Category Archives: Social Networking

Is Being Upset Enough to Sustain a National Movement?

Economics, Education, News, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , ,

The Occupy Wall Street movement is turning out to be a very interesting flashpoint in modern day history. If you follow the news, commentators are going out of their way trying to explain away something they can’t explain by using metaphors and comparisons to previous movements that are completely void of any dichotomous connections. What is simply happening is that something new has emerged, and the media has no way of explaining it.

So, let me explain what is really going on. What we have are a lot of people who are pissed off because the American Dream (or whatever international aspirations they might have if they’re not Americans) isn’t working out as originally sold by the marketers known as government and media. It used to be if you worked hard, put in your time, and did the right things, you would come out ahead, and that your children would end up doing better than you did before. This would continue on for generations until several generations later the new species wouldn’t even recognize the old species.

That works great in theory. However, the theory doesn’t account for the concept of greed. A capitalistic system works really well at bringing the society to a higher level of achievement, but what doesn’t get discussed is that not everyone rises up with the new tide of prosperity. In reality, a capitalistic system is designed to benefit those who are capable of taking advantage of the process, and in a zero sum economy, someone generally has to do horribly bad in order for someone to do horribly well. Socialism is the economic system where everyone comes out equally, although not always at the best they could be (as government isn’t known for raising tides of boats of economies all that well when there’s no incentive to provide for upward mobility). But capitalism is a different animal, and equality has never been a promise, a guarantee or even a necessity. Instead, capitalism promises prosperity for some, and desparity for most others. What we’ve only recently discovered is that 99% is desparity while 1% is prosperity in this zero sum game.

That is why people are pissed. You see, most people don’t want to be part of the losing side of economics. Yet, whenever this gets addressed, the 1% (and the clueless numbers in the 99% hoodwinked by the 1% to believe that they’ll one day have a shot at being one of the 1%) does everything possible to make the 99% sound clueless, making such commentary irrelevant, and even more important: Unheard.

But one thing happened that wasn’t a part of the capitalistic dilemma: Education. Many more people achieved education than a capitalistic system can actually maintain. Oh, this works out well if the education is vocational in nature, in that everyone exists for the purpose of feeding the greedy animal, but if the education is social in nature, and people become made aware, rather than compliant, then there would eventually be a reckoning. It’s somewhat inevitable, although I don’t even think Marx or Hegel predicted it would happen as quickly as it is beginning to occur; they suspected much more saturation would have been necessary first, but who knew?

That’s where we are today. The movement has no leadership because there is no one who can steer a crowd to inevitable collapse. There is no rallying cry that can push people in that direction. And there is really no rallying cry that can push a population back in the other direction once the masses have been unleashed.

So, the question is: Are we there yet? If we’re at the inevitable saturation point that leads to eventual destruction of the capitalistic system, then nothing exists that can push the movement backwards. If we’re not there yet, the people who hold onto the reins of power will continue to use their influence to push the masses back to compliance again. But one thing is certain: There will be no actual compromise because the holders of power cannot compromise without acknowledging that the system was flawed to begin with.

So we’re left with the question of whether or not there is enough anger, frustration and disgust amongst the population to fuel a movement further to a point where changes will actually take place. As collective action theory points out, people will gather together for a common purpose, but if they do not receive a payoff for their efforts, the movement dies until it raises steam again. If they do receive a payoff, they may settle down, thinking they achieved their goals but not really satisfied (meaning they will eventually have to rise again and start over from scratch), or they will be so insulted by the compromises asked of them that the movement will fuel itself and sustain itself further until it actually acquires the goals it sets for itself.

Either way, no one is going to sit down and write out a list of wants and needs to sustain the movement (something the media keeps asking for). It will either achieve what it needs to achieve (fulfilling a sense of punctuated equilibrium) and return rhetoric to a sense of order again, or it will overwhelm everything until it becomes the new world order itself.

Only the future can really tell.

Why the Wall Street Movement Needs Your Attention

Business, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , , ,

There’s been a lot of conjecture from the mainstream media about how the Occupy Wall Street Movement is the liberal flip side to the Tea Party Movement. Unfortunately, they couldn’t be more wrong. It’s not like the mainstream media isn’t known for completely missing the boat even after it runs over them, but perhaps we need to explore what’s really going on to understand, perhaps, what’s really going on.

Let’s go back in time a bit with Duane’s special little time machine to, say, the middle of 2007. At this time, H. Clinton was the front runner for the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama was mainly known as a superstar senator from Chicago. A few people were talking about him as a possible political challenge to Clinton, but at the time there was little more going on with him other than the introduction of his book, The Audacity of Hope (released in 2006). During this time, I was focusing on Clinton, although not a real fan of her but figuring she had to be better than the crappy presidential administrations we were getting from the Republicans. I was probably wrong, but that’s another story.

