Today is a good day to love

Today, our expectations are probably raised, perhaps prematurely, perhaps unrealistically, for the SCOTUS to resolve one of the great issues of our time in the manner in which we'd prefer. 

But our expectations should be raised, and raised now, for ourselves. We should love more completely, behave more responsibly, and be better at supporting and caring for both our friends and distant strangers -- unknown to us, except as human beings, which should be enough for us to do what is good and right.

I wanted to write some soaring polemic. But increasingly, I can't. And that might be a good thing. You've helped me as a human being grow beyond the love of abstract justice and care more about individual people, and how the laws of this country affect you. Your goodness to me has helped me grow from a homophobe to someone who cares more about this social justice issue than any other. 

Like any new convert, I've had to learn wisdom-- I can't bully or argue equality to my conservative religious family members anymore. I can advocate, gently. But I have to listen as well. It is difficult, even painful at times, but it is probably far less painful than perhaps some of the conversations some of you have had with loved ones. 

Here, love triumphs as well. Contrary to my fears, I haven't had to pick between them and you. And I think, if I were gay, they would still love me. It's perhaps small comfort to those of you dealing with Prop 8, but it's no exaggeration that I believed same-sex marriage and equal rights had the potential to split me from them.

So I have no expectations for the hearings today or tomorrow, or even the ruling in a few months. What I will expect of myself is to be somewhat more generous, somewhat more kind, somewhat more thoughtful to my LGBT kin. Some of you I consider family. It is time for me to behave like family, and let you know, more regularly, and more clearly, how much you are loved -- not as a cause, but as a person.

How to change the world

There is a pattern for organizational change that seemed to work for major changes in military doctrine, and can probably be extended elsewhere.

Note that many organizations, or society as a whole, might not be able to apply this. Society is more diffuse, with fewer sources of broadly accepted legitimacy. Also, for more flexible organizations, change can happen more quickly with hiring and firing, and may require more of a consensus.

With those caveats, let me begin.

I learned this about the American switch from a battleship-centered naval doctrine to a carrier-centered one, and use it as a case study to illustrate the points. The analysis is borrowed from the history mentioned in Knox and Murray, The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050.

Step 1: Create a vision consistent with the mission of the organization.

Someone's got to have an idea of how things could be different, and why. It has to be an idea, not necessarily novel, but perhaps novel in application, and different enough to substantially change things. That idea has to be wedded with a need, or mission, and is often triggered by changes in technology or society that transforms it from fantasy to possibility.

Case study: sometime around or after World War I, someone had the idea of taking the relatively new aircraft and making it an attack craft based on a ship. Aircraft could provide reconnaissance of the surrounding waters and launch attacks at greater range and less risk than ship-to-ship combat. This was, of course, probably prompted by the preliminary use of aircraft in a combat role during the end of World War I coupled with advances in explosives, making it more feasible for an aircraft to carry effective bombs.

Step 2: Find a patron.

Even the greatest idea needs to be recognized as great by someone who matters. Specifically, the ideal patron has high rank/influence within the existing hierarchy, but enough creativity/humility/wisdom to recognize a good idea that has the potential to supplant existing doctrine but will improve the organization's capacity to fulfill it's mission.

This must be stressed: it is usually someone who has unquestioned credentials within the existing hierarchy. It is very, very difficult to change an organization completely from without -- such events truly are revolutions, and often lead to the destruction of the organization.

Case study: There was one battleship admiral in the entire US Navy that recognized the potential of aircraft to change the structure of naval warfare. His was a distinctly minority view. But he embraced the proposed idea, and was willing to undertake effort and risk on its behalf.

Step 3: Disguise or rebrand the change to minimize institutional resistance.

Most good innovations are resisted by the existing power structure. Why is that? It could be because the leadership feels that all the good ideas have already been adopted. It could be that they feel their position is threatened by the changes. It could be they don't understand it. It's not always the case that stability and familiarity are preferred -- presumably, some of these leaders got there by contributing innovative ideas themselves -- and so the reasons for resistance are often more varied than is often appreciated.

Nevertheless, it exists, and has to be overcome. All good insurgencies resist the temptation to match strengths -- if the minority upstarts had power, they wouldn't be minority upstarts.

One of the best ways to do this is to tweak the packaging, and even the secondary substance, enough to make it palatable to the existing leadership. Sometimes this requires outright lying, or some sacrifice of capabilities or scope.

The goal is to trade away some of these things for getting the Thing built. Once it's built, it's easier to change the parameters or scope of it. But all the principled statements in the world won't help if the Thing isn't built.

Case study: Recognizing the resistance of the leadership, as well as the technological testing and development period required to make the vision a reality, the admiral pitched carrier-based aircraft as support for battleships, used primarily for recon. Given that this was a pre-radar era, even the battleship admirals recognized this value, and reluctantly supported a modest carrier program.

Step 4: Create an incentive structure and promotion path built around the new doctrine.

A funded project founded on a good idea is worthless if no one wants to participate. If something is new, it's often not well understood. Most individuals won't want to risk their career on something that could be a huge waste of time. Plus, like the older leadership, it's easier just to buy into the existing system. The path has already been blazed, and the results more predictable, if not always glamorous.

By creating an alternate promotion path, the leadership, led by the patron, provides more security and stability to the new project by building in some structure. It's a tangible commitment of resources and will. Equally important, it shows that someone has put enough energy into the vision to understand how it would work in practice -- the new roles, the new skills, the new platforms and technologies that would be integrated into operations.

The alternate promotion path is critical because the technologies or the processes are new, and require specialized training. But it's also important because young, flexible newcomers will become indoctrinated into a new system, and not beholden to ideas or powers of organizations past.

Creating insurgent cells within an organization is easier if the organization itself gives you money and resources to do so.

Case study: After more general training, officers and enlisted men could specialize in carrier operations by attending special schools and programs designed to train crews how to operate and fight from these new platforms.

Step 5: Train, promote, improve, and do your mission. Wait about 20 years.

Why 20 years? Why so long? Basically, it's about the fact that old people die and retire.

It's a pessimistic view of human nature, one that suggests we are, in general, not very flexible in our beliefs and capacities. But it may be accurate. Even if, ideologically, we can change, often our training and abilities can't change quickly enough, or effectively enough, for us to remain relevant in the new era. It seems a bit sad, but it's the story of human existence.

For large organizations, like the military, or society itself, attrition doesn't happen on a large enough basis for any strategy other than a demographic long game to be reliably effective. Smaller organizations with more flexible hiring and firing policies can change things more quickly, though that has to be balanced by the costs of losing "good" institutional memory.

Case study: It worked. As the officers and enlisted personnel received training and assignments, they gained experience, promotions, and passed their lessons on. Designers integrated newer technologies into carriers, making them progressively more modern. Strategists refined doctrines, often through the crucible of warfare. Instructors grew in number and quality, as did the recruits. By the time of Midway and Coral Sea, only the most die-hard traditionalist could ignore the fact that naval warfare had revolutionized into carrier-centered missions.

