Recent Favorite Links
January 5, 2011 | Governance | People & Society
Probably best to open them all in tabs and browse around....
Breathtakingly good writing, a futuristic background
Robert Baird bring in the Language poets
Interesting comments from Zbigniew Brzezinski
Permalink | Comments (0)
Co-ops, L3Cs, and Hybrid LLC/Co-ops
March 17, 2010 | Business & Commerce | Cooperatives | Governance | People & Society
I wrote a comment to Don's post, but it was too long for Blogger to accept....
I have a close friend who started one of the first VT L3Cs a couple of years ago, and his intent was to signal that they weren’t out to get rich but to do something interesting and useful that a “traditional” investment wouldn’t normally value. I suppose if somehow they become billionaires that will turn out to sully the L3C pool, but it would be good to get some data on how L3Cs are performing, and what the outcomes are, and then tune the law accordingly prior to rejecting the form out of hand because of, well, I’m not sure what the argument against them is. Innovation is good. Why not in corporate forms?
The challenge for cooperatives, speaking from close experience, is that, due to their traditional rejection of “marketing” (granted, slowly changing in some areas) the public associates co-ops with alternative dirty hippie funny-smelling weirdo food shops from the 1970s. Part and parcel of the whole culture-war thing. So it’s true there are huge swaths of the economy organized as cooperatives, but the executives at, say, a large electric cooperative, don’t have incentive to play up that aspect of their organization because it might lead to more oversight of their own leadership or their business decision trade-offs. Plus, and perhaps less cynically, the AP (for example) doesn’t have much incentive to promote it’s internal organization - there’s no easily noticed benefit to the listener/reader. Great long-term benefit, but our collective ability as a species to connect the dots from short-term actions to long-term impacts is now well-known, and a likely failure-mode leading to our future extinction.
Another challenge, more structural, is that cooperatives, by nature, provide the opportunity – and at the same time *require* people – to self-organize. But we live in a convenience culture. It’s all about saving time and money, everywhere you look. Coops typically take more time (to set up, operate, participate in) and cost more money (lack of economy of scale). It’s great if people want to take responsibility for their own destiny. But it goes against the entire cultural thrust of the infantilization of America. We don’t take responsibility for anything we do!
Finally, it is difficult for the cooperative movement to make affirmative statements about the value of coops because of 1) lack of knowledge, skill, or experience in “attention-marketing;” and 2) they’re not cheaper or faster. Thus, we only hear about coops in reaction to something else: L3Cs, single-payer health care, non-meltdown banks, etc. As a general rule it’s tough to make a positive case when it’s framed as a negative reaction to an external event. (I speak from challenging personal experience.)
Cooperatives have a huge value to offer people, but I think the most likely case in the modern culture is they will rise again to respond to some very large societal problem, or take better hold as worker-coops rather than as consumer coops. Workers have far more incentive to self-organize, it’s a smaller group, and the incentives are aligned. A nice smaller-scale alternative to union collective bargaining. And, if we actually pass health reform, people may have the chance to be a bit more entrepreneurial without corporate health insurance as a friction to leaving their jobs.
And this gets to why I think hybrid coop/LLCs are so valuable (and not a bastardization of the coop form). Having personally started three LLCs, and been an early employee in a couple of venture capital funded startups, I can tell you starting a business is hard. Raising money is hard. Running a business profitably is hard. Moral and social trade-offs abound daily. The idea of a worker coop that can sell up to 40% of it’s stock to long-term value investors has the chance to completely change the perceptions of coops noted above. The investor sees a group of committed workers with real skin in the game (not semi-worthless future-vesting stock options), and the employees attract capital – where the capitalists can get an actual return, even if it’s a lower or longer-term one – rather than being limited to what they can scratch together themselves. This form could be the fuel to push cooperatives affirmatively forward, rather than always looking backwards and saying, “If only they’d considered cooperatives....”
Otherwise coops are going to have to get good at the sort of “hard-sell marketing” that captures a reader’s/listener’s attention and directs it to what the speaker is saying and why it benefits them in concrete, right-now terms. I look forward to the day coops are confident, savvy, marketers of their own brand of humane goodness in this harsh overly-capitalistic world.
Permalink | Comments (1)
Clay Shirky on Governance Models
July 18, 2008 | Cooperatives | Governance
Noted for the future: Chris Heuer interviews writer and speaker Clay Shirky. The important moment for me come in at around 10:15, continuing to the end, where he desires a new model for governance and corporate structures. He wants a co-op model, but doesn't know it yet. I plan to educate him.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Crusty old out-of-it white guy
June 4, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
History Train: "It really will say something about this country if Obama, with all his intellect, his verbal gifts and his strategic canniness, ends up losing to a crusty old out-of-it white guy who left his principles in the dumpster years ago and has nothing to offer this country but the chance for conservatives to go on playing Jack Bauer and G.I. Joe for another four years."
Permalink | Comments (0)
Obama's Electoral Map
May 21, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Must read for any political junkie. via Dave Winer
Permalink | Comments (0)
Summary of political pundantry today
May 16, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
In only four minutes!
Matt Yglesias: "Conservative radio host Kevin James is on Hardball to call Barack Obama and appeaser, and Chris Matthews hits upon the nice idea of asking James to explain what it was that Chamberlain did wrong at Munich. As becomes apparent, James has no idea! He just likes to say "appeasement" a lot, but doesn't know what it means, what the context was, what was wrong with it, or how it might possibly apply today. Basically, he's an idiot, which is no surprise, but it is rare to see these things so amply demonstrated."
Permalink | Comments (0)
US politics snapshot, all you need to know edition
April 25, 2008 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
Permalink | Comments (0)
Moving On
March 18, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
A smart take on the super-delgates:
Superdelegates can worry about the party, or they can preen and carry on about the importance of their role. They can't do both. The only thing the Clinton and Obama campaigns agree on is that neither can secure the nomination with pledged delegates alone. So the uncommitted superdelegates wringing their hands in the Times are the same ones who will ultimately decide the nominee. Why wait until August? If they truly cared about ending the primary, they could do so in a matter of days or weeks. All they need to do is declare their allegiance now.
If all the 352 uncommitted superdelegates (CNN's number) chose Obama, he'd have 1970 delegates and need 55 more to secure the nomination. Slate's Delegate Counter says he could draw a paltry 35 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania and still secure that many. Once superdelegates declared, the race would be over, and the remaining primaries a mere formality. The party could focus on John McCain. The same holds true for Clinton. If the uncommitteds swung her way, she'd have 1,831 delegates to Obama's 1,618. She'd need only reasonable showings through May 6th to cross the delegate finish-line.
The story is quoteing the Sunday NY Times piece, which certainly left a bad taste in this household when we read it that morning.
Permalink | Comments (0)
You Can't Be Serious
March 18, 2008 | Arts & Culture | Governance | People & Society
From the middle section of a longer interview with the rapper DMX:
Are you following the presidential race?
Not at all.You’re not? You know there’s a Black guy running, Barack Obama and then there’s Hillary Clinton.
His name is Barack?!
Barack Obama, yeah.
Barack?!Barack.
What the fuck is a Barack?! Barack Obama. Where he from, Africa?Yeah, his dad is from Kenya.
Barack Obama?Yeah.
What the fuck?! That ain’t no fuckin’ name, yo. That ain’t that nigga’s name. You can’t be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuck outta here.You’re telling me you haven’t heard about him before.
I ain’t really paying much attention.I mean, it’s pretty big if a Black…
Wow, Barack! The nigga’s name is Barack. Barack? Nigga named Barack Obama. What the fuck, man?! Is he serious? That ain’t his fuckin’ name. Ima tell this nigga when I see him, “Stop that bullshit. Stop that bullshit” [laughs] “That ain’t your fuckin’ name.” Your momma ain’t name you no damn Barack.So you’re not following the race. You can’t vote right?
Nope.Is that why you’re not following it?
No, because it’s just—it doesn’t matter. They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do. It doesn’t really make a difference. These are the last years.But it would be pretty big if we had a first Black president. That would be huge.
I mean, I guess…. What, they gon’ give a dog a bone? There you go. Ooh, we have a Black president now. They should’ve done that shit a long time ago, we wouldn’t be in the fuckin’ position we in now. With world war coming up right now. They done fucked this shit up then give it to the Black people, “Here you take it. Take my mess.”Right, exactly.
It’s all a fuckin’ setup. It’s all a setup. All fuckin’ bullshit. All bullshit. I don’t give a fuck about none of that.We could have a female president also, Hillary Clinton.
I mean, either way it doesn’t matter. I don’t care. No one person is directly affected by which president, you know, so what does it matter.Yeah, but the country is.
I guess. The president is a puppet anyway. The president don’t make no damn decisions.The president…they don’t have that much authority basically?
Nah, never.But Bush pretty much…
You think Bush is making fuckin’ decisions?He did, yeah, he fucked up the country.
He act like he making decisions. He could barely speak! He could barely fuckin’ speak! Can’t be serious. He ain’t making no damn decisions.Well Barack has a good chance of winning so that might be something.
Good for him, good for him.
Then come the comments!
crocker says: fucking wow. DMX has lost his fucking mind.
sooch says: why didn’t he just bark through the interview?
DirtDogggy says: Only naive young fucks wouldn’t understand what hes talking about, the wiser you get the tougher life is, he’s far from dumb, he knows who Obama is retards, he was trying to make a point, that it doesn’t mean fuck all no matter who wins the election. I’ve bin saying the presidents a puppet on a string for years, finally someone said it, it doesn’t even matter who wins it’s just a matter of timing whether people like them or not, presidents just push the button they make no decisions on their own or have any origional ideas. I have a feeling X is right, the black mans going to take the heat for fucking up the US/world but it’s really a big chain reaction of recent years of fuckery by all the politicians and presidents put together.
Diz says: Man, what the fuck kind of interview is this. I know the interviewer was ready to get the hell out of there. DMX has lost his fucking mind. But you know what they say, some of the best artists are fucked up anyway. Hopefully good music is on the way.
Real Talk says: X is on drugs, it’s no secret. He’s got a drug problem. It’s sad but that’s rock n roll man. If a normal person is on drugs, they can’t eat. If a musician is on drugs, they still got money coming in. He’s like Ozzie Osborn wit it. Hopefully he’s not completely gone, you know? I hate to see people become just a shell of what they used to be.
Permalink | Comments (0)
A Call for Journalistic Courage
March 18, 2008 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
Important essay by Walter Pincus on the role of the press in a free society:
Today’s mainstream print and electronic media want to be neutral, unbiased and objective, presenting both or all sides as if they were on the sidelines refereeing a game in which only the players—the government and its opponents—can participate. They have increasingly become common carriers, transmitters of other people’s ideas and thoughts, irrespective of import, relevance and at times even accuracy.
At a time when it is most needed, the media, and particularly newspapers, have dropped the idea of having experienced reporters provide analysis and context and turned instead to retired public figures or so-called experts to provide commentary. It was not always this way.
From the 1950s through the 1980s, I could name reporters and columnists whose experience on their beats or in their areas made them thoughtful and respected commentators. Younger reporters today are regularly shifted around from beat to beat, never really having enough time to master totally complex subjects, such as health, public education and environmental policies. Coverage then depends on statements and pronouncements by government sources or their critics.
Jay Rosen posts a long and thoughtful comment (here quoting Josh Marshall): "The important thing is to show integrity-- not to be a neuter, politically. And having good facts that hold up is a bigger advantage than claiming to reflect all sides equally well."
Related, and best headline of the day: MSM Still In Trouble–Also Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Olbermann Goes Off On Clinton
March 12, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
OMG awesome liberal screed against racism being promulgated by the Clinton campaign.
