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.