Last week we had a kooky idea: with two weeks left in Philadelphia's Democratic Primary for Mayor (and a bunch of other offices and judgeships that have gotten zero attention), there still seems to be plenty of wiggle room for any one of the five major candidates to make a bold move and take this thing. The latest poll (April 27) as of this post was taken by Susquehanna Polling and Research, and commissioned by the Pennsylvanians for Effective Government (PEG), and lays out the field like this with 15 days remaining:
Tom Knox 20%
Michael Nutter 18%
Chaka Fattah 14%
Bob Brady 9%
Dwight Evans 7%
So our idea? The Great Ross Associates Mayoral Sweepstakes! Give us who you think the winner will be, and the vote percentage, and you could win a prize. The person who correctly predicts the winner, and comes closest to the winning vote percentage without going over, will win a prize that our boss guarantees will be worth at least $100. While that may not sound like very much to you, getting $100 out of our CEO represents a real accomplishment, so enter now before he changes his mind.
Entry is simple. Just reply to this post, or send an e-mail to ross@rossassociates.biz with the following information: your candidate of choice, his percentage total, your name, address, phone number and e-mail address. Sample:
John Doe
1212 Philadelphia Street
Philadelphia, PA 19100
(215) 555-0000
jdoe@anything.com
Dwight Evans 44%
We'll collect and tally all entries, and on Wednesday, May 16th (the morning after), we'll pore over the entries and find out who wins! In case of a tie, well... we'll flip a coin or pull the names out of a hat, or some other unbiased tiebreaker. We'll then inform the winner, and deliver the loot. Simple as that. Nothing to buy, no long term obligation.
There's still time to support the candidate of your choice. Forget the polls. It's close enough statistically that a stumble by any one of these guys could sway the race in another direction, but more likely our fearless leader Bill Miller is right when he says that it comes down to Election Day and the effectiveness of each candidates' street machine.
Philadelphia's elections almost inevitably boil down to Election Day and the street machines. It's the way elections are won and lost in this town, and this one probably won't be any different. So get out there on Election Day and vote, or even better, volunteer at the polls. And meanwhile, send us your prediction of who and by how much, and you could win a cool prize worth at least $100.
And hang in there folks, it's almost over.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Starting the Dialogue
(Author's note: This post is dedicated to the memory of the late Rotan E. Lee, Esq., lawyer, educator, philosopher and friend. His spirit continues to encourage us to talk to, instead of about, each other.)
It's now noon Thursday, April 12, 2007, and the Don Imus public execution is in full swing. Imus, in case you've been in a cave for the past week, is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who made cruel, unflattering, and racially offensive remarks last Wednesday about the young women of Rutgers University's basketball team.
While showing footage of the previous night's championship game, which Rutgers lost to Tennessee 59-46, Imus and a sidekick referred to Rutgers' team as "hardcore hos" and "nappy headed hos". Noting the girls' toughness and numerous tattoos, Imus also compared them to the Memphis Grizzlies, an NBA team. Also mentioned was a comparison of both teams players to the Jigaboos vs. Wannabees from the Spike Lee movie "School Daze."
The fallout from Imus' comments was a bit slow in coming. Scattered complaints and protests prompted an on-air apology from the longtime host on Friday, but over the weekend, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had picked up the banner calling for Imus' ouster, and by Monday morning the "Crucify him!" tsunami was flooding the offices of MSNBC, which simulcasts the 5 AM to 9 AM show for television. Calls for Imus' firing were also made to CBS and Viacom, the parent company of the show's radio syndication.
Imus went on Reverend Sharpton's radio show Monday afternoon, still apologizing profusely and vowing to change the tone and tenor of his on-air banter. Contrite and chastened, the 67-year old Broadcasting Hall of Famer spent the next 48 hours sincerely kissing the butts of any and all who could have possibly been offended, especially the Rutgers team and their coach. If he though the act of penance was going to save his position, if not his standing, he underestimated the depth of ill feeling generated by his comments.
