Members of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States are deeply concerned that the Federal Communications Commission’s impending biennial review of rules designed to protect the public from concentrated ownership of media outlets may result in steps that will severely weaken existing rules designed to protect the public’s first amendment rights to diverse media. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there has been a general trend toward greater concentration of ownership in private hands, justified by the notion that diversity may be defined simply in terms of numbers of outlets, and evaluated in increasingly narrow terms of commercial interests and private ownership. Far from increasing and expanding upon the marketplace of ideas and offering the public greater choice of outlets, the result has been to concentrate programming designed to support owners’ financial interests, with fewer resources available for locally owned production and public access. Given that the public holds ownership of the airwaves, the FCC was created and given a mandate to promote competition, diversity of ownership and access for local broadcasters. We are concerned that in the upcoming review (Docket No. 02-277), current guidelines concerning diversity and concentration of ownership will be defined in such a way as to limit the consideration of diversity to the criterion defined in the interests of commercial competition, and that the definition of locally-owned media may be expanded to include network-owned chain properties. There currently exist more media outlets than ever before; however, studies demonstrate that media consolidation has had a negative effect on media diversity and local access to media outlets. True diversity of media is vital to the public interest in maintaining democracy and cannot rest solely on the whims of the marketplace. In the Supreme Court’s opinion of 1945 (Associated Press vs. United States): “[The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, … [and] a condition for a free society…. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.” We urge the FCC to adhere to the guidelines expressed in the commission’s original mandate, and to further strengthen such guidelines to effectively ensure public access to the media and true diversity of ownership. ”Holly Hart is the head of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States located at 1314 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN” ‘Grassroots media organizations opposing FCC deregulation of media:’ *Prometheus Radio Project, https://www.prometheusradio.org/ *Media Tank https://www.mediatank.org/ ‘Other Reading:’ *”FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting ‘Action Alert,’ Dec. 5, 2002 https://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html *”Time Warner Could Strangle the Internet: When competition is limited and free access isn’t guaranteed, choices can easily dwindle” by Stacy Mitchell. Portland Press Herald (Maine), Jan. 1, 2003. https://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/030101timewarner.shtml *Telecommunications industry contributions to political campaigns: The Center for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=C2200
Grassroot Perspective – Jan. 20, 2003-Businesses and Interest Groups Give Little to Political Campaigns; Nuclear Energy is Safe, Reliable; Smart Growth Takes Hits
Dick Rowland Image ‘Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)’ – Businesses and Interest Groups Give Little to Political Campaigns Industries spend much more on lobbying than they do on political campaigns. According to a new study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, around 80 percent of campaign contributions are from individuals. Businesses contribute so little because they receive very little for their money — so contributing more is fruitless. *Individuals, organizations and companies gave a total of nearly $3 billion to national campaigns in 1999 and 2000 — equivalent to 0.15 percent of annual federal spending. *Contributions by individuals average around $115. *Forty percent of all Fortune 500 companies do not even have a political action committee — and the average corporate PAC gives only about $1,400 to legislators, far below the legal limit. *Organizations spend 10 times as much on lobbying as on direct campaign contributions. The study challenges the common wisdom that corporate money runs politics. It finds that politicians’ votes depend almost entirely on their beliefs and the preferences of their voters and their party. Contributions can help a company’s or an industry’s lobbyists gain access to legislators. The lobbyists can then make their arguments — and they often can then provide the politician with essential information. Source: Alan B. Krueger (Princeton University), “Economic Scene: Lobbying by Businesses Overwhelms their Campaign Contributions,” New York Times, September 19, 2002. Above article is from www.ncpa.org Daily Policy Digest 9/19/02. – Nuclear Energy is Safe, Reliable Despite the countless scare stories about accidents at nuclear reactors, nuclear energy is the safest way to generate electricity, experts say. But expansion of nuclear power has been stalled in the United States because of media-fed perceptions that nuclear power is unsafe. Among the points nuclear energy advocates make in support of its safety: *Radiation from American nuclear plants has not harmed anyone, and the chances of a nuclear reactor meltdown are miniscule. *Per kilowatt of energy