Photo by: Perry Gerenday Photography

As I write this Washington Mutual had just collapsed–”the largest bank failure in American history”–and the bailout talks just ended in chaos. Swell.

I’m ignorant when it comes to the complexity of economics. But it seems to me that there are plenty of blame to go around: government, banks, and people who took loans they can’t afford. In short, we’re all in this deep shit together, whether we’re innocent or otherwise. Who says that the world is fair anyway? That’s why it irks me when people play the blame game just to prove that their ideology is better than the other.

Here’s a case in point: Some conservatives blame liberals for the current economic crisis.  See NYPost: House of Cards - Liberals Fueled Wall Street Woes.

HOW did America wind up in its worst financial crisis in decades? Sen. Barack Obama explained it this way last week: “When sub-prime-mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people.”

That’s exactly backward. Mortgage lending took that “reckless and unsustainable turn” because of regulation - regulation driven by liberals and progressives, not free-market “deregulators.”

Pushed hard by politicians and community activists, the regulators systematically and deliberately altered financially sound lending practices.

The mortgage market was humming along just fine when, in the late 1980s, progressives decided that it needed to be “fixed.” Their complaint: Some ethnic groups got approved for mortgages at lower rates than others. (read more)

Well, if you identify as a conservative then you might consider this article as “proof” that liberal/progressive ideology (i.e. multiculturalism, political correctness), rather than conservative ideology (i.e. less government regulation), is the root-cause of the subprime mortgage crisis. The NYPost article essentially puts the blame on Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) - the purpose of which “is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses.” Great! Here’s a proof that liberal ideology got us into this mess! Conservative ideology of less government regulation is not to be blamed! My ideology is better than yours! Booyah!

However, there is another side to this argument which essentially demolishes the above article. See American Prospect: Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?

It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did.

And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.

My take? Like I said, I’m ignorant with economic matters. Like most people I go by the opinion of experts, in this instance, economists, as well as journalists and politicians who explain the crisis in layman’s terms. Both articles have their conservative and liberal bias, respectively, but I think that the American Prospect article makes more sense. Indeed, CRA may have partially contributed to the economic crisis, as argued by Ron Paul. However, it seems to me that greed in Wall Street and less/more (depending on your conservative and liberal views) government regulation also played a major part in the subprime crisis, but it’s the banking system’s flawed statistical methods which is the bedrock of this mess.

In short, regardless of our conservative or liberal ideologies, the banking system is simply not equipped to handle Black Swans. See EDGE: The Fourth Quadrant: A Map of the Limits of Statistics by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

The current subprime crisis has been doing wonders for the reception of any ideas about probability-driven claims in science, particularly in social science, economics, and “econometrics” (quantitative economics). Clearly, with current International Monetary Fund estimates of the costs of the 2007-2008 subprime crisis, the banking system seems to have lost more on risk taking (from the failures of quantitative risk management) than every penny banks ever earned taking risks. But it was easy to see from the past that the pilot did not have the qualifications to fly the plane and was using the wrong navigation tools: The same happened in 1983 with money center banks losing cumulatively every penny ever made, and in 1991-1992 when the Savings and Loans industry became history.

It appears that financial institutions earn money on transactions (say fees on your mother-in-law’s checking account) and lose everything taking risks they don’t understand. I want this to stop, and stop now—the current patching by the banking establishment worldwide is akin to using the same doctor to cure the patient when the doctor has a track record of systematically killing them. And this is not limited to banking—I generalize to an entire class of random variables that do not have the structure we think they have, in which we can be suckers. (read more)

Bottom line: Instead of arguing, defending, and attacking conservative and liberal ideologies, it’s more sane to go back to first principles and tackle the limits of the banking system. I’m certainly not qualified to do this. Heck, I don’t even look at my 401K. All I know is that I have a first-hand experience on the economic hardships we’re going through right now. And I consider myself lucky to have landed a job that pays the bills.

Playing the lemon-eating blame game won’t do us any good except deepen our ideological differences. I just hope that when I wake up tomorrow, there’s already an agreement on how to proceed with the $700 billion bailout.

P.S. Dear Barack Obama: I’d like to see Nassim Nicholas Taleb as one of your economic advisers when you become President. Dear John McCain: Enough politics. Enough excuses. I expect to see your “maverickness” in the Presidential debates.

A couple days ago I watched Thomas L. Friedman having a passionate conversation with Charlie Rose while promoting his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded. It was a very insightful discussion. Forget for a moment that Friedman supported the Iraq war. People change. Friedman’s change is for the better. I think his new direction is spot on. I’m very much in agreement with what he has to say on Energy Technology (ET). See for yourself. Watch the video.

Friedman’s thesis sounds like a fleshed out continuation of the books Hot Topic and The Post-American World. As a technophile, I could relate to Friedman’s enthusiasm for technology. I also groove with his attitude on Climate Change. Here’s what Friedman said on his keynote address at BookExpo 2008:

People say to me: How can we afford to transform our whole economy in order to prevent climate change when climate change could turn out to be a hoax?

