Let FaceBook be damned!

Infuriated by the predatory, capitalist nature of what was once a website for college students, I finally looked around for an alternative to FaceBook for my rather meager online social networking needs.  I quickly stumbled across something that I was surprised I was unaware of:  Orkut.  It was bought a while ago by Google, who seem to be in no rush to get it polished for competition against FaceBook.  It’s mildly clunky, lacks some of the ease of multi-media posting, linking, etc., but it comes out very strong in one major category, which to me is vital, key, paramount, crucial and then others, this is of course, the category of information rights.

I combed patiently through the terms of conditions for using Orkut, and not only did I NOT find that Google reserves the right to lay full claim to anything you do, write or in any way create on their site, section 11 of the terms clearly speaks against it.

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

Now, the wording for the second half of this paragraph is obviously aimed at developers of applications.  Google has no interest in “publicly performing” anything I write on my Orkut page.  They’re just letting developers know that if they want to put their app out, they should expect some coding revisions and accept the fact that if they’re in any way harmful to the site or it’s users, it will be terminated.   If you’re not convinced, read on,

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.

The typical end-user was not even on the radar when these terms were being drafted by legal.  Essentially, you should read over them for yourself, but if you’re feeling lazy and want to take my word for it, I feel a great relief switching from FaceBook to Orkut, and only hope that enough of us in North America continue to join and help it improve.  With Google’s transparency, market vibrancy, and innovative approaches to streamlining the web’s functionality, we’re obviously in better hands in the long run for making the switch.

A lot of what doesn’t impress on Orkut are obvious, and simple fixes that Google would make immediately upon recognizing the migration taking place.  Some things I love: friend to friend promotion for whatever you like; seemless Picasa integration for photo uploading; incredibly simple platform (takes minutes to learn the basics); much more intuitive “status update” platform which allows you to talk to whomever, update to one or any or all of your friends and family easily with no messy organization needed; and finally integrated Gchat with audio and video.  Facebook can’t touch that.

An important note: you don’t have to have a gmail account to be on Orkut.  It just makes it that much better if you are, and why wouldn’t you want a gmail account anyway.  It’s tops!

While I’m not positive that Orkut is the best possible social networking site already in place today, I’m willing to bet it will be if we make a loud enough sound.

Come join me.   And to hell with predatory social networking.

Editor’s Note:  Also check out Diaspora.  I see a potential for a google buy-out on this one, but it’s a great idea.

UPDATE: After trying for months I could only get my wife, a fellow blogger, and my father to join Orkut.  While I am still using Fuckface to interact with my current social circle, I am still committed to bailing on it as soon as I get my Diaspora invite and check over the terms/protocol of that service.  If that’s a no-go… I may just be done with social “networks” and rely solely on my Droid and blogs to keep my connected.

i hate yourself

if you do not join me in revolutionary efforts to steer America straight you can go fuck yourself.  I am the other.

a letter to my fellow Minnesotans

My Fellow Minnesotans,

I love you.  I do.  That is why I am so compelled to plead with you to please… please step outside of your religious views and help those of us who are fighting for what matters to us all.  I am well versed in all major world religions, and I know that none of them teach hatred and intolerance.  Why then, are you allowing yourselves to be swindled by politicians who feed you messages of hatred and intolerance?  We have a pretty nice state.  Minnesota has a lot to offer, and I have never regretted living here even after having visited most of the continental U.S.  Coming home is always a blessing to me, but lately I cannot help but feel some level of despair.
I could sit here for hours conjuring up the most eloquent way to state this, but eloquence won’t make any difference to those of you who rely on network news or campaign ads, so I am going to say this the only way I know how at this moment:

You are ruining my life.

