Author: Spocko

What if we pushed body armor like the NRA pushes guns? 


by Spocko

I’ve marveled before at the multiple strategies the NRA uses to sell more guns. They make money after ever mass shooting. They have created an environment where the answer to any question about guns is more guns It’s clever in its twistedness. It makes sense that Donald Trump is happy to be part of this selling scheme.

I’ve been talking to people at several groups lately about what strategies can be used to make changes in how we tackle the gun problem in our society. I’m looking at multiple ways from legal to financial to cultural. I’ve wanted to know what worked, what didn’t and why.

As part of the exercise I looked at what the NRA did to get where they are today and wondered how a group could do the same, only with a different product, one that could prevent deaths.

What if that group had the same willingness the NRA has shown to use every technique in their bag of tricks to sell more products–no matter the consequences?

I picked a product–body armor. I created a group with three initials, BAA, for the Body Armor Association. What if they sold body armor the way NRA sells guns?

1) Provide easy availability at multiple price points

First they would make bullet proof clothing and helmets as easy to get and as cheap to buy as a handgun. There would be no requirements on people to buy them or laws to block its sale. Restrictions that make sense (like not selling to felons or bigger criminal charges for people who use them in committing a crime) would be dismissed as unnecessary and a hindrance. “People have a right to feel safe, in their home and out in public, their past criminal history shouldn’t infringe on their right to feel safe!”

2) Pay state lawmakers to fix the laws in body armor’s favor on a state by state basis

Currently in the United States it is legal to purchase and possess body armor, apart from a few exceptions: From Safe Guard Armor 

• In Connecticut, body armor can only be purchased face-to-face, and cannot be purchased online, over the phone, or by mail;
• In New York, the ban of body armor for private citizens is being debated;
• In some states such as Kentucky, committing a crime while wearing or even possessing body armor is a crime in and of itself;
• In Louisiana, it is illegal to wear body armor on school property. 

The legislative arm of the group would write bills like ALEC did for the NRA to repealing any laws that put restrictions on the purchase of body armor and open up new markets for body armor. If lawmakers didn’t support the bills, they would not get endorsements and donations would be withheld. This would require money, but buying influence at the state level is surprisingly cheap. Also be positioned as ‘bi-partisan,’ as a a pro-life bill.


3) Make the owning of body armor part of a higher law or ideal, maybe even a right

Like how the NRA uses the 2nd Amendment laws to sell more guns, the Body Armor Association BAA might use the preamble of the constitution as their foundational argument. After all, it is before the 2nd Amendment.

 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Constitutional scholars and homegrown experts can argue on what it all means. Pay a couple of historians to write some books. The important thing is to “start a conversation” even if you have to jump through some flaming hoops with blindfolds to make the case.

“What part of insure domestic Tranquility don’t people understand?  Guy with a gun shoots at you, are you going to feel more tranquil with a vest or without one? Also, note that the Framers used the phrase “provide for the common defense.” If they wanted to provide for the common offensive they would have said so and named it in the document. Remember, the USA was not the aggressor in the war.”

4) Bring religion into the picture

Getting Jesus on board is easy, what with the whole “turn the other cheek” story Matthew 5:38-39. Also, always tie it to sales. “It’s easier to turn the other cheek when wearing this GM-IIIA glass visor mask and ballistic helmet!”

5) No liability for manufacturers, ever.

Laws would be passed so the manufacturers of the clothing were immune from all product liability cases, ever, even if they are defective.  Liability lawsuits cost money, it’s cheaper to pay some lawmakers to grant immunity. The manufacturers will show their gratitude to the BAA leaders.

6) Sell body armor into fashion markets for men, women and children 

The BAA would enlist the United States Fashion Industry Association to boost sales. Seed money would be given to the industry to make more lightweight, fashionable kevlar clothing for everyday wear.

They would enlist fashion designers to make them look cool. Since styles change every year for adults, people will buy new body armor in multiple styles depending on their mood and activity.

Get celebrities on board!

From left, designer of #BabyYeezy BulletProofVest, unidentified man, unidentified woman one, mother of child model (North West), unidentified woman two. Photo Reuters

Growing children will need new sizes every year. Parents will need to buy new Back To School body armor. This all increases revenue for manufacturers. Here’s North West the son of Kanye West wearing a bulletproof vest designed by his father.

