... thoughts on 'social media'... facebook... twitter... & blogging.

Been with Facebook the longest, and even that is not all too long. Since it requires 'friending,' it is limited to who you can interact with directly, but you can comment and post without limitation. By 'liking or subscribing' to others accounts you can follow what they are posting without being a friend. Many more friends and family are on Facebook than Twitter, and even fewer blog.

Twitters biggest limiting factor is allowing postings only up to 140 characters.. so whatever you gotta say, you have to do it succinctly. A challenge at times, but it really does make you think what you want to say. At times it's frustrating, but on the whole, it's a good thing.
But  you can reach LOTS of people directly.. politicians, researchers, activists, comedians, writers, journalists, celebrities, besides anyone you know personally. If they're on twitter and using it themselves, there's a good chance they will see what you post them. Of course, the more 'followers' they have the more posts they're receiving.. and odds are you are NOT going to be receiving any replies back from them.. it is possible yes, but highly unlikely.

The more individuals you 'follow' on twitter, the more daily posts you'll receive. I've found that following more than 100 is pushing it a bit (now at 140... I gotta slim down some). Of course you do not have to read everything, but then it kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it. Not everyone posts on twitter every day, but say if a third do, and each of them posts several tweets... well, you get the picture, limiting the number you follow is a distinct advantage when you're trying to keep up with what everyone is posting.

There are a couple different ways to select individuals to follow. If you read something, or see someone in a video or film that you find interesting,  look up and see if they're on twitter. This is the most often used way I select those I wish to follow. And every once in awhile, I'll check to see who these guys might be following, and I'll read some of their posts. Should I find them exceptionally interesting, I'll add them to my follow list.
Once in awhile you'll come across someone who is very interesting, but they really do over-tweet. Dozens and dozens of posts a day that you'd have to wade through.. so obviously I won't be adding them to the follow group.
What you wind up with are a couple dozen individuals that you'll find you follow regularly. It should be a fluid list.. you will be adding and removing names on a regular basis. And pick the right folks, you  become increasingly well informed, and have a pretty darn good time in the process.

As for blogging.. that's an entirely different animal. When I first started blogging, I was posting lots of stuff.. now I blog-post infrequently, and use it just when I want to put something together about a selective subject I want to get up on the www soapbox concerning.
No limitations.. you can write something book length, with pictures, videos, anything and everything included. Who sees and reads it, well anyone searching on the topic, or all those you provide the direct link to the webpage (like posting it on your Facebook or twitter account).
Blogging is putting more of yourself 'out-there,' guess that's why fewer do it. The first few posts are more difficult, once you get over the self-consciousness of it, you don't think about it anymore.

If you have not been reading much of any of the blogs, try and get into it, it's worth the time and effort. On my blog, I've got a tab at the top labeled 'INS' (Independent News Sources)... most on this list are blogs, take a look when you get a chance. Some of the best and most crucial stuff being reported/ written now comes this way from these folks posting on these sites.
And I've mentioned this before.. should you want to start following just one site.. make it 'Common Dreams'... all those highlighted on the INS listing are ones I follow regularly. Always looking for new sources.. let me know if you want to recommend others.

Hope some of this information helps... seeing as we have to do this 'SAVE CIVILIZATION' thing pretty much on our own, fortunately there's lots of very good and worthwhile individuals out there more than wiling to help.

 ..and anyone's been waiting for the 'cause' to get involved with... 

this is 'THE ONE' ... ugot kids.. NO CHOICE !!

"BE THE CHANGE"

"The world will not be destroyed by those that do evil... 

but by those that watch without doing anything."
Albert Einstein

 

Why Prop 37 Was Defeated in California.

Why Prop 37 Was Defeated in California.

Sixty countries across the world label groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients, so that consumers can know what is in their food and make their own choices about what they eat. For months, it seemed almost certain that California would be the first U.S. state to join them.

Statewide polls showed that Proposition 37, a ballot initiative to label genetically engineered (GMO) foods, enjoyed support from more than 65 percent of Californians. But six weeks before the election, everything changed. With Monsanto leading the way, the world's wealthiest biotech, agrochemical and processed foods companies raised $46,000,000 to defeat Prop 37.

Their misleading ad campaign falsely implied that the World Health Organization had endorsed GMO foods as safe, and that the Food and Drug Administration opposed the ballot initiative. Of course, the mainstream media did not object.

It worked. After weeks of statewide ad runs, the poll numbers flipped, and Prop 37 was defeated.

Big companies like Monsanto spend millions of dollars to skew the truth and keep consumers in the dark.