The labor union blocking protests against petitioners seeking signatures for the San Diego Comprehensive Pension Reform (CPR) continues. One core pitch they favor is the “identity theft” ruse — warning people that giving up their names and addresses to signature gatherers could result in fiscal devastation — or worse. The fact that millions upon millions of such signatures have been collected (often by labor union-financed petition drives) nationwide without a single documented case of identity theft is not mentioned.
But the most recent flyer they have been passing out summarizing this fake concern tells us perhaps more than they intended. The expensive color piece they passed out last weekend was “printed” single-sided on two photo-quality sheets of paper. Clearly it was not really printed, but rather reproduced on a copy machine.
And it’s funny to receive a flyer that is printed on two pages rather than one. No commercial copy shop would have produced such a single-sided flyer, so obviously it was made on a personal OR GOVERNMENT copy machine where the person making the copies didn’t know how to make two-sided copies (or care).
This “photo-quality” paper is VERY expensive — costing about 50 cents a sheet. Hence each two page flyer cost a dollar PLUS the color ink cost, which can be 50 cents more.
http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/394895/Office-Depot-Brand-Premium-Photo-Paper/
It’s doubtful a home copier would have such expensive paper lying around in quantity, nor would an individual waste their own personal funds in this way. Surely the labor union bosses would not be stupid enough to waste union resources producing these expensive flyers on their own union copier.
Hence it seems quite possible that these flyers were reproduced at taxpayer expense. Government copiers certainly have some monitoring of usage, but obviously it’s likely the monitors are union members! The quickest and most surreptitious way to produce such flyers is to run them single-sided.
Okay, okay — it’s true. This is conjecture. I guess it IS possible
the union members are just dunderheads who can’t figure out how to save a buck. Certainly their disdain for controlling government costs reflects a spendthrift mentality.
Frankly, I must say that we proponents of CPR are delighted with the ignorance revealed in the production of these two page flyers. But the thought that — odds are — the taxpayer footed the bill for this blunder takes the joy out of the unions’ inadvertent revelation.
NOTE: Flyer is available for inspection if you contact me.
Comments 22
Richard,
Every color printer has a unique serial number that is printed into every sheet as a row of unique tiny yellow dots that are visible under a black light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography and http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/
What you could do is run your sheets under a black light, post an image of the dot code online, and ask for blog visitors, particularly those in government offices, to compare the dot code with sheets from their color printers in their office.
If you suspected that the printing would have been done at a municipal government office, you could submit a public records request for all known color printer serial codes.
We would also have a date and time stamp, which could be used to identify who actually made the printing.
Richard,
That type of inflammatory speculation without even a whiff of proof is unworthy of you. If you really thought your suspicion was correct, you should have found some proof before publishing that post.
Interesting idea. Thanks!
(Later). Tried the black light, and could see no dots on either page — even in total darkness. From what I’m reading online, this “feature” is found on color PRINTERS, but there’s no mention of color COPIERS. So maybe a copier is at play here.
In addition, some printers seem to lack such coding (see the above articles).
It would seem to me that someone clever enough should be able to block such a yellow dot “signature,” assuming that they worked with or owned the machine.
So Alger, we are not allowed to speculate here because . . . ? Perhaps because you say so?
I think you’d be surprised at how little I value your opinion.
Did I not CLEARLY state that it was just conjecture? Did I not clearly state that the alternative is that the union producers of the flyer are dunderheads who care not about costs? Do you have some plausible third explanation that I’m overlooking that you care to advance?
Richard,
“Did I not CLEARLY state that it was just conjecture?”
Not in the headline
Not in the first paragraph
Not in the second paragraph
Not in the third paragraph
Not in the fourth paragraph
Not in the fifth paragraph
Not in the sixth paragraph
O.K., there it is in the 7th paragraph.
Since this is conjecture, apparently, our conjecture is that the flyer was produced on the same Kenyan copier which produced Obama’s fake long form.
True, but I write SHORT paragraphs. Glad to see you read further down my story the second time around.
Good habit to get into — reading the full article.
San Diego Rostra produces the highest form of speculation and conjecture and don’t forget it.
If you want hard facts, go to KPBS and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
For example, http://sdrostra.com/?p=20399
Oh. Whoops, never mind.
Please send me a scan of the document: davem@sdcitybeat.com
Richard,
Where’s the proof? No proof…then it’s an outlandish claim.
How about doing the research before you make such statements of “conjecture”.
Gwendolyn,
You should learn the difference between “proof” and “conjecture.”
Bradley,
As a reputable journalist, I am sure you would agree that a post that was admittedly only conjecture on the writer’s part should state that fact clearly well before the seventh paragraph.
Alger, did not the QUESTION MARK in the title make it clear that this was not an ASSERTION, but rather a — well — question?
Richard,
I stand corrected; it is obvious that your intent was never to have the reader believe, for even a second, that what you were claiming was factual. I don’t know how I ever could have thought otherwise. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for not immediately recognizing that one of your stature would never stoop to such levels.
Alger, at least you got the first three words right — but you should have simply ended your comment there with a “period” and called it a day.
Clearly you need to work on both your reading skills and your communication abilities. There are online courses tailor-made to rectify your deficiencies.
Hi Alger,
Reasonable minds can disagree on this issue. I personally would have mentioned that it is a conjecture in the lede or at least the second graf.
Dear Bradley,
It may indeed be Richard’s “conjecture” that the SD Labor Union’s flyer was produced on a gov’t copy machine, but it is just his opinion and not proof. I like some kind of reasonable proof to make such a conjecture.
Does that do it for you Bradley???
Richard,
You thought my communication abilities worthy of commenting on them four times.
Worthy? Naahhh. You can type — but ya just can’t read and rite good.
Perhaps Bradley is right in his earlier paragraph placement of “conjecture.” But that’s from a REPORTER’S perspective. I’m a columnist and advocate — no one expects me to be a neutral reporter. Especially on this blog!
Besides, look at all the liberal irritation I was able to cause simply by waiting to the 7th paragraph to announce no smoking copy machine was found.
BTW, in the article I didn’t mention the government copier possibility until the THIRD paragraph. Would have been a bit awkward to say it was conjecture in the second paragraph, BEFORE I brought up the possibility!
I think I can say with certainty that, at this point, we’ve beaten this paragraph thingy into the ground. But it sure was fun!
Just to give credit where it is due — Alger and Gwendolyn are convinced that union blockers are dumb enough to spend maybe $1.50 a flyer to pass out to the public.
With Alger’s and Gwendolyn’s presumed extensive interaction with city employees, it appears that they feel that such profligate fiscal waste is the norm for city unions and their members. I just might have to concede that point — but then, I’m conjecturing again.
Hell of a conclusion for them to feel compelled to advocate for, don’t you think?
Richard,
“BTW, in the article I didn’t mention the government copier possibility until the THIRD paragraph”
Really??? You mentioned it in THE HEADLINE.
One thing we do agree on is that we have beaten this point to death, so go take the final word. I know you need it.