4/09/2006

Local Government Politics - How To Be Effective?

So, you have an issue with your local government. How can you most effectively convey your message? Without being able to effectively convey your message not just to the governing body, but your fellow citizens, your job of swaying public opinion and votes your way, is difficult. You need to organize your points. You need to start by deciding what is the one BIG reason for you supporting or opposing an issue. One BIG reason is better than a multitude of small reasons. It is the old KISS theory. Keep it Simple Stupid. * Your one BIG reason is how you start and end every discussion of the issue. People can understand one BIG reason. They might be able to remember one BIG reason. They cannot remember a number of little reasons. * The one BIG reason should make “your cause” also “their cause.” You must be able to explain why the decision is important to them, and not just to you. * If you don't have one BIG reason, you risk the danger of switching your reasons around from one discussion to the next. People will get confused as to your real motives. * If you don't have one BIG reason for your position, your job of swaying opinions just got much harder. * Finally, if you don't have one BIG reason for your position, why do you have any interest at all? Beyond your one BIG reason, you then must list your smaller concerns in priority. You do this in order to become organized in your position. You must be able to recite your smaller concerns one right after the other. As your issues progresses, some of your concerns on your list may be satisfied. Cross them off the list. Or, maybe new concerns are developed. Add them to the list. Your goal is to have every one of your concerns satisfactory decided in your favor. Realistically that won't happen as compromises almost always have to be made. But, your goal is to win every concern. Along with knowing your side of the issue, you must also know your opponents side of the issue. You should attempt to know their side even better than they do! Only be studying their side of the issue will you be able to develop arguments to counteract their position. If you really wish to be effective in local politics remember these tips. They will help you to become a winning local government activist.

Facing Defeat In War Of Words In Iraq, U. S. Launces Operation Thesaurus

The U. S., admitting is has been losing the war of words in Iraq, has launched a new offensive, dubbed Operation Thesaurus. It is aimed at rooting out the euphemistic resources of the enemy, wherever they may be lurking. Clearly stung by the aptitude of Iraqi malcontents and foreign interlopers to present themselves as defenders of Iraqi sovereignty and Muslim religiosity, the administration has vowed to turn the linguistic tables on them. In a hastily arranged press conference, President Bush announced, “I’m launching Operation Thesaurus on the advice of some new advisors, who have a knock-your-socks-off grasp of the obvious.” He went on to explain, “I now realize that the tricky verbal tactics of ‘these insidious new oppressors of the Iraqi people,’ as my new advisors call them, have allowed them to redefine the American liberation of Iraq as ‘the occupation,’ and to misname coalition forces, not as liberators, but as ‘occupiers.’ This verbal ‘slight of tongue’ is only one instance of how this ruthless enemy has infiltrated the English language. It pains me to acknowledge that they have somehow managed to permeate the media with their verbal chicanery and occasionally – I admit it – my own speech has been susceptible to the invasion. But now I get it, and, once I get it, I got it. I now see that the entire American effort, as well as my approval rating – which, as you know, I hardly ever think about – is threatened by these evil word deceptions. As a result, I have ordered the military to retake the verbal high-ground.” Responding with his usual dutiful clarity, Donald Rumsfeld has vowed to weed out linguistic lapses in the military, even in his own generally guarded vocabulary. He stated, with unaccustomed candor, “I regret to say that widespread linguistic lapses in the military – even some made by yours truly – in verbal security have only served to encourage the euphemistic advantages the enemy seeks to achieve. As part of Operation Thesaurus, I myself will never again refer to these ruthless killers as ‘jihadists’ and to their counterproductive cause as ‘jihad.’ I now know understand that these two seemingly innocent denotations actually confer the legitimacy of recognized nomenclature on their bloody activities.” He has also vowed to eliminate any use by the military of the word “insurgents,” as well as the oft-employed variant, “the insurgency.” He contends that the suspect terms inadvertently lend these bombers and assassins “a regrettable whiff of inappropriate patriotic zeal.” He concluded by saying, “Here are these blatant malefactors, trying to present themselves as defenders of Iraqi sovereignty and the Muslim religion, when all they want to do is establish a Talibanesque tyranny. Why, to justify their irreligious atrocities, they’ve even misinterpreted a religion that does, to some extent, lend itself to misinterpretation, but whose very name stands for ‘peace.’” Dick Cheney, attending a convention of amateur quail hunters at a hospital in Wyoming, said, “The secondary thrust of Operation Thesaurus will be to communicate to the Iraqi people and dissenters worldwide that, had not the so-called but, we now realize, misnamed insurgency taken place, they would have by now occupied a peaceful land and be well along the road to a new prosperity. We’ve finally got our act together now and, I promise you, we’re going to use the complete resources of the English language to tell the Iraqi people that their current suffering is due solely to the activities of the thugs who have deceitfully attempted to co-opt the term 'liberators' for themselves.” He went on to say, “For example, my friends and fellow quail shooters, if the oil pipelines had not been repeatedly blown up, oil would have long ago been flowing freely to the Iraqi people, who now, despite their copious reserves, suffer oil shortages, and it would have been flowing out to the world as the ready source of new wealth the nation desperately needs to rebuild itself. The streets would have been peaceful, permitting everyday social activities and the secure conduct of business. The various factions that make up the society would not be, though the calculated murder of members of their various segments, at virtual civil war. Finally, and most tellingly, the thousands of coalition forces and Iraqi citizens who have died after the fall of Saddam Hussein would still be alive. It is, as the President says, time to ‘retake the verbal high ground.’”