Bloody Oil Makes Blood Boil

Eagle-eyed reader Billifer von Raptor spotted the following sign in a local Wahoo’s Fish Taco in San Diego, CA and was disturbed by its promise, what with something in Afghanistan and Iraq going on.

If you donate your blood to a local Red Cross, your name will be entered in a raffle for a $500 gas card.

“The sign was inexcusable…color me livid,” he writes on his blog.

Billifer scribbled on the poster, “No Blood For Oil.”

However, to be perfectly fair, the sign does not break that promise, rather, it offers oil for blood.

“Garishness Squared” [pa’X,oo Says It All]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. SpecialK says:

    So, what, the Red Cross shouldn’t think of clever ways to get more blood just because someone gets his panties in a wad over what is basically a fricking burt-out-hippie bumpersticker slogan? Please.

    But let’s forget the stupidity of the “No blood for oil” line of “reasoning” (as a political statement and as a matter for complaint in this instance).

    With gas prices as high as they are, this is a smart way to address a constant need by the Red Cross.

  2. Considering there are a great many people that the Red Cross still don’t allow to donate blood, yeah I’d say there’s plenty to complain about, but scribbling “No Blood for Oil” on this poster would just make me giggle.

  3. snazz says:

    wholy overreaction, batman!

  4. Billifer says:

    I’m with urban bohemian on this one — in addition to the current issue at hand. In full disclosure, I’ll admit that I’ve always had a grudge against the ARC since I was denied the right to donate blood (despite all their pleas and moans for how much they need donations) because I’ve slept with a man.

    Still, I stand by my original statement that it’s in bad taste to print such a poster in such a city where such a large percentage of husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, sons, and daughters are on deployment in the Middle East giving their lives every day. And, no, I have no relatives or close friends who are deployed there. But I still find it offensive.

    Am I too sensitive? It’s better than being insensitive.

  5. SpecialK says:

    Billifier,
    Not to be harsh, but I don’t think you’re anywhere near the same mindset as soldiers and soldiers’ families. My brother was “there.” My cousin is still “there.” I have an uncle “there.” But here’s the thing… the majority of people who volunteer to join the military think the phrase “no blood for oil” is stupid, mindless clap-trap spoken by anti-war folks who aren’t quite sure WHY they’re anti-war. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against the war, and hell, some people can almost–almost–pull together enough disparate threads and spin a conspiracy theory about how it’s just about oil. (If our primary concern was oil, we would have sold that no-oil having Israel down the river long ago).

    But most military personnel aren’t going to be offended by this campaign precisely because they don’t give the “blood for oil” thing any credence.

    And I’m sure that most people who are on the receiving end of donated blood would rather the ARC be more strict than not with its blood donation criteria. If I’m gonna get HIV, Hepatitis or Mad-Cow, I’d rather do it having sex, shooting up or eating meat, rather than having it pumped into me.

  6. konstantConsumer says:

    for sure, specialK. god knows they don’t screen the blood at all. recently, they’ve just started transferring it directly from one person to the next. and after all, only gay people have HIV. everyone knows that. god gave it to them, even.

  7. paolo says:

    sample comment