The latest accusation against Mrs. Clinton will be difficult to top. Her campaign spent an outrageous 1200 dollars on Dunkin' Donuts in one month.
This complaint has been leveled against her not just in internet chat rooms, not just over the dinner tables of Hillary haters across America. Two columnists of the most respected paper in the country, the New York Times, cited this campaign-damning piece of information.
It seems Mrs. Clinton can't manage money. The great minds of the New York Times, we are to believe, are looking out for the interests of Americans. The message is clear. Clinton can't manage money now, so how can we expect her to manage money in larger affairs if elected president?
Not so fast. Let's get out our scientific calculators and do the math. 1200 dollars divided by thirty days equals forty dollars per day.
Some more math: during the first Clinton administration, America created 22 million jobs.
In W's eight years in office, America created less than five million.
Would you like an independent inquiry into the donut spending?
In a second national newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, Joel Stein had the balls (yes, it was a male columnist) to write of Mrs. Clinton:
"You wanted cookies, and she whipped up an oatmeal chocolate chip recipe."
It seems Americans are obsessed with connecting Mrs.Clinton with food.
When was the last time a columnist metaphorically connected gangsta rap with Mr. Obama?
Clinton's latest move, her tirade against the mailers sent out by Mr. Obama's campaign, will almost certainly also be derided in sexist terms.
But, as much as sexists may want to believe it, this is not an example of what Mr. Obama called "the claws coming out" (sexist ass that he is).
Instead, Mrs. Clinton has finally found the female role we, and everyone in the world, can respect:
The role of mother.
I was not the only one who felt, while watching her tirade, that she might tell Barack Obama: "Go to your room".
Does America need yet another masculine hero throwing his weight around on the world stage? Do we need a cool guy on our side, who, through raw charisma, can move people across the world to say together 'Yes We Can' (er, at least the ones with low self-esteem)?
A mother, in contrast, can tell the warring boys to finally lay down their toys. Yes, she can tell the misogynist culture of gangsta rap, even, to take a time out.
To the Hillary haters across the nation and in other countries, I have a simpler, more masculine message (does it suit my gender?):
Shut.
Up.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
It is My Belief That a Time for Global Reconciliation Has Come!
The posts on this page lately are focused around one theme:
Barack Obama's candidacy for President of the United States has shown us that the time for cultural reconciliation in America has come.
In these texts, I discuss my agreement with Mr. Obama on some things and some disagreement with Mr. Obama on other things. I also try to push some hot-topic buttons, in order to process the deep emotions of America's many cultural communities.
After initially starting this project, I had some fear of anger or backlash, and I removed it from this blog. I have in the meantime gotten some very positive comments from African American readers, so I have decided to continue to post these texts, with my real name attached. It is my hope that the texts will be taken as constructive.
I hope that you enjoy the texts. I would very much like to continue to engage in this discussion with people from all over the world, as I have had the great fortune to do lately. I look forward to realizing the New American Dream: a post-racial society in which all are afforded basic human rights including health care.
Sincere thanks for reading,
Charles Lang
Barack Obama's candidacy for President of the United States has shown us that the time for cultural reconciliation in America has come.
In these texts, I discuss my agreement with Mr. Obama on some things and some disagreement with Mr. Obama on other things. I also try to push some hot-topic buttons, in order to process the deep emotions of America's many cultural communities.
After initially starting this project, I had some fear of anger or backlash, and I removed it from this blog. I have in the meantime gotten some very positive comments from African American readers, so I have decided to continue to post these texts, with my real name attached. It is my hope that the texts will be taken as constructive.
I hope that you enjoy the texts. I would very much like to continue to engage in this discussion with people from all over the world, as I have had the great fortune to do lately. I look forward to realizing the New American Dream: a post-racial society in which all are afforded basic human rights including health care.
Sincere thanks for reading,
Charles Lang
Hillary vs. Obama: a Cultural Tiff
Many of the issues being discussed surrounding the Clinton and Obama candidacies are secondary to the real issues driving the 'movements' which are happening on both sides. The platforms of Hillary and Obama are nearly identical, so the platforms can't be the reasons for all the energy (and anger) we see on both sides.
The real issue? There's a cultural tiff happening in America.
The cultural clash is _not_ racial; it is a clash between a sub-culture of African America and the cultures of mainstream America. It isn't a clash of races, but a tiff of cultures.
