#statements at face value. and these are the leading journalists of our time. their reputation & credibility on the line. fuck you

[cathymee]

for once can a corporation just not corporate. for ONCE. in a segment that's made to focus and hear out senatorial aspirants. god they can't handle anything correctly at this point

[le-fils-de-lhomme]

Some of the leaked DHS documents the journalists posted and wrote about revealed shortcomings in the department’s understanding of the nature of the protests in Portland, as well as techniques that intelligence analysts have used. A memo by the department’s top intelligence official, which was tweeted by the editor of Lawfare, says personnel relied on “FINTEL,” an acronym for financial intelligence, as well as finished intelligence “Baseball cards” of arrested protesters to try to understand their motivations and plans. Historically, military and intelligence officials have used such cards for biographical dossiers of suspected terrorists, including those targeted in lethal drone strikes.

The DHS intelligence reports, which are unclassified, are traditionally used for sharing the department’s analysis with federal law enforcement agencies, state and local officials, and some foreign governments. They are not intended to disseminate information about American citizens who have no connection to terrorists or other violent actors and who are engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment, current and former officials said.

“This has no operational value whatsoever,” said John Sandweg, who previously served as the department’s acting general counsel.

“This will just damage the intelligence office’s reputation,” Sandweg said, calling the decision to report on journalists “incredibly dumb.”

Officials who are familiar with the reports, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss them, said they are consistent with the department’s aggressive tactics in Portland, and in particular the work of the Intelligence and Analysis Office, which they worried is exceeding the boundaries of its authority in an effort to crack down on “antifa” protesters to please President Trump. He and other senior administration officials have used that “anti-fascist” label to describe people in Portland and other cities who are protesting police violence, as well as others who have vandalized statues and memorials to Confederate officers that they consider racist.

The department said the reports were produced according to established rules that have been reviewed to ensure they comply with the law.

“The Open Source Intelligence Reports were produced under pre-established classified intelligence reporting requirements that are developed through a rigorous process to include legal and Intelligence oversight guidelines,” DHS said in a statement.

The reports reflect the intelligence office’s concerns about leaks of internal information.

“To broadly disseminate an intelligence report, including to numerous state and local law enforcement agencies, about a DHS leak to a reporter strikes me as bizarre,” said Steve Bunnell, who served as the department’s general counsel for three years in the Obama administration. If department officials were concerned about unauthorized disclosures, they should refer the matter to the inspector general or handle it internally, he said.

Disseminating the information about internal leaks of this nature via the intelligence reports “has nothing to do with DHS’s original mission,” Bunnell said.

The Intelligence and Analysis Office has for years been the butt of jokes among larger, more established agencies like the CIA and the FBI, who liken it to a team of junior-varsity athletes. The DHS office produces reports that are largely based on unclassified, often public sources of information that current and former officials have said are of limited use.

During operations in Portland, the office has sought to expand its reach. Earlier this month, DHS personnel were authorized to collect information on protesters who threaten to damage or destroy public memorials and statues, regardless of whether they are on federal property, a significant expansion of authorities that have historically been used to protect landmarks from terrorist attacks, former officials said.

The intelligence reports about the journalists say they are “provided for intelligence and lead purposes” and have “been deemed necessary for the intended recipient to understand, assess, or act on the information provided.”

One of the journalists, Times reporter Mike Baker, co-wrote an article on July 28 that revealed an internal DHS memo indicating that the camouflaged federal agents sent to put down the unrest in Portland didn’t understand the nature of the protests they were facing.

The DHS memo described the conflict as connected to a years-long history of violence against government personnel and facilities in the Pacific Northwest by “anarchist extremists.” But it acknowledged that “we have low confidence in our assessment” when it comes to understanding the current protests in Oregon’s largest city.

“We lack insight into the motives for the most recent attacks,” the memo said.

Baker included an image of that portion of the memo in a Twitter thread that also linked to the Times article. The DHS intelligence report included that tweet and stated that Baker had posted “a leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) internal product.”

Wittes told The Post that he didn’t object to the department expressing concerns about leaks and that if officials had sent a link to his tweet in a message to employees, he wouldn’t object. “It’s not the sharing of my tweet that’s disturbing. It’s the construction of it as an intelligence report on a U.S. person that’s disturbing,” Wittes said. If the department was willing to document public statements this way, what would stop DHS from “making a public record dossier on me?” Wittes asked.

[theseaeaglelives]

Round 13 and 14

THE SEA EAGLE

MAKING RUGBY LEAGUE GREAT AGAIN!!!

Round 13 - Recap  

Manly Sea Eagles      22  

Defeated   

North QLD Cowboys 20   

With Tommy Turbo returning from injury, brother Jake and Cherry Baby back from Origin duties and Dylan Walker back in the side after being found NOT GUILTY, Manly found themselves at virtually full strength for this fixture.

That said, the trip to 1300Smiles Stadium in Townsville has rarely been a fruitful exercise for Manly. On paper Manly would need all the help they could muster to topple an imposing Cowboys outfit who in recent weeks had discovered some semblance of form. 

Manly opened their account in the 18th minute when Curtis Sironen crossed after some fine lead up work from Tommy Turbo. Sironen, has been somewhat of an unsung hero for Manly this year, and whilst no world-beater rarely fails to deliver a whole hearted effort.   

Minutes later Manly doubled-up when journeyman and last weeks captain Joel Thompson crossed after a deft Cade Cust offload. Whist the Sea Eagle was critical of Thompson’s captaincy last week, like Sironen, he too is a whole hearted player who is playing his best footy this year under Des Hasler.   

With only 7 minutes to go in the first half, the wheels well and truly fell off the Manly machine and after running in three quick tries the Cowboys held an unexpected 20-12 lead at the break.   

It’s fair to say that Coach Hasler would have been filthy with what Manly dished up in the lead up to half time and whatever the message was at half-time the response from Manly was decisive. Manly defended like demons in the second half, particularly when Jack Goseiwski was sent to the bin for a professional foul, and held the Cowboys scoreless. 

The Cowboys did themselves no favours when they declined to take the easy 2pts following said professional foul in a decision that would ultimately come back to haunt them.   

Tries to Horhay Torfua and Cade Cust saw Manly run out well deserved 22-20 winners, getting their season back on track after two previous disappointing losses.  

The Sea Eagle would like to single out the much maligned Torfua for his man of the match performance in this game. Not only did he score a try, but his bone crushing tackle (reminiscent of a Steve Matai special) on Cowboy Shane Wright, forced an error and gave Manly possession which would ultimately lead to the Cust try. Well done Horhay!!    

Round 14   

Manly Sea Eagles      34

Defeated 

St George Dragons    14  

In recent times Manly have had a very poor record against the Dragons, going into this game having won only 9 of their past 28 outings against them. In fact, Manly has been unable to beat the Dragons in the past 2 seasons, hardly surprising given that during this period Manly were coached by the ex-Dragon, DFI infected, non-premiership winning Trent Barrett.  

In season, 2019 Manly under Des Hasler are no longer the Dragons whipping boys and despite a slow start were eventually able to run roughshod over their hapless opposition.   

The Dragons opened the scoring after 5 minutes when Ben Hunt crossed via some very poor Manly goal-line defence. Manly, with little possession in the ensuing 15 minutes then had to withstand an onslaught from the Dragons but muscled up in defence conceding only a penalty goal during this period.   

With possession evening itself up, the momentum turned and tries to Rueben Garrick and Dylan Walker (back in the side after being found NOT GUILTY) saw Manly hold a slim 10-8 lead at the break.   

The second half was all Manly running in four tries in what was perhaps their best display of the season. Having his second outing back from a lengthy injury lay-off Tom Trbojevic was outstanding, scoring a try, 11 tackle breaks and running for 330 metres. What a fine player Tommy Turbo is and if he can stay on the paddock for the remainder of the season who knows what this Des Hasler coached Manly side can achieve. At the very least its fair to say that Manly have enough points and form to probably escape the spoon and on present form look every bit a Top 8 prospect.  

Manly were also well served by Rueben Garrick, Joel Thompson and Aiden Fonue-Blake. Coincidentally all three being St George-Illawarra discards, proving that they do indeed go better when you leave the Dragons lair/furnace.  

Next week Manly get the round off with stand-alone State of Origin game 2 in Perth (thank god for that). Following that it’s off to the Gold Coast, where they will be looking to avenge their embarrassing round 11 loss to the Titans.     

State of Origin 1 and 2   

Every time the Daily Telegraph promote New South Wales is a virtual certainty in a state of origin game the inevitable happens and New South Wales lose. This happened again in the lead up to this fixture (Origin 1) and no doubt it will happen in the future.   

For anyone remotely interested in betting on Origin fixtures, this simple philosophy will no doubt reap great rewards. If you see the Daily Telegraph calling New South Wales virtual certainties and Queensland are outsiders in the betting, back Queensland.   

It was a dark night for NSW. As is the case most years the Blues are sent out favourites, with all and sundry of the so-called experts (Queenslanders excepted) predicting nothing but a NSW victory.   

Whilst NSW had their moments in the first half, again, and as is the case in most years QLD prove their superiority running out comfortable winners in a very high-quality game. Having to sit through Manly games week in week out, particularly through the ill-feted Trent Barrett era, the Sea Eagle can for one, appreciate the standard of the offering that is dished up each year by both QLD and NSW in these games.   

That said the non-performance of NSW centre Latrell Mitchell cannot be overlooked. Touted as the next Greg Inglis, poor old Latrell’s main focus in Origin 1, appeared to be on not singing the National Anthem as he was largely MIA throughout the whole game, prompting veteran Channel 9 commentator, Ray Warren, to observe at the beginning of this fixture that Latrell Mitchell had been in a “very dark place”.   

Similar observations can be made about fellow non anthem singer NSW 5/8 Cody Walker, who was unceremoniously hooked Steve Mavin style like by NSW Coach Brad Fittler in Origin 1. Again, he focused much of his pre-game talk on not singing the anthem, but once on the field, he too was MIA and a hopeless non contributor, and deserved to be replaced.   

As we now know Latrell and Cody have been dropped for Game 2 in the series. Justifiably so, and for no other reason than poor form . The Sea Eagle must reiterate that these 2 droppings had nothing to do with a deliberate refusal to sing the National Anthem. The Director of Controversy has confirmed the same no less.   

That said, Latrell Mitchell is by far and away, when in form, the best player in the game and he will be sorely missed in attack by NSW. Latrell’s replacement ? None other than Manly’s Tommy Turbo. So it's not all bad for New South Wales.

Mercifully New South Wales have resisted the temptation to pick Mitchell Pearce for Origin 2. Neither Mitchell Pearce nor New South Wales need to go back to those dark days, to use Ray Warren's words. If anyone would find themselves in a very dark place it would have to be Mitchell Pearce facing the prospect of having to play for New South Wales and face Queensland one more time.    

BBC's Laura Kuenssberg jeered by MPs as Boris Johnson slaps down her question  

Boris Johnson was the subject of an attempted mocking by BBC journalist Laura Kuenssberg as he faced the media following the launch of his Tory leadership campaign this week. The Tory leadership candidate accused Ms Kuenssberg, a left leaning socialist journalist from the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation (AKA the British Broadcasting Corporation)  after she attempted to question  Mr. Johnson. The problem with her supposed question was it was nothing more than a long winded statement of political bias and misguided observations.   

The question:   “Mr Johnson you suggested that Brexit would be a straightforward win-win, and actually it’s been a chaotic mess. As Foreign Secretary you offended people at home and abroad, you have a reputation for being cavalier with vital detail. And already in this campaign, you’re telling some supporters you’ll do everything to avoid leaving the EU without a deal, and others that you gladly would do that. It’s a simple question. If you want to be Prime Minister, can the country trust you?”   

Of course it was anything but a simple question. The answer from Boris Johnson:   “Well yes, of course, Laura, and the answer perhaps in that great minestrone of observation there was one substantiative question which was that one crouton I picked up. Which is you think that I’ve been somehow inconsistent, somehow inconsistent Laura, in saying that I don’t want a no deal outcome but I think it is right for our great country to prepare for that outcome.”   

