« Philanthropic Planning for Art Collections | Main | Here Comes the L3C Structure for Social Investment »

April 11, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JJ Commoner

I won't be able to listen tomorrow, but may I presume it will be archived as a link to an mp3 ?

JJ Commoner

Oops .. I slid right past sentence #3.

Sorry for being a sloppy pest.


Ah, shoot, I was going to call you and see if you could listen in to ask a few questions. If you happen back this way before then, do you have a question you would like me to ask of Catherine on your behalf?

O Lucky Man

"When were you last profoundly surprised? By what, or whom?"


Thanks, lucky man. Want to call in and ask it yourself?

O Lucky Man

Nah, better not. Been losing friends lately.


You might one or two. In your desperate straits what have you got to lose?

O Lucky Man

No can do, chief. Too weepy at the moment.


"What is the relationship between shame and mourning?

(It occurs to me that shame may entail a mourning for what one thought one was.)

Must we feel shame, a mourning of our fallen selves, before we can move on?

Can this ever be sponsored on a national level?"


Well, in that case, I understand.


There is also a chat function, if that it easier for one in mourning.


Hey, I'm there and I can't figure out how to call in and get on the air with you and Catherine.


Sorry you couldn't figure it out. The call in number is always going to be (646) 200-4945. Were you able to access the audio?


Yes, I called that number and it put me on a line with the show audio and nothing else. How do you know when calls come in? Who puts people through?

I'm interested in trying it out myself and am wondering what the experience is for someone creating a show. Did you just call in on a standard phone line?


Were you watching the show chat during? I was trying to contact you that way too.


I should have been watching chat, but forgot to do it. If you got on the line, I should have seen that on the screen. I probably failed to do that. I did look at it, but maybe did not keep my eye on it all the time. When the call comes in, the phone number shows up on the host's "switchboard." The host then clicks on the call and it comes on.
There are about 5 lines that can be opened and closed. So, you could do a 5 way conference call, or panel.


Interesting, so it is a webapp then? I am interested in trying out similar, and a colleague may be interested in doing extensions to the OS phone server (asterisk). The cool thing about going to digital channels is you can get higher voice quality almost for free. You need to find a way to make your voice louder on the line too.


Yes, a webapp.


What I remember wanting to ask is about whether/how transparency can work against the corruption. Or maybe not transparency on its own, I suppose it has to always be backed up by collective action. The current generation of tools, blogs, wikis and community sites and even the newer stuff makes that possible, but the tools start to get in the way as much as they help unless things are more coordinated (story ref: Tower of Babel).

I know we can do better, we can design tools and systems that give people the power to organize and coordinate action in any context. And of course the systems are only half of it, it is the use practices that actually constitute the site of group action.

We intend to design tools that are "person centric", that respect our sovereignty in choosing our participation (not only our specific actions, but also as related to data retained by the systems and how it is collected and exposed. Transparency does not mean there is no privacy, it is more about frictionless access to public data wherever it is.


Good goals, Gerry. The call for transparency seems to apply to us who have little of value to hide. Why would those who handle state secrets and corporate secrets be transparent? In fact, they are more likely to call for tighter and tighter controls. Some of this gets back to whistle blowers, inside sources for investigative reporters, wikileaks, etc. I don't see things trending towards that kind of unmasking, quite the contrary. In general it seems the lid is screwed down tighter than ever before.


I'm not planning on forcing transparency on anyone, I'm not really much into force these days. Transparency is a commitment from organizations and institution who intend to build trust with their communities. It creates something that is extremely valuable. The more or us who start to work this way, to only choose to work with people, organizations and institutions who also choose to work this way, the more is apparent about the rest.

Whether or not they adopt transparency, their motives are transparent just the same.


Does government get transparent too? If so, we have a long way to go. Transparency is what we have learned to live with on the net. We are on record in unguarded moments. But money and power move effortlessly in the safe places outside of public scrutiny. There are two sets of rules, two sets of norms, and your acceptance or rejection of them makes no difference to those who call the shots. Your opinion was not asked, you have no favors to trade. You make no campaign contributions. You can't unmask them because you have access to no inside information. What does have leverage, I think, is when those who have mastered an insiders game, go transparent. I would put Matrullo, Catherine Austin Fitts, and my friend the Happy Tutor in that set. For such improprieties, the powers that be have decreed the Dumpster, neither inside nor outside their domain, but on the margins, and awaiting the impending Truck.


What's different is that now it is possible for the dumpster dwellers to coordinate better. Transparency happens to everyone, even the insiders in the end.

You should check out Brunner's "Shockwave Rider". A fiction losely based on "Future Shock" and from around the same time. All the information pollution (the accumulated refuse of transparency and random losses of hard drives with sensitive data) sort of becomes alive by the end of it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Wealth Bondage Premium Content

  • Castle by the Sea
    Provided as a professional courtesy at no extra charge to those with net worth of $25 million or more and/or family income of $500,000 a year or more, and to their Serving Professionals of all genders.