Object-Centered Networks To The Rescue

Last year I wrote about the difficulty of social networking for a purpose – vis-a-vis politics and governance.  I believe I have a solution to the problem presented in my essay, “What LinkedIn’s Reorganization and OFA 2.0 Means for Politech Online”.  The problem in a nutshell was:

Many internet theorists speak of social networks online as a ‘map of the relationships between individuals.’ Politech thinkers and online organizers like myself, have taken these principles and used them to inform the social software we built for campaigns and political advocacy organizations with mixed success.

We strategists messed up.  The way users relate to social networks is now more refined and purposeful.  And today, in a post-Facebook world, if the purpose of your online network is making money or ‘winning an election’ you had better NOT build an interpersonal network – Facebook is going to be the interpersonal network King for a long time.  Get yourself object-oriented.  As I said last year:

Social networks that are object-centered are a better match for politics online than most of what we have seen previously – which has been mostly based on an understanding of ‘social as interpersonal.’

Good social networks are NOT the most personal networks. My old adage “conversation is king” left aside the object – the subject of conversation – the meaning. It’s all about object-centered networks and actor-network models for me now.

The difference between how we design software for these two kinds of networks is vast.

Flickr got it right. Flickr makes photos into the objects of sociality on its network. YouTube similarly facilitates video clips as objects of sociality.

Basically, it’s not about encouraging discussion. It’s about owning the object of discussion.

Since quitting politics, I’ve gone to work architecting an object-centered network Advomatic built that I’m really proud of.  The way it owns the object of discussion is by placing the object within a clearly branded temperament and point of view. itsasickness.  Your obsession makes you interesting.

Currently, the user profile page on social networking sites is loaded with pictures of your friends. That’s because a friend-centered network is a glorified inbox.

This is useful for the user, but irrelevant for the advertiser.

The site can’t sell you your friends. They’re already yours.  This monetization problem is a symptom of a friend-centered network.

Here is the same user on a network that is object centered.  Ours. We can see from what he tells us about himself that he would be interested in vacation deals, yoga DVDs, fast food coupons or angioplasty.

What itsasickness.com creates is NOT friendships and easy communication – that’s been done and won by FB.  The success of our site hinges on the individual’s ego and passion for their obsessions.

In addition, the incentive for participation, the surrogate object which over-arches the user-generated obsession groups, is the potential for a bit of stardom on TV.

That’s right, TV.  The portion of the website which is still in development is the online base for a TV talk show starring Alan Cumming as host.  Mix Antiques Road Show with Metafilter crossed with The Gong Show plus early Carson, lace it with acid and shoot it out of a circus cannon.

One last thing:  The MacArthur Foundation Report from November 2008, entitled “Living and Learning with New Media Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project” features a chapter called ‘Genres of Participation with New Media – Geeking Out.’  Geeking Out really summarizes what our users do on the internet.  In my opinion, Geeking Out is what make the whole interwebs worthwhile.

Geeking out is the best.  The actual definition:
To Geek Out  - slang.   -verb
1.  To participate in or talk excessively about a current interest or obsession, which is not necessarily part of mainstream culture.
2.  To enthusiastically share details about a current interest, which is of little or no importance to a general audience.

The Second Coming by W.B. Yeats

Here is my comment on the 2010 midterms:

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

- William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

Now It’s 1978

The Senate seat occupied by the Democratic Kennedy brothers since 1952 has fallen to the Republican Party.

When you accept that 2009 was a wormhole of 1977, it all makes sense. Rahm Emanuel is Hamilton Jordon and Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter.

This is Barack Obama’s greatest failure. So far.

Massachusetts voters have given up on President Obama as an agent for anything but the status quo, and this is most evident in his willingness to dole out trillions of dollars in direct and indirect support to the banks. The Massachusetts polls show this issue to be foremost on the minds of the voters.

If 2009 was 1977, and Avatar is the new Star Wars, and Obama is the new Carter, so now that it’s 2010 and we’re in bizarro 1978, what else should we expect from this year?

Based on 1978’s returns, I’ve a hunch Dems will lose three Senate seats.

Based on 1978’s Bakke case, SCOTUS will strike down Campaign Finance with similarly twisted logic: because free and fair elections should be allowed to get purchased fairly with the free spending of corporate dollars.

I have a hunch that based on California’s Prop 13, that the Golden State will do another incredibly stupid thing. A cop-out? Yeah, but seriously, with a Austrian action hero for a Governor and a completely failed constitution, picking what idiotic thing they’ll do next is nearly impossible.

Harvey Milk was assassinated in 1978 – gulp. Conservatives still like to kill liberals.

Also, for good measure, Pope Ratzinger’s name is on the list.

