Welcome to Open Source Politics

Last night saw a fantastic shift in the direction of politics with the introduction of a debate involving questions posted on YouTube which meant that for the first time, at least in outward appearance, the country's true questions were answered. The magnitude of this debate is great in that it was the first political debate on a large, nationally televised stage that encouraged the active involvement of common people in the shaping of political policy and the priorities of issues in the coming election.

The irony of course is the fact that it has been quite some time since we've seen such a public display of, well...democracy.

So with the facilitation of such a debate generating a buzz among my peers and I about the concept that the candidates in the coming elections are taking relatively unedited, difficult, and relevant questions on the issues that the public truly cares about, what's next? Obviously, if we entertained every single whim of every joe blow with a microphone and a webcam, the government would become a confusing and disjointed place.

Like Linux?

For those who have never heard about it, Linux is an open-source operating system, which means that as the operating system develops, it does so by the work of anyone who wants to pick up the program and edit it. The concept is that by the collective work on applications and the core code of the Linux operating system, we will end up with a desktop environment that tailors to the true needs of the people who use it: anyone who touches a computer. This means that everyone can take part in shaping their computing future.

Yes, I'm a geek.

As a user of Ubuntu, which is a "flavor" or specific version of Linux, I enjoyed my short trip down an exciting new path in computers. My only complaints with Linux were these:

1. The programs seemed unvarnished. Not as "pretty" as other programs that I had used and so I had a harder time accepting them as quality.
   
2. The support for different filetypes was limited and there was no "one size fits all" program to take care of the problem. This meant searching far and wide for a myriad of software that perhaps clashed with one another.
3. Sometimes the programs I used were singular in that they only worked as long as no other manipulation had occured with the core of the operating system. The programmers sometimes seemed to disregard the universality of the open-source system.

My overall impression was that, though the concept was great that people could have open access to programs and edit them as they pleased, there was no universal standard to govern the programs and make sure that they all worked.

The idea that a universal body needs to exist for individual projects to work cohesively exists in the government of course. Bureaucracies have been formed to iron out the problems, but because of the paperwork and gap-bridging that has to occur for policies to work together, the government can often be slow and cumbersome.

Like Windows?

Windows uses a number of programs that help do just that. Should a program conflict with some component of the operating system, Windows uses several programs that take resources to operate and smooth out the inconsistencies, therefore slowing down the computer.

So where's the balance?

The people that want to create policy in this country have to go through the appropriate channels, and by the time that this all gets funneled into a legislative body, the originally proposed concept may be a far cry from its manifestation on the senate floor. Unfortunately, the people who wish to make change often feel that they have to know the right people (acquire the right licenses), know the code (somehow scrape together enough knowledge of the system to even write a policy), and then try to sell it with pretty packaging.

Let's face it, the system is imperfect and it is absurd to think that it could ever be perfect. But last night, at least for a couple of hours, the tools were given to people to start shaping policy:

1. Questions were asked, unedited, through open submission in a public forum
2. Ideas were presented to candidates so that they can begin writing the "code"
3. The candidates were able to take the suggested idea and translate it into the language of public policy with the eloquence that can help sell the idea
4. The translation took place on a very public stage an in broad viewing of public scrutiny to ensure that the questions were answered
   
5. The whole process was done with the concept that democracy embodies: that the collective thoughts of the public can help create the best America possible

The new age of politics is an exciting one and it seems historically ironic that it should begin now with the open-source movement and the advent of massive social networks like digg.com, YouTube, and Facebook. Ultimately, the beauty of a project like Linux is that through the mass involvement of users, the programs will be released that help deal with these problems. Hopefully, as candidates open their minds to wide acceptance of public interest, instead of licensing conflicts, the idea conceptualized by the constitution will become a reality. The government should never compromise a degree of bureaucracy that streamlines the process, but the true realization of government will only occur when the tools to create policy are made open to the public as they were during last night's CNN debate.

We can hope that this is only the beginning.

You KNOW Why We are in Iraq

The other day I found myself in a political debate with a friend of mine.

It was an ordinary debate, with "facts". Basically, we threw "what we've heard" back and forth at each other to the entertainment of the people in the room. I "cited" some evidence and he did the same in return. Two college kids with ideology in hand, trying to work each other over in a mental arm-wrestling match the equivalent of the Arm-Wrestling National Qualifiers in BFE, Utah. Because let's face it, without a computer in front of us, we really just tend to go with what we think we read in passing on a political editorial website.

The debate was about the political spin of CNN. He argued that they were a liberal news syndicate while I argued that, though that is sometimes true, they tend to give a conservative perspective on issues like Michael Moore's SiCKO, and Global Warming, bringing on Dr. Gupta to give a loaded editorial on the topic. I mused "so if you haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', then how can you know whether Gupta is right or not?" He said, "I don't have to know about Global Warming. It's CNN; Dr. Gupta's doing the research for me."

My friend is a rising leader in the state of Iowa with a penchant for conservative thought and as I listened to him reply with utter certainty on the media, public opinions from self-purported experts, and gobble up the social "givens" about news organizations and policy, I wondered, how many other people suffer from this disease of "utter certainty"?

Iraq still isn't stable. This is not the only report that proves so. And everybody knows it. And even as the GOP begins to jump ship on the war in Iraq, the president and conservative legislators continue to talk about escalation, long-term occupation, and our "success" in liberating the Iraqi people.

We're facing an organization of people who's complete and all-encompassing religious convictions drive them to destroy anything and everyone who believes differently. Their utter religious certainty tells them that they will be martyred if they kill themselves trying to stop us. But we know in our religions that this just isn't so. We're utterly certain of it.

Even now that public opinion is souring and projections for the war are bleak as ever, the president and administration show no remorse for their actions because they are utterly certain that we will...well...do a number of things I guess. A small constituency of people (the percentage keeping the president's approval ratings afloat) has followed the White House through every phase of the invasion despite the ever changing mission statement of Iraq. They've never questioned the logic of the war or the idea that our invasion and decimation of an entire country is going to provide them some kind of rise-from-the-ashes rebirth into freedom.

The best way to fight a war is to demonize your enemy. But in the case of the Iraq war, are we really all that different from the people we fight? We both possess strong religious convictions, we are both fighting for what we believe is right, and we both believe in altruistic ideals of freedom, we just see the issue from two different perspectives.

Ultimately, the issue is that we are "utterly certain" that the decision to invade Iraq was right. We are "utterly certain" that what the news tells us is true. We are "utterly certain" that the president of the United States would never lie or deceive about something as big as a war. We are "utterly certain" that what isn't in our backyard can't directly affect us.

But it has. The mentalities that the United States developed by making the decision to invade a foreign country for its own good have now infected everyone. We are a people that are more self-important than ever. We are even less concerned with the international consequences of our actions. We are even more bombastic in our political convictions and even less partisan in our discussions. We are now more than ever convinced that there is a "right" way to handle policy, religion, and problems.

From Iraq to the media and beyond, our personal convictions are stronger than ever. We as a country stay in a course of action until the only obvious answer is staring us in the face, regardless of all tangible indicators of failure along the way. We have suffered the consequences of an era of "utter certainty" and it's time to begin doubting ourselves.

Agree? Disagree? Different opinion altogether? Let's discuss.