Have you ever had an experience like this Dilbert comic?

This reminds me about working in a new company, or on a new team, in a new department, with a strict union, etc. Strange how complicated work and relationships / territory / job security / sense of worth or importance can make some things that seem to be easily understood into situations that are much more complex. Power and positionality in organizations are often more complex than they seem at face value.

Perhaps the lessons here will help reveal us to who will win in the next presidential election?

I received an email from my colleague, Robin, who stated that he got this odd email. Trusting he would not send me anything like a virus or other problematic surprise, I clicked it. Ouch. Living in New York City these days prepares me for a lot, but nothing like this. I decided to reproduce it here for the full effect.

How to handle an irritating seat-mate on a plane
If you are sitting next to someone who refuses to let you travel quietly, follow these instructions:
1. Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case. 
2. Remove your laptop.
3. Start up.
4. Make sure the guy who is annoying you can see the screen.
5. Close your eyes, tilt your head up to the sky and move your lips like you are praying
6. Then hit this link

I showed it to a few friends, and they were all equally disturbed. I am sharing it here as I think it warrants discussion. Is this real? Alarmist? Funny? Racist? Stereotypical? Appropriate? Inappropriate? Callous? Fill in the blank ______.

It comes from the website of a talk show host, Neal Boortz. I am not familiar with him, but thought some people out there may be. What do you make of this?How do we make sense of a world like this? Can we? Is there sense to be made, or is this subject still too close and intimate? How do others outside the US feel? Perhaps my musing on this is just overreacting?

Here I am liveblogging again. I was finally able to connect to the New School wireless network (the instructions for doing so were well hidden on their website, locatable only via a Google search), and thus am hoping to be able ot post this in real time as well.

I did not think I was going to be able to make it today, as I have not been feeling very well today (too much work this week while suffering from Thanksgiving overload with the eating that accompanied it). Nevertheless, I am now beginning to feel a bit better, so decided to go for a walk in the beautiful and sunny but chilly day today. I recalled the symposium is today, so thought it might be nice to listen here, so here I am. 

Waiting for the event to begin. The welcome and introduction was supposed to begin 18 minutes ago, not that I am counting. But as of yet, nothing.

Technorati Tags: New School for Social Research, New School University, philosophy

Tomorrow is the Hannah Arendt / Reiner Schurmann Symposium in Political Philosophy at the New  School for Social Research. The theme for this year’s symposium is Critical Theory Today, and speakers include Axel Honneth, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Luc Boltanski, Judith Butler, and Etienne Balibar.

In the words of Jay Bernstein, the chairperson of the Philosophy Department, the symposium promises to expose its listeners to ideas that will challenge their perceptions and make them uncomfortable. That is one of the very reasons to do philosophy–to  bump into ideas that make us uncomfortable and thereby force us to think through our lives in different and more critical ways.

Technorati Tags: Hannah Arendt, New School for Social Research, New School University, philosophy, Reiner Schurmann, critical theory

I just learned about an interesting discussion happening over on the Harvard Business School blog, How Much of Leadership Is About Control, Delegation, or Theater? The space for entering comments is open for another week, so go take a look.

This comes from some of the wonderful work by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton on evidence-based management. How does leadership effect performance? What evidence is there to support it? I have been interested this for a long time, and especially since I will be teaching a class in the next few weeks on at NYU’s SCPS.

While I am very interested in the evidence that is out there, I also realize that all the evidence in the world won’t make a difference if it is somebody else’s evidence and does not fit within my experience and my own goals and objectives; thus, I plan to take an action-learning perspective to this class (rather than just reading “the book” on the subject, as if there were such a thing out there). After all, can evidence ever really exist only “out there?”

Technorati Tags: Developing Leaders, evidence-based management, Harvard Business School , Jeffrey Pfeffer , NYU, Robert I. Sutton , SCPS

It seems the Anglican Church (Episcopal in the US) is considering the expulsion of rebel provinces that do not tow the party line on gays. According to the Times, there seems to be a lot of discussion about being gay and Anglican, so much so that the group is sounding more and more like the Catholic Church and its treatment of being gay.

I wonder what will happen when the conservative winds blow toward removing the ordination of women and divorce.

Technorati Tags: Anglican, schism

Craig Newmark, the Craig in Craigslist, spoke to and with us last night at the Social Media Club NY meeting. It was nice to hear him again so soon after hearing him speak on a panel discussion two weeks ago at Personal Democracy Forum. As others have more fully blogged about this
event, including Mark Rose, Howard Greenstein, Allen Stern, and Donna Bogatin, I want to muse on some of the random thoughts and ideas Craig raised as I thought some
of them were useful.

“Death is my exit strategy.”