Ten minutes of literate rage like you haven't ever seen on TV. Finally, someone with a pulpit speaks the truth.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Strategic Wasteland
February 27, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Now, however, as Obama has gained steadily in the polls, the Clinton campaign has reversed field. Top Clinton aides are pleading with uncommitted super delegates to hold off making any commitments, fearful that any commitments they make would be to back Obama, not Clinton.
In language that could have been lifted from the Obama playbook just a few weeks ago, the email says Clinton backers should make the case to super delegates that: "If House, Senate and DNC members try to end this process now, it would be very damaging to those institutions, the Democratic Party and our chances in November."
It's kind of sad, at this point, as long as that sympathy doesn't earn her votes. She and her advisors (and her, um, husband, not to put too fine a point on it) were completely, utterly, and devastatingly out-smarted at every turn. Next Wednesday Clinton's entire staff should immolate themselves so we never have to watch this level of bumbling incompetence again.
I have watched this race up close here in NH for over ten months. From feet-on-the-street, to backoffice technology; from knowing when to hold your cards to knowing when to take the high road, Team Obama's bottom-up decentralized aim-high campaign has won the competition for ideas, if not quite yet the nomination. This win came from a virtually unknown young man with a funny name, against the most powerful political couple of the past 20 years. One million people have donated to his campaign. Obama is not creating our desire for a new way, he is simply channeling it.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Reactionaries
February 25, 2008 | Governance
Texas A & M students shut down a major highway as they march seven miles from campus to vote, where the Republican political machine had located the polls. I love YouTube.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Blueprint for Change
February 11, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
A lot of people say, "I don't know what Barack Obama stands for; he's all vague and lofty and aspirational. What are his actual policies?"
Well, he's got this thing called a website, maybe you've seen one? Even better, here's a 64-page pdf you can download and print out and read in the water closet that lays it all out in bullet points and details.
But for me, it hardly matters what the specifics are, because getting law through Congress is non-trivial – plans will change. I'd rather learn how someone thinks, how they approach problems, how they evaluate their options. From that point of view the website and the Blueprint are useful. But if you disagree with anything in it, don't worry too much, it's unlikely to end up as it begins.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Clinton's Feminism
February 4, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had a teary-eyed moment on the campaign trail today during a nostalgic visit to Yale, where she graduated from law school nearly 35 years ago. [...] Mrs. Clinton, looking teary, raised her left hand to her cheek and brushed something away with her finger.
Wow, teary-eyed, the very day before a critical election. What a coincidence. This happened one other time, here in NH:
The emotional moment echoed a similar one in New Hampshire last month, when Mrs. Clinton’s eyes welled with tears as she talked about the tensions of running for president.
Funny, with 35 years in public service (sic, coughwalmartboardcough) you'd think these teary episodes wouldn't happen so much when the chips are down and everyone's watching. Unless, of course, it's part of the sell.
Hillary Clinton's definition of feminism: Cry when you want to get your way, and when the going gets tough send your husband out to bully the mean kids (coughfairytailsouthcarolinajessejacksoncough).
I am all for heartfelt emotion, but not for strategic emotional cues designed to manipulate other people. With all that's happened to Hillary Clinton, if she were genuinely a heartfelt person, she would tear up more often then just the day before an election when all the media are watching. Gag me.
Andrew Sullivan says it better than I can.
Permalink | Comments (0)
On Politics
January 28, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Worth it:
Kennedy Endorsements of Barack Obama (42 min, and worth it)
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
Races Entering Complex Phase Over Delegates
In Open Nomination, ‘Superdelegates’ May Hold Key to Victory
Clinton’s Camp Seeks Gentler Role for Ex-President
TPMtv: Sunday Show Clinton Pile-On (Snark alert)
Permalink | Comments (0)
Bill Clinton uncut
January 23, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
A fascinating CNN video of Bill Clinton, running nearly five minutes, uncut. The reporter asks him a question, and he just goes on and on, and on. He's pissed, but he smiles, and talks and rebuts, and all in all gets down and does some hard-core political jiving.
This video supports my long-held belief that political figures should be allowed in the media only when the clips are a minimum of five or ten minutes, unedited. Soundbites would be outlawed. Then you'd get to see them think, see their character and personality, get a better sense of who they were. Would that not be better? I used to like Bill Clinton. Today, not so much.
Obama: "I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me?"
From Notio's point of view, the answer is very likely, "no."
Permalink | Comments (0)
Sigh
January 9, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Oh well. It's not over yet.
About the polls: IMHO "Strategic" voting doesn't work. Vote for who you want to win. Trying to game the system always fails.
Net-net: The Republicans are relieved, they might get to run against Clinton in the fall. She would lose in a Clinton vs. McCain contest.
Finally, they didn't randomize the order of the candidate names!?!? That's got to matter.
A photo of where I spent election night.
Permalink | Comments (2)
My Home Town
January 7, 2008 | Governance
Permalink | Comments (0)
Could Be Game Over
January 7, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Hillary Clinton sez:
Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Mrs. Clinton said [...]. “It took a president to get it done.”
And a commenter at Andrew Sullivan's responds:
That's right. It wasn't the courage of King and local Montgomery residents standing up to legalized white supremacy in their hometown that began to change America, it was the white man. It wasn't Rosa Parks who had enough and refused to sit in the back of the bus that got things started, it was the white man. It wasn't John Lewis and others facing down billy clubs and tear gas in Selma, it was the white man. [More]
If this story gains momentum in the next news cycle, coupled with a strong NH Obama win, it could be bad news for Hillary.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Emotive Politics Mediascape
January 7, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Beyond his policy positions and rhetorical mad skillz, Barack Obama is setting a new standard for excellence in mass communication propaganda. Go to Barack TV and check out the "Generation Obama" video. It's just under 15 min long, documentary style, and a fascinating example of aspirational politics.
- It opens with organizing a student meeting, generating questions for a conference call. It then moves to student discussion of the Virginia Tech meltdown. The question crafted for the conference call is about international relations.
- 4:00 - Students sitting around telling their story. All student conversation; no narration or voice-over.
- 6:00 - Today's college sophomores were seven years old at the time of the Oaklahoma City bombing, 11 years old at the time of the Columbine murders, and 13 years old on 9/11/2001. Video continues with their stories about 9/11 - all their ideas and opinions.
- 7:30 - Back to Virginia Tech. Students discussion the loss of safety.
- 9:00 - Serious mood is broken to outright humor as a student acts out and mocks Barack's 2004 speech. Making fun of him! Produced and promoted by the campaign—would Clinton ever make fun of herself?
- 10:00 - Obama appears for the first time, and we're into some stump speech territory.
- 12:00 - Barack backstage with the students, joshing about cell phone photos. This short film shows students learning the operations of political operations—how to move the people and levers of democracy. This is a legacy of the Dean campaign: increasing activism. Students trying to make sense of the world—struggling to find the right response; not simply black and white reactions. Students trying to make a difference—willing to put themselves out there and have fun at the candidate the meet 'n greet. Politics is fun people.
It was filmed on April 19th, but has only just now entered rotation, taking an implicit or subconcious position that he's been a consistent candidate, the same person since Spring. All of this is powerful political propaganda. Motivational, educational, instructional. The campaign filmed all this raw material and have been producing it in due time, rolling it out when the time feels right. It's a very powerful media strategy, deploying raw media material as the situation dictates. This one models active, positive, and good student behavior. Nearly zero specific policy discussion - you can read the data on the website. This was all emotion. Closing the sale.
I have been an Obama supporter since March or April last year, which you may have first noticed as a semi-amusing blog post:
"I heard you wanted an Obama bumper sticker," he said, as he handed me the goods. I nearly fell over. "Wow! This is like a precious commodity!," I exclaimed. "Yeah, they're really hard to get," he said. I said, "I went on the website, and I couldn't believe they weren't selling them." Then Dave said, "Yeah, I was talking with Graham, and he said you wanted one." I laughed out loud. "You were talking with Graham?!?!?" Like, this is the modern political campaign. Including intrastate backchannel discussion about getting Michael J. his Obama bumper sticker? My mind reeled. "Yeah," he said, "I came a couple of times last week, but you weren't here." Three words: O. M. G. I'm thinking, here's this guy, walking the streets of Hanover, searching for Michael J., with a single Obama bumpersticker in his hand! It's like they invented some weird, inefficient, but personal, and effective, distribution mechanism.
They have long been people-powered at the grass-roots, with advanced technology (targeted CRM, portable video, web distribution, online fundraising), expressing the messages that their own audience puts in their own words!. And now everyone else is paying attention. No need to say much in person, now. Show up and inspire, support the detail online. Stay connected on a human level. Voice your campaign with your audience's own words and faces.
So, he's getting my vote this round. It's brilliant, daaahling.
Permalink | Comments (0)
On The Obama Iowa Win
January 4, 2008 | Governance | People & Society
Nine percentage points. That's a strength you can't overlook. Look at the diversity in the slices:
- Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%
- Obama beat Edwards among voters in union households 30%-24%
- Obama beat Clinton and Edwards among voters of almost every income level (Obama and Clinton tied among voters who make $15-30,000)
- As many voters age 17-29 as voters 65 and older participated last night -- in previous years senior participation has been 5-times greater than younger voters.
- Obama beat Edwards and Clinton among voters who want change (51%-20%-19%)
- Despite countless attacks and hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative mail, TV, and radio, Obama beat Clinton and Edwards (34%-30%-27%) among voters who say health care is the most important issue
- Obama won among those who said the economy was the most important issue (36%-26%-26%)
- Obama won over Clinton and Edwards (35%-26%-17%) among those who said Iraq was the most important issue
- Won across the ideological spectrum – winning among liberals, moderates and conservatives
- Won among high income and lower income voters among voters with household income below $50,000 (34%-32%-19%) and among those over $50,000 (41%-19%-28%)
If you live in NH and are undecided, please spend ten minutes watching this Obama propaganda piece. I say that with affection: I've supported this guy for nearly a year, and I continue to be very optimistic. If you are on the fence please have a look. If you're tossing a coin, do me a favor and just vote Obama.
On the video: Forgive the foolish mistake of the "Dartmouth University" (s/b "College") caption. Most of the footage was shot in the fall, demonstrating (by showing not telling) that they had a consistent message months ago. They don't have to explicitly say that Clinton changes her mind about everything every three weeks. It's also nice to reminisce about the warmer weather, so it's pleasant to watch.
If you want a shorter taste, watch this three-minute excerpt of the pre-caucus "closing" speech. Tell your friends: Vote.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Real-Time Democracy
January 3, 2008 | Governance
C-span live at an Iowa caucus! It's amazing, watching people stand up, hold their hands up, count up a number, point to the next person to count, and drop their hands. Riveting, truly.
Update, from NY Times
7:54 p.m. | Our colleague Ashley Parker, who is in Des Moines at the Plymouth Congregational Church, Precinct 73, said the official count for tonight was 454 people, which the caucus chairwoman said was “a record for participation.” In the first round, it was 217 for Mr. Obama, while Mrs. Clinton was six short of the 68 she needed to crack the 15 percent viability. They were out in the hallway, trying to make deals.
She couldn't meet 15%?!? They were out in the hallway, trying to make deals. This is the moment when strong-arm politicos go to the mat.
Gruber: "Huckabee: The candidate for people who think George W. Bush has relied too heavily on science and reason."
Permalink | Comments (0)
Iowa Caucus Closers
January 2, 2008 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
I had my hair cut today, and the stylist told me she supported Barack Obama in the NH primary. We chatted about that, and I asked her if she had considered Hillary Clinton. She said, "Well, it's funny, because when I first heard she was running I got really excited. People came into the salon and we would talk about it — a woman president! Sometimes, I would close my eyes, and just imagine what it would be like, what it would mean, to have a woman president. And I would just feel great — [she relaxes and collapses her shoulders, rolling her eyes up all aflutter, as if in a dreamy dream] — and then I would open my eyes and it would be Hillary, you know? And I just got sick to my stomach, thinking, 'I'd have to listen to that woman for the next eight years.' It was like, 'no way.'"
