In writing an article for DAME magazine on the art and culture of the Occupy movement, I've been in contact with a number of amazing artists across all sorts of disciplines, from music to cartooning to painting to poetry. One of the posters I'd always especially admired was "Tip of the Iceberg," created by Dave Loewenstein, a muralist, writer and printmaker based in Lawrence, Kansas. He's done wonderful community artwork, including leading the creation of a mural in Joplin, MO – planned before the devastating tornado that nearly destroyed the town. Residents picked up brushes amid the chaos of rebuilding, and together, painted hope.



Loewenstein was one among many artists who were compelled to document the Occupy protests. His posters are among the movement's most iconic – pure in form and intent, powerful metaphors. Dave mused in an email, "No one asked me to make a poster. It was a natural response... I felt a strong affinity for both the process (horizontal) and purpose (to create a more equitable and caring society), and I wanted to support and help articulate those ideas."


He continued: "I hope that my posters, and the many other excellent ones being produced, will help spread the spirit of the movement and begin to bring to it a poetic visual language that amplifies its many messages and inspires those involved. I believe that visual art, like poetry and song, has great power to energize, condemn, and question; and that part of my role as an artist, living here and now, is to have my work speak in service of the struggles and movements I support."

'occupy (the 99%)' - 30 October 2011 

Contemporary English painter Guy Denning publishes a blog entitled "A Drawing a Day." In it, he has extensively documented Occupy protests from around the world, often using photographs and news footage for reference, and isolating a single subject from among the crowd.


He emailed me today, and after (completely unnecessary) protestations that he was a visual artist, not a writer, and that it was probably best to just "share the artwork," articulated his thoughts on the Occupy drawings:


"All I was trying to do with the drawings was to take a more personal look at the people within the protests. The media so often have an agenda of portraying all such protest, particularly on western soil, as being chaotic violence and vandalism led by criminal extremists. I wanted to show that these protests were populated by ordinary people who are finding themselves in extraordinary times." 


As the West cheers populist movements like Arab Spring, it is interesting to see how uncomfortable we are with our own "uprisings." While perhaps not all of Occupy's demands are pragmatic  – or even possible – it is important that Americans continue to protect their right to organize. Check out Denning's blog, look into the faces of ordinary people, exercising their rights in extraordinary times, and be grateful for the discomfort our freedoms afford us.

Timing is Everything

This past Tuesday’s GOP primary in Iowa seemed so wildly random: candidates falling in and out of favor faster than one can learn their wives’ names. (Yes, that was a softball, go ahead: “Which wife?” or “You mean, versus that woman who wasn’t his wife?” or “Michele Bachmann doesn’t have a wife, she’s really very much against that sort of thing…”)

I had lunch with a very politically-plugged-in friend yesterday, who described the machinations behind what appeared, to the casual observer, to be chaos. The rise and fall of individuals in the pack is a carefully timed dance, he explained, designed to result in exactly the right candidate peaking at exactly the right time. For example, three days before the Tuesday vote.

Rick Santorum’s straight-outta-nowhere primary result – second to Romney by a mere 8 votes – was not an accident, nor a stroke of fortune. He was the candidate – by design – in the right place, with the right ideology, at the right moment. Neither voters nor the media had time to rummage through the skeletons in the closet. And those voters disinclined toward Romney essentially had no alternatives.

As Ezra Klein of The Washington Post’s WonkBlog noted: “By the time Iowa’s Republicans turned their attention to Santorum, they were out of viable not-Romneys.”

If one follows my friend’s argument that all primary candidates’ finishes are pre-determined by the party, Santorum’s second-place finish would be an all-out endorsement of Romney as the GOP’s offering for president. Because despite the strong finish in the Iowa primary, Santorum in un-electable. Nine simple reasons are captured in this week’s copy of The Week.

Although none of them is a sweater vest. So make that ten.

Neda's Revolution, as Seen on Twitter

What a fascinating day... welcome to a brand-new CNN, completely powered by citizen journalism.

What does a network do when a foreign government forbids news coverage? You look to people on the ground to provide a view into what's happening – and the video, photos and tweets from Iran have been incredible to watch – inspiring, stunning, horrifying. CNN reporters seem to be more than a little freaked out – it's certainly not their style to report unsubstantiated news obtained through non-fact-checked channels – but they're rolling with it as best they can. Updates come from Mousavi's Facebook page, from Flickr, YouTube and Twitter updates collected on Hashtags.org. CNN just broadcast a camera-phone video of the death of Neda Soltani, reportedly (from the street, obviously) a 27-year-old philosophy student, watching the protests with her father. Her emergence as a galvanizing symbol of the protests in Tehran was instantaneous and global – a user-generated version of the news footage of the lone man before a tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Yes, technology has revolutionized politics in the U.S. The next great frontier: how it revolutionizes... revolution. Truly, for the first time, the whole world is watching.

