It is now Common Knowledge, unassailable for all time, that the states are broke. What better pabulum could there be to justify slashing social safety nets than to simply give the people an image of a state’s empty coffers? So goes the story offered by Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

This is pure fantasy of course, and public employees are not buying it. To be clear, some states are indeed desperately strapped for funds, but Wisconsin is not one of them. The question remains, though: what is the relationship, if any, of this movement to other uprisings and protests that are sparking all over the world? At the risk of morphing into a public administrator, I will look at some of Wisconsin’s budget numbers and end with some musings about whether new media is actually a bridge of solidarity between two seemingly distinct movements.

The Budget

Independent fiscal auditor Robert Lang states in his audit that the 2011 budget for Wisconsin will run a $125 million surplus. Even taking less $65 million for a statutory reserve (indeed, it is a curious condition in the upper Midwest that states have laws on the books that force them to save money every year), that leaves about a $60 million dollar surplus.

So, why is Walker telling the workers that there is a budget shortfall? Simple: he wants to lavish the surplus on his corporate friends (to the tune of about $140 million), thus creating a deficit and the conditions for the union-busting which he seems so eager to do. Of course, when one runs deficits, one must decide which group of people must bear the brunt of the (apologies/credit to Doug Henwood) “sadomonetarist” austerity program to come. Teachers are the group Walker picked as the scapegoat.

But Walker has done it all wrong. As we can see in the United States at large, the extraordinarily vague “we” who have “lived beyond our means” and must now stomach austerity so that we may “tighten our belts” (rising food insecurity should make this easier).  Who knew poor people could lose so much money that they didn’t have in the first place? I digress. Walker, unfortunately for him, has singled out one group of people: teachers. Not that teachers have lived beyond their means – no, they are greedy, what with their expectations of a livable salary, health care, and pension demands. Don’t these people know there’s a recession on?

Of course blaming teachers is politically, and maybe diagnosably, insane. The average teacher in Wisconsin makes $46,390, and only 30% of the state’s education budget is spent on teachers’ salaries. But let’s not lose the forest for the trees.  The real problem with the budget is supposedly the pensions. Yes, apparently for the Walker regime, the source of public servant greed is the expectation that the state manage a pension fund for them. Indeed, teacher pensions are not covered in the education expenses of the Wisconsin budget; rather, all state employee pension liabilities are financed through bond security sales. It is true that with the collapse of equity markets that pensions funds are scraping to get the cash together to stay solvent, but through the eyes of the Walker administration, they must believe that greedy teachers crashed the equity markets through… greed. It definitely was not the crooked investment banks foisting worthless bonds on state pension funds, and seems especially disingenuous since this problem has been noted in the budget since 2009. Nope, nothing to see here. But let’s say we can forgive and forget – wouldn’t it be a spectacular use of a, say, $65 million surplus to at least shore up pension obligations? The demonstrations have made it clear that when asked to accept austerity measures, the workers yell back, “you first!”

Of course, Walker knows this: he cannot possibly be so stupid as to think that teacher greed will bankrupt a state. His proposed solution – that the employees’ union give up its collective bargaining agreement – is the end goal, and that has nothing to do with pensions or pension shortfalls. This is a naked attempt at smashing public unions. Anybody familiar with the history of the labor movement can appreciate the high gambit that Walker is making here.

Facebook Pizza Party

Egyptians, among other people from various states and countries, are calling up places like Ian’s Pizza in Madison to place orders for protesters (this author heartily recommends the macaroni and cheese pizza). Between Obama’s meeting with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and an endless cycle of tweets, retweets and tweeting retreats, it is also becoming Common Knowledge that the internet is responsible for the flowering of democracy in Northern Africa/the Middle East.

To be sure, the technological possibilities for building international solidarity are tantalizing, but I think it is worth taking the time to pause and reflect just how much credit we’re willing to give a line of communication. After all, to say “facebook did it” cannot but at least slightly diminish the hard and dangerous work of protestors who are united in action.

