PR and the Small Matter of Results

Comments (20)

PR and the Small Matter of Results

By: Robert A. Kelly

As a business, non-profit and association manager, how satisfied are you when the public relations people assigned to your unit spend the bulk of their time on someone's favorite special event, brochures, press releases and talk-show mentions?

Especially when you'd rather have a public relations effort that creates the kind of key stakeholder behavior change that leads directly to achieving your managerial objectives?

You know, PR that does something positive about the important outside audiences whose behaviors most affect your operation. And, in the bargain, helps persuade those key external audiences to your way of thinking, helping move them to take actions that allow your department, division or subsidiary to succeed.

After all, what public relations boils down to are these realities: the right PR really CAN alter individual perception and lead to changed behaviors that help you succeed. Your public relations effort must involve more than parties, videos, booklets and column mentions if you really want to get your money's worth. And you need a simple blueprint that gets everyone working towards the same external audience behaviors insuring that the organization's public relations effort stays sharply focused.

Sounds like good stuff, and it is!

Here's one blueprint that can lead you in that direction: people act on their own perception of the facts before them, which leads to predictable behaviors about which something can be done. When we create, change or reinforce that opinion by reaching, persuading and moving-to-desired-action the very people whose behaviors affect the organization the most, the public relations mission is accomplished.

And results like these can come your way. New proposals for strategic alliances and joint ventures; customers making repeat purchases; prospects starting to work with you; membership applications on the rise; capital givers or specifying sources looking your way, and even bounces in showroom visits.

How, you are asking, do such managers produce results like those?

They spend some time figuring out who among their most important outside audiences behaves in ways that help or hinder the achievement of their objectives. Then, they list them according to how severely their behaviors affect their organization.

More to the point, precisely how do most members of your key outside audiences perceive your organization? If paying for professional survey counsel isn't in the cards (or in the budget!), your PR colleagues will have to monitor those perceptions themselves. Actually, they should be quite familiar with perception and behavior matters since they're already in that business.

All of which means meeting with members of that outside audience and asking questions like "Are you familiar with our services or products?" "Have you ever had contact with anyone from our organization? Was it a satisfactory experience?" And if you are that manager, you must be sensitive to negative statements, especially evasive or hesitant replies. And watch carefully for false assumptions, untruths, misconceptions, inaccuracies and potentially damaging rumors. When you find such, they will need to be corrected, as they inevitably lead to negative behaviors.

Big job now is to pick out the actual, offending perception to be changed, and that becomes your public relations goal. You obviously want to correct those untruths, inaccuracies, misconceptions or false assumptions.

The toughest part of this exercise is that a PR goal without a strategy to show you how to get there, will taste like asparagus with pancake syrup. So, as you select one of three strategies (especially constructed to create perception or opinion where there may be none, or change or reinforce it,) what you want to do is insure that the goal and its strategy match each other. You wouldn't want to select "change existing perception" when current perception is just right suggesting a "reinforce" strategy.

Now you must create a compelling message carefully put together to alter your key target audience's perception, as specified by your public relations goal.

Remember that you can always combine your corrective message with another news announcement or presentation which may give it more credibility by reducing the apparent need for such a correction.

The message you convey must be not only compelling, but quite clear about what perception needs clarification or correction, and why. Naturally, you must be truthful and your position logically explained and believable if it is to hold the attention of members of that target audience, and actually move perception in your direction.

It's easy to see why some folks refer to the communications tactics necessary to move your message to the attention of that key external audience, as "beasts of burden." After all, they must carry your persuasive new thoughts to the eyes and ears of those important outside people.

You have a really wide choice because the list of tactics is a long one. It includes letters-to-the-editor, brochures, press releases and speeches. Or, you might choose radio and newspaper interviews, personal contacts, facility tours or customer briefings. There are scores available and the only selection requirement is that the communications tactics you choose have a record of reaching people just like the members of your key target audience.

Of course, you can always move things along by adding more communications tactics, AND by increasing their frequencies.

In short order, you'll hear calls for progress reports. But you will already be hard at work remonitoring perceptions among your target audience members to test the effectiveness of your communications tactics. Using questions similar to those used during your earlier monitoring session, you'll now become beady-eyed looking for signs that audience perceptions are beginning to move in your general direction.

