Wishing everyone a good year!

I read an interesting article on aish.com about the difference between wishing someone a happy new year versus a good new year. 

The typical greeting for the Jewish New Year is Shana Tova.  This has typically been translated as as Happy New Year.  However, it actually means Good Year. 

If someone has a good year, they have achieved their purpose and fulfilled what they are meant to be. 

Therefore, I wish all my family and friends a healthy, prosperous and good year!

Jews Don’t Say Happy New Year

What’s the best wish for the new year?

by Rabbi Benjamin Blech

Ever notice that Jews don’t traditionally wish each other “happy new year”?

Instead we say the Hebrew phrase “shanah tovah” which — in spite of the mistaken translation that appears on almost all greeting cards — has no connection at all to the expression “have a happy new year.”

Shanah tovah conveys the hope for a good year rather than a happy one. And the reason for that distinction contains great significance.

This past January, the Atlantic Monthly had a fascinating article titled There’s More to Life than Being Happy. The author, Emily Esfahani Smith, points out how researchers are beginning to caution against the pursuit of mere happiness. They found that a meaningful life and a happy life overlap in certain ways, but are ultimately very different. Leading a happy life, the psychologists found, is associated with being a "taker" while leading a meaningful life corresponds with being a "giver."

"Happiness without meaning characterizes a relatively shallow, self-absorbed or even selfish life, in which things go well, needs and desire are easily satisfied and difficult or taxing entanglements are avoided," the author writes.

Happy people get joy from receiving while people leading meaningful lives get joy from giving to others.

She quotes Kathleen Vohs, one of the authors of a new study to be published this year in The Journal of Positive Psychology: "Happy people get joy from receiving benefits from others while people leading meaningful lives get a lot of joy from giving to others." In other words, meaning transcends the self while happiness is all about giving the self what it wants.

According to Roy Baumeister, the lead researcher of the study, “What sets human beings apart from animals is not the pursuit of happiness, which occurs all across the natural world, but the pursuit of meaning, which is unique to humans.”

Long before all of these studies, Jews somehow understood this intuitively. Happy is good, but good is better.

To hope for a happy new year is to give primacy to the ideal of a hedonistic culture whose greatest goal is “to have a good time.” To seek a good year however is to recognize the superiority of meaning over the joy of the moment.

The word “good” has special meaning in the Torah. The first time we find it used is in the series of sentences where God, after each day of creation, views his handiwork and proclaims it “good”. More, when God completed his work he saw all that he had done “and behold it was very good.”

What does that mean? In what way was the world good? Surely it was not in any moral sense that it was being praised. The commentators offer a profound insight. The word good indicates that every part of creation fulfilled God’s purpose: it was good because it was what it was meant to be.

That is the deepest meaning of the word good when it is applied to us and to our lives. We are good when we achieve our purpose; our lives are good when they fulfill what they are meant to be.

We know many people of whom it can be said that they had good lives in spite of their having had to endure great unhappiness. Indeed, the truly great chose lives of sacrifice over pleasure and left a legacy of inspiration and achievement that they never could have accomplished had they been solely concerned with personal gratification.

A shanah tovah, a good year, from a spiritual perspective, is far more blessed than a simply happy one.

Meaning Leads to Happiness

A shanah tovah may not emphasize happiness, yet it is the most certain way to ultimately achieve happiness.

Because another powerful idea discovered by contemporary psychologists is that happiness most often is the byproduct of a meaningful life. It’s precisely when we don’t go looking for it and are willing to set it aside in the interest of a loftier goal that we find it unexpectedly landing on us with a force that we never considered possible.

Happiness is the byproduct of a meaningful life.

You would think that acquiring ever more money would make people happier. There are millions of people ready to testify from their own experience that it just isn’t so. But if getting more won’t do it, what will? Social scientists have come to a significant conclusion: while having money doesn’t automatically lead to happiness, giving it away almost always achieves that goal!

The prestigious Science magazine (March, 2008) tells us that new research reveals when individuals dole out money for gifts for friends or charitable donations they get a boost in happiness while those who spend on themselves get no such cheery lift. “We wanted to test our theory that how people spend their money is at least as important as how much money they earn,” said Elizabeth Dunn, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia. What they discovered was that personal spending had no link with a person’s happiness, while spending on others and charity was significantly related to a boost in happiness.

“Regardless of how much income each person made,” Dunn said, “those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not.”