Kim Kardashian’s actual tweet. Look at my little cutie!!!  #DaddysMuse #BabyYeezy  BulletProofVest. Photos Brian Prahl Splash News

 The BAA would also accept kickbacks (I mean donations) from the clothing industry for every single item of clothing sold, just like they do with the gun makers.

7) Get the government to buy body armor for all employees 


Government unions are powerful. Who is in more danger than a government office worker? New contracts would demand workers get free body armor. Office workers would be required to wear them as part of their job. The body armor would have to meet government specifications. A cost plus model would be implemented for the resellers in the government market.

8) Get the government to pay for school children’s body armor

School board members would be lobbied by BAA to send new requirements to state and federal governments for all children to wear body armor while in school. The BAA would provide the school board with statistics for why it’s necessary. If the government hesitates, the BAA would ask private donors to provide body armor.

What about schools with no sponsors? Schools where parents can’t afford body armor?   To put more pressure on the government to provide body armor, start pointing out racial differences. Who needs the body armor more? Rich white suburban kids or “urban” kids?

REMINDER: A part of all profits from government sales goes to BAA for government lobbying, advertising and PR campaigns to sell more body armor and helmets.


9) Absorb attacks from body armor haters

Just like they do for the gun manufacturers, the BAA would also absorb any of the attacks on the body armor makers when a bulletproof vest didn’t work correctly. The focus would always be on user failure, not manufacturer failure.

“The injured party wasn’t wearing the clothing properly. We suggest that everyone wearing body armor attend a BAA class on proper fit and use. Instructors can help users select the vest size and type that are effective for the kind of threat each individual faces”

10) Redefine how people talk about the body armor– direct this to journalists

Start with a popular phrase like bullet proof.  Redefine it and use it as a club if it is used generically. A group that redefines a term starts owning it.

Journalists will be constantly corrected via multiple channels, tweets, Facebook, emails and phone calls. Even good old letters to the editors will be enlisted.

“Dear Sirs/ladies: In your recent article “Bullet Proof Vest Saves Child’s Life” you referred to the body armor the child was wearing as “bullet proof.” That is incorrect. Technically the body armor in question should have properly been called bullet resistant.  This is just sloppy journalism. 

In the future do your homework before throwing out generalizations about body armor. 

Complaints in on-line forums would look like this, “Why should I listen to any “journalists” who don’t know the difference between Kevlar 29 and Kevlar Correctional? He probably still thinks we use metal plates instead of UHMWPE for ballistic panels!”  The point is to let the journalists know they will hear from you whenever they write about body armor. Good or bad.

11) Change the culture of wearing body armor by appealing to the desired self image of users 

One of the most important roles of the Body Armor Association would be to change the image of body armor wearing people.  This is part of a broader cultural change. Use of tv and movies is essential.

The NRA has spent decades pushing the idea that masculinity is tied up with using a gun. But there is a difference between pushing it as protection and pushing it for payback, revenge and instant “justice”

Separate someone who is smart about protection from guns and someone who is dumb with a gun.

12) Call people who don’t like body armor sick


People who complain they feel uncomfortable around people wearing bullet resistant vests, would be told they suffer from a made up ailment Vestiphobia 

13) Make wearing body armor a duty 

Wearing concealed body armor would be pushed as a duty that people accepted as part of being American and protecting one’s family. Since nothing can be done about guns, this is the best step that can be taken.

Fathers would be especially targeted for this tactic. The BAA would would run ads and send letters to fathers appealing to their desire to be protectors.

“We know you would take a bullet for your child, but you can’t stand over her every day. That’s why it’s a man’s duty to protect their child when they aren’t there. 

If your child is at a school and was NOT wearing her vest, you failed her!  Bullet resistant body armor and helmets must be worn everyday!”

13) Shame people who didn’t wear body armor


After every shooting death and injury, instead of calls for more guns, which would not have stopped the bullets, there would be a call for more bulletproof vests and helmets. People who own bulletproof vest and helmets come forward and shame the victims for failure to wear. “If I was there, wearing my vest, I would have been fine. It’s their own fault they didn’t wear body armor, hopefully this will wake people up and they will start wearing body armor everywhere.”

