Jim Moore’s blog: Innovation, Strategy, Public Policy

Just got back from the Fortune/Aspen Institute Brainstorm conference.  I was reminded of the immense value of pilgrims and pilgrimages, quests, apprenticeships, and learning jouneys. Brainstorm is a temporary community of many different kinds of people (and it could be even more diverse, for sure, but that is another point) with different perspectives who agree to ruminate together on actions that might be taken to change the world.  What jumps out after a few days is how complex the world is, and how valuable it is to have complementary minds and souls in the room. People have been on adventures–and bring to the room tales of far lands and fine sights–powerful perspectives on the world–ranging from computer networking to bioinformatics to poetry.   We then strive to work collaboratively, openly and humbly with each other–suppressing egos and seeking to learn from each other.  The result is pretty cool–a credit to David Kirkpatrick and the other organizers.

Dean Kamen, inventor, plus Zika Abzuk, activist, plus Scott Mommaday, poet, plus Carol Browner, former head of the EPA, plus Nova Spivak, computer networks and cognition, and Steve Breyer, justice of the US Supreme Court, plus Anna Deavere Smith, playright and actress.

What I respect and quietly celebrate is that these people have collectively invested many years in intensely committed pilgrimages–journeys of their lifetimes, to learn about the world and its possibilities in special ways. The resulting gifts are of great value to us all, especially when brought together and complemented by others as we seek to gain traction on our most critical problems.

Best summer video for Second Superpower enthusiasts:  Rebel Music: The Bob Marley Story, from Palm Pictures/Island Records.

His life has many of the Second Superpower themes in rich microcosm: Dedication to the creation of a “constructive campaign” (Gandhi’s term) to inspire and encourage and give voice to an alternative culture of engagement, happiness, and freedom and personal choice.  This rather than trying to directly to reform the government or one or another of the political parties.  The use of media to engage the community. The centrality of personal transformation—of life, of life style, of consciousness.  The grass-roots campaign to help people join together and to deepen and enrich community connections.  All of this promoted mainly through very sophisticated music and the embracing of the electronic media of the time, combined with personal gatherings.

A small rant: I’m sick of all these “noosphere” books that imagine that just because we are more and more connected, things are going to go well for the world and for collective global decision making. The fact is that we do more or less have a global mind, but that mind is pretty messed up.  And has lots of toxins being pumped in by interested parties. There is a struggle for the memes that will lead in the global mind.  That, by the way, is what Bob Marley realized as he simultaneously became a global star, and–more interestingly–a quite sophisticated global witness and commentator.

My fist real experience of being a campaign donor came with the Gore
campaign.  I met Alan Solomont, a very very committed good
guy–now a major fundraiser for Kerry–on a plane.  We
talked.  A few weeks later he called me cold and asked for a very
large amount of money for Gore.  When I told him that I preferred
to give directly to causes like health care/AIDS and education and
development, rather than polititicians, he made the following argument:
“Jim, if you want to get money for those causes, look at the leverage a
campaign contribution gives.  Your relatively small dollars
influence the entire budget of the United States government, if your
candidate gets elected.  This is a much more efficient way to make
change.  After all, for example, most of the AIDS research dollars
come from our government.  And if we lose, the other guys get to
decide how the money is invested.”

This argument was persuasive with me.  The fiscal year 2004
Federal budget is $1,731 trillion dollars.  Yup, one point seven
trillion dollars–for a YEAR.

I’m amazed, based on these figures, that there isn’t more money in
campaign finance!  Bush is blowing everyonen’s mind by raising
$200 million for his 2004 “primary” and general election
campaign.  He expects to spend over $170 million for his unopposed
primary victory, prior to the Republican convention!  Everyone
thinks this is a lot of money.  Hell, I think it is a
bargain.  Chump change, given what is at stake.  Bush and the
Republicans will then turn around and control one point seven trillion dollars a year–for four years.  That is a lot
of Haliburton contracts.

Awhile back I suggested that if just 1 million people (1/2 of Moveon.org’s registered users) gave $1000 to the Dean campaign,
a billion dollars could be raised.  What is the cost of taking
back the presidency?  If you have never writen a campaign check
before–you are in luck!  This year you can put in on your credit
card–it’s like buying a book from Amazon.  Wouldn’t you buy a few
more books to change the face of America?

Update one year later:  The
web, however, has also advanced.  So you can now get a lot of
influence for free, if other folks think what you are doing is
important and reflects their values–and they link to you and
join.  This process is a positive contribution of technology and
technology people to the democratization of our democracy–however small a
role we still play.  For example (and here comes the
shameless, but also free, plug) check out my current non-profit,
all-volunteer passion, stopping the genocide in Sudan, see
http://passionofthepresent.org

The Boston Globe this morning, front page headline, “US facing guerrilla war, general says.” General John Abizaid described in a press conference yesterday at the Pentagon US troops facing organized opposition, including surface-to-air missiles and targeted assassinations.

At a previously reported cost to US taxpayers of $3.9 billion per month of occupation, and a death toll yesterday of 146 and rising, this situation is becoming more, not less difficult.