Despite the article's headline, public relations results are no small matter. In my view, your results will be directly dependent on whether you base your PR budget primarily on tactics, or the creation of key stakeholder behavior change that leads directly to achieving your managerial objectives.

One can hope it will be the latter.


Please feel free to publish this article and resource box in your ezine, newsletter, offline publication or website. A copy would be appreciated at Word count is 1095 including guidelines and resource box.

Robert A. Kelly Copyright 2005.)

About The Author

Bob Kelly counsels, writes and speaks to business, non-profit and association managers about using the fundamental premise of public relations to achieve their operating objectives. He has been DPR, Pepsi-Cola Co.; AGM-PR, Texaco Inc.; VP-PR, Olin Corp.; VP-PR, Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.; director of communi- cations, U.S. Department of the Interior, and deputy assistant press secretary, The White House. He holds a bachelor of science degree from Columbia University, major in public relations.



mntncat 14.07.2006. 06:14

How can I find out what PR company a business is contracted with? There's a small company that gets lots of press and I am curious who is their PR is. I searched all over the internet and found no result. Just wondering if anyone knows of other ways to do research in this matter.
In response to Don S, I have PR friends that said that if a company don't want anyone to know their PR company, you won't really find out about it and they will definately not tell you if you ask. I just want to know if these relationship is on public record somewhere I can search for. Thanks anyway.


Admin 14.07.2006. 06:14

Call them up and ask them. They might have an in-house PR person.


lazydanthom 27.04.2010. 09:35

Could the best tactical vote for those who vote for small parties be voting for the lib dems and getting PR? If we had proportional representation it would give a stronger voice to the greens, socialists, communists, ukip, bnp, english democrats and other small parties. So if these parties want a better chance to get there policies looked at should they not vote lib dem and get PR?


Admin 27.04.2010. 09:35

You are quite right and I have made the same point on here before. The fact is that when this election is over, no matter what the result, the majority of people will be dissatisfied with the result. No doubt if the result is a Labour majority, Tory voters will complain that the views of the majority of voters have been ignored by the system. Likewise if the result is a Tory majority, Labour voters will make similar complaints. Some people have been arguing for 30 years that the system is unfair.

Whatever the result, you can be sure the allocation of seats will not, barring some bizarre intervention from the electoral gods, be in any way proportional. And if we do get a "majority" government, 60% or more of the votes cast will have been against the government.

I cannot quite understand why a UKIP voter, Green voter, or anyone planning to vote for any other of those currently unrepresented minority voters, would advocate voting for them on this occasion. Clearly first past the post gives them no seats, and if it ever should, they will be looking at a single figure return. Surely the European elections, when some of those parties particularly UKIP did quite well, demonstrates that only a proportional system will be of any benefit to them. Therefore they would be far better off making a tactical switch to the Liberal Democrats on this occasion, and doing what they can to change the electoral system.

Something else the 2 main parties have spoke about at length: Cameron says a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Brown. Brown says a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Cameron. They can't BOTH be right. In fact neither of them is right. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is just what it says on the tin.

As for their assessment that only a vote for the Tories, or only a vote for Labour, can avoid a hung parliament, this is crap too. Obviously the easiest way to avoid a hung parliament is to vote Labour. They can win a majority with a much smaller vote share. But the Tories need 40% minimum to be sure of a majority. By some strange quirk, the Liberal Democrats, who would be punished by a poor return of seats polling in the 20s or 30s, can also win a majority by hitting the 40% vote share mark. In fact if there is even a slight tactical Lab/Lib swing in that, then the Liberal Democrat majority becomes huge. Clearly the natural home for disaffected Labour voters, who would find the Tories incompatible with their views, is the Liberal Democrats.


Tim 04.11.2011. 03:49

What is the most significant environmental problem with nuclear power? Also, what do the initials TMI relate to as the fundamental reason why no new plants had been built in the US for several decades? [But several new plants now have the go-ahead to be built!]


Admin 04.11.2011. 03:49

The most significant problem with nukes is their ability to engender controversy even when working completely within specifications, providing far less endangerment to the surrounding area than the equivalent coal station does. Stress, bickering, anger, frustration, huge legal bills and long waits for due process in litigation are symptomatic.

