Many awareness campaigns begin with the very sincere but unfortunately naïve sentiment, “If only people knew the truth…” Armed with little more than that, they spend millions of dollars on celebrity-endorsed commercials, speaking tours, and marketing campaigns that does little more than leave people disempowe(RED).

That’s the sad end to the second half of the sentence that people never finish. “If only people knew the truth, they’d be even more scared than they already are and feel even more powerless than they already do.”

I’m not speaking from a high horse. Consider the tragedy going on, as we speak, in Darfur. I’m aware that it’s going on, I even have friends intimately involved in the struggle. Throw it into a blender along with the perpetual occupation of Iraq, our Constitution being shredded by an outlaw Executive Branch, corporations scrambling to make money from climate change instead of fight it… hit purée and try to drink that concoction. Anyone who claims to be truly aware of what’s going on it our world and not clinically depressed is lying. So I turn away and try to concentrate on the things I have some control over. Let me be clear, awareness-raising efforts on the Darfur issue have made me less inspired to take action.

To eat my own medicine, let me end the ranting about how activism is screwing the proverbial pooch by encouraging blissful ignorance over action and start offering some solutions. Similar to “the only thing we have to fear“, solutions are the solution. However, most of the solutions that organizations offer are signing my name to a declaration, spreading the word, and giving money. Of these, giving money is the only action that actually affects an outcome. Sure, spreading the word might indirectly—but only by encouraging more people to give money.

The solutions that get me really excited are the ones that openly share campaign strategy with me. MoveOn.org‘s emails typically, even when asking for money, lay out a clear plan for how I help. Maybe they want to hire more on-the-ground organizers for an upcoming primary, maybe they want lots of lawyers to email Alberto Gonzalez, either way I can see their strategy and—by taking part—I see how my actions are part of something larger that needs me.

The core of this is that those people enlightened to the point where they feel responsibility for the world and want to take action won’t feel satisfied with activism that strips them of that responsibility. Which is a good thing, because “absolution activism” is a false solution anyway.

Back to the signs that have gone up in my neighborhood. They are a clear example of taking the “If only people knew the truth…” to an illogical extreme. Being a big city with nice weather, San Francisco has more than it’s share of homeless out on the streets. My neighborhood is not the worst in the city in that regard, but the only that I’ve noticed to try to address the problem by putting up infographics about what is and is not acceptable behavior.

There’s a lot more to say on this topic and, like many of my posts, this one has seemed to get away from me without my feeling like I’ve reached any sort of clarity. I expect this will not be my last word on the current disempowering nature of activism. Comments are welcome from those who both seek inspiration and to inspire.

Stan is currently in the desert of Nevada and “robo-blogging” while he’s gone. He wrote this last week and set it to publish today.

It’s possible, but not probable, that’s I’m just an out-of-touch curmudgeon completely unable to see any value in what “The Kids” are into these days. I don’t believe this to be the case, however, as I just watched an episode of MTV’s “The Hills” and, while it’s loathsome content left me pining for the days that MTV played videos (who didn’t see that criticism coming?), I still found it’s concept compelling. Documenting the dangerously petty lifestyles of Hollywood socialites is something I’m not sure even Steve Irwin would’ve been able to handle.

No, “Epic Movie” is wrong, wrong, wrong for a different reason. Watching a movie that makes a mockery of other movies, like Snakes on a Plane, Nacho Libre, or even X-Men: The Last Stand presupposes that the source material was not a mockery, something which cannot be said for any of those movies. In fact, seeing posters up around town of Pirate Captain Jack Swallows [sic] running from cannibals only suggests to me, “Look! We cannibalized a bunch of movies!” Do they think they’re being clever by making a funny movie by taking scenes from other funny movies? Like someone will think, “What a great idea! Just take other peoples’ great ideas!”

You can’t spoof a spoof. You look stupid trying.

That won’t keep people from going to see it, and even laughing at some parts, but I meant what I said about it being a milestone. Movies cost money and Hollywood has long since stopped being anything other than a business, if it ever were. The concept of “franchises” is not unique to the silver screen, though they perhaps exploit them most overtly. Wade through all the marketing and the thinking comes down to this, “Why take a chance on a movie people have never seen before?” It seems that “Epic Movie” has decided to take that question (which already turns my stomach) quite literally.

