I remember reading stories about this back during the 2000 campaign (and know of PR firms that routinely include "stealth participation in relevant BBS's" for corporate clients in product promos), but can't find any of the old news stories about it. (I recall one about a conservative group that was funding people in a "work part time from your home" way.) Can anybody help me with links to any documentation?

Here's a mention of it from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Gore-2004-Community/message/63229?source=1 :

quote:

During the presidential campaign, I read that the Repugs had these
boiler room operations to campaign via message boards. These were
offices with multiple internet connections. I recall one such office
was in Philadelphia, manned day and night. Repug campaigners would
have multiple accounts that gave each of them many userids for access
to very active message boards and political chat.

This included AOL. Using different userids and persona, they would
inundate people with Repug campaign rhetoric. They hit hot buttons
and tried to make people angry. You look at a message board and think
that you are seeing ten people who really disagree with you but in
reality it is only two people whose desks are three feet apart and
they're grinning at each other.

So what has that to do with your discussion with this guy? When you
keep talking to someone like this, and lurkers follow along the
message sequence, you undo the damage of these message board
campaigners. It's almost an exercise -- hear what he is saying,
define the issue, answer the issue. And then the subject changes.

We have often felt frustration that we cannot do something more to
advance our cause. Demonstrations are not held every day. Personal
resources have limits and we cannot donate as much money or time as we
would like to.

But, since the Bushies propagandized message boards curing the
campaign, it is only reasonable to think they are doing it again now
that they have to drum up support for Bush's oil war. The
propagandists will not be working the hard right boards because those
people are still pretty much with Bush. The flacks will be working
boards where people waver and just need a little convincing to believe
that the reason is terror not oil.

Yikes. Too bad the libs aren't savy enough to try this. At the end of the day it's only words right? How damaging can that be?

So Thom, if this is true on your board, what do you propose to do about it?

joe

A first step would be checking for sequential IP addresses.

Thom, I remember seeing a program on PBS (I think) about the marketing of "cool" that mentioned the same thing - boiler room chat room operations for the purpose of promoting certain products.

(Heh. Penguins.)

LOL!

Caption that avatar "drunk penguin"

Hmmmmmm

I don't think this is about preventing it as much as finding evidence and getting the information out.

I'll do some searches and digging... Joe, just keep breathing... this might get ugly and I don't want over-stimulate you too much.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/g_o_p__tricks.html
Lots of stuff on this site about GOP dirt.

http://campaignsonline.typepad.com/campaigns_online/200...are_message_boa.html

http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/

Fodder I found

quote:

Nanomaterials are already being used in sunscreens and tennis rackets. The oil industry saves an estimated $12 billion each year by using molecular sieves known as zeolites to extract gasoline from crude oil�.

In the future, nanotechnology coupled to biotechnology could produce a variety of beneficial products, from better sensors for agents of bioterrorism to custom-built medicines for fighting cancers. Nano-manufacturing processes could reduce waste from industrial production, and nanomaterials could be used to make power systems highly efficient. �

http://www.capcollege.bc.ca/dept/cmns/netprop.html

quote:

In other cases, the strategy will be to highjack public newsgroups, just as candidates often pack meetings with their own supporters. Even now, one or two people can take over a newsgroup and set its agenda by dominating the discussions, flaming opponents, and dragging every thread in the desired direction. A couple of dozen supporters should be able to dominate debate even more thoroughly None of this will be official, of course--just the natural behavior of ordinary citizens who happen to support the candidate.

quote:

Dirty tricks could get really dirty. Imagine a forged home page providing violent distortions of the candidate's position and record, or campaign ads that really come from the opposition. Such "black propaganda" would be hard to fight; publicizing the forgery would only draw more attention to its lies.

quote:

Despite these threats, politicians are likely to get into the medium for one reason: Other politicians. Hardware and software defenses will emerge to hold off the tricksters, and the first politicos to master the Net will enjoy a measurable advantage over latecomers. Mastery will come from recognition that this is not just electronic print or low-res TV, but a medium that can and should answer back. Net propaganda can't just hammer on voters who do nothing until election day. It has to provoke them into response after response, with each response helping to define the politician's next step. Many of those provocations will be inane, patronizing or downright vicious. But for once the voters' reactions may actually force the politicos to treat them like intelligent, informed citizens.



And for the politicians, that could be the Net's most frightening threat of all.

http://www.e-voterinstitute.com/public/rel-search.php?action=list

quote:

November 13, 2002 Washington D.C. - In eight tightly contested Senate races, online advertising banners were bought by Republican candidates on a collection of AOL Time Warner sites five days before Election Day. Six of those eight Republican candidates won their race.

One of the key findings of the Survey is that only half of the political communication leaders are aware of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform advantage regarding use of the Internet in political campaigns. For while the Campaign Finance Reform Act restricts the use of television and radio ads paid for with corporate or labor money 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before the general election, there are no restrictions on Internet advertising

quote:

In Arizona, online targeting was done using the local newspaper sites along with some broader sites for three state-wide races. Bill Caspare, DB Associates, said, "There is no doubt that these online campaigns had a discernable affect on the final results."

