Hope from somewhere I never would have expected...

Full text of Attorney General Eric Holder's recent speech @ the DOJ:

Nation of Cowards Speech

Social Searching on the Web

Social Searching On The Web

View more presentations from maxmacias.

Mel Gibson--Stick to Mad Max, Jesus or Braveheart!

Mel Gibson--Stick to Mad Max, Jesus or Braveheart!
by Max Macias



"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." Will Durant Quote




This quote above begins Mel Gibson’s newest work, Apocalypto. These words can be interpreted to mean that the Mayans and all Nican Tlaca cultures got what they deserved. Contained within this moral judgment is the justification that we received what we deserved as well. This is to say, the descendants of the savage ‘Aztecs, Mayans, and other Indians of the Americas’ are in their present social situation because of their past actions and rightfully so. This justifies the way things are and serves to build hatred against indigenous peoples, but more importantly it can also weaken our own self-worth. Some people will say that Apocalypto is just a movie, but it is not just a movie--this kind of work can and should be defined as propaganda. When you see something wrong about the way we are portrayed/treated/ it is your duty to stand up and say “No!”
Mr. Gibson an admitted propagandist! The Passion was made to gain Christian converts and to solidify belief. The Passion Attempts to justify Jesus’ sacrifice, and thereby justify Christianity. A work that justifies a political or religious ideal is propaganda! Why would we interpret this work any differently?
There are many aspects of a film; how well those aspects are created and executed dictates the quality of the work. Apocalypto is many things, but a good film it is not. The writing is unbelievable, the theme is non-existent, and the sets are a huge disappointment. Insults to the viewer and Mayan culture permeate the film. While the natural scenery in the film is at times quite beautiful, and the acting is good, these aspects do NOT excuse the movie.
This film fails on the fundamental level of believability. A movie asks the audience to believe what they experience. When an observer sees something on the screen that is clearly impossible—then their concentration on the story is spoiled and therefore their experience of the film as an uninterrupted event/work is ruined. The viewer’s attention goes from the film to questioning what they see. One of the basic rules of filmmaking (and of all theatre arts) is to not do this. Apocalypto repeats this fundamental mistake over and over again.

Story (condensed version—I know I left some details out)
A peaceful village of Mayan forest dwellers is attacked and the survivors are captured. As the village is under attack, the hero—Jaguar Paw—is able to hide his family down a hole. They become trapped in the hole. He promises to come back for them. Jaguar Paw and the other survivors are taken to a Mayan city where the women are sold into slavery, and the men are to be sacrificed. Most of the men escape sacrifice through a totally unbelievable episode. Jaguar Paw eventually escapes with a party of Mayan city dwellers in hot pursuit. He eventually kills most of them, and then makes it back to his village. The Mayan city dwellers finally catch up to him, but they see Europeans landing in their boats and are stunned. This allows Jaguar Paw to escape.
This story, while at times exciting, is unrealistic and unbelievable. Several opportunities arise upon which one could deepen the story, or build it up into something more than one level of meaning. ALL these chances are wasted and I was left totally disappointed. Mel asks us to believe that Jaguar paw can leap out of a tree and then outrun a jaguar—this was totally unbelievable and idiotic. I felt abused and misled by Mr. Gibson.

History or Cliche?

