The following is from the conclusion of the Axemaker’s Gift by James Burke and Robert Ornstein:

The first step may be to recognize that we can use our technology as it has been used time and again through history. We can use it to change minds, but this time for our own reasons in our own terms and at our own pace, if we use the coming technologies for what they could be: instruments of freedom. The very interactive nature of the modem world makes it less easy to block such an act and to continue with the old ways of hierarchy and division. But in any case, all that ever kept us in thrall of institutions was our ignorance of the kind of knowledge that could soon now be so easily accessible and understandable that it will be a waste of time to know it. When Gutenberg printed his books, he greatly lessened the power of memory and tradition. The new technologies will lessen the power of arcane, specialist knowledge. And when they do, we will all, in one sense, return to what we were before the first axe.

The culture we live in, based on the sequential influence of language on thought and operating according to the rationalist rules of Greek philosophy and reductionist practice, has wielded tremendous power. It has given us the wonders of the modem world on a plate. But it has also fostered belieh that have tied us to centralized institutions and powerful individuals for centuries, which we must shuck off if we are to adapt to the world we’ve made: that unabated extraction of planetary resources is possible, that the most valuable members of society are specialists, that people cannot survive without leaders, that the body is mechanistic and can only be healed with knives and drugs, that there is only one superior truth, that the only important human abilities lie in the sequential and analytic mode of thought, and that the mind works like an axemaker’s gilt.

Above all (and most recently) we have also been persuaded to think that it is unacceptable to be different or even to acknowledge that differences in abilities exist between us. But our survival may depend on the realization and expression of humanity’s immense diversity. Only if we use what may be the ultimate of the many axemalcer’s gifts—the coming information systems—to nurture this individual and cultural diversity, only if we celebrate our differences rather than suppressing them, will we stand a chance of harnessing the wealth of human talent that has been ignored for millennia and that is now eager, all around the world, for release.

I greatly enjoyed the book, but I understand where the only 1-star  reviewer is coming from:

the suggested solution of a “web supported” world full of small democrartic communities is such hairy-armpit, dope-smoking, hippy rubbish I found myself laughing out loud. I’m fascinated to know who is going to design and construct and distribute the servers to enable this web-supported world, let alone who is going to host and maintain them

Burke got the wealth and attention that enabled this book through the medium of television, and i bet he tours the world for book launches on jumbo-jets. i wonder if the irony of that is lost on him.

It is very difficult to build jumbos or LSI processor chips as a cottage industry

pure twaddle

The eloquent wording of Roberto Lovato, from the (now successful) Basta Dobbs campaign, to Lou Dobbs:

You and others have suggested that we are seeking to abridge your free speech. Such arguments exhibit a shallow understanding of what the first amendment protects. You are free to voice your opinions, just as we are free to encourage CNN to cancel your program. There is, quite simply, nothing in the constitution that guarantees you a national news platform from which to spread misinformation, and invoking its protections is only a distraction from the real conversation.

I netflixed Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead this weekend, so I’m in a mood of rhetoric and reason. Above is from my Critical Thinking reading (“Teacher Behaviors that Enable Student Thinking”, Arthur L Costa_)_. The terms are a nice way to evaluate the complexity of test questions, and is comparable to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Apparently the metaphor is derived from an Oliver Wendell Holmes poem:

The Three Story Intellect

There are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects with skylights.

All fact collectors who have no aim beyond their facts are one-storymen.

Two-story men compare, reason, generalize, using the labor of fact collectors as their own.

Three-story men idealize, imagine, predict–their best illumination comes from above the skylight.

I disagree with Costa’s interpretation: ‘The third story of the house invites students to go “beyond the skylights” to speculate, elaborate, and apply concepts in new and hypothetical situations.’ Oliver Wendell Holmes isn’t talking about going above the roof, he’s talking about letting in enlightenment, epiphany and the muses. You know, that stuff you can’t teach in Critical Thinking, if at all.

If you’re selling yourself as a poet, it’s good to advertise your skylights, especially if they let Eratos in (they’re better at that than puddingstone).

This week’s topic in the Millenial Blogging Alliance is “How do you define and measure Social Impact?” Since I’m currently at 34,000 feet and salty about some recent Federal funding restrictions, let’s go a little crazy.

I am hereby defining Social Impact as the flow of dollars between your community and the outside world. Positive Social Impact is a net increase in dollars within your community as a result of your activities. Negative Social Impact is a net decrease in dollars within your community as a result of your activities.

That’s even easy to measure, unless it’s indirect. And it’s the indirect impact that’s the problem. Providing services does not bring money into your community, unless:

• you and your staff are part of that community e.g. you are your constituents if identity based, or within the physical area if you are geographically based, or a some proportion of the two
• the supplies you’re using are produced by your community, proportional to community ownership and labor
• the supplies are sold by the community, in which case you can only include the retail markup as impactful if they were manufactured elsewhere, and only that being proportional to community ownership and labor
• your activities somehow induce money to enter the community now or at some later date

And don’t forget to subtract earned income if those funds pay staff from outside the community, or purchase supplies that were sold or manufactured elsewhere.

