Out here in Southern California, I recently saw a bumper sticker that read:

"No on Hate No on 8"

This of course refers to Prop. 8 on the California ballot this November. Prop. 8 proposes an amendment to the state constitution that would stipulate that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If you vote "yes," you believe that marriage is indeed only between men and women. But on the left, in some circles evidently, they think that one is guilty of hate for so believing in marriage. But in reality there isn't the slightest justification for accusing a person of hate for voting "yes" on 8. It's a trumped-up charge, and conservative opinions are being marginalized as evil.

As Shelby Steele has pointed out, having same-sex marriage recognized as marriage-as-such by the government is not a civil right. It only imitates that status in the attempt to legitimize itself. But that's the basis of the argument in favor of same-sex marriage-- that it's a civil right. I don't think, however, that the case has been sufficiently made for this. It must redefine not only what marriage is, but also what a civil right is-- that extravagant ambition is its weakness as an argument. Civil rights are about existence and about survival: jobs, housing, voting, having a business, etc. None of these require anything to be redefined. What I believe the same-sex marrige movement wants to do is practice identity politics and grievance politics, and have that taken as a civil rights movement. But why, then, do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? Because they, too, wish to practice identity politics (in their own style), or at least see the triumph of identity politics. It's the style of government they prefer. But these sorts of political practices are ripping our country apart.

When blacks marched in the 1960's, they weren't marching so as to be recognized as precisely black, but rather so as to be recognized as full citizens in the eyes of the law and culture, working always within the prevailing definition of "citizen." They did not try to redefine the ideal concept of citizenship, they only wanted the culture and government of reality to live up to their stated principles. It was completely justified-- it wasn't identity politics. (Later, of course, it did become so, proving Alexis de Tocqueville correct when he wrote that the demands get angrier as there is less to complain about.)

The Weekly Standard had an article this week about Prop. 8, in which the point is made that it will dawn on grievance groups that legislative victories can only go so far-- after those simple legal victories, the heart of the popular culture must be swayed. It's a "the lips have sworn but the heart is unsworn" type of thing that they would be up against after their legal victory. I think that's the point of the bumper sticker-- you are being bombarded with the image of being a hater if you vote "yes" on 8.

This is the culture war, then, bleeding into the legislative war. Similarly, pro-choice advocates on abortion assert that pro-lifers hate women. If one tries to advance a conservative agenda, one is courting the accusation of hate. One knows that going in. But this tactic is a way of taking concepts out of the dictionary-- no one likes being accused of having a hate-filled heart, so one does as one is told: one votes "no" on 8. That's a victory for individualistic politics, sure, but it's not the proper use of government.

T.D.

The main goal? Ensuring a 50/50 women-to-men representation in the 2009 European Parliament elections as well as the new European Commission.

How? The website is maybe a bit too wordy for the casual visitor, but it does have a practical section called “Take action” with specific ideas on things to do to help achieve the goal (ranging from a simple signature to participating in local activities, to sending a letter to your national political parties… and they even give you the template to make it easier!)

Who? The campaign is run by the European Women’s Lobby and has an impressive list of supporters, including prominent political figures from the EP, Commission, as well as national governments….

One gets the impression by looking at this that the PA-Digital link seems to be really catching on… among the campaign supporters are many prominent bloggers including European Commissioner Margot Wallström,  Anna Diamatopoulou now active in Greek politics (sorry, blog in Greek), and the Spanish Minister for Equality Bibiana Aido who at age 31 is possibly the youngest blogger (and politician!) in this group.

Yes, we admit we have selectively only mentioned female bloggers in this post, mainly because there is a question some of us have been discussing recently and thought this would be a good occasion to ask your opinion...

Do you think women are more active bloggers than men in the public affairs arena??

LP

From a purely branding perspective, this is a great way for MotiveQuest to "walk the walk."  Through their BrandAdvocacy08 website, MotiveQuest will prove to the world that their methodology works and can even predict such major events as the election's winner. 

In terms of the public affairs, measuring online WOM is something that electeds, candidates and organizations should be doing.  There's a lot of conversation happening out there pertaining to people and issues.  Organizations first must understand the conversation and listen to what's happening.  Next, they have to find the right way to get involved.

