Small steps and actions you can take in response to the SCOTUS decision.

[Independent_Liberal]

I've been thinking more about this and yesterday, it dawned on me that I can start my own personal corporate boycott campaign. We can talk about other things like impeaching SCOTUS justices, passing new laws and constitutional amendments, but those of course wouldn't be without some hurdles as we all know. So, I've thought about some things I can do to gradually bring about changes and maybe inspire others to do the same as well.

1. Try bartering.

2. Carpool more often to save on gas and help the environment. Don't give money to a gas or oil company you think is harming the environment or violating EPA regulations.

3. If you are unable to carpool, go with public transportation (buses, cabs, etc.).

4. Remove your money from banks that are "too big to fail." My mom said if they're too big to fail then they're too big to even exist. Invest your money in smaller banks.

5. Buy food and household supplies from smaller independent stores. If you don't have any in your area and are forced to choose between, say WalMart and Rite Aid, go with what you think is the lesser of two evils and conserve your supplies as much as you can.

That's just 5 small steps you can take if you want to take action against the corporations. In other words, don't give them your hard-earned money to spend on politicians to drown out the voices of the people.

If anybody has any other ideas or suggestions, I'm more than happy to hear them.

[treestar]

1. All you have to do is this

Be critical of ads and encourage others to be so, too.

Just because there is an ad on TV doesn't mean you have to believe it.

Just because someone says something on TV doesn't make it true.

The older generation is stuck on that idea, since they go back to the days of Cronkite and the like where there were standards.

the younger you are, the better you know that TV is not authoritative. Ads certainly are not. Use that liberal cynicism for something useful.

[DrDan]

4. your older generation vs younger generation is so off-base

as well as such a broad generalization that it is not worthy of further comment.

[treestar]

6. Well gee, that'll shut me up!

I made a point and you've done nothing to really refute it.

We are not helpless in the face of corporate ads. I see hundreds of ads every day and I ignore them.

[DrDan]

12. your post was akin to "blacks are better natural-born athletes",

"men are better at math and science"
"christians are more tolerant"

Would you attempt a discussion with anyone making those comments? They are just silly and best ignored.

As to the viewing hundreds of ads daily - and ignoring all of them. A few decades back there was a particular brand of toothpaste that focussed its marketing campaign on the slogan that it was the best choice for those that could not brush after every meal. (I have forgotten which brand it was.). A subsequent study of toothpaste purchases included a quote by a consumer of that particular brand of toothpaste - the comment from the person was that they were not at all influenced by commercials, it was just that they could not brush after every meal.

[treestar]

14. What?

Your first part makes no sense.

That consumer may have learned to think a little more after that. Maybe we are not helpless - and picking toothpaste is not like picking candidates to vote for. We are aware that there is something riding on our decision, whereas it's nearly impossible to pick a wrong toothpaste.

[DrDan]

15. read your own post!

Your claim was that the younger generation is better at questioning the messages from TV.

Is that not a broad-brush generalization similar to those I posted?


And you missed the whole point of the toothpaste example.


Hundreds of ads daily??? Perhaps we have stumbled on to the real problem . . .

[DrDan]

17. I must add - imo the election in Mass this week was more closely related

to a toothpaste purchase than the thoughtful candidate selection you suggest. I think it was ALL based on the marketing plan successfully established by the Brown campaign - keep it simple, find a few issues that can be expressed simply and that will resonate with voters, get the message out lots and lots of times. Look what people talk about - he drives a truck, he never mentioned being a republican, be will be different than that current crowd in Wash DC. How is that ANY different that "use XXXX if you can't brush after every meal".

I wish you were correct about the thinking that goes into each persons vote - but am very pessimistic about whether it ever occurs.

[Better Today]

11. I agree with the idea of being critical, but I know a bunch of

younger folk who believe that "ads cannot lie" because they were taught that we have "laws" on the books regarding advertising (though none of them seem to know that "news tv" like Fox have been given the go ahead to lie all they want.

So in my house, where I quite literally argue with the ads, the kids learned to hone in on untrue truths like "there's nothing better than....!" was always followed by me saying, "Yes, but there's nothing worse either!" Or in cases where the ads are clearly geared at the lesser critical individuals, like Carl's Jr where guy's are so helpless they can't buy bread so they have to buy Carl's Jr. or the clean up disaster company that has a guy who is just plain stupid and burns, floods, and otherwise disasters his own surroundings. . . those I just made sure to point out that these companies clearly think ill of the patrons, therefore I would never want to be their patrons. . . ..

