Closing the Digital Divide: The Internet and Iran

The Internet is a fantastic way to facilitate communication among cultures and locations. Yet, as the article states, “burgeoning power the Internet to close the digital divide in these countries is only rivaled by the strength of government-led efforts to ensure this divide—and their hold power.”

This tension between the freedom to explore the World Wide Web (in its most literal sense) and the attempt of the Iranian government to control this exploration leads me to a more fundamental question: is Internet access a right?

The writer of the piece described the growing ability to use the Internet in Iran as “gaining their own voice.” He describes the regime as “moving quickly to quash” this voice. It sounds like the conflict is being described as a human rights violation to me. Other clues include the assertion that “the government has… sought to muzzle and/or intimidate dissident Iranian voices on the Internet.”

This article emphasizes the rather intimidating idea that the internet is not only a way of getting information and communicating with friends—it is a political force. It is, in fact, a symbol of freedom. The writer states: “the Internet poses significant risks to the status quo and those who enforce it in countries such as Iran.” The web is full of information. If you don’t have the Internet, you can’t get the information… and information is a closely guarded commodity in countries with controlling regimes, such as Iran. The media plays a hugely important role—it is the link between the individual and the outside world. If a government assumes control of the media, there is no communication, no evolution, and no change. Change is precisely the thing that the Iranian government wants to avoid.

Yet, doesn’t everyone have the right to hope for things to get better, to know what’s available that could improve their lives? The Internet is a very important tool for crossing borders and sneaking past red tape—and Iranian people deserve the right to have this tool.

 

“Afraid of Google?”

                Defining Google is difficult. Some say it’s just a search engine. Some say it’s an incredibly ingenious way to categorize and rank public interest. Still others assert that it’s a monster that’s out to get us all.

I, however, would define Google not by its makers, but by its users. The question is not what Google gets from us, but what we get from Google. Google gives people information. Actually, Google gives people ways to get information. Do we have to choose the first listing we get from a search? No. The search engine does not give information, but links to it. The messenger, if you will, that doesn’t wish to be persecuted for the news it delivers.

Jorge, the author of this article, in my opinion, gives the Google monster more credit than it’s worth. While technology might enable those who collect data and histories from the search engine to make aggregate assumptions about the general public, the assertion that they can make the “step from search words to human intention” is a bit dramatic. Though his depth of thought is interesting, I am left wondering what the point is! Does it matter that they know what we’re looking for?

The validity of Internet mediums is always precarious. However, I would argue that it is not the Internet giant itself that needs to be reigned in (in fact, I don’t know how one would go about that) but that it is becoming more and more necessary to encourage people to work harder. With the novelty of the easiness of using the Internet to get information, people have gotten lazy. The short answer to this writer’s very long concern is: maybe we should shelve the concern that Google is “a vicious cycle pushing popularity ad nauseam.” There are most important things to worry about. World hunger? Now that’s a relevant concern.

 

Online Campaigning as a New Venue for Politics in the Era of Globalization

The presidential campaign for the 2008 election is sure to be exciting. With new technology and cultural changes, the voters will have different expectations that will require the adjustment of their campaigns to fit the needs and demands of the American people. In 2004, Dean’s campaign was one of the first to utilize the medium of Internet media to strengthen the power of his supporters. Now, many notable current presidential candidates have discovered the power of the World Wide Web.

In his recently published book, The First Campaign: Globalization, the Web, and the Race for the White House, Garrett M. Graff describes how social networks, blogs, and other new technology tools are changing politics and presidential campaigns, and what “flattening of the world” means for the 2008 election. “The 2008 presidential campaign will be like none in recent memory: the first campaign in fifty years in which both the Democrats and the Republicans must nominate a new candidate, and the first ever in which the issues of globalization and technology will decide the outcome.”

As Garrett writes in the Washingtonian (December, 2007), “in the 2008 election, four tools-online video, cell phones, blogs, and social networking sites-provide unparalleled power to ordinary voters and have created a new infrastructure for launching- and rebutting –political attacks.” In this context, the July 23 Democratic YouTube/CNN debate was the first of “officially –sanctioned” debates, which asked the questions submitted through online video, and which made history in allowing regular people from across the country to have their own opinions in the debate.