Was it the site and are the websites linked to bbs??

quote:

In total 10 Republican and Democratic Senate candidates purchased over 13 million Internet ad impressions on AOL TW. The online banners ran from Thursday night before the election through Monday night. Noteworthy are the races in Colorado where polls taken the Thursday before the election showed the Republican candidate for Senate down 44% to 53%. The Republican won the race with 51% of the vote. In Georgia where polls showed the GOP candidate at 49%, the Republican won the race with 53% of the vote.

http://www.townhall.com/rightpages/61.asp?parent=61

http://www.tarrance.com/how/index.html

quote:

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0309/0309.regulation.html

quote:

Working through a company called E-advocates, which set up the Internet promotion, the association was looking to generate some "grassroots" opposition to Missouri Sen. Jim Talent's association health plan bill. To enter the sweepstakes, all you had to do was send a canned fax to your representative outlining the reasons he or she should vote it down.

Tipped off, Talent took to the floor of the Senate and leveled a broadside right at Blue Cross.

"I don't blame anybody who wants a shot at a $4,000 trip and participates in a sweepstakes in order to get it," Talent told his colleagues. "But I sure blame the people who have sponsored that Web site and are distorting the debate on this serious issue before the Senate." It was, he added, all part of Blue Cross' $4.3 million annual lobbying effort aimed primarily at squashing his bill.

quote:

Eager to influence lawmakers, health care groups of every stripe have been funneling ever larger sums into the campaign coffers of public representatives (see chart). But being able to show public support for their cause has lobbying groups scurrying to come up with new ways to goad a response from voters. And the PR tactics sometimes scare up as much or more attention as the arguments they try to make.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/100803/growthpains.aspx

quote:

Dean has done other things to maximize his online fundraising punch, like reinvesting money into expanding donor lists and paying �bloggers� or professional Internet surfers to keep the enthusiasm up on his website.

http://www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=322&i=107

quote:

WASHINGTON : Civil rights groups in the United States are accusing the Bush administration of engaging in Orwellian tactics, after a leading American newspaper revealed that the FBI has been spying extensively on the country's anti-war movement.

According to the New York Times, the 'Big Brother' is watching - in the form of FBI agents who are reportedly collecting data on America's anti-war movement in a bid to keep tabs on what the agency describes as anarchists and "extremist elements".

Advertisement


It is an intelligence gathering effort that is also utilising the resources of local police departments all over the country, said the report.

They have been urged to report any suspicious activity to the bureau's anti-terrorism squad, and many of them have done so.

Allan Lichtman, a professor of History at the American University, said: "If this report is true, I shudder for the future of this country."

"This country is great because we tolerate diversity, we tolerate dissent, we are a pluralistic country. We don't use the police as a means of controlling our politics," he said.

The move by the FBI appears to have been sparked in part by the violence four years ago at a World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle.

The city's police were almost over-run by anti-globalisation demonstrators who for the first time had organised in advance by using the Internet to their advantage.

Now, the Internet is in the FBI's sights.

The bureau is said to be monitoring Web pages that serve only to recruit protesters to attend lawful demonstrations against US government policies.

For many, the monitoring is an echo of a former time in Washington.

"The raw harsh unpleasant fact is that Communism is an issue," said Senator Joseph McCarthy on November 24, 1953.

It was exactly 50 years ago when Senator Joseph McCarthy engaged in a witch-hunt against Communists and others accused of "un-American" activities.

But today's FBI does have its defenders here.

The Heritage Foundation's Paul Rosenzweig said: "The FBI can appropriately investigate people who destroy property, injure people and potentially are terrorists cloaked in the mantle of protest groups, while at the same time, respecting First Amendment liberties. I think we can do both."

This isn't the first time the Bush administration has been accused of playing fast-and-loose with America's constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

The American left has long been convinced that President George W Bush has used the attacks of September 11th as an excuse to crack down on freedoms in USA.

The latest report by the New York Times, coming at the start of the US presidential election campaign, could provide Mr Bush's Democratic Party opponents with an issue to turn on the White House. - CNA


Copyright � 2003 MCN International Pte Ltd

http://www.iht.com/articles/118089.html

quote:

