These quotes are paraphrased to prevent voter confusion.


Jack Conway on Rand Paul - Kentucky Senate Race
"30 years ago, my opponent was reportedly involved in a hazing ritual in which he tried coercing others into worshiping a make-believe deity called Aqua Buddha."

Chris Coons on Christine O'Donnell - Delaware Senate Race
"20 years ago, my opponent dated someone who was involved in witchcraft."

Here's a local one for you Illinois' folk.
Pat Quinn on Bill Brady - Illinois Governor Race
"My opponent wants to take dogs destined to be put down via euthanasia and put them down en masse, rather than wasting the state money to euthanize them all individually."

These accusations all became television commercials. In fact, I am trying to recall a single campaign commercial I have seen during this election season that spent more than 10% of its air time touting their own beliefs, and not denouncing their opponents as morally bent, and unworthy of the honor of public service.

Why do they do this? Because it works.

We are obviously that stupid. We like the idea of "good" people being in charge of us, and when all we are fed is the candidate's dirty laundry, we pick the person with the smaller stain.

It works. There are really smart campaign managers getting paid a lot of money to win elections. It's not marketing. It's the opposite of branding in fact. It's denouncing. It's short-term bullying. And it works. What if you were to say you refuse to vote for a candidate who puts out a single negative campaign advertisement regarding their opponent? Because that's where I'm at. And I'm not sure if I'd ever be able to vote again.

I can't remember the last time a print ad in a magazine stopped me in my tracks.

Until yesterday. Right after the ad with the SUV carving through the forest (seriously, I am SO sick of car ads that tell me nothing new, driving in scenarios I would never attempt), this ad from Effen Vodka graphically startled me.

Yes, there are layers of innuendo in the ad, but I contend that's not the reason it grabbed my attention. The photography is jarring. The detail is beautiful. The monochromatic coloring is lovely. Her hat is awesome! It made me stop flipping through the pages. And that's exactly what an ad is supposed to do. Create a positive interruption. I had never heard of Effen Vodka. Now I have. And I have a positive brand association with it.

Check out the rest of the terrific ad series put together by Euro RSCG, and for those of you in the business, try to figure out how to bring this design strategy to your brand.

In this Bill O'Reilly interview with Richard Dawkins, O'Reilly gives the following reasoning for his faith in Jesus Christ.

"My thesis is that if everybody followed the teachings of Jesus Christ that we'd have peace on earth. Love your brother. Everybody love one another. And we'd be almost an idyllic situation."

That is NOT a good reason for belief. If everybody followed the teachings of Mr. Rogers, we'd have a pretty idyllic situation, too. Sesame Street. Buddha. Joseph Smith. Gandhi.

If we perfectly followed the morality of nearly any philosophy, the world would be a much better place. But Jesus wasn't simply claiming moral authority. He claimed to be restoration. The answer to every "Why...?" question about God and his universe. The answer to every "Why...?" question about relationship with God and each other.

Bert and Ernie don't offer that.

Last month, at Rutgers College, Tyler Clementi tragically ended his life after being outed by his roommate en masse. Dharun Ravi, Clementi's roommate, had been using his computer's Web cam to monitor and transmit live video of his roommate's romantic activity to all of his friends.

Upon learning about this egregious invasion of privacy, Clementi jumped off the George Washington bridge.

This is a horribly sad tragedy that you undoubtedly have read much about. But, I wanted to bring up a new question. That the anger we feel toward's Clementi's roommate is not in direct response to his action's, but rather, the consequences.

If Clementi simply got mad, we would have rightfully called Ravi a horrible jerk. With these results, we call Ravi a murderer. For which do you penalize?

Let's be straight here. People who don't have jobs right now could care less about debt. People with jobs? The national debt is one of their biggest long-term concerns.

So, as a political candidate, how do you effectively and honestly balance the people's desire for both short-term growth and long-term fiscal responsibility?

