Search Episodes (Technology Politics and Democracy Part 3 )

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

Added 12/19/11
5 Views

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes. The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state. Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .") We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost. Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred." Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand." Portrait of the President as a Young Freak As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence. The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan. And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans. Words Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ... Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: > I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions. When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television. Havel had been burned by language, too: > The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps. And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: > The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable. Control In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: > The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens. Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure. "Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel. Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: > The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'" People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives. Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'" Ambition Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: > If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism. It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record. From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: > Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power. Technocracy It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies." That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation." Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: > States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success. Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: > (It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation. "The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic." Responsibility "I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." > I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans. None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so. Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: > Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia. Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered. Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere. "Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power. At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.

[Ai] "Helping" Eri Tv To Serve The Truth Part Ii

Added 03/06/11
13 Views

[Ai] "Helping" Eri Tv To Serve The Truth Part Ii

[LESS INFO] 13 VIEWS | ADDED 11:28:26 03/06/11
Fellow Eritreans, The third installment on the Ministry of Information’s famous “Mideast Papers” has just arrived. So far, we wouldn’t be surprised if fellow readers have been impatient with the Ministry of Information Serving Truth, and kept asking: “Where is beef?” This time around though we are indeed served the beef – in fact, three kinds of beef! The Ministry of Truth has identified with pinpointed precision the three main reasons as to why the people in Middle East are fed up with their governments that were unable to implement, the way Eritrea has done, three key policies:(a) National Harmony - “Hade Libi, Hade Hizb i” (b) Economic and Social Justice – Wefri Warsai-Yikealo (c) Independent path – Self-Reliance or “bitsifrna ”Hade Libi Hade Hizbi The Ministry of Truth’s first insight into the Mideast unrest is that nations like Egypt have failed because they have no “National Harmony” programs similar to PFDJ’s immensely successful and popular “Hade Libi, Hade Hizbii ” policy: “Its actual implementation calls for firm conviction and commitment on the part of the government. The realization of such a major national objective requires continuous campaign, cultural programs and follow ups. The main failure of governments in this regard lies not in the theoretical concepts but rather the scope of commitment for its actual implementation.” If the Egyptian government have had the number and duration of elaborate festivals the Isaias regime conducts – Fenkil Festival, Nadew Festival, Women’s Day, Martyrs’ Day, Labor Day, The Independence Day, etc – [and in all cases, the term “day” is misnomer, for in some cases the festival lasts weeks], where every ethnic group is allowed to drink, dance and sing to their hearts’ fill, all proudly clad in their ethnic dresses, the nation’s harmony wouldn’t have frayed and, in the end, caused such an upheaval. The Ministry of Truth’s golden advice on how a nation attains “Hade Libi, Hade Hizb i” status: Middle East is burning because, unlike Eritrea, they don’t have cultural troupes – made up of the likes “Gual Ankere”, “Fihira” Faytinga, Kuni, Bekhita Ali, etc – criss-crossing the nation in order to cement the national harmony.Wefri Warsai-Yikealo