Blood Saves

[Spacewolfomega]

The libs are all up in arms over the latest campaign from the Ad Council regarding the need to give blood. The slogan for the campaign is "Saving the World Isn't Easy." Has anyone heard these spots? Personally, I love 'em.

The idea behind the spots is that young members of society are prone to getting involved in many "Save the World" campaigns that actually are short-sighted or revolve around complex issues that are difficult to solve "just overnight". However, by contrast, giving blood is easy and involves a humanitarian act without all the complexities of other issues out there.

You can check out the spots at http://www.bloodsaves.com but I have provided the text here:

GIRL: "I heard about this company dumping toxins in local rivers and I called their executives to say 'stop', but they were too busy counting profits while the rivers are being destroyed, birds and fish are dying, and the local kids are getting cancer. So I organized a huge protest and it actually got the company shut down but now half the town’s been unemployed and the kids are twice as sick since they can’t get healthcare, since their parents lost the insurance they had when they worked for the company who dumped all the toxins in the first place."

BOY: "When I found out my jeans were made using child labor in sweatshops, I wrote a letter to the company, saying 'reconsider your labor practices'...a few months later, I get a letter back saying 'thanks for being a loyal customer' and they included a coupon for a 25% discount on their jeans...So I got smart and wrote letters everyday to all the stores who carry the brand, asking them to stop supporting the companies that use child labor in sweatshops, and I just kept getting letters back thanking me for my concern and more coupons for more discounts on more jeans! So I'm telling my friend about it, and she flips out saying between all the letters and coupons, some paper company cut down a small forest, driving out two indigenous tribes, hundreds of endangered animals, and thousands of plant species, some of which may contain vaccines for HIV, cancer and syphilis! Meanwhile, the guys cutting down the trees are 13 year old kids who will work night and day for months, just to save up enough money to buy a pair of jeans made by child labor in sweatshops."

The reason the libs are all up in arms over these ads is that they are claiming "Well, the ads send the message of 'Don't bother' to people who are trying to affect positive change around the world."

Wrong.

The ads are sending the message that you can't go off half-cocked in this world and go around trying to "make things better" based on your emotions without doing the appropriate research into the problem you are trying to fix. Guess that hits a little too close to home for the libs, who are ready to hit the streets and protest anything and everything based on cuddly, feel-good emotions without any semblance of reason.

It also points out how some of their efforts to affect positive change have actually done more harm than good.

Ouch. Maybe I *can* see why they're so upset.

[Reignbow]

The spots do have a delicious irony to them. A lot of protesters like to ignore the fact that things are usually not simple. There are motivations and reasons behind the actions they protest against - not necessarily ones that justify them in the end, but companies don't cut down the rain forest just for that warm evil feeling inside. In most of the cases, to eliminate certain practices a price has to be paid or an alternative established. It's not about liberal or whatever else- it's about the difference between living in la-la land and the real world.

As such nobody who is secure in their rationality should feel offended by the spots - they're just graphical renditions of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." From an advertising stand point it's a good idea to make the spots somewhat confrontational - people will remember them much longer that way. Before anybody raises the concern about instrumentalization of blood donations for getting a quick jab at political opponents... look at who is behind that campaign. Is the American Red Cross really a hotbed of right-wing republican hardliners?

[Rangers]

My wife and I used to give blood regularly, and then we were disqualified for having been in Europe during the '80's. I call once in a while to see if they've lifted that disqualification, but it's been years. Meanwhile, the news keeps quoting blood banks complaining that there's not enough people donating blood. Anyone else see a problem here?

[Spacewolfomega]

It's not about liberal or whatever else- it's about the difference between living in la-la land and the real world.

I agree it can apply to anyone, certainly. What strikes me is that when I was doing a search for these particular ads I kept running across predominantly liberal blogsites that were just spewing forth outright hatred and outrage over the ads. I guess it leaves no room for wondering who felt like their actions were being taken to task.

look at who is behind that campaign. Is the American Red Cross really a hotbed of right-wing republican hardliners?

Excellent point. I'm sure the Red Cross wasn't trying to choose a political side of the aisle, but rather simply point out that "Hey, if you're trying to save the world, it can be a lot of work, there can be a lot of confusion, and your impact may be minimal... but check it out... you can give blood and it's a guaranteed good deed!"

Certainly those who are more rationally minded didn't take offense to the ads. They make a good point, after all. Me, I just like the "jab" quality (unintentional or otherwise) because I get so sick of people who "take to the streets" over everything and usually represent a complete lack of understanding of the issues at hand.

[Spacewolfomega]

My wife and I used to give blood regularly, and then we were disqualified for having been in Europe during the '80's. I call once in a while to see if they've lifted that disqualification, but it's been years. Meanwhile, the news keeps quoting blood banks complaining that there's not enough people donating blood. Anyone else see a problem here?

Well, the disqualification is if you have spent five years or more in Europe since 1980. The reason is that the FDA cracked down on this due to the risk of donors carrying Mad Cow disease. Since there's not enough known about Mad Cow disease in humans (only the human form of Mad Cow disease), they've decided to err on the side of caution rather than submit someone to risk.