In a fascinating experiment, researchers gave college students a $5 or $20 bill, asking them to spend the money by that evening. Half the participants were instructed to spend the money on themselves, and the remaining students were told to spend it on others. Participants who spent the windfall on others — which included toys for siblings and meals eaten with friends — reported feeling happier at the end of the day than those who spent the money on themselves. Spending as little as $5 on other people produced a measurable surge in happiness on a given day, while purchasing supposedly pleasure -gratifying personal items produced almost no change in mood.

 “It doesn’t surprise me at all that people find giving money away very rewarding,” Aaron Ahuvia, associate professor of marketing at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, explained. “People spend a lot of money to make their lives feel meaningful, significant and important. When you give away money you are making that same kind of purchase, only you are doing it in a more effective way.” He added, “What you’re really trying to buy is meaning to life.”

Meaning is our ultimate goal; in our pursuit of the “good” life we will discover the reward of true happiness.

So shana tova, may you have a year filled with meaning and purpose. And happiness that will surely follow.

How Martin Luther King Improvised 'I Have A Dream'

Excellent article on Forbes.com by  Carmine Gallo on the background and lessons to Martin Luther King's "dream speech.

 

Few people know that the prepared text to Martin Luther King Jr.’s transformative “dream speech” did not contain the passage that started with “I have a dream;” the phrase that most of us remember as we mark the 50th anniversary of King’s famous speech. Something extraordinary happened around the seventh paragraph of the speech, an event that instantly transformed the speech from a good one to one widely considered the greatest speech of the twentieth-century. What happened in the second half of the speech carries an important lesson for today’s business leaders who need to inspire their teams.

In his book, “Behind the Dream,” King speechwriter Clarence B. Jones told the story of what really happened as King prepared for the speech and the astonishing thing that occurred as he was delivering it. I’ll summarize the story and follow it with the vital lesson it carries for contemporary leaders.

The story begins the night before the speech, Tuesday, August 27, 1963. A group of seven individuals, including Jones, had gathered with King at the Willard Hotel to add their input to the final speech. King asked Jones to take notes and to turn the notes into cohesive remarks he would deliver on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Everyone in the room represented a group that had a stake in the speech and who wanted their voices to be heard. “I tried to summarize the various points made by all of his supporters. It was not easy; voices from every compass point were ringing in my head,” wrote Jones.

The next morning King’s speech was finished and copies were delivered to the press. Fast forward a few hours later when King was delivering the speech. If you watch the video, you’ll notice that King is looking down a lot in the first part of the speech (watch King read at 2 minutes, 10 seconds into the video clip). King looks down because he is reading the text. “A pleasant shock came over me as I realized that he seemed to be essentially reciting those suggested opening paragraphs I had scrawled down the night before in my hotel room,” wrote Jones.

In the seventh paragraph, something extraordinary happened. King paused. In that brief silence, Mahalia Jackson, a gospel singer and good friend of King’s, shouted “tell ‘em about the ‘dream.’” Few people heard her, with the exception of Jones, Ted Kennedy, and, of course, King. Here’s what happened next. Jones saw King “push the text of his prepared remarks to one side of the lectern. He shifted gears in a heartbeat, abandoning whatever final version he’d prepared…he’d given himself over to the spirit of the moment.” Jones leaned over to the person standing next to him and said, “These people out there today don’t know it yet, but they’re about to go to church.”
King improvised much of the second half of the speech, including the “I have a dream” refrain. Improvise means “to deliver without prior preparation.” It does not mean that King completely made up the words on the spot. In fact King delivered the now familiar refrain, or at least a version of it, two months earlier at Cobo Hall in Detroit. Remarkably, if you read the text of the Detroit event, you’ll see that he did not recite the same sentences word for word. His mesmerizing words and sentence structure were truly delivered extemporaneously. It’s an example of rhetorical dexterity at its finest. Now watch the video again, beginning at 12 minutes, 30 seconds. King rarely looks down in the second half of the speech. It’s because he’s not reading; he’s riffing, like a jazz musician. “So much for providing advance material for The March reporters,” wrote Jones. “The effect was nothing short of soul-stirring.”

How does this apply to you? If you want to inspire your listeners, consider the opinions of others, but find your authentic voice.

