You should also check out the HALT.org series on the everyday law of business and employment : http://www.halt.org/lic/dir.php?cid=2 Most of these have state-by-state appendicies to deal with the specifics of your state. Between Nolo and Halt, you'll have the basics covered.
Pew has funded some of the most expensive failures in philanthropic history, with very little to show for it. But it's not just Pew, its most of the old-line foundations and a substantial percentage of the new money foundations that have continued on this path.
Both foundations and nonprofits in this country have a lot of 'splaining to do. Foundations because the aren't accountable to anyone for results or their grantmaking practices. Their accountablility is with their peers in other foundations; mentions in the MSM and their visibility at A- and B-list social events. Often, the criteria by which they are judged by their peers differs significantly from what they profess to provide to their grantees and affected populations. They typically (but not always) are staffed by synchophants (primarily), and academics who hate teaching, students, or critical challenges to their approaches. They typically approach huge problems with and underwhelming array of resources and impossible demands for progress and accountability given the sizes of their grants.
This is not to say that EVERY foundation behaves this way. I have worked with a few that have very smart, dedicated and forward-thinking staff, but these are by far the exception rather than the rule. Most, like the Gates Foundation, have a singular focus: to get their name out front and associated with high-profile wins, rather than sustained improvement over time for lots of people.
On the nonprofit side, foundation-supported nonprofits tend to lie about ("spin") their impact as a matter of course, the best of them have figured out foundation dynamics and play to those dynamicsm, rather than competing on the basis of their ideas, or ability to deliver results. The best nonprofits have executives who can overlook their funding/service-delivery paradoxes with a straight face, and who come from the same social milieu as foundation staffers.
I'm inclined to believe Dr. Kochi's views in this area based on my past experience with philanthropic organizations. I find many of the old-line philanthropic attitudes insufferable, and reading accounts of Dr. Kochi's career, I suspect that his pragmatic, inclusivist approach to reducing tuberculosis and malaria directly conflicts with the agenda of the major funder in that domain.
IDI has been around for a long long time. Before the commercial internet, before EFF/CDT/EPIC, there was IDI working on telcom issues, in particular, advocating for regulations that preseved POTS for low-income and rural folks; deflecting the "modem tax" (which really was an issue in the 80's), and doing lots of work that benefited the IT community in general well before the internet made it possible to make the working of government somewhat transparent.
Sam Simon, the founder of IDI, worked with Ralph Nader on telecom issues prior to founding IDI. He and his staff have worked with folks on both sides of the telecom fence in an effort to broker deals that benefit both consumers and telcos.
What is the problem with folks selling their expertise? Lawyers do it, programmers do it, project managers do it...why can't folks who are good are promoting issues do it as well? IDI was one of the first ISP's in the DC area and one of the first to run effective government lobbying campaigns using internet technologies. They do good work, but they also play the DC game, which is to represent their clients as best they can.
Got a problem with that?
But the principals at IDI aren't bloodsuckers, and they aren't your basic cynical lobbyist types. Before the internet, I ran a group in DC called the Public Interest Computer Association (PICA). We couldn't afford attorney's to help us with our filings in front of Judge Green during the AT&T breakup hearings (arguing for inclusion of a public interest standard in deciding how to make decisions about "enhanced services"). Sam helped us with our filings and paid court fees when we couldn't. It helped us, it made life difficult for him as he was also working with the telco's at the time.
When we had a flood and later, a fire that destroyed our facilities (we operated a public access computer lab for nonprofits and low income users in the 80's who needed access to desktop publishing equipment but couldn't afford it - way before Kinko's made it to DC) Sam stepped in and helped us deal with insurance companies, landlords, and various government agencies.
Sam and his crew, while a product of the DC lobbying scene, have honorable intentions. If you got a problem with the substance of the report (as I do -- I think the government should own the backbones as well as the last mile--call me a socialist, I don't care), then deal with the substance of the report, and not the culture that produced it.