13 Million Friends Can't Be Wrong

You know how marketers are always looking to collect email addresses from their loyal customers, in order to communicate with them in some more personal, relevant way – and get them to buy more stuff? I was recently reading a post-mortem on the digital aspects of President Obama's presidential campaign, and was dumbfounded to discover that there are over 13 million people on his email list. (Additionally, he collected over 5 million "friends" across 15 social networking sites – including 3 million on Facebook alone – and more than 3 million mobile phone numbers in response to the campaign's text messaging program.)

13 million email addresses.

What do you do with all that connectivity? How do you harness those digital masses that, having sworn their allegiance, await the activation bat-signal?

The group Organizing for America, which is overseen by the Democratic National Committee, put that email list to work last week. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager and the man credited with its brilliant use of digital channels, wrote in a March 13 message to The List: "In the next few weeks we'll be asking you to do some of the same things we asked of you during the campaign." Namely, to mobilize within their communities on behalf of the president's agenda.

We saw what that fan club did to power Obama to the presidency. It will be fascinating to see what they can do when pointed at such complex and polarizing policy issues as the budget, the bailout or the deficit. Are we a nation who responds better to paternalistic distribution of our national policy – or to peer pressure? Another example of participatory government at its most interesting. (Note: I had to edit this, like, a hundred times to get most the words starting with "p" out of the last paragraph. Another example of alliteration at its most coincidental.)

Stewart v. Cramer: That's Entertainment!

A friend recently forwarded the 8-minute clip of Jon Stewart's "interview" with CNBC's Jim Cramer on The Daily Show. Although Viacom has since yanked the clip from YouTube distribution, you can view it in its entirety on The Huffington Post. Stewart assumed the role of the outraged American public, while Cramer sat as surrogate for the shamed financial industry.

Stewart's rage is absolutely justified, obviously. We The People continue to bear the brunt of Wall Street misdeeds. But the part I found interesting (beyond the question of why Jim Cramer rolls his shirt sleeves up... so... high) is Stewart's attack on the journalistic integrity of CNBC, and specifically, Jim Cramer himself. The implication was that the financial news network was "in bed" with Wall Street, and therefore its views were tainted and self-serving. That Cramer was an insider, expressing opinions that – while perhaps not benefiting him personally – demonstrated a vested interest in protecting the status quo of Wall Street.

Stewart seemed to take particular umbrage at Cramer's style of delivery on his show, "Mad Money": "I know you want to be entertaining. But it's not a fucking game."

There's an amusing irony here. Consider the following observation on the Stewart-Cramer bout, posted by Daniel Sinker, Journalism faculty member at Columbia College in Chicago on March 13, 2009 on The Huffington Post:
"You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it."

Rightly so. And thinking back to the days before the election, and the considerable role entertainers and pundits (and sometimes comedians posing as journalists) had in shaping public opinion on candidates and issues, one might also note that political parody in the name of entertainment is no game, either. I know they want to "be entertaining" and all, but...

Those who live in glass houses may reconsider their own role in the collapse of trust in "modern media" before casting the first stone.

Read the Small Print

After kvetching about the deafening silence of citizen journalists on the stimulus plan, I was forwarded an interesting link, under the subject line "Hooray for our first Digital President" (thanks, Ruby).

Recovery.gov offers a "totally transparent" view into the distribution of tax dollars toward economic growth. The data purports to allow the taxpayer to track our government's progress every step of the way, and invites feedback on what is, and isn't, working in terms of how the Recovery Act is affecting we-the-people.

There's an amusing chart that shows the breakdown (in billions) of the distributed funds. The general categories of investment are Tax Relief ($228B), State and Local Fiscal Relief ($144B), Infrastructure and Science ($111B), Protecting the Vulnerable ($81B), Health Care ($59B), Education and Training ($53B) and Energy ($43B). And there's a rounding error of $8B dedicated toward something called "Other."

Funny thing is the footnote. I'll paste it here, resisting the urge to make it reallllly tiny:
* Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy.

So technically, that's only $105B in Tax Relief, which seems mainly to be a category loaded with funds better categorized in other categories.

At least the footnotes are transparent, if not the headlines.

Oh, and issues with clarity aside, Recovery.com a pretty amazing tool for citizens to observe the working of their government. Just be careful what you wish for.