Both MSNBC and CBS made the decision to suspend Imus' show for two weeks, seeking to quiet the discontent while giving themselves a chance to re-evaluate how they'd go forward. That evaluation was made for them, and rather immediately, by the show's sponsors, who pulled out in droves starting Tuesday afternoon. Once Staples, Proctor & Gamble, SmithKline, Geico and the other advertisers informed the network of their intent to abandon their sponsorships of Imus' show, MSNBC's course was clear. Imus was removed from the network immediately. Reverend Jackson has vowed protests of CBS until the network follows suit. So far, CBS has promised to wait until after the two-week suspension to make a further evaluation, but the situation is changing minute by minute. Perhaps between the time this post is written and published, new developments will have occurred. One interesting side note is that on the very day Imus was given the boot, all charges were dropped against the three white Duke University lacrosse players accused of raping and assaulting a stripper hired to entertain at their frat house. The stripper's story finally unraveled, and while the college students' lives were returned to them, their reputations can never be fully restored. There is little doubt that these stories will be linked for the next several weeks.
The situation, such as it is, is a lot bigger than Don Imus, or one crude and unkind comment from a radio host who has made a long and lucrative career out of crude and unkind comments.
The hope, expressed by most people who have made their opinions known on the subject, is that Imusgate will produce a long-needed national dialogue on race relations in America.
A few questions white folks have been asking in the wake of the Imus uproar: Why is it that African-Americans, from comics to rappers to the guy in the street, can denigrate black women in public forums while other races must constantly censor their language for even the most unintentional slight? Does not this degree of hypocrisy call on the African-American community to take steps to clean up its own house in regard to the use of derogatory language? Does equality mean acceptance of a double standard of public behavior when the subject is race?
African-Americans, on the other hand have a few questions of their own: How is it possible that in 2007 we're still dealing with the same ridiculous matters of simple human dignity that were called for (and mostly won) 40 and 50 years ago? How long will the still-overwhelmingly white media bombard the airwaves with the Imuses, Limbaughs, and Savages without providing a forum for the other side? When will the majority accept and admit to the institutional racism that has become the subtle replacement for Jim Crow?
So today, on television and radio stations all over the country, the clarion call goes out for a national dialogue on race and race relations - members of races talking to each other instead of at or about each other. A serious dialogue among critically-thinking adults, as opposed to a Jerry Springer-like shoutfest, which is a lot easier to pull off.
Can we do it? Should we? Are white people prepared to face serious truths about their continued, if subconscious, role in the subjugation of minorities for fun and profit? Are black people willing to hold up a mirror to their own communities, admitting that for years they've been complicit in their own destruction? Can the races ever view each other without suspicion, and what would it take just to get to that point? Is honest dialogue even possible?
It's a huge undertaking. There will be more hurt feelings, and more anger. Is America ready?
Daryl Gale
Ross Associates, Inc.
It's now noon Thursday, April 12, 2007, and the Don Imus public execution is in full swing. Imus, in case you've been in a cave for the past week, is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who made cruel, unflattering, and racially offensive remarks last Wednesday about the young women of Rutgers University's basketball team.
While showing footage of the previous night's championship game, which Rutgers lost to Tennessee 59-46, Imus and a sidekick referred to Rutgers' team as "hardcore hos" and "nappy headed hos". Noting the girls' toughness and numerous tattoos, Imus also compared them to the Memphis Grizzlies, an NBA team. Also mentioned was a comparison of both teams players to the Jigaboos vs. Wannabees from the Spike Lee movie "School Daze."
The fallout from Imus' comments was a bit slow in coming. Scattered complaints and protests prompted an on-air apology from the longtime host on Friday, but over the weekend, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had picked up the banner calling for Imus' ouster, and by Monday morning the "Crucify him!" tsunami was flooding the offices of MSNBC, which simulcasts the 5 AM to 9 AM show for television. Calls for Imus' firing were also made to CBS and Viacom, the parent company of the show's radio syndication.
Imus went on Reverend Sharpton's radio show Monday afternoon, still apologizing profusely and vowing to change the tone and tenor of his on-air banter. Contrite and chastened, the 67-year old Broadcasting Hall of Famer spent the next 48 hours sincerely kissing the butts of any and all who could have possibly been offended, especially the Rutgers team and their coach. If he though the act of penance was going to save his position, if not his standing, he underestimated the depth of ill feeling generated by his comments.