This is not surprising, tragically.  The best networks win.  We had the best warmaking network–much better than Iraq’s third-world, authoritarian military (and of course, without WMD).  Now, however, the network struggle switches to peacemaking and economy-making.  We don’t have much of a peacemaking or economy-making network in Iraq–and no good plans, it seems, for how to do so.  Neither does the opposition, but for them to keep us tied up, all they need to do is destabilize our construction of a peacekeeping network and economy–which is pretty easy to do. For example, yesterday’s killing of a pro-US Iraqi mayor seems likely to discourage other high profile support for the US among Iraqi politicians.

Making war is relatively easy–it just requires destroying or destabilizing an ecosystem.  Making peace and economic progress is very difficult, and requires establishing and nurturing an ecosystem.

Instant Posse

More musing on posses.  There are “posse dates” that are set up in advance.  There is “instant posse” formed within the same day, or even the same hour.  And I suppose there are “post hoc” posses where people meet in a bar or a meetup group and decide to form a posse for the future…

Hey, Dave Winer, perhaps we could implement this smart posse/instant posse idea on a blogging service platform.  Consider the following:  Each subscriber would get a blog, and the blog could be used for their evolving thoughts about whatever—which would be much more informative than even the richest responses to the Match.com questions.  We could start the blogging off by suggesting questions or creative writing exercises that folks might do to kick start their blogging.

We may need to modify the blogging software/services.  Actually, perhaps what we need is not an add-on to one blogging platform, but some systems of feeds and links that can be attached to anyone’s blog..

In any instance, people need to be able to easily deal readily with four aspects of the posse experience:

(1)Location: 

Zip code and neighborhood (for places like New York or Boston). Neighborhood should include neighborhood where I live, but also neighborhood where I am going to at a given time.  So I could signal, “I will be in Palo Alto on August 3 and would be available for a posse in the evening.”

(2) Time: 

Variables could include “I like weekend posses” or “I will be available tonight for posses between the hours of midnight and five AM.”  I could also allow for preferences as to how spontaneous or planned I like to be, such as “I am willing to consider instant posses with people I have already decided I’d like to be with—just send me a text message on my cell phone with our posse nickname, a posse time, and a meeting place, and any other information (e.g. dress to get wet).”  Or “I like to schedule my posse times—let me know a week or so in advance and I will be there.”

(3) Affinity: 

Theme descriptions and idea exchanges—which perhaps is accomplished by blogging plus some search capabilities.  Matching tools, including profile searches (“I’m looking for females and males who are up for street theater followed by dinner”), collaborative filtering (“people forming posses like yours also chose…”), and self selection (“I’m forming a posse around the following wild idea.  If you are interested, let me know.”).

(4) Posse management:

Permissions, time preferences, subject preferences.  Notification tools, for example, posses could be pre-formed—and then cell phone texting addresses exchanged, or simply cell phone numbers exchanged, so that at the appointed time a call could be made to assemble the posse.  Also, reminders could be semi-automatically generated a certain interval before the posse is to form.  Posses should probably be able to be merged, so that super-posses can be brought together.

Consider the advantages of Smart Posses!

An observation on the amazing ever expanding cyber Dean campaign:

The campaign could use a more targeted form of smart mobs, perhaps smart “sub-mobs” that can swarm around more selective opportunities.  These smaller mobs, mini-mobs, might be made up of people who are more intensely complementary.  And that, in turn, up the creativity and the fun..and help the grass grow roots.

To do this the campaign needs a technology service that sits somewhere between Match.com (for smart dates) and Meetup.com (for smart mobs).  I think “smart Posses” might do it.

So—imagine that I fill out a profile and say, “I’d be interested in getting together with people within ten miles of my zip codes, 02138 and 01773, for fun and political activity.”  “I’m interested in [pick one or more] zany street theater, civil disobedience, and tedious letter writing campaigns.  I’d be willing to go to a bar and see if we could sign up cool people for Dean—if you’d go do it with me.”

Then the software would allow any registered member to propose a “Posse” of between five and nine people (Cognitive scientist George Miller’s “magic number seven plus or minus two).  So I’d get an email “From smartposse.com” that would be from some person who had scanned the profiles and thought I’d be fun to have in her or his posse. 

The Posse invitation would include links to the profiles of a bunch of other prospective Posse members that he or she had selected.  I could go check these folks out, and decide if I felt the posse had promise.

A Posse date must have more than five members. This keeps it light, makes it more creatively chaotic, and distinguishes it from a date date.  We email back and forth, and eventually either opt in for this Posse date or opt out for now.  No pressure, just opportunity.

Oh yea, I have no problem with “cool dates for Dean” but that is a different idea…

Another wonderful post from Britt Blaser on The Sound of Democracy and the Dean Campaign’s record setting 6/30/03 fundraising–this one “how to” in a way I think has pretty profound implications for all of us. The point, I think, is that certain forms of online interaction build a personal sense of power and connection, and allow a smart mob to build, and to become a “fun mob” — sort of a digital rave — that calls to others, and that touches all who dance together..