To which I say: If climate change is a hoax it is the most wonderful hoax ever perpetrated on the United States of America because transforming our economy to clean power and energy efficiency to mitigate global warming is the equivalent in training for the Olympic triathlon. If you make it to the Olympics you have a much better chance of winning because you have developed every muscle. If you don’t make it to the Olympics you’re still healthy or stronger, fitter and more likely to live longer and win any other race in life. And like the triathlon you don’t just improve one muscle or one skill but many which become mutually reinforcing and improve the health of the whole system.

Exactly. Environmentalists are instrumental for pushing legislation and raising consciousness. But ultimately, it’s the innovators and engineers who will solve our energy problems (with the right balance of government regulation and free market). At least, that’s the ideal scenario.

To appeciate Friedman’s thesis even more, it would be ideal to elevate our perspective to a post-American worldview, as written about by Fareed Zakaria. Serendipitously, Friedman and Zakaria had a dialogue over at Omnivoracious. Here’s a key quote.

Zakaria: I’m struck by the point you make about energy technology. In my book I’m pretty optimistic about the United States. But the one area where I’m worried is actually ET. We do fantastically in biotech, we’re doing fantastically in nanotechnology. But none of these new technologies have the kind of system-wide effect that information technology did. Energy does. If you want to find the next technological revolution you need to find an industry that transforms everything you do. Biotechnology affects one critical aspect of your day-to-day life, health, but not all of it. But energy–the consumption of energy–affects every human activity in the modern world. Now, my fear is that, of all the industries in the future, that’s the one where we’re not ahead of the pack. Are we going to run second in this race?

Friedman: Well, I want to ask you that, Fareed. Why do you think we haven’t led this industry, which itself has huge technological implications? We have all the secret sauce, all the technological prowess, to lead this industry. Why do you think this is the one area–and it’s enormous, it’s actually going to dwarf all the others–where we haven’t been at the real cutting edge?

Zakaria: I think it’s not about our economic system but our political system. The rhetoric we hear is that the market should produce new energy technologies. But the problem is, the use of current forms of energy has an existing infrastructure with very powerful interests that has ensured that the government tilt the playing field in their favor, with subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure spending, etc. This is one area where the Europeans have actually been very far-sighted and have pushed their economies toward the future.

Exactly. It’s the brain-dead partisan politics that holds America back from being a leader in alternative energy development. One only has to look at the sorry state of the on-going election campaigns.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. Will America eventually perish or continue to flourish? The answer lies in our collective hearts and minds as we go to the polls this November.

I’ve been jaded with politicians at an early age. I vowed to myself to never get into politics. I prefer to look for other ways to do service and make a difference. When I was young I remember looking up to the U.S. wondering how “enlightened” leaders in America play politics. Politicians there must be smart and corruption non-existent. I was wrong. We don’t understand a country until we live there.

One thing I like about the U.S. though is that it’s very easy to “tune out” politics if I want to. There are more distractions here: MTV, sports, business, travel, technology, Hollywood, shopping, and endless consumerism. So for the most part I’ve ignored U.S. politics and just focused on my work and on being a good citizen. But since the Iraq war and since I’ve become a U.S. citizen, I paid closer attention to what’s going on in Washington. Since then I’ve learned a lot of things, including U.S. history, details of the election process, the deep ideological differences between the two main political parties, the geopolitical role of U.S. as a nuclear superpower nation, and crucial issues such as economy, health care, education, and alternative energy.

But my interest in politics reached its peak with the on-going election. Here are the top 25 things I’ve learned so far from the 2008 U.S. presidential election, in no particular order.

1. Democrats are spineless tree-huggers. Republicans are fear mongering war freaks. Independents are fence-sitting hecklers.
2. Watching the election coverage on TV is a great practice on patience, tolerance, equanimity, and critical thinking. CNN tries to be objective. PBS is intelligent but boring. MSNBC has a bad case of Bush hatin’. FOX is a shit hole.
3. Change, maverick, and truthfulness have lost their meanings.
4. If you follow the election too closely you’ll get prophetic nightmares.
5. Issues are secondary, worldviews and framing are primary. Pandering to the lowest common denominator is key strategy.
6. The blogosphere is a web of political lies and conspiracy theories.
7. Factcheck.org is an indispensable resource to cut through the bull.
8. Graduating as magna cum laude, serving as president of Harvard Law review, and being a U.S. Senator mean nothing. Describing yourself as a hockey mom and pitbull with lipstick is a winning strategy.
9. Two memoirs + a bunch of geeks = Amazing Money Machine
10. Ron Paul has bigger balls than Joe Lieberman.
11. Bob Barr + Ralph Nader = None of the Above
12. Community organizers are laughable. Fuck Thank you, Giuliani!
13. People are idiots and politicians love to capitalize on this basic fact.
14. Small town values, as opposed to worldcentric views, are more useful for governing the most powerful nation in the world.
15. Watching the election campaign on TV makes you dumber. Following the election on the internet makes you smarter (assuming your home page is not pointed to the Huffington Post or the National Review).
16. Democrats and Republicans stretch the truth, but GOP talking heads are pompous hypocrites. (Do some objective fact checking and get back to me.)
17. Whoever was the Republican National Convention set designer is so fired.
18. Real straight talkers: Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Jesse Ventura. Ben Stein is asinine.
19. Nobody wants to be associated with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, especially the Republican party. Now that’s “change” we can believe in.
20. George W. Bush is probably shitting his pants already. Hurrah for Bugliosi!
21. Brain-dead politics is America’s disease. Parody is the best medicine.
22. I’m part of the demographic known as “nation of whiners.”
23. I can tolerate Papa Bear O’Reilly but my patience is really tested with Sean Hannity.
24. I have a hidden desire for dominatrix types.
25. I’m a masochist for subjecting myself in the political freak show drivel. We are now in the era of electotainment.