People like to say that the Democrats have the competitive advantage, because they have been better using the Internet giving ordinary Americans access to the tools they need to change the election with the click of a mouse. The technology used by MoveOn and Meetup gave the isolated people the possibility to unite and organize. For awhile, the Democratic Party staffers have been tracking the Republican candidates on videos, which are uploaded directly to a special section of Democrats.org called FlipperTV. Voters can download the video, re-mix it, add music, and use it as they wish. This way, voters can see what the candidates do and say while they are not on CNN or Fox News. They are different people when they don’t think the cameras are rolling. An example is the videotaped words of Rudy Giuliani at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2007. Also, the Democratic Party is testing a brand new voter contact system that will give state parties, campaigns, and individual activists the critical tools they need to get out the vote on Election Day.

Perhaps most surprising is the use of Internet media by Ron Paul’s campaign. The candidate is almost opposite of the web’s most common users, who are generally young and liberal. Paul is among the oldest of the presidential hopefuls at 71 years old and he has labeled himself as a “true conservative.” Yet Paul’s supporters, encouraged by his online campaigning, have showed themselves to be active supporters in new mediums of communication, such as online polls and text messages. (“Ron Paul Builds Campaign on the Web”, CNS News) His initiatives enable to reach audiences that otherwise might not have been interested by adopting of sites such as Twitter.

Democrat candidate John Edwards recently launched an online petition drive, enabling voters to pledge to not vote for candidates who accept campaign cash from lobbying firms or special interest political action organizations (in other words, those who buy support). By putting the petition online, Edwards is able to make the voters, wherever they are, feel empowered. The interest is accessible to everyone, everywhere, and a petition could not have been organized without this medium.

Another Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has also recently used the Internet to his advantage. He used the specific (and extremely popular, especially in the younger generation) YouTube site, where one can broadcast videos. Giuliani’s people put a video of 9/11 dedications, reminding the public of Giuliani’s actions as New York City mayor during the time. Since this video is online, he has managed to combine the two arguably most influential media tools: the Internet and Television. The visual of the video combined with the accessibility of the Internet makes a very clever marketing scheme.

Hilary Clinton has employed the web as well and was the first to announce her campaign online. She, too, uses different kinds of media to reach a wider audience. Acknowledging the cultural phenomenon of “Oprah-like” talk shows, she is trying to communicate with her supporters (and hopefully non-supporters) through chatting—conversation over the Internet. (“The power of online campaigning”, BBC News).
Also notably is the fact that these candidates, as well as the well-know candidate Barack Obama, have announced their plans for running by using Internet mediums, especially the social networking sites Facebook and MySpace.

Thus, it is indisputable that the very intelligent people who run their campaigns have learned from history– specifically Howard Dean’s presidential online campaign–that the Internet is big, powerful, and now, unavoidable. As Garrett argues, “Globalization has made technology both the medium and the message of 2008. The usual domestic issues are now global issues. Meanwhile, the emergence of the Web as a political tool has shaken up the campaign process, leaving front-runners vulnerable right up until Election Day.”

 

 

Howard Dean’s Online Campaign

Howard Dean’s campaign was unlike those of his contemporaries. He utilized a relatively new media form—the social media/web 2.0 applications—in a unique and efficient way. Edward Cone wrote in The Marketing of a President: “Using a variety of Internet tools, from the electronic journals known as weblogs to social networking sites, the Dean campaign has propelled the Vermont doctor from near -anonymity to the front of the Democrat pack aiming to replace George W. Bush as chief executive of the United States.”

However, using the web to promote Dean was not a simple operation. The internet’s influence was much larger in scope than we typically think: in addition to being another venue for increasing support, such as the radio or TV, utilization of the web was also an intermediary step in the sense that it gathered and organized people who served as another, stronger venue for information. In a May 2003 post to the Dean of America weblog, Joe Trippi announced his vision that social technology and networks should be used as tools for democracy, advocacy, and fundraising. His vision became the focus of Deanspace, an open source project aimed to create the variety of Internet tools, such as blogs, forums, calendars, and RSSs (Really Simple Syndication).

