Flamefest, part 2

Well. Again, think of it all as Free Entertainment, and Better than Watching Fear Factor, and this all becomes more fun. I wasn't going to blog this at all, but it seems that everyone else has weighed in, so what the hell.

So. Background. Basically, it's Dallas County Democratic Party Chair Susan Hayes and her supporters vs. everyone else in a catfight that makes one think of Siegfried and Roy's white tigers. Big claws, big teeth, and lotsa raw meat.



Let me say to start off that I did not have a great experience as an activist with the DCDP office over the 04 election cycle, but I was willing to hear what Susan had to say. I am one of the pending precinct chairs, but I worked my precinct in 04 (after practically having to surgically extract my walk list out of the party office and after drawing up my own precinct slate.) And let me also add that this is NOT a "new guard vs. old guard" sort of argument. Those in the anti-Susan camp include many longtime party activists, who handed out a four page (!) written grievance list to the meeting attendees as they walked in the door.

The meeting started off with a disagreement over whose agenda would be followed; in fact, dissenting agendas were passed out as people came in the door. Susan said we needed to determine whether or not a quorum had been obtained, and the REAL meeting would not officially begin until that had been determined. The group needed a 40% quorum to conduct business, and a 50% quorum to appoint new precinct chairs. So the "official meeting" didn't start until quorum was determined, at least 30 minutes into the meeting. Meanwhile, Susan gave a review of what happened in 2004. Interesting, but the crowd was apparently not appeased. It quickly became apparent that most of the people who were voting in the room were not in Susan's court, and were, to make a long story short, not happy with her. The meeting started off pretty tensely, but calmed down some as Susan reviewed the year.

Quorum was determined – but not enough to appoint precinct chairs, just enough to do business. This annoyed a lot of people because apparently this had not been a problem before, but strictly according to the rules, you should have the 50% quorum, so we new precinct chairs were not appointed.

Then Susan wanted to appoint an alternate person to chair the meeting because she wanted to speak about the motion. Two people got shot down because they weren't precinct chairs. Finally someone was appointed and the quorum was reached and, wrangle wrangle parliamentary procedure blah blah blah, and, the meeting switched to the second agenda.

Promptly some folks demanded that the second agenda be amended to include the Pledge .... AND the Texas pledge. (Eyesroll. Who the heck cares? Some folks apparently do. We did the pledges. Only about half the people there knew the Texas pledge, heh.)

Then, two resolutions were promptly shoved through. First, a resolution for quarterly meetings of the executive committee (all the precinct chairs.) Passed, promptly.

Second a resolution to establish a Democratic Advisory Committee. As far as I could understand it, this is a committee that is made up of 3 members per senate district,1 SDEC member, and 2 members that are elected out of the district. The committee was tasked to meet in 35 days, to draft and compose a two year plan with the assistance of the chair, and to present the two year plan to the executive committee within 90 days.

There were a couple of amendments about how the committee would fill vacancies (it was decided that they would follow the original election process) and what would happen if no SDEC member lived in Dallas county (it was decided that the third member would then be elected by the senate district members as well.) Anyway I might have gotten some of that wrong, because by this time we were about an hour and a half into the meeting. Nevertheless, it passed. Yay! The heavens opened, loud hosannas rang out, and work was accomplished. Bravo!

Now, this is where things got interesting. Some folks who were working at the door pointed out that some people had left the meeting and we no longer had a quorum of precinct chairs at the meeting. Could the meeting continue? That was the real question.

THEN, a new precinct chair walked in. Quorum was restored. Or was it?

Susan insisted that the first item on the business was to determine whether or not we had quorum. Others in the room disagreed. And the whole thing started to melt down. Yada-yada-parliamentary-procedure roll-call cakes, and we started in with the A's. Now, some other blogs alleged that the gal who asked for the roll call was "in league" with Susan, but I spoke with her after the meeting, and she just thought the roll call would help. Apparently that's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but in hindsight, not so much.

Someone in my row had brought a flask. At this point we decided that vodka shots were appropriate. The subjective appearance of the meeting approved dramatically.

Then they called the name of a precinct chair who was DEAD. An activist in the audience informed Susan of this fact with some acrimony. I believe the phrase was, "If you knew anything about your precinct chairs, you'd have known that." Well.

Then Katy Huebner got up and informed Susan that she was delaying. Loudly and in ringing tones. A big chunk of the room stood up and cheered. And then the sergeant at arms threw us all out.

It was very dramatic. And then we went out and had another drink.

All I can say is, it was primo high-quality entertainment, well worth the price of admission, and it totally beat the crap out of staying home watching TV.

Question: What on earth does Susan think she's going to accomplish? I don't know what to think about. Susan was obviously employing delaying tactics. I am completely clueless about her motivations.

I look forward to the next meeting, which should be equally spectacular. Meanwhile, I continue to move ahead my own activist work. This is an entertaining diversion, but it's not gonna elect anybody. I have to find this all extremely funny because if I didn't, I'd be upset. Ooo! The best part? Was at the end of the meeting, when Susan was trying to say something, and someone actually Unplugged. Her. Microphone. Bwahahahahaha! It was priceless.

(Oh, and I keep reading on the blogs that, prior to the meeting, the party staff actually called the cops to try to have the precinct chairs evicted from the building. All I can say is, I wasn't there and I didn't see that, fwiw.)

Onwards, into the fog.....

Other accounts, minus my bad attitude:
Byron at Burnt Orange

Read more!

Flamefest, part 1

Well, since the proverbial cat has been de-bagged by Burnt Orange Report, I figure I may as well write about this. The backstory is here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/003372.html and I'm off to the showdown now...

Read more!

