About The Public Option

Posted on by | 97 Replies

Things To Sign/Do For The Public Option

There are only a few weeks to pressure congress to pass a public Option.

Most of the big petitions out there should be getting 1000 times more traffic than they have been getting. But it's not too late. To bump up that activity, I have assembled here an easy list of sites people can use to be heard, or take action. It takes only a few minutes to use each site. The list below has less than 10 sites which are the best known, or most used petition or governmental contact sites I've been able to find, thus far. I will be revising this frequently over the next few days, so come back often. Even if these petitions are not as effective as we might hope, they don't cost you much time or effort, and you can feel good that you tried. Please use this convenient URL to pass this site on to your friends, family, and colleagues. http://bit.ly/4pubop Note: I am seeking a good aggregator tool that makes it simple for a single letter to go to each of your representatives. If you know of a site that does this, please contact me.

Petitions of the Public Option

Other Petitions or Actions

 

Videos, FAQs and Other Info

Please use this convenient URL to pass this site on to your friends, family, and colleagues. http://bit.ly/4pubop

About MT Code

Posted on by | 11 Replies

What is the MT code?

It’s a new gesturing code for Twitter messages, suggested to me, and then enlarged by me, to mean that some Twitter update was a  “Modified Tweet.” It is meant to expand and complement the more traditional Retweet (RT) gesture, which is probably the most familiar symbol on Twitter after the @sign. As most know, the RT code means, “I have copied and pasted some other user’s tweet and am passing it along to my own followers.”

For those who hate to read all the fine print, in a nutshell, MT means: “I have modified this tweet substantially, for reasons of my own choosing, and you may want to seek out the original before coming to any conclusions about the original author’s content, meaning, intents, or purposes.”

In the many months since I first proposed it, MT has finally started to gain some serious traction. @twitter_tips has broadcasted it a number of times, which brings along new adopters at a steady clip.  Like any new protocol, standard, or signal code, these things take time.  But it seems that MT has proven its mettle and found a niche in the marketplace of reasonably good Twitter ideas.

Oh, and as a rule of thumb, when the really big losers start to catch on, it’s clearly arrived: http://twitter.com/#!/SpeakerBoehner/status/32170448795992064

What’s wrong with RT, Via or PRT gestures?

Nothing. The RT is great device when you are mostly making a copy of a tweet, and perhaps doing some minor edits to shorten it, either to fit into the 140 length limit, or to make room for a remark you want to tack on. And using “via” is fine when you are saying: 1) “this link, or info, came by way of @soAndso, but I have mostly used my own tweet text to tell you about it,” or; 2) when it is in fact a RT, but the “RT @name” prefix would obscure the prosaic elegance, or some other impact of the tweet.*

Finally, the rarely used, but occasionally mentioned “PRT (Partial Retweet),” was always poorly defined, but supposed to mean “modified somehow, probably to shorten it.” The problem that MT addresses, however,  can be seen when your tweet doesn’t fit either of the above cases because you’re making major alterations for purposes such as:

  • Correcting the content in a substantial way.
  • You’re uncertain of the accuracy of a correction.
  • Expanding the content in a substantial way.
  • Mocking the content, the subject, or the sender.
  • Using source content in some way other than as intended.
  • Otherwise recommending that the source’s timeline be checked before assuming anything about the Tweet is accurate–or even related to what they may have said or meant.

Such alterations can, and often do, completely obliterate the original content and meaning, and it is NOT NICE to the original tweeter, to simply imply a RT, or Via, when in fact, you have altered it substantially for any reason.  The reader has no idea whether it’s a true RT, or a completely new work. That’s where the MT gesture comes in.

MT says “tweet is a Modification of another tweet.”

Simply by using MT, the reader instantly knows that the tweet is based on another tweet, so that if they have any questions about its authenticity, content, accuracy, or intent, they can go to the timeline of the original Tweeter and check out the original tweet. In the vast majority of cases that isn’t necessary, but when it is, it’s VERY necessary.  We have all seen flame wars erupt where someone says “@soAndSo, you changed my tweet. That is not what I said.”  The MT is a courtesy that acknowledges the alteration from the start, and avoids all that drama. But it’s also a courteous practice to use when you plan to substantially alter someone’s tweet merely add your two cents, or have fun with it.

Should MT be used for ANY changes to a tweet?

No. Only when you alter the content or its meaning in some significant way. You would NOT use it when merely shrinking (shortening) text to fit into the 140 character space. That is almost always assumed to happen in Retweets now. The MT gesture says to readers, “I’ve made changes that are more than just cosmetic, and I might be munging it up for purposes of amusement or insult. Check the source tweet before assuming it was in any way authentic, or remotely resembling what the tweeter originally said or meant before cursing them out for it.

