***Entry 56***
Friday, September 27, 2002
11:04 a.m.
Well...at this point I would say that most of my friends were arrested. I've been getting all these breaking news calls that are so ridiculous. People are getting beaten. Thrown. Assaulted. This is so so so scary. It reminds me of how I felt when everyone I knew was arrested in Philly...I need to consolidate my thoughts into something coherent but I'm struggling...seriously struggling... zoe

***Entry 55***
Friday, September 27, 2002
07:26 a.m.
I'm in the DC IMC space in Adams Morgan. I don't want to be arrested so I am playing the dispatch role and typing up the breaking news from the streets on this very interesting day.
I haven't slept more than 3 hours in the past two days. I'm exhausted and ridiculously incoherent. Wish me luck or bring me coffee.

***Entry 54***
Thursday, September 26, 2002
03:18 p.m.
It's raining in Washington, DC. I spent two hours driving from my school back into the city. The traffic was terrible and visibility was seriously poor. I had to drive slowly and cautiously. It gave me far too much time to think about various things and to vaguely connect them together. Be prepared for a strange and personal entry.
Last night I watched the West Wing season premiere. It was a little two long to be effective, but there was a moment when Josh and Toby are in a bar in some bummy midwestern town listening to a random bar patron talk about his life. The random man talked about how his family's combined income of $75,000 wasn't enough to send his daughter to college, how he struggled to pay his bills, etc. The important thing was that he didn't know that Josh and Toby worked "for the White House" and yet, he gave them the perfect campaign idea. The small town guy didn't want everything, he just wanted things to be easier.
I had a long conversation with Prof. Christine Adams at my school today. She asked me if I was going to be hitting the streets to report on this weekend's protests. I told her that I wasn't sure yet. I mentioned that I have my rewrite of Chapter 1 due on Monday and I would rather work on that, than get attacked by the police. On the other hand, I also noted that I write about protests because I feel like I have to. The corporate media almost always covers these protests negatively and activists almost always produce propaganda masking as "reporting." I criticize both sides. I tend to think of myself as unique in that way.
How do these two things relate? That's the story of my ride home. I was thinking about how most activists that I meet are always saying the world will only be better if: end sexism, racism, homophobia, and classism, there is universal health care, no homeless people, free food, no state, no corporations, no banks, a healthier environment, better education systems...etc...etc...etc...In other words, unless we can fix all the problems of society, we will not be able to make things better. (Key point here...not all activists want the same things and even if they do, they disagree on how to accomplish them...) But, following the West Wing last night, that's not what most people want. If anything, most people just want their lives to be a little easier.
There's been a lot of speculation that the protest tomorrow will wreck havoc upon DC. The police are closing off streets around the World Bank and IMF tonight. The federal government has encouraged people to take the day off or telecommute. Regardless of whether the protesters successfully shut down the cityon their own or with the unintentional help of various government agencies, this whole scenario is not going to rid society of all of its evils. And it is not going to make it easier for average working people.
It's raining in Washington, DC and I wonder if I think too much.

***Entry 53***
Thursday, September 26, 2002
12:19 a.m.
News Channel 4 reported @ 11pm Wednesday night that Jack Evans Restaurant Bill (see ***Entry 45*** below) did not make it out of committee. It was apparently withdrawn pending further analysis of the issue. Victory! (I searched for the link on their site but I didn't find anything. If I find something, I will post it...) Meanwhile, the Post has printed this story which gives a little more background into the issue.

***Entry 52***
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
07:48 p.m.
After my negative experience with the Bill Bradley campaign in Manchester, NH, I had disavowed electoral politics in favor of protesting and writing. However, when Adam Eidinger asked me last January if I would be willing to be the manager of his campaign for U.S. "Shadow" Representative for DC, I said "yes" instinctively. I wasn't so sure what I was getting myself into though. Was it going to be an issue oriented campaign focusing on the plight of DC citizens and how to resolve it? Or was it going to be a vaguely traditional candidate centered campaign? Months later, I finally have an answer to those questions.
Former Hawk Now Uses Skills to Hunt for Justice This is the headline on Courtland Milloy's column today. The column is about Adam's transformation from mainstream political organizing to social justice activism and running for office. This piece is remarkable in and of itself; however, given the negative coverage of the anti-corporate globalization movement and those associated with it in recent days, this piece is even more unique. Read it. Enjoy it. And thank Courtland Milloy for being a fabulous journalist.
I generally don't quote from emails I receive on this site, but Adam sent this out to a very long list of recipients in response to the column--including some that publically archive emails. I want to thank everyone who has given me guidence over the years. What the article doesn't say is that my transformation would have never happened without the wisdom of so many strong willed progressives (and Anarchists) who set me straight on issues of war, justice, racism and economics.
The answer to my above question is that Adam's campaign is doing both: it's using new and traditional tactics to focus on the issues, but Adam is a candidate for a *political* office. After reading this piece anyone who cares about DC democracy can see that Adam is the best candidate for the job. I am happy to be affiliated with this campaign.

