TIFF FINALLY!!!

I have finally finished picking films for the Toronto International Film Festival -- I managed 45!!! Got them in and am in box 61. So I wait 'til later this aft to find out how close I got with my stuff. C is teaching me to blog so Im gone now.

Off the Wall

Back in 2001 Toronto lost its bid for the 2008 Olympics to Beijing.

Many blamed the loss on Mel Lastman’s clowning. Like when Mel, before visiting Kenya to promote Toronto's Olympic bid, joculated, “I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me.” Which, despite Mel’s abject apologizing, prompted Olympic Committee member Alpha Ibrahim Diallo of Guinea to raise concerns about fundamental respect for human rights in Canada.

Mel’s clowning entirely aside, the bond linking Olympic Games to protest and human rights is no joke. Never has been, never will be. Yes, it’s a fundamental principle of the Olympic Games that politics play no part whatsoever in them. But we know far better. Just how fundamentally that principle is not practiced.

Can we remember anything about the 1968 games more vividly than Tommie Smith and John Carlos’ gloved fists raised at the podium? Should we remember anything about the 1972 Munich Olympics but terrorism – when murdering innocent civilians was introduced to the world stage? The 1976 Montreal Olympics were boycotted by African nations protesting a New Zealand rugby team’s visit to South Africa. Jimmy Carter got Machiavellian and kept the United States out of the 1980 Moscow Olympics – protesting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then, in 1984, the Soviet Union got Orwellian and forced Eastern European nations away in boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

Everybody knows, remembers and keeps Olympic protest scoring. The Olympic Committee knew all about the link to human rights when, after awarding the 2008 Games to Beijing, Committee member Gerhard Heiberg of Norway said, “The message was clear: We wanted to see the Olympic Games in China. We think this will open up China.” And while so passionately seeking to be awarded the 2008 Games, of course China knew there were bonds linking Olympics particularly with human rights protest. On having the 2008 Games awarded, Chinese sports minister Weimen Yuan even mentioned, “..not least, progress in the human rights cause.” Almost sounded like he was making promises, when he said “.. we will continue to open ourselves wider to the outside world and carry out more reforms.”

Terrific. Minister Yuan wasn’t lying. China, at however glacial pace, does continue to open and carry out more reforms. Apace, reforming does proceed. For instance, after the dramatic “FREE TIBET” banner unfurling at the Great Wall of China, the two Canadian and four accomplice members of Students for a Free Tibet were only interrogated for 36 hours prior getting deported. Only interrogated. Not tortured. Not shot. Not disappeared – no longer than 36 hours, anyway. Just interrogated – not permanently disappeared. And that’s huge progress from past decades. Progress so huge, one might feel a little glad for Toronto losing its 2008 Olympic bid to Beijing. Glad for Megacity Mel’s clowning, for Toronto’s loss – for the contribution to China’s glacial opening and reforming.

It really is terrific. How the Chinese government hasn’t over-reacted. What’s absurd – not in the least terrific – is how Globe readers over-reacted. How the great majority of readers reacted in rage. Makes no sense how ninety percent of readers commenting the Globe’s August 9th article – Tibet protesters cut off from Canada for 36 hours - seemed so enraged. Like Dr. G Mobile, who wrote: “Why do the Chinese let these folks in their country? Frankly I find the whole thing embarrassing.” Or Bill M, who wrote, “Did they expect luxury accomodations [sic] after the arrests?” Or Just a Lucky So-and-So, who wrote, “Cut off for 36 hours, you say? Lucky that was all that was cut off!” And those were just the first three. Got worse from there.

Peter Li, commenting on a related Globe article – Tech-savvy pro-Tibet protesters get message across - wrote:

.. this dirty game of yours of trying to protest China. But you never think that if you do a stunt like this, China won't do the same thing to you? They can say they want Quebec to separate from you and your country will literally collapse.

Perhaps Mr. Li has never heard of Quebec referenda. When the people of Quebec get together and vote whether to separate or to remain Canadian. And certainly – should Quebec ever choose to separate, it would be a sad day for what remains of Canada. Sad indeed. Not a bloody massacre, though.