So I must be arguing for direct grants. I am. And does that undermine the nonprofit service model? It does. We have been operating under the idea that if the “services” present in affluent communities are replicated in impoverished communities, then those communities will have the opportunity to become affluent. This is putting the cart before the horse: those businesses, services and public spaces did not create the affluence; they are a result of it.

In response to the “personal responsibility” criticisms: the goal is not is not to induce any one particular person to work, it’s about creating an environment in which people can work, be paid for their work, and contribute towards building their community. The way to allow that to happen is ensure that people can easily exchange labor, goods and services. To do that, you need money. Our communities are poor not because they cannot circulate money, but that they have little or no money to begin with.

This concept of social impact embraces the ideal that people want to work and contribute to their community. We did not invent jobs as a way to spend money. We invented money to improve the efficiency of coordinating our collective efforts and outputs. This is not to say that money should be the measure of the quality of our communities; those metrics should be up to the community to decide–but communities should have the tool, money, to build the place in which they wish to live.

And yes, I am aware of alternative currencies, but they’re few and far between. The true aspiration here is providing individuals, to the fullest extent of society, the agency to create the world in which they wish to live. But I can’t fully describe that, let alone measure it, without stepping outside of Wealth Bondage. Then again, I did say I’d go crazy.

So if you want to look at your social impact, follow the money.

Updated: Read the other posts in the Millenial Blogger Alliance:

Rosetta, Working at a Nonprofit Does Not Equal Social Change Colleen,  Does Writing a Check to a Nonprofit Equal Social Change? Elizabeth,  What is Social Impact? Elisa,  Measuring Social Impact Tracey,  The Meaning of Social Impact James,  Measuring Social Impact Lauren,   How Do You Define and Measure Social Impact? Allison,  Five Problems With How We Measure Social Change

It’s a bad evening when Google points you back to your own blog. So to get on with it, George Creel of The Committee on Public Information (CPI) had a great quote:

“In no degree was the Committee an agency of censorship, a machinery of concealment or repression. Its emphasis throughout was on the open and the positive. At no point did it seek or exercise authorities under those war laws that limited the freedom of speech and press. In all things, from first to last, without halt or change, it was a plain publicity proposition, a vast enterprise in salesmanship, the world’s greatest adventures in advertising…We did not call it propaganda, for that word, in German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the facts.”

The CPI being this (more Wikipedia):

The purpose of the CPI was to influence American public opinion toward supporting U.S. intervention in World War I via a prolonged propaganda campaign. Among those who participated in it were Wilson advisers Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays, the latter of whom had remarked that “the essence of democratic society” was the “engineering of consent”, by which propaganda was the necessary method for democracies to promote and garner support for policy. Many have commented that the CPI laid the groundwork for the public relations (PR) industry. The CPI at first used material that was based on fact, but spun it to present an upbeat picture of the American war effort. Very quickly, however, the CPI began churning out raw propaganda picturing Germans as evil monsters.

So to tie up the loose ends, I’ll quote from a favorite, Allan Weisbecker’s Can’t You Get Along with Anyone:

Remember Bhopal? The toxic waste cloud released by Union Carbide that killed over 20,000 people in India back in 1984? What do you figure was the first thing the CEO Warren Anderson did when he learned of the catastrophic misery and death his company had perpetrated? See to it that medical and evacuation people were rushed in?

No. Anderson called Union Carbide’s public relations chief, a guy named Bob Berzok, to get on the crisis management, the spin control. “Spin” (or “spin control”) is, of course, a euphemism for lying like a slug. And there’s even a euphemism for the euphemism, a description/label/concept I really like – in the morbid sense – for its Orwellian ring. Perception management.

Update: Bob Berzok left a note in the comments about this incident:

Just to set the record straight, when first learning of the Bhopal tragedy Warren Anderson decided to go the Bhopal so that he could personally help provide relief & aid immediately, along with the medical care offered the first & following days. Also, to set the record straight, Warren did not call me because at that time I wasn’t responsible for public relations or corporate communications. My responsibility at that time was employee communications. Much has been written, and this isn’t the forum to review everything…but it should be noted that Warren Anderson by going to India did so against the advice of his public relations & legal advisers. He went because he was asked by the UCC India Ltd. management & because he personally knew it was in his heart to try & help.

Gift Hub (Blogging Philanthropy from A Dumpster) is a favorite blog of mine. On “ Foundation Trustees as Stewards of the Public Interest” I left this comment:

Personally, I’d like to see society make a point of separating out Charity (giving to those of equal social standing) and Mercy (giving to those of lesser standing). Imagine if the IRS determined the status of your donations based upon your income and the organization’s clientelle. Flat taxes, graduated giving; now there’s a platform.

