This is the new line touted mostly by the conservative side– all these campaign donations are insignificant, making the absurd argument that we spend more each year on irrelevant and unrelated things like yogurt or halloween candy, that the cash spent on campaigns is of negligible effect on the election outcomes, and, finally, that the threat of foreign influence on our elections through these funding channels is also negligible. Nothing to see here, move along.
David Brooks spouted this exact same nonsense in his op-ed column in the NY Times earlier this week, replete with a host of imaginary numbers to cloud just how much is being spent on both sides then claiming that, in the end, all the cash shoveled into this mid-term election has no real influence on the outcome, going so far as to claim that these multimillion dollar donations are more for the ‘feel-good’ effect they offer the donors than for the spoils that would most assuredly come back to them once their chosen candidates are declared victorious.
I think it’s obscene the amount of money spent by both sides of the aisle during these elections and am troubled by the anonymous nature of so many of these donations, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how best to correct it without running afoul of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is free speech even if you’re not always happy with the outcome. If a corporation wants to support a candidate, I’m guessing it should be allowed to do so just as labor unions and other large organizations can.
I do think, however, that these corporate institutions should not be able to hide behind anonymity when making these donations. All donations by corporations should have the company’s tax identification number on the donation check. Since the Citizens United ruling judged these corporations as having the same rights as individuals, perhaps their donations should be capped at the same totals as individuals. If Proctor & Gamble wants to give to candidate X, allow them to donate at the same limits as Mr. Proctor N. Gamble.
Another, more drastic solution would be to rule that the First Amendment doesn’t apply and set a federally-funded limit for all candidates. Allow every candidate an equivalent amount of campaign funds and airtime for commercials, eliminate third-party advertising, and leave it at that. Otherwise, it will soon reach the point where the total spent during an election cycle meets or exceeds the GDP of third world countries.
Some thoughts from Dish readers. One writes:
I knew Prop 19 was going down weeks ago when a friend of mine and his wife voted against. They are parents of two small kids, and did so with the reasoning ''I don't care if other people do it but I don't want it to be illegal.” Another father, whose 21-year-old son has had a drug problem, grew emotionally angry when we discussed it. “At least you can tell your kids it's illegal.” I didn't want to engage him by pointing out his son had the problem when drugs were ILLEGAL.
Parents voted their fears.
Another writes:
I think proponents made the same mistake as that made a few years ago with Prop 8, i.e. not actually making the clear case and hammering away at it.
The correct vote on these props seemed self-evident to some of us, but apparently not to the majority. A lot of people in my generation (60s) who should have voted yes on 19 were swayed by the "gateway drug" rhetoric. We've all lived long enough to know people whose kids have lost their way on the drug road, that argument needed a clear response. The Mexico cartel connection had great potential but then the Rand study sort of put it away, without a cogent, repeated counter from proponents.
Another:
Last night I asked my girlfriend's 18 year-old son if he was going to vote for Prop 19, in what is his first opprtunity to vote. He surprised me with a no. His reasoning? It's more exciting if it's illegal.
Another:
I am a long-time San Francisco resident. I just saw that Proposition 19 lost - big time. Then I checked some of the county results. The measure was approved by about 65% of San Francisco voters. In Humboldt County, on the other hand - one of the points on the Emerald Triangle - only about 47% of voters approved the measure.
I know some growers up north, and there is no doubt in my mind that this measure lost (or at least lost by as much as it did) because of greedy growers in northern California who are making bags of money selling cannabis to medical dispensaries, and who know that their bottom line would suffer were cannabis legalized across the board. That puts those growers in league with big alcohol, tobacco, and other unsavories for whom personal monetary gain is worth a few young kids getting thrown in some hell-hole prison for the rest of their lives as the result of a pot bust. I really should cease to be amazed by the power of money to corrupt people.
Thanks growers. And screw you.
(Photo: Mark Ralston/Getty.)
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
This is the new line touted mostly by the conservative side– all these campaign donations are insignificant, making the absurd argument that we spend more each year on irrelevant and unrelated things like yogurt or halloween candy, that the cash spent on campaigns is of negligible effect on the election outcomes, and, finally, that the threat of foreign influence on our elections through these funding channels is also negligible. Nothing to see here, move along.
David Brooks spouted this exact same nonsense in his op-ed column in the NY Times earlier this week, replete with a host of imaginary numbers to cloud just how much is being spent on both sides then claiming that, in the end, all the cash shoveled into this mid-term election has no real influence on the outcome, going so far as to claim that these multimillion dollar donations are more for the ‘feel-good’ effect they offer the donors than for the spoils that would most assuredly come back to them once their chosen candidates are declared victorious.
