Conches

Rick Warren and the Inauguration in Twitterese

I have just had a wonderful conversation with 3 people (@dschach, @peterscampbell, @tracy1314) on Twitter about Rick Warren and the Obama inauguration. I hope to write a post about my opinion on this topic later.  However, I am quite smitten with this dialog. This is the second time that I have had a great online conversation that has challenged me and helped me to grow. It is possible.

You have to read from the bottom up for it to make any sense.  Even then, it's very disjointed, but then that is how all this social networking stuff works, right, disjointed?

A dialog with a friend

I am in the process of reading Anathem by NeaI Stephenson recently so I have been itchin' for a socratic dialog. I got one in a long conversation the other day with a friend on my facebook profile.  The topic was radical transparency.  I really enjoy thinking things through this way and I wish there were more opportunities.

 Steve Wright I do not believe that there are situations where information should be withheld. "Should" is the critical word. via Twitter - 11:45am

 Jeannie Pettigrew Whelan at 2:49pm December 30

Hmm. I don't think I believe you.

 Steve Wright at 5:12pm December 30

Really? Why?

 Jeannie Pettigrew Whelan at 9:34pm December 30

Well, I can think of several scenarios when information should be withheld...in order to preserve peace and balance. Maybe it's best to withold, but not make a big deal out of it.

Are you saying you are in favor of transparency?

 Steve Wright at 8:28am December 31

I am definitely in favor of transparency. We have earned the world we are in today by assuming the privilege of withholding information. The assumption that I can create peace and balance by choose what information to withhold is mostly hubris. We can't have balance with transparency. Additionally, the conceit that allows us to withhold information actually stunts our development. We can advance as a world only if we provide the information that will catalyze new insight.

 Jeannie Pettigrew Whelan at 10:04am December 31

Can you/do you apply this in your personal life as well? I have some specific examples in mind that are too personal to post here..If I were to divulge information that I know that others have been "shielded" from, it would cause pain, disappointment, sorrow. And it would all be for "transparency." So what?

Radical Transparency

I used to be a high school teacher.  Nine years in the classroom and in the front office working with disenfranchised youth. There was only one thing nearly universally abhorred by every young person I have ever met, censorship. I spent a lot of my time as an educator making the case for nuance, that there are occasions where censoring or withholding information is necessary. 

In the way of the world, I have come full circle. I am a nearly unyielding advocate for radical transparency. With radical transparency we would not be at war in Iraq.  With radical transparency our economy would not have been floated by imaginary value where investment is more like gambling. 

In 2005 Harold Pinter was given the Nobel Prize for Literature. He just died on Christmas eve, 2008. There are two quotations from that speech that add the nuance that is necessary to this discussion.

'There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false.'

A misunderstanding that I struggle to overcome is that transparency does not equal truth telling. The assumption that I, or anyone, hold the truth and the hubris to assume that I can calculate with any certainty the conditions under which that truth is to be withheld is absurd.  As Pinter says above, there is no truth, no reality.  I believe the best we can do is to aggregate our collective experience and understanding.  Only with radical transparency can this aggregation divine what may be real or true.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us, the dignity of man.

    - Harold Pinter Dec 7th, 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature acceptance speech

Only with radical transparency can we hope to respond to this challenge.

Change.org Idea: Limit Media Consolidation

At the urging of Arthur Codington, via a post on Facebook, I recently commented on a Change.org idea.

Limit Media Consolidation

We need more voices in the media. Establish policies that limit the number of radio/tv stations one company can own. Create incentives that give voice to perspectives we're not currently hearing in the mainstream media.

My comment is attached here (and on change.org), please go over to the change.org idea to post yours

NYT: How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power

Thanks to GlorysGirl for the link to this NYT article.

Is was nice to see this after I had just written about value at the edges of networks.  The article talks about Obama's campaign as a classic garage effort that upset the broken, dominant system.  A good read.

clipped from www.nytimes.com How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power By DAVID CARR Published: November 9, 2008 In February 2007, a friend called Marc Andreessen, a founder of Netscape and a board member of Facebook, and asked if he wanted to meet with a man with an idea that sounded preposterous on its face. “It was like a guy in a garage who was thinking of taking on the biggest names in the business,” Mr. Andreessen recalled. “What he was doing shouldn’t have been possible, but we see a lot of that out here and then something clicks. He was clearly supersmart and very entrepreneurial, a person who saw the world and the status quo as malleable.” And as it turned out, President-elect Barack Obama was right.  More profoundly, while many people think that President-elect Obama is a gift to the Democratic Party, he could actually hasten its demise. Political parties supply brand, ground troops, money and relationships, all things that Mr. Obama already owns.