14) Make wearing body armor routine 
Parents would join groups that encouraged them to wear the bullet proof clothing in case of a home invasion. “Brush your teeth, put on your PJs and vest and daddy will come and read you a story.”

Every morning they would dress up their children in kevlar vests and fashionable bulletproof backpacks.

15) Set one group of customers against another for more sales 

If sales start flagging, up the ante to get old customers to add more gear or more expensive gear. For example, in states that have started allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, parents will need to get more than just vests for the children, since their heads are exposed during class.

Lobby school board for more funds to pay for this gap in body armor coverage.

Feeling protected?
The whole idea of a group pushing body armor like the NRA pushes guns might seem ridiculous.  “People would never do all that.” But the gun lobby has taken these kind of actions and more. They have changed laws, customs, definitions, attitudes and have created an entire culture.  It’s pretty damn impressive and can be disheartening when it appears nothing will ever changes.

But… they are not a force of nature. They do not have supernatural powers.

They are just men and women whose greed has systematically gone about making America this way.

If things don’t change is it because they care more? They are smarter? More ruthless? Better funded? Better organized?

I don’t think so.

There are more of us who can and will work systematically to make changes to reduce gun violence in America.  Until that day comes I’m looking into this.

COOLMAX® BULLET, STAB & SPIKE PROOF VEST Ballistic Level: NIJ Level IIIa Stab (Edged Blade) Level: Level 2 Spike Level: Level 2 Color: White

..a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.  — AP Mercury News 

I’m sure this ruling will bring out gun carrying commenters from around the country to demand to know, “What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE don’t these people understand!”  Followed by how happy they are they don’t live in California. (I’m happy you don’t live here too.)

Walk for Gun Safety at Golden Gate Bridge  #WearOrange Moms Demand Action  – CA  photo by Spocko

“..there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive “good cause” standards. — Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents.

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to possess a weapon in their home. Thursday’s ruling centers on the next frontier in the gun-control debate.
“Probably the most important battleground of the Second Amendment has been whether there is a right to carry guns outside the home, and if there is, to what extent can states and localities regulate that right,” said Jonathan E. Lowy, the director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Fun Video by SketchShe for RedNoseDay

by Spocko

I’m a huge fan of Shae-Lee @ShaeLeeShack, Lana @LanaKington and Madison @madisonLloyd from the comedy group SketchShe.

They made this fun video last year for #RedNoseDay It’s them lipsyncing to Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now” across Luna Park in Sydney.

Red Nose Day is about helping lift children out of poverty. This video helped lift me out of gloominess. Watch it, it’s really fun.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. rings opening bell for RedNoseDay Nasdaq: WBA

This year the sponsors had some fun. This is Skip Bourdo, Walgreens Corporate Operations Vice President [Nasdaq: WBA] and Christy Gibb of the Comic Relief Board of Trustees ringing the Opening Bell at Nasdaq. I wonder if this years’ Red Nose Day partners from Mars Chocolate North America brought any snacks?

I think it is great when companies do this, it’s one way of showing that they care about their customers and their communities–while having fun doing it.

The people running businesses probably won’t thank us for giving them a reason to disassociate themselves from hate and nastiness, but we know. You are welcome. Now embrace the fun! It’s what the people want!

For another fun video I also recommend SketchShe’s Hammertime video

Portland Police Chief Shoots Friend In Back, Calls It ‘Self Inflicted.’ Is Placed On Leave


by Spocko

On a hunting trip April 21, Portland Police Chief Larry O’Dea shot his friend in the back, then suggested that the wounded man accidentally shot himself.
Portland police chief misled investigator about hunting accident, sheriff says

Larry O’Dea, pictured at the Police Bureau  in October when Mayor Charlie Hales announced he had selected O’Dea to succeed retiring  Chief Mike Reese. Beth Nakamura/The Oregonian

Portland Police Chief Larry O’Dea On Leave Amid Probe He Covered Up Shooting NBC News May 25 2016, 10:15 AM ET

Wow. That’s some serious hubris. O’Dea thought that the police would back him up when he said the gun shot wound in the guy’s back was “self inflicted.” Who did he think he was, Dick Cheney?

Too bad O’Dea didn’t have a friend like Harry Whittington. After Cheney shot him in the face Whittington apologized. I still remember thinking what an amazing display of power that was.