From a technological point of view, the chief complaint is that no matter how rare accidents are designed to be, eventually one will happen, with potentially devastating consequences much in excess of those in conventional power plants.

TMI stands for Three Mile Island, an island in the Susquahanna River just south of Harrisburg, PA. It was the site of a nuclear reactor core meltdown event, which threatened radioactivity release (and there was a small one), but resulted in no injuries or deaths. It came, unfortunately, just when nuclear generation was going through a bad spate of PR problems (many of which were self-inflicted by the AEC and the reactor builders), and that put the finish to plans for other reactor stations in the US. The costs and time delays, due mainly to litigation, made them a practical impossibility.


ShullyR 25.02.2008. 02:16

My plans have changed since i have been in college which resulted in me thinking about changing my major into? something completely different. I have been thinking about becoming a music journalist and based on the majors and concentrations I have at my school (Ut Martin) I think I should major in Communications with a concentration in news editorial with a minor in music possibly? What do u think, is that the acurate major to go for if i want to be a music journalist or what?
oh, and what type of job (what place) will i land if i receive a degree in this major?


Admin 25.02.2008. 02:16

It's tough to land good jobs as a humanities major--but then again, it's tough to land a good job out of college regardless of your major.

If you are serious about music journalism, then the truth is your major doesn't really matter all that much.

You need to get involved in your school's newspaper (for starters), and you should also check into community newspapers / news magazines in your area. Also, you can write for the Campus Circle type websites (they take novice writers--you don't get paid anything but you get experience and clips).

The thing you'll need in order to get a good writing job is clips. (aka Articles you've written that have been published and are good...duh).

As for your major, take something that involves a lot of writing. A music minor is handy as it will help you get involved with the musicians in your school / community.

I don't know what your major is right now, but you may want to stick with it in case you need a back-up job while you are waiting for the perfect music-writing job.

Also (and this is important) try to land an internship at the largest alternative print mag that you can. Being in TN, you shouldn't have too big of a problem considering your proximity to Nashville. Depending on the kind of music you want to write about, consider summer internships in NYC or LA.

And finally, tap into your school's Alumni Association--find out if there are any working music writers in the business that you can get in touch with. Don't beg them for a job, just ask their advice and guidance. Try to build a rapport with them as much as you can.

Good luck--writing is a tough field to break into, but unlike many other areas--it is a real meritocracy. Those who work the hardest and are the best writers are the ones who make it.

As for the "type of job" you'll land with this major. There is quite a range. If you do everything above, you could be able to get a reporting job at a small paper covering Arts & Entertainment. Your other choices are to go to one of the big mags (Rolling Stone, Spin, etc.) where you'd basically start in the mail room and have to work your way up. Other jobs you would be eligible for would be at a PR firm or a record label working in their press / publicity department.


Cogito Sum 16.07.2006. 15:26

How specifically were large groups of "brand-new" genetic code created that led to new functions, or species? What is the science, not theory! I keep getting these run around answers. If you believe in creation, then please do not answer. I'm looking for scientific facts.

Cogito Sum

Admin 16.07.2006. 15:26

When you say "the science, not theory" you need to understand that the theory *is* the science ... and this is true in *all* branches of science.

It's probably not that people are giving you a run-around, but that the details vary so much from case to case, that it's impossible to give a single mechanism that explains all of them.

First, there are *many* different processes that can produce new genetic material ... gene duplication, regional duplication, gene translocation and transposition, gene recombination, etc. For example, gene duplication is when an extra copy of a gene is created on a chromosome during the normal replication, which produces two genes that can evolve separately. Or gene translocation is when a gene or gene fragment moves from one chromosomal location to another, which can cause a gene to lose expression, or can cause an unexpressed gene to suddenly become expressed.

Second, a fairly dramatic change doesn't require a lot of "brand-new" genetic code. For an organism to suddenly grow more hair, or have more or less pigment in its skin, or to grow and extra set of anntenae or legs, does not require huge amounts of "brand-new" code for hairs, or pigment, or antennae or legs ... a tiny alteration during DNA transcription can cause a long-dormant (unexpressed) gene to suddenly become expressed again, or for copies of structures to be made or moved to different location on the body.

Third, the vast majority of genetic changes simply make small alterations to existing structures or proteins. As long as the alteration provides some advantage, no matter how slight, this can cause the gene to become more frequent over time. And this process has tremendous capacity to generate new genetic code over hundreds and thousands of generations.

