Disinfo Rehab

There seems to be a tradition now amongst the press to give any potential candidate one "free pass" at the beginning of a campaign season. That is, a nice, safe, polite feature that allows the candidate one shot at some halfway decent press before the onslaught starts (or doesn't start, depending on who it is).

Last week there was this article in the LA Weekly profiling former Police Chief, and current City Councilman Bernie Parks and his potential bid for Mayor of Los Angeles against an increasingly troubled Mayor Hahn.

The piece is well researched in terms of giving us a picture of the daily political life of Councilman Parks, and it certainly brings up some points in his favor. But like any political prospectus this early in the game, its emphasis on some glittering generalities only fuels the false hopes of anyone backing someone like Parks for Mayor, and glosses over some fairly large hurdles in the way of Parks becoming anything but Councilman-for-Life in his safe Council seat.

Many people make note of the fact that in his first run for Council, he raised a lot of money ($500,000) and did well enough in the primary that no runoff was necessary for him that year. That's all well and good until you look at the field - it was Recently Kicked Off the Force Bernie Parks (with the all powerful "name ID" people covet these days) vs. four complete unknowns, with a combined budget equaling what most people spend on lunch at the taco stand for a month. In other words, it was a cakewalk for Parks, who had the overall anger (is that too strong a word?) by people in his district over his firing by Hahn not too long before the election.

Thus, the Parks Prospectus fails one test - a battle-tested political campaign operation. Whenever you start reading about Some Bigwig Politico making his (or her) next Big Move Up, you have to realize that in most cases, people who've served in one particular office for a long period of time usually don't have to do much to get elected, especially if they represent an area of cohesive political thought. Parks hasn't served in his current office a long time, but it's a bit of a stretch to think that he has to do too much to keep his job - he certainly didn't have to do much to get it in the first place.

Up against an experienced campaigner like Mayor Hahn (who has counted master political strategist Kam Kuwata of Venice as one of his top advisors in past races), and other people who've built real political operations over the years, it's hard to see how Councilman Parks can be expected to do well. Even with a base in the African American community (which is not guaranteed to go with him 100% they way they did for others in the past), he will still be pressed to run a hard fought, bitter, and personal campaign. Can Parks stand the heat? That remains to be seen.

However, there's a bigger elephant in the living room this article (and many pundits) fail to discuss or even acknowledge when discussing the prospects of a Parks candidacy - the fact that in the one major, citywide, executive job he had, Parks was a failure - his tenure as Police Chief of Los Angeles. There's no mention of it in the Weekly article, and discussion of the 2005 Mayor's race seems to ignore it altogether.

This I find fascinating. Parks received a vote of no-confidence and a recommendation to remove him as Chief by the Police Commission and the City Council. They didn't do this out of some racist conspiracy theory some would have us believe - they did it because frankly, he was a lousy Chief.

Under his watch murders went up, morale on the force went down, and confidence by Los Angeles residents in the ability of the Chief to effectively run the department was shattered by his zigzags as Chief. TO think that somehow he could run for a citywide office and not have any of this come up is ludicrous. It's as crazy as thinking that President Bush could run for re-election and not speak one word about anything he'd done as President these past four years. (We know that won't happen, right?)

One only has to look at the work current Chief William Bratton has done in the short time he has been on the job to see what a contrast in management style and accomplishments the department had under Parks vs. what we have today. Crime is down, police morale is up, and the public has a renewed sense of confidence in the management of the department.

Chief Bratton is not perfect, nor is anyone. However, there wouldn't be this dramatic a shift in fortunes at the LAPD had Parks' work there been as stellar as he'd have us believe. That is if he even talks about it - although it's hard to conceive of how many  11 x 17 brochures could talk about Parks' executive leadership and fill more than a few inches of copy between them.

I'll be taking a look at the prospectuses (prospectii??) of Sen. Richard Alarcon and other declared candidates as they come out of the woodwork with a similar critical look at their pros and cons.

However, I can say this much - if I'm was a betting man I'd holding back on putting any of those $500 chips on anyone just yet - and I would not put any on Councilman Parks until I saw something that could make a significant change in the realpolitik landscape he faces in 2005.

PS: Tomorrow will mark my official one-year anniversary living in Venice Beach. Strange, it still feels like I just got here....

UPDATE: Mr. Parks now has a campaign website at bernardparks.com - take a look at it and see where you might wanna bet your $50 chips on this race.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When you work in the world of "political consulting," you work in a world that everyone thinks they know about and have an opinion on, yet few actually understand, or bother to learn about. For 3 years and 9 months of a 4 year cycle, I decline to tell people what I do for a living, simply to avoid some pointless conversation, and to talk about things more fun and interesting when I'm "off-duty." (It has also been a primary motivator for me to transition away from the profession entirely.)

The only time it's worth saying the worlds "political consultant" in a bar is when the last few months of the Presidential race are in gear - then you get free drinks for your "insider" knowledge of "the system." It makes for some good nights out for a few weekends.

