Midterm Assignment

I really don’t like to agree with college professors as a rule, but it would be impossible to regard Wikipedia as a scholarly source. However, to ban it as a reference like Middlebury College is so close-minded and to me college is about being open-minded to possibilities not elitist about from where information emanated. To cite it as a source and not check the source would be like hearing something from Keith Olbermann and accepting it as truth. Some of it is probably true, but more research is required. The point, it can’t be cited as a source, but it is a great starting point. It should be used as a learning tool and not a research source…which is more than I can say about Olbermann. As our class presentations made clear, some web links will no longer exist and this alone makes it not entirely reliable as a source. Also, because the content on Wikipedia is largely acquired from anonymous posts it can contain a great deal of bias.

It seems to me, technology such as Wikipedia, Facebook and Twitter should be embraced by educators and the educational system to invite open, informal and liberal communication between teachers and students. Instead of technology being classified as …good-bad or downside-upside… it should be seen as a tool in the building of a life-long educational process. Just because Wikipedia is more informal than a scholarly journal does not mean it has no merit in the classroom. Sometimes colleges get so caught up in their scholarly pursuits that they seem to lose touch with what is going on in the “real world.” In the context of American culture, maybe thinking more about how they are cavalierly raising tuition prices and less about Wikipedia as a way to maintain credibility would be time better spent.

And, on the subject of credibility, what was apparent during the research of the Scientology page was that scholarly research can be questioned as well. Sociology Professor Anson Shupe from Indiana StateUniversity-Purdue University called Professor Stephen Kent from the University of Alberta a “bozo” in an email he sent to me and questioned Kent’ credibility both as a researcher and an expert on Scientology. Kent is described on the Wikipedia page as an expert and has been cited in many peer-reviewed scholarly journals but Shupe was clearly questioning his methods of research. When I looked further into Kent’s and Shupe’s backgrounds, it seems both have questionable methodologies in their research of Scientology. It appeared that Kent only spoke to ex-Scientologists in his research and Shupe, in his research of the controversy between Scientology and the Cult Awareness Network, read only the depositions that the prosecuting lawyer and Scientologist Kendrick Moxon had selected for him. It appears that students who do due diligence in their research may find the need to not only check the facts on Wikipedia pages, but those in peer-reviewed journals by college professors as well…

Made To Break III

Giles Slade outlines the end of the world due to e-waste quite nicely in the first 270 or so pages in Made to Break. On page 277 he finally admits, “The popularity of papers addressing Life Cycle Assessments and Extended Product Responsibility may indicate that the electronics industry is now undergoing positive change from within. Other indications of this change are the cost-free take-back, reuse, and recycling programs now in place at most major American electronics manufacturers, including Hewlett Packard and Dell.” (Slade 277) The author is describing the cycle of change that seems to always occur in the consumer world.

In 1859, William Jevons, then England’s greatest economist, was knighted by the queen of England for writing The Coal Question, which predicted that the British Empire would collapse by 1900 because it would run out of coal. He was correct, they did run out of coal. But, by that time they had switched to petroleum. The first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania that year. My point is that yes e-waste is a problem… And, yes we will adapt. History has proven the naysayers wrong time and again.

To his credit, Slade does not engage in finger-pointing. He simply adapts a very pragmatic approach to a problem of e-waste.  He states, “During the next few years, the overwhelming problem of waste of all kinds will, I believe, compel American manufacturers to modify industrial practices that feed upon throwaway ethic. The golden age of obsolescence-the heyday of nylons, tailfins, and transistor radios-will go the way of the buffalo. Whatever comes in its place will depend on the joint effort of informed consumers and responsive manufacturers, who will, I believe, see the benefits of genuinely serving their customers interests through green design.” (Slade 281)

Slade is correct. Number one, the market is always adjusting. Just as the consumer got tired of Cadillac’s and bought longer-lasting and more economical VW’s, so it will adjust to the crazy technological and fashion obsolescence the author discusses in Chapter 9 and slow down on the constant cell phone purchasing. (Slade 267) And, number two entrepreneurial minds will grasp the importance and lucrative business opportunities in recycling will emerge. So, the author concludes that only by a cultural change driven by government, consumers and manufacturers will a resolution be reached.