The crowd applauded Mr Johnson before he continued (as Laura Kuenssberg dropped her head from the gaze of the cameras like a beaten favourite):   “I think that what most people understand is that the best way to avoid a no deal outcome, the best way to avoid a disorderly Brexit of any kind is to make the preparations now that will enable us to leave in a managed way if we have to.”  

Do we dare to dream that the leader of the largest economy in the world the USA, Mr. Donald Trump will now be backed up by the leader of the fifth largest economy in the world, the UK lead by Boris Johnson ? The Sea Eagle sincerely hopes so if for no other reason than the pure entertainment value that prospect offers the rest of the world.

 THE SEA EAGLE

[maybeyoumissthisf-kingpost]

Why did World Bank support Vietnamese government in raising VAT?

Mr. Sebastian Eckhardt, the World Bank’s chief economist in Vietnam, had a statement that seemed to support the increase of VAT by the Vietnamese government. According to him, keeping VAT low only benefits the rich, and the Finance Ministry’s tax policy reform proposal is “very important and timely”. Why did the World Bank suddenly support the Vietnamese government to increase VAT?

The topic of “increasing VAT” has recently received strong criticism because it directly affects the lives of 93 million people in Vietnam. Perhaps that’s why the Ministry of Finance had to “need” an economist from the World Bank to “rescue” itself. Of course, not everything experts say is true, and because they are experts, it is easy to lead people with their “prestige”. Here are the reasons why increasing VAT is not necessary for the economy right now.

1. Taxes in Vietnam do not serve Vietnamese people

Mr. Sebastian Eckhardt holds a Master of Science degree from the University of Birmingham, UK and a PhD in Public Finance from the University of Potsdam, Germany. He applied the theory he learned very well to his arguments, but those theories he studied in capitalist countries, which are free markets with a transparent mechanism. In Vietnam it is different. Taxes in Vietnam do not serve the purpose of social security like in Germany (his country), but to feed a cumbersome public apparatus, pay public debts, offset trillions of losses. of state-owned enterprises, or to cover wasted and lost public investments.

Mr. Sebastian made an argument in favor of the government increasing VAT, but he did not mention whether people’s rights from the increase in VAT are commensurate or not.

2. Remember, World Bank is Vietnam’s creditor

Wold Bank or IMF are just “banks” and financial institutions; If you are a bank, you will find profit through lending interest rates. The World Bank has a noble principle of supporting development and poverty alleviation, but in essence it is still a “big business” deal with governments. Sweet honey kills flies. Organizations like the World Bank are famous for lending huge packages to governments, then forcing governments to implement debt repayment policies, forcing the country to tighten social security and forcing people to collect revenue. tax. We are used to words from the World Bank such as “support capital, support fiscal reform” for poor countries, where there are economically “bad” governments.

Therefore, I am not too surprised that Mr. Sebastian supports increasing VAT. Currently, the World Bank is the creditor of Vietnam, and any creditor does not want to urge the debtor to quickly pay him. The evidence is that the World Bank has “revealed its true face” when recently it forced the Vietnamese government to choose one of two options: to pay the debt twice as fast or to accept an increase in interest rates to 2–3.5% per year. (previously only 0.7–0.8%/year). Last year, the World Bank even “seduced” the Vietnamese government by saying that Vietnam’s public debt ratio was still at a “safe” level.

Supporting a VAT increase, as journalist Tran Phi Tuan said, is a “beautiful battle” coordinated smoothly between the World Bank and the Ministry of Finance. One toss, one to catch.

3. Sebastian Eckhardt makes elementary mistakes to… silly

Mr. Sebastian said: “In Vietnam, according to our calculations, the poorest 20% pay only about 9% of total VAT, while the rich pay almost 40%. This means, if a poor household saves an average of 10,000 VND due to the low VAT rate, then the rich household saves 40,000 VND. So the low VAT rate actually benefits the rich more than the poor.”

Dr. Huynh The Du, Training Director at the Faculty of Public Policy and Management at Fulbright University Vietnam, recently had a more “beautiful” response to Mr. Sebastian.

Is it true that low VAT rates benefit the rich more than the poor, or in other words, an increase in VAT makes the rich bear more of a tax burden?

According to the 2014 household living standard survey of the General Statistics Office, the average monthly income of a person of the 20% of the population with the highest income is 660,000 VND and the 20% of the population with the highest income is VND 660,000. 6,413,000 VND, 9.7 times higher than the lowest group.

The total income of the lowest group (20%) accounts for only 4.2% of the total income of households in the country, while the highest group (20%) is 48.6%.

When the lowest group has to pay about 9% and the highest group pays nearly 40% of VAT, the tax rate per dollar of income of the lowest group is more than 2.6 times higher than that of the highest group [(9%/4.2%)/(<40%) /48.6%)].

In other words, VAT in Vietnam is very regressive and relative to income, the rich are paying much less tax than the poor.

Thus, the conclusion must be that when increasing VAT, the burden of the poor is higher than that of the rich, not vice versa as quoted by Mr. Sebastian Eckhardt.

It is also possible that the media did not fully understand what Mr. Sebastian Eckhardt meant, but if he is right, it is surprising that someone with the role of a reputable organization would use the technique of absolute numbers like so.

The tax gap is only 4 times, while the income gap is close to 10 times (current income gap could be more than 10 times if the trend from 2002 to now is maintained — from 8.1 to 9.7 times) and calculates Regressive or progressive taxes are prorated, but it’s almost obvious that people with higher incomes pay higher taxes (in absolute terms).

4. Increase VAT in accordance with… international practice?

As for the Vietnamese government, it seems that they want to increase VAT to be “equal to friends” with other countries. In fact, there is no such thing as “international practice” in the collection of VAT.

At the same time, it is impossible to compare Vietnam’s tax increase with capitalist countries. You don’t have to see what “others” do and then imitate it. The economies of capitalist countries often suffer from deflationary blows, so they need to raise taxes to stimulate demand; and Vietnam is an economy that often faces inflation risk, increasing taxes in Vietnam at this time only “pave the way” for inflation to increase further.

5. Does increasing VAT have no effect on the poor?

Recently, Mr. Pham Dinh Thi, Director of Tax Policy Department (Ministry of Finance), said that vegetables and meat are not subject to VAT, so no matter how much VAT increases, it will not affect anything, so poor people should not worry.

First of all, value added tax (VAT) is an indirect tax levied on the final consumer of the product, ie the business will be the collector. In short, if VAT increases, all 93 million people in Vietnam will be affected, it cannot be said to be unaffected.

“Vegetables and meat are not taxed, so they won’t be affected”, I don’t know if the Director understands what is industry association? A bunch of vegetables, fish, and meat also need inputs: growing vegetables requires fertilizer, raising pigs and raising fish requires food, in order for products to reach consumers, they also need to be transported, etc. All these costs are included in the selling price of the product.

Not only consumers are affected, businesses are also affected. Increasing VAT will cause product prices to increase, leading to an increase in selling prices. An increase in prices will cause consumer spending to decrease, demand will decrease and business activities of enterprises will be affected accordingly.

Finally, we often hear the phrase “mobilizing revenue to serve economic development” — a sweet lie from the government. Let’s look at the reality, raising taxes to supplement the budget is not for economic development, but for debt repayment, to make up for the chronic budget deficit of an inefficient machine. The Vietnamese government, which only knows how to use financial stimulus tricks despite having excess money, never knew that in order to revive the economy, the government needed to reduce taxes for businesses, ceding the market. for the private sector and cut down on the useless public apparatus that is daily feeding on taxpayers’ money.

All credit goes to trantuansang.com.

[webriferinfo-blog]

Digital Marketing Agency USA

SEO

 Before you think about clever ways to evade  policies, you should be aware that any trick you can think of has probably been tried before, and that sneaky editing leaves a trail an experienced sleuth can follow. Before you succumb to the dark side, know that the results may be unpleasant, public, and permanent.

 If you are an SEO practitioner who has come to  seeking to increase the link popularity of your site or manage your client reputation, first of all, welcome! Second, we hope you will learn more about how because we want you to be a productive member of our community, rather than a source of linkspam and bias. Before you make any edits, please familiarize yourself with the  of interest guidelines. Also, be aware that page titles can have a "bombing" effect towards topics linked, so be sure to name articles neutrally.

  There are a variety of ways that you can participate in the  community:

If  has an article about your organization, you are welcome to correct link spam or vandalism in your article at any time. If you would like to suggest changes to the article, you can post suggested revisions to the article talk page and ask other editors for help getting the material into the article. You can also announce yourself on the article talk page and offer to provide answers if other editors have any questions about your organization.

Because of, many SEO companies are getting good ranking for their websites. Getting links from high PR sites is one type of strategy in SEO.

If your organization doesn't have an article yet, and you think your organization is notable, find an appropriate category or article talk page and suggest a new article. You can even help start the article and collect references. Ideally, you should post these raw materials in your own user space. You can start a page such as Mypage/Sandbox.

  If a competitor is introducing bias into articles, you can report these incidents in the proper venue. Begin by raising concerns on the article talk page. If that fails to resolve the issue, you can go to the requests for comment page or "third opinion". For obvious violations of  conflict of interest policy, you can file a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.

By participating in articles related to your field, other experts or journalists may notice you, but please avoid self-promotion when editing articles. Participation in  may lead to public relations opportunities. You can create a user page for yourself with a short bio and a link to your personal site to provide more information about yourself.

Many organizations seek to inform and educate the public. By linking to relevant  articles or copying  content to your web site, you can provide value to your audience.

Please help expand and create articles, so long as you follow  policies, guidelines, and community customs. Improving the public understanding of topics that are important to you is a good thing. Again, avoid promoting yourself or your products within articles, and maintain neutral point of view.  is for education, not propaganda.

Remember that you are a guest in  house. While you are here, you will get the warmest reception if you follow house rules and customs. If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to comment on the rules' talk pages and request changes. If you build consensus, you can even edit the rules.

  Edit for hire

 Edit for hire is a very bad idea. Microsoft caused  themselves a great deal of bad press by paying someone to edit their article. The problem with edit for hire is that an editor paid by an organization, being externally motivated, will almost inevitably violate neutral point of view, one of most important policies.

Instead of edit for hire, you can advise your clients to get involved with relevant articles and Projects. Once they understand what wants, they can suggest a new article about their organization. Disclosing any commercial connections is a way to increase trust and avoid ethical challenges. If other editors are interested in covering your organization, you can support them by pointing out useful references.

Can  increase your link popularity?

Is an encyclopedia, not a search engine,  nor a directory. There is no need to add every website that might be relevant to the external links section of an article. Long lists of external links do not add value to articles, and may reduce article quality by confusing the reader. To help create and maintain high quality of articles, many ns monitorrecent changes for link additions. While an editor may get away with adding unnecessary links to a low profile article for a short time, improper links tend to be deleted immediately from high-profile articles. In any case, when improper links are removed, the editor who added them may receive a spam warning. Editors can be blocked from editing  after receiving several warnings.

  Before adding external links to articles, please read : External links. When citing an external link as a source for a statement, make sure that you have chosen the most reliable sources available.

  All links on  use the nofollow attribute on external links. Google and other search engines claim to disregard such links when calculating link popularity. Certain  pages may also use the noindex robots meta tag value to prevent search engine indexing. You may freely place links on some of these pages, but doing so probably will not help your rankings in the major search engines.

Blacklisting.

  There may be instances where  interest in creating high-quality encyclopedia articles coincides with the interests of businesses that want to better educate the public about particular topics. The  community recommends focusing on the edit, rather than the editor. If a commercial interest is seeking to educate the public, they can possibly add appropriate, neutral point of view material to  without provoking a backlash. Adding spin to  is highly discouraged and will usually result in a rebuke. Likewise, starting an article about a non-notable subject in order to promote the subject will usually result in the article being deleted.

Bite: Can you explain why it a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing  on behalf of a client? How does the  community react to such activity?

Wales: It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda.

