A New NWN Event: Red Staters Meet the World!

In the heal-the-rift spirit of Senator Kerry's concession speech and President Bush's acceptance speech-- and in response to all the political rancor in the Forums, and pretty much everywhere in the country and the world-- I'd like to propose another upcoming NWN, Linden-sponsored event. If people show enough interest, we'll do it in the next week or two.

Basically, I'd like to invite five red state residents who just voted for President Bush to appear with me onstage, to have a conversation with five residents who live in blue states and voted against Bush, and also, with residents from the rest of the world who oppose Bush, and are confused/confounded/curious as to why red staters do.

What this is meant to be:

- A fruitful, engaging, and hopefully enlightening conversation conducted by people from behind the safe anonymity of their Second Life identities.
- Factual and specific. Any claims made one way or the other must be sourced by agreed- upon established news resources/tracking polls/etc.

What this will NOT be:

- Condescending, patronizing, insulting, one way or the other. Any language like that, which adds more heat and light, will be strictly discouraged.
- An airing of generalizations that aren't factual. Generalizations either way that can't be so validated will be discouraged.

What this is HOPED to be:

- A microcosm of the larger controversy going on throughout the country and the world, and Second Life and New World Notes' contribution to addressing it.
- A conversation where both sides learn something about each other, perhaps even come to agree on some things-- or at worst, agree to disagree.

I'm still trying to decide how best to conduct this event, far as multimedia, stage, format, and so on, and I'd love suggestions. I'd also love to know who's interested in this, either as an audience member, or a participant. And if you'd like to be a participant, *INSTANT MESSAGE* me, and tell me in strictest confidence if you're a red or blue stater/international resident, and who you supported in the last election.

So let's discuss, and if there's enough interest, I'll start setting it up!

This willbe interesting!

(but be sure to have a bouncer, a vaudeville hook or chloroform handy in case anyone gets out of line)



Seriously, if the discussion follows these guidelines it will be more informative (and professional) than most point/counterpoint "debates" from television and radio.

Very very cool. Count me in

Can we bring and use visual aids?

I've got some data from http://iraqbodycount.org I'd really like to visually display to make a few points.

Maybe we could simulate the town square in Baghdad or something as a setting. Or the ruins of 9/11

Really glad we're seeing interest already. I'll have to think about how to define acceptable cites to reference; I had more in mind CNN, Washington Post, and other established media outlets that at least attempt the appearance of impartiality. (For example, I'm hoping to post references to CNN's exit poll on billboards behind the stage.) This may be something the participants will have to agree on beforehand, because I'm afraid of this degenerating into a war between nakedly partisan anti-war/pro-war/anti-Bush/pro-Bush/anti-Kerry/pro-Kerry sites (and cites); that won't work.

A form of Current Events Quiz for prospective panel members would be my recommendation. It's surprising and rather disgusting how many Americans believe misinformation and spin as fact. Something to screen out the "Liberals/Conservatives are the devil!" speakers would also go a long way to bringing credibility to the event.

I'd be very interested in being an audience member.

Not a problem. iraqbodycount.com cites all its data from 'established' news sites. Those figures are very well researched and are very accurate.

It boggles my mind how americans get so upset that 1000 americans have died but the fact that 14000+ iraqis have died never seems to be an issue.

Also, I don't think international people will have much in the way of opinions on anything other than the war. American domestic issues don't really impact non-americans too much.

Also, when you IM me, in addition to telling me:

- if you're a red stater or blue stater/international (and if so, what country)

- why you supported/voted for Bush or Kerry

- and/or why you voted against/opposed Bush or Kerry

Based on this, I'll make my five selections from each side, to try and get a good mix of folks.

You may want to refer to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/coverage.php if you're interested in how many established news sites refer to iraqbodycount.com for its information.

Among them are: slate, reuters, washington post, associated press, dallas morning news, bbc, knight ridder, new york press, times of india, seattle times, san francisco chronicle, new york times, scripps howard, toronto star, the guardian, aljazeera, chicago tribune, asahi shimbun, the independent, bbc radio, globe and mail, the scotsman, pbs newshour, etc etc.

(Oh, and I love blaze's idea of doing it around several political builds, if people want to suggest more, too-- main proviso there is they'd have to be relatively low prim level, so we can have as large an audience as possible without lagging.)

Does anyone know if there are codecs that will stream to a real player or wmv feed? You could broadcast it live.

This is a great idea but I think it will just devolve into drama. If only I had the time to attend. Somebody post a chat log afterwards...

I don't think it will devolve into drama. Hamlet just needs to provide everyone with tight rules about ad hominens and hyperboles with the threat of ejection.

Hey, we could even have one of those tricky lights that they used in the presidential debates to keep everyone to a time limit.

What about us in blue states who voted for Bush? Or thoose in red states who voted for Kerry?