Step 6: Repeat.

No generation has a monopoly on good ideas. (Or bad ones.) Each generation is destined to become the stodgy, inflexible elders, tempering the least productive impulses of a younger generation that feels it knows better and isn't willing to wait for change. (Keeping with the theme: "We want eight and we won't wait!") Ideally, any organization large and significant enough is reinventing itself at some low level constantly. This doesn't mean changing the job of everyone frequently, though certain organizations staffed with particularly flexible and capable individuals can do just that. It means simultaneously recognizing the desire for humans to take years to become proficient in specific, complicated tasks and the reality of a changing world. This can be accomplished by training individuals well to do specific tasks, but making sure that at least some new individuals are being trained in newer doctrines and principles.

Case study: The modern US Navy is still heavily based on carriers, but is also developing new, smaller ships with the goal of littoral combat. In the future, rail guns might replace larger weapons platforms completely. Nuclear power extended both the range and the mission of carriers. Nuclear submarines provided strike capabilities less vulnerable to surface attack. And STOVL aircraft provide a capability that permits carrier redesigns and somewhat less dependence on the carrier as both starting and ending point of all flights.

Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts of America

CNN: Gay Scout's request for Eagle rank rejected

These cases are often more complicated than first appears, so I'm willing to accept that the BSA may have rejected an application for other reasons. So I will tread very carefully here.

I attended an Eagle Scout induction recently. It was impressive; I am told that not all can be expected to be like this, as parental involvement plays a huge role in the scope and majesty of the induction ceremony. It did strike me as a bit more martial than I expected, which was a bit unnerving. And the Scoutmaster's Minute was clearly delivered by someone who was on the wrong side of the election and sounded overly apocalyptic about how this scout was part of the "last line of defense" against American collapse. 

But it was impressive to meet a host of young men -- based on names, many of them Muslim -- with a variety of accomplishments. All the boys, to a one, were unfailingly polite and helpful. And I gained a new respect for this young man, who I honestly did not know as well as I thought I did. To be an Eagle, you have to complete, among other things, something like 120 (or 180?) nights of camping, a major service project, and a host of other things.

The BSA have, of course, been rocked by the scandal involving pedophilia and their internal database on reported cases. And the gay issue is not new. What may be new is that a majority of Americans might support either a change in policy, or the creation of a more open version of the BSA-- maybe one that enables young women to rise to the equivalent of eagle scout.

I don't think reform would happen anytime soon. I doubt it would effectively come from outside pressure; all that could happen is sufficient numbers of lawsuits could cause funding problems and the closing of some or all of the organization, which would be a huge waste. Reform would have to be grass-roots, and involve some rather precocious organizing by teenage boys, not particularly known for their autonomous political activism. (Somehow, I don't see it as coming from the parents, and definitely not from the scoutmasters.) 

Perhaps the coming out of prominent men who are also eagle scouts would help-- imagine the impact of a Jim Lovell coming out and encouraging the BSA to change its policies.

A side note: the induction ceremony I attended took place in a UCC church. The first thing one would notice, even before walking through the front doors, was a big table draped with a rainbow flag with some LGBT material. I thought it was fitting, somehow, that everyone in attendance would register at some level an awareness that the troop was a guest in God's house, and, in this house, the LGBT community was not just welcomed and embraced as fully equal-- they're family, family worth fighting for.

Open-minded, closed for debate

I think I'm done debating most important things.

It doesn't mean that debate in itself is bad. But it requires a lot of conditions to come off effectively, and expectations have to be managed.

Generally, I'll only really want to engage in discourse if these conditions are met:

(1) Each of us can clearly articulate our assumptions, going as fundamental as necessary (but only if necessary); 

(2) Each of us can set up a reasonably sound logical chain that leads to some conclusion that is contentious or otherwise interesting;

(3) Each person is willing and able to start from alternative assumptions and work forward in a logical manner, ideally to gain insight into the other perspective, but minimally, in order to test the logical structure of the other argument;

(4) Each has time and temperament to make sure the discourse is civil;

and, for expectations,

(5) No one expects to either change their view, or change the other person's.

*(6) If evidence is presented that shows one's opinion is wrong, they will admit it.

*This was added by Alex, and as a meta-example, I edited the list to include it.

Needless to say, these conditions are met rarely, though I'd like to think, happily, they are met more frequently by my circle of friends than could be expected elsewhere.

It seems like a lot of conditions, but they seem to all be required for the process to make any sense and have any value, and not devolve into a shouting match.

I realize, belatedly, what Professor Hal Barron at Harvey Mudd College was talking about at the height of the cross-burning/Kerri Dunn car vandalism bait-and-switch madness in 2004. He called for civility in the discussions we were having on the 5-C about race and social equity issues. But the emotional tenor of that particular meeting was just too damn high -- we had a professor cry on stage, and plenty of us cried too (including me, who, to my lasting shame, gave a rambling rant about more worldliness in our tech campus). The then-diversity coordinator gave an angry speech about her own experiences, which probably did not help reduce the temperature.

All of this is prologue to say that yes, I think I understand what it means to have a meaningful discussion with someone of opposing views. But I'm tired, and relatively content with where I am when it comes to political philosophy and general policy platform. I'll revisit and update that view, hopefully, as new data (or new to me) comes to the fore. But in general, I'm not sure I see any value in continuing to seek out opportunities to engage people with different political views.

This sounds closed-minded. And, despite the title of this post, it might be. But I'm still willing to read, and have my views challenged. In the last few months, I can remember three things I thought were "true" challenged. 

As it turns out, the increase in federal debt is driven mostly by a fall in revenues, and not a rise in spending--even I had believed the Fox narrative, though as a Keynesian, I took a positive view of that false narrative. 

I also started to appreciate that there is some statistical evidence indicating the deterrent value for crimes like burglary of having a publicly-known firearm in the house. (I haven't tracked down the specific study from Nashville, but I trust the reports referencing it.) I have to accept that, at least for a certain class of crimes, guns actually do behave as a deterrent, and that some actors, at some levels, are rationally deterred. I don't think this has changed my stance on guns tremendously, as the self-contradictory statements from gun advocates indicate. (In this case, gun advocates believe in its deterrent value, yet claimed that the publication of gun owner residences make it more likely for them to be targets for robbery. This, despite the statistical evidence to the contrary that, if they could be self-consistent, would actually make a case for gun ownership.)

Finally, regarding the Prop 38 37 GMO initiative, I eventually got convinced through some running dialogues (often involving dozens of highly intelligent people on FB) that while I still opposed the proposition on its execution, I did get a reframed perspective. I had approached the issue in terms of a referendum on the safety of GMOs (which I believe evidence supports), but my good friend clarified that I should approach it as a consumer choice problem. Even if I believe that GMOs are safe to eat and generally a good thing in our world, not everyone may agree, and it may be worth a small price to pay for labeling such that those who choose to, can opt out. My views on this are still evolving, but that's the point -- they are evolving thanks to an actual dialogue (or, more accurately, an heptadecalogue).