I’m sure I’ll be learning more as we move closer to election day. But the more I learn about U.S. politics the more it strikes me that the political dynamics is not much different with politics in developing nations. Yes, U.S. politics is more sophisticated and complicated on the surface. But on a deeper level it is still plagued with corruption, deception, terrorizing, and hypocrisy. It’s the same shit wrapped differently, with astronomical sums of money. I find it kind of irritating and funny.

P.S. Objectivity is overrated. We’re all biased one way or the other. When all is said in done we make our decisions on a conscious and unconscious subjective level. In my view, the Republicans had lost it in this election. They no longer respect the intelligence of the voting public. They are using the “people are idiots” strategy. They have surrendered on the issues and resorted to soap opera and drama. That’s why I’m voting for Obama.

Sarah Palin - photo via Wikipedia

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

- Transcript: Gov. Sarah Palin at the RNC

The first time I laid eyes on Sarah Palin I was still half awake. I just dreamt about her nomination. There I was staring at the TV witnessing a beautiful woman standing by John McCain announcing her candidacy as VP.

Sarah who? At first I thought I was so politically ignorant that I didn’t even know her. It soon turned out that the media people (and some people in her own party) were also scampering to find out who she really is.

So who is Sarah Palin? It depends on who you want believe–the media, the internet, the Republicans, the Democrats, the people around her, or whoever she says she is. But this I know for sure. I have a crush on her. I was overpowered by her allure.

Who wouldn’t? She’s driven, politically savvy, athletic, intelligent, eloquent, charismatic, and an all around super hockey mom who has a big beautiful family with uber-adorable babies. She’s a perfect image of an all-American mom. Even Craig Ferguson succumbed to her “naugthy librarian” charm. I love books. Naughty librarians make me

But what about her experience? Well, she used to be a basketball player, a member of the PTA, mayor of Wasilla and now Governor of Alaska. Beauty, athletics, politics, and brains all in one package. Droool!

And then there’s her historic and infamous acceptance speech. Forget those lowly celebrities. A star is born.

+100 Crush points

Sarah Palin rose to the occasion amidst the unbearable whiteness of the Republican National Convention. The Republican base is energized with a speech full of condescension. People are excited. They haven’t been this excited with John McCain. We’ve got a star in our midst! Screw the issues! We might have a shot at this election after all! USA! USA!

Some say Palin is a willing sacrificial lamb in this election. If she is, then she’s faking it real good. She looks like she’s playing to win. They don’t call her “Sarah Barracuda” for nothing. I’m looking forward to how she’ll charm Joe Biden in the debate. Biden better not look into her eyes for too long lest his foreign policy experience would melt like ice cream on a hot plate.

Hello, world!

But the more I get to know Sarah Palin the more I realize that my crush on her is so fleeting. She’s a projection of my own narcissism. I admire her looks, her brains and her overall packaging. But beneath the surface of her charm, her worldview give me pause and alarm. The reality is, our views are worlds apart. I vote with my worldview and my understanding of issues, and for me, Sarah Palin doesn’t make the cut.

But I couldn’t get myself angry at Palin. It’s John McCain that I look down in disdain for using her and toying with the election in the most powerful nation on Earth. The Republicans are desperate and they know they can’t win on issues. That’s why they opted to play the game of “How low can you go?”

Sam Harris put it bluntly and succinctly:

Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the “Who would you like to have a beer with?” poll question in 2004, and won reelection.

This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages — and loses — both necessary and unnecessary wars.

McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.

Exactly. This is the kind of politics I loathe in my developing country of origin. I’m disheartened to see it happening here in America, yet again.

The sad thing is that there’s a chance that McCain’s ploy might work. But I have faith and I’m optimistic that majority of the American people would see through the cracked character of a once noble politician that is John McCain.

I still have a crush on Sarah Palin. But I don’t love her worldview, her party and her politics. They give good rallying speeches. But their message comes across to me as: Screw your community, Country first, and the hell with the rest ‘em!

As I write this I’m awaiting for John McCain’s acceptance speech, and Barack Obama’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. Now this would be entertaining.

P.S. What the f*ck is a community organizer anyway?

Now, Heavenly Father, we all know You have a great sense of humor and impeccable timing. To send a hurricane on the third anniversary of the Katrina disaster and right at the beginning of the Republican Convention was, at first blush, a stroke of divine irony. I don’t blame You, I know You’re angry that the Republicans tried to blame You for Katrina by calling it an “Act of God”–when the truth was that the hurricane itself caused few casualties in New Orleans. Over 1,000 people died because of the mistakes and neglect caused by humans, not You.

