Adventures of Andrew Lee

I'm sure I have some test answers hanging around that mirror he hilarity of this document.

I’ve received a couple e-mails about how to get an op-ed published. While I am not an expert as some of my friends, fellow Truman Scholar Yosem received some great advice that I can pass on. The source is a family member of another Truman Scholar who works at Kensington PR, she wrote:

Each paper has an editor specifically for this section and really it just takes a little bit of searching on their website to find where to send it to. Each paper has their own editorial guidelines (word count, etc) that the writer should be aware of before submitting. Most email addresses are similar to the ones below, but each paper is different. It’s really not too hard at all!

Here are a few tips–

• Be bold. Use clear, powerful, direct language. Emphasize active verbs; limit the adjectives and adverbs. Short sentences work best, and paragraphs should usually contain no more than two or three sentences.
• Localize it. Adopt a local angle in your op-ed, even on a national issue. You are competing for space with nationally syndicated columnists, and a local angle can make your article more appealing. Know what your target publication published recently about your topic, especially on the op-ed page, and don’t repeat those arguments.
• Make a unique point. You need to take a stand and come down hard on that side of the issue. Any time an op-ed goes against the conventional wisdom, editors will be more interested. Op-ed editors also prefer submissions that are strong in their viewpoint.
• Be timely. The news cycle is quick. If you want to comment on the news of the day, you will need to submit your essay ideally that day, and definitely within two days. Most newspapers now accept submissions by e-mail, which makes for a quick transmittal.
• Provide examples. Educate your reader without giving a sermon. Make your piece human and memorable. Are there similar matters that support your point that you can refer to?
• Provide solutions. Editorials that criticize current practices and policies, but offer no solutions or new ideas are much less likely to get published.
• Make a single point. In an op-ed article of only about 700 words, you will have a hard time successfully covering more than one topic.

A great resource that I sent to Yosem was the CCMC Resource on Letters to the Editor and Op-Eds, which helped me when I wrote my first op-ed back when I was young and impetuous. Hope this helps folks interested in using op-eds to convince folks about products, issues, or other opinions. For those in industry who don’t think that op-eds matter, check out this LA Times op-ed on Facebook. As they say, being a thought leader matters, so take some time out to blog and if you want to write an op-ed, go ahead.

You may have noticed the commenting system has changed. I took the plunge and switched comments over to a hosted service- Disqus, run by Daniel Ha and Jason Yan (two SoCal brothas who went throughY-Combinator). So far, it’s been rather nice. The first day I installed and sent in a request for help, Daniel responded that day to tell me how to solve my problem.

I was choosing between Disqus and Intense Debate because the others weren’t hosted solutions (no contest there). It was a tough decision, not just because I was choosing between ethnicity versus homeland :p. My literature review yielded a lot of different posts concerning which one to choose, including:

• this Wordpress Support post (one of the biggest hits on Google- and not flattering to Disqus), 
• Reverend Jim’s posts on experimenting with Disqus and ultimately choosing them, 
• and Webware’s amazing review of all the services (they chose Disqus at the end). 

It seemed my cursory look found mainly pro-Disqus articles (although Disqus always squeezed out the win) and no pro-Intense Debate articles that weren’t from investors. A literature review is never enough though, so researched and came up with the following reasons why I chose Disqus:

1. OpenID and Clickpass- Disqus has Clickpass. OpenID hasn’t really worked out that well. I tried to register for Mixx with my Yahoo OpenID and the system just didn’t work. I found a great solution through Clickpass (even receiving ‘Andrew’ username!) which became a simple tool for OpenID access on Disqus. Oddly enough, having Clickpass made me feel better about their OpenID support.
2. Big blog names- Although Intense Debate had the whole TechStarscontingent and Disqus had the YCombinator crowd, I was most impressed by the number of non-YC people who adopted the comment system:Scripting.com, the Harvard Crimson, a VC (to be fair, an investor) and last but absolutely not least… Fake Steve Jobs! I understand people don’t want to take sides in the blogosphere, but those who do without prejudice help a product. It also shows that these blogs are willing to grow with the system… which means a lot for timely features I’m hoping for in the future.
3. This graph below which shows the traffic (and adoption rates) for the commenting system. Using a system that a significant number of people use makes my blog easier to comment on.  

For now, I’m using Disqus… but the commenting system may not be permanent if Disqus does not deliver on promises:

1. A reliable service [no more of slowdowns please],
2. A forum I can put on one of my pages, and
3. An import tool for my old posts (the one advantage that I gave up because Intense Debate had an import tool).

