Full Story Here.
Lamperd Video Here.
This video is pretty creepy. From a propaganda standpoint, I was interested in how they do the “… and then this happens … and this happens …” It’s the classic “nothing works because we’ve refuted it by making blanket statements” so let’s bring in something much more severe.
“Yes … there is a very viable workable solution …”
Full Story Here.
It’s become standard practice for a number of companies and organizations to create ‘fake’ groups that show one veneer to the public but have very different private intentions. It’s the core value proposition of propaganda and all consumers and the public should be very aware of what’s happening.
My question: does anyone out there keep a list or running inventory of these organizations and who it is that provides their funding?
I’d love to find a searchable list that includes the following:
Name of company
Funding / Supporting Organizations
If you are aware of a source on this, please post a link in the comments.
Full Article Here.
Unfortunately, online, that’s the face the progressive left puts forward. We look like a fractured, fractious gang that doesn’t know how to put a polite, engaging public patina on a tough message. There are, of course, exceptions.
The VC funded Huffington Post blends cultural, political and celebrity news in a digestible package. The folks at Brave New Films mix humour and message well and Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff is great fun. Here in Canada, The Campaign for a Democratic Media knows how to inject some fun in their work and Good Company Communications rocks at it.
But, they’re the few exceptions. Mostly, I think, we deserve the lack of attention we get online, because we often write and act like we don’t want an audience except for the people who know how to respond when we shout into a crowd. And, frankly, a lot of them dress funny.
A great call to action, Wayne. I think it’s in keeping with a couple of my other posts.
Now … I’m still in the process of ‘finding my feet’, so I’ll do my best to follow this advice to heart and will keep the superlatives in check.
I love the conclusion of this article:
We are at a moment when progressives will have to move from critique to prescription. As Naomi Klein argued in the Shock Doctrine, neo liberalism took advantage of past crises by having a set of coherent prescriptions ready to hand to advance to policy-makers. We are just beginning to define a new global agenda to replace the neo liberal prescription which has led into the current crisis.
Most progressives understand that there’s a language, a lexicon, a database and history that favours the Friedman-based mentality of cut/slash, reduce, humiliate and destroy credible programs, but we also know that there’s a better way.
I’ll go on record as suggesting that we use a number of the ‘collective’ tools such as chat forums and social networks to elaborate on strategies for pushing us from critiquing the status-quo to actually showing some leadership.
This story inspired this post.
Forget images of the Hindenberg. Picture a world run by a gas that has no emissions, no impact on climate change and ultimately, virtually no cost.
It’s a gas that’s the most abundant in the universe. It fuels our sun.
Almost 10 years ago, I remember reading an article with Wired magazine about the notion of creating a hydrogen economy. I then read Jeremy Rifkin’s “The Hydrogen Economy” and ever since then, I’ve known that there’s a better way.
The Wired article suggested that the total cost of creating a hydrogen economy would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 billion. This would be the investment required to virtually end our dependence on oil. If the 10:1 ratio applied for Canada, the total investment (at the time) would have been $10 billion.
(By the way: Jim Flaherty just slashed $14.5 billion in corporate tax cuts and is spending anywhere between $5 and $20 billion per year on defense and security initiatives).
The only issue is that nearly $1 trillion is made each year selling oil to the masses. Giving up that kind of revenue would be economic foolishness. Right?
Think again: when consumers stop spending on gas, they will be able to save their funds for more productive activities, like health care, social spending and improving the infrastructure of our cities.
Also, companies that are started today that will be focused on hydrogen-consuming vehicles and buildings will be leaders in the global economy for decades to come.
Just think: if someone said, “you’ve got a chance to start the next Microsoft or Google”, what would you do?