• I like this quote of Craig. While he used it in the context of when he will leave his work at Craigslist, I suppose in a more postmodern way, this is true for all of us. I wonder how strategic many of us are about this, both for whatever legacy we are interested in leaving as well as how we want to leave our memories once we are gone (like we really have any control over that).

“We need people to speak truth to power.”

• I have never heard this Quaker phrase before, but it seems consistent with Craig’s political views that he shared at the meeting. Here, I thought that was original at the time. Catchy phrase, and when trying to learn a little more about it, I found this on the Quaker site itself:
• To those who hold high places in our national life and bear the terrible responsibility of making decisions for war or peace.
• To the American people who are the final reservoir of power in this country and whose values and expectations set the limits for those who exercise authority.
• To the idea of Power itself, and its impact on Twentieth Century life.
• I keep thinking about Foucault and Weber and Marx (who has some great stuff that is often missed due to the American experience with Communism and the Cold War). Power exists in all human interaction, and I wonder why, given the great amount of American frustration with the course of the war in Iraq, the status quo continues. Perhaps people find it better to complain and shake our heads rather than get up and do anything to change the course of the conflict. I suppose if those in power do not feel pressure
  to change (i.e., power), then why do anything differently? Here, after the Democrats took over in Congress, nothing seems to have changed with the war. Another broken promise, or is that too simple a way of looking at this?
• I wonder, too, about this, in the manner Craig spoke. He was very calm, and while I find him wonderful to listen to, there was little moderation in his tone and speaking manner. His words seemed passionate, but there was little animation as he spoke about this. Interesting disconnect.

Craig’s theme of journalists and the need to have them to tell what is really happening in the world.

• I was glad he did not use the term “tell the truth” about situations in the world. I am becoming inclined to see the concept of “the truth” as being a subjective assessment of the world, as opposed to an objective descritpion of world events. I know, I am not sure how objective anything can be (i.e., can we ever speak about anything outside of our prior experiences?), but journalists have the same pressures (their beliefs, power relationships, personal and organizational political hurdles) we all do, so I find
  it a challenge that they should be held to an other standards than other people. I think about the New York Times and their All the News That’s Fit to Print – who decides what is news and what aspect (i.e., which side or perspective of it) should be presented (i.e., discussed). So, if the “news” does not cover a story, does that mean it is not news?
• Perhaps I need to study some journalism. I wonder if Jay Rosen at Assignment Zero is onto something here?

I like the meetings of Social Media Club. Having been a member for a few months now and having attended a few meetings and listened to some really talented people talk about some really interesting things, I feel stimulated. Isn’t that what social media is all about?

Technorati Tags: Craig Newmark, Social Media Club, smc

I am working on my review of Personal Democarcy Forum using the easy to use Confabb tool. The organizers sent an email requesting reviews of the session a week ago (on 5/22), and now, a week later, there have not been many responses.
I wonder if that is because we are all busy people and life gets in the way, or if it is in any way reflective of the conference or the evaluation strategy itself? I wish there would have been some reaction evaluation immediately at the end of the conference, such as a Kirkpatrick Level 1 Evaluation, so more would have been captured right away. I know I need time to process this, so I have been going back to the site several times since the conference. However, I think that out of site may mean out of mind for others, and without attendees providing some feedback and evaluation, it may be difficult for the conference to improve based on the suggestions and recommendations of the participants. As I thought this conference was an eye-opener, I hope others take the time to add their voices to the feedback on the website.

Technorati Tags: personal democracy forum, pdf2007

While I attended Personal Democracy Forum 2007 last week, we were introduced to 6 issues that will face our next President, as articulated by Andrew Rasiej and Micah L. Sifry, the co-founders of PDF and the leaders of the wonderful conference I attended. I think there can and should be a lot of discussion around these issues, and think this may have been a little lost when they were revealed since it was in the middle of a very busy day.

I will quote them completely from the Personal Democracy Forum website, and add my own thoughts and ideas around them via bullets under each one:

The following are very specific technology policy goals that we are asking every candidate to either endorse wholly or to offer alternative positions. It is time to find out who can actually claim to be the country’s first TechPresident.

1. Declare the Internet a public good in the same way we think of water, electricity, highways, or public education. The government has an obligation to enable low cost universal access to this resource. Regardless of market considerations, every American should be able to take advantage of the Internet for use in their lives and businesses. The Internet is the dial tone of the 21st century.

• I agree the Internet is a public good, but I am not sure I really want to government's involvement in it as it will lead to regulation. Regardless of what Eric Schmidt said at PDF2007 about the "Great Firewall of China," I don't want the freedom of the Internet to be compromised. Remember the freedom of speech vs. website blocking issues in public libraries? Scary.