The gift of up to $5 million immediately drew new attention to MoveOn.org, which has used the Internet to mobilize its 2.4 million members to sign online petitions, organize street demonstrations and donate money to run political advertisements.
.
Democrats have embraced it as a new model of political organization while Republicans have attacked it, saying it is a way to evade campaign finance laws. On Monday, the Republican National Committee complained to campaign finance watchdog groups that Soros's grants were questionable.
.
Ed Gillespie, the committee chairman, called on campaign finance groups like Common Cause to increase their scrutiny of organizations that are raising millions from big contributors like Soros.
.
The reaction from the public interest groups is "not exactly the blowing of the whistle by the referees that we have seen in the past," Gillespie said.
.
Since its founding in 1997 to protest Republican efforts to remove President Bill Clinton from office, MoveOn.org has grown into a bottom-up organization that has inserted itself into the political process in ways large and small, using just seven paid employees working out of their homes - only one of them in Washington.
.
This year alone, the group has mobilized hundreds of thousands of Americans to protest the invasion of Iraq, fight the Federal Communications Commission's stand on media deregulation, and lobby against judicial nominees.
.
Some political scientists say that MoveOn.org might foreshadow the next evolutionary change in U.S. politics, a shift away from one-way tools of influence like television commercials and talk radio to interactive dialogue, offering everyday people a voice in a process that once seemed beyond their reach.
.
The group's style and tactics have caught the eye of former Vice President Al Gore, who called Boyd out of the blue several months ago seeking a forum for what became his first major speech since he announced that he would not run for president in 2004. For that speech, and another on Nov. 9, both of which were highly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war against Iraq, MoveOn.org members packed the auditoriums.
.
"I would personally like to give the MoveOn.org tutorial class to a host of my Republican colleagues," said Larry Purpuro, the managing director of Rightclick Strategies and the coordinator of the Republican Party's e.GOP Internet project in the 2000 election.
.
But for all of MoveOn.org's efforts, its record is mixed. Clinton was still impeached. The Bush administration still invaded Iraq. Governor Gray Davis of California, a Democrat, was still recalled. Republicans still pushed through the redrawing of Texas electoral districts to benefit their party. Only one of three candidates that the group supported in the 2000 and 2002 elections was elected.
.
"I think it remains to be seen what their impact is," Gillespie said. "We're doing a lot of the same things - using the Internet, sending out e-mails, reaching out. But the challenge for us, and them, is to translate it into voter registration and voting. It's too early to tell."
.
The New York Times Soros and Gore among fans of MoveOn

WASHINGTON When Wes Boyd walked into the New York offices of George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist, in September, he was not sure why he had been invited.
.
Soros quickly made it clear: He and another philanthropist, Peter Lewis, wanted to donate millions of dollars to MoveOn.org, the Internet group that Boyd and his wife founded five years ago. For Soros, already a generous contributor to Democratic Party causes, it was another way to meet his goal of defeating President George W. Bush, a Republican, next year.
.
"I like what they do and how they do it," Soros said. "They have been remarkably successful. I want to help them be even more successful."
.
The gift of up to $5 million immediately drew new attention to MoveOn.org, which has used the Internet to mobilize its 2.4 million members to sign online petitions, organize street demonstrations and donate money to run political advertisements.
.
Democrats have embraced it as a new model of political organization while Republicans have attacked it, saying it is a way to evade campaign finance laws. On Monday, the Republican National Committee complained to campaign finance watchdog groups that Soros's grants were questionable.
.

That is so funny given the way the Republicans have been using the net to get around finance reform.

http://www.politicalstrategy.us/

http://www.politicalstrategy.us/

quote:

Accuse Your Opponent of Being Desperate

Accuse Your Opponent of Being Un-American

Act Against Your Own Self-Interest

Aim For the Stars, Compromise to the Moon

Allow Listeners to Come to the "Correct" Conclusion

Allow Others to Persuade Themselves

Always Remain Cool

Appeal to the Lowest Common Denominator

Appeal to Your Audience's Deepest Fears

Appear as Though You Are Not Trying to Persuade

Appear Humble

Appear Likeable

Appear to Present Both Sides of the Issue

Ask Questions That Suggest the "Correct Answer"

Ask, "Are You Better Off Now?"

Associate Your Opponent With Undesirable Individuals

Associate Your Opponent With Unseemly Activity

Attach Derogatory Labels to Your Opponent

Attack Individuals, Not Institutions

Be Aggressive

Be Entertaining

Be Informed

Be Overly Dramatic

Be Passionate

Be Prepared

Be Relentless

Be Ruthless

Be Thick Skinned

Blame Conservatives First

Blame the Media

Break Down Your Opponent's Attack

Build the Audience's Confidence

Bury Your Opponent With Accusations

Buy Yourself a Media Outlet

Call Your Opponent on the Tricks He Uses

Circulate Ideas as Rumors to Gauge Reaction

Claim Support From the Masses

Claim That Opponent Reaps What They Sow

Claim That the World You Want Already Exists

Claim That You Have Seen the Light

Claim That Your Opponent is Doing What You Are Doing

Claim That Your View is Simply "Common Sense"

Claim That Your Words Were Taken Out of Context

Claim to Be a Member of Your Audience

Claim to be a Moderate

Claim to Be the "Party of Freedom"

Claim Total Nonpartisanship

Communicate What "Everyone Knows"