To describe our culture of consumerism, the author invokes sociologist Colin Campbell who describes the “mystery” of modern consumption itself- “it’s character as an activity which involves an apparently endless pursuit of wants, the most characteristic feature of modern consumption being this insatiability.” (Slade 265) Slade combines Campbell’s description with the social cascade effect, which describes the sudden popularity of certain things like eateries, clothes or now, phones. It would seem to me that if society can change suddenly in one direction, it can go in the opposite direction. Green will be cool someday. Using “old-school” electronics will be hip and the world will not come to an end. Slade’s book does make the reader examine his or her own consumption diet and in this the book delivers a valuable message.

Overcoming “Crackberry” at the Internet Addiction Recover Center…

In an article in the Seattle Times March 14, 2010 reporter Tyrone Beason informs readers that the Blackberry has jokingly been dubbed “Crackberry” by owners who can’t seem to put it away even in social settings. According to a report from the University of California at San Diego, the average American consumes a brain-exploding 34 gigabytes of content and either sees or hears 100,000 words each day, from the Web to TV to text messages. The question the reporter seems to be asking his readers is, are we addicted?

An internet recovery program in Falls City Washington seems to indicate some individuals are in technological crisis. reStart cofounders Hilarie Cash and Cossette Rae treat clients who have lost jobs, relationships and homes because of their Internet addiction. The center is the first in the nation aimed solely at helping a new category of addict that researchers are still attempting to understand. By last February 2010, 8 people had gone through the entire program. http://www.netaddictionrecovery.com/

Some of the Internet addicts who show up here are so far gone that simple experiences such as working in a group and chatting across the dinner table have become foreign to them. They need to be shown not just the emotional rewards of physical activities but the basic lessons of human interaction. They must be brought back into the world.

As a species, humans are vulnerable to any outside stimuli that changes the way we feel. One of our nation’s biggest concerns today is obesity. As a staunch Libertarian, I am both a defender and believer in humans ability to judge for themselves and get and receive help from others if need be. In other words, even though there is an obesity problem, I don’t believe the government should outlaw cheeseburgers. I feel the same way about obesity and Internet addiction. I believe education is always the best medicine. And, if we need help we can go to rehab.

reStart is a program with 12-Step model of recovery….

 12 Steps and Principles for

Internet and Technology Addiction Anonymous

These twelve steps and principles are guidelines for members of Internet and Technology Addiction Anonymous (ITAA) to live by. We can recognize and overcome living issues by using the twelve steps and/or principles. If you choose to embrace these steps and principles into your life, it will get better, no matter what you are having a problem with.

1.      HONESTY: Admit that you, or yourself, are powerless to overcome your addictions and that your life has become unmanageable.

2.      HOPE: Come to believe that the power greater than ourselves can restore you to health.

3.      TRUST: Decide to turn your will and your life over to the care of your higher power as you understand it.

4.      TRUTH: Make a searching and fearless written moral inventory of yourself.

5.      INTEGRITY: Admit to yourself, to a higher power, and another human being the exact nature of your wrongs.

6.      CHANGE OF HEART: Become entirely ready to have a higher power remove all your character defects.

7.      HUMILITY: Humbly ask a higher power to remove your shortcomings.

8.      BROTHERLY LOVE: Make a written list of all persons you have harmed and become willing to make restitution to them.

9.      RESTITUTION AND RECONCILIATION: Wherever possible, make direct restitution to all persons you have harmed, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10.  ACCOUNTABILITY: Continue to take personal inventory, and when you are wrong promptly admit it.

11.  PERSEVERANCE: Listen (and continue to listen) to your heart. Earnestly seek to understand your higher power, whatever that may be on any given day. Continue to give yourself credit for earnest effort, however imperfect.

12.  SERVICE AND SPIRITUALITY: Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, share this message with others who excessively use technology and practice these principles in all you do.

Note: The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous have been adapted for Internet Addiction. Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. ("A.A.W.S."). A.A. is not affiliated with Internet Addiction Anonymous as A.A. is a program of recovery from alcoholism only.

Michael Wesch and YouTube… Are we Digitally Disconnecting or Connecting?

After viewing Michael Wesch’s talk at the Library of Congress on the effects of social media and digital technology on global society it got me thinking about what “digital disconnect” means in 2010. Wesch, who is a professor of cultural anthropology at Kansas State University, examines human uses of technology. His talk to the Library of Congress focused on the phenomenon of YouTube, and the community of people using it. The talk illustrated the power of the internet to transfer both information and feelings. For example Wesch tells the story of a chubby kid dancing alone in his suburban New Jersey bedroom who created a video which created a world-wide dance frenzy. This “silly” video has been viewed an estimated 600 million times. Ten years ago “digital disconnect” seemed to mean that kids in school were ahead of their teachers in using technology to do homework. Today, whether we are disconnecting or actually connecting by the millions is open to question.

