Now is the time for all of us to speak out clearly in defense of our culture and against this legislation:

One of the things I'm committed to doing in 2008 is organizing more public events. Last year, I ran a number of private interactive and intellectual discussions, which nurtured a desire to develop a larger and more public configuration for them.

To use a software development metaphor, my first public event was an alpha test, in that it was a raw and open exploration of a few concepts I've been developing or have seen in the wild and wanted to try myself.

Recently, there has been considerable innovation when it comes to event organizing, with the emergence of the BarCamp phenomenon as well as the Open Space movement. I am inspired by both, but still see room to incorporate my own sensibilities and experiences.

I've spent the last few years working in television and really studying the direction that industry is going, while also absorbing everything I can about production, both behind the scenes and on-camera. My approach to organizing events has been deeply impacted by this exploration of the television aesthetic and, conversely, my approach to television is heavily influenced by my love of live, interactive events.

The context to all this is, of course, the Internet, where I spend most of my time, and I'm always thinking how to bring the culture and properties of the Internet to live events and broadcast television. Often it has been the focus and/or subject matter. However, in the future, my intention is to run events in which the Internet is so ubiquitous as to no longer require explicit attention.

That is why I chose politics as the focus of my first event. I hoped to capture the zeitgeist of our time (with Obama inspiring a new generation) and tackle a subject that everyone should be able to relate to, one that lends itself to debate and disagreement.

I've always loved Kids in the Hall. I used to go and be part of the audience for the tapings of their old show here in Toronto, and their skits continue to pop into my head at all sorts of weird moments.

So yesterday I was recovering from an exciting event the day before, and still thinking about the intersection of community, technology, politics, and culture, when the KitH song "These are the Daves I know" jumped into my head.

Davids are wonderful human beings. I've known and loved many Davids in my three point three decades of this life. In fact Jesses have a unique relationship with Davids as Isiah chapter 11 describes Jesse as the father of David, Jesse of course described in that chapter as root.

Here in Toronto there has recently been a conflict brewing between two Daves I know, and last night as I saw this dispute seep into tweets, the Bruce McCulloch song got me thinking about Daves in general, and some of the Daves I know.

As in addition to being wonderful, Davids also tend to be powerful. And I must say I've known some rather powerful Davids. As it stands the mayor of Toronto is David Miller. I no longer like him that much, but I did contribute to his first successful mayoral campaign, and he's been in the news lately as he wants even more executive power.

However two other powerful Davids that are making waves in Toronto right now are David Crow and Dave Forde. I like both of these Daves, unfortunately I'm not sure they feel the same about each other, which is too bad, as united these two Davids could enable quite a bit of positive change.

John Edwards recently announced he was pulling out of the Democratic Presidential Primary. This was in contrast to previous indications from both the candidate and one of his senior advisers, Joe Trippi that he would stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday.

Other than money, the main reason to withdraw from the race at this point would be to give a clear boost to Obama as the anti-Hillary candidate. Yet had Edwards stayed in the race he would have easily gained enough delegates that in a tight race he'd be able to have considerable influence on the final outcome.

So why would Edwards give up this potential position of being the King/Queen maker? Perhaps because Obama offered him the job of running-mate as part of an Obama/Edwards Presidential ticket.

We know Edwards is open to the job of vice-president as he ran with Kerry, and he's young enough that 8 years from now he could run again for President. I'm unaware of any serious policy conflicts between Edwards and Obama that John couldn't stomach, especially in contrast to John Kerry's mediocrity.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama on the other hand will need someone like Edwards to balance out his ticket. The Black intellectual from the North can certainly benefit from the White Southern populist. Together they could bring an incredible amount of both excitement and credibility to the Democratic hopes of sweeping Congress and the Executive Office.

Yesterday's victories by Clinton in Nevada and McCain in South Carolina have me thinking about what an election between the two would look like. I like aspects of both candidates, and each represent elements of the establishment that have not been in power for the last 8 years.

Historically the Republican who wins the South Carolina primary also wins the party's nomination. Hillary on the other hand has now won two states in a row, New Hampshire and Nevada, when the polls predicted a Barack Obama victory. Clearly both of these candidates have momentum, and will gain even more speed if Hillary can pull off another upset in South Carolina, and if McCain place higher than Giuliani in Florida.

If this is going to be an election about change, it's interesting to see establishment candidates emerge who can both represent reform and also protect the status-quo. The balance between the need to seduce an electorate fed up with beltway bullshit, yet protect the real power that owns and runs the country.

There is an interesting article on the cover of today's New York Times that delves into some of the support behind former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Explicitly the description of Huck's Army sounds quite similar to the Ron Paul Army, although the latter is even more independent and autonomous than the former.

What they both have in common is an effective Internet strategy that allows them to make do with less, while also raising considerable funds online. Huckabee and Paul have both been outspent by opponents who blanket mainstream media with negative ads. Yet in the face of this they've both been able to use the Internet to speak directly to their growing supporters, inspiring them to work for and donate to the campaign.