Think about the majority of business presentations that you see. Many, if not most, are dull and often read directly from notes. They’re functional, but uninspiring. And they are uninspiring because the leader’s voice is nowhere to be found. Recently I was advising a top executive at one of the world’s largest companies. We were seated in a grand, magnificent conference room in the expansive executive wing of the company’s headquarters. It was a very formal environment. A speechwriter was taking notes as representatives from public relations, marketing, and other departments discussed the content of the speech.

The team was building a functional presentation. It contained plenty of compelling statistics and information. Near the end of the session I said, “It’s missing something.” I could feel the glare of some of those in the room who just wanted to end the meeting. I turned to the executive and asked, “Where’s your voice? What’s in your heart?” What happened next was the ‘dream’ moment. He lowered his voice, turned to the group, and fought back tears as he told us why he believed in the company and how proud he was of its 60,000 employees. Every person sat in stunned silence. I turned to the group and said, “There’s the ending of your presentation. Don’t script it.” The executive delivered it two weeks later, adding his ‘voice’ to the conclusion. He received some of the highest marks ever given to an executive speech in the company’s long history.

Find your dream moment by asking yourself this question: What is it about my [company, product, idea] that makes my heart sing? The answer will reflect your authentic voice and it will connect with your listeners on a deeper and more emotional level. Sure, be functional, but build in your voice from time to time and deliver a message that your audience will want to remember.

 Carmine Gallo is the communications coach for the world’s most admired brands. He is a popular keynote speaker and author of several books, including the international bestseller The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs. Carmine’s upcoming book, Talk Like TED, reveals the public speaking secrets of the world’s top minds. Follow Carmine on Facebook or Twitter.

Business Golf 101

Public relations is about relationships. During the golfing season, a round of golf is the perfect opportunity to build a relationship with someone with whom you will later do business. However, there are some dos and don'ts on conducting business on the golf course. In fact, there's even a course (academic, not golf) for students at Northern Illinois University to learn the proper golf behavior on the links.

Here are twelve tips provided by Professor Dan Weilbaker:
1. Don't rush things. Use the first six holes to get to know your potential customer.
2. Use the next six holes to better understand your potential customer's business.
3. Use the final six holes to share ideas about how you can help meet your potential customer's needs.
4. Close the deal on the 19th hole (or over dinner / lunch).
5. Don't initiate wagering and don't bet more than you have in your pocket.
6. Don't let your bad golf slow down play. Pick up your ball after double par.
7. Don't intentionally play poorly.
8. Observe how people play the game.
9. Listen more than you talk.
10. Don't tell off-color jokes.
11. Don't offer golf advice unless asked.
12. Leave your mobile phone behind.

Jewish Astronauts--

When NASA first started sending up the astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat the problem, NASA spent a decade and $1.2 billion to develop a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, underwater, on almost any surface, including glass, and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to 300 Celsius.

Confronted with the same problem, the Israelis used a pencil.

As we get ready to celebrate the 40th anniversay of Skylab, this would be a great time to look back on Jews in space. ... . . No, not the Mel Brooks version. I'm talking about bona fide Jewish astronauts who have translated the ancient, nomadic ways of our people into a passion for exploration among the stars. . . ==================================================== Boris Volynov Boris Volynov was the first Jew in space. He was the commander of Soyuz 5 in January 1969. ========================================== . . Judy Resnick, was the first American Jewish astronaut to go into space. She served as mission specialist on the maiden voyage of the Space Shuttle Discovery in 1984 and also on the Challenger. . She died tragically when the Challenger broke apart shortly after liftoff for its 10th mission. She consulted a rabbi about lighting Shabbat candles aboard the Space Shuttle. Of course, an open flame was not permitted, so she was advised to use electric lights at the proper hour corresponding to the onset of Shabbat at their home base, in Houston . ====================================================== . . Jeffrey Hoffman Jeffrey Hoffman was the first Jewish man in space and the first person to ever bring a Torah into space. He did this during his 1996 mission on the Space Shuttle Columbia . ================================================= . . David Wolf Another Jewish astronaut, David Wolf, was in orbit during Hanukkah and, though he couldn't light his menorah due to the hazards of fire in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, he did take advantage of zero gravity when spinning his dreidels. "I probably have the record dreidel spin," he later said, "it went for about an hour and a half until I lost it. It showed up a few weeks later in an air filter. I figure it went about 25,000 miles." =============================================== . . Gregory Chamitoff Then, of course, there's Gregory Chamitoff, in 2008. He took mezuzot shaped like rockets on to the International Space Station and placed them on the door post near his bunk bed. ================================================ . . Ilan Ramon was the first Israeli astronaut. Ilan Ramon He was the payload specialist on the Space Shuttle Columbia and, sadly, he died along with his crew mates when the Columbia disintegrated during re-entry over Southern Texas . But during his career as an astronaut Judaism was a prominent part of his life in space. He was the first astronaut to request kosher food in space and also the first one to consult a rabbi about how to observe Shabbat while in orbit. In addition to a Torah scroll and microfiche copy of the bible, he also carried a picture of Earth as seen from the moon that was drawn by a Jewish boy in a concentration camp during World War II. . . ================================================= Gary Reisman Last but not least on this list is Gary Reisman, who was the first Jewish astronaut to live on the International Space Station, and who brought a memento from Ilan Ramon's widow with him. He left right before Passover and asked if he could bring matzah with him, but, alas, mission control thought the crumbs would be uncontainable. . ( Reisman is a self-proclaimed member of the Colbert Nation and had a cameo appearance on the series finale of Battlestar Galactica).