In honor of Lisa, here's Hillary's closing TV ad for the Iowa caucus:
And here's Barack Obama's:
How about this Obama propaganda ? Marching music? Check. Aspirational imagery? Check. Oratorical escalation? Check. (Still, I'm voting for the guy.)
John McCain is the only credible Republican nominee:
Permalink | Comments (0)
On Obama
November 6, 2007 | Governance | People & Society
Andrew Sullivan has written a strong cover story for The Atlantic supporting Barack Obama. He describes how he came to this in a great interview. Combined, they provide pretty much everything you need to know about why I'm supporting Obama in the NH primary. Summary: Obama is a meta-candidate, attempting to re-frame not just the issues, but the mode of discourse. Might not work (just yet) but the time will come, and the sooner the better given the situation.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Our Generation’s Enlightened Contribution
November 6, 2007 | Governance | People & Society
I am moved by this post, which relates an unfortunate incident on a train from New Haven CT to the dominant cultural narrative currently unfolding. [Grammatical ambiguity intended.] In 2002 and 2003 – seems so long ago, now, doesn't it? – I remember thinking that the tone of America's leadership would have a trickle-down effect on everyday life. Like buying a new car and suddenly seeing the same model everywhere, I then noticed trickle-down effects every day. Increased minor road rage, even in my small New England hamlet. More status-seeking behavior as the College and Hospital swelled their administrative ranks. Increased "black and white" judgments – "you're either with us or against us." That smug tone from the 50.5% majority, still in evidence on Fox News, even as their influence wanes. The victim mentality of the so-called "left," still in evidence at the US Congress, despite Democratic majorities in both houses.
I want to live in a society where people are kind, where we assume the best in people, not the worst. I want to understand dangers and threats, but I want that balanced by the trade-offs required for increased marginal safety. I want honest leadership, that is open and transparent and genuine. I want us all to face up to our collective challenges and take individual action even if it has negative short-term impacts on our own economics. I want to be free of jingoism. I want to be able to write a post like this without wondering if I'll end up on some list somewhere.
I am naive. But I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than living as a puppet or a slave.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Except You
November 5, 2007 | Arts & Culture | Governance | People & Society
Bravo. Probably the most important factor in the next US Presidential election is getting young people to vote, no matter what. Maybe this campaign will help.
Permalink | Comments (0)
What many people criticize
October 1, 2007 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
Adam Nagourney at the New York Times on NH's independent voters:
As a rule, they are middle and upper income, college educated, socially moderate, fiscally conservative, anti-Washington and repulsed by what many people criticize as the overly partisan atmosphere there.
This is the first article I've read with any analysis that comes even close to what I observe. Most electoral commentary is completely vapid and virtually fictional. This article at least gets at some depth of the dynamics, even if it starts with oh-so-breathless coverage of the so-called swelling ranks of independents. Democrat? Republican? Does this have meaning anymore? Similar to the recording industry, all this is the last gasp (decades long) of a dying form of organization.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Leading with love, not fear
September 23, 2007 | Governance | People & Society
The mayor of San Diego struggles with gay marriage, and does the right thing. I read the brief speech yesterday, but the power of watching him speak, tearfully, brings some hope to my cynical perspective of today's politics.
Permalink | Comments (0)
3 links...
September 12, 2007 | Governance
...on the Iraq situation.
- Conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic.
- Law professor and Harvard Fellow Oliver Goodenough , Rutland Herald.
- Software entrepreneur Dave Winer, Scripting News.
Bonus link: New York reporter Mark Shenk, Bloomberg.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Social Web Hits The Election Cycle
January 26, 2007 | Governance | People & Society | Software
Great post over at Bokardo Social Web Design, altering us that Hillary Clinton is using Yahoo answers to gather the prol's thoughts on health-care reform.
One, Clinton is actually asking the American people what they think, rather than assuming or generalizing from the party she’s a part of. (this doesn’t mean she’ll listen, but it’s a start)
Two, Clinton is using Yahoo Answers, a publicly-accessible social software app to ask the question. In the past year Yahoo Answers has been a runaway success for Yahoo, racking up millions of users.
Three, in just two days there are over 35,000 answers!.
Sure, it could be a publicity stunt, but that will be self-limiting in the long-run.
Then again, here's Kos' take on Hillary and her netroots support in general:
Here's what I think -- Hillary has no interest in truly making up ground in the netroots. Rather, she sees it as a place to make a good show, and then sell that to the traditional media. It's her campaign's version of "Shock and Awe". Lots of noise. Lots of flashing lights. Lots of smoke. But it's all for show.
In a straw poll taken after Hillary's announcement, she got 4% of the vote, with Obama at 28% and Edwards at 35%. For my money, it's an Edwards/Obama ticket, and they will kick some serious butt.
Okay, enough with the trivial politics.
Permalink | Comments (0)
The Speech
January 11, 2007 | Governance | People & Society
For my money, Andrew Sullivan sums it up perfectly.
What we will discover in the next few months, therefore, is simply whether the entire premise of this strategy is actually true. The president is asking us to find this out one more time. He seems to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence on the ground - that the dynamic has changed beyond recognition. His intellectual rubric - democracy versus terror - has not changed to deal with fast-changing events, or to take account of the sectarian dynamic that his appallingly managed occupation has spawned.
Andrew Sullivan is an interesting writer. He's conservative, supported the Iraq war, and Bush in 2000 (but not in 2004). He is disappointed with conservatives, the conduct of the war, and the intellectual dishonesty of political discourse. He's written what appears to be an interesting book (among others). He was one of the first bloggers to figure out how to earn ~$80K a year blogging, and parlayed that into a gig writing (daily) for Time online. He's smart, reasonable, and thoughtful, even when I disagree with his positions. If you're of the left-wing persuasion, he is a good addition to your input mix.
Permalink | Comments (0)
When You Act You Make New Facts
December 20, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Important intellectual analysis from Jay Rosen on how the Bush administration has played the media.
In Without a Doubt (subtitled “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush”) Suskind was not talking about an age old conflict between realists and idealists, the sort of story line that can be re-cycled for every administration. It wasn’t the ideologues against the pragmatists, either. He was telling us that reality-based policy-making—and the mechanisms for it—had gotten dumped. A different pattern had appeared under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The normal checks and balances had been overcome, so that executive power could flow more freely. Reduced deliberation, oversight, fact-finding, and field reporting were different elements of an emerging political style. Suskind, I felt, got to the essence of it with his phrase, the “retreat from empiricism.”
Permalink | Comments (0)
Impossible to Write a PC Headline For This
November 30, 2006 | Governance
"Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush."
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
A nice authoritarian side-effect of trashing the public education system.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Axis of '70s Campus Republicans
November 7, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Like everybody else, I don't know what's going to happen today, but this election has already illuminated one critical truth: The modern GOP -- or, more specifically, the Axis of '70s Campus Republicans now running it -- really is just a criminal enterprise disguised as a political party.
Dirty tricks, large and small, are a sorry fact of life in American politics, but what the Republicans have done over the past few weeks -- the surrealist attack ads, the forged endorsements, the midnight robo calls, the arrest threats, the voter misinformation (did you know your polling station has been moved?) -- is sui generis, at least at the national level.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Keep An Eye On the Situation
November 7, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
CNN: Bonds rally on election bets: Market surges on hopes of fiscal discipline created by Democrat-controlled Congress; dollar mixed.
via Talking Points Memo, who's doing a great job covering the election tampering...
From the GOP handbook of Maryland politics:(1) Recruit homeless men in Philadelphia;
(2) Bus them into Maryland;
(3) Arrange for the Republican governor's wife to greet them upon their arrival;
(4) Outfit them in hats and T-shirts for the governor's re-election campaign;
(5) Have them pass out flyers in heavily Democratic areas that erroneously identify the GOP candidates for governor and U.S. senator as "Democrats."
...and voter intimidation:
Over at TPMMuckraker, Justin has an interview with a poll watcher in Arizona who reports that a trio of men--one with a firearm visible--are harrassing Hispanic voters at a polling station in Tuscon. The poll watcher is a member of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The group has notified the Department of Justice and the FBI and were told by the feds--get this--to keep an eye on the situation.
Yup, that's how broken it is.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Election Protection
November 7, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Real-time tracking the election disruptions.
EIRS or the Election Incident Reporting System is a sophisticated voting incident tracking system that will be an invaluable tool for Election Protection coalition partners and the public on Election Day and beyond. Voting problems reported through the Voter Hotline (1-866-OUR-VOTE) by coalition members or by poll watchers involved in the Election Protection program will be entered into the system for analysis during and after Election Day.
Scroll down, click on the map.
Also, Talking Points Memo is keeping tabs on vote disruption stories. Example:
Just in case you're keeping tabs, I wanted to tell you that my wife tried to vote in our precinct in Tampa and was not on the list. After several tries to find out why, she was told that the voter database was "cleaned" and there must have been a mistake. I'm trying to find out who "cleaned" it.
When you hear the media talk about "get out the vote" operations, what you should hear is "shut down the vote" tactics.
I'll say it again, if we really care about free and fair elections, then the first place to start is 1) federal regulations on the number of voting machines per capita, per polling district; and 2) uniform poll hours.
At this point, we're in a pretend democracy, kinda the way "reality TV" is real life.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Vote Freedom
November 6, 2006 | Governance
Here's your election-eve music video. (4:22)
Permalink | Comments (0)
Does the News Matter?
October 20, 2006 | Arts & Culture | Governance | People & Society
Aaron Swartz speaks for me:
But finally, I'd like to argue that following the news isn't just a waste of time, it's actively unhealthy. Edward Tufte notes that when he used to read the New York Times in the morning, it scrambled his brain with so many different topics that he couldn't get any real intellectual work done the rest of the day.
I agree, and it's a hard habit to break.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Connect the Dots
October 16, 2006 | Governance | People & Society | Technology
The US election is November 7th. Three weeks away. Read this, then read this. Then, spend 12 minutes and watch this testimony under oath from a computer programmer who was hired to write software to flip the vote in electronic voting machines. Scary? Well, even worse is that he was hired by Tom Feeney, the Speaker of the House of Florida at the time, currently a US Representative.
Update: via TPM: Department of amazing coincidences: Saddam verdict to be read out on November 5th.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Sonny Boy
October 2, 2006 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
The meeting was 15 people, by invitation. Hosted in a very comfortable high-tech room. The guest speaker was from a famous university a few hours south. Worker bees and VPs gathered to talk shop and think big. 45 minute presentation, then lunch is served. We introduce ourselves. Discussion ensues.
Eventually I ask: "What kinds of governance and decision-making structures work for highly complex topics? I have evolved many processes and approaches to working with this, but frequently executives override the advice of their best domain experts, which is bad for morale, bad for projects, and bad for institutions."
[Paraphrasing and editing makes me sound better than I did at the time.]
A few people speak. Eventually the VP says, among other things, with a wry smile pointed in my direction, "Those of us who have been around a while know that politics can't be avoided." Smile.
"Yes," I thought, but didn't say, "my point is we need to subvert politics. It's bad for morale, bad for projects, and bad for institutions. How about if we make decisions based on the merits, instead of the patronizing hierarchical power?"
"Those of us who have been around a while...." Those of us who have been around a while.... Those of us who have been around a while....
[I should grow my beard a little longer to show off the gray hair.]
This is your brain on intelligence, honesty, and enthusiasm. This is your brain on politics and power. Any questions?