Here’s an excerpt from Britt Blaser’s writeup:

Wisely, the campaign posted the comments of the donors as they described the incredible power of making a difference. This campaign seems trained in Clues. They’ve set up the playing field so that people can talk about governance–money’s just the punch line. As the day rolled on, you could see that the campaign people were not driving the contribution process, they were hosting it. Every half hour, they posted updates that functioned as a scoreboard–symbolic, not financial.

It was performance art. At 1 am, the Burlington crew was wrapping up but their fans, the donors, were urging them to play a few more, at least until the donations came in from California:

12:30 AM Ok, we’ve seen the comments asking us to stay up until 3 AM (”can you guys in HQ please, please keep the posts going until 3 a.m. ET? I’m staying up with you, if that makes you feel any better. :)” but we’ve still got a thank you email to send out — so much to thank for — it’s just me, Nicco, and Joe left here, and there are still bags of letters to open. I really wish we could, but believe me, we’re doing everything we can! After 1 AM we’re going to have to check out for the night on the updates. We’ll get you a full report as quickly as we can in the morning.

That’s the sound of democracy.

Oh, I just love this post from Britt Blaser, writing on Steal This Campaign!! Thanks to Doc Searls, writing on Networked Democracy at Work

Excerpts don’t do Blaserco justice, but here goes:

Steal This Campaign

OK, we can’t steal it, but we can buy it. Cheap.

All the campaigns are talking about money, which is what politicians care about. We can put an end to that foolishness with a simple strategy: Buy a campaign by showering it with so many $50 contributions that they won’t have to worry about corporate contributions. Apparently the Republicans are raising $200 million from their closest friends based on a single cynical premise:

You can buy people’s votes

The back story on that cynical assumption is that they need to be bought because they never manifest themselves other than through big time TV marketing.

But someone said recently that, if a million people give $1,000, the Republican’s cynical assumptions go out the window…

..Scale

Everyone seems to agree that 6/30/03 will be written about for years since it was the first spontaneous expression of political will by self-organizing voters talking each other into caring more and donating more through the Moveable Type Comments function. That inspiring day caused the campaign to believe more strongly in its core aspiration: to somehow get nominated and then to give the Republicans a decent challenge. If 6/30 is as important as it seems, the campaign is making a mistake: It should re-calibrate its goals.

If the campaign doesn’t see the potential in the Internet, then the smart mob phenomenon just might. And a smart mob functions at an entirely different level than conventional hierarchical structures. Its force is nuclear and 20th century politics is just gunpowder.

Do the Math

Internet-equipped people caused $802,000 to be donated to Dean on 6/30/03. They did it by chatting each other up as the new totals were posted every half hour, and as the goal, depicted as a baseball bat, was increased as goal after goal was surmounted through the afternoon.

A freely associating mob is forming around the Dean campaign. Its communication tools will soon transcend the Campaign comment archives, by organizing its own tools. The campaign can’t stop them nor should it want to, though there are surely consultants who would just as soon all this went away. Too late.

Metcalfe’s Law says that this mob’s value and power will grow with the square of its population, attracting more people and volksmoney as an accretion disk in space sucks in matter from the systems around it. I believe this phenomenon is a social force too powerful to be stopped, and that historians will be more interested in 6/30/03 than 9/11/01.

Well bloggers, here is one:  A new campaign is heating up to press for an independent investigation of the Bush administration’s possible falsification of data and intelligence about Iraq, in justification of the war.

Moveon.org is running a cyber campaign to press for investigations.  Here is part of the mailing.

Three weeks ago, MoveOn launched a petition asking Congress to create an independent commission to investigate whether the Bush Administration manipulated and distorted evidence to take the country to war in Iraq. Over 190,000 of us joined the effort. Now Congress is literally taking up our call: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has written a bill that would create just such a commission, and it’s already co-sponsored by a wide array of moderate Democrats — including many who voted for the war.

This commission can really happen — and the truth about the Bush Administration’s manipulation of evidence can really come out — but we’ll need your help. We’re launching a drive to get every member of Congress to personally pledge to support and vote for the independent commission. Please take a moment to ask Congressman Capuano to pledge today at:

http://moveon.org/wmdpledge
http://moveon.org/wmdpledge/?id=1502-3093951-o49SVXirAixDRh1tzoQLYQ>

If you sign right now, your comment may be among those read on the House floor by some of the Representatives pushing this resolution. Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), George Miller (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), and a number of others are looking forward to hearing what you have to say and reading some of the messages into the Congressional Record on the House floor.

Maybe what we want is a “politics of tenderness.”  Tenderness is healing, tenderness provides a sense of safety, tenderness allows the “other” to become open enough to touch and express their highest creativity and love.

This seems to me to be one of the most radical ideas in politics.  It’s so radical it freaks a lot of people out–”Too soft.” “Won’t work.” “What about security?”

Well, what about security?  In a very small world shared by 6.3 billion people, most of whom now can see what the others are doing, isn’t it possible that much of the toxic resentment and anger that swirls around is a response to a lack of tenderness?  Not just lack of personal tenderness, but lack of “institutional” tenderness.  How tender is it for us to intervene in Iraq, where there is lots of oil, but not become involved in Liberia or the Congo–where people are experiencing near genocides?