PAPA JOHN'S POSTAL SERVICE-PART 1

By now, we have all heard about John Schnatter's (Papa John's CEO) "Obamacare" comments. 

First he complained this August over the projected 11-14 cents per pizza pie he says it would cost to give his employees the required healthcare under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). As reported by Politico, Schnatter offered the following comments to his shareholders:

"We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare,"1

Schnatter added:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests,"1

Then the day after President Obama won re-election, Schnatter stated some employees' schedules may get cut to under 30 hours/week.2 Under the new law, employers are exempt from the requirements of providing healthcare to part-time workers, which the law defines as less than 30 hours/week.

As a CEO, it is generally bad business to politicize your brand. You are bound to offend millions of potential customers. The optics here with Schnatter's Papa John's are even more dangerous. Politicizing "Obamacare" over complaints that it will cost 11-14 cents per pizza to give healthcare to your workers, while simultaneously running a promotion to give away 2 million free pizzas is nothing but bad publicity.

Look at the lavish mansion Schnatter lives in, complete with private golf course and 22 car garage. The aerial photo of his estate is making the rounds online faster than cats asking for cheeseburgers. Contrast that image with Schnatter's complaint that up to 14 cents per pie is such an unreasonable burden to ensure healthy workers, and even Mr. Burns wants to boycott Papa John's.

Even worse, consider that Schnatter's mansion was the site of Romney's fundraiser where Mitt offered a slew of financially elitist statements including the now infamous 47% quote. The embedded video here includes the question to Romney that set him up to give his 47% soliloquy.

"For the past three years, all everybody's been told is 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you.' How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody, you've got to take care of yourself?"

The video is both filmed and purposefully obscured to ensure no identities are clear beyond Mitt Romney's, so we don't know who actually asked the question. The one person we do know was there besides Mitt however, is John Schnatter. The very real possibility that it was John Schnatter himself who asked this question is undeniable.

Regardless of who asked the question, consider that the 11-14 cents per pie is Schnatter's assertion, with no math offered to support that claim. Forbes' staff writer Caleb Melby does the math for us.3 Surprise. His results show far less cost per Papa John's pizza pie to fully implement "Obamacare". About 3.4 to 4.6 cents per pie.

Either way, when considering just how burdensome "Obamacare" really is on Papa John's business, recall Schnatter's quote from August:

"We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare,"1

There is no doubt that despite all the tax breaks in the Affordable Care Act for small businesses that provide healthcare to their employees, insuring more employees will certainly not be free. Yet wherever the true maximum costs for Papa John's lays in between the two assertions of 4.6 cents and 14 cents, we cannot overlook that Papa John's has a history of gaining more money from customers, yet hiding those price increases through mislabeled "fees". Again, recall Schnatter's statement from August:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests,"1

Try ordering a Papa John's delivery. They tack on a "delivery fee" of usually around $2-3. Sounds fair enough, only that "delivery" fee does not go to the delivery driver.4 It is instead a tactic to shallow out costs and pass that onto consumers in order to protect shareholders' best interests. 

Note the effect this "delivery fee" tends to have on the delivery drivers when customers refuse to tip them, thinking that the fee added on to their bill has already taken care of that. So is it unrealistic to think that Schnatter would simply use "Obamacare" as an excuse to somehow raise prices and/or cut costs?

No. Of course not. He's already been blaming others for mislabeled price increases for many years.

Put all that together and no wonder there has been great backlash against Papa John's.  

The irony here is that over the last 4 years, Papa John's has experienced tremendous growth. Since President Obama's inauguration, the stock price has more than tripled! Yet since Schnatter's talk of potential cutbacks in employee hours to get around the "Obamacare" requirements, the backlash has already done damage equal to the entire 8 years of Papa John's stock growth under President Bush. The specifics are laid out here.5 Graphics and all.

Granted, that stock price drop now has two drivers. First there is the consumer backlash to Schnatter's comments and priorities. There is also now worry over a $250M lawsuit against Papa John's for illegal text message spamming of their customers in 2010. Even though the lawsuit is likely to fail because it was a third-party company that Papa John's hired to do the ads for them, the fact that this lawsuit has already passed it's first hurdle only acts to hurt Papa John's stock price. As Schnatter offers concerns that 14 cents per pizza pie is too heavy a burden, compare that to the effects (both best case and worst case scenario) of this lawsuit.

Click here to see the math

Schnatter is not the only food chain CEO to politicize "Obamacare" and announce they will do anything to ensure any "Obamacare" related costs come from employees and customers and not their profits.

Take Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches CEO Jimmy John Liautaud. In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Oct. 15 this year, these extracted quotes follow the same talking points as Schnatter's comments, only he is first upfront about how well his business has done in the last 4 years:6

"the last four years have been very good to us"
"60,000 hourly workers"
"bring 'em down to 28 hours"
"there's no other way we can survive it"
"we think it will cost us 50 cents a sandwich"

Given what we already know about Papa John's, these statements from Liautaud sound awfully suspicious, especially the "no other way we can survive it" and "we think it will cost us 50 cents a sandwich" comments. However, without any math being shown, all we can do for now is be suspicious.

Given that these men are the CEOs of their franchises, they deserve more scrutiny over their entire brand name, as they generally have the power to pass policy down the chain from their minds to implementation by individual franchisees.

