Link Collectors Community

My blog is boring these days. Most of my writing energy is being spent on my dissertation. And I promise, none of you want to hear details of how I fine-tune my methodology chapter. I can't even keep you entertained with outrageous tales of sordid trysts because, well, there aren't any. Hell, I barely leave the house. The most exciting moments in my life occur when my cat snarls at the neighbor cat who tries to steal her food. And, well, that minutia is better left for Twitter. I could blog the dreams I've been having that involve Marx and Engels yelling at each other, but those make me look psychotic. So I'd rather not. That pretty much leaves grocery lists, health rants, and detailed discussions of the variability in Los Angeles weather.

Part of the problem is that I've been pretty disengaged with everything but my dissertation. I don't keep up with blogs or gossip and I have been dreadful at making it to events that would normally stimulate me to comment on events out in the world. Most likely, you're more engaged with social media these days than I am. Or you're here accidentally. And really bored. Presumably, if you keep coming back, you're waiting for me to say something interesting. Or maybe you're just sick and twisted.

So how about we make a deal... Why don't you help me find fodder to ramble and I'll try to be provocative in return? (Or at least more entertaining than I am now.)

If you've got something you want me to comment on, leave a comment. Write questions, share links, whatever. I can't promise that I'll get to everything nor can I promise that I'll want to comment on everything, but at least that'll give me a sense of what you might find interesting and it'll give me something other than my dissertation to think about. Being a hermit makes it hard to determine what is interesting. Anyhow, let's just give this a try... Perhaps it'll be an abysmal failure but perhaps it'll be an interesting experiment.

So what's on YOUR mind these days?

First, thanks y'all for your advice and support. Today, I visited a different doctor and it was much much better. She was willing to parse out the different symptoms and offer hypotheses and ways to test these possibilities. She ordered full blood work and, with the advice of a spine/neuro brother team, a CAT scan. Plus, since we know the neck thing is an ongoing issue, she's ordered PT to help me further stabilize my neck without creating new injuries. This is purrrfect since personal trainers, swimming, yoga, and pilates have all been abysmal failures.

There are still lots of question marks, but I'm much happier with how we're proceeding. I feel like I'm being taken seriously and that she's treating this like a puzzle to be solved systematically. And she's not focusing on treating the symptoms but getting at what's underneath them. w000t!

Anyhow, thanks for all of the love and support and hopefully I'll know more soon.

On Friday morning, I was shocked to find my always-empty neighborhood AT&T store host to a long line of iPhone cravers. What shocked me even more was that the diverse group didn't look like typical Apple consumers. They sold out quickly and are still sold out. I remarked on this to the cab driver and he smiled and raised his Gen 1 iPhone, telling me that his cousin wanted him to borrow it for a few days to convince him to get one. His cousin thought it would completely change what it meant to be a cab driver in LA. Not only would it give real-time traffic info but it would let him know where his fellow cab friends were with ease. My driver was starting to agree with his cousin (who should definitely be earning commission for his iPhone sale).

I had never thought about the cab driver case. Cab drivers in my city are always so excited to see a familiar face on the road and they wave enthusiastically. Those who hang out at the airport have strong networks of fellow cab drivers who wait with them. While they're always tethered to their company, the iPhone would let them connect to one another all day long. I could just see the joy in this driver's face as he imagined when he'd be able to look at the screen and see all of his friends on the map buzzing around the city alongside dots telling him which surface streets to avoid.

I've been anxiously awaiting this launch in the hopes that it might show the power of cluster effects wrt mobile phones. Cluster effects describe the emergent practices that occur when the density of infrastructure adoption in a social network reaches a critical tipping point. In other words, cluster effects are the cool things that people do when all of their friends can do the same things. We take cluster effects for granted in the Internet space because, by and large, entire friend groups can jump onto a computer, grab a browser, and login to a website. In terms of clusters, the barriers to Facebook or MySpace are more personal than infrastructural. (Those who lack general access tend to have friends who lack access.) Mobile phones are different. Even if all of my friends have a Nokia N95, the likelihood that we're all on the same carrier with the same plan is next to null. The result is that I can't install an app onto my phone and expect all of my friends to be able to play along. This kills mobile social software from the getgo.