Every time I see a sign in support of a candidate who campaings on messages of homophobia, I think of the Minnesota youth who are so ridiculed for their sexual identity that they find no peace but in suicide.  Church and state are separated for a good reason, and I wish to heaven and back that you would learn to respect that.  Your beliefs are not the issue here, you have a right to them which is protected by the very constitution of this land, but your beliefs are not for everyone, and it’s morally wrong for you to assert them outside of your private life.  If you believe I am going to hell, fine.  I don’t.  Nothing that either of us can say or do will change the fact that religious beliefs are private, subjective and unable to be proven.  You believe homosexuality is a sin, fine.  I don’t.

What can be dealt with is healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc., and those who run for public office promising to represent your religious views are precisely those we do not need running what is actually relevant to government.  We need good education to create a talented workforce and flourishing economy.  We need accessible healthcare for every person no matter who.  We need good transportation systems, clean energy and water, better, safer agricultural and food production.  None of these things are in any way benefited by religious ideology.

There are candidates running for office right now that can help us achieve these important human necessities, candidates who understand that we can create new and sustainable jobs by focusing on creating these new and improved infrastructures.  They understand that education must be a funding priority, not something to hack apart because our misguided governor refuses to tax us equitably.  You know, I can remember the last time we benefited from having a few of us become wealthy while the rest toiled in misery: that was never.  There is no justifiable reason to continue allowing the schemers to profit on the labor of honest, hard working people.
I live in a small community of people who mind their own business and pay their bills.  They take the work they can get and make the best of it.  Like me, they would probably love to change careers.  Like me, they probably feel trapped.  But we do what we can.  The policies laid out by those politicians that run campaigns on intolerance are going to hurt us all, and it’s because they figured out that they can keep taking all of the extra money you and I could have for our own families by simply telling us that they will defend our morals.

WE DON’T NEED GOVERNMENT TO DEFEND OUR MORALS.

I beg of you, at the core of your humanity and good will, please find the courage to reject this harmful practice.  Take pride in your right to vote, and vote for the candidate that will protect us, our environment and our education systems.  Bless your fellow Minnesotan with the quality of your civil participation by ensuring that firstly, our leaders and governors are concerned only with providing the basic standards of a good and fruitful life.  If, after that, you wish to attend the church of your choosing, pray to the god of your choosing, or participate in any of the innumerable hobbies, groups or social activities available to you, go with my full blessing, and I hope that you find joy, peace and fulfillment in your journey.

Sincerely,

Your Neighbor

a philosophy for us

When mucking through the shitpile means learning how to pole vault, you sharpen the end of your pole and stab the rich.  Stab them right in the taxes.

We’re all selfish. That’s the bottom line.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Let’s have the next era, shall we?

A woman recently said, in my presence “All of these modern characters are so pathetic.” (referring to the current-era masculine gender norms)  I want to give you time with that before continuing.  Because the context is irrelevant, it’s the generational perception of the archetypal citizen of a given, let’s say, decade, that is really at play here.  Somewhat like the recent top 40 radio song inquiring as to the whereabouts of ‘the cowboys,’ this sentiment outlines a buddhist perspective that I feel is very relevant for our modern characters.  There is a perspective within buddhism that suggests our reality is not so much linear, but “dependently co-arisen,” or, if you will allow me to butcher eastern thought with my western conception of it: we are walking as we instantly come into existence.  Our path becomes as we create it.

All of these modern characters, be they laymen or politicians; literary devices or documentary subjects, are so pathetic because Rambo and Barbi wore us the hell out!

Now, it is simultaneously necessary and obsolete for me to quickly point out that I am a Generation X-er.  It is 2009 and I am 29.  No kids, no career.  Ambitions are numerous and fleeting.  Money slips through my fingers like credit card receipts getting tossed into the gas-station garbage to make the car tidier.

The reason it is necessary is because I am writing about a progressive movement that is either going to happen quite soon, or is woefully overdue or even missed outright.  The reason it is obsolete, is because I believe that it is one movement in a long, seemingly fated string of many.

