Archive for the ‘elections’ Category

Holding up Half the Conversation

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
Wow! With the current Wikileaks-Cablegate affair, audiologist I am seeing a lot of venom and righteous indignation.

As ever this rests upon a heap of confusion.

Let’s clarify a few things so we can be sure we aren’t distracted. There are bigger things happening (or not happening) in the world as our attention is consumed by this latest media event.

I’ve already said that there is a big difference between Treasonous acts and Whistleblowing (whether against Government or Corporate abuse of power and the public trust). Our legal system should reflect that distinction.

I’m going to go expand that statement to include the other big “T” … Terrorism.

We don’t need to go into the details of whether this was a case of whistleblowing. It’s more like a massive data dump. But as an analogy it should be instructive. The point about whistleblowing is having a fair and impartial hearing under due process of law, whether in the corporate sphere or a matter of state. The expectation of such a hearing, a true separation of powers and a more general atmosphere of transparency would transform our political culture in the best possible ways.

Another important distinction: those who publish the material, and those who leaked it. These are very different acts, and should be regarded differently. Some have called for the “destruction” of the publisher, some are engaged in illegal activities trying to suppress the website. As for the person who leaked the material, I return to the question of due process of law.

If we speak in favor of Law and Order (upholding claims of secrecy, and the necessity of state secrets and moreover the stiff punishment of those who break the pertinent laws) then let’s set aside the vindictive calls for persecution and violence that ignores due process or makes it into a mockery.

And let’s take that notion a little further — due process is not just following the letter of the law and procedures. It involves a judicious reading of the letter of the law such that higher human values are served or weighed against each other. This sort of reading of the law can lead to a rewriting of the law that is all part of an ongoing evolution of the human spirit. It’s the basic mechanics of the common law and we should not be so quick to dismiss such deliberations as judicial activism. It was once the consensus that common law was in evolution and progressing to a higher state. There are ways in which our society has fallen, but we cannot deny the possibility of further progress of human values. The law as written and enforced is not always right.

Lastly, let’s not confuse privacy and secrecy. Secrecy is a matter of policy. No Government agent creating a document or other record in the course of their duty has any expectation of “privacy” … these documents are internal, and that’s not the same as privacy. Recognizing that secrecy is a matter of policy is to see that it’s not a right. It’s a combination of circumstance and policy, and policy can be changed at a pen stroke.

All in all most of the confusion comes down to a certain kind of authoritarianism we all to readily adopt and allow to excuse further abuse of power. Consider the lengths the Administration went to in attempts to quash the Pentagon Papers and to persecute and prosecute Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. This is a dangerous thing. If we’re really on the side of law and order, let’s moderate the rhetoric, and let’s not be distracted.

We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, steroids
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, approved
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, store
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
We are hostile to Dogma. That is the final word. We are not hostile to Education as such, sickness
but rather to such defenses of ‘it’ which render its’ rational alteration improbable.

Dogma is singular in the abstract, here
but in concrete it is many.

In our hostility toward Dogma we must be hostile to our own Dogma, or at least suspicious of it. In this way we will be better able to follow the Kantian maxim, if we take up this war. We must not fight this battle in such a way as to preclude a future peace.

We reject Dogma as stylized response which impairs or otherwise hinders communication. It is likely that there is something behind the Dogma.

If we are to do anything constructive we must free up the voice of that something so that it can be heard, so that it can be taken account of. What is rejected primarily in Dogma is not faith. It is a manner of presentation which is deceptive. Deception need not be intentional. Indeed we will agree with the Pragmatists’ denial of privileged access to “intent”.

If we can get behind the mask of Dogma and see the Face of the Other we will have opened channels of communication.

Dogmatic expression adds nothing, moreover it takes away. It serves as a possible model of future behavior. Can we say that it is inefficient? We must break this habit. It befuddles our thought. It hearkens back to ‘essences’. Inefficiency is not a function of Dogma or Dogmatic Expression, nor is it a feature of it, nor the essence of it. For as with Rationality, we must speak of inefficiency in terms of purposes, aims, groups.

