Shaula Evans's blog

Lehman Brothers employees lead, our turns are coming

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:03:07 -0700

The demise of Lehman Brothers reminds me of the telecom meltdown in 2001, when I was a recruiter in the Dallas Telecom Corridor.

On Monday, shocked Lehman Brothers staff were told to "move on":

The mantra of Lehman Brothers was to pay its staff in stock – some 30 per cent of the bank’s equity was held by employees and many bonuses were paid in shares. Now those holdings are all but worthless.

Some staff were also told not to expect a paycheck at the end of the month and that they might even be liable for expenses on their corporate credit cards.

No one ever sees this kind of financial decimation coming. Almost no one is prepared for it.

They expected the money to last forever, not unrealistically, in the same way we all generally expect our paychecks to be there next month, and the month after that.

They have made major financial commitments on the basis of their "stable" jobs.

They have kids in college, multiple cars, mortgages on homes, and balances on their credit cards.

Their money wasn't income. Like too many fellow Americans, it was throughput.

What happens on October 1 when the mortgage payments, credit card bills, accounts, and household expenses all come due, based on a 6-figure salary lifestyle, and there's nothing in the bank at all? Except those Lehman Brothers stocks they got for their Christmas bonus and socked away for a rainy day that aren't worth a dime.

How many people do you know who would be "just fine" if their paychecks didn't come through at the end of the month?

In 2001, I was dealing as a recruiter with telecomm middle managers who were shell shocked. They didn't know how to "look" for a job; they'd been at Nortel or Baby Bells for decades. They didn't know how to do anything else. They didn't know how to cope.

Like the former employees of Lehman Brothers, these were people without real world skills. What were they going to do, get a job at McDonalds? I did't know where they are supposed to go--and neither did they.

They had never tightened their belts or cut corners. They had never reduced, reused, and recycled. They've never clipped coupons or shopped from the clearance rack.

They never dreamed that one day they'd have to apply for unemployment benefits, let alone welfare, or that they might have to rely on food banks and soup kitchens to feed their children.

They had followed the rules all their lives, lived the American dream, and now they were totally screwed.

Quite often they were from households with two full-time working adults, where one spouse's income wouldn't support the family alone, but there were no local job prospects for the partner who had just lot a job. Catch 22. Can't afford to stay, can't afford to go.

Reading about Lehman bankruptcy gives me a terrible feeling of déjà vu.

When the same kind of sudden, massive job losses happened in the telecom sector in 2001, people were losing their homes and their cars, fast. Plano, Texas (the affluent Dallas suburb that housed a lot of the major telecomm earners) had the country's highest home foreclosure rate.

I now expect that honour to pass to whichever neighbourhoods house the workers of Wall Street.

Oops. There goes the property values.

This conflagration is going to hammer New York.

Put aside your schaudenfreude at the thought of all those paper-rich brokers being brought low, and think about what the Lehman bankruptcy means for those people and their families.

Here's some trickle down economics for you: the panic and terror and violence from the Lehman bankruptcy is going to trickle down into increased rates of alcoholism/drug abuse, domestic violence, and child abuse.

The Republican Party: putting the "trick" into "trickle down" since the election of Ronald Reagan.

My husband works in the IT department of a financial services company. We're not high fliers, we live within our means. But we could still be next. We read the financial news with terror.

If you work in a service industry in New York that relies on a six-figure income clientele: housekeepers, restaurant workers, dry cleaners, child carers--you could be next, too.

The point is, we all could be next.

Enough about world peace. Tell us more about your tongue piercing.

Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:00:54 -0800

It is always a pleasure to watch and study the professional, and dare I say statesmanly, way that both Congressman Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth conduct themselves in the rare moments they are granted mainstream media access.

I'm afraid I can't say the same about the Infotainment Jockeys of America's corporate media.

This "interview," to use the term loosely, between CBS's Hannah Storm of The Early Show and the Kuciniches, is a prime example of the patronizing, dismissive, arrogant, and absolutely-on-message antics of American corporate media.

Why report the news, or even listen to the responses of your invited guests, when you can force feed your audience a prefab media narrative instead?

Quick poll: before this interview, how many of you knew that Elizabeth Kucinich was 30 years her husband's junior? How many knew her tongue was pierced? How many of you already knew about her advanced education and accomplished record in international development?