Perhaps the best way to explain the success of the online campaigning is that the focus is, surprisingly, not on the Internet community— it strives to motivate people into action offline. Dean’s online campaign consisted of three elements which differentiated it from the campaigns of his contemporaries.

As we all know, one of the most crucial—and controversial—parts of campaigning is fundraising. Running for office is expensive, and it is necessary to figure out some way to get people to donate their money. Dean’s team was able to raise $7.4 million in online donations in the third quarter of 2003—a record. The notable thing to look at here is not necessarily the total amount. By using online fundraising, the big totals are not characterized by a few enormous donations (such as is common with many high profile candidates). On the contrary, with the Internet, the donations are much smaller in amount, yet much greater in quantity. The Internet enables and convinces more people to participate even though they aren’t billionaires—in general, online donors are younger. This translates into the same amount of money… with exponentially more votes. And votes are, after all, what really matters.

Dean’s campaign utilized a variety of Internet mediums, including social networks and electronic journals (blogs), to both give information and aggregate people. The first was Meetup, a service that gets local volunteers together. Supporters are able to take matters into their own hands, which has additional benefits of allowing the very busy people in Dean’s campaign to delegate responsibility. In addition to being a fantastic source of garnering support, it is incredibly efficient.

Dean’s online campaign got another boost from blogs, in which others can post opinions, support, and links for information. This is an additional way of spreading out the campaign, making the supporters (read: voters) responsible. One of the most important components of the 2004 Presidential campaign was “Blog for America, which served as a nerve center for Governor Howard Dean’s insurgent presidential campaign.”

The creators of Dean’s campaign should be applauded not simply for their use of the Internet. Their foresight and efficiency made the campaign more successful, easier to manage, and accessible to billions of people. The medium that they employed was the Internet, but the philosophy that they utilized was the idea of decentralizing control. This philosophy made it easier for us “commoners” to get more involved in communications, collaboration, conversation, deliberation, attraction, affinity, documentation, research, etc.—and isn’t that the ultimate goal of democracy, or of so called “extreme democracy“?

 

The Truth About Dracula

October is the time for ghosts, ghouls, and other paranormal and legendary phenomena that dominates the night. When I was a child, I remember being afraid of dark and terrified by ghosts and other fictional personages.

It’s difficult to find someone who hasn’t heard of Dracula—the myth is so popular that the caped vampire’s images can be found on cereal boxes and Halloween costumes all over the world. Everyone knows the myth… but who knows the truth?

Who knows the true story of Vlad the Impaler Dracula, as well as of Transylvania and Wallachia? Dracula movies, Bran Castle, the second most expensive property in the world–known as Dracula’s Castle–, and the connections of the historic figure with Bram Stocker’s hero explains the myth only partially.

The “Count Dracula” character was inspired by a real person, who was called Prince Vlad III Dracula, also known as “the Impaler Prince.” The images that we have of this familiar character derive from Vlad III’s father, whose contemporaries called him “dragon.” Vlad II was a member of an organization called “Order of the Dragon,” a secret fraternal group of knights whose goal was to protect Christianity and defend the Roman Empire. The ceremonial dress of the Order was a “red garment with a black cape over it,” explaining the origins of the popular image of Dracula’s persona.

Dracula translates to “son of dragon.” Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Tepes) –Dracula’s real name– was born in 1431 in Transylvania, where some researchers believe that the legend about Dracula being a vampire began.

Dracula’s father was eventually awarded the military governorship of Transylvania. They lived in a world defined by war, and over the years many battles ensued, Dracula’s father and brother were killed, and in a whirlwind of fighting and politics, he tried to reclaim his home country. Yet Dracula was more brutal, more fearsome than many other warriors of his time—in an effort to prove his power, he left a “Forest of the Impaled” in his wake: a sultan describes a horrifying visual of 20,000 of Dracula’s opponents who had been impaled, covering the disputed territory.