Dogmatic Expression is related to homophilly. The Expression of attitudes, beliefs, may serve to secure and identify group boundaries. In this respect it can be considered efficient, both for the group, and for the groups it serves to contrast. And for a larger constellation of groups it may well serve the regulation of parts.

Dogma and Dogmatic Expression serve pattern maintenance. Growth within the group and under the regime is channeled along certain lines. Other possibilities for growth are circumscribed, and foregone/foreclosed, if not obstructed.

Within any group there may be forces which are held back. The group is an institution, it is an idea. Forces are held in check for the purpose of achieving other ends.

[Stability, Identity may be ends pursued.]
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, generic
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
What are we doing when we theorize social change? What do we resort to and make use of when doing so? What are our motivations?

I would suggest that in the mix of motivations is/are concerns of the investigator that he or she be legitimate, ampoule
useful to something, someone, some idea or principle, and that their means and logic are credible in that regard.

A somewhat contrary, or contradictory (or at least seemingly so) tendency is the objective stance independent of utility or practicality, the vulgar view of Theory as Lofty Aesthetic (Ascetic) Practice with only a rarefied meaning, or a cultural product and projection.

Yet these both have significance as obstacles to rupture from common sense, in Bourdieu’s sense, as obstacles to science as Reflexive Practice.

So whether we play with abstract ideas (state, class, etc.) and perhaps impose this frame on reality, or we take up legitimated categories as real and natural rather than as problematic, we are stuck with a question of our utility. Will we allow ourselves to be mere tools, or will we relegate ourselves to uselessness?

These two images of possible Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice are related to each other. I say Relation to Knowledge and Political Practice rather than between them because I wish to emphasize social-object/agent’s relation to these spheres as opposed to the relationship between abstract spheres, or between an abstract sphere and a practical sphere.

Both images can be pressed into the service, or use of control.

Both segment the Lifeworld as a means of control.

Both have a tone of ‘naturality’ … paternal permanence and continuity which do not take particular relations and possession of knowledge as significant, which amounts to a lack of concern for the maturity of persons… (not to say that there is a practical empirical measure of this).
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, somnology
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
When you look back on something — consider whether it was just the first iteration. It may yet work.

Maybe not enough people understood what you were doing — maybe not enough appreciated what was at stake.

Maybe you can communicate your vision more clearly now.

Maybe you have refined your vision or your methods.

Keep pushing, order
and keep reflecting on your aims, your method, your motivations.
At just about any cafe or restaurant one can get tea or coffee. Beverage of your choice! We don’t need a Tea Party separate from a Coffee Party. Of course we usually sit down with others for respite and discourse when there is already an established affinity, store or when we are hoping to establish a relationship of some sort. The irony is that we’re finding ourselves so much at odds with those we already share tremendous affinities – friendships and families, glaucoma and all the more easy to engage with aggressive hostility or disengage with dismissive condescension those we don’t have that direct connection. Yet even with those whom we seem to share little in common -only because our starting frames set us in opposition – we share that same tremendous potential of affinity. Let’s find that; sip our tea, coffee, water; take in and offer words direct and civil, and start this conversation again. Neither side can carry the country forward with “half a conversation”.

How does media policy affect us?

Friday, April 10th, 2009

Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
Ted Ernst is a good friend – I missed this gem from last Friday 13th…
A variant of this question dropped into my inbox not long ago this morning and I could not help but start writing… the question is not quite the same as the title above – it was more focused on a language of “real individuals” telling their stories about how media policy issues affect them. The intent has to do with sharing stories to affect policy or to get potential supporters to take media policy more seriously.

I’m interested in more public dialogue, viagra so I only provide my reaction here, story and leave the others in that email exchange to speak for themselves and to audiences of their choosing – but as I have something to get off my chest, apoplexy here I go…

(Wow, well, glad interest has been sparked…) my read is that real (as opposed to who?) people are affected in so many cross-cutting ways by media policies that they can’t even see it (or if and to the extent they do they are seeing so many things at once, and potentially different things from each other, with different languages to interpret or speak about them).