Q.E.D.

Internet activism as modern non-violence

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:00:00 -0700

Last week's discussions on the Agonist about current events in Burma veered, not suprisingly, into discussions of non-violence.

So I was struck by how well the Lawrence Lessig interview on government corruption that I posted earlier illustrates one of Ghandi's key concept of non-violence: satyagraha.

In his Statement to Disorders Inquiry Committee January 5, 1920 (The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi vol. 19, p. 206), Ghandi describes satyagraha this way:

Its root meaning is holding on to truth, hence truth-force. I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and sympathy. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself.

The three characteristics of Satyagraha are:

Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong;
it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever;
and it ever insists upon truth.

So what on earth does this have to do with Lawrence Lessig and non-violence in modern day America?

Lessig has patience and sympathy with his opponents, America's corrupt politicians. In the interview he states:

Now I think it's possible [to shift to other , because I actually don't think that congresspeople in the US are criminals, I don't think they're bad people. I think that they're very good people: they want to do the right thing.

And Lessig's strategy to make change happen is radical truth telling--or, as it has become known in the parlance of web 2.0, "transparency":

...as it becomes transparent, it's easier to shame the system into changing the way in which [politicians] relate to money.

Shaming power-holders, with compassion, into making things right, by publicly telling the truth, is clearly what Lessig is doing. It is also reminiciscent of what Ghandi did, because the tactic of satyagraha is at play in both cases.

Non-violence isn't always "long ago" or "far away" or low-tech. It can be right here and right now, and even on the Internet.

Futher Reading

Lawrence Lessig TV Interview

Wikipedia entry on Mahatma Ghandi

Works by Ghandi at Project Gutenburg

Wikipedia entry on satyagraha

This post is a little late, but October 2 was Ghandi's birthday. It is observed as a national state holiday, Ghandi Jayanti, in India. The date was also established this year by the UN as the International Day of Non-Violence.

Lawrence Lessig connects the dots on corruption (Video)

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:46:26 -0700

Shorter Lessig: we the people have to fix government before government can fix our problems.

I love what Lawrence Lessig has to say, because he is addressing a root problem:

politicians can't do the job of governing well while they are raising money for re-election;
the solution is to fix the system;
creating transparency about the role of money in government is how to fix the political system;
with the use of Internet tools, citizens can mobilize as volunteers in a grassroots movement to fix their own government;
when the people have mobilized to remove financial conflicts of interest, then the government will actually be able to act effectively on pressing issues like global warming.

What can I do?

If you want to get involved (in light of this weekend's discussion on how we can all make a difference), you can participate in Lessig's (anti-)corruption wiki.

Further Reading

Lawrence Lessig's blog (and RSS feed)

Wikipedia on Lawrence Lessig

Required Reading: the next 10 years -- Lessig's blog post recapping his announcement at his keynote address to the iCommons iSummit 07, that he would be changing his focus from IP to political corruption

So what are we doing about it?

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:21:39 -0700

Content here at the Agonist has been pretty bleak lately.

There are obvious reasons--the state of the USA, as well as international news coming out of countries like Burma; along with less obvious ones--some of our community members are dealing with traumatic events, we're burning Ian out with his valiant writing efforts, and as a group I think we can fairly lay claim to a certain level of burnout, too.

But burnout and despair don't get our problems solved, and alienating people from hope and reality-based optimism doesn't move a progressive agenda forward.

Now, I have to give a personal thanks to the community around the Agonist. I know that you are an incredibly intelligent, informed, and actively engaged group of people who, as individuals, are doing what you can to make a difference. (How do I know? Your comments here, my conversations with you in less public channels, and what Sean-Paul has shared with me about you.) You're an impressive group, and you've reaffirmed my faith in "regular people" on many occasions.

We're all facing dark days, and I know that our community members have rolled up their sleeves to work on solutions. That can mean cutting a check or volunteering your time for a good cause; it can mean working in a job where you can make a difference; or it can mean making conscious, progressive choices in child-rearing and elder-care and how you manage your personal consumption of resources. It can mean a host of innovative, passion-driven actions ranging from the public and high-profile to the intimate and personal.