Buckle up. It gets worse.

It’s 1977 And I Quit Politics

The Year Is 1977. Politically. And because it’s 1977 again, I have to quit.

Now, as it was in ‘77, punching hippies is just about the only thing the GOP does well. It’s actually the one thing that unites both political parties.

‘Punching hippies’ is a technical term used to describe various instances in modern realpolitik. Applications range from when moderate Democrats throw liberals under the bus procedurally, to when party leadership elbows us out of power via triangulation, to when conservatives literally kill us with bullets, to when media calls us Marxist-Socialist Nazi Communist Fascists and suggest we should be hung for treason, or shot with aforementioned bullets.

All of those things can be described as ‘punching hippies.’

How is it 1977? I talked to a veteran politico friend about her career in politics. She got sucked into party and campaign politics because of Bobby Kennedy, but after the country went off the rails in ‘68, she stayed in politics – - transitioning into what i’ll describe generally as anti-Nixon extra-party structures – - mostly out of pure loathing for Nixon. She recently told me that right now feels exactly like how she remembers 1977.

After Carter pardoned draft dodgers, which she celebrated, she said that the rest of that whole year felt like one losing battle after another. Social justice liberals lost the fight against the Death Penalty. Liberals lost several battles against gay-bashing Anita Bryant, the Supreme Court started chipping away at Roe v. Wade on the Medicare Amendment, environmentalists lost the battle of the Alaska Pipeline. Even the violent crimes which conservatives sensationalized were blamed on liberalism’s effect on our culture. Reagan started running hard against Carter not long thereafter.

That is her recollection of 1977.

Very similar to her story, I got sucked into politics by Howard Dean – who also sought to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party – and then I was kept in politics by rage at the atrocities of Bush-Cheney.

But here’s the thing, Bush-Cheney, and the GOP in general, have never stopped fighting 1968’s culture war. Democrats seem to think that they won the war with the unforced error of Watergate. They could not be more wrong.

Conservatives and Nixon believed in Norman Rockwell’s make-believe America. Nixon believed that he was the last line of defense to preserve the precious painting. Thus Nixon justified his illegal acts as necessary, akin to how total warfare perpetrated by victors are later forgiven… by themselves. Firebombing Dresden, Sherman’s March, tapping the DNC’s phones, turning USAGs into an arm of the RNC, etc.

Nixon was waging a full on war from the White House against Americans: young people, poor people, and minorities – the enemy was the DFH (dirty fucking hippie). It wasn’t just rhetoric, this conflict was occasionally militarized – especially in cities and on campuses. Debased by Nixon, liberals were arrested, beaten and otherwise flogged relentlessly by conventional wisdom zombies in the press. This is where our modern understanding of ‘punching hippies’ comes from – schmucks like David Broder.

Tragically, liberal candidates and liberal political heroes were murdered in 1968 by conservatives and Nixon won the election. Nevertheless, a surprising majority continued to fight Nixon, often forming extra-party political structures like issue advocacy organizations. My friend I mentioned above was one of those people.

Next to the victory of impeaching Nixon, putting a Democrat into the White House after those eight long painful years was well-earned schadenfreude. This is how I felt when we beat McCain and got Obama in.

Had I been a professional political operative 1976, I don’t think I would have been able to stomach the constant belittling and undercutting attack campaign that the conservative movement waged against President Carter. To be honest, I would have probably joined Ted Kennedy’s campaign to primary Carter.

Conservatives attacked Carter relentlessly and called him hapless and timid. He reacted as they anticipated: poorly and timidly. Famous actor scumbag Ronald Reagan attacked Carter for the entirety of Carter’s pitiful term. It did not abate: after a few years, Reagan simply shifted his all-purpose bad guy from Carter into Mondale.

The gutter-style politics which Nixon resorted to, was perfected and elevated to an art by Reagan’s people. American politics in the 80s was a shitshow of epic proportions. Impeachable offenses, policy failures… horrible stuff – punctuated always with Atwater’s flawless character assassinations spun through perfect media control and heavily reinforced scapegoating.

Which now brings us to 1992.

A sanity recap: this cycle beginning in ’68 marks how for the next 24 years, most of the American political spectrum found common cause in the joyful practice of punching hippies. For 20 of the 24 years it was done directly from the White House! As a liberal American, it doesn’t feel good to have your country so rejoice in beating the shit out of you.

Enter Clinton. The GOP calls him a hippie and punches him, and what does he do? A brilliant maneuver – unless you’re a hippie – he too punches hippies. It works for two terms, he’s able to diffuse most attacks by joining with the attack slightly pushing focus onto a strawman… or some unfortunate actual living hippie. That brings us to 2000.