“My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this past week. We send our love and respect to them as they deal with situations that are much more serious than we have had to deal with this week.

We hope that he will continue to come to Texas and seek the relaxation that he deserves.”

   — Whittington apologizing for getting in the way of Cheney’s        shotgun pellets. YouTube 

Not everyone can get away with this level of blame acceptance. At least Whittington had knowingly put himself in that situation, but what of tens of thousands of people who were injured by gun accidents who don’t?

What if they were just minding their business in a store when an incompetent guy with a gun accidently shot them?

When there is a gun accident the gun lovers want people to say,

I mean nobody would let incompetent people with guns into their business, unless they trusted them, or the state certified their worthiness to carry a gun, right? He didn’t intend to shoot anyone, so he’s not a bad guy. I guess there is no one to blame for an honest gun accident.”

This is the logic customers are using now if they go into stores that allow guns. This is illogical and dangerous.

The first mistake people make is believing the gun lovers when they lie about how much safer people are with guns as “protection.”

You know what will protect you from a gun shot? A bullet proof vest, a ballistic helmet and body armor. The guns everywhere crowd want the gun for its retaliatory features.  You don’t hear guys bragging about their COOLMAX® Bullet & Stab Proof Vest.

At $210 you could buy two for the price of one Glock.

When long time professionals trained in guns and gun safety have accidents, what does that mean for the people who aren’t trained? This week West Virginia removed any requirements for people carrying concealed weapons to get a permit or training. I’m sure that they will take this responsibility seriously…yeah right.

When people without training have an “accident” that is really negligence, that incident needs to be pushed in the faces of the people who got rid of training and certification. Each toddler death, each dropped gun in a store needs to be tweeted at the legislators. 

Some of the, “I gotta have my gun with me everywhere” people are going to screw up. If we are lucky they will only hurt themselves, but we aren’t always lucky. So far this year 951 haven’t been. 

I wouldn’t choose to go hunting with these people, so I sure as hell wouldn’t choose to go shopping with them. It’s not the “bad guys with guns” I’m afraid of, it’s the incompetent guys with a guns.

No businesses should take their word for their competence either. Hell, the one thing these businesses could point to was the line, “Well, they had a permit.” They were hoping that it meant some level of competence. Now even that is gone.

Why should I trust untrained, uncertified people roaming the aisles with deadly weapons?

We get understandably pissed off over mass shootings. They make the national news. We should also get pissed off over multiple gun accidents every single day.

I see 3-5 every day and those are just the ones that make the news. Link to Gun Violence Archive West Virginia incidents the last two years.

 I’m tired of people, especially police, making excuses for negligent behavior when it comes to storing, handling and transporting weapons. Maybe they are thinking “There but for the grace of God go I.” since they know more stories like Chief O’Dea’s.

 No, police chief Tyler Brewer, it’s not a “knucklehead situation” when a 37 year old man playing with the gun in his sock shoots someone during graduation ceremonies at Augusta High School in Kansas. (BTW, Kansas is another state where no concealed carry permit is required.)



If states are changing laws to make what was illegal, legal so there is no criminal case following someone’s gun negligence, then we need to make it a civil case.

Of course the NRA is already preparing for this. They just convinced the Tennessee legislation to make the public universities immune from any liability now that teachers can carry guns on campus. And they didn’t require the teachers to have any training or extra insurance. The Tennessee NRA people aren’t stupid, but the legislators who believed there wouldn’t be any problem with guns on campus are.

What is also astonishing to me is that these “no permit, no training” changes were passed against the wishes of the majority of the people in the state.

More guns in the hands of more people with no training and no certification is a bad idea. 

Laws can be changed that make negligence an “accident” so no criminal charges are filed. But criminal law isn’t the only area to look at. When all those untrained, unlicensed “responsible” gun owners screw up it’s time to make them pay up.

 Maybe start with the Oregon police chief. Do you know how much the helicopter ride from the remote town of Fields, Oregon to Boise Idaho’s hospital to help his injured buddy was? Between $35,000 and $55,000. Do you think that is going to come out of his $153,605 yearly salary?