When I read things like this little jewel of "reporting" from Yahoo News/PCWORLD, I find I am confronted with the latest example of ill-conceived and poorly researched "journalism" that is considered to be "objective" in today's discourse.

After reading it with a critical eye, however, it was full of distortions, double-entendres, and overall painted a very deceptive picture of how campaigns are using the Internet to communicate their views. It also reinforced negative stereotypes about the work I do. Hence my evasiveness in public.

So, for today's fun, I decided to dissect the rhetoric, and the failed attempts by PCWORLD's "reporter," to get that Woodward-esque Pulitzer nailing "The Man."

Using this article, I shall illustrate how the press can tell you something that may have its some of its fact straight, but uses characterizations and innuendo to imply something else.

Let's look at the "lead." With emotion-grabbing intensity playing off the reader's inherent dislike for unwanted email (the bane of all of us on-line) with this witty little opener:

A new class of spam is sliding into in-boxes alongside pitches for Viagra and low-interest loans. It's coming from President George Bush and Democratic frontrunner Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) and their supporters.

Oooohhh! Scary! A picture is painted of the evil, mind-numbing tentacles of Politician Propaganda, devouring the disk space of the Proletariat. Help us, o valiant reporter and expose this dastardly conspiracy!

Seriously though, this is an example of a mischaracterization that smears the President and Sen. Kerry needlessly and unfairly. While there are plenty of things to tag both men with in their quest for the presidency, this is not one of them. This opener immediately prejudices the reader, regardless of the facts (using the slur of "spam" for their communications). It sounds great, and I am sure he got a pat on the back for being so creative. Too bad that it's not really true in this case.

I know people at the Kerry campaign, and while I have no direct knowledge of the operations of Bush/Cheney '04, I can say with almost 100% certainty that they do what the Kerry people do with their email blasts - they send them only to people who've signed up to get their daily missives - not to anyone else.

To be sure, there's the occasional wise-ass who signs up his pro-Bush boss for the "Liberals for Kerry" list after getting outsourced, but both Bush and Kerry provide very easy means for someone to never receive a message from either campaign in their lifetimes if they so desire.

This fact is nowhere in the article, and it's most likely because either a) the "reporter" didn't bother to do the research to prove or disprove this assertion or b) has little knowledge on this subject (political communications) so instead discuss what they do know (in this case commercial spammers).

But our intrepid "reporter" does not fire all of his missives at Bush and Kerry - citizen organizations get the slur as well:

White House hopefuls aren't the only folks taking advantage of the ubiquity and low cost of e-mail. Conservative and liberal groups alike use spamlike tactics (emphasis added) to promote their causes.

The conservative GrassFire.org is an issue-driven group that recently sent 300,000 e-mail invitations to view an online ad that calls Massachusetts senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy "opponents to conservative values." GrassFire.org representatives say they hope its e-mail will be forwarded repeatedly. Their goal is for 1 million people to view this ad online.

This slur against a conservative citizen's action group (along with another one aimed at the liberal MoveOn.org group) is particularly clever. Notice how the writer used the phrase "spamlike tactics" in the characterization of each group's activities.

This gives the reporter a nice way out of a hole should he be confronted with a nasty note from Grassfire.org or Moveon.org. Rather than slur them with the term "spammer" he can say "Oh, but I didn't say you were spammers - just that your tactics are spam-like. And well, don't spammers sent out lots of emails? Don't you?" That sound you hear next is the libel suit going out the window. The vagueness of English once again benefits the lazy writer.

Curious to know more about Grassfire,org, a group I had only heard about in passing, I went to their site and found the following statement in their FAQ:

Do you spam?
Grassfire.org is an opt-in service. We do not spam. Virtually all our online team came to Grassfire.org from the referral of a friend or family member.

Steve Elliot, the president of Grassfire, was kind enough to respond to my inquiry on this issue with this statement:

"Grassfire.org is an opt-in network of more than one million citizens who are using the tools of the Internet to impact the key issues of our day. Every month, hundreds of thousands of citizens give us their personal endorsement by forwarding our messages to their friends and each time. This means more to us than anything the media may or may not say about what we are doing. We believe we are on the leading edge of the future of political involvement and are excited to watch the influence of our online team grow."

As of presstime, I did not have a response back from Moveon.org, but in the interest of fairness, I did notice this at the bottom of my Moveon.org email message:

This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself (Schadelmann) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at:

When I get a response, I'll edit it in here. Really.

Now, without some real evidence to hit these guys with the spammer label, such as oh, I don't know, a primary source (remember that term when you got your Communications degree, guys??), slamming Grassfire.org simply isn't fair.

Similarly, as a subscriber to the moveon.org list, I know for a fact they only send email to the people who ask for them - just like Grassfire.org does. Not only is it a matter of political practicality - no group wants to annoy people who don't want to hear their message - it's also a matter of logistics - harvesting emails is not an easy task, and would be foolish for any political group to pursue. The negative response and the media attack from one's opponents would not be worth it.

