Astonishingly, this is the first time since taking office Mayor Carter has warned of tax increases, though while in office the taxes in St Paul have risen nearly 30 percent, he usually just makes it happen.
Warning of higher taxes and new (well, old) trash hauling freedoms and personal choice on the line, the only true way to atone this grave mistake of local government is to pay for it by giving out our private data to large corporations.
Perhaps, the city tracks our data through dumpster and electronic chips within them, the data is there currently–and probably already collecting valuable information on each resident of St Paul. This data is of HUGE value to retailers and profiteers, maybe multiple millions.
Our private information could be sold to pay off the $27 million mistake made by Carter and Co., making new taxes unnecessary and saving the city council and mayor countenance while appeasing their constituents.
It’s time to do what other big data companies like Facebook, the DMV, Twitter and Google are all doing: profiting off our personal data. It’s 2019 and the resources and technologies are there already.
The government of the city of St Paul has all that it needs to start benefiting off of its great idea of running trash, why wait? Moreover, profits could also supplement a citywide health care for all program.
Save the tax dollars and put them to our depleted roads and bridges. It’s time to sell the citizens data to pay for your immaculate ideology.
Before you read this thesis watch the entire video that I share with you above. Watch it for the information about Facebook and social media, not because you dislike or like a politician, or for politically motivated reasons.
Observe this video from a marketing and social media engineering point of view. That is how the below thesis is posed. This is in no way a political statement. This is purely for observational purposes.
Thank you for reading in advance. Also, you can donate to keep my blog current, and the information relevant. Any amount helps, even a dollar. Click the donate button. You rock!
“Parscale attributed the success of his vast social media presence to using the assistance offered by companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Google. He said that because the Trump campaign intended to spend $100 million on social media, companies in that area were prepared to assist the campaign in using that money effectively.
“The campaign poured money into Facebook, sending thousands of versions of tweaked ads to maximize response. Then it won the presidency by a margin narrow enough that Parscale (and Facebook) can justifiably take credit.”
The contentious 2016 United States Presidential Election may have been won with a $100 million dollars, a “secret weapon”, and Facebook when used together. Or it may have been won by any other boilerplate theory out there that can be backed by anyone, by any entity, with any statistics.
Either way, for all intents and purposes, the “secret weapon” in this theory is Brad Parscale, and his tool was/is Facebook.
Perhaps, I want to believe that the 2016 election was won honestly and fairly because I am a thoughtful American citizen and I have hope, but the more I look at the events, the more I see glaring inconsistencies in media stories of Russian Collusion and a general disbelief or ineffective attempt to look at the bigger picture objectively. Social media played a HUGE role in this particular election, perhaps, as much so, or more, as any outside forces.
I aver, when looking at possibilities, generally we must look at everything, even information that has been overlooked from 10/08/2017 about Brad Parscale’s use of Facebook’s data/advertising tools to amass a successful, though debated, campaign–one which basically won the presidency, putting his candidate in the White House.
Moreover, to me, the most concerning part of imagining, assessing, or thinking openly that Facebook et al. was used, with money, to command an election in such a way is that people still use the platform religiously every day without question as they cast blame/credit elsewhere. Perhaps this is being oblivious, or willfully blind. It can’t be Facebook, right?
Reality check: It definitely can be Facebook. The reality is an inordinate amount of people are plugged into something (social media) that they wholly do not understand (I am in that boat), and marketers, salespeople, and data analysts are taking full advantage of that reality. (Beknownst, unbeknownst to all.) And how they do that advantageous venture is with huge, huge sums of purposed money.
Perhaps, purposed money and novel strategy, with a “secret weapon”, is what won the 2016 presidential election, along with a special tool of course: Facebook (when utilized by Brad Parscale). Perhaps there are other entities pulling strings, but Parscale and his efforts warrant consideration, and notation.
Beyond Parscale and social media, the secondary key in this thesis is the $100 million dollars went to marketing–the unprecedentedly complex advertising itself, and the lack of the Clinton campaign to embed Facebook and other social media employees within their campaign offices, as the Trump campaign did. And this may have swayed the election. I consider this maneuver to be out of touch in the age of social media. That’s glaringly foolish, in my opinion.