produced, more people are killed by fossil fuel. *An incident like that at Chernobyl is even more unlikely, as the Chernobyl design was rejected as unsafe by the U.S. 50 years ago. *A new type of reactor called a pebble bed reactor, one of which will be built in South Africa, is even safer, say experts, due to its design. Source: The Energy Advocate: A monthly Newsletter Promoting Energy and Technology, May 2002 (Vol. 6, No. 10). For more on Energy Advocate, see https://www.energyadvocate.com/ ‘Roots (Food for Thought)’ Smart Growth Takes Hits While still a dominant political force in many states and metropolitan areas, cracks in the smart-growth movement are growing wider. Author: Randal O’Toole Published: The Heartland Institute 01/01/2002 Since the Sept. 11 attack on the densest part of America (when counting job density), numerous commentators have pointed out the idea of density suddenly doesn’t seem so attractive. Smart-growth advocates have come up with rather lame responses to this. University of Pennsylvania urban planner Mark Alan Hughes, for example, says terrorism proves we should live in high-density cities so we can be close to hospitals when terrorists attack. That is hardly reassuring — especially if the roads between you and the hospitals are gridlocked. Smart Growth Bad for Salmon Aside from terrorism worries, smart growth has suffered blows from other quarters. In the Northwest, for example, it turns out smart growth is incompatible with saving salmon. According to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biologists, protecting fish requires that no more than 10 percent of new developments should be “impermeable,” i.e., covered with pavement or buildings. Implementing this rule, admits NFMS officials, will require “sprawl.” This calls into question Oregon’s strict smart-growth rules. “In most areas,” says NFMS biologist Spencer Hovcamp, Oregon land-use policies “have little likelihood of success” in helping to recover salmon. In response, Mike Burton, the director of Metro (Portland’s regional planning agency and a leading smart-growth supporter), says state agencies and the Legislature need to “take a second look at Oregon’s land-use policies.” This comment has the effect of deflecting any blame for harming salmon habitat to someone other than Metro. Suburbs Attracting Minorities Meanwhile, the idea that low-density suburbs unjustly concentrate poor people and minorities in the cities is being blown away by 2000 Census results. In the Portland area, for example, the Census has shown that “growing numbers of Latino, African American, and Asian families bought homes in scattered Portland and suburban neighborhoods during the 1990s, increasing racial and ethnic diversity throughout the region.” From 1990 to 2000, the share of the region’s African Americans concentrated in Northeast Portland (the area people called “the ghetto” in the 1960s) fell from 60 to 48 percent — which means the rest moved to the suburbs or other Portland neighborhoods. The number of African-American families who owned their own homes grew by 27 percent. Hispanics and other minorities are also dispersing. I am sure similar numbers can be found for other urban areas. Portland Planning “is in Trouble” A recent draft report from a Portland State University professor says, “The urban transportation planning process in Portland is in trouble.” The report, A Critique of the Urban Transportation Planning Process: The Performance of Portland’s 2000 Regional Transportation Plan, is by Prof. Kenneth Dueker of the Urban Studies and Planning Department. According to Dueker, Portland’s Metro predicts transit’s share of regional travel will double over the next 20 years. Many other metropolitan planning organizations are projecting a decline in transit’s share, and the average projection for similar-sized urban areas is just a 14 percent increase. “No other city comes close” to Metro’s estimate, which Dueker considers to be “wishfully optimistic or unrealistic.” Dueker observes Metro plans to make capital investments in transit equal to $1.18 per projected transit trip, while investments in highways will equal only $0.05 per auto trip. The result, Metro projects, will be “a 560 percent increase in congested hours in the PM peak period.” This plan is “unsustainable,” says Dueker, because “people will not tolerate” that level of congestion. Portland “planners have a faith in new urbanism that is blind to what reasonable forecasts tell them.” Dueker predicts Metro’s plan will lead to “backlashes,” including “opposition to upzoning proposals, the flight of families seeking the space they need and can afford, and ballot initiatives to finance and build roads.” Congestion Leads to More Roads Is Dueker’s prediction accurate? We can get an idea from another growing region that decided to stop building roads in order to discourage growth. Years ago, Santa Cruz County, California, decided not to expand the four-lane Highway 1. The policy didn’t do much to curtail traffic: In the past decade, highway traffic grew by nearly 40 percent. The result was “agonizing stop-and-go conditions” that overflowed into neighborhoods, sometimes “trapping residents in their homes for hours at a time.” In response to pressure from a variety of sources, the county commission recently voted 8 to 2 to expand the highway by two lanes. Among the supporters of expansion was the county’s transit district, which is enthused the new lanes will be bus-and-carpool lanes. Conclusions Smart growth is still the dominant political force