Both MSNBC and CBS made the decision to suspend Imus' show for two weeks, seeking to quiet the discontent while giving themselves a chance to re-evaluate how they'd go forward. That evaluation was made for them, and rather immediately, by the show's sponsors, who pulled out in droves starting Tuesday afternoon. Once Staples, Proctor & Gamble, SmithKline, Geico and the other advertisers informed the network of their intent to abandon their sponsorships of Imus' show, MSNBC's course was clear. Imus was removed from the network immediately. Reverend Jackson has vowed protests of CBS until the network follows suit. So far, CBS has promised to wait until after the two-week suspension to make a further evaluation, but the situation is changing minute by minute. Perhaps between the time this post is written and published, new developments will have occurred. One interesting side note is that on the very day Imus was given the boot, all charges were dropped against the three white Duke University lacrosse players accused of raping and assaulting a stripper hired to entertain at their frat house. The stripper's story finally unraveled, and while the college students' lives were returned to them, their reputations can never be fully restored. There is little doubt that these stories will be linked for the next several weeks.
The situation, such as it is, is a lot bigger than Don Imus, or one crude and unkind comment from a radio host who has made a long and lucrative career out of crude and unkind comments.
The hope, expressed by most people who have made their opinions known on the subject, is that Imusgate will produce a long-needed national dialogue on race relations in America.
A few questions white folks have been asking in the wake of the Imus uproar: Why is it that African-Americans, from comics to rappers to the guy in the street, can denigrate black women in public forums while other races must constantly censor their language for even the most unintentional slight? Does not this degree of hypocrisy call on the African-American community to take steps to clean up its own house in regard to the use of derogatory language? Does equality mean acceptance of a double standard of public behavior when the subject is race?
African-Americans, on the other hand have a few questions of their own: How is it possible that in 2007 we're still dealing with the same ridiculous matters of simple human dignity that were called for (and mostly won) 40 and 50 years ago? How long will the still-overwhelmingly white media bombard the airwaves with the Imuses, Limbaughs, and Savages without providing a forum for the other side? When will the majority accept and admit to the institutional racism that has become the subtle replacement for Jim Crow?
So today, on television and radio stations all over the country, the clarion call goes out for a national dialogue on race and race relations - members of races talking to each other instead of at or about each other. A serious dialogue among critically-thinking adults, as opposed to a Jerry Springer-like shoutfest, which is a lot easier to pull off.
Can we do it? Should we? Are white people prepared to face serious truths about their continued, if subconscious, role in the subjugation of minorities for fun and profit? Are black people willing to hold up a mirror to their own communities, admitting that for years they've been complicit in their own destruction? Can the races ever view each other without suspicion, and what would it take just to get to that point? Is honest dialogue even possible?
It's a huge undertaking. There will be more hurt feelings, and more anger. Is America ready?
Daryl Gale
Ross Associates, Inc.
Monday, April 2, 2007
William R. Miller, IV Op-Ed on PA Gaming Board decision (as told to D. Gale)
Naturally, I was quite disappointed in the state gaming board’s decision earlier this month to award casino licenses to the SugarHouse and Foxwoods applicants. As a member of the Pennsylvania Partnership Group (PPG), the local investment group backing the Riverwalk Casino proposal, I won’t pretend that I wasn’t hurt by the board’s decision. Speaking for the other members of PPG, we devoted more than two years of our lives, and an extraordinary amount of money and effort in what we felt was a unique and winning proposal. Our disappointment in not being selected however, is not based on sour grapes or the loss of personal revenue. Our own investment aside, we are far more chagrined that once again Philadelphia’s minority communities were shut out of the process once real money was on the table.
In a city where less than one percent of municipal service contracts are awarded to African-American businesses, and where the lack of educational and employment opportunities hit minority communities hardest, the action of the board in refusing a license to the only applicant comprised of Philadelphians from those very neighborhoods is appalling. Remember, early in the application process, the board made a point of emphasizing the need for local minority participation, and that the level of such participation would weigh heavily in the board’s final decision. Considering the outcome, one questions the board’s sincerity in seeking the maximum minority inclusion. SugarHouse is owned by a Chicago billionaire and several politically connected local millionaires, and Foxwoods is owned by local investors and the Native American Pequot tribe of Connecticut.
