Monday, December 31, 2007
2.0 Screen Time, 5.0 Face Time, Of Racialism, Progressive Group Dynamics
Recently a reporter asked Google CEO Eric Schmidt what he thought of 2.0 and what he thought 3.0 might be. He said 2.0 was just a marketing term. Not so. 2.0 is a very concrete milestone for web technology.
Web 5.0: Face Time
A Web 3.0 Manifesto
The other day I was hanging out with team member two - I stole him from Morgan Stanley, they just promoted him, but he is quitting nevertheless - of my tech startup at his place, his girlfriend who lives in New Haven and cousin who lived only a few blocks away, joined a little later, my first time seeing them. And when it was just the two of us early on, at one point he was saying 5.0 this and 5.0 that. And I said, "I hope you realize you and I are the only people who talk of 5.0." The term has not caught on.
I lived cloud group dynamics for two years for Nepal's democracy and social justice movements. The price I paid: weak social muscles. After we hung out for a little while, an hour or two, more perhaps, the idea of going to the movie came up. I skipped that part. It got a little too much for me. I later wrote to him: sorry, weak social muscles. Cab drivers who don't get into the habit of daily, elaborate exercise end up with back problems. 2.0 cloud group dyanmics, if not accompanied by a rich emotional, social life, can result in weak social muscles. It is an occupational hazard. As we build our team, we will have to remember. 5.0 is key.
2.0 and 5.0 have to go hand in hand. That is a given for my startup. Recently I suggested the same for DL21C, an organization I have long respected as the top political organization in the city.
I Want To Join The DL21C Steering Committee
I suggested the 2.0, 5.0 thing to DL21C, but there are a few differences. With my startup, I just go ahead and decide. A political organization is a different organism. But its adoption of 2.0 and 5.0 does not have to be as total as for my startup. But I can't see how it can skip it entirely.
Made me think, though.
Imagine a high quality video. Then you reduce the quality of the video. Then you turn it black and white. Then you get rid of the imagery altogether. Then you get rid of the music. Then you put the words from the video down on a piece of paper. Face time can be said to be that high quality video, an email is that piece of paper with words only.
When I put out theories on gender, I am always worried if I am just talking stereotypes, or if I am upto something after all. Like the proposition that men are instrumental - think action movies - and women are relational. The high quality video is great for the relational mindset. You see many details to the conversation that you want to see. But to the instrumental mindset, the email works just fine. The mind does not even know what it is missing. But to the relational mindset, an email has many fill in the blanks. You see meaning that was not put in there, but to you it is as real as if it was put in there. Can lead to a lot of misunderstanding and confusion.
So there is that major content difference between 2.0 and 5.0. But 2.0 does not just come in the form of words. Besides content, there is a major interactivity difference.
TV is not interactive. It is one way. You watch. Newspapers are not interactive: crossword puzzles don't count, or not that much. But when the internet came along, it was different. It was interactive. You could click, you could search, you could send and receive email. That was Web 1.0. The current DL21C website is a great example of a Web 1.0 site. All Web 2.0 did was take interactivity to a whole new level. So much more interaction became possible. Facebook is the flagship example of a 2.0 application.
Geography is irrelevant. That is the basic postulate that makes the current technology feel highly inadequate. All the features are not there. And perhaps the richness of face time will never really be replicated.
But compare 2.0 interactivity to 5.0 interactivity. Face time interactivity is so much richer. There are so many additional elements. There is so much more emotional interplay during face time. The degree of difference is just humongous.
Content, interactivity. And then there is the social dynamic that comes into play.
To overgeneralize, let's say Queens is a largely brown crowd, Brooklyn is a largely black crowd, Manhattan is a largely white crowd, Bronx is primarily Hispanic. New York City is at once the capital city of the world, the most diverse place on earth, and also its most segregated in some ways.
So when someone brown like me shows up at a "progressive" event that is predominantly white, I don't hear alarm bells ringing in my head, but I do notice it is a predominantly white crowd, and it is racial, not racist, but racial.
It did not take me long to get to know all the top people at all the top political organizations in Manhattan after I moved into the city. And I can stand my own when it comes to politics. And over time you do get to know a few people here, a few people there. And at that point the city feels like a small town.
But this city is the Amazon forest of humanity: all possible human life forms live in this city. You routinely meet jerks. I don't love this city because it is devoid of racists, but because they might reveal themselves once, but then they don't have to stay in your face.