Consolidate Your Gains

Contrast Your Message With a Similar But Inferior Product

Control the Agenda

Create a Pundit School

Create Dissonance, Offer Resolution

Create Granfalloons

Create Investigative Organizations

Create Irrelevant Associations to the Past

Create Rumors

Create the Perception That the Situation Has no Solution

Create Vivid Images

Define "Patriotism"

Define the Situation

Define Yourself as a Friend

Dehumanize the Enemy

Demand "Economic Patriotism"

Demand Sources and Reasoning

Deny, Deny, Deny

Destroy Your Opponent's Ability to Fight

Disallow Questioning of Your Message

Discount Your Opponent's Opinions

Discredit the Witness

Distort the Intent and Effect of Your Opponent's Plan

Distort Your Opponent's Positions

Distract the Audience

Distract With Technicalities

Do Everything in the Name of National Security

Don't Accept the Opposition's Argument

Don't Appear Radical

Don't Attack Those Who Are Undecided

Downplay Your Opponent's Counterattack

Establish Source Credibility

Execute a Multi-Pronged Attack

Expose Your Opponent's Ulterior Motive

Express Outrage

Feign Piousness

Fluster Your Opponent

Focus on Few Points

Frame the Debate

Gauge Lashback From Extreme Policy

Get Surrogates to do Your Dirty Work

Get the Information "Out There"

Get Them Started Saying Yes

Get To the Point

Get Your Foot in the Door

Groom Candidates Years in Advance

Have a Position on Every Issue

Have a Vision

Help Them Discover the Hypocrite Within

I Scratched Your Back, Now You Scratch Mine

If it's Not Good, Call It Good Anyway

Immunize Yourself Against Propaganda

Imply Falsehoods Without Actually Saying Them

Instill Guilt, Offer Resolution

Institute "Plausible Deniability"

Invoke The Constitution and the Founding Fathers

Keep the Message Simple

Kiss the Audience's Ass

Know Your Audience

Label All Adverse Rumors as Baseless

Look Your Best Always

Lure Them in Slowly

Maintain a Consistent Message For Yourself

Make an Issue Out of It

Make Elections a Popularity Contest

Make Issues Appear Black and White

Make People Feel That They Are Part of Something Important

Make Them Miss the Point

Make Yourself Look Good While Hurting Your Opponent

Master the Soundbite

Never Appear Anti-American

Never Appear to Take an Attack Seriously

Never Discuss Thing For Which You Were Called to Task

Never Let Your Opponent Win

Never Remind Them of Your Faults

Offer a Reason For Your Requests

Personalize the Issues

Play to the Audience's Knowledge Level

Play to the Audience's Prejudices

Position Your Opponent as Undesirable

Praise the Audience While Belittling Your Opponent

Present Personal Examples

Present Testimony From Irrelevant Sources

Print Accusation on Page 1, Retraction on Page D47

Promote Rumor as Fact

Quote Them Out of Context

Recruit Wannabes From the Opposition

Refer to Well-Placed Sources

Relentlessly Repeat Your Message

Rephrase Your Opponent's Position in the Most Unflattering Light

Say it Works Even if it Doesn't

Selectively Ignore Data

Set the Bar Low

Sidetrack the Debate With Irrelevant Facts

Cite Support From the Opposition

Speak on Behalf of Respected Entities

Spin Poll Data

Stay on Message No Matter What

Steal Their Thunder

Suffocate Undesirable Projects

Sum it Up For the Audience

Tag Opponent's Actions with Catchy Names

Take a Middle-of-the-Road Stance

Take the High Ground

Tell a Story

Treat Hearsay and Conjecture as Fact

Trumpet Trivial Differences

Undermine Unwanted Policy

Use "Perhaps-Therefore" Reasoning

Use "Terms of Confidence"

Use Glittering Generalities

Use Semantics to Draw Sympathy

Use Sweeping Generalizations

Use the "Weasel Word" to Turn Opinion Into Fact

Use Vibrant Images, Slogans and Symbols

Wag the Dog

Walk the Walk

Watch Out For the "Big Lie"

Wrap Yourself in the Flag

Yes my avatar does look like a drunk penguin.

Good times tonight. Caught up with some old highschool friends. Got drunk. I'm really struggling to type here but it will be my last post of the evening.

Bill what's your avatar's caption? "Only look at me through smoked glass"?

Trish, i'm gonna have to break your last post into chapters and tackle it a bit at a time.

Listen guys, your the ones that need the boiler room operation. We're in the majority thank God. This is just a hobby for me. It's your election to steal. Good luck.

and good nite to you all. See you tomorrow!

joe

Thanks so much, Trish. I wanted to talk about this on the show, and maybe even write a piece about it for common dreams, and you've provided me with a gold mine of info.

Thom

Thom, I'm open to being hired as a messageboard schill! (I've got experience - used to schill at poker tables in Montana years ago.)