Permalink | Comments (1)
Just Ignore Any Conflicts
October 2, 2006 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
I'm scheduling interviews for a project and I received the following (lightly edited) email at 10 AM today, illustrating the problems of "groupware."
That works for Susan! If this works for others, please feel free to add it to Susan's calendar (I'm leaving at 10:30am today). Just ignore any conflicts that show at that time.
First of all, I'm not an internal employee (read the email sig much?), so I can't add it myself, she has to do it for me. And, uh, what does an assistant do if not manage the boss's schedule?? In this case, direct other people to add it to the schedule, I guess... Everyone needs someone to supervise.
But further, note the last line: "Just ignore any conflicts that show at that time." So, when the boss looks at her schedule she has to manually filter what she is doing when, instead of just having one item per time slot.
It's no wonder there are so many problems in the world. People don't do their jobs, or don't know what their jobs are, and then somehow people think they can do more than one thing, or be in more than one place, all at the same time. By the time they head home to find out their government is torturing people to manufacture evidence of terrorism to perpetuate it's own power, they're too exhausted to think. Mission accomplished.
Update: I requested that she add it, since I couldn't, and received the following reply:
Sorry, lost my mind. ;o)
Honesty duly noted.
Permalink | Comments (1)
Is that what you said?
October 1, 2006 | Governance
Nice rant from Brian Dear on the manipulations and distortions and hypocrisy of the US government.
Permalink | Comments (0)
The Harder They Come
September 29, 2006 | Governance | Life | People & Society
But I'll keep on fighting for the things I want
Though I know that when you're dead you can't
But I'd rather be a free man in my grave
Then living as a puppet or a slave
Garcia has a great version from 1978 in commercial release.
Permalink | Comments (0)
In 2006 Congress Passed a Tyrannical Law
September 29, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
I've had a really busy week at work, and now I find that since I took a blogging break the government has gone berserk.
Rafe Colburn: Prisoner of conscience
While some Republicans made a halfhearted show of conscience and Democrats hid in the most craven fashion imaginable, the Bush Administration managed to pass a bill that will enable the government to imprison people for as long as it likes without giving them a day in court, and to torture those prisoners as much as it likes. This law diminishes this country, sullies the values upon which it was founded, and rolls back many centuries of progress in how governments relate to the governed.
NY Times: Rushing Off a Cliff
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Brad DeLong: Neighbor, How Stands the Union?
This is bad. Very bad. I can't underscore how bad this is. This is our Fugitive Slave Act, our Sedition Act, our Korematsu. This is a danger to our domestic liberties and a terrifying threat to our national security--for its impact on our international standing and on our alliances may be terrible indeed.
digby: Rouge President
The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it. The bill legalizing torture merely enables Congress to pretend they still have some influence over an executive that from day one was governing, not as if they had a mandate, but as if Bush were a dictator. If, for some miracle, the bill didn't pass, every congress-critter knows Bush would keep on torturing.
Better to vote to pass and preserve the appearance of a working American government, the thinking goes. For the very thought that the US government is seriously broken - that the Executive is beyond the control of anyone and everyone in the world - is such a truly awesome and terrifying thought that it can never be publicly acknowledged. If ever it is, if the American crisis gets outed and Congress and the Supremes openly assert that the Executive has run completely amok and is beyond control, the world consequences are staggering. It is the stuff of doomsday novels.
Jon Husband posted a Canadian comment from the digby post:
I am remembering that the aged supporters of Gen. Franco still live in Madrid, still refusing to be civil to their erstwhile opponents on the Left. I think you are looking at decades of incivility or worse, of conflict on class lines, and maybe race and ethnic lines too. You are deep deep shit neighbours. I will wish you the best of luck with all this. We have our own neo-con dinosaurs to be rendered harmless up here. It will occupy my attention for, say, a decade or two. In the meantime, keep the embers glowing. Something will cause all this ugliness to burst into flame. Its just too grotesque to keep hidden forever.
Shame without limits, embarassment without restraint, regrets without number, apologies to the millions killed in your name, and a century of guilt to be worn and worked off. Get on with it.
Permalink | Comments (0)
NSA & NPS @ SoL
September 20, 2006 | Governance | People & Society | SoL
I had lengthy conversations today with two interesting people. One is very senior in the National Security Agency, the other is very senior at the Naval Postgraduate School. In both cases I had increased hope that there are people in government who are thinking deeply about long-term issues that I care about, and are trying to make a positive impact. They were not trying to persuade me of anything. It was in the topics, the depth of thinking, the sophistication of approach, their vision, and commitment to their work that made me realize things may not be as bad as they seem. Modulo the current executive branch, of course.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Steal an Election with a Diebold Voting Machine
September 15, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Princeton University scientists produce a video and post it on YouTube, demonstrating how you can hack a Diebold voting machine in less than one minute. They also provide to detailed technical paper.
There are exactly zero computer scientists who think a voting machine can be made unhackable. It's time to vote absentee, in all elections, so that you use a paper ballot. These machines should be illegal, and if you walk up to one you should assume that your vote is being thrown away.
Related: If the US government really cared about fair elections, there would be a federal standard for number of voting machines per capita on a voting district level. That would prevent poor and democratic precincts from, somehow, having far fewer machines available, making those people wait for ten hours, while the rich republican districts have so many machines the lines are only ten minutes.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Be All You Can Be
September 15, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Billmon has an excellent quote comparison post today. Who knew that in 1776 Edward Gibbon would write a book that so clearly described the state of our military in 2006?
Permalink | Comments (0)
Crony Capitalism at it's Finest
September 8, 2006 | Arts & Culture | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
Industry Note: The Rot at the Core, Special Disney Crony Capitalism Edition
Of course, neither move - coypright extensions or side payments to politicians in the form of propaganda - are in the least good for the economy, because they destroy more value than they create, through the stifling of potential innovation, competition, and new capital formation. This is crony capitalism at it's finest - we make your propaganda, you protect our assets; this is the kind of anti-capitalism that ends up destroying economies (hi Japan).
Right on.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Olbermann on Rumsfeld
August 31, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Every once in a while, it's worth noting that the majority of people continue to disagree with the Bush/Cheney administration and their approach to the so-called War on Terror, even if we don't talk about it much. Thank you, Keith Olbermann, for this searing critique. Transcript and video via the link.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Democratic Strategy
August 25, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
The smartest thing the US Democrats could do for the next two years is split the Republican Party down the middle between the church-focused social conservatives and the less-government economic conservatives. Karl Rove (has his middle name always been "Christian?") and Grover Norquist have been masterful at holding these two unrelated groups together in one party, but if we are able to show the social conservatives how they need to pay more taxes to support their social agenda, and show the economic conservatives how the lack of social programs and safety nets hurt the economy, then perhaps these two groups can be split apart fighting about what programs to fund.
The best-case scenario is that the social conservatives start a new Evangelical party which pulls people out of the Republican party—then it's a Democratic majority all the way down the line. This has got to be Rove's worst nightmare.
We need a sound bite, along the lines of, I lost my job to outsourcing, I lost my health insurance to an underfunded pension plan, I pay all these goddamn taxes, and I still can't buy liquor or porn at the grocery store.
Or something.
Permalink | Comments (2)
Weekend Fun, Friday Edition
August 18, 2006 | Arts & Culture | Governance
August 11: My anger at The New York Times subsides somewhat as I skim Foucault and Sartre. Surveillance serves its disciplinary function only if the populace is conscious of it. And if Americans aren't wrenched from being-pour-soi to being-en-soi (at least in relation to an observer who is Other) by the objectifying gaze of the state -- well, then the terrorists have won.
August 14: Back in Washington. Dick exults that the foiled London terror plot and the tightened airport security should keep voters' minds focused on national security through the midterms. Naturally, I think of Cottard, the shady entrepreneur in La Peste who comes into his own only when the city of Oran is under plague quarantine, and say so. Dick seems nonplussed.
It's absurd, and funny. And it's the only post this week, so having saved you a bunch of time, you'll just have to read it to humor me.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Creating and Destroying Mutual Understanding
August 4, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Daniel O'Connor has a brilliant post over at Catalaxis called The Political Economics of Stephen Colbert.
In simplest terms, when we communicate we tend to at least implicitly, if not explicitly, raise a set of three distinct validity claims regarding what is true, what is right, and what is sincere. When either one of us has a problem accepting any of the validity claims raised by the other, we may through dialogue challenge the claim and make an effort to come to a mutual understanding of what really is true, right, and sincere for each of us. In our ideal efforts to validate or invalidate one another's claims, we will refer to objective facts to determine what is true, intersubjective values to judge what is right, and subjective intentions to appreciate what is sincere. All three types of claims made by both of us would have to be validated before we could declare a shared understanding--and even then, we would not necessarily have a mutual agreement on all three claims.
He looks into Colbert's truthiness, and wikiality, then invents syncerity to summarize our political discourse today.
Just listen carefully to any political debate, whether it's between presidential candidates or media pundits who make a living expressing their opinions about politicians. There is so little personal sincerity and so very much deception and acrimony that it is a wonder we put up with it. Moreover, the fact that we do put up with it, that we are so easily deceived, or that we claim dishonestly to have been so frequently deceived, is evidence of our own dysfunctional syncerity, disowning the power we really do have to withdraw legitimacy from those who are systematically syncere, whether their syncerity is conscious and calculated or subconscious and incompetent.
Read the whole thing.
Permalink | Comments (0)
We Must Disenthrall Ourselves
July 9, 2006 | Governance | Nature & Environment | People & Society
There's a good interview with Al Gore in the July 13 issue of Rolling Stone. Some quotes:
I believe there is a hunger in the country to be part of a larger vision that changes the way we relate to the environment and the economy. Right now we are borrowing huge amounts of money from China to buy huge amounts of oil from the most unstable region of the world, and to bring it here and burn it in ways that destroy the habitability of the planet. That is nuts! We have to change every aspect of that.
But the debate over oil reserves misses the point. We have more than enough oil, not to mention coal, to completely destroy the habitability of the planet. The real constraint on oil and coal is not supply, but global warming. There's a saying: "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones."
As Lincoln said in the darkest days of America's darkest passage: "We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." Our biggest challenge, our biggest foe, is thrall. The word sounds ancient, but it means anything that imprisons our thinking and prevents us from seeing the reality of our situation. We're in thrall to oil. We've got to break out of it. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we will save our planet.
I like Al Gore as a vocal citizen, devoid of political consultants and triangulation. A true leader, a public servant, an honest man.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Letting Go of Outcomes
July 7, 2006 | Governance | Life | People & Society
Over the past ten years I've become much more "process-oriented." Part of this learning comes from my work—as a consultant I'm often in situations where I don't know very much about the specific content, but contribute to change based on looking at the larger system. I used to say that a focus on process leads to a better outcome.
In the past year I dove even more deeply into process and facilitation, especially through participating in and leading Open Space and World Cafe sessions (and couples counseling, a longer story). Now I'd go further about the value of process: When I participate in the design and iteration of a process, I am comfortable with whatever outcome arises. Focusing on how something is decided allows me to let go of what is decided.
One way to think about this is using my favorite phrase from the past year, abstract up. Take a specific situation, then generalize it a bit and work at that level. Then generalize that, and go up one more level. Continue, until you can't make a general case that still contains the specific situation you're dealing with. At that point apply the rules you've learned from the general case, and see how the specific case plays out.
Simple example: Say you're going to buy a house from a friend. It's not listed on the market, and it's a private sale without real estate agents. How do you set the price? One way is to pick a number that feels good and fight for it trying not to compromise too much. Doesn't usually work out too well. Another way is to let the buyer get an appraisal, and use that number. If that doesn't seem quite right to either party, have the seller get another appraisal, and split the difference. At this point you will have two opinions by professionals, and you can choose to use them, or walk away from the deal, but it's not going to make much sense shooting for a number a lot higher or lower than the bounds of the two appraisals.
