Rosemont Block Party

On Saturday, a friend and I headed down to Rosemont (between Lafayette and Alma) for the block party. Highlights included Paul Belley crooning Sweet Caroline and another Neil Diamond hit (can't remember the name right now). Paul explained to us how the system of Street Captains, implemented in the wake of the flooding that dealt such a heavy blow to his neighborhood in 2006 and 2007, had so many spillover effects in other areas. As it turns out, the naming of one resident on each street as being *in charge* led to heightened levels of engagement and trust among the neighbors, and actually helped nip some small-scale problems in the bud. Paul is going to be on WCAP tomorrow morning (Monday the 10th) at 7:30 a.m.

We also had the chance to meet Joe Mendonca, another Pawtucketville resident running for Council this year. Joe explained some of his ideas for making Lowell more of a regional economic engine, as well as ways to bring more life to the Downtown.

Franky D Fundraiser at the Old Court -- Next Thursday, 13 AUG

Below is an e-mail that I received as a member of the Franky for Lowell list. This event is definitely inked in on my calendar, and I think it's going to be a lot of fun, but my only critique going in is that $50 to walk in the door ($25 for a ticket purchased at Humanity x 2) seems sort of steep. That said, I know money matters in politics, and I know that Franky's election would be a huge win for Downtown Lowell. Hope to see you there..

I have vowed a campaign of innovation and fresh ideas. Next Thursday, I will attempt to put my voice where my mouth is - with a unique Karaoke Fundraiser at the Old Court from 7:00pm - 10:00pm. The goal with this event is first and foremost to have some fun. We're hoping to bring a little levity to what some have described as a contentious political season.

We're using the "American Idol" format with gregarious host Jerry Bisantz, co-founder and director of Image Theater, and three celebrity judges: radio personality Bob Ellis, State Rep. Tom Golden, and entertainer Trish Neary.

Tickets are $30 at the door or $25 if purchased online or at my Campaign Headquarters, 128 Merrimack St., Lowell.

For more information please visit my website, www.FrankyForLowell.com

You + 42 = A Better Lowell

Here's an update to the previous press release from ONE Lowell, posted earlier this week. LTC's own Danny Dang is going to be working on a YouTube short to support the Choice Voting initiative, so look for a future link here on this site.

You + 42 = a Better Lowell: Kick Off on August 9th

On August 9th city reformers who commit to gathering 42 signatures will be meeting in Belvidere to commit to obtaining the remaining signatures needed for the petition to change Lowell’s voting system. The event is part of the Fair Vote Lowell Campaign, an initiative to replace Lowell’s “winner-take-all” system to the more democratic and fair “choice voting” system.

LOWELL, MA July 30, 2009 – On August 9th, dozens of citizens will meet together to commit to a final push in gathering the remaining signatures necessary for reforming Lowell’s antiquated voting system. Reformers will commit to gathering 42 signatures each before the deadline on August 27th for getting the petition on the ballot. Fair Vote Lowell currently has gathered over 2000 signatures but needs 4188 valid signatures to get the petition on the ballot.

On Sunday, August 9th, reformers will be meeting at 25 Fairmount St. in Lowell at 1:00 pm to get their training, petitions, and maps of city areas for them to cover. The event will provide food, drinks, and an opportunity for people to get to know other Lowell reformers. The event is open to all who want to join the Fair Vote Lowell campaign and be part of the You + 42 = a Better Lowell. It is also an opportunity for those who want to sign the petition but have not yet had the opportunity to drop by and sign it! For those who want be part of the You + 42 = a Better Lowell but cannot attend on Sunday, please contact Victoria Fahlberg at 978-654-6957 x 102.

According to Victoria Fahlberg of Fair Vote Lowell, “The good news is that nearly every person we speak with is happy to sign the petition and have voiced a lot of support for Choice Voting. The bad news is that summertime is not the best time for going door to door, as so many people aren’t at home.”

Reformers are frustrated with the current “at-large,” “winner-take-all” voting system that allows for as few as 51% of voters to win up to all 9 city council seats. The remaining 49% of voters often feel that their vote doesn’t count. When that happens, they eventually become discouraged and stop voting. In fact, voter turnout in Lowell has declined from over 70% before adopting the current system to the dismal 26% turnout in the last election. The current system also creates barriers for candidates from smaller neighborhoods, lower income neighborhoods, and diverse neighborhoods from being elected. Finally, it is very expensive for new candidates to run a winning campaign. In 2005 the average cost for first time winning candidates was $31,649 and in 2007 that increased to $42,682.