Dracula’s image comes from his father, yet he is feared because of his own history: his life was defined by war. He was born into battle and died in battle. He was a ruthless, heartless leader. The most unsettling piece of information about Dracula is not in regard to his life, but in regard to his death. Killed in battle, he was decapitated and his head was put on display. His body was buried in another location. Hundreds of years later, when his grave was dug up, the only remains found there were those of an animal.

The question remains to be answered: Was Dracula a truth or a legend? Was he real or made up? Was he influenced by a supernatural power? These questions are difficult to answer after so many years. What we do know, however, is that the story of Dracula is terrifying no matter how you look at it.

 

 

Peer Response (3) to WHAT I LIKE ABOUT “PostGlobal”

Where does a writer stop and a human begin? On her blog, “Mediadiscussions“, Nur states, “…just reading writers’ opinions… make me feel more unsatisfied.” Yet, she enjoys reading a blog which consists of different “journalists’” opinions. Inferred in her article, What I like about “PostGlobal“, is the fundamental difference between a writer and a person, and a piece that is written by an employee and one that is written by an individual.

The constraints of newspaper writers are large. The author mentions availability and frequency: “their articles appear only once a week.” In addition, those who are employed by newspapers, frankly, have an obligation to adhere to the company’s agenda in terms of subject, timing, and bias. On a more positive note, written articles usually require more background research to be able to retaliate in cases someone claims that her writing is not legitimate.

On the other hand, bloggers are free. They can change opinions everyday, post whenever they have the time, and make their own rules. Bloggers come from everywhere and anywhere, whereas journalists employed by newspapers usually share similar educations, origins, and experiences. The author asserts that this results in “a truly global discussion.”

Nur also states: “moreover every single post is linky”. That is exactly what Robert Scoble advises in his book, “Naked Conversations“– tip #9: “be linky”.

In blogs there are no limits. Journalists are able to act as individuals—people are writing, not employees. In a blog, one’s argument is skinned of its obligations to the establishment, and widely available for review. Individuals are expressing information in a way that was impossible before the Internet, and the communication of international affairs is rapidly changing.

 

Peer Response (2) to War 2.0

In the relatively new world of online media, the most dramatic and influential change in information exchange is the ability of individuals to have a voice. I would agree with Cullen, who asserts in her blog, “War 2.0“, that “effective citizen journalism” is the way of the future.

Perhaps the most novel concept in news journalism is personality. Often, news programs express the public with a single word: “Americans.” They label the citizens of another country by their nationality. In my opinion, though practical, the practice of generalizing results in a response which is detached and unemotional. We often forget that when a headline reads “Fires in Southern California,” someone lost a brother in that fire. Or, as another example, “Microsoft Stock Plummets,” implies that a hardworking man might have lost his job that day.

The writer of the entry says: “… I had seen blogging as a pitching platform with bias, not as a story-telling platform.” She goes on to explain that reading a blog by a “citizen journalist” invoked “feelings” and “emotions.” This was the story of a single person, a human being, that made a headline real and an article relevant.

The news is, ultimately, an explanation of what is happening in people’s lives, at home and around the world. Yet often I forget that a meeting between two world leaders is supposed to symbolize the meeting of two groups of people, invoking the image of a leviathan.

The Internet has made individuals actors in the widest arena. The Internet is itself an international institution in its own category. Sites like Youtube, Myspace, and Facebook enable communication on a personal level, reminding us what we are really hearing about when we listen to a news program.

This is especially important for the next generation. Perhaps when this generation reaches its political prime, the emphasis will be more about the person than the profit and more about the citizen than the country. Cullen concluded her post: “Who knew web 2.0 could be used during a time of war to create art.”

 

Peer Response (1) to Wikipedia, Can You Prevail?