We only need to go as far back and the so-called “green revolution” in Iran, 2009. Twitter was supposed to carry the day and reform would surely come (even though Mousavi was hardly Jacobin). Even though protests are also re-emerging in Iran, it is important to keep our focus on the agency of the people on the ground. Electronic solidarity certainly doesn’t hurt, but let’s not mistake the means for the ends.

Presidents have used symbols as a powerful way to convey their vision of the country to its people.  They use symbols to respond to crises and disasters.  They help to remind us of what use to be, and what the “new normal” could look like.  We live in turbulent times.  High unemployment, bursting financial bubbles, educational systems that do not allow us to compete in the global market and the continued fouling of our environment mark our daily lives.  President Obama’s State of the Union was rich with symbolic language intended to portray his vision of the way forward in addressing the crises we face that is tied uniquely to our sense of the American past.  The empty chair symbolized solidarity with those who could not be present.  Members of Congress sat together symbolizing bipartisan cooperation.  Perhaps the most telling symbol was the future portrayed not as a gift, but as an accomplishment.  This symbol anchored his vision of renewed competitiveness in educational achievement and producing innovative goods and services as ways to invigorate the economy.  Whether this vision is accomplished best through the efforts of government, private industry or both may be argued ad nauseum, few argue that it is a commendable vision of the future.

Presidential symbolism has a rich tradition during tough times.  Remember these:

• Teddy Roosevelt and his “Big Stick” and “Great White Fleet”
• FDR and his fireside chats
• The Buck stopping with Truman
• Eisenhower’s Interstate Highways as symbols of mobility and connection
• Kennedy’s Space program and the answer to the Sputnik moment.
• LBJ’s Great Society
• Reagan’s (and JFK’s) notion of the City on the Hill

Which symbols do you remember? How have these symbols influenced you?

Natalie Heffernan is a Ph.D. candidate at Virginia Tech’s Center for Public Administration and Policy and currently serves as journal manager for Public Knowledge Journal. She is a retired naval officer, currently working for the US Navy as a civilian engineer.

The American Political Science Association held its annual meeting this fall. The theme was “The Politics of Hard Times.” The obvious association that we were supposed to make was that, in a global economic downturn, hard times have visited us, and now we are at some kind of crossroads.

Of course, social life is more complicated than that. What does it mean to experience “hard times?” Are they merely a dip in the GDP per capita ratio? What about the hard times that occurred before the Great Recession of 2008 to the present? There are plenty of people all over the globe dealing with the realities of hard times, but in a way that is completely divorced from the devaluations of collateralized debt obligations. Indeed, a sizable chunk of this population is in the US and the “developed” world.

As Public Knowledge gears up to consider the very idea of crisis, it is worth considering the contestable nature of hard times. Who decides when times are tough? Does that impact the vision with which we try to escape hard times? Keeping these critiques at the front of our analysis will prevent us from slipping into the crisis narrative that “hard times” are felt evenly and across the board. After all, it is in those rough contours of asymmetrical social relations where the real political questions lie.

Robert Kirsch is a Ph. D. student in Virginia Tech’s Alliance for Social, Political, and Ethical Thought program. He currently serves as Book Reviews Editor for Public Knowledge Journal.

Guatemala has for two years implemented an equivalent of the US Freedom of Information Act. But observers greeted the passing of this law with caution. The Guatemalan state is not well known for its commitment to transparency; while Guatemala jumped up from 3.1 to 3.4 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (0 being maximum corruption, 10 being none at all), this leaves them right in the middle of the pack as number 84 out of 180 nations surveyed. This clearly suggests room for improvement.

One year prior to the passage of the law, Guatemala created the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG by its Spanish acronym), an agency with leadership, support, and resources from the international community tasked with attacking elements of organized crime within the Guatemalan government, a task that the Guatemalan government is obviously ill-equipped to tackle alone. It would seem that, with the combination of this investigatory agency and the law granting access to public information, Guatemala is taking concrete and positive steps towards the transparency necessary for a functional democracy.