My mother and I went to see the movie together. She kept asking me throughout the movie, “Were they really like that?” And I kept telling her, “No, no, Mom….” I kept wondering how many people saw this movie and thought that it was super realistic and historically based. When and if this happens, a movie changes from being just a movie, to being propaganda justifying the dominant culture’s viewpoints. Film and television act as fundamental teaching utensils in American culture. Movies and TV display propaganda constantly. When this film goes to DVD and is played on television, millions of people will watch it and take it as historically accurate. They will believe that Mayans were diseased savages with no good qualities. I wonder how this will help relations between European culture and Nican Tlaca. Who will this movie help, and who will it hurt?
There are many problems that distract the viewer from what little there is of a story in this work. One way this occurs is with the overuse of clichés. A cliché, for those unfamiliar with the term, is a fancy way of saying overused idea. A sickening example is when Jaguar Paw, the hero of the film is just about to be sacrificed—guess what happens—no really—guess! Surprise, surprise—there is an eclipse at just that moment. The eclipse scares the Mayans, and then their priest declares that Kulkulkan has been satisfied. He needs no more sacrifices.
The above is one of the worst, and most overused clichés in film, television, and writing! In addition, everyone knows the Mayans were great astronomers and were superb mathematicians. How did they NOT know of the eclipse? Or did they know and were they misleading their people? Are you telling me they were unaware of eclipses? These kinds of questions created many moments of disbelief and ruined the film even more for me. Why would someone write something this bad? It is clearly insulting to the audience and ruins the viewer’s ability to believe what they are witnessing in the film. Again, the question of propaganda arises.
The other, far more insulting cliché is that right at the moment when the Mayans have caught up to, and are about to kill Jaguar Paw, the Europeans arrive. They actually save Jaguar Paw by stunning the Mayans and allowing Jaguar Paw to leave. This is the greatest insult in film since Dances with Wolves saves the Indians in that piece of work. The fact that it is historically inaccurate creates a belief in my mind that this is a work of propaganda by a religious fanatic who wants to establish that our people were/are savages for having their own religions and belief systems. It justifies how we were and are still treated.

“Those people practices human sacrifice!”

The focus on violence degrades the humanity of the Mayan civilization. The focus on the sadistic qualities of the Mayans in the picture was wrong. The Mayans had sacrifice, but it was highly ritualized, and not nearly as sadistic as portrayed in the film. There was not ONE redeeming quality in the Mayan city dwellers. If someone who is ignorant sees this film and takes it for history, then they will be glad to have gotten rid of those ‘savage civilizations.’ Again, I have to question if there was a religious or a cultural agenda going on with this movie.
Why do movies ALWAYS portray our people as savages? Our people were highly civilized and were superb mathematicians! Is there really some kind of political, religious, or other agenda going on? Just ask yourself about all the people who hate us, who want us gone. Where do they get these ideas, and how are they reinforced? Clearly, people like the minutemen and their allies, stormfront are ready to do almost ANYTHING to rid themselves of us. Then there are there are intellectuals like Samuel P. Huntington who is a racist bigot and works for Harvard University while writing bigoted propaganda! Why wouldn’t there be filmmakers, and other media types bent on portraying us in an unflattering manner? As we see today in Iraq, history repeats itself. We need to guard ourselves and call it as we see it. Point out the flaws in our ‘friends’ reasoning. If we don’t NOBODY else will!
Mr. Gibson’s work is an attack on us and should be seen as such. We will NOT stand for being portrayed as savages with nothing of substance to offer the world. We will not hate ourselves, and will remain proud and strong in our struggle against their interpretations of us. It is up to us to make films and literature that will portray our culture realistically. It is up to us to define ourselves and to write our OWN history! It is up to us to tell the truth.



Copyright Max Macias 2007

Hip-Hop and Web 2.0 (something I wrote a long time ago and haven't done anything with)

[If anyone is interested in this and wants to collaborate--get in touch with me please]


This is kind of an outline of the paper I want to write on hip-hop. Please give me your advice about how I could make it better.

I've noticed some striking similarities between hip-hop and our field--web 2.0 aspects and more.

Take for instance one fundamental aspect of hip hop--REMIXABILITY--one takes what one deems is valuable, and creates something new.

Mashups have been fundamental in hip hop since day one!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remix


The fact that knowledge does not come from a vacuum, and pretty much EVERYONE who has contributed important knowledge to the world has had a teacher who's ideas the student REMIXED.