Neither winner demonstrated a significant level of minority participation in its ownership structure, and gave no concrete assurance that a substantial portion of future profits would be used to fund worthy programs in Philadelphia’s most troubled neighborhoods. Simply put, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get what the poor always get.
In its decision, the gaming board cited Riverwalk’s “confusing” management structure as a major impediment, implying, among other things, that while the black and brown faces of PPG would be the public persona of Riverwalk, the real power and decision-making would lie with the white faces of our partners at BHM Gaming and Planet Hollywood. After extensive testimony and explanation of our management structure by industry experts, the gaming board was well aware that with our 51 percent share, PPG would control all general and casino related decisions. We are insulted that the gaming board would accuse us of risking our well-earned good reputations by misleading and selling out the communities where we live, work, and conduct business.
Knowing the impact gaming will have on Philadelphia’s economic future, Mayor Street appointed a blue ribbon panel to carefully study the applicants and make recommendations based on the best interests of the city. That panel enthusiastically endorsed Riverwalk’s proposal, and rated Foxwoods and SugarHouse last. The mayor relayed those recommendations to the state gaming board in December, adding his voice to those supporting Riverwalk. Unfortunately, the gaming board chose to ignore the mayor’s endorsement.
Let’s not mince words here. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board made a political decision. Their ultimate choice of licensees was based not on who had the best proposal, the best location, or who would best benefit the citizens of Philadelphia. The desires of the politically well-connected few overrule the needs of the many, even overruling the mayor of the country’s sixth largest metropolis.
We are now exploring ways to best avail ourselves of the 30-day appeals process. Rest assured that the goal of our appeal is not to recoup our investment, nor to line our own pockets, but to make public the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s bias, and expose the process as flawed at best, and corrupt at worst. Either way, we will not let this grievous insult to Philadelphia’s minority communities go unanswered.
Murder and the Next Mayor
With five weeks to go in the campaign for the mayoral primaries, the entire city of Philadelphia is focused on crime, particularly the city's skyrocketing murder rate, which as of April 2 stands at 104. A 24 percent increase from last year this time, the nation's sixth largest city is on track to become the new undisputed Murdertown, U.S.A.
If the present rate of carnage continues unabated, Philadelphia's murder count will top 500 in 2007, eclipsing last year's total of 406, and the highest in 15 years. But even the raw numbers, as horrifying as they are, pale in comparison to the climate of fear and exasperation experienced by city residents. Philadelphians are sick and tired of the homicides dominating the evening news, and lately, making national headlines.
It is into this charged environment the candidates for mayor must press forward with a plan that distinguishes itself from politics as usual, and satisfies an increasingly cynical populace. In poll after poll, crime and crime related issues are the number one concern of the voters, who will decide on May 15 between Democrats Bob Brady, Dwight Evans, Chaka Fattah, Tom Knox, and Michael Nutter. (We here exclude minor candidates Jesus White and Queena Bass, whose numbers are too low to calculate, but in a large field, every vote counts.) The Republican candidate, Al Taubenberger, is running unopposed, but in all honesty, is not given much of a chance in this overwhelmingly Democratic city.
For an excellent insight into the Mayor's race, and a closer look at the candidates, click here.
If the present rate of carnage continues unabated, Philadelphia's murder count will top 500 in 2007, eclipsing last year's total of 406, and the highest in 15 years. But even the raw numbers, as horrifying as they are, pale in comparison to the climate of fear and exasperation experienced by city residents. Philadelphians are sick and tired of the homicides dominating the evening news, and lately, making national headlines.
It is into this charged environment the candidates for mayor must press forward with a plan that distinguishes itself from politics as usual, and satisfies an increasingly cynical populace. In poll after poll, crime and crime related issues are the number one concern of the voters, who will decide on May 15 between Democrats Bob Brady, Dwight Evans, Chaka Fattah, Tom Knox, and Michael Nutter. (We here exclude minor candidates Jesus White and Queena Bass, whose numbers are too low to calculate, but in a large field, every vote counts.) The Republican candidate, Al Taubenberger, is running unopposed, but in all honesty, is not given much of a chance in this overwhelmingly Democratic city.
For an excellent insight into the Mayor's race, and a closer look at the candidates, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)