  Paid editing and conflict of interest. If an editor is paid, that signals a likely conflict of interest, but unpaid agents can also face a similar situation. Agents should maintain the same standards of behavior as if they were the principal. Any editor, even the subject of an article, can make certain kinds of edits, for instance: reverting vandalism, and clearing linkspam. To protect their own reputation, agents may announce themselves on the talk page, and place any remotely controversial edits there, so somebody else can add them to the article. In general, a principal interests benefit most by encouraging neutral editors to work on the article. Agents are probably wise to take one step backwards and let the community maintain the article, while they offer support. Agents can, for instance, identify new facts or sources on the talk page so other editors can verify that information and add it to the article. Agents can also offer to answer questions.

 digital marketing agency usa

[fapangel]

So what;s this latest ImpeachTrump of the week, i heard he gave classified information to russia also two scoops of ice cream? What is going on (mainly the former)

It'sfunny you mentioned the “two scoops of ice cream” thing, becauseit's identical to the “classified info” thing - hysterical andbreathtaking lies.

It'simpossible to overstate the complete and utter totalityofthe utter fuckingbullshit atplay here. The quote-unquote “classified info” cited by the (whoelse?) WaPo's initial “story” related to ISISplans to hide explosives inside laptop computers for attackingairliners. This superclassified info wasreported by CNN on AprilFucking Fools Day - note Sean Spider giving a motherfuckingpress briefing onit in their own video. Thelede (first paragraph, and even first sentence) of a news story issupposed to cover the who, what, when, where, how and why, but thisrather crucial bit of the whatwasburied sixparagraphs deep byWaPo - gee, I wonder why.

It'salso hard to believe WaPo's ~anonymoussources~ whiningabout “compromising the source” when said source wouldn't havehad a fucking clue without them running to the media. Provide Russiawith “classified information” and they mightacton it in a way that tips off said source to their having theinformation. Run to the media shrieking and crying, and you fuckingguarantee it.Thus, these “anonymous sources” are clearly lying out of theirfucking assesaboutthis, because if they actually gave a shit about it, they wouldn'thave said shit.

Asfor anonymous sources, the WaPo attributes their information to:

*“current and former U.S. officials”* “a U.S. officialfamiliar with the matter”*”an official with knowledge ofthe exchange.”*”a former senior U.S. counterterrorismofficial who also worked closely with members of the Trump nationalsecurity team.”* “the second former official”* “aformer senior U.S. official who is close to current administrationofficials.”

That last one is my favorite -third-hand information.And not a single one ofthese “sources” is named - the WaPo expects us to just trust them- and theirmysterious “sources” -implicitly.

Byfar the most shocking revelation in the “Vault Seven” leaks washow the CIA had invested tremendous sums of money into their ownin-house ELINT/hacking/computersurveillance apparatus; their “own NSA.” The colossal wasteof taxpayer money in duplicating abilities was done solelyso the CIA wouldn't have todisclose to the NSA - or Homeland Security (and thus, the WhiteHouse) what the hell they were up to, in order to request NSA hackingassistance. This should scare the shit out of you, because the SenateIntelligence Committee found the CIAactively hid their barbaric and pointless torturing from both theJustice Department and the White House. These are the kind ofpeople the WaPo is parroting; in effect serving as their mouthpieceand enabler in their continued - and outright treasonous - betrayalof the chain of command to defend their own interests.

Whenjournalists cite anonymous sources, they're asking the readers totrust in their integrity; baking on their publication's long-standingreputation of accurate and honest reporting - as evidenced by decadesof reporting backed up byexhaustively researched, cited, and attributed facts and sources. Themedia is no longer askingtobe trusted; when challenged on their constantuseof “anonymous sources,” they now demandyou trust them and shout down anyone who dares question theirauthority as arbiters of truth, asthis CNN anchor did on live fucking television. She insists itmust betrue because allthemajor news networks are repeating the same lies - but we knowtheycollude with one another because they literally jerkeach other off on Twitter:

Iwrote about the “end-zone dances on Twitter” before, but nowthey're stroking each other off in their actualpublications beforetrading sticky high-fives on Twitter for all the world to see. Andyet, if you suggest that maybe, just maybe, we can't trust theirobjectivity when it comes to shady, mysterious government sources andthe axes they want to grind, you're shouted down on live televisionfor challenging the Divine Right of Reporters.

Butit doesn't end there - why would it? Now Republicans and Russians arebasically the same people, just four short years after ourPresidential candidate Mitt Romney wasroundly mocked by the left every time he talked about Russians asadversaries. Then Comey made “notes”about alleged conversations that “some people” at the FBI haveallegedly seen, according to otherpeople- third hand information without a single fucking source named.Andjust today, Trump's accused of getting chummy with “Russians”according to “adocument read to the New York Times by an American official.”Andafter the obligatory circle-jerking and self-congratulatorygloating over their own lies, they publish anop-ed gloating over how they sure showed Trump for daring to defytheir power. Nevermind the HarvardUniversity study proving Trump's right about the media'sill-treatment, with numbers: he deservedit.So what if over 90%of their coverage was viciously negative? Whogives a fuck about objectivityortruth? He challenged the Divine Right of Reporters, so he must becrushed.

Ipersonally know people who honestly think “media bias” claims areoverblown and that they're mostly reliable, or honest. I delayedwriting this column because I foresaw typing the following line: ifyou still believe that the media is not overwhelmingly biased againstTrump, you are a fucking idiot. Idon't feel bad about saying it, now, because to denythese facts tomy face is tantamount to insulting my intelligence. Such drasticallydivergent views of reality cannot be perceptual twists on a commontruth; ifI'm not mostly correct, then I must be entertaining mad delusions.There is no middleground on this, andwe've no more time to seek some, becauseof what the media is lying about.

Obligatorydrive-by attacks notwithstanding,the media's not using their immense power to attack Trump's polices;noton immigration, economics, or taxes. They're ignoringcampaignissues that Democrats will be running on come Congressional midtermsin 2018, in favor of a sprawling myth of Trump in particular, andRepublicans in general, being agents and allies of a hostile foreigngovernment. In short, they'renot trying to swing elections, but to ferment unrest and revolution.NewtGingrich - whom you might recognize as an experienced careerpolitician with few peers - succinctly echoed my own observationsin his op-ed yesterday:

“Weare today in a one-sided cultural civil war. The Left has picked thebattlefield and defined the terms of engagement... Those of us whotruly want to make America great again have one choice: Fight. Oursituation is similar to President Lincoln’s in 1861. He had to makethe choice between fighting until he won or giving up on the idea ofthe United States. Once again, our country is at stake.”

You'll note his choice of historical analogies, and hisclosing sentence (which I didn't read till after I'd written myultimatum paragraph above:) “There is no middle ground.”He, however, continues to speak in democratic terms; of elections andpermanent congressional minorities. But I see things different. I seea traditional news media that's suddenly and violently annihilatedthe last vestige of their fading credibility as their continuedfailure to adequately adapt to the digital age saps their baserevenue. I see fifty years of rage born of neglect, abuse andcontempt, having finally come to a head in the rust belt, goingnowhere fast; especially as the Democrat party's base platform driftsfurther and further Left - and away from the values of the old unionBoomers. I see an economy increasingly steeply divided by ruralversus urban, and a left wing more willing to retreat to elaboratefantasy worlds (as I've written about before) where everything wenttheir way sooner than face their own faults. I see the left labelinganyone who speaks against their politics as cabals of murderousNazis, even4chan. And above all I hear the statement that “antifa” wascrowing after Ann Coulter's Berkeley speech was canceled: “violenceworks.”

The fuel is set,the fire has been lit, and the media is doing their absolutedamnedest - doggedly, determinedlyand tirelessly - to fan theflames. And it's not just Trump in their sights, either - now allRepublicans are being implicated as allies of “Russians.”It's okay, even desirable, toend personal friendships with people if they voted for Trump,because he's a “blatantly (and proudly) bigoted candidate,” aswell as a racist and a “dangerous demagogue.” Inother words it's not “justpolitics” anymore; because Trump is comparable to genocide. Inshort, Trump iscategoricallyevil, andanyone who supports him are thus evilthemselves.

SinceI first issued my dire predictions of civil violence in thenot-so-distant future, I've been looking, exhaustively, for evidenceI'm wrong. But everything, everythingI look at leads me right back to the same conclusion: thisends in blood. It'sincreasingly difficult to partition off politics from my personallife; to believe that I'll be judged for my character first andpolitical affiliation second, because, again, thereis no middle ground here. IfI'm not judged a bigot and a racist, that leaves only a fool and adupe - and neither are deserving of respect. Itsas fundamental a break between people as can be made; a rift that'svery easy to widen and very, very difficult to heal again.

Theseare not happy thoughts - and all I need do to rekindle them is toturn the TV on during the damn morning news.

[moonwalkertrance]

The Prince and the President: Khashoggi Case Raises Saudi-Turkey Tensions

ANKARA, Turkey — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has long cast himself as a champion of the Arab Spring uprisings and the political Islamists who once seemed poised to ride them to power.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia anchors the opposite camp in an ideological battle raging across the Middle East: the anti-Islamist strongmen who quashed the revolts.

The two leaders, each the head of a major regional power, have until now kept their relations cordial in the interest of stability. But over the past week, tensions between them have erupted over the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist who vanished after entering the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul nine days ago.

Mr. Erdogan has repeatedly challenged Saudi Arabia to explain Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance, while Turkish officials say they have video and audio evidence proving he was killed, and have unleashed a stream of leaks suggesting that the royal court ordered it. The crown prince and his spokesmen have insisted, without providing evidence, that Mr. Khashoggi left the consulate freely, professing that they, too, are worried about him.

The dispute pits two staunch, headstrong nationalists against each other — both with ambitions to reshape their region. They also share an aversion to public criticism and a history of refusing to back down from a fight.

“These are two people who each think he is the most important person in the Muslim world,” said Steven A. Cook, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies both countries. “Ego is a factor on both sides.”

On Thursday, there were signs that the two leaders were looking for a way out. Mr. Erdogan’s office announced that he had agreed to a Saudi request to form a joint “working group” that will examine Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance.

Certainly, each man has much to lose.

Mr. Erdogan is struggling to manage a teetering economy and his entanglement in war-torn Syria. He can ill afford a new battle with a deep-pocketed regional power like Saudi Arabia.

For Prince Mohammed, the affair threatens to severely damage the image of moderate reformer that he has worked for years to cultivate. Eager to diversify the Saudi economy before it runs out of oil, he has courted Washington, Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Hollywood with promises to open up and modernize the kingdom.

The prince has already endured his share of criticism in the West for leading a devastating war in Yemen, temporarily detaining the prime minister of Lebanon, and locking up hundreds of businessmen in a luxury hotel on suspicion of corruption. If he is held responsible for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance — and perhaps death — that could strengthen domestic enemies bruised by his swift rise to power.

Internationally, it is already undermining his courtship of Western visitors and investors. Several participants said Thursday that they were dropping out of an investment conference known as Davos in the Desert that the prince is hosting this month in Riyadh.

“His credibility in the West and in the U.S. is at stake,” said Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. “The credibility gap is going to be huge, and the Saudi boosters in D.C. are going to find it extremely difficult to portray the image that they were generally quite successful in trying to push.”

With lawmakers from both parties in Washington now threatening to seek sanctions over the case, Saudi leaders appear surprised by the magnitude of the international reaction. Prince Mohammed has canceled or postponed meetings with diplomats and other foreign visitors, and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has been unusually quiet.

Mr. Erdogan, for his part, has almost taunted the crown prince with questions, testing how close he can come to blaming Saudi Arabia for Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance without explicitly doing so.

“Is it possible that there is no camera system at a consulate, an embassy?” he said, according to Turkish news reports. “Is it possible there was no camera system in the Saudi Arabian Consulate where this incident happened? I mean, if a bird flies from here, a mosquito flies, those systems would capture it. And they have the most advanced ones.”

“It is not possible for us to remain silent about such an incident happening in our country,” Mr. Erdogan said.

Mr. Erdogan’s greatest concern is not foreign but domestic: borrowing taken on during his 15-year drive to build up the Turkish economy has left its corporate sector sagging under the weight of more than $200 billion in foreign debt. That has dragged down the value of Turkish currency, spurring high inflation.

Although Saudi Arabia is hardly its biggest investor, Turkish officials have boasted that their country did $8 billion a year in business with the kingdom. Wealthy Saudi holidaymakers are a staple of Istanbul’s tourist industry.