Anyway, during this time, one of my fellow grad student colleagues started reading the book, and let’s just say he was overly enamored with Obama at this time, trying to get EVERYONE he knew to read the book because he had somehow found the new messiah. It was like you couldn’t hold a conversation with him without it turning to how great of a messiah Barack Obama was. And then, out of nowhere, it was like living in the world of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, where rational people had been replaced by strange, pod people who didn’t become robotic but became Kool Aid drinkers of this new messiah of politics.

For months, it was nothing but a series of encounters with people that felt a lot like I experienced when I stopped drinking alcohol and started to notice that all of the drunks in bars were extremely stupid, but they couldn’t see it themselves because they were all drunk. That’s the kind of sensation I was getting on a daily basis as I dealt with people who I had normally discussed politics with. It was like all rationalization had been thrown out through the window.

What I started to suspect was something that took several years to occur, but I began to believe that we were being sold a messiah of politics, which meant one of two things was bound to happen: He was either going to fulfill that mission and everyone would feel wonderful (kind of as if we had a brand new John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan), or a lot of previously apathetic people who bought into the whole dream were going to emerge very, very pissed off at everything involving politics.

Well, the former didn’t happen. Sure, he got the Nobel Peace Prize for showing up for work on time and not actually doing anything that caused peace, but that’s about it. People had hopes and dreams with the guy, but the faith they had in him has diminished, and like waking up after a bender with a hangover, a lot of people have started to realize that four more years of the same would not really result in better circumstances, kind of like the Einsteinian definition of insanity (“continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results”). So, we’re left with a lot of freshly enfranchised citizens who bought into the hope and change mantra hook and sinker, but didn’t get any positive results. So, where do we go from here?

If you listen to the mainstream media, they haven’t learned anything from what has happened, kind of expecting to go on autopilot like they have for the last four decades. Well, chances are pretty good that they are missing the boat yet again.

If you look at the Tea Party movement, you have a bunch of people who come from the right side of the fence, so it’s pretty obvious why they’d protest against a left sided president. Face it. No matter what he did, or does, they would never be satisfied. However, it’s pretty weak analysis if the belief is that the Occupy Wall Street movement is just the polar opposite of the Tea Party. If you think about it, you have a lot of people who didn’t care about politics before who are suddenly much more aware of current events and pissed that they didn’t get the messiah or religious experience they desired. So, of course, they’re going to be pissed.

But if the belief is that they’re pissed at Wall Street, one isn’t really paying attention to what’s going on. Wall Street serves as a great masthead for the corruption and problems going on, but if people are pissed off about the fact that “hope” didn’t result in positive “change”, the protests aren’t going to stop at Wall Street. Recently, President Obama has been trying to act like he “understands” the movement and “understands” the frustration. But if someone is part of the problem, then the chances are pretty slim that he actually understands enough to make a difference. It’s great if you’re trying to gain political capital, but if you’re trying to appease an angry population, that kind of patronizing is only going to piss them off more.

You see, the people are pissed at Wall Street, BOTH political parties, all politicians, corporations, lock-step police forces that defend everything they’re angry about (quite often with hostile approaches to everything without any desire to understand why the people around them are angry…police have never been very good at that sort of thing, and while it’s not exactly their fault, it’s not exactly their best attribute either), and a docile population that tends to side with the forces that are their own worst enemies. It was recently reported that the US has the worst CEO to worker pay disparity of any democracy (the numbers reported this year were 475 to 1, meaning for every $1 a worker makes, a CEO makes 475 dollars; that’s just absurd when you see countries like Great Britain at 35 to 1). But if no one seems to care, then obviously people are going to be pissed.

But what’s more important is where do we go from here? Do the protests start to turn to riots? Are leaders going to emerge that steer those riots/protests in any one direction? Or will they fizzle and people will go back to being sheep, like they’ve always been? One thing that probably won’t happen is that the people are never going to rally behind a passionate promise maker like Obama (or a group that makes promises in his name), which means that we’ll end up with even more apathy, which historically leads to either revolution or civil war. The only positive of those outcomes is that the population may become so apathetic that a revolution or civil war might occur and no one will show up.

That’s hope and change, I guess.

How Do You Steer a Rudderless Movement?

Economics, News, Politics, Social Networking, , , , , , , , ,

When the Tea Party first emerged, one of the notable features of the gatherings was the simple fact that there appeared to be no leadership whatsoever. However, as time passed, a few people became the spokespeople for the movement, and now whenever the “organization” is discussed, people can point at a few politicians and say “that’s their leader”. However, at one point, there were no leaders, and when the news media was trying to get comments from the protesters, it was very interesting to see how they tried to manage the fact that there was no one to actually interview.

Fast-forward to today, and we have yet another movement taking place that has virtually no leadership whatsoever. Unlike the Tea Party movement, this “organization” tends to hail from the liberal side of the political spectrum, but like the Tea Party, it shares the one attribute of having more in common with anarchy than actual political representation. The movement I’m talking about, of course, is the Take Back Wall Street movement that is currently occupying a lot of the current news.

