Open Journalism NorthWet

This was first reported last week, and promptly got buried. Your correspondent things it needs to be unearthed again, if for no other reason to subject it to the crucible of debate, "in order to form a more perfect Union," as it were.

The Lakota nation has seceded from the United States. According to this article, they've been planning to do so since 1974. They have written an outline for a constitution, based in Lakota spirituality. The form of government is quasi-parlimentary; there is to be a house of chiefs and headmen, and a house of commons. The executive committee is to be formed from four of the former, and three of the latter.

I will note that neither article quotes any US government official. No word as to whether said government officials had any trouble with sand in their hair the next day.

Many, many more links here, which is where I was originally pointed at the story.

(For those who are wondering and haven't clicked on the constitution link above, "Wolakota" is the Lakota way of life, which is a spiritual path. The Lakota are colloquially known as Sioux; your correspondent tends towards calling people what they call themselves, modulo linguistic difficulties.)

I suppose a word about myself is in order.

I am an American, though not so proudly as some; I believe in the principles upon which this nation was founded, but not so much in the leadership with which We The People have ended up. Some of these views are controversial.

I am, currently, an amateur, in that I do not get paid for doing this. But I pledge, here and now, to try to the best of my ability to keep my writings here as professional as possible. Some would say that should go without saying; I've come to recognize that words are important. Indeed, words are all that stand between ourselves and bloodshed, slavery, or both. So I shall endeavour (and there I go again, spelling like a Brit... but I hope my audience becomes international, so I shall let that stand) to use words carefully.

I hope to keep this as transparent as possible. Classical journalism rails against the anonymous source; modern journalism uses it... perhaps far too much. Some would say that without their use much news would go unreported, or unsupported. Others say it damages accountability. Which accountability is perhaps the highest responsibility a journalist has.

So I propose to make this an Open Journal, to let you see at least some of the hard calls I have to make, and to even participate in them as ethics allows. I will not reveal a source that does not want to be revealed without good reason.... but I am willing to listen to the wisdom of others as to the reasons I should use. "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow,'' quoth Eric Raymond, what he calls "Linus' Law." I think the same can be said of most problems. Certainly the twin causes of freedom of the press, and the exercise thereof, are susceptible to this.

Or, at least, we shall find out.

Onward!