Author Archives: gdewar

My Guy, Right or Wrong, I Don’t Care What The Facts Are

Posted on May 3, 2004 | Leave a comment

Whenever I hear the latest news about how the war in Iraq is being conducted, I like to replace the names of those involved with other names, to get a new perspective on the news. For example:
“WASHINGTON – After the deadliest month yet for U.S. troops in Iraq, top Gore administration officials fear the situation will deteriorate in coming weeks as insurgents try to create turmoil amid the June 30 handover of power to Iraqis.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, White House officials said Monday they see reason to be hopeful that the situation will eventually improve. But they can’t say when the turning point will come.
From President Gore on down, the administration now acknowledges that the U.S.-led occupation bred more frustration among Iraqis than the White House had initially expected.
Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Would a President Gore be allowed to run a war and occupation as poorly as the Bush Administration has done, and get a free pass from the media? Probably not.
In fact whenever I read about the war, the economy, or any current event, I like to cross out “Bush”, “Cheney”, “Rumsfeld” et al and replace them with “Clinton,” “Gore,” “Cohen” or any other non-Republican name, just for fun. Would such news and events be permitted, nay, even defended by the chorus of pundits and writers who shout approval to the current administration? Hardly.
It makes you realize just how divided this country is right now – and how each side has developed an almost irrational devotion to loving “their guy” and hating “the other guy.”
Criticism is one thing, standing up for the candidate you believe is one thing, but nowadays it seems people are very rabid in “their guy.” Talk to a Bush supporter and they will be hard pressed to give you a reason the President could lose his or her vote.
I’ve often said that I think the President could announce on TV that he axe murdered orphans and buried them in the Rose Garden, and he’d still have FOX News, the GOP base, and an army of pundits who would still defend him to the bitter end. After all, he’s “their” guy, and they have to defend him, No Matter What.
Then again, the president has announced we’ve been doing some nasty things to POWs in Iraq, the deaths of more of our brave men and women in one month than during the entire war, and an economy that continues to putter, yet he still seems to do OK with most folks on his “side.” Who cares what those hippies in the blue states think anyway?
It’s not that much different than the blind defense many on the other side gave President Clinton during the whole Monica Lewinsky affair. Now, I voted for Clinton, twice, but even I thought he acted like a big idiot cheating on his wife the way he did and where he did it. I know too many guys like that in politics, and I’ve discovered that men with a “cheating heart” cheat in business and politics too, if they can get away with it.
While I wasn’t sure booting him out like some wanted to do was the right response, I didn’t think it was worth defending either. But as you may recall, times did not allow for shades of gray in one’s opinion. You either hated Clinton or loved him – regardless of the facts.
But that’s where we are now. Two sides who will not waver in support of “their” guy, no matter what. A precious few undecided voters who will play a significant role in determining who wins. And two candidates spending incredible amounts of money to kick, stab, beat, and punch the other guy and rile up their folks to get to the polls. We’ve already seen the opening salvos – and it isn’t going to get any more pleasant or intelligent as the months pass.
People often ask me what “issues” will decide this election and I tell them that this is the most issue-less campaign we’ve seen, ironically at a time when we really do need a rational discussion of what the next few years are going to be like.
We could use some intelligent conversation between an incumbent President who has been singularly responsible as commander-in-chief of a war that is not going very well, and an incumbent US Senator who has counter-punched the attacks, but still leaves us with little in the way of what he’d do any different or any better.
I don’t expect to hear much of such thoughtful discussion from two campaigns that seem bent on spending every dollar and using every surrogate to lie, cheat, and attack their way into power. While it would be easy to lay all the blame at Bush’s feet, he’s not the only one engaging in the shenanigans of spin and attack.
Remember all those anonymous attacks on Howard Dean as a tool of Osama Bin Laden? Remember how each Democratic debate was a “Piss on Dean” match? Not exactly a model of statesmanship on the Democratic side, to be sure.
You, however, can bypass the foolishness and make an informed decision for yourself. Rather than listen to some blowhard talking head, or some noisy TV ad to make your decisions, spend a few minutes trying to find out what the real issues are – and what’s more hot air being belched out of an advertising person’s word processor.
There are some excellent websites out there – in particular, I recommend Spinsanity.org which has a good record on deconstructing the latest comments by both sides and exposes the truths and distortions from each camp.
Too many good people are dying in Iraq and too many good people are looking for work right now to allow the decision as to who will be running the Executive Branch of the United States Government a ping pong match of attacks and counter attacks by clever advertising folks.
The campaigns may not be interested in something a bit more dignified – but you have the choice as to whether you will listen to it, or find out the facts for yourself and make a decision based on good information, instead of bad spin.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin

Plank THIS In Your Political Platform!