“Epic Movie” is a symptom of a much larger problem, like many things that suck are. Our mental space, just like our physical, is being knowingly polluted, for profit. It’s easy to see when raw sewage is being dumped in your backyard. It’s not as easy when the same waste is being dumped straight into your conscious or sub-conscious mind. I’m not willing to commit one way or another on whether projects like “Epic Movie” are systematic efforts to reduce the range of thought of which we’re capable, but some sort of decolonization needs to happen internally—and hopefully then spread to our theaters.

Seriously, this thing looks like an SNL episode.

For most, “Web 2.0″ is either a meaningless phrase or one way past its expiration date. Yet there is undeniably a meme-complex that the phrase captures.

Now I must digress to explain meme-complexes. What defines a bird? All birds fly, but not penguins or ostriches. All birds lay eggs, but so do reptiles and the duck-billed platypus. Still, one can look at a bird and see the loose connection of almost-but-not-quite signifiers and get a good idea for what a “bird” is. We call that little cloud of memes a meme-complex or, just to be clever, memeplex.

To return to the issue at hand, with “Web 2.0″ one can see the rounded corners, the subtle gradients, the extra-legible typography and get a good idea for what it looks like (and all of these design elements are present with the friendly-looking Wii). But, of course, there’s more to “Web 2.0″ than just how it looks.

According to O’Reilly, it’s about rich experiences, user-added value, and the Long Tail (and a few more things). Of course, others have other criteria. In general, most would agree that it’s about treasuring the needs and power of the user over superfluous features.

Me and my Mii

James Surowiecki (of Wisdom of Crowds fame), acknowledges that Nintendo is thriving in 3rd place and cites reasons like recognizing limitations and focusing on making fun games instead of the bigger!faster!more! that has seduced Sony and Microsoft (both their consoles and other offerings). My first reaction was, “oh, it looks like Nintendo has read Getting Real“. While Sony loses money on every PS3, in an effort to capture market share (how Web 1.0!), Nintendo’s making money making games people want to play.

Nintendo is far from a cute, little startup. Certainly. I remember the gyroscope-spinning robot from the 80s. Still, the spirit of forsaking bloat and simply delivering the goods is delightfully illustrated in both their own commercials and parody ads. Contrast this with the sterile padded cell and black monolith in the Sony ads and it’s suddenly easy to imagine Nintendo as a ragtag bunch of passionate coders that slapped this thing together in their spare time and next thing you know it’s selling like hotcakes.

There’s a lot more that Nintendo could do if they wanted to truly embrace their 2.0 nature. I’d start with making the Virtual Console handle both downloads and uploads, so amateur gamers could share their own creations (which would require Nintendo releasing at least a junior version of its SDK). Next, take all of the “Abandonware” that is now legal to pirate and Open Source it. Let the community add new levels to Bubble Bobble or new units to Herzog Zwei. Finally, why not embrace the social networking aspects of 2.0 and facilitate players meeting other players: “Stan, we’d like you to Becky. She lives near you, is single, and always plays as Princess Peach in Mario Kart. Just like you!”

My mother, a thoroughly good-natured person whom I often use to gauge the pulse of America (to which I am somewhat deafened by living in San Francisco), has recently put forth the criteria for her next car purchase. It must be:

1. A hybrid.
2. Not an SUV.
3. American.

It doesn’t seem to be a terribly tall order, yet at this time there are zero models that obey those three simple rules. In short, US automakers can argue that there’s no demand for whatever the West Coast Enviro-crazies are clamoring for, but they’re simply not making the car that my mother—the elementary school librarian in Indiana—actually wants.

Being a good son, I tried to help her find the car she was looking for, even though I knew that the first available model to meet her criteria was the Chevy Malibu, estimated to hit markets late 2007. I pressed a bit more about why it was important to her to buy American and got more information. My great grandfather worked his whole life for GM on the assembly line and a family devotion to support his work had been passed on from generation to generation. This complicates the situation a little bit.