Anyway, I agree, to be critical thinkers, I don't agree it is just an older generation thing. I see it across it the board depending on the topic.

[MineralMan]

2. I prefer to take positive steps.

Support corporations that support progressive ideas by buying from them.
Communicate with corporations that support your ideas with praise.

[Lars39]

3. In regard to #4: Quite a few of the *smaller* banks are the ones failing....

you need to check the banks ratings before you transfer your money.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Here are 2 sites where you can check your bank ratings:

bankrate.com....look for a bank that is rated 3 or higher, bettter yet 4 or higher.

http://banktracker.investigativereportingworkshop.org/banks/
this rates banks by "troubled asset ratio".....10:1 is the standard, the higher the first number, the worse the rating.

[Lars39]

13. Thanks, dixiegrrrrl !

[ima_sinnic]

5. unplug your TV

--stop their ads from polluting your mind, and save the dollars you're giving cable and satellite companies--really, what's worthwhile on TV that you can't find online, or, in the case of movies, through Netflix, your neighborhood video rental store, a library, or Amazon/eBay? (sporting events are another matter; as I'm not a sports fan, I don't know the answer to this.)
--if you need "things," patronize the little people by buying from vendors on eBay, Amazon, half.com, etc. who appear to be simply people like you and me trying to get by (if local selection isn't good)
--shop at thrift stores, yard sales (in season), on Craigslist--buy used whenever possible
--get to know your nearby libraries, including those at universities. I don't know about private schools, but state universities have comfy chairs that anyone can use and massive stacks of reading matter.
--buy food at farmers markets, and grow a garden--even city dwellers can grow a few things in pots

[abq e streeter]

8. Not just the ads "polluting" ...the idiocy that passes for "news" etc too

I haven't had a TV since the digital switchover. Thought I'd last a month or two. But I feel like my IQ has gone up about 10 points since then, and I'm amazed at how little I miss it . I do like to watch a ball game sometimes, so I time gym workouts for that if I can, or I'll go have dinner in a sports bar. And I watch John Stewart on Hulu.com, and clips of Olbermann etc are pretty regularly provided on DU... Your other suggestions are outstanding as well....

[ima_sinnic]

9. thanks, yes--most of the programming is idiotic, when you get down to it

I didn't renew my satellite subscription when I moved this summer, and have not hooked up my converter box. I also feel smarter, and my blood pressure has improved, I'm sure, without the annoying fluff that passes for "news." I'm again reading novels, and I have more time to do stuff, as I used to just flop down and start mindlessly channel surfing just as a form of procrastination. Also, sitting in front of the tube encourages mindless eating of sugary, fat-filled snacks, and it discourages real conversation and togetherness.

I think that unplugging the TV is quite effective for disengaging from the stranglehold that corpos have on people's minds. The whole objective of TV programming now, it seems (besides advertising), is dissemination of propaganda, distraction, and dumbing down. People might actually spend more time together doing more active and involved things. They might read more, be more physically active, think more, and pursue real hobbies. And goodness knows everybody can use the extra bucks being given to cable and satellite companies for the "privilege" of having their minds robbed.

[sharesunited]

10. How about pulling down the curtain of phony front names.

I want to be able to go to election commission websites and find out who are the real parties in interest behind Concerned Citizens For Or Against This Or That.

No more sock puppetry. Who is REALLY putting up the money?

[corpseratemedia]

16. I just got an idea

it may not change any minds except some independents, but that may count in some elections...


when people go to their voting places during primaries and general elections, can we as non-affiliated citizens stand in front of our voting places with large placards detailing which corporate contributor is funding who for how much and/or hand out brochures with the same info? I've always seen local reps or some party rep hand out stuff (and the usual who/what/how-to voting info). but I don't know if this is possible. Obviously I'm not familiar with polling place/voting law too much.

I think it would be a good idea and expose these multi-nationals and who they're buying to your average uninformed, unaware voter

on edit: I know certain organizations and their websites do this but I think the average voter does not pay attention, and at least in some races for the initial coming election cycles the differences in corporate funding may be shocking.