Liberty U lawyers: Your guns are going to cost you money
by Spocko
Liberty University to allow handguns in dorm rooms

Next fall, Liberty University students with concealed handgun permits from the state can get permission from the school to keep their guns in safes in their dorm rooms 
   —Jesse Pounds, Daily Progress)

Liberty has been increasing the places that guns can be carried concealed on campus since 2011. The residents’ hall is one of the last places they were forbidden. Officials have downplayed the number of students who might have guns in the dorm, as well as the risk.

The Liberty people won’t listen to me. But they will listen to the underwriters and donors, the people who have to pay for the errors in judgement made by Liberty’s administrators.

Qapla! We’ve disrupted the RW radio advertising model

By Spocko

 My friends at Media Matters For America put up this video pointing out that Rush Limbaugh is no longer the goose that laid the golden egg. In fact, he hasn’t been for years. It’s news now since he is in contract negotiations.  It’s too bad some media outlet won’t dig deeper into what happened to Rush and the AM broadcast radio business.  Right wing radio is no longer a safe place for most consumer advertising. How this happened and what it means might be a good story–if they cared to write it.

They could examine the impact of the revenue decline, but also the reasons behind it.

I don’t expect anyone in the media to “follow the money.” since the money raised for political candidates goes into media buys. But if one did, they might find that lowered revenue expectations and dark money are now keeping Rush afloat.

The political press will talk about how powerful Rush still is and how he and his brethren (cistern?) helped bring us the extreme right wing GOP presidential candidates. They can ignore the lost advertisers, since that is not their metric for power.

The business press might write about the advertisers that left him. They will then dutifully report any details the new contract reveals. But they will only do macro-level reporting, since the corporations that distribute Rush’s show are privately held.

If Rush was employed by a public corporation, with reporting guidelines and analysts covering the company things might be bit different.

But then again, as I pointed out to Rupert Murdoch during Newscorp’s 2010 quarterly conference call, big public companies can hide losses too. (Rupert and Me: I question the Newscorp CEO about subsidizing Glenn Beck)

 In American, unless you have a different metric for success, your product or service is supposed to eventually generate revenue quarter after quarter. And if a product that did generate revenue stops or slows down, steps are taken to get the asset to return to profitability. If your product continues to lose more money than it generates, something has to change.

However, if your metric for success is not money, your product can lose 100’s of millions of dollars each year and every year just like the New York Post and the Washington Times.

Expecting a specific product (or radio host) to make money is only a problem if they are expected to. Private entities can change the rules anytime they want to.

Take for example right-wing think tanks. Their job is to push the ideas and viewpoints of the funders. Nobody expects them to make money, if they do it’s a lucky accident. Let’s say one of their authors writes a book that the public actually buys. Score! If the book only sees the inside of swag bags at CPAC, the authors still get paid.

What was an asset is now a liability. 

Back in 2004 when I decided to “take on” right wing radio, I knew that nobody cared what I thought. I was told, “If you don’t like it, turn it off!” But I knew that the people running the station did care what one group of people thought, the ones paying them money. The advertisers.

And the people with the money cared about their brands.  I simply showed them what they were paying for on the shows. Is this what your brand is about? If not, don’t taint your brand. They could choose to stay or go. No threats, no boycotts.

The radio hosts could also choose to keep saying the same things, just not with that advertiser’s money. No censorship, no government regulations, just market forces.

The hosts could have made different choices, but they didn’t.

I imagine at some point Rush was asked to reduce his sexism and his bigotry. After missing forecasts for a few quarters distributors might have begging him to tone it down.

 “What!? Tone it down? Me, apologize!?  US Senators call me to apologize. Nobody tells me what to say on MY show!”

Maybe they tried to find some leverage to break his contract, because that is what they do with “labor” that is costing them money.  But maybe his lawyers were smarter, “You signed a contract, you have to keep paying Rush or we’ll sue for breach.”

So then the distributors had to take the very significant financial hit from the advertisers leaving. Over and over again. Lowering expectations again and again. There probably are some very pissed off people because of this. Will they take it out on Rush in the contract? Sure, somewhat, but no matter what is announced we won’t really know the details.


Bullies think like bullies. They’ll make verbal, legal or physical threats

I found out that when you impact a revenue stream people notice, and hit back, hard. Bullies don’t just rollover and back down. Because if they can’t fix the source of the problem, the host(s), they try to get rid of the people who pointed out the problem. In my case it was verbal and legal threats.

