“Black people—specifically, young black people—do seem to use Twitter differently from everyone else on the service. They form tighter clusters on the network—they follow one another more readily, they retweet each other more often, and more of their posts are @-replies—posts directed at other users. It’s this behavior, intentional or not, that gives black people—and in particular, black teenagers—the means to dominate the conversation on Twitter.”

So, these “blacktags” {perhaps made famous by #ifsantawasblack}  are more prone to go viral. According to Baratunde Thurston, the Web editor of the Onion::

“Twitter works very naturally with that call-and-response tradition—it’s so short, so economical, and you get an instant signal validating the quality of your contribution. (If people like what you say, they retweet it.)”

Currently, the Australian Labor Party and PM Julia Gillard are developing a framework to implement a carbon tax. Actor Cate Blanchett is in a manufactured controversy over her appearance in a privately funded pro-carbon tax ad in Australia. Cate is getting support by the left and critisism on the right for being “out of touch”, with Terri Kelleher of The Australian Families Association claiming::

“It’s nice to have a multi-millionaire who won’t be impacted by it telling you how great it is.”

This article reminds readers that Cate Blanchett is a Hollywood actor worth $53M, while the opposition leader Tony Abbott told Parliament his thoughts on the matter::

“People who live in eco-mansions have a right to be heard [in reference to the Blanchett’s $10 million Sydney home]…People who are worth $53 million have a right to be heard but their voice should not be heard ahead of the voice of the ordinary working people of this country.”

The opposition is focusing on the financial impact for the rank and file and how it will raise prices and hurt jobs. The Labor plan is to implement a carbon tax for 3-5 years before switching to a cap-and-trade system. The tax would be between US$21.4 and 32.1 per tonne [$CAN 20.8 to 31.3 per tonne].

The rhetoric is flying in both direction. The following video attempts to debunk the above ad, but while it looks like it’s identifying false claims, it’s merely citing opposing views.

The problem with taxes is the public doesn’t want to pay them and that many are buying into the neoliberal myth of low taxes that encourage a race to the bottom. Raising taxes tends to be good fodder for the opposition, but it doesn’t always work. Carbon taxes are one of those things that aren’t easy for the public to understand. During the recent election in Canada, the Conservatives tried to nail the NDP {at the time 4th. and now the official opposition party} on its cap-and-trade proposal. Unfortunately, one of the pro-Conservative economists, Jack Mintz at the University of Calgary and a boardmember for Imperial Oil, flubbed it on Twitter earning himself a hashtag fail. He made an erroneous assumption that wasn’t a part of the NDP policy by considering fossil fuels that consumers use in his calculations. I have a sense that in Canada, the electorate is getting wise to the rhetoric and there’s an increasingly partisan divide, particularly on economic issues.

Attacking Cate Blanchett for being out of touch as part of a “regular joe can’t afford it” appeal is a dangerous tactic when the tax hasn’t even been finalized. Nevertheless, taxes are a boogeyman of politics. Australian Labor might want to look at the British Colombia experience with its carbon tax.

British Columbia is going on 3 years with a carbon tax, which was first met with resistance when implemented by the BC-Liberals {centre-left} under Premier Gordon Campbell. Carole James and the BC-NDP {centre-left} was making it a wedge issue in the May 2009 provincial elections. Robert Gifford, an environmental psychologist and a professor at the University of Victoria said::

“Initially, some people heard the ‘t’ word and went into a tizzy…Then the end of the world didn’t happen, and people just accepted the tax.”

Now, three years later, the public has accepted the tax in BC, the BC-NDP has softened on it and isn’t using it to attack the BC-Liberals, despite another election looming. I was skeptical of the efficacy of the tax {July of next year it goes up to $30 per tonne}, as I wasn’t seeing a clear path to behavioural changes with the particular implementation of policy by the BC-Liberals. After three years, others agree that the policy is flawed and some are advocating that the policy be fixed to address some of its perceived faults , in terms of environmemental outcomes and economic fairness. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has a report with recommendations on how to fix the carbon tax by fine-tuning the policy and closing loopholes.