I have a favour to ask you: could you share your personal stories of what you're doing?

How did you get so on fire about a problem or issue that you decided to do something about it? What did it take to get involved and what are you doing now? What advice would you give for someone who cares about the same things?

One of the failings I find with political websites is that the messages are disproportionately about what "those people" should do: whether "those people" are elected officials, civil servants, executives at large corporations, citizen of other countries...somehow the responsibility, and indeed the ability, for effecting change seems to fall on someone else, and inevitably on someone who is remote and inaccessible.

How about what we can do? Or better yet, what we are doing?

So I'm asking, as a personal favour, for you to please let us know some of what you're doing, or what you're aware of that's going on in your communities. Leave a comment here, or if it gets long, go write a stand-alone post.

I think we could all use a dose of hope, and I look forward to hearing what everyone is up to.

How to break the neocon 9/11 fear porn frame

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:03:46 -0700

Today, as I post for the ~~third~~ fourth time a list of "three things to do today" I originally wrote on September 11, 2004, I have finally understood what the article is about: exceeding yourself.

So much advice about "appropriate" observances for today boil down to: be small. Close ranks. Disconnect from larger things. never forget -- to fear and hate. Be the least that you can be.

Instead, I'd like to suggest that we mark the day by exceeding ourselves, surpassing the boundaries of our fear and small thinking and tribalism.

My original list follows below the break, without edits. The shorter version might read:

Think for yourself.
Reach out and connect with your community.
Reach beyond your own community to those who may have cause to be more fearful than you are.
Challenge your assumptions.

I appreciate any suggestions or additions to (either version of) the list.

Three Things to Do Today

1. Turn off your tv. And your radio.
Treat yourself to a régime de jingoisme for one day. Today is a really good day for it.

2. Go to your public library...
...and find out if your local branch is part of the September Project, an international campaign to bring people into public libraries on September 11 to share and discuss about democracy, citizenship, and patriotism through public talks, roundtables, and performances--and register to vote. (And if your library isn't participating this year, you have a whole year to persuade them in time for 2005.)

Progressives often yearn for a way to raise the level of public discourse. Now's our chance.

3. Vote with your wallet...
...for respect, communication, and support. Go and patronize a locally-owned mom and pop business--run by people of middle eastern descent. There is still massive racial profiling against "arab looking" people (whatever that means), there is violence and discrimination against Muslims, and today is an extra scary day for too many people. Show your neighbors that not everyone is a fascist. I'm off for lunch to a Lebanese restaurant I just found on the edge of my neighborhood. It's just a small, compassionate way to say the whole country isn't built on hate.

And the bonus round, for the truly brave among us:

4. Take a book out of the library...
...on learning Arabic, or Middle Eastern history, or Islam. Does the thought send a chill down your spine? Because let's be honest: we know that all those books are likely flagged on the FBI's watchlists through the Patriot Act. In discussions on civil liberties and public surveillance, the common defence of the Patriot Act is "but I have nothing to hide...." If you believe that, then go to your library or book store and bring home a book that will put John Ashcroft's knickers in a knot, knowing that your name (and address, and if you buy the book, your credit card number) is winding up on an FBI list or in a file. And if the idea makes you uncomfortable, you may want to rethink your position on civil liberties...and at the same time, go back to that mom and pop business and spend a little extra money.

Black Friday: not so black?

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:39:18 -0800

Just got home from a quick swing by Stony Point Fashion Park mall here in Richmond Virginia (driven by necessity, not a bargain shopping spree!) and despite all the media hype about crazy sale shoppers on Black Friday...parking was easy to find, there were no waits in the stores, and the place was comfortably empty.

Were shoppers scared away by the hype, and will they trickle in over the next few days or week?

Are more people shopping online instead of in brick-and-mortar retail outlets?

Do locals find the warm Virginia November weather (we were up in the high 60's today) means no one is thinking thoughts of Christmas just yet?

Or are debt-loaded American consumers tightening their belts?

Maybe my experience isn't representative. Who braved the malls today, and what did you find?

Tank-up Tuesday

Tue, 07 Nov 2006 07:58:28 -0800

After the gradual descent in gas prices in recent (i.e., pre-election) weeks, what are the chances are that prices will escalate on Wednesday?