We’re embedded in the results/effects of media policy. Another factor to consider is the manner in which policy obscures itself. To the extent that those shaping policy are often angling for particular perks, obscurity is a strategy and an advantage … to those passing legislation/policy and serving narrow interests. The contrast between narrow interest vs. general interest in any policy (media or other policy) is the big puzzle. We’ve tended to accept the exigency of acceding to the narrow interest to get things done, or to get the uncomfortable questions off the table. We tend to steer away from the real work that would build enduring, generative capacity.

None of this is terribly helpful, I am sure.

Thom Clark makes excellent points in that capacity is policy … i.e. local capacity is both a (variably effective) policy maker and the result of policy. If we are to collectively “grow ours” (in contrast with “get mine”) then we have to invest in meaningful capacity building that seeds the local and builds lateral connections over these localities (not necessarliy spatial/geographic nearness) – in multiple dimensions – capacity in fields of interest, of professions, of other “community” of various stripes.

That is, every sector of life is touched by this.

In our work on Digital Excellence this was perhaps our central point. (We blend the concepts of Digital Literacy and Media Literacy at this point, at a very deep level, so they maybe synonymous or united at a higher level.)

Every sector, every aspect of our individual and collective lives is touched by media/technology processes. It’s important to pair these terms – individual and collective – it’s not just individual lives here, it’s how we live together that is affected, and our own awareness of our role and freedom to shape this. So it’s groups and communities and families, and organizations that have to be part of the story, too. Each of these flavor and shape the quality of my individual life and I have to take time to care for these aspects of my/our selves.

My gut is to flip the question on it’s head… show me any story or any aspect of life not affected by media policy. I recognize that that’s probably not compelling for the audience.

FWIW, (and to state the banal) I’m an individual… I engage in media activism, and media policy, and I buy into the importance of “being the media”. I endeavored to get others to some state of awareness on several interrelated topics (and to build my own awareness and understanding thereby), not to mention awareness of their interrelatedness, and I employ multiple strategies to do so. I have perhaps a very different notion of “policy work” than what may be commonly understood, but there’s the rub — all sorts of work are being re-imagined and restructured. (That’s nothin’ new, but perhaps only more so now..)

“Be the media” as sentiment and strategy is an expression of this transformation of work and life, and a recognition that practice and policy are one. Policy may otherwise be regarded as something that happens above, or elsewhere, or happens to you … but in this model, policy is what we contest and what we make and how we practice. If you’ve the motivation and I haven’t worn out my welcome take a look at the entry for Grassroots Public Policy Development in the Public Sphere Pattern Language project spearheaded by Doug Schuler.

Getting to this practice of “being the media” and being with (and for) each other in community, talking about and reforming our practice and our communities at the same time gives us something fairly exciting to talk about. Trying to be clear: talking about or sharing any of the strategies we’ve employed feels like a success story to me in that we’ve been building community and community capacity.

I’m tempted to enumerate tools, devices, strategies – ranging from the pattern language process itself to open space and other civic focused gatherings to new models of philanthropic or educational/research engagement to positive media to open data commons models – but any list would be partial, and would not honor the plethora of ongoing efforts and approaches to living together in a new way. So many things tied together … we’re enmeshed in good and bad ways. And as the story goes – each interpretation of the moment is subject to revision. Perhaps.

Any of you are welcome to tell your story here – or anywhere. How does media policy affect you, personally, or the things you care about?

On this inaugural day, our simple gifts

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, medications today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, medications today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, diagnosis today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, medications today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, diagnosis today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, malady today. Blogging is powerful, help and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, medications today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, diagnosis today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, malady today. Blogging is powerful, help and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, website like this today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, medications today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, diagnosis today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, malady today. Blogging is powerful, help and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, website like this today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, sick early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, health cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, viagra 100mg but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this endeavor, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
Excellent video!


Excellent video!


The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, physician and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, link
and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, advice
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, salve today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, anemia today. Blogging is powerful, website and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, abortion today. Blogging is powerful, ask and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, pulmonologist we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, medications today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, diagnosis today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, malady today. Blogging is powerful, help and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

As Blog Action Day – 2008 draws to a close I write in solidarity with all who took up the cause of Poverty, website like this today. Blogging is powerful, and the freedom to blog is something we should not take lightly. We are exercising a significant privilege.