So far, there have been few examples of dense mobile adoption platforms. There's the Crackberry, but that audience isn't exactly the most innovatively social. The Sidekick was impressive amongst deaf communities and urban youth, but T-Mobile managed to lock that puppy down so heavily that no innovative practices really emerged. Still, if you look at the AIM usage in those clusters, you get a good indicator of the potential. And that's all folks.

The iPhone has the best chance of hitting that tipping point of anything out there. For the most part, everyone is stuck on AT&T. And everyone gets a data plan. And the phone is semi-open. The price is still out of reach for most high schoolers who rely on parental pass-me-downs, but it has a decent chance of hitting other clusters. I was banking on urban 20-somethings, but I love the idea of it hitting cab driver clusters.

Right now, a phone is primarily a 1-1 communication device and, if you're lucky, an information access device and a portal to the web. Interesting things can happen when the mobile is a platform itself. In other words, when you can assume that everyone around you has the same tool, you can start doing networked activities that don't rely on a website. Cluster effects in mobile will be what happens when the LCD is not texting. From there, you can innovate. Sure, we're going to see a plethora of mobile social network sites and mobile location friend services and mobile dating and mobile media sharing communities. The first wave will always be a translation of the web. But once you have cluster effects, you can also start innovating and finding new services and tools that allow people to connect in meaningful way. New games can emerge. New social services. Innovation in this space will be iterative - it will involve throwing things out to the market and seeing what consumers do and do not do. It will require iterating based on their practices and not trying to shove those curvy creatures into square holes. But there's no point in leaving the starting block until cluster effects are underway because, sadly, iterating in imagination land inevitably leads to techno-utopian fantasies instead of meaningful applications.

Gosh do I want to see cluster effects triggered in mobile space. There's such great potential for interesting things to take place. Sure, I'd rather see it take place on open platforms and open networks. And I am a bit worried that, without openness, we're going to see some not-so-good side effects. I definitely share Zittrain's fear of non-generative technologies. But part of me would rather fucked up market effects trigger cluster effects instead of governmental decrees. We all know that something has to break in mobile somewhere sometime soon. Our options are limited. Option 1: all carriers and handset makers need to start playing along. Option 2: some combination of handset/carrier triggers massive adoption. Option 3: municipal wifi emerges, allowing the web to serve as a temporary bridge. Option 4: governmental intervention demands platform infrastructure. These options all have downsides... Option 1 is a pipedream. Option 2 creates a monopoly risk. Option 3 will take a long time to unfold and still requires handset compatibility. Option 4 is more realistic in some countries than others.

Anyhow, there's a decent chance that Apple & AT&T will screw this one up, but they have the best chance to hit Option 2 right now. And really, I'm bored. And I want a new phenomenon to study. And I want to see what happens when people can do weird and interesting mobile-based social stuff. I'm especially curious how this might affect mobile-centric populations, although that's still a ways off. But yeah, possibility is in the air.

So.... AT&T, Apple, and Market Research Firms: I strongly encourage that you watch the network density of iPhone adoption. (Note: raw numbers don't matter... you want density of adoption amongst pre-existing friend groups.) If there's anything you can do to encourage network density, you won't regret it. If you can tip full clusters to the same platform with all-you-can-eat plans, you can launch all sorts of interesting things that will fundamentally alter practice and change the mobile landscape. Please don't screw it up.