Instead of the distributors dealing with Rush’s brand tainting comments, they went after the people who alerted advertisers to what he was saying.  My friends in the #stoprush group, who did all the real hard work contacting advertisers, got targeted by one of Rush’s PR bullies.

In this story about what happened, that the media won’t do, they might look at what the distributors and stations have done following these massive material hits to their revenue. They could look at how they found new revenue from places like the Heritage Foundation, conservative schools and other one-step- removed-from-dark-money people.

They could write about how stations bulked up on political advertising at full price from old rate sheets while making money for creating the ads as well.  They could document the barrel scrapping and the search for more and bigger boner pill companies. If there isn’t a gold seller ad to run they fill up with PSAs, non-profit ads and annoying Kars for Kids spots.

They might even look into how their failure to address the real problem spilled over into successful stations which they then destroyed. These are the unintended consequences of a wildly successful program to defund RW radio.

Qapla! (Success in Klingon) 



Sometimes people point out that Rush is still on the radio, he still has tons of money and millions of listeners. Or that money still gets to him and his distributors, just via dark channels.

As I wrote back in 2007 when I got a letter from Bank of America about pulling their ads from KSFO, convincing mainstream advertisers to leave showed the money people that RW radio views are no longer safe to publicly get behind, is a very big deal.

To everyone who worked (and continue to work) to make this all happen I say. “Qapla!” and live long and prosper.

How dark money infects American minds

by Spocko

I recently listened to two interviews with Jane Mayer on her book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.

During the interviews she explicitly pointed to the power of the Koch Machine to change the public opinion and attitudes with their think tanks, universities, and media.

They push an idea that the climate problem doesn’t exist, or–if it does exist--there is nothing we can do about it. 

Marketeers and messaging gurus from the fossil fuel industry have invested 100’s of millions in a narrative that rejects science and human governments’ ability to act. They want to destroy the hope that we have the ability to make changes.

They throw doubt into scientific successes (“Blank can never replace coal/oil/gas”) while killing legislation that supports other forms of energy

In the superior interview Mayer gave on The Majority Report with Sam Seder she talked to an audience who knew of the Koch brothers and understood the damage they have done that goes beyond elections.

The Koch network’s influence extends into academia, media, state and local politics. This influence will continue no matter who is elected President this fall.

In the interview  on KQED’s Forum, host Michael Krasny suggested that because the Kochs aren’t winning Presidential elections they aren’t effective. He quotes polls saying the public isn’t buying the Koch message. Fortunately Mayer strongly pushes back on that idea and reminds listeners the Kochs are painfully effective.

She points out how the Kochs’ have already pushed the conversation to the right on the national scale regarding climate change. Their captured politicians are repeating radical right wing ideas.  Then she drops the other shoe, all the money that doesn’t go to Presidential candidates won’t be held back, it will go down ticket to Koch candidates at the state and local level.

Jane Mayer is the author of “Dark Money:  The Hidden History of the Billionaires  Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.”  –photo Stephen Voss

When I listen to an analysis by the mainstream media of the power of money in the current Presidential elections, I can almost hear a sense of relief, or even glee behind their stories. “Relax Americans, money can’t buy the Presidency!” They point to Romney’s failure last time and the failure of  Jeb and all the billionaire backed boys this time.

Stories like Sanders raising money from the 99% with his “average contribution of 27 dollars” or Trump’s record of “barely spending any money” assuages their fear that their reporting is obsolete. Ads still don’t trump editorial (yes that works as a pun, but damn it, I’m not giving up a perfectly good word!).

On the publishing side they are gleeful about Citizens United and dark money. Not only are the billionaires still spending money on advertising, they can say it isn’t impacting the electoral results therefore they are in the clear for not acknowledging the power of money. Plus, the entertainment value of the GOP debates has boosted boring old viewership, so the prices the media corps can charge for regular advertising is maintained.

This whole scenario is perfect for them. They can avoid their role as the 4th estate in putting a check on power. “You see folks? Citizens United advertising dollars didn’t impact the Presidential elections and since that’s the only one that matters, our hands are clean. “

What is bizarre is that media companies always tell advertisers that ads work, that’s why they are expensive. They will continue to tell candidates they work, even when they have been proved wrong.

