Of Super Bowl Ads, Risk, and Politics

What a game?

I thought there at the end that the Colts had put Brett Favre into the game to do his best Brett Favre impression. Instead, it was Peyton Manning throwing the game ending interception. Peyton Manning! That same immaculate and indescribably incredible son of New Orlean's own Archie Manning. Conspiracy?

But who knew Drew Brees was so damn good?

And who knew that the Super Bowl ads were going to be so terrible? But more on that later...

An onside kick to open the second half was, in hindsight of course, the most brilliant play in Super Bowl history. Had the outcome gone any differently, there'd be a bounty out for Sean Payton's head. Especially after that debacle of a play on 4th and goal just a few minutes earlier. Instead, that guy who coaches the Colts held a look of shocked disbelief on is face from that moment on. Indeed, I'm certain he is still wondering just what the hell happened. I mean, he had Peyton Manning under center!

Which brings up a good point: Risk.

Risk can lead to monumental success, or terrible failure. There cannot be one without the other. And so, men must take chances. In business, in sport, in love. How many of us would be married today had we not taken that absurdly self-aggrandizing step of asking a woman to dedicate the rest of her life to us? And how many of us would be married if that girl had not taken the even more ridiculous, and self-basing chance of actually agreeing to such a proposal?

Which is why the government is so terrible at Super Bowl ads. They have no skin in the game. That is, you and I paid for a bunch of Hollywierd lefties to pretend they were a part of the private sector inadvertently ripping off the Government. Imagine that, the private sector stealing from the government! Hahahahahhhhhaaaaaa! Ahem. Sorry. Where was I? Oh, yes. 2 million tax payer dollars were used to promote the census during the Super Bowl. The census. During the Super Bowl. 2 Million. Dollars.



By all means, give these people our health care!

But at least the ads were free of any draconian references to Nazi Germany, right? Except, were they?



Is this ad brilliant parody, or a glimpse into an algore future? Perhaps Both? It wasn't funny, if that was it's intent. But it did make the entire green cult look silly and petty. But then, I'm not sure if that was intended or not either. The take home message that conforming to totalitarianism is A-OK was a little puzzling. And will it sell any cars?

I suppose we will find out. (See above about taking risks)

Meanwhile "Who Dat" is fast becoming the most annoying phrase on the planet. But at least "pants on the ground" has been supplanted. And it would also appear that the damage inflicted on New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina will only be slightly worse than what is being predicted from the combination of Mardi Gras and a Super Bowl victory. I'm certain FEMA is warming up the school buses as we speak.

But don't worry. There is a light at the end of this dark wintery tunnel: pitchers and catchers report February 18th.

Read more...

1st Amendment Thoughts

As to this supreme court decision.

I think this is a critical check on the populism movement sweeping the world.

Tyranny of the majority where corporations are painted as the enemy and they have little recourse at election time. Their voice is important in a democracy, especially since corporations pay the bills.

When a government can decide to impose an addition 10% income tax on my company/bank because they feel that is the fair thing to do (even though we repaid TARP + 25%), then companies may begin to question where their representation is.

I know for a fact, that we want to invest (read add jobs) right now given our strong capital position. We are constrained though because we have to worry about a potential reduction in our net INCOME by about 10%. A hundred million dollars+ to go to the government coffers. We would gladly hire sales and technology staff to exploit marketplace opportunities. Instead we have to prepare to write a check to the government.

BofA and Citi will be saddled with a 1 BILLION + bill. How many staff must they hold off hiring while they await the decision on this new 'regulation'?

Read more...

Reasonable Reason

Read more...

The Art of Rejection

Remember in high school how the month leading up to a big dance was so filled with elaborate invitations and extravagant responses? Then there were some who were fortunate enough to have multiple invitations and they had to choose? (Some call that situation a Princess Problem -- too many suitors.)

It's never appealing when that person complains about having too many invitations, right? Kinda makes you want to throw up in your mouth, especially when you're sitting on the sidelines with nothing. No date to the dance.

So there's definitely a need for class when handling the situation with too many offers. And there's also an art to respectfully rejecting an offer - no matter how uninterested one may be in said offer.

I am currently in a situation with multiple internship offers where I need to consider how to respectfully and artfully turn down offers. In some ways, I kinda wish this were high school because the stakes were so much lower back then.

But it's not. And in a lot of ways I'm glad that it's not. (I never got this kind of attention in high school!)

So I seek the guidance of TTKS authors and readers. How does one go about rejecting an offer in such a way that it a) leaves the person/company grateful to have recruited you and b) possibly keeps the door open for future employment?