***Entry 51***
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
01:48 p.m.
Back on the IMF/WB protest front: The Post is reporting that over 20,000 people will be in town this weekend for the protests. Although this number apparently comes from authoritiesno one I've talked to (including an MPD press liasion and some of the *actual* organizers) has been able to pin down an estimate.
One of the funniest things from the article: The group is also calling for road blockages at traffic circles and intersections. Protest plans issued this month called for actions at Metro stations, but organizers say community activists have voiced concerns that this would affect working-class people heading to their jobs.
Road blockages at traffic circles? Doesn't that happen daily? Working-class people on the train? Anyone whose ever taken the metro knows its much more diverse than that. Blocking the roads will disrupt the bus lines--which are frequented in a much higher percentage by working class people. Oh well...

***Entry 50***
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
01:22 p.m.
I stated in ***Entry 49*** below that there were better examples of what I was trying to say or at least some more information I could provide. After a little searching... I've found some...
the Christian Science Monitor states: All this freedom to pontificate is causing a stir in media circles. There's some debate about whether blogs are a threat, but others in the media see them as an outlet for those who don't usually get heard.
Rebecca Blood has written some interesting ethical blogging stuff is here. It also includes some commentary on blogging. I mentioned this Public Interest segment in ***Entry 17*** in Week 2 but I refer back to it now because it links to a lot of other good blogging stuff (including the Rebecca Blood stuff above...)

***Entry 49***
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
12:13 p.m.
Joanne's recent entries have some interesting things to say about bloggers. She wants people to "prove" her wrong. Less than a month into this blogging thing, I'm not sure if I can be counted on as an "authority" on the blogging phenomenon. However, I do have some responses to a few of her comments.
Joanne writes, The internet is not "space," but "access." Your average blogger is nobody, once he's shut off his laptop. It would be easy to dismiss this statement on a surface level for gender bias. (I'm currently beginning a somewhat long term project on the relationship between gender and blogging; but that is not really my point here.) In my opinion, blogging is hardly about being somebody or ego boosting.* (Self criticism: and my blog is entitled "Beyond Zoe's Diary/ This is Me"...) It's about engaging in various discourses (slightly a la Foucault *maybe*). Jo writes something. I disagree. I write about my disagreement here. Millions of other people are doing the same thing right now...
What I'd really like to get to is something only nominally more profound...which I'm sure has been said more eloquently elsewhere. That is: blogging, at the very least more emblematic of "media democracy" than even the grand indymedia experiment. Many independent media centers, including DC IMC engage in a form of censorship. In the case of the DC IMC, a self selected group of individuals that make up the editorial team (and I should admit that I have been affiliated with this editorial group since it's beginning) monitor the newswire and the comments section for postings that violate a set of principles that the larger group agreed upon using the *awful* consensus process. If there is censorship in the blogging world--it is self censorship. Which Jo adequately addresses when she states her reason for blogging I don't work for the government or a non-profit, I'm not applying to grad schools any time soon, and for those reasons I am free to make my views public.
Ultimately, I think I am taking the same side as Jo this time. (Although I am planning on applying for grad school soon...) I'm just arguing from from a slightly different perspective. And that is the value of blogging.
*[Note: I haven't addressed "personality centered" blogs here. That is: people who use their blogs to talk about what alcoholic beverages they consumed or their problems with some significant other...blah blah blah...This is largely because "personality centered" blogs serve a vastly different audience and are largely irrelevant to the argument I am addressing here.]

***Entry 48***
Monday, September 23, 2002
11:52 p.m.
Blogging is just another form of procrastination. I get online with the intention of *just* checking my email...and then I find *hot* stuff like this when checking on theory.org.uk. Reading this makes me long for my return to city (read: DC). I'm not sure about the "toy cameras" thingy, but there are a lot of things I don't understand. Like...why am I writing this, rather than rewriting Chapter 1?

***Entry 47***
Monday, September 23, 2002
06:38 p.m.
Fun. Fun. Fun. Tomorrow night, Jill's nonprofit production company, For the People Productions, will be hosting the third dance party merging electronic music and social justice issues. The lineup for VIBRANT is:
J-Smooth [GFS / Philly]
Sam "The Man" Burns [The Underground Soul Solution]
John Tab [Buzz/No Limitations/Solitary Refinement/DC]
Oron [East Coast Happy, MD]
Tittsworth [5" Taint, DC]
Ken Lazee [evolve/intimate vibe, DC]
The $10 cover goes to Metro Teen AIDS. Don't miss this party.

***Entry 46***
Sunday, September 22, 2002
04:27 p.m.
Brian Long has posted some photos of SHADOW on the DC IMC. Now you can see what you missed if you weren't there.

***Entry 45***
Sunday, September 22, 2002
03:21 p.m.
Jill sent me information on this a couple of days ago...but I failed to post anything here. I'm trying to make up for it now. :)
This week the DC City Council will hold a hearing on Ward 2 Council member Jack Evans new Restaurant Bill which will: amend the definition of restaurant to prohibit the charging of admission or cover charges, and to amend the restaurant license class to limit the size of dance floors for prospective restaurant licensees. DC Blues states their opposition the most firmly: "If passed, the bill would drive live music in small venues out of town. In a town where black and white, rich and poor, liberal and conversative rarely mix, can we afford not to support, indeed celebrate, those small, intimate and increasingly rare venues where people can come together to experience music as it was meant to be heard -- live."
DC Blues also provides email addresses to every councilmember, encouraging activism. For example, I just sent an email off to Ward 1 councilmember Jim Graham...
6:41pm UPDATE: Graham emailed me back saying that he would keep my thoughts in mind. While that's not solid opposition to this bill, it does show me one thing: Graham answers his emails very quickly. Even on a Sunday night. I can thank him for that.

***Entry 44***
Sunday, September 22, 2002
02:59 p.m.
I am exhausted. SHADOW last night was amazing. The fire people and stilt walkers (including Adam) were incredible performers. And...most importantly over 500 people came and received information about the DC Statehood Green Party. Hopefully, I can post some pictures of the event here soon...
In other photo news, I saw some beautiful photos of Annette and Brian's baby Rebekka. Congrats!

***Entry 43***
Saturday, September 21, 2002
05:10 p.m.
I finished much of my homework which leads me to return briefly to the joy of blogging before I head out to set up SHADOW.
My SMP, which I allude to periodically here, is both a critique of consensus process and an analysis of various forms of participatory democracy. I mention that again, because of the news that FX will be airing a "political reality" show where a potential candidate for the 2004 presidential race is selected "American Idol" style.
While political theorists have written in depth about various different methods of engaging the apathetic American public in democracy (ie: Fishkin's "deliberative opinion polls" and Barber's multifacited "strong democracy"), I'm not sure that a Rupert Murdoch financed television show is the best way of accomplishing this task. I find it even more problematic that the producer of the classic political documentary The War Room is associated with this project.
First, merging politics with "reality TV", gives politics a tinge of illegitimacy beyond what it currently has. Reality TV is "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and "Big Brother"--shows not exactly known for their intellectual credibility. On the otherhand The War Room exposed how solid campaigns are well staged; what is so different about making that fact blatant?
There are many larger issues than that however. 1. Who participates? Perhaps, this is the classic question of membership just revisited. But one of the most important things political theorists (including the ever influential Locke--my homework!) have addressed is the idea that certain things will restrict people from participating in a direct democracy. In this political reality show scenario: who has access to FX? If you don't have cable, you can't participate.
2. This show doesn't even require the chosen candidate to actually run for president. Given the ridiculous obsession with "American Idol" (a show run on a network, not cable), the competition between candidates on the TV show will far overshadow the competition between the "real" candidates--those that actually ran in primaries and appeared on ballots. This would only get worse, if the selected candidate actually ran for office.
3. This kind of staged corporate selection process, could deter people from looking at "real" participatory democracy approaches. It is a made for TV event, not a true democratic practice.
So, I've written a lot here for just an entry. I think that in order to truly formulate an opinion about this, I will have to add a section about this to my SMP...

***Entry 42***
Saturday, September 21, 2002
12:05 p.m.
I am super-busy today: I've got to do school work...and then there is the hot, steamy action at SHADOW tonite.

However, I've got to write about this load of shit from the Post...another example of the classic corporate media approach to covering protests. [That is...police vs. protesters...] First off, this is not a critique of Manny Fernandez, who is a solid and intelligent journalist. Instead, it is a full-fledged attack on Terry Gainer, whose methods of making protests seem illegitimate have reached another level. Yesterday, Gainer threatened to use legal action to prevent next week's scheduled protests from happening.
"I don't know why we have to wait until after they've inflicted damage," Gainer said after yesterday's hearing.
What? This is *assuming* two things: 1. that protesters are going to "violent" and damage the city and 2. that the First Amendment means absolutely nothing.
But...Fernandez does a good job at being "objective." He also quotes Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, an attorney with the Partnership for Civil Justice. "The police department is once again demonstrating their contempt for the constitutional rights of protesters in this city," she said. "Frankly, when they talk about preemptively shutting down protests and First Amendment speech, that is a hallmark of a police state and a repressive government."
The real problem is that Gainer outright admits that this *potential* plan is probably in violation of the First Amendment, but is considering implementing it anyhow. Why? The police have a completely unfounded *fear* that protesters will be a "cover for terrorists." Only a slight step away from saying that protesters equal terrorists. Protests do not equal terrorism. In fact, the ability to protest is one thing that makes this country not a totalitarian system.
If the police are allowed to shut down the protests through legal action, this is the effective end of democracy in this country.