I received this reply from the blog’s author, Phil Cubeta (Morals Tutor to America’s Wealthiest Families):

Ben, interesting comment. Mercy implies maybe a differential in power. Charity implies maybe caritas or gifts made out of solidarity, in the sense that we are all children of God. Philanthropia from philia is redolent of Greek concepts of magnificence. The philanthropist would create or endow great public buildings or monuments or entertainments. Whether gifts to the poor or into things that help the poor should receive a bigger tax benefit, or be somehow required for foundations, is a big debate right now. The more rules and penalties though the less the rich will play. They have the option of opting out and keeping the money. How much philanthropy we have and how it is directed or shared are two different questions. I suspect we will have more if we leave givers free to be themselves, though we may deplore the self they are.

I was pointed to Political Scientist Michael Parenti’s 7 categories of generalizations about the way the news media create anti-union messaging by this article analyzing the media’s portrayal of the Philadelphia public transit strike. I got really steamed about a month ago listening to a local interview/call-in show about Boston charter schools and the Teacher Union that revolved very strongly along these lines:

• Portrayal of labors struggles as senseless, avoidable contests created by unions’ unwillingness to negotiate in good faith,
• Focus on Company wage “offers” omitting or underplaying reference to takebacks, and employee grievances, making the workers appear irrational, greedy and self-destructive
• No coverage given to management salaries, bonuses or compensation and how they are inconsistent with concessions demanded by workers
• Emphasis on the impact rather than the causes of strikes, laying the blame for the strike totally on the union and detailing the damage the strike does to the economy and public weal.
• Failure to consider the harm caused to the workers’ interests if they were to give up the strike
• Unwillingness or inability to cover stories of union solidarity and mutual support
• Portrayal of the government (including the courts and police) as a neutral arbiter upholding the public interests when it is rather protecting corporate properties and bodyguarding strike-breakers.

To that, I would add “Failure to recognize Union benefits/protections as an aspiration for all workers, not spoils for the few”. The interview I was listening to (and what got me steamed) kept dismissively coming back to “Why should unions demand protections from arbitrary and capricious management? No one else expects that.” Which made me keep saying back “Well why the fuck not?”

Also, just in general, I get annoyed when the union workers aren’t placed within the context of the community as a whole? What does your child’s education mean in the context of a society where their work will have no value?

Update: A comment by Jen shared in Google Reader:

I would add, the idea that worker protections encourage mediocrity because people are removed from the “competitiveness” (i.e. fear) that easy firing gives. Job security doesn’t cause lack of motivation; bad management does.

Two beautifully worded comments from Gift Hub on Wage Theft: the first because of its vulgar revelry; the second for its straightforwardness:

tm:

We know and believe because the likes of Reagan and Bush told us that if we religiously shop with the aim of indulging our most frivolous wishes, wealth will trickle down, down, down, fertilizing the subsoil, giving the healthy brown shrubs and tubers a shot at a day in the sun. Our sun.

and Gerry:

They would have to abandon the mythology that the poor deserve it and recognize that most people would be just fine if they system were just, which it isn’t.

Fairness would be a nice start.

http://interimtom.blogspot.com/

This lede is the baseline from which I think any discussion of contemporary journalism should begin:

There have been various proposals to “save journalism” from the crisis brought on by digitalization. But by and large these ideas have less to do with meeting the information needs of a democratic society than with preserving the profit potential of existing media outlets.

The one change I would make is to put “crisis” also in quotation marks in order to show that the crisis-metaphor is just one frame pushed by incumbent media outlets. Another frame would be “new opportunities” or “focus shift” or “changing landscape”. The above is from “ Public Media and the Decommodification of News” published in FAIR’s (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Extra!

A cable access TV producer is indicted on child pornography charges. The station pulls their show saying “it’s good sense”. An uninvolved station gives their point of view:

Sylvia McDaniel, executive director of Portland Community Media, which operates under the state government, said she cannot suspend a show unless lawbreaking occurs in the studio or within the context of the show.

“We manage the programs, not people’s personal lives,” McDaniel said, in a phone interview.

“We also go by their behavior in our facility,” she added. “Producing the show ‘Cannabis Common Sense’ doesn’t give them the right to stand in my parking lot and smoke dope.”

“My jurisdiction is what goes on my channels, not what someone does outside my jurisdiction,” McDaniel added. “Their personal lives are none of my business. I don’t pull a show if it has nothing to do with the show.”

I also appreciate how the article’s author contextualizes this quote from the station that pulled the show:

RVTV in general “allows free speech,” but, she said, it’s run by a public university in a small town and is “a lot more conservative in approach.”

In general, if you have to qualify speech, it isn’t free, but that’s just my opinion.