Fair Vote organizers feel that now is the time for Lowell to revitalize its city government. Many of Lowell’s brightest and most talented residents won’t run for office because the barriers to getting elected feel overwhelming. According to Dayne Lamb, a Fair Vote Lowell reformer and downtown resident, “Choice voting allows everyone in Lowell to win. It levels the playing field for all City Council and School Committee candidates, offering voters a real opportunity to make their vote count whether in support of a new challenger or familiar incumbent. A fair, choice vote system is more representative than our current system and feeling like your vote counts encourages voter turnout. This is good for democracy and will be great for Lowell!”

Again, August 9th is the day for those who want to reform Lowell’s voting system and to join with other committed reformers and make change happen. The location is 25 Fairmount St. in Lowell, meeting time is 1:00pm. All reformers welcome! Lots of good food!

About Fair Vote Lowell:
Fair Vote Lowell is an initiative to increase voter participation, open up opportunities for new candidates, and create local elective bodies that are representative of all residents in Lowell, Massachusetts. Our mission is simple: To transform Lowell's voting system for local elections of city councilors and school committee from the current "Winner take All" system to "Choice Voting", a system that is fair and promotes greater representation for all.

Contact:
Victoria Fahlberg ONE Lowell978-654-6957http://www.fairvotelowell.org

Social Capital: A Positive-Sum Game

I just got back from Hot Dog Diplomacy, a gathering of local bloggers, commenters, Tweeters, City Council candidates, local hot dog fans, and friends and family thereof. It was proposed on a blog (www.richardhowe.com) after its author had a light-bulb-over-the-head moment while talking to the owner of the just-reopened Elliot's -- why not bring together the online community together to celebrate the reopening? This came, of course, on the heels of a lot of recent online discussion about the pros and cons of anonymity as well as the recent Gates-Crowley incident in Cambridge (hence the title of the event). The idea was born, the blogs and Facebook were the media used to publicize, and a lot of people just had a great time.

The event didn't cost anything to put together and it didn't monopolize anyone's time or have any dominant viewpoint or agenda...on the contrary, it was really just a bunch of people hanging out in the store and out on Elliot Street meeting new people (bridging social capital) and catching up with people they already know (bonding social capital).

Events like these strengthen the community because they increase our overall level of social capital without any cost to anyone. We all get to eat from the pie, but when we do, there isn't anything missing...in fact, it's actually bigger when we all walk away.

The easy thing to say is 'let's do this more often,' which works to the point that it's not over-diluted. For what it's worth, I'll throw out that once every couple months seems like the ideal periodicity for open events like this that bring the online world into the real world.

At least four City Council challengers were present: Franky Descoteaux, Paul Belley, Ryan Berard, and Patrick Murphy.

Fair Vote Lowell Press Release

Below is a press release from Fair Vote Lowell:

City Reformers Hit the Streets on August 9th

On August 9th city reformers will be canvassing Lowell’s neighborhoods in an effort to obtain the remaining signatures needed for the petition to change Lowell’s voting system. The event is part of the Fair Vote Lowell Campaign, an initiative to replace Lowell’s “winner-take-all” system to the more democratic and fair “choice voting” system.

LOWELL, MA July 30, 2009 – On August 9th, dozens of committed citizens will take to the streets in an effort to reform Lowell’s voting system. They will go door-to-door in neighborhoods across the city collecting signatures to get a petition on the November 3rd ballot to replace Lowell’s current “winner-take-all” voting system to the more democratic and fair “choice voting” system. It is also an opportunity for those who want to sign the petition but have not yet had the opportunity to drop by and sign it!

Organized by the Fair Vote Lowell Campaign, the event anticipates that dozens of people will get over 2400 signatures in about four hours. The event is open to anyone who wants to help revitalize Lowell’s voting system. Participants will meet at 25 Fairmont Street in Lowell at 1:00 pm on August 9th to get their training and marching orders.

Armed with petitions, pens, maps, voter registration lists, food and drinks, this band of reformers are confident that the first step to changing Lowell’s voting system will be accomplished. Event organizers plan to end the day with more food, fun and lively conversation. For those who want to participate but cannot make the August 9th date, please contact event organizers.

