December 2007

Ethnic tensions and the critical need for tolerance erupted in election riots and demonstrations in Kenya this past weekend (Jeffrey Gettleman, "Riots Batter Kenya as Rivals Declare Victory," The New York Times, 30 December 2007). The photographs Evelyn Hockstein captured of the insurrection are startlingly dramatic as most are of such violence and begs the question, "why?!" Indeed, why, when back in 2001, Filipino President Joseph Estrada became the first head of state in history to be ousted by a smart mob - without firing a single shot.

But perhaps I am missing the point...

The context of the insurrections in Kenya centers around two candidates: Mr. Kibaki (76) described as a "courtly gentleman and economics whiz" whose downfall is his unfair favoritism of the Kikuyu "at the expense of Kenya's 30-plus other ethnic groups" and Mr. Odinga (62) who supports a multi-ethnic coalition accepting the Luo just as equally as the Kikuyu and the other ethnicities of Kenya. Odinga's party will not concede defeat if it is so announced.

So the issue remains in Kenya: ethnic tolerance at any price, though the means be through a gripping and devastating violence.

Referring back to the revolutions and counter-revolutions of our world-historical past, it is a recurring turn of events that revolutions beginning with cries for and the mission of liberation often turn to conservatism when successfully in power, only to be faced with a counter-revolutionary insurgency crying for that same liberation that then becomes a form of conservatism, totalitarianism, or even fascism, and so the cycle continues...

...and this is especially apparent when such revolutions are gained through violence.

Again, juxtapose this historical past against technological revolutions (revolutions won through electronic technology and without an ounce of bloodshed) and the question arises again: "Why is the past still with us? Why are the unnecessary violence, bloodshed, and lives lost plagueing us, as if by curse?"

In Venezuela, the words of a student protester ring like a clarion call and yet another unnecessary bloody stain of sacrifice on the pages of present history:

"I'm scared but freedom is as valuable as life" (Enrique Krauze, "Humanizing the Revolution," The New York Times, 30 December 2007).

The student activists against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, called "chamos", apparently are calling for a liberal democracy of the 18th Century humanist variety, with the following agenda:

1) to fight for the vindication of civil and human rights;

2) to fight for the poor;

3) to propose their concrete plans for developing the country; and

4) to fight for a reconciliation across divisions of their society.

...All of this against the context of preceding student movements holding fictional character, Sachka Yegulev who sacrificed his life for liberty, as their ideal. And as the vicious cycle persisted with those movements, their first embrace of Yegulev was exchanged for an open-hearted adoption of Lenin once in power...

...it remains to time to see if the chamas will pave a truly humanist direction, persevering with their goals for a liberal democracy...

Just as the fight for freedom is battling out in the international arena, quite the opposite turn is taking effect in a supposedly liberal democracy - the United States. Indeed, cost-benefit analysis reports are being used to justify the turn to charge for erstwhile 'free' information and the battle cry will soon be heard, "set information free!"

In the struggle between distributor and producer, search engine and publisher, and visibility and control, an international coalition of publishers is proposing Automated Content Access Protocol - a new code to control information available to search engines (Noam Cohen, "Paying for Free Web Information," The New York Times, 10 December 2007). As Samuel Zell (soon to purchase the Tribune Company) aptly states:

"...content is being paid for by the newspapers and stolen by Google, et cetera....it can't last forever.[...] We're going to see new deals and new formulas in the media space that reflect the reality of cost benefit" (ibid).

When Rupert Murdoch recently announced to Australian shareholders his intent to allow free access to the Wall Street Journal's site to draw more readers and advertising revenue, his company's spokesman at headquarters and his EVP of global marketing and corporate affairs back-peddled, respectively denying knowledge of his decision and declaring the decision as not finalized (Richard Perez-Pena, "Murdoch Said to Stress Free Access to Wall St. Journal's Web Site," The New York Times, 14 November 2007).

It will be very telling to see if his promise carries through, despite the cost-benefit analysis' bottom line...

---------------------------------------------

So to the purpose of these three snapshots...

In tandem with the international arena where human life is so willingly sacrificed for ethnic tolerance and for freedom, it is a disturbingly pathetic picture we project domestically. Rather than carry forward freedoms - towards progress, success, and greater world empowerment - from a supposedly liberal democracy, we are steering towards fragmenting erstwhile ideologies and realizing an ersatz potentiality holding more sham than promise.

To what purpose?

...and so the bottom line drags formerly extoled ideals back down to the quagmire of our shadowed past...