While thinking about poverty two points come immediately to mind. First, we live in a world of great abundance. Second, and not unrelated to the first – the impoverishment of our repertoire of ideas and options is something we must take seriously – our symbolic or cultural impoverishment.

We live in a world of great abundance. In the context of recent global financial news we’re prone to forget this. In the context of the many effects of poverty we are drawn in to the immensity of the gap we must surmount. I return again and again to the work of Amartya Sen – in questioning the distribution of resources. Hunger and want more often than not is about a breakdown in the distribution and exchange of needed resources and rarely a result of insufficient resources for populations. Greed gets in the way. People are unwilling to let their wealth flow. We have the wrong idea of what wealth is.

Material Impoverishment persists largely through a nefarious “Symbolic Impoverishment”. This does not mean that social justice (or injustice) is not an active factor. So much more is possible for us as individuals and collectively as a species than we generally recognize. We accept limited options in the face of difficult circumstances. We reinforce the imagery of limited options for others. We find ourselves goaded by urgency and compelled on tight time-frames. Sometimes we accept external limiting definitions of ourselves, our station, what we deserve. We are distracted from our connectedness and what we ow to each other. (Georg Simmel’s notion of the relative decline Subjective vs. Objective Culture is relevant to this question – and reframes the challenge as acutely modern.)

We must set the highest goals and pursue them diligently, steadily. So much human potential is squandered. Life is squandered. We’re more caught up in maintaining a status quo, or keeping up with the current than growing together.

We must ask what human dignity demands of us when we bear witness to poverty and human suffering.

My call to the world of social and civic entrepreneurs with whom I find myself in common cause: let us each pursuing the social good work ourselves one by one out of a job. That’s my vision for the not-for-profit and social entrepreneurs – successfully closing the books on as many causes as we can so we may turn to higher challenges with the full complement of human creative potential.

This is the great urgency I see. These are two compass points on the map I follow.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, sick early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, health cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, viagra 100mg but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this endeavor, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, gerontologist early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in the values of the cause and in working together

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, refractionist the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, refractionist the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, visit the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, refractionist the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, visit the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, viagra order the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, refractionist the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, visit the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, viagra order the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, dosage the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, visit this site others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, refractionist the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, visit the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, viagra order the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, dosage the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, visit this site others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, ascariasis the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, physician others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, disinfection and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, medical view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, neurologist cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, artificial but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
It seemed as if the Universe was smiling, view early this week… the election of Obama and the beautiful weather in the midwest were linked with the global euphoria. Hyde Park felt different, cheerful – proud.

Our species (and planet) faces many challenges at this moment, but to deal with them in a sane and healing manner we needed this collective catharsis.

I don’t go in for hero worship, so I will not heap praise upon one man. Instead, let us celebrate this moment as yet another achievement in our (human) struggles through history. This is collective work, and I had my doubts that we – in this nation – would rise to the occasion. But we did.

This is an achievement of the people. I have heard countless tales of people who went door to door., inspired by Obama’s message and character. Some philosophies call for revolution at regular intervals, but not all revolutions require blood sacrifice. We’ve transformed ourselves through a long campaign – some bitterness and pain in some of the work we’ve done, and we have not fully transcended our past injustices in this nation. Resentiments lurk beneath the surface in many households, but the message of healing remains: we are together in this, we are American, we have one planet and we must work together with the world, and working together starts wherever you are.

We should commemorate this achievement in a work of public art. I proposed on a listserv of Hyde Parkers that the efforts of the people leading to this moment be the subject of a mural or statue in Hyde Park.

Of Hyde Park I have heard it stated “black and white (stand) united” – followed by the qualifying twist: “against the poor.” I think there is some truth to that statement – visible in the the the contrast between Hyde Park (and one or two neighborhoods) and other surrounding community areas. Professionals and Intellectuals must ground themselves in work that is relevant to the cause of social justice
The following was written for the Catalytic Communities 2008 end of year newsletter, medical and posted in the longer form on the CatComm blog:

Theresa breezed through Chicago in 2005, physician and graciously took 15 minutes to give me a tour of CatComm’s website. I was hooked in less than two minutes!

