The hidden danger in political advertising centered on a candidate’s ideology is that voters will misinterpret it, disagree with it, or both.

A case in point: a local political candidate ran a radio spot today.

In it, he asserted that every American has these inalienable rights:

1. A good job at a living wage.
2. Decent, affordable housing.
3. A good education.
4. Quality health care.

At first glance, this seems both admirable and hard to argue with.

But let’s go through them one at a time:

1. A good job at a decent wage — sounds good in theory. But are you going to force business owners to employ undesirable candidates at wages their skills and experience don’t justify just to make good on this promise.

2. Decent, affordable housing — does this mean the government provides free housing to those who can’t buy their own? If so, what’s my incentive to work and earn rent money?

3. A good education — I can’t argue here. I’m all for getting rid of the tenure system and holding teachers more accountable.

4. Quality health care — should we have socialized medicine that puts a cap on what doctors can earn? Being a medical doctor is so difficult and demanding, won’t more would-be doctors select a different profession if they can’t earn what they’re worth in medicine?

The candidate who paid for this radio spot is running as a liberal Democrat.

Does his 4-point ideology fit the bill of a liberal Democrat?

Or is it nothing more than a Socialist agenda?

Would you vote for him?

Or at the very least, rewrite his commercial?

Are you sick and tired of getting hype-filled e-mail marketing messages from the publishers of all those free e-zines you read?

Here’s an easy way to stop them: don’t accept free e-zine subscriptions.

“I write my own free e-newsletter and have to desensitive myself to comments from negative readers who think all of us are writing for their benefit with no underlying profit motive,” says DE. “I love what I do, but I do it for the money.”

“Perhaps some day the complainers will understand that the purpose of a business is to create a profit. But until then,” advises DE, “they should unsubscribe from all the free e-newsletters to eliminate their frustration.”

DE’s position is clear: the “price” for getting his “free” e-newsletter is not money — he doesn’t ask for a credit card number — but permission.

Specifically, permission to send you e-mail messages about products and services he thinks would be useful to you.

Do you think this permission is a reasonable “subscription fee” for the publisher of a free e-zine to charge you?

Or do you think DE and others should offer you the option of just getting the e-zine but not the e-mail marketing messages?

According to an article in Training & Development magazine (7/07, p. 20), senior executives attend fewer training classes than other corporate employees.

I can only think of 3 reasons for this:

1. Senior executives are smarter than ordinary workers and know more, so they do not require training or improvement.

2. Senior executives are busier and their work more important than ordinary workers, so they do not have time to attend training classes.

3. Training and development is universally perceived by corporate employees as a waste of time, but only senior executives have the authority to excuse themselves, while the rest of us don’t.

Which of the above do you think is the reason for senior management’s exemption from training?

Or is there another reason senior executives avoid training that I don’t know about?