#apali

 the crotchety old man   it a body coat made of armor   who’ll one minute  can’t hear a word what you said , then the next minute Change at an  attacker 

headstrong all the way down from hear head to here toes , takes here job seriously * sometimes a little to  seriously  * shes an expert in  combat *

  large ,gruff and  200 pounds of muscle . takes his job with  ease  I  mean  whos stupid enough  to fight a large bison *

last member of the group  she is the most devious of the group   she waits and think things 3 steps ahead then her clients attackers just don’t say shes soft  she hates it 

these Hoofed Bodyguards work  for the highest bidder , besides there quirks  they get the job done 

For our final day of curriculum, APALI students got to experience a one-day bootcamp on political organizing and campaigning.  To say it was insightful would be an understatement.

It got me thinking about relationships between influencers in a community...

I want to narrow in on is the effect of "breadth and depth" of relationships on politics, particularly for young people.

Apart from acquiring resources, having a great team, and thinking strategically about how to exercise your power as a candidate, I think the biggest obstacle facing young people in running for office (and winning) is the breadth and depth of relationships in a community.

Some call it "paying your dues," but young people often don't have the social capital to really run and win unless they've spent years cultivating, engaging, and strengthening their local network. In it's own way, achieving that kind of soft power, or community leadership, can win elections before they even begin.

So I wonder, are all community networks created equal?

It makes sense to organize grassroots and populist support, but in some circles the elite donors enable the campaign in ways the electorate never quite can. Why in some places are populist movements more effective than the well-funded and vice versa? I think it has a lot to do with how emotional (angry and/or desperate) a specific group is to see their candidate succeed.

In reflecting on Week 10 of APALI, our discussion on gender and ethnicity made me think of this highly recommended, 15-min read. The bolded highlights interspersed are very "holy sh*t" moments and emphasize the importance of having strong women mentors.

But take it with a grain of salt.

I recognize there's a degree of self-confidence required for success in any male-dominated field. Women who have advanced in these fields usually do so in spite of their environment. The rebuttal of the “confidence gap” article I linked is that these concepts of the qualities of a "strong leader" are predicated upon the path that has been forged by men. While women in leadership may not be as aggressive self-promoters, that does not make them any less qualified to lead. What institutions can do to improve their environment for women could (and should) be combined with efforts to empower women. Electing more women from all racial/ethnic backgrounds is likely to lead to policy change. However, it is not the only factor that leads to policy change. It’s well known that because women of color (WoC) have not historically been part of a state’s traditional power structure, they do not have equal access to *formal and informal* leadership positions. I believe this article raises similar concerns, even though it focuses on the lack of racial diversity within congressional offices.

Underrepresentation manifests and perpetuates discrimination in multiple ways, including implicit bias and exclusionary social networks.

Even when a handful of women access leadership positions, colleagues (both women and men) tend to classify their achievements as tokenism and devalue these positions, characterizing the achievements as "service-oriented" rather than "leadership". Not cool.

This was a reflection during week 9 of the APALI CLP.

I don't know what I don't know.

Effective mentorship is something I've been actively chasing in these past few months, juggling multiple part time gigs between government, Citizen’s Climate Lobby, and an AgTech startup based out of Hawaii.

As a mentee, I've benefit from others suggesting content and advice to me before I need it, and I try to be just as resourceful.

On reflection of mentorship and past networking opportunities, I have three kinds of mentors that have benefit my life:

Mentors that help you through transition phases faster (coaches and drill sergeants LOL)

Mentors that grow my perspective and accountability (like a significant other or family)

Mentors that advance your readiness and excellence in a particular area (teacher-student)

Now in the above outcomes, those mentors have been different people in my life. I realize mentorship can be very niche. I really value communicating mutual goals and finding common ground, as those have been foundational to some of the best mentoring relationships I've had. For all the writing on mentorship, I think there should really be a flowchart or something on identifying the right mentor you need.

In prep for future mentoring sessions, here's some questions I have planned:

What do you really want to achieve or be? How do you want to grow?

What are core characteristics have best served you?

What do you find challenging and where do you direct your personal development?

How have you progressed and at what point were you "ready"?

If you had to train me in 2 weeks for what you do, what would we focus on and why?

What do you hope for future professionals doing what you do?