It is yet another fascinating moment in people politics because it has absolutely no organization and has more in common with flash mobs than it does in any previous type of organizing behavior. Most events tend to be sporadic, immediate and out of nowhere, but unlike a flash mob, these movements tend to be stationary once they actually occur, meaning they don’t appear and then go away a few minutes, or hours, later.

But there are no leaders. And because of that, it is very difficult to determine exactly what they want, or what it would take to make them satisfied. The consensus, if there is one, is that people are outraged, upset and not going to take it any more, but when it comes to defining what they’re outraged about, why they’re upset, or what exactly they’re not going to take any more, that’s a little less apparent. Taking it one step further, what they actually want to fulfill their movement’s charter, if there was one, is even less tangible.

Analyzing it, they appear to be upset that Wall Street, or the people who work on Wall Street, have their own interests in mind at the expense of the rest of the country, or world. The claim is often made that the 1% (those who profit off of Wall Street antics) are profiting at the expense of the rest of the 99% of the country (and world). So, the desire is to somehow convince the 1% that the 99% are not going to take it any longer, and if things don’t change, that 99% is going to do something. What exactly, I’m not sure. No one else appears to know either. But they’re pissed, and they’re going to do “something” if “something” isn’t done to change things.

With a charter like that, it appears very difficult to figure out what they’re going to want or need to appease their members. Even worse, there’s no way to figure out who their members are, or even if they would be satisfied if “something” was done to appease them in the first place. I’m reminded of Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action, in which he pointed out that people have a tendency to free ride their way through collective action, expecting to achieve results but aren’t willing to do much to achieve those results. There appears to be a lot of free rider activity going on here, as was noticed during a recent Chicago flash mob of the Take Back Wall Street variation, reported by the Wall Street Journal, in which an independent trader named Roger Brownworth points out that he was disappointed at the turnout (he had seen only about 20 protesters), but at the same time didn’t seem all that interested in joining it himself.

But Olson isn’t the only source that should be of interest here. I’m also reminded of Poor People’s Movements by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward (a great book, I HIGHLY recommend), who remind us that when people get together and form major movements to benefit their own interests, they’re often appeased by very minor reforms or benefits and then don’t show up for future gatherings, convinced that because there was such great outpouring the first time, they won’t be expected to show up for the next one, kind of backing up Olson’s projection. The Chicago gathering is a direct example of Piven and Cloward’s argument.

But that’s the movement itself, which in Piven and Cloward’s book usually points at an organization that has some type of leadership. With the Take Back Wall Street movement, we have no apparent leader where everything seems to be organized a lot like a flock of birds all turning together at the same time as a part of a social being rather than a collaboration of like-minded individuals. During the Gulf War protests during the Bush Administration, many gatherings of protesters were similar to this flash mob mentality, but quite often they were derailed by one or two individuals doing something uniquely ridiculous, like Woody Harrelson trying to climb up the gratings of the Bay Bridge during a San Francisco protest. Other major demonstrations were often turned by one or two individuals who acted as spontaneous agitators, yelling out something like “let’s take City Hall” which would cause throngs of people to start running off in one direction, causing a riot where a peaceful gathering was taking place only moments before.

That’s probably the biggest fear we have right now as when you have a mob (the obvious physical make-up of a flash “mob”), there’s a very real possibility that an agitator or two, either spontaneously or surreptitiously placed, may cause a group of people to react in a way that they were not intending to do when they first gathered to protest over concerns they may have had about injustices and unfairness. How many major sport events have turned violent because one or two individuals started doing or saying something stupid that somehow riled up a group of people who were already excited by the happenings of the particular event they were attending? Quite a few actually. Malcolm Gladwell points out in his book Blink that one of the biggest problems with excitable events, like a police car chase, is the excitement of the chase itself, which often can lead to adrenalin requiring some kind of release, which would explain why so many car chases end up with a physical altercation that might not have happened if people hadn’t been overly excited by the chase in the first place. The same thing occurs at these major social gatherings, like sports events, or for the sake of this essay, a flash mob. People are excited, they are yelling, and quite often it only takes a nudge in one direction for a group of people to start doing things they might not normally have done if they weren’t already overly excited.

Which means, there’s a good chance that one of these Take Back Wall Street events is going to turn violent if they continue to remain without leadership. However, if someone, or some people, arrives to take charge of this venue, there’s no promise that the presence of leadership is guaranteed to be in any way more positive. History is replete with examples of mob leaders who did some pretty horrific things once empowered with that ability to lead a group of people. And then there’s the equal fear that the emergence of leadership might doom the movement in the first place. Since the creation of “leaders” for the Tea Party movement, the spontaneous nature of that process has diminished greatly because a lot of the people who originally affiliated themselves with an unaffiliated organization never really fell in line with self-proclaimed wannabe leaders like Palin, Bachman, and the 70 or so Republican legislators who have claimed ties to the Tea Party foundations. Many of its members have actually gone underground, realizing that what they had to complain about was never solved by having people claim their throne in their name while never actually espousing their true beliefs.