Here is what the Ministry of Truth says regarding “Economic and Social Justice”: “A just political system cannot be instituted short of a developed and just economic order. Political democracy too does not have any foundation without socio-economic. ” We get it: democracy has to wait until the nation develops economically! For the record though, isn’t that what Tunisia and Egypt have been doing? Have Gaddafi, Ben Ali or Mubarak ever got Isaias’ lovely order of “development first, democracy second” wrong? Isaias, Isaias, please be fair when it comes to your former friends! It is true that they failed to implement your impressive Wrasai-Yikealo project, but to blame them for having put democracy first and development second is tantamount to treason in the Book of Authoritarian Leaders.On the merit of Wefri Warsay-Yikealo, this is what the Ministry of Serving Anything but the Truth says: “In light of this, nation-building and upgrading people’s standard of living is a process that cannot be viewed in isolation. It is obvious that nation-building could not be achieved short of active popular participation which could only be ensured through implementing development programs in the interest of the entire population .” Of course, the popular participation that the Ministry is alluding to is nothing but the spectacularly successful Warsai-Yikealo project. That is to say, if Egypt had tied all its youth in a slave labor in the Egyptian desert building micro dams (forget the non-selfreliantly built Aswan dam – that is the root of the problem!), it wouldn’t have had to face the uprising from the youth. After all, however perverted it is, the Ministry of Truth seems to have finally blurted out some truth: do not allow the youth to sit idle in the cities! Bistifrina – Self-reliance Now we have come to the icing in the cake: nations like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt are falling like a house of cards because, unlike the glorious Eritrean economy that is the envy not only of our jealous neighbors but also of the entire world, their economies were never self-reliant! There you have it: the truth, nothing but whole the truth! Here is how the notoriously truthful Shabait.com puts it:“Under this global scenario, it demands the requisite political will and strong courage to pursue political and economic path free from dependency. … In this regard, resorting to the principle of self-reliance is imperative. Viewed within this framework, the nations that resolutely pursued an independent path are the ones that emerged victorious, while those which compromised their independent choice are being exposed to all-round failure.” Of course, the nation that has been most victorious in this regard is none other than our dear Eritrea – a shining example to the rest of the world! And so what does the Ministry of Truth tells the world as to the secret ingredient to Eritrea’s exemplary success: if the Arab citizens were to be made to queue for “riga bani” in the wee hours of morning under a self-reliant economy like Eritrea’s, and were consistently made to think only of where the next meal would be coming from, they wouldn’t have been rioting in the streets. The advice: keep them half-starved. Again, the Ministry of Truth seems to have stumbled on some kind of truth – however pervert that truth happens to be.Conclusion: The Ministry of Information is trying to justify the three main policies of the regime that have been instrumental in controlling the masses: (a) Give the masses one festival after another – “guaila” has been the Eritrean version of the opium of the masses; (b) Kick the youth out of the cities – wherever they may end up. (c) Keep the nation insulated from the rest of the world – hence, the need for self-reliance.Below is the third installment on the “Mideast Papers” from the Ministry of Information as put in Shabait.com..............................................................................................................................................Popular Unprising: Eve of the End of Era of Domination and transition to New World Order (P.II)Key factors for national security and stability As mentioned in the first part of this article, the current stage in world history is characterized with monopoly and marginalization in different parts of the world in conflict with mounting popular resistance. It is a historic junction in which people all over the world are demanding social justice and coexistence in harmony. Although popular opposition manifested in various corners has distinctive feature of its own in one way or the other, the overall cause, however, is not that different from one another. Hence, in order to have profound understanding of this basic fact, it is imperative to identify the decisive factors that determine the stability of a given nation and society. What distinguishes humans from other creatures is the fact that they lead a social life. As communal pattern of living gains momentum, the guarantee for having better control over resources and the possibility of leading improved life becomes possible. Thus, the formation of nation states which opened bright prospects for higher lifestyle constitutes the highest form of social organization in the contemporary world. Peoples and nations everywhere strive for a