2. Commit to providing affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide, along with protecting and expanding unlicensed spectrum for public use, and make the Internet a reliable part of our infrastructure so that it deliver on its next phase, transforming how we do business, learn, play, participate in our democracy, stay secure, and govern. Do this by creating an Internet Innovation and Investment Fund with a minimal budget of $20 billion (half of what we spend on highways in a single year) to guarantee and spur development of an Internet wireless broadband blanket and make sure the Net reaches every segment of our population. Once everyone is connected, new applications will emerge creating efficiencies in how our government delivers services, how emergency communications are enabled, how education and health resources are available, and how freedom of speech and participatory democracy are made real for every citizen.

• I would love this, but again, I am afraid of government regulation. Isn't this what happened with the regulation of the phones and cable? Little competition now and standards that do not readily play nicely in a global market. I know how important access to the Internet is, and am wondering if offering incentives and tax breaks to spur this development may not be a wiser move that would avoid another level of government bureaucracy?

3. Declare a “Net Neutrality” standard forbidding Internet service providers from discriminating among content based on origin, application or type. Companies that provide access to the Internet should not be allowed to provide content and services where they will be tempted to prefer their own over what is available from others. If we want the Internet to remain an open market for innovation and to lead us to a new leading competitive global economic position, we need an infrastructure that is not based on old models of telephone and TV networks.

• Isn't this what broadcasters and cable companies do now; they show whatever they want? The highest money-maker gets face time? They did invest in teh infrastructure. Having attended one of the Unconference sessions on this issue that presented this as a civil rights issue, it is one I think I need to educate myself more about. I am not sure about it in fact being a civil rights issue vs. corporate profits, and I think the jury (or my own thoughts about it) is still out. I need more info.

4. Instead of “No Child Left Behind,” our goal should be “Every Child Connected.” The digital divide in our country is worse than it was 10 years ago before our schools were wired. Most public schools still have students visiting computers only for a few hours a week in computer labs. With every major corporation in the world connecting its customers, employees, and suppliers, to 24-hour networks regardless of whether they are using computers, cell phones, PDA’s, etc. providing them access to massive data resources, there is no reason we can’t build a similar networked ability for our students, teachers, and parents 24 hours a day to access the greatest libraries of the world. This will accelerate the professional development of teachers to use the new technology as well as transform education from being something that happens primarily only in school buildings into an ongoing process that facilitates learning moments happening wherever and whenever possible.

• I remember when I taught high school and middle school for 10 years–many teachers had no idea what to do with the computers and Internet access. How do I use these tools to better instruct my students? Then again, how much time gets wasted in workplaces from surfing, eBay, and the like now? I know some colleges are exploring laptop policies in class since students get distracted by IMing, Tweeting, downloading music, and the like rather than paying attention in class. I know I do all this when I have my own laptop in classes I take. Wasn't it somebody who was downloading Grey's Anatomy during one of the sessions at PDF2007 that influenced the entire wireless network's slowdown? That wa an adult–how about kids who have less self-control (if that is true)? Yes, they can be used to check references and look up facts, and if teachers were creative and engaging, people's minds may not roam, but we do multitask well, don't we? Perhaps this is an even larger issue, such as when students began using pens instead of pencils, and school becamse required of all, rather than a benefit of being rich.

5. Commit to building a Connected Democracy where it becomes commonplace for local as well as national government proceedings to be heard by anyone any time and over time. People should be able read proposed bills before they are voted on, analyze them together, and contact their legislators and participate in the legislative process while it is happening. The culture of the Internet encourages transparency and citizens should have the ability to hold their elected leaders accountable not only so they can be “watchdogged” but so that the legislators themselves become more effective in providing information to their constituents.

• Good idea, but I am not sure if this point is specific enough for a policy goal.  

6. Create a National Tech Corps, because as our country becomes more reliant on 21st century communications to maintain and build our economy we need to protect our communications infrastructure and be able to have an emergency response capability to establish emergency communications, rebuild networks and databases, and provide tech support for all relief and recovery efforts. It's time to create a "National NetGuard" of technically skilled Americans who can volunteer to be trained and deployed to respond to any terrorist attack or natural disaster. Part of this program should be the creation of a tech equivalent of the federal oil reserve, but for computer and communications equipment, that would be maintained by our country's computer equipment manufacturers in a revolving inventory and would be available to be used in an emergency.

• I think this is an excellent idea. Absolutely excellent.

I am a proponent of technology and education and the democratic process, so hope my thoughts here will not be taken as dismissive criticisms of these suggestions, but rather an example of part of the discussion that will be needed for any of these ideas to be moved forward. Considering this call to action at the beginning of this issue, now that I have learned more about the influences of technology on democracy, I have more questions than two weeks ago when I knew less. Ahh, the conference was valuable for me.

I think that is what education is all about–learning how little we really know.