The same problems may be seen for a Take Back Wall Street movement. The current crop of wannabe leaders already showing up are the likes of Michael Moore and other already entrenched in Washington political Democrats who see the movement as a way to shore up more support for their positions they already hold. There is also the tendency of the media to try to control the movement so it can be easier to report. CNN is already reporting How Occupy Wall Street Has Evolved, when CNN is still as clueless as the movement itself as to how it is changing, what it actually stands for, and what it actually intends to do.

What’s probably most significant is that a movement is underway, but no one knows where it is heading. It can become distruptive, like the Bolsheviks in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, it can be innovative like the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia in 1968, it can transform like the recent Arab Spring, or it may write its own chapter of unforseen future circumstances. Either way, it probably shouldn’t be ignored.

50’s and 60’s Feminism and Revisionism On Television

Relationships, Social Networking, Television, , , , , , , ,

There seems to be an interesting dynamic showing up on television these days. The claim is that it all started with Mad Men, and then led to shows like The Playboy Club and Pan Am. However, I think reviewers are being a bit lazy in their approach, in that this revolution in programming started earlier than that, and we’re only see the second wave of what is most definitely going to be a norm in storytelling.

Some years ago, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) developed a brilliant show that dealt with storytelling by looking at the “earlier” days through the lens of someone from today. The show was called Life on Mars. It dealt with a police detective of today’s time who is thrown back to 1973, a time where Manchester was just beginning to experience its sexual revolution, where women were still police assistants, and cops beat up suspects to get confessions. Shortly after this, an American series, of the same name, arrived and tried to tell the exact same story but in New York of 1973. Almost identical, the American series dealt with the trammels of unrealized feminism and a new era that was about to emerge in America (or the world).

Then came a few other shows, which were rehashes of previous shows from the mid-period of television history, that somehow tried to incorporate this new sense of feminism with modern day thinking, which for some reason has never really worked. I’m talking shows like Charlie’s Angels (movies and then a very recently bad television show), Dukes of Hazard (a movie), Starsky & Hutch (a movie), the various remakes of Star Trek and then the brilliant redesign of Battlestar Galactica (which had its own sense of dealing with feminism in the 1970s).

But Mad Men is obviously the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to discussing reviving history (or rewriting it). The show is sometimes brilliant, and other times it is somewhat annoying. It deals with feminism by showing how badly feminism was actually dealt with, and strangely enough it gives the biggest womanizer Don Draper the venue to somehow be the launching pad for the first woman to be a Manhattan advertising professional. Meanwhile, it sticks us directly in the 1960s and shows us that America had a long way to before it was going to get much better (if it ever did).

Because of the success of Mad Men, it was only a matter of time before the major networks attempted to duplicate it themselves. The first entry into the new era was The Playboy Club, which has essentially been receiving nothing but bad reviews, mainly because it tries way too hard to be both sensational and a platform to reinvent history by making it somehow appear that Playboy was a part of the feminist movement, rather than a direct impediment to it. Playboy ushered in the sexual revolution that would come in the 1970s, but it did very little for women, other than produce a platform for women to be seen as sex objects and a vehicle to produce masturbatory fantasies for young boys for several generations. While history wasn’t being all that helpful for the women’s movement, Playboy didn’t exactly empower anyone either, although people like Hugh Hefner would love nothing more than to leave his mortal coil believing he convinced more than a few peolpe that he was the progenitor of women’s liberation rather than the abuser of it. Coming from a man who spent his entire adult life cultivating young women to be his sexual playthings, I’m sorry but I just don’t see the positive role he wants to inhabit.

Pan Am is the next development in the attempt to detail women moving forward in the 1960s. My first quibble right off the start is with history itself and the television show’s attempt to place itself in it. The story starts off by talking about an event that occurred during the Bay of Pigs, shortly before the events of the first episode. The whole aircraft on the ground scene seemed a bit odd as the events of that day detail something much different occurring than what the authors tried to make happen, that somehow Pan Am pilots were more involved with the evacuation than may have been. But again, it’s fiction, so that shouldn’t be too much of an issue. There’s also another moment where one of the pilots talks about a scientific principle that wasn’t really a part of common vernacular usage in the 1960s (and wouldn’t actually be used until about 2004), but that’s more a complaint about continuity and nitpicking than anything else.