This was when America went completely insane for 8 years. The result of thirty-two years of violent anti-liberal attack propaganda; hate speech equating liberals & Democrats to murderers, rapists, terrorists, pedophiles, abortionists, communists, and of course dirty fucking hippies.

The result was that the very vocal minority who voted for George W. Bush cheered whenever he got his way over objections of the loathed Democrats. If “his way” was an illegal war, or torture, or financial ruin, impeachable offenses, often literally criminal acts, no matter – they cheered. The jumbotron told them to.

Today, the year may as well be 1977. Obama is so much like Carter it’s frightening. If he doubles down on Afghanistan without passing a healthcare plan with a public option he may end up more like LBJ without the Great Society legislation. Both analogies are pain.

Think of the losses Carter’s liberals soldiered through in 1977: the Death Penalty, gay-bashing Anita Bryant, the Hyde Amendment, the Alaska Pipeline!

Four years of losses like that, plus the all out attacks from professional dickhead Reagan and his conservative movement goons, and it all added up to a really depressed party base. Just as dispirited as we are today.

Based on my experience these past years, to be a professional liberal in American politics is to know mostly pain, loss, and sadness. I love my wife too much to share that kind of life with her. It is a life away from your family, underpaid; it is to be attacked by your enemies, and then betrayed by the “friends” who you put into power. It is to be attacked by your own party, even: Rahm, Obama, and Reid really do not like us. It’s an infuriating life.

However, there will be no Ted Kennedy-esque primary campaign against Obama. The identity politics would tear the party apart. (To be honest, odds are even that Obama may be able to win reelection without any accomplishments because he has such a nice smile.)

Things go in cycles, like circles around – then down – a drain. I think that where we are right now with our hapless, timid Obama is at the same point in the cycle that I described for Carter’s liberals, just 32 years later – and deeper down the drain.

Had I been born in the same year as Bill Clinton, I probably would have gone clean for Gene, switched to Bobby, and then spent the next 8 years of Nixon fighting the evil bastard tooth and nail. And then I would have walked away from the madness.

I’d rather not be like Carter’s liberals. I’m a Howard Dean guy. Thanks to him I fought Bush to his demise and then I helped elect a Democratic President. It’s not my problem that the man is Carter-redux and the cycle is beginning again. Instead, it’s everybody’s problem that we’re not allowed to have liberal leaders in this country.

The good news is that because it’s 1977 we’re only a few months away from some sort of analogue to the day when The Talking Heads began their collaboration with Brian Eno. That plus the recording of Led Zeppelin’s final studio album helped kill off disco for good.

I’m looking forward to the updated version of that – we’ll know it when we see it. Because it’ll be awesome. Already, people are making Avatar is the new Star Wars analogies. Star Wars, you remember, came out in 1977. Next year, I will be born.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

With Apologies to The Onion

this is something i keep wanting to quote:

Soulless Cultural Wasteland ‘On The Grow’ In Southern California Desert

Los Angeles to Be Hellish Megalopolis by 1950

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The soulless cultural wasteland in the California desert, considered one of the bleakest and most God-forsaken stretches of uninhabitable scorched earth in the nation is “on the grow,” West Coast sources say, as the burgeoning city of Los Angeles continues its cancerous expansion.

Originally a tiny villa called Los Diablos, a coastal settlement of no distinction save for its capacity of heartlessness, the boomtown is now bigger than ever. Despite its lack of any life-sustaining natural resources, the city, which has no reason to exist at all has all the earmarks of a spectacular soulless cultural wasteland on the rise.

Tourist-Friendly Dystopia

Thanks to its policy of draining every conceivable water source from within hundreds of miles via massive network of pipes, as well as the Chamber of Commerce’s approval of a name-change to the more tourist-friendly “Los Angeles,” the up-and-coming wasteland shows every sign of ballooning into a full-scale dystopia.

Although recently a mid-sized, primarily agricultural settlement, trends indicate that the city is on its way to becoming a sprawling nightmarish megalopolis within the next few decades. Complete with desperate poverty, rampant crime, and a callous indifference to the spirits it has crushed, this business-minded realm of demons is hoped, by as early as 1950 to be the leading soulless cultural wasteland in the world.

Thriving Arts Haven

Staggering in its economic disparity, the planned wasteland will be an affront to human dignity, not only in the shallow excesses of its bloated overlords, but in the anarchic savagery of its desperate underclass. Yet, it is in the area of the arts that Los Angeles hopes to truly make its mark.

“Our town’s lowest-common-denominator cultural output has the potential, one day, to be second to none in insipid banality,” Wasteland Development Director Randolph Moloch said. “We hope to suck up the souls of promising artists like a great, black vortex, spitting out only the most lifeless, commerce-produced cultural products possible.”