Already "experimenting" with the no full-time employees approach is Darden Restaurants.7 Among others, the company operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse chains. They are now testing a 28 hours/week policy for all employees at "a select number" of restaurants in four markets.

Consider though the drop in labor costs they have already squeezed out. In 2010, Darden's labor costs were 33.1% of sales. It has steadily dropped to 30.8%.

3 out of 4 restaurants surrounding this mall are Darden restaurants.

But did they gain that extra profit through unethical labor practices?8 It's possible. Especially if you consider the charges and practices covered in this July article about another one of their restaurants, Capital Grille. They discuss underpayments, forcing workers to work off the clock, denial of overtime, and using servers' tips to supplement the pay of other non-tipped workers. Will such practices be pushed to the limits to squeeze every last penny from labor costs across all Darden restaurants? If so, will they then blame it on "Obamacare"?

Note that other individual restauranteurs are jumping on the "I'll cut employees' hours" bandwagon as a protest to "Obamacare".

Zane Tankel runs 40 Applebees franchises. While not CEO of the entire Applebees franchise system, Tankel is CEO of Apple-Metro, managing 40 New York area Applebees restaurants. He has publicly noted that he is considering the reduction in worker's hours for the Applebees restaurants he operates, but has yet to make any decision.9

It is fair to note that in the same interview, Tankel also offers a swirl of conflated comments over unions. He says that when he saw the President of the United Steelworkers Union speak, he likened it to him having just invaded Benghazi and won. He goes on to summarize that it was "truly a declaration of war", repeating that the Union President said he won.

Additionally, Tankel spoke of President Obama. "I think he's got to sit down and he's got to get in a closet, a dark closet.... Forget about dinner with Malia and his wife and all the kids. Invite the various parties over to the White House...Have them for dinner instead of quitting and going to dinner with family."9

Now I've heard the saying many times about locking differing parties in a room until they hammer out a compromise. But I've never heard someone proclaim that anyone, let alone the President of the United States, has got to get in a closet, let alone a dark closet. Is this a New York colloquialism I am not familiar with, or is the statement something else? I honestly cannot say.

Then there is John Metz, a Denny's franchisee. He openly commented about adding a 5% Obamacare surcharge to every bill, suggesting that customers could accordingly reduce their tip to their server.

Immediately afterwards, other Denny's locations saw drops in sales and got angry phone calls about Metz's comments.

Denny's CEO John Miller was not too pleased about that. In a Huffington Post article 10, he says:

"...his [Metz's] comments suggesting that guests might reduce the customary tip provided to their server as an offset to his proposed surcharge are inconsistent with our values and approach to business throughout our brand."

Currently, no such surcharges exist, nor are there any plans at the moment for any such Obamacare surcharge at any Denny's. Especially given the immediate backlash at the very mention of it by Metz, the idea is not likely to resurface.

This highlights the complicated interplay between corporate brand as a whole and the individual franchisee. Metz's Obamacare surcharge comments hurt other Denny's franchisees, even though they had no connection to Metz or his comments. Even Schnatter as CEO of the whole Papa John's brand has done damage to franchisees, many of whom ironically, are already exempt from providing healthcare to their employees by being small enough to have fewer than 50 employees.

But as the handful of restaurant companies and franchisees have been making headlines with their threats of surcharges and cutbacks in employees' hours all in the name of protesting "Obamacare", so has the backlash against such politicized actions. The backlash has been growing faster than the rate of business owners jumping on the anti-Obamacare bandwagon.

Note Schnatter's recent post Huffington Post contribution - "The Real Scoop on Papa John's and Obamacare".11 He clarifies that he never said he was going to cut jobs or close stores in response to "Obamacare". Frankly, I never saw that reported anywhere, but we all know there are many sources of really bad "reporting", so nonetheless, the clarification is not only just, but almost certainly factually true. Just as I'm sure is the following quote:

"And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act."

Of course not. Even if all you did before was contemplate the idea and not plan it, it's already been shown that the potential backlash may cost even more than any potential savings.

But trying to give the appearance that the idea of reducing all employees to part-time status was never a serious consideration from his standpoint as CEO is where the offered transcription belies the goal.

When asked if franchise owners would do this, Schnatter responded:

"Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do."

Schnatter then clarifies that the reporter was asking him wether franchise owners would do this, not him as the CEO. The distinction is much harder to make when you as the CEO then answer "It's common sense." and offer no clarification that you as Papa John's CEO do not support the idea.

Nonetheless, Schnatter has now gone on record in his own words stating that he has no plans to cut workers' hours in response to the Affordable Care Act. That statement however does not negate the original statement he offered on "Obamacare" back in August:

"If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests,"1

If you noted the title of this piece, you may be asking by now what does all this have to do with the Postal Service. For the answer, be sure to read the next Liberal Heart, Moderate Mind post - the second half of this piece, coming soon...

1 - http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/papa-johns-obamacare-will-raise-pizza-prices-131331.html

2 - Jessica Lipscomb reported in Naplenews.com- http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/nov/07/papa-johns-ceo-obamacare-likely-to-raise-costs/

3 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/11/12/breaking-down-centi-millionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/

4 - http://tipthepizzaguy.com/qna/2dollarfee.html

5 - http://www.mediaite.com/online/papa-johns-pizza-stock-price-tripled-under-president-obama/

6 - http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2012/10/16/jimmy-johns-founder-business-owners-unsure-future

7 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-10-07/business/os-darden-part-time-workers-20121007_1_darden-restaurants-health-insurance-olive-gardens

8 - http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13585/restaurant_workers_target_unsavory_labor_practices_at_darden/

9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtrcxQwdquU&feature=player_embedded

10 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/john-metz-dennys-obamacare-surcharge-_n_2146735.html

11 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-h-schnatter/papa-johns-obamacare_b_2166209.html

DON'T VOTE!