Is the MT an official gesture

Nope.  It’s simply a good idea that Twitter user @twitwrit suggested as a convention when modifying a tweet with typos or grammar errors. I realized that was a great and necessary idea I’d wanted many times myself, but for the even larger mission of indicating alteration for ANY purpose.  So I decided to expand on the idea, use it, and promote it among my followers, and with this post, everyone else on Twitter, as well.

Will 3rd party applications recognize MT?

No.  The MT is NOT a retweet, or a Via.  It’s substantially different enough that it should be considered “a new work.”  Thus, you would not want it being regarded as a retweet or a via.  Of course, should someone decide to Retweet the new MT, that can and should be processed normally because the “RT” codel (or Via) would be present.

Can you do this on Twitter… just make stuff up?

Well, who’s gonna stop me? You? Just kidding :). In all seriousness, yes, you can just make stuff up. Twitter is a community defined tool; many of the better ideas, including the RT, #hashtags, and other conventions came about via an ad hoc adoption by the community itself. What works is what people decide is useful, and they just start using it. As of September 10th, 2009, I had been using the MT for about a week. I intend to keep using it.  If others find it a good idea, it will endure, and future digital anthropologists may find this page and understand its origins. If it doesn’t, it’s just one more of my thousands of bad or failed ideas nobody will remember a month from now :)

* More about “Via” —   I’ve never been wild about the fuzziness of this code. It’s far too imprecise. It was used to mean RT in some twitter clients, before RT caught on.  All too often, it’s used to mean “Original Author,” and that usage should be terminated with extreme prejudice.  When not meaning RT, it should really only be used to mean “the source of this was, or it came to me by way of.”  There really IS no current convention for “Author,” but there should be.  I personally use “by: @soAndSo,” when I mean that “they wrote this,” but details on that suggestion will be a future show:)

Related

About Shoq’s Common Hash Tags, Codes and Terms  – http://bit.ly/shoqcodes

Proud To Be A Liberal

Posted on by | 1 Reply

Why Liberal values are American values

by Brian Elroy McKinley

“You are a contentious person….and probably a Liberal,” started a recent response to an article I published on abortion rights.

Contentious? Possibly.

Liberal? Absolutely.

Seems these days Conservatives have convinced themselves, and some of the American public, that being a Liberal is akin to being a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. While this may be a great smear tactic for an election year, to believe such a notion proves that the believer is uneducated in the fundamentals of the American political system. Our nation was founded on Liberalism. Embodied in the Declaration of Independence are its three tenets: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The very term, itself, is taken from the same root as the second of these precepts. To be a Liberal is to defend the freedom – the Liberty – of all people who make up our great nation. To be a Liberal is to trust individuals and families to run their own lives as they see fit. To be a Liberal is to create a nation where anyone can excel if they are willing to do the work.

In order to understand the true nature of Liberalism, and to dispel the misconceptions fomented by those whose agenda is counter to our freedom, I will detail the tenets of Liberal thought and dispel the misconceptions so often put forth by Conservative rhetoric.

Liberalism is “Life.” It is freedom from physical dangers that can kill or disable us. The Liberal believes it is a nation’s job to protect its citizens from physical harm, whether from external sources, such as hostile nations, or internal ones, like crime, disease, or hunger. Without the solid ground of physical wellbeing, our nation and its citizens cannot enjoy the benefits of being free. Liberals believe in a strong military, well suited to defend the nation. Liberals believe in good laws, hard-working police, and a just legal system to protect its citizens from crime. Liberals believe in affordable health care for everyone, to keep our people strong. And Liberals believe in the availability of food and shelter for its needy, not as a hand out but as a reasonable step in moving all Americans toward self-reliance and the freedom that comes with it.

Liberalism is “Liberty.” It is the freedom to do as your conscience dictates without impeding another’s rights. Fleeing oppression in mother Europe, our founders established a nation where personal belief and self-determination are protected, not persecuted, where hard work is rewarded, not demanded, and where each person is bestowed with the ability to better his or her life because of citizenship, not class. Liberals believe in freedom of speech to protect us from political oppression. Liberals believe in sound regulations to protect us from economic oppression. Liberals believe in just laws to protect us from social oppression. And Liberals believe in quality education to protect us from the oppression of ignorance.