If the restrictions on donating blood makes sure that I will have non-infected and high quality blood when I need a transfusion, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

It just means that those who can donate should. (Hmmm... sounds like I may have to visit the vampires soon so I can practice what I preach.)

[UncleMonty]

I've sometimes wondered if, and if so how much money the Red Cross makes by selling that donated blood to plasma centers once it reaches the "pull" date for whole blood.

[Tbolt]

One of the biggest "trade off"'s that was recently pointed out to me was DDT. It was an effective pesticide, but it was preseumably linked to thinning of bird's eggs, sprcifically the California Condor and the Bald Eagle are the ones I recall.

A lot of lobbying got the toxin pulled worldwide.

Since then roughly 1,000,000 people die every year from malaria because an effective substitute has yet to be found for the control of mosquito populations in developing nations.

When one attempts to re-engineer a system, there's bound to be a trade off somewhere. Will the sacrifice in area A be worth the benefit in area B?

[Spacewolfomega]

Since then roughly 1,000,000 people die every year from malaria because an effective substitute has yet to be found for the control of mosquito populations in developing nations.

Outstanding point! I seem to remember hearing Rush talk about that recently in one of his morning updates.

I think, if anything, this only further drives home the point that the spots were making, which is "Saving the World Isn't Easy". It's just that whole mob mentality of "rioting for a cause" that irritates me. It usually accomplishes little and sometimes does more harm than good.

[RHJunior]

One of the biggest "trade off"'s that was recently pointed out to me was DDT. It was an effective pesticide, but it was preseumably linked to thinning of bird's eggs, sprcifically the California Condor and the Bald Eagle are the ones I recall.

A lot of lobbying got the toxin pulled worldwide.

Since then roughly 1,000,000 people die every year from malaria because an effective substitute has yet to be found for the control of mosquito populations in developing nations.

When one attempts to re-engineer a system, there's bound to be a trade off somewhere. Will the sacrifice in area A be worth the benefit in area B?

Actually, it was pulled because of a cancer scare.
Which was subsequently proven false. Even those that banned it admitted there was no clinical evidence connecting it to cancer in humans.

As to the thinning eggshell thing....

Aheh. Turns out that research was fudged. Seems that calcium in the bird's diets interfered with certain laboratory tests <I>so the researchers cut the calcium out of the bird's diet.</I> Take a wild guess what that did to the eggshells.

When that little oopsie was corrected, DDT was shown to have no effect on eggshell thickness. In fact, certain species of birds in DDT areas were found to hatch MORE of their eggs...

Another side effect that was glossed over: DDT kills bugs. Birds, especially songbirds, eat bugs. What happens to a species population when the food supply drops?

Consider that if you have lots and lots of pretty tweety birds around, then the place has gotta be crawling.....

[BrockthePaine]

Another side effect that was glossed over: DDT kills bugs. Birds, especially songbirds, eat bugs. What happens to a species population when the food supply drops?

Consider that if you have lots and lots of pretty tweety birds around, then the place has gotta be crawling.....

I'd give up the population of local songbirds if only we could manage to keep the ants from getting onto our kitchen counter. I'd prefer not to be fixing dinner and suddenly half of my ingrediants disappear in this giant marching line of tiny bodies...

[Spacewolfomega]

I'd give up the population of local songbirds if only we could manage to keep the ants from getting onto our kitchen counter. I'd prefer not to be fixing dinner and suddenly half of my ingrediants disappear in this giant marching line of tiny bodies...

Here's a link for you, Brock. Hope it helps! Keep them pesky critters at bay!
http://www.yardcareproblems.com/index.c ... 92f30e3f62

Actually, it was pulled because of a cancer scare.
Which was subsequently proven false. Even those that banned it admitted there was no clinical evidence connecting it to cancer in humans.

As to the thinning eggshell thing....

As always, good info!

[Sciguy]

Personaly, I just give blood because I know someone is going to need it. No if about it. Accidents happen. People get mugged, shot, or worse. And our solders obviously can use it.

Put that on an ad.

Then again, the fact that the solders needed it was a selling point years ago.


Bit of trivia: The man who discovered the process of transfusing plasma, died from blood loss because the hospital he went to refused to treat anyone who wasn't white.

Thank you segragation for depriving our time of a great man, yet again.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Personaly, I just give blood because I know someone is going to need it. No if about it. Accidents happen. People get mugged, shot, or worse. And our solders obviously can use it.

Put that on an ad.

Then again, the fact that the solders needed it was a selling point years ago.


Bit of trivia: The man who discovered the process of transfusing plasma, died from blood loss because the hospital he went to refused to treat anyone who wasn't white.

Thank you segragation for depriving our time of a great man, yet again.

An urban legend, actually. It was an auto accident, way back in the early 50's. Procedure at the segregated hospitals was to treat anyone for emergency where they arrived, and then evac them to the appropriate hospital for recuperation. He was too badly injured to survive the trip to the hospital - DOA, not dead because he was turned away. Let's be reasonable, here - do you think the ambulance would have -taken- him there if they weren't going to treat him? And they most certainly would have known.

Annoying, really. The segregationists were rotten enough on their own hook to make it necessary to smear dedicated medical professionals working in a bad system the best that they could, just for extra ammunition.