However much we mavens of variety and change might be reluctant to repeat ourselves, if we want to get our message across, it has to be repeated over and over and over again. Not only do our brains have an ignore button that has to be disabled, but we forget.
So, here's a comment from yesterday that seemed to ring a lot of bells:
First of all, pension payments are not "benefits." They are deferred compensation.I've re-formatted the comment and, in addition, I want to repeat :)
Instead of handing some of their dollars over to Wall Street to play with, workers sent their dollars back to the Treasury for Congress to invest in the welfare of the American people. For Congress to then argue that there is not enough money is despicable. After all, Congress is tasked with issuing and managing the currency.
The choice to first launder dollars through the Federal Reserve Banks, to give banksters a "cut" of every dollar spent by Congress, was invented in 1913 under the aegis of the people's representatives not being trustworthy enough to administer the currency. In the forty years since the dollar has been freed from the bands of gold, Congress has proved unreliable in the extreme. However, the solution is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but to get new Representatives in Congress.
So, look to your own House, Mr. Ellison. Tell your colleagues to stop rationing the currency and to restore adequate circulation of dollars through the economy by lvying appropriate taxes to generate revenue. "Re venue" means to come back. The only reason for federal tax collection is to keep the currency in motion. Otherwise, Congress could just order the distribution of whatever it deems useful to spend.
Rationing leads to hoarding. The result is clearly evident on this graph:
We need to stop evaluating actions in terms of the actual and potential results and focus, instead, on the perpetrators and what, in this case, Congress hopes to attain by visiting deprivation on the people they are supposed to serve.
Unfortunately, our incumbents have learned that issuing threats and then not carrying them out earns them credit with the electorate. They get re-elected because they are not as bad as they might have been. It's a cheap trick and we're getting sick of it.
You'd think that 160 freshmen from the last two elections would have sent the message that citizens are fed up. But, it seems, we've got some real slow learners in Congress.
Then too, people tend not to learn from other people's mistakes. So, 2014 is going to have to be another removal action.
There was a reason the founders scheduled elections every two years.
I have now used that graph in 24 diaries and comments.Finally, a good voice is important in politics. Representatives not only have to be visible (easy on the eyes) but have a good voice. Indeed, the latter may even be more important. Of course, before TV, that went without saying. An easily recognizable voice made all the difference. And it still may. Think of any politician you like and "see" if some significant expression doesn't come to mind.
I mention that just to point out that repetition is indispensible, if we want to get a message disseminated. I suspect that the human brain has a default that requires new information to be received three times before it even registers. Then, if the new information contradicts something that's already believed, getting traction is much harder. What's in the memory bank resists being displaced.
The Cons repeat out of habit because that's their primary mode of behavior. We, who are not habit prone, need to do it on purpose. We need to resist our attraction to variety. Be boring.
A spokesperson has to be willing/able to say the same thing over and over and make it sound fresh. It's a talent. The canned electronic media were a good training ground because the actors had to be able to do many "takes."
(See how we talk in terms of vision even when we're considering speech and sound. And how references to touch are almost totally left out?)
Anyway, in that context, let me recommend the post by RDemocrat, introducing Ed Marksberry as a candidate for the Kentucky Senate seat. Mr. Ed has recorded a song to introduce himself. You should have a listen and "see" if that isn't a great voice for a Senator, or what.
The spouse took my advise and came back with the observation that Marksberry sounds like James Carville with hair. I'd say Mr. Ed is not a blackberry kind of guy.
Oh, and to continue on topic, Ed Marksberry is going to need money.