Advertising in the Social Media

Hey there everyone! I know I haven't put a post up in a god-awful long time but today is the day I break that hiatus.

Everyone is familiar with the social media. It has been around for years, though it has changed faces as the years have gone by. My first encounter with it was when it was in the form of Myspace though many others will remember having a LiveJournal or Xanga. Whatever the starting point, it has come to a head with Facebook and Twitter being the two most popular social media outlets. And as we know, when something becomes popular, advertisers will do ANYTHING to jump into it and use it for marketing.

Facebook has been by far the most successful platform for marketing in the social media forum. People can become fans of different products, advertisements are placed strategically on your homepage based on your likes and dislikes, and you are able to interact with the companies directly through comments. Though this is a good thing for companies, I don't like how much it pries into your life. What I mean is, this form of advertising is basically the equivalent of you meeting up with some friends and having 30 to 40 salesmen walking up to your group and trying to push products on you. Though you can ignore them, it's really quite annoying to have products shoved in your face when you don't want them there.

Twitter isn't so bad in that companies don't interfere with you directly unless you decide to follow their tweets. To get you to follow them though, they use bait such as getting info on new products before they hit stores or special offers you can only get through being a follower on Twitter.

Marketers attempt to hook us, the consumers, in by strategically placing messages that allow us to be familiarized with their products and, in many cases, loyal to the products by making us believe they are the best. In many cases, we are affected on a completely unconscious level. Here's a video showing (sort of) how they accomplish this (and how susceptible they are as well):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

I myself am completely fed up with the marketing invasion in the media in general let alone the social media. I understand that advertisers need to get the message out about their products but here's the real question I pose to you, reader:When does advertising become invasion of privacy?

A Day That Shall Live In Infamy....But For What Reason?

I'm sure you recognize this picture, just like you remember the events that took place on that day. September 11th, 2001. How could anyone forget? We all remember the fear and helplessness we felt when the planes struck the towers and we all remember how horrified we were when the towers fell. But, do you remember the aftermath? The Patriot Acts, which have subjugated nearly every single Bill of Rights freedom we have, and the 'War On Terror', an impossible war which has dragged on for eight years and led us into two countries and possibly more? In my opinion, this chain of events was not a coincidence. Call me a conspiracy theorist, call me a communist (like my parents and family like to do), call me what you will. But I will present evidence that will back this opinion of mine and hopefully do what I made this blog to do: make YOU think!!!

I guess the easiest place to start would be with the collapse of the towers themselves. The theory we were told by the 9/11 Commission was the Pancake Theory. The theory states that the support beams of the building were heated to such a heat that they began to bend and, eventually, the beams separated from the main structure beacause of stress on the bolts. The building then began to collapse down upon itself, pancaking every floor, one after another, down to the ground. Now, before I get into why this could not stand up, let me mention that this theory was thrown out by the Commission because, if the theory was true, the owner of the Trade Centers wouldn't have been reimbursed for the collapses. NIST proposed a theory which said that the sagging of the beams cause the outer walls to pull inwards and collapse the building. As of right now, this is the official theory.

(As a side note before I begin, let it be known that no other steel-reinforced building has ever collapsed due to fire before OR after 9/11. If they were right, it would be the only case of it's kind...EVER!!)

My first problem with the theory: it doesn't address the MOLTEN STEEL found in the wreckage of the Trade Centers. Yes, molten steel. Although NIST failed to speak about it in their final report, molten steel was found during and after the crashes. Now, I know what you may be thinking. Because of the jet fuel and fires started within the trade centers, molten steel should have been almost expected. However, steel doesn't even begin to melt until 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. Jet fuel doesn't burn much hotter than 1600 degrees Fahrenheit (I won't include links for these. If you want to check me, google it). So what does this tell us? It tells us that there must have been something in the building that was hot enough to melt steel, of course. Many engineers believe that it was from explosives used on the towers, primarily an incendiary known as thermate which can burn at temperatures over 4000 degrees Fahrenheit and produces molten iron which contains a large amount of aluminum and sulfur. To this end, engineers scanned dust from the WTC and were surprised (or should I say, weren't surprised) to find that it contained microspheres of aluminum-rich iron. Coincidence? I think not.

Secondly, the towers themselves came down at nearly free-fall speed. Anybody knows that if a building was falling down upon itself, it would encounter some resistance from the floors or other parts of the building. Considering how fast the buildings came down, there must have been explosives which were used to detonate the core columns and allow the building to collapse effortlessly in upon itself. In addition to this, on videos which were taken on 9/11, "squibs", explosive ejections signaling a detonation, can clearly be seen as the building cascaded toward the ground. NIST has chalked these up to pressure inside the building being released as the floors crumpled. However, for this to be true, the air inside would have to have been pressurized evenly and fully which means that the floors would have to have fallen straight down without any holes which would allow air to escape and since the concrete was being pulverized as the building came down, this scenario is highly unlikely.

Third, is my arguement about World Trade Center Building 7. You may not know much about WTC 7 and I wouldn't blame you. Not much was said about WTC 7 in the official reports as investigations were found to be inconclusive. But watch the video and let me know what you think before I give my take.

Now, if this doesn't look like a controlled demolition, I have no chance of convincing you of anything. To clarify, WTC 7 was NOT struck by an aircraft and sustained only minor fire damage on a few floors. These facts aside, what building, with minor fire damage, falls STRAIGHT DOWN upon itself with the classic "controlled demolition" crimp in the middle? IF the building was brought down by fire, it would collapse towards the point of least resistance: outwards!