“The stakes are very high, and that is why Erdogan will be very restrained,” said Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the Ankara office director of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “Turkey is going through hard economic times, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries have the ability to tip the balance of Turkey’s economy.”

The disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi also threatens something less tangible: the prestige Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey has enjoyed around the region as a refuge for Arab politicians and thinkers under pressure from their own governments.

“Because Turkey has become such a haven for Arabs who no longer feel safe in their own countries, there is a lot of reputational damage for Erdogan,” said Tamara Cofman Wittes, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and a former State Department official.

Several analysts said they already saw hints that Mr. Erdogan might be exploring a face-saving retreat for both sides — for example, by allowing the crown prince to acknowledge Mr. Khashoggi’s death but pin the blame on some rogue element in his government.

The announcement of the joint working group in the case added to the speculation. But how that cooperation might work, given the Turkish allegations against the Saudis, remains to be seen.

Over the years, Mr. Erdogan and Prince Mohammed have worked to suppress their differences.

When the Turkish leader cracked down after a failed military coup two years ago, Saudi Arabia was quick to help him, extraditing a Turkish military attaché suspected of playing a role in the plot. Mr. Erdogan singled out the kingdom for special thanks, and Prince Mohammed reciprocated by joining his father, King Salman, in congratulating Mr. Erdogan on his survival.

When Egyptian newspapers recently quoted Prince Mohammed calling Turkey part of an “evil” alliance in the region, he hastened to deny it, issuing a statement that he was criticizing the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, not the government of Turkey.

But tensions between them still rose.

Mr. Erdogan remains close to the Muslim Brotherhood, which Saudi Arabia considers a national security threat and has branded as a terrorist organization. Turkey has also remained close to Qatar, another regional friend to the Brotherhood.

As he has consolidated power, Prince Mohammed has become increasingly bold. At age 33, he has charmed younger Saudis and many in the West by promising to diversify the Saudi economy and weaken the kingdom’s religious authorities. He has let women drive and allowed concerts and movie theaters — all novelties for the kingdom.

On a tour of the United States this year, Prince Mohammed was welcomed as a statesman. He met with President Trump; dined with Rupert Murdoch; had his picture taken with Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Bill Gates, and Tim Cook of Apple; and hung out with the actor known as The Rock.

But many of his actions have backfired.

His military intervention in Yemen has so far produced only a stalemate and humanitarian crisis. His detention of the prime minister of Lebanon was ultimately ineffectual. And his imprisonment without due process of hundreds of wealthy businessmen, including several of his royal cousins, unnerved many of the investors he had set out to woo.

And now there are the allegations about Mr. Khashoggi.

Ms. Wittes, the Brookings scholar, said that if the Saudis “are willing to assassinate a journalist on foreign soil because he was mildly critical, these international partners are going to be much less likely to send their students, researchers and experts to the kingdom or to set up long-term partnerships with the kingdom.”

Being seen in the eyes of the world as responsible for such a grisly assassination might once have been enough to disqualify a crown prince from succession to the Saudi throne. But Prince Mohammed, who is known as MBS, appears to have amassed more control than any leader in decades over the sources of hard power in the kingdom — the military, the national guard and the Interior Ministry — as well as the oil ministry.

Many analysts say there is almost no one left to challenge him — provided he maintains the good will of his elderly father.

“There is no real coalition that can mobilize against MBS,” said Mr. Ulrichsen, the Middle East fellow. “He seems to be secure in his position. And that seems to be the reason we see such actions.”

[johntropea]

Statement of principle: Technology is never value-neutral.

Brilliant essay by Waleed Aly on the effect technology has on values, the new behaviours that result, and how this shakes the professionalism and ethics of media and journalism...and the new consumption behaviours and patterns that ensue

Transcript here

Video here 

He is a remarkable speaker...doesn’t preach...and doesn’t exclude himself from the negative patterns he presents

Statement of principle: Technology is never value-neutral.

It might allow us to do things we already do more easily. It may offer us new ways of delivering the same service. But it never does merely that.

You can choose just about anything to illustrate this point. The invention of the motor car didn’t merelyallow us to move faster from A to B. It completely changed the possibilities of what A and B were. It didn’t merely save us time, it contracted physical space, and with it, contracted social space. It is only when the motor car became available that the vast modern city became possible: spread out over distances that once upon a time would have encompassed different villages or even rural areas. I won’t waste your time grinding this out, but the point is that this technology changed our entire social organisation.

[…]

So it is simply naïve in my view to assume that as the platforms for journalism change, that the very idea of journalism itself will be somehow remain unaffected; that whether we’re talking about a printed newspaper, a broadcast news bulletin or a website, that we’re merely talking about different platforms for delivering the same content. We’re not. Each of these platforms has its own inherent values system. Each imposes its own requirements on the content it carries.

…And this has a repeated editorial impact.

Stories lie abandoned by television programs all the time because there’s simply no vision to carry them, for example. Broadcast media will decline to speak to certain people, even if they have world-leading expertise on a subject, simply because they don’t speak in a way that comes across well in the medium…

[…]

These limitations are no one’s fault, particularly. It’s as though the medium itself seems to impose them

….The point, to reiterate, is that different mediums will impose different values.

[…]

If I had to come up with a set of online values as they express themselves in media, I’d probably say speed and shareability were the top two.  

…you can see it in the way people will actually apologise on social media if they share something that has been around for more than a day, lest they look like they’re off the pace. That’s actually quite a profound practice: to be slow online, even slightly, is embarrassing. It requires some token of self-awareness, like an apology, because without it, it’s like we’re risking our social status. That’s why it’s more than a consequence of online interaction: it’s a value; a way of measuring our worth.

[…]

Now, speed has always been a value within journalism. Ever since reporters have existed, they’ve wanted to “scoop” each other, be first on the scene, first with the story. And that value has always existed in tension with other journalistic values such as accuracy, context and the explanation of stories.

…But I think the results are potentially radioactive when you combine this with the premium on shareability. To see how this works, consider the context.

The online explosion has meant we have access to more information than ever before. What we don’t have is the time to sort through it, weigh it against other information and consider what the consequences of it are. The result of all this increased speed is therefore increased noise. Our world, and especially our media culture – is just so loud. News, and reactions to news are now so omnipresent that they’re ambient: on screens constantly in public places as well as the most mobile private ones. It’s like we’re living our lives to an industrial soundtrack: the constant grinding of gears in the background. And yet it is the lifeblood of media organisations to attract attention; to be noticed somehow above the din. In online terms, that means to be shared. To invite have your audience harvest your clicks for you. To achieve virality. That leaves us with some pretty new measures of journalistic success.

…online articles are valued if they generate an enormous comments thread and lots of hits. That’s not a point about the evils or otherwise of social media. It’s a point about how what role we want it to play in deciding what is and isn’t successful journalism.

[...]

...although we think of ourselves as professionals, journalism isn’t really a profession in the traditional sense. It’s not like medicine or the law. We have an ethical code of sorts, but we’re not bound to it by some solemn oath. There are no induction ceremonies in which people wear ridiculous gowns or hats. There’s no official body that can strike us off the roll for malpractice.  And no one is suggesting there should be. The truth is that in traditional terms, we’re a trade. We’re pretty much self-regulated. If we stuff up, we publish a notice or an apology, maybe pay a fine if it’s serious, and we move on. We lose our jobs not because we lose our licence to practice but because our jobs either disappear, or our reputations are damaged enough to mean our market value has crashed. If we’re unethical but valuable, there’s nothing to stop us, really.

That means that when we face enormous commercial pressures, we’re vulnerable. It’s easy for us to adopt whatever values commercial realities demand. And as I’ve already said, I’m in no position to criticise the people who have to circle this particular square

(via Waleed Aly presents the 2016 Andrew Olle Media Lecture | About the ABC)

Related

Social media is, at its heart, a media model that thrives off of more; more content, more clicks, more attention. Because of that, social media sites wants more content and more engagement - not necessarily better content or better engagement.

[...]

Communities can do that because they create contextualized, trusted dialog that brings people together - reducing segmentation and extremismvia

via Rachel Happe - Social Media is Broken…. Communities Can Help

We’ve seen the race to the bottom play out, and it’s not pretty. Newer social media managers are particularly vulnerable to demands from organisations asking them to transgress boundaries to get a reaction – any reaction. Stoke a generational debate, play the race card, hot or not. They’re tabloid tactics that have been with us over a century, but they’re no more about meaningful engagement than than they ever were.

[...]

Communities are easily confused with social media. But when it comes to filter-bubbles, there’s no contest. Communities can actively reduce polarisation. The Wikipedia community has been studied at length for its success in promoting less segregated conversations. Communities proactively create culture, and culture ‘sells’ more powerfully than any product offering. Do you have the tools to steer culture on your social channels?

via Venessa Paech - Social media is dead. Long live community.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

We’re about to enter the thick of general-election season, which means we’re about to get a boatload of polls.

Problem is, it can be hard to know which polls to trust or how to make sense of them all. But don’t worry — it doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to interpret polling in a smart way. So the next time you come across a poll and are wondering what to make of it, just follow these 10 steps.1

Check the pollster’s track record. Some pollsters have long-standing reputations for accuracy, and others are more error-prone. You can check which are which using the FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings, which assign (most) pollsters a letter grade based on their historical accuracy and whether they follow best practices in their methodologies. In our view, the “gold standard” of polling methodology is using live phone interviewers, calling cell phones as well as landlines, and participating in the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research archive.2 These gold-standard polls tend to be the most accurate, although there are exceptions — some online pollsters, like YouGov, are quite reliable as well. If a pollster doesn’t show up in our pollster ratings, it’s probably new on the scene, which means you should treat it with more caution because it doesn’t have an established track record we can judge; at worst, it might even be fake. (If you’re not sure if a pollster is trustworthy and want us to do some investigating, feel free to email us at polls@fivethirtyeight.com.)

Avoid comparisons between pollsters. Anytime you see a new poll, check to see what the pollster said previously before declaring that the race has shifted. Some pollsters consistently overestimate one candidate or party relative to what other pollsters find, a phenomenon called “house effects.” Similarly, especially for non-horse-race polls, pollsters often word the same questions in different ways — for example, asking someone’s opinion about “Obamacare” can yield different results from asking about “the Affordable Care Act” — which makes direct comparisons difficult.

Note who’s being polled. For elections, polls of likely voters tend to be more accurate than polls of registered voters, which in turn tend to be more accurate than polls of adults. That said, many pollsters won’t start surveying likely voters until the fall, and registered-voter polls are perfectly good substitutes until then — just be aware that the results may be a few points too Democratic. And polls of adults have their place too — such as when you want to know how the entire nation feels about something, like the coronavirus.

Pay attention to the margin of error. Reputable polls will always include a margin of error or confidence interval — it’ll look something like “± 3 points.” This reflects that polls can’t be exact, but they do promise to be within a certain number of percentage points (in this example, 3 points) almost all of the time (the industry standard is 95 percent of the time). In practical terms, that means that if a poll puts President Trump’s approval rating at 42 percent with a 3-point margin of error, his approval rating could be anything from 39 percent to 45 percent. Note that, in head-to-head polls, the margin of error applies to each candidate’s vote share, so if the same poll gave Trump 46 percent and gave former Vice President Joe Biden 51 percent, Trump could actually be leading 49 percent to 48 percent. (Though he could also be trailing with 43 percent to Biden’s 54, or fall anywhere in between those extremes.)

Consider the source. Partisan groups, or even campaigns themselves, will sometimes release their own polls, but of course, they have an ulterior motive in doing so: Make their side look good. On average, these “internal polls” tend to be about 4 or 5 percentage points too favorable to their sponsor, so don’t take them at face value. Be extra skeptical of internal polls that don’t release full methodological details, like the name of the pollster or the dates of the poll. Similarly, partisan media outlets may exaggerate their side’s standing by extensively covering good polls for their candidate while ignoring bad ones. Even mainstream news outlets can mislead, albeit in a different way: They may be tempted to overhype polls they conduct themselves (e.g., calling it a “shock poll” even if it’s not that shocking) in order to get clicks.

