I'm at WeMedia at the moment...

So the other day I ran some things to clean up my laptop...   uninstalling random features I didn't think I needed.  Who would have thought that uninstalling speech recognition features would also uninstall handwriting recognition.  Tablet rended useless for the moment... very frustrating as I try to blog the WeMedia conference.

Listening to the first panel, it makes me wonder whether or not the changing media opens up new opportunities for young journalists who have cultivated WeMedia platforms and technology to create trust.  In other words, is it easier for CBS to put Andy Rooney on a podcast or to hire a true podcaster...  and if they hire a podcaster, what could they actually provide that person in terms of channel support? 

Larry Kramer brings up an interesting point that new forms of media are increasing utilization rates of the newsroom.  Whereas in the past, political staffs couldn't find their way on the air when the station was hyperfocused on one progam, they're now publishing stories and video on the web.

According to Farai Chideya, NPR has a job opening for a New Media Music Editor.  I'll make sure Fred doesn't apply. 

Here's another digital divide:    Political/news engagement and disengagement.   How many people are less interested in the news and politics than they were ten years ago because they have so much other content to consume or because they're more connected to work?  (iPods and Blackberries gaining commuter minutes versus the newspaper.)  How many are more hyperfocused on it because of blogging and access to more and better information?  I feel like there's more of the former than of the latter.

Link: An Endorsement for Mayor - New York Times.

Mr. Bloomberg has not been nearly as exciting, or entertaining, as Edward I. Koch or Rudolph W. Giuliani. But he has been better at running the city. If he continues his record of accomplishment over the next four years, he may be remembered as one of the greatest mayors in New York history.

I'll just repeat for emphasis, "...one of the greatest mayors in New York history."

The bashed him for his outlandish campaign spending, but I don't really care about that.  He's a self made man and has all this money because he built something that works.

I look forward to the next four years.

Perhaps we should rethink the term limits on NYC Mayor.

What's next?  Senator Bloomberg?

Bloomberg for President?

In New York City, I don't find too many people oppossing the idea that priests should get married.  Its not too often that someone takes the other side and is willing to tell me that we shouldn't allow any combination of two human beings in love to get married either.   

So, as someone who picks and chooses from both sides politically, I find myself arguing most often against liberals...  just because that's who is around me.  I'm quite sure that if I lived in a red state, I'd be on the other side of a lot of typically conservative arguments and get called a liberal.   Instead, I appear more conservative than I really am.

What I am is against politics.  I don't like the idea that all find into one side or the other.  Plus, I don't understand how some of this stuff fits together anyway.  What exactly is the reasoning behind feeling a certain way about capital punishment versus leaning a certain way on expanding social programs?  So, how's it supposed to go again?  Less welfare, more lethal injection, or did I get it wrong?   If I'm anti-war, remind me again how I'm supposed to feel about the privitization of social security. 

I ask a lot of these types of questions because I like to poke holes at things that don't make sense.  I'm an analyst.  I'm a cynic.

So when I get in a really good debate with someone, I love it.  It makes me think.  The tough part is that I think I come off as difficult or dismissive when in reality, I'm challenged and inspired.  Its two in the morning now and I just got off the phone with someone who brings a truly unique perspective to the table and a sincere and respectable conviction to the table on what she believes.  Instead of focusing on our differences, I left the call feeling lucky... lucky that I know such an intelligent and thoughtful person...  someone tenacious enough to come back at me.

Debates make me think.  They make me question.  People don't do that enough when they encounter something different then themselves.  They immediately try and change it or erase it rather than learn from it.  I love learning from other people.  Its an important part of my education and I need to be challenged to sure up my own beliefs.

The best part about the conversation, though, was that we could put it down at the end... that it wasn't personal and that we appreciated each other for our differences.  That means a lot to me as well.  I'm never going to have all the answers, but if I can get someone thinking differently about something, I've done my job.  I also expect that someone will challence me enough to get me thinking differently, and I'll always credit them for that going forward.    I just hope that tonight's debating partner felt as enriched as I did and not just tired and frustrated.

"Do you think you serve your country best by being a critic and using words that tend to enflame and overshadow any information?"

This one comes from YouTube (which, by the way, I find myself watching more and more lately).   