Posted on April 23, 2004 | Leave a comment

Every four years we’re treated to a national political convention from the major (and yes, even the minor) political parties. Two of said conventions, the Democratic and Republican National Conventions will be televised. Much ado is made about such conventions, in particular, the byzantine navigation of party rules and regulations at the national, state, and local level to craft what is known as a “party platform.”
Personally, I think if you asked most people what a “Party Platform” was they would think you were talking about the thing the politician stands on when he or she gives a speech. I don’t say that to suggest most people are stupid – on the contrary, I’d say it suggests just how relevant the “real” party “platform” is in American political life.
Every year, especially when there’s an open election on either party’s side (or as in 2000 on both) there’s much hand-wringing and big political talk about “the platform.” Winning candidates don’t talk about it much, except in broad strokes; less successful candidates talk about advancing their candidacy to “influence” said document. You’d think these people were talking about the Magna Carta II: Electric Boogaloo or something by the importance placed on it.
Nowhere are the fights more bitter, or more vicious, than at the local level. In fact, as you go down the food chain, from the Big Deal At The Convention, on down to the state level, and then on down to the congressional, state legislative, and precinct level, you’d find that the fights, pissing matches, longwinded debates, and endless talk by party “activists” gets more and more irrelevant as you go.
I will never forget the horror story a friend of mine in Washington State relayed to me years ago, when he was deputized to run a local caucus that began delegate selection in that state. After running through the day’s business at the usual pace (slow) the entire proceeding was held up by an intense debate about the wording of some resolution that people wanted to make that would really stick it to The Man and express their will as Democrats.
What was the Big Issue? Was it “abortion”? “Taxes”? “Defense Spending”? “Guns”? “Malt Liquor Taxation Rates”? SOMETHING important?
No. In fact, the 3 hour debate was whether to word some resolution to say the Party was in support of working families versus working people No, I am not making this up.
The debate got so heated he had to call a time out on the whole thing and make people go into separate corners, like kids. He called me up that night and relayed said experience, and began to wonder what it was they put in the coffee that day.
By no means is this confined to one party – I have attended events on both sides, and even some “third party” conventions, and found this to be a universal truism. Friends in the GOP tell me horror stories that easily match the rage and futility that match situations like this all the time.
The problem is, the “platform” in today’s system is almost entirely irrelevant to what happens should Candidate A or Candidate B get elected. Sure, one party can take potshots at another over some particularly goofy statement that accidentally gets through the system, but these potshots are becoming more and more rare as both major parties devise layers of rules to keep anything from happening – again, not that it matters.
I have yet to see a collaborationist Democrat or a collusionist Republican get seriously reprimanded for going against the national or state party’s platform. What would happen if they did? What if said platform was the defining document of all political identity in say, the Democratic Party?”
I’ve always imagined it might be something like this:
Scene: A dimly lit chamber, with five thrones up on a very tall stage. A renegade politico (picture Steve Westly, for example) stands in shackles, with a large spotlight beaming directly overhead.
Five hooded figures, each with a donkey and tattoos of Adlai Stevenson on their foreheads and dark heavy cloaks march out and take their places and glare at the One Who Dared Collaborate With Doofinator.
After hailing their Great Leaders of the Party (Truman, Roosevelt, Clinton, et al) who appear on huge, Soviet-realist style portraits two stories high, The Party Bigwig begins to speak.
Party Bigwig 1: Steve Westly, you are hereby charged with violating a tiny portion of the Democratic Party Platform. Before the Central Committee passes judgment, what say ye?
Steve “Beaver Cleaver” Westly: Um, I’m really sorry I supported that dumbass credit card bond? And, oh yeah, vote for me for Governor in 2006!
Party Bigwig 2: SILENCE, WORM! You have violated the Mighty Platform, and YE SHALL BE PUNISHED!!
Steve “Beaver Cleaver” Westly: Please…have mercy…I thought it was a good idea at the time…all the other kids were doing it…an older kid made me do it…no…don’t punish me O Mighty Bigwig
Party Bigwig 1: SILENCE, TRAITOR!  It is the determination of this Committee that YOU have VIOLATED the PLATFORM, and you shall now feel the full force of the wrath of The Party! You will be removed from office forthwith, and you will be banished from politics forever! Let this be a lesson to all who dare oppose….THE PLATFORM!! Muah ha ha ha ha!
Cue dramatic gothic organ music, and a chorus singing the Internationale. Or the Macarena. Whatever works.