Take Franz Brentano for instance--he taught both Edumund Husserl and Freud, while Freud went on to teach Jung, and Husserl went on to teach Heidegger. The students REMIX their teachers work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Brentano

Tagging--hip hop tagging is placing one's mark on something, claiming it as one's own--this is what we do when we tag something in flickr, or whatever we use that gives us the option to TAG something. We can find it again, so with tagging, when one, or others see the tag they know who tagged it, and how often it comes up—how much the tagger has gotten “thrown up.”

Not only do we make it our own, but we also influence others. When someone tags a train they throw some art up there that is distinctive. I'm talking about bombs--where they don't just write their name as the tag, but they put on the train. If someone becomes familiar with these types of tags--they can tell which tagger is which and know their styles.


http://www.graffiti.org/


This is similar to the tagging we do on the web, and to how information is transferred between people--be it artistic style, or some other type of information. Our tagging can influence others through the discovery of new information that leads to the creation of new knowledge.



Also the fact that hip-hop and web 2.0 did NOT come from big corporations.

Hip Hop came from a small group of individuals, and web 2.0 also came from a relatively small group of individuals developing new ideas that were creative as well as social.

I mean when hip hop was first developed--the dj's would plug-in to the street lights and broadcast their mashups and new beats to the public, who in turn remixed this new information into knew knowledge to create something new. It was fully open-source and free. How beautiful can you get? This was actually a result of a remix from the Caribbean—dJ cool-herc came to nuy from there and brought the style, and influence of the Caribbean DJ’s who would put their systems on the backs of trucks and broadcast their shows to entire neighborhoods.


Do you know of anyone who has done any work on this?

I've never encountered it.

I think it can be a way to reach both people interested in libraries and hip hop.


What do you think?

Organizational Communication Infrastructure for Innovation and Progress

Organizational Communication Infrastructure for Innovation and Progress

by Max Macias

11/08

At large organizations, Web 2.0 is being used in internal blogs or social networks. These perform the very useful functions of keeping far-flung employees, teams, and divisions in touch, sharing best practices and other useful information, and serving as a way to train. Organizations are beginning to see the value of these arrangements for more formalized training, as well as informal companywide communications (HR Focus, 2007).

One of the requirements for an efficient (profitable?) organization is effective communication. With the influx of information today, new forms of communication are required for organizations. Most contemporary associations I have encountered have late 20^th century forms of communication based on an hierarchical system (I will be kind) from the 19^th century. Today one communicates in a variety of ways based on new tools for communication that aggregate, relay, analyze and contribute to learning and understanding new information.

Efficient communication requires an infrastructure. Using new tools to facilitate a new direction in organizational communication infrastructures, organizations can increase their progress toward meeting their missions. Many of these new tools require a new manner of thinking; vision and leadership are essential in leading the organization through this evolution of communication. Some of these new tools are available to be used internally, while others exist on public or semi-public networks.

This post seeks to identify and show how some of these new tools can be incorporated into organizations in order to facilitate greater communication and efficiency at meeting the organizational mission. Most importantly, the creation of a new infrastructure requires support of the administration. Gaining the support of the management is the ‘Holy Grail’ of instituting change and requires exceptional leadership. This leadership will incorporate solutions to problems stated and build on the historical organizational structure. I seek to convince administrative readers (and others of course), that by building new efficient infrastructures for communication within the organizational structure, the organization will carry out the mission of the business more efficiently, creatively, and collaboratively. At the same time, building morale and creating a stronger, healthier organization.

In present day, we are literally flooded with information; instituting these kinds of communication enhancements will help filter and refine information in the organization, thereby taking it one step closer to knowledge. The ability to make information available via a message board, blog, or other form of interactive communication will facilitate commentary by people including experts in any given field who may never have contributed to the organization before. There are some that are shy; other individuals like to express themselves via writing, while others, perhaps socially inept, have much to contribute. Accessing, documenting, and instituting the information from these people can provide a rich resource of new and gainful knowledge valuable to the organization.