And Tibet, unlike Quebec, used to be a sovereign nation until 50 years back. What if Tibetans continue to identify as a distinct people? Since Mr. Li – and so many other readers commenting at the Globe – have drawn the comparison to Canada. How about seriously considering the Canadian example? All the examples of Quebec referenda.

How about it, Mr. Li? What would happen if the people of Tibet had themselves a referendum whether they wanted to be Chinese or not? Are not all distinct peoples entitled to independent nations? Are not the people of Tibet entitled to some say in the matter?

More like crystal than finest China what would happen. Wouldn’t get nowhere near any referendum whether to be or not to be Chinese. Wouldn’t even get to calling for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet. Just as reported on August 3rd in the Globe – Scores of ethnic Tibetans arrested in China: reports. When literally scores of people got arrested in one Tibetan area for daring to call a return of the Dalai Lama.

Never mind. Most deranging about readers’ comments was how misdirected their rage grew not only at the Canadian protesters – but at all Canadians and Canada as a whole. As Mr. Li put it,

You people have no respect for other type of people and you're actually the worst country for human rights… Now you people are talking about how other countries have no human rights? This is why I don't like Canadians. They keep on trying to pretend their like the king of the world and trying to get attention from China while China don't care about you at all. They don't want to do any business with you and you're nothing but trouble like this situation. This is why I'm saying China should just cut diplomatic relationship with your country cuz your nothing but trouble… Regardless of you people doing this, it ain't gonna benefit one thing cuz it ain't gonna stop China from rising and there's nothing you people can do about it.

Hopefully, Mr. Li and the apparently many others enraged at Canada will take note – as the Chinese government no doubt has – of the traditional bond linking human rights protesting with the Olympics. More importantly, Canadians neither resent nor fear China. We recognize both the increasing economic ascendancy and the continuing – however glacial – reforming of China.

The real trouble when it comes to the Tibet issue is not that we look down on China. We totally don’t. The trouble is how everyone – not just Canadians – looks up to Tibet. We look up to Tibetan culture. Beyond even issues of rights to which distinct peoples are entitled, we can’t forget Tibet. Because Tibetan culture has long since come to represent an ideal. It stands for how understanding, perspective and wisdom may transcend the materialism into which so much of our world has fallen.

That’s why we can’t forget what Tibet stood and continues to stand for. Why we keep hoping for Tibet to stand once again.

What is Stephen Harper Reading?

by Yann Martel

'The Prime Minister did not speak during our brief tribute, certainly not. I don’t think he even looked up. The snarling business of Question Period having just ended, he was shuffling papers. I tried to bring him close to me with my eyes.

Who is this man? What makes him tick? No doubt he is busy. No doubt he is deluded by that busyness. No doubt being Prime Minister fills his entire consideration and froths his sense of busied importance to the very brim. And no doubt he sounds and governs like one who cares little for the arts.

But he must have moments of stillness. And so this is what I propose to do: not to educate—that would be arrogant, less than that—to make suggestions to his stillness.

For as long as Stephen Harper is Prime Minister of Canada, I vow to send him every two weeks, mailed on a Monday, a book that has been known to expand stillness. That book will be inscribed and will be accompanied by a letter I will have written. I will faithfully report on every new book, every inscription, every letter, and any response I might get from the Prime Minister, on this website.'

Yann Martel

Book list to date

1. Book Number One: The Death of Ivan Ilych, by Leo Tolstoy
   
2. Book Number Two: Animal Farm, by George Orwell
   
3. Book Number Three: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, by Agatha Christie
   
4. Book Number Four: By Grand Central Station I Sat Down and Wept, by Elizabeth Smart
   
5. Book Number Five: The Bhagavad Gita
   
6. Book Number Six: Bonjour Tristesse, by Françoise Sagan
   
7. Book Number Seven: Candide, by Voltaire
   
8. Book Number Eight: Short and Sweet: 101 very short poems, edited by Simon Armitage, published by Faber and Faber
   
9. Book Number Nine: Chronicle of a Death Foretold, by Gabriel García Márquez
   
10. Book Number Ten: Miss Julia, by August Strindberg
    

They're wrestling, isn't that cute?