For example, color vision in primates (absent in other mammals) seems to be the result of a few simple alterations in the genes for the opsin segments of photopigments that arose about 45 million years ago. Sometime prior to that time, a gene duplication event on the X-chromosome led to the duplication of the gene for the Medium-wavelength (green) photopigment. This was followed by a simple alteration of the photopigment that tuned it for longer wavelengths (the reds). This produced two separate photopigments in the retina of those individuals, and there was enough advantage in the ability to distinguish reds/greens that 45 million years later this has propagated to the majority of individuals of Old World (African-originated) primate species (including humans). (New World primates don't have this feature, and are "colorblind", except for the howler monkey, which seems to have developed red-green color vision through a different genetic mechanism.) Still to this day, not 100% of individuals have this gene on their X-chromosomes, leading to a substantial percentage of people (primarily males, who have only one X-chromosome) who are red-green "colorblind." That is all just "theory", but the evidence for it is very strong based on gene sequencing, molecular evidence, and the distribution of these genes around the world.

The exact "science" varies so much from case to case, that it's impossible to call them all a single theory. It's no run-around. This is just complicated.

As for the creation of new *species*, it's important to understand that a species is not just the result of a genetic change one day. Two populations of the same species can become geographically isolated ... and this may or may not be the result of some genetic change that causes one or the other to thrive better in a different environment, or some environmental event like a drought that causes two populations to become separated, or just basic migration, etc. Whatever the cause, if the two populations are genetically separated, then they will begin to evolve separately. Both are producing genetic differences, creating new genetic code, dropping the expression of some genes, re-awakening the expression of some long-dormant (unexpressed) gene, etc. If the populations are isolated for long enough, they may lose the willingness to mate with each other, producing further genetic isolation. Eventually this genetic isolation is solidified in an *inability* to mate with each other, and we have what biologists label a new "species."

Hope that helps.


dtracey 26.08.2007. 17:16

Paypal Refunds - Donations used for lawyers EMAIL CAMPAIGN? If you have donated in good faith to the Find Madeleine fund, you have been paying to save the bacon of the McCann?s and feed sharks. Justine the Team McCann spokesperson has today confirmed our worst fears that the fund is paying for lawyers fees. The following is her quote, not mine and no matter what way you dress this up it is fraud in the highest degree.

?So far only £70,000 has been spent ? on setting up a website, running a press office, producing wristbands, T-shirts and posters and paying legal fees?

Phil ma can runs the website so would have benefited directly, lawyers for the Tapas 9 to advise on ?how do we cover leaving all our children alone night after night the eldest being only 3 years old? Wristbands to make more money and t shirts and posters to advertise the donating website - no Private Investigators and nothing that would directly be involved in searching for poor Madeleine.

Please pass this on as an email campaign.

Below is the company directors who have after much pressure had to state there is conflict of interests on all counts and as such there is a conflict of interest policy.

WHERE IS THIS ?CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY?? It needs to be made public.

The fund is under the control of relatives or family friends, including Peter Hubner, 64, a retired consultant; Gerry?s brother John McCann, 48; former GMTV presenter Esther McVey, 39, who runs a Liverpool-based PR firm; Doug Skehan, 54, a clinical director of cardiology at Glenfield Hospital, where Gerry works; Philip Tomlinson, 76, a lawyer and former Leicester­shire coroner; and Brian Kennedy, 68, Madeleine?s great uncle.

With the money clearly being the focus of the McCann?s we need to hit them where it hurts, and before anyone can jump down my throat that I am ?unhelpful? if you wish to donate the money you manage to get recalled from Pay pal to a ?REAL CHARITY? searching for missing children then I suggest you find a reputable charity and not a LTD Company begging for lawyers fees and dressing it up as a ?FUND?


*13.1 Buyer Protection Programmes. If you buy an item using PayPal and either do not receive the item or receive an item that you believe is Significantly Not as Described by the seller, we encourage you to open a Dispute with the seller in our ?Resolution Center? located on the PayPal Website(s). By doing so, you will initiate our ?Online Dispute Resolution Process??a step-by-step system designed to facilitate communication between you and the seller in order to get resolution of the issue. If your dialogue with the seller fails to produce a satisfactory result, you can then escalate the Dispute into a Claim that we will evaluate for reimbursement .

