J.J. Jackson asked:


Baseball may be America’s favorite pastime, but liberals have a favorite pastime of their own; stretching and warping the Constitution. They’ve been at it so long that it has become a sport which they excel at and one at which daily practice is strongly encouraged, if not already mandated, for any aspiring leftist.

Of course, they only succeed in this pursuit when discussing the Constitution amongst themselves. When they journey out into the real world they run into people like myself who have spent a lot of time discussing how they distort and down right lie about what is in the document that established our current government. When they try to engage in their favorite sport with normal Americans who are not willfully blind as to what the Constitution says and have a grasp of the English language beyond that of a first grader, they fail miserably with their spin which always leads to interesting, if not ignorant, slogans, rants and shout-fests.

Rep. John “Cut and Run” Murtha may just be finding out that he and his liberal brethren have stretched the Constitution as far as the Constitution is willing to stretch even with a healthy suspension of logic, history and basic English however. Last week, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ordered Rep. Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case brought against him by Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich relating to his unwise, ignorant and self-serving comments about the marines in Haditha participating in “cold-blooded murder and war crimes”. It is important to note that the case against these Marines has fallen apart.

Murtha’s defense, which was rejected so far by the judge, was that Murtha was immune from prosecution and even questioning about the incident because those comments were made while acting in his official role as a United States Representative. This is an apparent reference to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution and his “interpretation” of what it says which might get by people unable to actually read the Constitution. But since I actually can, it isn’t going to fly with me and apparently not with the judge either.

For the record, Article I, Section 6 states in it’s entirety: “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The long and the short of this section is that if you are an elected representative of the United States in either house of Congress you cannot be arrested while the Congress is in session, nor can you be arrested while traveling to or from said session. It also grants immunity from prosecution for any “speech” or “debate” that takes place on the floor by saying that they “shall not be questioned in any other Place”. Which would include a court of law. The exceptions to this are of course given as when the Representative or Senator commits a Felony, Treason or “Breach of the Peace”.

Notice there is no exemption for acting in your “official role” beyond these limited descriptions. It is important to note at this time that John “Our Troops Are Murderers” Murtha made the statements with regards to our soldiers and promulgated his charges at places other than during a “speech” or “debate” in the House such as at press conferences and on Chris Matthew’s television program.

So is he immune? Should he not be questioned? Should he just be free to continue to make these assertions? Not unless you really, really stretch the meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines by inserting language that isn’t there. Making such statements during Speeches and Debates in the House may be deplorable and anti-American in as much that they were made without evidence and to prejudice the case against the Marines to promote John Murtha’s delusions, but his despicable acts would be protected. However once he steps out of the Halls of Congress he has no more protection.

He is not being arrested either. This is a civil suit, not a criminal matter. So again, Article I, Section 6 does not apply. Now, if he refuses the order to comply he could be faced with an arrestable offense such as contempt of court. In such a case, he had better convince the House to remain in permanent session and always be in a constant state of travel to and from the Capitol when it is to avoid arrest.

You could also make a strong case that his words provided aid and comfort to the enemy since the Haditha incident was used by our enemies against America and freedom seeking Iraqis. And since Treason is a clear exemption to this clause as well as the first amendment I certainly would be looking over my shoulder if I were Mr. Murtha.

But it’s just the Constitution. Right? And since when do liberals actually care about what the Constitution actually says? Since when do Congressmen care that their power is not unlimited? So I am sure that John “Where’s My White Flag?” Murtha will continue to whine and twist and squirm in an attempt to avoid the truth.

All the while his fellow members of Congress can continue to their smoke screen to cover their own failures. They can run cover for him and promulgate abuses of their power by waging a dog and pony show over things Rush Limbaugh didn’t even say with regards to our troops who are serving bravely over in Iraq and slamming General Patraeus and calling our troops NAZIs, stupid and anything else that they can think of. All for what? In order to try and further convince moonbats who naively believe that the troops really do agree with their stance on the war? Despite the fact that they are continually signing up and even re-upping to serve in a time of war for a mission the liberals detest so much?

Perhaps we are finally getting to a point where the Constitution has been stretched as far as it can be by the left to support their ideas and goals. But even if it has, I doubt they will stop trying to stretch it even further. At which point it is only a matter of whether it will snap back like a rubber band and leave a massive welt or completely break.

God help us if it is that latter

Philip Yaffe asked:


What you are about to read will probably sound familiar. Indeed, it has been said many times before. However, I believe this formulation is original and may help you better apply it in your marketing communication. I immodestly call it Yaffe’s Law.

Yaffe’s Law

If you give people what they want first, then they are likely to accept anything else you want them to have. If you give them what you want first, chances are they won’t accept anything at all.

This is simply the classic principle that you should write from the reader’s point of view. And of course we all do this. Or do we?

How often do we interpret writing from the reader’s point of view as telling people: “What I have to say will be of benefit to you, so you should pay close attention”? When we do this, we are in fact writing from our point of view, not theirs. We may sincerely believe that our message is important and beneficial to our potential readers. But unless they agree—and agree almost immediately—the argument is lost.

We have all been guilty of such self-serving logic, and some of us do it more often than we would like to imagine. This is why this new formulation of the classic principle is potentially so useful. It forcefully reminds us that the readers are king. And like royalty they must be served first. Only after readers have sampled what we have on offer and find it palatable will they be truly inclined to listen to what we want to say. Assimilate it. And hopefully act on it.

The power of Yaffe’s Law lies in the fact that it is more than just a reminder. It is in fact a formula for ensuring that you will always write from the reader’s point of view. The trick is first to apply the formula, then check how well you have applied it—and, if necessary, reapply it.