On Tuesday, an unnamed official in the Bush administration said the U.S. planned to list the Guards as terrorist group in order to squeeze Iran.

In return, today: "Iranian Guards vow to 'punch' U.S."

Anything I could say to this would be superfluous.

But I have to wonder if the two countries are verbally wrestling, boxing, or having rough sex.

Oh, silly me. If I simply read the article, I find the answer to that, along with Iran's next two planned moves:


"America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future," he was quoted as saying in the conservative daily Kayhan. "We will never remain silent in the face of U.S. pressure and we will use our leverage against them."

Yup, it's wrestling.

The Meaning of Moderation 2

There’s no legitimate substitute for self-representation. Whether at family gatherings, village council, tribal raiding parties, neighbourhood meetings, international plebiscite or seedy electronic forums. Self-representation can no more legitimately be denied than self-expression.

Best not leave nor return home without it. Like self-expression, self-representation can and should be moderated. But should it be totally denied, social fabric gets terminally cheapened. Nothing cheaper than totalitarian social fabric. Absent freedoms of speaking liberating public discourse, there’s no consenting or consensus. Absent threads of personal consent and mutual consensus, social fabric frays and tatters to ragged shreds no matter how stitched by fear or patched by force.

Not that self-representation gets totally denied in Canada. Not totally – just mostly. And it’s great the way our leaders keep pretending to represent us. It’s terrific. Compared to past millennia, when all our leaders ever did was thrash, slaughter or intimidate bloody obedience, it’s just great. Makes Canadian society relatively free and democratic. Certainly does relative to past millennia. But, as a society, we’ve still got way far to go. Because politicians pretending they represent us makes our society only relatively democratic – not genuinely democratic. Neither close nor anywhere near genuine. However terrific the political representation charade, it merely mocks any consenting or consensus of ours.

Genuine democracy demands having real say in our lives. It requires getting up on our own hind podia and speaking for our very own selves. It requires self-representing. For no trust could be so blind to mistake those taking every say in our lives as honestly attempting representing us; so dumb as expecting those throwing our voices to just voluntarily cease misrepresenting. Yes, it’s great pretending the political is no false representation arena. Better by far than millennia past – when there was no pretending whatsoever we the people had any say in our lives. But it’s still just pretending. Not consenting. No genuine consensus possibly emerges. There’s almost nothing genuinely democratic in our representative democracy charade.

That’s what makes any buzz of self-representing public discourse so exciting. Not due only to spontaneous participating – stimulating as the spontaneous can be. Excitement stems from any however distant prospects of more genuine democracy. And the online reader commentary feature at the Globe & Mail didn’t produce just any buzzing. Got buzzing like saws grinding axes in vengeance.

Too bad optimism for Globe discussion boards enhancing public discourse must be so sorely tempered. Too bad – but it must. Not because Globe editors manage discussion boards somewhat capriciously. As when opening articles to a single comment before closing commentary down. Absurd as that might be, if only seldom then it isn’t fatal. Nor does optional anonymity appear to harm qualities of discourse at Globe discussion boards too badly. No doubt due in part to editorial semi-moderation, discourse at the Globe seems to suffer far less trolling, spamming or scamming than at most typical Usenet newsgroups – for instance.

The problem is extremism. Lack of (self) moderation. The more popular discussions get, the more spectacularly discourse degenerates. While commentary remains sparse, comments trend to moderation – reasonable in debating and decent in reasoning. Offering experience, insight, expertise – perhaps occasional wisdom. Participants express satisfaction, even delight with commentary – at times claiming greater benefit from reading comments than respective articles. Not so when, propelled by charging partisan subject matter, commentary swells to numerical hundreds. When, invariably, commentary surges to flooding discussions in spillages of gushing extremism. Comments become ideologically entrenched, turn to name-calling and start verging hatred. Participants have nothing remaining to express but their frustration.