Well, actually, it comes from a Hardball interview with Ann Coulter , but I saw the clip on YouTube.  Chris Matthews went to the audience for a question and the first young woman with a question posed the question to Coulter.

I have to admit that I'm not a particularly political person and I certainly don't follow all the talking heads (at least the non-animated ones), so this may be the first time I've ever seen/noticed Ann Coulter speak.  Is she really this wretchedly awful all the time?  I really dislike anyone who just spews division and polarizes people wherever they go.  Like this young woman pointed out, Ann, you're just not helping.  This country needs more people who bridge gaps and bring people together... not make everything out to be black and white, right or wrong.  And the personal attacks? 

I mean, seriously, where does she come off saying that Bill Clinton is gay?  Is that relevent to any conversation whatsoever?  That would be like someone insinuating that Ms. Coulter is just bitter because she's undersexed... it's totally unrelated and drags someone's personal life into the conversation unecessarily.

Besides, its obvious that her statements and divisive and enflamatory behavior are likely traced to either one of two causes...    her own ignorance or her allegiance to the Almighty Dollar.  It might be both.  Ignorance sells a lot of books.                

Good post on Superman and the American Way from Jarvis.

Ok, here's something from the, "I don't know nearly enough about my representatives" catagory...

Hilary Clinton doesn't support gay marriage.  Really?  I had no idea. 

So, wait...   if 52% of the people (to 38%) of the people in your state are supportive of it, and you're the elected representative, then who exactly are you representing?

I'm a fan of the domino effect... letting the states decide who they want to issue licenses to (since they are, in fact, state licenses)...   but its going to be really hard when the supportive states have politicians with their own agenda propping up the domino. 

On one hand, she attacks the anti-gay marriage amendment, chastizing Republicans...   and on the other she has said in the press that marriage is "between a man and a woman."

In other news, her 2008 Presidential Campaign slogan just got annouced.

Hilary Clinton: I'm for whatever will get me elected.... which means trying to present myself so deeping entrenched in the center that I don't actually stand for anything.

A lot of good that did John Kerry...

In 2008, I hope we have a choice between Mike Bloomberg/John McCain and Al Gore/Barack Obama.   I actually think only one of these four, Gore, will make it onto any ticket, but still, with a choice like that, you'd have to feel pretty good about your vote, no matter which way it came out.

I like Scott Adam's ability to make us all realize how self-important we all are.

Today he covered flag burning.

Now, I'm not a fan of flag burning the same way I'm not a fan of tearing up Pope photos or defacating on Yankee jerseys.  (oh... wait... about that last one... that's probably ok)    But I'd never want to go so far as to make it illegal. 

I love his reasoning:

"For me, a flag that I’m NOT allowed to burn is a symbol that the government is too intrusive in my life. And it’s an insult to anyone who died to defend freedom. But that’s just me. You might prefer your symbols of freedom to have as many restrictions as possible.

It seems to me that the great thing about the flag is that it symbolizes something inherently indestructible: the concept of freedom. You can burn the flag as many times as you want and the concept of freedom is not only still there – it’s stronger. I like that about my flag. I would go so far as to say it’s my flag’s best feature."

The American Flag: Growing stronger with every match.  You can't burn freedom, punks.

Brad wrote this morning about an interesting take on tech blogging.

Too many people writing about solutions, but not enough people talking about the problems.

At the same time, two people sent me some info on this Sunday's DC rally for Darfur.

I'm a bit cynical about these types of political rallies because I feel like its all about complaining about the problems, but not too many people have actual solutions.  Where's the ten step plan for fixing the atrocities in Darfur?   I'll get behind a reasonable solution, but I haven't seen any.

Maybe we should get the tech bloggers to bring their 85 calandaring solutions together to come up with one solution for Darfur...

...and then get the political protesters to work on pointing out what the everyday problems in the tech world that the average person needs solving.

I'd love that.   Web based, AJAX world peace...   and protesters outside Amazon with little "No walled garden" signs.

In the last couple of years, I've had the privilege of working with a lot of college students in various career mentoring programs, and one thing has always stood out at me.