I am using the word efficient here to signify communication that can take advantage of all the members of an organization in a manner which enhances and facilitates the organizational mission. In the 21st century, it has already been shown that when communication channels are opened to members of an organization under the correct conditions, these formerly non-participating members can contribute by thinking and offering solutions and improvements to organizational processes.

By infrastructure, I mean creating the conditions for a free flow of communication. The existent channels of communication and the rates and directions of communication are what I am describing. Does the communication only flow from top down, or does it also run in the opposite direction? One of my axioms is that information must flow both ways in order for maximum organizational efficiency. In some senses this may seem threatening to some administrative readers. Admittedly, it is relinquishing a certain amount of control. However, the benefits of creating this infrastructure in the organization will outweigh this loss of control, and will free up time for other projects.

A strong example one can ponder is the analogy of old so-called Web 1.0 websites and the new 2.0 social sites. The 1.0 sites relied strictly on the website producer to generate content for the site. The new social aspect of sites allows interaction and contributions by all users, freeing the producer to pursue other creative avenues. This is an example of the kind of efficiency that can happen when social technology is executed correctly in an organization. Incidentally, the content is ALWAYS much richer and interesting when others are contributing.

There is nothing wrong with maintaining ListServs, but there is something wrong with maintaining them as your only official avenue of organizational communication. Lists are generally NOT interactive (enough); information gets buried in the mass of responses, and are easy to forget. It is really difficult to carry on a good discussion of an issue via email—for a variety of issues, including lack of etiquette and time, filtration, emails get buried—it does not take place in real time, etc...

These new avenues of communication—knowledge networks, if you will--can enhance knowledge management. This is a knowledge management issue/concept. In knowledge management, one goal is to understand who knows what and how to help them use this knowledge in accomplishing organizational missions. These new social tools may build upon and expand traditional KM methods beyond our wildest dreams. Again, this requires skill in administration—the skills of networking, making connections (between people, ideas, and concepts).

Some new tools follow:

Podcasting

Organizations can maintain audio archive of presentations, trainings, etc…these can then be made available to Staff for DL so they can listen while working or commuting. This kind of media archiving can serve as documentation as well as archives of the organization’s progress and work. It can then be accessed by supporters, or potential supporters of an organization, increasing the effectiveness of organizational networking within and without the organization.

Universities such as Berkeley, Oxford, and MIT are making lectures, notes, and documents available to the general public to facilitate the expansion of information channels and knowledge creation. The ability to make available information immediately accessible is incredible. I heard of these free pod casts via Twitter, RSS, and email. Again, they are creating new information networks, increasing dissemination and also diffusion of information which facilitates the establishment of new knowledge.

Message Boards, Chatting and Wikis

When I say infrastructure I am talking about using older methods such as email, lists, etc.--and newer models like dynamic message boards, chat, Wikis--using content management systems so users could begin to tell the story of the organization through their own experiences. This empowers staff and gives them a voice. This voice can comment and instruct management and others via these new methods of communication and interaction.

These tools also make the organization more transparent as employees have greater access to the knowledge base of the organization. This increased transparency will allow stronger procedures, reasoned decisions, and a living knowledge base that increases sometimes daily. Keeping things out in the open and making information about projects, advances, and organizational news will help prevent workflow redundancy and will promote networking between individuals with the same areas of interest.

Social Sensemaking

In their article, People Sensemaking with Social Networking Sites, Joan Morris DiMicco and David R. Millen show how an employee can glean information from IBM’s social networking site, Beehive. This site incorporates profiles of users. Another user can scan these profiles looking for people with similar interests who may want to collaborate, or just to enhance the knowledge management database of the user.