I'm curious therefore to see whether Huckabee will be able to place well in Michigan and even if he can win in South Carolina this week. Is he independent and populist enough to win over some of the Ron Paul supporters? Would a ticket with Mike Huckabee as President and Ron Paul as Vice-President be popular? Though I do suspect that such a team would be vetoed by the Republican establishment which has the capability to parachute in their own nominees at the last minute.

Obviously the politics behind choosing a running mate is more than just mathematics and match-making. At this point the openly expressed symbolism has Chuck Norris as the VP in a Huckabee administration.

I think if the primary elections involved declaring a running mate it would be far more interesting. It could be balanced by having a deadline to declare a running mate relatively late in the game, thus increasing the possibility of competitors dropping out to become running mates for other candidates.

The really powerful combination would be if Barack Obama agreed to be Hillary Clinton's running mate. That would be the type of historical administration that could actually start to change the world's perception of America.

While this would all but guarantee that Obama is the next Democratic presidential nominee after Hillary, I doubt he'd agree to it, and I'm also not sure that the Clinton camp would want it either. I wouldn't rule it out however. Their combined thirst for power may be enough for them to get over their respective egos and see the opportunity such a combination offers.

The same is true for Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Yesterday's results in Iowa demonstrate that the Internet is playing a central and strategic role in the 2008 US Presidential Election.

Mike Huckabee, with the help of Chuck Norris, has been able to defeat Mitt Romney who out spent him by a factor of 20! Some estimates put Romney's Iowa expenditures at $10,000 per vote.

Barack Obama, with the help of Obama Girl, has been able to defeat Billary who admittedly had low expectations for Iowa to begin with. It's also worth noting that John Edwards has been able to stay in the race, in no small part due to his sophisticated Internet operation.

Of course I'm not suggesting that literally the videos I cite above are responsible for the victories. Rather the candidates who won did so against the odds and the Internet played an important role in that victory.

Which brings me to the story many journalists are missing this morning, which is Ron Paul. His results in Iowa may seem small compared to the victors, yet 10 and 11 percent is actually quite impressive for the congressman from Texas.

Ron Paul is running the most successful Internet campaign of any candidate because he and his campaign team make no effort to control their online activity. What shocks most journalists and political consultants is the way in which the Ron Paul campaign is autonomous and spontaneous.

The $20 million dollars raised in the last quarter of 2007 will go along way to keeping Congressman Paul in the race. He may not win, but he will affect the process as a whole.

Today, after Iowa, it's clear that there is great sentiment for Change. Huckabee, Obama, Paul, all are candidates that campaign from the outside, call for change, and embody the Internet's President.

Mind you, don't count out Billary and John McCain. The former has money and a machine that can keep them competitive right till the end. McCain has also been using the Internet quite effectively to offest his fundraising problems. He may easily win New Hampshire now that Romney is on the ropes.

For the record, I like aspects of all these candidates. I'm loving this election, and am looking forward to it getting strange, weird, and totally out of control!

Near the end of 2007 I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Ursula Franklin regarding her political and religious beliefs, as well as her lifelong activism and social criticism. I first heard her speak in 1995 at a conference around community access to the information highway (oh what weird words we used back then). At the time I was just starting to look at critical perspectives on technology, and Ursula's work influenced me quite a bit. Her definition of technology as being "how we do things around here" helped me understand the cultural impact of technology where others tend to miss this crucial influence.

In this interview we cover quite a bit of ground, starting with the analysis of the rise of techno-fascism, and the destructive impact of a society that is driven by the machines of war, which we contrast to the role of feminism and pacifism in moving towards a more socially just society. This discussion was an extension of the ideas in her latest book, The Ursula Franklin Reader: Pacifism as a Map, which was published by Between The Lines.

In my latest article for cbcnews.ca I've taken a look back at 2007 as a profitable and successful year for cyber crime. Explicitly I take my analysis of the storm worm and draw out a thread that shows the larger socio-political implications of this emerging technology:

The organization of all this criminal activity manifests in the form of bot nets (see sidebar) such as the storm worm, networks of hijacked machines that allow criminals to engage in their activities without being traced or identified. The sophistication of these bot nets has increased so rapidly that many observers have begun speculating that we're witnessing the early stages of a new online arms race, a cyber cold-war in which new weapons and tactics are being developed and tested.

I recently interviewed Professor Daniel A Bell, who teaches in the philosophy department at Tsinghua University in Beijing, regarding the revival of Confucianism in modern day China. As some of you know I've studied Chinese history for some time now, explicitly Chinese political theory, in part because I feel it is relevant and applicable to global geopolitics. In this interview, Prof Bell and I are able to really get into some substantive issues with regard to the way in which China is changing, and the role Confucian, and to a lesser extent Taoist thought is affecting contemporary society.