I've got friends on the left, and I've friends on the right

I've got friends with a great libertarian plight

Of not having a candidate perfectly suited

To implement instantly everything rooted

In policy preferences seen as ideal

So they offer a statement that's simply surreal.

A phrase that they like to repeatedly claim -

That all of their choices are simply the same.

A rhetoric running now rampant and wild

That says 'cause our choices are too tame and mild,

A stand we should take - and the rest I do quote -

"The best choice of all is to simply NOT VOTE!"

Both candidates suffer big money donations

So surely they're equal in needing damnations

As issues exist where they both are remiss

Then everything else they will simply dismiss

But in tax codes and health care and energy sources

For millions of people the outcome of course is

No trivial matter they just can ignore

For they deeply impact all their lives to the core

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

Tested by ideological purity

FEMA and help to the poor through food aid

One candidate strengthens, the other would raid.

One views these programs as social contracts

The other as means to extract for more tax

breaks for status quo wealthy at any expense.

The other guy thinks this just makes no damn sense.

One will undo real accomplished big missions

And quickly return pre-existing conditions.

The other stands firm in these patient protections

Rather than health care through ER collections.

Rights of women is something that one would ensure.

The other would weaken and fully obscure

From day one all the progress that women have gained

And sign legislation to keep them restrained.

The candidate paying just 13 percent

Has balls to ask where all the tax money went.

Entitlements all - he says we must cut

As he lives in extreme economic self glut

The election DOES matter, the differences glaring

No matter the claims some are generally swearing.

For millions of people the stakes are quite high

To say any different is simply a lie.

So on who wins the ballots contested so fierce,

Illusion of similar outcomes let's pierce...

Or if you prefer this deceit to promote

Then sure, by all means, then really DON"T VOTE!

For more goodies like this, visit www.SnarkySigns.com

or find SnarkySigns on Facebook

Women and the GOP - a poem

I just finished animating this poem I did earlier this year. In the style of Dr. Seuss, the poem expresses my disgust with Congressional Republicans' focus not on jobs, but women's reproductive choices and access to such services.

The poem

If you like this, you can see many more images at SnarkySigns. 

On Facebook, visit the SnarkySigns page. Or visit www.SnarkySigns.com 

Currently, the Facebook page has the entire SnarkySigns album.

THE FUTURE OF DELMARVA PUBLIC RADIO

The Eastern Shore region of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia is known as Delmarva. The local public radio network features 2 stations. WSCL 89.5FM programs Classical Music, award-winning local news, and NPR. WSDL 90.7FM focuses on NPR talk radio. Together they are known as Delmarva Public Radio (DPR).

DPR is facing a real problem right now. Drastic changes are being seriously considered. Tuesday night was the only public forum on its future. 

WSCL 89.5FM began in 1987. Since its inception, it has been a partnership with Salisbury University (SU). Both DPR and SU had different names back then, but SU has housed the local public radio's operation from the beginning. Through the Salisbury University Fund (SUF), it has also had the oversight in securing not only that partnership, but the financial stability and future of the stations.

DPR was always told its home at SU was secure. But now there is a kink in that lifeline. DPR has been housed in Caruthers Hall from day one. Caruthers Hall is scheduled for demolition this Spring. The kick in the pants? This demolition is not news. It has been part of the plan for SU's growth for a decade now. DPR has been told all along not to worry. Even though any plans for DPR's new location have yet to be offered, their home at SU is safe.

Then comes Mother Nature and an economic recession. 

DPR's tower was hit by lightning last year. With a cost of over $100,000 to replace that, and budgets tightening from listeners and state coffers alike, DPR is now running in the red. The SUF did not have assets secured to cover such emergency costs.

DPR is not allowed to raise such funds outside of normal pledge drives, so not only did the SUF fail to be prepared for such an emergency as lightning, DPR had no means to secure such vital "rainy day" (or "lightning day") emergency funds.

Now, with no prior warning of any problems, SUF publicly released in September a report they contracted from the consultant group Public Radio Capital (PRC). This report was ordered to offer opinions and options on the sustainability and future of Delmarva Public Radio (DPR). 

PRC's report offers four options. First is the status quo option which it concludes is not sustainable and forecasts will only increase deficits every year. 

Option two is the "repeater" option where WSDL would drop the NPR talk programs and simply broadcast the same signal as WSCL. This they say would not produce the required financial savings.

The third option is the "PSOA Scenario". Under this proposal, current DPR staff would be let go and another broadcaster would contract to take over running the stations at reduced staff. Additionally, WSDL would be converted to "AAA" format. Translation - end the NPR talk radio and replace it with modern rock music.

From their own report, PRC states:

"As the operator takes over broadcasting on WSDL-FM, DPR will reduce expenses through elimination of news program acquisition, cuts in local programming, and reductions in various other expenses."