Actually Yuri Gagarin was the first Jewish man in space. He flew into orbit aboard the Soviet spacecraft Vostok I on 12 April 1961.
He never told anyone he was Jewish.

5 ways to get the most out of LinkedIn Groups

The party's in full swing, and you're invited. Just make sure you're a welcome guest with something significant to contribute. Here's what you should know. 

 

By Matt Haskell | Posted: March 7, 2013

 

If you are on LinkedIn to connect with businesspeople, LinkedIn Groups is where the party is happening. Sometimes you get invited, sometimes everyone is welcome, and sometimes the party gets a little wild. You can even get turned away at the door.

To get the most out of LinkedIn Groups, you need to learn how to be the life of the party—not a wallflower or a party crasher. Here's how:

1. Don't be a party crasher
 
Few things are worse in a group than a member who continually "spams" discussions with his direct advertisements for products or services, or starts discussions with direct-sales tactics, pitching what he's selling. Linking to a blog and asking a question regarding your own content are both fine, but the quickest way to get kicked out of groups is to constantly pitch your stuff.

Don't focus solely on sharing your own content. This is a community, after all, so comment on and share other people's articles in your status updates; it's a great way to build your network and start conversations.

2. Don't join too many groups
 
Join a variety of groups, keying on those with high numbers of members and very active discussions, but be careful not to join too many (the maximum is 50), because keeping up just becomes too hard.
A handy way to keep up with discussions you started is to hover over the "notifications" flag on your LinkedIn home page and see who's commented on or "liked" your discussions. (It's also a great way to make connections.)

3. Use the "Share" feature to post to multiple groups
 
Do you have a company update, a blog post, or an article that you'd like to share with several groups at once? Either post it as your status and click "Share" or do the same from your company page. When sharing to multiple groups, make sure you change the title to fit the group and rephrase your introductions to make them discussion starters.

Some blog posts or articles might be appropriate across various groups, but be sure not to share an article or start a discussion in multiple groups that have very different interests. Chances are, your retail banking network group doesn't really care to hear about marketing strategies for higher education.

You can share your discussions and articles to batches of separate groups with targeted titles and details to fit the mission of several groups at once. For example, if you are a member of numerous social media groups, make sure the title of the discussion fits those groups and you aren't also pushing that discussion to unrelated groups.

4. Join groups for your target market
 
If you use LinkedIn for prospecting or business development, you likely aren't going to find much use in joining only groups of other marketers. So join groups in your target markets, too. Doing so will help identify conversations going on among your customers, and you can respond to inquiries and discussion to spawn new business.

A great function of LinkedIn Groups is that they allow you to listen. When you are a member of groups pertaining to your target audience, you have the opportunity to eavesdrop and find out what is truly important to your audience. It's a great way to do market research.

5. Ask questions systematically: polls
 
Polls are a great way to help you make smarter business decisions. They also make your discussions the most popular on the board, boost your influence, and make connections.

Ask your group members a question that you face in your business. Especially if you are in groups with your target audience, asking a polling question can help you solve client problems and make smarter decisions. Polls also open further discussions when group members comment on the results of the poll.

In addition to providing valuable market research, polls add great visual appeal to the look of a page and so boost your clout in the group.

6. Sometimes it's OK to "take it outside"
 
LinkedIn Groups aren't necessarily meant for prospecting and lead generation, but sometimes discussions can lead to real opportunities. Occasionally, a participant in a discussion or a poll will want to know more about how to start working with your company or might like to take advantage of your product or service offerings.