If anything, Obama's campaign has spurred WOM from his supporters and has built a solid community around his candidacy.  For McCain, his WOM never took off and there hasn't been a real community to coalesce around him.  I think McCain will look back in a couple of years and resent the different directions his campaign people pushed him to go.  His brand became foreign to himself and he was clearly uncomfortable with John McCain, the candidate.  Had he been true to his own brand, I think the online communities would have formed in a major way around McCain the candidate because it would have been clear he stands for something.

I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that since settling at Fleishman Hillard Brussels, I haven’t heard a peep about the excitement back home, despite my religious attachment to FH Canada’s election blog - http://election08.fleishman.ca/ (yes, what a shameless plug). What with global economic meltdowns, U.S. election debates and U.K. party politics, there’s not much room in the political newscycle for wee Canada.

But gosh darn it (yes, Canadians are that polite), wee Canada deserves some attention!  After all, if you consider that the land of beavers, Mounties and maple syrup will be the first member of the G8 to go to the polls following “the worst financial crisis since ’29”, there may be a few reasons to watch and learn from the Canadian experience.

While I wouldn’t go as far as suggesting that the fate of incumbent Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a pre-cursor to John McCain’s (all told, it’s most likely that Harper will eek out a small minority government this coming Monday), both men’s laissez-faire approach have been interpreted by their opponents as “out-of-touch” and lacking compassion.  Just look at the reaction to Mr. Harper’s suggestion yesterday that the recent downturn is an opportunity to buy cheap stocks and you’ll understand how exceedingly sensitive members of the public are becoming to the current economic situation.  It seems people want both a big heart and big government in these times of need and the small-C conservatives who ignore this point, both in Canada and abroad, do so at their peril.

But then again, we should not forget that “conservative” governments, including the current Republican administration, have been at the head of some of the largest government spending projects in modern history.  No Child Left Behind, money for AIDS in Africa, the war in Iraq - good or bad, these are all record-making expenditures that precede the most recent and single largest cheque ever written by a national government in the history of the world.  Perhaps when John McCain suggested in yesterday’s presidential debate that Barack Obama would raise taxes, the Democratic candidate should have answered, “Yes, to pay for Republican bills!”.  And given the fact that an economic turnaround is not foreseeable at this point, could it be that these big spend tendencies will be reinforced?  Again, today’s support from the U.K. Tories for Gordon Brown’s £50 billion bank bail-out is but another example.

But I digress - and most certainly do so at the peril of future postings on this blog!  So let me end by revising my argument about the significance of the highly under-covered Canadian campaign.  Perhaps not only will this election be a clear reminder for conservatives, worldwide, of the need to go back to their big government roots, it may in fact represent one of the last major Western campaigns for a while where conservatives can credibly argue for smaller government.

But then again, I’m getting ahead of myself.  I am after all just a humble Canuck pining for a little world attention.

Canuckia Blair

Vision

X ska vara den ledande aktören inom charkuteribranschen och ses som en förebild vad det gäller att förena goda produkter med god lönsamhet och socialt ansvarstagande.

Produktmission

Att tillverka och sälja charkprodukter av god kvalitet, gjord av naturliga råvaror med respekt för vår omgivning och miljö.

Ekonomisk mission

Att skapa långsiktig och lönsam tillväxt i företaget och skapa goda möjligheter till utveckling och karriär för våra anställda.

Social mission

Att tillsammans med intressenter och konsumenter utveckla nya vägar att förbättra människors livskvalitet och närmiljö.

Affärsidé

Att tillverka och sälja närproducerade charkuteriprodukter med god kvalitet och samtidigt förbättra människors livskvalitet och närmiljö.

NSSF of course says the house is theirs. Story here.

 And now, presenting, Los Bastardos de Toma de Muestras Ricos (The Wealthy Thieving Bastards) Scene One.

 Alexandro Gomez, the man from the NSSF, is in the extravagantly decorated living room arguing with Amoroso Rodriguez.

Amoroso: “What the hell is these?  Thees is MY house!”

Alehandro: “No, it is not. You sold it to us, remember?”

Amoroso: “I sold you the squatter-infested bogland outside. I deed not sell my mangeefeecent mansion! Look at eet. It is magneefeecent!”

