Saturday, June 16, 2007

Let's take Viral Reality into the so called Real World.

Things Your Media Momma Didn't Tell You - Free Market News Network


The fact that most Americans oppose the war in Iraq, and want the president impeached, is testimony to the native intelligence and common sense of the citizens of this nation.

It sure isn't thanks to the quality of the news we're getting here in America.!

Here are some of the things you don't know if you just depend on the corporate media for your information:
The author, Dave Lindorff goes on to bullet point ten critical stories you never heard about from the mainstream media. YOU probably know about one or more, but your neighbor probably does NOT know about any of them. Go read them for yourself and then forward this link to every friend you have. Why this link? Well, because I have some terribly subversive ideas.

Now that you know about this, you see, as either a Citizen of the United States or as someone with a legitimate concern about what sort of threat this nation could become in the hands of an overt dictatorship, you have an affirmative duty to do something. Therefore, the question, "but what can I do" arises.

The thing that needs to be done is to get these truths off the net and into the wild, bypassing corporate, mainstream media. It could be as simple as printing out a hundred copies of the original story and pinning it to every bulletin board in town, or stuffing a copy under the door of every neighbor in your apartment complex.

You could do something as simple as wearing a T-Shirt, and being willing and able to answer the questions it provokes. To help with that, you could print out business or index cards with the URLS of reliable news sources on the web. (You might tape said cards to libarary terminals and leave bunches at your local cybercafe.) It's good to wear any relevant T-Shirt, but it's better to make your own for this issue.

Why? Because that's a sneaky way of getting the message out there. The MORE t-shirts out there with the same general keywords, and the more services they appear on, the better. You are addressing a whole group of people online who may not think much about politics in the ordinary run - but if an idea hits the front page of a T-shrt site, some small fraction of them WILL start thinking about it.

The same statistical approach applies to wearing that shirt. Hundreds of people will see it if you live, work and play in an urban area; perhaps even more. And, should you be somehow harassed in a newsworthy way for wearing it, that's pure gold - something like that probably WILL be covered in local and even national media.

You could go to zazzle.com, (link to my store) create a postcard or note-card with all the information you'd like, order ten or so, and start passing them out or mailing them to friends. Each one would have the url so that people could buy more to pass out or send to all the snail-mail addresses they have. (I'll add an example later - but if you have any artistic or writing talent, you should create your own. Once you have, please blog about it and link back to this article)

ITMFAI've got a small selection of free-for-use images you could grab right away and use to make shirts and I'll be putting together a few more. and linking to them here. The one you see here links to the set and, just incidentally, works pretty well for items like buttons and cards.

If you like, you can find it at my zazzle store.



As you can see, it overlays really well, and will probably work a lot better using a grainy, low-contrast image of your own choosing.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Bill O'Rielly to John McCain:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.





Transcript courtesy Democrats.org

McCain failed completely to dissociate himself from this statement. I'm not much impressed by his attempt to duck O'Rielly's smug, cheesy racism.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.


Democrats.org highlights the "I agree with you," no doubt hoping ot imply that McCain agrees that it is iimportant to maintain the white Christian male power structure.

Me, I'm not sure that's a fair statement, but on the other hand, McCain failed to punch O'Rielly in the face for sleazing him by implication. So either he does agree, or he figures he can't afford to offend people who like Bill.

Now, I think he's tragically wrong on that. I don't think taking Bill to the woodshed, verbally or otherwise, could hurt ANYONE's election chances. And if he cut McCain's mike - now that would be pure electoral gold.

Bill O'Rielly, John McCain, Racism, 2008

Ron Paul sounds better and better

It's really not that hard to make a case for the failure of central planning and central services, and I think we really need such a voice in the White House - WITH a veto - to keep a solidly progressive congress in check after 2008.

But Constitutional or not, Paul has to come up with some better way of dealing with the issue of universal health care than saying "It's unconstitutional and it won't work."

He may be correct in both cases, indeed, I suspect he is. Nonetheless, if he is not going to support universal health care, he needs to present a solution to the problem that IS constitutional and WILL work.

Now, as it happens, I'm in favor of universal access to health care, with some way of ensuring a Canadian "work-alike" system. There will be a need for some federal regulations and standards. But I don't see any particular reason why that system should be a one-size-fits-all FEDERAL system paid with federal dollars. I'm not exactly against that either, but I don't see why all other options should be taken off the table.

What we really need to do is look at the system we have, see why the costs are so bizarre. (Hint - hospitals owned by insurance companies and bizarre costs assessed to consumers that would be unsustainable if self or under-insured) We should look at other systemic problems - for docturs, the costs of insurance compliance and the costs of malpractice insurance are two biggies.

So those are two things that need to be thought about, and then we also need to think about making basic preventive health care widely available to everyone by some common means. Now, that common means does not have to imply that the same pocket is paying in every case - all it requires is that there is a federal regulation mandating a standard database format for insurance billing. Medicare needs to use the same one, so does Medicaid, and all state agencies that deal with such things. One form. One standard format wallet card. One standard consent / billing card to access billing and medical records. Computers can do all kinds of record keeping and routing, there's no reason on god's green earth why people should have to do such things at all.

Reducing overhead will go a hell of a long way to fully funding universal health care, or something that is just like it from the perspective of the panicked mom with the howling baby. It is something that really must be done - the people are demanding it - and I for one would prefer such a system to be in harmony with both our Constitution AND good old-fashioned fiscal prudence.

Ron Paul, Tucker Carlson, Conservatism, Constitution

At CBS, the Eighth Deadly Word is "gays."

Mass. Lawmakers Block Gay Marriage Vote, Constitutional Amendment Would Have Let Voters Decide Whether To Ban Gay Marriage - CBS News: "Mass. Lawmakers Block Gay Marriage Vote"

Great story and all that, hurrah, triumph for civil liberties... but the REALLY funny part is that CBS is censoring the comments submitted by readers, and one of the words censored is "gays." Now, I was not aware that "gays" was deemed an offensive word. And it does rather make it awkward to write coherently about the right to gay marriage without, you know, THE FUCKING PLURAL FORM!

But I guess that's their objection, that if they DID allow the word "gays," somehow their readers would jump to the conclusion that The Grey Lady was approving of plural gay fucking within the sanctity of marriage.

However, as I pointed out in my own somewhat incoherent comment, designed to determine if self-censorship were at work, or if CBS was being bizarrely prudish.

um. What's this with censoring the words "gay" and "***?" If it's self-censorship, it's silly, if it's CBS, it's freakin' bizarre.

Well, we will see which it is after I punch the send button. Meanwhile, a wry observation that if marrage were to be officially linked to particular sexual practices, I doubt more than ten percent of the population WOULD be legally qualified to marry.
It's both bizarrely prudish and freakin' bizarre, so it's off to Fark and the Rude Pundit to help spread the gleeful mockery.

tag: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Popular Posts

News Feeds

Me, Elsewhere