in many states and metropolitan areas. But the cracks in the movement’s facade are growing wider. Smart-growth advocates express concern about congestion and housing affordability. But as more people realize the real effects of smart growth are to increase congestion to discourage driving, and increase housing costs to discourage low-density development, support for the movement will eventually fade away. Randal O’Toole is senior economist with the Thoreau Institute and author of the recent book, The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban Myths. He can be reached by email at: mailto:rot@ti.org See the Institute’s Web site at: https://www.ti.org Above article is from Environment and Climate News 1/02 See https://www.heartland.org/ for details. For free subscription to Environment and Climate News, please give Dick Rowland a call at (808) 487-4959. ‘Evergreen (Today’s Quote)’ If, on the one hand, we must speak of solidarity, of establishing rules to help those worse off than we are, then, on the other hand, we cannot ignore the two values of responsibility and liberty. To think, as happens more frequently, “I pay my taxes, so the state can do it,” is a tremendous mistake. It is not the state that must deal with our neighbors; we all must do it. There is one thing I never tire of repeating in public meetings everywhere in Italy. We ourselves must carry the burden for our brothers who are ill. We ourselves as persons and indivuduals must feel the responsibility over and above the United Nations, the government, and the multinationals. It is very true that all this runs counter to human egoism. And why was development born in the West? Because the West, thanks to centuries of the Gospel, of Christianity, of preaching the importance of the concept of the person — all this has given birth to liberty, and with liberty comes industrialization and scientific discovery. Without liberty, it would not have been possible. It is not sufficient to import the Western model through laws alone; a mentality needs to be created that is fertile for development. – Father Piero Gheddo, translated by Father Robert Sirico ”See Web site” https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”
Staying Focused
Through a coincidence of good timing, I am in San Francisco, where it is 65 degrees, clear, and absolutely beautiful while Washington is in a deep freeze. This was a long-planned trip, however, and the highlight was a meeting I had yesterday with Nobel-laureate Milton Friedman. Professor Friedman has long been interested in health policy and the importance of changes that will promote greater individual freedom.
I wrote to him and asked to meet to get his guidance on carrying
free-market ideas forward in what should be the best climate for
progress in well over a decade.
Professor Friedman invited me to meet in his spectacular condominium atop one of the tallest buildings on the highest hills in San Francisco. His view has to be one of the best on the planet, with a panoramic view that extends from the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate. Magnificent! He reinforced his concern, detailed in an article he wrote in the Winter 2001 issue of The Public Interest, about government expenditures accounting for 45 percent of total health spending in the United States. “We are headed toward completely socialized medicine and are already halfway there, if in addition to direct costs, we include indirect tax subsidies.”
He insists it is important to stay focused on the big picture but admits that his policy prescriptions may not be politically feasible. He advocates repealing the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminating the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs; deregulating most insurance; and restricting the role of government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases.
He believes that realistic first steps should focus on liberalizing the
rules governing medical savings accounts, and allowing Medicare
beneficiaries to have access to the funds allocated on their behalf,
first to protect against catastrophic medical expenses, then to have
freedom in spending for routine care.
A strong advocate of MSAs, Professor Friedman was very interested to learn about the new Health Reimbursement Arrangements authorized by the IRS last summer to essentially give medium-sized and large companies the opportunity to offer MSA-like products to their employees. We discussed the need for either legislation or a new ruling that will allow employee ownership of the money they save in their HRA accounts.
Professor Friedman’s vision is as sweeping as the view from his balcony. Those of us who slog in the trenches of public policy details every day do well to be reminded of the goal: Individual control over health spending decisions in a free and competitive marketplace that responds to empowered consumers.
”’Grace-Marie Turner is founder and president of the Galen Institute in Alexandria, Va., which was started in 1995 to promote a more informed public debate over individual freedom, consumer choice, competition and diversity in the health sector. The Institute’s primary focus is sponsoring research and educational programs on the crucial intersection of health and tax policy. For more information, go to:”’ https://www.galen.org/ ”’To reach Grace Marie Turner, send email”’ mailto:galen@galen.org
Closing More Sales by Letting People go
John has been doing very well in sales. But he knew he could do
better. So he called me and asked for some help.