[The] premise of this workshop position paper is that social networking websites are used today for people sensemaking, both as the information source and as the tool for interpreting and synthesizing information on individuals. People sensemaking, the process a person goes through to gain a general understanding, or gist, of who someone is. For example, by understanding what someone’s role is within an organization, what they are working on, how approachable they are, and how knowledgeable they are on different topics, you can create a mental model of this person that informs how or when you will communicate or interact with that person (DiMicco, Millen, 2008).

Social Networking sites

As noted by Terrence K. Huwe in his article in Computers in Libraries UC,

Berkeley’s bspace is highly effective and used by faculty and students.When asked how much email they receive via bSpace, 40% of respondents said that every time they made a post, they received mail in response. When asked how often they used bSpace to prepare

for finals, 34% replied, "a few times a week"--even more impressive, 24% said several times per day--and that was in bSpace's first year of service (Huwe, 2008).

Facebook: This tool is being used by many organizations, including the Obama 2008 campaign as a way to let people, both within and without their organization, know what is going on. Serena Software Inc. is an organization that uses Facebook as their primary social networking tool.

So as not to appear to be Big Brother, Serena does not track individual use of Facebook. But Waldo [the HR person] gets a tally of total usage, and she calculates that employees use the site for an average of less than 10 minutes per week--not exactly a time drain (Roberts, 2008).

IBM is ahead of the game with their incorporation of Beehive into their organizational communication infrastructure. Their groundbreaking Center for Social Software puts them on the cutting edge of organizational communication. Their social visualization project, Many Eyes facilitates interaction, brainstorming, critical thinking and organizational communication. This is a quote from the Many Eyes website: “Many Eyes is a bet on the power of human visual intelligence to find patterns. Our goal is to "democratize" visualization and to enable a new social kind of data analysis.” IBM’s Visual Communication Lab puts it this way: “Visualization is traditionally viewed as an efficient way of transferring a large amount of information from a database into an individual's head. We believe that visualizations become even more powerful when multiple people access them for collaborative sensemaking.”

The Social Accessibility Project is a(n) (IBM) utility that enables volunteers to make Web pages accessible to the visually impaired. Using an innovative new system, it gathers information about accessibility problems directly from visually impaired users. To address these problems, The Social Accessibility Project provides a tool to members of the open community that allows them to externally modify Web pages, successfully making the pages accessible while leaving all original content untouched. Projects such as these seek to leverage collaborative processes to increase the speed of progress. This is exactly what all organizations seek to accomplish.

Many Eyes has incorporated message boards into their system that allow one to create visualizations of different subjects. This allows the creation of new information networks that didn’t exist before. Look at this visualization of a lesson plan by a member. Here the lesson plan has been changed into a sort of tag cloud of lesson plan words. This allows a visual learner to take advantage of this knowledge in a new, socially repackaged learning object. The other network that did not exist before was that of the Many Eyes project’s message board social visualization tool.

It is imperative that organizations incorporate, or facilitate the use of non-organizational social networks in their organization. Members will not wait for the organization to catch up—they will seek their own solutions via Facebook or other social platforms.

In our benchmark, we found that about 18 percent of enterprises were using blogs …and 23 percent had begun to deploy RSS as a way of managing information flows throughout the organization. These numbers are impressive for new technology, but they don't tell the whole story. When we dug deeper, we found adoption wasn't widespread throughout the organization; rather, in most cases individual workgroups were using these tools for both internal and external collaboration. In some cases, IT had little knowledge or control. Business units were taking it upon themselves to obtain the tools they needed to solve their communications and collaboration challenges, without waiting for IT to create a strategy (Lazar, 2007).

Irwin Lazar postulates some common obstacles to instituting Enterprise 2.0 in organizations (Lazar, 2007).

Fear

This can be fear of loss of control, fear of losing information to competitors, or fear of the new. Managers may be resistant to change, but also may be aware of workers’ resistance to change within their own departments. Tell people about the differences between the old 1.0 web concepts versus the 2.0 aspects which free up time for other investigations and pursuits.

