Pro-Ebola?! Government Conspiracies

I'm not sure if everyone else has noticed how the media has gone crazy with the whole Ebola in the US topic, but this caught my eye and I figured it'd be a great piece to talk about.

The Wall Street Journal is accusing the Democratic Party of being "Pro-Ebola". They feel that the CDC funds are not sufficient to support and protect our country against an agent such as this. I would like to know what do you think about this? Do you believe that political parties are supporting lower funding of medical practices and protection plans?

To read the full article please click here.

Although common conspiracy theories declare that political parties are keeping the pharmaceutical companies under their thumb to maintain control on the US citizens and also use as a buffer for the economy, check our this list of supposed theories that are "true" here.

The writers for Trueactivist.com are saying that the CDC knowingly placed cancer causing agents in vaccines. Trueactivist.com is not the only website that believes that the government is trying to control the people with medical issues, Lymphomation.org is also another supporter of this theory. You can check our their site here.

What I would like to know is if you believe that this is not only possible, but actually happening. Do you think that our government, sworn to help the people, and the many doctors and people who have dedicated their lives to helping us are actually doing us harm to advance other causes? Would this type of sacrifice be worth harming so many people if this is indeed happening?

Social Media: Facebook & Politics

Recently I've seen a lot of talk about social media and its influence on people. Whether a user checks with accounts daily, hourly or by the minute someone is always posting new information, photos or other data that can be absorbed with the mind. A new site I've seen is "Facebook for Business" a new form of Facebook used to help organizations reach out to potential voters and participants.

There are a few key steps Facebook as published on its main page, view them here, 1st you must of course, reach out to your friends. Facebook encourages organizations to use pages, events and advertisements to get their voter's attention and spread the word about them by liking their page. 2nd of course is to deepen your connection with your voter, perhaps Facebook means for the organization to post inspirational messages, it would be too much work to reply to all of their followers. Instead of posting about their political plans and ideas they post about their upcoming events they wish for you to attend, not why to attend them. Look at President Barack Obama's Facebook page here, what do you think about how his page is run? These both fall under the organization between elections section, the actual election still has yet to come.

Another important task Facebook says is to activate your voters, inspire them and build your communications with them by building your email lists. These tasks, while helpful for a newer candidate and smaller campaigns, can lead people to misguide their audience to vote for any suggestion they have. Instead of trying to win your voters over with facts and important notices of your plans, Facebook seems to encourage you to advertise your name and brand as much as possible so that when it comes time to vote, they'll simply remember you name and that'll be enough incentive for them to vote for a candidate.

What do you believe? Should major political candidates rely on Facebook to kick off their campaigns? Is there another way you would prefer someone were to contact you about your preference in voting? What do you prefer they speak about on Facebook when running a campaign page?

Media Panick: Convenience vs. Timeliness

As I'm sure we've all heard, there has at last been a case of Ebola diagnosed in the US. Of course the media is having a field day with this information the moment it is released. As soon as someone, who traveled here from Africa, comes our way are we now expected to run away from them?

While this disease is terrifying in its own way, we must continue our daily lives and do everything we can to help those affected by it. However, does that mean we should read about it every second of the day, start wearing gloves to work and avoid touching anyone in an elevator? CNN released this report earlier today, Oct. 5, 2014 to announce the condition of the man diagnosed. Only now that this one patient has gone into critical condition with a virus that has over a 50% fatality rate, must the US consider raising the level of security at the airports. Not before we have had a diagnosis, and certainly not when the problem first began and other countries decided to up their airport staff and increase watch lists, oh no, we needed to wait.

Every time there is an even such as this, the media enjoys publishing hourly updates and breaking news titles to enhance the terror struck into their readers. Every fear is another click. Every person dying in Africa means nothing until someone from the US is transported here with the virus or someone is diagnosed here with the virus. The news won't capitalize on this event unless they can really bring it home to people.

Today I googled Ebola US, out of the 25 links I got on the first page 16 of them were updated or published within the last 20 hours. Why do you believe the media is producing so much information out on this event, even though we have scientists and top doctors telling us it's not that big of a deal?