Monthly Archives: October 2011

Ronald McDonald House turns an urban legend into reality.

Posted on by
Reply

When someone first told me about collecting soda can pull-tabs for free dialysis I was suspicious. This was 20 years ago when I worked at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. No medical facility would decide to treat (or not treat) a sick child based on something as useless as a pile of soda tabs. So every time I saw a pull-tab cup on a desk or was asked to donate pull-tabs I always tried to track down the actual charity involved. I would be forwarded from one person to another but in every case the trail was a dead end. Lots of effort was being wasted collecting pull-tabs and no one really wanted them.

So this summer when a neighbor asked me to save tabs for the Ronald McDonald House I told her about my experience. She countered with a pre-printed tab collection box shaped like Ronald McDonald House. So I did some digging and was stunned to find that RMH really was using little boxes shaped like Ronald McDonald Houses to collect tabs. Their web site stated that some chapters collect thousands of dollars a year from pull-tabs.
It was no hoax, and yet something didn’t make sense. It takes about 25 tabs just to get 1 penny in aluminum. In other words a person could collect 6 tabs a day for a year and only get one dollar’s worth of aluminum. Why would a charity encourage such an inefficient donation method? Because someone had a stroke of genius.

One of the biggest challenges that any charity has is getting visibility in a world full of unmet needs. So RMH gives people something easy to do, something that feels like contributing, and they are all willing to put a little RMH box in a prominent place in their home or office. They even ask their neighbors to contribute. Even if they break even on the aluminum the visibility and goodwill they generate is worth all the trouble. And the best part is that they don’t have to encourage people to collect tabs. People seem programmed to collect them whether they are needed or not. It actually seems harder to stop people from collecting tabs. So rather than wasting energy educating people on the hoax they harness the energy already there and make the hoax into a reality.

Gallup survey shows most people want to legalize marijuana

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote the following letter in 1990 and it was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“I am not disappointed or even surprised that Colombia has decided to negotiate with the cocaine producers.  The Colombians have chosen to scrap their “war on drugs” rather than destroy a  deeply entrenched and highly profitable industry.  Who can blame them” There is no way to stop a product that simultaneously enjoys incalculable demand and employs thousands of people.

This collapse may finally expose the impotence of our drug policy, which resembles the failed attempt to prohibit alcohol.  Each generation’s addiction is uglier than the last but restrictions only hide the answers.  We must confess that we cannot eliminate these problems, and look for ways to contain them. Treating marijuana and cocaine the way we treat cigarettes and alcohol would provides us the resources to do just that.”

There are lots of people like me who have never used illegal substances, but still find the US drug policy misguided. So this past week I was pleased to read an independent poll by Gallup.  It shows that for the first time, most Americans are in favor of making marijuana legal.  This isn’t just for “medical” purposes, but for personal and social use just like alcohol.  And the trend is slowly moving in that direction.  Fourteen states have removed criminal penalties for personal marijuana use, and sixteen states have medical marijuana programs.

The former president of Mexico has said that marijuana should be legal and even the current president of Mexico, the staunchest of drug warriors, is saying that what we are doing is not working and that we should consider “alternative solutions”.

Lets hope the trend continues.

More on getting candidates to clarify positions

Posted on by
Reply

I was trying to decide where to send my idea for improving political debates. I wondered who would have the leverage to implement this idea.  My first thought was the League of Women Voters, because I remember them sponsoring presidential debates.  Boy was I behind the times on this one.  It seems that LWV stopped sponsoring the debates in 1988 because of the unreasonable demands of the candidates. You can read more about this in the following Wikipedia article in the section on sponsorship.

But in short the debates are now sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. This group takes a lot of heat. People complain that they are too close to the two major parties.  If that is true they may be more interested in polishing their images rather than providing clarity. But I decided it wouldn’t hurt to suggest the change and sent a link to my blog to Janet Brown who is the president of this group.  Their website has no other contact information.  I will let you know if/when she responds.

If you think this is a good idea you could send a copy of this link to Janet Brown.  Her Email is posted on their site so I don’t think she will mind if I mention it here (jb@debates.org).

Getting candidates to clarify their positions

Posted on by
Reply

Requiring candidates to develop a list of “Diamond Points” before a debate:

The goal of an election campaign is to educate the voters on the differences between candidate’s positions on substantive issues.  But often all we learn is who has the best speech writers, the best coaches and the best sound bites.  When discussing the issues candidates will distort their opponent’s positions with loaded words and negative connotations.  But I have an idea that would harness the energy of the candidates themselves to clarify their positions. The method is simple, but initially it would take a media outlet or a debate sponsor to get the candidates to participate.

How does it work?  Ask a pair of opposing candidates to work together and write a single short document. This document would list the most important differences between the candidate’s positions on election related topics.  Each of the items has to meet two simple tests:

1) It has to demonstrate a difference of position and explain the basis for the difference.
2) It has to use wording that is approved by both candidates.

That is it.  The two teams negotiate the details however they want.  Here are two examples of Diamond Points:

“Smith believes that we should install traffic cameras to discourage speeding while
Jones believes that we should not install traffic cameras because they erode privacy.”

“Smith believes that his time in the Senate better prepares him to be president while
Jones believes that her time as governor (an executive position) is better preparation. ”

How is this different?
Each candidate will want to emphasize his strong positions and his opponent’s weak positions. But at the same time each candidate will not agree to wording unless it is presented fairly without spin.  Once the document is written voters can use it to see clear distinctions between the candidates.

Why would candidates participate?
For the same reason they participate in traditional debates.  Because it looks bad if they refuse. And if a one candidate refuses the same thing happens as when a candidate refuses to participate in a traditional debate. He risks criticism. People might not trust a candidate who is unwilling to distinguish his positions from his opponent’s.

What if the two sides can’t agree on neutral wording?
If two candidates can’t agree on their differences, then what is the point of having them debate each other?  It would be like the two sides not being able to agree on the format for the debate.