Thus, the "spamlike tactics" label prejudices the reader about each group's work unfairly. While I may or may not agree with what some of these groups do, I don't think that slamming them with a false label does any good.

If the reporter had perhaps consulted with many of the leading anti-SPAM resources out there, such as Emailabuse.org, SpamCop or similar sites, perhaps he'd find that neither group appears to be seriously considered "spammers" as we know the term today. They aren't using the tools, tactics, (and suffering the consequences) of blasting out unwanted mail to people who don't want to receive their messages.

Oh, but it gets better. After pissing off the reader with the threat of "political spam" we get the final touch:

Outside the Law (emphasis not added)
If you don't like the political spam you're getting, you're out of luck this season. That's because the recently enacted Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, known as CAN-SPAM, applies to unsolicited commercial e-mail only, not to unsolicited political e-mail.

For the record, both the Kerry and Bush campaigns told me their bulk e-mail lists are homegrown and generated exclusively by people who have opted in to receive the candidates' e-mail.

Here you see the most common tactic of reporters, political and non political, when they want to slur an elected official without much in the way of facts, or in this case, with the facts, but ones that do not fit the construct created by our intrepid "journalist."

(Side note: look at how the response of the Bush and Kerry campaigns explaining their activity was buried in the story. Perhaps it was inconvenient to mention way up at the top?)

In this case, the bold headline "Outside the Law" implies that all the folks mentioned in this piece are doing something illegal. That of course is false, as the next paragraph states - in the most recent legislation, political advertising was exempted from the anti-spam law, as were phone calls, direct mail, and other forms of communication.

What he fails to understand, or even find out, is why. Over the years, as more and more consumer legislation has been passed to eliminate the harassment of the telemarketer, the junk-mailer, and the junk-emailer, there have been consistent provisions exempting political speech that may make use of the telephone, the Postal Service, or the Internet.

That's because any time such an attempt has been made to restrict the freedom of citizens to talk to other citizens about political and social issues it's been struck down by this funny little gadget known as the First Amendment to the United States. Commercial speech designed to sell you something for money has always been considered separately from political/social speech in court decisions and the law.

Now, in this article, you read none of that. Instead the implication is that the "mean politicians" gave themselves a legal break. Right after they're accused of doing something illegal. It fits nicely with the cynicism that journalists cultivate to claim "objectivity" and feeds into people's inherent dislike of public officials. Unfortunately in many cases such reflexive cynicism does little to inform people with facts - instead it's all about fueling emotions to make a great "story."

Now, if our intrepid "journalist" had done some actual research into real-life cases of politicians who do spam, he may have found out something not only that would perhaps be accurate in the "political spam" debate, but also something quite relevant to campaign 2004: the case of former Secretary of State Bill Jones' past spamming activities. Bill Jones is now running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 in California.

For those of you who weren't following Campaign 2002 in California, a quick recap is here at Wired Magazine. Using a forged email header, and routing a list of unsolicited emails through a elementary school server in Korea, Jones' campaign sent out millions of unsolicited emails promoting his campaign - even to people who didn't live in California.

A quick Google search revealed many postings by folks who were not from California who got their "Vote Jones" spam. Picking links at random I found some here and here among many, many posts at blogs, Slashdot, and other sources, mainstream and not. Go to Google and do a a search of your own - it's rather a long list I'm afraid.

But even more fascinating was this link here which would appear to indicate they're planning to hire the same pack of yahoos who sold them this dumb idea in the first place. Attempts to contact the Jones campaign were not successful as of press time.

Now in this case, the spam slur I've decried doesn't apply to Mr. Jones. Why? In this case, we have well-documented cases of Jones' campaign using the tools, tactics, and suffering the consequences of blasting out unwanted mail to people who didn't want it, and should not have received it, for the benefit of both Mr. Jones's campaign, and the many recipients involved.

Obviously if I were working for a more mainstream publication, I would not discuss this issue as an aside, based on Google research - I'd spend the time, to go talk to many sources and verify everything. Given that Mr. Jones is challenging an incumbent Senator, and has made claims he is in touch with "high tech," it's worth a look to see if he practices what he would seem to preach and find out what the actual facts of the matter were then, and now. If they give Mr. Jones a black eye, so be it. If not, so be it as well.

In other words, I'd be doing for PCWORLD or the LA Weekly (or whomever would be willing to pay me) what I thought most reporters were supposed to do - get off their backside and their cynicism and find out what's going on - not just write a good "story."

Enough. I'm off to the Waterfront Cafe to discuss the latest about the movie I'm working on. Who woulda thought that telling someone you're a producer would be more reputable than telling someone you're a political consultant? After reading coverage like this, you begin to see why!

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hey Gang:

My normal update on Friday is coming late this evening due to several work projects under the gun.

In the meantime, I'd invite you all to check out a project I'm working on - it is an Independent film feature directed by my good friend Alexis which I am now the "producer" for. It is a great story called Four Weeks Four Hours.

