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

Kaye Trammell is one of
the nicest folks out there.  She studies celebrity, and
celebrities blogging, and so forth. She is also a public affairs
officer in the Navy Reserve, and gave an appreciative link to my piece
last night about the Open Source Naval Intelligence blog.

Speaking of celebrity, I wonder if those who are becoming celebrities
in the blogging world could give more thought to their own new found
power, responsibilities, and opportunities to help others.  My
sense is that there are a number of folks who could do with a bit of
personal ethical reflection (myself included).  We need to do some
thinking about our individual and community values, and what sort of
future we want to create for ourselves.

You can laugh about the ethics of Hollywood and hip-hop-wood and so forth, but “real”
celebrities are encouraged to think about their celebrity-hood, and the
best one’s make something positive of it.

Almost 20 years ago in 1984 Stevie Wonder spoke (yes, spoke) at Harvard Law School,
invited by the graduating class.  He talked about attention, and the special
energy, borne of attention, that comes to celebrities and how, fair or not, it brings real
power to a few individuals in our society.  For him, attention
came to him as “Little Stevie Wonder” at age 12. 

When fame strikes, Stevie said, each of us have just three
choices.  We can reject fame, in which case eventually the world
turns away and the power of celebrity-hood goes away.  We can
accept fame and use it’s special energy for our own selfish ends. 
Stevie Wonder noted that doing this usually drives the person insane. (Hmmm, so that’s what happens..)

Or we can accept fame but consciously turn it’s energy around and give
generously to others.  We can become redirectors of energy. 
In the blog world, I suppose this includes redirecting of “flow.” 
And it also means using our leadership opportunities to build the
community, not to build just ourselves and our allies.

Remarkably, Stevie Wonder’s talk is available in Quicktime video at the WGBH web site. It is also available in audio on RealAudio at the Berkman  Center site.  I recommend it highly!
 
For a current example of the third path, check out Missy Elliot’s refreshing path to celebrity in today’s NYT.

I think that Dave’s recent concerns about “working together” are
concerns that blogging community celebrities embrace their leadership and find Stevie Wonder’s
third path.  BTW, not easy for Hollywood stars, not easy for Dave, and not easy for any of the rest of us–stars or not.

Just in case you missed it, because I’ve been blogging like a maniac, I’ve an earlier post today on political participation, “Ten dollars and a whole lotta love,” and the Howard
Dean campaign.

Here is an interesting question: If a political candidate could get all
the financing he or she needed from 100 donors, should the candidate do
it?  If the candidate had the technology to get the financing
instead from several hundred thousand or even millions of people,
should the candidate do it?

I recall a friend who is a major liberal donor saying with nostalgia
that “back in the good old days you could go to just three or four
people and have the funding for a presidential run.”  Eugene
McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 is the classic example, funded by Stewart
Mott and a handful of others.

Now, hmmmm.  McCarthy didn’t do too well.  Neither did
McGovern.  What if the reason, in part, was not that they were too
liberal for the times, but that they relied upon too few donors? 
And as a result did not connect with enough people, and did not allow
enough people to become connected to them?

Going to a few donors is easy and sweet–perhaps too easy.  Even
today, there are a few kingmaking fundraising networks that Democratic
candidates can go to for help.  But perhaps this is a mistake for
the candidate.  Clark seems to have signed up for a club of
professionals.  He has a great web team, but it is not absolutely
necessary to his fundraising–it is sort of a sideshow.  And
Clark’s reportedly doing well on money, but not doing well in terms of
connecting with people.

Kerry is relying on a small network of big donors, and may end up using
his own and his wife’s assets.  And he feels pretty disconnected from the people.

Edwards had an early “lead” in fundraising from fellow trial lawyers,
and he has spent the most of any of the candidates on TV ads in
Iowa–and he is doing very poorly there.

In the 2000 primary, Republican Steve Forbes used a great deal of his own money, and didn’t get too far.

By contrast we have Howard Dean, who has been absolutely dependent on a
large network of small donors, particularly in the early months of his
campaign.  And he feels highly connnected to people.

By the way, and perhaps most important, it is the Republicans and
George Bush who have the largest networks of small donors. 
Hmmmmm.  And while people like me may not think that Bush &
Company are in touch with reality, no one can say they aren’t in touch
with their base of voters.  Karl Rove’s network is very connected.  Hmmmmm.

Maybe the network is the thing.  And maybe the small contribution is the most important.

Maybe politics is like a mosh pit.  You have to do a sequence of
ever-expanding trust falls, and find out if you will be held aloft by
the crowd…

Started on GlobeofBlogs, then to Meg, who describes life and times with Randy, and who works for the Le Mars Daily Sentinel.  The Daily Sentinel had an article on the Iowa Values Fund,
“a $503 million, seven-year economic development initiative approved by
state lawmakers earlier this year.” Interesting context on the life and
economic struggles of the state.  Several of the articles in the
Le Mars paper are about critical funding and support from transitional
businesses–and the potential effects of business closures on the local
economy.. (I’m still at the “texture” stage of my Voice of Iowa blogs
project–so I just enjoy these little excursions.)

The Iowa Values Board expects to consider seven or eight applications
for funding over the next few months, said Mike Blouin, Iowa Department
of Economic Development director.

About 40 companies already have submitted applications out of
about 215 that expressed interest in the funding. Many of the
applicants are biotechnology companies and manufacturers, Blouin said.

