What Sick Is

There are TV shows about illness.
Those shows are about addicts with addictions.
Those shows are about the imbalanced with obsessive disorders.
Those other shows’ treatment of their subject matter ranges from clinical diagnosis to freakshow exploitation.

itsasickness celebrates interesting people – the most interested people in the world: the sick.

When I met my wife, it struck me that she was the most interesting person I had ever met in my life.  When we talked, she geeked out about her current obsessions.  At the time they were Django Reinhardt, her friend Frankie Manning, John Donne, the chemistry of nutrition.  And I geeked out about my then-current obsessions which were the math of classical Indian ragas, politics, film.  We talked all night and into the morning. I would have married her that very day.

Everybody knows somebody who is the most interesting person they have ever met.  These people are interested.  The people who are obsessed with stuff are beyond interesting, they are sick!  Such people make the world less boring, and I believe, 100% more awesome.  itsasickness is about them.  The sick.

Maggie is obsessed with Jazz.
Barnaby’s obsessed with Apple products.
Alan’s obsessed with his dogs.
My mom is obsessed with tomatoes.

Interesting people are interested in stuff. 

But are you sick?  That’s the question.

“Litany” by Billy Collins

You are the bread and the knife,
the crystal goblet and the wine.
You are the dew on the morning grass
and the burning wheel of the sun.
You are the white apron of the baker,
and the marsh birds suddenly in flight.

However, you are not the wind in the orchard,
the plums on the counter,
or the house of cards.
And you are certainly not the pine-scented air.
There is just no way that you are the pine-scented air.

It is possible that you are the fish under the bridge,
maybe even the pigeon on the general’s head,
but you are not even close
to being the field of cornflowers at dusk.

And a quick look in the mirror will show
that you are neither the boots in the corner
nor the boat asleep in its boathouse.

It might interest you to know,
speaking of the plentiful imagery of the world,
that I am the sound of rain on the roof.

I also happen to be the shooting star,
the evening paper blowing down an alley
and the basket of chestnuts on the kitchen table.

I am also the moon in the trees
and the blind woman’s tea cup.
But don’t worry, I’m not the bread and the knife.
You are still the bread and the knife.
You will always be the bread and the knife,
not to mention the crystal goblet and–somehow–the wine.

All The Shah’s Men – The Movie

A few years ago I offhandedly mentioned that George Clooney should make All The Shah’s Men into a movie.  Well, after the whole BP oil spill I started thinking again about Syriana (and how effing good it was) and All The Shah’s Men (and ditto) and then I wrote this long blog post right here in this space all about how the rights to the book All The Shah’s Men really should be purchased and/or developed with Sam Rockwell as Kermit Roosevelt, the badass Jamshid Hashempour as Mohammed Mossadeq, and George Clooney directing.

Then Google tells me somebody named Matt Bird beat me to the blog post.  Minus the perfect casting, but his write up is great:

Genre: Spy / Historical

Premise: A determined American spy develops an outrageous plan to overthrow the fragile democracy of Iran in 1953, at the request of the oil company that would become known as BP.

About: I haven’t heard anything about this getting adapted so far, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t on a development board somewhere.

Writer: Kinzer is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has written plenty of books about U.S. dirty dealings overseas. This book became an unexpected hit in 2003, as U.S. efforts in the Middle East fell about apart and people started getting more serious about the question “Why do they hate us?” Unfortunately, it’s gotten even more timely since, due to the BP connection.

The whole writeup is pretty stellar. The book had me at hello. Read this other blog post.

New York Times on Branded Content

The Times reports on the spread of branded content.  A few quotations stood out for me as furthering theories:

This branded content, the term for products figuring prominently without being overtly sold, is reminiscent of “The Hire,” a series of short films by BMW that featured its cars. Produced in 2001 and 2002, the films had directors like Ang Lee and John Woo and included actors like Clive Owen and Don Cheadle.

The story is about how this website called Massify (where amateur filmmakers vie for the chance to shoot artsy commercials for products) teamed up with an Oscar winning production company Killer Films who chose the best script.

“This is a model that Massify is trying to replicate,” said Jon Kaplowitz, co-chief executive of Massify, which is based in Manhattan. “Nobody watches commercials anymore, and it’s cost-prohibitive to buy ads online, so we approached Ace [Hotel] with the idea that if we created branded-entertainment pieces, then the content itself would be a marketing vehicle for the hotel.”

facebook: disorienting

I’ve heard grumbles from many friends about facebook.  Indeed, there’s something amiss about this megalithic inbox replacement social utility that I have had difficulty diagnosing until recently.  I’ve found a few articles on the interwebs that I take to be clues.