The Ford Model-T, which still gets twice the MPG as an Explorer.

The auto industry is fast on its way to a collection of platform companies where the products aren’t even manufactured by the branded corporation, or at least not in the same country. For instance, while Ford closes its US factories, it’s opening up factories in Mexico that employ half a million people. On the other hand, Toyota has factories in California, Kentucky, West Virginia, Texas, and even Indiana. In fact, Toyota and Subaru share a factory in my birthplace of Lafayette, IN.

The story gets even more complicated if you want your car produced not just by American labor, but unionized American labor. For that, you pretty much have to grab your car’s VIN and use this reference on the UAW site. Though it really should be noted that “American labor” technically includes Canada, Mexico, and a bunch of other countries as they are part of North or South America after all.

If, like me, you just go by pithy statements to determine your allegiances, you might consider the classic Cal Coolidge aphorism: “The business of America is business!” In which case, it might behoove you to note that Toyota is outselling both Ford and Daimler-Chrysler now, making it the #2 largest retailer in North America and, consequently, more American than either Ford or Daimler-Chrysler. Considering that Ford thinks that being American means talking bold without backing it up, I can’t say I’m surprised.

The term “Conspicuous Consumption” was coined in 1899 to describe (with no small amount of disdain) the buying patterns of the Nouveau Riche. They suddenly had lots of money and wanted to let everyone know. Huge cars, lavish mansions, fur coats, sparklin’ dookie, etc.

Who’s sexier: George Cloonery or Al Gore?

The same thing seems to be happening with the trend-setting creative class in the present day. These Nouveau Righteous have developed a conscience and, by god, they’re going to let people know. Fashion magazines this summer were abuzz with the new “Eco-Chic” trend (as opposed to Eco-Chick, which is always in season). Everyone was checking labels to make sure they were toting certified organic, sustainably cultivated, fair-trade clutch bags that really reflected their worldly values on the way to the plastic surgeon for lipo, in their Hummer.

Evangeline Lilly thinks you should wear more hemp.

Making known one’s ethical affiliations is nothing new. Bumper-stickers proclaiming preferences for love-making over war-making could have grandkids by now and the colored-ribbon frenzy of the 90s has merely evolved into the colored-bracelet frenzy of the 00s (no, not that one). Still, there’s something about the ultra-ubiquitous white iPod as symbol for cultural capital that suggested to me that this (RED)^TM coalition was more about capitalism than activism. Afterall, fancy iPods and Bono go hand-in-hand.

The (RED)^TM campaign (yes, they’ve trademarked the term “(RED)”) has a wonderful manifesto that explains their intention with the branding strategy. My favorite bit is reproduced below:

(RED) is not a charity. It is simply a business model. You buy (RED) stuff. We get the money, buy the pills and distribute them. … If they don’t get the pills, they die. We don’t want them to die, we want to give them the pills…

Does that read like a protection racket to anybody else? “Hey kid, buy this iPod or Africans die. I could help ‘em out y’know, all you gotta do is buy this iPod. C’mon, you wouldn’t want anything bad should happen.” This is strange to me, because the (RED)^TM products seem to be priced exactly the same as their non-African saving contemporaries, what kind of “business model” is that?

The new face of activism?

In the end, I don’t think this campaign is truly about leveraging the power of consumption to help resolve the world’s tragedies, it’s leveraging the world’s tragedies—and the incredible transformative power of activism—to further fuel consumption. Otherwise, we could skip the iPods and just send $10 to The Global Fund ourselves and save $189 plus tax. The truth is that many corporate business plans rely on Third World poverty to keep costs down and if we really want to address global inequities, it’s probably not best accomplished by pouring money into the very institutions that have perpetuated them.

My old webhost had been great for years, but suddenly started flaking out about a month ago. They disabled my email account, saying I was “getting too much spam”, but turned it back on when I complained. Then I was only getting spam while friends’ emails bounced. Next the webserver started going up and down and random intervals. Finally, poor Sunshocked was down for the count. I kept waiting for it to come back up in 20 minutes. Nope. Maybe they were pissed at me or something.