While reading my classmates blogs, I decided to analyze one of Dayo’s entries. In her blog, “Warlord Treatment“, Dayo made interesting points about Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is more powerful than we think. It is an aggregation of enormous, varied amounts of information, and it contains so many opinions, stories, and arguments that it is intimidating—yet how can something so big be so fragile?

There are discussions about the validity of Wikipedia everywhere: college lecture halls, water coolers in offices, and probably even in the White House. It is a controversial venue, ironically, for controversial issues.

One fundamental question is who has the right to post information on Wikipedia? PhD’s? Those over the age of 35? Home owners? There is no general way to define peoples’ abilities to convey information, and no way to reign in their opinions. In short, Wikipedia is enormous but held up by a shaky foundation.

The post makes some valid points, however, in acknowledging its vast advantages while admitting to its faults. Dayo admits laughing at some ridiculous entries in Wikipedia for their humor just as she admits cringing at racist entries in the “real” encyclopedia. Not to say that Wikipedia is funny while Encyclopedia Britanica is racist, but generally her reactions are similar to others of her generation. The reason for this, as she rightly states, is the ability of Wikipedia to change.

The benefit of an online information source is that it can adjust quickly and efficiently in the matter of a click. The book, on the other hand, requires time and money for publication. Wikipedia is hardly perfect, but it is reflective of a broad range of opinions, interpretations, and voices. Some are factually incorrect, and others are wildly biased, but still others provide simply useful and fast information.

Is Wikipedia a catalyst for the Armageddon? I don’t know. I’m just grateful that I can familiarize myself with the history of, well, anything, without making the trip to the library.

 

The Iraq War Via de Web

The Internet is bringing so much information, debate, controversy and coverage of the Iraq war. The Washington Post writer, Howard Kurtz, wrote:

“For all the saturation coverage of the invasion of Iraq, this has become the first true Internet war, with journalists, analysts, soldiers, a British lawmaker, an Iraqi exile and a Baghdad resident using the medium’s lightning speed to cut through the fog of war. The result is idiosyncratic, passionate and often profane, with the sort of intimacy and attitude that are all but impossible in newspapers and on television.”

After the invasion of Iraq, bloggers –who are not always reporters, photographers, translators, and producers, but also soldiers and ordinary people–, have described the effect of the war on the life of Iraqis and the war conditions of the troops.

One of the most popular web logs is “Dear Raed“, which is also under criticism, because some people believe that this site is the work of U.S. or Iraqi propagandists. The popularity of “Dear Raed” has spread via e-mail, online discussion groups, and through the recommendations of other bloggers. In one of his posts, Salam wrote: “What is the right answer? Is it to have driven Saddam out (which requires a war), but with a truly United, worldwide coalition, along with a master-plan for the post-war? Is there another way to move Saddam? Basically, should the issue of Iraq been left 100% to the Iraqis from the beginning (no war)? On another note, is America too powerful?”

Salam Pax, the blogger, has given first-hand accounts of the bombing on Baghdad.

The bloggers have analyzed hard essential questions that have been asked in regard to the war in Iraq. For example, how do we bring our troops home within a reasonable and responsible time frame, while achieving what needs to be achieved in Iraq. In a speech delivered at Georgetown University, John Kerry called on the Bush administration to draw up- and present to Congress- a detailed plan with targets dates for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis, so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. Also, Rep. Baird voted with the Democrats in favor of bringing troops home.

Another question: Was the Bush Administration prepared for Iraqi resistance? The bloggers state that the Administration failed to equip troops and to plan adequately for the Iraq war. Unofficial study suggests that one-fourth of casualties in Iraq could have been prevented if troop were properly equipped at the beginning of the war. Newsweek reported: “A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests hat many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur”.

There was also a lot of blogging on war spending, but the reactions to this issue were mixed: some bloggers emphasized the Democrat’s weakness, while others considered the approval of the war spending as part of a political game.

 

My Experience as a Docent at the Library of Congress

One of my hobbies is tourism. After I arrived in Washington DC, my first visit was at the U. S. Capitol and the Library of Congress. I was especially fascinated by the magnificent Thomas Jefferson Building, which receives more than 1 million visitors each year. I was always interested to interact with some of those visitors. No long ago, I took advantage of the volunteer opportunities, and I enrolled in a docent program that trains docents to lead visitors on tours. This activity inspired me to blog about my experience as a docent at the Library of Congress.