Once again please start an email campaign to recall donations and resend them to a real charity, I am a loving, caring mother of 2 and am doing this as clearly the only way to get any real justice for Madeleine is to hit the pockets of their neglectful parents and relatives.


Admin 26.08.2007. 17:16

Hi dtracey, I have been saying from the word go that this Fund would be used to pay for Lawyers to defend the McCanns if they got into 'difficulties' or could be used by them to defend say a child neglect case and I say they should be charged with perverting the course of Justice, so the Fund could theoretically be used to defend this. Should any more serious charges be considered the Fund which I believe has topped the million but they are not admitting it could be used to obtain top legal advice. It is disgraceful. I know you cannot benefit from the money obtained from a crime and I firmly believe that this is a crime to defraud kind hearted people from their hard earned money to 'find' missing Madeleine but as far as I can see not a penny has been spent on actually finding her. The way the Fund has been set up there would appear to be no course of getting the money back to the people who donated. It is the best scam I have ever come across and believe me I have come across a few in my profession. It is totally brilliant. It would need a specialist lawyer to take the 'small print' to pieces but the wording used has obviously been constructed to benefit the McCanns with no recourse to refund.

Luckily I have not personally donated. Perhaps PayPal is the way forward, I have no idea, it might 'muddy the waters' but each individual donation is so small a large majority would have to join forces to make any difference and I would imagine the McCanns have taken 'legal steps' to block this as they probably have any other 'loophole' to relinquish their greedy grasp on the money. Good Luck.


Harry P 19.03.2011. 12:46

What is the energetic matrix? Please help, I'm doing geography work about Biomass in Brazil and I need to find statistics. One I found said "Biomass energy represents 27% of Brazil's energetic matrix". If I could have a very brief definition I would really appreciate it.

Harry P

Admin 19.03.2011. 12:46

Brazil does not have an Energy Matrix that expresses the National Energy Policy. The Country does not have a long term Economical Planning. The best approximation to that was the work carried out by the former Secretariat of Strategic Matters SAE/PR for which the first version of our macroeconomic model was developed.

The present work cannot itself represent this expression of National Will, for which it is necessary a consensus mechanism that should be able as well to go beyond one government administration.

What we present here is a mechanism for creating this consensus and the values found should be considered, in the economic part, as the possible economic growth in the present situation and assuming the resuming of internal saving and a moderate remuneration for the external capital (real 4.3% annually). In the energy part the results should be considered as resulting from the presented economic scenario and the continuation of the presently adopted - not explicitly - energy policy. Namely: introduction of natural gas both for direct use or thermoelectric generation; small participation of alcohol vehicles in the market and maintenance of the gasoline mixture policy; decreasing biomass use, as historically observed, while preserving some specific niches and conservation policy that incorporates the already available technologies.

This implicit policy - whose boundaries can be seen in different ways - practically substitutes a more explicit energy policy. However, it does not prevent one to fall into "market traps" that may induce long term decisions based on short term prices. This is aggravated when the Government - directly or indirectly - guarantees profits which exempts the investor from a correct evaluation of future risks.

There is no responsible country without an energy policy that takes into account the strategic aspects of this input. Countries capable of projecting external force, like the United States, have opted for political and military actions that guarantee the external supply of petroleum. They are also concerned about their strategic reserves. One of the first preoccupation of the W. Bush administration was to order to a high level commission to carry out a study about the energy future of the United States.

At the same time, countries with less influence have opted for paying an over price through measures that induce conservation. Some examples are: the high price of liquid fuels for the European consumer - with taxes that form a "cushion" that absorbs external variations - and the nuclear option adopted by France, Japan and South Korea. Option against nuclear, like that of Germany and Sweden, is also an attitude concerning policy.

The results of the present "run" of the energy and emission matrix for an average growth of 3.0% of the GDP indicated an average annual growth of 3.9% for electricity, 2.9% for mineral coal and its products and 3.4% for petroleum products and natural gas. The use of natural gas would grow 8.75 annually and that of biomass only .3% annually.

