After reading this post on Talking Points Memo something stood out at me:

That's too bad. Because without aggressive, outside-the-box thinking and action, this will all go very badly. The same-old-same-old mix of press conferences and reports and 'coalitions' won't amount to anything.

This has been rattling around my head for some time now. Basically, I just don't understand what JMM calls the "same-old-same-old mix" of public relations, coalitions, visibility work, etc. I never have. To me they embody an approach that has never worked. The dirty little secret of advertising (feel free to disagree, Dwight) is that it isn't effective: most consumer advertising can, at best, shave off a few people from using another product and onto yours. But brand identities, now more than ever, are losing steam. Advertising is notoriously bad at getting people to purchase a product they have no interest in already.

In the past, purchasing a "brand" product meant the security and safety of getting the best. Buying a box of Tide meant buying the cleanest clothes. Now, instead, the marketplace is ruled by price. If I see a generic version of a product (and Consumer Reports agrees with me) then I'll pick it up instead.

But back to politics.

Tons of work is done every day by different groups on the left, about labor, the environment, health care, etc. Many of the groups are somewhat duplicative of each other, and so often form "coalitions" to advance their agendas. Many also have in-house lobbying shops to help move friendly legislation forward. A large amount of money then, is raised to be spent on public relations to convince the news media to treat particular issues as "news", which will in turn raise public "awareness" which will then create "pressure" on legislators to alter the laws (or keep them!) on the books.

To some extent, this has worked in the past. But in many cases, it doesn't. And increasingly, the cases where it doesn't seem to be on our side. The large demonstration marches from before the Iraq War began are a great case in point: tons of people mobilized from around the country to travel to D.C. to show the world America was having second thoughts about going to war.

Yet we did.

More importantly, many Democrats felt at the time that failure to support the war was political suicide. Think about that. Now, of course, everyone and their cousin says things in Iraq are "going badly". Yet if anyone had painted an exact picture of where we are today, two years ago, many would've said the person was crazy. The surprise, of course, shouldn't be that the war has gone badly. The surprise should be that so many people thought it would go so well. This isn't a failure of evidence: all the evidence was there. It's a failure of public relations.

What do I mean? Well, simply put, legislators often need "cover" to vote for a certain measure. If public support is against a particular issue, legislators can claim they are acting as their constituents wish. (Yes, yes, we live in a republic, not a democracy, and no one polls their actual district, anyway, but ignore all that.) Democrats, as a party, failed to provide cover for the vote on the war in Iraq.

Sure, I hear you saying, but it was political suicide. Nonsense, I say. The risks were there...but the real risk was in acting timid. Americans aren't able to judge facts well. This is at the heart of the problem. Most Democratic organizations seem to feel that if we come up with a list of the reasons for something being bad or good, that the public will agree with us. It's not the message, guys, it's the messenger.

Americans love a straight shooter. When Rummy's popularity soared after 9/11, it was because he held news conferences daily and gave straightforward answers. Bush, by contrast, has dropped each time he's gone on the air because he can't give a straight answer. How does this affect Democratic P.R.? Well, forming a "coalition" sounds grand, but accomplishes little. So does having a march. Or issuing a "press release" and desperately trying to get the news media to pick it up and turn it into "a story".

Instead, we need to have people tell things like they really are. Let's ask the simplistic questions: "are you for Social Security?" "are you for working folks?" "are you for Medicare?" Yes, these questions shouldn't be boiled down to yes/no propositions. But they must, because we need to frame the GOP as it really is: the party against Social Security, against working families, against Medicare. Let's also ask another important question: are you for the federal debt? Democrats need to start pounding down a simple meme: socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

On the p.r. front we need to start taking plays from the other side. GOP Astroturf is rampant in the print world. Let's make it easier to write letters to the editor. The FCC was recently punked by the "Parent's Television Council" to the tune of almost 100% of its complaints. We need to do the same.

Almost all of our recent success have come through internet campaigns like the one to boycott Sinclair. We didn't need press releases. We just needed properly channeled outrage. There are tons of things we are already outraged about. So let's start channeling...

I probably should've worn a hat today.

Until my ears warm up, enjoy these delicious floating logos. Yes, you've probably seen them already.