It's worth noting that letting go of outcomes is non-trivial, as they say in engineering. I would not yet say I am expert at this, only that when I am able to abstract up it works out, usually better than when I'm obsessed with "what's going to happen."
Permalink | Comments (0)
USA, Today
July 5, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Long Sunday deconstructs the meaning of 9/11 in the US psyche.
Billmon compares current US politics to those of Spain in 1936.
Brianstorms reminds us of the Bill of Rights.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Finds Neither Support nor a Passive Population
July 3, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Former Special-Ops guy John Robb writes Global Guerrillas, "an open notebook on the first epochal war of the 21st Century." The latest post, An Attack On Iran = Catalyst Of Chaos summarizes his current thinking on Iran, and the implications for the US.
The economic/societal wave: state failures. A gulf monarchy falls. Successful terrorist attacks on oil production systems have deepened the global energy crisis (and it appears it will continue indefinitely). The global economy goes into a severe and prolonged contraction. The worst finally happens: China's export oriented economy collapses. Protests, currently running at 200 a day, spike to thousands and they are increasingly violent (as protesters clash with domestic militias). The government attempts to crack down with the army but finds neither support nor a passive population during this attempt. Further, the scale of the unrest is too vast. Lacking legitimacy due to a decade of rampant corruption and an inability to deliver rapid growth anymore, the country fragments.
Summary: Possible return to states as the organizing principle, without much left of the federal government. The scary part: John really knows his stuff. Always nice to have a worst-case scenario in mind, if only to attempt avoidance.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Truly Making a Difference
June 25, 2006 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
Dave Pollard often gives detailed and passionate voice for my intuitive and information-overloaded thoughts. Today is no different.
So progressives need to acknowledge that, unless they devote most of their time and energy to activities other than electing and lobbying politicians, they will continue to accomplish nothing. Indeed, they will accomplish less than nothing, since in the meantime the corporate and political elite will be busy dismantling, rolling back, bribing their way out of, and circumventing laws and regulations, a much easier process than getting them passed, and enforced, in the first place.
I gave up on MoveOn et al a long time ago. Those organizations are good in the crunch-time of an election, but real change isn't going to happen there. And the Democrats are hopeless, look at the mess Bush is creating, in many—not several, but many different areas—and they still have no core to rally around. It's completely depressing.
The two big opportunities to make a high-leverage change are education and business. Help increase funding for local public schools. Help raise the literacy and numeracy level of our kids. Encourage parental involvement in education. Encourage deep study in science and math and music and art. Learn enough to make a direct contribution yourself. Consume less. Vote with your dollars. Start your own business or partner with a small team. Create instead of consume. Look at the bigger picture. Spend your time volunteering instead of shopping or watching TV. Engage in something outside your own self-interest. Make a contribution of time and mental energy, not money. Be the change you want.
Do all that stuff Dave tells you to do in his article, because he's thinking about this a lot more deeply than you or me.
Permalink | Comments (2)
Squeezing the Middle Class
June 16, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
An as-usual well-researched article from the Economist: The rich, the poor and the growing gap between them.
The one truly continuous trend over the past 25 years has been towards greater concentration of income at the very top. The scale of this shift is not visible from most popular measures of income or wages, as they do not break the distribution down finely enough. But several recent studies have dissected tax records to investigate what goes on at the very top.
The figures are startling. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Thomas Piketty of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris, the share of aggregate income going to the highest-earning 1% of Americans has doubled from 8% in 1980 to over 16% in 2004. That going to the top tenth of 1% has tripled from 2% in 1980 to 7% today. And that going to the top one-hundredth of 1%—the 14,000 taxpayers at the very top of the income ladder—has quadrupled from 0.65% in 1980 to 2.87% in 2004.
No surprises if you've been paying attention, but it's nice to have independent non-spun facts to consider.
Permalink | Comments (1)
Mission Accomplished
June 8, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
The critics have weighed in on the Zarqawi news:
greg.org: Wow, if there was any doubt about where the contemporary art market is going, they were dispelled this morning at Christie's Baghdad, where the US Government paid a record-setting $286 billion--plus $240 for framing--for this portrait of the dead Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Billmon: The Pentagon Channel today announced the cancellation of its long-running reality TV series, The Abu Zarqawi Hour, saying tonight's special-effects extravaganza, in which Keifer Sutherland and a team of secret agents trail the terrorist mastermind to his hideout and call in a massive airstrike, would be the show's last.
The show originally piloted in 2003, and found a regular place in the Pentagon Channel's prime-time lineup in February 2004, replacing the widely panned sitcom series Mission Accomplished, now in syndicated reruns on Fox News.
Doubts about the show's viability deepened in April, after Washington Post TV critic Tom Ricks questioned whether the supposedly spontaneous reality show was actually being scripted by its producers.
Flashback from the history channel:
- Washington Post (April 2006): The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist.
You can believe almost nothing in the media. Ignore it or satirize it, but don't believe it.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Mapping Dialogue
June 8, 2006 | Governance | People & Society | SoL
Fantastic 86 page research report on the fundamentals, forms, and usage of ten different dialogue approaches. [via Chris.]
Permalink | Comments (0)
So That Explains It
May 26, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
I always wondered why so many people voted for Bush when his policies are in direct opposition to their own interests. I remember this most vividly when a relative, who was pro-Bush and a big proponent of lower interest rates and taxes, realized in retirement that low interest rates meant that fixed-income returns were also low – that is, as the interest rates fell so did his income. You could hear the confusion in talking with him. Policies he'd advocated all his life suddenly worked against his own interests and lifestyle. If he got out of denial, it must have been some internal reckoning.
So this morning a summary & pointer to an essay by Jeffrey B. Perry crossed my screen which helps explain this phenomenon. It's a memorial of historian Theodore W. Allen and his book The Invention of the White Race, Vol. 1 and 2.
Specifically, Allen introduced the idea of the buffer social control group:
In 1996, on radio station WBAI in New York, Allen discussed the subject of "American Exceptionalism" and the much-vaunted "immunity" of the United States to proletarian class-consciousness and its effects. His explanation for the relatively low level of class consciousness was that social control in the United States was guaranteed, not primarily by the class privileges of a petit bourgeoisie, but by the white-skin privileges of laboring class whites; that the ruling class co-opts European-American workers into the buffer social control system against the interests of the working class to which they belong; and that the "white race" by its all-class form, conceals the operation of the ruling class social control system by providing it with a majoritarian "democratic" facade.
America is at a tipping point, but it's hard to see because in a culture it takes years to effect a change. It's happened over the last six years – which parts of peace and prosperity during the earlier Clinton years do people dislike so much? – and it's going to take a while to undo the deeper effects of the fundamentalist Bush policies. "Starving the government" through deep tax cuts and simultaneous warring is going to cut the middle class in two (this has already started) – further expanding the buffer social control group at the low-end of the elites (where my existence lies) and playing off the hopes and dreams of the top-end of the laborers (this would completely explain the email and comment spam phenomena, for instance). The increased anxiety of falling down to the lower tier, rather than simply carving out a comfortable middle-class existence, will help control people's behavior. This is why Bush/Cheney/Rove use fear so well as a political tool, and why "creating jobs" and "low prices" drive so many of our collective decisions, from local zoning and community planning to were we live and what we consume.
Only a small number of people are able to take a systemic and long-term view of things, and therefore most behavior is short-term and self-interested. But like the relative mentioned above, when the long-term implications hit it has a big personal impact, and by then it's too late to do anything about it. America as a county is going to find out what this looks like, but it will take a few more years and the people trying to fix the mess will likely have had nothing to do with creating it. If you want to take the really long view, then perhaps we should keep electing Fundamentalists for another decade or two so they're holding the bag when the charade goes south. That would be the crushing blow to this round of delusional policies and politics, if we don't become a nation of jingoistic Nazi-like nationalists along the way.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Which is Weirder, the Beard or the Tie?
May 25, 2006 | Arts & Culture | Governance | People & Society
VT Senator Patrick Leahy with Bob Weir, May 23, 2006. It looks like a good time was had by all. More.
Permalink | Comments (2)
The Principles Underlying Our System Are Actually Better
May 20, 2006 | Governance | Life | People & Society
This post at TPM sums up my feelings on the US national security situation exactly:
[...] is just this dogmatic post-9/11 insistence on acting as if human history began suddenly in 1997 or something. The United States was able to face down such threats as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany without indefinite detentions, widespread use of torture as an interrogative technique, or all-pervasive surveillance. But a smallish group of terrorists who can't even surface publicly abroad for fear they'll be swiftly killed by the mightiest military on earth? Time to break out the document shredder and do away with that pesky constitution.
Last, there's the unargued assumption that civil rights and the rule of law are some kind of near-intolerable impediment to national security. But if you look around the world over the past hundred years or so, I think you'll see that the record of democracy is pretty strong. You don't see authoritarian regimes using their superior ability to operate in secret and conduct surveillance to run roughshod over more fastidious countries. You see liberalism prospering -- both in the sense that the core liberal countries have grown richer-and-richer and in the sense that liberal democracy has consistently spread out from its original homeland since people like it better. You see governments that can operate in total secrecy falling prey to crippling corruption. You see powers of surveillance used not to defend countries from external threats, but to defend rulers from domestic political opponents.
The U.S.S.R., after all, lost the Cold War, not because we beat them in a race to the bottom to improve national security by gutting the principles of our system, but because the principles underlying our system were actually better than the alternative. If you don't have some faith the American way of life is capable of coping with actual challenges, then what's the point in defending it?
I hope enough people are awake at the polls in November, and the flawed voting machines aren't actually rigged.
Permalink | Comments (0)
What The President Does
May 12, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Here is what's in store for President Bush next week:
TONY SNOW: Okay, let's do the week ahead. Here we go. And thank you all for your forbearance.
Sunday, the presentation of a White House tree at the Australian Ambassador's Residence. Monday, remarks at the Annual Peace Officers' Memorial Service at the United States Capitol.
Tuesday, South Lawn arrival ceremony for Prime Minister Howard of Australia, and Mrs. Howard. The President will meet with the Prime Minister on Tuesday, have a joint press availability with the Prime Minister. He also will be meeting with the Sacramento Monarchs, the 2005 WNBA Champions. There will be an official dinner with the Prime Minister and Mrs. Howard on the evening of the 16th. Wednesday --
QUESTION: Official, not state dinner?
TONY SNOW: It says, official dinner.
Wednesday, photo opportunity and remarks to the 2006 United States Winter Olympic and Paralympic teams. He will sign H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension and Reconciliation Act of 2006 -- so we do have a -- the answer is, Wednesday; I should have read my own paper, I apologize. Attends the Republican National Committee Gala at Constitution Hall.
Thursday, TBD. Friday, attend a Thelma Drake for Congress Reception in Norfolk, Virginia, then on to Northern Kentucky, remarks on the American Competitiveness Initiative in Highland Heights, Kentucky, and a Geoff Davis for Congress Reception in Florence, Kentucky. That's the week ahead.
Wow, he's pretty busy with photo opportunities, and signing into law some more tax breaks for millionaires [hat tip, Plausible Story]. I guess everything else is pretty well under control.
Permalink | Comments (1)
Political Action Videos
May 10, 2006 | Arts & Culture | Governance | People & Society
Wow. Check out this political ad (1:23) from a US Senate race in PA. "Our President is a criminal...."