- Michael Moore’s prayer - Hello, God: About the Hurricane

Hurricane Gustav is a serious topic but Michael Moore’s prayer made me chuckle. There is gleaming truth behind the parody. On a serious note, I’m glad Moore’s prayer was partially “answered.” Gustav weakened as it hit Louisiana. FEMA and the Bush administration did much better this time around, learning from the past nightmare that was Katrina. But the plight of the people in New Orleans, as well as all those who were in the path of Gustav, are far from over. I send my prayers to all of them. I hope they get back on their feet real soon.

Why this election is very important to me

It’s my first time to pay attention and watch major political party conventions. In the past I didn’t care too much. That’s because I wasn’t qualified to vote. It was just recently that I became an American citizen. So, like a lot of the youth voters out there, I belong to the demographic known as “league of first time voters.”

Regardless of our political preference, if we’re qualified to vote and this election hasn’t fired us up already, chances are we’re either callous, or just plain ignorant - a very unhealthy attitude for someone who had been blessed to live in a great nation of freedom and opportunity.

I’m neither patriotic nor nationalistic. In fact, I don’t really like politics. I grew up jaded by shallow politics in a developing nation, wherein popularity and pandering to the uneducated and religious populace are winning strategies. At least, here in U.S., the politics is a bit more sophisticated, even if it’s just on the surface. So in spite of my distrust and disgust with politics, I’m doing my civic duty to keep abreast on this election.

Aristotle was right. Man is a political animal by nature. This election has awakened my inner political beast.

My thoughts on the DNC

By all standards the 2008 Democratic National Convention was a resounding success. There may still be lingering tensions with the Clintons (and their supporters) but this was put to rest during the convention. The Democratic party is now united and looking formidable, unbeatable even. Barack Obama’s historic nomination and acceptance speech are now in the history books of American and international politics. Even Pat Buchanan loved Obama’s speech. That says a lot.

But when we consider the fact that Obama’s speech generated more than 38 million views (note that this doesn’t include internet statistics) that tells us something bigger is happening, beyond what the political pundits and talking heads on the media could ever imagine. It’s a phenomenon greater than Obama. And Obama has captured it well in his speech when he said:

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me; it’s about you.

Obama is right. But I would add that Obama as a symbol is not only about “us” Americans. It’s about people all over the world who dream of being inspired by a political champion. Consider this reaction from someone across the globe who’ve seen Obama’s speech via the internet.

Today, 10AM Manila time, I witnessed a moment in history that moved me to tears and overwhelmed me with emotions. I saw a multitude of hopefuls (multi-racial Americans) listen to a man talk about not just his dreams for his nation but his promise as well…and he said all these with such sincerity and eloquence…and I wondered, do we have an equivalent here in our land?

I empathize with that. I grew up in the same developing nation where such political leadership qualities (as symbolized by Obama) had been lacking.  So never mind the fleeting national polls. Attention is everything.

My thoughts on the RNC

It’s unfortunate that the Republican National Convention had been impacted by Gustav and bogged down by protests. Even if I had already decided that I would vote Democrat in this election, I’d still like to see how the GOP would present its candidates and woo the conservative base. I think it’s a blessing in disguise that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney weren’t able to show up in the convention. The last thing that John McCain would want is an endorsement from the most unpopular president in U.S. history and from a Vice-President who is loathed by many.

But my remaining respect for McCain was completely erased when he treated this election as a game of football and threw a “Hail Mary.” McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate is not a trademark of a “maverick.” It’s a clear sign of desperation and pandering to the lowest order. No matter how the GOP talking heads spin it, it can be summed up like this: John McCain would rather win an election than pick a qualified VP running mate. The rest are obligatory party-loyalty spins. It’s not about Sarah Palin, “it’s McCain’s character, stupid!”

That said, George Lakoff is right. It would be foolish for the Democrats to underestimate Sarah Palin.

Election campaigns matter because who gets elected can change reality. But election campaigns are primarily about the realities of voters’ minds, which depend on how the candidates and the external realities are cognitively framed. They can be framed honestly or deceptively, effectively or clumsily. And they are always framed from the perspective of a worldview.

The Obama campaign has learned this. The Republicans have long known it, and the choice of Sarah Palin as their vice presidential candidate reflects their expert understanding of the political mind and political marketing. Democrats who simply belittle the Palin choice are courting disaster. It must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

In short: Issues are secondary, worldviews and framing are primary. Even McCain’s campaign manager agrees:

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain’s presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.

“This election is not about issues,” said Davis. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

Exactly. Like I said previously, whether we’re aware of it or not, we pick the presidential candidate who shares our worldview.

Of course I’m biased! Show me someone who’s not.