Ever since I left Beijing, I've felt like hell. A myriad of odd and seemingly disconnected symptoms have plagued me all month. My least favorite is the persistent cough that tastes like iron that makes me think I'm coughing up my lungs for realz. I find the sneezing to be mostly entertaining, although 14+ sessions a day of 3+ sneezes each has gotten a little overwhelming, even if said sneezes are awfully cute. Most of the others are just odd. None of them are worrying, except in aggregate. I feel like my body is rebelling against its very existence. Unfortunately, the seriousness of the odd symptoms took a turn for the worse this weekend. The combination of dizziness, nausea, and loss of vision forced me to leave a geek campout that I had been looking forward to for quite some time. Luckily, good friends were there to worry about me and help me get back to LA.

The Internet is dangerous when you have a disparate set of odd symptoms. There's good reason to believe that I have mono, rare allergies, and a wide array of different cancers. Needless to say, I don't trust the Internet to diagnose me. So I set about trying to find a way to get a doctor to help me. For once, I have real health insurance. (Of course, that doesn't help so much when you don't have a primary care physician because getting an appointment is a bitch. And goddess knows that going to the ER in LA sounds like the worst idea possible.) I ended up going to a university clinic where the doctor listened to my symptoms, decided that I must have migraine auras, wrote me a prescription and whisked me out of there before I had time to process what was said. Not a single test, unless you count the reflex one. I paid an absurd price for the meds and then went home to read about them on the Internet.

What I found bothered me. Oddly, the list of symptoms for migraine auras pretty much matched up with the list of side effects for the medicine. What it supposedly treats are also what it might cause. While headaches are not a requirement for migraine auras, headache-free migraines are rare and usually involve a history of related migraines. I don't have these problems. So I'm sitting here, reading about a diagnosis that doesn't seem right and reading about a medicine that seems to cause more problems than it helps. Besides, the instructions indicate to take the medicine when I have a headache. And furthermore, what does this have to do with my iron-tasting cough?

While the Internet is not diagnosing me, it is making me call into question the supposed diagnosis and treatment. I feel both empowered and disempowered by this source of information. Or rather, what makes me feel disempowered is the lack of a way of integrating this information into a productive move towards wellness. If I take the meds, I'm subjecting my body to chemicals that seem unnecessary and irrelevant. If I don't, I've just wasted a day and am back to square one in feeling shitty with no path forward. Part of me wants to call the doctor, but I didn't like the dynamic in our meeting so I can't imagine a phone one where I come bearing Internet information. Instead, I will see another doctor.

All of this makes me wonder... isn't there a better way to integrate information and medicine in a productive manner? I mean, I've read Birth of the Clinic and I know all about the power relations involved in medicine, but can't we undo that somehow? I know that the doctors don't know everything but I hate being treated like an idiot in the clinic and feeling like a criminal when I investigate my diagnosis/treatment and, implicitly, call into question the authority and power of the doctor. All I want is to be healthy and to know why my body feels like crap. What will it take to make medicine a collaborative endeavor? I've known some awesome doctors who are more collaborative over the years, but why can't that be the norm? And why can't there be a better way to match doctors and patients than geographic lookups on insurance websites? How can we get Yelp-like descriptions of doctors rather than the RateMyProfessor-esque ratings that do exist? What's it going to take for the walls between patients and doctors to come down?

Yes, I'm ranting. I need something to do with this pent-up ickiness. Besides, ranting here also serves to explain why I'm dreadfully behind in responding to everything, especially anything that requires thinking. Sorry about that. My brain is moosh. I just hope that my angry body isn't doing permanent damage on my mooshy brain.

PS: I can't wait to be healthy and post-dissertation so my blog stops looking so lame.

FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is a thorny piece of legislation. It started out relatively sane back in the 70s, but in a post-9/11 culture, it got all FUBARed. It was amended by the PATRIOT Act and then there was a revision done called the Protect America Act (gotta love the naming here, right?) Well, this last bit expired and there's a new amendment act that's pending in Congress (and likely to pass today).