Some big money people have figured out that “earned media” (I hate that phrase) is very powerful, so they have created their own media network and print outlets.  Others, “the dumb money” still pour millions into ads, it’s not like anyone is going to turn down their cash on a 4th tier candidate who doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning. “Of course we’ll take your ads for our network of media outlets. And, by the way, we know some TOP people who can help you create new ads tailored for our market. Your people might know New York, but WE know the midwest/south/northeast market.”

Krasny ends with the classic, “What is to be done?” question. Mayer doesn’t point to a specific answer, since her role as a journalist is to show people what is happening. It is up to us to act.

Following Mayer’s interview I read the comments on Forum. Between the Koch defenders and libertarians, a listener, Ben Rawner, asked:

Center for Media and Democracy’s Koch Exposed Wiki

They have not only exposed the Kochs in the past, they have actively combated their schemes to change laws and influence politicians at multiple levels. Mayer’s took on the task of writing about a very powerful secretive group. You think it was chilling when the Kochs went after Mayer with a private investigator? Imagine how they respond to a group that regularly gets between the Kochs and their plans.

The main stream media might want to ignore the real impact of dark money, but we can’t. I recommend donating to CMD, since, unlike the MSM, they don’t make money off Koch product ads or Koch political ads.

In the face of a dark future, where’s hope? 


by Spocko

I really enjoyed the recent GOP debate. It had the highest LPMs (Laughs Per Minute) of any Presidential debate in history. But after the laughs, it must have been depressing to see your fellow humans campaigning to get rid of environmental protections and your EPA.

Science News, photo by Todd McInturf/The Detroit News via AP

If my human emotions ruled me, I would be very depressed about the future of America right now.  Fortunately my rational, logical, activist side is in control, so I’m fine.

When I see tiny humans being poisoned, with no urgent steps taken to solve the problem, I wonder, “What is wrong with you humans?” Even the Borg protect their babies!

A healthy baby Borg. Resistance to its cuteness is futile

When you poison your own people, deny the science that shows the problem and then don’t race to fix it–the Galactic community wonders if classifying humans as sentient was the right move.

Fortunately, there are humans who are working to solve your problems and help others. Some of these people have a more optimistic view of the future than others, so when dark headlines fill my tricorder, I find them to listen to, read and watch.  One of them is Hugo awarding-winning author Charlie Jane Anders.

Last week I went to Kelper’s Books in Menlo Park, California to listen to my friend Angie Corio interview Anders.
 Charlie Jane talked about her new book “All The Birds In The Sky,”  She also talked about writing, science fiction on TV and in movies and her job as editor-in-chief at the science, science fiction and fantasy site io9.com. I was especially interested in her work a few years ago on Project Hieroglyph and the anthology that came out of it.

I’ve read lots of apocalyptic science fiction so I asked her, “I’m glad you are optimistic about the future. Why is so much scifi distopic and dark? What role does science fiction play in setting a tone for the future?” She made three main points:

1. There are fads in science fiction, this is one. Hunger Games made a lot of money so they make more.
2. If you are trying to think realistically about our near to medium future, there are reasons to be pessimistic. If you deny that you are writing fantasy, not science fiction.
3. We will figure this out. Being optimistic doesn’t mean burying your head in the sand, or assuming we’ll invent new  technology to easily solve the problems. She talked about creating her short story, The Day it All Ended, where things got really bad because of climate change.

   For that story she talked to scientists about solutions and what we can do to mitigate the damage, such as how to sequester carbon from the air in a way that is safe and makes sense.

Radio host Angie Corio in conversation with science fiction author Charlie Jane Anders at Kelper’s Books in Menlo Park

In my view the importance of showing a positive view of the future cannot be understated. In the Star Trek universe we saw how technology could destroy, but also create. We saw the benefits of diversity where humans of multiple races and genders worked with aliens. (In this case aliens from other planets, not countries–bonk bonk on the head with the message Gene.)

The show had stories of people working together with a common goal of discovery and exploration. It was important then, and is now, to see a future in which we don’t destroy our planet and our species.

We can survive and thrive in the future, not only by inventing and using new technology, but by finding and supporting the people who fight for–and write about–a brighter future.

Michael Moore steals ideas from other countries in Where to Invade Next


by spocko


Last week I watched Michael Moore’s new film Where to Invade Next, the GOP and Democratic debates.

