Reply to: The Color TV of Fear
This is the one that you should have chosen for today. Real fathers who are not treated like real men. On father's day, I should be noted as the only father who has fought the long journey of 10 years to be the custodial parent of his children, but do not have them with me and paying child support to a dead beat mother. To define deadbeat, is to say a person who avoids working to keep from paying support. If you ever want to see an unworthy use of the court system in Wisconsin, investigate this. Family court case 96FA002179 and 96FA001474. This under the divorce order where Dane County thinks it is fit for four preteen and teenage children from three different fathers to live with a woman on section 8 in a two bedroom apartment. The real concern here is this woman is a true alcoholic and drug user. In spiteful means is using the free reign she has of appointed case workers and counsel to swindle money out of a person who has legal custody and placement of these children to support her habit. To use her children and status to avoid paying utility and other bills in the winter, because under the county or state rule of service can't be turned off or evicted in the winter months. How ironic is this? Imagine a father who lives in Florida with his children and they come to Wisconsin to visit their mother that would not see them for two years and she doesn't send them back. She calls her case worker who automatically starts an old support order without asking the father. Now, he is stuck to defend himself long distance or take the chance of coming to Wisconsin to be arrested for not paying. The court loses my documents for getting the children back, but has hers which are filed by her guardian ad litem. Isn't the guardian ad litem to find the "best interest" of the children? How can you do that if you don't know the environment in which they live. I am sorry for the long response. But, if you want a noteworthy story. Tell this story of the military veteran who has been to Libya and the Persian Gulf, who can't have his family because of the system that he fought to protect. What good is it to be alive from the war, when you have no family to come back home to.I know many veterans that can attest to that. Lester Shields
Reply to: The Rise of 'Newsvertisements'
Once again we're being given, unfortunately, what we want -- more and more entertainment news rather than news about more important issues. Look across the dial and that's what Americans want today. As for disclosing their "financial interest," that seems kind of silly in this case. The stations are pretty clear in pointing out that the shows air on their stations -- they even give the date and time. It's such obvious promotion that a disclosure would add nothing. There are bigger issues here. www.mediaorchard.com
Reply to: Still in the Torturers' Lobby
What a shame that you received US$ 675,000 from an African despot plotting to have a life presidency cum monarch to improve his image among the international community. That money is part of the donations we get from our development partners. Where is the moral obligation we can learn from your firm? Do you remember Mobutu Sese seko of Zaire and how he ended up? As an enlightened Ugandan I know that Museveni is just the old school dictator type who has literary bought our poor legislators with little money that you may even laugh at (@ USD 3,000) to get permanent residency at state house. What you are doing for him is good for your pockets BUT bad for our poor banana republic. Anyway, I know that you can polish Lucifer's image as long as he pays up! Go ahead! Munauganda in Kampala.
Reply to: Edelman's Rescue Plan for the PR Industry
<p>Interesting argument from Mark Rose.</p> <ul><li>First he makes the rather ludicrous claim that "all communications is PR." This is an old dodge that goes back to the days of [[sw:Edward Bernays]]," who included everything from the Sermon on the Mount to Shakespeare's plays in his list of examples of "public relations." On the basis of a similarly overstretched definition, Rose then makes a straw man argument: since "all communications is PR," any critique of unethical public relations must by definition be demanding "a world of silence," which we all know is unrealistic.</li> <li>Then Rose shifts gears and begins talking about the "traditional systems of PR control," which he says are "fading fast." But if PR's "traditional systems" are about "control," that's quite a different thing from the other types of communications that Rose would have us believe are also PR. Posting a personal ad or producing a work of art is not a "system of control," but the public relations industry <i>is</i>. It's an organized effort to control the thinking of a target population, which is why Bob Burton was quite correct to describe public relations as "propaganda."</li> <li>Finally, Rose attempts to distinguish between "good PR" and "bad PR," offering some rather vague generalities about what constitutes the difference. I agree that there's a difference between good and bad PR, but the areas where Rose gets vague are precisely those areas where the differences between good and bad PR need to be clearly defined.</li> </ul> <p>By contrast, Bob Burton's commentary <i>was</i> specific. He didn't criticize PR simply for "all being bad." He criticized Edelman on the very specific basis of having been part of some of the recent scandals that have brought the public relations industry into further disrepute. Bob also pointed out that Edelman's proposed solutions to its image problem - such as cultivating a list of "500 influencers" - remain firmly within the industry's traditional "systems of control" paradigm and fail to fix the lack of transparency for which Edelman and other PR firms have rightly been criticized.</p> <p>Deliberate lack of transparency is the signature characteristic of virtually all unethical public relations, whether it be the creation of deceptive [[sw:front groups]], [[sw:video news releases]] in which paid spokespersons pretend to be reporters, or pundit-on-the-payroll scandals like the [[sw:Armstrong Williams]] affair. And there's a reason why these scandals keep happening. The public relations industry (as opposed to the work of "some artists" or "everybody who posts a personal ad") is a "system of control" in which the thing the PR firms try to control is public opinion. For the purpose of efficiency in achieving that control, it helps if the public doesn't know that those video news releases are paid spots, that [[sw:Karen Ryan]] isn't a reporter, or that Armstrong Williams has actually been paid a quarter of a million dollars to praise the Bush administration's education policy. Lack of transparency in these cases isn't an accidental oversight. It's part of the system.</p>
Reply to: Oil Lobbyist Becomes White House Climate Science Editor
The highly Orwellian characteristics of the current administration are blatantly apparent. This latest bit is reminiscent of 'Newspeak' in "1984," wherein the main character's job - his name escapes me - is to alter newspaper headlines to reflect the Party's position. We're winning the war, unemployment is down, production is up, and tomorrow your chocolate ration will be increased. The global corporate oligarchy continues its unwitting move toward totalitarianism, guided by simpletons who tell us that their actions serve our best interest while lining their pockets, while supposedly free people blindly accept their doctrine. "Ignorance is Strength." - Orwell. Jerome Alicki