Well, wouldn’t it be cool if they did do that? Oh come on, you’re no fun!
We know what really happens. People spend a lot of time wording these things, other people spend more time rewriting them. But in the end, it doesn’t mean a hell of a lot. Any politician can pretty much do whatever they want, call themselves what they want, and no one can really stop them unless voters toss ’em out.
It’s why a guy like Governor Doofinator can nominally be “pro-choice” or “pro-gay” but still remain in a party whose official platforms strongly oppose both. It’s also how a guy like Bill Clinton can be voted in by Democrats twice, while never getting that national health care thing done in eight years.
To political journalists, it’s something to write about when they get tired of the ping pong match of TV ads we’re seeing right now, and it gives some candidates something to talk about now that the nominations of both parties are “decided” in “advance.” No one has to really abide by them, and no one really cares in the party, outside of the party, or anywhere.
Which is unfortunate. It would be nice if we had conventions that really decided things, and were interesting to take part in and watch. It would be even better if we had more parties that stood for something, instead of two “big tent” parties that try to be all things to all people. But most prefer what we have, simply because it’s easier to cover, and easier to understand
Besides, if we had the system I’ve always advocated (four parties: Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, and Republican) which would let people more easily express their real intent at the ballot box, it would at least make things more fun.
Hey, it worked in New York for many years! Why not try it nationally? Can things be any more dull than they are now?
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Tactics & Analysis, Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin, Democratic Party Chatter

“The People Who Know Best” Are At It Again – Stop them Now!

