Whither Social Media?

I’ve been waffling lately over the role social media is going to play in my life going forward. And several factors, both personal and global, contribute to that uncertainty. And by “social media” I’m largely referring to Facebook.

On the global level: Several friends have deleted their Facebook accounts in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal currently simmering in our national discourse. And I have to say that the egregiousness of that data breach is breathtaking. No, it’s not surprising, especially to one who has worked in online media and made use of the data even a benign, casual mining effort can glean. But the malicious intent behind Cambridge Analytica’s efforts—and more importantly, Facebook’s casual dismissal of the impact of those efforts—makes all of the comparisons to Orwell and 1984 resonate. And for what? A measly $100,000—that’s what Facebook sold us all down the river for. A company that is valued at many billions-with-a-B sold us out for what is to them pocket change. That pisses me off.

In the wake of the revelations I, like many others, downloaded my Facebook data. And what it showed me was this: not using Facebook on my phone and not doing any of those inane “what kind of a fill in the blank are you?” quizzes, along with clearing my cache every time I close my browser, helped minimize any damaging information that might have been shared. But then again, you wouldn’t have to be a whiz-bang data analyst to look at my page to deduce that I a) am liberal, b) like sports and c) listen to the Grateful Dead. Wow. Earth-shattering…not. But it’s the thought that counts.

(Side note: Years ago, the ex-boyfriend of my niece responded to my mention of the fact that I clear my cache by rolling his eyes and saying, “Oh, you’re one of them.” “Yes,” I told him. “You don’t want to know what I can learn about you if you use my station’s site…and I’m not even trying.” Turns out I was right.)

On the personal level, my social-media hiatus in February was both illuminating and disheartening. I found that I was like an addict going through cold turkey—reinforcing all the insiders’ observations that they had programmed Facebook to give you that dopamine hit and keep you hooked. But I also found I enjoyed putting time that might have been spent surfing Facebook into doing other, real-world things. In the words of Jackson Browne, “I want to live in the world, not behind some wall.” I want to see the world with my own eyes, feel it with my own hands, hear it with my own ears. I don’t want to live vicariously through Facebook-savvy others.

Where that rubs up and creates a problem is that I enjoy staying in touch with a lot of people, friends who, if we’re being honest, I wouldn’t be in contact with were it not for Facebook. No one (me included) writes letters or cards anymore. I detest talking on the phone. And those friends and I really aren’t going to just email to stay in touch. Life being how it is, Facebook DOES enable us to keep our friendship active and vibrant, even when we’re thousands of miles and a few decades apart. That IS a cool feature.

No, I don’t believe a handful of people deleting their accounts is going to have an impact on Facebook’s corporate behavior. But I also don’t have to contribute with every click to those inside the company’s getting richer and richer by engineering to the downfall of western democracy. And yes, I do believe Facebook’s impacts could (they haven’t yet, not completely) prove to be that insidious.

One friend chastised me prior to my hiatus, saying I should just not sign on. And maybe that’s the answer. Right now I’m weighing the pros and cons of deleting my Facebook account, going on hiatus again or just not signing in. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts, friends. Thanks.

PS: Yes, I have this blog set to require approval before comments appear. I will approve every comment that engages on the topic. There’s just too much spam for me to open things up completely.

PPS: As for other social-media platforms: I don’t Twitter much because its news focus (and that’s on me based upon which accounts I follow) is just too exasperating. I’m getting to like Instagram—and yes, I know it’s owned by Facebook. But being able to quickly (and visually) see what friends are up to is, I must admit, pretty cool. And thus far, it hasn’t been overrun by bots and trolls and depressing news.

Opinion, Uncategorized

The 2016 Shitshow Comes to a Blessed Close

(Author’s note: Upon review, this is crazily all over the place (no, I haven’t been drinking; I opted for abstinence in the face of potentially devastating news tonight) and it seemed a lot more coherent when I thought about it over the course of the day, but…oh well.)

voting-repub

One friend said it was “rude” when I posted this image to Facebook in 2012. Perhaps. But it’s still true.