A couple of days ago, I had this tweet exchange with Clay Shirky.

c4chaos: @cshirky yes, brilliant and *devious* - http://bit.ly/2zVg1K - just hoping that the target demographics would see through the cracks.
3 days ago - View Tweet

cshirky: @c4chaos Can’t see “devious.” Seems pretty straighforward to me — “If having a conservative woman in the White House appeals, vote for us.”
15 minutes later - View Tweet

c4chaos: @cshirky I was referring to the “devious” tactics. then again it’s politics.
17 minutes later - View Tweet

cshirky: @c4chaos Hardest discipline in political analysis is holding yr side to same standards as yr opponents. Palin and Biden are equally devious.
about 4 hours later - View Tweet

c4chaos: @cshirky so true. but it applies to almost any divisive topics. confirmation bias is part of our cognitive nature.
about 2 hours later - View Tweet

I appreciate the reminder. Shirky is right. I would even go farther to say that confirmation bias and tendency to fall for narrative fallacy are parts of our cognitive nature.

Then again, I’m not in the business of doing political analysis. Political pluralism and relativism has its place. But there are times when we have to be bold and clear where we stand while calling a spade a spade. I’m neither Democrat nor Republican. I value my independence and prefer to exercise my critical thought process. In the end, I vote with issues and with my worldview.

Dennis Kucinich may have looked silly in his DNC speech. But there is truth to his ballsy call to arms: Wake up, America! Wake up, America! Wake up, America!

The Democratic party speaks the language of a post-American worldview while the Republicans continue to speak the old and tired language of social conservatism that is no longer suited for a nation that wields such superpowers on the world stage. I hope that majority of Americans who would go to the polls this November would find it in their hearts that this is not the time to be U.S.-centric. This is the time for us and America to wake up.

I’m standing in a hallway. There’s tension in the air. McCain just picked a woman as his VP running mate. His advisers are divided. They are arguing. I hear a loud voice, “there goes our ‘experience’ argument against Obama out the window!” I’m watching two of McCain’s advisers arguing over the issue. One of them is a man, the other is a woman Senator (her name is Hutchison). Their argument continues. We are now in some kind of a courtroom. I’m on the sideline watching them debating. I’m tapping on my iPhone. I wake up.

“Since when did they announce the VP pick?” I asked my wife while I rub my eyes. “Just now.” she said.

“That’s weird, I just dreamt about it.”

I kid you not. This is an actual dream I had this morning, before I even heard the announcement on CNN that McCain had picked Sarah Palin as his VP.

I don’t think it’s psychic, prophetic, clairvoyant, or anything supernatural. I think it’s because our subconscious picks up stuff and process information even when we’re sleeping, and then spins them in our dreams. I was just caught off-guard of how timely and accurate my dream was. I wish I had dreamt of lottery numbers instead.

What really struck me was not the VP choice but the name I remembered in my dream. First, I’m not familiar with a woman Senator named Hutchison. I don’t follow politics that close. So my jaw dropped when I googled her. Some wild coincidence (or serendipity), I suppose. Too bad there’s no way for me to validate that part of my dream (i.e. she’s the one who influenced McCain to pick a woman as VP running mate). On second thought, I just googled Senator Hutchison’s reaction:

DALLAS — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a bold move designed to sway independent women voters.

The seasoned senator said by choosing the little-known 44-year-old governor, McCain is making it clear that he wants an “up and comer,” a vice president who represents “the next generation” of leadership.

“This reinforces that Sen. McCain wants to be the independent reformer change ticket — he’s not ceding that to Sen. Obama,” Hutchison said, adding that being an outside-the-beltway governor may work in her favor.

This is so freakin’ weird.

Anyway, regardless of my dream, I couldn’t disagree more with Senator Hutchison (and all the GOP talking heads who are spinning this issue). This is an insult to women voters across party lines. Not because I think Sarah Palin is an inexperienced soccer mom. I’d give it to her that she’s charismatic, beautiful, eloquent, and has experience governing the state of Alaska. But c’mon! To pick her as a Hillary Clinton surrogate is just plain dumb and pandering to the lowest order. I have more to say about this but I’ll just summarize it like this:

Hillary Clinton = *experience*, not *gender*. Sarah Palin VP pick is not a bold move for McCain. it’s political suicide. that is all.

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s a perspective from a woman. Danah Boyd is deeply offended.

As a woman, I’m offended. I’m offended that McCain is choosing a woman who is clearly ill-equipped to be the president of this country in an effort to woo over Hillary’s supporters. I’m offended because McCain’s decision is one of the most misogynist ones I’ve seen in recent history. Does he honestly believe that women in this country are so stupid as to believe that any woman is a substitute for another woman? That all that us women boil down to is our XX chromosomes and estrogen? C’mon now.

Don’t get me wrong - I want to see women in the highest positions of power in this country. But I don’t just want any woman. I want women in power who have earned the respect and worked to achieve said power. I want women who are chosen because of what they have done, not how they look in a political power game.

Exactly. I’m not a woman, and I’m still offended.

If PUMA (and others who are just voting based on gender) don’t see through this as a desperate move from McCain, and still vote for him (in protest over Obama), then so be it. They’ll look back in history as having thrown their votes instead of casting them with intelligence, wisdom and dignity. It’s also a grave disrespect for Hillary and what she stands for. I say this as someone who had been torn between Obama and Hillary during the primary.

I know it’s still early. But mark my words. John McCain had jumped the shark with his VP pick. This is the final nail on the McCain campaign coffin. Obama-Biden victory is just around the corner. So I guess I owe McCain a big one.

