Exercises in Inefficiency

Dear heavy-duty staple in two-page document: I hate you.

Cheap Ploy or Are People Just Fucking Nuts?

I know the media is making Hillary Clinton's campaign out to be explosive, but sheesh- I had hoped not literally.

I'm sure by now you've heard ad nauseam that some crazy fuck held Clinton's New Hampshire campaign office hostage, demanding to speak to the Fembot herself. My roommate questioned immediately if Hillary's campaign had planned this themselves to divert attention from the question planting controversy.

[Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that Bush frequently plants questions and, oh yeah, requires nothing short of a loyalty oath for people to even see him "speak." I use the term "speak" loosely, as what Bush does when he opens his mouth can hardly be considered speaking.]

This country is in a sad state if we think that every news event is a publicity stunt.

Certainly I think Hillary is taking advantage of the situation- who wouldn't? But I think the unsettling aspect of this story is not that politicians would do anything for a photo op, but that this country is full of Grade-A, All-American apple pie nutjobs.

Aside from obvious mental illness, obsession with celebrity and notoriety is dangerous one. Julia Roberts recently chased down paparazzi after they were harassing and endangering the lives of her children (and rightly so). Obsession with celebrity has provoked countless chemical dependencies, even ended lives.

Why do we care?

I'm certainly not feeling sorry for these poor celebrities - they live their lives in the public eye to a certain extent, and are well compensated for it. I'm just saying we take the obsession too far.

Let me back up here.

I think, actually, that the underlying point is a lack of respect for privacy. I recall discussing in at least two of my classes last week that younger generations brought up in the computer age have no problem with volunteering information about themselves online and in fact do not even expect a basic level of privacy. These are people just a few years younger than me.

Advertisers especially have jumped on this. They have even ruined Christmas for one man. If advertisers can do this in the name of "market research," what's to stop the government from compiling data about your every move? And what's to stop Wal-Mart or Google from running our country anyway?

I have no solutions.

And thus, on this bleak note, I close my blogging venture and leave it at the mercy of my professor.

You know I'm no optimist.

Book Review: The Wealth of Networks; Law vs. Culture

Yochai Benkler is one worrrrrrrrdy bastard.

By now the point has been belabored that the networked economy cannot and should not be treated like a proprietary economy. Though it is necessary to preserve some proprietary rights, it would be disastrous to do so in areas such as science and medicine. Obtuse policy makers and greedy Hollywood bigwigs alike don't seem to realize that even if proprietary restrictions are placed on information and end-products, people will find a way around them. I personally am quite thankful this is so; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to see my favorite drug-dealing suburban MILF on Weeds every week.

At the root of these attempts to force proprietary rights on the networked economy is fear. Fear that, mostly, money will not be made. It's the fear that most industries connected even marginally to the internet have. It's also entirely irrational. There will always be a way to make money, it just might not be in the traditional sense. Corporations will just have to adapt - the people already have.

Benkler offers a variety of explanations for attempts of policy makers to control the networked economy. His arguments fall short sometimes due to rapidly changing network industries - some of the companies he cites simply do not exist anymore. And this is precisely the reason why policy makers cannot continue to treat the networked economy like a traditional material economy. It simply outgrows its legal boundaries, and policy cannot keep up. I do believe, however, that Benkler agrees with me there.

Attempts of policy makers to curb the growth and free-for-all nature of the networked economy are, in some cases, ludicrous. The expansion of patents and copyright especially penalize nonproprietary items by disallowing use of intellectual property that could be considered by now common knowledge, or potentially life-saving. These restrictions can sometimes last several decades beyond their practical use.

It is a question, then, of whether law will prevail over culture and knowledge. It's clear that many other writers can imagine this dystopian drive, where service is highly regulated and restricted, where innovation stemming from the "commons" will be stunted entirely, where the government will be able to tell exactly what you do online.

We're really only a few clicks away from this anyway. Right now, through the use of cookies and other slyly invasive technologies, you are being profiled and sold to advertisers. If your interests can be tracked now by advertising firms, what's to stop the government from compiling information about you? They might be already.

