Yesterday, I spent the day in Philadelphia at Supernova 2010, and enjoyed the people that came. My greatest challenge came from the topics that occurred later in the day, which covered areas on social media (having to do with will SM save media), policy and small business. The topics, while relevant in some fashion, were somewhat the same as I have seen everywhere else. Lots of great rules for engagement, conversations on well-worn case studies, and a couple of gems of details I enjoyed to learn about (e.g. I have not heard about the extent of @twelpforce until this panel).
But what got me spurred the most had more to do with the last panel:
Crossing the Abyss Allan Frank (City of Philadelphia), Chris Lehmann (Science Leadership Academy), Brad Garlinghouse (AOL)
Organizations that thrived in the prior era will not necessarily succeed in the Network Age. Yet the inertia of established practices, incentives, and culture is extremely powerful. If an organization needs to transform, how can it determine the proper path, and what does it take to achieve real, sustainable change?(emphasis mine)
While the conversation with Brad was enjoyable (hearing about AOL and Yahoo! and the Second Acts), I appreciated the stories, but wanted to hear (in this panel) some suggestions on how to achieve real, sustainable change (see above). When Chris and Allan joined the panel, there were great details on what was wrong and what was needed, but little in what works and what are the next great achievements to drive this change.
I personally got frustrated with the litany of problems that were enumerated and the demands that were to be made – as if there were infinite resources and it could be an instantaneous change that could occur in our schools, our governments and our corporations to bring about the successes we seek. But sorry guys, coming from a ABD PhD, gratification and change comes about slowly and often imperceptibly until the critical mass occurs and then all follow due to the standards of human nature. The question is – how to we determine that path to achieve that change? Continue reading →
We had eight years of Bush and Cheney who trampled on the Constitution, but now you get mad.
You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President although that is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution giving them that power…nor is there anything about corporations being “people.”
You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy…even when it was proved that the energy crisis in California was created by ENRON.
You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed and other acts of definable acts of treason were secretly done against the country.
You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed and we operated under a Soviet Union style of surveillance of citizens.
You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us and hanged it’s elected leader.
You didn’t get mad when we spent over $600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn’t get mad when over $10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people even though we hanged Nazis for doing the same thing.
You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden.
You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed which our returning wounded soldiers had to endure after fighting for their country.
You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown due to shoddy levees built by the government.
You didn’t get mad when we gave a $900 billion tax break to the rich and major corporations, many of whom paid no taxes on the billions in profit they made.
You didn’t get mad when, using reconciliation; a trillion dollars of our tax dollars were redirected to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage which cost over 20 percent more for basically the same services that Medicare provides.
You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark, and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark.
BUT you finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, illegal surveillance of American citizens, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans…oh hell no.
I was watching the Sunday morning political chatfests and it reminded me why I worry about the future of our republic.
When I got heavily involved in the political process, I was so upset at how the Bush Administration had destroyed American credibility abroad with the folly of the attack of Iraq, the snub of our responsibilities on the world stage with regard to our place as a world citizen and the general “holier than thou” attitude when dealing with issues that could seriously impact the entire world, not just within our borders (e.g. climate change).
Today, I watched Karl Rove on This Week do what he does best, which was obfuscate the issues at hand by claiming the Obama White House had done some things that I know the Bush White House had done over and over. I saw him use the Glen Beck process of using a whiteboard to prove his point when no one could actually read it. I could devote an entire post on his absolute arrogant process of FoxNews-ifying the show (see for yourself) with his hypocritical cries of how the Healthcare process was not bipartisan, while never once bringing up the point that his own party has been the inertia and friction that has brought government to a standstill in the frequent use of the filibuster and procedural tactics that causes America to think Washington is broken.
What are you talking about, Sanford?
Let me try to explain my frustration with a story that rankles my engineering sensibilities:
You go into a problem with the assumption that all actors are their to work on the problem of X, and
you are open to the conversations and arguments that are within X.
But if the opponents of X have a weak hand, or have a weak position, it is better to obfuscate and delay the process than to actually discuss the problem when they know they can not win the argument.
As quoted often in the legal profession, the lawyer’s primer is ““If you don’t have the law, you argue the facts; if you don’t have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, then pound on the table.” The idea of argue the argument you can win is the the issue of framing and turning the conversation. Consider:
When Obama entered the White House, the credit issue and healthcare was top of mind. He had his financial team working on the credit crisis (and I might comment on that later), he focused on what people during his campaign asked for – solve the healthcare issue.
As Obama got the work going, the Repugs did what they always do – delay, delay, delay. Use the rules of the filibuster and Roberts Rules of Order to delay actions through a single actor (yes, there is always someone to be the bad guy) to play to the meme “Government Doesn’t Work”.
Tack on the Tea Party stories powered by our “friends” at Fox News with stories of “death panels” and how the country doesn’t want this bill – and see how the Repugs now own the story of how this bill is too big, this is a bill no one wants, etc.
Sorry – but it just doesn’t cut it with me. Sadly, I know far too many people think the Repug narrative of “big government, bad government” and “no one wants this bill” registers far too well.
Reconciliation is a procedural method for passage when you have a majority, and when the minority is delaying (even when Dems are in the minority) – there must be some way to either get the minority to agree – or to get out of the way.
With the polarizing media efforts, the killing off of moderates – are we surprised that the coalitions of yesteryear are almost impossible to create?
While I recognize the past two weeks have been absorbed with other issues from Congress, I have one simple question: where is the focus on Main Street? As in, what happened to the focus on truly kick-starting the economy – with a JOBS bill?