I think realizing that the whole red/blue thing just makes us seem more devided might go *some* way to healing rifts! We're nieghbors and friends not strange folks who live in another little country called a Red state!

Here here Aestival! I live in a Red state (Florida) and things are divided in Florida. We are not a majority conservative or liberal state, we fluctuate around the middle.

I mean no disrespect; I'm fascinated by politics, and I think this is an excellent idea. But I do have a question.

Central features of the political culture in the United States today are anger, rancor, divisiveness, and a lack of tolerance -- and that was the most important dynamic in the past election. If this event is meant to heal wounds -- if it is a therapeutic event -- then I understand the rules outlined above. But if this event is meant to cast light on the political dynamic -- anger, divisiveness. intolerance -- then how can one side witness and understand the other side's POV, without a meaningful expression of what has really happened?

No one should have to endure shouting or profanity, but no one should expect understanding if the anger and division is not expressed and explored. The key does not lie in limiting behavior of those who are expressing themselves, the key lies in reinforcing the tolerance of those who are listening. Careful ground rules to insure the honesty and openness of those who are expressing, and the tolerance and calm of those who are listening, are needed.

Good point. Yeah, I thought about that, especially because many red states were close to 50/49, and for that matter, some blue states were close to 50/49. However, I do want to focus on red state Bush supporters, with preference for red-red states which went to Bush by factors of 60% and higher. That way, we keep the premise of the discussion clear, and can directly address the stereotypes about blue and red staters that have been generated, over the last two elections.

However, for a little variety, perhaps we could also add one Bush voter from the bluest regions of the bluest states (for example, from San Francisco, Manhattan, or Boston) if we have such a resident, and he or she wants to join the red staters.

Which reminds me, if you want to be a red state candidate, please IM me what state and county you're from-- I will keep that information absolutely confidential, of course.

This sounds cool. I recommend as follow up that we have similar events with people pro and con abortion and then pro and con evolution as these are certain to generate useful synthesis and little dogma or rancor.

Maybe we could get Jerry Springer to host.

LOL!

We'll I'm honestly interested, though a little scared of it turing into a Debate Club fight of who has the biggest filling cabinet with the biggest stack of notecard "facts".

Splendid idea!! Though I am likely not moderate enough to participate and I am already known as a blue in a red state...I would love to be in the audience (so long as no one creates a tomato hurler). I for one do not fault Pubs or Dems with the problems in America...the flaws lie in the politicians themselves.

If you run out of blue contributors (lol) let me know.

Excellent. You know, if I'm going to offer a slot to a Bush supporter from a blue blue state, I should do the same for a Kerry supporter (or Bush opponent) who lives in a red red state. (For example, a Kerry voter from Texas or Georgia.) So if you fit that category and want a slot, lemme know!

Are LaRouchians allowed to participate?

I guess I don't get it.

Do you really see this as a polite disagreement among two sets of reasonable people?

Who is going to benefit from this event? The audience? The participants? How?

The only ones I can see evolving through all this are those who were close together in the first place. If you really mean to do this productively, I'd suggest a pair of late deciders, or restrict the discussion to one topic - perhaps taxes.

I don't see a lot of "healing" in a discussion centering on homophobia and betrayal. And, whether you like to admit it or not, the election finally devolved to exactly that in the end.

So, what topics did you have in mind? The interest rate? Price of oil? Social security?

Not really interested in that sort of "discussion."

You're sweet for trying though.



--
Kathy Yamamoto
"I'm pissed and clever and I have 55 million friends."

I went to an event right after the first presidential debate which was intended as a debate about each candidate's platform, why we were for/against each candidate, etc. Within about five minutes, the event had devolved into a shouting match, and it was next to impossible for the host to maintain control. No one left feeling better, and, in fact, the event ended with two people being kicked out (one from the "blue" side and one from the "red".

If you want an accounting of this event, Hamlet, check with the host, Daemioth Sklar (who has much SL event hosting experience under his belt) or even Jill Linden, who was there for the length of the event. This type of event has a great potential to go horribly wrong and act as a catalyst to magnify the injured feelings and already frayed nerves of the "walking wounded" who are still struggling to deal with the aftermath of the recent election. Is a debate of this nature really going to do any good? Or will you just be creating a sensationalistic news event? I believe a scrupulously honest examination of motives is in order here.

For many of us, the sad truth is that there will be no "closure" on this subject.

I personally think this is a great idea... not because it's likely to change anyone's minds about the issues, but it would be interesting to hear why people voted one way or the other. I definitely think civility should be asked for and strongly ecouraged, but I wouldn't expect it. I also wouldn't underestimate the theraputic value of breaking chairs over people's heads if it spins out of control It should probably be done town hall meeting style with strict rules for who can speak and when. People can always stick around afterwards if they want to duke it out.

lets just have the civil war all over again, at least that would be something worth fighting for, I.E. getting rid of the states that vote for Bush.