@MiracleManS said:
I can't for the life of me figure out how they're going to make the money do something. I'm sorry, but $12 million isn't going to buy you much
That's about half a Representative. Gotta start somewhere, right?
Indeed, there that is. Good thing we haven't seen that here, and if we do see it we will be sure to remind people that they have to earn complaining rights first by at minimum throwing money at a celebrity endorsed super pac.
So based on what he said.......I can do the same thing at the polls in 2016 while saving money. Have to agree with @PirateNinja on this one
@PirateNinja said:
politics/actor/lack of details/dumbed down/one man taking your money knowing no systemic economic changes will come if it. But that's just me.
@Creeperbane2 said:
So based on what he said.......I can do the same thing at the polls in 2016 while saving money. Have to agree with PirateNinja on this one
The problem is that unless a candidate has money, you won't even have the options of voting for them.
I agree that 12 million isn't a lot of money in terms of financing a campaign, but I also don't know of many other options.
@PirateNinja said:
one man taking your money knowing no systemic economic changes will come if it.
I linked the Wikipedia article on Lawrence Lessig as some background on the person actually running the Super PAC. I cannot think of a person more qualified to take on the challenge. Frankly, I'm less convinced by the idea than I am by the man running it.
If you're feeling super cynical about "celebrity endorsement" and "what can $12 million accomplish" you could, I dunno, read the actual website that details their immediate plans and long-term strategy? There's a lot of snark in this thread directed at assumptions.
I linked the Joseph Gordon-Levitt video because he gives a quick overview and he's goddamn hot, not because of the amazing technical detail he went into. When you watch a 3-minute intro of a movement that's been in the works for years I think the appropriate reactions are "No, thanks" or "I want to know more", not "Here's why I already know this is stupid".
I don't see how to read a 4-year plan by a guy as smart as Lessig and come away with "politics/actor/lack of details/dumbed down/etc" so yes I felt that was a pretty safe conclusion to draw.
@Linc said:
I linked the Wikipedia article on Lawrence Lessig as some background on the person actually running the Super PAC. I cannot think of a person more qualified to take on the challenge. Frankly, I'm less convinced by the idea than I am by the man running it.
Lessig's the man. I'd highly recommend reading or listening to "Republic, Lost" for a detailed background on some of this.
@Linc said:
If you're feeling super cynical about "celebrity endorsement" and "what can $12 million accomplish" you could, I dunno, read the actual website that details their immediate plans and long-term strategy? There's a lot of snark in this thread directed at assumptions.
I linked the Joseph Gordon-Levitt video because he gives a quick overview and he's goddamn hot, not because of the amazing technical detail he went into. When you watch a 3-minute intro of a movement that's been in the works for years I think the appropriate reactions are "No, thanks" or "I want to know more", not "Here's why I already know this is stupid".
Either I'm inept or it's impossible to easily find a link to that page from the home page. In any case, thanks for the extra material.
Edit: so, it's a link embedded in some content near the bottom. I'd consider this a main nav item, so that might explain some of it.
@Linc said:
I don't see how to read a 4-year plan by a guy as smart as Lessig and come away with "politics/actor/lack of details/dumbed down/etc" so yes I felt that was a pretty safe conclusion to draw.
I do, and I did read the plan last night.
And I'm sorry for snark/dickish reply to Ryan. Was lame of me. Sorry Mr. Fodder.
@MiracleManS said:
Either I'm inept or it's impossible to easily find a link to that page from the home page. In any case, thanks for the extra material.
See I had that same issue last night when I was trying to research what their plan was. By time I finally found the link, "our plan in more detail", that set of alarms in my head that there would be no specifics on how the money would be spent. Then I read the plan and it just got worse from there. The only assumption that I made was that none of you donators actually read the plan before donating because I figured if you had you would not have donated.
I know how to be deceptive and get millions of people to do stuff on the Internet. Sadly, it's my job. And these guys, in so many different places, do exactly what I do. There is so much to this that I could explain, but I don't think anybody wants to hear about it.
Having visited in person, it's quite an informative rant. I still believe that this could be worth the (small) investment in the hopes that it's legit. I read about the guy, saw what he's done in the past and think it's legit. I also understand with the attitude you've just expressed that it might not be possible for you to ever truly trust any such organization asking for money. shrugs
I'm not stupid though, and didn't appreciate the implication. Thank you for the apology.
That being said, I grew up in a place where politicians ran on morality issues and in turn screwed over their voting base financially. I watch money trump votes every vote, in every state I've lived in.
We all have our jaded aspects. I just want to have something to believe in that might actually work. Even if it turns out it doesn't, it might get some attention for trying.
I never meant to imply such things and I certainly would never think them. I was apologizing for my snarky little remark after your post about complaining and now I'm sorry again for any stress I caused related or not.
@Snarkasm said:
You might be wrong... Lots of people still like learning from all over the place.
@PirateNinja said:
I know how to be deceptive and get millions of people to do stuff on the Internet.
Then you probably know that the majority of people are unmoved by education about a subject, but sway much more easily when subjected to marketing.