Liberalism is “The Pursuit of Happiness.” It is the freedom to create an environment where the individual can excel. What is freedom if it cannot be used to better our lives? A truly free society must be one where its members can rise above their limitations and expand their futures. We call it “The American Dream,” and it’s alive and well in the heart of the Liberal. Liberals believe in equal opportunities for all to rise above our means. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our education levels. Liberals believe in equal opportunities to rise above our social status. And Liberals believe each and every family should have an equal opportunity to make this world better for their children.

Based on these tenets, we can see that Liberalism is not the monster it’s made out to be by the opposition. It is pro individual and pro family. It is pro community and pro country. Liberalism is, by its very definition, the heart and soul of what it means to be an American. It stands against tyranny of any kind, whether international or domestic. It works to remove abuse and fight crime. And it strives to eliminate the idea of a wasted life by not wasting resources and opportunities.

By this time someone might ask, “if that is a Liberal, then what is a Conservative?”

Liberals and Conservatives received their names for good reasons. Just as Liberals get their label by standing for Liberty, Conservatives get their label from the desire to “conserve” a style of living. They, too, claim they are fighting to conserve our personal rights and our economic opportunities, but they do it with a different ideal than the Liberal. The term they use for the difference is “values.” Values are norms or codes by which people live their lives. While most Americans share some common values, such as the right to own property and the right to protect our families, we also have many divergent values with which we raise our children. So if we try to impose values into the political framework of the nation, we are forced to ask, “whose values?” And in the search for such absolutes, we must also ask, “which generation’s values?”

As the nation ages and new generations take over leadership, the values of its population change. Where once a woman was valued for how well she cooked, cleaned and entertained, today’s women are gaining recognition that they offer as much, if not more, to the work force than men. Where once African Americans were forced to live as second-class citizens, now they have a legal status equal to that of whites, even if we still have a ways to go in actual practice. Changing values brings confusing times for many – especially for those who believe that America was better with an older set of values. These people want to “conserve” a style of American living they believe once existed, what they call, “traditional family values.” They want to conserve the system that they believe made America wealthy and strong. Unfortunately that also means they want to force all of us to live according to their values.

Conservatives don’t really fight for our rights – they fight for what they think our rights should be – putting limits on our freedom of speech in order to “conserve” an older, more traditional norm of what should be said. Conservatives don’t really fight for our family values – they fight for what they believe our family values should be – putting limits on our behavior, even behavior between consenting adults, in order to “conserve” an older, more traditional view of acceptable personal activity. Conservatives don’t really fight for our income – they fight for little or no regulations – putting limits on our ability to be treated fairly by large companies, who if left without restriction, can form monopolies that choke out competition and drive down wages.

Conservatives are willing to curb our freedom of speech if it clashes with their interpretation of “traditional” values, values from an older time where woman were in domestic servitude to men, where child abuse, sexual abuse, wife abuse, and homosexuality were all kept locked in closets, where minorities were second-class citizens and discrimination was free from incrimination, and where the inability to plan a family’s growth meant an explosion of mouths to feed – a population explosion that today threatens to bankrupt our nation’s retirement funds. The Conservative position, therefore, is inherently contradictory. You cannot be for legislating away freedom in the name of “family values” and also claim you are protecting individual and family rights.

As new generations have placed their own values into the laws that govern our land, Conservatives have sought to fight back by limiting the size and power of the government. Conservatives are willing to give away the very power needed to protect our liberties in the work place. Their idea of a smaller, less-intrusive government means a return to the days where business decisions and profits were more important than clean air and clean water, where a business could abuse its employees without incrimination, and where minorities and women could be passed over for jobs or paid less then white males for the same jobs. Again the Conservative position is at odds with itself. You cannot claim you are fighting for families at the same time that you allow the family bread winner to be overworked and underpaid and allow neighborhoods to be overrun by non-regulated big business. The Conservative would effectively shift power away from the people, who can elect public officials to fight for their rights, and into the hands of private businesses, who need not answer to the public when making decisions that affect us all.

Because Liberals fight to protect every citizen from having other people’s values imposed on them, Conservatives like to label Liberals as being evil. The following list shows what Conservatives like to say against Liberals, and then goes on to show why such assertions are false:

  1. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-family.
    However . . .

  2. Conservatives want to define what your family should be
    3.
    Whereas . . .

  3. Liberals put you in charge of your family
  4. Liberals support your right to define what your family will be
  5. Liberals fight for your family’s rights against economic and political oppression
    6.

     

  6. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-business.
    However . . .

  7. Conservatives are pro-money, but that often translates into monopolies, which hurt small business and competition, which hurts us all
    8.
    Whereas . . .