Government "By the People"

It took a while to recover from the election. And then there was that pregnant period between election and inauguration. All the focus on fashion, exhausting.

So here we are back in real life. The economy has tanked, thanks to a perfect storm of greed, irresponsibility, and well... because shit happens. Our new government has prepared and is in the midst of approving a recovery and reinvestment plan designed to stimulate the economy, ostensibly loaded with projects designed to create millions of jobs and loads o' commerce.

But because no opportunity to move a personal agenda forward can go unseized, we have instead a bill loaded with programs and projects which will have no immediate (and possibly no ever) effect on the economy. What causes stimulation? Adrenaline. A shock to the system. Yes, you can invest in grammar school education, and yes, it may improve the quality of the workforce in twenty years. But does it cause the market to reverse its slide? Companies to begin investing in growth and hiring? Consumers to begin consuming again?

This past election cycle brought a revolution in participatory government. Candidates were dissected, platforms compared point-by-point. The People asked questions of the government-to-be in thousands of digital forums – and the government had no choice but to answer. We saw a true "election by the people" – WE decided on the issues that politicians needed to talk about. WE created cultural movements to which they were compelled to respond. WE finally had a platform through which every one of us could engage in the process of shaping our future.

Now here we are, in government as usual. And the voices that shaped the election are silent.

Digital America, where did you go?

On Forgiving Hollywood

I don't know about you, but I've always been irrationally irritated by celebrities telling me... well, really, anything. Anything that wasn't scripted, and directed. And edited. I'm not interested in the out-takes.

I've written about the relationship between celebrity culture and politics in the past. It's certainly a powerful thing. Will.i.am's lovely and moving ode to Barack Obama, "Yes, We Can" is celebuganda (that sounded better in my head than it looks in writing) at its finest.

So I was ready to hate on the "Don't Vote" video making the rounds on social networks this week. Another 2 minutes of preachy, uniformed, judgmental, arrogant SEAN PENNs, for god's sake.

Well, for starters, it was WAY over 2 minutes. And it was... compelling. And not preachy. And sort of... sincere. And funny. And if I weren't already registered to vote, I would have done so. Because I hate keeping Leo waiting.

Art & Understanding

Our friend Glenn Sanders has created a cool blog in celebration of political art. Called "Political Poster: The Art of the Campaign," Glenn's collecting images related to the current presidential election, posters for-and-against both tickets.

I touched on the subject of political art in a prior post, but in light of the rapidly expanding body of work related to the 2008 campaign, wanted to offer some additional thoughts on the subject.

Politically-themed art is designed to provoke; to offer ideas and stimulate thinking. To agitate on behalf of a person or position. It uses a simple visual language to communicate vast notions. It reflects culture's zeitgeist. But it also, obviously, intends to shape it.

In the excellent blog "Running Yellow Lights," its author discusses the weaknesses inherent in political art:

"Art runs into problems when it stops trying to answer questions of what values we should hold and instead answers how we should get there. Art can tell us it’s a bad thing people are poor; it cannot tell us whether the government can fix it. Art can tell us to consider divinity; it cannot tell us to support churches with the state.

"Believing art can have any impact on whether we should end a specific war or support free market capitalism misses this point entirely... Art cannot reasonably answer political questions. It can sway political questions as to the values one should fight for, such as the what and the why. Through more effective means we can answer the questions of the whether, the how, and the how much... The communicative role of art is essential and important in the way we may form values, but it should never grasp pretensions of being better than empirics and logic in defining the feasibility of the means that may emerge from the values."

A gorgeous way of saying: do not rely on the simplistic idealization of issues to form your opinions. Posters just frame the question; your actual political views should not fit on a t-shirt. The road to change is not a slogan: it requires the hard work of understanding.

When Social Networking Gets Dirty

Social networking has provided a generous playground for the cyber bully. A friend who works as CMO for a great organization called CommonSenseMedia.org – an online resource for families who are looking for kid-friendly, parent-approved content – has found she's also educating parents on what happens between kids on the web: gossip and innuendo, anonymous reputation-destruction, false identities. Bullying moves from the schoolyard to MySpace.

I recently was sent a link to a blog which has been created on behalf of Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Entitled "Welcome to the PalinDrome," it purports to tell Palin's story in her own voice. I appreciate satire – a lot, actually – but this seems more like anonymous bullying than deft wielding of the "weapon of wit."

Decorated with amusing images of howling wolves, Sarah's psedoblogger waxes on cosmetic preferences (including the beer rinse which keeps one's hair shiny), possible baby names ("Cialis. Bristol just made this one up. Isn't it pretty?") and her unnamed opponent's history of "helping people in the ghetto avoid paying their electricity bills."