I'm hoping that's what's at play here, because it's a sad truth that a majority of the voting public can't be moved through education to give a damn about reestablishing a true representative democracy.
I enjoyed reading it Also, I'm not sure why I got so upset. My apologies for the angry response earlier. Here are my more rational thoughts:
The problem I see is that if they put a bunch of detail on their website two things would happen: 1) very few people would read it for reasons you mention, and 2) (guessing here/AMA discussion) outlining plans in detail may make them a target for those with even more money. I do agree with you that they should have a more clear outcome to their goals for each stage; what is winning?
After reading the AMA - they are pretty vague with their goals, but I'm not sure what they could answer here that would be definite. Lessig basically stated that they weren't going to announce which five districts they were going to target until they spent the money. The tone was very much: we're going to do exactly what we have to do to maximize getting this funding. My impression is that winning to them is showing they can usurp incumbents or other high value candidates and replace with those who pledge to promote campaign finance reform. My personal thoughts are slightly more cynical: winning is shifting opinion enough that they can fund the next stage on the momentum. That doesn't make for a good web site though.
They also stated that they are tracking their dollar gains, and working on transparency as far as where the money goes. They did mention in the AMA that they were planning on hiring local campaign planning companies and not doing that part themselves. A few people called them on this lack of experience directly.
TL:DR - You have to make a flashy website to get funding or it won't work. More detail (not a lot more) was shared on Reddit.
Totes agree with you sir Fodder. They need good marketing, and marketing serves a purpose. It isn't evil. I just couldn't get past exceptional marketing with lackluster planning in a situation that requires very very serious skill and planning. I mean they are talking about overturning the entire governments legislative priorities with a handful of cash. I also hope it works, but personally I'm too cynical to roll the dice on it when I look at all the other stuff that the dude has to gain from this. He is an expert witness, author, public speaker, and before all else business man. This is providing some serious attention to his brand. I dunno, I'm going to be super happy if I was wrong about this in a few years and I will match all of your donations to this cause to a quality charity in 3 years if I was.
My takeaway from it was "good at marketing, no 500-page tell-all strategy memo, therefore shitbags." shrug I am not so skeptical, but this isn't my first time following Lessig's work and cheering him on. You don't get into shit work like copyright reform and campaign finance to polish your "brand".
@PirateNinja said:
and before all else business man.
In this CV:
Founder, Creative Commons
Founder, Rootstrikers
Founder, Stanford Center for Internet and Society
Professor, Harvard Law School
Director, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
your takeaway is "before all else business man." That level of jaded I cannot contend with.
You cherrypicked his CV, and also if you think what you just posted didn't make him a lot of money then you are possibly confus. Should I make a lengthy most about why I think he is a businessman before all else?
Never called him/them shitbags. Just decided the thing wasn't worth my time because in my estimation it wasn't going to work and it is likely the guy is in fact using this campaign for his own gains. None of us know if that is true or not, I'm making estimations based on limited research and sharing my opinion.
Comments
Been in!
In. Here's to hoping.
politics/actor/lack of details/dumbed down/one man taking your money knowing no systemic economic changes will come if it. But that's just me.
KONY 2012
I'm similarly skeptical, but good luck.
I can't for the life of me figure out how they're going to make the money do something. I'm sorry, but $12 million isn't going to buy you much
That's about half a Representative. Gotta start somewhere, right?
If no one does anything and still complains... there's that.
Indeed, there that is. Good thing we haven't seen that here, and if we do see it we will be sure to remind people that they have to earn complaining rights first by at minimum throwing money at a celebrity endorsed super pac.
So based on what he said.......I can do the same thing at the polls in 2016 while saving money. Have to agree with @PirateNinja on this one
The problem is that unless a candidate has money, you won't even have the options of voting for them.
I agree that 12 million isn't a lot of money in terms of financing a campaign, but I also don't know of many other options.
I linked the Wikipedia article on Lawrence Lessig as some background on the person actually running the Super PAC. I cannot think of a person more qualified to take on the challenge. Frankly, I'm less convinced by the idea than I am by the man running it.
If you're feeling super cynical about "celebrity endorsement" and "what can $12 million accomplish" you could, I dunno, read the actual website that details their immediate plans and long-term strategy?
There's a lot of snark in this thread directed at assumptions.
I linked the Joseph Gordon-Levitt video because he gives a quick overview and he's goddamn hot, not because of the amazing technical detail he went into. When you watch a 3-minute intro of a movement that's been in the works for years I think the appropriate reactions are "No, thanks" or "I want to know more", not "Here's why I already know this is stupid".
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/29nq9p/lawrence_lessig_and_jack_abramoff_here_we_both/
lololol like assuming I didn't read that already?
and edit: yes I'm very cynical about this stuff because all I see is marketing. So of course take my opinions with a grain of salt.
I don't see how to read a 4-year plan by a guy as smart as Lessig and come away with "politics/actor/lack of details/dumbed down/etc" so yes I felt that was a pretty safe conclusion to draw.
