Robert Fitzpatrick of New York had put his money where his faith is: The 60-year-old retiree spent $140,000 — almost everything he had — on hundreds of billboards proclaiming the Armagedon that Camping predicted.

I don’t watch much TV so I hadn’t heard about all this silliness until a day or two before the end of the world. In fact I still don’t know all the details like “who is this guy?”

My big question is how did he do this? How did he come from nowhere and generate this much publicity and attention and then convince some of these people to do something big, like part with thousands of dollars, change their behavior, etc. In sales, this is called a conversion. I guess they call it that in religion too…. hmmmmm….

If he can get this many people to act on something that is so “out there” after he already promised and didn’t deliver he’s doing something right in terms of marketing.

Imagine how far just a little of that would go if it were something that is actually tangible, real, and beneficial were involved like a good product, a worthwhile charity, etc.

1. I’m guessing that for starters he knew his audience – he first appealed to people in the market for doomsday and the end of the world. There’s a niche for everything. He identified and isolated the people who were eager and anxious to buy what he’s selling and connected directly with them by offering a solution to their problem. He filled the rapture-shaped hole in their heart.

2. He went big. There are lots of nuts out there saying things like “the end is near.” This guy got specific and promised to deliver big. He slapped a date and time on it and threw in earthquakes and cataclysm, etc.

3. Utilized free publicity. I imagine the word spread faster among his skeptics than it did the believers.

4. Exclusivity. People are more likely to buy something when they feel like its a special deal just for them. It makes them feel special and a part of something. This sales tactic is an oldie but goodie.

5. Urgency. Another old saw. “Act now while supplies last.” Putting a date on it forced people to choose between going all-in and fretting or jeering on the sidelines.

I just read an article on NPR Health about the boggle over how someone who has donated an organ should be taken care of when complications arise down the road.

The recipient’s health insurance pays for the procedure and immediate care for both the donor and recipient, “but what if there are complications for the uninsured donor later? What if the recipient dies?”

Questions like that wouldn’t need to be asked if we still lived in a culture where people knew it is their responsibility to arrange their own health care. But that’s not the case. Now we just assume it is someone else’s responsibility – the employer, the government, etc.

If health insurance is so important, and it is, why do we trust it to someone else to provide, limit, and ration? Why do we tie something we need permanently to things that can be temporary like a job? People don’t even trust their car insurance or home insurance to their employer – why not?

And for something that better be efficient and tailored to our individual needs, why do we trust it to government which is hardly ever efficient and has to treat everyone the same way?

The answer to the question is the donor – the donor is responsible for his or her health care when complications from anything arise.

Give An Organ And Get Health Insurance Headaches : Shots – Health Blog : NPR.

This is the happiest I’ve been to be let down as far as I can remember. “Let down” is probably the wrong term. I actually figured there may be significant activity related to what turned out to be the 3′ micro-tsunami. Glad there was not.

Apparently the energy generated by Chile’s quake was absorbed before it became anything significant.

The authorities appeared to do well on this one. They were right to make as big a deal of it as they did. There’s no second chance on these things.

Not being a TV/media watcher or night owl I didn’t know anything was up when I went to bed. I was up and puttering around the house when they blew the sirens for the first time at 6:00 this morning.

“This is not a drill” I thought and began hunting for a remote to turn the the TV on.

People were out early and Costco opened up early as well – something they never do. Say what you want about the big companies but “Down To Earth” and little stores like it weren’t doing much for anyone today if they were even open. Wal-Mart and Costco were.

Speaking of closed stores, Starbucks (at least my neighborhood Starbucks) didn’t open. On the way back home without coffee I saw some people with a pickup full of belongings pitching a tent on Waipio Uka St.

Back to normal…

This new law makes it illegal to sleep on sidewalks, benches, bus stops, etc on Oahu, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The city council just voted 8-1 to approve it.

First, I have to say “but for the grace of God, there go I.” I feel sorry for anyone who is sleeping on sidewalks whether it is the result, in whole or in part, of their own decisions or circumstances outside their control. Usually I’m sure it is some combination. In any case, it could be me, and who knows – someday it might be.

If it ever is me, I hope society will help me. I don’t want society to help me continue to live a dangerous and humiliating existence, I want to be helped towards something better and helped away from being a burden on society, my family, and myself.

I’m in favor of the bill because it is compassionate. First, it is compassionate towards society because it will make the sidewalks and other public facilities we all share the cost of more pleasant to use.

Second, it is compassionate towards the “homeless” who will make up the majority of those inconvenienced by the law. I see it as cruel when society allows people to exist like that. We are doing them no favors by permitting them to crash anywhere they like, living an uncomfortable life in the way of everyone else, and we certainly aren’t doing those of us who’s taxes pay for those sidewalks and would like to use them any favors.

Councilman Charles Djou said he introduced the bill at the request of Waikiki Neighborhood Board members who complained that homeless people who are barred from sleeping at Kapi’olani Park and other city facilities at night are migrating to the fronts of hotels and other businesses during early morning hours.

“City parks and city sidewalks are meant for the benefit of everyone,” Djou said. “No one individual or group of individuals should have the right to occupy a city park or city sidewalk and treat it like their private property.”

The bill’s sidewalk provisions include benches and bus stop seating.

Patty Teruya, chairwoman of the Nanakuli/Ma’ili Neighborhood Board, said it’s throughout O’ahu, and not just Waikiki, that residents have to stand to wait for buses because there are people sleeping on benches and in bus shelters meant for passengers.

Homeless shelters that have been set up throughout the island are not being used, Teruya said.

I don’t get the ACLU objections to this. Have they ever tried to get a permit to go camping on an actual public campground on Oahu? Sure, its possible, but it costs money and camping on a campground is illegal unless you jump through the hoops. I can’t even take my dog.

So, it is illegal to camp on a campground that I’m already paying for through my taxes, but the ACLU thinks it is violating rights to make it illegal to camp on a sidewalk or bus stop?

But Daniel Gluck, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai’i, questioned the constitutionality of the bill. Djou had previously cited a similar law in Seattle that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gluck, however, said that bill restricted sleeping only in certain parts of Seattle and only during certain hours.

“This ban would apply to every single sidewalk in the entire county 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” Gluck said.

“You can’t legislate the homeless out of existence,” he said. “You have bans at Kapi’olani Park and the beaches. This is just one more attack on the homeless. This is not a productive use of the council’s time.”

No one is trying to legislate the homeless out of existence. If anything, they are trying to legislate them into a more healthy and dignified existence. What is wrong with that? They are also legislating them into an existence that doesn’t infringe on other people’s ability to use public sidewalks, bus stops, and parks comfortably.

I want to hear what you think. Leave me a comment and tell me what you think.

Older Posts

© 2011 Eric Lauritzen Info Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha