An entire page dedicated to Occupy Wall St. Not bad, Huff.
Kinda sucks out some of my motivation as a blogger, though. The movement is joined by legitimate bloggers on a legitimate site moving in the same direction, but on a jet plane compared with my walking. I'm gonna try to look on the bright side. But it's hard.
What's especially hard about apathy is that it comes at you from so many directions. When you feel like nothing you do will change anything, you don't want to do anything. When you feel like you want to do something anyways, and maybe even let yourself believe you might make some difference, you find out how many people are already doing the job 'better'. Better credentials, better name recognition, better reputation and online following, better political connections, more money, more influence. Who am I? I am nobody.
But then, there's something different this time. I get this hard to believe feeling that one of the most important aspects of what's going on now is that people like me are participating in rapidly increasing numbers. The power is not contained in the individual names, credentials, and resources, but in the collective.
All of a sudden, it's okay if I pour my heart out into a blog no one will ever read. It's okay if I feel foolish and idealistic. If nothing ever comes of this, I won't have wasted my time. If I don't make this choice, nothing can change. Sure I'm depending on other people - but they're depending on me too. Sure I might be let down; that's all the more reason for me not to let anyone else down.
Just 48 hours and I already feel plugged in to the community on twitter. I can't wait to see #movement trending! If it goes that far, I can say I helped start it, however small my contribution might have been. And if I never see it come to be, what have I lost?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
I Support The Movement
What movement, you ask? Whether or not the various people forming groups, gaining momentum, and obviously sharing a common vision know it or not, they are a movement. Guys, seriously - it's a real thing.
I am cautiously optimistic, but optimistic no less. I think these groups will gain coherence. I think they will achieve clarity of purpose. I think they will find ways of making their demands practical, and putting some credible political pressure behind them. At minimum I think they will decrease the number of people living in apathy and elective ignorance.
Why shouldn't I be optimistic? They got me...that's one down. Seems like there are more coming. So that's it then - I'm here, and I want to help.
I am cautiously optimistic, but optimistic no less. I think these groups will gain coherence. I think they will achieve clarity of purpose. I think they will find ways of making their demands practical, and putting some credible political pressure behind them. At minimum I think they will decrease the number of people living in apathy and elective ignorance.
Why shouldn't I be optimistic? They got me...that's one down. Seems like there are more coming. So that's it then - I'm here, and I want to help.
That's All Good, But...
Okay I know what you're thinking. Seriously, Dent, you want a new kind of handout for poor people? Yes, I know. I am the worst libertarian ever.
I want a lot of things Libertarians want. I want an end to US occupation and foreign wars. I want permissive social liberalism, including an end to the war on drugs. I want *practical* business and economic policies that allow maximum independence without jeopardizing individual rights.
I also happen to want participatory government. An adult can't participate if they're not educated; nor can they if they're ill; nor can they if they are shut out from having a meaningful voice.
Maybe I should clarify. I think that participatory government should be fair. That means that expenditures on things like education and health care are legitimate. It means that preventing any single group from dominating public discourse is a necessary curtailment of liberty.
If the government is functioning, it should be organizing the town hall, running it fairly, and preventing any kind of systematic exclusion. Exclusion from education, health care, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to dialogue, are all exclusion from participation. Preventing such systematic exclusion requires redistribution of some wealth (taxes) and curtailment of some liberties (i.e. no restrictively loud use of PA systems and microphones allowed).
If that's anathema to libertarianism, in the practical details surrounding inclusion, then I guess we disagree on what, exactly, the 'blessings of liberty' and the 'general welfare' are. Government limited to its stated constitutional purposes is still government that provides the means for meaningful participation to all citizens.
It is really just not okay to say we want participatory government, but that it's every man for himself, and if you can't find the means to participate, too bad! I don't accept that model.
I want a lot of things Libertarians want. I want an end to US occupation and foreign wars. I want permissive social liberalism, including an end to the war on drugs. I want *practical* business and economic policies that allow maximum independence without jeopardizing individual rights.
I also happen to want participatory government. An adult can't participate if they're not educated; nor can they if they're ill; nor can they if they are shut out from having a meaningful voice.