Yet these initiatives face an uphill climb. The director of CICIG unexpectedly resigned over the summer. He cited the appointment of a new attorney general as the reason and called Guatemala’s justice system a mess. While Guatemala is not nearly as much a narco-state as Mexico, there remains significant infiltration of the police, military, and agencies of the national government. While corruption in terms of individual enrichment is a problem, the systematic influence of organized crime over the workings of the Guatemalan government in order to facilitate illicit activities is more distressing. Guatemala will need the new tools at its disposal, but much more work must be done if efforts at transparency are to shed real light on the dark workings within Guatemala’s halls of power.

Brendan Brink-Halloran is a Ph.D. candidate in Planning, Governance, and Globalization at Virginia Tech.  He currently serves as Special Issues Editor for Public Knowledge Journal.

Many historical anniversaries have passed in the last month: the dropping of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the end of World War II, Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech, Hurricane Katrina — and many more not named here.  We’ve even seen the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq after seven years of war.

This list should give us some pause.  Some call the World War II generation the greatest.  It might be helpful to reflect on the future and the legacy we leave to our future Americans.  What will they call our generation in 40 years?

We are going through some tough times at the moment.  Our environment, our financial systems, and our communities are in great trouble.  We have difficulty making sense of the situation.  We wait for someone to show us the way.  Previous generations seem to have been building toward the future, but we seem to want to hold tight to a fist full of sand.  If we aspire to be in the running for the title of greatest generation, perhaps we need to start considering the future and how we want our grandchildren to know us.  Each of us does not know everything, but neither did individuals in previous generations.  It is time to put our big pants on and head out to the school of life!

We have been paralyzed by fear, blamed everyone but ourselves, and bickered about inconsequential details.  But public knowledge is a powerful force; it demonstrates that we’re in this together.  We should start now, in little ways, to strengthen our bond with each other.  One or two small kindnesses a day help build a better tomorrow.  Barring this, head for the cave and return to hunting and gathering as your occupation.  I prefer that we live like it is 2050, building toward a future that is better than today.

Natalie Heffernan is a Ph.D. student at Virginia Tech’s Center for Public Administration and Policy and currently serves as journal manager for Public Knowledge Journal. She is a retired naval officer, currently working for the US Navy as a civilian engineer.

As demonstrated by the response to the Haiti earthquake in January 2010, charitable organizations have benefited immensely from the rise of social networking and the ever-increasing connectedness of Web users. Charities now have more means of finding and interacting with potential supporters than ever — and this is a good thing, certainly, but we might wonder where things will go from here, whether perhaps, in the case of charities and more generally, an increase in online connectivity will result in a decrease in personal interaction.

But Women for Women International, an organization devoted to aiding women and children in war-ravaged regions, demonstrates that these fears, such as they are, may in some cases prove unfounded.

Women for Women offers interested Web visitors a variety of means by which to contribute; one might donate, become a sponsor, purchase products whose proceeds will help women in need, or simply demonstrate support through Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, or by commenting on the Women for Women blog. But, recognizing the importance of face-to-face connection, the organization also encourages anyone interested to host a local event; these might be promoted through Women for Women’s various Web presences, and can grow to be quite significant. For example, the Women for Women-affiliated Run for Congo Women, once nothing more than an individual’s effort to help in what capacity she could, now inspires events in a number of cities throughout the world.

We can look to Women for Women as an example of an organization that uses social networking to bring people together in the literal sense. And of course this may not be a priority for everyone — but in the age of instant communication, there’s still something to be said for the physical gathering of people devoted to some common good.

Zach Woods is a master’s student in English at Virginia Tech. He serves as copy editor for Public Knowledge.

A common complaint in teaching is that students have difficulty sorting through the plethora of information that is available to them over the internet, particularly that information available to them via the ever-popular Wikipedia. I can relate plenty of stories – some real, others mythical – about students who start and end their research process with articles from the collaboratively written online encyclopedia. It’s frustrating for teachers, and, frankly, it’s a misuse of what could be a good research tool.

