No article to quote from this time - just a basic rant.

Campaign commercials are beyond annoying.  I've found that I pay very little attention to them, because I seriously doubt the veracity of what they say - whether they're boosting their candidate or trashing the opponent. Either way, the statistics, quotes, records and other information has, in all liklihood, been chopped, blended, folded, spindled, and pureed beyond recognition.

Now, I'm finding, even more than the mutilated "statistics", the basic pattern of the ads is getting on my nerves.  They all start out the same - ominious music, and a harsh voice snapping out the horrible things the opponent has done, building up to a point where suddenly the "sunlight" music breaks in, softer, now, more friendly, and the voice become gentler, extolling how their candidate is so unlike the opponent, leaving the ad on a happy, upbeat note that you're supposed to associate with the candidate.

It's sad to think that these crude tactics seem to work year after year.  I'd like to think that, as a whole, we're smarter than that.  What I find really sad, though, is how many people profess to hate negative ads, but how effective they still seem to be.  It leaves the impression that people either know they're being manipulated and don't like it, but still fall for it anyway, or that they say they don't want to be manipulated, but don't take enough care to see if they are before buying into the message.

There's one guy here where I live who either uses very few negative ads, or the ones he does use aren't terribly good, becuase I don't remember any of the bad things any of his opponents are supposed to have done.  The ads of his I do recall focus on him and on what he's done - and he has one set of really geeky ads that feature him playing a guitar and making corney little comments tied to the style of music he plays a snippet of - for example, he plays a bit of country music and then talks about how proud he is of the country.  Dorky as all getout, but comparing that to his opponent who does little other than talk about how bad the other guy is, it's not only refreshing, but leaves me feeling much better about supporting him. So far he's won election to the House twice.  Maybe someone will notice, someday, that attacks aren't required to win.

Ok, well, hey, I can hope, can't I?

Cops ponder free cruisers funded by ads

By Mark Schlueb
Sentinel Staff Writer

Posted November 1, 2002

In Central Florida and across the country, small-town police chiefs are salivating at this newest idea in law-enforcement circles, tempted by an offer of free squad cars -- albeit ones emblazoned with NASCAR-style ads -- from a startup marketing company in North Carolina.

Faced with tight post-Sept. 11 budgets, many towns, including Edgewood, Oakland and Windermere,think that sounds more appealing than ever. Eachis considering it.

Some criminal-justice experts have already trashed the idea, however. They say that covering patrol cars with ads for burger chains and muffler shops undermines police officers' authority and creates a minefield of potential conflicts of interest.

It's not hard to sympathize with police agencies that are having budgetary crunches.  With the economy slowing down, tax revenues are down, and so there's less money to be split among all of the various agencies that are dependent on those public funds.  There's no doubt that cars do need to be replaced, and they're not cheap, but I have a hard time seeing plastering them with advertising as the best option.

One of the potential problems the article mentions is that of a conflict of interest, and I think that's a very valid point.  I think we all know of businesses that have engaged in criminal activities, or, worse, are fronts for criminal activities.  When money becomes part of the relationship between law enforcement and those for whom they're enorcing the law, it is undeniable that problems will arise.

Almost every police department has rules that forbid officers from taking anything that might resemble a bribe, a rule that is supposed to even include things like free or discounted meals, free coffee or donuts.  Somehow, I would think that helping to fund free police cars would fall under that same kind of a rule, since the effect would be roughly the same - the police are gaining a benefit at the business owners expense, and can end up feelin endebted to the buisness owner in return for his or her generosity.

It makes sense for police and other public departments to look for alternative ways to getting the equipment they need, but there would need to be a way to help insure that whatever method would be used would prevent the cops from knowing who their benefactors are.  Sadly, that's a lot harder to work out than it sounds.