The first part of the film has been shot, and you can watch clips of it in a rough trailer at the site. We're actively casting for the second part of the film - if you or anyone you know is an actor/actress in the Los Angeles area, or better yet if you or anyone you know wants to help us with locations, money, a Hummer, money, or money, feel free to email me and I'll get the gears in motion.

Check back late late tonight for a "real" update! Thanks!

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems like every few years someone, be they on the left or the right, has to start screaming hysterics about the content of television and radio programming. If the fact that we now have a far more active attempt to have the State regulate what you can and can't say about any subject, including the current President's performance in office, the sick humor of the whole situation would make it more entertaining than threatening.

The vituperative outrage from our Self Appointed Guardians of The Republic seems to ignore the fact that we've had this debate before. The outcome in one instance was the creation of a "protect the innocent children" system that promised us a technological solution to this "problem," and was heralded by "parents" as the solution that would save the nation. Years later, we find that this great (and expensive) system is largely unused by the people who demanded it so fiercely in the first place.

Today's LA Times has an interesting retrospective on the V Chip solution/debacle, and points out that theoretically, we already have a system in place that has been proven to work, allowing parents to protect the kiddies from Bad Things.

And yet, the Hysterical Parents don't use it at all, instead more interested in telling adults who'd like to watch some entertainment that doesn't involve a purple dinosaur or mumbling British puppets that they can't watch anything that might hurt their little dears' ears and eyes.

Quick Recap: When you buy a new television, it has what's called a "V Chip" in it, as required by law. Adding in this little bit of circuitry increased the price of your TV, but only slightly. By using your remote control, you can decide what programs can be watched on that TV, and which cannot, using the V Chip's ability to display, or not display, programming based on the parameters the user decides.

As it stands, the parents that are most likely to whine and moan about such things are also most likely to be the sort of people who buy new TVs. So, in theory, these models of "parenting" have the power, with a few clicks, to block out the entire FOX network, and protect their kids from certain damnation to hell.

Likewise, other parents can block out the entire Trinity Broadcasting Network, and protect their kids from certain damnation to hell. This would seem to be a good solution for everyone, since allows a household to decide what it would like to see for themselves, and no one else.

The problem is of course, after all the expense of developing such a system, no one uses it. I'm really not interested in hearing the bullshit excuses people offer when asked why they don't use the V Chip system. We would seem to have an idea response that's in place, and allows individuals to make their own decisions as to what to watch. Yet it's the people who demanded it in the first place who are now the ones not using it. Meanwhile intelligent, rational individuals have to pay the V Chip "tax" when they buy a TV. Thanks, guys!

When I think of all the hysterics that the Congress and our Defenders went through to ram this system through the regulatory process, the expense and hassle it created when it was established, only to see it go unused, it makes one's head spin.

Frankly, any so-called "parent" who whines about the state of the media today, and yet does not spend the 15 minutes it takes to set up their own household using the V Chip system, is an idiot. And their stupidity, as it gets passed down to their own precious offspring, is a far greater threat to civic, moral, and social fabric of the nation than anything on the FOX network.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ever since I moved to Los Angeles just a few weeks shy of a year ago, I've been cursed with phone numbers, both cell and home, that get some of the strangest calls I've heard. Ok they're not the strangest, but they occasionally entertain, and usually irritate.

My land line, for example, apparently is the same number for people around the country whose friends have yet to master the skill of the Area Code. One Saturday morning I got a call from what sounded like a long distance location. The ensuing conversation was rather unique:

Lucky: "Hello? This is Lucky! I need to speak to Rosa!" (said in unusual, hard to pinpoint accent)

Me: "I'm sorry there's no one here by that..."

Lucky: "THIS IS LUCKY! LUCKY! I NEED TO SPEAK TO ROSA!"

Me: "Man, you've got the wrong number! There is no ROSA!"

Lucky: "Is this XXX-XYZ?"

Me: "Yes, but what area code are you trying to reach"

Lucky: "Uh...215"

Me: "My friend, you have called Los Angeles. Sorry"

Lucky: "Aw man...I need to talk to Rosa! I'm in JAIL!"

(click)

Now this exchange would be funny in and of itself - a guy named "Lucky" who apparently isn't as fortunate as his name would suggest. What's funnier is the call I got two days later:

Me: "Hello?"

Lucky: "Hello, this is Lucky! I need to speak to Rosa NOW!"

Me: "We've been over this - there is no ROSA here!

Lucky: "Where's Rosa?"

Me: "Dude, you just called Los Angeles again, I'm sorry, there is no Rosa here."

Lucky: "Awwwww MAN! This sucks!"

(click)

I can only imagine the real-life circumstances of "Lucky." Perhaps they can give him some remedial phone dialing help in the clink.