Despite the horror stories, Wikipedia is not the pedagogical enemy. The real problem is not using the site as a springboard for talking with students about how they should find and evaluate information. In the classes I teach, we watch a video of Stephen Colbert playing around with the site on The Colbert Report, capriciously changing the entry for “Oregon” and encouraging his readers to change the entry for “elephants.” We talk about the aftermath of that episode, and how Wikipedia editors had to lock down those entries when the Colbert Nation enthusiastically followed Colbert’s suggestion (a potential problem with any crowd-sourced document). This video marks when the word “wikiality” emerged to become part of the general lexicon. The same could be said for Wikipedia Brown and the Case of the Captured Koala, as Amy Cavender at ProfHacker notes. Like Colbert and the elephant incident, the Wikipedia Brown webtext reminds us that anyone has the power to update pages in Wikipedia. That’s a pretty heady situation – it gives anyone the power to create common knowledge. The two humorous examples remind students that this power has the potential for deliberate or accidental misuse (that does not mean that all information from Wikipedia is inaccurate – the Spurious Tuples post listed below is an excellent reminder of how informative the site can be).

After we watch the video and read the webtext, I emphasize that Wikipedia is not in and of itself a source, nor do the founders of the site intend for it to be. Even if the site was simply an online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, we still wouldn’t want students to cite it in a formal paper. Rather, Wikipedia is most useful when it is used as a starting point for research. Whether or not an article is perfectly accurate or well-written, it links students to original sources or stronger secondary sources which they can then evaluate for potential use in a paper. In addition, these linked sources may also provide leads that the students can then follow for additional information on a particular topic.

This brief example is certainly not the limit to our classroom discussion about research; rather, it’s part of a semester-long examination of what it means to find, evaluate, and use information in writing. It is, however, a way to get students to examine critically their usual consumption of information. If you teach, how do you approach research and the use of Wikipedia in your own classes?

Additional sources on the Great Wikipedia Debate:

Ah, Wikipedia! – Amy Cavender, ProfHacker

Wikipedia, and the Librarians Who Hate and Fear It – Catherine, Spurious Tuples

Getting Beyond Accuracy in the Wikipedia Debate – Ben Vershow, if: book (The Institute for the Future of the Book)

Ashley Patriarca is a Ph.D. candidate in Rhetoric and Writing at Virginia Tech. She teaches technical writing courses in the university’s English department. She also serves as editor-in-chief of Public Knowledge.

With news of General McChrystal’s negative remarks in the Rolling Stone article blasting the headlines of major newspapers around the world, I have been thinking about leadership. As the leader of his staff, GEN McChrystal took full blame for all the remarks that were made and consequently lost his job. Those are the facts, but I’m more interested in the philosophy of leadership.

While I agree that leaders should take the heat for situations that happen under their command, I wonder how leaders, in this case particularly, could find themselves in this position in the first place. Being a leader is more than telling the people under you what to do. A leader sets the tone of a company, group, or military regiment. He or she guides the organization to achieve higher goals by creating an atmosphere focused on values and culture.

So much of the military’s strategies and actions are successful because of a positive mind-set, a belief that what they are doing is right and true, which helps propel them into action. If a leader of a military command publicly questions the actions, even the personal intelligence, of the civilian leaders in charge, how can that commander muster the energy in his troops to get the job done? He or she is setting the tone that it is okay to undermine the authority of the leaders above them, leading to distrust and even dissension among the ranks.

Once decisions have been made, it is up to the leaders of organizations to carry them out for the good of the organization. I am not promoting a “yes-man/woman” mentality, in which organization leaders and members always agree with the higher authorities; I think any good employee should push back and question people above them. But, in the past, a key value for organizations has been the united front that executive leaders and middle leaders present to the outside world. They duke it out in private, but once a decision is made public, they run with it with gusto, even if they don’t agree with it.

