new media

tipped off by another blog, i began following the riots in tehran and the rest of iran via twitter today. an occasional twitterer, i have rarely followed the trends on twitter until today. after a few minutes, i was addicted. not only are users in iran reporting events there as they occur, they are also using the service to coordinate protests. i can sit at my desk and read about events literally as they happen across world, from the perspective of the people actually there. not even the 24 hour news channels can give me this. the prospect is frightening.

on one hand, i can't stop reading. that some sort of revolution may be occurring before our eyes online is amazing and hope-bearing. it seems like pundits and nerds have been toting the extra-social implications of facebook and twitter for a long time. other than the obama campaign, this is the first time the utilities have really had a major role to play in the political scene. it is exciting to witness. i hope that truth and justice prevails in iran.

on the other hand, i fear that this could be nothing more than "some weird voyeurism (no idea on the source here, i believe it is a comment on a youtube video of the protests)"--an extension of current hyper-connected media outlets. what does my ability to witness iranian intellectuals and middle class protest a dishonest and oppressive government have to do with their struggle?

in some real ways, what we're seeing in iran via twitter goes beyond 5 minute updates on CNN. the updates come from protesters in the field, not from a news correspondent or even via an interview. the protesters themselves are using the service to coordinate, allowing users around the globe to interact and perhaps even contribute in small ways. throughout the day, users have been posting proxy address that allow users inside iran to bypass government filtering.

but in many other ways, reality remains the same. though we can see the brutality of the government crushing dissent firsthand, i fear that the images will be lost amid a sea of violence that floods u.s. and worldwide audiences every day. though personal interaction in new media removes many of the alienating aspects of traditional media, i wonder what it will actually change. our skins are thick and the problems of the world seem so daunting.

this is not to say that all of new media is nothing but the same. my views on the world are shaped far more by blogs and podcasts than by traditional media sources and i consider this a good thing. but both do require the understanding that there is nothing without bias or interpretation. i suppose you at least get to chose whose filter to receive the world through.

regardless of the reaction of the witnessing world, it is certainly true that outcome of the next few days will be wholly left up to the iranians. i have no idea what will happen, but it seems like the worst thing that can happen is nothing.

update: the new york times has a good article about twitter in iran here. twitter postponed a scheduled maintenance downtime, acknowledging of the service's significance in iran.

and this is a hopeful blog post from the daily beast. excerpt: "like civil rights protestors who sang rousing hymns as they were carried off to jail, twitterers are bearing witness to what's happening around them, and calling out into the darkenss of cyberspace for confirmation."

good riddance

"and now, the end is near..."

 for years many americans had been waiting for yesterday. for my part, i have to confess to voting for the guy...twice. twice?! yes.  i was 18 in 2000. who knew anything then? the second time around, i guess i should have known better...but what option did i really have?

but anyway, this post is not a justification, but more of a farewell. let's reflect on what we're going to miss about the guy. according to him, history will bear out his decisions, so we'll let them stand for themselves for now.

here's my list of w's more redeeming qualities:

style. the guy couldn't say abu ghraib to save a million people's lives. but then, who could? he laughed like such a goof ball--he had that affable style.

consistency. even if he was sticking to the most asinine position conceivable, you knew he'd be there the next day as well. it was mostly a fault, but every once in a while, you could appreciate him for it.

no terror attacks. that he thought this was the only relevant job to his presidency was a mistake. we're still learning about the sacrifices this country is making in the name of security. but on the surface, you got to hand it to the man. hopefully, the trend will continue and we'll see that we can properly strike the balance between freedom and security. 

"regret's, i've had a few; but then again, too few to mention..."

at this point, i don't feel spouting off the litany of decisions we should be angry over. while i'm eager for our new president to take office, i fear that no one can bear the burden placed on him. but i appreciated his inauguration speech and now i just want to appreciate the moment in american history. now he'll have to really be president. let's hope that in 8 years, his list of redeeming qualities will be longer than our previous president.

speaking of 'hope,' can we put a temporary ban on that word and 'change,' too? seriously. they need some time to breathe and recover their meaning. 

in that spirit, i'll start writing about something worthwhile. last night, i threw a little new president party. i encouraged people to dress up becuase why go to a party if you're dressed up? we had a good time. here are some 'introspective' pictures from the evening. 

no electioneering...yet

i played my part today and voted. i put in a good hour in the line beforehand. but from what i hear, that's not too bad on election day. aside from the nice woman next to me who insisted on repeatedly letting me how she was voting, everything went smoothly.

the real question now is, "will this, finally, be the end [of the election]?...no, really, will it?" i don't even want to watch the results come in. i have this recurring fear that i'll wake up tomorrow morning and we'll still be staring at the same screen with the same poll numbers and the same newscasters will be telling us something about a recount. like groundhog day but unfunny.