The CO2 emissions, the main gas that causes the greenhouse effect and a new strategic aspect to be considered, would grow about 3.4%. Considering the CO2 from electricity generation, instead of 0.5 kg of CO2 emission per dollar (values of 1994) of the GDP, in 1999 one would have almost 0.6 kg of CO2/US$(1994). At the end of the eighties, this factor was slightly above 0.4 kg CO2/US$(1994) when the petroleum substitution policy produced its maximum effect. The scenario presented here could be considered as an inertial scenario in what concerns CO2 emission for the purpose of alternative policies.

Finally we should point out that the methodology permits with relative ease to study alternative scenarios for economic growth and energy use.


Huria A 30.09.2009. 12:00

what are the ingredients of the mayonnaise? How I can make mayonnaise?

Huria A

Admin 30.09.2009. 12:00

The ingredients to mayonnaise are as follows:

4 Jumbo Egg Yolks (separate and discard the whites)
6 Teaspoons (Real Lemon Brand) Lemon Juice
3 cups soybean oil (sold as "vegetable" oil)
2 Teaspoons Onion Powder
1 Teaspoon Salt
1 Teaspoon Sugar or 1/2 packet of Splenda Brand (sucralose artificial sweetener)

If you threw all of these into a blender you would not get mayonnaise. You would get a slimy mess instead. This is because there is a trick to making real mayonnaise.

Before attempting to make mayonnaise, it is important to understand how mayonnaise works. To do that, a little background in food chemistry is needed. Mayonnaise is an emulsion of vegetable oil in lemon juice stabilized by the molecule lecithin, found in egg yolks. Mayonnaise does not taste all that oily even though most of it is oil. This is because every molecule of oil is surrounded by a microscopic amount of lemon juice. Thus, it is important to remember that mayonnaise is not a small amount of lemon juice blended into oil, but is instead, a large amount of oil blended into a tiny amount of lemon juice.

The key to making mayonnaise is to avoid having the components of the emulsion separate back into the components. In cooking, this is called breaking. No matter how much you mix the oil and lemon juice together, it will always separate (break) into a gooey mess unless you include the egg yolk as a stabilizer. The lecithin in the egg yolk acts like detergent in dissolving both the oil and the lemon juice components. This is what keeps mayonnaise fluffy.

Now that you understand the chemistry behind making mayonnaise, lets begin. First, separate the yolks from four jumbo eggs and place it in a quart jar with the lemon juice. The whites from the egg should be discarded. If you try to include them, the recipe will not work. The photo on the right shows this.

The ratio of lemon juice to the oil has to be exact so it is best to use measuring spoons and not guess. Note that in the ingredient list I specified to use a brand name lemon juice. You may be tempted to go out and grab a lemon off the tree, but you should know that natural lemons are not consistent in their concentration. As such, a natural lemon may be too strong or too weak. Store bought lemon juice is what this recipe requires.

The next thing to do is to mix the yolk and juice together using a high speed mixer with a wire wisp until the mixture is frothy. Since I didn't have a high speed mixer, I improvised by attaching a wire wisp to an electric drill. The speed of the drill needs to be set to medium to fast which is about perfect for making mayonnaise. When mixing, you need three hands if you use a hand drill. If you are doing this alone, a drill press fitted with a wire wisp is very handy. Ordinary electric mixer blades may not produce acceptable results. You may be tempted to use a blender, but if you do, you will get a mess instead of mayonnaise. Whatever type of mixer you use, it must mix the full column of mayonnaise at the same time (as in the case of a wire wisp). Most blenders have only a small impeller at the bottom so they wont work for making mayonnaise.

Let the egg yolk mixture sit for 3-5 minutes. There is always a danger in using raw eggs in any recipe, but letting this mixture sit for a few minutes allows the lemon juice to "pickle" any germs that might have been in the eggs. The risk of getting food poisoning from a raw egg is extremely low, but letting the lemon juice 'cook' it for a few minutes will make it even less of a risk.

Next, start the wisp spinning at maximum speed and S-L-O-W-L-Y dribble in the oil. Remember that you are mixing a large amount of oil into a very small amount of lemon juice. This takes a lot of time. You should not try to pour the oil in faster than about 1/2 teaspoonful per second. As you do this, it is very helpful to have a kitchen helper hold the quart jar for you or use a drill press if you are working alone. Once all the oil is in, blend a few seconds longer just to make sure any oil on the sides of the jar gets included in the emulsion.