The global social network Facebook now has about 600 million members. So, if we are spending hour upon hour connecting with others and making new “friends” online (while sitting home alone) are we connecting or disconnecting? As Wesch states, “YouTube is a celebration of new forms of community… the types of community we have never really seen before … global connections transcending space and time… and in fact they can actually invent new ways of connecting with each other and  it’s getting easier and easier to do.” Wesch concludes that the web is about linking people together and, we are going to have to rethink some things… even love.” The question, if we are connecting or disconnecting may have to be reevaluated as well.

“As media has changed, human relations have changed” proclaims Wesch. And, in 2010 technology is moving at lightening speed and the dynamic of human relationships appear to be changing as well. Communities are now being built via the internet. Facebook and YouTube are examples of virtual communities. In 1993 Howard Rheingold wrote a book called The Virtual Community. Rheingold may have been the first citizen of the internet community. In the book, he describes a population that is as real as any physical community. People meet, talk, seek information and even fall in love. As Wesch says about YouTube, what we see here is “people connecting very, very deeply.”

Technology can be what we make of it. We can continually focus on the “downside” of the virtual community. But, we can do that with the physical community. There was loneliness, isolation and negative human relations long before the internet. In my mind, technology can and will be embraced to overcome these and many other difficulties associated with everyday living… and, bring us closer as a global community.

Made To Break- II

It’s all about cycles… One day a guy wants to eat duck, the next day lobster. The bigger picture of American Consumption is no different. Herbert Marshall McLuhan described “all of human history as a process of change in which successive media technologies rendered preceding modes of human consciousness obsolete.” (Slade 182) And, he continues “if a technology is introduced either from within or from without a culture, and if it gives new stress or ascendancy to one or another of our senses, the ratio among all our senses is altered. We no longer feel the same, nor do our eyes and ears and senses remain the same.” (Slade 183) There it is… People like to feel good!


At one point during the timeline in the auto industry, what made people feel good was they liked to drive a Cadillac. Then, in the 1960’s, what made them feel good was not driving a Cadillac. Theodore Levitt described Henry Ford as the “most brilliant and most senseless marketer in American history.” (Slade 181) The point is… people like to feel good, and they get bored with what makes them feel good. Now, we can complicate that by saying that ‘death-dating” is wrong or evil or not environmentally sensitive. But think about, nobody says anything until the cycle is in full swing… and then they get a conscious.


In the 1960’s the Volkswagen gained popularity because it was “utterly dependable and trouble free.” (Slade 173) VW ran an advertising campaign illustrating that they did not make “superficial model changes” (Slade 174) which led to more sales. In the previous decades making superficial changes sold more cars. Interestingly enough, however, apparently it was ok for men to change their wardrobes more often. At the same time counterculture was telling Americans it was wrong to purchase cars with superficial changes, it was saying it was cool to buy more clothes. Esquire columnist George Frazier called it “The Peacock Revolution.” (Slade 178) Colors and different changes became acts of rebellion in the clothing in this industry while buying a non-superficial VW was also an act of rebellion. Madison Avenue caught on, and engaged in “cycle after cycle of rebellion and transgression, marketing new goods, new fads, new symbolic gestures of defiance” (Slade 179).


Slade attempts to say that the VW ad campaigns were the impetus for change because he embraces the “anti- death-dating” liberal mind-set. However, what he fails to understand or admit is the utter hypocrisy of this thinking. Lets protest by buying Volkwagens because they last longer, but lets throw our perfectly good clothes away to make a fashion statement. The very act of changing one’s style of clothing is an embracing of the death-dating one is supposedly defying. People were trying to feel good long before the 1960's and the emergence of the VW. Innovation makes people feel good, and the downside of innovation makes people feel bad... 


It’s all about cycles.

The Social Network...

The Social Network is a film about the founding of Facebook by Harvard dropout Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg founded the website while a sophomore at Harvard in 2004 and within less than seven years the social networking website has 550 million users. Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg comes across as a bit arrogant, an anti-social nerd and very angry. It’s hard to tell how angry actually, because the acting is not that great. If I was not interested in the details of Facebook’s origins, I might have walked out. The film is based on the book “The Accidental Billionaires” by Ben Mezrich, who got most of his information from co-founder, Eduardo Saverin. Zuckerberg comes across as a genius computer programmer who wants to create “something cool.” At first, he is not motivated by money. In the movie when Facebook had reached 4,000 users, Saverin, Zuckerberg’s Harvard classmate, argued that it was time to monetize the website by selling advertising on it. Zuckerberg disagreed, saying: “Facebook is cool. If we start installing pop-ups for Mountain Dew it’s not gonna be cool.”