Handheld, black & white + color, kids, aggressive language, no holds barred. Of course, in one sense it's still cynical – taking advantage of our unrest with The System, but still, you gotta hand it to the guy for taking a stand. All too rare today. Witness this anonymous blog, for instance.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Bush Does Not Laugh
April 30, 2006 | Arts & Culture | Governance | People & Society
The Happy Tutor educates us on the meaning of Steven Colbert's savage roast satarizing Bush. [video]
Permalink | Comments (0)
More on Police Solicitations
April 19, 2006 | Governance | Life | People & Society
Good morning Julia and Nicholas,
When I woke up today I had more questions about the police solicitations.
-- Is Jim Reid an employee of the Hanover Police Department? The voicemail said "with" the Hanover PD, so I assume he is, because if he isn't he should have said "for" the Hanover PD.
-- If he's NOT an employee, then I'm annoyed that I was lied to by someone representing the town. There should be much more careful monitoring of outside contractors. For instance, perhaps he should say his firm's name, along with "representing the Hanover PD." I'm sure you can understand why someone misrepresenting themselves to be a Hanover police department employee would be problematic, in both the present situation and in the long-term consequences.
-- If he IS an employee, is he being paid for this time soliciting businesses? That is, are taxpayers paying to have town employees call citizens and ask for money? I'm not sure what to think about that, but it's not an obvious win from my point of view.
-- If he IS an employee, and is NOT being paid, i.e. this is a volunteer effort, then I have concerns about the "wink wink, nudge nudge" aspect of "volunteering" for your employer. This is common in white-collar businesses, where salaried employees are regularly expected to work more than the specified 40 hours per week, violating all sorts of Federal labor act provisions and State labor laws. For some reason this is never enforced, presumably due to the power of Capital over Labor, but I would dislike the idea that a town government, especially one the size and quality of Hanover, would engage in this behavior.
Perhaps you can shed some light on the operation of this program and address my concerns, which I'm sure are shared by many others in our community. Thanks for your consideration.
Michael J.
Permalink | Comments (2)
Police Solicitations
April 18, 2006 | Governance | Life | People & Society
Hello Julia and Nicholas,
I received a voicemail today from Jim Reid. The message was (exact transcription), "Mike this is Jim Reid calling with the Hanover Police. Please give me a call at 448-1108. No emergency, just gotta talk to you. Thank you."
So, I'm sure you know where this is going: This was a solicitation for an ad for the crime prevention booklet. Okay, that's fine, I like to support community organizations. Jim's a nice guy, and he handled this well, and I registered no complaint with him. This is a policy issue.
My opinion is that the voicemail message should say, "I need to talk to you about our first-ever crime prevention booklet and how you can help," or somesuch thing. Because if it doesn't, you're diluting the value of the police department authority.
Which is to say, like you two, I lead a busy life. I don't have time to call back solicitors, but I would always call back the police or fire department. However, if I ever get another voicemail like that and I call back to find it's another solicitation, I will never ever return another police or fire department call that is not emergency-related. Period.
Using the goodwill and authority of the police department should be very carefully considered. I hope this experience helpfully informs your policy decisions going forward.
Thank you for having a functional website that allowed me to quickly find the appropriate contact information and make my opinion known at the time of the incident.
Best regards,
Michael J.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Let's Just Dwell On It
April 12, 2006 | Governance | Nature & Environment | People & Society
Here's a good analysis from Bill Arkin at the Washington Post:
A war with Iran started purposefully or by accident, will be a mess. What is happening now though is not just an administration prudently preparing for the unfortunate against an aggressive and crazed state, it is also aggressive and crazed, driven by groupthink and a closed circle of bears.
The public needs to know first, that this planning includes preemptive plans that the President could approve and implement with 12 hours notice. Congress should take notice of the fact that there is a real war plan -- CONPLAN 8022 -- and it could be implemented tomorrow.
Second, the public needs to know that the train has left the station on bigger war planning, that a ground war -- despite the Post claim yesterday that a land invasion "is not contemplated" -- is also being prepared. It is a real war plan; I've heard CONPLAN 1025.
Economic collapse is the only thing that will stop the US from being such a bully. The problem with accelerating this scenario is that it affects all of us directly. If we nuke Iran then, as Billmon says, "we’d truly be through the looking glass."
When I was a nomadic Deadhead in the '80's I thought I was learning about sound and music and tribes and love and dancing and joy and groupmind and ecstasy and interconnectedness and Dionysius. Instead, maybe the key skills learned were how to live out of a car and scrounge by in a barter economy on a few dollars a day, traveling from city to city. Could be useful later this year. (Don't tell my clients.)
Permalink | Comments (4)
Speculative Is Not a Synonym For Untrue
April 11, 2006 | Governance | Nature & Environment | People & Society
Billmon conducts a thought experiment.
Maybe it's just me, but I've been at least a little bit surprised by the relatively muted reaction to the news that the Cheney Administration and its Pentagon underlings are racing to put the finishing touches on plans for attacking Iran – plans which may include the first wartime use of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki.
I mean, what exactly does it take to get a rise out of the media industrial complex these days? A nuclear first strike against a major Middle Eastern oil producer doesn't ring the bell?
3,400 words of truth.
Permalink | Comments (3)
Sandra Day O'Connor Worries About Dictatorship
March 17, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Here is Slate's story on the media ignoring O'Connor's Georgetown University speech:
The smoke drifting out of your computer over the weekend was not the result of a fried motherboard but the scent of bloggers setting themselves on fire in response to Nina Totenberg's NPR Morning Edition Friday, March 10, dispatch. Totenberg had attended a speech at Georgetown University given the night before by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in which O'Connor invoked the word "dictatorship" to describe the direction the country may be headed if Republicans continue to attack the judiciary.
And here is Raw Story's transcript of Nina Totenberg's NPR story:
I, said O’Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever-vigilant against those who would strongarm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.
What will it take for people to realize the stakes?
Permalink | Comments (0)
Getting Real About Politics
March 2, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Spend ten minutes and read these two posts:
Only the Dead Sleep Well: The problem with John Kerry's email campaigns, thoughts which IMO apply to all the current email campaigns (MoveOn, Democrocy for America, etc).
Don't Think of a Donkey: The problem with "framing" and trying to replicate the right-wing think tanks. via WB.
Let's say it again: We need to move from consuming to creating. What future do we want to create together? Here's one way into the process: Otto Scharmer has a third draft of his U-Theory introduction linked from his home page. (Otto, ditch the Flash-based website, please. It looks nice but limits the spread of your ideas.)
Permalink | Comments (0)
Bush Katrina Briefing Video
March 1, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
We take a break from our deep reflective practice to consider the implications of the just-leaked video of Bush's Katrina briefing. This is going to be very big news for the next few days, well into the Sunday talk shows.
The video presents a sequence showing FEMA's Michael Brown and various experts specifying the dangers and warning of the storm. It shows Bush assuring state officials that everything is under control. It then shows Bush on the tee-vee several days later saying that no one could have predicted the levee breech. This is an awe-inspiring a made-for-TV credibility crisis. Actual video, with his own words used against him. The liar exposed. Masterful.
Now, let's think about this. The video is from the secure communications room at Bush's Crawford TX ranch, and appears to be official. First of all, THEY ARCHIVE ALL THAT STUFF?!?!?!? Are you kidding? Supoena all of it, Iraq, NSA wiretaps, covert CIA agent blown cover, Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, et al. A video archive from the Texas ranch? Who knew? And what the hell else is being recorded?
Next, let's think about who exactly has access to this video archive, dealing with national security, from one of the most secure locations in the USA, and why this series of clips was leaked. Bush's poll popularity dropped precipitously in the past few days. Who has the knives out for Bush? Republicans worried about Bush baggage in their local elections? Career bureaucrats tired of political appointees overruling their deep expertise with shallow ideology? Is this Cheney, undercutting Bush and asserting his own authority? Is this Rove, breaking bad news on his own terms, when he thinks is best? Is this former intelligence officials throwing their weight around as long-term payback for gutting the Agency while destroying US moral standing in the world? Whoever it is, they are damn well-connected to have their hands on this video and get it to the media.
Finally, the timing. Bush is in India and Pakistan these few days, after a surprise stop in Afganistan. That's supposed to be the big news cycle for the end of the week - freedom on the march and terrorists on the run and all that crap. But now Bush has to fight this dramatic news, which will cancel his own story. The timing couldn't have been better, or worse, depending on your perspective.
This is the most intriguing United States political event since I've been alive. If the MSM is worth anything at all these days, I want to see some deep analysis on what this means. Background sources, off-the-record quotes, multiple plot-lines converging against hypotheses, the whole monty. There are a very small number of people with access to this video, and they're not grunts.
Morning update: No surprise, but it looks like the White House is trying to spin this as a positive.
Some congressional investigators say it now seems somewhat ironic that having belatedly found the Aug. 29 conference-call transcript, the administration is now touting it as evidence of deep presidential—and White House—involvement in the crisis.
It's hard for me to see how spinning that Bush was seriously engaged in the Katrina disaster is good for him, but I don't understand much of the world today anyway.
Permalink | Comments (1)
Inability to Produce Subjectivities
February 22, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
UFO Breakfast checks in with a powerful post on our liberal plight:
What's at stake is liberal complicity in the destruction of a lifeworld that would produce qualities of character that would make sustenance and resistance possible, not just for the next electoral brouhaha but for generations to come, and not just in news-junkie blog discussions but in all the rockbottom ethical domains in which we get by from day to day. That's what Phil's critique of liberalism at WB has always been about, not that "satire will make us more politically effective in the next election." It's a prepolitical argument, and properly so because it sees the toxin that has brought liberalism down occurring at the prepolitical level, long before it gets to any strategy planning....
The whole technocratic, managerial,"strategic" aspect of liberalism is precisely what engineered its deepest failure, its disdain for the lifeworld, its inability to produce subjectivities that can move effectively in the authoritarian terrain that they've ceded to the right. A certain kind of liberal will always portray the call to "have guts" as the adolescent to his parental cool, the id to his ego. That's the automatic discourse of a failed managerial class who staked their social expertise on divesting oneself of passion, of the particularities of upbringing, in favor of a utilitarian rationalism. But what looked like an ascetic process of maturation open to everyone, has turned out to be an increasingly narrow motor of self-selection in which only a small, anal subfraction of an urban professional elite can see their temperament in that mirror....
We don't argue "principles" like the liberal schoolmarm, smugly, because we think we have more of them than everyone else. We argue them out of terror, because they're being taken away on every side, we have no one providing the resources to have a backbone in each daily small exchange, because we're deliberately made to feel defenseless and bearbaited by "our" side as much as the enemy, as a way of pressuring us toward the accomodations which they deem necessary in their use of us, and because we're tired of living with the humiliation of ceding ground in ways which seem in retrospect to be cowardly. That, finally, is what people won't live with....
Read the whole thing.
Permalink | Comments (0)
This Is What's Wrong With The Democrats
February 14, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
In a nutshell, right here:
Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.
Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.
Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.
But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress.
"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.
I'm incensed. Here's a guy who has the Right Idea, widly popular, and senior politicians tell him to get lost so someone with more seniority can take the slot. Screw that. Let the best ideas win. Are we at least aiming for a meritocracy?
Permalink | Comments (0)
Life During Wartime
February 14, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
We got computer, we’re tapping phone lines, I know that ain’t allowed
The Administration says they can do anything they want. Legal scholars are not so sure. It's an election year, so expect it to get ugly. It's not surprising that folks in San Francisco think that these are high crimes and misdemeanors, especially given that Clinton was impeached for - what was that again? - something to do with an intern. Much worse than going to war under false pretenses, lying to Congress, detaining citizens without charging them with a crime, secret renditions, torture, etc. Why does Bush hate the US constitution so much?