He was making a very good living, but felt that he wasn’t focused.
He wasn’t spending his time, effort and energy in the right places.
John was running on two cylinders — which weren’t running very
smoothly — and was still making $100,000.
For years he had said to himself: “Imagine what I could do if only
I could get focused and manage my time better. Then I could
make some ‘real’ money.”
*If you want help setting your priorities, getting focused and managing your time — so nothing slips through the cracks – you’ll enjoy my “Taking Control of Your Day” eBook. Here’s the link to order your copy: https://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/adtrack.asp?AdID=13334
One day, when we were meeting, I asked John what his closing ratios
were. He pondered that question for a few moments, and then said
that he didn’t have the slightest idea. He had never kept any kind of statistical records.
I asked him some more sales-related questions:
*What is the size of your average sale?
*How many sales did you make last year?
*What was your biggest sale last year? How much money did you earn on it?
*What was your smallest sale last year? How much money did you earn on it?
*What is your profile for your ‘ideal’ client?
*How many sales do you close on the first interview? The second? The third? The fourth, fifth, sixth, or tenth?
*What is your best source for leads?
*What are your sales, profit and income goals for this coming year?
John thought about these questions for a few moments, and with a
puzzled-look on his face he said in a soft, quiet voice, “I don’t know
the answers to most of your questions, but if you’ll wait a moment
I can dig up the answers to the others, I just don’t have that information at my fingertips.
He continued, “I was never much into record keeping. For the most
part, I’ve just been flying by the seat of my pants.”
If you want to be successful, you must run your business, like
a business. You need to know:
*Who your best — most profitable — customers are.
*Where they came from.
*How much they spent with you.
*What your most profitable products are.
*The average size of your sale.
*Your closing ratios.
You should have the answers to these questions at your fingertips, for without them, you’re like a sailor who is in the middle of the ocean without a compass, sextant, radio, radar or GPS (Global Positioning System).
You’ve no idea what direction you’re going. (Last week one of my clients told me that he ran out of gas while driving to an appointment. He had been looking at the speedometer. Unfortunately, he forgot to look at his gas gauge.)
Because John didn’t keep any records, he didn’t know where he was,
and as a result he didn’t know what changes he should be making in his business planning.
Over the next few weeks John started keeping sales records. He
recorded the names of the people he met with, what he thought they
would purchase, the dates he met with them, whether or not
they bought from him, and the amount of the sale.
As we studied his records, I noticed something very interesting in
his spreadsheet: He was closing about 23 percent of his sales on
the first interview, 12 percent on the second interview, and 6 percent on the third interview.
When he met with a prospect a fourth, fifth, or subsequent interview, only 2 percent of those people ever purchased. And those that did were his smallest — least profitable — sales.
John had been trained in the “everybody’s a prospect” school of
selling and had always followed the “I’m going to call on them till
they buy or they die!” sales methodology.
He had the persistence of a bull dog. He refused to let go.
But as John was reviewing his records he observed that he was closing 37 percent of his opportunities in either the first or second call, and only 8 percent of his opportunities thereafter.
As we pondered this interesting fact, we talked about how much time he was investing following-up on his opportunities. For the most
part, the people who bought on the first or second meeting were
rather easy sales. The people were fun to work with, and many of these customers became friends.
But the 63 percent who didn’t buy on the first or second call were
much harder to work with. They didn’t return phone calls or respond to voice mail or e-mail messages. They cancelled or postponed meetings. They weren’t easy to work with.
Then I asked John this question: “How much time are you spending chasing these people?”
John thought for a moment and said, “I’ve been spending almost 60
percent of my time chasing people who aren’t buying. And the few
that do buy aren’t usually worth the effort for they don’t become
long-term customers. It’s almost like they’re giving me an order just to get rid of me.”
As he spoke a light bulb must have turned on deep inside his head.
A big smile came across his face as he realized what had been keeping him from making a lot of money. He was wasting the majority of his time chasing people who weren’t going to buy from him.
We discussed a “novel” idea: Stop calling on a prospect after the
second call. If they haven’t bought, move on and look for a better
prospect. A prospect who is in the market to buy from you ”’today.”’
We spent the next few sessions working on John’s telephone techniques and helped him perfect his Elevator Speech.