I found a price list for public relations writers earlier this fall. Also, some very professional web sites describe their services in ways that suggest some paid friendships are developing on the bbs. Interesting topic.

quote:

But, since the Bushies propagandized message boards curing the campaign, it is only reasonable to think they are doing it again now
that they have to drum up support for Bush's oil war. The propagandists will not be working the hard right boards because those people are still pretty much with Bush. The flacks will be working
boards where people waver and just need a little convincing to believe that the reason is terror not oil.

Come off it - you guys shock easy. And this conversation has already happened on your ADHD board where one long term member (Kate) figures that she can spot a drug company sponcered poster with her eyes closed. And likewise, it is the people who could go either way that are often targeted - not the people who made up their minds one way or another.

But then again, you go to any political campaign and the group everyone targets is the "undecideds" - though not usually in quite as misrepresentative and underhanded way - though some of the "surveys" come close since they tend to phrase their questions in such a way that one finishes it with more support for the party of choice than they had when they started the survey (which is why they are asked which party they support and whether it is somewhat strongly and very strongly at both the beginning and end of the survey). The only shocking thing is that the Repugs, as you are calling them, are starting to fight the election early. What one should be looking into is whether any public funds are being used to fund these people.

Why the term "Repugs" - is it that they are repugnant or that they are vicious like the dog?

You have probably heard about this story a few years (the provincial election before the recent one this year) back when the Manitoba PCs used an actual TV newsreporter in their campaign commercials.

quote:

We also brought you a breaking news flash from the Manitoba election campaign. Or was it a propaganda piece? Premier Gary Filmon is running Tory TV commercials that look like local news updates. Are they trying to fool Manitoba voters, or is it a harmless gimmick? We talked with journalism instructor Duncan McMonagle, and CBC news reporter Vera-Lynn Kubinec about this latest twist to creative campaigning. The Manitoba NDP has countered with ads showing a frustrated reporter who can only find news of broken Tory election promises.

The argument at the time was that both the original PC ad and the NDP spoof of it would make people less likely to accept what journalists say as gospel - and debated whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. It is old but will include the link for proof purposes only. http://www.cbc.ca/cgi-bin/newsworld/viewer.cgi?FILE=CM1...cbcmn-show.ssi&SC=CM

Repugs... both definitions fit in context to the policy and person.

And I still love that Canadian influence you have.

Repugs start earlier b/c they are the turtle ... slow and steady (and there is a sex joke in there I just know it!) For people who like slow and steady change (including changing the inference of conservativism) where they may not notice until it's too late (after voting) that their party affiliation elect has pulled the rug out from underneath their serf lives that used to pay well.

Now, Democrats (way other side extremist, NOW gang bangers as Rush Limpbone would call them) might show up appropriately late for a big entrance and be the Hare... Fast and Furious. To people needing immidiate changes (often infered radical) they affiliate to this partisan group. Although they might find the rug being pulled out from under them too. Mostly b/c the social aspect of this group as an enlarged heart disorder headed for cardiac failure. There isn't enough to around the circulatory system and atrophy is setting in. They want to put elders on life support at all costs as well as educate the conforming masses and feed the hungry etc. Not enough serf workers (lots of them on unemployment and using what is left of social programs b/c they can't afford private insurance or don't meet the requirements for the narrow margin single pay Medicaid [women, children,disabled] which wouldn't do them any good b/c of cuts where it isn't taken or their are waiting lines) or those serf "working" are too poor to tax anymore (reaching the lowest commone poverty denominator according to income.) This is why we can't raise the poverty line TOO much to inflationary indexes. It would be a two class party system in total practice not just numbers on paper.

Goofy when you mix politics with economics over here.

Social"anything" is an elitist buzz word meaning 'bad, greedy, lazy, pick pockets, higher taxes, bad, spank, plague.' So even FDR conservatives associate "social" with a negative. Ironic given his founding social programs needed and the wealth FOR THE COUNTRY by not allowing elite hording of paperpacks... made, owned and designed BY THE COLLECTIVE PEOPLE.

America in a sense has a dollar bill that is borrowed but claiming it is their own and wanting to tell others what it should be worth based on what they want to buy at the time regardless of cost.

Now pointing out elitism in America is also considered a taboo. You are piting people against one another... like the industry PRACTICE and evidence doesn't speak for itself. But, who in America takes time to educate themselves versus get drunk and watch Friends?

The reason protest groups are small is b/c drugs to change your moods of depression (hence what teh pharmacuticals could have done in the Depression Era... made a killing! Ba ba bum) without anxiety, depression, anger people are not motivated to protest or learn the truth about scoundrels.

Americans are like this:

Babies that demand formula to survive. They don't care if you have to nuke another country to get it... just do it and make it look good for entertainment (which is why the media shows good Bush and throws in some climatic antagonism on occasion.) They pacify their "play" time in front of television. They are not learning to walk cuz it might "hurt" them. And the components of the synthesized formula (The first real Genetically Modified Organism Food product) is making them fat. If they start comparing their surroundings and selves to other things they get scared, anxious and fearful. So, they return to the television and pop pills (maybe in liquid form...swallowing pills is too difficult.)