My favorite one is where some random, dumbass white guy will go ahead and "slap" a conversation between a white woman and a nonwhite guy. It is like they sense budding intimacy and will not put up with it. There are a few problems with that. First, not everyone is trying to hook up. Most conversations are social. Second, he is invading the personal space of two individuals and is being racist and sexist at the same time in suggesting who these two individuals may or may not talk to, or to what extent. Such dumbasses are ripe targets for some basic verbal jujutsu. One oneliner, and they don't know what to think next.
There is an underlying value system that decides why a crowd is predominantly brown, or black, or white or Hispanic. A total reliance on 5.0 says that value system comes before the individual. And that is why I put so much emphasis on a seamless 2.0 and 5.0. For political action, that is my big reason to emphasize 2.0. I can't imagine a decided move towards a post-ISMs individual group dynamic without a seamless 2.0 and 5.0.
And there is a major major efficiency issue. 2.0 is just so much more efficient. 2.0 enriches 5.0.
So: content, interactivity, post-ISMs individual group dynamics, and efficiency. But then there is another angle to content. There's all that stuff online that I just can not convey during face time. I will have to email you a blog post to make a point once in a while.
As to what particular combo of 2.0 and 5.0 is right for an individual, it is for the individual to decide. The same applies to organizations. For my startup, it is total, with an emphasis on 2.0. For a political organization like DL21C, it can be a Lite version, with the major emphasis on 5.0.
DL21C has an enormous reservoir of untapped social and political capital in terms of all the members it has in three big cities, and all the guests it is able to summon: pretty much the who is who of American politics. I wish there were a movies version of DL21C, I'd like to meet Al Pacino, I once said to Elizabeth. DL21C is like Arabs before they realized they were sitting on top of oil, politically speaking.
December Baby?
John Hot Air Edwards
John Edwards rose from a humble background - "son of a mill worker" - to build a very big, fancy house in North Carolina. He worked for a hedge fund when hedge funds were still cool. He took a "break" from campaigning to go on a "poverty tour" for a week, was it this summer? This firebrand messiah of the working classes used to talk of "two Americas." Many have seemingly flocked to him as the last white male hurrah. C'mon people, this is a job application. Let the best qualified person win, regardless of skin color.
I like John Edwards as I like the rest of the Democratic fiend. I can't remember the last time the Dems had it this good. But this guy is not going to be president. This guy should not be president. He is a loving husband who says the word "fight" so much because he wants his wife to fight her cancer. He knows he is not going to win this race, but he is in to make a statement. He wants the working classes to be heard. And I will not have it any other way.
But this is not a guy you can imagine in the Oval Office. He wants to nuke the insurance companies to get to universal health insurance. He wants to offer vouchers so some families can escape the dead end of the inner cities. Look at the picture of his house above. This guy does not get it.
The working white males of the unions have got behind him because it is identity politics. He is white, he is male, his father was a "mill worker," and he has taken to breathing fire. The nice guy of 2004 is gone.
He will make you feel good, but he will not get anything done. First, he will not win. For him it is a matter of dropping out after Iowa, or after New Hampshire, or after Nevada, or after South Carolina. That is as far as he goes. He does not get to see February 5. If he finished third in Iowa, he is over after Iowa.
But if by some miracle he were to become president, he will have to disown his fire if he is to begin to start to doing anything.
What a waste. You get the working classes, and the union households excited, and to what end?
Barack is the one who will deliver. He is the one who is looking at the big picture. No, you don't nuke the insurance companies, but you make sure they are not the only ones at the table. It is that approach that will bring health care for all.
We don't need more fire. We need more light.
Don't Count John Edwards Out Yet
John Edwards, Voucher Man, Is A Republican
PBS Debate: Hillary Was Strong, Barack Was Warm, Edwards Was Composed
McCain Is 1970s, Hillary Is 1990s, Edwards Is 2004, Obama Is Today
John Edwards: Antiwar
"The Congress spends money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."