Probably about two thirds or more of the applications for NYSSA's SEMI Program come from either immigrants to this country or children of immigrants.  Now, I know that's generally not reflective of the general NYC college student population, so, a disproportionately large percentage of the foreign students are taking advantage of this great opportunity. 

I asked one student about this and he told me that education and opportunity is the only reason that he was here--it was the only reason his whole family came here in the first place. 

What's really obvious to me is that a lot of the native born students here are simply going to get steamrolled by competition like that... and as well they should be. 

So maybe instead of closing the borders, we should be trying to figure out how we can get the people that are here as motivated as the people trying to come here.

So I've been e-mailing with a Jesuit scholastic (someone who is studying to become a priest) about some family values issues and I wanted to blog my response to something he said about beliefs and how I arrive at them:

"Going to be tough to chat via phone...    have a very busy schedule over the next few days.  Plus, admittedly, I'm a writer.  I kind of hate the phone and do my best thinging when I can sit, go back to something, think about it...  I find the phone to be unecessarily syncronous when my brain doesn't work that way.

Plus, this is the way the Paul did it, right?  :)   He would have made a great blogger.

I'm sure we'll run into different definitions of the word faith, but here's one from the Catholic Encyclopedia that seems that you would go on that I have a lot of trouble with.

"...faith must necessarily result in a body of dogmatic beliefs....Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church presents to us in a brief form in her creeds..."

"That such Divine faith is necessary, follows from the fact of Divine revelation. For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths which are not in themselves evident to the human mind. We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand, but which come to us on Divine authority."

The problem I have, where this breaks down for me and where it breaks down for a lot of Catholics, or people in general, is that once you get to the point where religion needs to be explained to you by someone with a lot more schooling that you, you don't trust it... because you know that no one is infallable and we are all subject to our own biases.  Religion has been used to exploit people, as an excuse to start wars (not talking about today), and as an instrument of fear.  (You should see V for Vendetta, btw...)  Individual faith doesn't have those negative charactoristics, or at least not to the same extent.  If I base my faith on what I believe in my heart and my innate sense of right and wrong, while it is no doubt subject to my own biases, I also don't get the sense that I am using religion to justify an end.  Whereas, when you have Divine Revelation explained to you by others that seems to contradict what's in your heart, people get a little suspicious.

So, you could tell me that there is Divine revelation that dictates what family means, but I say that, to me, family is love and support and I see the best kind of love and support in a multitude of different arrangements and architectures.  I believe that...   it is my own personal faith that it is acceptable to God.  Scholars and experts could point out otherwise, but then again, some Church scholars thought the world was flat at one point, too, and that notions of a round world were contrary to scripture.  Such is the result when imperfect people try and interpret the Divine."

Link: CNN.com - Long Island principal cancels prom - Oct 16, 2005.

This is interesting...     I agree with the idea, but perhaps maybe something less drastic would have worked better.  How about a "no limo rule" or holding the school's Disney trip the day after the prom, eliminating the weekend in the Hampton's afterwards.  I see what he was trying to do, but now you've just created a vacuum that will be filled by rich parents. 

"By the time the election rolls around, people are going to know where Democrats stand," Reid said.  Link

This is why I don't like politicians.  They need to spend months, even years, trying to figure out what they think.

Why not just SurveyMonkey every Democrat in the country?  Isn't that what they think?

Ok, so I've been vocal about siding with the MTA and the city... and so have the millions of the rest of us who are stranded, inconvenienced, etc...  but I'm going to take a step back for a second.

Let's suppose, for a moment, that the current deal the transit worker's union is getting is a bad deal, and bad precident for labor in this city in general.  Perhaps that's true.

Contrast that with this Op/Ed from USA Today:

 

"Pity the New Yorker who commutes from Queens to Manhattan to work in a hotel for $25,000 a year, with no health care or retirement benefits. She couldn't ride to work Tuesday because the city's transit workers went on strike.

 

The bus drivers who get her there make an average of $63,000. They are balking at a proposed 3% pay raise. What's more, they, along with other transit workers, are indignant at a proposal that they begin making a contribution (of 1% of wages) toward their health costs. And they beat back a plan to make future workers wait until age 62, rather than 55, to get full pensions.