Better yet, move your IT operation here. We've got plenty of dark fiber. Lots of space. Cheap cheap cheap real estate (with exception of Bozeman/Missoula), and cheap labor. I took a 50% salary cut to move here, but cost of living is such that we can get by on one salary (as opposed to two living in DC).
I agree. I work with Lewis and Clark SAR in Montana and frankly, there are lots of ways to ascertain Point Last Seen. Better to spend the time and money on educating hikers about letting their family know about where they're going before they tromp off into the woods. In our county alone, we've got thousands of miles of trails, and the popular ones are easy to search. Its when you have folks way in the backcountry, hurt, that you have some problems. It generally takes very little time to establish the Point Last Seen and Last Known Location without surveillance equipment. With computer-aided gear, we'd have to assign 3 people minimum to review the data, instead of heading towards likely target areas. Plus, this doesn't do anything to aleviate the "bastard searches" for folks that tell people they are going out, who end up heading to a bar and neglecting to call back in -- causing the mobilization of 30+ voluteers who suit up and head out to look for their sorry asses.
Visit Abovenet, which is just under MAE-East. Cool setup, and you get to be at a place where the majority of internet traffic gets routed through on any given day. See if you can get a tour of the colo space.
This kind of data would be useful to improve DoD's ability to recruit new members as our kids tune out mass-media and become more enamored with narrowcast media.
The Pentagon spends a lot of money trying to find/attract/recruit volunteers. Apparently some of this money is be employed for market research, which doesn't seem like terrible thing to me: saves taxpayer money and may get those creepy recruiting commercials off TV and onto Brittany Spears and "Roswell" websites (thus attracting patrons of those sites to useful national service;-)
The whole thing seems preferable to me than the draft (me being a member of the last high school generation who actually had a chance at being called up).
That said, as soon as my 2-year old starts getting interested in hacking the home DSL router, I'll start teaching him the principles of IP spoofing....
Slashdot Mirror
You should also check out the HALT.org series on the everyday law of business and employment : http://www.halt.org/lic/dir.php?cid=2 Most of these have state-by-state appendicies to deal with the specifics of your state. Between Nolo and Halt, you'll have the basics covered.
You are kidding, right?
Pew has funded some of the most expensive failures in philanthropic history, with very little to show for it. But it's not just Pew, its most of the old-line foundations and a substantial percentage of the new money foundations that have continued on this path.
Both foundations and nonprofits in this country have a lot of 'splaining to do. Foundations because the aren't accountable to anyone for results or their grantmaking practices. Their accountablility is with their peers in other foundations; mentions in the MSM and their visibility at A- and B-list social events. Often, the criteria by which they are judged by their peers differs significantly from what they profess to provide to their grantees and affected populations. They typically (but not always) are staffed by synchophants (primarily), and academics who hate teaching, students, or critical challenges to their approaches. They typically approach huge problems with and underwhelming array of resources and impossible demands for progress and accountability given the sizes of their grants.
This is not to say that EVERY foundation behaves this way. I have worked with a few that have very smart, dedicated and forward-thinking staff, but these are by far the exception rather than the rule. Most, like the Gates Foundation, have a singular focus: to get their name out front and associated with high-profile wins, rather than sustained improvement over time for lots of people.
On the nonprofit side, foundation-supported nonprofits tend to lie about ("spin") their impact as a matter of course, the best of them have figured out foundation dynamics and play to those dynamicsm, rather than competing on the basis of their ideas, or ability to deliver results. The best nonprofits have executives who can overlook their funding/service-delivery paradoxes with a straight face, and who come from the same social milieu as foundation staffers.
I'm inclined to believe Dr. Kochi's views in this area based on my past experience with philanthropic organizations. I find many of the old-line philanthropic attitudes insufferable, and reading accounts of Dr. Kochi's career, I suspect that his pragmatic, inclusivist approach to reducing tuberculosis and malaria directly conflicts with the agenda of the major funder in that domain.