- Mike Huckabee
In The News
Deadly Rioting Over Kenyan Election Results ABC News
Obama campaign touts crowd sizes Baltimore Sun his crowds have been significantly outsizing those of rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the Iowa battleground. ...... his events have drawn more than double the attendance of Edwards events in several Iowa cities. ..... In the match-ups with Clinton, they contend Obama draws at least 50 percent more people. ..... The crowd sizes are also a testament to organization
Obama, Edwards look beyond Iowa, NH
Democrats Try Various Styles, and Pronouns
Michelle Obama Counting Down to Caucus on Campaign Trail
Clinton leads in Iowa but Edwards gains
Tenth Senator Backs Clinton The Associated Press
Bhutto's son maintains political dynasty USA Today
Bhutto’s Son, 19, Chosen to Lead Pakistan Party
Sunday, December 30, 2007
I Don't Doubt Hillary's Compassion Overall, Just Her Judgment On Iraq
Hillary went to many poor villages in many poor countries as First Lady. That is one of the reasons why I admire her so much.
But Bill Clinton is now campaigning like he were bar hopping making outrageous suggestions that somehow America would be less safe under President Obama. That line of argument worked for Bush against Kerry in 2004. Bill Clinton thinks it will work for Hillary now. Hillary took the cues from Bush when it was time to vote for or against the Iraq War. Bill Clinton is taking cues from Bush 2004 for January 2008.
Bill Clinton was okay with Hillary 2008's inevitability theme all of this year until it seemed to evaporate off and then he went ahead and blamed Mark Penn for having come up with such a ridiculous line of argument that would lead to total disaster should Hillary lose Iowa.
Bill Clinton talks of 9/11 and Katrina as two things Bush did not see coming. What we don't see today might happen in 2009 or 2010, he seems to be saying.
Is Al Qaeda news to Bill Clinton? I don't have the slightest doubts in my mind that the Al Qaeda, an organization that is stronger today than it was on September 10, 2001, plots everyday to pull off something bigger than 9/11 on American soil.
One scenario I painted yesterday was this. The Al Qaeda that has managed to penetrate the Pakistani state - you don't have to get the top guy, there are enough God-fearing, God-loving middle ranked people in Pakistan's military and especially intelligence services who will not have a hard time in choosing between their allegiance to their God and their state - might manage to "steal" nuclear material, and transport it from Pakistan to Africa to Mexico, using ancient transport methods (mules, anyone?), cross the border, and detonate it in, say, Dallas. That is the next 9/11. An incident like that would mentally paralyze all American cities.
Global warming is no news either. Katrina could happen again. Before the California wildfires, there were similar wildfires that burned down a major chunk of Greece, and the Greek authorities were out arresting known arsonists. That was not arson, that was global warming.
If terrorism and global warming will surprise you, you are not ready to be president, or the presidential spouse.
The worst byproduct of America's invasion of Iraq was that was America taking one eye off the Al Qaeda. Result: the Al Qaeda is stronger today than ever before.
When I study Al Qaeda's momentum, I fear Bin Laden might pull off something bigger than 9/11, one final act, before he goes down in flames.
If you could have imagined 9/11 the year before, what would you have done to prevent it? Or would you have sat idly by?
Now I am asking you to imagine a dirty bomb in Dallas, and giving you a pretty precise geographical location of the people who might mastermind it. What will you do to prevent it? This is a call to design a new antibiotic to go after this new strain of virus. It is not a state with a standing army, so the state with a standing army way will not work. And the approach can't be reactive. Got to be proactive.
I think it is obvious that the Al Qaeda is America's number one security threat.
Either Hillary apologizes for her 2002 vote that took one of America's eyes off the Al Qaeda in a dumb diversion, or she stop pushing the argument that somehow she is better prepared on issues of foreign policy.
If you are scared of terrorism, you should vote for someone who seems to know who the enemy is. The person to vote for is Barack.
If you are scared s___tless on global warming, as you should be, the person to vote for is Barack. He is the only person in this race on either side who can bring the world together on this as many other issues. And, yes, having lived abroad as a child, having family origins on several continents is a big part of it. Living abroad counts. (Living Abroad Counts)
And when Barack mentioned tea, he meant tea as offered in the American embassies and fancy hotels where First Ladies are kept under tight security even when they make their rare ventures into Third World villages.
Between foreign policy and domestic policy, Hillary's strength is domestic. She should stick to it. She should emphasize domestic policy more. Like her generic health care policy: everyone and Harry Truman's cousin have had good ideas on health care. The real question is who can actually bring the country together around it and deliver. The Clintons already got to try once. They failed miserably.
Hillary Messed Up On Iraq, And Al Qaeda Is Strong, America Insecure
Al Qaeda Strikes India, Wants Hindu-Muslim Riots
Bush Nabbed Saddam, His Mandate Was To Nab Osama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)