Aside from that, I’m pretty happy, so feel free to Disqus here!

This essay is in the latesst issue of High Country News. You can find it
online at
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.PrintableArticle?article_id=17613

A message to our grandchildren
Essay - March 31, 2008 by Stewart and Lee Udall
Among other accomplishments in a life of public service, Arizona native
Stewart Udall was perhaps the most influential secretary of Interior ever.
He served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations from 1961 to 1969,
and played a part in some of the nation’s landmark environmental laws,
including the Clean Air Act, the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act. He now lives in Santa Fe, N.M., where he and his
wife, Lee, penned this letter to their grandchildren.
My dear ones, your generation will face a series of environmental
challenges that will dwarf anything any previous generation has
confronted. I’m hoping to add some insights of my own based on things I
learned as a policymaker in the 1950s and ’60s, when I observed and
participated in some monumental achievements and profound misjudgments.

As a freshman congressman in 1955, I regrettably voted with my unanimous
colleagues for the Interstate Highway Program. All of us acted on the
shortsighted assumption that cheap oil was super-abundant and would always
be available. This illusion began to unravel in the 1970s, and it haunts
Americans today.

Oil lies at the epicenter of a critical energy crisis. Petroleum is a
finite resource and is the most precious, versatile resource on the
planet. Cheap oil played a crucial role in the development of American
power and prosperity, and sustains the military machine that dominates the
world today. Oil is now nearing a historic transition that will alter the
civilization Americans have come to take for granted.

As world oil production reaches its apex and begins its inevitable
decline, it will have a radical impact on everyday American life. It will
take bold political leadership and awareness on the part of individual
citizens to craft a full-scale, creative response. I watched with
admiration in 1974 as my friend, President Gerald Ford, persuaded Congress
to adopt a 55 mph speed limit to reduce our reliance on imported oil. He
also got a law passed which mandated production of more fuel-efficient
automobiles.

I am convinced that the American people will tighten their belts if a
president forges a national strategy to stretch the life of our oil
reserves and to adjust to a long-range plan of energy conservation.

Energy efficiency must be the rallying cry. Higher oil prices are already
serving as a wake-up call. Despite an utter lack of leadership from the
White House, a few progressive states and cities are building light-rail
systems to serve urban residents and commuter trains to connect their
communities.

I urge you to be stalwart supporters of any projects that promote fuel
efficiency and conservation for all citizens.

You also must contend with the carbon dioxide problem. Once it is released
into the atmosphere, this gas has a long life (approximately 100 years),
spreads over the entire globe, and acts as a blanket that warms all parts
of the earth.

The United States and China are responsible for producing over 40 percent
of the CO2 that is altering the earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, these
two nations have a moral responsibility to be in the forefront of any
global campaign to develop new technologies to cut the emissions of this
damaging pollutant.

I have recently proposed that these two countries join together in a 50/50
research venture, and assemble teams of engineers and scientists to work
together to develop technologies to capture carbon as it emerges from coal
power plants. These teams would perfect technologies to isolate the carbon
and transport it through pipelines to storage sites in the deep ocean or
in depleted oil and natural gas fields. The success of such international
cooperation would set an example that could spur development of new
supplies of renewable energy.

All climates would benefit from advances produced by such an enterprise:
Today, China has the most polluted air in the world and suffers the most
premature deaths from gross air pollution. These same teams of scientists
could also devise technologies to capture the deadly pollutants that
shorten the lives of millions of people in all parts of the world.

Even though scientists can solve many technological problems, a word of
caution is in order. I learned during my government service that even the
most gifted researchers couldn’t perform technical miracles. The skilled
engineers at the Interior Department built the first direct current line
to transmit huge blocks of electricity from hydroelectric dams on the
Columbia River to Los Angeles by simply flipping a switch. But the same
engineers couldn’t develop a cheap technique to desalinate seawater.

One further example will dramatize my point. In the summer of 1969, after
our astronauts completed their round trip to the moon (a brilliant but
narrow feat), most Americans were overwhelmed by the promises that became
the mantra of that exciting moment. The slogan, “This proves we can do
whatever we want to do,” influenced the mindset of Americans and generated
a vision of a future with no restraints or limits. President Richard
Nixon, quickly rebuked for his wild rhetoric by the Rev. Billy Graham,
characterized the accomplishment as “the greatest week since the creation
of the earth.” A gusher of extravagant prophecies followed, predicting
that a new planet of superabundant resources had magically come into
existence followed. Though scientists regarded such predictions as Alice
in Wonderland speculation, they were generally ignored; dissent was not
welcome during this moment of triumph.