Rather than continuing that discussion in the public arena, "take it outside" by requesting to connect with the group member and sending a direct message that offers more information about your product. Doing so in a group would come off as solicitation, but it can be mutually beneficial if your new connection wants to learn more in a private setting.

LinkedIn facilitates such interactions by letting you request connections with group members, even if they are not second- or third-degree connections.

Matt Haskell is the Social Media Marketing Manager for SourceLink, a marketing services provider focused on data-based marketing. This article first appeared on MarketingProfs.com.

Taking Pictures in Public

Found this article from 4/17/08 edition of USA Today on considerations needed before taking pictures in public.

Think twice before taking pictures in public

 

Thanks to digital cameras and camera phones, photography is experiencing a renaissance. Many people carry a camera everywhere they go.

 

But before you start snapping, ask yourself a question: Is it legal to take a photograph in this situation? Test your knowledge with this quick quiz.

(Local laws regarding photography may differ. I'll tell you what is generally permitted. It should not be construed as legal advice.)

You're photographing the exquisite steps of a public library from a nearby sidewalk.

This one is easy. It is legal to take photographs in public places. This includes streets, sidewalks and public parks. However, you cannot obstruct other passersby.

You want to photograph an older couple holding hands in a public park.

You can photograph people in public places without consent. There are exceptions, though. If subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy, don't photograph them. For example, don't photograph someone in a restroom or locker room.

You plan to photograph your neighbor's house from the sidewalk.

Your neighbor's house is private property. However, it is visible from a public place. So photographs are legal. Get permission if you plan to stand in the driveway or yard, though.

You're photographing your neighbor's house from the street. Your neighbor is visible through the bathroom window.

Your neighbor has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even though the window is open. So don't photograph your neighbor in the bathroom. The bedroom is also off-limits.

You're on the street photographing a military base.

The military can prohibit photographs it deems detrimental to national security. Likewise, you may be banned from taking photos of nuclear power plants. And don't expect to take photos in government buildings like courthouses.

You witness an accident scene from public property. You want to sell a photo of it to a newspaper.

You can take such pictures from public property. However, don't hinder police or emergency workers. If asked to move, do so. You may take photos from another location.

The newspaper will use the photograph for editorial purposes; no consent is needed.

You're photographing children in public. You will sell copies at an art gallery.

You do not need permission to photograph children in public. Art falls under editorial usage; consent is not required.

You take pictures of people in public. You want to sell the photos via a stock photography site.

Get a model release from anyone uniquely identifiable before trying to sell the photos.

Companies purchasing your photos will use them for commercial purposes. They need a release to limit their liability. Otherwise, they could be sued. Stock sites have their own rules governing model releases. They won't accept photos that don't meet these requirements.

You're photographing products at the supermarket.

You need permission to take photos on private property. But stores are private spaces open to the public. Owners can limit photography with clearly posted restrictions.

You want to photograph your son's soccer game at a public park.

Amateur leagues often rent public parks for events. Some jurisdictions consider the property private for the event's duration. The league can ban photography.

You're photographing an NFL game.

Many professional leagues ban photography. Restrictions should be posted. Some venues only ban professional cameras, like SLRs.

Finally, you may encounter problems taking photographs in legally permissible situations. The best solution is to avoid conflict. If in doubt, identify yourself and ask permission before taking photographs.

Kim Komando hosts the nation's largest talk radio show about consumer electronics, computers and the Internet. To get the podcast or find the station nearest you, visit: http://www.komando.com/listen. To subscribe to Kim's free e-mail newsletters, sign-up at: www.komando.com/newsletters. Contact her at gnstech@gns.gannett.com.

Save our Post Office Service

In the Saturday, February 9, 2013 edition of The Brattleboro Reformer, the following editorial appeared:

Our opinion: Bleeding the USPS

Our opinion: Bleeding the USPS

Do you think the U.S. Postal Service is deeply in the red because of mismanagement? Because of competition from private carriers? Because of a bloated work force?

If you think any of those, you are wrong.

The reason the USPS is considering cutting Satur­day delivery is something called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which requires the Postal Service to pre­fund the next 75 years of retiree health benefits by 2016.

As Ralph Nader said, that congressional mandate forces the USPS to cover employees who haven’t even been born yet.