*If you want to improve your telephone results, you need to have a ”’great”’ Elevator Speech. My best-selling eBook “Opening Doors with a Brilliant Elevator Speech” teaches you how to create more opportunities over the phone. Here’s the link to order your copy: https://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/adtrack.asp?AdID=7556
And we spent time improving his networking skills so when he went to business and industry meetings he could meet more people, make
more friends, find more opportunities, and close more sales.
*If you don’t have enough prospects, you probably need to improve your networking skills. My eBook “Creating Opportunities by Networking” teaches you how you to become an expert networker. If you want to get ahead in business — and in life — this is a must read. Here’s the link to order your copy: https://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/adtrack.asp?AdID=12494
Over the past few weeks, John’s results have been startling. Because
he’s more focused on finding people who are in the market today,
he’s not pushing himself on those that aren’t interested.
He’s using the telephone much more effectively to find prospects
and qualify them. His closing ratios have improved. He is making more money.
And best of all, he’s got more time for his friends, family and himself. He’s no longer working harder, he’s not just working smarter. He’s working less.
”’Reprinted with permission from Jeffrey Mayer’s Succeeding In Business Newsletter. (Copyright, 2002, Jeffrey J. Mayer, Succeeding In Business, Inc.) To subscribe to Jeff’s free newsletter, visit”’ https://www.SucceedingInBusiness.com
Staying Focused
Through a coincidence of good timing, I am in San Francisco, where it is 65 degrees, clear, and absolutely beautiful while Washington is in a deep freeze. This was a long-planned trip, however, and the highlight was a meeting I had yesterday with Nobel-laureate Milton Friedman. Professor Friedman has long been interested in health policy and the importance of changes that will promote greater individual freedom. I wrote to him and asked to meet to get his guidance on carrying free-market ideas forward in what should be the best climate for progress in well over a decade. Professor Friedman invited me to meet in his spectacular condominium atop one of the tallest buildings on the highest hills in San Francisco. His view has to be one of the best on the planet, with a panoramic view that extends from the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate. Magnificent! He reinforced his concern, detailed in an article he wrote in the Winter 2001 issue of The Public Interest, about government expenditures accounting for 45 percent of total health spending in the United States. “We are headed toward completely socialized medicine and are already halfway there, if in addition to direct costs, we include indirect tax subsidies.” He insists it is important to stay focused on the big picture but admits that his policy prescriptions may not be politically feasible. He advocates repealing the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care; terminating the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs; deregulating most insurance; and restricting the role of government, preferably state and local rather than federal, to financing care for the hard cases. He believes that realistic first steps should focus on liberalizing the rules governing medical savings accounts, and allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have access to the funds allocated on their behalf, first to protect against catastrophic medical expenses, then to have freedom in spending for routine care. A strong advocate of MSAs, Professor Friedman was very interested to learn about the new Health Reimbursement Arrangements authorized by the IRS last summer to essentially give medium-sized and large companies the opportunity to offer MSA-like products to their employees. We discussed the need for either legislation or a new ruling that will allow employee ownership of the money they save in their HRA accounts. Professor Friedman’s vision is as sweeping as the view from his balcony. Those of us who slog in the trenches of public policy details every day do well to be reminded of the goal: Individual control over health spending decisions in a free and competitive marketplace that responds to empowered consumers. ”Grace-Marie Turner is founder and president of the Galen Institute in Alexandria, Va., which was started in 1995 to promote a more informed public debate over individual freedom, consumer choice, competition and diversity in the health sector. The Institute’s primary focus is sponsoring research and educational programs on the crucial intersection of health and tax policy. For more information, go to:” https://www.galen.org/ ”To reach Grace Marie Turner, send email” mailto:galen@galen.org
Closing More Sales by Letting People go
John has been doing very well in sales. But he knew he could do better. So he called me and asked for some help. He was making a very good living, but felt that he wasn’t focused. He wasn’t spending his time, effort and energy in the right places. John was running on two cylinders — which weren’t running very smoothly — and was still making $100,000. For years he had said to himself: “Imagine what I could do if only I could get focused and manage my time better. Then I could make some ‘real’ money.” *If you want help setting your priorities, getting focused and managing your time — so nothing slips through the cracks – you’ll enjoy my “Taking Control of Your Day” eBook. Here’s the link to order your copy: https://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/adtrack.asp?AdID=13334 One day, when we were meeting, I asked John what his closing ratios were. He pondered that question for a few moments, and then said that he didn’t have the slightest idea. He had never kept any kind of statistical records. I asked him some more sales-related questions: *What is the size of your average