wrythings

THE TIME, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the “liberty of the press” as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). On Liberty. 1869.

The State is neither the sole nor the principle threat to the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

Is it unlikely that corporate media, focused on profit, often owned by or in ownership of conflicting economic interests will serve this function? What must change? The media must serve a public duty untainted by impulse to self-censor when truth must be spoken. Report. Let the people judge.

The people must show some spine if we are to be free.

I’d like to see the media get back to reporting as opposed to pretending to think for us, especially when they get the thinking wrong and ignore the bigger news sitting alongside and staring us in the face.

The story of the weekend was Obama’s supposed flip-flop on public campaign finance. I think we use the phrase too loosely. Changing your mind, or reversing direction/decision isn’t an adequate definition. Necessary, but not sufficient.

Fish flip flop when they are out of their element, politicians when they’re spineless - not when their decision is grounded in a position of strength and consistent with their higher values. So, I’d like to upgrade the definition to a reversal followed by subsequent reversal(s), or a reversal mainly employed by “leaders” to keep supporters or to keep one’s self in place when it was clear one’s position wasn’t grounded to begin with.

A strategic choice can not be a flip flop. It’s a clear decision.

Further: You’re going to have to go a little deeper to decide if something is hypocritical. It’s absurd to label someone hypocritical when their values are consistent. How much more must be said?

Obama has eschewed PAC money and has a tremendously broad base of financial support from none other than the public. This is the campaign that has drawn a bright red line between big money and the public. If Obama’s people change their mind and accept big money contributions or unleash 527s … then I’ll be disappointed, angry and feel betrayed as will millions of others. That would be hypocrisy and would undercut the values this campaign has established. That wouldn’t be a flip flop either, that would be a blunder, plain and stupid. Flip flops are about not knowing which way the wind was blowing ahead of time, not how strong the wind would be.

I’ll say it again, I’m not into hero worship or idolatry, but I also am not going to accept false logic. I’m not an apologist for the campaign but rabid punditry deserves a flogging.

Lastly, this strategic decision is not an attack on public campaign finance. I feel clear that Obama supports the principle of public campaign finance. It doesn’t mean one has to take it. It doesn’t mean he isn’t right to state bluntly that it is broken. It clearly is broken when the other candidate can illegally flip flop - i.e. reverse himself and reverse himself again - and the laws remain unenforced. McCain’s campaign is breaking the law and the law and order types are nowhere to be found, the media is fairly silent and worse offering us some red hering and it appears democrats are not pressing the issue, or meekly at best.

So, yes, it’s broken and it makes sense to opt out if the other candidate won’t be held accountable to the rules and you can effectively run a campaign grounded in your principles . It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be there for future candidates as an option.

Strategy and grounded campaigning are not opportunistic or hypocritical, and it’s not a flip flop.

Apply logic before speaking. Do a double dose before pontificating. Check some facts. Prioritize facts.

The people have to make up their mind whether the character of the campaign matters. I think it does. The character of the campaign reflects the character of the candidate. We’re deciding the character of discourse we’ll settle for, and the character of governance that we want.

Making little of nothing isn’t a sign of character.

These are the closing words of George, a hunter from the South who has just spent 30 Days with a group of Animal Rights activists. It’s a beautiful story. It’s what reality tv should be.

I’m really struck by the notion of immersion in a cultural setting - in the subcultures of our own society. The 30 Days series is great from that perspective and is doing us a “positive media” service.

This week has been odd for me. We still have so much polarization in our politics. Members of my extended family have views on the current election that are in stark contrast to my own and we haven’t been able to forge a sustained political dialogue that would be a basis for deliberation. That’s my higher ideal - dialogue that leads to deliberation. We need that first safe civil space however … a precondition to emergent deliberation where we really are working together to understand an issue… not debating in a winner take all modality where the end justifies the means.

Animal Rights is not the issue that wakes me up each day, but the questions of the cruelty of our factory farming system and vivisection are a burden to my soul. I’m just as concerned about our inhumanity to each other, but one thing is certain: this is not part of a beautiful society, this is beneath our human dignity, it debases all who are involved.

My bigger issue is how to be a better human being. I’ve got a long way to go. I’m ok with that, as long as I make progress, and others are with me.

I just caught this episode on Hulu. I don’t know how long Hulu keeps episodes available for those of us who will embed their video in a blog, but if it’s not here by the time you read this, blame them.

Susan Crawford, founder of One Web Day made a strong pitch to those assembled in Minneapolis last weekend for the National Conference for Media Reform… June 14th marks the beginning of a 100 day countdown to One Web Day 2008. One Web Day is a celebration of the Web - conceived as an analogue of Earth Day - and held annually on September 22. The web has changed our lives and continues to do so as more and more get connected. It’s worth celebrating.