We save money every election year by making sure our gas tank is full before the polls close.

Let's have a show of hands: who else is tanking up today?

How to make robocalls go away

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:32:30 -0800

In response to my article on why robocalls are a necessary evil, several readers made the comment that, campaign realities be damned, they hate robocalls and they’ll withhold their votes to make a point about it.* Even Seth Godin weighed in against robocalls this week

[*I hope to find time to write about the consequences of, and alternatives to, making a protest non-vote (short version: you’re voting for BushCo when you do).]

You're right. Robocalls are damn annoying. But that's not the point:

Complaining about robocalls isn’t going to change how campaigns work. Neither is telling campaigns “just be better” or “just work harder.” (If you’ve never been in a campaign office on GOTV weekend, you imagination can not fathom the crazy work campaign staffers are putting in right now.)

Democracy is a particpatory sport. If you’re prepared to put your money where your mouth is, you CAN make robocalls go away.

More on what you can do to stop annoying robocalls below the fold

To recap why robocalls are here to stay, there are two key reasons:
1. Resource limitations (not enough people, not enough time) affect the choice of tools to contact voters; and
2. Conflict of interest: political consultants currently make more money on spam techniques than on permission-based political marketing, so they recommend tactics to campaigns that are less effective for the campaigns, but more profitable for the consultants.

Diehard field hacks like me rail against this all the time -- but we also have the smallest budgets, the lowest compensation, and we're in the basement of the political totem pole.

If voters don't like robocalls, the best way to make them stop at an individual level is to get involved and volunteer for local campaigns (as early as August, and right up to election day), and help run a field program that makes robocalls unnecessary. If your campaigns have already identified enough supporters through the efforts of free volunteers on phone banks and door-to-door canvasses, trust me: they aren’t going to spend unnecessary money on paid phones.

On other words, if campaigns have enough volunteers, they don't need robocalls. So if you're not volunteering...you really don't have grounds to complain. Instead, roll up your sleeves and do something about it.

However, at a higher level, the only way I can see to solve the political spam problem is:

open the doors and let everyday people into political campaigns (despite the much vaunted talk of "big tents," too many political organizations operate as closed-door, in-group shops);
shift campaign culture away from air wars (big dollar advertising buys) to ground wars (field operations);
educate candidates about their campaign advisors' conflict of interest, and groom and support consultants who help campaigns win rather than profiting off them.

And that, mes amis, is a very big can of worms indeed, and a cause dear to my own heart.

If you have any thought on how we can affect a cultural shift within Democratic campaigns, I am eager to hear your suggestions. Because what we're really talking about isn't robocalls: it is the difference between losing and winning.

Also in the robocall series
Doing Robocalls the Right Way
Why Robocalls Are Here To Stay

Doing Robocalls the Right Way

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:29:23 -0800

Let's recap: robocalls are those annoying, pre-recorded campaign phone calls in campaigns. I've previously discussed why robocalls can be a necessary evil.

The trick is to use robocalls sparingly and well.

1. Use a reliable phone vendor.
2. Use a well-targetted list.
3. Time your calls strategically. Make sure you are not calling too early, too late, or during the big football game.
4. Make sure your staff and volunteers are not entering cell numbers into your voter file, so you don't accidentally send a robocall to a cell phone number.
5. Make the highest-quality call you can. Your own volunteers phone banks are more effective than paid calls (if they are run well, volunteers are well-trained and supervised, and you give them good scripts). Live calls are more effective than robocalls. Interactive calls are more effective than passive calls.
6. Celebrity endorsements are NOT effective in any other field of advertising (if you don't believe me ask David Ogilvy), yet the campaign world is obsessed with Big Name Robocalls. If you're going to get a Big Wheel to record a call for you, make dead certain that the association is going to help you more than hurt you. And make sure that the hassle of coordinating with the Big Wheel's schedule and staff is worthwhile to create a call that in most cases would be more effective coming from the candidate or a candidate's family member.
7. Coordinate with other campaigns in the area. If every race on the ticket is sending calls to the same voters, people will start tearing their phones out of the wall. (Yes, I have horror stories.)
8. Use GREAT call scripts. If you can't write them, get your phone firm to do it. If your phone people can't write them...get outside help and also reconsider your choice of phone firm.

