Postscript: July 19, 2009 There must be something strongly seductive about Facebook that makes so many people use it. There is something quite obscene about the fact anyone or anything could be worth that much money (in the billions). What does it say about our society that such a thing can come to pass. It is not Zuckerberg or any other computer minds that annoy me. It is the fact that so much time is spent on Facebook with people doing mindless things, taking stupid quizzes that are truly meaningless. And many love to record minute details of what they are doing everyday. Perhaps, some day Facebook will provide important historical minutiae and insight into our ironic way of life in the beginning of the 21 Century. The bottomline for me is not that Facebook is worthless; there are some good things about it and people can use the mechanism provided for the betterment of society if they so choose and also as a catharsis to get things off their chest, that is not all bad but it is terribly self involving.
The networking part is more interesting. It can lead to complex social interaction that leads in many directions, hopefully sometimes in a constructive direction offering people a platform for ideas across borders and above the narrowness of place and inbred thinking. The final question is who really should own Facebook and get the economic rewards. Society could put all this monetary outcome to better use than one young man and a few corporate buddies. If there is so much money in these software programs and related invention perhaps, more entities i.e. States, Countries, Political groups, Networks of Labor Unions should hire people like Zuckerberg to create new products so larger and ever larger numbers of people might benefit from the rewards of these computer and internet creations and sensations. Of course, the people with the creative minds and nonstop working ethics need to handsomely rewarded for their creations but not given billions of dollars. One can say, that's America for you but not in my book. I wonder if one can really hire genius. They certainly seemed to do it during WWII to build that evil bomb (The A Bomb) of ours.
Sharon Raphael
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich: A Book Review about the Creation of Facebook: Read New Postscript
I finished reading Ben Mezrich's book which is a one sided view focused on the popular online website Facebook's early creation and history. I say one sided view because Accidental Billionaires is reported basically from the viewpoint of the Harvard undergrad Eduardo Saverin, who became friends with computer genius Mark Zuckerberg and later Saverin provided the seed money that went into the company's early formation. As I got into the book, I was turned off by the description of interests and life styles of the under 21 year old men of Harvard being depicted. As a 68 year old Lesbian Feminist in a 38 year relationship, I did not appreciate the drunken revelry and sexual crudities basically presented as going on in the mind and behavior of Zuckerberg who was described as a young man having trouble attracting young woman from his same milieu.
The book using the anecdotes told by Saverin seems to suggest that it was Zuckerberg's clumsy attempts to create an interactive website which would compare pictures of female undergrads from Harvard to farm animals and rate them which set the boiler plate for what later would become the popular and Billion plus company Facebook. This crude boilerplate was later turned into the online site we now know of as Facebook which allows the user, originally only college students, to have a group of friends, acquaintances, whatever one wants to call them with similar interests sharing information, comments, pictures, a way to raise funds for causes, take quizzes, draw pictures and engage in a seemingly endless array of options including sharing something called the Wall where individual notices and alerts can be displayed by individuals and groups.
However, as I read and kept going beyond the antics of ambitious sexually aroused young men, I saw another story emerging that was more interesting and complex. In spite of the bias the author must project given Mezrich only has the information he has obtained from people who were around Zuckerbeg in the early days at Harvard and in California and has nothing from the mouth of Zuckerberg himself, one still does get a sympathetic picture of a person who as the book describes becomes a Billionaire probably at this point a Billionaire many times over. The main characters, two sports characters who are Olympic hopefuls at rowing, Harvard compadres,handsome twins who attempt to get Zuckerberg to set up a social website for them who later sue Zuckerberg for his failure to deliver the product, the computer codes and whatever into their hands. Eduardo comes off bright but too loyal to think at first that Zuckerberg, his friend, would do him any harm financially or to the idea that motivated both of them. Another character emerges in California, the guy who created the famous Napster program and who entices Zuckerberg to ignore his Harvard friend Eduardo and to go along with his more mature strategies for getting real seed money for the new Facebook operation.
I am not sure what fascinated me about the story, the speed with which Zuckerberg successfully invented the technical prerequisites that made Facebook possible and what seems the nimble way this young guy navigated the ocean of business maneuvers from the various venture capitalists that turned Facebook in practice into what it is today. Actually the fact that I am a casual Facebook user,( I do log in weekly but am not obssessive about getting into Facebook and find some aspects of the site juvenile and irritating), made me want to finish the book to find out what happened and made the reading go more smoothly.
