policy with pop

Can You Live Without Facebook? Does It Matter?

As you know, I get my news from Facebook (kind of). But, more recently, Facebook has been in the news.

So Facebook changed its privacy settings to share more of its users’ personal information to third parties. And, it did so without really announcing the change or explaining the need. Users became livid.

What are disgruntled Facebook users to do? Boycott! Now Facebook users have threatened a boycott in the past. Remember when Facebook changed its design and people were like, “Bring back the OLD Facebook or we’ll quit.” Yeah… There are currently 400 million Facebook users.

But perhaps this boycott will be different. First, this was not just an aesthetical change. Some might say it’s a violation of trust. Second, this is a one-day boycott… oh… so it’s not a mass exodus, but for Facebook addicts, I guess this will be a tough sacrifice...

I wonder what life would be post-Facebook (if it ever comes to that)… Luckily, I don’t have to ponder this scenario too deeply because the cool kids from UC Davis School of Law made a movie about it for their annual talent show! Well, actually, it was a subplot in their movie.

Below is the part relevant to this discussion. To view the movie from the beginning, click here.

Rough stuff. And, ummm, what is a Witkins? No, no. I gotta get back to our discussion.

Facebook’s founder has responded by apologizing for the confusion but he’s not sorry for the changes. “If you’re not comfortable sharing, don’t,” he says. Doesn’t sound like he’s scare of any boycott…

What do you think? Are there legit privacy concerns? If so, does it warrant a boycott? Would a one-day boycott be successful?

Facebook Status Updates on President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Win

Where do you go for news? I get my news from Facebook.

Of course, I also go to internet news sites to get verification and more details. But, Facebook allows me to see what stories my friends are interested in as well as their opinions. And you know how much I love to read people’s opinions (comment on my blog please)!

Anyway, yesterday I learned from Facebook status updates that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. My Facebook friends had a lot of thoughts on the selection. Here’s a highlight of what I learned from my friends (to protect their identities, names have been changed but their grammatical and spelling errors have not):

The Harsh

Feisty  Frenchie “is wondering if the members of the Nobel Prize Committee have TV and read newspapers! As far as I can tell, Obama was not yet successful at settling the Arab-Israeli conflict…  or easing tensions with Iran… or coming to an agreement with North Korea… or bring the Burmese junta to the negotiate… I love the guy but that looks more like an ‘E’ for effort!”

Former Obama campaigner is “pretty stunned Obama got the prize. Where’s the peace?”

Mr. Protocol says, “First peace then a prize, not the other way around.”

Just Saying points out: “You Know Gandhi never got a nobel peace prize…hrmm…”

Designated (Political) Driver’s observations: “Obama receives Nobel Peace Prize. Clearly everyone has drank the Koolaid.”

Clever guy writes “What?! Is it true? Barack Obama just won project runway???”

Burn… And these comments are from my liberal-hippie buddies. Now a few words from my pals from the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Female, minority GOP supporter wonders: “is this a joke, Nobel Committee?????”

Conservative movie critic’s review: “Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace prize is like Shakespeare in Love winning the Oscar for Best Movie. If it’s a bad year, just save the award….”

Wordy-McWord-Word publishes, “You’ve got to be kidding me!! Some people spend their entire lives working towards achieving peace in their home regions and don’t even win the prize. This guy only makes a few passionate speeches…and he’s automatically qualified to become a Nobel laureate? Moreover, he’s been in office for less than a year and hasn’t even done anything worth writing home about. This the HYPE surrounding Obama is utterly absurd, and its way out of control. But who knows…maybe if future presidential candidates use the term ‘hope’ in their campaign slogans, they too can win the Nobel Prize.”

The Happy

Guy who drank the Kool-Aid exclaims, “Well done! Celebrate this and let it embolden you to further action.”

Deep Thoughts proclaims, “The world is bigger than one self-important nation. Keep the message alive, President Obama.”

ObamaFanBoy240131 writes, “Congratulations, Mr. President!!!”