Where I have the biggest problem is with Pan Am’s attempt to reinvent feminism as some very present dynamic during the very early 1960s, when it basically wasn’t. The main character, the purser, seems to be the feminist “rebel” of the group, yet as much as they try to make her out to be that, she most likely would have been unemployed rather than the main player she is going to be written to be. And then there’s this whole espionage thread they have written into the series that seems kind of bizarre, as if the CIA was actively recruiting flight attendants to be their secret agents on flights. Okay, it could have happened, but it just seems a bit bizarre, knowing how the CIA works, or at least how it worked back then.

What concerns me most about this show is it is yet another attempt by Hollywood to rewrite history as being a lot more proactive towards feminism than it really was. As a matter of fact, Hollywood STILL has a long way to go as it would not surprise me if a number of actresses ended up having to sleep with someone to get the jobs they get on some of these shows, because that’s how Hollywood has ALWAYS acted. It would make me wonder how someone might feel pretending to be some enlightened feminist on a television show when she may have had to have done some very unenlightened things to get on the show in the first place. Yeah, there’s no evidence this ACTUALLY happens, but it is so engrained in the morality of Hollywood business that everyone somewhat expects that to happen, so it’s rarely even questioned.

What I would like to see is a show come along, like Life on Mars (the BBC version), that really examines the issues and doesn’t try to make it seem like we were historically more proactive than we really were. We did some crappy things in the past, and if we ignore those things, it only means we learned nothing from the experience, and we’ll probably do crappy things again in the future.

Will the Amazon Kindle Fire Defeat the Powerful Apple Ipad 2?

Books, Business, News, Social Networking, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m reading a lot of blogging that is exactly this subject: Will the Amazon Kindle Fire defeat the powerful Apple Ipad 2? I’m going to go out on a limb and just say no. It won’t. But instead of treating this as an either/or situation, I’m going to talk about why the question shouldn’t be asked in the first place.

You see, the Apple Ipad is in a class of its own, a class to which no tablet has come close yet. The Motorola Xoom was released as the potential “Ipad killer” but it did no such thing. As a matter of fact, shortly after releasing the Motorola Xoom, the Motorola Xoom became the Motorola Xoom killer. It was decently constructed, had no apps made for it and relied on an app market that is woefully inadequate. To this day, I have a Xoom but I don’t use it for anything other than checking email at night (while my Ipad charges). Even when you found an app that might work for it, quite often it didn’t, and instead you ended up having to uninstall something you paid for (and couldn’t get paid back for if it didn’t work).

For months now, the talk has been all about the new tablet that was going to be released by Amazon. And it looks like it’s about to be released. Here are some of the particulars:

It has only wifi, it’s in color, and it has some apps it can run but they come mainly from Amazon’s online app store. It only has 8 gigs of RAM, and they’re not planning to up that on this particular model (although they might on subsequent versions of the model to be released later). Like I said, it has wifi only, so there’s no 3G, like you get for the main Kindle. And it will cost about $199.

Thoughts? The price is great. It serves as a great replacement for a Kindle if you already have one. It will do a few more things than a Kindle can do, like check email, and maybe play some music and videos (not sure on that last one yet, although details seem to point in that direction). What I really like about it is that now I can read books on a Kindle that has color (whereas I was reading my Kindle books on a Kindle app on my Ipad, because it was the only way to see color on a Kindle-bought book).

It’s not a replacement for the Ipad because it’s not as powerful as an Ipad, doesn’t do as much as an Ipad, and well, it’s just not an Ipad. It’s another Kindle, which will do what normal Kindles do, but be more like a Barnes & Noble Nook Color but not as dysfunctional as that product.

I’ll probably buy one. Do I need one? No. Not really. But I have a Kindle, and I like my Kindle. This will be a Kindle capable of doing more things than my current day Kindle, and I sort of like that. But it won’t replace my Ipad, which is still the one device I carry with me everywhere.

Just Because I Signed Your Petition to Save Cute Little Bunnies Doesn’t Mean I Support Your Political Agenda Against Something Else

News, Social Networking, , , , , , , ,
After all, it's all for the bunnies

The other day, I signed an online petition to advocate authorizing the government to forgive student loans. As someone in serious debt to the government for financial aid loans (I think I may actually owe enough to buy two brand new aircraft carriers for the US Navy), I felt this was a GREAT cause. However, since then, this organization has been sending me messages, letting me know that through them “we” can now stop global warming, the “murder” of some guy on death row for killing a police officer, evil Republicans who are trying to destroy America by getting more Republican elected, and something involving a plan to use Katy Perry to somehow turn Madonna into a virgin again. I might have been off my medication when I read that last one, but it was still pretty confusing.

The point is: I don’t care about any of your other campaigns or issues. Just because I was behind that one issue doesn’t somehow make me a social advocate of all of your crazy, crackpot schemes to do whatever it is you think you’re going to do by somehow pretending to do it in my name. At what point does advocating for one issue somehow turn you into a blanket advocator of all other issues some group of crazy people actually believe in?