Despite painting this as the best scenario, PRC also says that this "…will result in loss of revenue in the first few years…"

The last option they present is one of license transfer to a new non-profit. They claim to have "discovered no local evidence that this scenario is either desirable or feasible", concluding in bold type that "Given the low probability of success, PRC cannot recommend the License Transfer Scenario."

In short, what PRC is proposing is a PSOA with 2 key elements: 

1) WSDL changes format to adult rock and reduces personnel to a skeleton staff. 

2) WSCL drastically scales back on NPR, local news, and in-house Classical programming.

However, given that DPR is often awarded for its local content, it will remain, but in a reduced capacity. Again from the PRC report:

"Finally, a PSOA does not come at the expense of local programming. While there may be less, what will remain or be created will fit best practices for public radio."

Best practices rarely means best services. It almost invariably means cheapest method. 

Consider the state of for profit radio stations today. No in depth news. That costs too much. Even headline news cuts profit. Many have automated music systems with a low paid babysitter. Most stations don't even go that far, opting instead to have one announcer pre-record intros and outros, program them into the computer, then leave the system to broadcast 24/7 while only paying a single announcer for a few hours of recording and programming. Best practices. Skeleton staff. Profit first. Quality last. 

Best practices in the realm of public radio may mean the same thing but with slightly better quality. Target vs. Wal-Mart maybe, but regardless of how "best practices" are sold as an abstract solution, it is a virtual guarantee of quality decline. Further consider how for profit radio stations competing in "best practices" are bought and sold faster than banks. Start to forego quality in public radio programming, even in desperate financial squeezes, and It is a foreseeable slippery slope to the loss of a national asset that is even more vital in today's over-saturation of sensationalism masquerading as journalism.

The reality though is that DPR is in this bind now. Lightning strike on the broadcast tower, fast approaching demo date for Caruthers Hall, and an economy improving too slowly to quickly resolve this dilemma. While it appears they dropped the ball in letting a situation advance to such a dire point without addressing it long ago, the board of the SUF is now faced with hard choices. 

The SUF board purchased the report from PRC. In September, they made the report public. On Tuesday Oct. 16, they held a public forum on the matter where PRC made its presentation, and the public was invited to comment. Well over 200 people attended. Dennis Hamilton delivered the PRC presentation.

The crowd gathers for the public hearing on the future of Delmarva Public Radio

Speaking of the status quo option, Hamilton stated that no matter who wins the coming election, "the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is going to be cut. Period." 

Federal funding for public broadcasting doesn't go direct to NPR or Big Bird, but instead to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). CPB then helps fund public broadcasting in areas that are in most need. On average, every federal dollar invested this way into public broadcasting is matched sixfold with listener and sponsor donations. In more rural areas, the CPB funding plays a heavier role. Frankly, though federal funding for public broadcasting is small, it does make the very real difference in many rural areas wether or not they have access to Big Bird and NPR.

However, federal funding is a related but separate issue here. There have been Conservative efforts to end such federal funding of public broadcasting for as long as there has been federal funding for public broadcasting. In the end those efforts to eliminate such taxpayer support have been stopped every time due to the public outcry of support over the value they bring to every community.

Still, Hamilton uses an expectation of withdrawal of federal contributions to public broadcasting as a bullet point in predicting an increasing financial unsustainability of Delmarva Public Radio. Hamilton later clarified that his statement on CPB being cut no matter election outcomes was just his opinion.

When offering a market analysis of public radio on Delmarva, Hamilton's presentation focused on the increased number of public radio channels in the region. 

On the other side of the Chesapeake Bay from Delmarva is the Washington, DC/Baltimore area. In recent years, public radio stations from that market have added repeater stations in Delmarva. These channels do not focus on Delmarva. They do however broadcast traffic conditions in DC and Baltimore. While hearing such updates may be a nice little reminder of why many have decided to live in the more peaceful Delmarva area rather than the hustle and bustle of Baltimore/DC, such information does nothing to serve the Delmarva public radio listenership.

Still, they are competition for public radio listeners on Delmarva. Hamilton presented a graphic of overlapping circles showing the reach of all the public radio frequencies in the region. There is overlap, and Hamilton saw no value in that. He asked if this is what was intended in the creation of public broadcasting by having "…these valuable channels duplicating one another…". Then he asked how we could "…rationalize and better use these channels here."

Hamilton was pointing to the overlap of public broadcasters in the area as an example of market saturation and rationale for DPR to drastically alter its broadcasts in response. I later thanked him for this presentation when I had my chance to speak. His chart of broadcast area circles may have been justification to him for PRC's proposals, but they also served to visualize a point I went there to make.

The largest circle with the widest reach in the area is WSCL. Classical programming by day, award-winning local segments, and vital NPR standards like Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Via WSCL 89.5FM, this core of Delmarva Public Radio still reaches more of the region than any public broadcasting frequencies added since 1987. A change in programming on WSCL would be far more than just one less frequency with which to receive NPR on Delmarva. It would mean large areas of Delmarva would lose their ONLY frequency with which they can receive NPR.

Many in the Delmarva area regularly commute to and from the metropolitan areas of DC and Baltimore. This requires travel along Route 50 over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. As it stands now, the broadcast reach of public broadcasters in that metropolitan area extends only a short distance beyond the Bay Bridge before the signal degrades. That outer reach is roughly the same area where WSCL's signal begins to be solid. It is a simple task to hear All Things Considered in its entirety by switching from a western shore station to WSCL or vice versa. Eliminate NPR duplication on WSCL, and you simply lose access to NPR content for a good portion of that drive. 