The opposition in Australia, led by Tony Abbott, who is claiming the sky will fall with the carbon tax may be putting all his chips on this one issue. Attacking Cate Blanchett on an issue that the electorate is evenly divided on is risky. Attacking her with arguments that she’s rich and can afford the tax can appear to be offsides and can magnify the very celebrity status that she’s using to support her causes. Blanchett responded to her critics by stating her support on the carbon tax is conditional on “generous compensation for low and middle income households.”

I’m working on research on backlash effects, particularly as it pertains to social media. It appears that Tony Abbott is trying to attack the carbon tax, but in a way that can set up a backlash. In my model, components of trustworthiness of Blanchett might drive voter perceptions, particularly with respect to ability, integrity and benevolence. The stronger the perception of her on these dimensions, the greater the likelihood of Abbott fueling a backlash against attacks on her and the carbon tax.

I just saw this and CBS has a good run down of what went down. I think this exchange highlights one of the themes of today’s “infotainment”—confirmatory bias. Confirmatory bias is the psychological tendency to seek information that confirms existing beliefs. The news network pundits on Fox and MSNBC have made careers out of selecting issues and tailoring coverage for their respective conservative and liberal audiences. The audiences have grown accustomed to the “selective hate machine”, a term coined by Jon Stewart in describing Fox News.

Foxes & Hedgehogs

Stewart has made a career out of being a lampooning satirist who doesn’t stick to a strict ideological script, but he also knows who his audience is. Ironically, Stewart is more of a fox than a hedgehog, as he’s free to be an equal opportunity basher, er, critic. A few years back, Philip Tetlock used the fox and hedgehog metaphor to describe economic punditry::

“The most important factor was not how much education or experience the experts had but how they thought. You know the famous line that [philosopher] Isaiah Berlin borrowed from a Greek poet, ‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’? The better forecasters were like Berlin’s foxes: self-critical, eclectic thinkers who were willing to update their beliefs when faced with contrary evidence, were doubtful of grand schemes and were rather modest about their predictive ability. The less successful forecasters were like hedgehogs: They tended to have one big, beautiful idea that they loved to stretch, sometimes to the breaking point. They tended to be articulate and very persuasive as to why their idea explained everything. The media often love hedgehogs.”

The Culture War

Stewart has cultivated an audience looking for infotainment with a ton of snark and less of a penchant for sacred cows. His positioning as a “fox” is smart, as it differentiates him from the ideologues. Conservative hedgehog pundits like O’Reilly who whip up frenzy for an older demographic serve as particularly good fodder. In the clip, he loves poking fun at O’Reilly’s positioning in the political punditry market by taking jabs by using pop culture rap references with more than a hint of condescension. Stewart used similar tactics lampooning Newt Gingrich’s announcing of his candidacy on Twitter.

Nevertheless, Stewart brings up a good point that this is all manufactured outrage against Barack Obama. While O’Reilly is just revisiting the culture war, I’m not sure the same levers used in the past are going to work against Obama. He’s not an easy target. In fact, I would argue that the dissatisfaction the hard left has with Obama has everything to do with him positioning his administration to win the culture war, not put it to rest.

I was doing a post over on r h i z o m i c o n on innovation policy in Canada and also had a conversation with a future ThickCulture blogger on the future of biomedical innovation in the United States, which was the genesis of this post. I’ve been thinking about innovation policy, particularly in light of the Big Recession and the rise of global economies in places like China, India, and Brazil. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about the implications for biomedical innovation in the US, given how the pharmaceutical industry is likely to get squeezed on: {1} the demand-side {through universal healthcare being a monopsonist buyer} and {2} how public expenditures on basic science and technology are threatened, in that are deemed by some as unsustainable in the near term {due to the deficit} and the long term {due to concerns about efficiencies}.

Innovation in General

US policy has a somewhat favourable tax treatment for innovation, along with a high public expenditure contributing to business and enterprise research and development {BERD}::

While it’s fully understood the BERD is not the same as innovation, it nevertheless serves as a useful proxy measure. The sizes of the bubbles represent a measure for the productivity of BERD, with respect to value-added. The implication here is that the US government is spending a great deal on BERD and offering some tax incentives, while the outcomes aren’t that extraordinary.