Some African American sub-cultures have long held resentment toward mainstream cultures because mainstream cultures in America have some deep roots in white cultures, and African American cultures formed many attitudes in response to white racism.
The Obamas have been extremely disrespectful of the Clintons. Michelle publicly questioned whether she would support Clinton if she gets the nomination: that is highly unusual and, frankly, rude and mean. There is a good deal of evidence for their rudeness. The Clintons gave help to the Obamas earlier in their careers, and have repeatedly praised the Obamas. Remarks made by Barack, though, have often been outright disdainful toward the Clintons.
Obama represents a kind of black anger which is historically justified -- blacks have, after all, been brutally abused by whites. However, the justification for the anger is, for the most part, in the past. Mainstream America has become a culture that is no longer White America, but is rather full of people of latino heritage, asian heritage, indian heritage, and yes, African American heritage. They speak with a common accent, share many of the same foods and interests in music, etc.
If it is possible to get past all that, then the choice between Clinton and Obama is pretty clear. Obama has a racial chip on his shoulder, in a way Whoopi Goldberg, Maxine Waters, 50 Cent and Quincy Jones do not. It is not that Whoopi Goldberg is 'white', it is just that Whoopi Goldberg could be my best friend (I'm white), and neither she nor I would care about the color of our skin (yes, that cliche can be realized). We wouldn't be white or black (or anything): we are the New American Dream. We are Hillary Clinton's vision for America.
The real issue? There's a cultural tiff happening in America.
The cultural clash is _not_ racial; it is a clash between a sub-culture of African America and the cultures of mainstream America. It isn't a clash of races, but a tiff of cultures.
Some African American sub-cultures have long held resentment toward mainstream cultures because mainstream cultures in America have some deep roots in white cultures, and African American cultures formed many attitudes in response to white racism.
The Obamas have been extremely disrespectful of the Clintons. Michelle publicly questioned whether she would support Clinton if she gets the nomination: that is highly unusual and, frankly, rude and mean. There is a good deal of evidence for their rudeness. The Clintons gave help to the Obamas earlier in their careers, and have repeatedly praised the Obamas. Remarks made by Barack, though, have often been outright disdainful toward the Clintons.
Obama represents a kind of black anger which is historically justified -- blacks have, after all, been brutally abused by whites. However, the justification for the anger is, for the most part, in the past. Mainstream America has become a culture that is no longer White America, but is rather full of people of latino heritage, asian heritage, indian heritage, and yes, African American heritage. They speak with a common accent, share many of the same foods and interests in music, etc.
If it is possible to get past all that, then the choice between Clinton and Obama is pretty clear. Obama has a racial chip on his shoulder, in a way Whoopi Goldberg, Maxine Waters, 50 Cent and Quincy Jones do not. It is not that Whoopi Goldberg is 'white', it is just that Whoopi Goldberg could be my best friend (I'm white), and neither she nor I would care about the color of our skin (yes, that cliche can be realized). We wouldn't be white or black (or anything): we are the New American Dream. We are Hillary Clinton's vision for America.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Bill of Media-Consumer Rights
The texts on this page are drafts and ideas, so please comment if you have thoughts, ideas or suggestions. I think any project like the one suggested here would have to be a sort of grass-roots movement.
I started to write this page after feeling that there's something wrong about logging on to a social network like facebook or myspace and having to become a captive audience for advertising. Unlike with television, users of the social web can't just turn off this advertising machine; once we develop a network of friends and our own page, we've invested in the system, so it's hard not to keep our accounts active.
Do we need to be making money for companies that are just providing us with space on their networks? Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, was recently telling advertisers that the old advertising paradigm isn't enough any longer, and that now the place to advertise is "in the conversations." Do we need his fingers in our conversations? Our friendships?
On this page are some thoughts about how the situation might be changed, and thoughts about distribution and payment systems for digital media in general. They are not polished ideas, but maybe they will contribute to the ongoing discussion about the future of the social web or, in the best case, help motivate someone to start a project like the one suggested.
A friend already pointed out the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web (http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/). The texts on this page were drafted without knowledge of the texts on that page, just seven weeks later, so there seems to be a timeliness to the projects the pages advocate.
I agree with the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web, but I think it may be possible to go further, depending on how peer-to-peer media exchange is structured in the future, so that corporate power plays a much smaller role controlling digital media in general. Also, it should be possible to make advertising play a smaller part in shaping our everyday reality.
