@BrentCsutoras only on (not fully) redirected domain or an AFF that was proxying (and was hosted on same server).

This revolution was never televised.

I remember about 4 years ago, I had just moved back to San Francisco (after living in NYC for a few years) and I was on the phone with my mother telling her that every single weekend there were war protests that marched down the center of downtown San Francisco. I was really encourage by this voice of protest especially since I had not heard (on the news) of any other events around the country actively voicing their opinions in this way.

My mother was encouraged as well but she said something that stuck with me - she told me that in DC there had also been massive protests. She also said that she had heard nothing about the protests in San Francisco. The reason these two statements stuck with me is because I couldn’t understand why my news was filled with inane banter around local to-do’s that were essentially meaningless and not giving valuable time to this voice of dissent. And clearly, the news on her side of the country was doing the same.

The problem with this is that media (which is dubbed as “Liberal Media”) served to actually destroy a possible positive voice of dissent to the established pro-war voice. Now, I am not trying to solve whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong (I personally think it is wrong) but what I am trying to figure out is why debate on this issue (and I am talking about pundit debate but rather regional pro or anti war debate) wasn’t at the core of our 5 o’clock news. If regional voices are not heard nationally then John Doe in Somewhere, NM is going to end up feeling like he is the only one in the world that actually believes he has a voice. That his voice is (in some way) unique. While being a unique person is a great thing - it is counter productive when you are attempting to change the world or the views of a nation.

These thoughts came up again for me when I read my friends blog on Pete Seeger (a folk singer) who was essentially blacklisted years ago  for sing song about peace. I always struggled with the idea of perceived freedom versus actual freedom in the US. I am not attempting to answer the question here but rather ask the question - “Do we believe in the idea of freedom more than it is actualized in modern day US?” And further, “Is it more dangerous to think we have freedom (but not actualize that freedom) than to feel as though we have no freedom at all?”

My thought is that it IS much more dangerous to BELIEVE we have something than to not have it all. That is is much more dangerous to BELIEVE we can change the world but there is no mechanism for change.

I am alone in a sea of tweets…

anyone else finding adwords overcounting sales in reports. I am seeing 10X what it should be. new bug - checked against historical reports

what is the word for when you are better at teaching marketing than executing? oh, yeah… unemployed. sign me up.

I need to stick to one blogging platform. Got lazy and switched without redirecting any URLs. not like anyone is reading my personal blog

@kmiffitt in 2 hours you are… don’t play like you are leaving for yoga now. I know better

@kmiffitt Couplepreneurship, couples in business, husband wife business, entrepreneur spouses, copreneur

@kmiffitt bubble. let’s go home and make yams.

I’ve always been skeptical of self help. The books, the videos, the seminars… I never really got it.

What I think self help attempts to give you is basically Boboli For The Soul. They’ll provide the meaning and purpose in your life, you just add the toppings.

I know that is a misrepresentation of self help (I can say that confidently because I work for a self help company) but I’m really put off by self help… it just seems cultish.

Plus, I think I just really like the phrase Boboli For The Soul.