As an aside, Canada’s government isn’t spending much, but offers a fairly generous tax treatment. Nevertheless, the R&D {and BERD levels} are disappointing and while some studies show some of this is due to industry effects [pdf], there are nevertheless structural issues that need to be addressed by policy, not the market alone.

Biomedical Research in the US

The US federal government is a big spender on health research, but these funds also go towards training and infrastructure. Historically, the funds for one of the big expenditures, the National institute for Health {NIH}, have been highly volatile::

and while the Obama administration wanted to boost funding, in order to avert a government shutdown, the great budget compromise of 2011 saw the NIH budget cut by $260M. The CDC was also cut to the tune of $730M from FY2010.

While the pharmaceutical industry invests more in R&D than the government, this represents a division of labour—the government spends on basic research, while the industry focuses on commercialization and expensive sets of clinical trials. The problem is that the governmental basic science subsidy is unlikely to be sustainable, particularly if the returns aren’t there. What I mean by returns are both in terms of value-added and health-beneffitting therapies. Under scrutiny, the lack of accountability of NIH funds and the grant practices are unlikely to show either. So, first off, reform of the NIH is in order. The current situation is leading to increased cynicism by stakeholders::

“Today, the primacy of biomedical research and technology development is being challenged. Patients, physicians, insurers, and policymakers are all questioning the slow pace of advance, escalating cost, dubious clinical value, inappropriate commercial exploitation, and lure of false hope for patients with serious diseases.”

On the pharmaceutical industry side, value-added is must likely to come from is…marketing, not biomedical science. The industry is dependent on this public subsidy, so the cutting of NIH funding isn’t in their best interests. In order to address the volatility of and cuts to NIH funding, some are advocating for more public-private partnerships and a greater reliance on non-profits and medical philanthropy. Given that the pharmaceutical industry is likely to get squeezed by universal healthcare and the possibility of less publicly-funded basic science, this sounds like a perfect solution to leverage scarce resources by both. While this sounds good, it’s a myth.

Public-Private Collaborations in the Current Biomedical Paradigm

A recent NEJM “sounding board” doesn’t show much promise for such collaborations::

“We reviewed the lessons from 70 such alliances from the mid-1960s through 2000. Although it is too soon to judge the success of the most recent models, in the main, earlier ones have not accelerated the pace of either discovery or clinical application. The sources of difficulty are idiosyncratic, but recurrent problems are a failure at inception to agree on intellectual-property provisions, excessive secrecy, and disagreements over research aims.”

This isn’t surprising at all from an organizational sociology point of view. It’s a problem of governance and intellectual property rights. The source of the failure? Good old organizational inertia, stemming from the characteristics of large, bureaucratic behemoths::

“In our view, the most salient reason for failure is the centralization of authority within large, inherently cautious bureaucracies in government, universities, foundations, and companies.”

While advances in areas such as biotechnology done by smaller innovative firms may seem like a possible avenue for collaborations and value-creation, there remains the thorny issue of financial capitalization. The pharmaceutical industry {Pharma} with its deep pockets has been buying up startup biotech firms, although it remains to be seen if there’s a pattern of imposing its innovation-killing bureaucratic baggage on them. The idea of the old paradigm {Pharma} seamlessly integrating the new {biotech} is a stretch, particularly for an industry that has had pricing carte blanche in the US, in a world of pharmaceutical price controls. Looming is the possibility of revenue declines, given that the government will be one huge buyer and will have the ability to dictate price. I’m not stating that public-private ventures are categorically bad, although I am wary of private enterprise tied to public purpose, and I can see a role for these arrangements within a rival model of innovation—one that’s open.