“We have high ambitions for the lows to which our community will sink,” Moloch said. “We don’t just want to be an overpopulated crucible of dehumanizing corruption, materialism, and race hatred; we want to be known the world over the a place where ideas come to die.”

A Faustian Bargain

Perhaps the words of the late civil engineer William Mulholland, who was responsible for the construction of the aqueducts that feed Los Angeles as blood feeds and vampire’s undead corpse, best articulate the civic spirit of Los Angeles. IN a speech before the city’s Chamber of Commerce in 1930, the “Father of the Wasteland” said, “We’re willing to do whatever it takes, including entering pacts with Satan himself, to achieve our hellish dreams. We have stolen an entire river from an ancient ecosystem hundreds of miles away, destroying the lives of all who lived there. WE built a criminally unstable dam whole collapse killed more people than the San Francisco earthquake. That takes guts. No, it takes more than guts – it takes sheer, unrelenting hatred of all that is good and decent.”


A Land War in Asia – One of the Classic Blunders

Thirty years ago today the Soviets fell for one of the classic blunders, they got suckered into a land war in Asia. Ha ha!

Then again, forty years ago today, we fell for the same blunder in Vietnam. Aw.

November 28, 1979 is when the Soviets sent KGB down to Kabul with an ultimatum. Basically saying, “we’re going to occupy you and make you more like us… if you aren’t able to instantly be exactly like us and do it peacefully.”

December 18 is when the first military moves are made, where Soviet units stationed in Bagram begin taking control of the Salang Pass. Shortly there afterwards mechanized infantry rolls in from Tashkent. So in effect the invasion is under way.

But the Soviets were there already, and the first stage of the war was really a coup, where officers of the previous government were arrested, often being invited to parties or meetings, before or during the main body of Soviet forces entering Afghanistan.

After ten years, the Russians quit. Alexander the Great gave up after 5.

To be fair, ten years before USSR’s Afghanistan blunder, President Nixon had his own land-war-in-Asia blunder with Vietnam. Nixon’s Vietnamization plan was to occupy the country while training local fighters who could fight in our place. It was exactly like what we’re doing in Iraq right now.

When Nixon sold Vietnamization to Americans with his November 1969 address, he used language literally exactly the same as what George W. Bush said about Iraq. ‘We stand down as they stand up.’

Oh, by the by, Obama is doing it again. Afghanistan – that place which ruined Alexander and Russia – for at least ten years, starting this December.

The thirtieth anniversary of the Soviet blunder in Afghanistan will also be the date we fell for the same blunder.

A date, by the way, which is also the fortieth anniversary of our previous eerily similar blunder in Vietnam.

What is it about the month of November in years ending in 9 that makes conservatives fall for the same classic blunder over and over again?

Where Alexander the Great failed, and where the U.S.S.R. failed, stumbles the United States. It’ll be horrible decade, folks. Buckle up.

Scalia’s Pain Fetish

Supreme Court clown Antonin Scalia excretes conservative nonsense:

“The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.”

Really?!


As you may know, Scalia is a dogmatic member of Opus Dei, the rightwing cult that believes corporal mortification is an acceptable way to “constrain the desires of the flesh.”

To Scalia, the constitution is no more than a Cilice with which he beats himself.
Let’s investigate the Preamble to the constitution paying particular attention to the active verbs:
  • form a more perfect Union
  • establish Justice
  • insure domestic Tranquility
  • provide for the common defence
  • promote the general Welfare
  • secure the Blessings of Liberty
  • ordain and establish this Constitution

All of those are verbs of construction, verbs of growth. And yet, this man Scalia, the human personification of a grumble, sees only the need to retard, to constrain or to destroy.


Scalia, like other conservatives is a retardant. Pure and simple – a retardant. His interpretation of the Constitution is hopelessly perverted by his pain fetish.



Click-to-Call Widget v1

Previous Change Agents from Fake History

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy. Therefore, if government officials break the law “righteously” we should look forward and not backward, we should trust that the accused did what they did because they thought it was best, we should not investigate, or really, not even bring it up too often as that would be impolite. Also, if committing a crime becomes a central plank in the platform for one of America’s political partys, then that’s another reason to not do anything about the crime, because doing so would look too political. And if the daughter of one of the government criminals often goes to the press and pleads on her father’s behalf we don’t want to be called sexist or mean so we should let just let it go.

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 1939

Previous Change Agents from Fake History

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of good will to come together with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Will the corporations that profit from the status quo lose too much money? And if so, can’t we punt for now and come back to this later?”


- Martin Luther King Jr.