With respect to our current daily exposure to the influence of corporations, I think it can be said that 'unjust powers are never seen as such until alternatives are recognized'.
Thanks for reading,
Charles L.
Media-Consumer Rights:
Since distribution of material in the digital media costs little and media are instantly customizable, every user of the internet has the right to:
1. Freedom of choice with respect to viewing advertising. Since being exposed to advertisements is a method of payment, users should be able to choose whether to view advertising or, as an alternative, to directly pay the small sums otherwise generated by it. The locus of decision-making with regard to linking media products with advertising has been in the hands of media companies until now due to the practical constraints on traditional media. However, the proper location of the decision to view advertising is with the consumer. Software shall be developed to allow users to decide in real time whether to view advertising.
I bracket these two because they're not so strictly rights, but rather 'should-bes':
(2. Something like: Freedom of expression in the public digital space of social networks. Since social networking sites have become as ubiquitous and as personal as everyday conversations on the street, social networking should be free of corporate control. Social networks are like the sidewalk; they should neither be profited from nor controlled except as appropriate through the legal system.)
(3. Something like: Freedom of expression with regard to professional work. Constraints on traditional media, including the internet software of today, have forced professional authors and artists to submit to artificial hierarchies of control through media companies and editorial boards in order to get sufficient remuneration to pursue media-related professions. Through innovations in software, an 'open media network' can and should allow for professional expression to be remunerated and consumed in more direct correlation to market demands (for example, through enabling instant and automatic one-cent-purchasing of articles/songs from non-corporate web pages; pay-as-you-consume content), as opposed to being based to a significant degree on the decisions of a few individuals who have the power to publish, distribute and advertise.)
I started to write this page after feeling that there's something wrong about logging on to a social network like facebook or myspace and having to become a captive audience for advertising. Unlike with television, users of the social web can't just turn off this advertising machine; once we develop a network of friends and our own page, we've invested in the system, so it's hard not to keep our accounts active.
Do we need to be making money for companies that are just providing us with space on their networks? Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, was recently telling advertisers that the old advertising paradigm isn't enough any longer, and that now the place to advertise is "in the conversations." Do we need his fingers in our conversations? Our friendships?
On this page are some thoughts about how the situation might be changed, and thoughts about distribution and payment systems for digital media in general. They are not polished ideas, but maybe they will contribute to the ongoing discussion about the future of the social web or, in the best case, help motivate someone to start a project like the one suggested.
A friend already pointed out the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web (http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/). The texts on this page were drafted without knowledge of the texts on that page, just seven weeks later, so there seems to be a timeliness to the projects the pages advocate.
I agree with the Bill of Rights for Users of the Social Web, but I think it may be possible to go further, depending on how peer-to-peer media exchange is structured in the future, so that corporate power plays a much smaller role controlling digital media in general. Also, it should be possible to make advertising play a smaller part in shaping our everyday reality.
With respect to our current daily exposure to the influence of corporations, I think it can be said that 'unjust powers are never seen as such until alternatives are recognized'.
Thanks for reading,
Charles L.
Media-Consumer Rights:
Since distribution of material in the digital media costs little and media are instantly customizable, every user of the internet has the right to:
1. Freedom of choice with respect to viewing advertising. Since being exposed to advertisements is a method of payment, users should be able to choose whether to view advertising or, as an alternative, to directly pay the small sums otherwise generated by it. The locus of decision-making with regard to linking media products with advertising has been in the hands of media companies until now due to the practical constraints on traditional media. However, the proper location of the decision to view advertising is with the consumer. Software shall be developed to allow users to decide in real time whether to view advertising.
I bracket these two because they're not so strictly rights, but rather 'should-bes':
(2. Something like: Freedom of expression in the public digital space of social networks. Since social networking sites have become as ubiquitous and as personal as everyday conversations on the street, social networking should be free of corporate control. Social networks are like the sidewalk; they should neither be profited from nor controlled except as appropriate through the legal system.)
(3. Something like: Freedom of expression with regard to professional work. Constraints on traditional media, including the internet software of today, have forced professional authors and artists to submit to artificial hierarchies of control through media companies and editorial boards in order to get sufficient remuneration to pursue media-related professions. Through innovations in software, an 'open media network' can and should allow for professional expression to be remunerated and consumed in more direct correlation to market demands (for example, through enabling instant and automatic one-cent-purchasing of articles/songs from non-corporate web pages; pay-as-you-consume content), as opposed to being based to a significant degree on the decisions of a few individuals who have the power to publish, distribute and advertise.)