It was definitely time to get a new webhost. So I did what any logical person would do in this situation, opened a terminal window and busted out dig.

% dig simplebits.com +nssearch
SOA ns1.dreamhost.com. hostmaster.dreamhost.com.

% dig subtraction.com +nssearch
SOA ns1.dreamhost.com. hostmaster.dreamhost.com.

% dig jasonsantamaria.com +nssearch
SOA ns1.dreamhost.com. hostmaster.dreamhost.com.

Interesting. Dan Cederholm (SimpleBits), Khoi Vinh (Subtraction), and Jason Santa Maria are People Who Know What They’re Doing^TM, so I thought maybe I should check out this “DreamHost”. Though to be honest, I also dug AListApart.com, 43Folders.com, Tantek.com, and Kottke.org and got four other webhosts…

Here are some amazingly great things about DreamHost.

Their basic plan, which they call “Crazy Domain Insane!” is only $7.95 a month for 200GB of space and 3TB of bandwidth! That is insane. And it goes up a little bit every week you host with them. In every category where other webhosts have numbers less than 10 (domains, database connections, ssh accounts, you name it), DreamHost lists “unlimited”. RubyOnRails? Standard. One-click WordPress? Standard. Quicktime streaming? Standard. WebDAV? Standard.

Even better, they are employee owned, not some huge faceless company. In fact, the faces are completely accessible on the employee profile page. Their blog, while not quite Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is entertaining and worth reading. Finally, they provide matching funds for donations to rotating charities (for Day Against DRM it was Defective By Design) where all you have to do is click a button in the account management panel as you pay your hosting bill.

I went ahead and paid far in advance for my hosting, because these folks seem unbeatable. Still, if I’m unhappy, the get-your-money-back period is a uncharacteristically prime 97 days.

No, I’m not getting paid to say any of this. I tend to get beat up and thrown around by webhosting companies so hopefully, I’m not just in the Honeymoon Phase of another bad relationship. Cross your fingers.

From the very beginning, the movie has stood on title alone. Screenwriter Josh Friendman, who reviewed early drafts of the script describes it:

I will not give away any of the plot details of SNAKES ON A PLANE. But know this. As the great Sam Jackson would say: There are motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane. What else do you need to know?

Indeed. Mr. Jackson famously took the part based on the title and just as famously fought to keep it when movie executives sought to change it. A lot of times movies will have “working titles” that are later changed to something perceived as more box office friendly by the marketing plan. For instance, “Kicking & Screaming” was originally titled “Will Ferrell Soccer Movie”. Currently tops at the box office is “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby“. I’m absolutely positive that if you ask 10 people “Hey, what’s that about?”, 9 of them will respond: “Will Ferrell Nascar Movie”. Why not just call it that? Why not call it what it is instead of running it through the PR machine on spin cycle until it comes out shiny? When “Snakes on a Plane” was about to become Pacific Air 121, people spoke up.

The fact that the democratic blogosphere (and, let’s be honest, all of us) so values authenticity provoked it to rally behind this uncharacteristic showing of sincerity from those typically slimy Hollywood types. Fans began making their own posters, t-shirts, and complete trailers for the movie. The demanders started to assume the role of suppliers, to make the products that they wanted themselves (in fact no “official” posters, t-shirts, or trailers were released until fairly recently). It was somewhere around this point when the executives “got it” and not only kept the title, but went back to film a scene containing the line “motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane”. If ever there were a movie that embraced the basic tenet of the Cluetrain Manifesto, it’s this one. I am given hope by the idea that there is fast becoming an economic model that rewards candor over craftiness.

Early in the 1976 film Network, anchorman Howard Beale explains his inability to continue newscasting with, “I really don’t know any other way to say it other than I just ran out of bullshit.” He must have been speaking only for himself because, 30 years later, there’s still plenty of bullshit to go around. I don’t think that anyone is saying that “Snakes on a Plane” will be a good movie. It might be shit, but it won’t be bullshit. The core of all the enthusiasm is that it is what it is, unapologetically. Mr. Jackson has said of the brilliant title, “You either want to see that, or you don’t.”

And I do, so I’m going tonight.