 

If this sounds as if it's a militant union leveraging its ability to wreak havoc, it is. New York transit workers receive better pay and benefits than most of their riders do."

That sums up a lot of what I'm hearing from the public. 

But maybe we're not getting the whole story, and that's my point.

If there is another side to this, the transit workers, and whoever runs their PR, has done an awful job of getting the word out.  I went to their website, and they had a few stories about workers with cancer getting docked for sickleave, etc...  but these stories aren't getting out there.

When cops, fireman, and teachers have labor issues, there are a lot of people who naturally side with them, because we see cops getting killed, fireman going into fires, and we care about the education of our youth.

But transit workers?  We associate them with our commute, which is a drag.  We don't really seperate the MTA from the workers.  We just know that when our trains are late, rerouted, etc., that we just hate the whole idea of a commute.  So, when a strike causes massive delays, millions of dollars in lost revenue, let's just say that some PR work is needed to get the public on your side.  So, if there are convincing stories to tell about the union's side, they're definitely not getting out there. 

Link: apophenia: MySpace blamed for alienated youth's threats.

"Another beautiful MySpace article: Online Terror Threat Hits Local High School. The "terrorists" are two boys who are threatening to show up in school with machine guns. As a result of their posts to MySpace, most students didn't show up for school. The school district is pissed and blames MySpace for enabling students to "post their thoughts and ideas" without surveillance. They are deciding whether or not to sue MySpace."

I'm just glad most of the parents allowed their kids to stay home.  After Columbine, I think if my future kids told me they shouldn't show up at school because of some kids posted terror threats, I'd make sure they didn't go to school.  They should be thanking MySpace.  What if MySpace took those comments down before anyone saw them, and then those kids actually showed up at school, guns blazing?

Then, I'd sue MySpace.  But that's what parents seem to want.  "Take it down... hide their eyes...   keep them locked up."

If you're a parent out there, create a MySpace account.  Don't spy on your kids.  Ask them to be your "friend" on it.  If they don't want to be your friend, get your own friends on it. Get them to teach you how to put up music from your favorite bands.  Help them fix your template. 

I really think some kids might accept it, because they'll think its funny, but more than anything else, you'll seem like a parent who either "gets it" or is trying.  So, instead of getting freaked out about what's on MySpace, contribute your own content and join the crowd.

I made a change to something I wrote on my political post the other day, because the post inspired some offline communication and made me realize that I what I wrote and what I thought didn't exactly match.

That happens a lot, not just in political debates, but in focus groups, usability studies, religious discussions.

Often times, when someone argues a point or descibes how they feel about something, its the first time they've actually tried to articulate verbally that particular angle or view.  What happens is that they struggle with the vocabulary they want to use to describe a thought or an emotion, and using the wrong words can confuse, anger, etc.

People don't often know how to say what they feel.  That's why I like writing, and speaking of writing, I'd encourage you to check that post out.  At the moment, not by design, the comments are a bit of a conservative "love-in", but that's because no one has posted any dissenting views yet.  What can I do about that?

I went to WeMedia last week and I listened to Al Gore eulogize intelligent public discourse, especially in regards to politics.  He was dead on.

What do we talk about as a society?

Runaway brides.  A family of 18.  One missing white girl in Aruba.  iPods.

Once in a while a small group of us very loudly debates Iraq, gay rights, abortion or the death penalty...  once in a while.  But its far from mainstream.

Why?  Because we live in a culture of personal attacks.  Political discussion in our country today is devisive.  It doesn't seek solutions.  Ideas aren't exchanged... they're used to club others over the head.  Either you're red or blue.  You watch Fox or you read the Times.  Screaming ended Howard Dean's run for President.  Screaming.  We all scream.  Fuckin' screaming...   No, we don't want a screamer for President.  We pointed fingers and were agast.  In that world, what politician in their right mind would ever be transparent about their actual beliefs versus what a strategest told them pissed off the fewest people?

When's the last time you got into a political debate with someone where you actually felt like they a) were listening to your point b) were open enough to new ideas to actually have a change of changing their mind or c) didn't constantly bash you over the head with a canned comeback like, "but Kerry was a flip flopper" or "Bush is an idiot."