On Personal Politics

In a perfect world, everyone in politics would be altriustic and concerned with doing the right thing for their world, their country, and their power. Self, and its egotistical concerns, would take a back seat to Doing The Right Thing.

Yeah. Well, we live in the real world.

So let's say you're caught in the middle of a big egotistical catfight. Infighting. Ally vs. ally. Jane is on Jack's shit list and here's why, are you for Jack or are you for Jane? Either you're with us or you're against us, which side is it gonna be?

Nasty stuff, right? Well ... it's human nature. It happens in every group after awhile. Differences of opinion get blown out of proportion, alliances get made and broken, catfights break out. Things get difficult.

Be cold and philosophical. Pretend that it's all a Mexican soap opera. Emotionally distance yourself from it and see the whole thing as a melodrama, even though you're in the cast. If you manage to look at it that way, it can be pretty funny stuff. I once got a Chinese fortune cookie that said, "Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think." Bingo! You are completely correct, Mr. Faux Confucius, whoever you are. Think about the situation, don't feel about it, and you'll get some emotional distance.

Now, some people believe that they can't do that. "It upsets me!" they wail. "I can't control how I feel!"

I'm going to let you in on a Jedi mind trick: You CAN control how you feel.

No, really, you can.

You know that little monologue you have in the back of your head? The one that's always thinking and talking and wondering and nattering on? Your thoughts, your feelings, your observations, your mind? Well, most people make the mistake of thinking that that little voice is THEM.

It's not.

Really, it's not. You are brain, heart, body AND soul. Your true essence is something other than that babbling brook in the back of your head. If you don't believe me, learn to meditate. You'll see that babbling brook dry up and be replaced with ... something else. Deeper, wider, stranger.

Now, if you don't want to run off and learn how to meditate, you can try this. Let's say you're angry with Tina. The first thing you have to do is realize where you are. Say to yourself, "I'm angry with Tina because she totally screwed up our booth at the festival." Feel the anger, experience it thoroughly, carry it around for a bit until you're ready to let it go. (Don't talk to Tina while you're still carrying it around, and don't carry it too long either.) Now, do whatever needs to be done to calm yourself down. Let the anger go. Distract yourself. Think about something you need to get done, or something happy you'd like to do, or something interesting and unusual. Do anything but think about Tina. Next time you think of Tina, you'll probably be less mad. If you need to talk to Tina, be rational about it. Point out the problems with the behavior, not the person. And be honest with yourself, too. How could YOU have helped prevent the situation? It really helps if you take some of the blame on yourself.

Which I guess segues nicely back into the Jane vs. Jack story we started off with. As I said, don't take it seriously. Defuse it at every opportunity by pointing out the innate absurdity of it. Laugh at it. If you must take a side, do so dispassionately. Criticize Jane if you must, but do it in a kind way. And don't dis Jane's supporters. If you're aligned with the Jack camp, don't devolve into a fierce partisan. "Jack's my guy, right or wrong, rah rah!" Try to walk in between the two camps, doing your best to patch things up. Take the Middle Way, in other words. Easier than it sounds. Sometimes there IS no right answer, and the best you can do is remind people to keep their eye on the ball. "We're Democrats! We may have to get all of this out now, but let's keep in mind the big picture. We want to beat THEM, those people over there."

Oh, and before I forget, allow me to give you the cardinal rule:

Never speak ill of a fellow Democrat in public.

DON'T tell the opposition. DON'T let it get out. In public, you should only say delightful things about Jane and Jack and their compadres. NEVER allow your opponent sweet schadenfreude. If they see your weaknesses, they'll take advantage of them! By all means, let the blood flow, stab each other in the back, enjoy the blame game and cast aspersions – when you are in private, with each other. When you are in public, be all sweetness and light and good thoughts, and protect each other's back.

Yeah, this is my perfect world talking again. But if I can get more people to buy off on this, all the better. We need to learn to NOT wash our laundry in public. We need to learn to not give our opponents any opposition.

Anyway. Keep your eye on the ball. I'm not talking to the infighting ones now. I'm talking to you, the calm one in the middle. The goal is a united and peaceful group in the future. What needs to be done to accomplish that? How can what's broken be healed, how can you help bring everything through this? That's what you should be looking at.

P.S. Oh, and -- if you think you know why I wrote this? You're right, it's about THAT. Sigh. What can you do? It's either laugh at it or cry. I'm gonna laugh.

Read more!

How to Lead from the Bottom.

I'm actually of two minds about writing this. On the one hand, this is a very, VERY useful technique. On the other hand, it's quite possibly manipulative as hell. Anyway, here goes. Leave a comment, tell me what you think.

So let's say you're in a group at work or a volunteer group and you're not the leader or the boss or anything like that, but you have some ideas you'd like the group to adopt, or you have a direction you'd like the group to go in. How do you handle that?
First, and most obviously, make a logical case for your idea. Pitch it to the group and provide facts and reasons for WHY your idea should be adopted. While you're in a group kicking the idea around, be open to changes that might make your idea better. Here's the trick: the more people you can get to adopt your idea as their own, the more likely it'll be adopted. So if someone makes adapts the idea, and the change is good, emphasize and re-iterate that. "Yeah, that's a good idea, Jane, we should do that because...." And, if you can get your BOSS to adapt the idea, all the better. This might be a process that takes place over time. Just keep bringing it up and attributing as much of it as you can to other people, especially the leader of the group. If, by the end of the day, you've succeeded in making the entire group think it was their idea, you've won.

You might have noticed that you don't get credit this way. Well, so what? Do you want the idea to be adopted, or do you want credit? Think about it. Making sure that everyone knows it was YOUR idea is only going to get you a reputation as an egotist, isn't it?