The biggest problem with this piece of legislation is that it would provide immunity for the big Telcos against all sorts of lawsuits where they're being sued for violating people's privacy. (Think: warrantless wiretapping, AT&T turning over all customer records, etc.) The rest of the legislation is rather murky but it's set in a political landscape where there is good reason to question governmental decisions wrt surveillance. There are good reasons to provide adequate tools for intelligence, but one must raise their eyebrows when private enterprises are getting immunity for breaking the law at the request of the government.

So, Obama was initially against this piece of legislation. For some combination of political reasons that I've lost track of, he's compromised and is backing the new FISA extension while just verbally lamenting the immunity provisions [1]. Well, folks are pretty pissed. Tens of thousands signed up for a Group on MyBarackObama called Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right, following a Facebook-style protest. This type of digital collective action is piquing the interest of all sorts of folks, including those behind the Personal Democracy Forum. Micah Sifry's analysis is a must read and there are other good ones there: [1] [2] [3]

As fans were throwing more and more public hissy fits, Obama was forced to respond. Members of his staff posted his response to their blog and took comments, resulting in an onslaught (more than 600 comments in 90 minutes). Obama tried to defend himself and what it means to make unpopular decisions to compromise.

It's not likely to do any good. Obama is going to vote for this piece of legislation and, even if he doesn't, all of the Republican Senators and most of the Democrats will. (And any moment now...) Still, what I find fascinating is how many people have gotten up in arms about this. FISA is not the kind of legislation that most people get their heads around. Yet, I talked to all sorts of folks in the last week and while they had no idea what FISA was, they thought that it was bad and were worried that Obama was backing it. They had heard about FISA through the collective mobilization efforts. They may not have seen or signed the Care2 Petition or the Night of Facebook Action or the Facebook group or the Get FISA Right website, but they'd heard about the rumblings even though the media coverage has been downright lousy. They had a sense that there was a disconnect. More importantly, folks felt empowered to speak back and they were able to raise their voices loud enough to demand a response. Even if that response wasn't what they hoped for, that's still fascinating.

As I watch this unfold, I'm both in awe of the collective mobilization efforts and utterly confused about the actual dialogue. I still can't figure out why Obama is backing FISA (and "compromise" isn't a reason). I don't understand why Congress thinks it's so important to pass this bill even with the immunity provisions. Every "Get FISA Right" website, petition, and call to action tells me to encourage my Senators to stop FISA without telling me anything about FISA other than the immunity provision. Only Wikipedia is articulating the provisions. There are more in-depth discussions, like Tim Ferriss' interview with Daniel Ellsberg, but they are few and far between. So I find it interesting that there's a lot of mobilization without a lot of articulate information, dialogue, or debate. Even the politicians seem to be avoiding getting into the details.

As we think about the role of the Internet People in political actions, I can't help but wonder what it means that there's more mobilization than information. The conversation seems to circle around "compromise" rather than focus on the dynamics of the provisions and the logic behind them. This seems quite odd to me.

PS: In a tangential, but related political reality check, the Telcos are now suing cities that have decided to provide Internet access as a public good. So on one hand, the government is providing immunity to Telcos and, on the other, the Telcos are now suing to stop the government from serving the people. Gotta love it.

Update: Moments after posting this, the NYTimes reported FISA passed. Obama voted for the bill. Attempts to eradicate the immunity provisions failed. And, much to my irritation, the age old privacy myth was voiced by Senator Bond who said there was nothing to fear in the bill "unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial." ::grumble::grumble::

Fair use is an uber tricky legal issue. It is meant to provide protection for people to use copyright material in limited ways without seeking permission. (For example, fair use allows academics to comment on copyrighted content as part of their work.) The problem with fair use as a legal doctrine is that it's defense-only. Anyone can sue you for violating their copyright and you can declare fair use, but you will still have to pay onerous legal bills to defend that claim. Given the typical economic inequality between copyright holders and fair use practitioners, just the threat of a lawsuit tends to silence fair use practitioners. It's really a sad state of affairs. The lack of clear guidance means that creativity tends to be squelched as copyright holders systematically manage a campaign of terror, even when they're not in the legal right of way.

Fair use is becoming a bigger and bigger issue as more people get involved in creative acts that involve others' content. Fan fiction, video remix, video parody, etc. are all practices that involve others' copyright, but are also arguably fair use. While these practices predated the Internet, the Internet makes them much more visible. This means that more people get to see such creativity, but it also means that the copyright owners tend to get more outraged. And they tend to go on cease and desist rampages, even when the practitioners are engaged in fair use practices.

There's currently no legal solution, but some of the best minds in cultural practice and law have come together to develop a "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Videos" (organized by the Center for Social Media). This document is not a legal instruction guide, but a set of best practices. This document also opens up an opportunity for good dialogue about the relationship between law/policy and cultural practices. I commend Pat Aufderheide, Peter Jaszi, and the members of the committee (Michael C. Donaldson, Anthony Falzone, Lewis Hyde, Mizuko Ito, Henry Jenkins, Michael Madison, Pamela Samuelson, Rebecca Tushnet, and Jennifer Urban) for putting together a tremendous set of guidelines for practitioners. Hopefully this will help everyone involved.

Michael Carter just sent me an email with a link to a YouTube video entitled Andy van Dam in "Dancing with the Professors." Andy was my undergraduate advisor, my mentor, and is a dear friend. I was one of his TAs and absolutely loved seeing him do goofy things in class. That said, I've never seen this side of him and I'm completely beside myself in giggles.

This makes me wonder.... where are all of the other avd videos? I found one of Andy losing in ping pong. But there has to be more embarrassing footage... I mean, as a CS15 TA, we did quite a few skits involving Andy. Hell, how many times did he play Darth Vader alone? Many of these had to have been videotaped. Who has these videos? Why aren't they on YouTube?

Calling all Brown CS alumni ... please upload any embarrassing footage that you have, pretty please?

Random kitty cat share for no good reason... Marbellio is trying to stay cool in Los Angeles and this picture is soooooooo cute. So I just had to share. Hopefully this brings a smile to your face on a Monday morning. Tehehe.

In an attention economy, it's better to ignore than to critique. This drives me absolutely bloody batty. Anyone who's been online for too darn long knows has heard the expression, "don't feed the trolls." This stems from the general belief that trolls engaging in trolling for attention. Giving them attention by telling them off feeds into their goals. Thus, the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them. We know this pattern from offline examples too. Schoolyard bullies are one example and if you stretch it far enough, you can see this concept in "turn the other cheek." Still, trying to convince everyone out there to ignore a troll isn't easy and being silent ain't all it's cracked up to be.

I'm deeply disturbed by the proliferation of troll-like behavior in contemporary life. Why are public figures increasingly appearing whose whole identity is wrapped around driving others batty? Why does it seem as though more people are starting to write controversial books purely to make money off of the attention they receive when others attack them? Why are reputable publications publishing these authors' tirades against others that are intended specifically to draw them out in a public fight? I guess we know the answer... Or at least the equation. Attention = money. And in the world of media, attention = advertising revenue.

Lately, I've found myself biting my tongue a lot. I'm not very good at being silent when I have a strong opinion. To make matters worse, I'm an academic and we're trained to critique and be critiqued. Yet, in an attention economy, publicly critiquing people whose sole goal is to get massive attention does them more justice than harm. This is understood in marketing as there being no such thing as bad coverage. In a world of blogging and pagerank, critiquing trolls gives them both literal and figurative capital. That's frustrating as hell. Lately, I've found myself encouraging people to not blog about something when it smells like an attention whore. But of course, someone's feathers still get ruffled and bark bark bark goes the blogosphere.

I have to imagine that folks in marketing land have thought about this, if only to manipulate it. What are good strategies for handling trolls in sheep's clothing?

(I was asked to respond to some of Clay Shirky's posts on Talking Points Memo Cafe. I figured that this would be a good excuse to blog since I've been a bad bad bad bad blogger lately. What follows is my first blog response.)