The travelers this affects is not something to be taken lightly. Not only are the metropolitan areas west of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge business and work places of many who live on the Delmarva Eastern Shore, the Delmarva area is an oft-visited getaway for thousands of Washington, DC and Baltimore area residents.

The support for DPR extends beyond just the Delmarva Eastern Shore it directly services. Contrary to rumors that State officials seek to cut DPR, its value is recognized by many. Following Dennis Hamilton's PRC presentation Tuesday night, Mike Pretl gave a presentation on behalf of Friends of Delmarva Public Radio. He said:

"We have spoken to a number of State officials -- in the General Assembly, the Higher Education Commission, and Governor O'Malley's office -- about whether pressure was being asserted on the University to divest itself of DPR or other community assets or projects.  We were told reliably, that to the contrary, such a measure regarding our public radio station would be regarded as short-sighted by State officials, who believe that our scattered universities should play a productive role in the communities they were created to serve."

The board of SUF has decisions to make. They got their recommendations from PRC, and not one of them was good. The drastic proposals all centered around financial shortcuts over long-term quality. The SUF board also had the public hearing, and from that they saw the strength of support DPR has from every corner where its signal can be heard. 

Following any of PRC's proposals will not be easy. Any decisions they make regarding the future of DPR must now be carefully weighed against not only the economic, but also the long-term benefit of all the positive branding and goodwill DPR brings to Salisbury University. For 25 years, DPR's partnership with SU has synergistically benefitted both the region and the University alike. To follow the recommendations of PRC would put that all at risk.

Before deciding, I would suggest looking closer at the history of what PRC has actually done with the capital of other public radio they have been dealt with. The integrity of public radio they claim to protect through their involvement is contradicted in more than one instance. They have even been called the Bain Capital of public radio. This linked article offers a multitude of detailed examples:

http://keeppublicradiopublic.com/2011/08/26/public-radio-capital-money-from-the-sky/

Suffice it to say that getting involved with Public Radio Capital(PRC) beyond simply purchasing a report of their opinions is not likely to offer a path of long-term sustainability and integrity. Nor is such a compact likely to result in anything but a profit for PRC, regardless of how DPR fares in those dealings.

Note in the linked article that PRC has a history of being the PSOA and even lowball purchasing public radio stations for themselves.

Then consider these two phrases from PRC's report to DPR:

"A PSOA gives the owner the flexibility of selling the station at the conclusion of the PSOA term, or extending the term of the PSOA."

"By executing an option agreement, which can be attached to a PSOA, the operator could acquire the station at a predetermined price."

PRC may list any potential PSOA as "to be determined" in their reports, but they are at the ready to become that PSOA if they can profit.

Is that where this is heading for Delmarva Public Radio? I certainly can't say for sure. But I can't allow that to happen without me having at least asked these pertinent questions.

In the Delmarva Region, it is true that there is overlap in signal delivery. I can tell you from experience that in some areas of the region, I can pick up All Things Considered on 4 or 5 stations. I also can tell you that signal strength and stability for any given station depends on where you are in the region part of the region. In almost all areas, WSCL is the strongest and clearest signal. As described, in many, especially as you head toward the Chesapeake Bay, WSCL is the ONLY signal.

Hamilton offered concern over "…these valuable channels duplicating one another…", but I offer concern in dismantling that duplication. There are two aspects of duplication. Complete duplication where not only content, but time aired is consistent from one channel to the next. I rely on this when traveling so that I may have unbroken access to All Things Considered. Secondly, there is content duplication aired at differing times. I rely on this as well, especially on weekends so I have far greater chance of catching my favorite NPR weekend programs at the moment I must travel. 

This may seem to some like I just feel entitled to an expensive convenience that I do not have to pay for. Frankly, given the great worth that comes from our public broadcasting, it can be difficult at times to not individually feel over-rewarded by public broadcasting when only looking at public radio financing and what any one listener actually pays for that service. That reward however is never limited to the convenience of individual listeners. Every listener gains individually from public broadcasting. That is multiplied thousands of times over to an audience that may be tuning in one radio at a time, but is still far larger than an audience of one. Society itself benefits. 

Though the tangibles of these benefits may be hard to quantify, they are indeed great. The costs of their loss must be seriously considered before allowing economic concerns to dictate even the smallest degree of compromise on the integrity of these broadcasts. Once compromises on quality begin in the name of economics, the compromises will never stop. The excellence that is Delmarva Public Radio will cease to exist even in reduced form.

SU always has, and continues to offer tremendous value to the whole region. Arts programs, debate hosting, educational outreach all are open to not just the students of SU, but to the community at large. The enrichment not just to Salisbury, MD, but to the region at large is an invaluable core of SU. DPR has been an ingrained part of that outreach for 25 years. I thank the board for having this public hearing and not just jumping on PRC's report. I for one hope that the board of the SUF finds a way continue the partnership between SU and DPR that the whole region benefits from. 

Note that this public forum on the future of Delmarva Public Radio was on the same night as the second Presidential debate. Lousy scheduling, sure. However, on the drive home, I was able to listen to the debate in progress. The channel that carried the debate? WSDL 90.7FM. The same channel being proposed by PRC to either be sold or change formats to rock music. Ironic.