Conceptual depth, approved
authenticity, and devotion are three things that inspire me. Finding a special alignment of these things in CatComm and Theresa made me an instant advocate. And my own commitment to the digital divide sector and community networking arena gave me a great appreciation for the approach Theresa had undertaken. CatComm is an exemplar of Digital Excellence by virtue of its holistic ethos: people in community solving what they need to solve and sharing their experiences with each other. This is an exercise in positive media—the sharing of stories and know-how.

In learning about CatComm, the first big ‘a-ha’ moment for me was the recognition that we need exactly the kind of tool that CatComm provides in order to share knowledge. We must foster this practice and I was keen on sparking replication of the Casa here in Chicago and elsewhere.

What one community solves inspires others to take action and go further. At the same time, organizations and web sites crop up to tackle the challenges we face. They operate with much the same mindset and similar aspirations—but are all too often unaware of each other until a good deal of work has already been done. Realizing this has been central to CatComm’s recent evolution. We are following a network perspective and we have now adopted the stance of a network steward among many. That means working in cooperation with an increasing network of like-minded organizations.

Leadership in networks is different from brand or organizational leadership. There’s an ecology of the network and we’re redeveloping the CatComm site and organization to consciously function as part of a network. We’re joining hands with other clusters working on the same meta-question: How can we more effectively share the experiences of people in community solving challenges? We have made a major investment in the technology of our website. In some respects, we’re turning the site inside out so we can get out the way and also get the technology out of the way. These are the insights we’ve gleaned from the practice of open space—making room for self-organizing—and has given us kinship with those on the wiki path.

We’ve been rebuilding our platform so that information can be more readily disseminated across networks. Information is valuable, to be sure, but even more valuable is the time and attention of the person, whether they are documenting their project or searching for a solution. We’re working with others to establish public data models and mechanisms to effectively exchange data between sites. We are seeking accelerated flows of information so that attention and effort is maximized.

The data will be stored on our website in a way that allows other sites, applications, and widgets to rely on us as a repository of solutions. We’ll get more eyes looking at our content at more points on the Web then we could hope for from a solitary website, and with support of issue and geographic portals to get more solutions documented in the database. It’s a virtuous cycle that comes from attending to the field we’re all working in rather than competing against one another.

But today, we’re just at the beginning of this road.

We’re about to switch over to a new platform that will allow expansion of the languages we serve and the formats in which solutions are documented. Our content will be available for search, query, and export, and the data models will be published as a standard in our work with the Open Sustainability Network. We’ll be supporting the flow of information with significant attention to the construction of tools that allow others to display subsets of our content on their own sites, so a group focused on a particular issue or particular geography can focus on their concern and not on the technology.

Shortly down the road we’ll be working with others to foster communities of problem solvers (or Solutioneers, as Ellison Horne says!) and supporters. These communities will emerge on the basis of productive interactions made possible by many hands attending to the field.
I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, steroids the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, medications others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, buy and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cited as being close to 20th in global broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media infrastructure. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, tadalafil the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, website like this others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, information pills and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, refractionist the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy have had very limited goals and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, visit the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, viagra order the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition team where numerous public interest constituencies provided input – all of which I strongly endorse. I joined the call on the basis of my experience as a digital divide and communications policy activist and advocate for the last 7 or 8 years through organizations such as CTCNet Chicago, dosage the Association For Community Networking and the Chicago Digital Access Alliance.

I’ve cleaned up the rough notes of my 3 minutes and I share them here as an “open note” to the transition team led by Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach. Much thanks to Nathaniel James for coordinating the call!

When Chicago was exploring options for vendor driven citywide wifi networks there was a prolonged public debate and discussion (some through hearings coordinated by Aldermen, visit this site others through hearings specific to the digital divide committee, and more still in public meetings convened by the Chicago Digital Access Alliance).

Grassroots groups looked closely at what had become a contemporary re-framing of the digital divide – namely, Digital Inclusion.

In Chicago, grassroots and civic leaders determined that Digital Inclusion did not offer a big enough vision and was potentially constraining and divisive. At the most benign level we saw the Digital Inclusion language as a means of obtaining the endorsement of disparate groups by favors rather than involving community in true holistic planning processes or giving community a mechanism for effective oversight of communication infrastructure initiatives. The FCC (and really, all institutions of Govt.) should support a policy agenda that encourages inclusive local planning processes and oversight.