I’ve had the urge to write a column on the 2016 election for many months now. At various times during this tragi-comedy that passes for our political process, the urge to open the window and scream, “I’m mad as hell! And I’m not going to take it anymore!” has been almost overwhelming.

Almost. Which is why I’ve been able to refrain. “Why bother?” I wondered. “I’m not going to change anyone’s mind in the United States in 2016. Everyone’s mind was made up on day one.” And in that case, why bother wasting my time writing down my thoughts on the situation.

And yet, here I am, doing just that on election day itself. Obviously, at this late, I DEFINITELY won’t change anyone’s mind. And to be honest, I don’t really want to. I just want to get this stuff off my chest and on record before the results are known, and if I can get through to some of my friends — no, not change their mind; just reach them so they’ll at least think about and discuss some of this stuff with an open mind — well, that will be icing on the cake. But mostly this is for me. So here goes…

No one who knows me has any doubt where I stand in the current election. And yes, I voted this morning, so that stance is now set in concrete. But let’s go open this diatribe with one assertion right here:
Anyone who votes for Donald Trump is guilty of treason because the man is an existential threat to our nation.

Whatever your opposition to Hillary Clinton, there’s no denying that the United States will survive her presidency and perhaps even thrive. With Trump’s hair-trigger ego in the White House, we can’t say that about the country — or, with him having the nuclear codes, the planet. Should that horrible day come to pass, your act of treason will rise to a crime against humanity.

Why are people so anti-Hillary? It boggles my mind that someone can have such a deep-rooted hatred for someone they don’t even know, especially someone who has spent her entire adult life in public service. You may not like that service — which I get because, you know, an emphasis on the rights of children, women and the poor is odious and reprehensible — but there’s no denying that she’s given more than you or I have to the betterment of this country.

Oh, that’s right: She did that so she could get rich via the Clinton Foundation. Right. Because she couldn’t have gotten a whole lot richer had she been in the private sector over those years.

And then there’s that whole tired trope about how Hillary lies. Please. Trump lies so much more and what’s worse, he lies right to your face. And you eat it up. Yes, Clinton lied about her email while secretary of state and that is regrettable. She also copped to it and apologized for it in a simple, declarative statement during the debates.

But if you’re all bent out of shape about Hillary lying, where’s your indignation about Trump lying? Virtually every independent analysis of everything Trump has said or tweeted has his lies outpacing Clinton’s by about 7-1. Trump lies to you — and you know he’s lying to you…and he knows you know he’s lying to you — and you accept what he says as fact. It happened countless times during the debates, countless times while campaigning, countless times will being interviewed and it continued to happen right up to the weekend before the election.

On the topic of Hillary’s emails: Where was your outrage when the Bush administration “lost” more than 20 million emails from a private server? Where was your indignation when both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used private servers for official business? Uh huh. Thought so.

Oh yeah? Well, Hillary killed four Americans in Benghazi! Really? And who controlled the Congress that denied her requests for more security for foreign embassies? Oh, that’s right. Another thing: When 224 people, including 12 Americans, died during attacks on American embassies in Africa in the 1998, no one was calling for the secretary of state’s head. So admit it: it’s only because it’s Clinton that you’re after her.

And if you’re all up in arms about tax-and-spend Democrats, why aren’t you pissed that Republicans spent $47 million of our dollars — that includes yours and mine — in a doomed-to-fail-before-it-started attempt to affix a scarlet letter on Bill Clinton? Why aren’t you pissed the Republicans spent more than $20 million investigating and reinvestigating Hillary on her emails — even AFTER the FBI had cleared her? Because it’s the Clintons and, well, fuck them. Am I right?

So if you’re willing to vote for Trump — at the expense of our country’s safety and strength — because you hate Bill Clinton so much that you want to give his wife the finger well then, that’s an act of treason.