Given some of my needs, do you happen to know who can provide help?

I also appreciate networking when it doesn’t feel fake, as I think genuine networking comes out of an attitude of fostering generosity. It connects a lot with this HBR article I read about how empathy, compassion, sharing, and transparency builds social capital.

I recall when I was in UC Davis CKI, some of our decisions were misguided by what characterizes an "effective donation."  Ideally, we wanted to donate to causes that had little overhead, and translated dollars to impact with high throughput.  I think it was week 7? when I responded to Dan Pallota's engaging TED talk "The Way We Think about Charity is Dead Wrong."   Yeah, this is definitely the other half of the story.

I think a strong network of (profitable) nonprofits, and having capable, innovative people drawn to the sector is CRITICAL to addressing economic inequality.

It speaks to my earlier reflection on an inclusive economy - in that government should enable the "things" that help people live "middle class lives," even if they don't make middle class incomes.

One of the comments in the TED talk thread was as follows: 

"There has been a lot of corruption in non-profits over the year, which has tarnished many causes. I am very very selective in how and where I donate money these days. Also, quite often people give money and think they have a say in how it is spent, hence not wanting their money spent on advertisement. Perhaps non-profits need to do a better job at informing the people who donate, how the money is spent, how revenue has increased due to advertisement etc."

Couldn't agree more. A lack of oversight in religious charities and nonprofits often create a culture of mistrust around nonprofits. The belief that "profitable nonprofits are corrupt" is the real misconception. This problem has social consequences - one of which is a lack of funding, and another which deters talented people from meaningful nonprofit work.

I propose external oversight and internal transparency to improve the reputation of nonprofits.

External oversight could look like stronger audits or open data initiatives that nonprofits must comply with (in exchange for their tax-exempt status). Increased regulation doesn't necessarily turn people away from business - so I don't see it keeping people from operating nonprofits.

Internal transparency could be increased emphasis on ethics or public relations to issue reports and newsletters that inform people about the achievements of the nonprofit.

As a footnote, I want to see a greater ecosystem of support and funding for people that want to start nonprofits. The model could look similar to member-owned accelerators, or member-owned banks.

Member-owned "business" accelerator focusing on social entrepreneurship in Oakland: http://uptimabootcamp.com/the-community-network-effect

Community banking: http://beneficialstatebank.com/beneficial-banking

Global Alliance for Banking on Values: http://www.gabv.org/about-us/our-principles

Easily a controversial topic, but one that warrants a clear progressive analysis in preservation of civil discourse. For this class, I was tasked with responding to two Atlantic Magazine articles "How to Build an Autocracy" and "Containing Trump."

On reflection, these articles point to an array of problems, three of which I’ll mention here.

1. Polarization and delegitimization of the press. “By filling the media space with bizarre inventions and brazen denials, purveyors of fake news hope to mobilize potential supporters with righteous wrath—and to demoralize opponents by nurturing the idea that everybody lies and nothing matters.” This operating model is a contrast to the days when the free independent press was a public service, and not subject to the profitability demands of corporate media. For the public, this centers on re-envisioning what support for the media looks like (beyond viewership), in addition to the expanse of media to reach individuals it doesn’t currently reach. This two-way relationship is in great need of repair.

2.This leads into my second point - The spread of cynicism and unreliable institutions. If we can’t expect Congress to act as a check on the President, what will? The reading puts it nicely: "If people retreat into private life, if critics grow quieter, if cynicism becomes endemic, the corruption will slowly become more brazen, the intimidation of opponents stronger.” Fighting against cynicism and pessimistic conditioning involves a greater filter on “what’s most important” and “how do we get people to know about it.” I’ve found satire, comedy, and the arts to be an increasingly valuable filter against the mainstream media outlets, as often their commentary reaches people (and directs their thinking) towards the issues they expose.

3. A culture of the rich and powerful to sway systems and people to their benefit, without concern to integrity or ethics. This culture, reinforced by an unfair taxation system, a disconnect between the rich and powerful to the public systems that enabled their success, and a bias for self-interest, widens the socioeconomic gap. Interventions that include using media and close advisors to the rich and powerful could have dramatic impact on the distribution of wealth and the protection of progressive values. (In addition to tax reform)

On the upside...