I think it’s obscene the amount of money spent by both sides of the aisle during these elections and am troubled by the anonymous nature of so many of these donations, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how best to correct it without running afoul of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is free speech even if you’re not always happy with the outcome. If a corporation wants to support a candidate, I’m guessing it should be allowed to do so just as labor unions and other large organizations can.
I do think, however, that these corporate institutions should not be able to hide behind anonymity when making these donations. All donations by corporations should have the company’s tax identification number on the donation check. Since the Citizens United ruling judged these corporations as having the same rights as individuals, perhaps their donations should be capped at the same totals as individuals. If Proctor & Gamble wants to give to candidate X, allow them to donate at the same limits as Mr. Proctor N. Gamble.
Another, more drastic solution would be to rule that the First Amendment doesn’t apply and set a federally-funded limit for all candidates. Allow every candidate an equivalent amount of campaign funds and airtime for commercials, eliminate third-party advertising, and leave it at that. Otherwise, it will soon reach the point where the total spent during an election cycle meets or exceeds the GDP of third world countries.
Some thoughts from Dish readers. One writes:
I knew Prop 19 was going down weeks ago when a friend of mine and his wife voted against. They are parents of two small kids, and did so with the reasoning ''I don't care if other people do it but I don't want it to be illegal.” Another father, whose 21-year-old son has had a drug problem, grew emotionally angry when we discussed it. “At least you can tell your kids it's illegal.” I didn't want to engage him by pointing out his son had the problem when drugs were ILLEGAL.
Parents voted their fears.
Another writes:
I think proponents made the same mistake as that made a few years ago with Prop 8, i.e. not actually making the clear case and hammering away at it.
The correct vote on these props seemed self-evident to some of us, but apparently not to the majority. A lot of people in my generation (60s) who should have voted yes on 19 were swayed by the "gateway drug" rhetoric. We've all lived long enough to know people whose kids have lost their way on the drug road, that argument needed a clear response. The Mexico cartel connection had great potential but then the Rand study sort of put it away, without a cogent, repeated counter from proponents.
Another:
Last night I asked my girlfriend's 18 year-old son if he was going to vote for Prop 19, in what is his first opprtunity to vote. He surprised me with a no. His reasoning? It's more exciting if it's illegal.
Another:
I am a long-time San Francisco resident. I just saw that Proposition 19 lost - big time. Then I checked some of the county results. The measure was approved by about 65% of San Francisco voters. In Humboldt County, on the other hand - one of the points on the Emerald Triangle - only about 47% of voters approved the measure.
I know some growers up north, and there is no doubt in my mind that this measure lost (or at least lost by as much as it did) because of greedy growers in northern California who are making bags of money selling cannabis to medical dispensaries, and who know that their bottom line would suffer were cannabis legalized across the board. That puts those growers in league with big alcohol, tobacco, and other unsavories for whom personal monetary gain is worth a few young kids getting thrown in some hell-hole prison for the rest of their lives as the result of a pot bust. I really should cease to be amazed by the power of money to corrupt people.
Thanks growers. And screw you.
(Photo: Mark Ralston/Getty.)
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
This is the new line touted mostly by the conservative side– all these campaign donations are insignificant, making the absurd argument that we spend more each year on irrelevant and unrelated things like yogurt or halloween candy, that the cash spent on campaigns is of negligible effect on the election outcomes, and, finally, that the threat of foreign influence on our elections through these funding channels is also negligible. Nothing to see here, move along.
David Brooks spouted this exact same nonsense in his op-ed column in the NY Times earlier this week, replete with a host of imaginary numbers to cloud just how much is being spent on both sides then claiming that, in the end, all the cash shoveled into this mid-term election has no real influence on the outcome, going so far as to claim that these multimillion dollar donations are more for the ‘feel-good’ effect they offer the donors than for the spoils that would most assuredly come back to them once their chosen candidates are declared victorious.
I think it’s obscene the amount of money spent by both sides of the aisle during these elections and am troubled by the anonymous nature of so many of these donations, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how best to correct it without running afoul of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is free speech even if you’re not always happy with the outcome. If a corporation wants to support a candidate, I’m guessing it should be allowed to do so just as labor unions and other large organizations can.
I do think, however, that these corporate institutions should not be able to hide behind anonymity when making these donations. All donations by corporations should have the company’s tax identification number on the donation check. Since the Citizens United ruling judged these corporations as having the same rights as individuals, perhaps their donations should be capped at the same totals as individuals. If Proctor & Gamble wants to give to candidate X, allow them to donate at the same limits as Mr. Proctor N. Gamble.