Susan’s mission is to make visible something we may tend to take for granted, so that we can be clear about it’s value and more likely to defend what makes it special. I’m proud to be an Ambassador of One Web Day, here in Chicago.

Chicagoans are familiar with One Web Day and are getting geared up for September 22. At this week’s recent Chicago NetTuesday gathering at the Illinois Information Technology Association we began discussion of things we might do. Video interviews, cross-blogging, community wireless deployments, who knows what else?

The Chicago NetTuesday crowd mixes technologists, non-profit people and others interested in the social good that can be promoted with the web. We’re eager to mashup technologies, organizations and people for the greater good.

One Web Day is an exercise in positive media… there’s much to celebrate on the web, even if there will always be necessity for caution and prudence.

One Web Day is what we make of it … we everywhere… we using any device or application… we creating and sharing content and responsibility.

We’re just at the beginning of deciding the thing’s we’ll be doing here in Chicago for OWD.

I’ll be presenting the idea to several groups over the coming months, inviting discussion and creative action, and at our NetTuesday meetings we hope to generate more content and ideas for OWD 2008.

We’re making progress towards e-Democracy in Chicago. We’ve got a great steering committee in formation, and we’re eager to recruit participants to the Chicago Region Civic Forum. We’re relying on Twin Cities based e-democracy.org for hosting and for their local issues forum platform (based on groupserver). Our forum won’t go live until we reach a critical mass of subscribers.

We’re using their platform for several reasons … we’re committed to a civic discourse on an open source, neutral platform, so that no group or person in Chicago would feel “ownership” (or exclusion) except in the sense of a common, collective ownership and responsibility.

We also like the model, generally. The e-democracy project has been going strong for more than a decade, and continues to expand. It’s built on web technologies familiar to everyone: email and browser, yet also allows room for web 2.0 growth with RSS/XML feeds. The e-democracy forums pay a good deal of attention to the social dimensions of online communities, and have established sensible policies and practices for a healthy community. A clear and explicit policy is important.

The list/forum is open to the public, for the purposes of local civic discourse. Participants are expected to register under their real name, to conduct themselves with civility and generosity of spirit and to focus on issues of pertinence to the Chicago region. We’re all restricted to two posts per day so that no one person can dominate the discourse and so that participants don’t feel overwhelmed by excessive traffic. We’re all busy people, and we respect each other’s time and commitment to improving life in our city.

Feel free to register now… and let me know if you have any problems! We’re still testing some things.

This should take you to a registration page for the Chicago Region Civic Forum on the e-democracy site. Remember, we won’t be live right away, but you will be the first to know when we are!

What’s the deeper formula to “be the change” when you feel frustrated by mainstream media and their handling of presidential politics - and politics in general? Where can we direct our efforts to promote meaningful civic discourse? We need a space dedicated to that purpose and for which we share responsibility. What will serve as town square in the digital era?

The e-democracy project offers a model for supporting local civic discourse online. We take it as given that online efforts don’t replace other modes of interaction in civil society - they are meant to support and enhance civic life. We also take it as given that the digital divide and disparities in tech literacy and local Internet connectivity/accessibility remain a problem that should get more serious attention.

In Chicago I have been involved in numerous discussions around using technology to improve our quality of life, our capacity to work together for a better city, and to deal with the pressing issues of our day. I’ve come to learn that many efforts fall short when groups involved fail to remain open and inviting to others and when the impetus to control an initiative or block it if you can’t control it holds sway.

No one person or group can own a movement, nor can they assert themselves as the legitimate venue for public discourse. Others will feel excluded or will sense that if they support the effort they are bolstering someone else’s constituency.

What is needed? Venues and Resources that are truly held in common and over which we feel stewardship and responsibility, not ownership or control. With that in mind, I am working with others towards advancing the e-Democracy model within Chicago area. I invite you to join me in this effort.

This model is the embodiment of a fair amount of wisdom. In the local issues forums certain guidelines and constraints are necessary to safeguard the spirit and intention of civic space. Participants are expected to identify with a real name; everyone is limited to two posts a day; and topics are focused on our lives within the polity, from a local frame. In terms of technology - there is a sensible bridging of modes of online interaction. members can participate through email, through the web forum or they can keep up with the discussion via RSS feeds. None of these technologies are new, but they aren’t exactly going away either. They are widespread in use, and they represent a framework that can be built upon.