That’s the problem right there. An organization should be overwhelmly happy that it received attention one of its issues. But if it thinks it’s going to somehow build a comraderie with people who agreed with them once because THEY believe in something else, they’re going to lose any future support completely. It reminds me of when I signed up to receive information about Obama when he was first running for office. Somehow, because of that action, I receive all sorts of CRAP from his political action people who are convinced that my one-time interest in what he might have to say somehow equated to “drinking the Koolaid”. I don’t just blame Obama’s people for this. I also ran into the same thing when trying to find out what a particular Republican had to say, mainly cause I thought signing up for her information might actually get me some hot pictures of her, too. Oh boy, was that a mistake. Not that I would ever vote for her, but now that I receive her daily crazies, I’m scared to vote at all just because now I fear that she might be somewhere in the vicinity of the voting booth.

Look, I understand that grass roots campaigns are hard to build, but if you’re going to focus on one issue, focus on one issue and build your interest group that way. The second you go off on some crackpot scheme idea that is NOT the one that got people to sign up for your manifesto the first time, you’re going to destroy any support you ever hoped to have in the first place.

I say this, even though I know no one ever listens anyway. They just keep sending their crap to you, convinced that because you listened to them once, you’re now their friend for life. I had a girlfriend like that once. Took me six months to break up with her because she refused to believe that I was actually trying to break up with her. Then it took me a year and half to convince her to stop calling me. Now, I fear seeing anyone who even looks remotely like her, convinced it’s the evil ex, out to do whatever it is evil exes do. I was going to join a group that consisted of people who have lived through evil exes before, but then I realized once I signed up for their newsletter, they’d start sending me stuff about saving bunnies from the destruction of the ozone layer. And everyone knows how much I care about the bunnies.

I just have only so many issues I can focus on at one time.

Monopolies, Greed and Treating Your Customers Like Crap

Business, Economics, News, Social Networking, Television, , , , , , , , , , ,

This morning, I was about to leave my apartment building to head to work when I noticed an 8 1/2 by 11 piece of paper taped to the exit door for everyone to read. It was a message from the apartment complex managers, indicating that anyone who was currently using the video services of U-Verse by AT&T must discontinue using it immediately because they are in violation of the apartment’s “contract” with some cable service called Suite Solutions. Not being a user of U-verse, I didn’t give it much concern, but then it had me thinking. What if I was a user of U-Verse and decided to get my television programming that way? What if I decided I didn’t like Suite Solutions (which I don’t) and chose to get my television programming through my phone line? What right does some housing complex or some cable operator have to choose how you get your television programming?

For the longest time, I’ve been receiving flyers in the mail from AT&T, promoting U-Verse as the answer to bad cable companies, and I just ignored the stuff because, to be honest, I don’t think television is all that worth subscribing to in the first place. While some people remained glued to their television screens every night they get home, I don’t think I’ve turned mine on to television programming in over 8 or 9 months, so to be honest, I’m not even sure I even have a television signal these days. And honestly, I don’t really care.

But what started to bother me was this anti-business message that was being pushed on potential customers by the people who manage the place where I live. It’s one thing if Suite Solutions was a good company, but let me tell you about my experience with that company. When I first moved into my apartment over two years ago, I chose that company to get my television and Internet service. At one point, I remember counting on a calendar to see whether or not it my service was down more often than it was actually up. I paid for the highest speed service, and when it worked, my download speeds were atrociously slow. I remember beating a download with my cell phone once (which ironically never actually succeeded with Suite Solutions because the Internet crashed during the download and didn’t come back up for another three days).

This was the company that my housing complex thinks that I should be emboldened to because they signed a contract with them somewhere in the past. Now, I don’t mind this being an option, but if they eliminate all of my other options, so that Suite Solutions is my ONLY choice, I think we have a horrible problem that really needs to be solved by the SEC, the FCC or maybe Elmo and the other characters of Sesame Street (they are notorious for advocating for consumer rights in the fantasies I have about Elmo and the gang).

Of course, no story about monopolies should be complete without a little bit of irony. I mean, we are talking about some unknown cable company using its monopoly to cut out the little guy, specifically a little guy named AT&T, who happens to be going through a little bit of monopoly trouble of its own these days. Now that the government has stepped in and told AT&T that it is creating an unfair monopoly by trying to buy T-Mobile, does anyone see the ridiculousness of some small cable provider shutting out AT&T through its contracted monopolies? I’m sure there are some people who are thinking this is a good thing because they just hate AT&T, but when AT&T becomes your alternative source to a crappy choice, something’s seriously wrong with this picture. I mean, I’m not exactly the poster child, greatest fan of all things AT&T. Just last week, AT&T refused to transfer my Internet service (not U-Verse) to my new apartment because of some flag that showed up with an old bill for $189 that HAD BEEN paid over two years ago; unfortunately, because it was so long ago, they couldn’t find a record of the situation, nor could they offer any way of alleviating the problem because the situation occurred too far back in the past to be solved by any simple transaction (like me just giving them $189 to make the problem go away). That’s the kind of problem you get from a monopolistic company that is so big that it can’t handle its own financial problems that emerge from its own lack of correct record keeping (you can always spot this problem when some customer service person tells you: “There’s nothing I can do about it. The problem seems to be coming from another area of the company that doesn’t exist anymore.”).

