Blue ink dries the slowest. That doesn't matter when your presence is all online. One day, though, when your organization needs letterhead and business cards, you may learn to your dismay that you need to wait longer just to let the ink dry.
Maybe you're super-organized and never need a rush print job. But if you're not, think twice about using a lot of blue in your collateral.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Congressional Reform Act, Part II
More readers than I expected have visited this blog looking for information about the Congressional Reform Act.
So that I can at least give them more information than I did last week, I’ve done a little research about the “act” email circulating the country. Here’s what I’ve found.
Richard Greener at the Huffington Post thinks that the people passing around the email are dolts who’ve forgotten their civics lessons. I certainly fit in that category.
Nonetheless, here are some more facts and my responses to what Greener writes. The quotes from the "act" are in italics.
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below. (it specifies the limits)
“Nobody "owns" a seat in Congress,” Greener writes. He disingenuously claims that the responsibility for limiting the number of terms rests on the voters.
Well, yes and no. The longer a representative remains in place, the more seniority and, hence, power, he or she accumulates. Our current election system is like a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Everybody wishes there were fresh blood in our House of Representatives and Senate—just not in their own districts. So they wish everybody else would throw theirs out of office, while they continue to re-elect their own. Even when their own are corrupt, like Charlie Rangel.
No one can deny that the longer a politician is in office, the easier it is to abuse the system. Just look at Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering in Texas. Mandatory term limits might not eliminate, but they would stem this kind of abuse.
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Greener writes, “The "reformers" appear to believe that Congressional pensions are both free and instantly available to anyone who's ever served.”
Greener attacks a straw man here. This article at congress.org explains that they may not receive full pensions, but that many congressional reps are eligible for at least partial pensions--including those reps convicted of felonies before 2007.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
“Make Congress pay into Social Security,” Greener paraphrases. “Well, what is there to say about people who are that ignorant? 26 years. A generation! That's how long it's been, since 1984, that members of Congress have been paying their Social Security tax just like the rest of us.”
Perhaps he had a different version of the “act” than I have. My version above doesn’t deny that Congress participates in Social Security. I think the operative part of the statement is that the retirement funds in (2) above be folded into and administered by Social Security. Which, in my opinion, will never happen because we all know that Social Security will go bankrupt the year I’m scheduled to retire.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Greener writes, “Make Congress pay for their retirement plan. Please see above for the answer.” I respond, “Please see above for answer.” And I add that many former politicians seem to make plenty of money from speaking and consulting engagements. See #8 below.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
“Congress has NEVER been able to raise its own pay,” responds Greener. "All pay increases voted by Congress must be for future Congresses, not for those currently serving.” True, but, given #1 above, enough politicians can count on re-election that even if they don’t receive the raise in that term, they expect to succeed and receive it in the next.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Greener writes “Where did the idea come from that members of Congress get free medical care?”
Hmmm, maybe from stories like this on ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655
When I was without health insurance I couldn’t just saunter in to a clinic and receive high-quality medical care. How can anyone who pays $503 a year for comprehensive medical care understand how uninsured people have to deliberate every medical decision?
Some of those congresspeople didn’t pay at all, but they still received care. Schweet.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
Greener’s response: “It doesn't take very long to find out that the only laws Congress is exempt from are those that pose a constitutional dilemma if Congress were subject to the terms of those laws. We do have (remember?) something called separation of powers.”
I confess that I don’t understand this one. I’d like to come back to it in a separate post after I’ve given it due thought.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
This may be semantic, but “Congress should void all contracts made with former members,” as Greener puts it, just doesn’t mean the same thing. He continues, “In a list of strange demands, this one takes the proverbial cake. These "reformers" fancy themselves as defenders of the Constitution. But they apparently have never read Article I Section 10, which forbids the interference in any contract. That includes a contract with a former Congressperson or any contract at all with anyone. Contracts are constitutionally protected. Who knew?”
(Now I’m confused, because when I looked up Article I Section 10, it was about powers states were not allowed to assume. States can’t impose customs duties, for example, or declare war. Nothing about congressional contracts. I assume Greener’s fingers slipped and his editors forgot to double-check. Could happen to anyone.)
