I’m going out of town for a couple of days. I leave tonight and return Sunday afternoon. I’ll miss you all while I’m gone! Don’t forget to write.
Daily Archives: February 16, 2006
How to write a political ad
I’ve been watching the ads on TV being run by Illinois gubernatorial candidates, and I think I’ve figured out what it takes to write good copy for these things:
- Be as vague as possible. Problems are complex, and people have short attention spans, so steer clear of anything resembling a specific suggestion. In fact, if you can get away with saying only, “Me good, them bad,” just leave it at that.
- Passionately embrace outcomes only a comic-book villain would oppose. For instance, say you’re for “better schools,” “balancing the budget,” and “clean water.” This will set you apart from the other candidates who, I assume, are the Joker and the Riddler.
- Remember, a picture says a thousand lies. Show lots of pictures of yourself spending quality time with your family; that will give your family something to watch while you’re out on the road the next several months shilling for campaign contributions and brokering endorsement deals. And be sure to include the election-winning illusion that you’re spending your mornings in public schools reading to children because you’ve devoted your life to volunteerism.
- Attack your opponent’s record — but more importantly, attack his motives. It’s much easier to win against a corrupt political insider with lust for power than someone who’s simply pursuing a different path to the same goals as you. When talking about your opponent(s), always be sure to show unflattering pictures of them in black and white with an ominous musical underscore. Cynicism and ad hominem attacks are the road to victory.
- Finally, point people to your website, which has the same empty rhetoric as your political ad. This is where you can really put your doublespeak skills to work. An actual, complete quote from one candidate’s website explaining her commitment to leadership: “In every area of State government and especially in the Governor’s office, this State’s high standing for competence and leadership has suffered during the last three years.” The funny thing? This candidate works in state government.
And everyone wonders why voter turnout is so low.
Hotel misplaced?
The Journal Star reports that the Civic Center Authority will be deciding today whether to “enter into land negotiations with an unidentified developer” to build a hotel adjacent to the Civic Center.
Isn’t there already a hotel near the Civic Center called the Hotel Pere Marquette? Granted, it’s not immediately adjoining, but do they really think that the extra block is driving convention-goers away? I mean, everyone went apoplectic at the threat of an Embassy Suites going up right across the river. If convention guests are willing to commute from across the river, it doesn’t look like proximity is the main problem.
I’m guessing the Pere was looking forward to the Civic Center expansion. More events at the Civic Center means more guests at the hotel. Only now, if the Civic Center Authority approves this development, all those extra guests will be going to the new Civic Center hotel.
Of course, that’s capitalism, so more power to them. Still, I can’t help but think this hotel is misplaced. Wouldn’t it be better, say, down on Museum Square? You know, like the Heart of Peoria Plan suggested?
Huh (*shakes head*). The Heart of Peoria Plan . . . how passé.
Still . . . on . . . dialup . . .
But I’m thinking of switching to a faster connection, and I’m seriously thinking of DSL through SBC. Any advice? Recommendations? Cautions? I see from my logs that several of you out there use SBC; are you happy with the service? Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Where’s the scorn for enforcement of handicapped parking?
Remember how radio personalities, city council members, and office water-cooler gatherers laughed and scorned the Peoria police for their enforcement of jaywalkers just a few days ago? Oh, how ridiculous, they said. That law is dumb, they scoffed. The police should be focusing on real crime instead of just trying to score some easy income from fines.
Where was all that scorn when this story came out about handicapped parking?
Peoria hiked its fine from $200 to $350 and also launched a crackdown dubbed “Operation Helping Hands.”
A parking enforcement officer was assigned to randomly check handicapped spaces throughout the city and issue tickets, and police officers were instructed to step up enforcement in their districts.
An organized crackdown? Higher fines? An officer specifically assigned to do nothing but “randomly check handicapped spaces throughout the city and issue tickets”? Where are all the armchair police chiefs decrying this waste of department resources? Is this really more important than all that “real crime” they were castigated for not fighting just a few days ago? Why didn’t Councilman Morris have anything to say about the “heavy-handedness” of upping the fine to $350? Doesn’t he think the police should just hand out warnings to handicapped-parking scofflaws? Why didn’t Councilman Sandberg point out that able-bodied people often use their handicapped relative’s placards so they can park close, and then argue that this loophole invalidates the whole system?