A More Open Innovation System

I would argue that early stage biomedical research has to be open and patents should be deferred to later in the discovery chain [See Moses III & Martin]. Locking down intellectual property rights creates knowledge silos that inhibit scientific creativity and a federal court has resisted allowing the patenting of genes for this reason [See Myriad case, on appeal with a decision pending this summer]. In the “discovery” of DNA, Watson and Crick had the theory, but Rosalind Franklin had the x-ray crystallography data that supported the idea of a double helix shape. If these knowledge silos were kept apart, discovery would have needlessly waited. Other examples abound. Within 3M, an innovation officer position was created to prevent managers from “hoarding” discoveries, allowing ideas to cross divisions, giving credit where credit was due. Open innovation embraces the Schumpeterian economics idea of “creative destruction” in innovation, where the old paradigms are destroyed to make way for the new. For example, if there was open scientific knowledge about oncology or neurology, the low barriers to information would allow for more rapid modes of discovery. The development of fruitful areas and elimination of dead ends could be facilitated.

The current mode has an unholy alignment of interests of government, industry, philanthropic nonprofits, and academe, where discovery has nothing to do with patient benefit, but with ancillary objectives of organizations and the individuals within them. More public-private ventures would merely formalize the alliances and the results will be along the lines of “innovations” that have the most profitable potential markets, “junk science” in journal articles promoting certain biomedical paradigms and building careers, and a philanthropic sector throwing money at both.

What also needs to happen with open information for innovation is a function of connecting the dots, be it public, private, or public-private. The open information needs to be scrutinized, not only to winnow the wheat from the chaff, but to make inferences about how knowledge in one area can be applied to another.

In December, I blogged about the cartoon-childhood violence meme that morphed from something else and was being criticized for being another example of “one-click activism.” There were interesting comments that are definitely food for thought.

Celebrity Causes & Controversial Issues

While the crowd can start a viral meme, celebrities can use social media to promote their cause to their followers. The idea of increasing awareness for causes can be tricky, particularly when there are “sides”. I don’t think anyone is countering Sarah McLachlan’s pleas to stop animal cruelty, but issues like Jenny McCarthy’s advocacy surrounding better knowledge surrounding childhood vaccination and autism does. She’s facing a backlash, particularly in light of the fraudulent Wakefield study. Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon.com bashes her as a misguided mom, acting as if she’s railing against a mountain range of “science”, but, let me be frank here. The journalism of Mary Elizabeth Williams doesn’t scream health sciences expert, plus, it seems like she doesn’t even read what she links to. She cherrypicked a quote by McCarthy on the Oprah site, but conveniently left this out::

“I am all for [vaccines], but there needs to be a safer vaccine schedule. There needs to be something done. The fact that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] acts as if these vaccines are one size fits all is just crazy to me…People need to start listening to what the moms have been saying.”

This is hardly the ravings of a lunatic. Plus, the problems with the “science” that Williams cites is that they do not prove that a vaccine-autism link does not exist. It may well be more complex than the studies are allowing for, with certain, very specific subpopulations at risk.

Is Bad PR Better than No PR?

So, this week, power couple Demi & Ashton started a campaign to fight sex trafficking, “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls”. The ads have people scratching their heads.

I get the execution of the ads, but I think it’s a bad one. It’s using hyperbole and humour to make a point, while riffing on the Old Spice “Your Man…” campaign. The idea is that “real men” do certain things and don’t “buy girls”, so be a real man and don’t buy girls.

Jezebel took the trafficking ads to task, but included a quote by Helen A.S. Popkin didn’t sit right::

“One might argue that faux-zany vignettes in which Jamie Foxx opens a beer bottle with a remote and Bradley Cooper eats cereal bachelor-style are as effective at wiping out underage sex trafficking as posting the color of your bra in your Facebook status is at eradicating breast cancer. The video campaign just costs way more money.”

Popkin’s post is chock full of snarky cleverness and deconstructs the false syllogism, apparently unaware that effective advertising or campaigns need not be logical. Let me see, “the war on terror = the war in Iraq, hence…,” oh, nevermind. Popkin’s use of a Facebook meme example points to a recurring theme that people resent what they feel is tantamount to doing nothing. This may well be the case, but it doesn’t mean it’s always the case and I think it’s short-sighted to see anything having the appearance of an “identity” campaign, where a user identifies with a cause ostensibly to raise awareness as doing nothing. The challenge is to leverage the identity and awareness into action. Here’s a better critique of the ads on bumpshack.