While occasional wrong numbers to my land line are humorous, the ones to my cell phone are not as they use up my minutes to tell people they've dialed the wrong number. Lately I've been getting an avalanche of calls for "Adam" who it seems has a phone number almost identical to mine, save for the last two digits.

Again, what's amazing is how people will dial a wrong number, ask for "Adam," and then when I tell them there is no "Adam," rather than hang up, want to argue with me that in fact "Adam" is there.

It's as if the concept of them making a mistake does not enter the realm of possibility - instead it must be me making the mistake. Now normally I'd just hang up on these folks, but they'll often call repeatedly, and every time I tell them they've got the same wrong number three or four times (I can tell by Caller ID) - and I end up using up my minutes. If I don't answer, they leave a voice message! (and thus using MORE minutes!)

If I was as big a jerk as some people say I am, I'd start answering the phone as such:

Caller: "Hello, may I speak to Adam?"

Me: "Oh, I'm sorry, didn't you hear the news? Adam killed some orphans and is on the run from the law." (or some other such nonsense)

As tempting as that is, I can't do it. Why? Because "Adam" isn't' the bad guy here - he's the guy stuck with a pack of doofuses for friends who can't dial a phone number. Screwing up HIS life isn't good karma.

However, in the case of one woman who I will name Dumb Caller, called four times in a row, 10 minutes between each call, and no amount of explaining that she got the wrong number, or the unceremonious hang-ups, would stop her.

Undeterred, she left TWO long voice mail messages (again taking up cell minutes), even though the outgoing message was obviously not "Adam." I pitied poor Adam for having such thick-headed associates.

So, I caught her phone number via Caller ID each time, and dialed her up at an appropriate hour to mete out some telephone-based justice:

Dumb Caller: "Hello?"

Me: "Hello? This is Lucky! I need to speak to Rosa!"

You can guess how the rest went.

I repeated this a couple of times, a la Dumb Caller. I know it's childish. But what better way to spend a Saturday morning with all those free weekend phone minutes from T-Mobile?

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the many things I find irritating about the coverage of campaign finance, and the activists who continue to come up with worse and worse "reforms" for said system, is how people will look at a disclosure report, note all the employers listed (as required by law) and then pompously pronounce that Corporation XYZ gave X amount of dollars to Candidate Doe.

It makes for a dramatic headline and story. The problem is it's completely wrong. Corporations cannot give to federal candidates - there's no vagueness on this issue. It's one of those "1 or 0" situations - i.e. it's either one way or another, with no in-between answer. In this case the answer is "0". Yes individuals who work for those corporations can give, but those are just individuals deciding what they want to do with their money. But that tends to be less dramatic and exciting than the former analysis.

There is a very well written analysis at the National Review which discusses this issue quite eloquently.

Special thanks to the Rick Hasen's well written Election Law Blog for highlighting this article.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gov. Doofinator (AKA Pete Wilson II) is at it again. Not content to push a phony credit card bond (with plenty of help from alleged Democrats like Steve Westly), now we're getting the usual "fee hikes" at the University of California, California State University, and community college campuses. (Prison guards will get their raises, don't worry!)

However, many reporters often make a mistake when covering these issues and it's not just a matter of semantics - it's a matter of accuracy. Specifically, whenever "fees" are raised, they often use the term "tuition" interchangeably as today's LA Times story does here.

The reason this is important is quite simple- the laws governing the creation and management are very specific - California residents cannot be charged "tuition" (i.e. money paid to cover the costs of their education) at any California school. The only people who pay "tuition" are out-of-state students at any of these schools.

Now to some people this may still seem like a semantic difference, but it's critical that those watching budget shenanigans know why it's important. Whenever "fees" are jacked up at a UC campus for example, not a dime of that money covers the actual cost of educating the people who are attending the school. Instead, the schools transfer the payment of the university or college's basic functions away from the state and on to the students and their parents.

Guess what one of those expenses is? Can't guess? More money for aid for students who can't afford to go to college! (and the bureaucracy that runs it!) If that cycle of silliness doesn't boggle your mind, I have a job for your as Governor Doofinator's budget guy/gal.

So once again the point needs to be clear - the money that folks are being asked to pay is not part of any "tuition" - and those covering such issues should know the difference since recognizing this fact makes the big picture issue a lot different than the one painted by Gov. Doofinator and his Wilsonian cronies.

Once again, we have one of the famous "California disconnects" in public policy. We pass bonds to build buildings at colleges, yet not a dime of that (expensive) money pays for the teachers or books that go in them. We raise the cost of attending the college buildings, but again, the increased out of pocket expenses do not cover the cost of the teachers or the books that are part of the education one is paying for.

Thus, when you attend a California school, you will end up spending a lot more time waiting for the classes you need to graduate. That means more money borrowed to spend more time in school, while those who can afford a 4 year stint at Yale or Stanford can get their degree and get on with their lives.