For more on robocalls, see also Why Robocalls Are Here To Stay.

The Etiology of Demspeak

Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:09:11 -0800

Want to know why Democrats talk like that? Because so many of them are lawyers.

Stephanie West Allen examines James Boyd White's book The Legal Imagination on the relationship between the lawyer's language and the lawyer's mind:

[West Allen] As a part of looking at that relationship, he discusses what is said about an event and what is not.

[White] The description of an event can go on forever and still be incomplete. ... The new lawyer sees this as soon as he finds he must tell a real story and discovers that it can never be done, that there is always more to say ... .

More on the cause and cure of Demspeak below the fold

[West Allen] White says that law school teaches a person what to cut out of a story:

[White] the line that separates the expressed from the unexpressed, what can be said from what cannot.

[West Allen] Discussing the lawyer's distinct use and experience of language, White asks if the "peculiarities we observe" are due to the

existence of a discrete professional language with its own vocabulary and syntax

or to

habits of mind and ways of working that find expression in whatever verbal language the lawyer uses, even when he is talking, say, to his client or to a jury in ordinary English.

West Allen concludes: "Given what we know about the brain today, the choices a lawyer makes about what is said and left unsaid, the language and syntax a lawyer uses, and the lawyer's "habits of mind" all change the lawyer's brain. Thinking like a lawyer physically changes your brain."

Putting all facetiousness aside with great and deliberate effort, Democrats talk like lawyers -- to use the terminology of Dr. John Kounios, they have "pruned" off the mental processes that normal people use in conversation, story-telling and persuasion -- and they are left with dry, long-winded, utterly boring and not-at-all compelling Demspeak. It might work in the courtroom, but it doesn't work on the campaign trail.

Take away lessons:

1. Fresh Blood
We have too many lawyers in the party, and an odd recruitment proclivity for bringing in more and more as candidates. Let's balance out our recruitment (hell, let's even just start a conversation about a strategic and deliberate recruitment system) and bring in people with the skills, like communication and persuasion, that the party tragi - comically lacks.

2. Remedial Training
There is hope that even Dems can be retaught to speak like humans:

According to Dr. John Kounios, our brains aren't hard-wired like computers are. He points to evidence that our neural connections change after a 20-minute conversation.

[via the idealawg interview of Carol Metzker]

And how do they learn to pass themselves off as human? The last strategy proposed was hanging out at Applebees.

I'll make an even more radical suggestion: spend time with and listen to your constituents.

Why robocalls are here to stay

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:49:11 -0800

Robocalls (pre-recorded, automated phone calls) are spam, plain and simple. I hate them as much as I hate direct mail (=snail mail spam) or yard signs (=public space spam).

But here's the first problem: effective direct voter contact is a trade-off between effectiveness and coverage, or your ability to persuade people vs your ability to reach people. Put in other words, the critical resources in any campaign are time, people, and money. Sometimes that equation makes robocalls your best option.

More on why campaigns insist on sending you those annoying phone calls below the fold

The examples I'm giving here are simple, and I've omitted reams of information on other related field techniques, because this is a post and not a field textbook. (I'm also hoping a few of you make it all the way to the end of the post before you die of boredom.) I'm always happy to discuss "field stuff." In this case, the choice to keep this post focussed on robocalls vs their opposite -- time-consuming but effective canvass programs -- is a deliberate choice in the name of brevity, clarity, and compassion for the reader.

On a campaign, if you have enough volunteers, paid field staff, and/or a willing candidate and candidate surrogates, you can run a powerful canvass program knocking on doors and talking to voters one-on-one. The logistics are a bit of a juggle, and you need good field staff and a good voter file manager to target your program, as well as great volunteer recruiters and managers to make sure you have enough boots on the ground. One-on-one voter contact takes a small amount of money but it takes a huge amount of *time.* Plus, because people are not always home, even a grade-A canvass program will not reach all voters.

In contrast, robocalls are available just by cutting a check. And, they don't take much time. They are FAR less effective, but they are *easier* for campaigns to do. Robocalls are limited by: the (accurate) phone matches on your voter file (seems to be around 60% in my experience), the number of people home when you call, and the number of people with answering machines or voice mail. But, in a matter of hours, you can reach the same number of voters with robocalls that it would take months and hundreds of people to reach with a canvass program.

