The Downside of Political Advertising

You may have heard about this. A man by the name of Glenn Miller from Springfield, MO is running for the US Senate as a write-in candidate and has placed ads on Kansas City radio station KMBZ-AM. That alone wouldn’t be such a big deal. People running for political office run radio ads all the time, right?

But this Glenn Miller is a white-supremacist. He’s a former leader of the White Patriot Party. He’s not shy about it, and that is very clear from his ads. You can listen to them here if you so choose, but if you don’t want to, believe me, they are filled with hateful speech, racism and anti-Semitism.

KMBZ-AM, your run of the mill right-wing talk station… Rush… Glenn Beck… is running the ads, and they are catching a crap load of flack about it. And it seems that there’s nothing they can do.

According to the FCC:

Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities.

(a) General requirements. Except as other-wise indicated in § 73.1944, no station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate.

So basically they either accept Miller’s money and run his ads, or they run no ads at all for any US Senate candidate from Missouri. That’s a good chunk of money they would be giving up over the next several months. But you could argue that giving up that money would be worth it to avoid airing hateful ads that are going to anger a lot of listeners (and even non-listeners).

But it gets more complicated. According to this FCC regulation:

Section 73.1944 [47 CFR §73.1944] Reasonable Access.

(a) Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act provides that the Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to, or to permit purchase of, reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy.

Since Miller is running for the US Senate, which is a Federal elective office, it would seem that they have no choice but to run his ads. They simply can not turn down his money and his advertising.

This is the unfortunate side of free speech. He has a right to voice his opinion and, since he’s running for political office, he has the right to do so on public airwaves.

So what’s a station to do? You don’t want to offend your listeners, but you are required to run these ads. KMBZ is running a disclaimer before each ad airs. I haven’t heard it yet, as I don’t listen to that station, but I would imagine it says something along the lines of, “this is a paid advertisement and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of KMBZ-AM, its employees or parent company.” Or something like that. That is allowed, as long as the disclaimer doesn’t criticize or support the commercial.

Well, here’s what they did. The law says the have to accept his money and his advertising. But the law does not say they have to keep his money and it does not dictate what they can and can’t do with it. In a very smart move by KMBZ-AM and their parent company, they announced today that the money paid to them by Mr. Miller for these ads (run on both KMBZ-AM and WDAF-FM) will be donated to the Olathe, KS chapter of the NAACP and to a local Jewish charity. Nice.

I wonder what Mr. Miller thinks about all this. Basically he is indirectly donating money to the people he hates. That thought makes me smile.

It’ll be interesting to see if he buys any more air time on those stations.

What are your thoughts on all of this? Should the stations have jeopardized their licenses or faced fines by turning him away? Did they do the right thing by following the law despite the backlash? Should the FCC change their rules to somehow prevent hateful speech from being included in the political ad regulations?

Fat Guy In A Little Seat

All this week, I’ve been following the saga of director Kevin Smith and his ordeal with Southwest Airlines. If you haven’t heard about it, the short version of the story is that Kevin Smith, known for writing/directing such films as Clerks, Dogma and Zack & Miri Make A Porno, was removed from a Southwest flight for being “too fat” and needing a second seat.

You can hear his version of the story in his podcast here: SModcast #106

You can see Southwest Airlines’ responses HERE and HERE.

He’s posted a series of short video clips giving his final word on the whole situation, and you can watch them all HERE.

Now, for those that don’t know me… I’m fat. People try to tell me I’m not, but they’re my friends. That’s their job. I weigh 260 lbs. (give or take) and the last pair of pants I bought were size 42 waist. Of course I could be fatter, but I’m still what is considered fat. I’m too old to deny it or to be embarrassed by it. It’s reality and I have to deal with it. I believe Kevin Smith is considerably larger than I am, and I’m nowhere near “too fat to fly”, but I can still sympathize with what happened to him.

Statistically 2 out of 3 people in America are overweight or obese. Of course that’s not something to be proud of, but it’s a fact. In spite of that fact, we are still living in a thin person’s world.