Because there’s no question that on every level, Hillary Clinton is infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Donald Trump. To wit:
* Trump runs on his business expertise…yet he’s filed for bankruptcy multiple times and has stiffed contractors working for him. All of you friends who are small businesspeople supporting Trump: How would you like it if you did your job as contracted and got stiffed?
* Speaking of getting stiffed: Trump hasn’t paid income taxes in decades. Talk about a free ride. He gets government grants and contracts — and then doesn’t pay income tax. But you and I do. And yet you think he’s got your best interests in mind.
* Policy: The ONLY policy Trump enunciated during his campaign was building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. That’s it. Not one policy otherwise. What are you basing your vote on? Oh, yes: he’s on your side. Well, see the above points. I’ve posted this photo a few times on Facebook and it’s appropriate at this time. Trump has one person in mind and it ain’t you.

Okay, I’m tired of this rambling diatribe and if anyone is still reading I’m sure you are too. So let’s make it a bit more personal…

What’s been most distressing about this election process has been finding out some unsavory things about friends of mine. No, not that they support a buffoon like Trump. Rather, what their support of that buffoon has clearly demonstrated: rampant racism, sexism, xenophobia and a willful ignorance of fact and reality. Harsh? You didn’t see what they were posting and commenting.

I didn’t unfriend from Facebook anyone who posted pro-Trump propaganda. But I did unfollow a few. Namely:
* The friend who was posting the most blatantly sexist, anti-Clinton websites (which I won’t link to here because I am not contributing to their traffic). This friend’s mother, whom I adore, was all wound up in recent years about that Muslim president of ours and all he’s doing to tear down America — it seems my friend has followed his mother around the bend
* The friend who posted “news” that was in fact made-up bullshit by teens in Macedonia tweaking Trump fans for clicks to pad their wallets. When called on it, this friend said it didn’t matter; he wasn’t being played. This is the same friend who told me in 2004 that John Kerry shot himself in Vietnam so he could get those medals. Really
* Another friend whose unhinged comment on someone else’s pro-Hillary post had me wondering if he’d come off his meds. The vile, personal assertions about Clinton were the same old tired and disproven talking points we hear from Fox News all the time
* And a couple of others, including some 20somethings (and one 20something woman) which is a demographic (or two) I can’t believe would fall for Trump’s bullshit

So it was heartbreaking to find out that people I respected and consider friends turned out to be filled with hate. And several of them are self-avowed Christians — and yet they’re all-in for an adulterer who’s twice divorced and has no discernible morality or religion beyond Mammon.

And that’s going to be the legacy of this election, regardless of outcome: the divide in this country, even among friends, is only getting worse. The Republican party encouraged the tea-party bullshit and then couldn’t control it, so the underlying racism and sexism and xenophobia driving those outliers is now mainstream. And that’s my great fear: that even if Trump loses tonight, someone who isn’t as clumsy as he is but still espouses the same evil, fascist crap will come along in four or eight years and succeed where he failed.

Because here are a couple of other facts for you:
Fact: If the Republicans had put up anyone other than Trump against Hillary, they’d have been measuring for curtains in the White House by Labor Day.
Fact: If the Democrats had put up anyone other than Hillary against Trump, the race would have been over after the first debate.
The system is so broken that it’s only a matter of time before another disaster-in-the-making gets nominated. And that time, we may not have someone who, while unpleasant, isn’t so qualified for the job.

But telling the system “fuck you” by voting in someone so dangerous and obviously unqualified is tantamount to saying that the American experiment is over. And that’s heartbreaking because we’re still the first and best at what’s possible.

Opinion

Shame On Me

Remember back in 2008 when some of the wingnuts in our country (and there were/are a lot of ’em) were touting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a “Manchurian candidate.” Their teabag-inspired fears were that Obama was a plant, a mole who was going to destroy America from the inside, all to benefit some nefarious entity: Al Queda, China, evil Communism.

Imagine my surprise when, five years later, we find out that those wingnuts were right: Obama WAS a Manchurian candidate. For the Republican Party.

Think about it: what Obama has done are all Republican wet dreams. He’s continued our military adventures (and spending), he’s expanded surveillance of our own citizens, he’s ramped up Wall Street’s dominance, he’s done nothing about the gun violence within our borders. And he’s done it in the same name that his predecessor used: national security.