But, aside from my digression, the main thing to take away from The Wealth of Networks is that the networked economy cannot be treated like a traditional, proprietary economy (he only repeats it about a million times). Forcing property-based restrictions on nonproprietary items is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It's clear that the rights that need to be preserved (that is, rights for those who are truly innovative) should be preserved, but the method of preservation will just have to adapt.

Politicians and Celebrities and Politicians as Celebrities

Old maids, spinsters, and crazy cat ladies alike can now shed their stigma - they're the hottest new voting bloc this election, with the potential to emerge as the 'Democrats' Evangelicals'" - at least until they're dumped after the election (they're used to it). Then, some other marginally marginal group will emerge, like the gays. Or something.

Courting unmarried women (ha ha. ha.), campaigns frequently use celebrity endorsements to influence voting habits. Oprah now endorses Obama; the Edwards campaign is "sending its own celebrities in search of female voters," as if they didn't already notice his million-watt smile.

Swoon.


Democrats, meet your biggest supporter. Pretend those cats are Republicans, and she's throwing them right back at those red states.

Will using celebrities to campaign for politicians by association make celebrities the new politicians? Is there even a line between politics and celebrity? Arnold governates, Fred Thompson bores the audience to tears both on and off Law and Order, Stephen Colbert tries to run on both tickets in South Carolina. The same was true decades ago: JFK and Bobby were both celebrities in their own right.

The use of celebrities begs the question - why are celebrities more trustworthy than our peers? We've never met these people, and more than likely we have nothing in common with them. Really, just how big is the $20,000-a-month coke habit constituency anyway? Why does what they say matter?

There is also a tendency to believe that women subscribe more to celebrity culture. Look in any beauty parlor and you will find stacks of Us Weekly or Star. Does this mean women are more susceptible to media messages or that somehow women are less intelligent?

I would like to think not. I would also like to urge people, regardless of gender, to listen not to The Clooney or Oprah but to their own opinions about a candidate's policy.

That is, of course, if they have time to think after they're done in the kitchen.

Question: Why Did I Leave Again?

They say you can never go home again.

Well, you can. I did.

Oh San Francisco, the moment I stepped out of the 16th & Mission BART station and took in your lovely bouquet of piss and cheap alcohol and three weeks' worth of homeless body stench, I knew I was home. I missed you, crazy fuck in the garbage bag, sprawled out across the bus stop. And you- you transvestite that repeatedly harassed me for cigarettes every morning waiting for the train even though you had two lit in your hand (and despite the fact that I don't smoke)- there really is no one else quite like you. I love you.

I forgot what a real burrito tasted like; I forgot what dirty bars feel like; I forgot how great it feels to be around people who are absolutely and completely nuts.

DC: you're too closeted. Go ahead and admit that coke habit, run free with your cracky, skanky gay hooker habit. Dare to go out in public without popping that pastel pink collar.

Be fucking weird.

Or at least import some good crazies for my daily bus ride. Good, proper Christian South Carolinians are fucking boring to watch on my way to school. An idea? North vs. South Carolina throwdown- 1,2,3, go! If I can't have a nice bum fight, I'd settle for Southern belle fight in pearls (you know those girls are dirty).

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat some sourdough, drink some Peet's, and watch the birds drown in the oily bay.

No mention of actual schoolwork here, no sir.

Dear Cloon, I'm Sorry.

I know I'm heightist. I know. I dated a guy who was an inch shorter than me but in the end I just couldn't do it. I dumped him.

It might have had more to do with the fact that he disappeared on me for a month while trying to get back together with his ex-girlfriend who had just come back from Namibia than it did with him being an elf.

You might recall that earlier I semi-ranted on George Clooney being short. I stand by my word - he is a shorty. But that does not make him any less attractive or intelligent. Notice, for example, this fact I so blithely left out: the father of all my crushes, Jon Stewart, is a fucking munchkin. And I loooooooves it.

[Side note: I'm slightly disturbed by the fact that the three men I've mentioned having a crush on in my blog are all grey-haired and twenty years my senior, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]

In a Rolling Stone interview- perfect bathroom reading, I might add- The Clooney had this to say:

"The Information Age? It's great, it's readily available, and it's also dangerous. The bloggers think they're the Murrows of the future, and that anchormen and news organizations are archaic. Here's the problem: If you're a blogger, who's your ombudsman? Who do I go to when you're wrong? Who can I hold responsible?"