Here’s what made me realize that a while ago. For the past several years, I have had a hell of a time finding shirts that fit me well. The trend for shirt makers and designers has been a tight fitting cut for t-shirts. “Slim Fit” I believe it is sometimes called. I usually wear either XL or XXL, but many times I’ve put on shirts labeled XXL that were just about skin tight. I could get the shirt on without any force or stretching it out, so technically it fit, but an XXL t-shirt or polo shouldn’t be skin tight on me. But the shirt is cut specifically to fit snug to the body… because that’s the trend… for thin people.

I got news for you: fat people don’t like tight clothes. Shocking, I know. But it baffles me that, even though most people in America are fat, things are just not made with fat people in mind.

I’m gonna go eat a pizza.

Sometimes Even Heroes Need Saving

I love “Heroes”.

No… I USED TO love “Heroes”.

I used to look forward to Monday nights, anticipating what would happen next and wondering who was good and who was bad. The first season was amazing, and I was even on board through the third season, when a lot of people started abandoning the show.

But season 4, so far, is not so good. It’s slow. There are too many different characters with their own story lines. None of them seem to want anything specific or have any conflict with other characters. Nobody is good. Nobody is bad. They’re all just kind of… there.

So I have some thoughts about how you, NBC, can return “Heroes” to the great show that it used to be.

1. Simplify: As I mentioned, there are too many characters and story lines. Several episodes will go by without seeing some of the characters, then they’ll get a couple scenes for a couple episodes, and then they won’t be seen again for a while. And it seems like there are several different and unrelated story lines. The writers need to bring all the story lines together and intertwine all the characters, like they were in the first 2 seasons.

2. Good and Evil: One of the things that made the first season so great was the fact that there were clearly defined “good guys”, a clearly defined and fantastically evil “bad guy”, and the people who were “in between” so you weren’t sure which side they were on. Now it seems like everybody is just… existing… with no allegiance one way or the other. The show needs to get back to clearly defining who is good and bad.

3. Heroes United: The first season, the “good guys” had a clear motivation- to figure out why they had powers and how to deal with them all while trying to stop Sylar and save the world. The villain, Sylar, was evil seemingly for the sake of being evil, which makes for the best villains, in my opinion. Now, the “good guys” are all scattered and wandering with no clear motivations or goals. Sylar is no longer so evil, and in fact, he doesn’t really seem to be a threat to anyone anymore. They need to bring all the “good guys” back together and unite them against a common (and very evil) enemy. Conflict makes for compelling stories and it keeps viewers interested in the show.

4. Cliffhangers: One of my favorite things about the early seasons of the show was the fact that each episode ended with a cliffhanger, and the season ended with a HUGE cliffhanger. That gave viewers a reason to come back the next week or nine months later.

I’m still watching Season 4… for now. But the show is nowhere near what it used to be and I’m finding myself less and less interested. The only reason I haven’t abandoned the show yet is that I feel like I’ve invested too much time in these characters to give up that easily. But I can feel it slipping away.

NBC… Please return “Heroes” to the greatness that it once was. It used to be such an amazing, engaging and entertaining show, and I’d really like to see it get back to that point. Enough with the lady that sees sounds, the wussy Sylar and the carnies. Bring the heroes back together to fight against a common enemy and you’ll bring the audience back together.

Sincerely,

A “Heroes” Fan

NaBloPoMo: Missouri Mavericks Name/Mascot Change?

As I’ve written about before, the Kansas City area has a new professional hockey team called the Missouri Mavericks. They play in the Central Hockey League, and are based in the KC suburb of Independence, MO.

I came across this blog today, written by Alex Parker, saying that the Mavericks need to change their name and mascot.

I disagree. Let’s take a point-by-point look at the argument.

1. Sure, the logo has a resemblance to others teams. As for the resemblance to the Kentucky Thoroughblades… who cares. Different league all together. Non-issue. But when they first unveiled the Mavericks logo, a lot of people (myself included) noticed the similarities to a certain professional football team that isn’t much liked ’round these parts. A horse logo with blue and orange colors is a little too close to the Denver Broncos.

“Maverick” is defined as (n.) “An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.” While I think it mostly applies to cattle, the horse mascot fits in really well with that. Although they could have also gone the “Cowboy” route, like the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA. But over-all, I’m fine with the horse mascot. Verdict: Keep it.