Demi Moore isn’t concerned about the backlash::

“People’s criticism has created even more conversation…While we didn’t want to offend anybody and it’s certainly not our intention to make light of any issue we take very seriously, we see that it’s actually doing what we intended.”

The question I have is what exactly is the intent? Well, Demi and Ashton have a foundation and you can donate to fund more multifaceted campaigns to promote…awareness, as well as demand reduction strategies. They also have a page listing what you can do to help, including flagging/reporting ads on Craigslist.

Well, nevertheless, it’s a good cause, right? Not everyone thinks so. Melissa Gira Grant is calling Demi and Ashton out on their publicity stunt, providing links to organizations working on providing support for those in the sex trade. I must admit that I’m a bit troubled by D&A’s attempts to curb a serious problem, but the execution is just symptomatic of the entire approach. It reeks of paternalism and focuses on “girls” being trafficked, feeding into a saviour theme of philanthropy. Moreover, as it stands, their foundation’s initiatives are paper thin and does smack of a publicity stunt, given how there are many existing organizations doing work in the sex trafficking arena. Finally, the approach is hostile to sex work outside of trafficking by advocating vigilanteism on the Internet, smacking of Amber Lyon’s “investigative journalism” on the matter for CNN.

I think this is less about social media and “one-click activism” as it is about misguided celebrity ventures. While some might piss and moan that the use of social media in getting the word out doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, but I would argue that there’s a danger of celebrity use of social media that can result in misguided actions.

Canada is in the midst of a federal election and you can read posts covering it by myself on r h i z o m i c o n and Impolitical on our respective blogs. Lorne Gunter in the National Post is mad as hell and he’s not taking it anymore. His beef? All of this social media in politics hoopla::

“Oh, please, spare me. Social media – services such as Twitter and Facebook – are not going to swing the current federal election away from the Tories and in favour of the Liberals, NDP or Green party, no matter how much anti-Harper activists and reporters wish they could.”

While he acknowledges that social media is a useful tool, he’s also making sweeping generalizations about their effects::

“But they don’t win or lose elections on their own (or pull off Middle Eastern revolutions), no matter how much social media devotees in newsrooms and elsewhere claim they do.”

He seems particularly perturbed by the shitharperdid website and this supposedly gushing Vancouver Sun article.

“The Vancouver Sun story claims 2 million web surfers quickly hit on the www.shitharperdid.ca site. Great, so they went to a site run by like-minded lefties and had their prejudices confirmed. Whoopee.”

He drifts into a Malcolm Gladwell argument that social media promotes just “one click activism” and doesn’t really engender any real persuasion. Here on ThickCulture, we have discussed Malcolm Gladwell’s downplaying and concerns about social media in the social activism arena, here, here, and here.

Lorne argues that social media campaigns are largely ineffectual, citing anti-prorogation and strategic voting efforts. Then, he loses it and goes off on Harper Derangement Syndrome as the latest manifestation of a leftist affliction along the lines of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Well, the left has no monopoly on demonizing the other side.

The problem with Lorne’s analysis is his narrow definition of success and assumption that social media merely preaches to the converted. There are three things wrong with what he’s saying:

1. It assumes a narrow definition of efficacy
2. It ignores the “mere exposure” effect
3. It ignores the marketing concept of “segmentation”

Efficacy

Gunter suggests that social media doesn’t win elections on their own, but nobody is really advocating that they are. Naheed Nenshi, the Calgary mayor whose campaign last fall was attributed to the use of social media notes that his campaign was based on ideas. Social media helped to personalize his campaign to make it salient to voters. I don’t think Gunter would quibble with this, but I think he underestimates the effects of content that “preaches to the converted” and the persuasive effects of content that goes viral.

When the March 2007 anti-Hillary Clinton Vote Different video went viral {posted by a designer who worked for the firm that designed Obama’s website}, Obama’s polling numbers didn’t budge. Guess what? That month, his contributions did, quite considerably. My point being is that the effects of social media may not be straightforward and political strategy needs to take account of this. The preaching to the base aspect of social media that Gunter views as a waste of time can help a campaign motivate its loyals and turn them into activists. Social media can also increase the exposure and salience of a party, which segues into the next issue.