The book motivated me to go onto Wikipedia to look up what people were saying about the history of Facebook from various points of view. Doing that allowed me to find out a bit about what happened as a result of various court cases and objections that are made by the early characters in the Accidental Billionaires book. I was amazed how closely the description from the various Wikipedia accounts correlated with Mezrich's rendition of his account. It appears some kind of out of court settlement since the book was written occurred between Eduardo and Zuckerberg which sucessfully made Eduardo Zaverin on the topic . The two rower boys also got their many millions from their court experience against Zuckerberg. In a way, it seemed like a happy ending for these characters if one is only counting the money and where it went. But one wonders if any of these young men who are still not yet over age 25 will ever be able to get their heads screwed on right. For Zuckerberg it may well be that his celebrity has made him into a non person like Michael Jackson.
Or, perhaps, Zuckerberg has somehow mastered the art of keeping his privacy as there seems to be very little information about who he is in current time and for that matter in the past too. All we know is he was a hard working driven computer genius (born to Jewish professionals who moved to the upper middle class suburbs of Florida) who finally scored with a few "girls" because of his celebrity. The real truth is I shouldn't care at all about any of these boorish suppposedly highly educated young "men". But something makes me curious. Will Zuckerberg use his wealth to do any good in the world? Will Eduardo Saverin go on to new projects (besides his teenage years' investments and incredible research on oil futures and the more or less failed website he invented called Joboozle) that resonate in some way? I suppose following Zuckerberg would be as boring as following Bill Gates, nothing uplifiting, only more boring stuff. So is this the stuff of person Harvard now produces? When you read this book take note of the interaction the rower boys have with Larry Summers*, the former President of Harvard. Summers', now an Obama economic point man, lack of interest in the Harvard "Rower Boys" complaints about Zuckerberg and Summers' non action as a result reflects a new way of thinking about what the future of education is really all about. It points in a new direction, away from the old caste and class system of places like Harvard toward a world with only one kind of actor in the world, the one who thinks first and fastest and wins without looking back at the fallen and stumbling.
Postscript: July 19, 2009 There must be something strongly seductive about Facebook that makes so many people use it. There is something quite obscene about the fact anyone or anything could be worth that much money (in the billions). What does it say about our society that such a thing can come to pass. It is not Zuckerberg or any other computer minds that annoy me. It is the fact that so much time is spent on Facebook with people doing mindless things, taking stupid quizzes that are truly meaningless. And many love to record minute details of what they are doing everyday. Perhaps, some day Facebook will provide important historical minutiae and insight into our ironic way of life in the beginning of the 21 Century. The bottomline for me is not that Facebook is worthless; there are some good things about it and people can use the mechanism provided for the betterment of society if they so choose and also as a catharsis to get things off their chest, that is not all bad but it is terribly self involving.
The networking part is more interesting. It can lead to complex social interaction that leads in many directions, hopefully sometimes in a constructive direction offering people a platform for ideas across borders and above the narrowness of place and inbred thinking. The final question is who really should own Facebook and get the economic rewards. Society could put all this monetary outcome to better use than one young man and a few corporate buddies. If there is so much money in these software programs and related invention perhaps, more entities i.e. States, Countries, Political groups, Networks of Labor Unions should hire people like Zuckerberg to create new products so larger and ever larger numbers of people might benefit from the rewards of these computer and internet creations and sensations. Of course, the people with the creative minds and nonstop working ethics need to handsomely rewarded for their creations but not given billions of dollars. One can say, that's America for you but not in my book. I wonder if one can really hire genius. They certainly seemed to do it during WWII to build that evil bomb of ours.
Sharon Raphael
*Summers is also the academic who as President got in hot water with feminists and academic women at Harvard for suggesting there might be a logical/perhaps, physical non sociological reason girls and women are not as good at math and science as men. Yes, the same guy.
Sharon Raphael, Long Beach
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Michael Jackson: My Reflections on Three Persons' Reactions Upon his Untimely Death
When I heard of the untimely death of Michael Jackson, I put a simple item on this blog (leftturnonrights) with two pics of Michael, some musical notes for emphasis, and the words Rest in Peace with his birth and death dates. A few days later I had some guests at my home. I was showing off my Ipod Touch and one of the guests, a straight married man "intellectual' acquaintance, happened to glance at the item I had on my blog on Michael Jackson. His reaction," I can't believe a Lesbian Feminist would put Michael Jackson in her blog especially with his politics." Someone said, "Well, he wasn't a Republican."