Yup, it's funny. But mean funny. And frankly, an unreturnable volley. The idea of assuming another's identity in order to mock them is a swell idea, but imagine its use against our current Democratic presidential candidate. Apparently it's not white men, but white trash, who are the last unprotected class.

Jay Leno... David Letterman... Okay, Craig R. Smith Speaks Out

Perhaps I should start by saying I'm not a big Leno fan. Mostly because I can't stay awake that late. But there's a curious email thread working its way around the internet, which neatly reinforced the political power of a media personality – coincidently condemning the very media that created him. The subject line in the email I received: "A Perspective by Jay Leno." Jay Leno, huh? I opened it.

First of all: it's mis-attributed. Snopes.com has seen the story credited to David Letterman as well as Leno, but its author was actually Craig R. Smith, an author and political commentator of somewhat lesser renown. But who forwards an email from Craig Smith? Hell, it sounds like an alias. Although one might have had a clue that the famous rarely bite the hand that feeds them, or at least live to tell the tale.

Attaching celebrity gives the message exponential power. Think about Yahoo! Answers, and the questions posed by personalities from Bono to Stephen Hawking to Al Gore. They attracted tens of thousands into a conversation that, had the topic been posed by me, would have been as well-read as this blog.

The article by Craig Smith is long, but well worth a read, in consideration of both the cultural cachet of fame in the political arena, as well as a gentle reminder that we should be grateful every day for what we have.

Oh – and the article's actual title?: "Made in the USA: Spoiled Brats."

Politics and the Olympics

Back to the funny papers again...

An ad agency network recently experienced a rather awkward public clash of conflicting sentiment toward China.  Two offices serve very large global clients with Olympic sponsorships.  A third has a long-standing relationship with Amnesty International.  Each produced work on behalf of their respective client – and understandably, demonstrated very different points of view on the nature of humanity.

The Olympics, despite protestations that it is an apolitical celebration of athleticism, transcending boundaries and skirmishes, petty and otherwise, is about flags.  Anthems.   Nationalism.  And beating ("smashing!" say the French swimmers) other countries.  Sounds almost... warlike... when you think about it.  Politics continues to overshadow these games, as it has many before, from Moscow to Berlin to Mexico City.

Prickly City (not to be confused with Mexico City) is a politically-conservative comic strip that runs in the LA Times.  It's theme over the past week or so has been China and the Olympics – and notably, China's relationship with Tibet.  After kicking off the series with the strip shown above, each subsequent day has featured an end panel in which one of the characters is viewed through prison bars.  

Human rights makes strange bedfellows.  Tibet: it's not just for liberals anymore.  And it's not going away because we're pretending the Olympics isn't political.

Wag the Dog

What if John Edwards secretly arranged for Russia to send troops into Georgia in order to distract from media coverage of his illicit affair?  

And damn that Fox News, for refusing to take the bait.  

Watch this great clip, in which Gregg Jarrett interviews Bonnie Erbe of PBS.  His dogged commitment to delivering a titillating piece on Edwards is impressive, as he repeatedly rebuffs Erbe's attempt to insert substance into the discussion.

The SmackTalk Express

John McCain has become well known for his stream-of-consciousness campaign-bus gabfest, the "Straight Talk Express."  His ability to engage – nay, enchant – the media in this oddly informal group format has been one of the strongest aspects of a generally weak campaign.  Vanity Fair recently noted this phenomenon in an article by James Wolcott called "Mad About the Guy," describing the almost irrational attraction grown men (in particular) feel for McCain when they meet him in person – in contrast to the Beatles-like mass hysteria induced by Obama.

Although clearly, the bromance doesn't extend to the relationship between the two candidates themselves.  Beyond the obligatory cordial mutual-respect thing, and the predictable sniping of "celebrity" versus "old guy," the Obama organization has created a unique criticism-debunking tool: The Low Road Express, a virtual Snopes.com of Obama rumor and innuendo.  It's motto, "Seen a low blow?  Let us know!," suggests a comrade-lite approach to keeping an eye on your neighbor's propaganda.

Paris for President

OMG (as they say) – this is the best freakin' thing I've seen in this campaign.  Actually, in any campaign, ever.

McCain's "celebrity" ads have been garnering a lot of attention, comparing Obama to shallow mononomial paparazzi-magnets like Paris and Britney.  The Yes, he's The One, but is he Ready to Lead? message. It's oddly compelling, if not exactly platform-differentiating.  I'd been hoping for something of substance soon.

Well today, Paris was the one that stepped up.