But don't stop there! A lot of people throw an idea out, even get credit, and then they don't follow up, and then they get all whiny and say, "I had this great idea and nobody wanted to do it." Next you have to take the wheel and drive. This is where you have to be really careful not to step on anyone else's toes. Think about what needs to happen next. And ASK or OFFER to do those things, don't just do them. For example, "Would you like me to set up the next meeting?" "Shall I draw up the minutes for the group?" Stuff like that. The trick here is to get a clear sense of the steps that need to be done and make the taking of the steps as easy as possible. If someone who is a peer of yours offers to do a task, and your next steps depend on that task, if they don't get back to you after a week, ask them (very informally, as peer-to-peer) about their status. Offer to help them with part of it.

It's really that simple. Make everyone else in the group think it was THEIR idea, and drive that car (in a deferent way, of course) until you've all arrived at the destination.

A leader is best when people barely know that he exists.
Less good when they obey and acclaim him.
Worse when they fear and despise him.
Fail to honor people, and they fail to honor you.
But of a good leader, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
they will say, "We did this ourselves."
-- Lao-Tzu

Read more!

"Begin at the beginning

and go on until you come to the end. Then stop." -- Lewis Carroll

Read more!

Dream of Oak Cliff

I woke up this morning thinking about a part of this city, Oak Cliff. I don't live in this part of town, although when I was househunting I did look there. It's south of downtown. It's hilly and tree-lined. There's a lot of history there. Some residential neighborhoods are full of beautifully kept mock-Tudors, prairie style houses, etc. Others, just a block away, are run-down and gang-ridden. There are a lot of artists, some valiant attempts at urban renewal, some Mexican grocery stores but no Tom Thumb, second-hand tire stores but not much current retail. And, then there's crime, of course.

It's not too different from the sector of the city that I call home.... When I was househunting, I really wanted to buy in Oak Cliff. I looked at probably a dozen houses there. For one thing, in several areas, the house values were much lower than where I wound up buying. There was the real potential to get more house for less money. Also, the architecture was great. But also, to me, Oak Cliff stood for a part of the city struggling to grow; a piece of the city trying desperately to knit itself together, and I wanted to be part of that. But I didn't buy there. Mostly, it was too far from my office. But also, ultimately, I was a little nervous about it. I still bought in an urban area, part of that patchwork of prosperity and poverty, but in my part of town, the difference between the quilt squares isn't quite as obvious.

So why am I still thinking about Oak Cliff?

Maybe because it's like a pocket Dallas. The manicured mansions of Kessler Park, a few miles away from the barrio. It's a metaphor for the entire city, future and past all rolled into one. It's the most extreme example of what Dallas is right at the moment. Thinking about this city. Does Dallas work, or doesn't it work? Where are we, and where are we going?

Some food for thought: "Dallas at the Tipping Point:" http://www.dallasnews.com//sharedcontent/dws/spe/2004/dallas/

Read more!

LWV Meeting on the Texas Budget

Boy, it's been a busy day, what with the SS town-hall this morning and tonight's League of Women voters meeting on the Texas Budget.

It was a good presentation, attended by about 25 people from the Dallas League, the Richardson League, and a few other community organizations. The overhead slides they used were a little out of date, but they gave us updated figures as they went along. Interestingly enough, they were from an organization called ProTex: Network for a Progressive Texas. I have no idea if this organization still exists, since their website (www.protex.org) is defunct.

Anyway, I won't post ALL of the figures on here since there was a LOT of detail. They began with an overview of Texas's per-capita spending compared to other states.... Taking only state spending into account, we're ranked 45th in spending on public health, 48th on parks and recreation, and 50th on government employee wages and salaries. This goes up somewhat when you add in county and local spending. Apparently Texas has historically had a low-tax, low-services mentality, and we're getting what we pay for.

What does Texas spend the money on? Well, over half of the budget goes to K-12 education and Health and Human services. Only 7% goes to public safety and crime. Those figures are from 2002-2003.

Where do we get the revenue? There's no state income tax here. At the state level, it seems to come from a wide variety of sources: 26% of the state's revenue comes from the sales tax, 10% from the car and gas tax, 10% from other taxes, 33% federal funds, 2% from the lottery, and 17% "other" – fees and so on. The cities and counties rely a LOT on the property tax, and most of that is going to the schools.

Now, in the next bit they covered WHO pays the taxes. This was a very interesting, very effective demonstration that I'd highly recommend doing at any future similar workshop you might be doing. They called on five people; each one represented 20% of the population, each one a different income bracket:
0 - $20,000
$21,000 – $36,000
$36,000 -- $54,000
$55,000 -- $84,000
$84,000 +

They gave each of the five a sign representing their income bracket and they all stood along a wall. Then, they each took steps forward. Each step representing the percentage that their income grew during the 80s and 90s.

The 0 - $20,000 person took 4 steps – her income had grown 4%.
$21,000 – $36,000 took 4 steps also. Another 4%.
$36,000 -- $54,000 took 8 steps. 8%
$55,000 -- $84,000 took 18 steps representing an income growth of 18%.
$84,000 + -- This person practically walked out of the door. Thirty three steps! An income growth of 33%.

This illustration really brought home how inequitably the gains of the go-go 90s were distributed. But, we weren't done yet! Each person turned over the sign they were carrying to show us what percentage of their income goes to taxes (state and local, including both property and sales tax).

0 - $20,000 18%
$21,000 – $36,000 10%
$36,000 -- $54,000 8%
$55,000 -- $84,000 7%
$84,000 + 5%

It was a striking illustration of exactly how regressive the Texas tax system is, due to its reliance on the sales tax. And this DESPITE the fact that groceries, medicines and so on are tax-exempt!