While you're pondering that, consider this speech from a 30-year veteran of the CIA and FBI:
The Administration’s wholesale by-passing of court review under the guise of “national security” is an extremely bad precedent. If after-the-fact judicial review of eavesdropping operations can be legally accomplished in a secret court, why should such a review requirement be totally ignored by this President? Is it because the government does not want anyone to know exactly who they are listening in on? Is it only suspected terrorists who are being targeted? If the Bush administration continues to have its way, we, and the congressionally authorized secret FISA court, will never know.
Bonus link: What macroeconomist and hedge fund manager Barry Ritholtz learned over the past few weeks.
Finally, how about that Dick Cheney! Our friends at the Wall Street Journal gather together in one place the late-night jokes.
Permalink | Comments (0)
What Google Knows
January 31, 2006 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society | Technology
John Battelle, author of Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture, asked Google:
1) "Given a list of search terms, can Google produce a list of people who searched for that term, identified by IP address and/or Google cookie value?"
2) "Given an IP address or Google cookie value, can Google produce a list of the terms searched by the user of that IP address or cookie value?"
To its credit, it rapidly replied that the answer in both cases is "yes." Just FYI.
Good to know. The answer is likely the same for Yahoo, MSN, and AOL. Of course, if you are innocent in the eyes of the Administration, you have nothing to hide. If, like Martin Luther King, you have any issues with the strategy or tactics of the Administration, then you might want to turn off browser cookies, as a minimum measure.
Permalink | Comments (0)
It Could Happen
January 29, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
It's really not so much of a stretch.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Political Bias as Addiction Response
January 26, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
This doesn't surprise me at all:
The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.
Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."
So the question for civil society is, how do we reward serious thinking?
Permalink | Comments (0)
Transparency and Decision-Making
January 23, 2006 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society | SoL
On a long conference call today 19 of us were discussing group process in decision-making. Specifically, how to assign consultants to incoming work requests. The issue is fraught with flaws that undermine community. For instance, central decisions might be made too quickly, based on who knows whom, using old bios, overlooking a more qualified newcomer to the group. If you want to build a community of practice, a closed process will result in a metaphorical blue screen of death.
My contribution, which seemed to generate murmurs of agreement - hard to tell on a large multi-contient teleconference, with lots of people muted - was that if the process were transparent, then decision-making could be self-correcting. That is, focus on the transparency aspects, then when a decision has to be made quickly, or by a small team instead of the whole group, there is trust and openness and the occasional error can be addressed and used as a learning opportunity to tweak the process.
So, focus your initial effort on transparency, and implement the simplest decision-making process possible. It's easy to evolve an open decision process, but hard to make a closed process open.
Compare to the US President when he says, "I'm making good decisions!" but they are made in secrecy, and no records are released. Trust, but verify. That's what a transparent process provides.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Energy Politics
January 6, 2006 | Governance | People & Society
Mitch Ratcliff speaks for me.
Permalink | Comments (3)
Data Mining 101
January 5, 2006 | Governance | People & Society | Software
Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists by Tom Owad. A little geeky, but worth reading to see how authorities might infer intentions. About six years ago, I used similar techniques to scrape auto sites on the web to find inventory on a new VW Golf TDI diesel (indigo blue, standard shift) within 500 miles of my house. In one afternoon I had all the info I needed to negotiate and purchase the exact car I wanted, which I did the next day, at a dealer about 120 miles from my house. My local dealer said that there were no cars of that spec, and wanted to sell me one off the lot. Power to the people, or to the authorities, as the case may be.
I have intentionally used "authorities" to distinguish the Bush administration from what would normally be called the "government." There's not a lot of governance happening right now in the US, but plenty of authority assertion. Politics is a friggin' black hole for blogging; my apologies.
Permalink | Comments (0)
ECHELON
December 24, 2005 | Governance | People & Society
My friend Jon Husband reminded me that worldwide surveillance has been going on for years. You can read all about it. Grim.
Permalink | Comments (0)
(Unintended?) Consequences of Surveillance
December 23, 2005 | Governance | People & Society
If your life is similar to mine, you may have been too busy these last few weeks of the business year to notice an important story brewing in the US capital. It's one worth reflecting on during the year-end break; here is a summary written in links.
Laura Rozen has a data point on the history of US government surveillance of its citizens. Read this excerpt from the final report of the United States Senate Elect Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (1976):
From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to "neutralize" him as an effective civil rights leader. ...
The FBI collected information about Dr. King's plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau's disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were maintained on Dr. King's home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter's telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King's close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King's hotel and motel rooms in an "attempt" to obtain information about the "private activities of King and his advisers" for use to "completely discredit" them.
FBI informants in the civil rights movement and reports from field offices kept the Bureau's headquarters informed of developments in the civil rights field. ...
The FBI's program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him with churches, universities, and the press. ... The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find "friendly" news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King's hotel rooms.
The FBI mailed Dr. King a tape recording made from its microphone coverage. According to the Chief of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division, the tape was intended to precipitate a separation between Dr. King and his wife in the belief that the separation would reduce Dr. King's stature. The tape recording was accompanied by a note which Dr. King and his advisers interpreted as a threat to release the tape recording unless Dr. King committed suicide. The FBI also made preparations to promote someone "to assume the role of leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited."
Now, compare to current US news stories:
- President Bush ordered an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States. He has no apologies.
- The numbers don't add up.
- Security analysts think new technology could be involved. Or that the NSA "may have compromised a hardware manufacturer -- say Motorola or a satellite phone manufacturer, a telecom carrier or a satellite(s)."
- A highly respected security expert wonders about the threat of unchecked Presidential power.
- John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, says Bush has committed an impeachable offense.
- 5% of the US population is illiterate. Does this mean that perhaps 20% or 30% of the population is literate but reads at, say, high-school level? If so, then:
- The bottom tier can't follow the complexity of the issues. For them, no terror alerts since the 2004 election.
- The top tier is too busy succeeding to pay attention. For them, nice year-end bonuses.
What would Bush have done to "neutralize" Martin Luther King, Jr.? Who are we neutralizing today?
Permalink | Comments (1203)
[SoL] Alain de Vulpian on the Process of Civilization
September 21, 2005 | Arts & Culture | Governance | SoL
de Vulpian provided a 25-page paper, "Listening to Ordinary People," in advance of the conference (Word doc). It lays out the main arguments of his book, "A l'ecoute des gens ordinaires. Comment ils tranforment le monde," (Paris, Dunod 2003).
Here is one of the introductory paragraphs from the paper:
I have reached the conviction that we are in the epicentre of a developmental process of civilisation that is carrying us elsewhere, transforming western culture in depth and possibly preparing the way for a worldwide civilisation. What do I mean by a developmental process of civilisation? Norbert Elias, the great German sociologist, gave body to this concept of a "chain reaction of chain reactions" that involves power holders, institutions, organisations, communications, ordinary people, manners, customs, the social fabric, technologies that are emerging or becoming established, and so on. It transforms a civilisation and gives life to a new society. No-one has designed, desired or piloted this chain reaction of chain reactions. It has occurred spontaneously, it is continuing and is now spreading to other regions of the planet.
He goes on to discuss four major areas affecting civilization in the 20th century:
- Ordinary people become more autonomous and in touch with inner resources.
- An extremely complex social fabric is self-organizing.
- Scientific and technological innovations synergize with other transformations.
- New forms of governance begin hesitantly to emerge.
He looks at each one of these in depth (summarized in the paper, complete exposition in the book), and wonders if we are engaged in a new stage in the evolution of man and society. I will quote the final paragraph of the paper:
There is an opportunity for human progress whose birth we can try to facilitate. But it is very clear that nothing is yet decisively acquired. Our hypercomplex and living society is also, like all living things, the seat of pathological processes. The therapeutic procedures, regulators or immune systems that are spontaneously developing are not yet properly effective, in particular because many governments and old-fashioned but still powerful enterprises are not playing the game of a living society. They display ideologically partisan, hierarchic or predatory attitudes, rather than therapeutic, interactive ones, and accumulate mistakes and maladaptations that encourage the appearance of perverse effects. Instead of participating in concerted, adaptive regulation, they throw oil on the fire and accentuate the turbulences. Beyond a hypothetical (because unmeasured) threshold of turbulence, the entire anthropo-sociological process could bifurcate into disastrous directions.
This work deserves a significantly longer treatment than I have energy for at the moment. Perhaps even a study group to digest the main ideas. In short, he surveys 50 years of social science and develops the main threads of societal changes that have occurred. He summarizes several different societal aspects that I had noticed, but hadn't named. He describes societal shifts that have affected both my work and my family. He provides a hopeful scenario, which I had not been able to generate based only on my own observations.
I highly recommend the paper, though with the caveat that I don't read much sociology, so I don't have much context for the work. I found it engaging, insightful, and worthy of discussion.
Permalink | Comments (0)
Politics vs. Goverance
September 18, 2005 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
Let me suffer the inadequate Internet connection just once more to comment on how surprising (yet welcome) it is to see opinions such as this from Newsweek.
...Bush will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible chief executive in American history. Since 2001, government spending has gone up from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, a 33 percent rise in four years! Defense and Homeland Security are not the only culprits. Domestic spending is actually up 36 percent in the same period. These figures come from the libertarian Cato Institute's excellent report "The Grand Old Spending Party," which explains that "throughout the past 40 years, most presidents have cut or restrained lower-priority spending to make room for higher-priority spending. What is driving George W. Bush's budget bloat is a reversal of that trend." To govern is to choose. And Bush has decided not to choose. He wants guns and butter and tax cuts.
People wonder whether we can afford Iraq and Katrina. The answer is, easily. What we can't afford simultaneously is $1.4 trillion in tax cuts and more than $1 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next 10 years...
Today's Republicans believe in pork, but they don't believe in government. So we have the largest government in history but one that is weak and dysfunctional. Public spending is a cynical game of buying votes or campaign contributions, an utterly corrupt process run by lobbyists and special interests with no concern for the national interest...
Hurricane Katrina is a wake-up call. It is time to get serious. We need to secure the homeland, fight terrorism and have an effective foreign policy to advance our interests and our ideals. We also need a world-class education system, a great infrastructure and advancement in science and technology.
For all its virtues, the private sector cannot accomplish all this. Wal-Mart and Federal Express cannot devise a national energy policy for the United States. For that and for much else, we need government. We already pay for it. Can somebody help us get our money's worth?
Thanks to Laura Rozen for the pointer.
Permalink
Accountable once a decade, at least
November 8, 2004 | Business & Commerce | Governance | People & Society
This year I've personally observed just how hard it is to fire someone in academia (newsflash!). Some people turn out to be non-productive — that's to be expected. Much worse if they're toxic to the people who are ARE productive! But somehow they stay forever. (Note to clients: I'm not talking about any of you folks, don't worry. But I bet you know someone LIKE who I'm talking about.) Meanwhile, colleges and universities take MONTHS of committee review time to hire anyone, at any level - flying people in from out of town for jobs that are 99% sure of going to an internal candidate.
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to hire people quickly and if they don't work out, fire them quickly? Or, at least, if you're going to take a long time to hire someone, at least be able to fire them easily. The process of taking forever to hire someone, and then also taking forever to fire them seems like the worst of both worlds.
Perhaps the problem boils down to what Edward L. Ayers wrote recently in EDUCAUSE Review (vol. 39, no. 6, November/December 2004): "Higher leadership is generally transitory, amateurish, and constrained but is the only force providing any coordination or direction to many otherwise disconnected scholars, departments, and disciplines." Of course, the senior leadership I personally know are thoughtful, engaged, and committed. But none are formally trained as managers of large multi-tiered specialist staffs.
