Saturday, March 22, 2008 at 7:36 AM
As the divide between the left and right becomes wider, those of us left hanging in the middle are beginning to feel torn between two polar political parties that do not represent the needs of the majority of average Americans. The Democrats and Republicans have sold out to special interests and corporate America. Between Republican's misuse of the military establisment and the Democrats misuse of public tax funds, it seem like most of our opinions and views simply do not matter.
I believe we need a third party, one that represents the center of the political spectrum. I did a little research and found that a centerist party does exist now, being founded in 2005. Check out the site for the Moderate Party. After reading through the party's platform, I feel I could get behind these ideals. The key is getting more support.
http://www.modparty.net/
Party Platform
A number of moderates around the country have been working together on a Platform for the Moderate Party. This draft Platform is a work in progress that sets the framework for an innovative and evolutionary new political party. The Platform is responsible on fiscal issues and inclusive on social issues.
A final Platform will be developed at a later time, ideally at the Moderate Party national convention in 2008. If you join the Moderate Party and have comments about the Platform, we ask that you record them for future discussion.
Government Spending and Taxes
The Moderate Party supports lowering federal spending and paying down the national debt without compromise to individuals, families, and seniors of American citizenship currently in need of Federal assistance.
The Moderate Party supports a simplified tax code, including the Fair Tax or Flat Tax.
The Moderate Party supports closing tax loopholes for corporations.
topˆ
International Relations
The Moderate Party believes that the United States must return to its primary role as international peacekeeper.
The Moderate Party believes that although the United States may disagree with other nations' politically and/or socially inhumane ideologies, where those nations have not directly threatened American security, we do not have the right to preemptory invasion.
The Moderate Party believes that the United States must seek economic and diplomatic recourse in bringing corrupt and inhumane governments to justice before the world court, resorting to military recourse only in coalition with other nations in an action sanctioned by an international governing body.
topˆ
Defense
The Moderate Party supports a strong national defense. The safety and security of the United States is of utmost importance, including securing our borders.
The Moderate Party supports thorough, verified intelligence to ensure a strong defense.
The Moderate Party supports sensibility with regards to defense spending, including, but not limited to, the following:
- Maintaining a balanced defense budget.
- Auditing federal contracts as necessary to ensure proper billing.
- Avoiding conflicts of interests in awarding government contracts.
topˆ
Environment
The Moderate Party supports protection of our environment to ensure clean land, fresh air, and pure water for ourselves and for future generations.
The Moderate Party opposes sprawl development by encouraging smart planning, livable neighborhoods, and historic preservation.
The Moderate Party supports alternative sources of energy that can individually or collectively meet demand and are also environmentally responsible.
The Moderate Party supports public transportation to lessen dependence on the automobile and improve the quality of our land, air, and water.
topˆ
Religious Freedom
The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. It is also supported by the 18th Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The results of this separation for our country has been a vigorous religious life coupled with a relative lack of religious persecution.
The Moderate Party supports the separation of church and state as the guiding principle that truly guarantees and enables religious liberty for all Americans.
topˆ
Firearm Responsibility
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Moderate Party supports the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
The Moderate Party also recognizes that any firearm ownership requires responsibility for the same. In recognizing this responsibility, we believe:
- That education in the proper and safe use of firearms is fundamental for all new and underage firearm owners. We therefore support legislation that encourages citizen education in firearm safety and use.
- That both firearms dealers and gun owners have a responsibility to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals. We therefore support legislation requiring background checks on all firearm purchases.
- That firearms dealers and private individuals who distribute arms to those citizens deemed unfit for ownership because of prior felony conviction, declared mental incompetence, or deficiency in education on proper firearm safety and use, are in effect acting irresponsibly. We therefore support legislation penalizing those firearms dealers and private citizens who act in such an irresponsible manner.
- That parents, as the primary role models and shaping forces in the lives of their minor children, are accountable for the actions of their minor children. We therefore support legislation that holds responsible any parent or guardian who allows their minor children illegal access to their firearms.