  8. Liberals protect small businesses by regulating the larger ones and by breaking up monopolies
  9. Liberals protect workers in order to create a healthy workforce that will help businesses grow
    10.

     

  10. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-religion.
    However . . .

  11. Conservatives are often for one dominant religion, and are, therefore, against others
    12.
    Whereas . . .

  12. Liberals support complete freedom of religion and from religion so that all citizen are free to choose the manner in which faith is a part of their lives
  13. Liberals strive to keep government completely out of a family’s religious choices
    14.

     

  14. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-freedom.
    However . . .

  15. Conservatives want to stop homosexuals, stop abortions, stop the women’s movement, and stop freedom of expression through the use of censorship
    16.
    Whereas . . .

  16. Liberals leave it up to the parents to teach such values to their children
  17. Liberals believe each person or family should be free to choose how to behave as long as it does not interfere with another’s rights
    18.

     

  18. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-morality.
    However . . .

  19. Conservatives are for one specific kind of morality
    20.
    Whereas . . .

  20. Liberals are for the morality of free choice, where each person or family decides their own values
  21. Liberals want the government to protect our freedom to choose what is important to us rather than to impose the laws and codes of another’s morality
    22.

     

  22. Conservatives say that Liberals are anti-military.
    However . . .

  23. Conservatives see the military as a means to impose their values and standards on others
    24.
    Whereas . . .

  24. Liberals see the military as a vital protection of our freedoms and our liberties, giving us a space in which to pursue happiness
    25.

Liberalism’s Stance on Specific Issues

With the desire to promote Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as the central motivation, the Liberal always defends these tenets when deciding how to stand on a particular issue. The following will show why Liberals often take the stance they do:

Abortion/Contraception – Liberty means the freedom to control your body, your reproductive system, and your future.

Affirmative Action – Liberty means having fair opportunities for those in society who are discriminated against.

Education – Liberty means the freedom to learn in order to build a better future for yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

Environment – Liberty means the fair use of our nation’s natural resources for all citizens. Where possible, without unreasonable restriction to private enterprise, the government should strive to protect our natural environment so all can enjoy its bounty.

Gun Control – Liberty means the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your property, with deadly force if necessary. People have a right to keep guns for such a purpose. People also have a right to use guns in sporting activities and in the event that citizens should be called on to form a citizen militia. We do not, however, have a right to own all the latest people-killing technology. The People, through the government, can restrict some of the more deadly weapons being sold today.

Health – Liberty means the freedom to overcome physical limitations in order to better yourself, your family, your community, and your country.

Regulations – Liberty means the freedom to live and work in an environment that best allows individuals and families to grow in the pursuit of happiness. Bad air, bad water, bad living and working conditions only stifle that liberty.

Sexuality – Liberty means the freedom to share mutual intimate affection with the person of your choice, regardless of gender.

Substance Abuse – Liberty means the freedom to decide what you put in your body. Unless the use of a substance is a danger to unwilling victims, its use should be kept legal. In situations where use of a substance may or may not effect bystanders, regulations – such as in the case with tobacco – should be enacted to protect the bystander without denying the individual’s choice to use the substance. Smoking and non-smoking areas in public places are a prime example of this.

Taxation – Liberty is found within a system. That system does not happen by itself. It is created and supported by us, the People, and it is funded by our labors. The money we pay in taxes is what allows us to thrive in Liberty and work in fairness. Reasonable taxation is necessary because without it, many of us would find it difficult to get paid even a fraction of what we are paid now. And those who benefit more from the system should expect to pay more to help support it.

Women’s/Minority Rights – Liberty means the freedom to be valued and judged on talent and work, not on the physical characteristics over which we have no control.

In closing let me state that freedom sometimes brings situations we don’t like. Some people will choose to use their freedom to engage in activities that go against our personal values. It is a great temptation to use our democratic rights to try and enshrine our own personal values – whether they come from religious or humanistic origins – in the laws of the nation. The inherent problem with this is that when Liberty is restrained by any one group’s values, even if that group represents the majority of the population at the time, it can easily be changed from one generation to the next, meaning that you could be forced to live under someone else’s values as easily as you might force someone to live under yours.

The only true defense of our values is the defense of our liberties.

If you don’t want to be forced to live under a foreign set of values, don’t force others to live under yours. Instead, fight for the freedom to believe as you want while others believe as they want. Freedom of choice, as long as it does not infringe on another’s rights, is the foundation upon which this nation was built. Liberalism is the ideology that strives to defend that freedom for everyone. And for that reason it pleases me to no end to state that I am proud to be Liberal.

Copyright © 1999-2008 Brian Elroy McKinley

See Also: