andrewmcintyre.ca

Do LOLCats help fight censorship? The surprising answer is that yes they do.

This year’s Dalton Camp Lecture in Journalism was a feast for media nerds like me. Former CBC reporter and producer Sue Gardner, now executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, made more insightful comments about the future of media, journalism and the way the web is changing our relationship with information than I can recount here. But one comment on the resiliency of the web in adressing would be censors of widely adopted social media platforms really stuck out for me.

Reflecting on the usefulness of Twitter to the Iranian election protests last June, Sue Gardner said (with my added emphasis and links):

Things like Twitter are really hard to censor because they are tools that lots of people use for lots of different reasons. There’s a guy named Ethan Zuckerman, who is a fellow at the Berkman Institute at MIT and he calls this the “cute cat theory.”

So the theory is that if millions of ordinary people use a tool like Flickr, or YouTube, or Twitter, or Facebook, or whatever – and they use it to share cute pictures of cats, or their grandchildren, or party invitations, or snapshots, or whatever – and meanwhile a few activists also use that same tool for other purposes, to share “information that wants to be free,” that people want to suppress: that makes censorship really difficult.

What happens is that if you try and shut down the tool that people are using to share cute pictures of cats they will freak out, right?  Because they want to share the pictures of the cats.

So what that means is that the pictures of the cat lovers provide cover for tools that are also used for, frankly, more important purposes such as for sharing information that would otherwise be suppressed. So the utility, the sort of general broad utility, of something like twitter makes it much much harder to censor.

Unsurprisingly, I’d recommend that you listen to the entire hour long 2009 Dalton Camp Lecture in Journalism, and while you’re at it, subscribe to the CBC Ideas podcast where I found this gem among many others. Lastly, a hat tip to the I can has cheezburger network, including the infamous FAIL Blog, for their enormous lack of FAIL.

Adaptability, understanding, and interconnectivity.

That’s a definition of what it means to be a “progressive” that several people settled on at the Reboot Alberta conference several weeks ago.

While it is a reasonable attempt at defining a notoriously vague concept and political label, I’m more than a little skeptical about how these multi-syllable words will resonate with the 1.3 million Albertans that didn’t vote in the last election. Is a vision steeped in words like “interconnectivity” really going to inspire people to shrug off their cynicism, get involved in public and political life and start voting in elections?

I’m not holding my breath.

In the comments on Dave Cournoyer’s thoughtful post speculating on the coming 21st century political tidal wave, Matt Grant makes an excellent point – and quotes from one of my favorite political essays – noting how the wrong choice of words has the potential to lead progressives astray.

“Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.“

So how would *I* define what it means to be “progressive” in Alberta using simple and direct language?

Being progressive is about looking to the future.

It is not an outright rejection of the status quo, but a recognition that our politics will fail to address many of our present and future problems if left “as is.”  It is a hopeful but realistic vision that embraces empathy, inclusiveness and respect for others’ views. It is about starting the “reboot” of our thinking necessary to build a better Alberta.

I believe much of the pent up frustration, cynicism and apathy with politics in Alberta is a reflection of the fact that nearly all of our leaders are silent on two of the most important questions for any leadership position:

“Where are we going?” and “How are we going to get there?”

I have some ideas about how to answer part of these questions, but I’m still considering the best way to present my thoughts clearly.

If you have an idea about how we should be answering these questions I encourage you to participate the #rebootab conversation and join us on rebootalberta.org

The difference between science and ideology is that science tries to explain all known observations, whereas ideology selects only those observations that support a preconceived notion. As world leaders negotiate this week in Copenhagen, let’s hope science, not ideology, guides their discussions.

Thomas Homer-Dixon and Andrew Weaver in today’s Globe and Mail debunking four common nonsensical statements about climate change.

Political hacks, wonks, communicators, bloggers and regular citizens took a leap of faith to come together and discuss a shared vision for a better Alberta this weekend.  Reboot Alberta is the third citizen driven “meeting of the minds” I’ve attended in the last two months, (the other two being Edmonton’s ChangeCamp and Calgary’s CivicCamp) and there is a progression to something tangible forming.

I’ve been impressed by the quality and respectful tone of the discussions at all of these meetings. But at Reboot Alberta there was a remarkable undertone – something compelling the group towards action.

Maybe it was the well articulated collective sense of frustration over the complacency of a 38 year regime that most feel stopped listening a long time ago?

Maybe it was the wine?

In retrospect, it seems like the solution to our collective woes was relatively simple.  Throw a disparate group of slightly nerdish strangers (who feel passionately about the need for change in our province) in room together, have them select and vote on topics / issues and let them loose to have open discussions about what changes are necessary and how to make them happen.

Microwave for 2 minutes on high, et voilà! The birth of a new progressive political movement, a proto-think tank, a newly minted social media community and even a new political party. And to think how easy it would have been for me to spend my Saturday on my couch watching the DVDs of some lame TV show.

I’m very intrigued by the Renew Alberta party – especially with its proposed vision, philosophy and the smart people leading the push for its creation – but I think it’s a bit premature to throw my hat in for any party right now. I like my non-partisan status and the flexibility it affords me. Frankly, I’m not surprised that others are publicly recognizing the same thing. But with that said, I welcome the creation of this party and I welcome anything that brings more people into political life and contributes to a healthy democracy. I will continue to make my opinions known to it and any other political entity that will listen. Oh and in case you somehow weren’t already aware, I’m coming out: I’m a progressive.