First, Dunbar’s Number is a network theorem that states that individuals can sustain meaningful relationships with 148 people.  Beyond that point, network salience becomes much too difficult to sustain strong ties among nodes in the network.  Some neurologists and primatologists postulate that our threshold for juggling social connections is directly related to the size of our neocortex – which is bigger in women. I digress.

The other clue is my continued rumination about Jyri Engeström’s great post from back in the day about object centered sociality, and the subsequent research I did about Scandinavian Activity Theory as it relates to the sociology of information systems.

People don’t just connect to each other, they connect through a shared object that resonates with them both.  Shared objects are the reason why people affiliate with specific others and not just anyone.

The way those new ideas gelled with my undergrad studies of Communities of Practice in educational psychology class really are what led to the formulation of itsasickness: the obsession network.

Whatever the case, beyond this Dunbar’s Number threshold, people become disoriented in conversation – they literally can no longer relate to the object that brought about the conversation in the first place.  The very exchanges of conversation, the “likes”, the LOLs, the emoticons, only serve to further distance us from the object because more and more participants in the ‘conversation’ are from outside of the user’s immediate circle of friends.

Quite often, I have a hard time accepting that strangers (whose senses of humor I don’t know) could possibly be talking about the same thing in the same way in which I’m talking to my friends.  Homophily gives us tunnel vision sometimes.

Another clue:
How many people an individual communicates with probably exists somewhere between their total network size and their support network. Some research by Gueorgi Kossinets and Duncan Watts observing all email communication at a university shows that the number of ongoing contacts hovers somewhere between 10 and 20 over a 30 day period.

Another clue:
The average facebook user has 130 friends which is too close to Dunbar for comfort.  This helps explain why facebook is pushing Pages so hard. FB Pages can be sponsored.

So, it makes sense that I’m disoriented by the size of our networks on facebook. The feeling that I increasingly can’t relate to what’s happening around me is akin to boredom.

If objects are what we talk about with people, then is the number of objects we can simultaneously socialize around also 148?  I would hypothesize: probably. Actor Network Theory talks about the the interoperability of objects and people in complex networks, and in my experience, this is true.  This is why memes like David After Dentist are so resonant in our internet culture: they provide the long strands that connect geographically disparate and socially removed circles of friends.  These joke memes garner tens of millions of views (DAD has 62,436,953).  Who watches the video? Probably half a million circles of friends.

If half a million people, reaching out to their immediate friends will result in 20% of the country getting touched, then facebook may be the most effective free delivery system ever.

But what can be delivered effectively online? Things like “David After Dentist,” I assume – specifically, portable and permalinked objects that have a temperament which is immediately understood: “this is funny”, “this is gross” , “this is beautiful.”

This also makes sense when looking at the array of successful “defined-temperament” community websites; sites like Wonkette.com or TMZ.com or CollegeHumor.com. These can maintain conversation threads of thousands because the temperament is constant: it’s always a story of “conservatives are nuts” or “celebrities are nuts” or “laugh at this guy getting kicked in the nuts.”

Objects can connect more people than people can.

Itsasickness keeps users oriented toward the objects of obsession.  The objects themselves exist in a worldview temperament that is constantly reiterated all over the site.  Once again, for good measure: “This is sick” = your sickness makes you extraordinary.

Previous Change Agents From Fake History

“So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the Slave Trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for Abolition. Let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition. Until, as they would, my opposition in Parliament called me a cruel monicker in the news-broadsheet, whereupon I immediately backed-off so as to not ‘overreach’ or seem radical.”

- William Wilberforce

Tim Sheridan is obsessed with Doctor Who

I used to watch this show on PBS with my big brother in the early 80s.

Tim Sheridan is obsessed with Doctor Who on itsasickness.com.

Object-Centered Networks To The Rescue

Last year I wrote about the difficulty of social networking for a purpose – vis-a-vis politics and governance.  I believe I have a solution to the problem presented in my essay, “What LinkedIn’s Reorganization and OFA 2.0 Means for Politech Online”.  The problem in a nutshell was:

Many internet theorists speak of social networks online as a ‘map of the relationships between individuals.’ Politech thinkers and online organizers like myself, have taken these principles and used them to inform the social software we built for campaigns and political advocacy organizations with mixed success.

We strategists messed up.  The way users relate to social networks is now more refined and purposeful.  And today, in a post-Facebook world, if the purpose of your online network is definite: like ‘winning an election,’ or successful commerce, you had better NOT build an interpersonal network – Facebook is going to be the interpersonal network King for a long time.  Get yourself object-oriented.  As I said last year:

Social networks that are object-centered are a better match for politics online than most of what we have seen previously – which has been mostly based on an understanding of ‘social as interpersonal.’

Good social networks are NOT the most personal networks. My old adage “conversation is king” left aside the object – the subject of conversation – the meaning. It’s all about object-centered networks and actor-network models for me now.