common goal towards leading improved standard of living under conducive atmosphere. However, social stability and integrity are decisive factors to achieve this lofty objective, which in turn determine the success of the nation-building process. The main indicators of a stable society could be classified under three categories: 1. National harmony 2. Economic and social justice 3. Independent path 1. National Harmony Although national harmony and integrity are the decisive factors for realizing the objectives of peoples and nations, it is an asset that cannot be attained easily, for building a nation involves a long and protracted process. The majority of states, especially those that were under colonial rule comprise nationals divided along the lines of ethnicity, language, culture and religious groups. Such pattern of nation formation makes nation-building a demanding task. Hence, it is imperative that any government seeking to build a viable nation needs to seriously ponder over the task of governing the people without any discrimination based on ethnicity, language, religion, gender, class and others. In doing so, it could promote social harmony and mutual respect among the people. Although goodwill and awareness, as well as the formulation of the necessary laws and policies make due contribution to this end, the mere incorporation of these factors in the national charter could not at all ensure national harmony. Its actual implementation calls for firm conviction and commitment on the part of the government. The realization of such a major national objective requires continuous campaign, cultural programs and follow ups. The main failure of governments in this regard lies not in the theoretical concepts but rather the scope of commitment for its actual implementation. 2. Economic and Social JusticeA just political system cannot be instituted short of a developed and just economic order. Political democracy too does not have any foundation without socio-economic democracy. Hence, the nature of the economic order is the one that determines the type of a political system. Regardless of political will and pledges, such goals cannot be attained without building a strong national economy that ensures the participation and benefit of all, equitable allocation of natural resources, and above all equitable opportunities. In light of this, nation-building and upgrading people’s standard of living is a process that cannot be viewed in isolation. It is obvious that nation-building could not be achieved short of active popular participation which could only be ensured through implementing development programs in the interest of the entire population. It is imperative for any government keen to build a viable nation to clearly spell out objectives and principles aimed at ensuring equal participation of all citizens in national issues and equitable allocation of resources. To this end, it should formulate the necessary policies and regulations, as well as strong commitment for attaining the set goal. Special attention should also be given to improve the lifestyle of marginalized sections of the society. In other words, a just economic growth must be instituted, as equitable development of all sections of the population constitutes the yardstick of justice. 3. Independent Path In the contemporary epoch, the progress that any people or nation could achieve is limited in isolation from its surroundings and the world at large. For this very reason, fostering foreign relations is significant so as to register economic, trade, cultural and technological development. However, such relations should be cautiously handled. It is indisputable that the prevailing relations between the developed and developing countries is essentially unbalanced and based on exploitation. Besides, such pattern of relations strives to nurture political and economic dependency, and thereby ultimately ensure all-round monopoly. This unjust ties not only paralyzed a number of nations but also exposed them to the brink of total demise. Under this global scenario, it demands the requisite political will and strong courage to pursue political and economic path free from dependency. In the final analysis, becoming master of your own programs and decisions is the sole path for the effective realization of national objectives. Any government committed to develop the people and the nation should, therefore, keep intact its independent political and economic path through coping with possible hostilities. In this regard, resorting to the principle of self-reliance is imperative. Viewed within this framework, the nations that resolutely pursued an independent path are the ones that emerged victorious, while those which compromised their independent choice are being exposed to all-round failure. It should be emphasized that the stability of societies rests on national harmony, socio-economic justice and independent path. Looking from the standpoint of the aforementioned three fundamental factors, it is not that difficult to comprehend the domestic and external causes for the current popular uprising and turmoil in different parts of the world. The next article would deal with the causes for popular uprising in general, and that of the ongoing protests in North Africa and the Middle East in particular.