Fair Vote Lowell reformers are frustrated with the current “at-large,” “winner-take-all” voting system that allows for as few as 51% of voters to win up to all 9 city council seats. The remaining 49% of voters often feel that their vote doesn’t count. When that happens, they eventually become discouraged and stop voting. In fact, voter turnout in Lowell has declined from over 70% before adopting the current system to the dismal 26% turnout in the last election. The current system also creates barriers for candidates from smaller neighborhoods, lower income neighborhoods, and diverse neighborhoods from being elected. Finally, it is very expensive for new candidates to run a winning campaign. In 2005 the average cost for first time winning candidates was $31,649 and in 2007 that increased to $42,682.

Fair Vote organizers feel that now is the time for Lowell to revitalize its city government. Many of Lowell’s brightest and most talented residents won’t run for office because the barriers to getting elected feel overwhelming. According to Victoria Fahlberg, a Fair Vote Lowell reformer, “The entire city is losing out with the current system. Choice voting in Lowell will level the playing field for new candidates. It is a system that is more democratic than what we currently have and will provide fair representation for all of Lowell’s residents.”

Again, August 9th is the day for those who want to reform Lowell’s voting system and to join with other committed reformers and make change happen. The location is 25 Fairmount St. in Lowell, meeting time is 1:00pm. All reformers welcome!

About Fair Vote Lowell:

Fair Vote Lowell is an initiative to increase voter participation, open up opportunities for new candidates, and create local elective bodies that are representative of all residents in Lowell, Massachusetts. Our mission is simple: We’re here to transform Lowell's voting system for local elections of city councilors and school committee from the current "Winner take All" system to "Choice Voting", a system that is fair and promotes greater representation for all.

Contact:
Victoria Fahlberg ONE Lowell 978-654-6957
http://www.fairvotelowell.org/

Caveat Twitterius

This is sort of a follow-up to my last post, which dealth with the threat that spoofing creates for on-line communities.

At the end of the day, though, spoofing is really just a type of prank. There are ways to avoid it, there are verification safeguards, and then there's the way it could lose value upon exposure.

The REAL threat -- and this time I mean it! -- may come from people trying to elicit personal information or otherwise scam you using these sites. Since I opened a Twitter account a few months ago, I've noticed that I've gotten dozens of "followers" who I've never heard of. Considering I haven't actually tweeted since the week I opened the account (not that I wouldn't do it, I just haven't), I don't think I've suddenly found legions who love my debonair wit (yeah, right). That hasn't happened so much with Facebook, but I did just notice a bikini model who I'd never heard of, claiming to be a member of my graduating class, trying to "friend" me. Thankfully, with Facebook you can nip that stuff in the bud by not confirming.

I don't really know why this happens.

With a hat tip to Occam and his Razor, the Twitter thing may just be mistaken identity. I have a common first name and a somewhat common last name, so it's quite possible that it was a simple case of the wrong Greg Page. (There are two minor celebrities with the same name, so that adds to the plausibility here).

Next, it might just be someone trying to inflate his or her own stats. Actual celebrities with actual accounts are known to have millions of followers. People looking for their own ego boost, or just trying to cure boredom, might try to manipulate their own follower numbers by blindly adding thousands and thousands of people that they follow. The Big Idea here is that if half those people reciprocate the follow, a pimply kid drinking soda in his basement could eventually have more followers than Brad Pitt.

Third, it could be a commercial thing. Since the dawn of marketing, companies have been looking to target their advertising using clever consumer research. By scooping up tons of information about what people do and don't like -- and then hiring an intern or two to sort it all out over Starbucks -- someone, somewhere thinks they're going to make a buck. It could also be someone's inroad into a marketing pitch (again, that's with the idea that a certain percentage of people will automatically reciprocate follows).

Next, it might be scam-related. We've all heard about the long-lost relative scams, the click- here-for-the-survey-that-asks-for-personal-info scam, etc. The only limit on these types of scams is the creativity of the scam writer.