Then they talked about the fact that there is STILL a gap between what Texas's income and expenses, and discussed the various options that the legislators are kicking around to raise more income. One interesting one was to expand the state sales tax to include services, since the economy is becoming more service-based. Several were business based, and apparently these have a good chance of passing: a payroll tax, expanding the corporate franchise tax to include certain types of partnerships which had been left out originally, and a business activity tax. There were several other options brought up as well. We were encouraged to lobby our legislators regarding our preferred option.

Then we went into a Q&A / discussion period. The first questioner pointed out that we'd talked about all of these possible tax hikes, but that we had not talked about cutting expenditures. The presenters said that we had already had a 10% across the board expenditure cut two years ago and that all state agencies had been asked for another 5% expenditure cut this year. And there is STILL a shortfall.

One woman asked, "What kind of state do we want to live in?" This turned into a sidebar on all of the human services that had been cut over the last few years, the libraries and school programs that had been eliminated, and the lines that were occurring at state agencies for treatment of mental health patients. The room seemed to agree with her.

Then there was a VERY interesting discussion about Parkland, Dallas' county hospital which cares for the indigent. Apparently, Parkland is not only caring for Dallas county indigent but also for the indigent from SEVEN SURROUNDING COUNTIES. This is due to the fact that many of those counties, including Collin, have closed their county hospitals and/or have lowered their definition of the poverty level so far that a person has to be making $3000 / year or LESS to be considered "indigent." Furthermore, although the surrounding counties are supposed to repay Parkland the cost for caring for these folks, they usually DON'T.

Senator Royce West has sponsored a bill to force the counties to take care of this. I looked it up on his website, and I think it's SB230. I need to put something together and circulate it. It seems that every taxpayer in Dallas should be angry about this, especially since a large percentage of Dallas county taxes go to support Parkland.

We also had a discussion about the idea of a state income tax. This is Texas' third rail – nobody wants to touch it. The rationale is that Texas will appear more "business friendly" by not having a state income tax, and that Texas wants to encourage companies to relocate to Texas. However, the counterpoint to that was that Texas may be less appealing to these companies because of quality of life issues. Nobody wants to live where the air is so polluted or the schools are so bad.

By this point it became apparent that we had a very pro-tax crowd. This impression was confirmed when an audience member asked everyone who would be in favor of a state income tax to raise their hands. I would say 90% of the room did so. It was quite gratifying.

Between this meeting, and the Social Security meeting, I was encouraged. Who says this state doesn't think progressively? Now if only we can get this out to the mainstream....

Read more!

Report on Social Security Town Hall Meeting

So. I just got back from my representative's town hall on Social Security. Actually, this fellow – Republican Jeb Hensarling – isn't really mine anymore since I got gerrymandered out of his district, but I felt like attending, so I went anyway. This guy represents a very oddly-shaped district that takes in substantial parts of rural Texas, east of Dallas, as well as some of Dallas proper. This meeting was about 20 miles outside Dallas in Forney, a smaller town. I've been there before -- Forney is renowned for its antique shops, and at one point in my life I was compelled to purchase a Victrola there. Don't ask me why I needed a Victrola. I don't know. Anyway, Forney's a cute little place, with a paper mill, a nice-looking high school, a pocket-sized downtown with appealing shops and homey cafes, and so on. A lot like any other small Texas town.

The town hall meeting was held in the sub-courthouse, an office featuring all of the necessary government apparatus for paying traffic tickets and fines, a touch of country-kitch décor, and a medium sized conference room. There were about 35 of us. Most of the folks were older, many were from the immediate area, and everyone got coffee and chatted while we waited.

I have to confess, I was nervous. I'd never done anything like this before. Before I came, I took all the Democratic bumper stickers off my car because I knew I was going into a "red" area. I was worried I was going to be the only person asking hard questions – especially because W's Social Security townhalls are limited to "supporters only."

Well. The appointed time rolled around, Mr. Hensarling introduced himself, and we were off. He gave us a thirty minute presentation on what he saw as the Social Security basics, which was highly in favor of the President's proposal, and then it was Q&A time. The first person lobbed him a softball.

But THEN—boy! Every person in that room was on him like a duck on a junebug. It was teeth and claws and long knives all the way. I was amazed to hear person after person, armed with printouts from the internet, question the basic assumptions he'd made, mention Alan Greenspan's take on it, wonder where the extra money to make the transition would come from, and basically, trash the entire idea six ways from Sunday. I didn’t even have to ask anything. Every single question I had was asked by the people in that room. And they did NOT sound happy, either. Actually, I was a little surprised that Mr. Hensarling left that room with all of his extremities intact.

I was impressed. Everyone who spoke was well informed, came armed with facts, and had a good point to make. Several made their points with heartfelt passion. If the other constituent meetings are anything like the one I attended, our representative will be going back to Washington with a real earful and maybe not quite so much enthusiasm for the President's plan. Here's hoping.

Here's the complete play-by-play, from my notes:

The presentation led off with Rep. Hensarling showing big pictures of his parents, who are 70, and his babies, who were quite cute in their little miniature football hero and cheerleader outfits. Here, of course, were his, very personal, reasons for wanting to make sure that Social Security would be taken care of. I was both touched by the family man image and at the same time rather cynically observed the appeal to our emotions.

Then, it was on to the charts. First, a big graph with a steep downward decline and a lot of red. He said that in 2018, Social Security will go from being "in the black" to being "in the red." The bullet points: "The Cost of Doing Nothing," which according to him would be a 10.4 trillion dollar deficit, or a 30% reduction in benefits, or a 43% increase in the payroll tax. He said that the cost of fixing it would go up $600 billion every year that we didn't fix it.