Confusion

Just what is Web 2.0, social media, etc...? While some tools may be a good choice for some, others may not be. There is no cookie cutter approach to this and it takes talent, vision, communication, and leadership to be successful. The ability to see and relate one aspect to another in an organization will be an increasingly valuable skill. Hold a brownbag lunch, present at inservices, share your knowledge with the organization to educate.

Organizational Obstacles

The main organizational obstacle is resistance to change because of reliance on the old tried and true methods. These methods were sufficient in the days gone by, but today they just do not suffice. The amount of information today is staggering and organizations need tools to filter and make sense of this information. These tools can be presented as enhancements and many of them are fun to use and learn. Create a spirit of fun and learning in your organization.

Reliance on longtime vendors

In many cases IT departments are happy to maintain institutional communication networks just as they are. This requires little work, and can lead to reliance on longtime vendors. Again, this may have been adequate in the past, but today people need new tools that are not being offered by these same vendors. Educate people via videos on YouTube, and other forms of media. Show people the effective tools that are available at little or no cost, except labor.

Conclusion

“A key characteristic of Web 2.0 is leveraging social networks to aid in problem-solving and information management (Lazar, 2007).”

The surge of information and the speed of change require organizations to develop new forms of communication infrastructures which allow collaboration, information relay, and criticisms. These infrastructures can be created using both internal and external tools to the organization. Again, there is no cookie cutter solution, but creating a team of technologically skilled people who are familiar with the organization can facilitate the implementation of social technologies to your organization. By introducing these technologies piecemeal, and in ways that make them fun, management and administration can go a long way toward implementing effective use of these new tools. Today we can leverage information via efficient communication in ways we never imagined. Please take a moment to consider how you might incorporate social technologies in your organization to accomplish your organizational mission.

References

(2008, April). What You Should Know About Using Web 2.0. HR Focus, 85 (4), 10-11.

DiMicco, J, & Millen, D (2008). People Sensemaking with Social Networking Sites. Position paper presented at the Sensemaking Workshop.

Huwe, T. (2008, September). Smart Mob Makeover. Computers in Libraries, 28(8), 24-27.

Lazar, I (2007, August). Creating Enterprise 2.0 from Web 2.0 . Business Communication Review, 37 (8), 14-16.

Roberts, B (2008, March). Social Networking at the Office. HR Magazine, 53 (3), 81-83.

Palin Wins by Not Blowing it

Vice Presidential Debate 2008 HQ (Part 1) 10/02 Palin Biden Debate 2008 - Sarah Palin Joe Biden VP Debate Thursday October 2nd at Washington University in St Louis MO in HIGH QUALITY (Part 1)


Last night's vice presidential debate let me down.  Biden certainly came off looking weak to Reagan democrats and others.  I find it quite hilarious that these voters buy Palin's facetious verbiage last night.  Darn it! 

If Obama and Biden don't want to come off looking like weak people who will pander to terrorists "without preconditions," they will lose many votes.  Americans don't like weak leaders and this could very well be the Obama camp's weak spot.  Americans would rather have a tough idiot for a leader (yes--I'm talking about Palin here and McCain here) than a weak intellectual. 

Obama's middle of the road maneuvers don't set well with foreign policy in a country that is been scared witless by their leaders.  He can count on this strategy to work well domestically, but when it comes to war, or foreign policiy in general, people are pretty much either/or with not much middle ground.

 I really haven't heard anyone talk about this aspect yet.

What do you think?

Getting back to toughness--I think they are coming off weak, no matter how stupid Sarah looked last night when she said she was going to answer her own way she took the power--especially when NOT really challenged by her opponent, or the weak moderator.

I really hope they get the toughness factor going or they will blow it.

Facebook Hired this scum!

Check it yo,  write to facebook and tell them we don't want criminals like this involved with our private information! 

http://valleywag.com/5056365/facebook-hires-alberto-gonzaless-former