In Chicago, we evolved a conceptual framework around Digital Excellence as a new model for transcending the digital divide.

I will not go into great depth on this, given time, and given the current limited scope of the FCC (and the purpose of this call) but I do wish to underscore our view that Media Literacy and Digital Literacy are deeply connected, and that the FCC should be connected to (and support interagency) efforts addressing this.

In a new model of participatory governance there should be outreach efforts of governance bodies such as the FCC to educate the public on it’s powers and the channels for citizens and communities to avail themselves of the resources and protections of the particular agency. This would go beyond public hearings convened in recent years by the FCC and would be a mandate for public education on the science and policy guiding the FCC. This would institute a sunshine palliative to past practices and reduce the perception of privileged access to decision makers.

It’s worth restating the basic point made by many: A big vision for dealing with the digital divide under a a new banner of digital excellence would require interagency collaboration and strong integration with citizen led efforts.

Programs like DOC-NTIA TOP (Technology Opportunities Program) – quietly killed several years back – must be revived, along with funding for a new generation of hybrid Community Technology Center/Community Media Center/Community Network (given the new era of convergence on Internet Protocol as media/communications platform). TOP’s successor should be redesigned to leverage the knowledge and experience gained in these social/technology experiments and there should be parallel institutional support for the replication of any powerful community innovations that emerge as opposed to the unfortunate past model of funding limited efforts at innovation then leaving that experience in a database or shelved in reports.

Digital media infuse all aspects of life but historically most investments in digital literacy and access have had very limited goals (and moreover limited success) and tended to segment digital from other dimensions of social and public life. Efforts to redress the digital divide should not be limited to remedial kindergarten concepts of the divide, they should start with a big vision … our vision is a world where the majority of the public are confident in the use of collaborative tools, are able to express themselves in media formats of their choice and that communities are creating new tools that suit their purposes.

That’s close to what I said … there were other points I would have liked to address, but my watch was focused on digital-divide/access sector. I tend to take a very broad view on the scope of “digital” as touching many aspects of our experience as members of the community. It’s something that penetrates every sphere of life and any public program or service needs to consider the digital dimension and social divides that intersect. The digital transformation of our culture and economy is still in process – businesses have more capacity to adapt, as they can pass costs on to their customers, but government and community groups have less freedom in that regard.

Though the US has been cites as being close to 20th in broadband penetration, I don’t want to see a narrowly conceived national broadband policy emerge without a deeper community oriented, community driven commitment to the higher aspirations of Digital Excellence encapsulated above.

The public at large, communities and municipalities need space for experimentation with new models of dealing with the connectivity issues and the tools that will ride upon the new media. We need means of getting to the Internet through channels not owned by major corporations. We need to eliminate the stranglehold on the last mile (better described as the first mile – since they’re our communities). We need to open up the spectrum – we should have seen an equivalent to Moore’s Law in efficient (and expanding) use of Spectrum were it not for a regulatory status quo based on narrow interests and outdated or junk science where spectrum is regarded and held as property rather than as an arbitrarily divisible medium (subject to technical advance). The Internet and the Airwaves should always belong to the public. They must be administered with a long term view informed by science and the public interest. To restate: we need room for experiment in civic technologies and processes – at all layers of the stack.

Information Infrastructure resources for communities, the public and government bodies at all levels of jurisdiction should be supported in a Civic Garden model where anyone anywhere may freely access and interact with resources in the .GOV, .EDU and .ORG top level domains.

The Internet is the new medium for local, national and global civic discourse and such interactions should be privileged under the same principles of civic necessity that justified support of print journalism and the postal service.

Community capacity in the deployment of networks, services, tools is essential to a free and democratic society. I join with Lauren Glenn-Davitian in a call for a rewrite of the 1934 Act that established what is now the FCC in light of the ongoing evolution of technology and our society, and in light of the vision we have for ourselves.

I just participated in a great call with Kevin Werbach of the Obama FCC Transition tea