He seemed to like the phrase, "The security is coming out of social security," because he used it several times. He pointed out how much people pay into the system vs. how much they get out, calling this a "rate of return." He said that his grandparents had gotten a 12% "rate of return" on what they paid in, that his parents will get a 6% "rate of return," and his children will get maybe a 1% "rate of return." I thought it was interesting that he was using this very investment-like term to refer to Social Security – indicative of the framing they're using. He's making the assumption that Social Security is an investment plan.

Then he went on to the "proposal" bit. He said that any fair Social Security plan would ensure your "right to a secure retirement," that the "current system is unsustainable," that he would not be in favor of making any changes which would impact current retirees or those just about to retire, and that younger workers should be allowed to invest in personal accounts.

Then he went off on a riff about how Congress has wasted our money, and he talked a lot about boondoggles. He pointed out that "you don't own your Social Security," and used this to hype the private accounts. He said they'd be voluntary, and would have government backing, inflation protection, and guaranteed lifetime benefits. He compared the private accounts to the "thrift savings program" they have in Congress. He claimed at one point that "there has never been a four year period in American history where the stock market has gone down." (I wrinkled my forehead at that. Really? But how far did it go over those four years, and at the end of it, was it higher than when it started?)

A general observation: He repeatedly used the phrase "personal accounts." Obviously it's the official Republican talking point. However, the people who were attending the meeting repeatedly used the phrase, "private accounts." At one point he actually corrected a gentleman, saying that the phrase "personal accounts" was more correct because they came with a government guarantee. (I must confess, I'm not entirely sure about that bit.) The guy wasn't having any of that – he kept right on using the phrase "private accounts!"

Then, Q&A:

Q1: A softball. Guy "didn't think this is a bad idea," but wanted to make sure that people couldn't borrow against it like they can their 401k's. Hensarling said no, you can't and it was off to the races.

Q2: The questioner pointed out that the government will have to borrow to change over to private accounts. He had some figures which estimated that this would be a 15 trillion cost over 40 years, and cited Alan Greenspan and the CBO.

Response: (And this is an exact quote): "I just had a chance to talk to Alan Greenspan, and he favors personal accounts." The questioner, an older, gray-haired fellow with printouts in front of him, made a face. He didn't say much the rest of the time, but he kept giving off those sighs and rolling his eyes every time Hensarling would say something questionable.

Q2.5: Then it started to get entertaining; a younger woman jumped in (she seemed REALLY huffy, and did this more than once during the Q&A) and questioned his numbers, citing a 3.5 trillion dollar shortfall over 75 years, not a 10 trillion dollar one. He pointed out that the 10 trillion dollar shortfall figure was "using an infinite horizon," that is, to fix SS for all time.

THEN, he went back to the second question and said, "I do not agree with the proposition we have to borrow money to go to personal accounts." The government, according to him, is growing faster than ordinary American's household growth (it was something like 3% vs. 4%). He stated that we should save the rest of the SS surplus that we currently have, AND curtail the growth of government, and use this money to fund the cost of privatization.

Q3: The next questioner totally told Hensarling off. He pointed out that SS would be sound until 2050 if we used the IOUs that are in the system, and said that the government is "making seniors pay for the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich." (I felt like standing up and applauding.)

Response: Basically, what's done is done, although he certainly didn't use those words. Since it's all the same government, the IOUs are like leaving IOUs from yourself, to yourself. The money has to come from somewhere. The questioner, an older fellow, made a face and said, loudly, "If you borrowed ten dollars from your kid's piggy back, you'd pay it back, wouldn't you?" He was NOT giving an inch. I believe at this point a guy in the back of the room made some remarks, and the woman from question 2.5 made some remarks about his remarks, and I honestly thought the whole thing was about to degenerate into a free-for-all. People were quite obviously upset, and they were expressing their anger in no uncertain terms. One of the hosts – there were two county commissioners there – calmed them down and it went on.

Q4: This one was a beaut. A woman used a recent bill, HR 800, as an example of Congress's willingness to grant legal immunities to certain industries, and said, how can we be sure that you won't do the same thing for the financial industry which manages these accounts.

Now, of course he wanted to know what HR 800 was. Turns out it's a bill that grants gun-makers immunity from either lawsuit or prosecution, not sure which. WELL, this got him off onto the Second Amendment gun owner's rights blah blah blah. This woman wasn't having it. She said that she was citing this as an EXAMPLE of Congressional willingness to grant immunity to a specific industry. He pointed out that there were fraud laws on the books already. She pressed him to go on record as to whether or not he would vote to give immunity to a brokerage firm. He hemmed and hawed and said he didn't really understand the question.

At that point the entire room went after him. Several different people Chimed in and said the question was perfectly clear, and said, "If you give these accounts to Merrill Lynch or some brokerage firm like that, will you favor a law that keeps them from being prosecuted if they defraud the accounts?" At this point he kind of faded out and said something like, "You have the right to create a nest egg." He never really gave her a satisfactory response, in my opinion.

Oh, and here was another meme he seemed to want to get out there: He kept saying that Congress had, recently,
- cut SS benefits 6 times
- raised taxes 20 times
- raided the SS fund 59 times.
He seemed to be trying to use this as an argument for privatization, in effect saying that "more of the same" won't work. I'm not sure anyone bought this. He was trying to sell a "government is the problem" idea, and the people in that room seemed to be saying, "Yes, and you're part OF IT."

Q5: Asked for a recap of how Hensarling thought the transition to private accounts would cost nothing (see above.)

Q6: This one was pure gold. The questioner, who I believe was actually one of the county commissioners, a well-dressed, well-spoken gentleman, got up, thanked the speaker, ornamented his question with a few more politenesses and then went for the kill. "If you're taking money out of Social Security to pay for private accounts, doesn't that just make the overall system worse?"