If a poll has an odd result, there might be a reason for it. Check the poll’s wording — is it accurate and unbiased? For example, some campaigns will release polls showing their candidate doing better after respondents hear a positive statement about them. Check when the poll was conducted; the survey may reflect an outdated reality or have been taken after some major event (e.g., a major military victory) that temporarily swayed public opinion. Even something as basic as the order in which questions are asked can affect the results; for example, if a poll is mostly focused on immigration but then asks about the presidential matchup, respondents may subconsciously choose the candidate they feel is best on immigration, not necessarily whom they support overall.

That said, don’t try to outguess or “unskew” the polls. People who pick apart a poll by claiming it has, say, too many Democrats or too few black voters in its sample are generally wasting their time (and they usually have an agenda). Polls are almost always weighted to match their target population’s demographics, such as race and age. This doesn’t mean all pollsters assign weights in the same way, though, and there are practices like weighting by education on which the industry is split. Not weighting by education likely contributed to some of the most consequential polling errors of 2016, and many pollsters have now begun to factor education into their weighting, but others are still holding out. In an era when graduating from college has a significant bearing on white people’s political preferences, we recommend putting more stock in polls that weight by education than those that don’t. (On the other hand, weighting by partisanship, an idea that’s received some attention lately, is dicey3 and not something most pollsters do. That’s because party identification, unlike many demographic traits, is fluid, so setting it as a constant risks predetermining the poll’s outcome.)

Heed averages, not outliers. If a poll’s result differs from every other poll, treat it with caution. Although an outlier poll can sometimes represent the beginning of a new trend (especially after a major event like a debate), they’re usually just flukes. Instead, we recommend looking at an average of the polls, which will more accurately reflect the polling consensus.

In the aggregate, polls are pretty accurate but not perfect. Since 2000, polls of presidential general elections taken within 21 days of Election Day have a weighted average error4 of 4.0 points. (Polls of Senate, House and gubernatorial races have slightly higher historical error.) That means you can trust the polling average to get pretty close to the final result, but it will rarely nail the election exactly. When an election is close enough that a normal-sized polling error could change who wins, prepare yourself for either outcome.

Polls are snapshots, not predictions. Even if a poll is a perfectly accurate measure of what would happen if the election were held today, things can always change between now and Election Day. Early general-election polls have been pretty predictive in the last few presidential elections, but with huge uncertainty surrounding major issues like the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis, we don’t know if that will hold true this year. In general, polls gradually become more accurate the closer you get to the election.

[vsplusonline]

Johnson & Johnson to pull baby powder from Canada, U.S. due to dropping demand

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/johnson-johnson-to-pull-baby-powder-from-canada-u-s-due-to-dropping-demand/

Johnson & Johnson to pull baby powder from Canada, U.S. due to dropping demand

Johnson & Johnson on Tuesday announced it would stop selling its talc Baby Powder in the United States and Canada, saying demand had dropped in the wake of what it called “misinformation” about the product’s safety amid a barrage of legal challenges.

J&J faces more than 19,000 lawsuits from consumers and their survivors claiming its talc products caused cancer due to contamination with asbestos, a known carcinogen. Many are pending before a U.S. district judge in New Jersey.

“I wish my mother could be here to see this day,” said Crystal Deckard, whose mother Darlene Coker alleged Baby Powder caused her mesothelioma. She dropped the suit filed in 1999 after losing her fight to compel J&J to divulge internal records. Coker died of mesothelioma in 2009.

READ MORE: No clear link between talc powder and ovarian cancer, new study suggests

In its statement, J&J said it “remains steadfastly confident in the safety of talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder,” citing “decades of scientific studies.”

Story continues below advertisement

J&J has faced intense scrutiny of the safety of its baby powder following an investigative report by Reuters in 2018 that found the company knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its talc.

Internal company records, trial testimony and other evidence show that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos.

The Reuters article prompted a stock selloff that erased about $40 billion from J&J’s market value in one day and created a public relations crisis as the blue-chip healthcare conglomerate faced widespread questions about the possible health effects of one of its most iconic products.

0:53 Johnson & Johnson to pay $72M in suit linking baby powder to ovarian cancer

Johnson & Johnson to pay $72M in suit linking baby powder to ovarian cancer

J&J has also been the target of a federal criminal investigation into how forthright it has been about its talc products’ safety, an investigation by 41 states into its baby powder sales, which it disclosed in April, and an investigation into health risks of asbestos in talc-containing consumer products by a Congressional subcommittee.

U.S. Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, who led the Congressional inquiry, described J&J’s decision to stop selling talc baby powder as “a major victory for public health,” adding: “My Subcommittee’s 14-month investigation revealed that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that its product contains asbestos.”

In response to evidence of asbestos contamination presented in media reports, in the court room and on Capitol Hill, J&J has repeatedly said its talc products are safe, and do not cause cancer.

Story continues below advertisement

READ MORE: U.S. retailers pull baby powder off shelves over fears of asbestos contamination

Apart from the baby powder controversy, the company revered by millions of consumers and one of the most trusted brands in America, more recently has faced a series of legal and reputational challenges.

J&J has said it has been named as a defendant, along with other drugmakers, in more than 2,900 lawsuits alleging the companies improperly promoted addictive opioids.

In August, an Oklahoma judge rendered the first verdict in that litigation, ordering J&J to pay $572.1 million to the state for its part in fueling an opioid epidemic by deceptively marketing addictive painkillers.

J&J is appealing the Oklahoma judge’s ruling and has denied it caused the opioid crisis.

Johnson & Johnson on Tuesday said it had stopped shipping talc baby powder when the COVID-19 crisis led to limits on shopping and manufacturing, and that now it would wind down North American sales.

READ MORE: Woman with cancer awarded $29M in Johnson and Johnson talcum powder suit

“Demand for talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising,” it said in a statement.

Sold continuously since 1894, Johnson’s Baby Powder now accounts for only about 0.5% of its U.S. consumer health business, the company said. But it remains a symbol of the company’s family-friendly image.

Story continues below advertisement

An internal J&J marketing presentation from 1999 refers to the baby products division, with Baby Powder at the core, as J&J’s “#1 Asset,” grounded in “deep, personal trust” and a 2003 internal memo described it as a “sacred cow,” Reuters reported.

Christie Nordhielm, a professor of marketing at Georgetown, said it appears J&J made its decision to withdraw from the market while consumers are preoccupied with the pandemic. “It’s a nice time to quietly do it,” she said, adding “it will minimize the reputational hit.”

1:49 Ovarian cancer detection leads to late diagnoses, poor survival rate for women

Ovarian cancer detection leads to late diagnoses, poor survival rate for women

Shares of J&J were unchanged in after-hours trading following the disclosure.

“We will continue to vigorously defend the product, its safety, and the unfounded allegations against it and the Company in the courtroom,” Johnson & Johnson said. “All verdicts against the company that have been through the appeals process have been overturned.”

Krystal Kim, one of 22 women with ovarian cancer whose case in St. Louis resulted in a 2018 jury verdict of $4.69 billion against J&J, said the decision was “a step in the right direction.” J&J has appealed that verdict.

Nevertheless, J&J’s legal challenges likely will continue, some lawyers said.

In April, a New Jersey judge ruled that thousands of plaintiffs who allege J&J’s talc products caused cancer can go forward with their claims, but face limits on what expert testimony would be allowed in trials.

Story continues below advertisement

READ MORE: Johnson & Johnson rocked by accusations of knowing about asbestos in baby powder

“Just taking it off the shelf today doesn’t end the litigation by a long shot,” said Loyola Law Professor Adam Zimmerman.

Asbestos is known to cause cancer that emerges decades after exposure. Cases involving asbestos-containing products removed from the marketplace long ago “continue to be litigated very actively to this day,” Zimmerman said.

Many of the lawsuits allege Baby Powder caused plaintiffs’ mesothelioma, an incurable cancer of the lining of the lungs and other organs commonly caused by asbestos.

“Just as J&J vows to continue fighting vigorously in the courts, we look forward to meeting them there as we continue to pursue justice for our clients,” said Chris Placitella, one of the lead lawyers representing plaintiffs in the cases consolidated in a New Jersey federal court.

J&J said it will continue to sell cornstarch-based baby powder in North America, and will sell both its talc and cornstarch-based products in other markets around the world.

(Reporting by Carl O’Donnell in New York and Lisa Girion in Los Angeles; Editing by Peter Henderson, Bill Berkrot, Rosalba O’Brien and Lincoln Feast.)

JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS

REPORT AN ERROR

Source link

[ramyaharikrishnan01]

seo company in chennai

SEO

Before you think about clever ways to evade policies, you should be aware that any trick you can think of has probably been tried before, and that sneaky editing leaves a trail an experienced sleuth can follow. Before you succumb to the dark side, know that the results may be unpleasant, public, and permanent.

 If you are an SEO practitioner who has come to seeking to increase the link popularity of your site or manage your client reputation, first of all, welcome! Second, we hope you will learn more about how because we want you to be  seo company in chennai  a productive member of our community, rather than a source of linkspam and bias. Before you make any edits, please familiarize yourself with the  of interest guidelines. Also, be aware that page titles can have a "bombing" effect towards topics linked, so be sure to name articles neutrally.

 There are a variety of ways that you can participate in the  community:

If  has an article about your organization, you are welcome to correct link spam or vandalism in your article at any time. If you would like to suggest changes to the article, you can post suggested revisions to the article talk page and ask other editors for help getting the material into the article. You can also announce yourself on the article talk page and offer to provide answers if other editors have any questions about your organization.

Because of, many SEO companies are getting good ranking for their websites. Getting links from high PR sites is one type of strategy in SEO.

If your organization doesn't have an article yet, and you think your organization is notable, find an appropriate category or article talk page and suggest a new article. You can even help start the article and collect references. Ideally, you should post these raw materials in your own user space. You can start a page such as Mypage/Sandbox.

  If a competitor is introducing bias into articles, you can report these incidents in the proper venue. Begin by raising concerns on the article talk page. If that fails to resolve the issue, you can go to the requests for comment page or "third opinion". For obvious violations of  conflict of interest policy, you can file a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.

By participating in articles related to your field, other experts or journalists may notice you, but please avoid self-promotion when editing articles. Participation in  may lead to public relations opportunities. You can create a user   seo company in chennai   page for yourself with a short bio and a link to your personal site to provide more information about yourself.

Many organizations seek to inform and educate the public. By linking to relevant  articles or copying  content to your web site, you can provide value to your audience.

Please help expand and create articles, so long as you follow  policies, guidelines, and community customs. Improving the public understanding of topics that are important to you is a good thing. Again, avoid promoting yourself or your products within articles, and maintain neutral point of view. is for education, not propaganda.

Remember that you are a guest in  house. While you are here, you will get the warmest reception if you follow house rules and customs. If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to comment on the rules' talk pages and request changes. If you build consensus, you can even edit the rules.

  Edit for hire

Edit for hire is a very bad idea. Microsoft caused themselves a great deal of bad press by paying someone to edit their article. The problem with edit for hire is that an editor paid by an organization, being externally motivated, will almost inevitably violate neutral point of view, one of most important policies.

Instead of edit for hire, you can advise your clients to get involved with relevant articles and Projects. Once they understand what wants, they can suggest a new article about their organization. Disclosing any commercial connections is a way to increase trust and avoid ethical challenges. If other editors are interested in covering your organization, you can support them by pointing out useful references.

Can  increase your link popularity?

Is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, nor a directory. There is no need to add every website that might be relevant to the external links section of an article. Long lists of external links do not add value to articles, and may reduce article quality by confusing the reader. To help create and maintain high quality of articles, many ns monitorrecent changes for link additions. While an editor may get away with adding unnecessary links to a low profile article for a short time, improper links tend to be deleted immediately from high-profile articles. In any case, when improper links are removed, the editor who added them may receive a spam warning. Editors can be blocked from editing  after receiving several warnings.

  Before adding external links to articles, please read : External links. When citing an external link as a source for a statement, make sure that you have chosen the most reliable sources available.

  All links on  use the nofollow attribute on external links. Google and other search engines claim to disregard such links when calculating link popularity. Certain  pages may also use the noindex robots meta tag value to prevent search engine indexing. You may freely place links on some of these pages, but doing so probably will not help your rankings in the major search engines.