In the Winner’s Circle points out that “Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Nobel committee, said the decision was ‘unanimous’ and came with ease. Hope prevails :)”

In the Middle

Makin’ It Work states, “So I'm definitely an Obama fan...but really??? still pondering this one. Maybe it was retitled ‘Noble (Potential) Peace Prize’ How about ‘Nobel Peace Prize - Most Improved’?”

Mr. Analysis concludes, “Apparently Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush”

Historian-in-the making scribes: “Today cannot be real: Barack wins Nobel Peace Prize, Marge Simpson on Playboy’s cover, Limbaugh to judge Miss America!?”

In Other News

Unemployed’s stream of consciousness: “I want a Nobel Peace Prize! Oh, wait. A freaking JOB would be good enough at this point.”

Observant but hungry writes, “haven’t eaten today, just watched people eat. that’s all.”

With that, my summary ends. But what are your thoughts on President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

Just Tax: A Lady GaGa Makeover of the Republican Party?

Congressman Aaron Schock’s abs is not the only strategy the GOP has to attract a following of The Young & the Republicans. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele wants to attract youths by giving the GOP a hip-hop makeover… Yeah…

Well, 23 year old Peter Cowman has a different genre of music to reestablish the Republican Party.

Parodying Lady GaGa’s “Just Dance” is a creative way to slam Democrats with a familiar GOP attack - Democrats just tax and spend. Not only is the young Republican’s video gaining traction on YouTube, but his Congressman, Dave Reichert, proudly showed off the video at the weekly GOP conference meeting. Rep. Reichert wanted to highlight how Republicans can use young people and new media to appeal to new voters.

Do you think Cowman’s video is effective? Will it reach a new audience and pick up new Republican voters? Should the GOP adopt this type of media strategy? Or is it just a video some kid made?

What about the substantive argument itself? Do you think that Democrats are the party of tax and overspending? President Barack Obama’s party does not seem to mind increasing taxes on the rich and spreading the wealth. Is that a bad thing?

And are Republicans a little hypocritical for criticizing Democrats for overspending and taxing? When President George W. Bush and the Republicans were in power, they practiced deficit spending and nearly doubled the national debt to $10.7 trillion, which essentially is a tax on the future.

Speak your mind. Or Just Dance!

Smoke: Not in Your Club?

I randomly stumbled on this web video, Not in Your Guidebook. Watch it and learn more about the City of Angels:

Not In Your Guidebook from Adam Irving on Vimeo.

Alright, I didn’t randomly find this internet video. The host, Andres “Andy” Schabelman, was a roommate of mine in the past and practically forced me to watch it.  And, if Andres comes off as a tool, well, that’s because he is. Haha… I kid.

Anyway, in one of the segments, Andres goes into an underground, after-hours bar (a.k.a. a speakeasy). Apparently, anything goes at this speakeasy. Smoking laws be damned. The club allows its patrons to smoke cigarettes and… other things… despite state laws that ban such activity inside a building.

This raises the question: Should bars and clubs be forced to prohibit smoking inside their venue?

Anti-smoking groups argue that the negative health effects inflicted on non-smokers via second-hand and third-hand smoke justify the ban. Plus, cigarette smoke makes you and your clothes stinky…

Smokers and the tobacco industry claim that the health effects of cigarette smoke are exaggerated. Plus, they claim that smokers have a “right to smoke” and that a ban hinders their ability to exercise said right.

So what do you think? Are smoking bans in bars and clubs a good thing? Or is it too restrictive? Sound off.

Taylor Swift: Taking Names and Exposing Heartbreakers

I admit it. Taylor Swift is absolutely brilliant. She combines heartfelt, teenage angst with catchy pop-country music. Her songs, which she writes, are refreshing, young and meaningful. The 19 year old   knows how to make great music (Are you listening, David Archuleta?).

I’m digging her latest spunky single, “You Belong with Me.” Watch:

Part of Taylor’s appeal is her honest lyrics, but it cuts both ways. As she put it in her album liner, “And to the boys who inspired this album [Fearless], you had fair warning.” In addition to her love songs, Taylor has also written about guys who done her wrong and the heartbreak they caused her. In fact, she wrote “Forever and Always” based on the cold shoulder her ex-boyfriend Joe Jonas gave her, leading up to their breakup.