So, I ask, are monopolies good or bad for consumers? So far, my experience with them has been nothing but negative. You constantly hear economic pundits talking about how monopolies are good and how they drive innovation (or some other big proclaimed statement that has no basis in reality), but how do they really help us? Okay, there is one area, and that’s price, in that a company with a monopoly has the ability to lower the prices by handling all of the means of production and distribution, but how many times has that monopoly also gone the other direction, to where the only source of a product decides to raise its price because it realizes that no one else can fulfill the need? We’re kind of seeing that right now with Netflix, that erroneously thought that it was a solitary producer of content services so that it could pretty much do whatever it wanted to do by raising prices and splitting its company into two so it could eventually raise prices at its own leisure (possibly by raising it twice as much, as both companies can now raise prices as the same time, and thus, increase profits twice as fast). But what really happened was that Netflix realized too late that its customers WERE its product, not just the users of their product, and without customers, they have no income. I expect to see Netflix become the next Myspace in an era of Facebook.

For me, I have no real solution other than to boycott all of the products of companies that are hostile towards customers, which is why I gave up on Suite Solutions shortly after feeling like I was being cheated month after month. Fortunately, I am not a consumer of U-Verse, so I don’t have to worry about this proclamation from the emperor, but at the same time it also keeps me from ever wanting to do business with Suite Solutions again because instead of trying to compete with AT&T by providing a great customer experience and a good product, they decided to go the punitive route instead.

That companies never realize this strategy is a blueprint for failure is a footprint that forever haunts me. There’s a reason that message was tacked on our door like Luther’s 95 Theses. The company is failing to attract and keep customers, so it needed to crack down on anyone who decided to use alternative choices. Unfortunately, that strategy rarely brings in new customers or business. Instead, it leads you closer and closer to becoming obsolete. That this is 2011 and a company still doesn’t understand that is ridiculous. But why innovate when you can demand business? Need I say more?

Problem #77 with Adopting Google+

Business, News, Social Networking, Technology, , , , , , , ,

I’ve been experimenting with Google+ since it emerged, and as much hype as I read from the major news sites, I just haven’t bought into the propaganda they keep spewing out. I keep reading how Google+ is going to replace Facebook, but no matter how much I look into the service, it fails on almost every level. Let me explain:

1. No one is on it.

Oh, I know how they keep claiming a gazillon people are on it and all that, but I’ll let you in on a little secret (if you haven’t used Google+). No one you know is using it. And that’s the problem right there. Sure, it’s great that Felicia Day (creator of the web episodic show The Guild), Wil Wheaton (the guy who played the kid on Star Trek the Next Generation and has been pulling cameos on other shows like Big Bang Theory and The Guild ever since), and Taylor Swift (the singer) are all on it, but what it’s really turned out to be is a glorified Twitter account where you get to actually see postings of these people, instead of blurts of words from their Twitter feed. But again, so few “normal” people are using it, which means if you want to use it to follow some celebrity with a one-sided conversation (where they never hear from you), then it’s fine. But what makes it different from watching some celebrity gossip show? Nothing, really.

2. The Interface Lacks Substance

Everytime I use Google+, I’m convinced I’m missing something because I go on it and then wonder why I wasted the time. It’s like there’s a whole other big room that’s part of it, but I just haven’t figured out the secret handshake to get into that other room. I suspect that other room doesn’t exist, but even if it does, what good is a service if you can’t access it? That’s my problem with Google+. It has nothing going on for it that keeps me interested. I’m a news junkie, which means I want to see things going on. Right now, my Google+ feed is filled with nonstop cute cat pictures from the celebrities that somehow think this is interesting and relevant. I’m not kidding. The only other type of posting seems to be from April Summers who shows naked pictures of herself in Playboy, which can be cool, but not really newsworthy. Every other person I follow seems to practically repeat the same information but a little bit different each time. The people I’d like to follow and know more about don’t actually have an account, or they have an account and don’t use it (like Taylor Swift).

3. It’s Owned by Google

Google is a great search engine, but honestly it doesn’t really innovate in anything. It does a really good job of seeing what other people do and then streamlines it. But there’s rarely any innovation or brilliant thought behind it. Or when there is, it’s designed by engineers who still haven’t figured out how to communicate with the masses, so they set up really complicated environments and expect the people to figure out how to maneuver through them (“I’m looking at you, Google Adwords!”). And there’s always the fear that Google, in their infinite wisdom, will just cancel your account because you disagreed with something they had to say, or do, cutting off four or five services you might be using that had nothing to do with the reason you got shut off in the first place, and like Facebook, they won’t speak to you in order to fix the situation because you’re irrelevant to them, as you’ve always been.