To read the report from Public Radio Capital (PRC) on Delmarva Public Radio:

http://www.salisbury.edu/foundation/docs/SUF-DPR-Report-8-30-2012.pdf

Facebook offers White pages

-------------------UPDATE - Since this article was posted, Facebook no longer hosts such a page! Thanks to J. Porter for  noting this update.---------------------------


There is a new player in the community of Facebook Pages. It is likely to get much attention. Hopefully it will get very few "Likes".

The page is titled "Let's put a white man back in the White House".

If you think the name may just be some kind of sarcasm or sensationalism not really indicative of racial hatred, you would have a hard time defending that benefit of the doubt once looking at what is actually there. 

First, their self-description:

"Electing Obama to office was a huge mistake. Even though he is only a half breed it was his black side running our country and spending out of control."

In this screenshot, notice the pages liked by the administrator:

When I learned of this Facebook page this morning, they had 17 Likes. As of this writing, they have 23.

Facebook claims this page does not violate their code of Community Standards. That decision is hard to defend when you actually read Facebook's standards.

Note Facebook's specific text "…it is a serious violation to attack a person based on their race, ethnicity, national origin…"

Facebook's code of page conduct or "Community Standards"

Attacking the President of the United States solely on the basis of his race is about as clear and blatant a violation of that Facebook code as one could put forth.

But Facebook says they were "not able to confirm that the specific page" violates any code of Facebook conduct.

I wonder if Facebook's ability to confirm this pages's blatant purpose "…to attack a person based on their race, ethnicity…" would dramatically improve if they get enough violation reports.

Facebook offers the option to report a page as inappropriate

VP debate - substance AND style

Watching the Vice Presidential debate this evening, there a few moments that made it stand apart from the first Obama/Romney debate.

Like President Obama, Joe Biden brought real substance. Like Romney, Biden also brought real style as well.

Few politicians can properly add a smirk and a smile and not look condescending. When calling BS on a debate opponent's blatant BS, the risk of immediately "losing" the debate due to style is a very real danger. Optics matter. Even if your substance has fact-checkers declaring that nearly every statement you made were falsehoods, optics are what make a candidate most connect to viewers. Roll your eyes at even the most insane obvious flat-out lie, and you likely lose just for that one facial expression. It is a rare political gift to be able to simultaneously express umbrage, humility and a smile at an opponent's unsubstantiated claims, and not lose a sense of connection to the audience as a result.

Joe Biden has that gift.

In tonight's Vice-Presidential debate, during Paul Ryan's first answer, Joe called it a bunch of malarkey.

In that statement alone, delivered with a confidence and a smile, Joe Biden offered what Obama supporters have been complaining about since the first debate. Where President Obama failed to call Mitt Romney a liar, Joe Biden did so in the opening question.

There will no doubt be plenty of people who will see Joe Biden not as a combination of both likable AND strong in a debate, but bullying. You are sure to hear complaints of Joe's interruptions to Paul Ryan's answers. I suspect you will hear few left leaning people offer such a criticism, and I suspect you will comically hear plenty of right-leaning people passionately argue such a charge. Even after praising Mitt Romney for "winning" his debate, despite the multitude of inaccuracies (to put it kindly).

Those who are already ardently against Obama/Biden will not connect to him no matter how assertive nor how meek he may come across in a debate. No debate "win" or "loss" will change their view. Yet for those who support or mildly lean toward even a potential of support for Obama/Biden, a facial expression that comes off as condescending could easily push away potential support. This risk was higher for President Obama than it was for Vice-President Joe Biden. Biden simply has that political gift.

Tonight, he used it to full effect. The debate format was more open than the first Presidential debate. Biden took full advantage of that and jumped in whenever Ryan offered rhetoric without 'rithmetic. Paul Ryan's unsubstantiated talking points were hammered to a dull speck before he even finished his sentence. Joe Biden pulled that off with ease.

Even when Joe was the target of a Ryan zinger, Joe stung back with much more purpose. After Paul Ryan comments that the words don't always come out of Joe Biden's mouth the right way, Joe stabs at Mitt Romney with the reply "But I always say what I mean."

If you didn't see the debate, I really think it is worth the time to watch. Much was covered between economic, social safety net, and foreign policy. The differences were clearly presented.

One such difference is summed up in this image...

For more Snarky Signs like this one, visit my Facebook page "SnarkySigns". 

They are free to share.

Subscribe to this blog on the right.

Follow SnarkySigns by clicking "Like" on Facebook.

You can also see much of the SnarkySigns album at

www.SnarkySigns.com

MITT'S DEBATE "WIN"

So last night was the first Presidential debate of this election. "Pundits" left and right are all abuzz about President Obama's lackluster performance. By virtually every optic, they generally concede the first Presidential debate to Mitt Romney.

In the world of the electorate, righties feel a renewed sense that they have a chance to beat President Obama. Lefties are upset that President Obama did not show enough fight.

I'm not so quick to follow that current consensus. There are a few things to consider.

The pressing question. Was President Obama's showing in that debate simply a lackluster performance, or was there strategy amidst those optics?

I was driving at the time of the debate. I didn't get to actually see it, but I did hear the debate live on C-SPAN radio. My focus was solely on what both candidates said.

Optics aside, there is no doubt that Romney sounded better in style than Obama. 