I think Greener reads the letter but not the spirit of the email circling the country. Nobody believes that they could wave a magic wand and dissolve all contracts with congresspeople (in their connections as congresspeople) as of a certain date. But they wish they could make it impossible for representatives to sign contracts while in office that offer benefits while out of office, or vice versa.
It’s easy to point out all the holes in someone else’s document. Writing this, for example, was very satisfactory. (Don’t take it personally, Mr. Greener. Your strong search results led me to conclude that that a lot of other people had already read and considered what you wrote, and perhaps dismissed the "act." Since yours was popular, it seemed like a worthy essay to contest.)
It’s harder to listen seriously to people who feel disenfranchised, to help them articulate their thoughts and then to make a plan of action that would benefit them and their communities. And that’s what we need to do.
So that I can at least give them more information than I did last week, I’ve done a little research about the “act” email circulating the country. Here’s what I’ve found.
Richard Greener at the Huffington Post thinks that the people passing around the email are dolts who’ve forgotten their civics lessons. I certainly fit in that category.
Nonetheless, here are some more facts and my responses to what Greener writes. The quotes from the "act" are in italics.
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below. (it specifies the limits)
“Nobody "owns" a seat in Congress,” Greener writes. He disingenuously claims that the responsibility for limiting the number of terms rests on the voters.
Well, yes and no. The longer a representative remains in place, the more seniority and, hence, power, he or she accumulates. Our current election system is like a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Everybody wishes there were fresh blood in our House of Representatives and Senate—just not in their own districts. So they wish everybody else would throw theirs out of office, while they continue to re-elect their own. Even when their own are corrupt, like Charlie Rangel.
No one can deny that the longer a politician is in office, the easier it is to abuse the system. Just look at Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering in Texas. Mandatory term limits might not eliminate, but they would stem this kind of abuse.
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Greener writes, “The "reformers" appear to believe that Congressional pensions are both free and instantly available to anyone who's ever served.”
Greener attacks a straw man here. This article at congress.org explains that they may not receive full pensions, but that many congressional reps are eligible for at least partial pensions--including those reps convicted of felonies before 2007.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
“Make Congress pay into Social Security,” Greener paraphrases. “Well, what is there to say about people who are that ignorant? 26 years. A generation! That's how long it's been, since 1984, that members of Congress have been paying their Social Security tax just like the rest of us.”
Perhaps he had a different version of the “act” than I have. My version above doesn’t deny that Congress participates in Social Security. I think the operative part of the statement is that the retirement funds in (2) above be folded into and administered by Social Security. Which, in my opinion, will never happen because we all know that Social Security will go bankrupt the year I’m scheduled to retire.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Greener writes, “Make Congress pay for their retirement plan. Please see above for the answer.” I respond, “Please see above for answer.” And I add that many former politicians seem to make plenty of money from speaking and consulting engagements. See #8 below.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
“Congress has NEVER been able to raise its own pay,” responds Greener. "All pay increases voted by Congress must be for future Congresses, not for those currently serving.” True, but, given #1 above, enough politicians can count on re-election that even if they don’t receive the raise in that term, they expect to succeed and receive it in the next.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Greener writes “Where did the idea come from that members of Congress get free medical care?”
Hmmm, maybe from stories like this on ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655
When I was without health insurance I couldn’t just saunter in to a clinic and receive high-quality medical care. How can anyone who pays $503 a year for comprehensive medical care understand how uninsured people have to deliberate every medical decision?
Some of those congresspeople didn’t pay at all, but they still received care. Schweet.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
Greener’s response: “It doesn't take very long to find out that the only laws Congress is exempt from are those that pose a constitutional dilemma if Congress were subject to the terms of those laws. We do have (remember?) something called separation of powers.”
I confess that I don’t understand this one. I’d like to come back to it in a separate post after I’ve given it due thought.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
This may be semantic, but “Congress should void all contracts made with former members,” as Greener puts it, just doesn’t mean the same thing. He continues, “In a list of strange demands, this one takes the proverbial cake. These "reformers" fancy themselves as defenders of the Constitution. But they apparently have never read Article I Section 10, which forbids the interference in any contract. That includes a contract with a former Congressperson or any contract at all with anyone. Contracts are constitutionally protected. Who knew?”