Enter Amoroso’s wife, Shakira. Because it is a Spanish soap, she is wearing a short, clingy dress. Alehandro likes what he sees.

Alehandro: “Ayi mami. Mui caliente!”

(Checks notes to see if she comes with the property according to his contract. She does. Yes!)

Shakira: “Hey baby, what is going on?”

Alexandro: “That’s not your baby any more, senora. The NSSF is your new husband.”

Because this is a telenovella, Alexandro is a hunk. Shakira looks him up and down and grins to herself. She likes what she sees.)

Shakira: “Really? In that case, let’s get (licks her lips) better acquainted.”

Alexandro: “By that you mean sex, I hope. Hey, if anyone calls, I’ll be back in a few minutes.”

Shakira: “Come on, you can do better than that.”

Alexandro: “Okay. A little over an hour.”

Instead, when looking at Facebook vs. LinkedIn, I find it helpful to ask the right questions and quickly size up the client's intent when using social networks.

When working on a state political race, it become very clear to me that using LinkedIn was great at reaching out to specific audiences.  For example, older audiences or potential supporters we met at professional events, made a lot of sense to reach out to them using LinkedIn.  In fact, I always thought of LinkedIn as an entre to the candidate to develop deeper connections.

To me, LinkedIn is more like a static webpage.  That's because the content is pretty static.  A person's profile is basically their resume with a few other facts about a person.  CIO points this out in a recent article.  They explain people using LinkedIn can aggregate lots of loose connections with people, some they don't even know, and still feel safe.   This is because LinkedIn doesn't allow for people in a person's network to find out a whole lot about them.

Facebook is much more interactive.  It shows peoples actions and is so transparent, one can learn a lot about people simply from observing them (of course privacy settings can alter this).  For events, sharing info and speaking directly with supporters, no doubt Facebook provides an advantage over LinkedIn.

At the end of the day, these different social networks are brands, like in any other category.  Think of LinkedIn as Polo (older, classic, experienced) and Facebook like Kenneth Cole (younger, hipper, stylish).  Inherently, these different brands attract users with different qualities or users of each site have adapted to the culture of these respective social networks.

It's a good lesson when planning which networks to become active and how best to use them.

Here are a few tidbits that you may not find on today’s Internet

Obama was an active member of the now-defunct socialist New Party!  “Chicago DSA is affiliated with the national Democratic Socialists of America.”  From October 1996: “Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).” November 2006: “New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.” [More to follow in separate post, such as Obama's ideas on social wages and redistribution of wealth.---Matthew] [...]

N.

We had about 700 high school students from across southern Minnesota attending the day-long event, where they got to participate in some classes and also meet people who work for Mayo Clinic in various capacities.

This is a great application for a Facebook group. In our booth, we had eight laptops connected to the Web and with the Mayo Clinic Health Care Career Festival Alumni group set as a "Favorite." Students could log in to their Facebook and join the group, so they can go back and see the photos and videos we've uploaded, including photos of them. (Note: we obtained parent permission and had release forms signed for students to participate.)

Here's one of those photos that shows our booth:

We've uploaded photos and videos from the day to the group, and the students will be able to go back to it and tag themselves, or otherwise interact with each other and with Mayo staff. It also will provide our Human Resources and Education colleagues an opportunity to share updates on internships or course offerings with students who have expressed interest by attending.

As of this writing we have 335 members in the group. Some of them are Mayo staff, but most are students. We also have 7 videos and 136 photos.

If you have any kind of event that involves primarily high school or college students, you definitely could use a group like this to engage participants and to stay in contact with them.

Key Elements for Success

Choose a platform participants are already using. For high school students, Facebook is it. If you have to get people to join the networking site and then join your group, you've created a two-step process that's too complicated. At our event today it took less than a minute for students to join the group.

Have a way for participants to sign up while they're in your booth. Having the laptops with Internet access right there, so all they had to do was sign in to Facebook and join the group, made it easy. I guarantee that if we would have given them a flyer with the URL we wouldn't have had 10 percent join the group. As it was, we had about 300 sign up in the first few hours.