Lessig's the man. I'd highly recommend reading or listening to "Republic, Lost" for a detailed background on some of this.
Either I'm inept or it's impossible to easily find a link to that page from the home page. In any case, thanks for the extra material.
Edit: so, it's a link embedded in some content near the bottom. I'd consider this a main nav item, so that might explain some of it.
I do, and I did read the plan last night.
And I'm sorry for snark/dickish reply to Ryan. Was lame of me. Sorry Mr. Fodder.
See I had that same issue last night when I was trying to research what their plan was. By time I finally found the link, "our plan in more detail", that set of alarms in my head that there would be no specifics on how the money would be spent. Then I read the plan and it just got worse from there. The only assumption that I made was that none of you donators actually read the plan before donating because I figured if you had you would not have donated.
I know how to be deceptive and get millions of people to do stuff on the Internet. Sadly, it's my job. And these guys, in so many different places, do exactly what I do. There is so much to this that I could explain, but I don't think anybody wants to hear about it.
You might be wrong... Lots of people still like learning from all over the place.
Having visited in person, it's quite an informative rant. I still believe that this could be worth the (small) investment in the hopes that it's legit. I read about the guy, saw what he's done in the past and think it's legit. I also understand with the attitude you've just expressed that it might not be possible for you to ever truly trust any such organization asking for money. shrugs
I'm not stupid though, and didn't appreciate the implication. Thank you for the apology.
That being said, I grew up in a place where politicians ran on morality issues and in turn screwed over their voting base financially. I watch money trump votes every vote, in every state I've lived in.
We all have our jaded aspects. I just want to have something to believe in that might actually work. Even if it turns out it doesn't, it might get some attention for trying.
I never meant to imply such things and I certainly would never think them. I was apologizing for my snarky little remark after your post about complaining and now I'm sorry again for any stress I caused related or not.
OK, I can put together a post this evening.
You guys must be new to Icrontic! Welcome! You'll quickly find that snark is what we do quite well!
Then you probably know that the majority of people are unmoved by education about a subject, but sway much more easily when subjected to marketing.
I'm hoping that's what's at play here, because it's a sad truth that a majority of the voting public can't be moved through education to give a damn about reestablishing a true representative democracy.
I can't believe I did this. Here, but seriously nobody will want to read this:
http://icrontic.com/discussion/98953/mayday-us-the-requested-explanation-of-my-reaction
I enjoyed reading it
Also, I'm not sure why I got so upset. My apologies for the angry response earlier. Here are my more rational thoughts:
The problem I see is that if they put a bunch of detail on their website two things would happen: 1) very few people would read it for reasons you mention, and 2) (guessing here/AMA discussion) outlining plans in detail may make them a target for those with even more money. I do agree with you that they should have a more clear outcome to their goals for each stage; what is winning?
After reading the AMA - they are pretty vague with their goals, but I'm not sure what they could answer here that would be definite. Lessig basically stated that they weren't going to announce which five districts they were going to target until they spent the money. The tone was very much: we're going to do exactly what we have to do to maximize getting this funding. My impression is that winning to them is showing they can usurp incumbents or other high value candidates and replace with those who pledge to promote campaign finance reform. My personal thoughts are slightly more cynical: winning is shifting opinion enough that they can fund the next stage on the momentum. That doesn't make for a good web site though.
They also stated that they are tracking their dollar gains, and working on transparency as far as where the money goes. They did mention in the AMA that they were planning on hiring local campaign planning companies and not doing that part themselves. A few people called them on this lack of experience directly.
TL:DR - You have to make a flashy website to get funding or it won't work. More detail (not a lot more) was shared on Reddit.
I've been gone one fucking day!
Totes agree with you sir Fodder. They need good marketing, and marketing serves a purpose. It isn't evil. I just couldn't get past exceptional marketing with lackluster planning in a situation that requires very very serious skill and planning. I mean they are talking about overturning the entire governments legislative priorities with a handful of cash. I also hope it works, but personally I'm too cynical to roll the dice on it when I look at all the other stuff that the dude has to gain from this. He is an expert witness, author, public speaker, and before all else business man. This is providing some serious attention to his brand. I dunno, I'm going to be super happy if I was wrong about this in a few years and I will match all of your donations to this cause to a quality charity in 3 years if I was.
My takeaway from it was "good at marketing, no 500-page tell-all strategy memo, therefore shitbags." shrug I am not so skeptical, but this isn't my first time following Lessig's work and cheering him on. You don't get into shit work like copyright reform and campaign finance to polish your "brand".
In this CV:
your takeaway is "before all else business man." That level of jaded I cannot contend with.
You cherrypicked his CV, and also if you think what you just posted didn't make him a lot of money then you are possibly confus. Should I make a lengthy most about why I think he is a businessman before all else?
Never called him/them shitbags. Just decided the thing wasn't worth my time because in my estimation it wasn't going to work and it is likely the guy is in fact using this campaign for his own gains. None of us know if that is true or not, I'm making estimations based on limited research and sharing my opinion.