This mandate was only inflicted upon the USPS, no other governmental agency, and some have ven­tured to say it’s an attempt by Congress to disman­tle the National Association of Letter Carriers, which represents about 200,000 city delivery letter carriers.

Others say it’s just another example of Grover Norquist’s philosophy of shrinking government to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub.

Let us not forget that the USPS does not receive tax dollars or subsidies from the federal govern­ment; it is intended to be self-funding.

Under PAEA, the Postal Service is required to make $103.7 billion in benefits between 2007 and 2016, or on average a little more than $10 billion a year.

Since the enactment of PAEA, the Postal Service has lost $41 billion, nearly 80 percent of which can be attributed to having to prefund the retiree bene­fits plan.

Astoundingly, according to the Inspector General, the annual payments could be eliminated because the USPS’ retirement fund is at more than 100 percent.

In addition, the Postal Service has overpaid $80 billion to the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System, according to the USPS’ Inspector General.

And to no one’s surprise, the federal government has made no effort to repay the USPS for the over­payment.

Nader maintains if Congress were to reverse PAEA and reimburse the overpayment, the Postal Service wouldn’t be in the predicament it is today.

Instead, the Postmaster General is making small cuts here and there to try to stem the hem­orrhaging; either way, the post office is bleeding to death.

The most recent pronouncement to come from the Postmaster General is his intention to cut Sat­urday services.

“Ending Saturday delivery not only threatens the future of the U.S. Postal Service in the long term, but in the short term it harms small businesses’ ability to carry out their operations in a timely manner, may inhibit the elderly’s ability to receive important medication by the mail, and will drive even more customers away from the USPS and toward private mail carriers like UPS and FedEx,” wrote Nader.

Nader admits that declining mail volume has con­tributed to the USPS’ woes, as has the financial cri­sis, but it’s not the chief problem affecting the post office’s bottom line.

“The Postal Service’s ‘financial crisis’ is in fact an entirely manufactured ‘crisis’ precipitated by the ill-advised schedule of prepayments ... mandated by the 2006 PAEA ...” wrote Nader.

The Reformer urges our readers to contact their senators and representatives in Washington, D.C., and ask them to rescind the PAEA and reimburse the Postal Service the money it has overpaid into the federal retiree system.

Rather than hacking the USPS to pieces, perhaps we should call upon Congress not to surreptitiously bleed the system until it falters and collapses, leav­ing for-profit industries to scoop up the pieces.  

We don’t believe that would be of benefit to any­one.

I really like the USPS.  I enjoy sending out mail and look forward to receiving some each day. I interact daily with postal workers.  And, I genuinely appreciate that I can put a stamp on an envelope for less than 50¢ and have it arrive anywhere in the United States within a few days.

So, I sat down and wrote the following letter-to-the-editor:

Thanks for pointing out that the real reason for the “Postal Service Fiscal Cliff Crisis” is The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) which forced the Post Office to pay ahead 75 years of expected pensions. In other words, pay ahead for pensions for people not even hired yet. No other corporation or government agency has to work under such an unfair burden. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader noted, if PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today:

The solution to this strictly political, manmade “crisis”?

Undo the 75 years’ advance payment requirement and relax the numerous constraints on the type of products and services USPS can provide - such as notarizing papers, having coin machines available for making copies, or selling maps.

Also, as more and more Americans order products online, there is tremendous potential for boosting USPS revenues from parcel deliveries. Give the Postal Service more flexibility in pricing its products. Such pricing would more accurately reflect the actual cost of providing a service and would allow it to better compete with private carriers.

The Postal Service helps the elderly get their medicines, helps small businesses send products and payments inexpensively, helps retirees cash their Social Security checks, and lets us cast absentee ballots so that we can participate in our democracy.

No company can grow or maintain its business by weakening service to customers. It is clear that USPS must adapt to our nation’s changing needs and that adaptation might mean shared pain for all stakeholders involved. Instead of adapting, too many in Congress, and in Postal Service management, see cuts in service as the only solution. But making the Postal Service less valuable will drive customers away, leaving it to face a new financial crisis in just a few short years.

Our postal service and its workers have been a national necessity and treasure since Colonial days, especially in rural areas. Hang them out to dry for political points, and we all lose. It’s up to Congress to act to allow the Post Office to save itself, lest it become a victim of a crisis that Congress itself manufactured.

The letter was published on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 in the Brattleboro Reformer.