Bad-mouthing your upper chain of command to ranks below – and the public in general – sets a negative tone that is hard to overcome. In the case of GEN McChrystal, I hearken back to wise words my mother always told me – “if you have nothing nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.” That may be good advice for GEN McChrystal, and other leaders, to heed also…

Kimberly A. Carlson is a PhD candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech with a concentration in nonprofit management, organizational development, and leadership development. She is currently working as a Graduate Assistant on the Arts Initiative for Virginia Tech through the Office of the Senior Fellow for Resource Development. She also serves as the Chief Justice of the Graduate Honor System.

We recently interviewed Dr. Carol Brandt, assistant professor in the Virginia Tech School of Education as part of our Research in Focus series (click here to listen to the podcast). Dr. Brandt teaches in the Foundations of Education program and she also has adjunct appointments in the Women’s Studies and Science and Technology in Society programs. In our brief conversation, Dr. Brandt described a research interest she has about engaging community members in science-based projects, and the points she makes relate directly to the focus of this PKJ issue, namely Public Information in a Democracy.

It’s generally accepted that governments engage people in making decisions and taking action as part of collaborative governance in a democratic polity. However, one reason why Dr. Brandt’s research in this area is particularly fascinating is that it raises the point that some subject areas may be more technical than others; science-based engagement has some interesting complexities as compared to other kinds of engagement, and it may serve as a limiting factor in promoting public information in support of governance.

Let me pose two different perspectives. Some might contend that the nature of scientific projects attract those who are scientifically-oriented to subject areas such as space, medicine or technology. This also provides the basis for a belief by some that those who do not gravitate towards science must be educated about it before they can meaningfully participate. For example, a community member without knowledge of watershed management must be briefed on the relative issues before they can effectively participate.

On the flip side, an argument could be made that these are all subjects that affect anyone and that education should not be necessary. For example, the average person does not need a medical degree to understand the basic values, factors and outcomes of practicing healthy habits. Rather, it is the duty of health care professionals to relate the material to people in ways so that people who do not have this kind of technical training can respond both thoughtfully and meaningfully.

What’s your take on these arguments? Is the technical nature of the scientific professions – or the communication tendencies professionals themselves – a barrier to engaging the general public in solving problems and making decisions in a democracy? Is there a burden on professionals to make scientific subjects more accessible to the public in the spirit of good governance? Or is it the responsibility of the public to become more knowledgeable themselves so that they can meaningfully participate?

My favorite news story this week is about conflict resolution. Youth in Stockton, California, are using Rock, Paper, Scissors (known as Rochambeau to some) to work through playground disputes (see the article here). It’s understandably a great way for navigating some tough calls on whose turn it is to jump rope or like issues, and the story brought the half-serious question to mind, namely “Why don’t we use Rock, Paper, Scissors more often to resolve difficult public disputes?”

Having realized the folly of this wish, I then consider the wonderful simplicity of the game. I think precisely what’s cool about Rock, Paper, Scissors is that the rules are pretty clear. Everyone knows how to play and what’s expected from them. The rules are the same for everyone. Whether you choose “rock” or “paper” or “scissors” during any round, everyone can see the choice you make. What isn’t transparent is the reason why a person chooses “paper” or any option. But knowing why doesn’t really matter in the game; trust facilitates the ability for people to play. In the case of democracy, I’d argue that the reverse is true; trust does not facilitate transparency, rather transparency facilitates trust.

The Obama administration is making strides in transparency with a goal of making the inner workings of government more visible. (I’m not knowledgeable about the status of transparency at the state and local levels.) Will this increase trust in government? As Virginia Tech’s Dr. Matt Dull and Dr. Giselle Datz have discussed in their transparency project, there is a lot of complexity around what transparency means and how it’s practiced. It’s not as simple as Rochambeau after all. (Read more at http://mdull.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/talks/, see the third entry for information about the project)

What makes transparency so challenging for us as a democratic polity? Should there be different kinds of transparency? Will transparency solve the lack of trust in government that seems more prevalent in recent years? Please share your perspective on this important issue.