Well, I tried. I am 100% certain that a voting advice system will create a network of voters and advice-givers that makes money irrelevant to politics. (That idea is explained fully at CitizensAdvisory.org)
I figured, if I could get that idea in front of the White House then, in the ideal world, they might say--Hey, that's the right thing to do. Let's give you a job with the charter to make that happen!
That would be wonderful, of course. Or they might find someone else to do it. But at the very least, it might get a few people thinking. And the more people who are thinking along these lines, the better. (It doesn't matter who does it. It only matters that it gets done!)
So when I saw an opportunity to put a petition in front of the White House, I took it. It is (or was) here. Here is the text:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To make money IRRELEVANT to elections, EMPOWER INDEPENDENTS, and END the DOMINANCE of SPECIAL INTERESTS, we need to establish a national Voting Advice Network, harnessing the power of social media to give citizens voting advice (only) from organizations and analysts they TRUST--easily and conveniently.
Because citizens receive advice only after subscribing to an analyst's "feed", they never receive unsolicited communications. But they always receive ALL advice from those they trust. And because advice that doesn't matched their ballot choices is ignored, they are never spammed with recommendations they don't care about, and can't act on.
With this system, independents will be empowered with information from trusted sources, ending the era of expensive ads and "sound bite" politics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All it needed was 25,000 signatures, and the White House would have responded. At least, the idea would have been in front of them. So I sent a message out to about 30 of my closest friends, and then posted the link on Twitter and Facebook.
I figured I might not get to 25,000 in a month (the threshold for a response). But I figured I might at least get to 5,000 (the previous threshold). At least, I expected to get the 150 signatures that would make it visible to the public. Then, who knows what might happen?
Well, apparently the need to create a login ID was too big a barrier. Or people just never told their friends. Somehow, as apparent as it is to me that the "network effect" of a voting advice system will make money irrelevant to elections, it just the very rare person that "gets it". Either they don't believe it would work, or even if it would work, they don't believe it would happen.
So in the end, I amassed all of 5 (count 'em, 5!) signatures. I'm grateful to those who signed. But it's pretty clear that the "vision thing" is an impediment. Until I have the time and energy to create the system, and people see it working, people just don't seem to understand it or be willing to believe in it.
Unfortunately, even after it is created, it will take time for it to "go viral". Like any new social networking application, the value is in the numbers. In other words, the payoff for adopting it is in direct proportion to the number of people who are already using it. Once the "tipping point" is reached, it becomes self sustaining, of course. But that is a process that takes time, and the clock only starts when the app is available!
16 January 2012
"Proper" writing, and the use of "you"
I just posted this at LinkedIn. It's worth sharing here, particularly for the perspective on what "proper" really means.
My comment started in response to this post:
> A properly written technical manual should be impersonal.
> Use active voice to tell the reader what to do
I agree with the second part. It's usually the preferred way, and perfect for steps. But when you (!) write something conceptual rather than procedural--especially if it is conditional--then you (!) have a hard time avoiding it. (Here I'm writing conceptual material to explain the writing process, not a directive that tells you (!) specifically what to do. You (!) can't use active voice here, and using "the writer" in no way adds clarity.)
But perhaps the best response was posted by Lasse Haggman:
However, in rebuttal, John Yannis provided the phrasing of my comments below, eliminating the use of "you" altogether--it may just be clearer, because it's shorter. (Do you agree?) And it is clearly not as "familar". (Is that a good thing?)
Sorry, but I object to the term "properly". Many a grammar rule has been upheld as "proper" without real justification. I'm willing to buy the premise that a technical manual should be impersonal, but I'm afraid I'll need a good reason before I do.
After all, cravats and spats were once "proper" attire for business. Ties are no longer even required, and usually avoided. So it's clear that "proper" can be construed as a euphemism for "current fashion", rather than a synonym for "there is a good reason". So saying it is "proper" is not a valid justification, by itself.
There is one argument that always wins, however, regardless of trends. That is an argument in favor of clear and concise communications. If you can show me how being "impersonal" furthers that goal, then I will be persuaded.
However, I am afraid that the prospects are bleak. You see, I read way too much Victorian English in my formative years, and wrote in a similar style for much of my life. (A habit that English teachers seemed to love, alas.)
To me, it made sense. After all, why say something only once if you can come up with 50 different ways to say it? Surely one of them will connect with the reader! And why express a thought in 20 words if you can shower it with 100? Surely the more important the concept, the more words it deserves!
Needless to say, my early writing was atrocious, because what was proper in the Victorian era does not translate well to an environment in which people want to find out what they need to know to get on with what they were doing, and get back to doing it as quickly as possible.
In other words, what was "proper" in one setting was not "proper" in another. So the important question is not "What is proper?" but rather, "What goal are we trying to achieve and how can we best achieve it?".
My comment started in response to this post:
> A properly written technical manual should be impersonal.
> Use active voice to tell the reader what to do
About the Use of "You"
I agree with the second part. It's usually the preferred way, and perfect for steps. But when you (!) write something conceptual rather than procedural--especially if it is conditional--then you (!) have a hard time avoiding it. (Here I'm writing conceptual material to explain the writing process, not a directive that tells you (!) specifically what to do. You (!) can't use active voice here, and using "the writer" in no way adds clarity.)
But perhaps the best response was posted by Lasse Haggman:
If you sit next to a person to help them, do you really say: "The user clicks the Options button"? Or do you say, "Click the Options button"?That succinct reply says it all, because the goal of technical writing, ultimately, is to help someone.
However, in rebuttal, John Yannis provided the phrasing of my comments below, eliminating the use of "you" altogether--it may just be clearer, because it's shorter. (Do you agree?) And it is clearly not as "familar". (Is that a good thing?)
I agree with the second part. It's usually the preferred way, and perfect for steps. But in writing something conceptual, rather than procedural--especially if it is conditional--it is difficult to avoid it. [Here I'm writing conceptual material about the writing process, not a directive that says specifically what to do....]
About what is "Proper"
Sorry, but I object to the term "properly". Many a grammar rule has been upheld as "proper" without real justification. I'm willing to buy the premise that a technical manual should be impersonal, but I'm afraid I'll need a good reason before I do.
After all, cravats and spats were once "proper" attire for business. Ties are no longer even required, and usually avoided. So it's clear that "proper" can be construed as a euphemism for "current fashion", rather than a synonym for "there is a good reason". So saying it is "proper" is not a valid justification, by itself.
There is one argument that always wins, however, regardless of trends. That is an argument in favor of clear and concise communications. If you can show me how being "impersonal" furthers that goal, then I will be persuaded.
However, I am afraid that the prospects are bleak. You see, I read way too much Victorian English in my formative years, and wrote in a similar style for much of my life. (A habit that English teachers seemed to love, alas.)
To me, it made sense. After all, why say something only once if you can come up with 50 different ways to say it? Surely one of them will connect with the reader! And why express a thought in 20 words if you can shower it with 100? Surely the more important the concept, the more words it deserves!
Needless to say, my early writing was atrocious, because what was proper in the Victorian era does not translate well to an environment in which people want to find out what they need to know to get on with what they were doing, and get back to doing it as quickly as possible.
In other words, what was "proper" in one setting was not "proper" in another. So the important question is not "What is proper?" but rather, "What goal are we trying to achieve and how can we best achieve it?".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