It’s like going to the World Series and leaving all your big hitters on the bench, extremely odd for a veteran politician…
Now, after these events, it sounds obvious to have key workers from these social media entities within your organization. Have one of the most influential and most recognized companies on your side in the most important race on the planet, possibly. Don’t leave much to chance. That is not genius, that is obvious. It wasn’t to some, clearly.
Further, not having social media on your side on your account seems very out of touch with reality. Even if you despise Facebook and are not a member of the brand, you have to recognize that it is a powerful tool for connecting people everywhere. For example, I am not on Facebook anymore but I realize it’s marketing potential, (I also realize at Christmastime that my parents and in-laws like to connect with high school friends. I don’t know why… I use email).
Bringing it home, the video above is not only astonishing to me, because I am just learning about Brad Parscale, and because of the information it gives on the key marketing tactics used within social media to win an election and manipulate a demographic of people is vast and accurate, but this technology seems potentially dangerous. The scary part in any situation is that money seems to make that happen. If money wanted you to be a modern zombie or a group think solider it would already be happening. And maybe you wouldn’t know. You’d just go with it and update your status. Probably not though, you are smart. 🙂
Accordingly, maybe someday we can better predict the future of everything, that is my prediction for the future.
For what it’s worth, with much of the media linking Parscale to Russia and basically making him look like a Sith lord in article photos, I think he could certainly be a critical part of understanding the 2016 presidential election, and definitely to harnessing momentum in future elections. At least his methods are very straightforward, in appearance, and no-nonsense. Definitely they are of interest.
His use of social media tools to reach an audience with a campaign message has never been done before at such a level, and he has worked on “zero” elections before.
In general, that utilization of resources–if that is what it truly was, is progressive and inspiring to me. He has been overlooked; and he is right there in front of us. As is the power of social media, but we have other excuses. Russia is scary and influenced the election. Trump may have cheated, etc. Any narrative is believable. But look at how many people around you are on Facebook clicking around, social media, exposing themselves to it all. Marketing is more common than the other alleged threats. I hope you like this post.
What influence. What money and focused ideas can buy.
If you want the impossible, you’ll have to do the impossible to get it. Not sit around and diddle, or sit around and post on social media. Limit these distractions. Limit all news but the weather. You don’t need prescription pill commercials nor paid for ideas. Every day is another day to make it right individually, to attain everything that you want or need in YOUR LIFE. Sitting here at 5 a.m. on a Saturday, every Saturday, I teach English abroad to make my impossible possible. I am a dad, human, American. I have obligations. There is no questions about it. I want the impossible. And the only way to get it is to be realistic, and do the impossible. If you want something hard work is the key, that shouldn’t be impossible.
Perhaps, over the years, American society has found a disconnect with being connected. This goes beyond the scope of the human and technology relationship, especially when plugging in disconnects us more and more from reality. We have created avatars of ourselves on platforms that get paid to have us there. Our pictures and our likes and our posts and our art are free advertisements, and you should get paid for what you do, really, and you should hold those that profit off of your media accountable.
The lens of what we see through our eyes is a special and unique one, true to us. Our voice through an instant platforms give us a sense of being, a sense of place in a connected world. Our art shared and receiving likes gives us a sense of importance. Our lens of focus is enacted and descrying those interactions. One, a sense, that like wine, gathers new notes and qualities throughout the years. We see things as we like to see them. The media we post about ourselves does not actually reflect who we are but who we want to become.
And that is the assumption, that the platform is pure and innocent–something that we can create ourselves as we imagine ourselves on. We see pictures and posts and ideas and politics and these change our minds assumed unobscured. All of these ideas are brought to us through and unnatural lens, a lens paid for by lobbyists, or political parties, or foreign governments, or massive corporations. If Facebook is where you get your news, then your news is skewed by the aforementioned; your idea is formed through the lens of capitalism, of marketing to your demographic.