Give them a reason to return. For today, having the photos and videos of them (and links to some of our Mayo Clinic social media sites like our Mayo Clinic YouTube Channel, News Blog and Facebook Fan Page was novelty enough. Hopefully they'll go back to the group when they're at home, and will tag themselves in photos and videos and will invite friends to join the group. It will be up to our HR team that sponsored the event to continue to make the group interesting and relevant to the students in the longer term.

What do you think of this application of social media in career recruiting? What other ideas do you have for applying Facebook?

Weaver concludes:

[...] Barack Obama has a long-term and sustained relationship with the Chicago DSA, an affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America, and with the Chicago New Party. He participated in mutliple membership meetings and in DSA-sponsored events, repeatedly sought their endorsement. This does not answer all questions about Barack Obama’s past relationships with multiple socialist groups. What the media needs to find out is has Barack Obama broken his ties with them. If so, when and why? [...]

We're going to hold our breath until the media even acknowledges Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Obama's links to socialist groups including the Chicago New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Holding.

Holding.

Holding ...

N.

Corsi was to report Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign strategy called for exploiting anti-Kikuyu tribal sentiments, claiming victory and charging voter fraud even if the campaign knew the election had been legitimately lost. Odinga, Corsi said, also was willing to fan the flames of ethnic tribal tensions and use violence as a last resort by calling for mass action that led to the destruction of properties, injuries, loss of life and the displacement of over 500,000 Kenyans. The purpose was to compel the Electoral Commission of Kenya to declare him the winner or enable him to declare himself the winner by force.

Even though Odinga has not fulfilled his campaign promises to the Muslims who voted for him, he continues to cause concern among Kenyans because he has not declared his position on Shariah law, Corsi said.

Corsi said Obama remained in active phone contact with Odinga through the New Hampshire Democratic Party primary in January. The Illinois senator continued to support Odinga, he said, turning a blind eye to an agreement signed with Muslims and the post-election violence instigated as part of the campaign strategy [...]

More on Barry Dunham a/k/a Barack Obama's Kenya connection:

"Why did Barack Obama use his elected office and taxpayer dollars to support a man like Raila Odinga?"

Further: Who says Barack Obama has no foreign policy experience?

N.

“We don’t have a website”, but she handed me a flyer.

What do you mean you don’t have a website?! She explained “We’re a coalition of groups, so you can get information on any of our websites”.

The groups involved, according to the black and white flyer, are WWF, CAN Europe, Greenpeace, Friends of Earth Europe, die klima-allianz, Christian aid, and the World Development Movement. Clearly this coalition invested a lot of time and money into the event, and I can’t help but think that they made a massive oversight by not having a website or a microsite for the event.

The cynic may point out that since Fleishman-Hillard offers a full-service digital group that builds anything from fancy emails to websites of all shapes and sizes, then of course we would argue that every event needs its own website. But in this day and age, with the low costs of websites, I can’t see any reason to not have at least a one page microsite or a dedicated page on an existing website, no matter how short-lived the event.

Just on the other side of Place du Luxembourg, one can see a digitally-driven campaign. Vattenfall has placed a massive digital screen asking people to go online and ‘Sign the climate manifesto’. The engaging website has a live webcam of the screen on Place du Luxembourg and a video of what happens when you ‘sign’ the online manifesto.

]]> http://hermeticfront.wordpress.com/?p=726 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:58:04 +0000 dotan http://hermeticfront.it.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/in-2006-as-a-member-of-the-us-senate-barack-obama-campaigned-for-raila-odinga-in-kenya-at-taxpayer-expense/

"Why did Barack Obama use his elected office and taxpayer dollars to support a man like Raila Odinga?"

N.

Silverman's video was financed by the Jewish Council for Education and Research, a PAC. But I have to believe the content was Sarah's genuine feelings about the election put in her very own special way.  I say that because I would bet that Silverman would not agree to be scripted by an outside institution.

What was so good about it? I think above all else, it's authenticity. Sarah put her own style, career and personality out on the line to make a point. Some could argue that they don't agree with her style, but that's not the point I'm making. The fact that she was so authentic made her viewers feel like she was talking directly to them. So many younger Jews have grandparents in Florida, and even though she pushes the envelope on acceptability, many can relate to her.

Not to be outdone, two days later I get the response to Silverman's call for convincing Jews' elders residing in Florida to vote for Obama that voting for Obama is not in American Jews' best interest. The messenger?...Jackie Mason.