I was thrilled; this was exactly the question I'd wanted to ask. Honestly, I don't have anything clear written down at this point and I'm not sure if it was because I was so excited I didn't hear what he had to say or if what he had to say didn't make any sense. He certainly didn't have a nice pithy phrase to regurgitate at us, or at least, he didn't have one that stuck in my mind. He talked about a government guarantee and that the money would have to earn at least 3.3% and if for some reason a private account performed under that you'd still get the guaranteed minimum, and he also resorted to saying that these accounts would be totally voluntary and you wouldn't have to join them if you didn't want to and then he sort of trailed off.

Of course, I could be biased. Next time I go to one of these things I'll take a tape recorder so I can verify that what I remember as pathetic waffling really IS pathetic waffling.

Q7: Pointed out that no matter what the accounts did, presumably the fund managers would still get their commissions that they made from managing the accounts? (This was asked in a pointy way, and got a lot of nods.)

He responded that it would be possible to have the government contract written in such a way that the commissions were performance based.

Q8: Given that government spending was up so much, all of those stories that you have told us about today, isn't it up to Congress to stop pork barrel spending? (This person was clearly ANGRY, and seemed out to pick a bone with the Congressman, and the question got a lot more nods from the crowd.)

He responded that he had introduced the most conservative budget ever, (did this guy really introduce a budget, I wondered? I might have to check on that.) But, that not everyone in Congress agreed with his viewpoints on things. (I felt like informing him that the majority in congress is now Republican, what's up with that, all these big-government tax-and-spend conservatives? However, I refrained from editorializing.)

And the meeting was over. Rep. Hensarling attempted to flee but was obtained by an older gentleman who really, really wanted his say. Actually, he appeared to want to rip the Congressman a new one about this whole idea, and was trying to get a show of hands to see who in the room agreed or disagreed with privatization, but the meeting was pretty much over at that point. So, they had a sidebar conversation (a LOUD one), and I fled for the parking lot, where I pointed the car towards my office and had a hearty, five minute laugh.

I figure the Representative was not expecting to have the conversation that he did. And he was going to do that again five times that day. I wonder how the rest of his meetings went?

Read more!

Activism and the Internet, part 2

Well, I wasn't intending to write any more about this topic but having read another blog posting in this general area today, some observations about people and the internet:

#1. The internet causes rational people who have been using it for some time to become rather cynical.

It only takes a few hoaxes or urban legends or "Bonsai Kittens" to wise most folks up to the fact that there's a lot of stuff out there on the internet that is just plain not true. In my opinion, a healthy dose of cynicism is a good thing. If you hear something that sounds particularly outlandish, it probably is, and should be checked with snopes.com before you forward it to all your friends.

#2. A corollary of #1: People who follow politics on the internet become very cynical and questioning about the so-called MSM, mainstream media

This is probably due to the fact that it's very easy to follow a story online by pulling news from a variety of sources, including overseas media, and then to compare and contrast that coverage with the coverage you see in your paper or on the various cable networks. Add in the documentary "Outfoxed," which dramatically demonstrated how a news network's coverage can be ideologically warped by demands from the head honcho of the corporation, and you find that most people who get a lot of their news from the internet are deeply suspicious of the MSM outlets' coverage and motivation.

#3. Here's the flip side of #1. If you take the internet too far, it might be bad for your sense of reality.

Consider this: The internet has a seamy underbelly of lies, scams, and bullshit. Political campaigns pay bloggers to spread misinformation. Sign up with a new, anonymous email account, and you can become anyone you want. People regularly try out different identities, even up to and including different sexes and ages. That hot twenty-one year old girl you're enthusiastically IM'ing? Could be, in reality, a fifty year old balding potbellied guy.

Remember Plato's cave? Reality, for Plato, was like a movie. A bunch of flickering shadows on the wall. Well, if reality's a shadow, the internet is a shadow of a shadow. It's the country of the mind. I am drawing this picture of myself for you, my reader, with the words I am writing, but how much relationship do all my pretty philosophies I'm expounding here have to the real, incarnate me, the flesh-and-blood human? I might even be a committee. You don't know.

Now, all of this will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever tried internet dating.

And, if you haven't, you might want to try it. It's pretty interesting. It is entirely possible to "meet" a person via their profile, spend hours exchanging chatty emails, develop a conception of that person in your mind and even fall in love with that conception, and then meet that person and get roundly slapped upside the head with the reality of them, right there in your face. Ooo, I know what you're going to say, "Isn't it possible to fall in love with someone for their mind?" Maybe, but how they express that mind on the internet, and how they express that mind in person can be two completely different things. A fellow who has plenty of time to express himself in courtly phrases via email can turn out to be quite taciturn and even unpleasant in real life. And, you know, if you're just THINKING all hearts and flowers, and not SAYING them, it don't count for much. Anyway.

So, to return to point #3, the side effect to all of this uber-shadowy-ness is that if a person spends too much time on the internet and not enough time getting things done, getting grounded in real life, that person can also develop a slippery sense of reality. I don't know how else to describe it, but you've probably seen it. The person who continued to question, and question, and question, because they were presented with a fact that didn't fit the story they were pursuing, and so instead of rethinking the story, they had to question the fact. This then leads off into full-blown tinfoilhat territory.

Which leads us to observation #4. You don't know who you're talking to on the internet.

The person who you're having a lively mailing list exchange with could be a denizen of tinfoilhatland (see #3). They could be 14 years old. They could be someone with a very specific agenda they're not telling you about. They could have a completely inadequate grasp on basic logic, in which case you might very well get into one of those frustrating, just-slipping-out-of-your-grasp arguments in which you make your point, beautifully explaining the logical flow of your argument, how A leads to B which then proves C, and the person will blindly refuse to recognize that. You're sitting there tearing your hair out saying something (and you might in fact be saying it very well) and it's just bouncing off this person like a ball bouncing off a brick wall.