“In most cases, on the manufacturing side, we’re trying to
stabilize an existing company,” he said. “We’re trying to help
companies make the transition from 20th to 21st century manufacturing
and that’s expensive.”

Hundreds of small companies are trying to make that transition
and “many of them won’t,” Blouin said. “We are working with a growing
number that we believe have a good chance of making that change with
some help.”

           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
            More

…then somehow I dropped into a ring of young bloggers in
Omaha–really struggling, inspiring, difficult, personal…I’m not
going to link to them here…

and finally John’s blog

>
A PHOTOBLOG & WEB CHRONICLE
We
all feel time passing by, as we rush to accumulate possessions, consume
resources and make sense of it all. Yet, time is no more than an
illusion, and space is made of nothing, and we hide from reality in
convenient bubbles of truth.

with personal diary/irony, plus photos of his life in Iowa and his travels across the world, including a gallery that I enjoyed for the architectural photos..

Here is a fascinating Iowa
blog:  Open Source Naval Intelligence, by Michael D’Alessandra,
M.D., who is a pediatric radiologist at the University of Iowa. 
Just scan the entries once in a awhile, to reverse your sense of
figure/ground–or rather, water/ground–in world affairs.  This
entry thanks to GlobeofBlogs listing for Iowa.

From the FAQ pages,

NOSI (Naval Open Source Intelligence) is a digital library of world
naval operational news curated from open source intelligence. Links to
naval operational news stories are posted daily after scanning over 100
international news sources.

The patron saint of NOSI is Fred T. Jane, who legitimized and
popularized the concept of open source intelligence in 1898 with his
publication of the first edition of Janes’ Fighting Ships. Jane
discovered early on that enlisted men and lower ranking officers were
his best sources of information; that they, and not technology were the
true heart of any Navy; and he subsequently became a champion for
issues affecting their quality-of-life at sea and ashore. Jane felt
that a country’s citizens needed to appreciate that a strong Navy was
key to a country’s well-being and survival, and the way to develop such
an appreciation was through their continuing education on naval
matters. Janes’ beliefs are as true today as they were over 100 years
ago, and NOSI is therefore dedicated to arming citizens with naval
knowledge so they can make intelligent decisions as to what role a navy
should play in their society. Jane also believed that military
professionals needed to be as well educated as possible, and NOSI is
therefore also intended to serve as a source of continuing education on
naval and military affairs for military professionals.

Judy, greeter and receptionist extraordinaire at Howard Dean’s HQ in Burlington, Vermont

Ten dollars and a whole lotta love!

The trouble with our political process is that we have not made a national
priority of improving it.  Few citizens vote.  Fewer
volunteer in campaigns.  We are shocked to learn that our
voting technology is vulnerable to fraud, but few of us have worked to
improve election processes.  Traditional politicians have not
sought to change the process, because in general their own reelection
campaigns go very well.  The statistics tell the story: almost
every member of the US Senate and House of Representatives is
re-elected as long as he or she continues to run.  Incumbency plus
apathy equals reelection.  And no one speaks for the candidates
who have not yet run—for the campaigns unborn.

Yet this year there is one campaign that is focused on improving the
process of democracy.  Not surprisingly, it is a campaign led by
an outsider.  Howard Dean’s reform campaign starts with the money. 
Most Americans understand the role of money in politics.  Typical political
campaigns are funded by special interest organizations and by
ultra-wealthy individuals.  Part of the reason that most other people
don’t give money to campaigns is that they know they are not in either
of these groups, and they don’t see how their help matters.  

Howard Dean has built a campaign on small donations from many people,
rather than large donations from a few.  This has changed the
meaning of “political donor” for many people.  It has also
established the character of the campaign, because it allows Howard
Dean to be more outspoken and direct on issues of broad concern to
people, such as health care and foreign policy.  This
“people-powered” approach has done very well, and Howard Dean is now
the leading Democratic candidate.

To win the presidency, however, the Howard Dean campaign must broaden and
deepen participation.  Millions must be engaged.  Two million
people giving $100 each will give the Howard Dean campaign enough money to
fight George Bush’s $200 million barrage of attack ads.  
But twenty million people giving $10 each would make a more powerful
statement for change.  Twenty million people joining hands to
support a candidate for president would be something to behold! 
By the way, both AOL
and Yahoo have these sorts of numbers online.  In an Internet age
a million people could join in a day.

What counts is not how much you give, but that you take
the step, that you be active.  What counts is
the personal commitment you make by putting in your name and credit card number
and clicking “send”: “I want
change.  I want to join with my neighbors who are
swinging the bat.”

Some of my friends call this initiative “Ten dollars and change” to
emphasize that we can change our country if enough of us get
involved.  I prefer “ten dollars and a whole lotta love!” because
this initiative is not about the money. It’s about the love.

PS: Last summer Lucas Welch, who worked for me at Harvard, came up with
the concept on which “Ten dollars and a whole lotta love” is
based.  Lucas considered doing an online campaign to support his Solis
NGO which is bringing together students across the Middle East for
online dialogue and exchange.   Lucas is currently in Israel
and Palestine pioneering the Solis project. 

The concept of a ten dollar donation for the Dean campaign probably originated with Hal Roberts of the Berkman Center,
during a four-hour discussion he and I had while driving to Dean
headquarters in Vermont two months ago.  We subsequently have had
many discusssions with other Dean supporters about the concept.