Do you work really hard to educate people in understanding that the long-term plan is in everybody's long term best interest? Or do you talk about tax cuts and spending cuts and job creation and debt reduction in some super-string theory impossible strategy that has no chance of being realistic in the hopes that the economically illiterate in your crowd will cheer because you said the words they were waiting for?

First things first. You need to watch this latest Andy Rooney Hates Video. Seriously. This whole week of thinking only works if you do.

Watch it yet? Ok. Yes, he's crazy. He's a crotchety old man, and virtually nothing would make him happy. So, what on earth could I possibly say as a candidate running for office this year to persuade the Andy Rooneys (+70 people, and a LARGE voting bloc) in my district that I'm going to make their life better during a recession? It's virtually impossible.

And it made me question how on Earth an average person, who isn't ok with lying, can actually gain broad political support while holding firmly to their beliefs.

You're at a town hall meeting with all old people, because no one else can leave work at 3:30 in the afternoon. What do you tell them that wouldn't be outright lies?

This week, we've been trying to figure out how to create a Human Stock Market, for both charitable and capitalistic reasons.

I think we're close folks. Not to having every single factor figured out. But to the idea that this could be possible. I really appreciate your thoughts on this. Who knows? This could be something huge one day, and you're all a part of it now.

One great question yesterday to end our week.

How easy would it be for someone to get out of the market?

Great question. This is definitely a little tricky, because it's easier for a corporation to get sold, bought out, liquidated or go under than an individual. I suppose there are two options: the individual could buy back their outstanding shares, or simply pay-out those unwilling to sell at some sort of pre-arranged market(+)  price. Anyone else have any insights on how this happens on real exchanges?

This week, we're trying to figure out how to create a Human Stock Market, for both charitable and investment reasons.

Two great questions yesterday.

1) How do we valuate the person before investing?

Why do you invest in the stocks you do? Some people like Walmart because they see it has a monopolistic hold in its market. Some invest in Whole Foods because they not only believe in the growing market for organic goods, but feel like the company is creating a social "good" in the world as well. Some people invest in guitar manufacturing companies because they own one of the guitars and they believe in the product.

There could a whole lot of reasons for investing. Why do people pick the kids they choose to sponsor through World Vision? Probably the kid's face. If they seem cute, you want to help. Same reason you pick the puppy that seems the nicest at the animal shelter. But again, that's strictly for the charitable side of this human stock market.

As far as picking a long-term investment (assuming we keep our 18-year and older rule), IQ, high school academic record, career goals, parental background, country of origin and opportunity in that country, etc.

2) How do we track performance post-investment?

This gets harder. I think earlier in the week, we talked about how we'd probably only have access to a person's personal financial statement, since they're not a corporation. But maybe they'd need to be in order to get the debt information investors would rely on? But the individual has a vested interest in keeping their investors up-to-date with status reports and new goals in order to get new investments and keep their current ones.

Any big hangs up with either of these? I think I need help thinking the 2nd one through.

This week we're trying to figure out how to create a working Human Stock Market, for both charitable and investment reasons.

Justin brought up a great question yesterday. Because securing funding for one's own education would likely be the greatest use of entering the Human Stock Market. But, buying and selling shares in minors would be problematic, and super creepy knowing you don't really have their consent.

So, I think an 18-year old minimum age is probably a great idea. But also hurts what I think might be a big market - helping put promising third-world children through primary school as well as college in hopes of both helping them succeed and profiting on the success.

Justin hypothesized regulation to prevent monopoly ownership or employer influence. The monopoly question is a great one. What if we make it so that no individual can give up majority ownership in their stock. The individual must always possess at least a 51% share. That would also keep the individual as the primarily "decision-maker" over their own life plan. Can you imagine a meeting where your Board of Directors tells you to give up writing to become a mechanic?

As far as employer influence, why shouldn't an employer be able to buy someone's stock before hiring them? I don't exactly know why they'd want to, because it would just be like taking money out from one pocket and putting it in the other, especially if the job was this person's sole income. But if they think this person is going to go places, sure, the more power to them.

What else do we need to think about ?