Thank you and Happy Birthday, Mr. John McCain. Congratulations on the nomination. Let’s get it on!

“Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
~ Margaret Meade

I remember it like yesterday. Two years ago I’ve embarked on a journey of pure serendipity. I left a relatively secured job to join a start up with a team of idealistic people I haven’t even met in person before. The reason I took the job was to experience change in my life while doing something that would have an impact in other people’s lives. Our team believed that social networking technology can be used to inspire and empower people by providing an online oasis where they can have meaningful conversations, freely express their beliefs, dreams, interests, creativity, and spirituality, without worrying about being judged and ridiculed. It was the early days of Zaadz.

Running a social network is as challenging as it is rewarding. Slowly but surely we grew our humble community. We resisted the urge of growing too quickly by focusing on quality of members rather than quantity. As a result, our growth was slow and organic. And therein lies our biggest challenge: sustainability. Our team and CEO at that time, Brian, had to make a hard choice: pack it up and call it a day, break up the team and keep on going, or keep the team and the community intact by finding a company that aligns with our vision and values. GAIAM came to the rescue. It was a perfect fit. Zaadz eventually transformed into Gaia Community. Our niche community continued to flourish.

Fast forward a year later, our biggest challenge–sustainability–is still there, only this time the harsh reality of our current economy had caught up on us as well. To make the long story short, GAIAM had to make cutbacks. Unfortunately, my position was one of those affected. So as of yesterday, I’m no longer working for Gaia Community.

[NOTE: See Siona's blog for details. To all Gaia Community members: I may no longer work for Gaia but I'm still part of our community. Time-permitting, I'll continue to visit, interact, and answer your questions. So feel free to email me and drop by my grapevine once in a while ]

In spite of what happened, I’m still grateful for the opportunity to build something that is meaningful to others. Over the years I’ve met a lot people, online and offline, who had expressed their gratitude and love for the community we’ve started. I often hear the expression, “Thank you for what you do. I feel at home here,” whenever people describe their experience on Gaia. This made me proud and gave me goosebumps. How often do we hear people thanking us for making their lives a little better? I never got tired of hearing praises like that during my stay with Gaia. I’ll miss that part of my job.

Another thing I would terribly miss is my daily interaction with the Gaia team. I work remotely and have had very minimal physical interaction with them, but we’re like kindred souls online. It was a pleasure to share with them this journey. They’re the most passionate and compassionate people I’ve worked with. I wish them well.

Finally, I’ve also greatly benefited from Zaadz/Gaia on a personal level. For instance, I was able to work remotely from Ireland to be with my (then) future wife. Zaadz/Gaia will always be part of our family story.

So, what am I going to do next?

Short answer: I don’t know. A part of me wants to continue to find fulfulling work wherein I can leverage all the things I’ve learned from growing online communities, community support, moderation, social networking, and social media strategies. But another part of me wants to take the path of least resistance and go back to the corporate world of cubicles, office politics, status reports, and endless unproductive meetings. If it’s just me, I would take the former option. But the reality is that there are people who depend on me, so I’m considering the latter. I may be an idealist, but I’m also a practical person. Thanks to my pragmatic personality and my Asian cultural upbringing.

In any case, the biggest challenge for me is dealing with homeostasis. For the past couple of years I’ve gotten used to working remotely. As soon as I got up in the morning I was only a few steps away from work. There were days when I didn’t even bother to take a shower or change my sleeping clothes. (I sometimes teased my teammate, Matthew, that I work naked. I think he liked it.) I’ll miss the freedom, flexibility, and the less carbon-footprint lifestyle (i.e. for two years, I didn’t have to drive to work). I’m hoping I can telecommute in my next job.

Another adjustment I’d have to deal with is that, I won’t have the privilege of spending as much time online as I did before. I’ll do my best to keep up with my (hyper)streaming practice. But I’ll probably go under the radar again. I’m not comfortable mixing my online and personal/career life.

In the meantime, I’ll use my free time to reflect on things I’ve been putting off. One door closes, another opens. But I’m not getting any younger. So it’s time I shift my attention to what really matters.

P.S. Touched to my tenderness. This is why I will miss Gaia - http://bit.ly/2MpZ9d. I’m honored to have served you. Thank you for the opportunity.

However, in the past few weeks, my attention had shifted away from blogging. This shift is reflected on my latest site re-design and my switch to WordPress (see Swallowed my blog in a single gulp!). This shift happened when I signed up on Friendfeed and bought an iPhone. For instance, I’ve never used Twitter that much until I had an iPhone. SMS is very expensive here in the U.S. and mobile web browsing was a joke until mobile Safari (via iPhone) came along. Since then my blogging had slowed down, but my microblogging and FF activities exploded with a whole lotta linking!

My original intention with my blog is for personal expression and to share information. But since my attention bandwidth is limited, I find myself doing more streaming than actual blogging. That’s when I decided to shift my focus from blogging to (hyper)streaming.

An aside: I had a discussion on Friendfeed the other day. Someone suggested to get rid of the word “blog.” I think the word blog would continue to stick, and rightly so. “Lifestreaming” is the latest buzzword. Lifestreaming sounds hip. But I agree that aggregation is not lifestreaming. That’s why I coined my own term, (hyper)streaming, wherein (hyper) can be anything you want to stream.