Forever & Always - Taylor Swift

Is it okay to for those wronged to publicly express their feelings and expose those who inflicted the pain? I mean people blog everyday about their personal lives, often revealing the people in their lives to the world (wide web). But does this violate some sense of privacy for those exposed by the blogger or celebrity?

The law does restrict people’s speech when it comes to others. It is called defamation. Defamation requires a defamatory statement, publication (communication to a 3rd party), identification of the alleged defamed party, damages, and falsity. (Thanks, Tort class.) I don’t think Taylor’s breakup songs constitute defamation, since they usually fail to specifically ID the heartbreaker or fail to meet the falsity requirement.

Besides 1st Amendment and defamatory issues, are there any social consequences when private, personal interactions can readily be put in the public domain? Does it create a sense of uneasiness or suspicion?

Conversely, should we deny people a creative outlet to express their feelings? What are the repercussions? Would we be denying a meaningful, emotional outlet? Or would we be censoring artists, like Taylor, from creating inspired music and thus deprive the world of beautiful works?

It’s time for you to blog/post about your thoughts. Oh and would you ever date Taylor Swift or a blogger that would publicly write about your faults?

Opportunities

“I say my power should be our power.” If you have an idea for a post or want to submit a post for PolicyWithPop.com, send it to rich[at]policywithpop.com. By emailing me a submission, you agree that it is your own original work and give me permission to edit and post it on PolicyWithPop.com. Sorry to get all legal-like on y’all.

 

On a different note: If you want to go to Obama’s inauguration but can’t make it, don’t fret. One of my former schoolmates (Zot! Zot! Zot!) told me about a new project she is working on - LinkLive.org. The site will provide you with inauguration coverage via video, blogging, pictures, etc. Plus, LinkLive.org has a networking component. Check it out.

 

TRIVIA: Be the first one to name me the character that said the first quote in bold and identify the school I went to based on the next bold text, and I’ll send you a prize. Post your answer in the comments section and make sure to fill out the email address slot (so I can contact you). Good luck.

Hayden Panettiere: Sign the Petition, Save the Whale

Heroes star Hayden Panettiere loves the whales. As you recall, she went letter-to-letter with the Japanese government over its country’s practice of killing whales and dolphins for human consumption. She argued mercury-filled whale meat is not healthy for humans to eat and killing whales is wrong. Hayden also had an incident with fishermen in Japanese waters. Then she recently held a DC rally to raise more awareness.

Like her Heroes character, her activism can’t be killed. Hayden is continuing her fight online. She just released this video:

So she wants us to join SocialVibe.com and sign the Whaleman Foundation petition to save the whales. She will then personally deliver the petition to the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

The IWC is an international body that studies and issues decisions about whaling. However, it does not have the power to enforce its rules. Countries voluntarily join the commission and have the right to object to any ruling. By objecting, the country signifies it is not under the objected IWC-decision.

Do you think the practice of killing whales for human consumption should be illegal? If you do, will you sign Hayden’s petition? Will you spread the word and help her reach her 1 million signature goal?

Do you think this petition, delivered by Hayden, will be effective in convincing countries to stop whale killing? If you don’t, what would be a better strategy?

Facebook: A Gender Identity Problem?

Facebook is a wonderful invention that has helped more than 115 million users keep in touch and… procrastinate like never before. 

A few months ago as I was procrastinating I noticed that one of my friends joined the Facebook group Appeal to Facebook to Stop Forcing Normative Gender. When I saw this, I checked out the group. The title sounded interesting.

Apparently, this group objects to the fact that Facebook makes its users select “male” or “female” in order apply “his” or “her” to mini-feed updates. For example, if Jane Doe selected “female” then the update would read “Jane Doe edited her profile.”

Admittedly I did not completely understand what the objection was when I first learned of this group. Fortunately, yesterday my school had a lunch-time event, which unintentionally reminded me and helped me better understand the Facebook group. Plus it provided free food! Anyway, the topic of the event was “Current Issues in Transgender Law.” By learning some of the transgender community’s views, I understood better where this Facebook group was coming from.