Oh, and for the one I do accept, should I answer with custom messages in Hershey kisses or a piece of paper inside a jello mold?

Read more...

The Airline Surprise

Hey-oh! I'm back!

It has been a hectic start to the year with internship search in full swing. Coupled with school resuming, I was lucky just to read along with all the posts and comments. But things are nearly back to normal so I thought I'd jump back in the fray.

Last week I had a really early flight to catch, and a connection to make, in order to make it to a final round interview. As I ran off one plane and checked for my gate assignment, I saw the dreaded word that is all too common these days -- CANCELLED.

Sweeeeeet.

So I go to the counter and they are expecting me. They have me booked for a new flight. Or should I say flightssss. Their propsed connection put me in two hours after my interviews were scheduled to start. Minor problem. But they quickly found another set of flights that would get me in 55 minutes before interview start time. Doable. Done.

Made the first flight. Had to run all the way across the airport (and if you know Philly airport, that's a good mile run) to catch my next flight. Was one of the last to board, but made it.

Interviews went well, yadda yadda yadda, and on my return flight the next day, my connecting flight sits at the gate for an hour as we wait for 'an oxygen valve'.

My story is not unique. This happens nearly every flight, for every flier, right?

How can this be? How can we pay hundreds for a service or a product and get 1 out of 10 things we paid for? Ok, you got me here alive. Thank you.

These days, more than ever before, it's a complete surprise if you have a flawless flight.

Imagine if every market worked like that.

What if it were a huge relief that your snickers bar actually had peanuts in it? Or that your that the 3D movie you go see actually is 3D? Or that the concert you attend actually has the musician playing that you paid to see play/sing? I could go on.

Is this all we're going to get from the airline industry now? Just a now-and-then surprise that all goes flawlessly?

And while they can cancel a connecting flight while I'm in the air, and pay me nothing, I have to pay them $150 to change my flight. Seems reasonable, no?

Time for some innovation and fresh blood in the airline industry.

But until then, maybe we bump the highway speedlimit to 100mph.

On the bright side, the trip made for a great story. And it made me a memorable interviewee - I got the job offer.

Read more...

Obushma

During the 2008 Campaign Mr. Obama hammered home the point that electing John McCain would be like electing George W. Bush to a third term. It would seem, however, that that is exactly what we got at least in terms of rhetoric and platitude. Obama is no Bush. In fact, he'd do well to learn from that man. If indeed America is still angry about those eight years, perhaps Obama would want to change course from the massive spending, the fruitless investments into corn and other hocus-pocus "alternative energy" and instead focus on actual economic principles that are historically proven to invigorate economies, generate wealth, and cure the problems of unemployment. Something that, despite being a well evolved chimpanzee, GWB was able to do quite well – despite his insistence on government largess.

I really do have a hard time seeing why liberals detest GWB so much. I mean, other than pure partisan hatred.

Anyway, the Cato Institute has compared SOTU speeches from The One and GWB side by side. They are remarkably similar. Which proves one of a few points:

• That SOTU speeches are pointless displays of meaningless feelgoodism.
• That Obama ignores everything Bush said, and ends up inadvertently sounding like him.
• That Obama has failed to learn anything from his predecessor.
• That Bush was, at least rhetorically, as obsessed on growing the government.

One example:

The idea here is simple: instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform – reform that raises student achievement, inspires students to excel in math and science, and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to inner-cities.
---
When it comes to our schools, dollars alone do not always make the difference. Funding is important, and so is reform. So we must tie funding to higher standards and accountability for results.

Who said which? (hint: "status quo")

This is not particularly flattering to a man who won a nation-wide election based on his ability to speechify, and who won those votes from a base who believed Bush was an amoeba with a suit. Nor is it entirely surprising. Many of his famous campaign speeches were blatant "borrowings" of the words of others.

But here is my main argument: These men can stand and promise us the moon. And ponies. And ponies we can ride to the moon. In the end they will only look after themselves - which often means leaving us with lighter bank accounts and more rules to follow. Which is why the influence of the federal government needs to be drastically scaled back. Our politcal energies ought to be focused in our own states, our own cities, and in our own neighborhoods. Or, as John Stossel put it when speaking of the corporatism and corruption so rampant in the United States today, "get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them."

If only.

Read more...

Thoughts on Perry v. Schwarzenegger

I came across this article in the New Yorker by way of my professor in a class called Social Change Lawyering. I thought it was a pretty good follow-up to my post last week discussing Theodore Olson's involvement in the California case and wanted to pass it along.