See, people really do think that ordinances are worthy of being enforced, even though they’re not “real crime” and aren’t always foolproof — they just don’t want the police to enforce ordinances they don’t like. That’s understandable for radio personalities and water-cooler loiterers, but the city council should have stood up for the police like Barbara Van Auken did a week ago. In fact, I think several council members owe the police an apology for castigating them for doing their job.
The Park District, the aquifer, and the other side of the story
There are always two sides to every story, so today we’ll look at PDC’s side of the aquifer question. Here to defend PDC is a surprise advocate: the Peoria Park District.
The mission statement of the Peoria Park District is “To enrich life in our community through stewardship of the environment and through provision of quality recreation and leisure opportunities.” One definition of “stewardship” is “caring for land and associated resources and passing healthy ecosystems to future generations.”
Imagine my surprise when I happened upon this letter from the Park District urging approval of PDC’s landfill expansion. The letter states, in part, “We have served PDC as a supplier over the past several years. It is crucial for the PDC siting application to be approved . . . The economic impact to our organization may be substantial if we cannot count on PDC’s business due to the closure of the PDC No. 1 landfill.”
That raises a couple of questions in my mind. First of all, what is the Park District supplying to PDC? And secondly, why are they in favor of the expansion? I called the park district to ask and got to speak with none other than Parks Director Bonnie Noble herself.
She was an unapologetic advocate for the landfill expansion. In response to my initial question about what the Park District supplies PDC, she said that when they were building the Riverplex, PDC helped them remove and dispose of some underground storage tanks, plus they handle waste from the zoo. Also, PDC provides all the waste receptacles and clean-up for riverfront events.
She went on to state why she wholeheartedly supports the expansion. She feels there is a lot of misinformation being spread by opponents of the landfill. For instance, she disputes the contention that the landfill is located over the Sankoty aquifer. It’s actually over the “Shelbyville outwash,” she contends. I can’t find any independent verification of that, but I’m not a geologist, of course. However, PDC’s application does make a similar distinction:
The Lower Sand [of the local geology] is a side-valley outwash facies of the Sankoty Formation. It is an immature, poorly-sorted, brown, fluvial sand that was deposited by local tributary streams that discharged from the west into the ancestral Mississippi River Valley. The side-vally outwash facies should not be confused with the Sankoty Sand. The Sankoty Sand is a mature, well-sorted, fluvial sand that was deposited directly by the ancestral Mississippi River. The sand grains of the Sankoty Sand are distinctly-pink and uniformly of pure quartz composition . . . The sedimentary bedrock forms an impermeable hydrogeologic basement. The existing PDC No. 1 landfill and the proposed landfill expansion are or will be constructed in the Upper Till. Perched groundwater is discontinuously present in isolated sand lenses within the Upper Till.
The implication seems to be that this “side-valley outwash facies” is a separate entity from the Sankoty aquifer. This portion of PDC’s application is certified by two Illinois-licensed professional geologists who conclude after considerable analysis, “the proposed expansion is favorably designed and located to prevent any adverse impact on the groundwater.”
I hope they’re right.
Noble also took issue with calling the waste PDC received “toxic.” She felt that calling it “toxic waste” played on people’s emotions, and that a more appropriate name would be “hazardous waste.” I won’t argue with her on opponents’ transparent effort to play on people’s emotions. But I don’t think it’s overstating the point to describe this waste as “toxic.” The EPA describes the chemicals PDC takes in as “toxic,” so I have to disagree with Noble on that point.
So, how do I feel about it now? Well, my previous post on this topic was predicated on the belief that the landfill expansion was going to be over the Sankoty, and I was concerned about the increased risk to our drinking water. If the expansion is not over the Sankoty and there is no increased risk, then I guess my primary concern has been answered.
On the other hand, I’m never going to have warm-fuzzy feelings about hazardous waste. And I’m never going to be pleased that we’re accepting this waste from ten other states. But until I hear expert testimony from the other side — say, another licensed geologist or two — I can’t very well just dismiss the opinions of the geologists in PDC’s application.
Overall, I’m in agreement with other commenters who advocate attacking this problem from the supply-side. How can we avoid producing toxic waste in the first place? And what can be done to recycle it instead of burying it? Those are the questions we need to be asking so we can find an ultimate solution to our toxic waste problems.
And I still think it’s weird that the Park District advocates expanding a toxic-waste landfill. Isn’t that kind of like a vegetarian advocating the expansion of Alwan & Sons Meat Company?