That’s how (easily and predictably) prospects of consensus in public discourse (not only) at the Globe detonate chain reactions of dissent. How easily reasoning turns to contradicting and hating. How predictably reinforcing turns to rending social fabric. It becomes too late instantly the first few extremist comments get replied in kind. Get disputed by reactionary extremism. No stopping chain-reacting extremism unless those first few extremist comments get clearly identified and either properly ridiculed as such – or, better, utterly ignored.

But how to identify and distinguish extremism from moderation? What’s so degenerate about extremism? What is the meaning of moderation?

Standard definitions don’t much help. ‘Extremism’ has been defined as any political theory favouring immoderate uncompromising policies. ‘Moderation’ has been defined as being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme. Hence ‘extremism’ isn’t moderate and ‘moderation’ is not extreme. They are not the same. Maybe why they’re spelled so different.

Let’s try less circular working definitions. Like for ‘extremism’: maintaining theories so ideologically as to disregard any and all refuting evidence; and for ‘moderation’: not maintaining theories so ideologically as to disregard any and all refuting evidence. Basically, whether one maintains a theoretically open mind – or whether one’s mind gets ideologically totally shut in. And never mind reference to current authorities or norms. It’s not about what one believes. It’s about how and why one believes. More precisely yet, it’s about whether one is even prepared to admit refuting evidence. Admit being wrong – and thereby learn better.

Might be enough to identify and distinguish extremism from moderation, these working definitions. But what’s really needed are examples demonstrating how extremism degenerates discourse in practice. How absurdly ideological discourse, once turning impervious to evidence, starts abolishing every prospect of consensus – tearing at social fabric with perilous, irreconcilable dissent.

For example, then. Not much calls for responsible public discourse now more so than questions of Canadian troops’ involvement with the NATO mission in Afghanistan. And since Globe articles pertaining to Afghanistan tend to generate tremendous reader commentary, it follows that discussion boards at the Globe totally enhance needed public discourse. Right?

Not likely. Readers’ commenting pertaining to anything Afghanistan is tremendous only numerically. Discourse quality falls beneath abysmal. Falls to absurdly ideological extremism.

There were some recent articles – like this one – reporting significant Afghani civilian casualties resulting from NATO air-strikes. But there was no undue worrying from one large segment of the readers commenting. No cause for getting alarmed. Because it isn’t picnics NATO troops are having with the Taliban. Right? It’s war. And all sorts of terrible things happen in war. Including terrible things like innocent civilians getting killed. That’s what war means, isn’t it? That terrible things just keep on happening until either the good guys give up – or the bad guys give up being so bad? So come on, already. This is the Taliban we’re talking about, remember? All of them militant Islamic fundamentalists. They use civilians as human shields. They kill far more innocent Afghani civilians than do NATO troops. Probably they were just lying about all them civilian casualties.

But even if they were telling the truth – it still doesn’t matter. NATO troops – especially our troops – are fighting to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan. So yeah, it’s war our troops are fighting. We knew that already. What’s the point even reporting these civilian casualties? However terrible the things that happen in war, we’re not about to get confused about who the bad guys are. We’re not about to forget who the good guys are. Nobody must be allowed to forget our troops going in harm’s way to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan.

Absurdly ideological extremism. Comes down to nothing more than this: doesn’t matter whether or how many civilian casualties NATO troops bring about. It’s war – and NATO troops are the good guys in this war. Since NATO troops are fighting for freedom and democracy.

Granting how inevitably extremism flourishes in war. That it isn’t always so easy obtaining and weighing evidence even before war breaks out. Also granting the ideological appeal of definitively identifying all fighting for freedom and democracy as the good guys. Still ridiculous.