Finally, the Moderate Party supports the enforcement of those laws currently in existence that penalize citizens who use firearms in the commission of a crime.
topˆ
Women's Reproductive Rights
The Moderate Party supports a woman’s right to choose, but is hopeful that the decision to go forward with the termination of pregnancy would be made only under the most extreme circumstances such as rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is otherwise in danger.
The Moderate Party does not support the termination of pregnancy in the third trimester except under circumstances in which the life of the mother is otherwise in danger.
The Moderate Party supports the minimization of pregnancy terminations through education (to include birth control and abstinence) and through greater access to birth control.
topˆ
Recognition of Unmarried Partners
In agreement with the principles expressed in the Moderate Party's philosophical statement:
The Moderate Party supports the creation of civil unions to provide economic and familial benefits to mutually consenting adult couples.
The Moderate Party opposes any Constitutional Amendment which sacrifices legal recognition of the committed relationships of consenting adult couples on political, economic, or religious grounds.
Although we understand that the federal government must at times, in the interest of the American people, pass legislation limiting our personal liberties, we feel this legislation should only be passed through laws and the government should never use the constitution of the United States to restrict personal liberties.
at 6:08 AM
CLEVELAND (AP) — The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections is investigating whether any Republicans broke the law when they switched parties in the March 4 presidential primary, apparently to back a weaker opponent for GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
The board expects the results of the investigation March 31.
The board wants to know if voters lied when they signed statements pledging allegiance to their
new party.
About 16,000 GOP voters crossed over to vote for Democrats in the primary.
It’s not clear whether the board will try to prosecute voters.
A 2-2 party-line tie by the board to pursue violators would have to be broken by Secretary of
State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat.
Brunner “has not been contacted by anyone regarding the prosecution of alleged improper ’crossover voting’,” spokesman Jeff Ortega said in an e-mail.
Any prosecutions in such cases would be up to local prosecutors or, if they decline to pursue it, the Ohio attorney general, Ortega said.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason, a Democrat, said he hasn’t seen evidence of wrongdoing by switchers and was skeptical a criminal case could be made.
“If any evidence is presented to us, we’ll review it. It’s going to be very difficult if not impossible to make a case against a voter who has switched parties,” he said Thursday.
Bob Bennett, the Ohio Republican chairman, called the investigation “an embarrassment to the Democratic Party and an absolute irony that a party that claims to empower voters is now moving to prosecute them.” He said the investigation was a waste of time and money.
Sandy McNair, a Democrat and member of the county elections board, had sought the investigation to hold voters accountable for switching.
Last week The Plain Dealer, which reviewed voter records, said more than 16,000 Republicans in mostly Democratic Cuyahoga County changed parties before voting in the primary.
Some local Republicans told the paper that they had changed parties only to influence which Democrat would face McCain. One switcher, in signing the pledge to back the Democratic Party, added, “For one day only.”
That kind of comment could indicate a party switch was insincere, McNair said Thursday. The elections board review now under way involves a Democrat and Republican checking party change records for any similar anecdotal evidence, McNair said.
The board has a responsibility to look into possible criminal wrongdoing, he said.
Lying on the signed statement is a fifth-degree felony, punish able by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
The secretary of state’s office has no figures statewide on party switchers in the primary, but overall the number of voters surged more than 76 percent in the hotly contested Hillary Rodham Clinton-Barack Obama primary and 11 percent in the nearly decided GOP primary.
There were more than 2.2 million Democratic votes for president in the primary, up from 1.2 million in 2004, when the campaign for the nomination won by John Kerry lacked the drama of the Clinton-Obama competition.
Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM
You Are Your History
You probably noticed early on in life that other people see the world differently to you. They must do, because most of them do different things to you.
However, they have broadly the same equipment and the same world to observe, so where's the variation?
The variation is, of course, internal. As Hume suggested over 300 years ago, humans develop by noticing patterns in their surroundings, they form useful habits as time goes by so that they don't have to concentrate on the detail of everything they do.
For example, when you learn to drive you have to concentrate loads at first, but then it comes naturally and you can drive almost without consciously thinking about it at all. In the same way you learn to walk and a thousand other things. The same is true of not just physical skills, but anything you habitually do, such as basic conversation and how to react to certain events.