Which leads to my conclusion, and observation #5: Don't give any of us shadows out here more credibility than we deserve.

Now, it's certainly possible for people to convey a lot of their true selves on the internet, and certain bloggers and posters will manage to convey a sense of who they are. People online build up credibility by the quality of what they write: its logic, intellectual honesty, sourcing, and style. You know people who you have met online and who turned out to be exactly who they say they are.

But ultimately? These words out here-- they aren't real people. They're representations of people at best. So, in your online chats and discussions, as you travel around the world online, don't take any of this personally. Flamewars, slurs on your integrity, personal attacks, etc. are all to be expected as part of life online. Sure, they sting like hell, especially if you like people and value other's opinions of you (who doesn't?). Everyone should be issued skin a mile thick for their first forays onto the internet. But it'll help thicken it up if you just keep that in mind— this stuff is fun, and sometimes almost-real, but it's not real-real.

You—you are real. You, in your town, sitting there at your computer, your lungs breathing, your heart pumping, your quiet house around you, maybe your cat on your lap. Your friends, your family, your life you're living, your community you've got around you. That's real.

Read more!

Activism and the Internet

There is a lot of hoo-ha and excitement going on right now about bloggers, online message boards, and internet activism. So I'd like to talk about that for a minute.

There are a lot of different things that people do, politically, online. Signing online petitions, emailing around requests for action and news articles, writing letters to the editor or to journalists, writing your congresspeople, getting into discussions on internet message boards and mailing lists, and so on. How effective are these things? Some are great, some are not so useful. I'd like to do a summary of a few of these actions and discuss how effective they are likely to be.

Signing online petitions.
Take a couple of seconds to consider the providence of the petition before you just blindly sign it. A petition needs to be tied to some real-world action in order to be effective. If you're on Barbara Boxer's email list, and she sends out a request to sign a petition, that's legit. She's going to take those sigs and present them to a committee or something. Likewise, if a grassroots effort is circulating a petition and tells you exactly how and when they plan to use that petition, that's probably legit and useful. But, if it doesn't appear to have a good pedigree, you might want to steer clear of it, as someone might be harvesting your personal info for nefarious purposes.

Emailing requests for action and meeting notices to your buddies / your mailing lists.
I'm of two minds about this one. First, don't send out stuff that everyone already gets, like the stuff from MoveOn.org or True Majority. Everybody and their dog is on those lists. But if it's something with a more local slant, that's a good thing. Go for it.

Emailing news articles
Another iffy one. How do you know that the article will be of interest to the person you're sending it to? Here's a hint. If you're sending this stuff to someone who is extremely politically active, ask them if they want it. I, for one, am already on half a dozen internet mailing lists that fill up my inbox with everything I need to know already. BUT, sending it to someone who is NOT very politically aware, someone whom you're trying to educate, could be quite useful.

I personally think this kind of thing is overdone. My rule: think before you forward.

Writing letters to the editor
Definitely useful. This helps to get an alternate viewpoint out.

Writing your congressfolk
Another good one.

Writing journalists
This might or might not be useful. If you're sending tips and news stories – if you heard about it on the internet, chances are good that the journo's already heard it too. But, if you're sending story ideas or tips that are original and new, they'll probably be glad to hear from you.

Now, feedback in the form of applause or brickbats is probably better off addressed to the show or to the paper rather than to the journalist him or herself. However, if you want to send your boos and hisses directly to the author of the article, go ahead. Here's the thing, though – you catch more flies with honey. Bear in mind that there's a real person on the other side of that computer screen. When you're composing a flaming screed, stop and think. Would you say the same thing to that person in the flesh?

Discussions on Message Boards and Mailing Lists
Reality check here: Unless you're on a really special forum, nobody of any importance reads those forums. Nobody is picking up your witty gems of wisdom, and nobody is paying much attention to your grandiose plans to restructure the Democratic party.

I see this over and over again. For example, people post that "The Democratic party should do so-and-so" on an email list. Well. Did you send this feedback to the Democratic party? Did you send it to the right place? Did you show up to your local Democratic party meetings and give it to them? No? Oh, well, too bad so sad then, you might as well have just tucked it into a bottle and thrown it into the sea for all the good it's going to do.

Do I sound a little pissy here? I suppose I am. I just see this over and over again. A guy from Peoria and a gal from Poughkipsie, hanging out on the internet pontificating about foreign policy. And then they get all annoyed when their brilliant insights don't magically make their way into the mainstream of Democratic thought.

Now, all of this debate IS useful in some respects. It gets you used to debate, so you can then go out and debate and discuss with the opposition. It helps you organize your thoughts. For example, this blog, for me, is simply one long organization of my thoughts. I think better when I write things down; it helps me codify and reify the stuff that's floating around in my head, and I can come back later and look at it and go, "Yeah, I got that right," or, "Boy, that stunk." If someone else reads this and gets something out of it, well, bonus!

But the rest of this debate and argument – phew, a lot of it's a big timewaster. In my annoying, Type-A opinion. :P

Now. To change directions a bit. Notice one thing about all of these activities? They are 100% computer based. Just you, a quiet room, and a keyboard, mouse, and monitor.

An aside: There are many people who are restricted because of their health or geographic location to this online-based activism. To them I say: more power to you. If your broken ankle or other circumstances keeps you from getting out of the house, I am glad and overjoyed that there's this window on the world for you.

To the rest of you: Get. Out. Of. The. House. Internet activism is great, but it is NOT a substitute for real-life activism. Go put your butts in the chairs at the local committee meetings. Stuff envelopes. Run for school board. Find out who your city councilperson is. Organize a precinct.

Life: It's where the action is.

Ok, end of sermon. :)

Read more!