The GOP debate was funny and confrontational. The Democratic was optimistic and educational.

The movie was the funny, optimistic, educational and provocative. It was also made me a bit sad, but that shouldn’t stop people from watching it, because it has a lot to offer about what Americans say we value vs. how we act.

In the movie and the debates people talked about ideas that could help Americans succeed.

Moore showed specific ideas and programs already implemented in foreign countries that helped a majority of the citizens there. During the debate Sanders talked about ideas and programs that he believes could create a better future for most Americans here. Trump gave ideas and slogans that looked to the past that he believes would help “many many” Americans win–again.

They all said they want to help America and Americans. The distinction is which America and which Americans they want to help win.

One of the movie themes that struck me is how often the idea of putting “me” first vs. “us” first is pushed in America.  Moore asks why a CEO would walk away from more money that came at the expense of workers. A CEO who doesn’t put money over employees seems puzzling to someone familiar with American management. How is less money for the CEO a win?  Isn’t a bigger win for the CEO, usually defined monetarily in America, what they should naturally want?

The idea of winning at the expense of others seemed a bit…foreign to the people interviewed. If you have to compete with foreign slave labor savvy American companies find a way–by using America’s new prison slave labor force.

Another big movie theme was the dignity of humans and their lives. Moore raised the question to various citizens around the world, why are you, your government and your business leaders doing these nice things for the people in your country?  They also raise the issue of who are your countrymen and why should they be helped.

It reminded me of an old story about a guy who knew that taking care of your neighbor, as well as yourself, was a good thing. But he didn’t really want to, so he asked a teacher to define neighbor. Was his neighbor the one who was from the same religion? From the same elite family? Interestingly, the teacher’s definition of neighbor involved a person from another country–with a different faith–who did the right thing.  

In the movie they talked about how American values have been eaten away here in the US, and how in current American establishment culture money really trumps everything.  (Yes, yes, pun intended)

Perhaps this explain why Trump feels he is qualified to lead,. “I’m qualified because I’m super rich.”

Why isn’t the right hating Where to Invade Next more?

Where to Invade Next, is one of Moore’s most optimistic films–and least confrontational. He pokes fun at his own persona from past films like Roger and Me when he meets with business CEOs and political leaders.

He interviews other officials and working people in other countries who explain their ideas and programs in education, workers’ rights, health care and abortion, women in politics, crime, prosecution of crimes, remembering of past crimes and prison systems. Connecting these is a theme of human dignity, community and the ability to make change that benefits a lot of people vs. only a few.  He contrasts these with programs and attitudes in United States.

The people in other countries are often flabbergasted by how mean-spirited, short-sited and sad our programs are here in the United States. I was nodding along in agreement listening to Moore describe what happens in America in schools and work and it made me sad. I thought, “What is WRONG with us?”

At some point in the movie I felt a tribal protective attitude, “Hey, don’t pick on my country/state/city, neighborhood/school!” and “We aren’t all bad! He’s cherry picking! Italy and France have problems too!” Moore addresses that right up front by saying he knows he is picking the flowers, not the weeds.

When someone on the left criticizes America and suggests there is another way to act we hear the usual defensive denial and anger. “If you don’t like it here, LEAVE” Of course these are the people who “send a message” to other countries by renaming their deep-fat fried potatoes. Message received, it was delicious. So the idea of bringing the ideas here, vs going there, confuses them.

Why are programs that would clearly help a majority of Americans attacked?

A friend who is widely traveled said he had been waiting 20 years for people to see how other countries did things. He wondered, how can these good things not be clear to Americans? I explained that there are people whose full-time job it is to push division and hate of others–and that doesn’t count the unpaid volunteers. Moore points out that fear is a money maker in the US. Since other countries don’t spend almost 60 percent of their taxes on the military, they can have those nice things. But it’s not just about moving money around from one program to another. It is also about attitudes about people, the role of government and what constitutes a good life.

We have seen that a message of hating others can unite people. Keeping people angry and afraid can make a lot of money for some people. In America we are using the majority of our tax money to kick the crap out of people in other countries and to pay for real and imaginary programs to protect us from old terrorists and the new ones we have made.

Michael Moore reveals the shocking truth behind the French lunch program!