Which brings up one other point - whenever these "fees" are raised, the inevitable comparison comes up that although the cost is more, it's still "cheaper" than an Ivy League school which is considered comparable. This may have held water 20 years ago, but nowadays it is kind of like raising the price of a Camry 40% and saying "well it's still cheaper than a Mercedes Benz." Which of course, is true, but is it a value anymore if the price is inflated? Or does one start looking elsewhere for a better deal.

Frankly after years of paying for prison guard raises over school, and the sheer incompetence of UC's management of the weapons labs here and in New Mexico, I believe that comparison could be questioned. More to the point - with the eroding course offerings at all levels of the education system and the difficulty in getting classes needed to get out in four years, such a comparison at the undergraduate level may not hold any longer.

More importantly, the point of a public university system, built and paid for by the citizens of California, is meant for their free use first. A vibrant, active, and accessible education to those smart enough to qualify, allows our state to have people capable of creating the businesses and coming up with the new ideas we'll need to stay on top.

Otherwise, we will continue the slide towards becoming a Third World country - something I'd rather not see. A college education is no longer a "luxury" or an "extra" as it was in the Industrial Age. If you want a job or a future with any hope of more than minimum wage and no benefits, you have to go to college. Just ask the grocery workers who went on strike. Or the blue collar workers on the permanent unemployment line.

More important, the taxpaying citizens of California built these colleges with the idea that anyone smart enough to get in could go to school. This has been the social contract between the state and the people for over 100 years. Making the comparison in cost to other states or private schools is a betrayal of that contract - not everyone can pick up and move to Michigan, New York or some other state to get an education - nor should they.

Generations of prominent Californians were able to get their education at community colleges, state Universities, and UC campuses for a minimal cost. It's time to end the circus, and find a better way to maintain a free, quality education for those smart enough to deserve one.

PS: I recently read a very interesting story about an immigrant who came to California in the late 60s, who was in need of some improvements to his education if he was to succeed in his chosen field. Because Santa Monica College was available to him, he was able to take some classes and improve both his language skills and his knowledge of his new adopted homeland.

Hmm...

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 1:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here we are, living in the United States, apparently one of the most powerful and free nations on earth, about to pick the person who is going to lead the Executive Branch of the national government in a time of uncertainty and crisis. You'd think such times would merit a serious, and careful campaign by all sides, as people are asked to make a decision that will have significant impact both now, and in the future.

And here's the debate so far, and what we can look forward to, if history, and the personalities involved, are any indication of what we can expect to hear every morning on the news:

PING!: President Bush said today that Sen. John Kerry was a flake, a Communist, and wants to reduce the military to a kazoo band and a pack of Cub Scouts with slingshots.

PONG!: Sen. John Kerry, responded to the latest attack ad campaign by calling Bush the worst president since Hoover, and labeled his poor grammar "appalling in time of world crisis."

PING!: A nasty surrogate of President Bush, in a meth-induced right wing frenzy, likened Kerry to Stalin and Lenin, insinuated he was a traitor, and said that anyone not voting for the President was a non-American hippie freak. The Bush campaign distanced themselves from the comments, as they came from an unaffiliated organization.

PONG!: A nasty surrogate of Sen. Kerry , in a similar frenzy, likened Bush to Hitler and Satan's Spawn, insinuated he was a traitor, and said that anyone voting for the President was a non-American nazi freak. The Kerry campaign distanced themselves from the comments, as they came from an unaffiliated organization.

Ok, perhaps I've exaggerated. A little.

However, this is what we can expect, and what we're getting already, now that the we've got our nominee on the Democratic side, and the vitriol can begin. Already President Bush is putting out some of the most misleading ads and attacks, backed up by the money he's got. Sen. Kerry is responding, as he promised ("Bring it on!" - remember that?) but doesn't have the money to mount a full response, so he has to spend time on the trail speaking up. Every day some little droid writes up the day's talking points/vitriolic rhetoric, with the nastier ones saved for surrogates, and someone has a response.

Now, I'm not one of those people who whines "negative campaigning" for the sake of saying "ooh it's too mean, boo hoo" and then goes home to watch The Apprentice, Survivor, Big Brother, or any one of a number of nastier things on TV or the movies.

There's nothing negative about bringing up an opponent's past and asking for a closer examination. For example if someone says he or she is a strong conservative family values candidate, but in their own life gambles excessively and cheats on their spouse, it's not slander to point this fact out. Armed with this knowledge, people can decide if it's relevant or not. It isn't pleasant to talk about, and disclosing such information isn't meant to be happy, but facts in context are relevant and should be discussed. There are dozens of other scenarios, this is but one.

Unfortunately, the kind of name calling , nasty insinuations, the "might be" slur, and the the "you're unpatriotic if you don't vote our way" crap I can't stand are the standard so far, and it is going to get old very fast.

The news media is going to get bored and whip out a custom copy of Mad Libs to write their stories. We won't really get an accounting from either candidate on their past, good and bad, that would tell us whether they should be in the White House. We deserve better and it's high time for Americans of all political stripes to demand better from their party's standard bearer.