I know there is probably temptation for the civic minded tech group to roll your own, or perhaps make use of “groups” tools on well-known sites. I thought a lot about those options myself. It was easier for me to dismiss the latter as not being the best strategy for an effort intending to foster civic discourse. First, there is the issue of whether the public/commercial site will persist over the long haul or whether it’s policies might fundamentally change. Second there is the general issue of “joining” a site and submitting oneself to the terms of use under which your personal data is regarded as an asset they might trade upon, and where you are the object of marketing which relates directly to the third issue I’ll address in relation to this … maintaining the civic discourse in a space free from commercial speech (i.e. advertising).

I haven’t addressed the issues around “rolling your own” civic forum … certainly with the diffusion of open source content management systems such as Drupal, setting up a forum is relatively easy.

Establishing a successful online community isn’t as easy. Earlier I brought up the notion of “ownership” and perceptions of constituency building and branding opportunities that come up when a group launches efforts like this. We bypass those pitfalls in promoting the e-Democracy model. We’re not making a claim of ownership over the initiative - except in broadest sense of collective ownership. The other issue is that you are going to have to make a lot of design choices, and while exploring the technical issues is a topic of interest to me and many in the circles I frequent, it’s going to delay the effort, and the group may drop the project or worse the effort may fork based on ego or conflicting tech-philosophy.

Who’s with me?

Miguel Guhlin of Texas offered his reaction to my recent post on the Path towards Excellence.

First let’s highlight the quote he’s reacting to:

Digital is a word that often gets in the way: Strive first and always for human excellence and towards our higher individual and collective purposes. Excellence is a matter of character.

Miguel responds:

I fundamentally disagree with this approach. We need to strive towards digitally-enhanced human excellence from the beginning, not strive first and always for human excellence THEN consider something else. Although sometimes it’s helpful to start with traditional tools–like Emily’s approach to bookmarking in the video below, moving us from traditional bookmarks to “social bookmarking” online–when designing things from scratch, you have to start with technology first. Otherwise, it never happens.

My inner pragmatist senses that there is a confusion as to what constitutes excellence, and the nature of the hierarchy between technology and human purposes. I am confident that an extended dialogue on these questions would be instructive and I invite Miguel (and others) to explore the matter with me.

There appears to be a temporal division in Miguel’s interpretation of my view… as a sequential ordering he objects to striving first and always for human excellence then considering something else (in this case technology). he argues that we have to start with technology or it never happens… the “it” being “digitally-enhanced human excellence” I take it.

At the surface, it looks like we’re in disagreement. I’d like to dig deeper.

I’ve written extensively on digital excellence, but from a moral point of view, we must always put technology in service to human purposes - individual and collective. This is a moral and conceptual ordering. In planning and undertaking our journey towards excellence it is a matter of intention and commitment to higher purpose. We embody excellence in the striving for excellence, and that is the only way to get there (which is an unending journey, anyway).

Starting certainly implies a sequence will follow, but we always have to start where we are, and it’s good to gain clarity on what that means. From that view, starting has many aspects: intention, situation, vision.

Miguel asserts that “when designing things from scratch, you have to start with technology first.” However, design implies an intention, a purpose. We have to get clarity on our purpose. I argue elsewhere (on numerous occasions) for dropping the digital. Digital stands in for new technology generally. I’m not anti-technology by any means. But in standing in for technology, it largely implies “new and better” … and obscures critical reflection on the term it sets out to modify. Whether the second term is “divide” or “literacy” or “inclusion” or “excellence” (or any other term) we would do well to pay more attention to the second term. When speaking of the digital divide, it’s merely the latest iteration and manifestation of longstanding social inequalities. We speak of digital literacy, we cannot ignore the higher faculties of reasoning implied in literacy. When we speak of digital inclusion - do we make as strenuous an effort as require to promote a generally inclusive society? Shall we address digital excellence any differently?

(The same argument applies to novel formulations of “e” (and i) …. eGovernment, eChicago.)

Don’t get me wrong. I am not anti-technology. (Nor am I an uncritical booster of technology for it’s own sake.) I am not against deep technological design and deliberation or potentially substantial investments in technology when it makes sense. But what guides a technical decision if not purpose?

The character of our pursuit is essential to excellence. The distinction between human excellence and digitally-enhanced human excellence is lost on me. It’s not a matter of first the one, and then (maybe) the other. It’s not a hierarchy of needs. It’s a hierarchy of purpose and values. If our aims determine technical means we will not delay. We havent delayed. We’re embedded already in the technosphere. Our society and identity is infused with technology and has been since time immemorial. The digital epoch merely takes it to new levels or extremes. The sense of an extreme is a sign of the tension of our adjustment, but the question is how we (continually) humanize our institutions and our technological capacities. We won’t ignore technology, we’ll affirm our proper relation to technology. Technology is but a means. We must take care in choice of means, surely, but we must be more deliberate in determining our purposes.

Are we still in fundamental disagreement?