Take Care of Yourself Too

This entry is meant more as a reminder to myself. But, if you're reading it, there's a good chance you might need to hear it.

If you're like me, you're holding down a full-time, forty hour a week (or more) job, and you're trying to do a lot of stuff on the side. Your evening hours might include a meeting to plan a fundraiser, a night out with the Democratic women to write letters and kvetch, or some extra bonus time in front of the computer, building a website or writing letters to the editor.

Don't forget: You have to learn to balance.

Now, don't get me wrong, I understand why we like it. The drama. Ah, there's a campaign on. I don't have TIME to wash the dishes, eat right, or exercise. I have to save the world! There are phone calls to make, training sessions to attend, meetings to go to.

Stop that.

You are doing yourself and those around you no good by wringing yourself out like a wet rag. You need to learn the fine art of saying NO. Saying, "I'm too busy. Can someone please help me with this?" Admitting, in short, when you are licked and need a bail-out.

And you need to stop feeling guilty when you do something for yourself. Think about the last time you rode a bike, went for a walk, or did something fun? Exercise, eating healthy, and meditation (or your equivalent) are really the basics. That's what stokes your fires up so you can GO out and do all of the activism you feel called to do.

So force yourself. Get out from behind that desk. Get off the couch. Get outside. Get back in the kitchen and cook something wonderful. You know you need to. So just do it! :)

Read more!

A Taxonomy of Activists

In my experience there are three basic kinds of people who are activists. The type A activist is very focused on getting organized and getting the work done. These are the self-motivated, self-starters who make the world go around. With them involved, meetings will be efficient, lists will be drawn up, sessions will get planned, and things will get done. This person is very work-centered.

The type B activist is primarily interested in things as a social event. This is the person who wants to socialize, talk, and enjoy the meeting. They'll be concerned with introductions, getting-to-know you activities, and allowing everyone to speak. This person is very people-centered.

It's also important to distinguish between planning the work and doing the work. Both A and B activists can be found on organizational committees, leadership boards, etc. The type C activist is more of a role. This is a person who is willing to do the work, but is not willing to plan the work. This person might have either a type A or type B personality type, as far as being more social or being more work-oriented, but is not involved with the running of an effort.

In other words, the type C person is willing to show up to do something, but this person needs to be told where, when, and what they'll be doing. These are your volunteers, and they are extremely valuable, but you shouldn't expect them to morph into leader-types. (More on this in a future entry.)

Now, interestingly enough, activist work itself also falls into A and B categories. An A category is simple— we need to knock on 800 doors before 5 p.m., stuff 1000 envelopes, plan this training session, organize this particular campaign. The B stuff happens around and during the A stuff—get to know each other, build a team, complain about the government, get off topic, meander on about your pet causes, etcetera.

The real trick is, what's the proportion of A work to B work that will keep everyone in the room happy? Obviously the answer is different for every person and every organization, and I'm not going to be able to answer it here. I simply want to make this observation, because knowing who you are as an activist and being able to recognize where your group is on the A to B scale will help you personally to avoid frustration.

I, for example, am incredibly task-oriented. I'm an A squared; I like results, I like lists, I like ticking off accomplishments. So, for example, if you're a candidate running for office and you want to walk a neighborhood in an afternoon, I'm your girl. In that kind of situation, the "heigh-ho, let's go!" way to do things is appropriate. You've got a time limit and you've got a task.

But let's say the goal is not time-limited: you want to build a local Democratic club, or you want to collect signatures for a conservation district in your neighborhood. Sometimes the activity is a means to an end, where the "end" *really* is something like, "Getting involved in the community and getting to know your neighbors." In that case, it's time for us A's to gear down, take a chill pill, and to recognize that we're doing work of an essentially different character. It's time to take it slow and easy and see what grows in the spaces in between doing the work.

Now, if you're a B, the greatest thing you can do is recognize when those cranky A's are driving something that's urgent or time-limited ... and realize that now is not the time to talk about a completely different topic, or take a side-bar with some of the other B's in the room. Gosh, that sounds cranky, doesn't it? I don't mean it to be. The world, and whatever work you're doing, takes all of us to do it, in all of our different ways. It's just my experience that it's easier on you (and more effective) when you first ground yourself in who you are and then recognize how that affects what you're doing. Are you an A, a B, or a C?

Namaste.
C

Read more!

Beginning

Ten years ago I gave myself an imaginary title. I've still got it, actually. I even have these imaginary business cards. They're light gray, with a slick corporate-looking logo in purple, and then, in a sans-serif font, right under my name, my title:

Secret Agent for Positive Change

Now, at that time (I was 28) I already had a real job, complete with a real job title. But I preferred my imaginary job title. I imagined myself pushing the world forward, one iota at a time, one good deed a day.
And, I'd always done that kind of thing, anyway. At 20 I became a Buddhist and chanted for world peace. At 22 I was in the Peace Corps. At 25 I did bike rides to raise money for AIDS research. So, when, as it happened, I wound up in the corporate world, I simply transferred my idealistic energy there. Everything in my department was chaotic. I decided that even though I was not in charge of anything at all, I would do what I could to straighten things out. Thus, the "secret agent" part.

Why am I talking about this? Well, this blog is going to be about just that—ways to achieve positive change, whether it be in the personal, work, non-profit, online, volunteer, or political areas. I've lived in all of these worlds, and no matter which one you live in, the ways to make things happen are remarkably similar. I'm talking now about the intersection between human nature and work. The interaction between people and other people. And, finally, the interaction between an individual and his/her own heart -- activism as a path towards personal self-awareness and spiritual growth. It's about activism from a progressive point of view.

And that, hopefully, will be Practical Progressive Activist!

Namaste,
C

Read more!