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

Added 02/12/11
5 Views

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:53 02/12/11
Although this year's CPAC convention has been strangely void of any formal discussion about the events unfolding in Egypt or jobs for unemployed Americans, Tim Pawlenty did manage to remind us all of what these last three weeks would have looked like if George Bush had been in office. In his speech today, Pawlenty slammed President Obama for allowing Egyptians to determine Egypt's future in their way and their time. > "Bullies respect strength, they don't respect weakness," Pawlenty said in a speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "So when the United States of America projects its national security interests here and around the world, we need to do it with strength. We need to make sure that there is no equivocation, no uncertainty, no daylight between us and our allies around the world." Pawlenty called it a simple principle that the White House "doesn't seem to understand." "We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, Czech Republic, Colombia, amongst other of our friends," Pawlenty said. "Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia, and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. "Mr. President, with bullies, might makes right. Strength makes them submit. We need to get tough on our enemies, not on our friends. And, Mr. President, stop apologizing for our country," Pawlenty said in one of his speech's biggest applause lines. "The bullies, terrorists and tyrants of the world have lots to apologize for. America does not." It's worth contrasting that with President Obama's speech made shortly after TPaw's spew: (More follows) > And above all, we saw a new generation emerge -- a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days -- that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever. This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they've done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence -- not terrorism, not mindless killing -- but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more. And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can't help but hear the echoes of history -- echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice. As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom." Those were the cries that came from Tahrir Square, and the entire world has taken note. For TPaw, respecting Israel et al means showing force, shaking our guns at whoever they call enemy instead of respecting the right of people to determine their government. How is it disrepecting democracies to support democracy? When I read what he said, I was whisked back to the days of George W. Bush. In 2002, he gave a speech where he called for Palestinians to enact true political reform, including free and fair elections. He promised that if they did so, the United States would support them. In 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas in elections supervised by the UN and deemed to be free and fair. In a press conference following the elections, Mr. Bush paid lip service to the democratic process and then refused to acknowledge the Palestinians' duly elected representatives. Juan Cole, writing for Salon: > In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that "the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy." If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing." So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush's double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel's Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in "Animal Farm," some are more equal than others . Which is precisely what TPaw said in his speech. Some are more equal than others. Poland, the UK, Columbia, Israel. Those democracies are just fine. But in Egypt's case, we should have been strong, firm, unequivocal in our undying support for the dictator. Because THAT would somehow have protected our national interests. Democracy is democracy, regardless of whether this country likes the outcome. As President Obama said, the way forward for Egypt won't be easy, and I expect it also won't be pretty, because democracy means letting everyone have a voice, even when you don't like what they say. This is what conservatives and TPaw really don't understand at all. In their minds, we should undermine and starve any democracy that isn't aligned with our express (white, Anglo-Saxon, conservative Christian) ideals, because we don't like it. This clip with The Nation's Katrina VandenHeuvel puts an exclamation point on it: Click here to view this media TPaw's speech is nothing more than a living example of that. From the day Barack Obama was elected, they have worked to de-legitimize his presidency. Birthers. Glenn Beck. Fox News. They work with one goal, to undermine a democratically-elected president that they don't happen to agree with. Who are the real dictators here?

Google-Climate Group event: Power in Numbers (Part 4/4 - Final...

Added 04/08/10
0 Views

Google-Climate Group event: Power in Numbers (Part 4/4 - Final...

Added 04/08/10
1 Views

Technology Politics And Democracy (Part 3)

Added 12/11/08
0 Views

Technology Politics And Democracy (Part 2)

Added 12/11/08
0 Views

Technology Politics And Democracy (Part 1)

Added 12/11/08
0 Views

Marina Grzinic: (Former) Eastern Europe, Feminism and Politics

Added 05/08/07
2 Views

Marina Grzinic: (Former) Eastern Europe, Feminism and Politics

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 14:45:19 05/08/07
I would like to put forward some points that will help us in rearticulating the situation we have in social, theoretical and political terms in the present moment in Europe, regarding the former Eastern European space and gender histories and struggles. Gianni Vattimo, when thinking about New Europe talks about the gene of socialism that can be seen as something specific to Europe as a whole. In doing so he simply suggests that we have to put into parenthesis the real socialist histories of horrors of Europe. But the history of socialism cannot be evacuated from its Eastern European legacy. The gene of socialism as proposed by Vattimo is a process of swallowing up, or better, of evacuating several decades of East Europe's history. This means to evacuate precisely those conditions of impossibility that would normally prevent to see socialism to be seen only as a process of humanization and prosperity. In short, it would be possible to subtitle this second part of my text the following: "To whom does the gene of Socialism belong to?" Talking about genes then means to underline the gene of oppressions and wars exported from the nucleus of Europe toward its East/South borders or out of Europe. These genes produced millions of refugees, immigrants, people without papers, trafficking of bodies and minds, slavery of millions, etc. The gene of inclusion and exclusion from or within Europe is to be seen today according to Gail Lewis, the British theoretician, also in the form of the black female body, the body in constant processes of trafficking, exploitation and being subsumed within different stories of contemporary racism. Alison M. Jaggar, in an interview published in Zarez, Zagreb said that on a global neoliberal scale contemporary democracy has the face of white men! And, she added, what is to be heard from the other part of the gender divide is only the wealthy academic white women elite.

