I’m interested in more public dialogue, so I only provide my reaction here, 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, 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?

Much work is ahead of us, and it feels good to feel again a pride in our institutions, our values, the progress of our history, and in this our public and collective recommitting to hope and virtue.

The values and principles our 44th President has eloquently pronounced are ideals I have long espoused – and yet felt at times like a voice crying out in the wilderness.

How many of us have felt alone in our ideals and now are strengthened by this higher kinship, a fellowship of spirit common to the species?

The highlight of this ceremony is that we can laugh with joy together through the wit and wisdom of Rev. Lowery’s benediction.

Is there anything new here? The ring of “public-private” partnership or cooperation is flat…

Chicago should have started wiring (and unwiring) itself 10 years ago. What happened to the promise of CivicNet? Promises, promises, and more platitudes?

This is not to impugn Mr. Bhatt – it’s just that we’ve been singing this song for a long time and we still don’t have the communications infrastructure we need in Chicago (or nationally). I’ve written extensively on how this language obscures the process of addressing civic needs, I won’t belabor the point here.

As far as not expecting a bailout for infrastructure – true – we ought not be holding our breath – but the need for general infrastructure investment is pressing, and lack of action disadvantages our economic well being and quality of life as we compete in global markets. This applies not just to communications infrastructure but to transport and especially public transport. If we want to jump start the economy, this is where we need to make investments – where we’ll create jobs doing the work we need. The “markets” will take care of themselves. Isn’t that what we’d been told all along? I don’t believe the markets take care of everything nor that they take care of things according to our national (or local) values.

What would you do with $700 Billion?

We need bold civic leadership. Bailing out the financiers won’t help any of us in the short run nor over the long haul.

Green investments in energy, transit, and communications infrastructure coupled with decisions that are grounded in meeting the needs of the community with mechanisms for community planning, oversight and accountability are the best way out of our current mess. Indeed, they are the best way forward in any weather.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s with me?

When Michelle Obama expressed her newly emergent pride in the country many were offended. But, the backlash of those who took offense is perniciously wrongheaded. We need to move beyond bombastic pride and unqualified emotionalism. It’s ridiculous to parse the language of another person’s inner experience of national identity while we willfully ignore the contradictions in our own relation or expression thereof. We have no standing to make such judgment.

It’s a matter of mote and timber in the historical mind’s eye, for no institution, no social relation can be accorded unconditional approbation. That is what our national identity suggests to me. Patriotism is a willingness to challenge the country when it does wrong, out of love. Glossing over inconvenient facts obstructs growth, leaving us in shadow. There is much to question in our present and in our past. We should embrace those with the will to question, raise dialogue and foster civic deliberation on matters afflicting the human condition.

Today I read a piece recounting many points in American history for which the only point of pride may be in the widespread hope or desire that we have since overcome those attitudes and behavior. It’s not clear to me that we have. There are many signs to the contrary.

Where does hope live? Hope is an active relation to the dream. The American project continues to unfold. Our best days are not behind us. Our living up to the civic principles we espouse requires questioning our selves and challenging false pride (as well as self-loathing).

Generations after Dr. King’s brutal murder we still aspire to a post-racial society, and we endeavor to live the dream he eloquently expressed. This is grounded in the wisdom that there is but one race. Some will say that the post-racial element of the dream is a denial of reality. I understand the point they are trying to make, even if I reject the categorical language of race in favor of a more nuanced dynamic of ethnic processes and social constructions of identity.

If I restated the case, our hopes would be realized in a post-racist society … a subtle difference, perhaps. We’re not calling for a denial of the past, or of present difference, but rather for a new relation to both.

This is not about homogeneity, it is about a deeper respect for histories and differences. We (as nation and as species) are the repository of a multitude of histories and we must be willing to face the darkness in our history, in a narrative whereby we collectively and continually rise above ignorance and prejudice. Attaining a degree of historical consciousness we no longer have an excuse to deny our past, nor to deny that which we are party to in the present. It is incumbent upon us to continue to grow, and to bring up those generations who follow in this attitude, that they may likewise live in active relation to humanity’s higher nature.

Once we begin to take maturity seriously, we will get down to the business of maturation.

We’ll not impugn others for their faith or for their doubts in the nation or in humanity, we’ll give them reason to be hopeful. Take pride in working towards the dream with others, don’t take excessive pride in the past.

But I do take Ferraro’s attitude as obnoxious and racist… or at least playing to racist sentiments. (Really – both, I think … her attempts to spin herself out of this is pathetic and makes her look much worse in the long run.)

I’m not ‘enamored of Barack’s blackness’ … It’s incidental. Clearly identity politics is at play – motivating supporters for both campaigns, but Barack has a consistent message that fits the post-racial ideals many of us hold. And Geraldine – I’m not black …. am I being racist in calling you on your racism?

I am sure there are many people out there who have said or thought the very things Ferraro has so bluntly stated. What is ridiculous to me is that they defend it as ‘fact’… their statement isn’t a fact. It’s just a sad sign of low character. More Americans need to study biology … there is one race: human.

And as for painting Barack as a Muslim… some people complain that Hillary didn’t take a stronger stance in regard to the fact that Barack is not of the Muslim faith. She said she takes him at his word. Yes. Do take people at their word and at their deeds when asked about their faith and character, but really, it’s the wrong answer to the wrong question. The right response is that although we know Barack to be a man of faith, with long-standing commitment to the same Church, if he were of the Muslim faith, that would NOT disqualify him for office. This reeks of the days when other religious bigots questioned Kennedy’s loyalty because of his Catholic heritage. Clearly, however, some of us in America are not done with anti-catholic bigotry either. Has Ferraro commented at all about Hagee and McCain?

The Democratic Party needs to transcend Identity politics. I’d support woman or man, a person of any ethnic heritage or religious faith, if they demonstrate themselves to be of high moral character, lead by example and inspire us to our higher calling as a people.

I’d also like to give people a little room to make some mistakes, and a chance to redeem themselves when they do. (But please, stop digging.)

The Bill of Rights is not a “suicide pact,” but an expression of courage and knowledge that courage is what it takes to keep a people free.~~From Ellen Gill’s letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun Times, December 29, 2005.

Did any member of the press ask Nader which he meant? (I assumed the former, myself.) They were probably too sure about what they heard and what they understood.

I enjoy polysemy, and find that both terms actually work. What did you hear? assent? ascent? a scent? a cent?

Surely, in our history we as a people have committed grave errors, and errors and crimes have been committed in our name, even when without our consent (and sometimes without sufficient protest).

Our public servants, our brave citizen-soldiers pledge their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution is not “my country right or wrong” – the Constitution, and the processes and balance of structures it defines (not enshrines) are founded in values. They are an expression of values – they contest with each other to guard against corruption and to establish firm foundation for the rule of law. Extension and upholding of the rule of law is the deeper question of our global civilization.

Dissent, it is said, is the mother of assent.

We must retain the freedom to criticize our government. These freedoms are enshrined in the founding documents of our nation. This is the deeper love I have for my nation, my people. This is what our soldiers defend, This is the love our people must share with the peoples of the Earth.