Now, I like Jackie Mason, just like I like Sarah Silverman. Mason's video was sponsorsed by Republican Jewish Coalition.  But Jackie wasn't able to pull off Sarah's viral effort that has been over 7 million times in two weeks.

Why?  I believe that trying to plan a viral video response to an already viral video has fallen flat time and time again.  Look at all the McCain supporters' answers to the Obama supporters' viral successes, like Obama Girl and the "Yes we Can" video.  None of those attempts at a viral response went anywhere.

Let's return to the Jackie Mason video.  The result? A very bland and not very memorable video. Let's put it this way, people in my office were talking about Sarah Silverman this morning, not Jackie Mason.

The lesson here is authenticity is key.  Things take off because the message is real and it resonates with people.  Video response that hope to go viral don't have that authenticity and they don't have a voice of their own.

You can't plan to have your marketing be viral. You can do the best you can to ensure it is easily shareable. But, we can't lose track that good content and speaking directly to your audience in a way they understand is a key public affairs and communications strategy to success.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment [...]

Why is this the first I have ever heard of the Joyce Foundation?

N.

Asks Morrissey:

Does Axelrod now want to argue that Obama never learned about Ayers’ radical politics and track record as a Weather Underground terrorist? How clueless would Obama have to be to miss that?

N.

Does anyone believe that Obama-Biden will be friends to Israel?

N.

Here they are:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a

BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a

BARRY OBAMA, a/k/a

BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a

BARRY DUNHAM

Of course no one in the media will ask the first term ingenue Senator about his many aliases, any more than they will press the hapless candidate about his associations with Bill Ayres, Tony Rezko, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Flager, the Chicago political machine, The Nation of Islam, the lawyers of CAIR etc., etc. And neither, apparently, will the McCain campaign.

We're on our own, friends and well wishers. Here is what all of this feels like.

N.

Credit: Right Truth.

I've written before that there is no such thing as a social campaign.  Campaigns suggest there is a beginning and an end to the social media effort.  But, organizations must realize that unlike most traditional advertising that is inherently a one-way communication experience, social media enables two or more way communications.  Therefore, to think of social media as a campaign, is counterproductive.  Organizations who involve themselves in social media must be in it for the long term because communication from target audiences is ongoing and social media represents an important space to build and evolve brands.  The beautiful and unique thing about social media is that this tool allows for more stakeholders to have a role in shaping the brand and therefore bringing more value of that brand to stakeholders' lives.

Eric Lander of Search Engine Journal gets it right when he says organizations must be proactive rather than reactive when using social media.  It's one thing to for an organization to say they want to fight attacks on them made on social networks.  But, the best way to do that is not through a campaign that may very well achieve desired results.  In the long run though, the attacks will come back.

Instead, organizations need proactive and sustained social media marketing.  Social media represents one of the best and dynamic places to build brands.  It's one of the few places that actively involves stakeholders in the brand building experience.  Therefore, a long term commitment has to be made to social media marketing.

The best point Eric makes though is the role agencies play in advising clients on social media.  If an agency talks about running campaign, then they don't get social media.  It's up to us agency people to right the ship and direct organizations to align resources to make social media marketing part of an organization's strategy.  Otherwise, it's like using a band-aid in open heart surgery.  At some point you'll need to make the investment and have the procedure.

  "Can I call you Joe?" Sarah Palin has a knack for winning people over-- with a mere five weeks of experience on the level of national politics, going up against a man with a full thirty-five years in the U.S. Senate, she held her own in the vice-presidential debate last night, a stunning achievement. There were no disasters. Saturday Night Live will have to go elsewhere for skits.

  The debate was a contrast between the inspired, eager to serve, and sincere Palin versus the dry, maneuvering, repetitive, and accusatory Biden. Palin was more convincing about caring about America, and she has the purer heart. She shines when talking about freedom and about protecting Israel, whereas Biden either bragged or threw around tiresome, baseless charges. For example, the first thing Biden said last night was that Bush's economic policies were the worst ever, and later he said that Cheney is the most dangerous vice-president ever. What are we supposed to do with that? Vote the other way all of a sudden? That sort of tactic bespeaks desperation and a demagogic style. I think Biden was too wordy, too theatrical, a bit overwhelming with his seemingly endless unverifiable (for us) claims about McCain's voting record, and his attempts at seeming like a regular guy fell flat. He's really just a career bureaucrat. But Palin actually dared to speak of reaching "Joe Six-Pack," she dared to be openly patriotic, and it played well, it wasn't artificial. In short, the Republican team has more good ideas, while the Democrats have merely an empty aura of elegance and of knowing what's best.