The group protests Facebook’s male-female only option because it forces some users to choose a gender that they may not identify with.  This is especially true for transgender people – people whose gender expression is nonconforming and/or whose gender identity is different from their birth assigned gender. The transgender community argues that gender does not only include two extremes – male and female – but that gender should be considered a spectrum with male, female and in-betweens. Thus, the group does not want Facebook to add pressure on transgender people to conform to a binary gender system.

Should Facebook get rid or change its current gender listing to be sensitive to all people? Or would this be an unreasonable request that appeases a small group of people?

And, do you think Facebook advocacy groups make a difference? If 10 Million Join Marc Zomberg Will Bring Back the Old Facebook! really!?!

9/11 Conspiracy & YouTube Videos

As you know, I love learning new and different views (that’s why I’m always asking for your opinion). Well, a few days ago, I found myself in a discussion that I’ve never really had or considered: A conspiracy theory about who was really responsible for the 9/11 attacks…

Even though I’ve known that some people believe that the United States government, not Al-Qaeda, is the real culprit behind the World Trade Center buildings’ collapse, I had never really looked into the possibility. Plus, it was never really covered seriously or in depth by the traditional news media.

My friends, who are highly-educated, decided to show me circumstantial evidence (via YouTube of course) that seemed to support the claim. We watched a video of BBC News reporting that authorities informed it that Building 7 collapsed. Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, did in fact fall on 9/11, but 20 minutes after the BBC made its announcement. In fact, Building 7 is visibly standing when the anchor reports the news. Here’s the video:

It does seem suspicious. Conspiracy theorists are convinced that this reporting accident proves that the government planned to take down the World Trade Center buildings and simply got the timing of disseminating the information wrong.

The official government reason that Building 7 collapse is:

Fire.

Conspiracy theorists are calling the government explanation out. Citing engineers, physicists and other experts, they say that fire cannot melt steel. Furthermore, if you search YouTube, numerous videos question the manner in which Building 7 (as well as the Twin Towers) fell. They say it collapsed or imploded like a planned, controlled demolition with explosives. Here’s another video:

Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of all of it. But, I can say I am more open to learning more.

So you tell me: Can we trust the government? And if the government is capable of this, what does it mean for the American people? And why hasn't the conspiracy theory been covered seriously by the traditional news media in America? Is it all just “crazy talk” promulgated by the internet?

Obama, McCain, Paris! Oh My!

Republican presidential nominee John McCain recently released an interesting ad, entitled “Celeb” attacking Democratic counterpart Barack Obama’s fame as well as his economic and energy policy.

In the ad, McCain’s narrator compares Obama to tabloid favorites, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. On the policy end, the ad tries to frame Obama as a President that would increase taxes and America’s dependence on foreign oil, which the Obama campaign disputes.

The ad has sparked a lot of controversy. Some have said the McCain ad is politics at its lowest and worst. Are Paris and Britney really that bad!?!

There have also been charges that the ad is racist, similar to a 2006 Republican National Committee ad against another black Democratic candidate, Harold Ford Jr. In that ad, it suggests Ford had sexual relations with a white female Playboy Bunny, which critics say plays into pre-existing prejudices about black men and white women. Watch the old ad here for a reminder:

Because the McCain ad features Obama (a black man - if you didn’t know already) with Paris and Britney (white women who have overly sexualized media personas), some say the Republicans are once again using racial undertones in their attack on Obama. Obama, himself, has called the ad “cynical” but not racist. But nonetheless, McCain and his camp have responded by accusing that the Obama campaign is playing the “race card.”

In terms of effectiveness, an Obama advisor did acknowledge that Obama’s recent dip in the polls was probably attributed to the “Celeb” ad.

So what do you think of the McCain “Celeb” ad? Low? Racist? Politically shrewd?

But as the ad continues to get airplay and the debate heats up, Paris has decided to add some levity to the mix. Paris, whose parents donated money to the McCain campaign, responded with her own political ad. Here:

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

What are your thoughts on the Paris Hilton response ad? And who has the better energy plan: Obama, McCain or Hilton?