The “Mere Exposure” Effect

Decades ago, social psychologist Robert Zajonc found that people can be persuaded to have positive inferences about an object {or brand, party, or candidate} through increased exposure. So, controlling for aesthetics and other source material and content characteristics, Zajonc found that increasing exposure leads to higher favourable attitudes. In effect, a “familiarity breeds contentment” route to persuasion that doesn’t require any real substance to the content. This explains how the ubiquity of Starbucks builds the brand with relatively little advertising. Social media can have the same effect. Anti-Harper sites can persuade by just going viral and entering into voter consciousness. The challenge is cutting through the clutter to get that exposure, i.e., coming up with something that resonates and goes viral.

Segmentation: It’s the Young Voters, Stupid

A big topic this election is the youth vote. The 2008 turnout for those 18-24 was 37%, compared to 58% overall, a historic low. Interestingly, some view this as likely to worsen, as prevailing attitudes deem voting as a choice rather than a duty [Also, see StatCan 2005 pdf youth voting/civic engagement report]. The youth vote is a prime target of sites like shitharperdid.ca and the youth…have more of a tendency to not vote Conservative. Getting the youth mobilized, along the lines of the Rock the Vote campaign in 1992, is tricky business that cannot be easily replicated. Nevertheless, sites targeting the youth aren’t necessarily “one-click activism” that has no effect.

It’s About Engagement

At the end of the day, engagement matters. I think it’s the height of arrogance for Gunter to state that social media cannot swing the federal election. I’m curious what Gunther’s thoughts are on the Conservative Party’s efforts to use the web and social media to scare voters about how there “might” be an iPod tax with false claims that IP expert Michael Geist has debunked.

The A Channel news in Victoria gets it, as does NDP Leader Jack Layton who used the Twitter term “#fail” {hashtag fail} in the English debates last week::

The idea that social media can increase youth engagement of “square” politics through sites young people use and help to make politics less intimidating are part of the democratizing potential of the web.

Guest Post by Chuck Raymond

Chuck is a NYC artist who has worked as an illustrator since the early 1980s. His fine art typically involves political themes and cultural critiques, a selection of which can be seen on flickr.

I’ve been saying nobody on network TV can get away with progressive views as David Letterman can under his long held guise as an idiot, although it’s a tired ruse as he’s on “it” when all have ceased. Nobody has a devastating follow up question as he does and that’s including cable!

Rand Paul (R-KY) was was on last Thursday night (February 24) and I waited wondering if he was going to go after him and he did as Paul didn’t get in one thing without a withering rebuttal. Case in point, Letterman does his “aw shucks” routine about the implications of the deficit, tax policy and the wealthy, and educational spending. Letterman countered by saying he isn’t buying what Paul is selling [11m 11sec], which was mostly tired, inconsistent Libertarian rhetoric. On the one hand, Paul wants to shrink the government and reduce the use of defense and green energy contractors, which he feels are a waste. On the other hand, he wants to increase the private sector. It seems like Paul is defining public and private as it suits him and talking out of both sides of his mouth. Government spending that goes to the private sector is bad, yet, private enterprise can do no wrong? I guess he was asleep during the subprime fiasco and resultant financial meltdown. At the core of Paul’s Tea Party approach to government is spending as little as possible and spending only on things he agrees with. Efficiency trumps fairness, access, or justice.

Paul came across like the corporate shill he is. When Dave advocated that maybe rather than looking at cutting education spending (which Paul painted to be a boondoggle) and that perhaps the US should spend more, Paul responded with “competition is good” worthy of the 80s Gordon Gekko. Speaking of the 80s, Letterman poked fun of Paul’s dated look, “I noticed you’re wearing jeans. Is that typical Kentucky senatorial garb?”