Original Post on TPMCafe: markers of status: different, and yet the same

Speculating on social status in an age of networked participation, Clay Shirky accurately points out the ways in which metrics for status have become diversified. It is possible to gain satisfaction from achieving high status in World of Warcraft, even if popularity there is quite niche. In our ethnographic study of new media and youth culture, the Digital Youth group at Berkeley and USC also found that many youth involved in interest-driven digital practices rejected traditional status markers in preference for those that could be achieved in subcultures. Becky Herr and Mimi Ito examined different aspects of fan communities; Patricia Lange and Sonja Baumer looked at vid practices; Matteo Bittanti observed gaming culture. In all of their studies, they found diverse ways in which people marked and negotiated status, confirming Clay's suspicion that networked participation can alter the markers of status.

Now, here's the caveat... Just because status markers can be rearranged does not mean that they universally are. While we found tremendous examples of alternative status structures, the vast majority of youth that we studied used networked technologies to reinforce more traditional markers of status and hierarchy. While there are certainly youth who engage in a variety of geeky practices, the vast majority of youth use tools like MySpace, Facebook, instant messaging, and mobile phones to socialize with peers from school, church, and activities. The social hierarchies that exist in everyday life are replicated and reinforced online. While social categories do play a significant role in teen life, neatly defined cliques are not that normative. Still, gossip and boundary marking are part of everyday teen status struggles, online and off. In his book "Geeks, Freaks and Cool Kids," Murray Milner Jr. suggests that teens' particular obsession with status is because "they have so little real economic or political power" (2004:4). He argues that hanging out, dating, and mobilizing tokens of popular culture all play a central role in the development and maintenance of peer status. Just as these activities take place in school, they also take place in networked environments.

For most teens, the status that matters is that which is conferred in everyday life. Everyday friendship and dating matter more to them than the connections that they make online. This isn't that surprising because, for as much time as teens spend online, they spend very little engaging with strangers and far more connected to people that they know. Finding interesting music videos or gross-out content online may heighten status amongst peers if this content is valued, but becoming popular with strangers online does not transfer to popularity offline. This was best explained by Dominic, a 16-year old from Seattle: "I don't really think popularity would transfer from online to offline because you've got a bunch of random people you don't know it's not going to make a difference in real life, you know? It's not like they're going to come visit you or hang out with you. You're not like a celebrity or something."

Some of us have become celebrities online, or at least micro-celebrities. Both Clay and I have benefited tremendously by our presence online. We have achieved status through our knowledge of these spaces. Yet, we are by no means normal (in any sense of the word). I think that we'll continue to see fantastic examples of individuals achieving status through their networked participation, but I don't think that this will ever become mainstream. We will continue to see people achieving celebrity through online (e.g., Tila Tequila, Star Wars boy, Perez Hilton, etc.), but just as celebrity is rare offline, it will be rare online too. For those who invest massive amounts of time in particular subgenres of networked culture, we will also see tremendous achievements of status. And this will be tremendously rewarding, especially for those marginalized and ostracized people who never did and never will fit into more normative culture. But this is the marker of any good subculture. And we will continue to see new subcultures with new markers of subcultural capital. Still, my belief is that, for most people, status will continue to be about getting validated by peers in everyday life. I think that some of the ways that validation can occur is through mediated interactions, but I don't think we'll see fully mediated status. Of course, time will tell...

Years ago, I subscribed to Newsweek to get a source of lightweight magazine news that was relatively mainstream. I don't expect in-depth coverage, but I still enjoy seeing how certain things are being framed. Plus, it's fun to read Steven Levy, knowing that he's making tech culture broadly accessible. Lately, I've also been enjoying columns by Fareed Zakaria. I don't always agree with him, but I find his essays far more provocative than I'd expect from such a mainstream column. Thus, they always make me smile.