Blacklisting.

 There may be instances where  interest in creating high-quality encyclopedia articles coincides with the interests of businesses that want to better educate the public about particular topics. The  community recommends focusing on the edit, rather than the editor. If a commercial interest is seeking to educate the public, they can possibly add appropriate, neutral point of view material to  without provoking a backlash. Adding spin to  is highly discouraged and will usually result in a rebuke. Likewise, starting an article about a non-notable subject in order to promote the subject will usually result in the article being deleted.

Bite: Can you explain why it a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing  on behalf of a client? How does the  community react to such activity?

Wales: It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda.

  Paid editing and conflict of interest. If an editor is paid, that signals a likely conflict of interest, but unpaid agents can also face a similar situation. Agents should maintain the same standards of behavior as if they were the principal. Any editor, even the subject of an article, can make certain kinds of edits, for instance: reverting vandalism, and clearing linkspam. To protect their own reputation, agents may announce themselves on the talk page, and place any remotely controversial edits there, so somebody else can add them to the article. In general, a principal interests benefit most by encouraging neutral editors to work on the article. Agents are probably wise to take one step backwards and let the community maintain the article, while they offer support. Agents can, for instance, identify new facts or sources on the talk page so other editors can verify that information and add it to the article. Agents can also offer to answer questions.

seo company in chennai

[glenmenlow]

Reach, Frequency, Advertising And Brands

Brand building is the aim of marketing. A big component of marketing is communications, the purpose of which is to attract customers to our brand and to persuade them to support it. Historically, that has been accomplished primarily through advertising media–print, then radio and TV, and now digital. And while smart, goal oriented creative has been the star; working diligently behind the scenes is smart, goal-oriented media strategy and planning.

Media is a science; part sociology, part statistical analysis, part economics, part behavioral science, and some might say, part intuition. In spite of the advancements in technology, measurements and analysis, a constantly shifting media landscape and media consumption trends, media strategy seems to always come down to the use of two things: Reach and frequency.

Reach is the depth or penetration of your targeted consumer (B2C) or customer purchaser or decision-maker (B2B) base, quantified in numbers and/or percentages via a media vehicle and over a set campaign period. Effective reach delivers the maximum number of targeted individuals for exposure to the brand message. Efficient reach does so economically, often expressed in a cost per thousand (CPM), CPL (cost per lead) and CPS (cost per sale).

Frequency is the number of exposures to the brand message obtained for the target via a media vehicle(s) over a set campaign period. Reach delivers the audience while frequency repeatedly exposes the audience to the brand message, offer, promotion, etc. How many exposures is enough (or too much) is often the question, since there is obvious budgetary waste for buying too many ads with diminishing effectiveness.

Repetition Is The Glue

A side note here about the scientific behavioral underpinning to frequency. Author and memory expert Carmen Simon points out the benefit to brands as “binding content to the source”: “Ensure that you’re presenting frequently enough to help someone’s brain bind the content and the source.” In other words, repetition is the glue that binds your message to your brand … and not to someone else’s.

In his article “Advertising Frequency Theory: Circa 1885,” Derrick Daye provides the 20 steps or exposures an ad must take to garner purchase intent as seen through the eyes of an 1800’s marketer. One-hundred and thirty-five years later it seems much of the observation holds true.

How Often?

A little online search will reveal that “frequency” in 2020 is still a very hot topic. Consider these examples that attempt to provide advertisers guidance:

As we advised here on Branding Strategy Insider, in “Reach Versus Frequency In Advertising”: “Many will say that it is more efficient to focus on reach (versus frequency) because there are diminishing returns with each new ad exposure. … However, if your funds are limited and your audience is highly targeted, you would do better to focus on a reach schedule of 3+, seeking out media with significant audience overlap. For brand building purposes … focus on advertising frequency targeted at … opinion leaders and “hard core” users.”

Jeff Neff reported in AdAge, “What’s the frequency? Advertisers deal with conflicting data”:

Facebook research indicated one to two exposures per week over 10 weeks as an ideal average for packaged-goods

For TV, an emotional connection is created after one or two viewings, a “reasoned, cognitive response” after 3 to 10 times, and a deeper emotional connection after 10 viewings

Many subscribe to the “Rule of 7” in order to fully resonate with the target audience

The “Frequency of Three” for radio spots for effective recall has been touted

News America.com states in its piece “How Do We Determine the Optimum Mix of Reach vs. Frequency,” 5–9 exposures “are deemed to be the optimal level for driving brand awareness” and 10+ exposures “are deemed the most optimal level for driving purchase intent.”

The advertising ratings service Nielsen found in a 2017 study that digital ads needed between 5 to 9 exposures to improve branding and increase consumer acceptance.

And there are no doubt many more frequency guidelines. Careful performance tracking by any number of measurements will reveal, over time, what works for your brand. It’s never clear-cut because there are so many influences (both those can control and those you can’t) that will have a bearing on performance.

Frequency Insights

It seems there is no simple answer to the question “how many times do we run this ad?” Every situation is different. There are, however a few insights we can draw from the research:

Media Usage Habits Have Logical Frequency Implications

According to Jeff Rosenblum’s article “From Friction to Empathy: A New Brand Building Model” up to 89% of TV ads are ignored, not necessarily because of DVRs, but because people fiddle with their smart phones during the commercial breaks. Greater frequency for TV to combat commercial avoidance would be indicated.

Cross-Platform Measurement Should Be Used To Manage Frequency

Jeff quotes P&G Chief Brand Officer Marc Pritchard’s observation that with so much message duplication between digital and TV, cross-platform measurement could “drive out a lot of waste.” It should also be noted that P&G has recently instituted “Frequency Capping” to purposely limit the number of times their ads are exposed online and increase their long-term effectiveness.

Wear-Out Of Ads Is A Real Outcome Of  Frequency

Frequency tracks a typical bell-curve of effectiveness: first ineffective reach, then effective, then ineffective. If you’ve ever been part of a DR (direct response) campaign, you’ve seen the results first-hand. At some point frequency will suck the lead-generating life out of a TV spot and will need to be rested, replaced or refreshed with a new offer or approach to regain its potency.

The Case For Reach-Only

Reach can be used with little or no frequency for well- established brands with little competition and delivering a simple message. By employing reach only, marketers are striving for maximum impact from memorable creative, delivered at just the right time and in just the right venue. It can then be leveraged by some other means through publicity, PR, direct mail, etc.

For example, the gut-wrenchingly powerful “Daisy” ad created by DDB and Tony Schwartz for Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign aired only once (on The NBC Monday Night Movie) and has been considered by historians as making the difference between he and Barry Goldwater, a candidate Johnson contended could not be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Equally noteworthy 20 years later is Chiat Day’s “1984” spot that launched the Apple Macintosh personal computer and ran only once during Super Bowl XVIII. Both the “Daisy” and “1984” spots were powerfully creative, compelling and socially and culturally disruptive. Both spots also had tremendous reach, but of course, no frequency was factored in.

However, not all reach-only strategies guarantee a successful outcome. In 2015, Starbucks asked customers to #RaceTogether by using a supplement in partnership with USA Today to stimulate a conversation about race relations. No other media was used and no frequency was employed. Unfortunately for Starbucks and CEO Howard Schultz, all it succeeded in doing was to stimulate a lot of criticism for the poorly conceived and misguided brand initiative. The campaign died almost instantly.

Regardless, the success of one-time, high-impact ads have spawned a purposeful one-time reach strategy that combines a “proclamation” or “statement” message to communicate policy changes, mergers, brand launches, positions and product introductions. For example, full-page ads in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal (as well as other major market newspapers) may run all at once on the same day. Media selections are based on their journalistic reputation and reach within their respective markets. This one-time placement strategy is designed to create “shock and awe” with follow up news coverage, PR and direct mail campaigns to follow. B2B advertisers may also use a similar strategy to launch a new product line or technological advancement by a limited or one-time reach placement that dominates its industry by the dominance of its circulation.

Impact On Brand Strategy

As marketers we know that brands must be supported in order to remain relevant and growing. But we also know that we face a number of challenges, such as the sheer number of messages competing for our customer’s attention. We must provide consistent and repeated reminders of the value of our brand on an emotional level so that when our customer is in the market, we’ll be top of mind. Otherwise, we risk indifference at best, or replacement by a competitor at worst. Strong and compelling creative advertising that differentiates is essential, but an effective media strategy with a strong understanding of reach and frequency is a must.

The Blake Project Can Help: The Strategic Brand Storytelling Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

from WordPress https://glenmenlow.wordpress.com/2020/01/09/reach-frequency-advertising-and-brands/ via IFTTT

[joejstrickl]

Reach, Frequency, Advertising And Brands

Brand building is the aim of marketing. A big component of marketing is communications, the purpose of which is to attract customers to our brand and to persuade them to support it. Historically, that has been accomplished primarily through advertising media–print, then radio and TV, and now digital. And while smart, goal oriented creative has been the star; working diligently behind the scenes is smart, goal-oriented media strategy and planning.

Media is a science; part sociology, part statistical analysis, part economics, part behavioral science, and some might say, part intuition. In spite of the advancements in technology, measurements and analysis, a constantly shifting media landscape and media consumption trends, media strategy seems to always come down to the use of two things: Reach and frequency.

Reach is the depth or penetration of your targeted consumer (B2C) or customer purchaser or decision-maker (B2B) base, quantified in numbers and/or percentages via a media vehicle and over a set campaign period. Effective reach delivers the maximum number of targeted individuals for exposure to the brand message. Efficient reach does so economically, often expressed in a cost per thousand (CPM), CPL (cost per lead) and CPS (cost per sale).

Frequency is the number of exposures to the brand message obtained for the target via a media vehicle(s) over a set campaign period. Reach delivers the audience while frequency repeatedly exposes the audience to the brand message, offer, promotion, etc. How many exposures is enough (or too much) is often the question, since there is obvious budgetary waste for buying too many ads with diminishing effectiveness.

Repetition Is The Glue

A side note here about the scientific behavioral underpinning to frequency. Author and memory expert Carmen Simon points out the benefit to brands as “binding content to the source”: “Ensure that you’re presenting frequently enough to help someone’s brain bind the content and the source.” In other words, repetition is the glue that binds your message to your brand … and not to someone else’s.

In his article “Advertising Frequency Theory: Circa 1885,” Derrick Daye provides the 20 steps or exposures an ad must take to garner purchase intent as seen through the eyes of an 1800’s marketer. One-hundred and thirty-five years later it seems much of the observation holds true.

How Often?

A little online search will reveal that “frequency” in 2020 is still a very hot topic. Consider these examples that attempt to provide advertisers guidance:

As we advised here on Branding Strategy Insider, in “Reach Versus Frequency In Advertising”: “Many will say that it is more efficient to focus on reach (versus frequency) because there are diminishing returns with each new ad exposure. … However, if your funds are limited and your audience is highly targeted, you would do better to focus on a reach schedule of 3+, seeking out media with significant audience overlap. For brand building purposes … focus on advertising frequency targeted at … opinion leaders and “hard core” users.”

Jeff Neff reported in AdAge, “What’s the frequency? Advertisers deal with conflicting data”:

Facebook research indicated one to two exposures per week over 10 weeks as an ideal average for packaged-goods

For TV, an emotional connection is created after one or two viewings, a “reasoned, cognitive response” after 3 to 10 times, and a deeper emotional connection after 10 viewings

Many subscribe to the “Rule of 7” in order to fully resonate with the target audience

The “Frequency of Three” for radio spots for effective recall has been touted

News America.com states in its piece “How Do We Determine the Optimum Mix of Reach vs. Frequency,” 5–9 exposures “are deemed to be the optimal level for driving brand awareness” and 10+ exposures “are deemed the most optimal level for driving purchase intent.”

The advertising ratings service Nielsen found in a 2017 study that digital ads needed between 5 to 9 exposures to improve branding and increase consumer acceptance.

And there are no doubt many more frequency guidelines. Careful performance tracking by any number of measurements will reveal, over time, what works for your brand. It’s never clear-cut because there are so many influences (both those can control and those you can’t) that will have a bearing on performance.