Grassroots campaigns are hard work. All other factors being equal, a ground war (grassroots strategies such as canvassing) will beat an air war (paid media and direct mail). But, the trend in campaigns is to do the easy and comfortable thing--write the checks, and spam out the robocalls, direct mail, and tv and radio ads.

Speaking of which, here's the second problem: the BIG campaign consultants don't make money off of grassroots campaigns. So who pushes for spam techniques--why, the DC parasite class, naturally. Their financial gain is more important than the Democratic win.

[At this point I need to make a disclaimer. The notable exception to my statement above, in my personal experience, has been Marty Stone at Stone's Phones. I've actually worked on campaigns where Marty has said, "There's a less expensive way to do that," "There's a more effective way to do that," and "You don't need that round of calls. Cut it from your budget." I have an abiding respect for him because he puts his clients first and he does tremendous work.]

Let me present this to you as a case study: you are running a campaign. You've had a great field team, huge numbers of enthusiastic volunteers, but it is one week out and you've only managed to hit 6,000 households and ID 4,500 supporters (i.e., identify their voting preference) out of an expected turnout of 20,000 people. You can't safely run GOTV (get out the vote) with those numbers -- you don't have enough IDed supporters to drag to the polls to guarantee a win. Your volunteers also aren't going to be able to hit another 14,000 households or 5,900 supporters in the next week. (4,500 + 5,900 = 10,400 supporters, or 52% of the expected turnout, a standard GOTV win margin target.)

Your only reliable option is to do a round of phone ID's to hit a targetted list selected from the remaining 14,000 households to try to pick up another 5,900 voters. And, unless you have a bionic volunteer phonebank available, in most cases, the only realistic way to process those phone ID's is through a paid phone vendor.

Likewise, come Election Day, your time is running out, your quantity of volunteers depends on your candidate and how you've run your campaign, and you are throwing money at any problem that pops up. You need to remind all of your ID'd supporters to vote on election day. Depending on the specifics of your district and election, you may need to makes sure some of them get the reminders before election day itself (e.g., commuter districts where people may leave the house before polls open and return after polls close--you need to get a message to those voters in time to persuade them to vote). You have a variety of field techniques at your disposal for your GOTV program, but the technique that requires the least time and people are GOTV phone calls. If you can do all of your calls out of an effective, in-house volunteer live phone back, you'll spend less money and get better results. If you don't have the phone lines or the people to make a volunteer GOTV phone bank happen...you are back to robocalls.

That said, let's be honest: robocalls are as annoying as hell.

My strong suggestion to Democrats is to use robocalls sparingly and well.

I'll pursue those thoughts in a separate post.

Senator-Elect Jim Webb (D-VA) Recount Thread

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:44:00 -0800

The Republicans stole Florida in 2000 by packing courthouses, city halls, and the Secretary of State's office (and all surrounding areas) with tens of thousands of volunteers. We cannot let them steal Virginia using the same tactics. Senator-Elect Jim Webb beat George Allen, and that will not change, as long as we roll up our sleeves and make a difference.

UPDATE: Allen concedes

What can you do?

1. Keep the money coming in!
Send your recount contribution right now to Senator-Elect Jim Webb

2. Volunteers needed for Webb VA Recount
[Update 2006/11/08 11:41 am]

Senator-Elect Jim Webb's office needs volunteers for this important post-Election period! Please call their headquarters, tell them you want to help, and give them your information: 703-778-4080

3.Legal Help Needed for Webb VA Recount
[Update 2006/11/08 10:21 am]

Attorneys needed throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, especially Northern Virginia, in connection to the planned recount in Senator-Elect Jim Webb's defeat of George Allen.

ANY Attorney, law student, paralegal, etc., regardless of bar status, should send an e-mail that includes your name, phone number and e-mail address to: ritacaguilar[at]yahoo[dot]com

Want to know more? Senator-Elect Jim Webb Victory Speech Video and Chapter and Verse on Virginia Recount Laws below the fold

Senator-Elect Jim Webb Victory Speech

As I write this (late Tuesday night), there are only 20 precincts outstanding (plus absentee ballots), and the margin is currently .08%.