Example of everyday surfing
Please bear with me as far as the software goes; I think it wouldn't be hard to figure out:
You would log in on a computer using username and password, and browse as usual. You would have a home page with social networking functions (like you do today on myspace or facebook) and you would have email.
In the corner of your screen would be a counter showing how much you spend on digital media (bear with me here; the parts of the internet that are free now would still be free). You would surf as usual, except any media that is for-pay media would be marked with something that tells you how much it costs (a little blue square means it costs one cent, green costs two cents, etc.) If you view stuff that costs money, you would be instantly and automatically charged.
Lots of stuff would be free, just like with the internet today (that is, that stuff would have no little blue squares next to it), and some free media products would be supported by advertising, just like today. However, if you were to decide that you don't want to see any advertising you could click a button to 'turn advertising off', in which case as you browse you would be charged the small sums otherwise generated by advertising. The money would go in full to the authors of the content you view.
Users would have pages that have social network functions, but could designate whether certain things on their pages cost money for other users to view. So, for example, an independent rock band could post their songs (like on MySpace) and get one cent, or a part of a cent, for each playing of the song (or, say, fifty cents for unlimited access to the song by a viewer).
Well-visited bloggers would become professionals without any association with a media corporation -- if a blog were to get two million visits then the author would get 20,000 dollars, charging one cent per view. Individuals could become independent professional reporters or filmmakers or musicians by creating content which is viewed by many.
The web would include much more than it currently does, since more copyrighted materials would be posted. Getting access to those extra materials would be much easier than today, and access would cost less since the middlemen would no longer exist; for example, books could be posted such that reading several pages costs a few cents -- and that money would bypass publishers and bookstores and go straight to the author.
The backbone of the system -- the individual accounts and the social networking function -- should be, I think, based on a non-profit or government-run network. Other software applications could be developed by for-profit companies (like the add-on applications one sees on Facebook).
Compliance issues (policing and legal questions) are still unresolved, but one possible approach would be to base each social network page in a local community, like is happening with WikiSpot pages. In this way the mountainous task of policing hundreds of millions of pages might be broken down to correspond to physical communities, policed by individuals in each geographical area.
You would log in on a computer using username and password, and browse as usual. You would have a home page with social networking functions (like you do today on myspace or facebook) and you would have email.
In the corner of your screen would be a counter showing how much you spend on digital media (bear with me here; the parts of the internet that are free now would still be free). You would surf as usual, except any media that is for-pay media would be marked with something that tells you how much it costs (a little blue square means it costs one cent, green costs two cents, etc.) If you view stuff that costs money, you would be instantly and automatically charged.
Lots of stuff would be free, just like with the internet today (that is, that stuff would have no little blue squares next to it), and some free media products would be supported by advertising, just like today. However, if you were to decide that you don't want to see any advertising you could click a button to 'turn advertising off', in which case as you browse you would be charged the small sums otherwise generated by advertising. The money would go in full to the authors of the content you view.
Users would have pages that have social network functions, but could designate whether certain things on their pages cost money for other users to view. So, for example, an independent rock band could post their songs (like on MySpace) and get one cent, or a part of a cent, for each playing of the song (or, say, fifty cents for unlimited access to the song by a viewer).
Well-visited bloggers would become professionals without any association with a media corporation -- if a blog were to get two million visits then the author would get 20,000 dollars, charging one cent per view. Individuals could become independent professional reporters or filmmakers or musicians by creating content which is viewed by many.
The web would include much more than it currently does, since more copyrighted materials would be posted. Getting access to those extra materials would be much easier than today, and access would cost less since the middlemen would no longer exist; for example, books could be posted such that reading several pages costs a few cents -- and that money would bypass publishers and bookstores and go straight to the author.
The backbone of the system -- the individual accounts and the social networking function -- should be, I think, based on a non-profit or government-run network. Other software applications could be developed by for-profit companies (like the add-on applications one sees on Facebook).
Compliance issues (policing and legal questions) are still unresolved, but one possible approach would be to base each social network page in a local community, like is happening with WikiSpot pages. In this way the mountainous task of policing hundreds of millions of pages might be broken down to correspond to physical communities, policed by individuals in each geographical area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)