This has got to stop.  We're not getting anywhere.  I don't know if we just personalize everything to the point where we can't even think clearly or seek solutions but I think its choking our culture and dumbing us down.

It really came to a head for me personally on the issue of gay rights.  I'm quite sure what I'm about to write will anger somebody but that's kind of the point.  Instead of getting into an open, calm, exchange with me, I'm sure I'll just get called a name or just generally accussed.

One of my fundamental core philosophies is that everyone needs to make lifestyle decisions on their own, but moreover they need to accept that what's right for them isn't necessarily what's right for everyone.  In order to have your choices respected, you need to respect the decisions of others.  I learned that from a girl who does fetish modeling now.  Go figure.

That's how I feel about gay rights.  If two consenting adults want to get married, that's fine with me.  They should love each other and think it through, and not waste money on expensive food at the wedding that no one ever eats anyway.  I don't want to tell anyone who not to marry the same way I don't want to be told who not to marry.

Therefore, I disagree with the president...  the guy that I voted for.  The marriage amendment is ridiculous and I thought it was ridiculous when I voted for him.  I didn't vote on morals, though, the way some pundits tell me that we all voted.  I didn't believe that morals were on trial.  Maybe I'm just not politically savvy, but I honestly didn't believe that such an amendment would ever pass, so, to me, it was kind of a non-issue.  I also don't think Roe vs. Wade would ever get overturned either, regardless of how I feel about it.  (For the record, I'm against unwanted kids...  my personal preference for eliminating unwanted kids is through education, protection, etc...   my utopia is where no one gets an abortion because there are no unwanted pregnancies.  I wouldn't vote to overturn it, but I don't really like it... overturning doesn't solve the unwanted kid problem.)

HOWEVER, I don't support a national law allowing gay marriage either *correction:  I don't think a national law right now at this very second as the way to get to the goal of national support of gay marriage, because too many parts of this country just aren't ready for it*, and this is where its all going to break down.  This is the statement that will get people yelling at me and upset some people that I'm close to and some other people I'm really fond of.  What's going to happen is that their personal views are going to cloud their ability to actually listen to my reasoning, be open to my ideas, and respect them.  I'll just get lashouts and that doesn't accomplish jack.  That stifles me.  That makes me not want to discuss it and when we're not discussing it--not identifying causes, exchanging ideas, understanding we're just going to succumb to atrophy and apathy and move backwards as a society.

But, well, fuck it, here goes:   

I want to see gay marriage get nationally accepted, but in a peaceful way.  I hate division and that's why I hate politics.  I feel like the best way to do that is state by state.  I feel like, just a few years from now, all the "blue" states will have ok'd it... and that will be the tipping point, because of how interconnected our society is.  When half of the states are marrying gays, we'll see a gay marriage on television, just like when Ellen came out.  Remember, Ellen came out on TV just a few years ago and now?  Well, jeez, the whole damn country loves her and why not?  She's the blue fish in Finding Nemo... she speaks whale!  Put a really likeable gay married couple in a sitcom and boom, there go the rest of the dominoes.  Maybe it takes ten years... but what you won't have is bussing from the late 50's. 

I watch those videos of black teens getting bussed into white schools and the hate that it generated and I feel like that's what's going to happen with a federal mandate on gay marriage.  Do you think Arkansas is going to take well to federally legalized gay marriage?  Personally, I think they'll take better to it if it just kind of seeps unnoticed into their hyperconnected media culture without them realizing it.  Sure, ideally they'd all be ok with it on day one, but the reality is that they're not.  Why force them if they'll just get assimilated by the next generation of MySpacers, IMers--kids who have friends all over the world who grow up digitally tolerant/agnostic about such things. 

What sucks is that I've yet to be abliged in an intelligent exchange on this.  No one who believes in a federal gay marriage support law has been willing to just level with me, be open to my points and show/explain (not cry/yell) theirs.  And of course, it happens both ways.  Its not like people who are against it have been that open to sitting down and having a dialogue on it either.

Perhaps I'm wrong.  Perhaps I'm misguided.  I didn't say I was right.  I said this was what I believed, and as an analyst, I'm a truth seeker.  Show me where my logic is flawed, but don't cry out because of what I believe and refuse to engage me.  If you just say, "I can't believe you think like that, I can't even talk to you" what good does that to?  How does that solve anything?  Help me ask the right questions of myself and the world around me.

