Archive - 2007

June 18th

We’ve Got Issues: Young People in Action

I walk into the ‘We’ve Got Issues Panel’, a few minutes late after talking to many friends in the hall. I believe the speaker is Jessy Tolkan from the Energy Action Coalition. She is speaking with great energy. She does a big pitch for Power Shift 2007 and itsgettinghotinhere.org

Elandria Williams from the Highlander Research and Education Center talks about the privilege that so many of us have and that so many of her people do not have, about being able to come to conferences like this, about being able to go to college. She does a speech, repeating, “If you knew me, you would know….” Incredibly powerful. She absolutely rocked. She is the person who should have been the keynote for Take Back America. I cannot begin to capture a small portion of what she has said.

She is a hard act to follow for Juan Pancheco from Barrios Unidos, but he does a great job. Pulling in a peaceful follow up to Elandria. Talking about overcoming gang violence, talking about challenging assumptions. He hands off the mike to another person, whose name I miss, who talks wonderfully about peace, peace that includes black, brown and white, young and old.

(Technorati tag: tba2007)

(Categories: )

Take Back America Plenary Notes

Eli Pariser from MoveOn spoke first and spoke about looking forward to the day that the conference is renamed, “Okay, we’ve taken back America, what do we do now?”

Andrea Batista Schlesigner of the Drum Major Institute responded by talking about Nature versus nurture and Voltaire. For the right, the growing gap between the rich and the poor is all about nature. Yet she goes on to suggest that we have a choice, public policy can make our nation fairer, or not. It is a choice, it is about nurture. After all, that’s the point of government, to create fairness.

She ties it to Voltaire and the phrase, “the best is the enemy of good”. Her dad suggests “The Good is the enemy of the best.” She ponders if we are really getting to the core questions. Are we holding corporations responsible? She observes that we don’t talk a lot about how much tort reform is being driven by corporations that don’t want to be held accountable.

This led to Rep. Keith Ellison, D-MN. He opened up saying, “We are a collection of leaders here today, and we need to talk business and how to organize the people. First of all, we’ve done the right thing, we’ve put the vision up on the wall. We can all talk about the vision. The vision is about everyone counts, everyone matters.”

From there he looked at how conservatives organized after 1964. He spoke about the being patient. He had a good response to a standard old conservative talking point about how government should be run like a business. “We all know what happens when you run government like a business, Enron, Worldcom…”

He then went on to talk about the need for unity in the progressive movement. “If you want to win, if you want universal health care, sustainable relationship with nature, peace, you need everyone.”

As to the role of congress, he talked a little bit about the importance of keeping pressure on congress. “Let me tell you, LBJ did not inspire Martin Luther King…. Don’t look to congress for inspiration to end the war… Politicians see the light when they feel the heat.”

Some final comments from Rep. Ellison included, “We have to find a way to resolve conflict internally. Whenever we have an antiwar march that is all white, we need to look around and say, ‘This is not what our family looks like.’”

The plenary ended up with Rep. Jan Schakowsky amplifying the insider/outsider aspect of how politics works. She pointed out that Nancy Pelosi is on our side. “No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than she does.”

She goes on to do a plug for the importance of the “Employee Free Choice Act”

As Rep. Ellison said, the opening plenary did the right thing, it “put the vision up on the wall”. All of the speakers spoke well with this unified vision.

(Technorati tag: tba2007)

(Categories: )

Take Back America Opening Plenary - Part 1

The session starts off with a video showing horrors of what has happened under the Republican years. Iraq, Katrina, Global warming. The video contrasts what has gone on with great Democratic and progressive leaders. Rosa Parks, John F Kennedy talking about putting a man on the moon, quotes from Martin Luther King, like, “A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice” quotes from Robert F Kennedy, such as his Ripple of Speech quote, or his paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw.

With that as the backdrop, Robert Borosage from Campaign for America’s Future starts off with opening comments. (These are quick notes as the session is going on.)
“Welcome to the fifth annual Take Back America conference…I know you’re ready to take back America, because you’ve already started.” There are going to be over 3000 people from 40 states across the tribes. Labor to Moveon, Hiphop to CodePink.

“When we started, this was occupied territory… Delay, Frist, Bush, Rove, Libby, Cheney”

Need to put together a bold agenda for America’s Future. A Real Security Strategy. Ending the disastrous occupation of Iraq will be the first step. Shared Prosperity agenda. This year, more women will declare bankruptcy than will graduation from college. We need a concerted drive for energy independence. Revive the American Dream “We are all in this together.”