The way in which the mind learns is by significance and repetition. Thus if something happens that you consider important enough and it happens often enough then you will form a new habit or change an existing one.
For example, if your boss is rude to you every morning for a week, you'll form a habit related to that, perhaps to avoid them.
Maybe you get a new boss; trouble is, old habits die hard and your interactions with this new boss will be (at least initially) coloured by your old habits until a new habit is established.
Now if you spent fifteen years at school being bullied then you have habits (e.g. defensiveness, aloofness) that will be much more difficult to shake, simply because the repetition ingrained the habit more deeply.
The effects this has are both positive and negative. We know from 'How you see the world: representative realism' that your mind interprets the world, so if you change your mind by learning something new you can change your perspective of the world (recall how your perspective of relationships was changed once you learnt about sex! Imagine being able to revolutionise your outlook on anything in the same way).
The negative is that other people literally see the world differently to you. You cannot see it how it is from their perspective, because although you share similar sense organs, you do not have their history with which they make sense of the world. This isolates you to a certain extent from everyone else.
at 9:36 AM
Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is the application by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal of decision theory to the belief in God. It was set out in the Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal towards his unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics.
The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing. In Pascal's assessment, it is inexcusable not to investigate this issue:
Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.
Variations of this argument may be found in other religious philosophies, such as Islam, and Hinduism . Pascal's Wager is also similar in structure to the precautionary principle.
The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way:
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
Pascal begins with the premise that the existence or non-existence of God is not provable by human reason, since the essence of God is "infinitely incomprehensible". Since reason cannot decide the question, one must "wager", either by guessing or making a leap of faith. Agnosticism on this point is not possible, in Pascal's view, for we are already "embarked", effectively living out our choice.
We only have two things to stake, our "reason" or "knowledge", and our "will" or "happiness". Since reason cannot decide the issue, and both options are equally unfounded in reason, we should decide it according to our happiness. This is accomplished by weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists. Pascal considers that there is "equal risk of loss and gain", a coin toss, since human reason is powerless to address the question of God's existence. He contends the wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed.
Pascal recognizes that the wagerer is risking something, namely his life on earth, by devoting it to one cause or another, but here he uses probabilistic analysis to show that it would be a wise wager, at the even odds he assumes, even if one were to gain only three lives at the risk of losing one. Considering that everyone is forced to wager and the potential gain is actually infinite life, it would be acting "stupidly" not to wager that God exists.
The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager can be expanded more fully, though it should be noted that Pascal did not address the last two possibilities explicitly in his account, nor did he mention hell.
- You live as though God exists.
- If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
- If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
- You live as though God does not exist.
- If God exists, the text is unspecified, but it could be implied that you go to limbo, purgatory, or hell: your loss is either null or infinite.
- If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal attempted to demonstrate that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions).
Another way of portraying the Wager is as a decision under uncertainty with the values of the following decision matrix:
| God exists (G) | God does not exist (~G) |
|---|
| Living as if God exists (B) | +∞ (heaven) | −N (none) |
|---|
| Living as if God does not exist (~B) | ?? (not specified, perhaps N (limbo/purgatory) or −∞ (hell)) | +N (none) |
|---|
Given these values, the option of living as if God exists(B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B). In other words, the expected value gained by choosing B is always greater than or equal to that of choosing ~B, regardless of the likelihood that God exists.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 8:23 PM
In the Matrix, which pill would you take, the red or the blue? The question of which pill to take illustrates the personal aspect of the decision to study philosophy. Do you live on in ignorance (and potentially bliss) or do you lead what Aristotle called 'the examined life'...
The Matrix is a film filled with religious and philosophical symbolism. The plot supposes that humans live in vats many years in the future, being fed false sensory information by a giant virtual reality computer (the Matrix). The perpetrators of this horror are machines of the future who use humans as a source of power. Humans are literally farmed.