Her response video is brilliant.  And OMG again: Paris has the most sound energy policy that's been put forth by any candidate this election.  She's like, totally got my vote.

I Look Like Facebook

Just read an article on Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook, who left the company in early 2007 to work on the Obama campaign.  He's been harnessing the power of the online masses in a way that Howard Dean's campaign only dreamed of, turning MyBarackObama.com into a hub of organizing, networking, fundraising and rumor-debunking.  (More on the rumor-debunking part later – his organization is running a veritable Snopes.com of negative press on the candidate, which is nothing short of revolutionary campaign management.)

There was an interesting reference in the article regarding a comment made by Clinton's campaign advisors, when she was still in the race.  They minimized the impact of the Obama supporter  base and its Internet roots; Mark Penn was attributed with the quote "They look like Facebook."  He expanded: "Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state."

What I Meant to Say Was...

My pal and colleague Robbie recently sent the following to me:

"If you're as fascinated as me about the role of the web in this year's big election, check this out:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/mccain-campaign.html."

One of the most effective tactics a politician can use against an opponent is to show them contradicting themselves.  To that end, an automated "change-tracking" service called Versionista has been employed by the McCain campaign to compare Barack Obama's tweaks to his policy statements regarding the Iraq War.  Versionista is based on the same concept as Wikipedia – that encyclopedia of democracy – where updates people make to entries are followed over time so you can watch the world argue with itself over what constitutes the "truth."

Back in November, the DNC launched "Flipper TV," the video equivalent of Versionista, which pools and compares campaign footage filmed by citizen journalists with digital cameras.  The idea behind both concepts is to capture contradictions that candidates make during campaigns.

Check out the article; it's an interesting side-by-side comparison of how a candidate's views reflect the audience they're addressing and the changes in popular opinion that influence their rhetoric... This is what mash-ups were meant for: using technology to help you evaluate your options. 

Welcome Back, Gary Trudeau

Is there any form of political discourse more enchanting that the cartoon?  What a righteous tradition of satire and commentary, celebration and commemoration. 

As I'm probably the only person who still reads the LA Times in paper format, I always feel compelled to share with others what cartoonists are talking about.  My husband finds this totally unfunny.  Interestingly, the Times is almost pathologically "fair" in its balance of liberal and conservative political viewpoints in the funny pages.  For that matter, it equally represents nearly every ethnicity, race, gender, age and sexual orientation, including talking animals of both the mammalian and reptilian persuasion.  Never have I seen such democracy in action as in the LA Times comics.

But to the point: Gary Trudeau went on a sabbatical for a while.  And I felt like I'd lost my perspective on things.  

If you've followed him over the decades, you've watched him, for lack of a better word, mellow.  His observations, while still delivered on the tip of a razor-sharp scalpel, are more considered.  For example, while his disdain for the Bush administration is as pointed as ever, his commentary on the war in Iraq – and more accurately, the soldiers in Iraq – is heartbreakingly beautiful.  I poked around on his site to find out how long he'd be incommunicado, and I found a really surprising thing: a section on doonesbury.com called The Sandbox.  It's a blog made available to servicepeople in Iraq and Afganistan, allowing them to document their experiences and thoughts for readers around the world.  It's a treasure.

Welcome back, Gary.  All is right in the world again.

Softball

I'm feeling ranty today, regarding the frustrating state of political debate.  As the blogosphere twitters on about yet another piece of campaign propaganda, I wonder why people who profess to have a genuine interest in how technology and the political process have intertwined can so easily become cheerleaders for its lowest-common-denominator use.

If you think of Yahoo!'s candidate mash-up from earlier this year, you saw a brilliant use of technology to help people form educated opinions.  While it's certainly the nature of culture – and especially digital culture – to create memes, it's just so... intellectually lazy.

Today's poster child is the video "I'm Voting Republican."  It's a kind of sophomoric attempt to frame the right as the source of all evil, not to mention quite mindless in their pursuit thereof.  As of this morning, it's been viewed by over 3 million people.  Understandably, it's been commented on by nearly 30,000.  The discourse is not exactly give-and-take, nor especially eloquent (my personal favorite rebuttal: "I'm voting Democrat because I want free stuff.  Abortion is murder."), it's a fairly predictable response to polarizing campaign rhetoric.

If your attempt to position yourself by framing your opposition, expect the counter-attack.  It's Marketing 101.  If you claim to stand for something great by claiming your opponent stands for something worse, you don't change minds.  And so we death-spiral into five months of unenlightening generalization-lobbing.  I feel sorry for those folks who really do want the kind of meaningful information that can help them decide, if this is what cheerfully passes for "campaigning."