Meanwhile, Americans’ vision of the future was warped; they believed,
falsely, that technologists could perform miracles that would solve any
future energy problems. Ignored was the nation’s ever-increasing
dependence on oil produced by other countries. Worse yet, this new vision
offered assurances that our own oil wells would never run dry, and it has
persuaded many of the current leaders of our nation that global warming is
a myth.

Having said that, technology may yet help solve some of our current
problems. Some of the world’s best architects and designers are already
working on changes in the design of buildings and cities, which, they
believe, will reduce requirements for electricity by as much as 50 percent
by 2050.

Such advances won’t be enough, however. Americans must finally cast aside
our notion that we can continue the wasteful consumption patterns of our
past. We must promote a consciousness attuned to a frugal, highly
efficient mode of living. In closing, I leave you with these thoughts, and
hope you will hold to these ideals throughout your lives:

Foster a consciousness that puts a premium on the common good and the
protection of the environment. Give your unstinting support to all
lasting, fruitful technological innovations. Be steadfast enemies of
waste. The lifetime crusade of your days must be to develop a new energy
ethic to sustain life on earth.

In the 1960s, when the carbon problem and the exhaustion of the world’s
petroleum were still beyond our gaze, I advocated a new ethic to guide our
nation’s stewardship of its resources. I realize now this approach was too
narrow, too nationalistic. To sustain life on our small planet, we will
need a wider, all-encompassing planetary resource ethic based on values
implemented by mutual cooperation. This ethic must be rooted in the most
intrinsic values of all: Caring, sharing, and mutual efforts that reach
beyond all obstacles and boundaries.

Go well, do well, my children. Cherish sunsets, wild creatures and wild
places. Have a love affair with the wonder and beauty of the earth.

Carry our love in your hearts, Stewart and Lee Udall, 2008

To receive two free issues of High Country News call 1-800-905-1155, or
visit: http://www.hcn.org/freepapersubscription.jsp

Some people dread Valentine’s Day, I dread my birthday. 

Unlike holidays that celebrate achievement (getting your family together is an achievement) or the memory of a renowned individual, birthdays celebrate the passage of time (like New Year’s, but more personal). I think most people after a certain age generally dread their birthdays- think of all the cards that talk about being “over the hill,” “older than sand,” “almost old enough to reach diamond status.” 

To be sure, I love gatherings of friends and family celebrating good health (especially mine) and receiving gifts, but a birthday is different because it is a particular celebration of your age.

A good friend of mine recently told me, “Most people after 22 years of age are drinking for altogether different reasons than the year before. I think most people know there isn’t much to celebrate after that.” I am not as pessimistic, but it brings the issue of another year of my life gone wondering what more I could have achieved or gotten done.

Perhaps I have been conditioned because I never had an extravagant party or perhaps I didn’t want people to spend money on gifts (”mom, don’t spend that money on a cake, I’m just happy that you remembered”)… No, I enjoyed my birthdays- getting older meant more freedom (and sometimes great cake).

As I became older though (sometimes much faster than my peers), I’ve become more aware of my mortality. I think Steve Jobs says it best:

There comes a point in someone’s life when they become aware of the finite amount of time they have on Earth and it’s both empowering and disempowering. It’s a very strong motivator, as Steve Jobs says. At the same time, it’s dreadfully scary to know that year (or set of years) has gone by (and so quickly!). I think that’s why New Year’s has some of the same characteristics. I’m like most people who have a mix of emotions on their birthday- like the movie About Schmidt-, but I don’t think the courage/dread will ever go away when April 28 rolls around.

CNN reported yesterday that Clinton has challenged Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates without the media. My debate friends and I have been giggling like school children over how cool it would be to have each candidate debate question the other (just like in our high school Lincoln Douglas Debates).

In general, a series of debates without media questions across Indiana and battleground states would allow a time to shine and to show the discussion about issues. Moreover, it allows the competition to become a constructive discussion about topics versus the usual guerrilla press leak warfare that has been taking place so far.

These debates won’t happen if three serious issues aren’t resolved, though: (A) When will these debates take place? (B) how will the format be useful and still entertaining? (B) Why would Obama accept?

WHEN

They need to know when before May 6th. That’s tough, but without dealing with media schedules, I think it’s doable. The two candidates would essentially be making time in their schedules to campaign/duke it out together.