I should note that only the last is an example of an actual debate leading to changing views. The first two were prompted by questions raised by friends, which spurred me to research the questions on my own.

Look, I've debated American politics, gay marriage, American foreign policy, America's relationship with Israel, the death penalty, Benghazi, healthcare, gun ownership, Biblical literalism, libertarian philosophy, and a number of other things with intelligent people who happen to believe differently than I do.

Sometimes it was fun. Sometimes it was exhausting and frustrating, and changed my overall regard for the other person negatively. Sometimes one or both of us would duck out, just because it didn't seem to accomplish anything or one or the other just seemed extremely underprepared to have a real discussion about something.

At this point, however, I think that, even if it hasn't always been a waste of time in the past, it will be a waste of time going forward. My views are pretty well-formed, and I'm largely comfortable with them. They probably will evolve, perhaps radically, perhaps due to personal tragedy or more positive events (my view on taxes might change if I start making over $1 million a year). But I'm somewhat, cautiously confident in my ability to adapt given those changes, or new information, without subjecting myself to the torment of engaging for the sake of engaging.

Note: I don't have anyone in mind when I say all this. It's just a general conclusion I've reached over the last few months. Those of you who believe differently, and with whom I've had many conversations over the years, I love you. And we'll still talk about many, many things. And I can't say you're wrong for you. But I've concluded what you believe in would be wrong for me. And I need energy that would go toward honing debating points elsewhere right now.

Petition to the Obama Administration to Require a Facebook Dislike Button

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-facebook-provide-dislike-button/Zx9pBT4L

Here is the text for the lazy:

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Require Facebook to Provide a Dislike Button

Facebook has ignored petitions for a dislike button. As the prime social networking platform, it should better comply with the First Amendment, which protects free speech and respectful dissent.

Facebook finds a dislike button valuable enough to use internally, via Push Kharma, to provide feedback to its software engineers.

Here is why an opt-out dislike button is needed on Facebook.

1. It lets users express disapproval easily without being offensive.

2. A dislike button lets users distinguish between posts with little interest and controversial posts.

3. It works well on other websites.

4. Facebook accounts are not anonymous. Users are more accountable, making it less likely it will be abused.

5. An official button will destroy the demand for malware dislike button imposters.

Silly White House Petitions

Update: you can view my own petition for a Facebook dislike button here. Sign it - it needs 150 signatures before it can be viewed by the public on the White House website!

I was curious, so I decided to survey all of the 239 (at time of writing) active petitions at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions.

Some are quite serious, calling for, among other things, the recognition of a Sikh genocide in India in 1984, GLBT (when did it stop being LGBT?) marriage equality, transplant rights for autistic children, concealed weapons in Illinois (which, it claims, is the only state that doesn't offer concealed permits), student loan relief for Peace Corps volunteers, appointing a pediatric oncologist to the National Cancer Advisory Board, and Federal income tax exemptions for wounded and disabled veterans. Also, with about 7,000 signatures, is a petition to have all religious organizations pay federal, state, and local sales tax. This is another one close to the threshold. There's also a petition for a revenue-neutral carbon tax -- someone is taking this process seriously. Another worth looking at: a petition to declassify findings by NSA mathematicians. Also, resurrecting FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

Also, I learned about the Chagossians. (The U.S. Government Must Redress Wrongs Against the Chagossians)


But then there are the secession petitions, from a lot of states -- most notably Texas. (Alaska gets points, or loses them, for using all caps in its petition title, as well as making a Moses reference "LET MY PEOPLE GO!") And there is a counter-petition to strip the secession petition signatories of citizenship. This one would actually deport them, and has met the requisite 25,000 votes. There are more, too.

Here are some noteworthy weird petitions:

Shut down White House petitions, since they never get a sincere response, few read them, & they are ultimately worthless

This one actually has a good point. Didn't they take lessons from the Chevy Tahoe ad campaign (which might have been more successful than I thought)? Or maybe it's just being hipsterish.


Transfer funds from the drug war to fund the research and development of the genetic engineering of domestic cat girls

So, this. Why girls? Why not boys? Someone might be thinking of another kind of stimulus plan, even hairier than the passage of the first two. As it has only 649 signatures, it appears that the male furry stoner demographic can't be bothered.


Uninstall Obama- meaning remove Barack Hussein Obama, his appointed government leaders, & failed policies from America.

Ok. So let's assume they're serious, instead of trying to make some sort of smarmy point. I think this person is calling for a coup within the confines of a White House petition drive. Either this person vastly overestimates the power of a petition directed at an authority the author regards as illegitimate... OR "uninstall" refers to some software that Obamabot is using. Surely, you didn't think Romneybot was the only Android-American running for President?

Create and Approve The MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON National Holiday.

All caps are probably a no-no when addressing the Executive Office of the President. At least the petition links to a list of his humanitarian efforts. Whatever day it ends up being, it probably has to be in the first half of the month (under 16).


Stop non-citizens from voting illegally and the states from illegally sending non-citizens voter ID cards. Stop Fraud!!

More than one exclamation point should disqualify a petition. In fact, any exclamation point is probably not good. No grammatical errors, but the author is clearly pissed that the residents-but-not-citizens gave the election to Obama. Also wants us tracked nationally by social security number, which entails... what? Anything different from the status quo?


Disban the Humane Society of The United States on the basis of fraud and racketeering .

So, they forgot the "d" at the end of "disband" in the title. Intrigued, I read the text. Evidently the author misspelled too ("to"), and tactics ("tatctics"). The author is also concerned about the Humane Society banning all farm ownership of animals. Is the author absolutely certain that the target is PETA?


Require Barack Obama To Allow The Public Examination Of His Birth Certificate Records & His College & University Records

Birthers aren't back. They never left! Now in a new flavor -- college transcripts!

Stop the War on Gaza

First, the author is giving the POTUS a lot of credit if they think he can stop the war in Gaza. Second, it claims that Israel started all the wars. I'm not the biggest supporter of Israeli foreign policy, but that just isn't true. Everyone has their own line for when something is Anti-Semitic, but the mere fact that I'm bringing it up says that this probably is not a reasonable petition. Only 600+ signatures, and it's kind of moot.


United States Government recognition that Israel authored the 9/11 Terror attacks

Wow. This has 620 signatures, all of which have been entered into an FBI watch list. Seriously, tinfoil hat conspiracies + Anti-Semitism = loads of crazy. Still, worth reading, because it apparently resulted in Bin Laden being killed several times (why wasn't his word good enough?) and central banking conspiracies.

Nationalize the Twinkie industry

Sign this. It's a strategic resource. Fat people will help America float as the oceans rise, because trust me, I used to be a scientist.

For certain counties (within respected states) to withdraw from California and Oregon and form the State of Jefferson.

It's respective, dumbass. And lest you think I'm being unfair, I read the petition, and the author clearly means "respective". The last sentence reads, "Please grant us our freedoms that is promised to us". Also, California appears to be "to [sic] diverse". It looks like Fallout 2 nailed the characterization of the average resident.