IDI has been around for a long long time. Before the commercial internet, before EFF/CDT/EPIC, there was IDI working on telcom issues, in particular, advocating for regulations that preseved POTS for low-income and rural folks; deflecting the "modem tax" (which really was an issue in the 80's), and doing lots of work that benefited the IT community in general well before the internet made it possible to make the working of government somewhat transparent.
Sam Simon, the founder of IDI, worked with Ralph Nader on telecom issues prior to founding IDI. He and his staff have worked with folks on both sides of the telecom fence in an effort to broker deals that benefit both consumers and telcos.
What is the problem with folks selling their expertise? Lawyers do it, programmers do it, project managers do it...why can't folks who are good are promoting issues do it as well? IDI was one of the first ISP's in the DC area and one of the first to run effective government lobbying campaigns using internet technologies. They do good work, but they also play the DC game, which is to represent their clients as best they can.
Got a problem with that?
But the principals at IDI aren't bloodsuckers, and they aren't your basic cynical lobbyist types. Before the internet, I ran a group in DC called the Public Interest Computer Association (PICA). We couldn't afford attorney's to help us with our filings in front of Judge Green during the AT&T breakup hearings (arguing for inclusion of a public interest standard in deciding how to make decisions about "enhanced services"). Sam helped us with our filings and paid court fees when we couldn't. It helped us, it made life difficult for him as he was also working with the telco's at the time.
When we had a flood and later, a fire that destroyed our facilities (we operated a public access computer lab for nonprofits and low income users in the 80's who needed access to desktop publishing equipment but couldn't afford it - way before Kinko's made it to DC) Sam stepped in and helped us deal with insurance companies, landlords, and various government agencies.
Sam and his crew, while a product of the DC lobbying scene, have honorable intentions. If you got a problem with the substance of the report (as I do -- I think the government should own the backbones as well as the last mile--call me a socialist, I don't care), then deal with the substance of the report, and not the culture that produced it.
Better yet, move your IT operation here. We've got plenty of dark fiber. Lots of space. Cheap cheap cheap real estate (with exception of Bozeman/Missoula), and cheap labor. I took a 50% salary cut to move here, but cost of living is such that we can get by on one salary (as opposed to two living in DC).
I agree. I work with Lewis and Clark SAR in Montana and frankly, there are lots of ways to ascertain Point Last Seen. Better to spend the time and money on educating hikers about letting their family know about where they're going before they tromp off into the woods. In our county alone, we've got thousands of miles of trails, and the popular ones are easy to search. Its when you have folks way in the backcountry, hurt, that you have some problems. It generally takes very little time to establish the Point Last Seen and Last Known Location without surveillance equipment. With computer-aided gear, we'd have to assign 3 people minimum to review the data, instead of heading towards likely target areas. Plus, this doesn't do anything to aleviate the "bastard searches" for folks that tell people they are going out, who end up heading to a bar and neglecting to call back in -- causing the mobilization of 30+ voluteers who suit up and head out to look for their sorry asses.
Visit Abovenet, which is just under MAE-East. Cool setup, and you get to be at a place where the majority of internet traffic gets routed through on any given day. See if you can get a tour of the colo space.
This kind of data would be useful to improve DoD's ability to recruit new members as our kids tune out mass-media and become more enamored with narrowcast media. The Pentagon spends a lot of money trying to find/attract/recruit volunteers. Apparently some of this money is be employed for market research, which doesn't seem like terrible thing to me: saves taxpayer money and may get those creepy recruiting commercials off TV and onto Brittany Spears and "Roswell" websites (thus attracting patrons of those sites to useful national service ;-)
The whole thing seems preferable to me than the draft (me being a member of the last high school generation who actually had a chance at being called up).
That said, as soon as my 2-year old starts getting interested in hacking the home DSL router, I'll start teaching him the principles of IP spoofing....
If you want to do more than volunteer, work for these folks!