Echo Chamber Project Vlog Episode 2: Media & Politics

Added 08/19/05
2 Views

Echo Chamber Project Vlog Episode 2: Media & Politics

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 17:30:12 08/19/05
Here is the second Echo Chamber Project video blog entry Description: Technology is transforming media & politics, and large-scale collaborative media can provide some insights into grassroots leadership and bottom-up democracy. Featuring: Chris Nolan , Jeff Jarvis , Doc Searls , Scott Heiferman , Markos Moulitsas , Mindy Finn & Kent Bye. (5:08 minutes / 12.6 MB) Download Quicktime Subscribe: Vlog RSS / Blog RSS Listed below is a full transcript of this video with additional links... BIG NEWS! > [ UPDATE: November 2, 2005 ] The Rasiej campaign was never able to provide the necessary footage for this proposed remix. More details here. This video blog episode will be one of the first citizen videojournalism reports to be remixed by a political campaign. This could provide a viable model for how traditionally top-down driven political campaigns could release some control over their communications strategy, and facilitate collaboration with citizens and issue-based advocates for talking about the niche concerns of constituents. Vlogger and citizen journalist Ryanne Hodson will be gathering sound bites from Andrew Rasiej's campaign for Public Advocate in New York City, and then remixing them with sound bites from this Echo Chamber Project vlog episode in order to create a message that is unique to their campaign. Both entries discuss how technology is changing media and politics, and how the Internet could faciliate a true grassroots, bottom-up democracy like we've never seen before. Here is the pitch that I sent to the Rasiej campaign in order to open source the National aspects of their local campaign. I framed the potential vlog remix as a way to "catalyze and energize a National-to-Local, peer-to-peer communications strategy" by having bloggers to tell NYC Democrats to know for Rasiej on September 13th. In other words, since the Rasiej campaign has been so focused on the local Get Out the Vote efforts, then they didn't have time to connect the dots for what Rasiej's vision means for grassroots democracy and how political parties could use technology in new and innovative ways. Since I had already made this argument in this vlog entry, then I suggested that we collaborate on getting this message out there by open sourcing his national campaign strategy. New York City also has a lot of political and cultural power, and if Rasiej is elected and his vision for Universal municipal Wi-Fi is implemented, then could set a trend for other cities to follow. Rasiej founded the Personal Democracy Forum, which advocates for using technology to manifest a more grassroots democracy. This also happens to be where I gathered these interviews. Here is a link to Rasiej's remixed video blog entry ( Remix Still in Production ). It's nice to have the opportunity to put some of this theory into action for what is possible with using citizen journalism as a way to "open source" political campaigns. It is also opening more doors and paving the road for more doing collaborative media. The Echo Chamber Project has more plans for how to take this idea to the next level by creating the tools to make large-scale collaborative media possible. I am still searching for potential funders and computer programmers, so please leave a comment below if you're interested in getting more involved. Screen Capture Transcript Kent Bye ( EchoChamberProject.com ): I wanted to talk a bit about the intersection between media and politics for a couple of reasons. Collaborative media can provide a lot insights into grassroots activism and bottom-up democracy. The Echo Chamber Project is also developing a lot of the open source tools for collaborative media that could also be used for political campaigns in the next election cycle. So here are some insights from the Personal Democracy Forum. [Intro Music Cue from Telekinetic Soulmate "Searching" courtesy of Defective Records] Chris Nolan ( "Politics from Left to Right" Blog): Back five / ten years ago, the people at Wired Magazine used to say, "The Internet changes everything." They were right. We're just getting -- I mean, outside of Silicon Valley -- people are just beginning to understand just how dramatic and how important those changes are. Jeff Jarvis ( BuzzMachine.com ): If you give the people control of media, they will take it. If you don't give them control, you will loose them. And I think we have to look not just at media where this is occurring, but also in marketing and in politics. I don't think here at the Personal Democracy Forum we've yet seen nearly the endgame of the people taking over their