The central character of the film, Neo, is presented to us in the opening part of the film as a loner who is searching for a mysterious character called Morpheus (named after the Greek god of dreams and sleep). He is also trying to discover the answer to the question "What is the Matrix?"
Morpheus contacts Neo just as the machines (posing as sinister 'agents') are trying to keep Neo from finding out any more. When Morpheus and Neo meet, Morpheus offers Neo two pills. The red pill will answer the question "what is the Matrix?" (by removing him from it) and the blue pill simply for life to carry on as before. As Neo reaches for the red pill Morpheus warns Neo "Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."
The film as a whole and especially the choosing scene is deeply compelling. Why is the choice between what you believe you know and an unknown 'real' truth so fascinating? How could a choice possibly be made? On the one hand everyone you love and everything that you have built you life upon. One the other the promise only of truth.
The question then is not about pills, but what they stand for in these circumstances. The question is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are, in a life consisting of habit, of things we believe we know. We are comfortable, we do not need truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commuting to work every day, or brushing your teeth.
The red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told that it can help us to find the truth. We don't know what that truth is, or even that the pill will help us to find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt and questioning. In order to answer the question, you can gamble your whole life and world on a reality you have never experienced.
However, in order to investigate which course of action to take we need to investigate why the choice is faced. Why should we even have to decide whether to pursue truth?
The answer in short, is inquisitiveness. Many people throughout human existence have questioned and enquired. Most of them have not been scientists or doctors or philosophers, but simply ordinary people asking 'what if?' or 'why?' Asking these questions ultimately leads us to a choice. Do you continue to ask and investigate, or do you stop and never ask again? This in essence, is the question posed to Neo in the film.
So what are the advantages of taking the blue pill? As one of the characters in the film says, "ignorance is bliss" Essentially, if the truth is unknown, or you believe that you know the truth, what is there to question or worry about?
By accepting what we are told and experience life can be easier. There is the social pressure to 'fit in', which is immensely strong in most cultures. Questioning the status quo carries the danger of ostracism, possibly persecution. This aspect has a strong link with politics. People doing well under the current system are not inclined to look favourably on those who question the system. Morpheus says to Neo "You have to understand that many people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
The system also has a place for you, an expected path to follow. This removes much of the doubt and discomfort experienced by a trailblazer.
Another argument on the side of the blue pill is how does anyone know that the status quo is not in fact the truth? The act of simply questioning does not infer a lack of validity on the questioned. Why not assume that your experience is innocent until proven guilty? Just accept everything?
So if the arguments for the blue pill are so numerous, why take the red pill? Why pursue truth even though it may be unpalatable and the journey to it hard? In the film, Neo risks death to escape the virtual reality and discovers a brutal reality from which he cannot return. As he discovers the trouble with asking questions is that the answers are not necessarily what you want to hear.
To justify taking the red pill we might ask what is the purpose of an ignorant existence? Further still, what is there in merely existing? Simply existing brings humans down to the level of objects; they might have utility or even purpose, but where is the meaning? Existence without meaning is surely not living your life, but just experiencing it. As Trinity says to Neo, "The Matrix cannot tell you who you are."
Given the potential disadvantages of choosing the red pill, the motivation for discovering the truth must then be very strong. The film makes much of this point. Trinity says to Neo "It's the question that drives us, Neo." and Morpheus compares the motivation for Neo's search to "a splinter in your mind - driving you mad." The motivation for answering the question is obviously strong as the answer will help us to find the meaning in our lives.
What we are looking at here is the drive to answer a question, but the key to this is what drove the question in the first place. The asking of questions about our environment our experience and ourselves is fundamental to the human condition. Children ask a seemingly never-ending stream of questions from an early age. It is only with education and socialisation that some people stop asking these questions. However, we remain, as it were, hard-wired to enquire.
This is an inevitable consequence of consciousness. A being with a mind, conscious of itself and its existence, experiencing a reality, needs to organise the data that it receives from its senses. Simply observing and recording does not allow for consciousness. It is what we do with that information that allows us to think. In order to process and store the vast amount of information received, the human brain attempts to identify patterns in the data; looking for the patterns behind what is experienced. This is asking questions of the sensory information, and requires reasoning. By definition a conscious mind seeks to know. Knowing something requires more than just data, but intelligence or reasoning applied to that data. To attempt to obtain knowledge we must therefore question the data our mind receives; thus, consciousness questions.