Young, Pretty Texas Girl Reminds Us All That Sometimes People are Greedy Sh**heads

Business, News, Social Networking, , , , , , , ,

When I heard about this story, I was both shocked and awed, even though I keep telling myself over and over that nothing really can shock and awe me anymore. Well, I was wrong.

Young teen, Angie Ramirez, galvanized support for her battle with leukemia that she’s been struggling with most of her life. With only six months to live, she put out a call for help from all of the rest of us, and respond we did (with about $17,000 of supported donations). Well, as it turns out, a funny thing happened on the way to leukemia. You see, little Angie Ramirez, who is 18 years old now, doesn’t actually have leukemia. Her charity she created, The Dream Foundation, really only had one dream being fulfilled, and it appears that dream was to help a young, attractive girl make a shitload of money off of gullible people.

Now, having said all that, maybe she has leukemia, but detectives in Texas certainly don’t think so. And neither does the hospital where she claims she lived most of her sick childhood (turns out, they never heard of her). Maybe it’s all a paperwork mix-up. I don’t know. But it doesn’t sound very good from what I’ve read and heard so far.

But look at her picture. She’s cute. And I’m sure a whole lot of people saw a cute little girl who was suffering and really felt she was worth trying to help. But because of her, how many people who might have helped other people are probably going to think it’s not worth it because if they were fooled once, they figure they’re probably being lied to again.

In this country, we have Ponzi schemers who completely get away with their crimes, go to prison for a few years, and then come out richer than God. When you’ve got guys like Bernie Madoff, whose family then argues that it “deserves” some of the money that he bilked people out of because they have mouths to feed, you just shake your head and realize that there has to be a reason people feel they can, and should, get away with this kind of crap. Whether it’s bad rearing or a society that believes that winning is more important than anything else, including morals and laws, this kind of stuff is happening way too often. It’s getting to the point where whenever I hear a sob story about how someone is suffering for some reason, my spidey senses start tingling, and I figure that they’re probably full of crap.

The other day, I was reading a forum posting on a community site I have been part of for over a decade now, and a known person talked about some horrific things that have happened in her life recently, and she was asking for the community’s support. Now, I’ve known of this person for a very long time, and instead of immediately think “wow, let’s try to help her”, I started thinking of people like Madoff and this scum teen who cheated people out of their charity, and I immediately don’t want to help her. And there’s probably no reason to suspect a scam, yet the incidents of this nature make it so that I don’t trust anyone any longer.

That’s what this kind of stuff leads to, and it bothers me a lot because I’m still naive enough to believe that people should help people whenever they can. But when charity is treated as another income source, what future is there for people who hold out hope for humanity?

(Picture attributed to Ruben Ramirez/AP)

Facebook Offers Brand New Stalker Feature

Business, Economics, News, Relationships, Social Networking, Technology, , , , ,

I figured it was only a matter of time. One of the things that Facebook had going for it was that all other things considered, that crazy ex of yours wasn’t going to be able to follow your updates because you were way too smart to ever accept his or her Facebook friend request. Now, Facebook has decided, most likely because Zucker-dude probably likes to stalk cute females who think he’s kind of creepy, that even if you’re not friends with someone, they can still get updates to your status.

The reason behind this, according to Facebook’s PR, is that now celebrities can use Facebook like they’re supposedly able to use Google +, even if they’re not really using Google + because it’s not popular enough yet. However, the main benefactors of this sort of thing is anyone who has wanted to friend someone they want to get close to but that other person thinks you’re just a bit too creepy to be following them. Now, you and your creepy self can follow her no matter how many restraining orders have been issued. Facebook feels that getting you closer to that crazy guy is a feature that you really shouldn’t be able to opt out of.

Oh, I’m sure you’ll be able to opt out of it (if you can figure out how), but a few weeks into it, once Zucker-dude realizes that he’s not getting enough money from ad revenue to build another island to house his army of fembots, they’ll make it mandatory, because Facebook really knows better about what you want than you do. You just don’t know it yet. It’s kind of like the whole, “please post your pictures on Facebook because then we kind of own it, even though we don’t really own it, but we’re going to use it regardless of what you think cause we’re richer than God, and you can’t afford an attorney to sue us anyway” thing.

So, if you have an old ex who just doesn’t want anything more to do with you, Facebook has your back. As for that ex, well, it’s her fault for not realizing how we’ve changed and how much we mean it when we promise not to a) “cheat on you again”, b) “hit you when we’re drunk”, or c) “bring home another floozy from a bar because we thought you always wanted to do a threesome but were too shy to say it out loud”. Come on, baby, you know we love you. I mean, just ask our best buddy, Facebook. Facebook would never lie to you, right?

Now open the damn door and let me in!