Style aside, I also would say that Mitt lost the debate. The sheer volume of blatant lies and flip-flops was just too staggering. 

Not that Romney failed to offer sporadic numbers and state them with an air of authority like he had facts or even actual plans on his side. He certainly stated his "facts" with a confidence conveying them as if they were real, even when all the evidence proved them to be anything but facts. 

Yet Mitt still accomplished his goal in the first debate. For him, it was less about winning over undecideds with actual arithmetic, sound proven ideology or even verifiable facts. Being able to look and sound Presidential was the most important thing. Mitt knew that he would be judged mostly on how he came across in a head to head with the President. Would he look at least as assertive as President Obama? Could he look even more authoritative than the current President? Despite the severe factual instability of his words, any of the specifics of what Mitt said would be less important than simply looking and sounding as if he is at least an equal to President Obama.

Hearing only the audio when the debate aired live, I conceded quickly that on this goal, Mitt Romney was a great success. No matter what he was saying, he sounded confident and authoritative. 

Even when speaking of an imaginary President Obama and an imaginary Mitt Romney, onstage Mitt was able to present all his fictions as if they were real. It was like he believed all the previous etch-a-sketch versions of his platforms and statements which no longer suited him in the moment were actually erased from our collective memories, and the videotapes, and the hard drives that so thoroughly document his many contradicting "re-introductions". He spoke as if youtube does not exist.

Frankly, Mitt Romney went far beyond the standard spin of every campaign. He flat out lied many times over. But he did it with confidence.

He even pushed that show of confidence to eleven when he made sure to get in the zinger of telling President Obama that he may be entitled to his own house and plane as President, but he is not entitled to his own facts. The comic irony of that cliched zinger only pushes me further from any chance of viewing Mitt Romney as a viable Presidential candidate.

I however was not the audience Mitt was trying to impress. I have been paying attention to both candidates' words. I have given lots of thought and research into what implementing their words would actually mean. Most voters however are not political junkies and can only absorb so much. Tired of the ads and knowing that spin is always a basic ingredient in politics, most Americans are not instantly fact-checking Romney's words. They may not recognize the severity of the flip-flops and flat-out lies that made up Mitt's well delivered yet blatantly incompetent vocal content. 

We all however respond to optics. Do the candidates present an air of authority and confidence? Do they "look" Presidential? Do they "sound" Presidential? 

Passing that optics test in his first go-round with the President was crucial for Mitt Romney. Content and substance aside, Mitt clearly passed that hurdle. Not only from the sound of his voice, but once seeing a televised replay, I can say that adding the optics of body language, facial expression, etc. in both candidates, only added to Mitt's success in this goal.

Frankly, despite all the lies of his words, Mitt Romney "won" this debate by looking and sounding more authoritative than President Obama, and he certainly knows it.

President Obama also knows this. I believe the President also knew this as it was happening.

Yet President Obama remained cool. No fight. Very little calling out Mitt's lies. Not even a strong closing argument. The part where the candidates get to offer a prepared statement. The part where one would expect an orator as skilled as President Obama to shine. Even that was lackluster on President Obama's part.

Now as for the why, pundits will analyze that for decades I'm sure. Was it poor performance or some kind of chess strategy? I have a few things that should be considered in weighing that question, including some things that (at least for the moment), I have yet to hear pundits consider.

First there is the very real dilemma of a black man having to hold to a higher professional standard than a white male. Dare to show passion as a black man, and there will be those who then dismiss you professionally as the dangerous "angry black man". 

Many may deny this reality. All one need do to see it very much still alive today is tune in to Sean Hannity. Sean is STILL harping on (now PRESIDENT) Obama as an American threat because of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, the man he continually points out as an angry black liberation theologist. The day after this first 2012 Presidential debate, Sean focused on Jeremiah Wright and the "shocking" video of then Senator Obama speaking at Hampton, VA about the poor response to Hurricane Katrina. Sean points out with great disgust how Obama sounded so "different" as he infers that Obama's speech style was not acceptable as he addressed a predominantly black audience. Frankly, it is laughable to see this 2007 clip of Obama and react with such indignation, but nonetheless, such reaction is still a reality, especially among old white men.

Consider further the intentional direct portrayal of President Obama as an angry black man by Dinesh D'Souza. Despite President Obama's overly cool demeanor, D'Souza made a "documentary" about President Obama and the danger he poses to America. When D'Souza was asked to summarize his anti-Obama film on Bill Maher's RealTime, he claimed the takeaway is that President Obama is an angry man. Maher's reaction was priceless as he pointed out that such a portrayal of President Obama is utter bullshit with no supporting evidence whatsoever. D'Souza just claimed that Obama's anger is internal. We can't see it, but we know it's there and it threatens us all. Maher pointed out that Dinesh D'Souza never actually met president Obama.  

Even with the "No drama Obama" nickname, President Obama still has to succumb to the inequity of acceptable passion, lest he be painted as the spooky "angry black man". There is no doubt that this social reality played some factor in President Obama's debate style(just as it always does with every word he ever speaks), but there is much more to consider.

