federal Privacy Regulations (Updated 4/29/02)
Bush Administration Modifies Federal Rule On Medical Records Privacy
Final Comments on Proposed Federal Rules on Privacy of Health Records
Of particular interest from this last document:
Law Enforcement (164.510(f))
The proposed rule, while it creates the illusion of legal barriers before records are to be provided to law enforcement, establishes no meaningful legal process. Law enforcement agents may issue written demands that will require doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to provide individual, identifiable health care records. Although the written demand must assert the relevance and narrowness of the request, there is no requirement for judicial review of those assertions and no mechanism for the individual to contest this disclosure.
Another provision in the rule allows release of patient information whenever the police are trying to identify a suspect, which would allow all computerized medical records to be used by the police as a huge database through which they may browse at will to seek matches for blood, DNA or other personally identifiable health traits. The proposal to allow disclosures of “limited identifying information” is an unjustified exception to the legal process requirement. This language should be deleted.
The national security exceptions are also too sweeping and should be revised to reflect the status quo limits on law enforcement access for intelligence and national security activities. Under the proposed rule, the Secret Service could demand the complete medical records of all individuals receiving mental health services without first demonstrating that any particular individual poses a threat. [emphasis mine]
Substantial revisions are needed to this section of the rule. In all instances, a judicial procedure should be required before law enforcement officials can access identifiable medical records. We also urge that individuals receive notice of proposed searches, as under the federal privacy law, the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
You don’t mind, right? Because if you’re not, you know, disclosing to people who have a statutory obligation to keep your words confidential anything about doing something evil to anyone that might be interpreted as terrorism or aiding terrorism, then you don’t have anything to worry about and you don’t care that they see all your mental health records, right?
And besides, who are we kidding? That statutory obligation about confidentiality? It’s just statutory. Any state legislature can repeal that old thing.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:54 am June 29th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
29
What if AT&T had a customer service blog where customers could comment?
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
According to this press release from JupiterResearch, “35 percent of large companies plan to institute corporate Weblogs this year.” It continues,
The new research finds that Weblogs are underused for generating word-of-mouth (WoM) marketing opportunities. Only 32 percent of marketing executives said they use corporate Weblogs to generate WoM around their company’s products or services.
“By engaging prospective customers in active dialogue, companies can showcase their expertise and domain knowledge, creating a forum for communication of their strategies and visions,” said David Schatsky, President of JupiterKagan. “In doing so, companies can generate buzz around their products or services, while eliciting feedback and collaboration from product evangelists.”
Of course, what I really have in mind is a place for folks who’ve already consumed something from a corporate entity and now want to say nice things or, you know, zootz them a bit because the product or service didn’t meet the expectations created by that “buzz” they generated with their corporate blog.
You know, a, what would you call it? Customer service blog?
Hattip to Just An Online Minute.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:02 am June 29th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
28
What if AT&T had a customer service blog where customers could comment?
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
According to this press release from JupiterResearch, “35 percent of large companies plan to institute corporate Weblogs this year.” It continues,
The new research finds that Weblogs are underused for generating word-of-mouth (WoM) marketing opportunities. Only 32 percent of marketing executives said they use corporate Weblogs to generate WoM around their company’s products or services.
“By engaging prospective customers in active dialogue, companies can showcase their expertise and domain knowledge, creating a forum for communication of their strategies and visions,” said David Schatsky, President of JupiterKagan. “In doing so, companies can generate buzz around their products or services, while eliciting feedback and collaboration from product evangelists.”
Of course, what I really have in mind is a place for folks who’ve already consumed something from a corporate entity and now want to say nice things or, you know, zootz them a bit because the product or service didn’t meet the expectations created by that “buzz” they generated with their corporate blog.
You know, a, what would you call it? Customer service blog?
Hattip to Just An Online Minute.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:02 pm June 28th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
28
What if AT&T had a customer service blog where customers could comment?
Filed Under Politics | Leave a Comment
According to this press release from JupiterResearch, “35 percent of large companies plan to institute corporate Weblogs this year.” It continues,
The new research finds that Weblogs are underused for generating word-of-mouth (WoM) marketing opportunities. Only 32 percent of marketing executives said they use corporate Weblogs to generate WoM around their company’s products or services.