Also if Sen. Kerry hopes to win this election, he can't allow himself to play a standard point-counterpoint, hit-for-hit campaign, and allow the landscape to be defined by a bunch of bogus soundbites concocted by Karl Rove. He will never have the money to match Bush and Rove dollar for dollar to buy the ads needed, and the soundbite "noise" will get in the way of talking to voters about what he'll do if he is elected in 2004.

Now I'm not suggesting that Kerry and his campaign aren't good at what they do - they are great! - but what I am suggesting is that they're going to have to think out of the box to get around the wall of bullshit and money the Bush team is going to have at their disposal (not to mention he is an incumbent with all the power that entails!)

I'll admit - I've never run a presidential campaign before and I'm sure that if Robert Shrum were to read this he'd call me up and tell me just how full of crap I am. Indeed. After all how many presidents did I elect all by myself? Zero. But I also know that when you're up against the overwhelming odds of a poweful incumbent who has more money in his change purse than you do in your bank account, you will lose if you play their game.

That's why you need to pick up your money and go to another table and pick a game you have a chance instead. If I'm losing at roulette, I leave with my pocket change and go play craps instead where I have half a chance (although some would argue that the way I play craps I have NO chance but that's another story...)

Kerry needs to leave the table with his money and play another game. Pole vault over Bush's pompous and hollow rhetoric with something that gets people excited, that makes them laugh, but also make them think. Take people by surprise and make them want to stand out in the rain on election day getting those extra voters out. People with considerably less than Kerry, both politically and personally, have pulled off such wins and he can do it too.

Here's a few past campaigns to take a look at and consider. Now as always, keep in mind that copying past advertising word-for-word never works - we've seen that done to death in both politics and in commercial advertising. What does work is the observation of how others thought outside conventional boundaries, and then consider how one might do so themselves successfully. Enjoy the history lesson!

A trip via the Wayback Machine finds us with some case studies. You can find out more at your local library, or online at Google.com

1990: Paul Wellstone vs. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, MN: In 1990, a relatively unknown college professor, Paul Wellstone, got the nod to run against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz, who had enormous financial and political resources at his disposal. Given no chance to win by the Democratic Establishment in Washington, and little hope by even his own supporters (at first), Wellstone, it seemed was doomed to be a footnote to history.

Wellstone's team realized this quickly and rather than wallow in self-pity or throw up a few scattershot humdrum ads, they instead played off a pop culture phenomena of the time to launch a very memorable ad campaign. A new film, Roger and Me had been released to wide acclaim, and a humorous 2 minute ad starring Wellstone in "Looking for Rudy", mimicking Moore's film, was made.

The ad only ran a few times - but the humor combined with constant replays on national television news programs, began an effective redefinition of the race. Without a lot of money what little message out there had to be memorable - and it worked. Combined with Wellstone's humor and campaign organization, he ended up being the only Democratic challenger to win a US Senate seat that year. Wellstone's media consultant would go on to make the ads that helped Gov. Jesse Ventura win election in 1998.

1992: Russ Feingold vs. Sen. Bob Kasten, WI: Two years later, a similar race evolved between a little-known state legislator, Russ Feingold and incumbent Bob Kasten, another powerful incumbent with a ton of money. Again, up against such odds, Feingold ran an ad campaign played up his commitment to the voters of Wisconsin (painted on his garage door, no less) and dismissed the usual negative blather with an entertaining ad putting such nonsense in the context of Elvis sightings in the National Enquirer.

These and other informative and unusual ads communicated his platform of economic and political reform far better than if he ran conventional tit-for-tat advertising responding to each nasty missive from the incumbent. He continues to serve in the US Senate today.

1994: Ron Sims vs. Sen. Slade Gorton, WA: Ron Sims, an energetic and thoughtful Seattle politician, challenged longtime Washington politician Slade Gorton in what would be an uphill battle similar to Wellstone and Feingold's races in previous years. Sims was a dynamic speaker with a powerful life story, coupled with a knowledge of public policy rarely matched in state politics. Sims' challenge was bold, and had the potential to be another upset win.

Unfortunately, his campaign fell short, primarily because he was hit relentlessly with advertising attacking his record, much of it distorted and untrue. Outspent by the incumbent, Sims did not have the resources to run the ads needed to counter the charges.

His advisors elected to engage in a traditional "ping-pong" style combination of attacks, responses and scattered positive pieces. Without the money needed to fund such a campaign effectively, much of Sims' message was lost amidst the crush of Republican advertising that returned control of Congress to the GOP for the first time in 50 years.

To be fair, Sims was the only challenger to do reasonably well in a year when many well-funded people lost (including House Speaker Tom Foley), and it may have been impossible for him to win no matter what he did And, it is not as if his advisors were incompetent - they were and continue to be, some of the best in the business. However, their bid was a longshot to begin with, and they had nothing to lose by trying something a little more "out there."