sale? *How many sales did you make last year? *What was your biggest sale last year? How much money did you earn on it? *What was your smallest sale last year? How much money did you earn on it? *What is your profile for your ‘ideal’ client? *How many sales do you close on the first interview? The second? The third? The fourth, fifth, sixth, or tenth? *What is your best source for leads? *What are your sales, profit and income goals for this coming year? John thought about these questions for a few moments, and with a puzzled-look on his face he said in a soft, quiet voice, “I don’t know the answers to most of your questions, but if you’ll wait a moment I can dig up the answers to the others, I just don’t have that information at my fingertips. He continued, “I was never much into record keeping. For the most part, I’ve just been flying by the seat of my pants.” If you want to be successful, you must run your business, like a business. You need to know: *Who your best — most profitable — customers are. *Where they came from. *How much they spent with you. *What your most profitable products are. *The average size of your sale. *Your closing ratios. You should have the answers to these questions at your fingertips, for without them, you’re like a sailor who is in the middle of the ocean without a compass, sextant, radio, radar or GPS (Global Positioning System). You’ve no idea what direction you’re going. (Last week one of my clients told me that he ran out of gas while driving to an appointment. He had been looking at the speedometer. Unfortunately, he forgot to look at his gas gauge.) Because John didn’t keep any records, he didn’t know where he was, and as a result he didn’t know what changes he should be making in his business planning. Over the next few weeks John started keeping sales records. He recorded the names of the people he met with, what he thought they would purchase, the dates he met with them, whether or not they bought from him, and the amount of the sale. As we studied his records, I noticed something very interesting in his spreadsheet: He was closing about 23 percent of his sales on the first interview, 12 percent on the second interview, and 6 percent on the third interview. When he met with a prospect a fourth, fifth, or subsequent interview, only 2 percent of those people ever purchased. And those that did were his smallest — least profitable — sales. John had been trained in the “everybody’s a prospect” school of selling and had always followed the “I’m going to call on them till they buy or they die!” sales methodology. He had the persistence of a bull dog. He refused to let go. But as John was reviewing his records he observed that he was closing 37 percent of his opportunities in either the first or second call, and only 8 percent of his opportunities thereafter. As we pondered this interesting fact, we talked about how much time he was investing following-up on his opportunities. For the most part, the people who bought on the first or second meeting were rather easy sales. The people were fun to work with, and many of these customers became friends. But the 63 percent who didn’t buy on the first or second call were much harder to work with. They didn’t return phone calls or respond to voice mail or e-mail messages. They cancelled or postponed meetings. They weren’t easy to work with. Then I asked John this question: “How much time are you spending chasing these people?” John thought for a moment and said, “I’ve been spending almost 60 percent of my time chasing people who aren’t buying. And the few that do buy aren’t usually worth the effort for they don’t become long-term customers. It’s almost like they’re giving me an order just to get rid of me.” As he spoke a light bulb must have turned on deep inside his head. A big smile came across his face as he realized what had been keeping him from making a lot of money. He was wasting the majority of his time chasing people who weren’t going to buy from him. We discussed a “novel” idea: Stop calling on a prospect after the second call. If they haven’t bought, move on and look for a better prospect. A prospect who is in the market to buy from you ”today.” We spent the next few sessions working on John’s telephone techniques and helped him perfect his Elevator Speech. *If you want to improve your telephone results, you need to have a ”great” Elevator Speech. My best-selling eBook “Opening Doors with a Brilliant Elevator Speech” teaches you how to create more opportunities over the phone. Here’s the link to order your copy: https://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/adtrack.asp?AdID=7556 And we spent time improving his networking skills so when he went to business and industry meetings he could meet more people, make more friends, find more opportunities, and close more sales. *If you don’t have enough prospects, you probably need to improve your networking skills. My eBook “Creating Opportunities by Networking” teaches you how you to become an expert networker. If you want to get ahead in business — and in life — this is a must read. Here’s the link to order your copy: https://www.1shoppingcart.com/app/adtrack.asp?AdID=12494 Over the past few weeks, John’s results have been startling. Because he’s more focused on finding people who are in the market today, he’s not pushing himself on those that aren’t interested. He’s using the telephone much more effectively to find prospects and qualify them. His closing ratios have improved. He is making more money. And best of all, he’s got more time for his friends, family and himself. He’s no longer working harder, he’s not just working smarter. He’s working less. ”Reprinted with permission from Jeffrey Mayer’s Succeeding In Business Newsletter. (Copyright, 2002, Jeffrey J. Mayer, Succeeding In Business, Inc.) To subscribe to Jeff’s free newsletter, visit” https://www.SucceedingInBusiness.com
From Too Many Laws to Shopping Cart Courtesy
“Suzanne Gelb Image”
”Venting — Why Must There be Laws for Everything?”