The difference between how we design software for these two kinds of networks is vast.

Flickr got it right. Flickr makes photos into the objects of sociality on its network. YouTube similarly facilitates video clips as objects of sociality.

Basically, it’s not about encouraging discussion. It’s about owning the object of discussion.

Since quitting politics, I’ve gone to work architecting an object-centered network Advomatic built that I’m really proud of.  The way it owns the object of discussion is by placing the object within a clearly branded temperament and point of view. itsasickness.  Your obsession makes you interesting.

Currently, the user profile page on social networking sites is loaded with pictures of your friends. That’s because a friend-centered network is a glorified inbox.

What itsasickness.com creates is NOT friendships and easy communication – that’s been done and won by FB.  The success of our site hinges on the individual’s passion for her obsessions.  People don’t just connect to each other, they connect through an object, a thing they both have thoughts and feelings about.  If they’re obsessed with it, they talk about it a lot with feelings of ecstasy.

In addition, the incentive for participation, the surrogate object which over-arches the user-generated obsession groups, is the potential for a bit of stardom on film.

The portion of the website which we’re still building is a WebTV show starring Alan Cumming as host.  Mix Antiques Road Show with Metafilter crossed with The Gong Show plus early Carson, lace it with acid and shoot it out of a circus cannon.

One last thing:  The MacArthur Foundation Report from November 2008, entitled “Living and Learning with New Media Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project” features a chapter called ‘Genres of Participation with New Media – Geeking Out.’  Geeking Out really summarizes what my favorite kind of people do on the internet.

In my opinion, Geeking Out is what makes the whole interwebs worthwhile.

Geeking out is the best.  The actual definition:
To Geek Out  - slang.   -verb
1.  To enthusiastically participate in or share details about a current passion or obsession.

The Second Coming by W.B. Yeats

Here is my comment on the 2010 midterms:

THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

- William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

With Apologies to The Onion

this is something i keep wanting to quote:

Soulless Cultural Wasteland ‘On The Grow’ In Southern California Desert

Los Angeles to Be Hellish Megalopolis by 1950

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The soulless cultural wasteland in the California desert, considered one of the bleakest and most God-forsaken stretches of uninhabitable scorched earth in the nation is “on the grow,” West Coast sources say, as the burgeoning city of Los Angeles continues its cancerous expansion.

Originally a tiny villa called Los Diablos, a coastal settlement of no distinction save for its capacity of heartlessness, the boomtown is now bigger than ever. Despite its lack of any life-sustaining natural resources, the city, which has no reason to exist at all has all the earmarks of a spectacular soulless cultural wasteland on the rise.

Tourist-Friendly Dystopia

Thanks to its policy of draining every conceivable water source from within hundreds of miles via massive network of pipes, as well as the Chamber of Commerce’s approval of a name-change to the more tourist-friendly “Los Angeles,” the up-and-coming wasteland shows every sign of ballooning into a full-scale dystopia.

Although recently a mid-sized, primarily agricultural settlement, trends indicate that the city is on its way to becoming a sprawling nightmarish megalopolis within the next few decades. Complete with desperate poverty, rampant crime, and a callous indifference to the spirits it has crushed, this business-minded realm of demons is hoped, by as early as 1950 to be the leading soulless cultural wasteland in the world.

Thriving Arts Haven

Staggering in its economic disparity, the planned wasteland will be an affront to human dignity, not only in the shallow excesses of its bloated overlords, but in the anarchic savagery of its desperate underclass. Yet, it is in the area of the arts that Los Angeles hopes to truly make its mark.

“Our town’s lowest-common-denominator cultural output has the potential, one day, to be second to none in insipid banality,” Wasteland Development Director Randolph Moloch said. “We hope to suck up the souls of promising artists like a great, black vortex, spitting out only the most lifeless, commerce-produced cultural products possible.”

“We have high ambitions for the lows to which our community will sink,” Moloch said. “We don’t just want to be an overpopulated crucible of dehumanizing corruption, materialism, and race hatred; we want to be known the world over the a place where ideas come to die.”

A Faustian Bargain

Perhaps the words of the late civil engineer William Mulholland, who was responsible for the construction of the aqueducts that feed Los Angeles as blood feeds and vampire’s undead corpse, best articulate the civic spirit of Los Angeles. IN a speech before the city’s Chamber of Commerce in 1930, the “Father of the Wasteland” said, “We’re willing to do whatever it takes, including entering pacts with Satan himself, to achieve our hellish dreams. We have stolen an entire river from an ancient ecosystem hundreds of miles away, destroying the lives of all who lived there. WE built a criminally unstable dam whole collapse killed more people than the San Francisco earthquake. That takes guts. No, it takes more than guts – it takes sheer, unrelenting hatred of all that is good and decent.”