Another, more drastic solution would be to rule that the First Amendment doesn’t apply and set a federally-funded limit for all candidates. Allow every candidate an equivalent amount of campaign funds and airtime for commercials, eliminate third-party advertising, and leave it at that. Otherwise, it will soon reach the point where the total spent during an election cycle meets or exceeds the GDP of third world countries.
Some thoughts from Dish readers. One writes:
I knew Prop 19 was going down weeks ago when a friend of mine and his wife voted against. They are parents of two small kids, and did so with the reasoning ''I don't care if other people do it but I don't want it to be illegal.” Another father, whose 21-year-old son has had a drug problem, grew emotionally angry when we discussed it. “At least you can tell your kids it's illegal.” I didn't want to engage him by pointing out his son had the problem when drugs were ILLEGAL.
Parents voted their fears.
Another writes:
I think proponents made the same mistake as that made a few years ago with Prop 8, i.e. not actually making the clear case and hammering away at it.
The correct vote on these props seemed self-evident to some of us, but apparently not to the majority. A lot of people in my generation (60s) who should have voted yes on 19 were swayed by the "gateway drug" rhetoric. We've all lived long enough to know people whose kids have lost their way on the drug road, that argument needed a clear response. The Mexico cartel connection had great potential but then the Rand study sort of put it away, without a cogent, repeated counter from proponents.
Another:
Last night I asked my girlfriend's 18 year-old son if he was going to vote for Prop 19, in what is his first opprtunity to vote. He surprised me with a no. His reasoning? It's more exciting if it's illegal.
Another:
I am a long-time San Francisco resident. I just saw that Proposition 19 lost - big time. Then I checked some of the county results. The measure was approved by about 65% of San Francisco voters. In Humboldt County, on the other hand - one of the points on the Emerald Triangle - only about 47% of voters approved the measure.
I know some growers up north, and there is no doubt in my mind that this measure lost (or at least lost by as much as it did) because of greedy growers in northern California who are making bags of money selling cannabis to medical dispensaries, and who know that their bottom line would suffer were cannabis legalized across the board. That puts those growers in league with big alcohol, tobacco, and other unsavories for whom personal monetary gain is worth a few young kids getting thrown in some hell-hole prison for the rest of their lives as the result of a pot bust. I really should cease to be amazed by the power of money to corrupt people.
Thanks growers. And screw you.
(Photo: Mark Ralston/Getty.)
eric seiger
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
big seminar 14
Networking on-line is an integral component of today’s business. Employers are busier than ever, and expectations are high, not to mention immediate. To take advantage of this “want it yesterday” mentality, there are several things a professional must consider to effectively activate their on-line networking strategy.
Below are some key suggestions and links to helpful Internet resources.
With the right balance of electronic and human interaction, you will better serve your existing customers and be quick to acquire new ones.
Rules of the Game:
1. Avoid Spamming. Spamming is when you send unsolicited information to one or several individuals on-line. It is the equivalent of “junk mail” in your mailbox, and it can blemish your business reputation with your audience. Most people do not like receiving spam, so it is critical that you only send items that they have “opted-in” to participate and always provide them with an easy method to unsubscribe. Use an e-Newsletter distribution system, rather than sending mass emails from Outlook or other email programs. This will enable you to send personalized messages, manage campaign results and build your business in a positive, professional way. There are many web based applications for you to consider, and they range in costs and services. One that I personally use and have found to be very affordable and user friendly is Constant Contact (www.constantcontact.com).
2. Respect Subscribers Privacy. Clearly state, at the bottom of your message and on your website, how you plan to utilize personal data that is collected. Since identity theft and selling of personal information is of great concern to most on-line citizens, it is important to establish secure and well thought out privacy policies, then actively employ them.
3. Mind Your Frequency. While electronic communications can be incredibly timely, inexpensive and easy to produce - it’s important that you don’t become a nuisance to your customers by over-communicating with them. If you are distributing an e-Newsletter, for example, either provide your subscribers with a preferences setting where they can choose the frequency of contact with your organization or limit your mailings to no more than once per month. In addition, when sending regular email, it is always courteous to give the recipient 24 – 48 hours to respond. It may take longer… remember, these are busy times we live in, and if you are waiting on an important (time-sensitive) response, then it’s better to phone them to discuss the matter or arrange a face-to-face meeting.
4. Net Etiquette (Netiquette). Brush up on your email, IM (instant messaging) & chatting skills. Learn the most commonly used on-line acronyms, abbreviations and electronic correspondence protocol. Reference “Learn the Net’s: Email Etiquette” page at http://www.learnthenet.com/english/html/65mailet.htm or “Net Lingo” at http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm for more information.