As for the colors, I don’t have a HUGE objection to blue and orange. I think if the team is winning, and after enough time passes, I don’t think it will bother people too much. But, I think they missed an opportunity to show some respect to the other professional teams in KC and at the same time an homage to KC’s short-lived NHL history. In 1974, the expansion Kansas City Scouts entered the NHL and stayed 2-seasons in KC, then becoming the Colorado Rockies for 6 season and are now the New Jersey Devils. When they were the Scouts, their colors were red, blue, yellow and white. As you (probably) know, red and yellow are the colors of the Kansas City Chiefs, and blue and white are the colors of the Kansas City Royals. So by choosing those 4 colors, they could have honored the city’s NHL heritage AND their current pro teams at the same time! I took the liberty of roughly re-coloring the Maverick’s logo in those colors:

Verdict: current colors are fine, but could have been better.

2. The name and it’s connection to the city. Mr. Parker says that “Mavericks” doesn’t have any connection to the city and that Chiefs and Royals don’t either (although he has since edited his post). I just want to point out that the Chiefs were named in honor of former KC Mayor Roe Bartle, whose nickname was “Chief”, and the Royals were named in honor of the American Royal livestock show, horse show and rodeo that’s held annually in Kansas City. I think “Mavericks” works well with Kansas City’s heritage as a frontier town and the fact that the American Royal includes a horse show. Verdict: Keep it.

3. Mr. Parker’s suggestions for alternate names are just terrible.

Missouri/Independence 33’s- Sure, you have the Philadelphia 76ers and the San Francisco 49ers, but those are references to 1776 (the birth year of our nation) and 1849 (the California Gold Rush that brought many settlers to the San Francisco area). I think the fact that Independence, MO is the birthplace of our 33rd President is a MUCH weaker argument for the name. And it just doesn’t sound good, in my opinion.

Independence Independents- Just… no. It doesn’t roll off the tongue well at all and, unless you say it very carefully, sounds like you’re just saying the same word twice. It’s redundant. And the shortened version, “Indies”, that he suggests just doesn’t sound very inspiring. Not nearly as cool as “Mavs”.

Overall, I’d say that the “Mavericks” identity is, while not perfect, pretty strong. If you’re going to change anything, change the color scheme, but even that, with time and success, will be fine. I HATE the Denver Broncos, but I would proudly wear a Missouri Mavericks jersey (size XXL if anyone wants to send me one).

NaBloPoMo: Job Ad Scams…

Well, I don’t know if I would really call it a “scam”, but there is definitely information they don’t tell you up front. I’m glad I did a little research.

I found an ad on Craigslist for “Freelance Writers”. They were looking for people to write for the web on topics such as politics, entertainment, sports, etc. I thought, hey, I could probably do that. I like to think I’m a fairly competent, although not highly trained, writer. So I sent them my resume and the review I wrote of Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen that I wrote earlier this year as an example of my writing.

Today, I get an email that explains that they care called “freelancehomewriters.com”, that they connect writers with companies and that they have a job bank where you can pick and choose potential jobs.

Here’s the part of the email that made me feel the need to do a little more research: You will need to sign up and log into our exclusive, members-only area.  At that point you will get to choose from 1,000’s of article / writing job offers, neatly organized by the type of writing each company desires. There is a small processing fee of $2.95.  We do need to eat too, you know!  However, there is a money back guarantee that if you are not satisfied with your membership within 7 days- no questions are asked, and you are refunded 100%.

I know that anytime a potential employer wants money from you upfront, it’s possibly (likely?) a scam. So I headed over to handy-dandy Google and typed in their name.

It turns out, according to one source, that the company is basically a training resource to teach freelance writers how to market themselves to companies and how to negotiate fees for themselves. The source says there is a job bank, though, so they didn’t lie about that. BUT… here’s the kicker… the $2.95 is only for the 7-day trial period, after which you’ll be automatically charges $47/month to use their service. Not really a big deal, except for the fact that they didn’t make that clear up-front. I guess even on their actual site, that information is buried in the the fine print.

The company may, in fact, be legit, but the fact that they aren’t up-front and honest about their practices makes me not want to have anything to do with them. I’ll continue writing on my little blog for free, thank you very much.