Maybe I should clarify. I think that participatory government should be fair. That means that expenditures on things like education and health care are legitimate. It means that preventing any single group from dominating public discourse is a necessary curtailment of liberty.
If the government is functioning, it should be organizing the town hall, running it fairly, and preventing any kind of systematic exclusion. Exclusion from education, health care, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to dialogue, are all exclusion from participation. Preventing such systematic exclusion requires redistribution of some wealth (taxes) and curtailment of some liberties (i.e. no restrictively loud use of PA systems and microphones allowed).
If that's anathema to libertarianism, in the practical details surrounding inclusion, then I guess we disagree on what, exactly, the 'blessings of liberty' and the 'general welfare' are. Government limited to its stated constitutional purposes is still government that provides the means for meaningful participation to all citizens.
It is really just not okay to say we want participatory government, but that it's every man for himself, and if you can't find the means to participate, too bad! I don't accept that model.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4
Going Mobile
Within 24 hours I went from essential radio silence to having blogger and twitter on my mobile. I think this time I intend to use them.
I have resolved (sort of) to blog in the past. But as you may have gleaned from my little town hall fantasy, it's hard not to feel like the situation is hopeless. What purpose could my blogging possibly serve? Time on this earth is precious; is blogging really worth the time taken away from watching Star Trek and playing The Legend of Zelda?
I got my motivation this time from reading about the Occupy Wall St. and Occupy Chicago events. Those involved are noteworthy first for having organized without clearly spelled out goals or demands. They are further commendable for moving to create a list of demands democratically.
One member of one of these groups caught my attention, struck my fancy, and lit the proverbial fire, by saying that it would be enough just to increase awareness of realities and possibilities, hoping to fight apathy.
Apathy...an emotion? Perhaps a better word might be inertia. And what is the opposite of being inert? Being active. And what way do most of us have to be active apart from being vocal? By most of us I mean people who are not flush with cash.
Being vocal has never been easier. I can bang out a blog post in an hour. I can probably tweet and re-tweet 5 times in a minute. There's just no excuse for not being vocal.
Next steps...find or start a NFP to provide mobile communications devices and service cheap or free to low income families. More on this to come...
I have resolved (sort of) to blog in the past. But as you may have gleaned from my little town hall fantasy, it's hard not to feel like the situation is hopeless. What purpose could my blogging possibly serve? Time on this earth is precious; is blogging really worth the time taken away from watching Star Trek and playing The Legend of Zelda?
I got my motivation this time from reading about the Occupy Wall St. and Occupy Chicago events. Those involved are noteworthy first for having organized without clearly spelled out goals or demands. They are further commendable for moving to create a list of demands democratically.
One member of one of these groups caught my attention, struck my fancy, and lit the proverbial fire, by saying that it would be enough just to increase awareness of realities and possibilities, hoping to fight apathy.
Apathy...an emotion? Perhaps a better word might be inertia. And what is the opposite of being inert? Being active. And what way do most of us have to be active apart from being vocal? By most of us I mean people who are not flush with cash.
Being vocal has never been easier. I can bang out a blog post in an hour. I can probably tweet and re-tweet 5 times in a minute. There's just no excuse for not being vocal.
Next steps...find or start a NFP to provide mobile communications devices and service cheap or free to low income families. More on this to come...
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
This Whole Internet Thing is Probably Worthwhile
It occurred to me today that internet 'followers' are, despite being kind of creepily named, a very valuable form of currency. I see it as very much like how knowledge is a form of currency. So I suppose building an online network of interested readers via blogging, tweeting, and so forth might be worthwhile.
I have been thinking a lot lately about how all of this online stuff really changes the game when it comes to Media, as in "The Media". Who controls the media? Well, perhaps we the people can take control of the media by moving viewership onto the internet! Imagining a day when corporate controlled news sources can no longer dominate public discourse makes me happy.
I mean seriously, imagine a town hall meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas. Imagine the meeting is designed expressly for the purpose of Democratic government. Everyone is supposed to get an equal chance to consider information, form opinions, and express preferences publicly, before collectively binding decisions are made by vote.