Establish new legal system of motorcycle riding "Judges" who serve as police, judge, jury, and executioner all in one.

Nice. Nearly 3,000 signatures, and 20 days to go. "That's Honorable Hell's Angels to you, bitch!"

Allow United States Military service members to place their hands in their pockets.

I did not know this was not permitted. Maybe it's seen as threatening to the local population. Maybe it inhibits readiness -- I've never tried to shoot a gun from a position of hands in pocket, but I can imagine it would be difficult. Bonus points for borrowing from the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence, and for being

provide University graduates ability to trade their diplomas back for 100% tuition refunds.

And I thought I was bitter about college.

We, the People, DEMAND an immediate, thorough and honest investigation into GEO-ENGINEERING, HAARP, & "CHEMTRAILS"

Lost points for shouting. Claims that we are the victims of biochemical warfare.

Support a Resolution of Expulsion of Mitch McConnell from the Senate for his disloyalty to the United States.

Was joking about the practice of ostracism via White House petitions. Evidently someone beat me to it, and is very specific.This was at least educational -- it claims that the Senate has expelled fifteen members in its history. Not a McConnell fan (though I do think he should have the screen name McConnellSanders), but I think this is a bit harsh, and probably not a good idea to approach this via the executive branch.

have the President to attend a Fark.com party. If scheduling does not permit, at least have a beer with Drew Curtis

Nicely done. Free advertising FTW!

End to the War On Coal, end the job killing policies of the EPA and require an economic impact analysis of new policies

Evidently this suggests that there is no economic impact report done for new pieces of regulation. Also, I'm no expert, but I think coal's been losing the war in the marketplace for some time. It currently has over 25,000 signers, so a response will be forthcoming.

Recount the election!

Nearly 64,000 signatures. Self-explanatory.

Include Licensed Naturopathic Physicians as primary care providers in the Federal Healthcare Law (Obamacare).

Not sure it will make it  (13,853, with 14 days to go). Perhaps like homeopathy, with fewer votes, it will be even stronger.

Repeal the House of Representatives Resolution 121 to stop aggravating int'l harassment by Korean propaganda & lies!

Persuade South Korea (the ROK) to accept Japan's proposal on territorial dispute over islets.

Remove the monument and not to support any international harassment related to this issue against the people of Japan.

I was not expecting to see a Japan lobby in these petitions. AIPAC is nowhere near here, other than a single proposal to support Israel no matter what (which probably does not have AIPAC involvement). I'm not sure if this is a testament to the weakness of the Japan lobby (also the Polish lobby), or if there are some Tule Lake folks that remain embittered. (Ask Google or your JA friends about the last bit.)

Note: these all have over 25,000 signatures. I didn't even know there were that many JA's left in America that were Internet-capable and gave a shit about politics. (Kidding. Barely.)

Light the White House Purple to Celebrate 75th Anniversary of March of Dimes and as Symbol of Hope to Preemie Families

It's over the threshold, and seems like a nice thing to do. Precedents, yes, but it's got the best shot of all of the petitions I've seen.

Stop destruction of our U-233 for more NASA space exploration, new cancer treatments and thorium based energy abundance!

I only learned recently about a small, obsessive group that believes in Thorium reactors. I'm ashamed that as a physics major, I don't know much about this type of reactor. But the vibe I got was similar to other groups that feel victimized and persecuted. (Related: see the surprisingly weakly supported petition, Answer ALL the questions posed by Congressman Ron Paul in his final speech on the House floor, Nov. 14, 2012.)

Help Free D. Randall Blythe From Prage, Czech Republic. Where he is falsely accused of commiting Manslaughter.

This is one of several petitions that ask for an intervention of some sort (pardon, reopened investigation, etc.) for a specific criminal case. I chose this one because it concerns a crime outside of the United States, thereby possibly necessitating federal involvement and because it is the only one above the threshold. If nothing else, the band Lamb of God has a decent number of fans.

What this taught me is that there is a paucity of well-written petitions. I've decided to create my own -- stay tuned!

Art imitates life, or, How George Orwell Plagiarized from American History

I am currently reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's wonderful book, No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II, I am consistently amazed at how much stuff I just don't know about this time period. The actual War overwhelms the history books, crowding out any domestic events in these decidedly crowded years. Many, many passages are absolutely wonderful to read. They also uncomfortably underline how little real history I know and comprehend.

One passage reminds me of George Orwell's masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, definitely one of my favorite books of all time. I had always thought Nineteen Eighty-Four was brilliant because it portrays a futuristic dystopian world in breathtaking detail. It does do this, and does it in a way that should make it the envy of all fiction. But its real, insidious genius is to warn about the potential future in a way that is subtly, but definitively, a mirror of the present times. As I found out from No Ordinary Time, one way Orwell did this was to lift directly from what was, for him, recent history.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is an amazing scene in which Oceania switches sides in the war, declaring war against its former ally, Eastasia, and allying with its former foe, Eurasia. It happens during a rally, and the conditioned hatred of the population is such that it is accepted without puzzlement or question. The signs held at the rally, now directed against the wrong nation, are attributed to spies and saboteurs, and are hastily torn down.

What a puzzling scene! How could a people be so immersed in doublethink?

From No Ordinary Time:

On the political left, confusion reigned. FOr months, following the Nazi-Soviet pact, communist-leaning organizations had been busily engaged in marching for peace, provoking strikes, and opposing aid to England. With Russia under attack, however, these same forces began to cry out for immediate intervention and massive aid for Russia. Robert Sherwood recalled attending an interventionist rally in Harlem on the Sunday afternoon of the Russian invasion. When he entered the Golden Gate Ballroom, there was a communist picket line in front with placards condemning the Fight for Freedom supporters as "tools of British and U.S. Imperialism." By the end of the rally, the picket line had totally disappeared. "Within that short space of time," Sherwood marveled, "the Communist party line had reached all the way from Moscow to Harlem and had completely reversed itself."

That same day, in a different part of the city, Michael Quill, the left-leaning head fo the Transport Workers of New York, was delivering an angry speech denouncing the imperialist war, arguing that the American worker should have absolutely nothing to do with it. In the middle of his speech, he was handed a note informing him that the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union. Without missing a beat, Quill totally changed direction, arguing that "we must all unite and fight for democracy."

Day of Remembrance

Yesterday was the 70^th anniversary of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the mandatory relocation of mainland Japanese-Americans to camps sprinkled across the United States. It is called a day of remembrance. The optimistic slogan, used prior and since, is “Never forget”. But I can say, without sarcasm or humor, I have forgotten why I remember.

The Japanese Relocation Camps were not special. They were neither the most brutal, or the first, or the largest. They are not worthy of remembrance solely because I am Japanese, or because they directly affected my family. (Indeed, my family history of relocation predates February 19, 1942.) We cast off all manner of personal and familial history, either willingly or because the years put enough distance between us and the experience. One day, we look at it as one looks at a painting in a museum. We can still appreciate it, even be moved and shaped by it. But it is coded as non-life and external.