It's not unlike fighting the British in the Revolution. Do you march around in red coats in a straight (and much shorter) line like the British do, or do you wear darker clothing and hide behind trees and outwit your opponent?

Sims went on to win two terms as King County Executive, the second most powerful position in Washington politics. He is now running for Governor this year.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Memorandum

To: Ralph "Nadering Nabob of Negativism" Nader
From: Schädelmann.com
Date: Right Now
Subject: Time To Take A Blowtorch and a Pair of Pliers To Your Sorry Ass

Mr. Nader, it's come to my attention you have chosen to run for the Presidency of the United States of America in 2004. That's great. I am sure you're full of all kinds of bile and vinegar, and have plenty of insult-laden attacks on Democrats worthy of a Rove. Woo hoo.

You still have the nerve to blather you were "right" in 2000. Even your past supporters have told you not to run, and rational people agree that your basic thesis - that electing Gore or Bush would make no difference - has been blown to smithereens by four years of war, corruption, and corporate rule under President Bush. If you honestly think we'd be in the same situation today with a President Gore, you're either insane or stupid. Pick one.

Don't get me wrong. If you want to run again, that's fine with me. I'm all for free speech and if you want to sound like the egomaniacal fool that you are, go forth and rant. The 1st Amendment still protects stupid speech (unless you're Justin Timberlake...but I digress) and the Republic is not threatened by you this time, despite what some may think.

However, I'm going to exercise my free speech rights and demand you be held accountable for your shadowy past and answer for your missteps just as we should with Sen. John Kerry and President Bush. To paraphrase a popular film by Mr. Tarantino - it's time to take a blowtorch and a pair of pliers to your ass. You may have gotten a free pass from the corporate-think Washington Insiders at the DNC, but no more. Since they seem to have an almost congenital inability to put up a fight, I'm sparking up the torch right now.

I've read and heard your negative, angry, bitter ranting, aiming your hatred at people like Gov. Howard Dean, who built in mere months what your sorry ass has tried to do for decades - build a national movement organized for change based on small donations raised through honest means. I've heard you say a lot as an activist and a candidate about how money corrupts politics. Interestingly enough, your own fundraising schemes provide little alternative to our current corrupt process.

What's the Nader way of doing business? Run a record-club like scam on college campuses (AKA the PIRGs) to get the money you need. I've seen these operations up close as a former canvasser for CalPIRG, and the shady fundraising, along with some of the lousiest work conditions this side of Bangalore, aren't pretty. Any job that makes staff pay for office supplies out of their pocket while raking in millions is no progressive workplace.

I'm not the only one who has seen behind the curtain and Ralph, it ain't pretty. Too many others have come forward as well with their allegations, and your witty rejoinder is to attack them personally, or avoid talking about the issue altogether. Not exactly full and frank disclosure, is it?

It's bad enough your fundraising operations are so shadowy, but even more troubling is your long record of union busting activities at your various organizations. At a time when organized labor is taking it on the chin from all sides, the last thing we need is an avowed enemy of labor organizing proclaiming them to be the true friend of working men and women in this country. The fact that you still refuse to fully explain how and why you take money and support from hiding behind a web of corporate-style organizations that's not the case. Mr. Nader, you make activism into a business that profits you and you alone. Worse, you've gotten a pass from the media for investing said funds into consumer friendly operations like Halliburton Corporation, no friend of the environment or the taxpayer. Not this time, though. You can't keep hypocritically demanding the government and other candidates put out a full and frank disclosure of their interests but only do so yourself after years of denial and evasion. Feel that heat? That's the blowtorch cutting it really close right about now.

The corruption and lying would be bas enough, but your egomaniacal lack of support of up and coming progressive leaders like San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez is really astonishing. When the election was getting close, Mayor Newsom had President Clinton and Vice President Gore helping him out as an up and coming Democrat. When an up and coming Green Party politico needed help, you were AWOL. I'm sure you have some bullshit excuse, but it won't wash with me, and it certainly doesn't wash with the Greens.

Filmmaker Michael Moore found time to give support and a contribution to Matt's campaign - it's strange that a self-appointed Green Party leader couldn't do the same. You might have been of some use in an election that mattered - but I think you were too busy screaming insults and witty barbs at the Democrats to pay attention. (That's the pliers making their appearance about now).

So go forth and run, Ralph. Your bid won't generate nearly the enthusiasm or the support it did just a few years ago, and the fact is, you won't be on enough ballots to make much of a difference anyway. Rational and free-thinking people know that this election's too important to screw around with a self-appointed cult leader whose main contribution to American politics of late has been nasty and rude comments about the personalities of Democratic politicians, while offering no record of accomplishments since you took on the Chevy Corvair.

Not any more. If the Democrats and the media won't do their job, I will do it for them. I have plenty of pairs of pliers and a good blowtorch, and have no problems using both, and more, this time around Ralph. Consider yourself warned. The Nader-ing Nabob of Negativity ends now and Schädelmann.com plans to lead the charge.

© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Posted by Greg Dewar at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)