  In contrast to Biden's style, Palin was gracious and had the greater focus. She was less detailed about what goes on in the Senate, understandably enough, but that shows she is not compromised by a too-long association with that body. She evinced the memory of the movie Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, as her small-town courtesy and direct, tough, sensible approach to policy was reassuring. But Biden, on the other hand, always had some dominating, obsure answer, and seemed unlikely to bring a dynamic perspective to the Oval Office. He even said toward the end, "I'm not going to change."

  As far as I'm concerned, those who defend Palin are more decent than those who ridicule her. That candidate last night was not someone to ridicule, but rather someone to look forward to seeing in the Oval Office, putting forth strong policy. What Sarah Palin pulled off last night was amazing. Palin wins.

T.D.

In response, I grossly misinformed this person. As I shall do you, if you didn’t knw.

Let us first introduce the actors:

Danny Ocean: Former Minister of Stealing the Fuck Out of Donor Funds, Even if it means Sick People Can’t Get Drugs

Sloan: A Guy who wears nice suits but turns out to be as much of as scumbag as the scumbags he works with.

The setting: A place called Temangalo, the name of which, if you are so inclined, you can translate to “cut-me-own-hand-off”. Discworld fans may now take a minute to rotflmao, because that was a splendid joke.

If  you are to listen to only some of the news, you will believe that this place is dreadful and utterly crappish dump and that the parts of it that are not festering, steaming, pulsating swampland are crowded with gnomish poor people, who in all likelihood eat stray dogs for dinner and worship lubaales.

The hobbits of Temangalo are poor and uneducated and live stone age lives, so they can never, not even in their wildest dreams, earn salaries, but other Ugandans can. Which brings us to the next actor.

NSSF administration: A bunch of snivelling, slimy, bucktoothed and porny-eyed civil servants who run a dark and sinister and vastly avaricious and amoral company. All salaried workers in Uganda are forced, entirely against their all their wills, to piss a substantial chunk of their hard-earned income down latrines at the bottoms of which lie NSSF.

Now, the story. 

Temangalo belonged to Sloan. One day he heaved onto the NSSF and, with the weight of his considerable political influence bearing onto the back of the organisation, compelled them to buy his dump.

And for eleven billion shillings of the money they had suctioned out of us, they bought the land.

This wrought a massive convolution in the nation’s knickers, not so much because we didn’t know that this sort of thing happened all the time but because, and this was said with glee, we had finally got one!

You know how aggravating it is when you have woken up every morning of the past three weeks to find toothmarks in your bread? And this is a morning when you barely got enough sleep, what with all the scuttling and scampering noises emerging from the skirting, the ceiling, the space behind the cupboards…

You know what you will do with that first rat you capture?

That is the feeling.

This particular rat, Sloan, swears he is innocent, technically at least, because there is a difference between investment and procurement and the guidelines talk of works and services and not land etc. The republic inhaled deeply in preparation for an all-together-now gasp of “Puh-leeeeze” when we heard this but we were interrupted before we could utter it.

By a loud squeak from another rat, scuttling out of the skirting to say: “Kill him! Kill him dead! He is a rat and he knows it! He deserves to die! Bloody fink rat! Even unhygienic! Rat! Kill the rat!”

It is at this point that I pulled up a metaphorical comfy chair, gathered some metaphorical popcorn and a meta—and a beer because I knew that this is going to be good.

Which it was, as Mbabazi this week decided to refresh the spittle-spraying Muhwezi’s memory of just who he was fucking with. All of a sudden, in addition to his laundry-list of corruption charges, Gentleman Jim is also a wanted for a bank robbery.

Now there is a bank robbery in the mix. Didn't I tell you he was Danny Ocean?

This week we also have an MP denying a love-child and a church pastor accused of serial sodomy. Plus, Bobi Wine is launching this weekend AND Morris is head of the house, but I am still waiting to see what happens next in this soap.