Frequency Insights

It seems there is no simple answer to the question “how many times do we run this ad?” Every situation is different. There are, however a few insights we can draw from the research:

Media Usage Habits Have Logical Frequency Implications

According to Jeff Rosenblum’s article “From Friction to Empathy: A New Brand Building Model” up to 89% of TV ads are ignored, not necessarily because of DVRs, but because people fiddle with their smart phones during the commercial breaks. Greater frequency for TV to combat commercial avoidance would be indicated.

Cross-Platform Measurement Should Be Used To Manage Frequency

Jeff quotes P&G Chief Brand Officer Marc Pritchard’s observation that with so much message duplication between digital and TV, cross-platform measurement could “drive out a lot of waste.” It should also be noted that P&G has recently instituted “Frequency Capping” to purposely limit the number of times their ads are exposed online and increase their long-term effectiveness.

Wear-Out Of Ads Is A Real Outcome Of  Frequency

Frequency tracks a typical bell-curve of effectiveness: first ineffective reach, then effective, then ineffective. If you’ve ever been part of a DR (direct response) campaign, you’ve seen the results first-hand. At some point frequency will suck the lead-generating life out of a TV spot and will need to be rested, replaced or refreshed with a new offer or approach to regain its potency.

The Case For Reach-Only

Reach can be used with little or no frequency for well- established brands with little competition and delivering a simple message. By employing reach only, marketers are striving for maximum impact from memorable creative, delivered at just the right time and in just the right venue. It can then be leveraged by some other means through publicity, PR, direct mail, etc.

For example, the gut-wrenchingly powerful “Daisy” ad created by DDB and Tony Schwartz for Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign aired only once (on The NBC Monday Night Movie) and has been considered by historians as making the difference between he and Barry Goldwater, a candidate Johnson contended could not be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Equally noteworthy 20 years later is Chiat Day’s “1984” spot that launched the Apple Macintosh personal computer and ran only once during Super Bowl XVIII. Both the “Daisy” and “1984” spots were powerfully creative, compelling and socially and culturally disruptive. Both spots also had tremendous reach, but of course, no frequency was factored in.

However, not all reach-only strategies guarantee a successful outcome. In 2015, Starbucks asked customers to #RaceTogether by using a supplement in partnership with USA Today to stimulate a conversation about race relations. No other media was used and no frequency was employed. Unfortunately for Starbucks and CEO Howard Schultz, all it succeeded in doing was to stimulate a lot of criticism for the poorly conceived and misguided brand initiative. The campaign died almost instantly.

Regardless, the success of one-time, high-impact ads have spawned a purposeful one-time reach strategy that combines a “proclamation” or “statement” message to communicate policy changes, mergers, brand launches, positions and product introductions. For example, full-page ads in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal (as well as other major market newspapers) may run all at once on the same day. Media selections are based on their journalistic reputation and reach within their respective markets. This one-time placement strategy is designed to create “shock and awe” with follow up news coverage, PR and direct mail campaigns to follow. B2B advertisers may also use a similar strategy to launch a new product line or technological advancement by a limited or one-time reach placement that dominates its industry by the dominance of its circulation.

Impact On Brand Strategy

As marketers we know that brands must be supported in order to remain relevant and growing. But we also know that we face a number of challenges, such as the sheer number of messages competing for our customer’s attention. We must provide consistent and repeated reminders of the value of our brand on an emotional level so that when our customer is in the market, we’ll be top of mind. Otherwise, we risk indifference at best, or replacement by a competitor at worst. Strong and compelling creative advertising that differentiates is essential, but an effective media strategy with a strong understanding of reach and frequency is a must.

The Blake Project Can Help: The Strategic Brand Storytelling Workshop

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

[bountyofbeads]

Jeffrey Epstein charged with federal sex trafficking crimes involving young girls

https://wapo.st/2NHPHCS

In his previous case, prosecutors wrote, Epstein’s attorneys contemplated having him plead guilty to an obstruction or witness tampering offense, and mentioned to prosecutors an incident in which Epstein apparently hired a private investigator to follow the father of someone involved in the case and force him off the road. They alleged that Epstein was hardly a changed man.

“The defendant, a registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not repentant; rather, he is a continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces devastating evidence supporting deeply serious charges,” prosecutors wrote.

Jeffrey Epstein charged with federal sex trafficking crimes involving young girls

By Matt Zapotosky, Renae Merle and Devlin Barrett | Published July 08 at 3:36 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted July 8, 2019 |

Federal prosecutors unsealed new sex trafficking charges Monday against Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that the politically connected multimillionaire abused dozens of female minors at his Manhattan and Palm Beach, Fla., homes and enlisted his victims to expand a network of possible targets.

Epstein — who was arrested over the weekend and appeared in federal court in Manhattan on Monday — had previously pleaded guilty to Florida charges of soliciting prostitution to resolve allegations that he molested dozens of girls. That arrangement has been widely criticized as too lenient. As part of the deal, he had to spend just more than a year in jail and was allowed to leave daily for work, and he never faced any federal exposure.

The new charges, described in an explosive 14-page indictment brought by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, could lead to a much harsher penalty. Epstein is charged in a two-count indictment with sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy, for crimes alleged to have occurred between 2002 and 2005.

Epstein pleaded not guilty Monday, and his defense attorney called the case an attempt by prosecutors at a “do-over.”

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman said at a news conference that Epstein, now 66, faces the possibility of 45 years in prison and that prosecutors will seek to have him detained pending trial.

For the time being, he will remain in custody, with a bail hearing set for Monday. The Justice Department is also seeking to seize Epstein’s mansion on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where some of the alleged crimes occurred.

Prosecutors wrote in a court filing Monday seeking to keep Epstein behind bars that in a search of Epstein’s home this weekend, investigators “recovered hundreds — and perhaps thousands — of sexually suggestive photographs of fully- or partially- nude females,” some of which appear to be of underage girls. Some of the photographs were found in a locked safe on CDs with handwritten labels such as “Misc nudes 1” and “Girl pics nude,” prosecutors wrote.

“The alleged behavior shocks the conscience,” Berman said, calling the victims “particularly vulnerable.”

[Listen on Post Reports: Matt Zapotosky details the new sex trafficking charges against financier Jeffrey Epstein.]

In court filings and in public statements, law enforcement officials described Epstein as a man of incredible wealth who was able to pay his victims, some as young as 14 years old, to find him others to abuse. Authorities said he was willing to go to great lengths to cover up his behavior and had “practically limitless” avenues to flee and escape justice.

In his previous case, prosecutors wrote, Epstein’s attorneys contemplated having him plead guilty to an obstruction or witness tampering offense, and mentioned to prosecutors an incident in which Epstein apparently hired a private investigator to follow the father of someone involved in the case and force him off the road. They alleged that Epstein was hardly a changed man.

“The defendant, a registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not repentant; rather, he is a continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces devastating evidence supporting deeply serious charges,” prosecutors wrote.

Epstein entered the Manhattan federal court in a blue prison uniform and orange shoes, appearing before two different judges while prosecutors argued that he should continue to remain locked up. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Rossmiller told the judge that Epstein “has every motivation to flee and the means to do it,” and stressed the evidence that he had not changed his ways.

“This is not an individual who has left his past behind,” Rossmiller said.

Reid Weingarten, one of Epstein’s attorneys, argued that his client already was the subject of a “sophisticated” investigation by authorities in Florida, and his team was of the belief there that his plea was a “global agreement” that would prevent further Justice Department prosecution.

“This indictment is a do-over,” said Weingarten, who questioned the legality of the indictment. “We’re talking about ancient conduct.”

Weingarten said Epstein “did his time,” and that he had led a “law-abiding life” since the plea.

According to the new indictment, Epstein recruited young girls to perform “massages,” which would become “increasingly sexual in nature.” He then paid the victims hundreds of dollars in cash for each encounter, according to the indictment.

The indictment also alleges that Epstein “actively encouraged certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused” and that he “incentivized his victims to become recruiters by paying these victim-recruiters hundreds of dollars for each girl they brought to Epstein.”

“This allowed Epstein to create an ever-expanding web of new victims,” Berman said.

Epstein is a financier who once counted among his friends President Trump and former president Bill Clinton. By prosecutors’ account, he lived a life that even the wealthiest people can only dream of.

He owns property around the world — including in Manhattan; Palm Beach, Fla; Stanley, N.M.; and Paris — and has a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, prosecutors wrote in a court filing. His New York mansion, valued at about $77 million, is believed to be one of the single largest residences in all of Manhattan, prosecutors wrote.

Epstein has at least 15 vehicles, including seven Chevrolet Suburbans, a cargo van, a Range Rover, a Mercedes-Benz sedan, a Cadillac Escalade and a Hummer II, and access to two private jets — one of which can fly from continent to continent, prosecutors wrote. In the past 18 months, he traveled in or out of the country more than 20 times, prosecutors wrote.

His alleged victims have long claimed that the criminal justice system treated him differently because of his wealth and political connections, and his treatment has come under significant media and legal scrutiny.

Epstein’s alleged victims have sued in civil court. The Washington Post and the Miami Herald, for example, have detailed in investigative reports how then-U. S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, now Trump’s labor secretary, shelved a 53-page federal indictment that could have put Epstein behind bars for life in favor of the deal that allowed him to plead guilty only to state charges.

Acosta, who declined to comment for this story through a spokesman, has previously defended the arrangement as guaranteeing that Epstein would go to jail. In the wake of the charges being unsealed Monday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), renewed her calls for Acosta to resign.

“The new sex trafficking charges announced today make it agonizingly clear that former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta failed to deliver true justice for the underage girls that Jeffrey Epstein mercilessly exploited,” she said. “Someone with such poor judgment and utter disregard for survivors should not be our Secretary of Labor . . . As Epstein now faces a real accounting for his crimes, it’s time for Acosta to be held responsible for letting Epstein elude real justice for so long.”

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility revealed this year that it was probing whether the attorneys handling the case previously committed “professional misconduct.” At the news conference, law enforcement officials credited the work of investigative journalists with helping move the case forward.

In the new case, Epstein seems to be encountering a far more aggressive Justice Department. He was taken into custody over the weekend at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, where his private jet had just landed from Paris, and jailed pending his court appearance Monday. Federal prison records show he was housed at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. The federal detention center has a fearsome reputation; one inmate who spent time there and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba said the military detention facility was “more pleasant.”

The case is being handled by public corruption prosecutors with Berman’s office, including Maurene Comey, the daughter of former FBI director James B. Comey.

Officials pleaded at the news conference for other victims to come forward to call the FBI’s tip line: 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324). They said that while sex trafficking was often ignored, in their jurisdiction, it would not be.

“Too often, adults in our society have turned a blind eye to this type of criminal behavior,” said William Sweeney, head of the FBI’s office in New York. “I have the privilege to represent and stand among many who make it our mission to put predators behind bars where they belong, regardless of the predators’ power, wealth, or perceived connections.”

He added: “Today I’m asking everyone to take a good look at this man. If you have been victimized in any way, or if you are someone who has any additional information about his alleged illegal behavior, we want to hear from you.”

Since Epstein’s arrest Saturday, multiple attorneys and people claiming to be victims have reached out to federal authorities, Rossmiller said in court.

Prosecutors described in graphic detail Epstein’s alleged crimes, explaining in the indictment how girls as young as 14 would arrive at one of his homes, be escorted to a room with a massage table, and then be instructed to partially or fully undress. Epstein, the indictment alleges, would grope the girls and perform other sex acts.

Epstein sometimes scheduled meetings himself, but often he “directed employees and associates . . . to arrange for these victims to return to the New York Residence for additional sexual encounters with Epstein,” according to the indictment, which says three employees, identified only as Employee-1, Employee-2 and Employee-3, helped arrange the encounters.

When Epstein flew from New York to Florida, an employee or associate would “ensure that minor victims were available for encounters upon his arrival,” the indictment alleges.

It was not immediately clear whether any of those employees will face criminal charges over their alleged conduct, because Epstein’s previous plea deal struck with federal prosecutors in Florida said his co-conspirators would not be charged in that case. The previous plea identifies potential co-conspirators as Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova. Berman declined to comment on possible criminal exposure anyone connected to Epstein might face.