“We have the power”, the speaker and graphic proclaims, channeling Gov. Dean. He goes on to say that the price of Democratic lobbyists is soaring. Everyone chuckles, but it makes me feel uneasy.

Key constituents to be reached include Single women, Labor, African Americans, Latinos, Young, and Independents.

“This is not time to trim our sails or tack to the illusive center.”

“We can Take Back America, it is up to us.”
(Technorati tag: tba2007)

(Categories: )

Campaign Philosopher

The other night, I was at a fundraiser for Jim Himes who is running for Congress in Connecticut’s Fourth Congressional District. After the event, we were talking about his speech and some of the issues of the day, such as education and immigration. Part way through the discussion he asked if I had ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I was surprised at his question, since I am in the middle of rereading it. I wondered later if he had seen me reading it, read a blog post I’ve written recently about it, or if someone else had suggested he ask me about it. At some point, we’ll get together and talk about some of my thoughts about how it applies to campaigns.

I had recently read the section where Pirsig asked his class to write an essay defining quality. The class became outraged and indignant when they found out that Pirsig didn’t have a good definition of quality and was hoping that someone in the class would come up with a good definition. It made me sit back and think. What would it be like if a candidate admitted he didn’t have all the answers and asked his constituents to help him find solutions to the problems our nation faces? Most people suggest that such an approach would be political suicide. There would be similar outrage and indignation as Pirsig’s students expressed, but unlike a required English course, the voters would probably drop the candidate pretty quickly.

Nonetheless, it seems a laudable goal, to find politicians that admit they don’t know it all and are willing to learn from their constituents, for I do believe that there are a lot of smart constituents that are not involved in the political process, either as activists or lobbyists. I do think that citizen councils could bring a lot of valuable new ideas to the political process.

Yet this would require a special sort of politician, one who is more interested in solving our countries problems than simply being an elected official, and who could still get elected nonetheless.

I’ve often wondered how any of our current politicians would stand up. There are only a few that I think could stand the test. If Gore were asked if he would rather be President or see an end to global warming, I bet he would chose an end to global warming. If Edwards was asked if he would rather be President or see an end to poverty, I think he would chose an end to poverty. If Kucinich were asked if he would rather be President or would want to see World Peace, I suspect he would quickly choose World Peace. I’m just not sure about any of the other candidates, or what various people in races further down the ticket would say.

In our current political climate there doesn’t seem to be much room for idealists or philosophers. Perhaps one day, that will change, but until then, I keep most of my philosophical questions reserved for the blogs.

June 16th

Frames and frameworks

Wikipedia’s definition of a Software framework is: a reusable design for a software system… Software frameworks can be object-oriented designs.

In the political world, George Lakoff has been trying to get progressives to think about a different type of frame, as illustrated in his book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values, Frame the Debate. Jeffrey Feldman takes this further in his website, Frameshop, where he talks framing the debate.

All of this harkens back psychological frames. Working Psychology defines a frame as ”a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment..

It seems as if there are some interesting parallels between psychological terms and technology terms and thinking about technology from a psychological frame is a useful task that isn’t done frequently enough.

One interesting place to explore this is in Marc Andreessen’s blog post, Why there's no such thing as Web 2.0. In the post, Andreessen, criticizes O’Reilly’s short definition of Web 2.0 as lacking crispness. Yet he does talk about O’Reilly’s phrase describing Web 2.0 as an “architecture of participation”.

Well, there are technological design considerations that can help websites facilitate participation. Using forms on a webpage so that people visiting the webpage can contribute content as text, or even upload sounds and pictures to incorporate into the website can facilitate participation. Adding the ability to rate and/or link to other content also facilitates participation. Making the content available as widgets so it can easily be incorporated into other websites facilitates participation.

Yet what are the psychological components that facilitate or inhibit participation online? How do fears about conflict and the persistence of online content inhibit participation? How does the desire to establish relationships and to be heard encourage people to participate? How can people running websites use ideas from psychology to foster participation that will make the website attractive and successful?

I think Andreessen is partially right and partially wrong. Too many of the people talking about Web 2.0 seem to think of it in terms of the underlying technological tools. Yet what really facilitates an architecture of participation isn’t the technology, but an understanding of group dynamics online, and so far, I am not seeing people sufficiently explore these dynamics.

(Categories: )