let's hope that's not the case. all this election nonsense has really cut into my extra-curricular actives. do you know that i haven't seen an episode of battlestar galactica for six months? no joke. there was a time when i couldn't phrase a sentence without wondering if i could reasonably insert the word "cylon." now, my head's cluttered with "failed economic policies" or "maverick" or, even worse "joe the plumber." what can you do with that garbage?

sadly, i found out about nader's election day press conference too late. seeing him conduct a press conference with one-word responses would be a nice way to end all of this.

elections

we're finally approaching zero hour. four years ago these nuts began announcing their "exploratory committees," which i think is the political equivalent of a debutante ball. i guess we only have ourselves to thank for paying attention.

politics is a pretty dirty business. talking about is typically the equivalent of driving a dump trunk through the celica of whatever conversation you were having. because i mentioned my candidate in an earlier post, i thought i'd go into the reasons i got behind him in this one. i even had the damn thing typed up. in the end, the dump truck was too big, even for me. i gave up. it just sounded too tired.

i've been fed up with the "election question" for a while now. i burned myself out way too early pouring over the caucus and real clear politics. by the time clinton and obama got to their third debate, the media's campaign catchphrases had become torture devices. the words "pantsuit" and "change" made me want to drown myself in one of those plastic kiddie pools. don't ask why, it just seemed dramatic.

then there was romney and mccain. one was the old guy that everybody liked to talk about as if he was already dead, praising his service to the country. the other everyone wished would play dead. do you remember when the big news story was that romney had illegal immigrants working at his house? are you serious?

yeah, that was back in february or march. i was tired of it then. my exasperation turned to anger, and i turned to apathy and cheap beer to deal with it. sadly the race went on, and sadder still, i followed it more and more. even though i'd heard the candidate positions on all the big issues, it became vitally important to read all the latest articles. why did he say this? what does the absence of that mean? how many point will that cost in the national average? those were the questions.

so instead of lambasting you with my expertly formed political opinoins, i think i'll throw all my energies into the local elections. all i know now is that we're electing a new governor and that somebody want me to vote 'yes on a,' which i'm pretty sure just puts a cap on the amount of casinos we can have and how the money is spent. gambling for education, that makes sense...

on the front lines: the vp debate

on my afternoon bike ride yesterday, before i busted a brand new tire (REI, i'm coming for you), i was assaulted by a mass of people carrying signs, shouting, and using car horns like madmen. i'm pretty monotonous in my bike route day after day. the only thing that changes is the direction in which i start my trek through forest park. usually the only people i see are young, college-aged girls with youngish college-aged guys in tow, doing their "exercises." though sometimes i do see the middle aged man running or biking in spandex--a sight not to be missed.

well, yesterday i thought the door had been left open at the local asylum. people were shouting and generally carrying on like fools. and then it hit me, vp debate.

well, why did the freaks have to interrupt my beautiful biking afternoon (further put on hold by a flat tire)?

as i made my way further down skinker and deeper into the crowds, it was clear that the obama side had a distinct upper hand in representation. and i really mean upper hand. there were tons of them. sadly for mccain, i only saw two groups of supporters for him: an old woman waving a little flag in front of her house and a small group of students who were sheepishly trying work their way past the army of obama supporters, like four workers crossing the picket lines.

for disclosure purposes i should probably tell you now that i'll be voting for mccain. i know, i know, lecture me. i'm not going to defend myself here. but in spite of that, it was pretty cool to see all the obama supporters out there. they clearly came from a wide range of backgrounds. not only were they loudly and adamantly obstructing the bike lanes, but they were pretty excited to do it. i had a fun time watching them.

i shot a couple videos on my phone, so they're a bit scrappy.







iupat had a ton of union members on site, proudly chanting for obama.



you can barely hear them, but at the beginning they are shouting, "yes we can." then they start, "o...bama, o...bama."



my wife and i went down the street to watch the debate in par--which is actually just a poorly named bar. i would have loved to see it in person, but the small number of seats that were not claimed by either party or reserved for the press were raffled off to students--spoiled brats.

the debate seemed to go well for both sides. vp debates have always seemed pretty dubious to me. just another chance for either side to hit home whatever their candidate is harping on and less about the vp contenders themselves. it's not really a debate so much as two sides talking past each other, just stating campaign promises.

but for the gop, i guess there was a bit more at stake-- it's pretty bad if an interview with catie couric makes you look dumb. so in that sense, the gop got more out it. one big, "hey, our candidate's not a moron" party.

but the dems did alright as well. no big gaffes for joe, who i thought would have never received the vp tap after one particularly big mistep early on in the primary.

anyway, enough pseudo political hash. word from the front line: watching a nationally televised debate in your city is about like watching a nationally televised debate anywhere, except for the party before and after.