Since it's the New Yorker, it slants left, but it's a good attempt to give an overview of what's going on. The first part discusses the issue as it stands and the second part is quite a long history of how the plaintiffs became the plaintiffs in this instance.

What I found particularly compelling was the discussion of whether Olson's involvement is really a good thing for the movement in favor of gay marriage. The consensus among activist groups is that, while slow, the legislative process is working and that they'd rather see a legislative solution than a judicial one. For example, since Hawaii's supreme court found bans on gay marriage to be illegal, 29 states amended their constitutions to legalize such prohibitions, where there is no indication that they would have felt it necessary to do so if they didn't fear judicial ruling to the contrary. You can take this as a legislative victory if you're anti gay marriage, or as a defense of incremental, gradual progress if you're for it.

As another example, it mentions how Roe v. Wade was really a terrible moment for pro-choice activists. The Court was way ahead of science and in front of public opinion in Roe, and the result was a sloppily defended opinion which really polarized the two camps even further. In fact, funding and support for pro-life activism boomed after Roe and abortions are generally less available and/or are more restricted and regulated than they were previous to it. Again, take that how you will.

I bring this up only to point out that although many criticize the liberals' penchant for using the courts to circumvent the legislative process and thwart democracy, the fact is that in honest moments it's often not that good of a thing for their cause. This is part of why I've always defended the judiciary as being more prone to exercise restraint than most people give them credit for and is why I believe that even if Perry v. Schwarzenegger gets to the Supreme Court they'll opt not to decide on it or will decide to uphold it (It'll depend on what the District Court and later the Appellate Court have to say on the subject). They've learned from Roe that deciding at the wrong time only further polarizes the issue and doesn't necessarily put them on the right side of history.

Read more...

Campaign Finance Regulation and Free Speech

So I was going to attempt to weed through the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the validity of certain provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, but that just sounded like more homework. I got through the gist of it, but that should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

Here's a quick summary of the law that's most disputed:

-Whether it's okay to regulate "soft money" contributions. Donations made to federal candidates are regulated and must be reported. Donations made to state parties wasn't previous to McCain-Feingold. State parties would then take that money and campaign for federal candidates. Now that's not okay.

-Issue advocacy: Here's the sticky one. So, if a campaign advertisement is clearly a campaign, it'll say things like "Vote for Hillary" or "Don't vote for Obama." That's fine. It's regulated, it's disclosed, it's capped, etc. Sometimes, though, it's sticky. It'll say things like "Bush voted for X," or "Kerry said this." It'll have sinister motifs or patriotic, upbeat motifs as the case may be, but that's it. Typically it can and does occur outside of the control or direction of the candidate. If you're a conspiracy theorist kind of guy, you probably don't acknowledge that, but it's at least a concern behind the legislation.

You can see where the Issue Advocacy situation can create some free speech problems. Mind you, most free speech arguments are by purists one way or the other. So, there's little or no argument about what a reasonable abridgment of absolute free speech might be. You hear things like, "I should be able to say whatever I want, whenever I want, under whatever circumstances, regardless of effect on others or other concerns that may or may not be legitimate." This becomes a particularly vehement argument as political speech like campaigning is one of the most protected kinds of speech under the law.

So, you've got two parallel lines of argument happening while trying to make and interpret a law: 1) Is political speech subject to any kind of regulation in the abstract? 2) If yes, under what circumstances, what's reasonable, etc.?

My answer to number 1 is yes, of course. Recognizing the inherent danger of regulating free political speech, we're not talking about incumbents restricting the opposition's ability to campaign, nor are we talking about repressing a disgruntled populace seeking to speak out against the government. We're talking about existing Congressmen seeking to in some way level the playing field across party lines to ensure that campaign speech and spending is controlled and monitored. At the very least, we'll never have to wonder, as a matter of public record, who bought whose election.

As for 2, I'm not sure. This is a brutal question. This is a good instance, though, of how people tend to run away with fears of judicial lawmaking. The recent case's decision basically says that certain key aspects of the law aren't constitutional. That's fine. Really, all that means is that when there's a dispute, the language of the law is inadequate to give courts the means to enforce it without raising important Constitutional concerns. That doesn't mean that the court "made" law. It means that the court said, "This law doesn't give us enough guidance as to how to apply it without violating the Constitution. Feel free to come up with something better."

Check out a summary of McCain-Feingold here and let's hear what you think.

Read more...

Nerd Chills

Read more...

Wait...What?!

I don't know what planet Howard Dean is from. This is probably the most laughable explanation for the Scott Brown win I have heard. Not even Chris Matthews can figure it out.

The real fun starts at about 1:50 into the video.

Read more...