1. There's a strong likelihood Virginia's Webb v Allen senate race will qualify for a recount.
2. VA has no automatic recounts.

Only losing candidate can ask for a recount, and only if margin is 1% or less of votes cast for those two candidates.
If margin is .5% or less, OR, and/or if candidate who requests recount wins, the counties and cities involved in the recount pay the costs.
Otherwise, the candidate who requested the recount has to pay the costs

Recounts are expensive -- and the less obvious costs include maintaining a campaign's legal/admin/communication/volunteer-coordination teams for weeks after election day.

What can you do?

Go make a donation to the Webb campaign to help them keep fighting.
We'll keep our ears to the ground (and I'll put out some calls in the morning) about recount-related volunteer opportunities here in Virginia, and we'll keep you posted.

Virginia State Board of Elections

VA SBE's primer on how recounts work in Virginia (word doc)

Code of Virginia, Chapter 8 - Recounts and Contested Elections

Virginia Recount Standards (Revised Effective Nov 28, 2005) (pdf)

Maverick Prescription for Political Success

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:04:47 -0700

Bill Taylor, co-founder of Fast Company, and Fast Company senior editor Polly LaBarre just published a ChangeThis article that describes the changing state of business leadership and asserts that the only companies and leaders that matter are those with the guts to be distinctive and disruptive.

Their advice applies just as equally to politics -- and presents a strong prescription for the Democratic Party, as well as for individual Democratic candidates.

Their main message is: you can't do big things (in any field) if you're content with doing things a little better than your rivals (or in the case of Democrats, a little worse).

More on Taylor and LaBarre's 10 Question Maverick Challenge after the jump.

The 10 questions that Taylor and Labaree present to put that message to work form an excellent springboard for developing political strategy (and coincidentally overlap with some of the most chronic policy and political weaknesses of Democrats):

1. Is there a distinctive and disruptive sense of purpose that sets you apart from the competition?

2. Can you be provocative without provoking a backlash?

3. If your (organization) went out of business tomorrow, who would miss you and why?

4. Are you the kind of person that other smart people want to work with?

5. Can you make innovation fun?

6. Do you treat different (stakeholders) differently?

7. Why should great people join your organization?

8. Do you know a great person when you see one?

9. Does your organization work as distinctively as it competes?

10. Are you learning as fast as the world is chaning?

I should point out, sadly, that very few Democratic political candidates, campaigns or organizations that I've worked with could provide a satisfactory answer to even one of those questions. (In contrast, one of the reasons that former Democratic Virginia Governor Mark Warner is so highly regarded in informed political circles, is that his marks by these measures are off the charts.)

Who can use this list?

1. Candidates -- as a self-assement and strategy tool for yourself and your team.

2. Political organizations, from local to national -- both as a self-assement and strategy tool for yourself, the candidates and organizations under your umbrella, as well as a tool for assessing potential recruits for yoru ticket.

3. Primary and General election voters -- one set of criteria (among the many needed) to evaluate candidates.

The article is worth reading in its entirety. Click here for Taylor and LaBarre's full article, "A Manifesto for Mavericks".

Social Media, Social Activism

Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:20:50 -0700

Creating Passionate Users reports on a new social media campaign from Greenpeace::

Greenpeace takes a novel, inspiring approach to a campaign to make Apple 'green'. Rather than attacking the company, it encourages Apple fans to get involved creatively as a way to "help" Apple design a "new, cool product." The first words on the main page of the campaign are, We love Apple.

The campaign proves GREAT takeaway lessons about Social Media and online activism:

The campaign gives Apple inbound links / positive search results:
The campaign taps into the passion of Apple's fan base rather than antagonizing Apple supporters -- leveraging that base to influence Apple;
The page is designed enough like part of the Apple website to elicit a positive submlinial reaction from Apple fans; the visual branding elements are about Apple, not Greenpeace;
The campaign is built on CGC - Consumer Generated Content;
CGC campaign have great viral potential;
The campaign is SOCIAL: it builds allies rather than burning bridges; it turns a foe into a friend; and it gives Apple and Greenpeace a way to win TOGETHER and save face.

Just imagine, running an activist campaign that draws in rather than offends and alienates your target community...

Working to make positive change? Here's a great model on how to do it right.