[Boston-video] SCAT program names: Please VOTE

[Gary S. Trujillo]

> Andrewmcleod2000 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> ...maybe those receiving this could respond with your top three choices
>
> ...I believe we decided to make a decision on the show name by this Tuesday
>.   My votes are for 1)  Democracy in Action  2)  Let’s Talk About It
>    3)  Discussion & Dissent

One thing that has come to trouble me about the way things are approached
in certain segments of the activist community could be called something
like "unnecessary" (or even "counterproductive") "confrontation."  There
are certainly times when active, overt and confrontational dissent may be
required.  I sometimes wonder, though, whether better outcomes might not
be possible via attempts being made first to build bridges of understanding
before those other tactics are considered, planned or employed.

In this spirit, I'd like to observe, as someone once pointed out to me,
the word "discuss" has a lot in common with the word "percuss."  My own
dictionary (American Heritage, 1970) indicates that "discuss" comes from
the Latin "dis" (apart) + "quatere" (shake, strike), and percuss comes
from "per" (intensive) + "quatere."  Yes, I know, in common modern usage,
the word "discuss" has lost much, if not all, of that original sense, but
I think it carries at least a neutral connotation, and there is some of
the original word lingering around, when we consider other words with a
"dis" prefix ("disdain," "discord," "disunity," "disaster," etc.), as well
as the "reductionistic" (reducing problems to what one believes to be
their component parts, rather than trying to understand them as "wholes")
sense of "breaking apart."

So I ask that we consider the contrast between a word like "discuss" and
the word "dialogue," which (to me, at least) implies more in the way of
mutual respect and an attempt to cultivate a shared understanding of a
problem than does "discuss," which I find cold and clinical by comparison.
I wonder if there are any alliterative possibilities in the conjunction
of the word "dialogue" and the word "democracy."  (I don't quite like
"Dialogue for Democracy" - which sounds too much like "Dialing for Dollars."
:-) ,  Maybe there's also a way to get the word "debate" in there some-
place, which would assume that the program intends to feature debate,
which I would see as being a possibly "good thing."  I've noticed that
in the past couple of months, Amy Goodman seems to have been making much
more of an effort to sponsor and promote debate on her program, and has
featured to a greater extent than I recall her doing in the past voices
contrary to what might be called the "leftist party line," which, in one
view, at least, is a vital part of democratic values.  (Unfortunately,
such efforts sometimes fail, which is unavoidable, like this morning,
when her guest (an Israeli physician living in Gaza who is one of those
refusing to leave) just hung up the phone after saying what he wanted
to say, refusing to engage in dialogue with the journalist who has been
covering the situation or the founder of Electronic Intifada, on grounds
that sounded to me as amounting to the notion that he felt that he was
outnumbered and that the debate was being framed in such a way as to be
unfair to him and those he represents, which left Amy rather bemused.)

I think, actually, that the name chosen for the program should reflect
the actual intent of those putting it on, and that perhaps there could
be a bit more dialogue on that subject before a name is chosen, even
if it means operating under the current name for a while longer (which
may not present such a hardship, since unless and until there can be
substantially more promotion of the program, there may not be all that
many viewers (it could be useful to try to find out how many there are,
perhaps by offering an email address and asking viewers to send their
comments, suggestions, greetings, etc.)).

Even though I presently consider myself an "outsider" to the group (by
choice, though I do intend to remain a viewer), I do wish it the best of
success, and I hope that there can and will be some serious conversation
about what the program can achieve and how to best do so.  In this same
spirit, I hope that the name that is chosen does in fact represent a
consensus that gives everyone who is involved a "warm-in-the-belly" sort
of feeling, rather than that it is a sort of "compromise" that doesn't
say all that much about the ambitions of those putting it together.

I'll let you all know if I can think of another possible name that can
be put into the running.  But if everyone is anxious to must "make a
decision and get on with things," please don't let me slow you down.

Regards to all.

Gary