Even the one thing that has Republicans really up in arms — Obamacare — is really just a benefit for Corporate America at the expense of the general population: he’s created a whole new market of customers for the insurance companies rather than, you know, doing something that would improve Americans’ lives and make health-care affordable for most people.

Before my liberal friends start slamming me, remember that I voted for Obama twice — and would again given the alternatives in both elections (and for that, my conservative friends will now start slamming me). But think about it: how many of those “I’m not Bush” campaign promises Obama made have not only been ignored they’ve actually been completely overturned and Bush’s policies not only continued but expanded?

Guantanamo Bay? Still open. Banks too big to fail? Wall Street still calls the shots and not one person has ever been indicted for any of the wrongdoing that caused worldwide economic turmoil. We still have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and how long will it be until we have troops in Syria? Suspension of habeus corpus? Ask those in Guantanamo or those who’ve been killed by drone strikes with zero chance to address the charges against them.

And then there’s the current hubbub about phone-tapping and data-mining being done by the National Security Agency (NSA), a continuation of a Patriot Act-started and Obama-continued practice ostensibly used to keep Americans safe. This week we got to hear Obama rationalize this domestic spying by saying, “I think it’s important to recognize you can’t have 100 percent security and also 100 percent privacy, and also zero inconvenience. We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.” That stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited Ben Franklin quote that says, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” As I wrote on Facebook: I’ll take Ben’s side on this topic — or any other debate with Barack Obama.

To which many of my friends replied: well, Ben didn’t live in this day and age. He couldn’t know what we’re facing now. And that’s true. But I’m also reminded of reading the news in the ’90s about some Muslim whacko named Osama bin Laden who declared that he was going to make sure Americans lived in fear on a daily basis as his people did. And here we are in 2013, more than a decade removed from the events of 9/11, and guess what? Bin Laden won. Every time you take your shoes off at the airport, he wins. Every time you allow SWAT troops to storm your house without a warrant because they’re looking for one 19-year-old kid accused of setting of a bomb in Boston, Bin Laden wins. And when we allow the government to tap our phones and monitor our online activity, Bin Laden wins.

“Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of,” is the counter — which sounds a lot like something Joseph Goebbels would have spouted. And I’m sorry, but I don’t want to go through life fearing every potential boogeyman that the military-industrial complex foists upon us. Does giving away your freedom — freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for more than 200 years ago for this exact (if differently implemented) reason — actually make you feel safer? Are you THAT afraid of everyone and everything that doesn’t look/think/act like you do?

And how should an honest American who feels the government is violating the Constitution and breaking the law react? Edward Snowden continued a long line of honored whistleblowers this week by outing the NSA program and was swiftly labeled a traitor by so many in power. How did Obama respond? He hasn’t said yet, but remember when candidate Obama in 2008 said that whistleblowers’ “acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled”? In 2013, the Justice Department is quickly drawing up charges against Edward Snowden so they can seek extradition from wherever he’s hiding out right now, a not-so-subtle shift in half a decade.

What’s entertaining in all of this is watching Obama’s apologists fall all over themselves to justify the program — when just a few years ago they were screaming for Bush’s head for the exact same activity. I’m sorry, but criminal activity is criminal activity, no matter which party is initiating it.

Obama came to power promising hope and change. And in 2008, for the first time in my adult life, I was actually optimistic that we could solve some of the grave challenges facing our country and world via the political process. In his first term, he squandered the bully pulpit he’d been granted by trying to make nice with an opposition party that had zero intention of doing anything that might remotely be perceived as having positive consequences. And now, in his second term, we’re realizing that Obama is really just the continuation of the eight years we had under George W. Bush. The policies are the same. The rationale is the same. Are we really so surprised that the outcome is the same?

“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Consider me shamed, Barack Obama. That you make Bush and Nixon seem legitimate, and that you’ve destroyed any hope so many of us had, is your greatest failure.

Opinion, Uncategorized, , , ,