There are no pioneers right now (cowboys, inventors, warlords, philosophers, “new penises”) because the riverbeds worn into the ground for us by history no longer present us with genuinely profound challenges.  I do not mean that our current global and social challenges are not profound, rather, that the issues they represent are “old hat.”  It is boring that the international global community has been so struck by ethically inept and dull-witted leadership.  It is boring and it takes too long to take over their offices.  It will be necessary for a major, and by major I mean nearly absolute, upheaval.  I know this because the reason I am writing this book, is because I know that there are millions of me out there, who just feel like they’re failing alone.  We’re all so afraid of MTV-style melodrama that we appear to be fine, but each of us would join the revolution, if it came to us.  Which is the number one problem to solve at the onset of any major revolution: who will champion it?  How can it be organized?  What will the repercussions be?  Is it arrogant to cause such an upheaval just because we are disillusioned?

I’m not going to hop on my horse just yet to announce the arrival of the Redcoats, because it’s 2009 and I have the internet.  However, am I waiting for you to start the revolution we both want, or are you waiting for me?  Tying this very quickly and awkwardly back into the buddhist perspective I believe can help us right now: you and I (us being the future revolutionaries we’re destined to become) are at an impass, which is the next nearest point to true freedom.  If we desire true freedom enough, we will both make the move eventually.  However, some of us will have to be inconvenienced at first, who is willing?

I just realized I am a fucking hypocrite

So should you.

let’s quit raping eachother, shall we?

POTENTIALLY TRIGGERING LANGUAGE/SITUATIONS

Recent conversations regarding rape among peers got me wondering about some cold hard facts, and after much research, I’ve dug some up. The majority of women I know, and myself as well, have been acquaintance raped. I am, of course, including persistent resistance defeated by coercion,

1.	the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

in my definition of rape, as verbal and emotional consent are hardly second cousins. What troubles me the most is the lack of open social dialog which seems to further stigmatize the survivors (not necessarily speaking in the mortality sense here). Maybe it is so shameful because rape is the closest you can ever really come to actually taking something from a person in a near spiritual sense. I suppose that all depends on your view on what humans are, but for the sake of this post, let us say humans have souls that are the mysterious root of our emotional person-hood, okay? Okay.

Onward.

Sexual aggression is not something I was ever told about growing up. I was never once told that I should never say yes to someone when I want to say no for fear of the no being ultimately disposed of or bringing on perceivable social consequence. I also have never been told NOT to do that to another person. In fact, shortly after my experience I repeated the behavior. The circumstances were muddy enough for my ego to play it off, but eventually I learned to call it what it was. For all I know the person I raped went and raped someone else. It just puzzles me the more I learn of how common sexual assault is, that sexuality and interpersonal dynamics are not more prominent family/social issues; visible, unstigmatized and talked out. For example:

“Billy and Jane, now that you are growing up you may start to feel desires towards other people, but you need to know that it is never okay to force anyone to touch you or to be touched, and you never have to let someone force you to do things you don’t want. If someone you like wants you to do something you don’t want to, they are not being a very good friend and you need to tell someone.”

Now, I realize this only applies to less than 84% of reported assaults as some stranger rapes and adult to child rapes are simply beyond the victim’s control, but I feel that a broad anti-acquaintance-rape social mantra would drastically help bring the stats down:

In 2002: 247,730 sexual assaults were reported in the United States, 87,000 of which were completed rapes.

-84% of survivors know their rapists (acquaintance rape)

In 1999, only 28% of survivors reported the assault to police. (Criminal survivorization 2000: Changes 1999-2000 with Trends 1993-2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. June 2001.)

Let’s assume that the current figure for reported incidence is higher, say… 30% are reported now, according to the Bureau of Justice in 2005 the number of incidents of sexual assault including verbal threats was 513,480 with an estimated 70% unreported. Let’s do some math:

100 / 30 = 3.33

513,480 x 3.33 =

1,711,600 sexual assaults. Just think about what the global stats must be…

Fun. It’s estimated that 1 in 6 (or 1 in 4 depending on the report) women will experience sexual assault and 1 in 33 men.