Meanwhile, I was thinking recently that one solution to academic "coordination or direction" issues (i.e. slow adoption of technology, interminable faculty meetings, imponderable decision-making, general cat-herding behavior) is to have standard tenure be ten years in length. Lifetime tenure would require a special appointment after at least one (or possibly two) ten-year appointments. That way, you'd have to be accountable at least once a decade.
Of course, current faculty would be grandfathered in under the existing rules....
Permalink | Comments (1)
Minnesota 308B Cooperative Act
October 5, 2004 | Cooperatives | Governance
Some time ago I mentioned a Minnesota law regarding hybrid Coop/LLC business structures that was winding its way through the legislature. It passed (a while back) but I just found the actual statute. Here's the Google query that will bring up relevant results.
Permalink
Hybrid LLC/Co-op Structure
July 24, 2003 | Governance
Thanks to Walden Swanson, we have an outline on forming a hybrid LLC/Co-op business. Following is an edited amalgamation of an email thread we've had the last couple of days.
Minnesota has a new co-op law that has elements of an LLC. August 1 is the day the law goes into effect. This is the first state that has instituted a hybrid LLC/Co-op business organization.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/bldbill.pl?bill=H0984.3&session=ls83
Note this link points to the mark up bill rather than the final law, so it's a little hard to read. I don't think the final one is available yet.
The way we (Walden's company) are going to set up the initial structure has 3 classes of members: Investors, customers and Employees (employees include founders, developers, management, etc.).
The employees start out with 100% of the company and are diluted by the other shareholders. As you will see, this will eventually end up with 45% for the employee class.
The investors want a targeted IRR (Internal Rate of Return). We both agreed on an expected scenario for the income statement and then backed into their percentage ownership. (Notio note: That sentence right there defines the business issues at hand – what are the expected income and expenses and how much money is the investor willing to put in for how much of the business.) The key elements here, after agreeing on the expected scenario, were the dividend policy (you can distribute all of the profits like a Sub S rather than a Sub T - which is a slight advantage from the old co-op act), and the "terminal value". We agreed that the terminal value would be 1 X Sales at the end of 5 years. There would be a put and call at that time. This provides for the investor exit. At the end of 5 years, the co-op could choose, or be forced, to buy out the investor, but neither would have to happen. The exit was important for the investor. Say this formula gives them 20% of the company for their investment. This share does not dilute as new employees or customers are added.
The third class is customers. As new customers join, they dilute the workers - up to 35%. Additional consumer shares then start to dilute the other customers. In other words, the customers can own up to 35% of the company, but no more. We used the "value added" co-op model popular with many new Agriculture co-ops, so that customers that joined early were rewarded more than customers that joined later.
Most of the worker allocation will be based on classical ESOP parameters. You can find good info at www.nceo.org, the National Center for Employee Ownership. We're going to use hours rather than dollars since several of us have put in many hours and not gotten many dollars. We don't have this in place yet, but will be glad to share it when we do.
Excess earnings (profits) will be distributed by the shares each class owns. So the investors would get 20% of the dividend in our example. The employee class would get 45% and within that class the allocation would be by hours worked. Customers would get 30% distributed as patronage refunds in proportion to how much they purchased from the co-op.
Notio sez: This is obviously a lot more complicated than showing up at your lawyer's office with $750 and answering a few questions to file paperwork for an LLC. However, it attempts to deal fairly with the sweat equity of the workers, the avoidance of over-charging the customers, and providing a mechanism for investment capital (which is typically hard to get in ESOP and Co-op models).
A separate issue is that of governance. This is a key point of the structure because everyone wants to be well-represented and everyone has a different perspective on what's important. One approach would be to have representatives from each member class in proportion to the shares for that class. A nine-person board might have 4 worker reps, 3 customer reps and 2 investor reps. It wouldn't necessarily have to work this way though. Certainly in the venture capital world, the investors call the shots and the workers can go to hell. That attitude is what we're trying to avoid with a more complex pre-nuptial corporate structure.
Permalink
National Center for Employee Ownership
July 23, 2003 | Governance
Great resource! Quote: "The National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) is a private, nonprofit membership and research organization that serves as the leading source of accurate, unbiased information on employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), broadly granted employee stock options and related programs, and ownership culture. We are the main publisher and research source in the field, hold dozens of workshops and conferences annually, and provide services to our thousands of members."
Permalink | Comments (0)
Why Corporate Structure Matters
July 21, 2003 | Governance
An extended reply to a comment posted earlier today, regarding the importance of legal and financial structures in setting up humane organizations:
When LLC's first became available, most advisors (lawyers and accountants) didn't recommend them because they were untested in the courts as regards liability and whatnot. At that time, the operating agreements were expensive to draft because there was no boilerplate language to draw from. Now, you can set up an LLC professionally for $500 - $750 (nothing fancy). Or buy the Nolo Press books for $50 and figure it out for yourself. But this is a recent development.
Even now, my personal advisors, some of the brightest independent professionals in this Ivy League town, are not sure what to make of my thoughts for forming a software co-op. "Why not just do an LLC?" they say.
Structure matters because at the end of the year you have to file tax returns. The IRS doesn't allow creative new approaches, you have to map your state requirements onto the Federal possibilities. So when you set up an LLC there are a few questions that determine how the business is treated for tax purposes. Somewhat counter-intuitively, you can have your LLC treated as Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, C Corporation or S Corporation for tax purposes. This is why the LLC is so popular - it's a very flexible instrument.
An interesting aspect of the tax treatment of co-ops is that the amount refunded as patronage refund is tax-deductable to the co-op. This avoids the normal double-taxation of dividends. In addition, many co-ops pay a portion of their refunds in member equity (stock) increasing the co-op's tax-deductable amount and keeping the member from having to pay income tax on that equity gain until such time as the stock is sold, thus resulting in capital gains taxes, typically at a lower tax rate.
Permalink
Equity vs. Profit-Sharing
July 20, 2003 | Governance
One of the most difficult business structure issues to be resolved in cooperative, mutual or producer groups creating "legacy" assets is that of transient employee/owners. Say for example you want to have a worker-owned co-op that produces a software product.
In the "normal" producer co-op structure, such as a farm products group, the amount of goods you contribute determines the amount of your profit-sharing. If you generated 200 bushels of corn, and your neighbor generated 2,000 bushels, you would each get a proportional profit-share.
Similarly in the consumer co-op model, a patronage refund is distributed in proportion to your purchases. If I bought $500 worth of groceries, my refund is 10% of someone who bought $5,000.
But in the case of a software product or any other enterprise where there is a persistant asset, what happens when one of the producers/workers/employees/owners leaves the firm? What happens to their equity investment? The problem is that the product will continue to generate revenue (or interest) for years, but if you were to continue to pay them at the full rate of their previous profit-share, there would be no incentive to stay with the firm. In other words, they are not producing anymore, but the asset is. What is an equitable arrangement?
I think this is particularly difficult in software, where early contributions are typically much more "make or break" than later contributions. An excellent first engineeer can set the stage for years of productive growth. This employee has much greater value (to the business success) than a later employee.
(My philospohy is that all people have equal human value - I am commmenting here on the economic contribution to a collective enterprise, which in my view varies by experience and education, at least. This isn't a socialist model but a collective determination model.)
A separate but equal problem is attracting investment capital, since typically worker-owners don't have a lot of cash sitting around. I've heard of a hybrid LLC/co-op that I'm researching. Details when I know more.
One solution I've thought about is something along the lines of how physical assets are depreciated over time on tax forms. in other words, the percentage of profit-share might decrease over three or five years by equal percentages. I'm no expert here, and perhaps this is a solved problem, but I haven't come across it yet.
Another approach from the standard stock-ownership models would be restricted stock. I am particularly interested to see what the details of Microsoft's restricted stock plan will be - they are eliminating stock options for employees and granting restricted stock instead. What exactly those restrictions are will be a helpful example for developing incented, humane, locally-controlled governance structures. Not that MSFT is any of those things, but we can learn from their expensive legal help.
I would like to collect contracts, operating agreements, state incorporation papers, etc. related to cooperative, mutual or employee-owned businesses. Sharing this knowledge will help speed the evolution of prosocial and progressive business structures. I am willing to maintain confidential and anonymous contributions. Please pass along anything you might have access to. For complete anonymity, photocopy docs and mail them to PO Box 828, Hanover, NH, 03755.
Permalink | Comments (3)
Mutual Banks & Insurance
July 20, 2003 | Governance
The Tutor points out in a comment post that a mutual insurance company is another opportunity for customer-owned enterprise. (Scroll down to the post at 5:56 PM.) Quote: "Another interesting co-op hybrid might be the old mutual insurance company concept. The company is owned by the policy holders and divisible surplus is paid back as policy dividends. In other words, the whole company is a kind of customer owned co-op, at least in theory. Governance, though, is through managers working under the usual kind of corporate board, without policy holder board seats."
We have a mutual savings bank locally, and I'm friendly with the President. Perhaps we can have a chat about how it works in comparison to Co-ops.
Permalink | Comments (2)
Chaordic Commons
July 20, 2003 | Governance
Another business structure worth investigating is the Chaordic Commons. This system was invented by Dee Hock, who founded VISA International. You may have heard of their credit card. It's described in his bio: "In 1968, he developed the concept of a global system for the electronic exchange of value and a unique, new form of organization for that purpose: a decentralized, non-stock, for-profit membership institution to be owned by financial institutions throughout the world. In 1970, the first portion of that organization, VISA U.S.A., was founded, followed by VISA International in 1974. It is now a $1.75 trillion enterprise jointly owned by more than 20,000 financial institutions in more than 220 countries and territories.
Lots of good links on their page.
Permalink | Comments (4)
Policy Governance
July 20, 2003 | Governance
It is worth noting that most non-profits, at least at the local level, suffer from disfunctional boards of directors. One reason is that boards are volunteers, and don't spend all that much time in the role, so they don't know what boards should do. They end up focusing on operational aspects of the business, rather than on the strategic direction and vision.
Get it straight: The board hires management to operate the business. Period. Management executes tacticly based on strategy the board has envisioned. If the board spends all its time critiqueing the operational tactics, there is no vision on which to base tactical decisions. It's a vicious cycle and causes frequent management turnover, hurting the long-term prospects for business success.
One approach to avoid this cycle, possibly the only method yet well-known, is John Carver's Policy Governance model. Quote: "Policy Governance® is a specific set of concepts and principles and their application to the servant-leadership of boards and the board-management partnership."
This model is widely know within the Co-op world, and somewhat widely used. It is, at first, a difficult model to work with, because as a board member you are not "allowed" to talk about operations. Your job is not to ask why the peaches always suck rocks, but to determine if the business should sell fresh produce. In other words, by what policies will we govern this business on behalf of our members/owners/shareholders. Once board members "jump up a level" to this perspective, simply stated as "why are we here? - what is our role in the world?" then things get interesting.
The advantages, as far as I can tell from my experience with it, are that management has clear direction, board members don't burn out (as much anyway), and the business has a vision and direction to its dealings with the world. It's much more energizing to have a board meeting talking about our "Ends" in the world than about the "means" to get there, especially since the board members won't be the ones executing the means. It's easy to have an opinion when you're not the one doing the work.
Serious non-profit boards should study the Carver model, hire some consulting help a couple times a year as you develop your policies, and stay out of tactical management. Hire good managers, trust them, work together to set a course and then stay out of the way. This alone could improve the prospects of most non-profit organizations dramatically.
Further reading: International Policy Governance Association.
Permalink
George Orwell: Notes on Nationalism
January 14, 2003 | Governance
May 1945: George Orwell: "Notes on Nationalism".
Permalink
Department of useful government
January 5, 2003 | Governance
Mitch Ratcliffe posted a pointer to a fantastically deep report on demographic trends produced by the US Census Department. Lots of good data and analysis in there.