At some point they are declared mature (ripe) for political picking.

BTW,
What happens if I only declare I have not picked a side (independent, as ALL Americans should be registered under) but really have a particular in mind? What happens if I'm only given TWO real bad extreme choices?

Damage control:

What happens if an extreme is picked to undo this mess made? (Specialized political task force, lol) What happens if the damage cannot be overcome b/c of control of the elitist that make money off of the sweat shops standard that keeps their wages low and workers dependent (b/c they stole the social programs as well?)

Sounds like the Depression Era to me. But, this one is on Prozac and the mommies have daycare isntead of leaving their babies with people that are vile. Women's liberation tells them it's okay to work and encouraged (back then a woman working was socially frowned upon - lack of resource NOT keeping a woman down... b/c she couldn't be honored as an important social provider to family.)

When women chose to help in WWII it was an issue of all our guys are dying. Industry found a cheaper work force labor from the war effort and not all the guys came home in one piece. By the time things got good it was the Cleaver days where the Beaver had both a Mom and school in his favor. But, interestingly an invisible "someone" started telling women they weren't fulfilled and had to keep impeccable homes filled with the Joneses stuff. Diet pills... the next GMO food product. And lets not forget the early days of valium on our social society. Everyone is dancing as fast as they can on speed and when they come off .... we have Prozac! Mom left the home to help Dad have a standard of living that was shown on television. Kids grew up thinking this was normal and acceptable. Eventually Fireside chats were replaced with the image of a peace sign on the hand and the quote, "I'm not a crook!" Maybe not Nixon ole buddy and pal.. but you were trying to cover up a scandal.

Somewhere we liberated our lives with recreational drugs and the Peace Corp and maybe one acid trip and toke over the line has confused these now ailing baby boomers in power.

Ushered in by Gerneration Xtreme everything bagged, tagged and labeled defective genetically and without cure... more drugs needed. Some insider trading dealing of gov't funding for some research and development in children. After all, there is no socially significant evidence that loosing a mother to a job will effect you adversely. And if it does it's b/c of your genetic predisposition and that propoganda of post partum blues that make bonding impossible.

Are men are emasculated to the point of needing Viagra... yes they are on the Magic Carpet Ride to the Highway to Hell now paved before them. No longer a cooperative effort of yore between man and woman but a competitive market of who can win the best wages... and if not, affirmatively act upon discrimination. After all, men created this world of working out of the home to supply resources for the family and country... by God damn we should make them pay.

Anyway, the only people having sex are those that are not working... not married b/c no one does that kind of work for too long anymore about half have given up on the family dream and have settled into the career and winner takes all.

Generation Xtreme is giving birth to immature Generation Y... why? Because no one knows they truth anymore. No one cares anymore and Goth is fashionable again.

But there is no sign of damage in the social fabric. There is no abuse of power, no corruption... just wagging tails and fingers chasing each other in circles.

There is no one to read the books of the past... the can't understand the big words the founders used and even if they did... they are waiting for the cliche and 3 minute spot on television summing up their pathetic lives. Having an attention span of no less than what the school requires and no greater than what overtime requires... well... that's are level of Tolerance.

We used to tell things by the social scale of race, creed, sexual orientation, age, and genetic sexual assignment by being a boy or a girl... but that's discriminating in the equal serfdome playing field of life as we've come to know it. And frankly Generation Y, I am out of reasons why this is good. I'm told not to be angry and hate those that abuse but be angry enough to support a world war on terrorism. Yes, I am terrified. I'm an anomaly myself... my personality only rates at 1-3% of the population and is defective to industries standard of acceptable behavior. My ideals are outdated. I can't create and innovate b/c I am caught up on this here wheel running and not going anywhere. I'm scared mostly b/c this world is going in a direction unpleasant where you may never see the greater good that has lead me this far.

But things are good... someone is still making money, someone is still buying something they can't afford food or luxury. And that has become the American ideal ... the American dream... the Material Girl is our icon. It's sad that no one is really hearing and seeing what she is doing that materialism has failed her.

Of course, we dont' dream anymore. So... dream is replaced with life... thus we perish... no dream, no vision just life.

American Life Lyrics

Artist(Band):Madonna
(Print the Lyrics)
American Life


Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far?
Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?

I tried to be a boy, I tried to be a girl
I tried to be a mess, I tried to be the best
I guess I did it wrong, That's why I wrote this song
This type of modern life - Is it for me?
This type of modern life - Is it for free?

So I went to a bar, looking for sympathy
A little company - I tried to find a friend
It's more easily said, it's always been the same
This type of modern life is not for me
This type of modern life is not for free

Oh, American life (American life)
I live the American dream (American dream)
You are the best thing I've seen
You are not just a dream (American life)

I tried to stay ahead, I tried to stay on top
I tried to play the part, but somehow I forgot
Just what I did it for and why I wanted more
This type of modern life - Is it for me?
This type of modern life - Is it for free?

Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far?
Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?

Oh, American life (American life)
I live the American dream (American dream)
You are the best thing I've seen
You are not just a dream (American life X2)

I tried to be a boy, I tried to be a girl
tried to be a mess, tried to be the best
tried to find a friend, tried to stay ahead
I tried to stay on top ...
**** it!
Do I have to change my name? Will it get me far?
Should I lose some weight? Am I gonna be a star?
Oh,**** it!(X3)


I'm drinking a Soy latte,
I get a double shotte, it goes through mt body,
And you know I'm satisfied
I drive my Mini Cooper
And I'm feeling super-dooper
Yo they tell I'm a trooper
And you know I'm satisfied
I do yoga and pilates
And the room is full of hotties
So I'm checking out the bodies
And you know I'm satisfied
I'm digging on the isotopes
This metaphysic's shit is dope
And if all this can give me hope
You know I'm satisfied
I got a lawyer and a manager
An agent and a chef
Three nannies, an assistant
And a driver and a jet
A trainer and a butler
And a bodyguard or five
A gardener and a stylist
Do you think I'm satisfied?
I'd like to express my extreme point of view
I'm not Christian and I'm not a Jew
I'm just living out the American dream
And I just realised that nothing
Is what it seems

Do I have to change my name
Am I gonna be a star
Do I have to change my name

Thom you are welcome. I couldn't find distinct reference to campaign posers on boards. Suffice it to say I think this board is create research material in itself on both this and the ADD forum how business contributes or deters a conversation between people and posers.

I was going to put this up anyway (a bit behind in everything).

TAKE PILL ADS WITH GRAIN OF SALT

By Gordon Guyatt

A newspaper article written by two doctors attacks screening for prostate cancer, saying that the evidence to support the practice is weak. A little later, an non-profit group called �Us too! International�, which describes itself as the world�s largest grassroots, independent, patient-focused charitable organization� speaks out. �Us too!� tells you that prostate cancer screening saves lives, and accuses the doctors who wrote the article of �journalist terrorist tactics�.

A state government is considering new laws that will limit the process that the government pays pharmaceutical companies for prescriptions in publicly supported programs. A television commercial paid for by an independent senior citizens group, �60 Plus�, tells you that the laws will threaten your health by limiting your access to the best medicines.

You are sitting at a bus shelter and notice an ad that shows a dejected-looking man idly playing with a teacup. The ad asks you to �Imagine Being Allergic to People. You blush, sweat, shake � even find it hard to breathe. That�s what social anxiety disorder feels like.� The poster tells you the Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition, a non-profit organization, has sponsored the ad.

If a non-profit consumers� group involvement made you more concerned about the criticisms of prostate screening, more worried about the drug restrictions, and more inclined to think of social anxiety disorder as a serious problem, you have lots of company. A 1999 investigation found that advocacy by independent groups influences consumers� perceptions. The investigation concluded that consumers �place a high level of trust in non-profit organizations; prefer products marketed in association with a non-profit organization, and believe that products marketed in association with a non-profit organization carry an endorsement by the non-profit organization.�

As it turns out, the non-profit organizations associated with these three campaigns are neither independent nor objective. Tax documents show that Us Too! International held $799,012 in net assets at the end of 2000. Drug company contributions accounted for 95 per cent of the group�s tax-deductible funding.

Another American seniors� group did not take kindly to �60 Plus� attacking legislation to limit payments to drug companies. AARP, an organization with 35 million members aged over 50, found �60 Plus� had received $575,000 from pharmaceutical-related firms in 2001.

In 1998, SmithKline, a multinational drug company, was about to obtain approval for one of its anti-depressant drugs. The specific indication was treatment for �social anxiety disorder� (SAD). To boost sales, SmithKline decided it needed to promote the disease as well as the drug.

The company hired a public relations firm, Cohn and Wolfe, to help it. The PR firm dreamed up the �imagine being allergic to people� ad that never mentioned SmithKline or its drug. The coalition was no grassroots alliance of patients, but a creation of Cohn & Wolf who handled all media inquiries on behalf of the group. Today, a recording that announces, �This program has been successfully concluded,� greets callers to the coalition�s hot line.

The campaign worked well. In the two years preceding the drug�s approval, fewer than 50 stories on SAD had appeared in the popular press. In May, 1999, the month when the drug gained approval, hundreds of stories about the illness appeared in publications and television news programs. SmithKline then launched ads showing how the drug could help SAD sufferers brave dinner parties and public speaking.

Using patient groups as a tool in campaigns to gain drug approval, funding and popularization has become standard industry practice. The industry supports patient groups that range from less well-known psychiatric conditions like social anxiety disorder or generalized anxiety disorder, to common conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis and diabetes. They rely on patient groups to supply quotes and compelling human stories for the media, and to pressure the regulators and politicians in charge of approval and funding decisions.