Later on when we went out to dinner, I asked this person why he had reacted that way and he said, Michael was not a good role model for students. I answered, "Well, are you talking about the accusations of "child abuse", is that what you mean by politics? After all he was a victim. And he did give lots of money to good causes." My intellectual acquaintance friend really reacted to the word victim and said something like he hated that word victim and that MIchael had been well off since he was 5 years old and there were a lot worse victims in the world. I think he meant like people in poverty and people around the world who are starving and uneducated and at the brink of disaster. I mumbled something like well maybe not a victim but a survivor. Then I soon realized there was no use arguing the point anymore. His mind was made up. Upon reflection, I realized this person was saying Michael Jackson could have overcome his personal demons. I do not understand what basis he had to make that kind of a judgment on the King of Pop.
I watched the televised memorial service for Michael Jackson that was held at the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles. I felt very sad when it was over. I also thought it was a wonderful experience to have had, much more so than I had expected. After the service, a neighbor called me on the phone. I asked if she had watched the service for Michael and she said, No, only his rabid followers watched. I said I was not a rabid follower of Michael. I had never even been to a concert of his. She said she used to listen to his music but that the last several years she couldn't stand to see him perform. I interpreted this to mean she couldn't stand looking at him meaning looking at the changes to his physical persona.I suppose she meant , change in skin color and the smallness of his nose and also there was a hint of the androgyny in the manner and way she conveyed her disgust with him. When I defended myself from being a rabid fan, she changed her moral outrage to a different explanation which was " only the morbidly curious" watched his memorial service. I denied being in that category too. Later when I hung up the phone, I became depressed.
I spent some time trying to figure out the how and why of these negative reactions to the death of Michael Jackson and to Michael Jackson himself as he was projected out there to the public. I decided my first antagonist, my intellectual colleague of sorts, lacked compassion for certain other people because he himself had been a victim of a vicious Father who had similar characteristics to Michael Jackson's Father except for the violence being more emotional in effect than physical. I also felt there was something missing there in regard to not fully taking in the full impact that Michael Jackson had on African Americans in this country. It was as though Michael was a member of their family, maybe flawed in some way, but still a very successful member of their own family. Obviously, Michael Jackson affected people of all races and has become known as someone who bridged racial and other kind of differences but the importance of this musical genius to his own race and the ironies contained within is something that is not important to the two people I spoke to about Michael Jackon who were so negative. I sensed a kind of racism in the second responder. It was important that Michael Jackson stay within certain bounds and dress and act in a way acceptable to white people and all people middle of the road.
I remembered talking to a third person earlier in the week, a Lesbian sister, who was irritated and disagreed strongly with my assessment that Michael Jackson may have looked white for perfectly legitimate reasons, one being his skin condition which involved loss of pigment. She laughed in my face as though I was a perfect idiot. Everyone knows Michael wanted to look white was what she was saying by implication. All three reactions have something to do in my thinking with racial stereotyping and at the basis of each lies the assumption that there is a correct way to be, a moral compass to follow and if by chance the way is not followed, then respect for the music, the genius, the artistry is not to be admired or if it is the beauty of it all is somehow marred and less than.
On a personal note, I think there are probably many people who think the way these three person think about Michael. On the other hand, it is more than obvious that several billion people plus around the world don't buy into that negative school of thought. The reality, that most people have good thoughts about the King helps me feel more positive about humanity. Of course, these three examples demonstrate very common human expressions and I am certain all three would deny having any negative attitudes toward African Americans, androgynous imagery, or the breaking of racial expectations and norms.
I must admit I did struggle with the issue of the child molestation charges directed against Michael Jackson. Somehow after seeing what had happened to Michael Jackson's beloved Neverland and hearing what all his entertainment friends had to say about those charges, I am even more convinced he was not a "child molester" and that what happened was a modern witchhunt though no one will ever know the real truth.
It could be said that funerals and memorial services always make flawed souls into saints and angels. And maybe gullible me was just impressed enough to push me over to the other side. I do know the Mother who testified in the criminal case was proved to be liar and out for the money. the naysayers could win a point by saying all the glamour and hype of the moment got to me, maybe so. Still I am mad as hell at the few million or more out there who can't even watch a memorial service or hear this talented man's music or even hear his name mentioned without putting their moral judgement into the stew. I protest.