Okay, first: some people who read this quote, and the interview as a whole, are going to think The Clooney is drunk with self-importance. He's just an actor; what the hell does he know about improving the world?

Second: given that our politicians are the most corrupt this country has ever seen, I'm pretty sure anyone could do a better job, even actors.



Look what a He-Man he is.

Third: he's right. Blogging is not subject to the same accuracy standards that broadcast news is. This is not to say broadcast news is better; in fact, I don't think you can even call it news today. But blogging can be irresponsible and dangerous. There are a bunch of nutjobs out there who believe in genocide or just live in their Mommy's basement with their erectile dysfunction and their middle age and spend their days trolling around the internet leaving incoherent ideologies and insulting everyone. Just ask Tyler - we both have experience with the crazies.

[Side note again, more of a rhetorical question, really: why does insurance cover medication for erectile dysfunction but not birth control? Why is it more important for a man to achieve an erection than to provide women with control over their own bodies? If it's a matter of money, wouldn't it be cheaper not to have the cost of a child? Why is this country so ass-backward when it comes to sex? Oh yes, it's because men like this, who repeatedly anally rape their wives while preaching to evangelicals about the sanctity of marriage, are part of the FDA.]

If people are to take blogging more seriously, there needs to be an avenue to ensure accuracy and fairness, as The Clooney laments. But the expense of that would be astronomical, and near impossible on a strategic level. Perhaps the future is collective action - that is, policing each other on social norms. It already works for Wikipedia, why not for blogs?

Book Review, Part II: Tom Tancredo For President of Glassy Eyes

I don't know which 24-hour news channel I was watching yesterday, but Tom Tancredo's new campaign spot was highlighted for its fear mongering and a desperate attempt to say, "hey, look at me, I'm running for president- no really, I am- my name's Tom, and I have serial killer eyes."*

Well, maybe journalists would be hesitant to call them serial killer eyes- that's rank speculation, something they know nothing about- but they did identify the desperate grab for attention for what it was, since most people have no idea who Tom Tancredo is. Not exactly a novel revelation, since most campaign ads are grabs for attention. But this one really does stick out, see for yourself:



Why is this disturbing?

Americans already confuse Iraq with Iran with Afghanistan with North Korea with Pakistan; hell, they can't even locate their own country on a map (unless, of course, they think the whole world is America). In talking about our "open borders," Tancredo is implying that Mexicans are Islamic terrorists.

You know what, I'm just going to go ahead and say it: Mexico was responsible for 9/11.

Shit, did I say Mexico? I meant Canada.

Shit, did I say Canada? I meant France.

Shit, did I say France? I meant...France.**

What else is disturbing about Tancredo's irresponsible ad? Well, it is "illegal to censor a candidate's political ad," and must be aired "even if a station...[knows it to be] unfair, factually inaccurate, or offensive" (Interplay of Influence 288-290). This is not to say that Tancredo is the only political candidate ever to air an offensive or inaccurate ad- plenty have, can you say Swift Boat? But what the hell?! This requires Americans to investigate on their own the allegations of campaign ads, but, given that most Americans don't know where their country is on a map, this is highly doubtful.

If candidates are sold like products, as Interplay of Influence claims, then their advertisements should be held to the same standards as consumer products. Wild allegations must be proven. In fact, there should be some product labeling. Instead of calories and trans fats, maybe we should measure bullshit and hypocrisy, creepiness. Then maybe we'd know what we were getting ourselves into.

For example:

George W. Bush
Age: 61
Ingredients: horse shit, crude oil, born-again Christian hypocrisy (hypoChristian?), puppy dog tails, that pretzel he choked on in 2002, nepotism, marbles.

It would make everything a whole lot easier.

-----------------------

*I once worked with this guy whom we called Serial Killer, SK for short. He had this incredibly creepy lurking problem. Like, you'd look up and he's staring at you silently. You look away for a split second and then he's gone.
**I don't mean it, Julie!