So the metaphor of the journey to truth that Neo takes is complete. The journey starts with a question, there is a search for the answer and the answer may be reached. This shows us that the journey does not start with Neo choosing between the pills, or with ourselves deciding whether to question. The act of asking the question is itself the starting point as the aim of asking the question is to seek truth and knowledge.
We have established that consciousness is aware and seeks knowledge and that thus the conscious mind must question. To question is to seek the truth and start on the journey to knowledge. Therefore the choice between the pills is surely made for us. The fact that we are conscious appears to require us to take the red pill.
However, this can be simply countered by someone who would prefer to take the blue pill. They may wish to seek the truth in a different way, or in a less mind jarring set of circumstances. They can choose the blue pill and not deny their consciousness, but to stop seeking the truth entirely would be to deny their consciousness.
Thus we are philosophically driven to seek the truth and the act of questioning whether to seek it is in itself seeking the truth. As conscious minds we will always seek the truth. However, the choice over the red or blue pills is not solely a choice between whether to question or not, it is a personal choice on the method of discovering the truth.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 6:00 PM
So I left Catz a little parting gift on his Guestbook after blocking his lousy ass...
Then he goes and blocks ME and leaves these lovely messages.... threatening to kick my ass!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Of course I can get on there with my trolling account... der.
WHAT A PIECE OF WORK THIS 'IT' IS!
at 7:39 AM
Yesterday, I got into a heated arguement with a former Multiply contact on someone else's blog. This isn't the first time this has happened with her. A few weeks back, I made the mistake of trivializing an idea on one of her blogs and was ruthlessly attacked for it. Why the hate? I'm not entirely sure, but after yesterday's exchange, I can only assume it is because I am politically to the left of mainstream, and because I've verbally spoken out about issues with Christianity.
This is a person who has many times stated that political correctness is killing our country. I agree with her on this statement. I've never accepted or went out of my way to be P.C. with people, although I do try to be respectful. What she doesn't realize, is that by expecting me to censure my views about Christianity, she is in fact expecting me to be politically correct. It's always ironic when you become what you hate.
It seems to me that there are some out there that are looking for the division bell. They surround themselves with like minded individuals so as to insulate themselves from what they view as evil opposing viewpoints. Like the savage boys in William Golding's novel Lord of the Flies, they seperate themselves from reason and logical debate and embracing isolationism within their peergroup of like minded individuals. Is this behaviour the natural instinct of humans or have we evolved enough to learn to listen without prejudice? I, for one, choose to listen first. There are always more than one viewpoint and nothing in life is absolutely black and white.
at 6:43 AM
THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' GAS FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET GAS BACK DOWN TO $1.30 PER GALLON.
This was sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. If you are tired of the gas prices going up AND they will continue to rise this summer, take time to read this please.
Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea.
This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the "don't buy gas on a certain day" campaign that was going around last April or May!
It's worth your consideration. Join the resistance!!!!
I hear we are going to hit close to $4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down?
We need to take some intelligent, united action.
The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to "hurt" ourselves by refusing to buy gas
It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.
BUT, whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can Really work. Please read on and join with us!
By now you're probably thinking gasoline priced at about $2.00 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $3.49 for regular unleaded in my town, Seattle.
Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 - $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace..not sellers.
With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action.
The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit
someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.
How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying gas.
But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war.
Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL.
If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.
But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It's really simple to do! Now, don't wimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!
I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) .. and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000)... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers .
If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted!
If it goes one level further, you guessed it..... PEOPLE!!!
Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all!
(If you don't understand how we can reach 300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people.... Well, let's face it, you just aren't a mathematician. But I am. so trust me on this one.
How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you!
Acting together we can make a difference.
If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $2.00 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
Please keep this going...
© Drew Dallons 2005 // Powered for Blogger by Blogger templates