Dear Dr. Gelb:
I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, but I just hate it when my friends or even people I don’t know are always saying, or as they observe people they say, “There ought to be a law against this or that.” That just burns me up.
Burned Up
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Burned Up:
What you describe is one way that people typically vent dissatisfaction about the behavior of others. What I would like to see is more people concentrating on their own social behavior, then there are likely to be better examples for others to emulate.
In those instances when there is indeed validity to a comment such as, “There ought to be a law against that,” then it could be suggested to those individuals that they call their Senator or Congressman. Those are the people in government who can help bring about change, because they are in touch and involved with lawmakers and lawmaking.
”Irresponsibility — Why Are People Untidy?”
Dear Dr. Gelb:
Every time I go to the grocery store, I see shopping carts scattered all over the parking lot? Why don’t people put things back where they find them?
Irritated
A: Dr. Gelb says . . .
Dear Irritated:
As you have probably noticed, many shopping malls and grocery stores have tried the coin operated cart dispenser method as a way to encourage people to return their carts to the cart corral. Although this method has helped to some degree, a lot of vendors have stopped implementing it. One reason for this is probably because people are so rough on the carts, and the expense involved in repairing the damage to the dispenser element has proven not to be cost effective. Also, there are those irresponsible people who consider a quarter as not being worth their trip back to the corral.
We can see from this that the consequence for behavior must be in proportion to the misdeed. Here’s a thought — perhaps in order to earn the privilege of using a shopping cart there should be a $50 deposit, payable by cash or credit card, and if one does not return the cart to its proper place within 24 hours, then the deposit would be forfeited.
”’Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.”’
”’This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see”’ “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says”
”’Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at”’ https://www.DrGelbSays.com
From Too Many Laws to Shopping Cart Courtesy
Suzanne Gelb Image ‘Venting — Why Must There be Laws for Everything?’ Dear Dr. Gelb: I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person, but I just hate it when my friends or even people I don’t know are always saying, or as they observe people they say, “There ought to be a law against this or that.” That just burns me up. Burned Up A: Dr. Gelb says . . . Dear Burned Up: What you describe is one way that people typically vent dissatisfaction about the behavior of others. What I would like to see is more people concentrating on their own social behavior, then there are likely to be better examples for others to emulate. In those instances when there is indeed validity to a comment such as, “There ought to be a law against that,” then it could be suggested to those individuals that they call their Senator or Congressman. Those are the people in government who can help bring about change, because they are in touch and involved with lawmakers and lawmaking. ‘Irresponsibility — Why Are People Untidy?’ Dear Dr. Gelb: Every time I go to the grocery store, I see shopping carts scattered all over the parking lot? Why don’t people put things back where they find them? Irritated A: Dr. Gelb says . . . Dear Irritated: As you have probably noticed, many shopping malls and grocery stores have tried the coin operated cart dispenser method as a way to encourage people to return their carts to the cart corral. Although this method has helped to some degree, a lot of vendors have stopped implementing it. One reason for this is probably because people are so rough on the carts, and the expense involved in repairing the damage to the dispenser element has proven not to be cost effective. Also, there are those irresponsible people who consider a quarter as not being worth their trip back to the corral. We can see from this that the consequence for behavior must be in proportion to the misdeed. Here’s a thought — perhaps in order to earn the privilege of using a shopping cart there should be a $50 deposit, payable by cash or credit card, and if one does not return the cart to its proper place within 24 hours, then the deposit would be forfeited. ”Suzanne J. Gelb, Ph.D., J.D. authors this daily column, Dr. Gelb Says, which answers questions about daily living and behavior issues. Dr. Gelb is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Honolulu. She holds a Ph.D. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Human Services. Dr. Gelb is also a published author of a book on Overcoming Addictions and a book on Relationships.” ”This column is intended for entertainment use only and is not intended for the purpose of psychological diagnosis, treatment or personalized advice. For more about the column’s purpose, see” “An Online Intro to Dr. Gelb Says” ”Email your questions to mailto:DrGelbSays@hawaiireporter.com More information on Dr. Gelb’s services and related resources available at” https://www.DrGelbSays.com
Legislative Hearing Notices – Jan. 20, 2003
The following hearing notices, which are subject to change, were sorted and taken from the Hawaii State Capitol Web site. Please check that site for updates and/or changes to the schedule at https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/hearing/hearing2.asp?press1=docs&button1=current Go there and click on the Hearing Date to view the Hearing Notice.