So it is not important to remember for those reasons that I believe I remember, or ought to remember.

So why do I remember?

I remember, and they are worthy of remembrance, because the camps were American.

For that reason alone I measure its tragedy and its place in history. For that reason alone I believe it is worthy of remembrance, a place in the heart, even as other, more violent, more brutal, more destructive, more identity-altering events from those crowded years clamor for the right to be remembered first, remembered best, even to escape non-life and be the cause, justification, and scapegoat for foreseeable tomorrows.

For the one article of faith – or the shadow of a piece of the faith – that I retain and cling to in my desperate casting about, is this: that we must not only judge ourselves against the standards of others, or, worse yet, their actions. We have our own standards, higher standards, and it is against those that our actions and inactions are to be measured.

The mass, forced relocation of Japanese-Americans isn’t comparable to the Nazi concentration camps. It doesn’t have to be. The American camps were wrong according to the standards we have, or ought to have, for ourselves.

Other nations do not engage in our occasionally self-consuming, debilitating, and masochistic self-analysis. And we skip it when exploring our past and present when it is expedient. But, in the end, it is a vital, even essential, part of the American identity. We must know. Failure is punishing. But willful ignorance of our principles and where we fall short is unforgivable and irredeemable.

This piece of history is perfectly placed for me, because those who were children there now walk slowly, burdened not by the legacy of a miscarriage of justice, but rather arthritis and cancer. Their eyes are not haunted by their experiences. They, too, have forgotten and moved on. I am not reminded of that past when I see them. It is distant enough that they, and I, are free of its shadow. 

And yet it is close enough to be unfree of its lessons.

Instead, I remember when I see, or hear, or feel, the shifting of the tide of expeditious and opportunistic prejudice against another. I remembered when, after 9/11, some called for the incarceration of Arab Americans. I remembered when, naïve but passionate, I marched in protest of the invasion of Iraq at a point when invasion was inevitable. I remembered when I saw Hurricane Katrina bring images of the Third World in America, to America. And I remembered when I argued with a relative, a child in Rohwer, in defense of gay marriage and civil rights.

I forgot at points in my life. When I did, and I failed to be my best, failed to live up to my responsibilities as caretaker of a small, but real, part of the dream.

So I remember, because it is a part of America, and I am American. 

The relocation of Japanese-Americans is a failure that has, and will continue, to pave the way toward greater successes, greater triumphs, that will vindicate the delicate blend of caution, wisdom, optimism, and patriotism that I believe is my duty and my true and better nature. I remember not to shame, or out of shame, but as a necessary part of embracing the identity, legacy, and responsibility of being an American, to take ownership of disappointments as well as progress.

I remember because I am a proud American, and remembering will make me a better one.

Shirley Sherrod Part 2: Telling the Story

This was going to be an analysis of the politics, the decision trees, the steps that led to the present debacle, and the possible options going forward for the players in the Shirley Sherrod saga. Then, I realized that the internet will be filled with that tomorrow. How will it play in November? Can Obama afford to hire her back? Can he afford not to? The talking heads that charged headlong into a wrongheaded conclusion will continue to charge, unabated, without my help, and in spite of my protest. I may return to these thoughts, but not now.

There’s a story here that has to be told, and, I fear, won’t be, at least not broadly. I’ll do my best here, and hope that others notice it, too.

Advice on recruiting volunteers for community service projects

This is taken from my correspondence with a friend seeking to recruit volunteers to work with at-risk kids in the Greater Los Angeles area. From what I could tell, this project was early in the planning stages. Some of it may be helpful to me or someone else, despite the fact that I'm too lazy to tighten the structure and organize the points better. If there's interest, I may do so -- however, most of these things are self-evident after a bit of thought and reflection, and are probably treated better elsewhere.


I wrote up something on the lessons learned recruiting volunteers in college, linked here. However, it's only somewhat relevant to your cause, since (1) I assume you're trying to recruit people who are out of school, and (2) the type of events might be geared toward a more long-term, regular commitment than one-off events. Still perhaps helpful as a testimonial for things that worked and didn’t within an institutional setting.

Resurrected Facebook Post No. 3: In Memoriam, Ed Salpeter

(from a Facebook group created in 2008, shortly after Dr. Salpeter's death)

I created this group to commemorate the passing of one of the senior statesmen of astrophysics, Edwin (Ed) Ernest Salpeter, who passed away today.

I'm hoping everyone will take a bit of time to post your memories or thoughts about Ed on this group.

Thank you, Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck urges listeners to leave churches that preach social justice

courtesy of Maxx Lee, via Timo Chen.

I never thought I'd say this, but thank you, Glenn Beck. I think you're going to get me to go back to church.

It's hard to be angry, and harder to be effectively angry. I've been depressed and done my best to self-lobotomize myself over the last year or two, so it's been really, really hard to get angry or worked up about anything other than my own insignificant life.

And now, this.

Modern Protest

This post was initiated by an interesting article in today's NYTimes:

Legal Cost for Throwing Monkey Wrench Into the System

Briefly, a man is facing charges of fraud for intentionally placing bids for oil and gas rights on federally owned land near national parks and monuments.

This case is fascinating for a number of reasons. I recently met a young law student from Yale who wanted to become a federal prosecutor, partly because he wanted to make sure that he could sleep at night. He said that most of the defendants brought before federal court are guilty. (I did remind him that, while probably correct, the high conviction rate could mean other things.) Cases like this, where it is clear that the defendant broke the letter of the law, but the government's actions are also suspect and conflicting, do not lend themselves to easy moral resolution.

Perhaps less philosophically, and more practically, I think this is a fine example of how protest and dissent has evolved. In the last couple years, journalists noticed the difference between Vietnam-era protests by soldiers and today's professional lobbying, permitted by existing military regulation, used by active servicemen seeking an end to the Iraq War.

Every generation is heterogeneous. But I think enough of us see opportunities to use either (or both) Alinsky-esque tactics of disruption and reform efforts using existing institutions and structures.

Though he is guilty of breaking the law, I salute Tim DeChristopher for using an innovative, effective and nonviolent method of protest, and wish him well in his defense.

Pablo Neruda, and the Election Protests in Iran

I'm not saying that Neruda is a voice that makes sense to use for the Mousavi supporters. The poem, like the situation unfolding in Tehran, is complex, and it would be dangerous to underestimate the complexity of either. So here is, what I hope, is a complex enough concatenation of these two forces that tells a story. Whose, I do not know, and all of us wait for the next chapters to be written.

The text is from "Tu Risa" ("Your Laughter") by Pablo Neruda. The photos and captions are of the election protests in Tehran, located at the Boston Globe website.

Your Laughter

Why we will be disappointed in Obama, and why we should not despair

This is Part 2 of a post on the removal of the Family Planning provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. You can read part 1 here.

A lot of my friends will probably be dismayed that I sympathize with the choice to remove that particular provision from the Act. As I mentioned in Part 1, I am happy to discuss it, and reserve the right, as an intelligent, honest adult to change my views when presented with another, more durable position and argument.

