fuckin posers. <.<... >.>...
People like to blame Nader for the Bush dynasties rule. That's fine, but it makes you look like an idiot. It's not Nader's "fault" for ruining Gore's chance, it's the people's fault for voting BUSH IN. Stop deflecting and own up to the pure stupidity that is the Ameritard majority.
I can say this, because I'm 'merican.
Patriots fight Wars.
Patriots Change Laws
Patriots chastise bad Policy and ineffective Leadership
Al Gore and Nader should have run together, it would have been better insofar as the American people not being victim to a greedy, retarded hillbilly.
I don't need to even post this. The entire world knows he is retarded; but that's what American's like about him...They like to feel that they aren't as retarded as they think they are because if this guy can be president, a broken twig in a steaming pile of elephant shit can also be a president.
And the fucked up part is, even the twig knows when the shit stinks.
George W Bush: Full Retard- YouTube
Anyways.
SO, yeah. Nader is a fantastic guy; and doesn't deserve the rap he got. His heart was in the right place; and to this day he continues to share passion and love in his work.
Nader Organization
Here is the most recent update; and I'll comment in bold.
More Exposés, Less Action
Ralph Nader
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
There must be reasons why people are weary of the flood of excellent documentary films, books and articles showing us what the corporate state – that is, the fusion of big business and government to constantly serve the former against the peoples’ interest – is doing to our beloved country. aka eating itself alive
We are in a golden age of exposés, detailed revelations about out-of-control polluters, corporate tax escapees, corruption of government, cheating of consumers, abandonment of workers, freezing or reduction of wages, and a general hijacking of America for perpetual wars, militarism and profiteering. Even from mainstream television, newspapers and magazines, these exposés pour out in numbers that far exceed our weakened democracy’s ability to respond. That's not what Fox said! -_______________-
Why does so little change when the truths, the facts and the grim realities are available on request? In the past more prosecutors, legislators, and regulators would be informed and goaded by exposés. The wider media would echo such responses which further encouraged these enforcers to challenge wrongdoing. A cycle of public agitation and official responses kept things moving.
But there were fewer exposés and therefore less information overload. Today, exposés are running into each other and receiving smaller audiences. The shrinking mass media does not give the authors and producers the time that was afforded their predecessors.
Nothing has replaced the Phil Donahue Show that reveled in showcasing injustices.The Today Show and Good Morning America have fewer authors on their stages. Charlie Rose is heavily into entertainers, favored columnist Tom Friedman, and business celebrities. Once welcoming radio talk show hosts are off the air, replaced by curled lip ideologues or soft, fluffy commentators. Local daily city television talk shows that made author tours successful and often would jump-start investigative reports are nearly extinct, replaced by syndicated programs featuring touchy-feely or sadomasochistic fare. Bill Maher's show is pretty good too, imo.
This new media landscape is more hostile to the civic community and discourages the younger generation from believing that change is truly within our grasp. As the years pass, our examples of national re-directions, as if people matter, come from the 1960s and ’70s. There are dwindling illustrations from more variously-troubled, recent decades, even as the information revolution should have accelerated the pace of change. The younger generation, aka me, is not discouraged, we are enraged, yet calm; calm like a bomb!
There may be proportionately as much civic activism today, though the smaller marches and rallies and much less mass media coverage do not demonstrate that there is as much public protest. What is certain is that there are now far more problems, declines in livelihoods, and other deprivations and lockouts from participating in our legislative and executive governments and courts. It doesn’t help that there are far fewer differences between the two major parties and far more gridlocks, garnished by far more campaign cash, resulting in chronic avoidance or postponements of remedies.
Let’s go back to the exposés. What can documentary film makers, for example, do beyond putting out a fine product for theater audiences and DVD purchasers? Educate, one organization. One charity.
An ongoing development pushing the envelope toward change comes from Eugene Jarecki’s documentary “The House I Live In.” Saturating the country with his public and private showings, action meetings with prison wardens and lawmakers – urban and rural – and continuing media coverage, he seeks to make his film “a widely-recognized and galvanizing tool for a national rethinking of America’s drug control policies.” His two-year plan of coalition building and direct legislative pressure is breathtaking in its scope, depth, agility and strategic thinking (for more information visit the website here).
Mr. Jarecki is plowing new ground through relentless follow-through – an extension more authors, capable of doing so, should undertake. After all they have proven themselves as knowledgeable, interesting communicators.
Another contemporary documentary receiving serious follow-up by its production team is “The Invisible War” – the story of rape and other sexual assaults within the U.S. military. This film, directed and written by Kirby Dick, is being taken seriously by the Pentagon which is showing it to commanders and high-ranking military leaders. Attendance is often required thanks to a few enlisted commanders and constant prodding from the filmmakers.
Realistically, many reporters and producers are unable to pursue their findings into the realms of action. Often they are onto their next investigative project and are economically hard-pressed. Here is where some farseeing foundations or enlightened wealthy persons can make a difference by funding small civic groups taking the findings and recommendations into the public policy arenas backed by civic mobilization. After all, civic advocates have proven their worth over the long run.
Or existing groups, such as the anti-nuclear steadfast organizations – Beyond Nuclear and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) – can be the beneficiaries of funders viewing documentaries such “Knocking on the Devil’s Door: Our Deadly Nuclear Legacy.”
Maybe we need a 24/7 documentary cable channel with a citizen action focus so that fortuitous rendezvous can occur among all these parties at any given time around the ticking clock.
Or how about a national redistribution of wealth coined as government banks, paid for and sustained by the wealthiest 1%. (Would never happen.)
However, we can still spread the love.
Here's my idea:
The wealthiest one-percent are not Philanthropists. They are not going to share their wealth. They are hoarders. They have been hoarding, like greedy fat pigs, for centuries. It's only a matter of time before they run out of money to leech and they eat themselves alive, before we do it for them.
There's no argument here, stop your internal dialogue, just no.
The solution here, (my idea) is a charity. A charity that gives the donations it receives back to the individuals that donated.
*most annoying voice you can imagine* But nobody would get money!?!?
Ah, classic fallacy. Here's how it works.
There are 10 individuals who donate, lets say, 100$, and then an 11th individual who donates an unknown amount of money. This eleventh individual is a philanthropist.
The philanthropist chooses, as a part of the charity (The Love Foundation, for example) to not receive benefits BACK.
So instead of this philanthropist walking away with money, they walk away knowing they helped someone out; hence the entire idea behind charity.
So here's the math. Bare with me.
100$
100$
100$
100$
100$
100$
100$
100$
100$
100$
X
So at this point there is 1,000$ in the pot, and it will be evenly re-distributed to the donators at the end of the event. (bi-monthly, lets say).
Now, this is the tricky part.
Imagine for a second that this eleventh donation is a group of donations from many wealthy philanthropists across the world, lump-summed, into this final 11th donation.
For example: Angelina Jolie, Bill Gates, Leonardo DiCaprio, Oprah Winfrey, and any other charitable organizations that chipped into this final (X) donation.
The donation totalled, let's say, 999,999,000.00$
So, the 10 individuals who donated 100$ (because that's all they could afford, lets say, or lets say that's the minimum donation)
HOWEVER!!!
If the total is 1,000,000,000.00$, and the
eleventh individual chose not to partake in the
winnings; then those ten people just got one-
hundred million dollars, each.
The biggest problem here being that nobody in there right mind would donate money knowing that those individuals. But to that I say:
No comments:
Post a Comment