This is all a bit scary when we realize objective observation is a made up idea of which you cannot understand beyond the thoughts in your head, this relates to Facebook. Especially then, in that framework, language is rooted in history making it not your unique idea: your words on not your words. (You don’t think in made up languages; perhaps you think in English, Spanish, or German) Further, take recently, Facebook announced they were paid by Russia to place ads on their platform; therefore, everything is touched by everything and related. Had this transaction been carried out by a politician it would have been a deplorable offense. Because we are part of it, through social media, we are accountable and involved. Accomplice. The CEO of Facebook admitted this, the idea of taking money to place ads. Said “we” would work harder at vetting these messages. That is all of us and our words.
Furthermore, if the message of these real advertisements is out there with “fake news” how is one to get beyond that? We are fake people living in a fake world. The toilet paper you buy, because of the advertisement you witnessed on Facebook, reinforces the reality of the “fake news” story, making it present real in a skewed lens. It may seem like a fallacy but the shampoo you bought is real, the ad you saw for that product was real, making the news story you saw exist in that same genre: in a realistic hue. Or visa versa, the political ad you saw on Facebook was fake but the news was actually real. How much research did you put into finding out the truth of both? At least you know the shampoo works. I say, share that headline, it’s from CNN.
The lens we think in is through social media, like language, it is not our own, and that media is owned by someone else, by a capitalistic entity. Our language, art, media, comments and posts are dictated by a media that sets you within a certain category, living within a framework designed and restricted by others. Go outside of this category allotment and face banishment, hatred, expulsion, and unsavory marks at your character, image, or likeness. Stay within it and you become homogeneous, enjoyed by others, there is a sense of worth, community. But is that worth real or contrived? Is that worth valuable when you realize you are a pawn for marketers, and a company which may have swung an election, may have profited off of your existence?
If you want to move beyond this compromised platform, now is the time to unplug, deactivate as I have. End your Facebook account for the idea that you are outside of the box. I feel a bit outside of that square because I did it. The story of my deactivation: Facebook had a class-action lawsuit against them (Fraley vs. Facebook) because they used my likeness without my permission, and the likeness of 150,000 unaware others. I, well we, became an ironic advertisement we knew nothing about. I struggled with the deactivation, had to download all my photos again but eventually I succeeded. I feel much better not being in something presumed innocent but exists as something entirely different, while totally accepted as the former.
Facebook presents as simple, transparent, honest, easy, thoughtful, and benevolent. Many media outlets use Facebook, push accounts and stories. Newspapers have Facebook pages, we get stories from Facebook; a summer back Facebook Live started a social media movement. Those movements are latent effects, the manifest effect is the profits. What you might not understand is that visibility is lucrative to companies. These entities are making money off of ads–ads which might be bought by foreign governments, to trick you to buy something or to carry on with some contemporary idea. They want you to see it through their lens, the lens that profits for them, the lens of distraction and complacence.
Social media, in theory, may be a great idea, we are brought closer to places, people, and things we love, we get information immediately, we are privy to every detail. Or we are privy to the details entities allow us to see. That is so easy. So easy, why change? Well, when the platform crashes and everything you own on that platform is compromised–which is nothing, you will have nothing to show for it. Someone else will: their loss. That is why the time is now to deactivate and live your life free of the lens you forces upon yourself. Free to say and think what you mean outside of the capitalistic realm presented. Imagine not needing a CEO to align you with your thoughts. Plug into your new-old platform: real-life.
Thank you for reading, remember to donate to my cause. My cause is writing and sharing my personal opinions and ideas, these are my own. Hit the donate button, and if you enjoy what you have read, please share my works on social media (ironic, I understand). TS_
“In the case of building a new Vikings stadium, it was always understood to be roughly 50-50 with the Vikings owners and taxpayers sharing the financial load. Currently, it appears to be closer to a ratio of 90 percent taxpayer and 10 percent owner.”
I suppose it will be nice to have a giant fucking monstrosity of a privately owned stadium as a money collector, to be paid for with tax dollars, as opposed to tuition assistance for college students. I mean, concussions and NFL tickets are high priority in Viking’s Territory; not to mention we have the Superbowl coming 2018- major money maker.
The Vikings constantly win the Superbowl, and other titles, so I can see why they need a new facility. Forget my college debt and the high price of textbooks. This is a must have for Minnesotans. The community doesn’t need more educated book reading people, it needs more football fans, bar none.