Steve Forbes and His Assinine Article

I was just today pointed to Steve Forbes article in his namesake magazine entitled "How Capitalism Will Save Us."  I just finished reading it and I now feel fully justified in saying, "Fuck you Steve Forbes."

If sensible rescue efforts continue--and they will--the immediate crisis will quickly pass. Shell-shocked businesses and consumers won't recover rapidly from the trauma of recent months, especially as we now cope with recession. But the downturn shouldn't be prolonged: The economy here and those overseas should start to pick up no later than next spring.

This, Steve Forbes, is great to hear, please tell me how this will come about...

Networks, Relationships and Value

I am starting with the assumption that it does not matter who you are, or, in a macro sense, you do not matter.  Value does not lie in matter at all.  Value is in relationships and every social contract that we have to represent value as a thing is just an abstraction of that fact. The space between us is real.  How we fill that space is what defines us. 

This is why I am interested in networks.

Desperate Need For Change

We are in desperate need of change.  It could be argued that we are perpetually in desperate need of change, that change for humanity is like breathing for the body.  The problem, as I see it, is that we spend our energy understanding self as if it were an orphaned node, as if my value was not derived from my relation to others, to you, as if I made me. The fundamental change that we need is to shift our understanding of self to internalize the networks that, while constantly shifting, define us. And, paradoxically, we need to believe that each of us are the source of change, that a constantly better world is sourced from self, that we are each responsible for the quality of our connections to the world.  What do I think that means in a more concrete sense.

Are McCain and the RNC Commiting Criminal Fraud?

Let's ignore the fact that the accusations are morally and ethically out of bounds as they accuse Obama of supporting terrorism and being indifferent to infanticide.  Let's ignore the fact that they are ill advised from any perspective, and the only possible explanation is that the RNC is throwing red meat to it's base.  Let's also forget what it says about a party that can only hold itself together by engendering hatred through despicable and degenerate lies.  Let's even forget what the RNC should be doing to be a responsible political entity, to earn its role as a representative of the conservative perspective.  Instead, let's take a look and see if what the McCain-Palin campaign and the RNC is doing is criminal fraud.

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them – usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. [1] Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.
     - Wikipedia

Economics

I cannot pretend to know much about economics (or investment, the subject of my last post), but this piece of news is stunning.  The Nobel Prize was just given to a Princeton Economist for his contribution to our understanding of the global economy.  This same economist, Paul Krugman, is a vocal critic of the Bush administration and, specifically, of McCain (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/).

It is this sort of thinking (and journalism) that we so desperately need more of.  We nearly GAVE a 700 Billion dollar bonus/free-ride to the jackasses that lied and cheated their way in to this mess so they could continue with business as usual.  I find it comical that these same bankers are now claiming that it is a bad idea to buy an equity stake in their business instead of just giving them the money.  And their reasons for why this is a bad idea:

1. It will make the market think they are in trouble.  (To which I apply the age old rhetorical device, Duh.)
2. It will "nationalize" the American bank system.  (If by nationalize they mean give to the people that are saving their pitiful arses the same deal that any VC would demand, then, yup, nationalize.)
3. They'd rather just have the money with no strings attached. (So, I haven't heard anyone actually say this.  Just reading between the lines a bit.)

Carly Fiorrina on What Rich Conservatives Believe

Carly Fiorina's statements were only gaffe's in that they lifted the curtain to show the wizard.

As evidenced by Carly her comments, the conservative elite actually hold the government in very, very low regard.  It is their position that the role of government is to be punks, to be puppets, stooges.  She clearly states that NONE of those running for the president of the United States of America are capable of running a corporation.  This is what she believes.  And, I think this is what the conservative elite believes.  They believe that they are the engine that makes the world go round.  They believe that the roll of the government is to let them do what they do, how they what to do it and when they want to do it.

As I write this I am realizing it is not even a very radical statement.

Carly Fiorina's statements were only gaffe's in that they lifted the curtain to show the wizard.

clipped from blogs.wsj.com September 16, 2008, 1:43 pm Fiorina: Palin Is Qualified for Oval Office, Not Corner Office   Susan Davis reports on the presidential race. McCain campaign economic adviser Carly Fiorina offered a blunt assessment of John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, when asked if she thought the Alaska governor was qualified to run a major company, such as Hewlett Packard, were Fiorina was once CEO. “No, I don’t,” Fiorina responded. “But you know what, that’s not what she’s running for.” UPDATE: In a subsequent appearance on MSNBC, Fiorina was asked about her Palin remark. “I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don’t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don’t think Joe Biden could,” she said,