But I wanted to tackle a broader issue in this post.

Protest at Starbucks, Collegetown

I was not prepared for the forest of uplifted chairs and products. I was also unprepared for muttering tongues conversing about monoculture and mothers' wages.

This was not a Pentecostal church. This was Starbucks in Ithaca.

At about 4:15, Collegetown Starbucks was taken over by about 25 protesters. Though the affiliation of the protesters is unknown, it seemed as though they belonged to an environmentally-conscious religious group. They were led by a middle-aged man who spoke with the intensity and the intonation of a southern preacher, inferred from a prayer-like quality of call and response between the leader and the group of protesters, interjected with an "Alleluia!" and an "Amen!"

The protest started reasonably quietly, but grew progressively louder. Towards the end, the leader was shouting.

The group decried corporate greed, the exploitation of individuals in developing nations, and exhorted individuals to go across the street and have some "real, fair trade coffee".

Many people did, in fact, leave, though few seemed motivated by the group's goals of shifting business to fair trade organizations.

The protest also seems to have irritated some of the Starbucks baristas. I overheard a conversation in which one friend was talking to another friend about getting a job at Starbucks. The first friend started discussing the "corporate" nature of Starbucks (as a negative). The barrista interrupted, and mentioned in a somewhat irritated tone that Starbucks helps her get through college, have medical coverage and save in a 401(k).

I know they pissed a lot of people off, but I do have to applaud the clever nature of their protest. The elevation of chairs was needlessly threatening and pretty dumb, but the sea of lifted coffee bags, Naked juice containers, and mugs was very post-modern chic, and yet reminiscent of Saul Alinsky. Me like.

One can only speculate about the goals of the group - and this one will. I full well acknowledge ahead of time that I am in no way "better" than anyone discussed in these thoughts - people who know me know that I can be a self-righteous prig, a greedy bastard, a cold pragmatist, and an emotional whiny baby. So I've been (or hope to be) in every position in this story, and claim moral inferiority.


Q: What were the motivations of the protesters?

Protests, and those who participate in them, are influenced by a number of reasons. And while I can't claim to be particularly informed about any group's motivations, I think I can infer a few.

1. Concern for fair wages to those who are involved with growing the coffee
2. Concern for environmental issues associated with coffee-growing
3. Inform public about their positions (opposition to corporations, "free trade", American consumer culture. (The last was revealed through comments like, "They're selling you dirt from the ground.")

In addition to these, it is possible that the leadership of the group pushed for the following goals:
1. Reinforcing the group's solidarity, via contrast vis a vis a corporation
2. A desire to take an action that would be
(a) relatively simple
(b) have a clear and immediate impact
(c) could be defined in a way that guaranteed success
(d) make a public commitment to avoid private guilt

(a) Relatively simple:

A protest requires fewer resources than a letter-writing campaign, and far fewer than a shareholder proxy fight to change corporate policy. It requires a handful of people, no money, and a minimum of time.

A large, sophisticated protest, of course, requires a lot of organization and resources. Speakers/leaders have to take a lot of time to craft a persuasive message and materials for potential new converts to a cause. Assuming protesters don't want to be arrested, it takes time and thought to solicit and ensure cooperation with local law enforcement. These are less important for a small group.

(b) Have a clear and immediate impact:

The protest is beautiful because it guarantees immediate gratification on the part of the activist. It is immediate action - it disrupts the business and provides immediate emotional catharsis and satisfaction for the members of the protest.

(c) Could be defined in a way that guarantees success

All forms of influence, whether activism, business strategy, or simple requests of a friend, carry the risk of failure or negative consequences. A campaign to petition Congress and bring about change faces issues as to how to measure success, and whether flagging public interest would constitute a failure and a waste of political capital.

But a protest always succeeds in the eyes of its participants. It is pretty much guaranteed to disrupt business in the cafe, at least for a time. It airs the grievances of the group, and informs the (often unreceptive) local public. If people are converted, that's great. If people are unreceptive or hostile, well, then that reveals the need for the group to exist, to educate and fight those who embrace corporatism all too easily.

(d) Public commitment to escape private guilt

Whether it gets Starbucks to adopt "fair trade" is irrelevant. The most important thing it does is to allow individuals to stand up and be counted, and to absolve themselves of responsibility for the actions they oppose.

When I protested the Iraq War on my college campus, I felt like I was doing my part to make my voice heard. At the very least, it served to wash my hands of the war and its consequences - after all, if I voted with my voice against the war, I can't be held responsible for the subsequent mess, right?

By opposing Starbucks publicly, the protesters absolve themselves from the responsibilities of our responsibility for the negative consequences of trade. Whether responsibility stops with that depends upon the individual; cases can be made for complete decoupling from a system one opposes, combatting it whenever feasible and success appears possible, or for working within the system and use reform, not revolution, to slowly change the normative boundaries of society.

*I was going to ask more questions, but got tired, and realized that a real social psychologist could do a better job.*

Conclusion

I recognize protest as an important and integral part of a free, democratic society. And yet I also recognize its selfishness - selfish in the sense that local group identity, and not global justice, is often the underlying motivator and the only lasting product of the protest. It doesn't disqualify it as a valid form of action in America. But it suggests that if our tactics say something about the scope of our ambitions, we should take care to make sure they are aligned.

On Volunteer Organizations (letter to MMAD)

1. Introduction

One of my biggest regrets at Mudd is not devoting the time, thought, and energy needed to really set up MMAD with more infrastructure. I am very happy that the coordinator positions are work-study - I think this is an important way for students who are concerned for society to be able to do good work without having to choose between work and volunteering. To clarify my thoughts, and to maybe pass along the experience and thoughts I should have before I left, I've decided to draft this memo. I don't know of an existing handbook for volunteering, but all social organizations operate according to a few basic principles, most of which I have tried to incorporate into this memo.

2. Summary

I've separated them in terms of strategic, operational, and tactical lessons.

Strategic lessons relate to long-term planning and agenda setting - usually things that happen once a semester, once a year, or even over the lifetime of MMAD. (planning)

Operational lessons relate to the mechanics of getting things done - logistics, planning, and execution of events. (doing things)

Tactical lessons relate to the techniques you actually use to recruit volunteers for events and keep people informed. (keeping people happy and interested)

The chief lessons learned:
Strategic
1. Decide each year whether energy and mission will be focused on outreach, volunteering, or activism, or a combination of these.
2. Be realistic as far as what to expect from HMC and its students, realistic but not pessimistic.
3. Volunteering can be fun, personally rewarding, and eye-opening - it does not have to be all of these, but there should be an opportunity for each.
4. Good relationships with the administrators and ASHMC are incredibly important in order to get things done.