(Now I’m confused, because when I looked up Article I Section 10, it was about powers states were not allowed to assume. States can’t impose customs duties, for example, or declare war. Nothing about congressional contracts. I assume Greener’s fingers slipped and his editors forgot to double-check. Could happen to anyone.)
I think Greener reads the letter but not the spirit of the email circling the country. Nobody believes that they could wave a magic wand and dissolve all contracts with congresspeople (in their connections as congresspeople) as of a certain date. But they wish they could make it impossible for representatives to sign contracts while in office that offer benefits while out of office, or vice versa.
It’s easy to point out all the holes in someone else’s document. Writing this, for example, was very satisfactory. (Don’t take it personally, Mr. Greener. Your strong search results led me to conclude that that a lot of other people had already read and considered what you wrote, and perhaps dismissed the "act." Since yours was popular, it seemed like a worthy essay to contest.)
It’s harder to listen seriously to people who feel disenfranchised, to help them articulate their thoughts and then to make a plan of action that would benefit them and their communities. And that’s what we need to do.
Happy Birthday, Wikipedia
Today Wikipedia celebrates 10 years online. Let's wish Wikipedia and all its editors a happy anniversary.
One of the most interesting things I learned in the media coverage building up to the event was about who Wikipedia's editors are. An NPR story about Wikipedia and its founder Jimmy Wales described the demographics of Wikipedia's editors.
"The average age is around 26," Wales says. "We're about 85 percent male, which is something we'd like to change in the future. We think that's because of our tech-geek roots."
Learn more about Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebrations around the world--there's probably one near you--at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Friday, January 14, 2011
Another reason to respect copyrights
I sing, both in choirs and as a soloist. The sheet music salespeople are well primed to explain copyright issues to choirmasters. Choirmasters in turn explain to choirs that if the choirs are discovered to be singing off unauthorized photocopied music, the choir is liable for thousands of dollars in fines.
People who sell large quantities of text have face-to-face contact with their buyers (choirmasters and academics come to mind). During those visits, they can to explain and threaten (maybe over a nice lunch). Amazon’s and Barnes & Noble’s relationship to their buyers is far more distant; it’s harder for them to stress the copyright issue to us.
Choirmasters and academics are probably more likely to want to cooperate with publishers for another reason: both want to publish before they perish. If they succeed in publishing one day, they don’t want to think that they may lose royalties because somebody thought it was cheaper and easier to use the photocopier than to order new copies.
Handel and Haydn should be in the public domain, right? Maybe. But publishers are businesses. They need reasonably profitable backlists in order to take chances on new composers. One of my favorite choirmasters published a few choral works. I think I’d have heard if they were runaway successes. Probably not. But what a thrill it was for him and for those who knew him to see his success, which was only possible because the publisher was making money from better-established works.
So, yeah, people may wish that sheet music were cheaper, but they don’t begrudge publishers their profits. If Hal Leonard moves into the Fortune 5000, though, let me know. I may change my tune.
An interesting note about musical copyrights: One of the first copyrights in England belonged to composers Thomas Tallis and William Byrd. In 1575, Queen Elizabeth granted them a patent to print and publish music, a decent monopoly, I’d say.
People who sell large quantities of text have face-to-face contact with their buyers (choirmasters and academics come to mind). During those visits, they can to explain and threaten (maybe over a nice lunch). Amazon’s and Barnes & Noble’s relationship to their buyers is far more distant; it’s harder for them to stress the copyright issue to us.
Choirmasters and academics are probably more likely to want to cooperate with publishers for another reason: both want to publish before they perish. If they succeed in publishing one day, they don’t want to think that they may lose royalties because somebody thought it was cheaper and easier to use the photocopier than to order new copies.
Handel and Haydn should be in the public domain, right? Maybe. But publishers are businesses. They need reasonably profitable backlists in order to take chances on new composers. One of my favorite choirmasters published a few choral works. I think I’d have heard if they were runaway successes. Probably not. But what a thrill it was for him and for those who knew him to see his success, which was only possible because the publisher was making money from better-established works.
So, yeah, people may wish that sheet music were cheaper, but they don’t begrudge publishers their profits. If Hal Leonard moves into the Fortune 5000, though, let me know. I may change my tune.