But this doesn’t mean that I will no longer be blogging my heart out. In fact, I’ll be blogging more consciously. Instead of short bursts of blog entries, I’ll reserve my blog for longer posts–more focused distillation of the ideas, information, and opinion accumulated from my (hyper)streaming activity with some sprinkle of personal reflection.

Life is but a stream…

The next challenge is how to incorporate streaming activities into one’s site. Will it be self-hosted or will it be via a lifestreaming service?

For a self-hosted solution, WordPress users can use the Lifestream WP plugin. I gave it a try. It works great. I love the date-based aggregation, feed grouping, and customization. I’d recommend it to anyone who prefers total control of their streaming content.

As for lifestreaming services, there are a number of competing services out there (e.g. Socialthing, Strands [currently on beta]). However, I choose to ride with Friendfeed. Other lifestreaming services have better filtering options and interface, but the thing that attracted me most to Friendfeed is my interaction with a network of intelligent and conscientious users. This is reflected by the quality of comments and shared contents I see on the site every day. That’s why I’ve decided to incorporate Friendfeed on the main page of my site.

I even created a dedicated (hyper)stream page: http://www.c4chaos.com/hyperstream/

Why do I prefer a lifestream service than a self-hosted lifestream? Simple. It’s the social aspect. As I’ve mentioned in a Friendfeed discussion on Lifestream, it boils down to the primary intention of the user. Self-hosted lifestreams work best if the user is more focused on building a personal aggregated online presence (e.g. for purposes of personal branding, online resume, etc.). But if the primary intention is to connect with other “lifestreamers” elsewhere, then Friendfeed (or similar) services is the way to go. I find that comments and likes add spice and more value to my stream. There’s more serendipity that way.

That said, it’s a gamble to pick which service would outlast the others. Although I feel safe with Friendfeed, I’m glad that I can always activate my Lifestream WP plugin with a mouse click.

That’s all for now. Now excuse me while I hyperfocus on (hyper)streaming.

*fist bump* for Biden!

I am awaiting for Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s first TV appearance as running mates as I write this. I received the email announcement early this morning from the Obama campaign, a couple of hours after the information got leaked in the New York Times.

I didn’t get a text message, but that may be because I signed up for text notification too late. But even before the New York Times broke the news last night, Twitter and Friendfiend were already buzzing about the presence of Secret Service at Biden’s house. By then it was just a matter of public confirmation. The Obama campaign did a great job at keeping the VP choice a secret until the last minute. The Obama VP announcement was a resounding success in generating excitement. From a marketing perspective, the “Be the First to Know” campaign was pure genius.

I’ll leave it to the political pundits to analyze and riff on Biden’s political impact on the Obama candidacy. But I’m personally happy with Obama’s choice. I think Biden would make a good Vice-President. It’s about time they put some balls in this campaign.

What I’d like to focus on at the moment is my admiration for the people running the Obama campaign, because they get it. They know how to leverage internet and instant communication technologies to maximize their marketing efforts.

I said marketing because Obama is not just a politician running for president. Obama is a brand. A damn good and juicy brand. The people running Obama’s campaign are excellent grassroots marketers. They have successfully tapped into the lucrative marketing channel of the internet on building Obama’s amazing money machine. And now they are tapping into the power of instant communication technology–text messaging–not only to market the Obama brand, but more importantly, to mobilize people as the election day draws near.

By now the Obama campaign have already hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of email addresses in their mailing lists–a direct marketer’s wet dream. With the “Be the First to Know” campaign, they’ve probably collected hundreds of thousands of mobile phone numbers, a lot of which are from a crucial voting demographics known as millennials–”individuals born, roughly, between 1980 and 1994.” Young people are not known for their voting records and interest in politics. But in this election, the Obama campaign had captured the majority of this demographic because of the campaign’s embrace of the internet and mobile instant communication technology.

Text messaging is not as popular in the U.S. as it is in Europe and Asia. But the Obama campaign understand the power of this technology to mobilize people. For instance, it was through the power of text messaging that the People Power in the Philippines had toppled the Estrada administration. The Obama campaign is now banking on the viral nature of text messages to mobilize people. I can already imagine text messages like this spreading like wildfire during election day: “C u @ d polls. wear ur Obama shirt, k?!”

Obama and McCain’s big generational gap is reflected in the style of their campaign. McCain’s campaign is more traditional (e.g. town hall meetings, attack ads) while Obama’s is more tech-savvy (e.g. Twitter, Youtube, social networks, killer website, text messaging; see Obama’s Wide Web). If and when Obama wins the presidential race (which I believe he will), then a crucial factor could be credited to Obama’s embrace of millennial marketing–the same grassroots movement that won him the Democratic primary.

c u @ d polls. vote Obama-Biden, k?! thx! xoxox.

That said, I still enjoy getting to know both candidates as the election day draws near. Yesterday I watched CNN’s special on Obama/McCain. Both of their stories are inspiring, yet worlds apart. Nevermind their political partisanship. There’s a big generational gap and differences in worldview between these two passionate candidates. Obama is a classic Idealist. McCain is a classic Artisan.