Some groups resist the temptation of drug money. Kathleen O�Grady, the director of communications for a non-profit public education group, the Canadian Women�s Health Network, regularly refuses offers from PR firms representing the pharmaceutical industry. Her refusal preserves her organization�s independence, but at the price of fewer dollars for public education.

Not many patient groups, however, can resist industry money and the influence that comes with that money. Pharmaceutical sponsorship has become so widespread that, unless non-profit organizations announce they that they are free of industry support, you should assume that the hidden hand of the industry is influencing their public campaigns. And judge the content with appropriate scepticism.

guyatt@mcmaster.ca

Winnipeg Free Press, Tuesday, November 25, 2003. Page A12.

JoeSzynal errounosly stated:
"We're in the majority thank God." Last time you weren't, and you should be thanking the Supreme Court, not a supreme being. The last three Democratic presidental candidates have won the majority of votes from those who voted. And that was with talk radio, Robertson, Farwell, and the other false prophets spewing forth their lies, distortions, and prapaganda.
Pretty good showing for the people.

These call from www.prwatch.com http://www.prwatch.org/spin/index.html is a terrific newsletter.

Spinning the Web
by Sheldon Rampton http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/web.html
On December 13, the same day that several committees of Congress and the U.S. Senate began investigating the accounting gimmicks that Enron used to defraud investors and mislead the public about its collapsing financial empire, the Wall Street Journal breathlessly heralded the launch of a new website that promises to expose hidden financial secrets--not the secrets of Wall Street, but of activist groups such as Action on Smoking and Health, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"Activist groups, even though most receive non-profit status and must file with the IRS, have been reluctant to let anyone see their records," wrote columnist Kimberley A. Strassel. "But now, thanks to a new web site called ActivistCash.com, the average U.S. citizen can finally get the lowdown on the financial and organizational operations of many major activist groups in the country."
Strassel never bothered to inquire where ActivistCash.com gets its own money. If she had (see our report in this issue), the trail would have taken her straight to the gaping coffers of Philip Morris, which provided all of the $900,000 in startup funding for the Guest Choice Network, the organization sponsoring ActivistCash.com. In addition to the tobacco industry, the Guest Choice Network (recently renamed the "Center for Consumer Freedom") gets its funding from large chain restaurants and taverns. Run by Washington lobbyist Rick Berman, these industries have a vested interest in attacking activist groups so that they can keep employee wages low, avoid paying health insurance, and drive up sales of their high-markup products: booze, soda pop, fatty foods and cigarettes. [SEE http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/web.html REST OF THE STORY]
This from the same site: Flack Attack http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q1/index.htmlDuring the boom times of the dot-com 1990s, the Internet was hyped as a technology that would have profound and positive effects on human communication. The sobering effects of the current economic downturn have dulled the luster of this rhetoric, but the Internet remains an important terrain for both corporations and their activist critics.
This issue of PR Watch looks at the perspectives of both sides as they continue to innovate new cyber-techniques for activism and for combatting activism. Companies fear that the Internet will "destabilize business and borders" by helping activists organize quickly, cheaply and internationally. They fear that the Internet may lead to too much democracy, overwhelming representative government and making it harder to "filter" information before it reaches the public.
On the other hand, the Internet has opened new vistas to corporate PR specialists. Some PR firms now specialize in using the Internet to spy on activist groups so that they can figure out how to neutralize them early. The Internet is also an important organizing tool for right-wing political operatives such as Jack Bonner, Richard Viguerie and Bruce Eberle, as they experiment with new ways to raise money and mobilize their troops. Some flacks are aggressively mimicking activist tactics, such as lobbyist Rick Berman, whose Center for Consumer Freedom (www.consumerfreedom.com) pretends to be a "watchdog organization" exposing the "anti-consumer agenda" of environmental and health organizations.
These scams are offensive in and of themselves, and they undermine the real democratic potential of the Internet, deliberately introducing noise in place of signal and confusion in place of communication. In order for the communications revolution to achieve its real potential, these efforts at spinning the web should be debunked and subjected to the healthy ridicule that they often deserve.
This one is TV/internet love hate relationship:
A Dumbed-Down Version of the Internet__
by David Burke. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2001Q2/dumbed.html
Obviously, no one who criticizes television can unreservedly embrace the internet. One cathode ray tube can be as bad as another, and there are many users wasting their lives in chat rooms who should be out chatting with real people in their street or local bar. But the internet has, to some extent, managed to threaten television. It has put a glossy new front end on the old idea of human contact, and made people wonder why they should have to spend so much time watching commercials. It reminds them that they can do better than TV's lifestyle of risk-free entertainment�..Second, subversion. They bought, and continue to buy up, the internet portals, those search engines and home pages where people go first. These immediately became more TV-like and, as much as possible, promote the kind of leisure "surfing" that fits in with television. The portals now promote television brands and programs using the familiar words "Tonight only!" or "Don't miss it!"