HOW

The original LD debates had the following format (according to Wikipedia):

Each debate had this format: one candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour “rejoinder.” The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates.

Current LD formats have shorter oratory and questioning periods for speakers making for a more entertaining and debate-like approach. A combination where each candidate gives a long first speech and time to question each other on their policies would be very interesting. Each candidate should be allowed to receive notes, but since it is televised, it would just look back if they look to be too reliant on their handlers. Unfortunately, the HOW issues ties into the WHEN because details like this take a long time to smooth out.

WHY

If the WHEN and HOW can be resolved, Obama should accept for the following reasons:

1. He beats Hillary on her terms- The most effective way to take out the other heavyweight contender is to have him invite you to a match, and then you win the match. The Hillary troops will legitimately see a candidate that won because he was a better candidate on their own terms. If his polls are already sliding, then taking the opportunity to stop that slide and win over her own folks is a good idea.
2. He can set the context- As a result of her invitation; he has the upper hand in choosing the ring he fights in. The importance of this allows Obama to choose policy issues he wants to air, the format of the debate, and also choose a format he’s comfortable with.
3. Obama’s personal strengths is his oratorical skills- Enough said. He gets to flex and pound.
4. It sets the stage for John McCain- Obama versus McCain in LD debate style…. yeah, my bet is on Obama.
5. It’s Lincoln- For the man who began his campaign invoking Lincoln in Springfield, IL, it seems odd that he would turn away from such a defining feature of Lincoln’s initial candidacy. Forget that historians say that Douglas won most of the debates, but the chance to win for Lincoln adds more to the sense of place/history of Barack Obama.

Of course, there are a lot of reasons not to debate, including giving more recognition to the Clinton campaign. Nevertheless, Obama should accept because I think he could win and why would you turn away from an opportunity to stop the sliding poll numbers and make your opponent look bad in an unmoderated debate.

Last year, I was invited to host the National Wildlife Federation’s Chill Out Broadcast which recognized colleges and universities across the country that had innovative solutions to global warming. Being a former NWF Fellow, meeting these folks last year was a treat.

Seriously, when I met the guy responsible for using biomass algae to power a small university’s athletic facility, I was inspired. These innovative solutions to fight global warming showed a strong business case for universities and colleges to save money on energy costs, etc.

In addition to the college entries, NWF also solicits Chill-Out YouTube entries. They’re hilarious. Here’s Berea College with their hilarious video from last year:

I’m the host again for this year’s webcast and you’ll see me doing my unique blend of broadcast anchoring (a combination of Brian Williams and Stephen Colbert) live today!

Omid Kordestani (Google’s SVP for Global Sales and Business Development) gave some advice on the value of “Ah Ha!” moments- essentially going with your gut. Probably one of the best commencement addresses I have heard that helps with the Quarter Life Crisismany of my friends experience.

I just arrived back from Austin, TX: the South by Southwest (SXSW-Interactive) to be exact. I’m catching up on e-mails and other business-related material. I had a great time (will blog more about it later) and met a lot of “ah ha” people.

Here’s Omid’s commencement address at San Jose State University on May 26, 2007:

His “Ah Ha!” Moments:

1. He must think and act like an immigrant- discover, be optimistic, and have a sense of place. Don’t let anyone tell you that “you cannot.” Believe in your immigrant routes.
2. Follow your instincts, not the money. Don’t be an engineer just becaused you’re trained, don’t be in i-banking just because of your experience.
3. It’s all about the path. Work and family is still a tough balance- now it is a work-life blend. You’re the never done learning or understanding your ultimate path… don’t be defined or limited by the steps you have taken in life or the degree you have chosen. Don’t worry that you have no idea what you want to do next.

After a rough day judging more than 50 different finalists for the 2008 All-Academic First Team.

Man, being out of college and reading these apps makes me work harder. Reminds me of being young again…

Someone told me that when I have kids, I will be the Digital Dad constantly uploading video of my children all over YouTube. Well, I have to admit, that’s probably true, but with the way Justin.tv andUstream.tv are going, I won’t have to do any work except for some editing. No matter what the medium, the world will be able to enjoy wonderful videos like this brilliant 3-year old giving you the summary of Star Wars.

It’s interesting what she highlights, particularly the quintessential garage salesmen (the Jawas), Obi-Kenobi (Luke’s light-up sword teacher), and the phenomenon of “blowed up” (together and Princess Leia’s planet). I know what you’re thinking… Yeah, she forgot about Han Solo and Chewbacca, but she covered all of the bases of this “exciting movie.” Enjoy!