The optics of Mitt Romney looking directly at President Obama and presenting himself as a forceful challenger while President Obama is often looking down comes off to some as mild bullying. This is subtle psychology at play here, and it will likely be analyzed in virtually every possible direction, but consider the effects of a challenger with low likability numbers appearing in even some small way to bully a President with very high likability numbers. Consider the issues with literally hundreds of attempts to restrict women's reproductive rights by the Republican Party. Consider the down ticket Republicans belittling their female Congressional challengers by calling them not "ladylike" or even calling them "vile" and "despicable". Consider that no matter how much denial and protest there may be from the right over being called out for a war on women, it is only Republicans proposing laws that limit, hinder, or directly outlaw women's reproductive choice and health. Consider that women deal with the assertive/aggressive male every day of their lives. 

Now consider how the optics of even a subtle sense of bullying towards a highly liked President can have an influence on many women voters. Especially when an empathy can be felt at the President maintaining dignity throughout while politely enduring poor treatment. I doubt Romney's debate "win" offered him any bump in female support. I suspect if anything, it may have actually hurt it.

For the real political junkie, comparing the internals of upcoming post first debate polls may be of interest if comparing any change in Romney's likability numbers by gender.

Of course, the likability factor is not just a concern in seeking women's votes. Romney has consistently trailed Obama in likability polls. Even with a small uptick after the Republican Convention, Mitt still struggles to be "likable enough". While Mitt's debate "win" may have gained him some enthusiasm for Republican support, I don't expect his performance to translate into any significant increase in his likability.

Now consider the record-breaking rate at which Mitt Romney threw out blatant falsities. He could have practically ended unemployment altogether had we hired enough fact-checkers to keep up with Mitt's lies. I for one didn't bother wasting the time trying to actually count them. Others have, and they place the count at just under one lie per minute. President Obama did not let his debate time get consumed with defense on Mitt's mis-statements. If he had, he would be doing nothing else. The punditry narrative then would have been about how President Obama was on the defensive all night.

Instead, Obama stayed cool. He let Romney tell one whopper after another with little interference. Obama knew that fact-checkers would be running frantic for days, if not weeks, debunking most of what Mitt uttered during the debate. Endlessly talking about Mitt's lies would become the focus. President Obama was also well aware that there were many fact-checkers doing their work in real-time, tweeting and facebooking the actual facts while the debate was still going on.

Not only would fact-checkers be working overtime to rebut Mitt's lies (so President Obama didn't have to play that role all night), Mitt's uninterrupted lies were giving the Obama campaign more ads than they could ever dream up. Case in point, those ads are already running today, only one day after the debate.

Speaking of ads, consider that there was no mention of Mitt's 47% quote. It's not that the Obama campaign is not using Mitt's 47% quotes. They are playing those ads everywhere, and getting quite far with them. So much so that it is virtually undeniable these 47% ads are the Obama campaign's most effective tool at the moment. Despite this, there was NO mention of it at all. Could that really be because President Obama was so bad at debating that he simply forgot to mention it? Especially when there were so many opportunities to bring it up? Not going there seemed quite intentional on not only Mitt's part, but President Obama's as well. If I am not wrong about that, then why could there be such a strategy on Obama's part to NOT use Mitt's 47% quotes in the debate?

But the strategy may be even more calculated. Advanced chess. Big picture thinking. 

Consider the upticks of the polling for Obama in the past month or so. President Obama's leads in virtually every swing state were climbing and already hitting the double digit marks. Obama's increasing leads were confirmed in poll after poll by firm after firm. Even FoxNews had Obama up by five in their OWN POLL! 

Karl Rove had already pulled his funding out of several key swing states. The strategy on the Republican SuperPACs was trending toward pulling money out of Romney's campaign and placing it instead in Congressional races. Many of these Congressional races are tight. In most cases, they are slowly moving towards the Democrats, but they are by no means beyond the margin of error. A strong Obama "win" in that first debate could very well have been a tipping point in Republican strategy to focus almost exclusively on Congressional races. 

Explore that path for a moment. If an Obama win in November now became all but a certainty, and Republican SuperPAC money went almost exclusively to Congressional races, the most likely outcome would be Republican control of both House and Senate.

Why? Massive amounts of money would flood into ads to make that happen, and most would be very effective by playing against the core nature of the American voter. Tell voters that an election outcome is "inevitable" and see what surprises come about at the polls. 

No matter how much we all complain about the ineptitude, the infighting and resulting inaction of Congress, convince voters that a second term for Obama is inevitable and watch the massive turnout to counter that "inevitability" with an opposing Congress. Also watch how secure that "inevitable" second term actually is. American voters do not like to be told that any election has an "inevitable" outcome.

Now we are hearing a boost in Republican hopes. The right-wing narrative will shift from talk of how polls are "skewed" towards Democrats, and instead focus on how Mitt Romney's decisive "win" in the first debate is signaling a great shift away from President Obama. As Mitt Romney's performance will simultaneously be dissected for all its lies over the coming days and week(s), more Republican money is being spent on Romney and less of it is being funneled into Congressional races. Had the debate gone differently, the narrative would be different. Mitt Romney's debate "win" helped slow President Obama's momentum that was progressing well for him, but ironically was actually traveling just a bit too fast to arrive at its peak at the right time in November.

Was President Obama's first debate performance simply a display of unpreparedness on his part, or a show of weakness against a Republican challenger overly loose with facts? Was Obama's overly calm lackluster debate performance (including his prepared closing remarks) a skilled well thought-out big picture strategy move? I won't presume to know for certain either way, but given all the possible long-term outcomes, neither will I simply dismiss it as just an off-night for President Obama.