This conversation is closed.

To elicit action via this forum from either a consortium or individuals to place open letters in major media regarding respective subjects

The letters ought to be directed to... and demand that...
A) Accurate unbiased representative government by civil funding only.
B) True science based whole health postured care system uninfluenced by money via profit systems.
C) Mission statement adherence within the financial industry that center on noble fair and equitable credo with real penalties.
D) Media reportage unencumbered by connection to industry or otherwise biased in anyway so committed to being a forth estate.
E) Food industry not in anyway disconnected with health science, at it's mission to promote well being not profit on ill health.
F) Education take a non industrial age template to children/adults of the 21st century and formulate a truly healthy environment in efforts toward the goal of problem solving for health welfare and thriving future generations.
G) Entertainment industry be civilly culpable and so aware not just to bottom line reactive sales with reptilian responsive base triggering via violent imagery.
H) Oil and mineral industries to comply with accepted peer reviewed environment science regarding impact on basic human survival and use equitable policies on retrieval of these minerals. And value based responsible economics included in these equations.
it would be a next move to create a social network page for collaboration, action tasking and further discussions.

  • Apr 25 2013: It upsets me when responses are from those who when researched, seem bent on dragging conversations into confrontations with little in the way of reality or construct from any reasonable viewpoint. SO PLEASE if you cannot or will not be a civil responder with only constructive criticism and with a thoughtful reach toward "the golden rule" stay away from anything I write. I will from here forward ignore your simple flaming effort and the rule is.. treat others how you would like to be treated in case you missed that day in school. Thank you.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2013: Kudos on your composition, language wise! Machiavelli is turning in his grave. In a world ruled by craftiness, duplicity, and expediency your suggestion sparkles with optimism, simplicity and altruism. What a clash! Best wishes.
    • Apr 25 2013: ye who enlightens my weary heart a great big thanks
    • Apr 25 2013: Personally, from my perspective, he comes off naive as heck. The media makes money via sensationalism and war.
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2013: Well Jim, I think Mr.Cogswell is advocating for improvements to the zeitgeist. If I am right he seems to have nailed most of the improvements needed. In a dark, pessimistic world like ours optimism is often mistaken for naivete.
        • Apr 25 2013: Every election is time for change---lol--in 200 years its simply more of the same. But hey, his ideas of change are the same as the last 200 years.

          Tell us of one form of gov that is not fully corrupt or the super majority of the media that does not hide most all the gov's deceptions, with one rule for the rich and connected and another for those not rich or connected. It has always been and will always be. Gov's pit the haves against the have nots or are you and he so blind that you cannot see?

          Honest people and dishonest people cannot work together, because each looks down on the other. All of congress takes bribes and or they refuse to stop the bribe taking, making them all guilty. That's been going on for over 200 years, so yes, you both are naive.
        • thumb
          Apr 26 2013: Edward,

          I agree with that and would like to add that at times also idealism happens to be mistaken for either naivety, vigilantism or mysticism.
      • thumb
        Apr 26 2013: Jim,

        That's true, they do make money and personally I see nothing wrong about that under one condition - that sensations they present to the consumers at large are reality and research-based, not interest based, and providing information. When this information is sensational (e.g. cure for AIDS, cure for cancer etc.) - even better. Everybody needs sensation and entertainment.

        "Honest people and dishonest people cannot work together, because each looks down on the other. All of congress takes bribes and or they refuse to stop the bribe taking, making them all guilty."

        Great power corrupts greatly. But not everybody... And I'm not sure I fully agree with the clear distinction that you're making - honest people vs. dishonest people. Sometimes it's lack of knowledge, awareness or willpower that lead to infringements or escalation of greed.
        • Apr 26 2013: Why would one people own 96% of the WORLDS media?
          "The pen is mightier than the sword."
          In any war, you have to win the hearts and minds of the people.
          Believe all the propaganda you want, it doesn't make it so.
      • thumb
        Apr 26 2013: ""The pen is mightier than the sword."
        In any war, you have to win the hearts and minds of the people.
        Believe all the propaganda you want, it doesn't make it so."