Rahm Emanuel’s bid for Chicago mayor was off and now back on, thanks to the Illinois Supreme Court. Now, the campaign is taking aim at the opponents with slick ads bankrolled by a huge warchest. Carol Marin at the Chicago Sun-Times brings up some interesting points about Rahm’s rhetoric. This ad, “Hard Truths”, from earlier in the campaign says that city government isn’t about cronyism and getting rich off of the system::

His opponent, Gerry Chico, posted this, which calls into question Rahm’s role in the failure-ridden Freddie Mac:

Marin recounted questions directed at Emanuel at the mayoral debate. Co-moderator Bruce Dold asked him flat out about his receiving $320,000 to attend six meetings a year as a Freddie Mac board member—an appointment given to him by Bill Clinton, despite Emanuel having no finance experience. Marin had some hard truths of her own to point out to Emanuel:

One, Emanuel’s job on the Freddie Mac board was a high-end patronage job given to him by his former boss and friend, then-President Bill Clinton.

Two, Emanuel’s most recent boss and friend, the current president, has refused to release the minutes of Freddie Mac board meetings during Emanuel’s tenure.

Three, Rahm Emanuel is talented and smart. But not smart enough to see the potential hypocrisy in launching an ad about how clout-heavy politicians hand out jobs to their friends and not see himself in that story.

Strategically, this is a flop on his campaign’s part. He’s the frontrunner in the polls and making a stink out of patronage when he’s benefitted from it is pretty amateurish. Given the swirling of controversy over his “residency” eligibility to run, I think it would have been better for him to focus solely on a platform that shows that he’s in touch with the needs of Chicago.

Twitterversion:: [blog] #RahmEmanuel’s #Chicago mayoral bid’s back, but why is he running like he’s in a dogfight, not pack leader? http://goo.gl/C9rxh @ThickCulture

Watch while you can. Al Jazeera English is being streamed, but a media clampdown may shut it down. Police are said to be on the way to the Al Jazeera office. A 6PM local time curfew is impending.  Currently, a social media expert is explaining the overlap between Internet activists and protests. Take that, Malcolm Gladwell.

Updates::

An Illinois court, in a 2-1 vote, put Rahm Emanuel’s bid for Chicago mayor on hold [court opinion-pdf]. Rahm was the frontrunner in the polls and has been a fundraising juggernaut. The issue is whether he meets the one year residency requirement for the office, given he was living in the Washington DC as Obama’s Chief of Staff. The rationale behind the residency requirement is an attempt to ensure that the candidate knows the wants and needs of her/his constituents.

The court made various legal distinctions and ruled that he did not meet candidacy eligibility. While “carpetbagging” is nothing new in politics, the statutory laws in Illinois specify voter and candidate eligibility. While Rahm would be eligible to vote, he was not deemed eligible to be a candidate. His lawyers tried to use the remedy that he was in service of “business of the United States” as a reason for his not physically being in Chicago. The court interpreted the statute as only applying to voting.

While going after Rahm’s standing may be politically motivated, it nevertheless does bring up an interesting question on how the Illinois law should be interpreted. Proponents of allowing him on the ballot state that he is a Chicagoan and had every intent of returning to Chicago after his stint in Washington DC. Another argument is that it would be unfair to disallow his candidacy, likening his situation to a military person serving outside his home district and citing his history of being in Chicago.

On the other hand, is there something to the statute that requires a candidate for office to be physically present for a year in order to be eligible? Is Rahm somehow less qualified, possibly less in touch with his constituents, because he wasn’t in Chicago all year? Is this a matter of the rules being the rules and leaving the White House when he did, as opposed to earlier, was a risk he took on?

I feel he should have known better and if he knew he was going to run in February of 2010, he should have quit the White House then or at least have shown a commitment to being in the Chicago area on weekends, etc., between February of 2010 {or earlier} and when he moved to Chicago in October of 2010. Why? The statute is clear and him at least showing some commitment to being physically present shows a deference to the spirit of the law. Hindsight is 20/20 and nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Some pundits say Rahm is to big of a player to be benched on the sidelines. He’s pretty confident that he will prevail, but, then again, it’s Rahm talking.

Twitterversion:: [blog] Thoughts on the court decision taking #RahmEmanuel off the Chicago mayor ballot @ThickCulture