It is ideologically absurd that all fighting for freedom and democracy are the good guys. Because freedom and democracy mean not coercing – not imposing by force of arms. Thus, quite definitively, fighting for freedom and democracy means fighting to defend against those imposing their ways by force. And the logical instant we begin fighting to impose freedom and democracy by force – that’s the instant we no longer fight for freedom and democracy. At that instant we fight against freedom and democracy.

Entirely debatable whether the NATO mission in Afghanistan defends freedom and democracy – or incoherently seeks to impose freedom and democracy by force. But reasonable debating to figure that out has not been germinating at Globe forums. Instead, the ideological dispute has only become increasingly entrenched between extremist partisan camps. One camp just keeps maintaining the absurd ideology above.

The other camp just keeps maintaining an ideology that is, if anything, yet more absurd. Just as extreme yet more absurd. In commenting the same series of Globe articles reporting Afghani civilian casualties resulting from NATO air-strikes, some began insisting that our troops are out murdering innocent civilians. But doesn’t ‘murder’ mean killing intentionally? Were those condemning our troops as murderers alleging NATO air-strikes had intentionally targeted civilians? When challenged, one commentator readily admitted NATO air-strikes were rather unlikely to have been targeting civilians. But regardless. Nevermind whether intentional or not. The commentator blithely continued condemning our troops as murderers.

How absurd. What conceivable ideology could provoke such incoherence? This started coming clear shortly after. It started coming clear in comments to a parallel series of articles – like this one – reporting the ongoing crisis of South-Korean hostages.

When it was reported that a second hostage had been killed, one commentator asked why nobody was calling it murder. Why not? Where were the commentators who had been condemning our troops as murderers despite admitting NATO air-strikes hadn’t intentionally targeted civilians? Were the hostages not civilians? Were the Taliban abductors not killing them intentionally? Why, then, would anyone condemning unintended killing by our troops as murder not bother even commenting intentional killing by the Taliban? Was there any real outrage over murder – or was it just about cheering for the Taliban and seeking to undermine our troops?

One commentator replied that Islam does not need Marxism. And that’s when it started coming clear. What could provoke such incoherence. For while militant Islamic fundamentalism certainly does not need Marxism – necessarily rejects it – the reverse does not apply. Marxism seems to need militant Islamic fundamentalism.

Not state Marxism, of course. But generic Marxists seem desperately needy for a cause to champion. Any cause. Ever since state Marxism collapsed pretty much world-wide. Any cause to carry on class-struggling against Western democracy.

That's why generic Marxists make common cause with militant Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless how utterly Islamic fundamentalism repudiates anything Marxist – like class-struggling. Never mind. Since terrorism so troubles Western democracy, generic Marxists ideologize militant Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as if it were the international workers' revolution.

Yeah. Absurd. But quite plausibly true. Quite plausibly that’s why generic Marxists regard terrorists as the good guys. As if oppressed workers finally revolting our exploitation. Which would necessarily mean our troops are the bad guys. Gals and guys so bad, might as well indict them for murderers.

So much for examples of extremism. However prominent right now, these are only two. Extremism seems to vary as widely as the ideologies which give rise to it. But regardless the ill-logic of ideas giving rise to it, the consequence of extremism never varies. It stops us from resolving disputes - other than by force. It tears social fabric past the point of no repair. Not by any reasoning, anyhow.

It really is too bad optimism for Globe discussion boards enhancing public discourse must be so sorely tempered. But it isn’t the Globe to blame. Perhaps too few of us as Canadians are able or willing to distinguish extremism from (self) moderation. Maybe we just aren’t ready for self-representation yet.

[This is the second of a 2 part mini-series on the meaning of moderation. As a needed break from the longer Culture & Multiculture series.

The Meaning of Moderation I

Toronto’s Globe & Mail used to be respectable. Staid, stolid, lacking frivolity or lustre. Dull, dreary – not even rousing when contrary.

It was no entertainment, reading the Globe back when it was so dull. But it sure was respectable.

Still is. Entirely respectable, reading the Globe. No longer dull, though. Not the on-line version, at least. On-line, the Globe sparks live as wires. Lively as wired gets.