I thought I remembered that the reason we did accepted the stimulus package was to free up the credit markets to ensure that banks would go back to lending. That the Fed Reserve Bank lending window was opened to these banks so they could get access to cheap cash: what happened to the spurring of the Main Street? Robert Reich had a great line in The Sham Recovery:
Business cheerleaders naturally want to emphasize the positive. They assume the economy runs on optimism and that if average consumers think the economy is getting better, they’ll empty their wallets more readily and – presto! – the economy will get better. The cheerleaders fail to understand that regardless of how people feel, they won’t spend if they don’t have the money.
The US economy grew at a 5.9 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2009. That sounds good until you realize GDP figures are badly distorted by structural changes in the economy. For example, part of the increase is due to rising health care costs. When WellPoint ratchets up premiums, that enlarges the GDP. But you’d have to be out of your mind to consider this evidence of a recovery.
Part of the perceived growth in GDP is due to rising government expenditures. But this is smoke and mirrors. The stimulus is reaching its peak and will be smaller in months to come. And a bigger federal debt eventually has to be repaid.
As the banks continue to grow, are we not making this another tittering problem that we are ignoring? Why aren’t the banks HELPING in building up jobs? Should we be asking JP Morgan or Morgan Stanley for jobs creation instead of DC?
What is a guy to say when his own President suggests that children take responsibility for their own lives and future? I mean, REALLY! – take responsibility? Where are we living now – in America? Pluh-leeze!
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
Its over three years since I had been a campaign manager for a Congressional Campaign, and I was cleaning up my blog and discovered a couple of half completed notes on being a campaign manager that I planned on publishing for others to benefit from my experiences. In the intervening years, I got extremely busy and never had the time to edit and update.
Today, I thought – why the heck not? The information is still relevant and the ideas may help some new campaign manager learn some lessons from this crib sheet instead of from the fire of a candidate (or campaign). As I go through my notes, I will write some of my thoughts out – and capture them in posts.
Lesson #1: It’s all about the money.
One of the lessons I learned in running a Congressional campaign is that a political campaign is like making sausages – you never want to know how it is done, but you can appreciate when it is done right.
In building a campaign from the ground up – or improving an existing program – you face a lot of operational issues:
getting low-cost, high-quality facilities,
getting the best staff for the least amount of money,
growing connections both within the district and the District,
creating compelling marketing materials that hit the high points, but keep the powder dry,
and so on.
And, aside from the operational ones – the interpersonal issues of political candidates and their families, the issues of staffers and volunteers – all of these are part and parcel of running the campaign.
But when it comes down to brass tacks, with all of these issues looming, what truly matters in the eyes of everyone is the money.
Money determines viability, strength and success in the future. Early money determines your perceived viability of the campaign. Effective money management determines the nature of your campaign management. Growth of money determines your future viability in various situations – including television, radio, print/direct mail, online and other outreach mechanisms.
Since money is the constraint on your campaign – consider the following suggestions when trying to create an effective political campaign. Continue reading →
I have been watching the coverage of the passing of “The Lion” and thought of the two times I met the man.
Back in 2003, where I had joined the Kerry Campaign, we were in the DC office working away – and with the Dean Campaign having waves of good press and momentum, our office felt somewhat like a dead man walking. When JK brought on Mary-Beth Cahill, the office had an almost “game-over” feel – and suddenly, we were brought into the main conference room for a “meeting”.
As we were milling about in the room, suddenly – this enormous personality walked in with two dogs. I had never met Senator Kennedy before – and from television and other appearances, I assumed him to be a tall man like JK. This man was jovial, enthusiastic and here to raise our spirits.
He gave one of his patented “Kennedy speeches” which was designed to lift our spirits. And, truthfully, it did.
It is a shame to see a man with his legacy of service pass – but it is an honor to his memory that we commit to his work and carry on – beyond the short time he was with us on the earth.
A friend of mine from Genius Rocket sent this to me this morning, and I thought it was quite funny in its informative sarcasm:
“This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.
After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.
On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
And then I log on to the internet — which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration — and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.”
What has me thinking is – where is the direct impacting investments?
Why did the Cash for Clunkers not actually be directed for better gas-mileage, lower polluting cars versus just any car?
Why has the TARP investment now not focused the energies on freeing credit for small business and rather resolving the issues of the accounting rules to ensure solvency?
Why does the Fed allow for big banks to borrow at incredibly low rates, but charge exorbitant rates on small and medium size business loans? An article in the Financial Times on August 2nd had me thinking about how the bigger banks are leveraging their position in the market where they are the gatekeepers to the American market for small and medium sized businesses and consumers.
The sad part is – with their need to generate profits – are they forgetting that the situation that is being created is still driving to an imbalance that will need to be rectified?
Will someone please stand up and point this out – without the usual partisan rhetoric?
Political Gastronomica is a discourse on technology and online activism - how the marketplace of governing and ideas is improving with the efficiencies of the Internet.
Author Sanford Dickert, former CTO of John Kerry for President Campaign, works with political campaigns, non-profits and private companies from the Fortune 500 to startups.
Dickert leverages online community engagement techniques and technical vision for brand and message management through effective application of social media and organizational processes.
We had eight years of Bush and Cheney who trampled on the Constitution, but now you get mad.
What is a guy to say when his own President suggests that children take responsibility for their own lives and future? I mean, REALLY! – take responsibility? Where are we living now – in America? Pluh-leeze!