political process, and I do believe that will happen. Doc Searls ( Doc Searls Weblog ): Sooner or later, the connected electorate essentially imposes Democracy back on government in a way we've never seen before. So I think five years from now what we're going to see is something that's much more like democracy than we've seen in the history of the Republic. Kent Bye: It's safe to assume that the Internet will continue to change the way that we interact with media and politics. One of the founders of Meetup.com talks about the challenges of coordinating large-scale collaboration. Scott Heiferman (Co-Founder/CEO Meetup.com ): How do organizations find that balance between top-down and bottom-up? How is that you can both give people direction and leadership while at the same time giving people enough freedom to truly have a grassroots feel? Not just look grassroots, but authentically be grassroots. Not just sort of look bottom-up, but authentically be bottom-up. Markos Moulitsas ( DailyKos.com ): Now people want you to be proactive. They want you to be innovative. They want you to really look for solutions to problems. They don't want you to just follow orders. Yet we have a media environment and a political environment that are still very top-bottom driven. They still expect to issue proclamations and edicts and have people follow those. It's not like that any more. And I think that what we're seeing with the blogs is a creation of this new citizen's movement to take over things -- like I said -- politics, journalism and activism. Mindy Finn ( Republican National Committee eCampaign ): We're really tasked with online strategy. Leveraging the web and new media to help advance the committee's goals at all levels. For finance goals, which is raising money. To mobilization -- our political goals, getting grassroots out there, getting folks to the polls and actually voting for our candidates. And message, which is getting our message out there and hoping that it resonates, and helping drive the message into the grassroots and to the public. Markos Moulitsas: But I hope that what we're creating is culture where people don't feel a need to wait for "so-called leaders" to tell them to act to do anything. It's that they'll take that initiative on their own -- the tools are available. Mindy Finn: There's some hierarchy to respect. And I think there always -- I think there always will be and there always has been just to make sure that it's efficient and organized. But that what that hierarchy is all about is really putting people in touch with like-minded individuals -- empowering the grassroots. I mean, you have to have someone kind of crafting message. You have someone making sure that message is getting out to these individuals. Kent Bye: I think it's important to find that balance between top-down leadership and bottom-up participation without being too extreme on either end. What I hope to do with my open source documentary is help find that healthy balance. What I've done is I've gone out and taken the initiative to gather all of these interviews -- and ask the questions. But I'm releasing a lot of control with how the final film comes together. So I hope to have a community help collaborative edit and shape the film. So here's Doc Searls talking more about open source communities work. Doc Searls: Groups of people that work together in much the same way as -- say as a group of farmers would raise a barn. Right? And there's a shared understanding of what needs to be done. People step forward who have particular expertise, and they'll work on that part of the project. Kent Bye: Large-scale collaborative media can provide a lot of answers to some of the questions surrounding grassroots activism and bottom-up democracy. Small-scale collaboration is already possible with blogs, podcasts and video blogs -- but additional tools -- like the ones that I described in the previous episode -- have to be developed in order to facilitate collaboration on a large-scale. I'm still searching for funders and potential [software] programmers. So if you're interested in getting more involved, then please drop by the website and leave a comment.

Sign in to Channels.com!

Search Results

Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming

[Ai] "Helping" Eri Tv To Serve The Truth Part Ii

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

Google-Climate Group event: Power in Numbers (Part 4/4 - Final panel)

Google-Climate Group event: Power in Numbers (Part 4/4 - Final panel)

Technology Politics And Democracy (Part 3)

Technology Politics And Democracy (Part 2)

Technology Politics And Democracy (Part 1)

Marina Grzinic: (Former) Eastern Europe, Feminism and Politics

Echo Chamber Project Vlog Episode 2: Media & Politics