The New Social Web: #IranElection

The power of change has always been via dissemination of information. Those that seek to prevent change make moves to prevent information being shared. Recently, in Iran, we've seen amazing courage and a call to minds/actions. All done via "social media" like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. Is this the new "social web"?

Here are some thoughts that stand out from the Twitterverse:

RT from Iran: "140 chars is a novel when you're being shot at." #IranElection

RT from an Iranian: "I realize now i do not fear death. I fear my daughter will not be free when i die." #IranElection

RT from Iran Change your Twitter Location to Tehran & Time Zone to GMT +3.5. Help shield #IranElection & confuse Iranian censors!

RT U.S. Government Asks Twitter to Stay Up for #IranElection Crisis http://viigo.im/V6v

RT all my posts as much as possble to help confuse censors - #Iranelection

RT People have green pics to support the protesters in Iran #iranelection.

RT Open Letter to the World - English Version http://bit.ly/u7TZJ #iranelection

RT Going green for Iran. . . wish I could do more. . . #iranelection

And, tons of video at YouTube, LiveLeak, etc. Each designed to enable counter attacks in the cyber-war for the hearts/minds of Iranian civilians. Is the US now infringing the sovereignty of a UN Member State by enabling the Twitter universe to engage in anti-government activities? We say yes. We also say it must.

Does this constitute another wave of information? We used to get our Current Events much more slowly (if at all). First it was letters, then newspapers, then telegraph, then movies, then television, then cell phone (audio only). Now, we're getting real events streamed (nearly) live via cell phone cameras and text messaging. Seems impossible for any change averse polity to hold back this tidal wave of information.

In the end, what does all this mean? Are we getting truly unadulterated versions of events? Or, are we getting less and less "re-packaging" of events? Either way, this is a trend that shows no sign of stopping or slowing down. The move to "real-time reality" is truly a tidal wave. It will be interesting to see how governments ("open" or "closed") respond to this new wave.

Economic Collapse or Financial Panic?

A good dose of perspective from one of my favorites authors - TMQ!

"Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved -- the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes -- $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways -- the more the economy will soften over the long term. It's long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out. TMQ's former Brookings Institution colleague Peter Orszag, now director of the Congressional Budget Office, was on "Newshour" last week talking about the panic. Orszag is a wicked-smart economist -- for instance, he is careful to say pension holdings have declined, not been lost like most pundits are saying, as if there were no difference between decline and loss! The below exchange occurred with host Jeffrey Brown. Remember these words:

PETER ORSZAG: One thing we need to remember is we're lucky that we have the maneuvering room now to issue lots of additional Treasury securities and intervene aggressively to address this crisis.

JEFFREY BROWN: Wait a minute. Explain that. Lucky in what sense?

PETER ORSZAG: That people are still willing to lend to us. If in 20 or 30 years we continue on the same path, with rising health-care costs and rising budget deficits, we would reach a point where we wouldn't have that ability."

More Perspective

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
- George Orwell

The Patriot Act - a little perspective

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin

Realistic Goals & What To Do When You Miss Them

My new commute has afforded me the opportunity to catch up on some reading. One book I'm running through right now is "Wars of Blood and Faith", a collection of articles by Ralph Peters.

WARNING: Mr Peters is retired Army so espouses a *very* pro-military viewpoint - you've been warned. I've included the link for context.

In the article "Plan B for Iraq", published in Armed Forces Journal, he says this:

"We must not only prepare for the worst, but calculate how to turn it to our advantage."

This struck a chord with me. I've heard the saying "Plan for the best and prepare for the worst" many times. However, in practice, I've mostly seen folks do the former and ignore the latter (cant? or wont?). Of course, in context, Peters' statement reflects the seriousness of the truly life and death decisions our military face in the field. In the software development world, we don't have quite the same consequences.

But, it seems this view can be quite useful - what happens after things didn't work out the way you wanted them to? Take the outcome and work it to your advantage. Seems easy. But, in practice...

Ciao.

Things That Make Me Say "Huh?" - 2008-03-26

A new meaning of change.

Um, $300,000 for college... but the big tickets are giving it away and MIT is a bit less than that.

Speaking of "21" have you heard its opening this Friday...cool site tho.

An old favorite topic of mine (spurred by the Blancmange buzzing in my ear) is "change" versus "stay the course". Had a professor way back when who said (paraphrasing Tip O'Neill) "Congress works because it's always worked this way". Of course, I didn't understand how such a conservative view (from a Dem) could justify the "B" I got.

But, back to the future, is it "comfort" with our current ways? Or are people simply so afraid of change that they hang on to what doesn't work (the devil I know...) in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

A useful buzzword that has lost its meaning is "change agent". How can we truly be subversive without being obvious? That's my challenge. Still thinking...