Sharon Raphael, Long Beach
Later on when we went out to dinner, I asked this person why he had reacted that way and he said, Michael was not a good role model for students. I answered, "Well, are you talking about the accusations of "child abuse", is that what you mean by politics? After all he was a victim. And he did give lots of money to good causes." My intellectual acquaintance friend really reacted to the word victim and said something like he hated that word victim and that MIchael had been well off since he was 5 years old and there were a lot worse victims in the world. I think he meant like people in poverty and people around the world who are starving and uneducated and at the brink of disaster. I mumbled something like well maybe not a victim but a survivor. Then I soon realized there was no use arguing the point anymore. His mind was made up. Upon reflection, I realized this person was saying Michael Jackson could have overcome his personal demons. I do not understand what basis he had to make that kind of a judgment on the King of Pop.
I watched the televised memorial service for Michael Jackson that was held at the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles. I felt very sad when it was over. I also thought it was a wonderful experience to have had, much more so than I had expected. After the service, a neighbor called me on the phone. I asked if she had watched the service for Michael and she said, No, only his rabid followers watched. I said I was not a rabid follower of Michael. I had never even been to a concert of his. She said she used to listen to his music but that the last several years she couldn't stand to see him perform. I interpreted this to mean she couldn't stand looking at him meaning looking at the changes to his physical persona.I suppose she meant , change in skin color and the smallness of his nose and also there was a hint of the androgyny in the manner and way she conveyed her disgust with him. When I defended myself from being a rabid fan, she changed her moral outrage to a different explanation which was " only the morbidly curious" watched his memorial service. I denied being in that category too. Later when I hung up the phone, I became depressed.
I spent some time trying to figure out the how and why of these negative reactions to the death of Michael Jackson and to Michael Jackson himself as he was projected out there to the public. I decided my first antagonist, my intellectual colleague of sorts, lacked compassion for certain other people because he himself had been a victim of a vicious Father who had similar characteristics to Michael Jackson's Father except for the violence being more emotional in effect than physical. I also felt there was something missing there in regard to not fully taking in the full impact that Michael Jackson had on African Americans in this country. It was as though Michael was a member of their family, maybe flawed in some way, but still a very successful member of their own family. Obviously, Michael Jackson affected people of all races and has become known as someone who bridged racial and other kind of differences but the importance of this musical genius to his own race and the ironies contained within is something that is not important to the two people I spoke to about Michael Jackon who were so negative. I sensed a kind of racism in the second responder. It was important that Michael Jackson stay within certain bounds and dress and act in a way acceptable to white people and all people middle of the road.
I remembered talking to a third person earlier in the week, a Lesbian sister, who was irritated and disagreed strongly with my assessment that Michael Jackson may have looked white for perfectly legitimate reasons, one being his skin condition which involved loss of pigment. She laughed in my face as though I was a perfect idiot. Everyone knows Michael wanted to look white was what she was saying by implication. All three reactions have something to do in my thinking with racial stereotyping and at the basis of each lies the assumption that there is a correct way to be, a moral compass to follow and if by chance the way is not followed, then respect for the music, the genius, the artistry is not to be admired or if it is the beauty of it all is somehow marred and less than.
On a personal note, I think there are probably many people who think the way these three person think about Michael. On the other hand, it is more than obvious that several billion people plus around the world don't buy into that negative school of thought. The reality, that most people have good thoughts about the King helps me feel more positive about humanity. Of course, these three examples demonstrate very common human expressions and I am certain all three would deny having any negative attitudes toward African Americans, androgynous imagery, or the breaking of racial expectations and norms.
I must admit I did struggle with the issue of the child molestation charges directed against Michael Jackson. Somehow after seeing what had happened to Michael Jackson's beloved Neverland and hearing what all his entertainment friends had to say about those charges, I am even more convinced he was not a "child molester" and that what happened was a modern witchhunt though no one will ever know the real truth.
It could be said that funerals and memorial services always make flawed souls into saints and angels. And maybe gullible me was just impressed enough to push me over to the other side. I do know the Mother who testified in the criminal case was proved to be liar and out for the money. the naysayers could win a point by saying all the glamour and hype of the moment got to me, maybe so. Still I am mad as hell at the few million or more out there who can't even watch a memorial service or hear this talented man's music or even hear his name mentioned without putting their moral judgement into the stew. I protest.