It's hard to imagine, I know. Let me make it a bit easier.
When you show up to this town hall, you find out that behind the scenes, certain privileged people have already set the agenda. These same people have set up an enormous PA system and control the mics. They spend 99% of the time allotted for the meeting expressing their views, giving out information that cannot be verified in short order, and may well be intentionally false and misleading.
Then, during the one minute in which everyone else is allowed to 'speak', everyone speaks at the same time with no microphones as loud as they can. After that one minute, 'discourse' is cut off, and the issues are put to a vote.
Would it really surprise you to find out that participation in such a meeting might be extremely low? Would you really expect anything more than apathy from all but the most optimistic, idealistic citizens, clinging to what little shred of hope is offered in that one minute of panic? Or perhaps those who don't abandon the system cling to some hope, even further lost in my opinion, that some day the setup of the town hall meeting will change. Everyone will get a turn at the mic; information will be verified and considered thoughtfully; everyone will get an equal chance to set the agenda ahead of time; and only then will we vote.
If you think political parties change the landscape in any meaningful way, think again. If anything political parties have simply duplicated the same sham system at the party lodge as a way of deciding who will speak at the big town hall. The political parties are hardly distinguishable from the special interests that back them.
Is it too much to think that the internet might bring that system to its knees? I don't know...what would it look like if a network of tweeters numbering somewhere near 100,000,000 were to tweet @town_hall, demanding certain things on the agenda? What would it look like if something like 1,000,000 bloggers a day were to find verifiable facts and present analysis and opinions relevant to the topics on the agenda?
In my view, the only thing keeping Americans from meaningful participation in government is apathy. The talent is here. The channels are open; it just seems so pointless to try to use them. On top of the fact that each voice seems to be drowned out to nothingness, no one is listening!
I have been thinking a lot lately about how all of this online stuff really changes the game when it comes to Media, as in "The Media". Who controls the media? Well, perhaps we the people can take control of the media by moving viewership onto the internet! Imagining a day when corporate controlled news sources can no longer dominate public discourse makes me happy.
I mean seriously, imagine a town hall meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas. Imagine the meeting is designed expressly for the purpose of Democratic government. Everyone is supposed to get an equal chance to consider information, form opinions, and express preferences publicly, before collectively binding decisions are made by vote.
It's hard to imagine, I know. Let me make it a bit easier.
When you show up to this town hall, you find out that behind the scenes, certain privileged people have already set the agenda. These same people have set up an enormous PA system and control the mics. They spend 99% of the time allotted for the meeting expressing their views, giving out information that cannot be verified in short order, and may well be intentionally false and misleading.
Then, during the one minute in which everyone else is allowed to 'speak', everyone speaks at the same time with no microphones as loud as they can. After that one minute, 'discourse' is cut off, and the issues are put to a vote.
Would it really surprise you to find out that participation in such a meeting might be extremely low? Would you really expect anything more than apathy from all but the most optimistic, idealistic citizens, clinging to what little shred of hope is offered in that one minute of panic? Or perhaps those who don't abandon the system cling to some hope, even further lost in my opinion, that some day the setup of the town hall meeting will change. Everyone will get a turn at the mic; information will be verified and considered thoughtfully; everyone will get an equal chance to set the agenda ahead of time; and only then will we vote.
If you think political parties change the landscape in any meaningful way, think again. If anything political parties have simply duplicated the same sham system at the party lodge as a way of deciding who will speak at the big town hall. The political parties are hardly distinguishable from the special interests that back them.
Is it too much to think that the internet might bring that system to its knees? I don't know...what would it look like if a network of tweeters numbering somewhere near 100,000,000 were to tweet @town_hall, demanding certain things on the agenda? What would it look like if something like 1,000,000 bloggers a day were to find verifiable facts and present analysis and opinions relevant to the topics on the agenda?
In my view, the only thing keeping Americans from meaningful participation in government is apathy. The talent is here. The channels are open; it just seems so pointless to try to use them. On top of the fact that each voice seems to be drowned out to nothingness, no one is listening!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)