The formula consists of three steps:

1. Determine what your readers really want to know, rather than what you want to say.

2. Give this to them–first.

3. Link what you want to say to what they really want to know.

Here are a few examples of how Yaffe’s Law works in practice.

Corporate Image Brochure

I was once commissioned to write a corporate image brochure. Two things are certain about these expensive, glossy booklets:

• Almost all companies of any size feel compelled to produce them.

• Virtually no one ever reads them.

By applying the formula, I created a brochure that people not only read. They called the company to request additional copies to give to friends, clients and professional colleagues!

How? I started from the assumption that no one would want to read anything about the company itself. So I asked myself: What things does the company do that people might really want to read about?

The company’s basic activity was producing vaccines. We are all naturally interested in health and virtually everyone knows the importance of vaccination. Here were already two things people might want to read about.

I was able to define seven areas of the company’s activities that could be naturally attractive to potential readers. However, it didn’t stop there. If all this interesting information were mixed up with company publicity, people would still probably not read it despite their natural inclination to do so.

The brochure was therefore laid out in seven double-page spreads, i.e. each of the seven areas of activity would be allotted two facing pages. However, the text would be rigorously segregated.

• Theory

The left side would be pure science; the company’s name would never be mentioned.

• Practice

The right side would explain how the company used the science to produce vaccines.

In short, I gave the readers what they wanted first (scientific information), then what the company wanted them to have second (company information).

When I proposed this to the company, the reaction was one of shock. “You mean people could read the brochure left side only and never ever see our name?” Exactly. But having learned about the basic science, wouldn’t they naturally want to learn how the company was using the science?

It took a while for management to accept the idea, but finally they did. When the brochure was ready, they couldn’t print enough of them.

Of course, not all companies would be suitable for this particular type of corporate image brochure. The important thing here is not the specific structure of this specific brochure, but the thinking process that led to it.

Stand Specific Video

I have done considerable work for pharmaceutical companies. This often included attending medical congresses. The first couple of times I did this, I noted something strange.

Pharmaceutical companies regularly erect exhibition stands to inform specialist doctors about new drugs and new applications of older drugs. I noted that many of the stands had several video monitors at their edges running videotapes. I observed the behavior of the doctors. The vast majority of them watched the tape for only a minute or two, then went away.

I asked an international marketing director why he was using these monitors and tapes. “To attract attention to our stand,” he said. “But the doctors stay in front of the monitor only a couple of minutes, then leave.” “Yes, but they were attracted to our stand. They know we are here and may come back.”

Frankly, this didn’t make much sense to me, but being young and inexperienced I accepted it. A couple of years later, when I felt I knew better what I was doing, I made a suggestion.

The videotapes ran anywhere from 10 – 15 minutes, then automatically recycled. The problem was, doctors who began watching after the tape had started never knew how long they would have to wait for it to finish and restart. Moreover, hardly any were likely to stand in front the video monitor for 15 minutes or more, even if they had known how long the presentation was.

The tapes were so long because they had not been conceived for medical congresses, but for a totally different purpose. They were used simply because they already existed.

I suggested making a “stand-specific videotape”, which would concentrate all key information about the company’s product into no more than 90 seconds. The fact that the tape ran only 90 seconds and then automatically recycled would be prominently posted, so that the doctors would know exactly how much time they were being asked to invest in it.

Consider the benefits:

1. Virtually all doctors who started to watch the tape stayed for it to recycle.

2. Because they got all the key points, many who wanted more detailed information immediately came onto the stand.

3. Those who were interested but were short of time probably came back later.

4. Even those who were not certain they were interested nonetheless went away with a complete picture of what the company’s product was all about.

In short, virtually 100% effectiveness!

There was no way to gauge the effectiveness of the previous system. But if it had been as much as 10%, I would have been shocked.

Interactive Stand Animation System

Another thing I noticed at medical congresses. Doctors would come onto the stand, pick up the brochures and scientific papers, put them in the congress bags, then move on to the next stand and do the same thing. The problem is, pharmaceutical companies could never really tell if doctors actually read the materials they take away. Estimates are that up 95% of it ends up in the hotel’s wastepaper basket without ever being opened.

Using the method of Yaffe’s Law, a few years ago a colleague and I created what we call the Interactive Stand Animation System. It is applicable not only to medical congresses, but virtually every other kind of professional trade show.

There is not room here to describe how it works, but I can tell you its results.

With this system, you are certain that your brochures, data sheets, etc., are being read, because people read them right in front of you on the stand. Even better, they actually study the documents, then discuss, debate and compare notes with their colleagues. At the same time, they provide you with valuable market research information that would be difficult to obtain in any other way. This can be very important for determining the best ways of presenting your products, which features to emphasis, which aspects may require change for later versions, etc.

I once described this system to the international marketing director of a major pharmaceutical company. He was very sceptical. Basically he said: “I have been in this business for nearly 30 years and I have attended dozens and dozens of medical congresses. What you are telling me just isn’t possible.” He maintained this position until he went to a congress where we were running the system for another company. His reaction: “I’ve seen it, but I still don’t believe it. I never would have imagined anything like this could possibly be true.”

But it was.

Editor’s Note

Philip Yaffe is a former reporter/feature writer with The Wall Street Journal and a marketing communication consultant. He currently teaches a course in good writing and good speaking in Brussels, Belgium. In the “I” of the Storm: the Simple Secrets of Writing & Speaking (Almost) like A professional, his recently published book, is available from Story Publishers in Ghent, Belgium (storypublishers.be) and Amazon (amazon.com).