Rad Geek People's Daily

For the most part, the New York Times' story on the World Economic Forum beginning its proceedings in New York is just a gooey report on the men who had the air of money and power hobnobbing inside the Waldorf-Astoria, ... like the start of summer camp. Now I really wonder if this sort of fluff reporting on a serious conference of the global economic and political elite is necessary. But, more to the point, the Times has decided to creatively reinvent history:

That has not prevented critics from painting the Forum in the darkest colors. The World Economic Forum will celebrate war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, attacks on civil liberties, and corporate tax cuts, proclaimed a group called A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) in its call for demonstrations which will get under way in earnest with marches on Saturday.

At the New York W.E.F. summit, the world's richest C.E.O.s will collaborate with the world's most powerful politicians to set the global economic agenda, declared another group, Students for Global Justice.

Whether the protests reach the violence of last year's meeting in Davos remains to be seen. Some of the opposition groups acknowledge that a clash with New York's finest in the aftermath of Sept. 11 would not sit well with the public.

Now, it's a bit irresponsible to spending only two dismissive paragraphs on the fact that there are, in fact, people who have serious problems with what goes at the WEF, while spending the rest of the front-page story gushing about how elite and idealistic it all is (for more responsible coverage, I suggest the Times' recent in-depth article on anarchism, buried in the New York Region section). What concerns me a bit more, however, is that they are simply making shit up when they say that the protests at Davos last year had any violence to be reached.

In reality, last year's protests in Davos featured 250 activists staging a peaceful march. In 2000, the worst violence was a few windows being broken at a McDonald's. In 2001, the worst violence was snowballs being tossed at police barricades.

Well, I should take that back. There was violence at the 2001 protest. See, the Davos local authorities decided to ban any exercise of the right to peaceful public assembly, so protestors were met by over 1,000 Swiss security agents armed with batons and tear gas guns. The demonstrators' peaceful march was turned back with police barricades and water cannons. But this isn't exactly the sort of violence that the Times story was claiming had happened.

This is, unfortunately, part of a general press smear campaign against the globalization movement, which has invented protestor violence out of thin air in protests in Seattle, DC, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia... at all of these there was plenty of police violence against demonstrators but the virtually none initiated by protestors. In Seattle and DC, heavy tear gas bombardments were used; in Los Angeles I watched mounted cops stage dragoon attacks with batons on protestors who had done nothing other than run away from rampaging peace officers. And yet the New York Daily News compared protestors to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and threatened them, You have a right to free speech, but try to disrupt this town, and you'll get your anti-globalization butts kicked. Capish?

Sidebar: I've noticed that they've been awfully cagey about just how many women are at the invite-only WEF meeting; one article lumped in women amidst everyone else in the overwhelming minority at the WEF (third world leaders, human rights activists, union leaders, etc.). The Times' editorial column said it was some 3,000 Davos Men, and a sprinkling of Davos Women. For all their apologia, it's really hard to shade just how reactionary in constitution their Good Ol' Boys meeting is.

For further reading

• For independent coverage of the World Economic Forum and surrounding protests, visit NYC Indymedia.
• For more on the demonstrations and alternatives to the WEF, check out Another World is Possible.
• GT 9/17/2001 Globalization Protestors Targeted in Post-9/11 Crackdown on Dissent
• GT 9/06/2001 Debate Over Reformist and Radical Approaches to Change
• GT 5/29/2001 WTO Protest videogame announced at E3

Our Fearless Leader and Dick Cheney have conclusively proven that they really have nothing to hide at all, cross their hearts hope to die, in the Enron debacle, by refusing to turn over documents from secret meetings with Enron executives during Dick Cheney's energy task force proceedings [New York Times]. Quod Fearless Leader:

We're not going to let the ability for us to discuss matters between ourselves to become eroded, the president said this afternoon at a session with reporters. It's not only important for us, for this administration, it's an important principle for future administrations.

George, I hate to break it to ya, but not only is this just making you look like you're dirty as hell, but it's also offensive to basic principles of democratic governance. As a private citizen you have every right to secretive, closed-door meetings. As the President of the United States, however, you have a responsibility to conduct your affairs openly, under complete public scrutiny. Your ability to conduct meetings in smoke-filled rooms with your big-time campaign contributors is not more important than the American people's right to open and democratic governance.

I can't believe these idiots are probably going to waste the Supreme Court's valuable time over this idiocy. If G.W. seriously thinks he's going to avoid dirt coming out on his administration because of this, I have a few hundred documents in Houston I'd like him to shred.

The award for best summary of the Enron debacle and the administration's stonewalling goes to Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury:

Scott Reents and Thomas Hill have written an interesting article on why political sites fail, and what they can do about it [Democracy Project]. Bottom line: political sites fail because they are based on the one-way model of traditional campaign media. As the authors put it:

In particular, current political sites are failing to adhere to the new rules of the "citizen-centric" Internet. Because the Internet puts citizens in control over the information they access, it requires that political organizations think and act as service providers to, rather than as mobilizers of online constituents. A citizen-centric campaign recognizes that it is most powerful when it practices the enlightened self-interest of true cooperation, ceding control to citizens as the most effective way to accomplish shared goals.

It's worth noting that the most continually successful politically-oriented sites on the web are services such as Independent Media Center and Free Republic, Feminist Majority Foundation Choices Campus Community, and innumerable e-mail listservs all over the Internet, which center around forums for user-contributed content.

My hope is that the trends exemplified by Internet users here will successfully drive political candidates and groups more and more towards bottom-up, participatory democracy as the primary form of web interaction, that the mood of the Internet user will force them to adopt this strategy in order to survive. The Internet as it stands if full of limitations - we need to work hard at making Internet access and resources more available to people in poverty, making it a less toxic space for women, and developing software and hardware that empower users apart from mega-corps like AOHell-Time Warner and Microsoft and Netscape). But I hope and believe that it can also be opening up a horizon for truly democratic spaces in ways that traditional media have systematically ruled out. We have a great hope of winning this one, if we fight.

For further reading:

• GT 6/09/01 Misogyny of Internet Culture Betrays Promise of Democratic Spaces Online
• GT 5/30/01 Baltimore government expands Internet access to people in poverty
• GT 5/29/01 The Battle for a Grassroots Internet Experience
• Building a Global Grassroots Infrastructure by George Salzman

For any readers I may have in Michigan: A while ago I ran across the page for Women Outraged by Michigan Bureaucracy (WOMB), an active pro-choice group spearheaded by Flint feminists. They're doing work around the Michigan state government's hostility towards abortion access, as well as general feminist organizing. Check them out!

The End of Free is a weblog chronicling the dying of free/ad-supported content and the transition to fee services "and beyond." (Here's hoping that the beyond includes a good micropayment scheme in the very near future, because if it keeps going the way of subscription services, the prospects are grim.

For further reading:

• GT 10/5/2001 Salon makes itself more useless to web readers
• GT 6/9/2001 Feed and Suck go under
• GT 3/23/2001 Salon announces death of free content on the web with the introduction of their for-pay premium service