Operational
1. Ego destroys more organizations and clubs than anything else - the cause, whatever it is, must be bigger than any one person.
2. Get help if you need it.
3. Everyone needs a clear idea of what needs to be done, why it needs to be done, and who needs to do it.
4. Money is important in order to get things done - make sure that the funding is available for every project. If it's not, don't be shy to go out and get it.
5. Learn how to negotiate with the administration and other stakeholders.
6. Professors, the administration, and staff have long-term connections with the community, and are a great source of contacts. Existing contacts should be maintained and transferred between years.
7. Talk about what worked and what didn't for each event.

Tactical
1. You get more flies with honey than vinegar - focus on the positive.
2. Provide a range of commitment/participation levels to make it as easy as possible for people to volunteer.
3. Know how to table and flier effectively.
4. Make use of digital media, like websites, electronic calendars, and listservs to get opportunities out.

Most of these seem obvious, but it's sometimes a bit challenging to keep all of these in mind when one has finals/jobs/personal life to worry about. I'll cover each point listed in more detail below.

3. Strategic
(1) Decide each year whether energy and mission will be focused on outreach, volunteering, or activism, or a combination of these.

When I was a MMAD volunteer coordinator, we focused on volunteering. We decided to do this because other organizations - like Upward Bound and the education course led by Professors Dodds (CS) and Yong (Math) - were working on outreach. Furthermore, outreach is done in different ways by research groups, in part because the National Science Foundation requires all recipients of grants to demonstrate a broader impact to society. Activism was avoided because it can be tricky - it is frequently political, often confrontational with the administration and other students, and highly dependent upon the personal values of the Mudd coordinators. This became a big issue during Spring 2004, when a cross-burning and various racial incidents led to the creation of a number of aggressive student activist organizations.

Both activism and outreach can be a part of MMAD, but should be recognized as different from MMAD's historical mission - to provide Mudders with the opportunity to volunteer with members of the 5-C community in the Inland Valley area.

Whatever the mission, make sure it is specific. It should be able to be articulated in a single, relatively uncomplicated sentence.


(2) Be realistic as far as what to expect from HMC and its students, realistic but not pessimistic.

This was something that took a very, very long time to drill into my thick skull. I'd wonder, why don't Mudders care about things like poverty, homelessness, or bad public schools? Are we just soulless scientists or spoiled college kids?

The problem, of course, was not the Mudd community, but my expectations of what should be. Mudd students have a sense of never having enough time, of always being busy, of always being overworked. At first, I thought we really did work harder than everyone else - now that I've visited a few schools and been at Cornell for a few years, I realize that most students feel this way. Mudd is different from some schools in that it is

(1) small
(2) focused on math, science, and engineering, which are hard
(3) an expensive school.

I didn't consider those three factors, which made it hard for me to realize why it would be harder to recruit volunteers here than at, say, Berkeley.

It is small - this means that everyone knows everyone else, and so you might be trying to convince friends instead of complete strangers to go feed the homeless on Saturdays. However, this also means that, all other things being equal, there are a smaller number of students who will see value in volunteering. Now, based on my experience with Oxfam donations, Mudders might in fact be far more generous than students at the other 4-C with their meals going toward international hunger relief. But the fact remains that with only 800 people, it's hard to believe that there will be an army of people who agree with your worldview.

It is focused on math, science and engineering. These things are hard. They require a lot of time, energy, patience, and training to become good at. There is a time pressure, and it's important to acknowledge it.

Mudd is also an expensive school. A lot of students can't afford to take time away from work and school to go volunteer. I was lucky in that I didn't have to work as much as some of my friends to pay the bills. During my frosh orientation, someone made the comment that "No one at Mudd has parents who make cardboard boxes for a living." I'm not quite sure if that's true - there are a lot of students who needed lots of aid, lots of work-study, and still had to take out a lot of loans to continue to go to school. This reality prompted Deans Sundberg, Noda and myself in 2004 to make MMAD coordinating a work-study position.

Because of these, it's helpful to measure progress and effectiveness not by raw numbers, but whether or not those numbers stay stable or increase. If they do, you're doing something right.

(3) Volunteering can be fun, personally rewarding, and eye-opening - it does not have to be all of these, but there should be an opportunity for each.

Volunteers and coordinators alike bring different skills and will get different things out of it. Some do it for social reasons - I've met a lot of amazing people through volunteering, and made some friends that I will keep for a lifetime.

Being a MMAD coordinator helped me with public speaking, with organizing events, and with managing people. I learned how to negotiate, form partnerships, and deal with politics. It probably helped me get an NSF fellowship In short, volunteering did not only benefit the homeless in Pomona or members of the Mudd community - I personally benefited.

And boy did it open up my eyes to the complexities of the world, of the nuanced nature of homelessness and the different communities that fall under that generic category. When you walk unwittingly up to two people engaged in a drug deal and hand out sandwiches, realizing only afterward that the guy on the left had a knife in his hand that he would have used against you if you had caused trouble, you look at the world a different way.

Point being - not everyone is going to want to do the "hard stuff". Some people will raise money - some people want leadership experience. By keeping these three payoffs in mind, you'll be able to design better volunteer activities and more effectively persuade people to give it a try.


(4) Good relationships with the administrators and ASHMC are incredibly important in order to get things done.

Coalitions are important in life. The maxim that won World War II was "Never fight unless you have to, never fight alone, and never fight for long." Whether they are your friends, your family, your professional network, or political affiliation, partners will make you more effective and less exhausted.

The administration has the power - and for good reason. They have to make sure that your plan to offer Platt's used food to homeless shelters doesn't leave them vulnerable to a lawsuit. They also have to make sure that students donating meals from their meal plan to a cause doesn't make it impossible to pay for dining services. I've negotiated, fought, and fumed against the administration as much as anyone else - but at the end of the day, they were MMAD's best friends.

Don't be afraid to disagree, but always be polite. Your club can only benefit from good relations with other groups.


4. Operational
(1) Ego destroys more organizations and clubs than anything else - the cause, whatever it is, must be bigger than any one person.

Boy did I learn this one. For those of you who overlapped with me, you probably saw how obsessed I was with getting whatever I wanted for MMAD at the moment. The way I operated, the club should've been renamed the Institute of Mudders Making Anarchic Destruction (IMMAD). In the end, my ego prevented me from getting help with projects, from giving others the opportunity to run with their own ideas, and from really opening up Mudd to the range of opportunities available.

If volunteers are honest with themselves, I think a lot of us have a bit of self-righteousness at our core. If you don't, congratulations - you're already wiser than I was. :) In the end, it may matter a little who gets credit - we think Newton invented calculus, though history tells us that it's a bit more complicated - but it matters a LOT whether it gets done. The only way to make real difference in this complicated world with lots and lots of empowered, intelligent people is to focus the energies of a large number of these people.

Facilitate, but do not dictate.

(2) Get help if you need it.

This is related to #1 in Operations. Everyone is busy. But everyone wants to help. If you need help, get it. If you're not sure, ask for it anyway. It's insane to try to move a heavy couch by yourself - it's equally dumb to try to run a big event without help.

(3) Everyone needs a clear idea of what needs to be done, why it needs to be done, and who needs to do it.