The Library of Congress was established by an act of Congress in 1800 – with $5000 appropriated by the legislation – by President John Adams. In 1814, British troops set fire to the Capitol Building, where the library was housed. Retired President Thomas Jefferson offered his personal library as a replacement of the burned library. Jefferson’s concept of universality, the belief that all subjects are important to the library, is the philosophy and policy of the current Library of Congress.

The construction of the new Library of Congress building was authorized by Congress in 1866, and was built in the style of the Italian Renaissance. It was opened to the public on November 1, 1897 and was named the Thomas Jefferson Building in 1980. Here is its photo:

Dr. James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, states in his welcome message on the library’s main web page: “The Library of Congress is the nation’s oldest cultural institution and serves as the research arm of Congress. It is also the largest library in the world, with millions of books, recordings, photographs, maps, and manuscripts in its collections.”

Let’s go on a brief virtual tour. Start your visit here, at the Visitors’ Center, where volunteers like me will help with your questions. Docent led tours are offered in the Great Hall of the Thomas Jefferson Building.

Continue your tour by visiting the Caroline & Erwin Swann Memorial Exhibit Gallery for Caricature and Cartoon, the Bob Hope of American Entertainment, and the Coolidge Auditorium, which is used for free musical concerts.

Proceed to the First Floor of the Thomas Jefferson Building. If you are interested in doing research at the Library of Congress, read about registering process here. Otherwise, continue your tour by visiting the Vestibule of the Great Hall built of white Italian marble in a splendid architecture (pictured in the image bellow).

As you proceed to the East Corridor, you can explore the series of eight paintings by George Barse Jr. that represents various facets of Literature. Walking up the staircase, you will be lead to the Visitor’s Gallery, which facilitates your view of the Main Reading Room (pictured here).

Then, you will see female figures on the cupola painted by Edwin Blashfield, and which represent “Human Understanding“. There are also eight marble columns and statues that represent features of life, creation, and thought: Religion, History, Art, Commerce, Philosophy, Poetry, Law, and Science.

Next, you will visit the North Corridor of the Great Hall and will see ceiling paintings by Robert Reid representing The Five Senses, and by Charles Sprague Pearce featuring the themes of idyllic existence: The Family, Recreation (pictured bellow), Study, Labor, Religion, and Rest.

Walk to the South Corridor and notice the paintings by Henry Walker honor poets and the single youthful male figures suggested in various poems by English and American poets: Milton and Shakespeare on the north wall and Tennyson, Keats, Wordsworth and Emerson on the south side of the corridor.

You should walk to the Northwest Gallery and Pavilion, which is used for exhibitions, and then, visit the Southwest Gallery and Pavilion (Treasures Gallery), which features a permanent exhibition of the Library’s treasures of American history and cultural heritage.

Before leaving the library, be sure to visit the Members of Congress Room, the Librarian’s Room, and see the exterior of the Jefferson Building, especially the keystones of the first-story windows all around the building, the bronze doors, and the view of the U.S. Capitol.

The Library of Congress is more than a library. It is the research arm of Congress, a protector of creativity, a site on the Internet, an archives, a center for international studies, a performing art center, an exhibition gallery, a publisher, a conservator and preservation laboratory, and it is also the Nations’ Library.

As Giulia Adelfio, the head of the Office of Visitors Center, mentioned during her New Visitor Experience presentation, the Library of Congress will debut its new interactive experience for visitors in Spring 2008, making “this treasure house and its unmatched contents newly accessible through a seamless integration of content, design, and technology”.

There is so much history, art, creation, and activity in and around the Library of Congress that cannot be encompassed in a blog entry like this one. Therefore, my recommendation is that you explore its web site and interactive sites, and why not visit the library yourself and take advantage of the docent’s services.

Enjoy the tour!