“By engaging prospective customers in active dialogue, companies can showcase their expertise and domain knowledge, creating a forum for communication of their strategies and visions,” said David Schatsky, President of JupiterKagan. “In doing so, companies can generate buzz around their products or services, while eliciting feedback and collaboration from product evangelists.”
Of course, what I really have in mind is a place for folks who’ve already consumed something from a corporate entity and now want to say nice things or, you know, zootz them a bit because the product or service didn’t meet the expectations created by that “buzz” they generated with their corporate blog.
You know, a, what would you call it? Customer service blog?
Hattip to Just An Online Minute.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:02 pm June 28th, 2006 in Politics | Please comment
Print This Post
Jun
28
Prego! Spago! Chef Boyardio! Oh, and AT&T
Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments
Having friends who are Italian and go back over twenty-two years comes in handy. My college friend Rich, whose mom is American but dad is Roman, hosted me in Italy for a couple of weeks many years ago, has hosted gatherings of our college friends at his family’s home in Tuscany (can you believe I missed that because my good for only one year open-ended ticket between the U.S. and Israel/Europe expired just before that free-for-all with several 20something college buddies – I still regret that) and is an all-around loyal if not always in touch friend. But whenever we need each other, no fears.
And so it was that I emailed him a “Help! I need a translation!” note last night re: that Italian blog entry about AT&T that linked to WLST. Here’s what the esteemable doctor had to say:
so i ll give u the short story-basically talks about att changing policy so that all matters regarding their customers phone and internet-including conversations,emails,webpages visited, time spent on each web page is property of att. reasoning is that while u may consider it personal information, they consider it “business tools” to be used in any which way deemed necessary by att to further their commercial interests, use in legal proceedings or to protect third party’s interests, use by police agencies or in the interest of national security……
what the hell is happening in this crap hole
It wouldn’t be fair to Rich if I didn’t mention that he actually is and always has been a staunch Republican, so that last line of his really threw me for a loop. I mean, this is a friend who, along with another college buddy who is equally Republican, although also less staunch of late, would send me the nastiest, most in poor taste jokes and cartoons and satirical items about Clinton and pretty much any Dem they could find material on.
That he’s questioning what’s happening and he’s calling the USA a “crap hole” has me more concerned than my own concern.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:47 am June 28th, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Jun
28
Prego! Spago! Chef Boyardio! Oh, and AT&T
Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments
Having friends who are Italian and go back over twenty-two years comes in handy. My college friend Rich, whose mom is American but dad is Roman, hosted me in Italy for a couple of weeks many years ago, has hosted gatherings of our college friends at his family’s home in Tuscany (can you believe I missed that because my good for only one year open-ended ticket between the U.S. and Israel/Europe expired just before that free-for-all with several 20something college buddies – I still regret that) and is an all-around loyal if not always in touch friend. But whenever we need each other, no fears.
And so it was that I emailed him a “Help! I need a translation!” note last night re: that Italian blog entry about AT&T that linked to WLST. Here’s what the esteemable doctor had to say:
so i ll give u the short story-basically talks about att changing policy so that all matters regarding their customers phone and internet-including conversations,emails,webpages visited, time spent on each web page is property of att. reasoning is that while u may consider it personal information, they consider it “business tools” to be used in any which way deemed necessary by att to further their commercial interests, use in legal proceedings or to protect third party’s interests, use by police agencies or in the interest of national security……
what the hell is happening in this crap hole
It wouldn’t be fair to Rich if I didn’t mention that he actually is and always has been a staunch Republican, so that last line of his really threw me for a loop. I mean, this is a friend who, along with another college buddy who is equally Republican, although also less staunch of late, would send me the nastiest, most in poor taste jokes and cartoons and satirical items about Clinton and pretty much any Dem they could find material on.
That he’s questioning what’s happening and he’s calling the USA a “crap hole” has me more concerned than my own concern.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:47 am June 28th, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