Prosecutors could run into challenges if the new charges overlap with the conduct that was covered by Epstein’s guilty plea, though a person familiar with the case said officials were not particularly concerned about that. Berman said at the news conference that his office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, had not signed on to the previous agreement by prosecutors in Florida and thus was not bound by it.

In the filing urging that Epstein continue to be jailed, prosecutors argued that his previous non-prosecution agreement “did not purport to cover any victims outside of the State of Florida,” and the new indictment alleges that there are dozens of victims “abused in this District in addition to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida.”

Rossmiller, the prosecutor, said in court that the Manhattan case does not cover the same conduct, though there is some overlap. The deal worked out by Florida prosecutors did not specifically prohibit a separate case in another jurisdiction, he said.

While the indictment alleges that Epstein abused dozens of girls, it describes the specific ordeals of three women whom it says Epstein repeatedly abused over years.

Prosecutors said their evidence is strong. They wrote that “multiple victims” had provided information about Epstein which was “detailed, credible, and corroborated, in many instances, by other witnesses and contemporaneous documents, records and other evidence.”

They said they had found “contemporaneous notes” and “messages recovered from the defendant’s residence that include names and contact information for certain victims, and call records that confirm the defendant and his agents were repeatedly in contact with various victims during the charged period.”

“Put simply, all of this evidence — the voluminous and credible testimony of individuals who were sexually abused by the defendant as minors, each of whom are backed up by other evidence — will be devastating evidence of guilt at any trial in this case and weighs heavily in favor of detention,” prosecutors wrote.

Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), who confronted Acosta about his role in the plea deal during a congressional hearing, said: “For too long, Jeffrey Epstein has walked free and avoided the consequences of his crime. There are still many questions to be answered. With that said, this indictment is a positive step toward putting this sexual predator away and giving justice to the survivors.”

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Epstein “should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — power and wealth be damned. This man is a monster and his victims deserve justice.”

Merle reported from New York. Kimberly Kindy and Lisa Rein contributed to this report.

[seoambattur-blog]

Seo Training in Chennai

SEO

 Before you think about clever ways to evade  policies, you should be aware that any trick you can think of has probably been tried before, and that sneaky editing leaves a trail an experienced sleuth can follow. Before you succumb to the dark side, know that the results may be unpleasant, public, and permanent.

 If you are an SEO practitioner who has come to  seeking to increase the link popularity of your site or manage your client reputation, first of all, welcome! Second, we hope you will learn more about how because we want you to be a productive member of our community, rather than a source of linkspam and bias. Before you make any edits, please familiarize yourself with the  of interest guidelines. Also, be aware that page titles can have a "bombing" effect towards topics linked, so be sure to name articles neutrally.

  There are a variety of ways that you can participate in the  community:

If  has an article about your organization, you are welcome to correct link spam or vandalism in your article at any time. If you would like to suggest changes to the article, you can post suggested revisions to the article talk page and ask other editors for help getting the material into the article. You can also announce yourself on the article talk page and offer to provide answers if other editors have any questions about your organization.

Because of, many SEO companies are getting good ranking for their websites. Getting links from high PR sites is one type of strategy in SEO.

If your organization doesn't have an article yet, and you think your organization is notable, find an appropriate category or article talk page and suggest a new article. You can even help start the article and collect references. Ideally, you should post these raw materials in your own user space. You can start a page such as Mypage/Sandbox.

  If a competitor is introducing bias into articles, you can report these incidents in the proper venue. Begin by raising concerns on the article talk page. If that fails to resolve the issue, you can go to the requests for comment page or "third opinion". For obvious violations of  conflict of interest policy, you can file a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.

By participating in articles related to your field, other experts or journalists may notice you, but please avoid self-promotion when editing articles. Participation in  may lead to public relations opportunities. You can create a user page for yourself with a short bio and a link to your personal site to provide more information about yourself.

Many organizations seek to inform and educate the public. By linking to relevant  articles or copying  content to your web site, you can provide value to your audience.

Please help expand and create articles, so long as you follow  policies, guidelines, and community customs. Improving the public understanding of topics that are important to you is a good thing. Again, avoid promoting yourself or your products within articles, and maintain neutral point of view.  is for education, not propaganda.

Remember that you are a guest in  house. While you are here, you will get the warmest reception if you follow house rules and customs. If you don't like the rules, you are welcome to comment on the rules' talk pages and request changes. If you build consensus, you can even edit the rules.

  Edit for hire

 Edit for hire is a very bad idea. Microsoft caused themselves a great deal of bad press by paying someone to edit their  article. The problem with edit for hire is that an editor paid by an organization, being externally motivated, will almost inevitably violate neutral point of view, one of  most important policies.

Instead of edit for hire, you can advise your clients to get involved with relevant articles and Projects. Once they understand what  wants, they can suggest a new article about their organization. Disclosing any commercial connections is a way to increase trust and avoid ethical challenges. If other editors are interested in covering your organization, you can support them by pointing out useful references.

Can  increase your link popularity?

Is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, nor a directory. There is no need to add every website that might be relevant to the external links section of an article. Long lists of external links do not add value to articles, and may reduce article quality by confusing the reader. To help create and maintain high quality of articles, many ns monitorrecent changes for link additions. While an editor may get away with adding unnecessary links to a low profile article for a short time, improper links tend to be deleted immediately from high-profile articles. In any case, when improper links are removed, the editor who added them may receive a spam warning. Editors can be blocked from editing  after receiving several warnings.

  Before adding external links to articles, please read :External links. When citing an external link as a source for a statement, make sure that you have chosen the most reliable sources available.

  All links on  use the nofollow attribute on external links. Google and other search engines claim to disregard such links when calculating link popularity. Certain  pages may also use the noindex robots meta tag value to prevent search engine indexing. You may freely place links on some of these pages, but doing so probably will not help your rankings in the major search engines.

Blacklisting.

  There may be instances where  interest in creating high-quality encyclopedia articles coincides with the interests of businesses that want to better educate the public about particular topics. The  community recommends focusing on the edit, rather than the editor. If a commercial interest is seeking to educate the public, they can possibly add appropriate, neutral point of view material to  without provoking a backlash. Adding spin to  is highly discouraged and will usually result in a rebuke. Likewise, starting an article about a non-notable subject in order to promote the subject will usually result in the article being deleted.

Bite: Can you explain why it a bad idea for a PR firm to be editing  on behalf of a client? How does the  community react to such activity?

Wales: It is a bad idea because of the conflict-of-interest. It is perfectly fine to talk to the community, to show them more information, to give them things that show your client in the best light. But it is wrong to try to directly participate in the process when you have an agenda.

  Paid editing and conflict of interest. If an editor is paid, that signals a likely conflict of interest, but unpaid agents can also face a similar situation. Agents should maintain the same standards of behavior as if they were the principal. Any editor, even the subject of an article, can make certain kinds of edits, for instance: reverting vandalism, and clearing linkspam. To protect their own reputation, agents may announce themselves on the talk page, and place any remotely controversial edits there, so somebody else can add them to the article. In general, a principal interests benefit most by encouraging neutral editors to work on the article. Agents are probably wise to take one step backwards and let the community maintain the article, while they offer support. Agents can, for instance, identify new facts or sources on the talk page so other editors can verify that information and add it to the article. Agents can also offer to answer questions.

 seo training in chennai

[jamesmeroney]

JUST STOP IT!

(Originally posted at Facebook/JimMeroney on 1/3/17)

I have a message addressed specifically to every D.C. politician on both sides of the aisle, extending to all other American politicians and even beyond, to American voters who get wrapped up in our culture and political wars, at least every voting season. When it comes to rude, excessive, demeaning, cussing, insulting, behavior that tears opponents down, has no open-mindedness to hear anyone else’s perspective, and basically makes a fool of themselves in the cause of acquiring power, as Nancy Reagan might say: JUST STOP IT!

I understand that ‘politics is war,’ but as Ross Perot stated, even wars have rules. We saw about the lowest politics can get in 2016, namely at the behest of one person, and most rational citizens were appauled and incensed at the incivility. Some defended by the statement, ‘we’re not electing a pope,’ but, as you’d expect, that statement completely misses the point! We were electing someone to lead our nation, and the hundreds of examples where leadership did NOT display itself truly made this the year America elected a weel-under or even unqualified President.

On the politician’s side, there are obviously not enough or severe enough ethics rules preventing such common place antics as lying, misleading, slandering, and doing everything in ones power to get one up on the ‘enemy.’ In the not so ‘old days’ we labeled these things ‘dirty tricks.’ If this year was precedent, nothing is off limit in our future. And with the foxes in charge of the hen house, there’s little chance of any changes—unless the people put their collective feet down.

On the voter’s side, this sort of behavior often comes from the extreme ends of the scale, usually targeted against the polar opposite extremists. It is unbefitting of our nation, degrades well below gutter level, rarely influences anyone to change, and often makes a fool of yourself and your reputation before God and man.

And even when one party wins, and one party loses, this stupidity often continues with the following three abuses of the Founding Father’s checks and balances concept:

1. Domination, Decimation and Revenge. When a party regains control, they often take that victory as saying all voters have mandated there to be only one party, and the loser virtually has no role and should be ignored. Sometimes, the party out of power is run into the ground with pay backs by ‘winners,’ who seem to never realize that power does not last forever, and turn about can be fair play when they are later, when they are in the same position. This back and forth power exchange, year to year, we call Ping Pong Politics.

2. Full-Time Intentional Gridlock. Do you remember any cases in the recent past of any party specifically strategizing not so much to propose good legislation, but simply to oppose seemingly everything the opponent party’s president proposed, with the express intention of making their presidency appear to have failed? This is morally wrong, and voters demand that Congress pass laws to ban such wrongs by force of law. This is not the same as blocking bad legislation, which is actually a service to humanity.

3. Continual Demonizing and Fighting. Many politicians throw out the red meat in election years, fight each other most of the other time, and basically get paid to accomplish little to nothing. This end game is justified as standing for the politician’s constituent’s interests, but if constituents on opposite ends of the scale have advocates doing both of their bidding, in theory at least (and often in practice), nothing gets done!

Let’s be both clear and transparent. Most politicians are lawyers, and they are trained to argue one side of an issue and let a jury or judge decide who wins. Justice, and seeking common ground with an opponent are totally foreign concepts to attorney-think. The problem is, attorney-think has permeated Washington, and there are no judges or juries there, except ‘we the people’ every two to four (or six) years. So voters are left with a situation in which a lot of heat is generated but not a lot of light. These things have not always been this way.

There was a time, not so long ago, when politicians reached across the aisle and banded together on bills that shared common values. Now days, Washington is run more like the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s, and the pay backs and retaliations and long memories never seem to end. The opponent is not merely an adversary, but an enemy—something evil that must be attacked and annihilated at all costs.

Perhaps, in part, with the rise of talk radio (which has much lower requirements for objectivity than true journalists), this caustic spirit permeates voters, too. Just scan social media, and you see pictures and comments no one in their right mind would have the backbone to do or say about another if they met them face to face (or maybe they would, in which case I’m telling that type of person you need to JUST STOP IT). We can battle and debate issues, even point out flaws and faux paux and anything truthful (though negative) about anyone running for public office, but the day you believe all your views are perfect, you can lean no more, and anyone differing from you is evil, is the day that selfishness has started destroying our country, and our moral decay has started eroding the fabric of our United States.

It’s OK—even normal (or ‘natural’)—to get heated about important subjects, even to argue, and perhaps even name call occasionally (depending on the term), but 2016 was an infamously bottom barrel year for Americans acting civil, as they engaged legitimate public dialogue seeking to influence the other side. At least those of us old enough to have been around awhile know that this was a watershead low year in national politics, and Millennials and the younger generation need to know it was abnormal, unusual, wrong, and not the way many Americans of past generations envisioned our politics ‘evolving.’ No matter how much of it was inspired from the very top, adults of voting age still have self-restraint and consciences, if they choose to use them. I pray, for the good of our country, that we all do so at least a bit better next time. Not Polyanna goody-two shoes morality police type political interactions (perhaps like the Carson campaign), but not to the level that was stooped to this year to secure power!