One final note: in a survey of college girls, only 30% of women who had an experience meeting the legal definition of rape chose to label it as so, mainly because they had been drinking and violence was not used. I submit that sticking something inside a person’s body against their will is quite violent.

(reposted from June LJ) all stats from the Bureau of Justice website

disillusionment

I am rather puzzled at one aspect of my job today. I have been consistently told that we are to enhance our image/role/visibility in the community by any means available. Our motto claims that we are raising the standards of our field. There are countless reasons why the following response: “Like I said, it was nice to do, but we cannot do this. Time, money but most of all policy of visiting providers directly. So in the future, please do not make the visits. Thanks.”, was so underwhelming, but the ultimate kick was how there was no inquiry made by the speaker of this quote as to the nature of my decision to execute this one breach of bureaucracy.  Let me break it down. has me rather baffled.

Time: 30 minutes, all off the clock.

Money: $4 in mileage reimbursement, which I would not have requested were it not a sort of emergency.

Policy…. here’s where I get confused V2.1. How is it possible that this is against policy? I will gladly give back the $4, but I would really like to understand how my personal visits (which have been received fondly and reflected well on the character of this organization) could in any way be a matter of policy. I tried for days to reach a provider by phone to notify them of a change of address for an important function to no avail. The phone number for the client we had listed was wrong and there were no listings in the white pages. I knew that I would not be able to mail anything to them in time, so after work that night I drove to the client’s house and provided them the information that would lead them to the correct location; where they would not show up to an empty parking lot, where they would not panic and worry they had the wrong night, where they would receive what they needed to keep their job.

Somehow. This. Is. Not. In. Accordance. With. Policy.

Employers that prefer the ease of trained drones over the challenge of apt, conscientious and innovative staff are always the ones who have have grown too big for their britches.  They are the ones where someone at the top is raking in some unconscionable figure per year and operates mainly out of fear of losing that wealth; this is usually to the detriment of the infrastructure of the company and its ability to operate efficiently.  Anyone who has more than their neighbor is comfortable for a time, but soon becomes obsessed with short sighted, material goals that wind up bankrupting them, such as weak mortgages, too-high car payments when you could have accepted the status blow and bought the car within your budget (for me, it’s audio equipment), etc, etc.  Whatever it is that fuels the need for excess, society is being eaten away by it, and getting that particular message out there in 2010 should not be a difficult thing, so the challenge is to figure out why it is.  Is it a lack of people speaking up?  Or is it an overabundance of people quite purposefully cutting off our air?

come to think of it

The last thing the world needs is one more “there are two kinds of people in the world” sentiments.  However, there really are, and I am generally apt to provide the last thing someone needs on any given day.  Often these sentiments are offered as a comic device, sometimes they are insights into a oft repeated stupidity, and others yet simply serve to criticize.  My sentiment, is none of these.

There really are two, precisely, two kinds of people: those who think before they act, and those who act.

This sounds rather ‘der’, no?  As a generalized concept it is.  Specificity lends a new light, however, and yields a much funnier stupidity/normalcy to it.  Now, consider a new-hire at some company, any company.  Let’s say you work in one area and the new-hire is in another.  You will never have any reason to interact with this person but you hear that they are gorgeous so you go introduce yourself anyway.  You are in the latter category.  Someone who thinks first will at least know they’re being a tool before walking over to shake hands, or abort the mission entirely.

That example explains the worthless side of inconsiderate action.  Yet, as is the case with any point I would make, there is another side that is quite good.  People who act make things happen.  People who think first do not.  Some times it is better to think, but sometimes things just need to be done.

Recognizing the difference can be, to each type independently, impossible.

“The revolution is upon us!  Take up your arms and join the fight!”

-well… are we right?  If we are would we win?  Is this really the best solution?

See what I am getting at?  We need both.  I just have an easier time criticizing people who do not think.