We need to start having more of these sorts of important conversations about Alberta’s future – with or without the facilitation of the existing political structures. This is particularly relevant in a time where the some of our political institutions directly benefit from (and even exacerbate) the typical cynicism and political apathy in this province. I think the moment where the public woke up was the night that  Bill 44 was passed earlier this year (or should I say rammed through?) This conversation, facilitated by social media, was the rock that fell on the head of our typically sleepy provincial political scene to wake up some of the 60% of eligible voters that didn’t bother showing up at the ballot box in March of 2008.  The chorus of these newly “awakened” Albertans has only grown since. Which is good because I want these important conversations to grow to the point where they cannot be ignored. Eventually political structures will be forced to recognize the value of bringing regular people that care about their province into the fold and will modify their governance structures to co-opt these important open conversations into their information, communication and decision models. We’re already seeing some small attempts.

In discussions about the Renew Alberta party, Rebooters even recognized that a party built around actually listening to people is radical enough to be a “game changer.” (It’s pretty easy to see why people are frustrated.)

For now, I’ll remain focused on the big picture, our vision for moving forward, and how the “social movement” (those not inside the new party structure) will influence the system and continue to grow the conversation.  And don’t worry, I have a lot more to say about the specifics of what was discussed, but for now I”ll leave you with two comments I heard this morning:

#rebootab was a delightful opportunity to speak with sane people.

We must accept responsibility for what is. You can change it. Lets be proud of being Albertans and accept responsibility for change we want.

You can join the conversation at www.rebootalberta.org

Last month Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel prize in economics “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.”

In this eight minute clip, she marries the notion of sustainability to our conception(s) of the role and value of public versus private property. Defending the the urgent need for a public system that recognizes scarcity, she tackles the classic tragedy of the commons problem and how we might structure a system that moves beyond it.

(video link h/t ECalgary)

I laughed out loud while reading Chris Labossiere’s post, “The Fiscal Four Fraud.” He addresses the political opportunism of four Tory MLAs who began to publicly express doubts about the Government of Alberta’s financial management last week.

I made this comment on the post and decided to share it here (with a couple links added):

The real question for these alleged “Fiscal Four” is this: “name the specific areas of the budget you would cut (with the exact numbers, including layoffs) to balance the budget and why?”

Fiscal conservatism is a great claim to make. But judging by recent actions, I’m not certain these four – or much of the rest of the government – are prepared to answer this question.

Where is the honest conversation with Albertans about our provincial finances and where our true priorities lie? If anything, I hope the Fiscal Four’s political opportunism inadvertently leads us to having this conversation.

But before we get that far, let’s first not forget that Alberta’s finances are in better shape than most other jurisdictions in the world. We have no debt and billions in the bank, but we also have a projected $7 billion deficit this year because of short-term thinking.

It’s clear we need to make some changes, but it’s also clear that we have much more leeway than just about everywhere else in the world to address this budgetary problem with a long-term sustainable solution.

Here’s the rub: I don’t think regular Albertans are going to stand for big cuts to health care, education or any of the other big ticket portfolios. And given Ed’s recent promises about taxes, this leaves our government in an impossible place: stuck between those demanding no tax increases & massive cuts and the awakening public, who doesn’t think highly of our government and politicians in general, and who will not tolerate cuts resulting in poor quality health care services or in a sub-par education for their children.

I hope we see some real leadership on these important issues soon. Frankly, I’m surprised more politicians don’t see the real opportunity in this situation.

Apparently they think our biggest problem is how the media reports on our government.  I don’t think Albertans would agree.

Barbara Ehrenreich has a PhD in cell biology, a 40 year career as an activist and an incredibly impressive curriculum vitae as an academic, journalist and writer. Listening to several interviews promoting her new book, including this appearance on The Daily Show, we hear the incredibly griping story of how her battle with breast cancer illuminated the immense problems with the ‘power of positive thinking’-fueled self help industry and the effects of an ideology Jon Stewart calls a “secular religion” on our society.

On one such interview on CBC’s The Current, Ehrenreich explained how the positive thinking ideology infiltrated corporate culture and contributed to the 2008 financial collapse:

Anna Maria Tremonti:

So what are the consequences for a world full of people who believe that everything you decide is true, is true ?

Barbara Ehrenreich:

I think we saw the consequence in 2008 when the huge financial meltdown happened. Because what I got very interested in tracing in this book is how is positive thinking became the corporate culture; how it infiltrated the corporate culture through the motivational speakers who were brought in, through the many many books, motivational books …

It really grew: in the middle of this decade you could be fired for being a negative person.

That meant if if you said, “hey, I’m worried our bank has too much sub-prime [mortgage market] exposure,” [they would say] “hey, that’s negative that’s a downer. Let’s get rid of this person.”

…we created  – around this positive thinking – a workplace culture  where the idea is not to get a job done, so much as it is to flatter and reassure the boss. Just say good things. Never be the bearer of bad news. Never raise a question or a doubt.

Sound familiar?

AMT:

What’s so bad about feeling bad?

BE:

Well, this is an ideology, what can I say? It is an ideology that says everyone should be cheerful and smiley at all times. And if you want to, you can think of it as a brilliant form of social control. If you tell people who are suffering from one thing or another, illness or layoffs or whatever, that they’re really supposed to be happy about it, and that the solution is in their minds anyway, you don’t get a lot of social protest.

Listen to the whole interview: [MP3]

Barbara also blogs at ehrenreich.blogs.com

I leave you with her answer to Jon Stewart’s question about ends vs. means: “I never think delusion is OK.”