Posted on April 12, 2004 | Leave a comment

Once again, the People Who Know Best are concocting yet another foolish ballot initiative in California. This group in many ways is worse than the Usual Bunch of Crazies or the Well Meaning Underfunded Liberals (or Conservatives, pick one) who are the normal pushers of ill-thought out ideas that might become a (bad) law.
That’s because the People Who Know Best usually get a free pass from the news media to push whatever genius idea they come up with – which is unfortunate since usually the brilliant ideas are worse than what the Usual Bunch of Crazies push at election time.
The measure in question is an attempt to radically alter California’s primary election system. A group of People Who Know Best What’s Right For You, including former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and State Controller Steve “Boy Wonder” Westly, have come up with the latest solution in search of a problem.
In this case, self-styled “reformers” have decided that you, the California voter, aren’t voting for the right people these days, so in order to make sure you are saved from yourself, they want to eliminate party primaries and replace them with a “Top Two” system. Instead of having one candidate from each party compete in their own primary, then go head to head in the general, we’ll have just the two top voter getters regardless of party affiliation to the general election.
The promise is that we’ll have more “moderate” candidates, who might otherwise not get elected, into the state Assembly, Senate, and other offices, and these like-thinking “moderates” will bring forth a new era of decency and goodwill to office. And I believe there’s a provision somewhere in there about free ice cream for good voters who vote the way they “should,” but I can’t verify that at press time.
It all sounds wonderful – until you take a few moments to think about how patently condescending this type of “reform” really is, and also take note of the abysmal record of self-styled “moderates” and their clumsy political shenanigans that make a race for fourth-grade class president look sophisticated by comparison.
Then you realize that this has nothing to do with real “reform” – it’s about rigging the system so that real debate is squelched, and we don’t address the real reasons we have problems in California – we instead monkey around with the mechanics of elections to get results we can’t get in a fair fight. This kind of tinkering has been tried before, most recently in San Francisco by Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who spent literally years re-writing election laws to benefit his eventual run for Mayor – and we all know how successful that was.
As I’ve stated before people should be offended on general principal that somehow the People Who Know Best would presume to decide what kinds of people should and should not serve in office. It’s at best a Stalinist/Statist view that the government should be in the business of running “fixed” elections (instead of “fair” elections) which ensure that nothing “bad” happens. The loaded terminology in a debate like this alone should tick off any sane or rational voter.
The idea that people in say, Orange County, who might have decided to send a more conservative member to the state Senate or Assembly are somehow the “problem,” and that their choice should be rigged out of existence for the sake of “moderates” (whatever the hell that is!) is patently wrong. Period. Why does everyone have to vote for someone the “moderates” put their stamp of approval on?
If people in a certain area really believe in such a candidate’s platform and elect them in a fair election, that person should serve and the people’s views represented. If said elected official does not do a good job, the people can vote for someone else. Swap out “Orange County” and “conservative” for “Bay Area” and “liberal” and the same argument applies. This is “equal opportunity” interference for good people in all jurisidictions.
A joker like Steve Westly has no business telling anyone what is “right” and “wrong” about anything – he’s a pompous political hack who had to spend millions to barely even win his own election in 2002 – this despite his “moderate” background. Why, oh, why, couldn’t Tom McClintock have won that race and put Westly back in some corporate boardroom where he belongs?
There is a legitimate gripe that many state Legislative districts are drawn to benefit the people who sit in the Legislature at the time they are drawn up. There are in fact many districts where one party has such a lopsided advantage, the “election” in an open seat is decided in the primary of the dominant party – not exactly an open system to be sure. However, the cure for gerrymandering is not this initiative – it’s like saying the cure for, say, colon cancer is to take the flu vaccine – it’s the wrong medicine for the wrong ailment.
There have been proposals to de-politicize this process but none have yet passed constitutional tests. Surely the People Who Know Best could hire some bright and talented folks to do this. It would be boring as hell, and no great headlines with grinning guys like Steve Westly touting them as the next Governor/Savior of California. Ah, well.
One other point – in all the discussion about this initiative, it’s a good bet you won’t read much about the abysmal record of “moderates” and their ability (or more accurately, their total inability) to organize politically in this state. I’ve had first-hand experience with these folks recently, and from what I’ve been told by colleagues in the GOP, some of their self-styled moderates end up doing the same stuff. (If I’m wrong, just tell me, since I haven’t worked on any moderate GOP campaigns in a long time).
Readers will recall that I worked for a “moderate” candidate in the primary election in California’s 21st Assembly District. What I say now are my opinions alone, and not his in any way shape or form – my interpretation of events should not be confused in any way shape or form as comments or opinions of a former client.
Besides, once you start reading you’ll know it’s me, and not a distinguished professor and businessman doing the talking. In other words, if you want to complain to someone, come to me, not him.
“Moderates” had a real chance to back a winning candidate in this race. Polls indicated that he was the frontrunner for several months. Now you’d think that someone who had many prominent endorsements, who was able to block a pre-primary endorsement at the Democratic Convention, and who had real experience leading one of the last non-dysfunctional school districts in the state would get some real hard-core, pull-out-the-stops support from these guys. He didn’t.
To be sure, there were some notable exceptions, and that’s duly noted, but for the most part, I have never worked with such an ineffective, and out of touch bunch of people than these folks. They never seemed to grasp basic concepts, such as campaign deadlines and timelines, which are important when you have a limited number of days to win an election.
Many of the groups and associations who will be supporting this bizarre initiative this fall (as well as many others) did nothing to help out our great candidate, despite all the work on his part to convince them otherwise, as well as the #*&@#! aforementioned polls which showed this to be a sure win.
Frankly, if the People Who Know Better want more “moderates” in office they need to stop tinkering with the elections system and go back to the basics of winning campaigns. That means supporting winners, not sitting idly by and complaining about how your side is having trouble getting folks elected. In other words, participating effectively in a democracy takes some work.
That may mean confronting some ugly truths once in a while, as I’ve done here, but if there’s one thing I’ve learned is that if one keeps doing what they are doing, they keep getting what they’ve got. Right now, they don’t “got” much.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in Politics of Political Reform

The First “Free Pass” of Campaign 2005 – Bernie Parks!

Posted on March 31, 2004 | Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Los Angeles Politics

Dissecting the Reasons Why I Call Myself A Producer at the Bar

Posted on March 29, 2004 | Leave a comment

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:
http://moveon.org/s?i=2532-3392348-L.LBqKvSE3s3VZEvAD3Oyw
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

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Tactics & Analysis

Short Update: On the way

Posted on March 26, 2004 | Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Website News

Take this V Chip and…..

Posted on March 22, 2004 | Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Pop Culture & Society

“This is Lucky, I need to speak to Rosa!”

Posted on March 17, 2004 | Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

Posted in California Life

A Very Useful Clarification on “Corporate” Money

Posted on March 16, 2004 | Leave a comment

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

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign Tactics & Analysis, Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin

What’s The Difference Between a Fee and Tuition?

Posted on March 15, 2004 | Leave a comment

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.
He has since gone on to be a tremendously successful businessman, and a leader on the national stage. You can guess where this is going…yes, in fact it was Arnold Schwarzenegger. (insert Paul Harvey-esque music here)
Hmm…
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Leave a comment

Posted in California Politics, Debunking Politicos Pundits + Spin, Gov. Doofinator's Follies