Now, for the benefit of Don Wanyama, who doesn’t think I am funny, I offer this paragraph:

More perplexing than the corruption issue, which suprises no one really, is this NRM infighting. I tend to believe the answers are in history, not in shoot-from-the-hip punditry, so I am inclined towards the view of an old man I know who said of a similar situation that it can only end one way: the conflicts will escalate until one faction prevails. This faction will then instigate a ruthless purge that will reach beyond the party to the country at large, and soon we are on our way to a full-force dictatorship.

Of course, he was talking about the Bolsheviks…

Contractors require security clearances, and proof that their teams possess sufficient linguistic abilities and knowledge of Iraqi culture. The Iraqi government has little input on U.S. operations, although U.S. officials say they have encouraged Iraqis to be more aggressive in molding public support.

The Pentagon is sensitive to criticism that it has sometimes blurred the lines between public-affairs activities and unattributed propaganda. As information operations in Iraq expanded, some senior officers warned that they risked a return to psychological and deception operations discredited during the Vietnam War. >>>>>

As much television and radio programming that exists in the West, how much of it is "engaging and inspiring the local population to support U.S. objectives" and other governments? It seems that the soil of democracy is fertilized with U.S. dollars.

But this is merely delaying the re-pricing of those loans to their proper value. Left to themselves, the holders of these loans would eventually find it necessary to sell them at pennies on the dollar; Merrill Lynch sold its bad loans at 22 cents on the dollar. Private companies could then recognize the magnitude of the loss and start to rebuild their businesses with the remaining assets they possess. But now no firm has an incentive to sell off its bad loans. Why dump them for 22 cents on the dollar when the government might buy them, a few weeks later, at 50 or 80 cents?

So instead what is going to happen is that the federal government is going to go into the financial markets and dictate which securities are worth how much. It is still unclear exactly which loans the government will buy or how much it will pay for them, so no private investor can say whether an investment will pay off or not. This is how the prospect of a government bailout blocks the private buyouts that would actually clean all of the bad debt out of the system.

Instead, this plan transforms the US Treasury into a trillion-dollar hedge fund, making investments in securities whose proper market value is unknown and promising its shareholders--us--that unlike the best Wall Street investment banks, Treasury bureaucrats really know how to make a profit on sub-prime mortgage loans. That's why probably the best comment on the bailout is an e-mail making the rounds on Capitol Hill presenting Paulson's pitch for the bailout deal--in the style of a Nigerian banking scam. "I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude," it begins. Time to hit the "delete" button [...]

N.

Image via Wikipedia

Leading up to last week’s vote in the European Parliament of the Telecoms Package, it was striking to see the myriad of digital advocacy tools that were used by a group of NGOs called ‘La Quadrature du Net/Squaring the Net’. To safeguard the openness of internet and to prevent the insertion of the so called graduated response (or 3 strikes and you're out) ‘La Quadrature du Net” put together an impressive online campaign that included:

• A campaign wiki allows you to collaborate in the campaign - all the information related to the campaign was put on a wiki on their website that allows you to see their recommended voting list, download tools to help you contact MEPs, standard letter templates, information about the campaign and MEPs and the ability of course to add your own user generated content
• A simple but effective website includes a blog, newsletter subscription, RSS feeds and a press review to keep you coming back
• Search engine – if you searched for Telecoms Package on Google last week, La Quadrature du Net came up first
• Online banners and blogs – the blog posts in favor of amendments supported by La Quadrature du Net exploded - again all downloadable from their website

All in all, if you were the assistant responsible for briefing your MEP ahead of the vote and looking for information online you would have probably found their information. If you were a supporter, there's all you need to get you started on advocating on the issue. Although one does not necessarily has to agree with their point of view, La Quadrature du Net did manage to create a lot of noise in very short period of time and their campaign is an excellent example about how to use digital.

Perhaps an example that digital industries can learn from?

Magnus

Related articles by Zemanta

• EUROPEANS! You have until MONDAY to contact your MEP and save the EU from a three-strikes copyright rule!
• Proposed EU telecom amendments lack three-strikes provision
• European Parliament Says No to Three-Strikes Law