Dan Cirucci is one of the most widely honored public relations professionals in his field.
He is a Lecturer in Corporate Communication at Penn State Abington and a former President of the Philadelphia Public Relations Association.
A public relations consultant, he has also lectured at Rowan University, Temple University, The College of New Jersey and Arcadia University. He has conducted workshops on public relations for thousands of participants throughout the nation. Cirucci is a prolific writer and his op-ed pieces appear regularly in the Philadelphia Daily News and other publications.
A former President of the Philadelphia chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators, Cirucci served as Associate Executive Director of the Philadelphia Bar Association.
He has been named a Distinguished Alumnus of Rowan's public relations program and was inducted into the Philadelphia Public Relations Hall of Fame in 2003. He received the E. A. "Wally" Richter Leadership Award from the National Association of Bar Executives' Communications Section. The Award is the Section's highest honor
Unless explicitly attributed to others, the opinions and views expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of any employer or other organization.
By using this blog, you agree that all original content on this blog is copyright of Daniel A. Cirucci. You may quote from my posts provided that you clearly identify me as the author, link to the original post or home address of this blog, and do not charge for access to the website, publication or other media in which the quote appears.
I like to link to people who link to me.
Although comments are moderated, I accept no responsibility for what other people say, and I reserve the right to block or remove any comment for any reason or no reason.
Any e-mails sent to me are subject to publication, and any disputes regarding this site will be litigated exclusively in the jurisidiction in which I reside at the time of the dispute.
And how many of these silly charts about "numbers don't lie"--which both sides can crank out ad nauseum by cherry picking whatever numbers and using whatever ranking system they want--did we see here in 2008 pointing out the abysmal failures of Republican leadership? No, Mr. Bush was not running, but Mr. McCain's campaign proposals were far closer to the failed Bush policies than Mr. Obama's.
So the argument is essentially that Mr. Obama didn't fix the train wreck fast enough, ergo we should go back to what caused the wreck?
If "numbers don't lie," the numbers show the Bush tax cuts to have failed in job creation. By GOP logic, since federal taxes have not increased under Obama, job creation should have been reaching the stratosphere. But...well, that didn't quite happen.
Then there's that whole sudden adherence to paying as you go, that the GOP only discovered when the...you know, THAT guy of questionable origin and with the funny name....current President was sworn in. Launching a bogus war on fraudulent "intelligence" about non-existant WMDs with no funding...that's A-OK. But heaven forbid we consider for a moment helping the unemployed maybe feed their children without cutting some other social program. Yes, indeed, it's those evil retirees scraping by on Social Security and daring to need medical care that are the problem with the deficit, and not, let's say, a trillion dollars over in Iraq.
All of those pesky facts aside, the comic nature of that "chart" is best expressed in the "global competitiveness" line. It's perhaps the most meaningless and laughable one there (and that's saying something). By what convoluted logic had this country not long since fallen behind in competitiveness long before Mr. Obama came anywhere neat Washington?
I know for some people the simplistic, simple-minded "are you better off now than four years ago" question works. Some of us are still more capable of understanding that there are actually more complex ways of examining things. Such as whether a return to failed policies represents the best chance to improve said situation, or whether something better, something worth achieving, is not always achieved in a short time period when the "fall" was so pronounced.
1 comments:
And how many of these silly charts about "numbers don't lie"--which both sides can crank out ad nauseum by cherry picking whatever numbers and using whatever ranking system they want--did we see here in 2008 pointing out the abysmal failures of Republican leadership? No, Mr. Bush was not running, but Mr. McCain's campaign proposals were far closer to the failed Bush policies than Mr. Obama's.
So the argument is essentially that Mr. Obama didn't fix the train wreck fast enough, ergo we should go back to what caused the wreck?
If "numbers don't lie," the numbers show the Bush tax cuts to have failed in job creation. By GOP logic, since federal taxes have not increased under Obama, job creation should have been reaching the stratosphere. But...well, that didn't quite happen.
Then there's that whole sudden adherence to paying as you go, that the GOP only discovered when the...you know, THAT guy of questionable origin and with the funny name....current President was sworn in. Launching a bogus war on fraudulent "intelligence" about non-existant WMDs with no funding...that's A-OK. But heaven forbid we consider for a moment helping the unemployed maybe feed their children without cutting some other social program. Yes, indeed, it's those evil retirees scraping by on Social Security and daring to need medical care that are the problem with the deficit, and not, let's say, a trillion dollars over in Iraq.
All of those pesky facts aside, the comic nature of that "chart" is best expressed in the "global competitiveness" line. It's perhaps the most meaningless and laughable one there (and that's saying something). By what convoluted logic had this country not long since fallen behind in competitiveness long before Mr. Obama came anywhere neat Washington?
I know for some people the simplistic, simple-minded "are you better off now than four years ago" question works. Some of us are still more capable of understanding that there are actually more complex ways of examining things. Such as whether a return to failed policies represents the best chance to improve said situation, or whether something better, something worth achieving, is not always achieved in a short time period when the "fall" was so pronounced.
Post a Comment