What happened? No discernible change in editorial policy or turning all tabloid or anything different about the writing, either. Not anything readers might read. Same old dull, dull, dull. What happened was everything readers could write. So that now there’s not a single dull moment left to be found on-line at the Globe. Not since the reader commentary feature was introduced.

Terrific feature. For readers commenting on Globe articles, almost anything goes. Almost. Most commentary remains semi-moderated, but that seems more designed to conforming minimal civility than toeing editorial party lines. Not quite free for all – but far less constraining than getting through to and putting up with talk-radio hosts. Or attempts at crafting letters to editors so spectacular as to see the dark of print.

Great feature for the Globe. In contrast to the BBC, for instance – where they wring their collective necks how to restore honesty and audience trust. Since apparently British audiences have not grown as inured to the BBC slandering the Queen for fun or profit as to the BBC’s more general trending to audience deception. No need for all that at Toronto’s Globe & Mail. No need to go making news – instead of honestly reporting news. Because, at least on-line, it’s been hopping at the Globe. Ever since the reader commentary feature was introduced, things at the Globe have been hopping, buzzing and flipping. Like rabbits, flies or bees and fish. Whether in or out of water. Respectively.

Great feature for everyone. Not like some vested salon catering geriatric bourgeois gentry. More like a free for all. Almost anything goes. Liberating media from power elites. Inflating Toronto public spheres. Genuinely enhancing our democracy. Giving us some genuine say in our lives. Not just more of the same misrepresenting and false representing by incompetent corrupt elites.

Or so it initially seemed. When comments started out thoughtful, informative and somewhat limited numerically. When comments were at all moderate. It was great. Engaging with Globe articles – just for starters. Just for the facts. Then turning to reader commentary. Not only for more obscure, less well confirmed or reported facts. For interpretation and representative debating concerning significance of facts reported. To explore the meaning of whatever facts the Globe had fit to print.

So it seemed. That when it came to exploring meaning and significance, reader commentaries elaborated and quite astonishingly enhanced on articles. While the Globe seeding mostly just facts was fine and proper as ought have been. Since propagating particular editorial slant so easily turns against journalistic integrity. Which is fine for the rest – spewing propaganda, making news and instigating headlining sensations. But not for Toronto’s good, decent, boring Globe & Mail.

Worked brilliantly well on-line. The way the Globe turned so much spinning, slanting and signifying over to readers. The unabashed way Globe readers responded, contributing enthusiastic insight. Thus did Toronto’s Globe & Mail, sacrificing few jots of journalistic integrity, turn more vital than most sensational organs of propaganda masquerading as legitimate news combined.
Got exciting. The way things went branching, slanting and spinning all over. How all that spinning was not so much by Globe writers. But rather by Globe readers. By whom it was just great. Because individual readers spinning all over the place assemble public spheres. Because genuine self-representing by individuals opens society to increasing possibilities of genuine democracy. Because the possibilities of society are nowhere near as limited by means of production as by production of meaning.
There are some, of course, that grow inordinately excited with any possibility of consensus rooting in the voice of the people. Any glimmer of consensus not ploughed or manufactured by coercion. Particularly on-line, where, away from most typical coercing, self-representing has a hope.

The excitement over possibilities of consensus and more genuine democracy is not for love of truth. Democracy, regardless how genuine, guarantees no truth. The excitement is about how legitimating self-representing consenting shields and delivers us from utmost errors. Regardless whether such errors get induced at gun-point or procured by false representation. That’s the excitement. For hatred of eternally repeated coercive errors, not for love of truth. That’s where such excitement with online discourse possibilities of self-representing consenting came from – way back in 1996:

In time the voice of the people will begin arriving at consensus on the Internet. From the Internet, the consensus will spill to the streets. Government will ignore that consensus at cost of losing step with the people. This is a cost greater than government can deficit finance. It is the cost of public bankruptcy at a time when the credibility dollar is suffering hyper-deflation… [T]he voice of the people on the Internet is our best hope for genuine democratization… [N]either public bodies nor the judiciary speak for the people. The people speak for the people – and now, finally, the people are finding their voice. And if Internet evolution manages to avoid the meteoric strike of public intervention we may yet wake to a new morning; a morning on which the notion of democracy revolving about personal self-representation disturbs us no more than the Darwinian or Copernican heresies.