Hearings notices for both House and Senate measures in all committees:
Hearing
”Date Time Bill Number Measure Title Committee”
1/20/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/20/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/21/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM
1/21/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/21/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/21/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/21/03 3:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/22/03 1:30 PM None Informational Briefing WAM/TMG
1/23/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/23/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/23/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing AGR
1/23/03 9:00 AM None Informational Briefing JHW PSM
1/23/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/23/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/23/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM
1/23/03 2:00 PM None Informational Briefing JHW
1/23/03 2:00 PM None Informational Briefing JUD
1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/24/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/24/03 10:30 AM None Informational Briefing WLH
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/24/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/27/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/27/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM/EDU
1/27/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/27/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/28/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/28/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/28/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing FIN
1/28/03 1:00 PM None Informational Briefing Summary FIN
1/28/03 1:15 PM None Informational Briefing TSM
1/29/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/29/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing WAM
1/30/03 8:30 AM None Informational Briefing Summary WAM
Don't Weaken Media Ownership Regulations-Open Letter to the FCC
Members of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States are deeply concerned that the Federal Communications Commission’s impending biennial review of rules designed to protect the public from concentrated ownership of media outlets may result in steps that will severely weaken existing rules designed to protect the public’s first amendment rights to diverse media. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, there has been a general trend toward greater concentration of ownership in private hands, justified by the notion that diversity may be defined simply in terms of numbers of outlets, and evaluated in increasingly narrow terms of commercial interests and private ownership. Far from increasing and expanding upon the marketplace of ideas and offering the public greater choice of outlets, the result has been to concentrate programming designed to support owners’ financial interests, with fewer resources available for locally owned production and public access. Given that the public holds ownership of the airwaves, the FCC was created and given a mandate to promote competition, diversity of ownership and access for local broadcasters. We are concerned that in the upcoming review (Docket No. 02-277), current guidelines concerning diversity and concentration of ownership will be defined in such a way as to limit the consideration of diversity to the criterion defined in the interests of commercial competition, and that the definition of locally-owned media may be expanded to include network-owned chain properties. There currently exist more media outlets than ever before; however, studies demonstrate that media consolidation has had a negative effect on media diversity and local access to media outlets. True diversity of media is vital to the public interest in maintaining democracy and cannot rest solely on the whims of the marketplace. In the Supreme Court’s opinion of 1945 (Associated Press vs. United States): “[The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, … [and] a condition for a free society…. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.” We urge the FCC to adhere to the guidelines expressed in the commission’s original mandate, and to further strengthen such guidelines to effectively ensure public access to the media and true diversity of ownership. ”Holly Hart is the head of the Media Committee of the Green Party of the United States located at 1314 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, phone: 202-296-7755, 866-41GREEN” ‘Grassroots media organizations opposing FCC deregulation of media:’ *Prometheus Radio Project, https://www.prometheusradio.org/ *Media Tank https://www.mediatank.org/ ‘Other Reading:’ *”FCC Ready to Roll Back Limits on Media Consolidation” Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting ‘Action Alert,’ Dec. 5, 2002 https://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-call-action.html *”Time Warner Could Strangle the Internet: When competition is limited and free access isn’t guaranteed, choices can easily dwindle” by Stacy Mitchell. Portland Press Herald (Maine), Jan. 1, 2003. https://www.pressherald.com/viewpoints/mvoice/030101timewarner.shtml *Telecommunications industry contributions to political campaigns: The Center for Responsive Politics https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=C2200