        ...but actions speak louder than words and the devil lurks in the details. In peace, amen.
  • Apr 27 2013: so sure a FB page and certainly some other than promoted interest, busy as I am it will either do nothing as my detractors seem to want or once I get time to spend time it might be a good thing, in any event its something, weak critique aside.
  • Apr 26 2013: Naturally.. points taken, and I am absolutely drawn to what the tedsters accomplish and need not differentiate if higher disconnect indeed fits. Directly I am ill effected by a couple of negative responses and the case made for it here.
    I would not have marveled at teds were they so inclusive so come to ted talks as an important place for me in this new information age and the transitions to it.
    As I have allowed time its place and tonic I first and most importantly recognize how the dialogue has swerved away from any semblance of the topic. And i am intent on wrapping up the focus on whether or not tearing down ideas or otherwise reflecting nothing close to the spirit of the talks I have seen. As it becomes apparent again my effort is toward the vision I have interpreted ted discussion board affords. All while honoring your interjections I do not think this particular back and forth, you and I, is on beam as I see it. While you feel certainly clear about how this forum works best and it's limits it may help me not to extend that perception to my understanding. People laughed and mocked me on this idea and your posture I have navigated to a point where while points taken I suspect we do not share the same perspective. Good day sir.
  • Comment deleted

  • Apr 26 2013: Thank you Fritzie for great insights taken in tonight for a time to digest and readdress tomorrow.
    As I do intend to do this I cannot resist first recognizing that in an "action science" sense it would be unfortunate. There seems to be more intelligence compressed here @ Ted than most other places so as in an open forum it is attractive. It would however be a shame if indeed it turns out to be simply a spot where we all spin in place, one gargantuan ego playing in league with another of similar size bantering on infinitely blah blah blah and so on.
    A very goodnight!.
    • thumb
      Apr 26 2013: I don't think it is at all "a spot where we all spin in place." Many TEDsters are actively engaged in projects that are meaningful to them. What they do not do, necessarily, is to drop those meaningful efforts when another option and its champion come to town.

      This is another idea that is worth considering from an angle other than your specific interest. If people don't jump to follow any particular leader, you cannot logically conclude they are not engaged in meaningful projects and are just bantering infinitely. They may simply consider their projects a higher priority for their efforts than your project is to them.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2013: Philip, I think you might get more satisfying response if you clarify what you are looking for. Are you asking for people to say, Sure, I'll write letters to major media demanding your eight demands here? And then to add a few more demands to your list? (And not to respond to the thread if they question the viability of your project?)

    Or are you looking for feedback or discussion of any of the ideas themselves?

    Or are you asking people whether this forum is a good place to organize a network of supporters for the letter writing campaign you envision?

    For example, I didn't interpret Pat's comment as not being civil. It was just too terse, obviously, for you to understand his position.
    • Apr 26 2013: First Fritzie great and good to see your interest and efforts to help. Yes to all of your questions in fact emphatically yes, dissection discussion and perspective as well. But there is obviously terse response vs a civil discourse. I find the fact Pat responds with nothing but a contrary statement and looks to me to engage him without making any initial point is high riding. In fact having admittedly looked at his arguments, and they seem exclusively that, over posts I decided his value is not appreciated in my heart I know this. This idea is my discussion and there are other open letters on Ted so it is not that hard a concept to follow. And so some here have baseless arguments it has been noted and I refuse to engage. I am optimistic and fail to see merit in such overall negativity. I have two respondents who beg an argument based on what patterns I see with other posts. This is not my problem it is decidedly a problem at Ted. It is no more than flaming and it troubles me. But as I said optimism carries me when folks laugh out loud at me or try to drag me to their shallow depths of conflict for its sake only it does not work. I am happy and will probably remain this way. Who is better off?
      • thumb
        Apr 26 2013: I still fear the way you have posed your question is not the most fruitful.

        One question you might ask (independent of whether people agree in principle with your demands) is for people to give you feedback on whether presenting a list of demands like this to media outlets is likely to get media outlets' attention in a way that is productive to your agenda. If they think this approach is not the best to advance your agenda, what alternative would they expect to be more effective?

        Another question is what is the best way to gather letter writers for a letter writing campaign. I would have thought going to your social media channels, starting with people you know and who you know agree with your positions would be higher probability than posting to a discussion site.

        On that point, one thing I have noticed in my year of participation in TED Conversations is that it does not feel like a group of people waiting for a leader to come in and lead them in a project. For one, people seem to me quite independent minded, but even without looking for reasons, I have seen multiple times when someone has come in with a proposal looking for supporters here for an initiative, or to steer a collective effort here unrelated to the site itself, and I have never seen people rally behind the proposal in the sense of saying something like Count me in.

        I am not saying there cannot be a first time, but I have a feeling this is not your most promising hunting ground for this project.
  • Apr 25 2013: Are you trying to make us all rotfloao, because its working.
    There is no such thing as care for the people or justice in America. Just look around.
    • Apr 25 2013: your simple thanks is proof positive enough for me, cynicism will get you nowhere change your circumstance.
  • thumb
    Apr 25 2013: That won't work
    • Apr 25 2013: nothing will work ever anywhere ever and never has and never will given an attitude looking down look up, just a suggestion.
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2013: My attitude is based upon your endorsing bureaucracy and less responsibility of the citizens