　
The movie clearly shows that Zuckerberg got the idea for Facebook after listening to the Winklevoss twins, also Harvard classmates, who discuss their social networking site called Harvard Connection. But Zuckerberg argues persuasively in the movie that the basic idea was his. Competitors should be given the freedom to see who can best turn an idea into a marketable product. The brothers who would later row in the Olympics sued Zuckerberg for allegedly stealing their idea. They "settled" in 2008 for $65 million.

　
On a business trip to New York City, Saverin and Zuckerberg set up a restaurant meeting with Sean Parker the 20-something founder of both Napster. Up to this point in the movie, Zuckerberg was usually glum. But he suddenly his face lit up in a huge smile once Parker started talking. Zuckerberg appreciated Parker and they both were entrepreneurial at heart. Zuckerberg was mesmerized by Parker’s vision of Facebook’s future he told him, “A million dollars isn’t cool. You know what is cool? A billion dollars.” Later, at a San Francisco night club, Parker tells Zuckerberg the story of the founder of Victoria’s Secret who sold the company to Limited Brands for $4 million only to regret it two years later when the company was valued at $500 million. According to Parker, the founder was so distraught at selling too early that he jumped to his death off the Golden Gate Bridge. The lesson for Zuckerberg was simple, be patient and you’ll maximize the value of the business.


In the end… great story, so-so acting. I loved watching the entrepreneurial vision of Parker and Zuckerburg combined and the twists and turns of the companies development, all played out within the framework of the Winklevoss and Saverin lawsuits. My final thought… wait for the Red Box release…

Billionaire Entrepreneur and Financier of Politically Conservative Activist Rutgers Grad James O’Keefe wants to give kids $100,000 to Drop Out of College

PayPal Founder and early Facebook investor Billionaire Peter Thiel a technology entrepreneur who has been widely recognized by the World Economic Forum (which honored Peter as a Young Global Leader) and by BusinessWeek, which named him one of the 25 most influential people on the web has announced a unique program for young people in the changing economy. Last month Thiel invited controversy by announcing the Thiel Fellowship, a program offering young entrepreneurs $100,000 to drop out of college and launch high-tech start-ups. In a press release Thiel said some of the innovations that changed the world the most were created by college dropouts who had “ideas that couldn’t wait until graduation.” Thiel, who has made billions with PayPal, Facebook and the Clarium hedge fund, cites such examples as Elon Musk who dropped out of graduate school to start Zip2, which he sold to Compaq for $307 million. Thiel is a billionaire as a result of early Facebook investments and being the co-founder of PayPal. He is calling this his "20 under 20" program, and he thinks that by doing so he is encouraging young adults to not limit themselves with inside the box thinking.

Thiel when asked about his political beliefs in a 2006 interview, stated, "Well, I was pretty libertarian when I started [in business]. I'm ‘way’ libertarian now." Theil’s offer has provoked different reactions. Higher education, directly confronted by the Thiel Fellowship, has also weighed in. Dr. Jeff Cornwall at Belmont University posted an invitation for Thiel to come visit Belmont’s programs for experimental learning. Cornwall wrote that he would introduce Thiel to some student and alumni entrepreneurs who came back to school after they dropped out when they realized what they were missing. On the other hand, Nick Saint at Business Insider said “it’s ridiculous to suggest that most people who go to college do so from the love of knowledge for its own sake.”
　
Thiel gets at the heart of the jobs issue and the sky rocketing costs of a college education with his Fellowship. Universities continue to cavalierly raise tuition prices in spite of the down economic time. After graduating, students are saddled with thousands of dollars in debt and no jobs. Thiel’s offer is bound to inspire some students who are probably already questioning their future economic situations to look in a different direction.
　
“There are a lot of things people learn in school, but they don’t learn much about entrepreneurship. We think that actually trying to encourage this is good” the billionaire stated. He believes there is more value for the entrepreneur to launch a tech or scientific idea immediately that to wait the full four years of college or eight years of grad school…
　
And, in 2010, working for yourself seems a safer bet than going to college, getting oneself into debt and not finding a job…Thiel may be on to something
　
Thiel received a BA in Philosophy from Stanford University and a JD from Stanford Law School.