I heard that MMAD has 12 coordinators now. While this makes me happy that it's expanding, I wonder how effectively 12 people can set a time to meet, much less get things done. It may be possible, but only if there is a clear idea and overall agreement on what needs to be done, and who is going to do what. Even though no coordinator is officially in charge of MMAD, there does need to be one person who organizes a given project. Don't be afraid to take the initiative, and don't be annoyed if someone's bossiness gets things done.

Emailing meeting notes and a to-do list for everyone after a meeting is a great way of making sure everyone knows what they need to do, and a way of holding people to what they promise.

(4) Money is important in order to get things done - make sure that the funding is available for every project. If it's not, don't be shy to go out and get it.

When I left Mudd, MMAD depended upon ASHMC for most of its funds. However, we also got help for certain activities by negotiating with the administration on donated meals, or discussing joint funding of work trips with the 5-C volunteer office.

Though not directly affiliated with us, SALSA negotiated with Boeing to put up operating funds for science outreach to underrepresented minorities. It can be done if there's a clear plan, a measurable goal, and a way for the company or school to get something out of it (say, good publicity or access to young talent).

(5) Learn how to negotiate with the administration and other stakeholders.

Whatever you do, there will be people who think it should be done differently. Know the layout of whose turf is what, and do your best to talk with people who might be hurt or affected. Many of our newer projects would not have worked, had we not contacted the administration or other groups to make sure there was no conflict or overlap. Better yet, when you have a great idea for a joint project, talking with another group can increase your resources and chances of success.

(6) Professors, the administration, and staff have long-term connections with the community, and are a great source of contacts. Existing contacts should be maintained and transferred between years.

One of the problems with college organizations is that the membership constantly enters and leaves. It's easy to forget what happened a few years ago, the battles fought and lessons learned. This is part of the reason why I'm writing this letter. But another important part of this is that all the good will that boil down to personal relationships between MMAD coordinators and members of the community can evaporate once the person leaves.

Ideally, MMAD coordinators will train their successors and provide them with a list of local contacts (or even a personal introduction). But an equally valuable resource, whether for resurrecting old relationships or creating new ones, is to use the administration, faculty, and staff. They live in or around Claremont, and know a lot of people. Don't depend only upon traditionally powerful people - dining staff and maintenance folks have been some of the most valuable friends and useful collaborators on projects, and have introduced me to local organizations that I would have missed otherwise.


(7)Talk about what worked and what didn't for each event

Feedback is important - I didn't do this very much at Mudd, in classwork, life, or volunteering. With every project or activity, we should ask ourselves "What worked? What didn't? How could we make this better? What have we learned?" A smart leader will be able to solicit and provide feedback without being hurt or hurting. But if egos are bruised in this process, too bad. You're in the business of helping people, not reinforcing self-esteem. :)



5. Tactical

(1) You get more flies with honey than vinegar - focus on the positive.

The worst thing we can do is make people feel badly if they can't volunteer, or make people think volunteers are all pushy, pretentious hypocrites. I know it's tough - when people turn you down for the 20th time to donate blood, or spend a Saturday at the shelter, you might feel like telling someone off. Please don't. Like any sales job - and yes, this is a sales job - you will need to tolerate rejection. It's not personal, and often it's simply a matter of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. There are jerks, and some will always be jerks. But your goal is to improve the Mudd community by providing an opportunity to leave a claustrophobic, closed world of perpetual stress and intellectual one-upmanship and step back.

At a more fundamental level, volunteering = good in most people's minds, even those who hate it. An inconsistent message - say, angry emails to the listserv condemning the lack of volunteerism (yes, I've done this) only lead to unsubscriptions (four in my case) and a loss of credibility. Save the rants for your livejournal (and make it private - minimize the drama).

If you're curious about the science behind how certain people and causes are more effective than others, I'd recommend reading Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. This book is designed to help you defend yourself against aggressive salesmen. But it can also enlighten your approach to soliciting volunteering. I've sent a copy to Susan Kim at MMAD.

(2) Provide a range of commitment/participation levels to make it as easy as possible for people to volunteer.

Not everyone expects the same thing. Some people will look for a jumping off point to personally crusade against poverty in America, or hunger in the world. Some people are uncomfortable with dealing directly with poor people.

The longer I'm in science, the more I realize that its strength and frustration comes from the fact that science takes all sorts of people. People who otherwise wouldn't have a place in our society can find success and even greatness in science. We need politicians, public relations types, specific nerds and visionary generalists in science. The same is true of volunteering. For every person who sits and chats with the homeless and gives them hugs, there is at least one person balancing books and writing grants in the office, one person calling up donors. To build a house for Habitat for Humanity, one can dig ditches, drywall, dig postholes, work on wiring, put up shingles... you get the point. Many hands, many different jobs, and a place for most everyone.

Some people will be able to donate ten hours a week. Some will donate ten hours a year. But it makes a difference, not only in what that person does, but what it does for them. Never forget this - our impact is not only on those we help, but on how our actions and words change ourselves and each other.

(3) Know how to table and flier effectively.

You have a few seconds to make an impression on people as they walk from the tray return to the doors of Platt. Think about what you want to say and convey. Remember that communication of liking and attitude is 55% body language and facial expression, 38% vocal tone, and 7% what you actually say. Be upbeat, cheerful, and kind. Or be sarcastic, witty, and clever. Whatever you think works best for the people you're looking to recruit, do it.

Note: I am not above recruiting volunteers - ahem - endowed with greater physical attractiveness than average. They make a difference when trying to recruit people for a cause. Just remember - you're selling volunteering, not pimping out your friends.

(4) Make use of digital media, like websites, electronic calendars, and listservs to get opportunities out.

I think Professor Yong said that time management was the key to succeeding at Mudd. Since he graduated in 3 years with two majors, I think he knows what he's talking about. Definitely make use of electronic calendars, listservs, and the MMAD website to keep people up-to-date about events.

Do not underestimate the value of a good website. A regularly updated, useful, well-organized website can provide potential donors and volunteers with a credible, professional face.

6. Conclusion
Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our
control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature
nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched
to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in
that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event,
it is the only way we can live.
- Robert F. Kennedy

Robert Kennedy spoke those words 40 years ago to Black students in Apartheid South Africa. It remains as true today as it was then. No one knows for certain the limits of one's potential, or of the range of effect of one's actions. What you can be certain is that, more than anything else, your character and ability will determine your future.

MMAD is a great organization that has the potential to change lives. But any organization is only good as its people. I hope this document helps you become more effective volunteer coordinators. But I also know that times, people, and missions change. You are here at Harvey Mudd because, more than most, you have proven yourself capable of independent thought and effective action. Though MMAD may be, and perhaps ought to be, only one small part of your time at Mudd, it is truly a place where you can make a difference, in the world, and in yourself.

Character is destiny - and I hope that in spite of the frustrations, setbacks, and uncertain progress, that you feel the time spent in MMAD, and HMC in general, will test you and compel you to become stronger and smarter women and men, armed with compassion and conviction. Good luck to you all.