I had more respect for John McCain after watching the CNN special. I get to appreciate more his hard work and maverick character. (Too bad he lost the nomination to GW Bush. Hindsight is 20/20.) But Obama’s story connects more with me, because like him, I grew up in another country and so my worldview isn’t only limited to the U.S.

Overall, I resonate with Obama’s experiences and more importantly, we share the same worldview–I have a strong sense of idealism too. So as much as I would like to think that I’m voting based on my knowledge of policies and issues, a big part of my decision is intuitive–my worldview is a prime mover of my political brain. And both campaigns know this. That’s why their strategies are tailored to the sensitivity of our feelings, emotions, and faith, rather than keeping themselves honest with the issues at hand. In short: everybody lies, including our brains.

My point: The more we get to know both candidates (or at least their public persona in the media), the more we gravitate towards the candidate who share our worldviews, even if we don’t agree with their policies.

Here’s a case in point. I just watched Bill Maher on Larry King Live the other day. In general, I share Maher’s views on religion and politics. That’s why we have similarities in our attitude towards Obama and McCain, and even Rick Warren. Here’s an excerpt from the conversation (see transcript):

KING: What — what part — now you mentioned Rick Warren. What part does — what should religion play in our political life?

MAHER: Well, if you ask me, none, or in any part of life, but you know, look who you’re talking to, the guy who made “Religulous.” But certainly in political life it’s had a terribly detrimental effect. I mean, did you see the Rick Warren thing?

KING: Sure. And we had him on last night.

MAHER: Yes, right. And by the way, let me just preface this by saying I’m asking people for perspective. I have it also.

Rick Warren, big improvement over Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. If we have to have a pope of the super Christ-ies, I’d rather it be him. He’s got good ideas about actually, you know — actual helping people.

Because you know, one thing I don’t like about religion is that, you know, ask any of the truly devout. It’s not mainly about doing the right thing or being ethical. It’s mainly about salvation. It’s mainly about getting your butt saved when you die. And that’s why I think they’re less moral than ethicists. But they would…

KING: But Rick is different?

MAHER: He’s better. He’s an improvement. But you know, when he says, as I heard him say before the event, “I’m going to ask the tough questions.” What would those questions be? How tightly do you close your eyes when you insist on believing something that your mind must be telling you can’t be true? OK.

But here’s a good example of why it shouldn’t infect our public policy. The big question that got all the play in the news snippets was asking what should we do about evil? Evil. And…

KING: Is there evil?

MAHER: Is there evil? And what should we do about it? So Obama gives a very nuanced answer, and again this is why I do like this guy. He sort of can’t win for — lose with the winning. I mean, he’s damned if he does and he’s damned if he doesn’t. He gives a nuanced answer, which I like, and he loses the crowd.

He said, “Yes, we should be aware of evil, but we should be humble about evil.” And what he was trying to say, I think, was you know what? It’s easy to sit back in America and go, “Well, we’re the good people. That’s common knowledge. Evil is always over there and never here.”

He was saying you know what? We have a lot of evil right here. Look at the prison system. Look at the justice system. Look how we treat immigrants. We torture people now in America. There’s, you know, rampant sexual harassment of women in the military. There’s a lot of evil that we’re doing. OK. This didn’t go over very well.

Then McCain is asked. What do we do about evil? Two words. Defeat it. Now, of course, to the people in this audience, this goes over great because when they hear evil, they think of something very tangible: the devil. They’re not kidding. They believe in this comic-book figure called the devil who’s going to poke your ass in hell if you’re bad. Heaven, air conditioning. OK.

So, you know, you have to take this into account. These are voters. These are people who think evil is the devil. We can defeat it by the end of my first term. We will defeat evil. And, you know, how are you going to have a country, supposed to be a super power, in this world making the right decisions if this is the kind of thing, thinking that goes into it? It’s like trying to write a song when half the keys are out, you know, the keys on the piano are out of tune.

Exactly. I don’t necessarily agree with everything Bill Maher has to say about religion and politics, but Bill Maher is one of the most authentic and ballsy straight talkers out there. I like his style of conversational intolerance.

Another case in point: McCain’s worldview on technology (as reflected by his technology policy) is very much different from my view (I’m in favor of Net Neutrality). Lawrence Lessig sums it up with his keynote presentation: Me on McCain on Technology. Below is the Youtube version.

As you watch the above video, remember what Tim Wu said.

“Just as the industrial revolution depended on oil and other energy sources, the information revolution is fueled by bandwidth. If we aren’t careful, we’re going to repeat the history of the oil industry by creating a bandwidth cartel.”

Note that this issue is rarely covered, let alone mentioned, on mainstream media. (See The Consequences of an Ailing Broadband Infrastructure Begin to Surface) Again, McCain’s technological worldview run smack against my own belief and ideals when it comes to technological issues.

Which brings me back to my original point. Even before everything is said and done, we usually end up picking the candidate who shares our worldview, before we even get to know the details of their policies.

So whoever wins the presidential election would reflect the center of gravity of the collective worldviews of the American voters. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.