This week, in "The Only Thing We Have to Fear...", Zakaria dissects different studies on the frequency of terrorism. He points out that the definition of "terrorism" varies by region such that what's being measured is inconsistent and meant to return desired results rather than a real portrait of what's happening. For example, civilian deaths at the hands of militia in Iraq is considered terrorism while the same practice in Sudan is not. This has significant policy implications. And, of course, it is part of the culture of fear.

I'm curious if any of you scholars/researchers out there know anything about these various studies and what the politics behind them are. I can certainly make my guesses, but as I spend more time analyzing quantitative studies, I'm really curious to know more about the politics behind controversial quantitative studies. Who's involved in deciding how terms are defined? How do funders affect definitions and framing? What happens when researchers and funders disagree? Or when funders don't like the results?

I feel very lucky to be backed by a Foundation who does not engage in pressure tactics and is infinitely supportive of hearing things that they don't want to hear. I wonder... are there any ethnographic studies out there about social science scholarship/funder relations?

Last fall, I wrote an entry called my long lost handwriting. Much to my delight, Greg Williams turned that post into a comic for Blogjam which appears in the Tampa Tribune tomorrow. Here's the digital version. ::giggle::

Driving home yesterday, I listened to Pat Schroeder and NPR talk about how people are not voting for Hillary Clinton because of sexism. I swore at the radio and then apologized to my car.

As everyone who knows me knows, I'm SICK AND TIRED of this election. I've been disenchanted, frustrated, depressed, and irritated. Lately, I've just been downright angry. I am a third wave feminist and I'm proud of it. Gender issues have been central to my identity for as long as I can remember. I am ecstatic to think that a woman might be in the White House in my lifetime. But I refuse to vote for someone solely on the basis of their gender and I resent being told that this makes me sexist.

I have absolutely no doubt that sex, race, age, gender, religion, class, and other factors are at play in this election. Talking to teens, I was always fascinated by their discussion of "that black guy" and "that woman" running for president. At least those labels were relatively accurate. "That Muslim" (Obama) and "that polygamist" (Romney) were a bit harder to stomach. I am very frustrated by how intolerant much of this country is, but I don't have a lot of patience for when people suggest that one intolerance is better or worse than the other. I've always appreciated the second wave feminists for what they did for women in the 1970s, but I identify as a third-waver because I think that it is irresponsible of feminists to seek power for rich, straight, white women at the expense of other women. So when Gloria Steinem wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes about how women are never front-runners, I shuddered. She argues that sexism is not taken as seriously as racism and that sexism is a bigger barrier. I'm not quite sure what world she's living in.

My instinct was to list off all of the ways in which race is more of a barrier. Like the racial make-up of our jails. Or the racial make-up of the tech industry. Or the racial dynamics in LA. But this would be counter-productive because I don't believe that comparing such intolerances is effective. And besides, they are tightly entwined and interwoven. So I mediated and just decided that Steinem doesn't represent me or my generation of feminists.

And then there was Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania killed me. Going into PA, I believed that I could vote for either Democratic candidate in November. After PA, I decided that I'd rather vote for Mickey Mouse than Clinton. I have no tolerance for politics as usual and I'm pretty annoyed with all of the candidates at this point for falling into such disgusting crap. But how on earth did Clinton manage to convince the press that she's "more working class" than Obama? After his (admittedly foolish) statements in Appalachia, she went on and on about how he was an elitist condescending fool while nothing that her husband was the first black president and aligning herself with the working class. How on earth is a millionaire with an amazing pedigree and unbelievable social connections able to convince working class America that she's one of them? Grumble. I think we all need to do a bit of owning up to our privilege at this point. But, oh right, that won't get us elected. Grumble 2.0. This was just one of the many charades that convinced me that Clinton is more determined to win by any means possible. And that worries me. I don't trust that she'll do what's best, but what'll make her look good. Gas tax holiday? Hello!