Mix in the remaining ingredients. These are just for flavor and do not affect the mayonnaise consistency. Try not to be tempted to use real onions instead of onion powder. Doing so may cause the mayonnaise to break (turn to goo). You should not add any other liquid to the emulsion at this time. A lot of people make the mistake of adding the egg whites back in at this point, but this always results in a slimy goo rather than mayonnaise. It is really rather depressing to see this happen after you actually made the mayonnaise. When you are done, stop the drill and remove the wisp. The mayonnaise should be thick and able to stand up on its own. It should not be runny at all. You should be able to turn the jar on its side without the mayonnaise running out.

When you have completed, put in fridge


Abhi K. 15.05.2010. 05:43

What's the issue of electoral reform in UK? What's all the fuss about proportional representation? please explain.

Abhi K.

Admin 15.05.2010. 05:43

The UK has just had an election that resulted in a hung Parliament. Unlike the US President, the British Prime Minister is not directly elected and who it is depends on the result of the Parliamentary election - it is as if the President was chosen on the basis of whoever gets most seats in the House of Representatives. Normally either Labour or the Conservatives win more than half the seats and the Queen appoints whoever is the leader of the winning party (assuming they managed to get elected themselves!) That didn't happen this time. The Conservatives are the largest party but they are 20 seats short of being sure of winning votes in the House of Commons. They could have tried to go it alone but they would never have got anything done and there would have been another election in a few months. That actually happened in 1974.

The only way a party can form a government that actually has any chance of doing anything in these circumstances is to find another party to buddy up with. There's no chance of the Conservatives doing this with Labour (it'd be like Democrats and Republicans trying to form a government together!) But Britain has a moderately strong third party, the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives had talks with them and they've agreed to form a coalition government together. One key Liberal Democrat policy for very many years has been proportional representation, so now that they are actually part of government for the first time in decades, it's become a live issue and in fact it's been bubbling under for quite a while thanks to them. The Conservatives (and Labour) don't want PR because they've done so well out of the current system and it is more likely to give you a one-party strong government, but they've had to agree to at least let us vote on changing it as a price of forming the coalition.

A cynic would say the Liberal Democrats only want PR because it would give them more seats, and certainly it would. If you only have two main parties and any others are too small to bother about, the current British system, which is exactly the same as is used for the US Congress - whoever gets most votes wins in each electoral district - works perfectly well. But if you have a significant third party, it gets disadvantaged as it will come second or third just about everywhere. It doesn't matter if it loses by 1 vote or 10,000 votes - it still loses. At last week's election, the Liberal Democrats got 22% of the votes nationally but only won 9% of the seats. This raises the question of is this fair, and why, if 22% of the voters voted for them, they don't get 22% of the seats?

The consequence of PR when there are more than two parties is that you will always get coalitions. Most of continental Europe uses PR of some kind (there are any number of ways of implementing it) and that's what happens there - there's always a delay, often several weeks, after an election takes place while the elected politicians horse-trade and work out who can work with who. Whether this is a good thing or not is entirely a matter of opinion and there is no right or wrong answer.

What we've got now is the promise of a referendum on whether we should change to the Alternative Vote. Australia's House of Representatives uses this and it involves voters numbering the candidates in order of preference rather than just choosing one. If one candidate gets over half the first preference votes, they get elected. If not, the bottom candidate is eliminated and their second preference votes reallocated to whoever they were for, and the count takes place again. There can be several rounds of counting until someone gets 50%. It can produce strange results - you can get someone elected who only a small minority really wants but won on second and third preferences as "least worst of the rest".

The Conservatives don't want this, and the Liberal Democrats don't really either - they want to use the Single Transferable Vote, which is AV with multi-member electoral districts. Ireland uses this with 3, 4 or 5 TDs (members of the Dail) elected from each one. This makes the rounds of counting massively more complicated (see for details) but it produces a more proportional result. There is no way the Conservatives would agree to this so they hit on AV as a compromise.

Funnily enough, in the dying days of the last Parliament, Labour came up with the idea of a referendum on AV as well... no doubt because they knew they were going to lose the election and wanted to suck up to the Lib Dems. Politics is a mucky business!