You may be wondering why, if I am right, would someone plan to blow up these buildings? Well, seeing as how you are reading this and my blog is about pushing the boundaries and free speech, I'll give you my take. The buildings were blown up, simply, as a catalyst for our government to subjugate our civil liberties and start a war which they know damn well cannot be won but can be SUSTAINED. Some of what I have said has already been proven. Just look at the "anti-terror" legislation passed after 9/11. Thanks to the Patriot Acts, your phone, email, financial records, and more can be accessed directly by the FBI at anytime without a court order. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism. By expanding the definition, normal forms of protest and civil disobedience can be classified under domestic terrorism. If classified as a terrorist, you can be thrown in jail for an unspecified amount of time without a trial and without a chance for parole. Sounds real fair, huh? Along the lines of war, as I said before, the "War on Terror" is not meant to be won but simply sustained. Terrorism is a way to fight war for a weaker side. It is a form of guerrilla warfare. It is a tactic. You cannot combat a tactic anymore than you can fight an idea. As long as there is war, there will be guerrilla warfare and terrorism. End of story. By sustaining the war, the US can continue to rebuild the countries they have invaded. Such nice guys we are, right? Well, it would be good. Too bad all the construction contracts are sold to huge building contractors who are reaping impressive profits from the Iraqi War. Ever heard of Halliburton? They are an oil contractor who set up shop in Iraq after its occupation in 2003 and were said to have received special treatment for work there. Guess who the ex-CEO of Halliburton was. Our good friend, ex-VP Dick Cheney. Sound suspicious? And seeing as how the War in Iraq and Afghanistan has showed no signs of stopping (or even slowing for that matter), it looks like contractors such as this company will be bringing in huge hauls for quite a while....at the cost of human lives.

This topic is one that I feel very strongly about. And honestly, I do want to hear your opinion my valued reader. I will not bash you. I will not call you a right-wing fascist if you disagree with me. Ideas are what I promote here. Free speech is what I emphasize, as did the Founding Fathers. I want nothing more than to restore a forum for people to share their feelings without fear of retaliation of guilt. So please, thoughts and comments are not only welcome, but invited.

For more on this subject, I recommend these great sites:

AE911Truth.org - This site has some of the most compelling evidence I have seen in a while. Without condemning our government, as I have, they simply disprove the conventional theory with physics. A great site for anyone interested in further reading.

Zeitgeist - A movie/documentary that shows what Christianity, 9/11, and the Federal Reserve all have in common. A personal favorite and an EXTREMELY interesting movie for anyone open-minded enough to listen.

America: Freedom to Fascism - a movie/documentary by Aaron Russo. The movie that started it all for me. Explains, in detail, how the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional institution as is the Federal Income Tax. Again, for the open-minded.

If anyone has any questions, I am more than interested in answering.

That's Why They Call Me The Working Man

My professor gave us another assignment (yippee): "At it's core, the job of the working journalist today is unchanged". Well, honestly, I believe this is true.

The job of the journalist is unchanged, as I said in my last post. The job of the journalist is still to present news to the public from an objective viewpoint. However, just because I say the job is unchanged, it doesn't mean that the old dog hasn't picked up a few new tricks. Now that journalism and media in general are headed onto the internet, journalists have had to pick up a whole new set of skills for use in the digital age. Most if not all journalists need to know computer skills at the intermediate level so that they can follow blogs online, find information that may be breaking on the internet (like news from Iran coming through Twitter), and making webpages. Every spectrum of journalism now has an online component: newspapers have a homepage, radio stations have their music online, even television stations have their broadcasts to their sites. So, basically, the job hasn't changed. Just the tools used to get it done.

However, journalists, from the onset of blogs, have another factor which has changed their jobs. Not long ago, journalists were able to present news without fearing repercussions for getting a story or facts wrong. With today's blogging community monitoring the news 24/7, there is little room for error from journalists. This is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it forces the reporting community to be accurate and thorough in its reporting. On the other hand, it puts journalists on edge for fear of getting a story wrong and having their reputation and credibility utterly destroyed.

Though the job is unchanged, the factors weighing down on journalists at this time are considerable. Not only is the medium changing, but so is the audience. People these days don't care about news. They don't want to hear about the wars and poverty and what politicians are saying. They would rather stay closed off in their little boxes and be entertained rather than informed. To get to these people, journalists are trying all kinds of new methods such as starting blogs or using social media like Facebook. As long as they remember that their first goal is to inform and not entertain, I think that journalists will beat out the competition from bloggers and social media and maintain their position as a credible and reliable source of information.

And So It Begins..

Hello, my name is Luke. I am a Junior at Shippensburg University and this blog was made for my Internet Communications class. I made this blog to highlight free-thinking. Too many people are judged based on their views and perspectives and I wanted to make a blog to highlight ideas (hence Ideas are Bulletproof). Sadly, I won't be able to get into any of my own, original ideas. I have an assignment to do first...

Damn the educational system!!

So, the question proposed by my professor: How has journalism changed in the past 10 years? My response? It hasn't. Journalists are still responsible for reporting news, albeit through different mediums. News has gone from newsprint to radio to television and is heading onto the internet, but just because someone has a blog, it doesn't make them a journalist, despite popular belief. Blogs are a good way to get ideas across to other people, but ideas are not news. Journalism is about facts. This is why blogs will never beat out mainstream media. Although there are many problems with what I've stated, I could take up an entire blog with my ideas on the subject. As soon as I don't have assignments to post, I will be sure to make a blog about it.