We're making it so that people are afraid to admit how they really feel.  They're afraid to say, "Hey, I'm wearing khaki's today, not because I'm anti-gay, but because I just don't want my clothing to become somebody else's political rallying tool, regardless of whether I agree with them or not."   

So, if you want to talk and discuss, feel free.  Let's share ideas... change/influence each other's perspective--something different than what goes on with most poltical blogs.  Most political blogs aren't true conversations, they're either love-ins for people who all think the same way or targets for people who disagree.  Where's the conversation there?  Do you spend more time debating others to affect them or debating internally with yourself because you're actually affected by what someone else said?

We might disagree, but if you can't respect the fact that we disagree, this isn't going to go anywhere...

Listening to Al Gore talk about the lost "marketplace of ideas".  TV stations used to (it doesn't seem like they do anymore... at least I can't find it) have some requirement for educational programming?

Should MySpace, Friendster, and the Facebook have the same thing?  Especially when it comes to news.

In fact, I wonder whether or not Newscorp is interested in MySpace to reengage youth from a news a political perspective.  MySpace News...     pump a bunch of news stories into those kinds of networks... an opportunity to research facts, etc...   give them the tools to collaborate and discuss.  That's the way to engage the youth...  not with a young people's version of Fox News or MSNBC.

Link: New York Daily News - Home - More schools than ever for 1.1M students.

Some 74 new schools are making their debut, swelling the ranks of public schools to a record 1,408 to house more than 1.1 million students.

I voted for George Bush...  not the first time, but the second.  I really didn't see much to John Kerry and didn't think I knew enough information as everyone else thought they knew to look back at Iraq and say it was a bad decision.  Actually, I still don't think it was a bad decision--its just obvious that there was no execution.

And now, again, our management team is proving they can't execute.

I don't think George Bush is evil.  I don't think he's a religious fanatic...   but right now, at this very moment, he has failed millions of Americans in the South.

Jason wrote a great post about what it would be like if Rudy was President now and I feel exactly the same way.  After September 11th, Rudy Giuliani's actions made him the Mayor of America.  He stood in the trenches, walked the streets, pitched in and got the job done.  He went to most of the firefighter and funerals... often times several a day.

We don't have that kind of leader right now... its obvious to me.

In fact, its not just Bush.  Its the whole damn government.  Check out Sen. Mary Landrieu getting raked over the coals by Anderson Cooper.  She was thanking the President who "will be here tomorrow 'we think'".  And she's a DEMOCRAT!!  What the hell was she thanking him for?

Frankly, I think all these people would have been safer if we bused them to Bagdhad.   At least there are some National Guardspeople over there from what I hear.

There are two tragedies here.  One is Katrina.  The other is our government leaders.  We knew this was coming...  a flood in New Orleans was one of FEMA's top three concerns just a couple of years ago.  And yet, its taken days for supplies to arrive, and armed looters run the streets.  And yet, no one wants to take responsibility.

Is it because they're poor and black?  I don't know.  I'd hate to think that.  I think its more the case that our government became obsessed with terrorism and forgot about anything else.  19 assholes hijack some planes in a really hack operation when you think about it... boxcutters... jeez...  and kill off three thousand people.  If that justifies every man, woman, and child fearing for their lives for "what Osama will do next" and $190+ billion to fight terrorism then what should a destroyed city (yes, New Orleans has been destroyed, let's not kid ourselves), potentally 10,000 dead, and millions homeless justify?

How about getting the bodies off the streets?   How about fixing a levee or two?   A few buckets of food airdropped from a plane wouldn't hurt either.  Days after the tsunami, I remember seeing footage of airdropped food...  how come I haven't seen it here?

What the fuck are we doing?

I think everyone in New Orleans should get a tax refund.   Every dollar they've given the government for the last ten years should go back to them, because clearly we haven't spent dime one for their benefit. 

I backed you George...   gave you the benefit of the doubt for going into Iraq... didn't quite like what you were doing with the place... but this...   this is awful.  Its unforgivable. 

For more good links on this top, check out everything tagged both Bush and Katrina on del.icio.us.