Isn’t that’s too far out, though? Too far fetching? All them pies in the sky won’t get landing in our mouths all by their own selves. Like – hoping for genuine democracy enhancing consensus ever emerging from on-line discussion boards? If pies had wings, would they flock in flight?

Too far out. Some problems are of only trivial sort – like discussion boards at the Globe seeming so capriciously managed. The way articles are only sometimes opened to commenting – and there’s no sensible criterion apparently determining when. And then, when articles are open to commenting, there’s no telling how long. Some remain open several days. Others remain open several minutes. No telling which. For instance, the first comment on one July 20th article was posted at 1:08 AM EDT. The fifth and last comment posted on that article before commenting was closed? 1:19 AM EDT. Further, even when commentaries remain open throughout, they get closed and discarded from the site right along with their associated articles. Both commentaries and associated articles do remain accessible to archival perusal – but not to any sort of reader input. Nor does any attempt appear made at threading issues across articles through time. Like points of light at night in the sky, the discourse remains forever disconnected – frozen in time.

These problems are of only trivial sort. The Globe could always cease managing discussion boards so capriciously. Also, conceivably, third parties might pick up where the Globe leaves off. Third parties carrying sufficiently hot torches for more genuine democracy. For consensus assembling prospects of self-representative on-line discourse. Torches hot enough to thaw discarded frozen discourse into potent rivers. Flowing whether calm or raging to some vast awaiting future ocean of consensus.

But there’s far more serious problems gainsaying utopian possibilities of online discourse. The very relative anonymity defying traditional systems of coercion thoroughly inflames irresponsibility. Erupts irresponsibility so epidemic as to degrade the medium no less than any given message. Irresponsibility variously manifesting in trolling everything from newsgroups to commentary right here at Reading Toronto; or in such scamming as we’ve all too likely encountered by now. And one problem likely to prove particularly insurmountable now becomes increasingly apparent in context of Globe & Mail commentaries. More apparent, perhaps, than this problem ever seemed at other Internet forums, discussion boards – even newsgroups. Rather startling, too, coming largely from our Toronto Canadian readership.

Extremism. Might be the worst problem with utopian possibilities of online discourse. Because, as is becoming apparent online at the Globe, the more popular commenting an article grows, the more degraded by extremism commentary gets.

Might not have been so startling to find extremism most excessive at discussions pertaining anything Middle Eastern – touching on cultures clashing. But nothing Middle Eastern generates either the most commentary – or the worst degrading extremism. Not even close. Both numerically and for excessive extremism, it’s a distant second. The Middle East typically generates up to two hundred comments. At most. Not so with commentary pertaining any partisan Canadian issues. Emphatically not so when associated articles mention P.M. Harper by name. For when articles do, comments easily torrent numerically over four or even five hundred.

The shock isn’t that partisan Canadian issues generate more commentary than the Middle East. The shock is that commentary generated by partisan Canadian issues so easily turns more extreme. Partisan extremism easily excessive as any in the U.S. – and just absurd coming from Canadians. Potentially damaging to our representative and relatively democratic way of life. Terminally damaging whatever possibilities of our discourse leading to more genuine, self-representing democracy.

Looked like a little hope glimmered. Seemed that way for a while, online at the Globe. Some hope germinating consensus in online discourse. When comments started out thoughtful, informative and somewhat limited numerically. When commenting was even at all self-moderating. But, with rising extremism, hope went out as if there’d been no possibility of light. Might there be? Any hope encouraging (self) moderation and ever defeating extremism. Might be. But we must first discover some meaning of moderation – in order to even distinguish it from the sort of extremism we Canadians can so well do without.

This was the first of a 2 part mini-series. As a needed break from the longer Culture & Multiculture series. Second part to follow shortly.