An interesting note about musical copyrights: One of the first copyrights in England belonged to composers Thomas Tallis and William Byrd. In 1575, Queen Elizabeth granted them a patent to print and publish music, a decent monopoly, I’d say.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Three reasons why PR cares about copyright
Your PR department is probably the department most concerned about copyrights (outside the legal department, of course).
Here are three reasons.
Many PR people come from professional journalism backgrounds. They’ve published or broadcast their thoughts and research. They don’t want to see someone else casually benefiting from the fruits of their labors.
Even PR people without publishing or media experience are writers. Humble and anonymous though the press release be, a PR person actually does write each one.
Professional journalists and flacks, we all hope to produce a sentence, poem, paragraph, essay or book that lives on after us. And when we do, we want our names on it, not the name of the person who hits the “copy” button or control-C.
Most pragmatically, PR people need positive relationships with media people. Media people count on royalties or higher payments based on how many people read or see their work.
What if I were a journalist and I discovered that the website of a company that was wooing me contained reproductions of my copyrighted work? I’d be indignant. I probably wouldn’t give that company good coverage.
Unauthorized reproductions happen all the time. A well-meaning and unsophisticated person scans a magazine article and puts the PDF up on the website. Or the person exceeds the “Fair Use” doctrine and plagiarizes. This happens in print, too, but it’s harder to spot.
If I were a journalist, I’d know that the job of the PR person at that organization was to cozy up to me. I’d expect her or him to defend my copyright on my behalf, to stay on my good side.
Sometimes, as the PR person, I’ve noticed shocking plagiarism. One example is a news site in a developing country reproducing entire articles without attribution. I’ve pointed those violations out to the reporters whose words were stolen. I didn’t do it to be righteous. I did it because I wanted to strengthen the bond between the reporter and me.
As a PR pro, then, I occasionally make myself unpopular pointing out that, no, we can’t just reproduce copyrighted material. I do it because it’s important in media relations. But I also do it because I hope, one day, to write some immortal words. And when I do, I don’t want Jim Bob’s Blog ‘n’ Bait Shop to take credit for them.
Monday, January 10, 2011
SEO Cheat Sheet
Search Engine Optimization for Dummies
When I first decided that I wanted as many people as possible to read my words online, I turned to a brand I trusted: the For Dummies books. Search Engine Optimization for Dummies is such a great book that the person I lent it to still hasn’t returned it.
Now I see that the For Dummies people have a cheat sheet online to help beginners start to plug their websites:
It's the stuff you absolutely must know about how to promote your blog or website. Cheers!
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1/15/2011 Thanks for visiting! So many people have checked this page that I thought you'd like to know that I expanded on it today. The new post is here. KH
My mother just forwarded me this email:
Actually, only some of the Founding Fathers, such as James Madison, envisioned a citizen legislature. Federalists such Alexander Hamilton and George Washington favored professional legislation. Learn more about this by reading the chapter on Shays Rebellion in 10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America. I have to add this because I believe that eisegetic reading of important documents, such as the US constitution and religious literature, foments discord and is ultimately dangerous.
Nonetheless, I agree that our elected representatives isolate themselves from the rest of US citizens by swaddling themselves in lifelong privilege. They'd care a whole lot more about the state of US health care and about our entitlement programs if they knew they had to share in them.
Everyone who participates in our government (even by voting or abstaining from voting) should care a lot more about who's governing and why.
My mother just forwarded me this email:
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
Actually, only some of the Founding Fathers, such as James Madison, envisioned a citizen legislature. Federalists such Alexander Hamilton and George Washington favored professional legislation. Learn more about this by reading the chapter on Shays Rebellion in 10 Days that Unexpectedly Changed America. I have to add this because I believe that eisegetic reading of important documents, such as the US constitution and religious literature, foments discord and is ultimately dangerous.
Nonetheless, I agree that our elected representatives isolate themselves from the rest of US citizens by swaddling themselves in lifelong privilege. They'd care a whole lot more about the state of US health care and about our entitlement programs if they knew they had to share in them.
Everyone who participates in our government (even by voting or abstaining from voting) should care a lot more about who's governing and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)