To take it another step into the dark side, someone could be trying to craft a set up. I'm not sure how many documented cases of this (can you say 'urban legend'?) but I have heard people tell me about a scam that involves someone Facebook friending people in his area using some bogus "party guy" image. He (or they) gather/s information about all these "friends," to include things like addresses, phone numbers, workplaces, etc. Because people often post personal data in their status updates, i.e. Jamie and the boyz are soooo totally going to Cancun next week...YEAAAH!, the supposed Facebook friend now has the info he needs to be able to rob Jamie's house clean before he gets back. For that example, which really doesn't seem too far-fetched, take all the many ways theft can be done entirely online, and you can see why people who would do us harm can probably find endless sources of baseline material online.

At the end of the day, a little bit of common sense and discretion can probably get people around most of this. Still, it's just important to keep in mind that there are going to be bad actors lurking in ANY community, and the on-line one is no different.

So when bikini models who you've never heard of suddenly want to be your *friend* it might be wise to check your vanity at the door.

An Actual Threat to Online Communities

Last night, I wound up having a long conversation with the friend of mine who first suggested to me that even with its elaborate set-ups and clever video manipulation, "Borat" failed to show Americans as a bunch of boorish clowns. Instead, it showed how even a bunch of people who could no sooner leap mountains than find Kazakhstan on a world map were more or less welcoming to an overbearing stranger with some wacky personal habits.

He just saw "Bruno," which is apparently supposed to show Americans are a bunch of homophobic clowns, but may actually have more to say about whether we're a bunch of Bruno-phobic people wary of overbearing imposter Austrians. (And that comes in addition to the tiredness of the Germans-and-Austrians-as-Nazis brand of comedy...again, not an offense to my sense of empathy for modern-day German speakers or to victims of Nazis, but a full and painful affront to the funnybone).

Anyway, we got to talking about the Internet and identity. After both taking a very middle-of-the-road position on anonymity (at the end of the day, it's the writer's choice, it's been around forever and not about to go anywhere), we got to talking about an actual threat to online communities -- identity spoofing.

There have been many famous cases of this in the past -- two that come to mind right away are that of baseball manager Tony LaRussa and NBA player Ron Artest -- both have had people create Twitter accounts purporting to be the celebrity and making comments that caused massive ripples across the Internet, and, of course, reverberating soundly throughout the "real world." In LaRussa's case, it led to a lawsuit against Twitter.

More recently, a New York tabloid had reported on its gossip page that a New York Mets player had been out cavorting with some young bimbos at a certain nightspot...when in fact, he had been with his wife in the hospital, who was giving birth to their child at the time. The Post's source for their "information"? Twitter. Sure enough, someone created an account using the player's name and identity in order to put out the disinformation.

Also this week, I heard about a catering service owner being *busted* for ordering all of his employees to give five-star reviews for his wonderful food and service on a particular Internet review website (thankfully, it didn't take much sleuthing to figure out something was up when the site got hit with the flood of near-simultaneous glowing reviews...or when two of the employees made formal complaints the next day). On top of that, I was giving a book an *Amazon read* when I saw comments that were casting a lot of other comments into doubt. I had never really thought about the verification mechanisms before, but it seems that publishers and authors have very obvious, and very perverse, incentives to manipulate those ratings.

I don't think anonymous writers are creating a threat to this community -- the virtual one, the bricks, mortar, and people one -- or the areas where the two come together (i.e. Hot Dog Diplomacy). If comments become too incendiary, authors can screen them out, before or after the fact. If bloggers become too incendiary, they can be marginalized -- much like a TV channel you don't enjoy watching, you can simply not click on the site for a blog you don't want to read.

In fact, even for the warts it does have, anonymous writing has a type of purity that the "open kimono" variety doesn't -- by definition, you can't be a self-promoter if there's no tangible, flesh-and-blood *self* to be promoted by whatever it is you're putting out.

But I'm a bit more worried about spoofing...I guess it could go "real world" as well (For instance, no one from the Sun verified a letter I had sent them before they published). But online it just seems too easy. A comment style -- for instance, a mini *letter* to the author closed with a "best, [insert author's initials]" could be easily aped. Amazon reviews, or hotels.com reviews, can be manipulated to steer business to or from an establishment or corporation. A false Twitter account could make people really believe you're making light of dead St. Louis Cardinals.

Maybe as media formats like Facebook and Twitter mature, better verification measures will be put in place.

Maybe if false alarm commenting becomes a problem, bloggers can tie comments to specific, vetted e-mail addresses before posting.

Maybe Amazon will find ways to flag suspicious patterns of five-star and one-star comments.

In the meantime, though, I may need a grain of salt to go with what I digest online.