Of course, almost no snow and a high of 28 isn't exactly heartwarming...

The district in the snow is breathtaking.

This is priceless:

Of course, knowing the Bush administration, whoever put up the sign will get a Presidential Freedom Medal tomorrow.

I'm only going to say one thing about baseball shenanigans in DC.

Love it or hate it, requiring wealthy businesses to pay a couple thousand dollars in taxes isn't what I traditionally view as "public financing". So the usual arguments (which are correct!) about raising sales taxes and other regressive measures do not apply here. A wealthy firm, who just wants to be able to take its clients to a baseball game in DC, can afford 50 grand to help build the stadium it will primarily serve.

That's it. You know where I stand. The Post asks the same question today.

I got a library card on Monday. The main DC Public Library is less than a block from where I work.

I haven't had one since I was a kid. I remember going to our cool library "in the city" and getting tons of books to read.

When you think about it...giving ordinary people free access to information (libraries have computers now too!) is an amazing reflection of our culture. If we judge a society by its prisons, shouldn't we judge them by their libraries as well?

After purchasing my TiVo last year, I reveled in the fact that I could set it up to record 24, which seemed to always come on when I had something to do. I watched the first few episodes of 24 on time, and then set up my TiVo to record the rest. Next, I proceeded to be busy for several weeks in a row. Before I knew it, I was hours behind and didn't want to devote the time to catching up. Besides, around hour 6 things seemed somewhat blah.

This weekend, in anticipation of season four starting in January, I watched the next 18 hours.

Damn.

I never should've stopped. Season three's intertwining plots were much better than the second season as soon as they got back to LA. The one episode where a "Kim and the Cougar" could have occurred ended up being great, because the writers had the foresight to give the girl a gun before they put her in mortal danger.

When the chief villain was busted with two hours to go, I thought things would slow down...but instead they got even better. In fact, the final hour was just as great as any other!

The only negative thing about the whole series was clearly the introduction of Chloe, a character who manages to make Jar-Jar Binks look sympathetic. Each scene Chloe appeared in was painful to watch, even the ones where other characters would helpfully point out "Chloe, I can't take much more of your attitude". If she appears in season four, I may have a meltdown.

With that said, go pick up the dvds. Once you get out of Mexico, things really heat up.

werkz advice: go see it in the theater.

The third Blade movie, Blade Trinity ventures in a new direction. The movie, like its predecessors, has plenty of action and vicious vampire fighting. Also, like the first two, the plot is mostly ancillary and nonsensical.

The primary difference is that, unlike the first two films, Blade Trinity is legitimately funny. Why? One guy: Ryan Reynolds. He basically wisecracks every moment he opens his mouth. At first, it's funny. Then you think he's overdoing it. Then you realize that it's pure genius. See the movie just to listen to his lines, which bode well for David Goyer's screenplay of Batman Begins.

Spin awards the top ten most properly rated bands of all time. My favorite is number three:

Blue Öyster Cult: The BÖC song everyone pays attention to is the suicide anthem “Don’t Fear the Reaper.” However, that song is stupid and doesn’t use enough cowbell. The BÖC song almost no one pays attention to is the pro-monster plod-athon “Godzilla,” and that song is spine- crushingly great. So, in the final analysis, Blue Öyster Cult is accurately rated—by accident. This happens on occasion; look at Scottie Pippen.

Be sure to read them all.

werkz advice: great. but will be just as good on the small screen.

Having had to suffer years of awful trailers for trashy movies made by Nickelodeon (Rugrats, Wild Thornberries, Jimmy Neutron, Rugrats Meet The Wild Thornberries, Jimmy Neutron Kicks The Crap Out Of The Rugrats, etc), I was surprised to discover a few months ago that they planned to make a Spongebob Squarepants movie. Unlike the other tripe on Nick, Spongebob Squarepants is actually an enjoyable show for all ages. It's more reliably interesting than the Fairly OddParents and it is more consistently funny than Rob Renzetti's brilliant My Life As A Teenage Robot..

The movie is basically just an extended episode of the show...which is more than enough reason to go see it. So stop reading this and go watch it!

Serenity, though delayed, apparently rocks.