Zombie With Fresh Socks 27.07.2010. 03:41

POLITICS: If someone was running for president as the opposing party...? But on their first interview said to not judge them on their party, would you give them the benefit of a doubt. If they were really independent, but ran as an R or D to get more attention, would you hold that against them? I've been thinking about how independents don't really get a lot of attention in elections, and the logical solution would be to run as one of the big parties. But then the stigma of each party may drown out their voice. What say you?

Zombie With Fresh Socks

Admin 27.07.2010. 03:41

I judge them on who they are getting their money from.

If the said candidate was receiving the same amount of money from the same source as his opponent, I would vote for neither. A good example would be Obama and Bush Jr. Both received the same amount of money from Goldman Sachs. Both had a hand in either deregulating the financial market or giving them tax payers money. It seems despite difference in party affiliation, both ended up producing results profitable to Goldman Sachs, but at the expense of the rest of the nation and taxpayer.

As for party, I view Democrats and GOP as the same entity because no matter which one gets in, both produce the same results. Remember, Obama's promise to close Guantánamo? That has not happened. Instead, Obama kept Guantánamo open, and replaced Bush's warrantless wire tapping with the policy of the president being legally authorized to have American citizens that live overseas assassinated on his say so, with no judicial oversight. This is not an improvement. It is actually change as promised, but in the WRONG direction. To me, if two candidates from supposedly two different parties ended up producing the same results, with the only change the next guy does is make an unpopular policy EVEN worse, then it is safe to assume there is no difference between the two candidates, let alone the two parties.

Both parties are paid off by the same corporations and people. If two people are being paid by the same employer and told to produce similar results, or the the paychecks wills cease, those two people, despite differences will produce the same results. I think my previous statement about Goldman Sachs and their dealing with Obama and Dubba Bush was an excellent example illustrating this point.

Not to mention both parties say they are going to uphold their parties ideals every election, then turn around and do something else.

With Republicans, I dislike them because they do not uphold conservative values at all when in office. True conservatives want smaller government, less public spending, less regulations but with better consumer protection and and the bill of rights protected. Dubba Bush and all the other Neo-Cons did the exact opposite.

With the Democrats, I dislike them due to how full of double talk and double speak, that party's insidious leadership really is. Most of their proposed solutions to the issues they say are trying to overcome will actually make those problems worse. They rely on dividing and conquering. They preach that they are fighting for peace and harmony while finding ways to get people to turn on each other without getting caught. They are the ultimate concern trolls

Because of all this, I am voting third party. I am tired of being lied to, the corruption and all of their other shenanigans both parties pull on a regular basis.

As to answer your question more directly about an independent running as a R or as a D.

A candidate cannot remain independent by running for either of the two main parties.
First of all, an independent views both main parties as a source of many problems in America. An independent wants to get rid of the problem, not run on the same ticket with it. The second reason is independents are anti-party on principal. Ideally, political parties should not exist. The vote should always be for the best person with the best ideas, not based on the organization with the best PR firm.

But lets say our independent wanted to run for office and thought the best chance at winning was to run as a Dem or a GOP. Why would an independent want to run for office in the first place?

Independents run for office because they actually do care about what is in America's best interests and they run for office so they can address issues that both parties are unaware of or are unwilling to tackle. If an independent runs for office as a Dem or GOP, and try to campaign on and be open about any original ideas they have, they would be weeded out early on. The party's base would vote against them during the primaries due to the independent candidate not being "liberal/conservative" enough or be labeled as a traitor to the party's ideals and beliefs. Original and fresh ideas in the two main parties are never tolerated. Any one who is able to conceive new ideas and tries to push them upon fellow parties members are quickly excommunicated as punishment for their heresy.

To actually win as either a Republican or a Democrat, an Independent would have to give up what makes them an independent in the first place, which is their new ideas, give up trying to address the neglected issues they care about and place serving that party's best interest first and the best interest of the nation last. As proven by the results of their actions, it is very clear what serves the two main parties' interests, does not serve the best interests of America and its people. In the end, by running under the banner of one of the two main parties, an independent would have to give up their individuality and independence and conform to the will of the party they are being sponsored by. May they conform due to them wanting to appease and placate the base, or they may end up conforming due to the party whips finding ways to make them toe the party line.


Write a comment

* = required field





* Yes No