Sharon Raphael, Long Beach
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Cuts Impact on Elderly in California: A Test of Conscience
I have been teaching Gerontology courses since the early seventies at California State University Dominguez HIlls. In 1977, my colleagues and I created the first Gerontology Graduate program in the State University system. Recently the college has stopped accepting new applications and the program will be soon be eliminated. One reason given is there were too few students. “Your program just isn’t big enough” in spite of the fact since the seventies, the program has been graduating well trained students who have successfully gone out into the workforce taking strategic positions serving older adults throughout Southern California. Other Gerontology programs throughout the State are also facing dim futures, if recent trends are not reversed.
For the 30 plus years that I have been teaching courses on aging, I have been told by the uninformed that Gerontology is a great field because so many of us are aging we will need Gerontologists to meet the needs of the increasing numbers of old people of the future. Well, the future is here and we seem to be going backwards. Needs and issues of older adults do not necessarily translate to a job world opening its doors to an army of experts. The ageist society we live in prefers to look the other way. The old also do this, talking about their grandchildren coming first, not taking into account their own needs. The consequence is a small workforce of underpaid and overworked caregivers and service providers.
One former student working as an ombudsman for the State of California lost her job due to previous budget cutting. Ombudsman act as the State’s designated problem solving liaison for the resident or family member who has registered a complaint as well as for the nursing home provider. Ombudsmen represent the only resonating voice there is for elderly residents in long term care facilities. More cuts proposed by the Governor will devastate that program. Additionally, inspections of nursing homes will be limited to every 5 years instead of every two years.
Under the Governor’s proposal, State Adult Home Care programs will be entirely eliminated forcing many middle aged adults to have to make the decision to either quit their jobs and stay home or to place their aged parents in a nursing home with inadequate oversight. How much will the increase in elder abuse cost the State and its citizens? Adult children of the frail elderly should not be the only “eyes” watching the system and when these family members do find their loved ones injured or ignored who will be there to handle their complaints, the same people causing the problems? These proposed (2009) State Budget cuts would be the final blow to a system already ravaged by earlier belt tightening.
Another graduate who works as a case manager for a In Home Supportive Services program will no doubt lose her job if these cuts are instituted. This is the State funded entity that helps the old person who is physically limited stay in her or his own home by providing low cost housekeeping, cooking, shopping, and bathing services. Costs to the State will only go up when monies are transferred away from home care to the larger expense of providing housing in a Long Term Care Facility ($75,000 annual average cost in Los Angeles for skilled nursing care*). Since MediCal is proposed to take the biggest hit, that would mean that significant numbers of older ailing low income and lower middle class residents of California would be forced to stay on their own without help or with families often unprepared and unequipped to take care of them.
I am not saying keeping nursing homes as they exist now are the best remedy for everything that ails older Americans. Nursing homes are only one imperfect option, however, by not inspecting them, not providing ways to keep the elderly from entering them, and not helping to make facilities that house the elderly safer forces the old and their adult children into an impossible situation where every choice is a clearly a bad choice.
It is evident that the budget choices that face the State of California is a job for King Solomon. All King Solomon could do in biblical times when two mothers claimed the same child was to scare both Mothers. One Mother had to lose. If these measures are adopted, we all lose for how we as a people treat our elderly is a test of our moral fortitude and conscience. And more to the point, those who make these decisions may not realize, it is their own futures they are also putting at risk.
*Business Wire , April 29, 2008, http://www.bnet.com/2403-13056_23-272467.html
Sharon Raphael, Ph.D.
Professor Emerita of Sociology
Coordinator, M.S. Health Science-Gerontology Option
California State University Dominguez Hills
sraphael@csudh.edu
Friday, June 26, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Members of Congress Ask for Suspension of Don't Ask , Don't Tell.
Inside, Looking Out
JUN
22
2009
77 members of Congress ask for suspension of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
lgbt, politicsAdd comments
Seventy-seven members of Congress, 76 Democrats and 1 Republican, sent a letter to the White House today asking for the President to suspend current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell investigations and discharges by presidential moratorium, which would change the policy’s implementation within the Department of Defense, as opposed to an Executive Order. Excerpts from the office of Congressman Alcee L. Hastings:
I also saw Rachel Maddow interviewing (June 23, 09 Tues.) an active service member, a Lt. Col., a pilot, who "came out" on an earlier show of hers. He is waiting for a decision from President Obama on whether he can stay in the military which would mean at least temporarily Obama has the right to reverse policy for military reasons. see pic below.
SRaphael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