Lately, it's been the whole sexism issue. I have no doubt that she's been treated unkindly in the press. And sexism is part of that story. But how can she say that sexism is the reason that young, educated voters aren't voting for her? She's done extremely well with older women and white working class men and Hispanic/Latino groups. Sure, there's still some sexism in here... I've heard plenty of older voters say that they'll vote for her because her husband will help her out. But they still voted for her! She's not done so well with young, educated groups or with black voters. How is this sexism? Frankly, if this election is about sexism, I wouldn't have expected her to do so well with traditionally macho and misogynist populations. So is my refusal to vote for her a sign of my self-hatred?

I keep hearing that she's not leaving the race because she doesn't want to signal defeat, that she doesn't want to let the sexists win, that she feels like she needs to stay in so that the next generation of women will feel as though they have the power to go for it. I am the next generation of women. I don't feel disempowered by her not being the nominee but I do feel embarrassed by her refusal to step aside and her ongoing efforts to crack the party into half. I don't like her speaking on behalf of my generation of women this way.

In her justifications and explanations, she refutes any critique that she's not being a team player or that she's doing damage to the party. In some ways, time will tell. But I hope to goddess that when she finally steps down, she works as a senior Democrat to help heal the party and bring people together. If she does this, I will give her a second chance. But right now, I'm absolutely positively disgusted. And please, can we get off this sexism story? It's embarrassing.

Thanks for letting me blow off a little bit of steam.

For months, I've been locked indoors trying to get enough of my dissertation finished so that I could walk in graduation. Last week, I handed something that sorta kinda looks vaguely like a maybe dissertation to my committee, much to the absolute joy of my family, I walked in Berkeley's graduation. Of course, that does not mean that I'm graduated so don't go calling me doctor. Oh, no, au contraire! This only means that I've walked and that my committee has full faith that I will be finished within six months. So, now, I have six months to file. ::gulp:: But it can be done!! It will be done!! I will finish!!

Graduation was a trip. My grandparents took their first flight in 13 years to come to California and join me on a very sunny day in Berkeley. I got to graduate with an amazing crop of Master's students and four of my beloved PhDs. My former mentor Genevieve Bell gave a very inspiring talk filled with "anthropological advice" about how to approach the world like a fieldwork project. Post-graduation, I got some quality family time that involved a lot of food and wine tasting. It was a fantastic break, even if I'm now back to the grind.

As much as I'm a bit stir-crazy from all of the dissertation work, there's a part of me that is absolutely loving the opportunity to hibernate and get clarity on what exactly I've been thinking about for the last five years. Lots of folks have told me that dissertations are archaic and silly, but I am soooo glad to be doing this. Having the opportunity to do some sustained thinking, get regular advice, and try to actually take my thinking to the next level has been a joyous thing. The downside is that it means that I have no life and am a complete hermit that has forgotten how to interact with humans. I now see how academics become the kooky creatures that they are. Tehehe.

Anyhow, I'm still gonna be a sucky communicator and blogger until I file this darn thing, but I feel as though progress is being made and graduation was a really nice reality check. Now I know that I. Am. Going. To. Finish. Grad. School. Darnit. W000t!

Ben Rigby and Rock the Vote have put together a book for activists, politicos, and organizers called "Mobilizing Generation 2.0: A Practical Guide to Using Web 2.0." It is a how-to guide to help those who want to mobilize using the web, focusing on how organizers can leverage blogging, social network sites, photo/video sharing, mobile phones, wikis, maps and virtual worlds. Interspersed between the directly practical and usable are a handful of "Big Picture" essays which are intended to help organizers put the practical and usable into a broader context. I had the honor of writing one of these based on my talk last year at Personal Democracy Forum. My essay is called "Digital Handshakes in Networked Publics: Why Politicians Must Interact, Not Broadcast." In short, I outline why it is important the politicians treat the online world as another form of public space where direct outreach and interaction is critical. If you see networked publics as a modern-day street, it only makes sense to login to the street and start shaking hands.

If you're only looking to read what I've written, you can check my essay out here. If you're an organizer or activist, you might enjoy it better in the context of the whole book.