5. Only communicate items that you absolutely don’t mind having in writing. This should be common sense, however many people make the mistake of sending messages which contain sensitive information, include strong emotional tones, create confusion that leads to misinterpretation, etc. You definitely do not want to alienate the people you’re reaching out to, so take your time and extra care when fashioning your message. If you feel distracted or emotionally influenced while writing it, then take a break and come back to it when you’re more relaxed, level headed and thinking clearly.
Methods of On-line Networking:
1. Email. Email is the obvious first choice when you want to communicate directly to your customers over the Internet. Remember to be concise & clear with your message. Also be aware of spam-blocking, internet security & firewall software packages which may prevent your message from reaching the intended recipients.
2. Join a social networking community. There are many to choose from, from Yahoo! Groups to MySpace. The key to these environments is “connecting” and “building relationships”. Remember, don’t just spam and plaster your advertising all over the place. Invest time to interact with your customers, answer questions, provide information and be genuine.
3. E-Newsletters. Create a spot on your website where new subscribers can register to receive your periodic communications. Then deliver your content on time and at the intervals you promised. Bring value to your message by providing something more than just a sales pitch. Offer discounts, promotions, links to goodies (images, screensavers, downloads, etc.) that will entice the reader to interact and respond to your call to action.
4. Instant Messaging. Be careful with this one, as it can become an overwhelming nuisance if uncontrolled. As opposed to email, IMing makes you available to customers immediately while you’re on-line (and visible). IM tools are great because you can usually transfer files, add multiple people to a ‘group IM’ and keep track of individuals on your buddy list. If you use multiple versions of IM software (such as MSN, Yahoo!, ICQ, AOL IM, etc.) then consider downloading Trillian which allows you to access all of those programs from one interface. You can find out more about that free software here: http://www.download.com/3000-2150-10047473.html . But remember, if you find yourself “hiding” or putting up your “away” message more often than not, you are defeating the purpose of using such software.
5. Virtual Conferences. This is an especially attractive option with ever increasing gas/fuel prices and travel expenses. Whether you are dealing with clients across town or around the globe, it doesn’t take much to set up a virtual conference, and you’ll save time & money in the process. Some of the easiest programs to use are WebEx (www.webex.com) and GoToMeeting (www.gotomeeting.com).
6. Contact Management. In any business environment it’s very important that you keep all of your contact information up to date and conveniently accessible. Plaxo is one of the most well known web based contact management programs (which integrates with Outlook & Outlook Express) and performs their time-saving services free of charge (basic version). Plaxo securely updates and maintains information in your address book, and gives you the tools with which to share your information with over ten million existing Plaxo members. So, there’s a good chance that your friends, family, customers & business partners are already a part of the Plaxo network. Find more details at www.plaxo.com .
7. Chat / Forum Hosting. Many businesses are now including chat & forum options on their corporate websites to foster more frequent communication between themselves and their customers. The important consideration here is that your business has the resources to maintain such areas, keeping them fresh and current. Maintaining an empty chat room or sparse bulletin board serves no purpose other than taking up space and making your site seem outdated or unpopular. However, scheduling interesting topical chats at different dates/times during the month or engaging participants in a lively forum, can truly turn your site into a “community” rather than just an on-line billboard. Check with your local ISP (Internet Service Provider) to see if they offer enhancements such as chat rooms and bulletin boards for your web site. Many provide these services free of charge as well.
By taking advantage of these great on-line opportunities, you can enhance your current networking relationships and reach out to your audience in a convenient and immediate way. They will definitely appreciate you joining them in the 21st century, and offering them ways to communicate in the varying digital formats that they prefer.
Lori St-Germain is a freelancer who lives in the Adirondack mountain region of upstate New York. She is an accomplished writer, graphic/web designer and dedicated wife. She has two children (miniature schnauzers) named Scooter and Radar. To contact the author, please write to lori@jingledog.com .
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
Facebook Wins Another <b>News</b> Feed Patent
When Facebook originally filed for the patent in the fall of 2006, it was just a month before the company launched its news feed. It argued at the time that as more and more users joined the social network, the amount of information it ...
<b>News</b> Corp. Social Games Unit Buys Making Fun | Peter Kafka <b>...</b>
Most of the big media companies have big stakes in digital games, except News Corp. But Rupert Murdoch's company is trying to catch up--without spending a lot of money.
Great, great <b>news</b>: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader <b>...</b>
Great, great news: Pelosi might stay on as House minority leader.
eric seiger
No comments:
Post a Comment