FABULOUS SCRABULOUS, LAWRENCE LESSIG AND A FACEBOOK CRISIS

Way back a million years ago in the 1990s, the Internet mantra was "information wants to be free." In other words, if you could figure out how to get something up on the Web, it was meant to be there. So there was Napster – all the music you could grab. Books, games, news, music, images — whatever you wanted you could find. — for free. Just like, right now, you can find the wonderful Scrabulous on Facebook.

Then attorney and — really — guru of the Information Age Lawrence Lessig launched an entirely new way to define copyrights and began to institutionalize a new perspective on information. Basically, since musicians, film makers, visual artists and authors were all sampling previous works within their new creations, Lessig demanded a new approach to the protection of intellectual property.

So our beloved Interweb offers us a chance to find out anything about anything and gather any information from any source, but it also offers us real ethical problems:

For most of my life, I’ve made my living producing television news pieces and being pretty well paid for it. Now, I’m often compensated for my work on the web – except for this blog. I wrote and published a book, published book reviews for years and have written and published other features. I get paid for my work; that’s how I live. If all information were to break free — who would pay the creators? Or, for that matter, the distributors. Even if books are published online they need to get there; advance URLS have to be sent to reviewers, someone has to edit and proof-read. That work, unlike information, does not want to be free. Lessig would say it’s too late to worry about that – online access has released the information so stop complaining and find another way to monetize your work.

Fair enough. I have heard Lessig speak about this and it’s thrilling. The 60’s girl in me loves the anarchic idea — after all, information does want to be free. But the analysis and creation of that information – not so much. Right now Hasbro and Mattel are trying to get a restraining order against Facebook, requiring the removal of the Facebook version of Scrabble, Scrabulous, for copyright violations. Created by a couple of brothers in India and posted for free, it’s one of Facebook’s stars. I’ll be devastated if the game is actually removed because it’s such a kick. At the same time, I understand the concept of getting paid for distributing content, not just for creating it. The Scrabulous brothers chose to built and post Scrabulous for free. That’s their decision. But even company employees (including the people who make Scrabble boards and design their labels and ship the game to gift shops and Toys R Us, also have to eat. It’s as if all sides are right. Lessig’s exploration of all this is invaluable, but there’s no answer yet – except of course in the law, which currently favors the terrestrial owners of such properties. Josh Quittner, in his Fortune blog, has another perspective. We’re on a journey here just as we’ve been with the rest of the wonders and miracles that are the Web.

What do you think? It’s worth a comment here, no?

JIB JAB HAPPY NEW YEAR – BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

This got stuck in my junk mail. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s fun. Happy New Year one more time.

Don’t send a lame Holiday eCard. Try JibJab Sendables!

THE STORY OF STUFF: DOES IT WORK?

This film was screened in Berkeley in early December so I’m a little late (a lot late?) writing about it but it’s worth a conversation any time. The Story of Stuff *is an extremely effective exposition on the consequences of overconsumption – and the origins of the habits that led us to our current environmental crisis. It’s riveting. And most of it makes horrifying sense; it’s the accumulation of so many common sense facts that has the power.

Somehow though, I wish for a bit more. Much of the rhetoric, while the facts may be real, is intense. I keep thinking that if the data were relayed in a way that gave us a second to breathe and absorb the most impressive**, and if the relationship between government and business were described a bit less simplistically (as almost a conspiracy,) the effect would be greater. The problem is that all those businesses are where people work. The first thing many will hear when we talk about villainous companies is the threat to their livelihood. That doesn’t make the facts less true; it just means that we have to talk about the issue in ways that address these fears. Otherwise, the film provides a great vehicle for the converted but not much firepower to reach those who may buy into the issue generally but not into the condemnation of what keeps their family alive.

I’m only dwelling on this because the film is such a great tool – and its flaws will reduce its impact. Those passionate about the environment, especially now, when people seem so much more ready to listen, want to get everything into the conversation. But I’m afraid, in this very good job, they’ve included elements that will prevent those least engaged from joining the battle. Take a look – what do you think? Here’s the introductory chapter. You can see the rest here or on You Tube in chapter elements.

*Funded by the Tides Foundation

** For example, these:
*In the past three decades, one-third of the planet’s natural resource base have been consumed. *In the United States, we have less than 4% of our original forests left.
*The U.S.has 5% of the world’s population but consumes 30% of the world’s resources4 and creates 30% of the world’s waste.
*The average US person now consumes twice as much as they did 50 years ago.
*In the US, we spend 3-4 times as many hours shopping as our counterparts in Europe do.
*Each person in the US makes 4.5 pounds of garbage a day – twice what we each made 30 years ago.

BOY DO I HAVE SMART FRIENDS: MORRA AARONS CALLED IT WHEN NO ONE ELSE DID!

Yup. There’s lots more to say about the Hillary victory and I’m sure there will be plenty of time. It was pretty damn amazing, and her speech, I thought, was good and more like the woman we think she really is. I have admired for years her work with the Children’s Defense Fund, foster care advocacy and the innovation of HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) in Arkansas. She’s always been a champion of children and so I’ve seen her as a force for good. hat’s what she needs to continue to communicate along with the rest of her message — she’s done a lot of what Obama is talking about too.

Now, before I show you how right Morra, of Women and Work, and TechPresident and Huffington Post, was, I have a very superficial but interesting question. Remember all the crap Al Gore got for getting fashion advice from Naomi Wolf? Well. Last night was the first time I remember seeing Mrs. Clinton wearing other than a solid color. I only noticed because it struck me how much it had reduced the severity of her look. (And because I never learned to dress in a way that looked good on me until I was well into my 40s so I notice these things.) So I wondered if it was on purpose. That does not take away from any of the substance of her candidacy or victory – it’s just an interesting question.

OK Now – listen to Morra – from January 6 in New Hampshire (the prediction is near the end):

OBAMA, CLINTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND PRIMARIES – 1968 AND 2008

In the 1968 New Hampshire primary, 40 years ago, Senator Eugene McCarthy got 42% of the vote running against Lyndon Johnson .

That was enough to be viewed as a win, since no one thought he’d get anywhere close to those numbers. That victory by the only national politician with the guts to run against the Vietnam War sent a shock through the Democratic Party.

McCarthy’s effort, often called “The Children’s Crusade,” was comprised largely of college students (including me) who abandoned their studies to come to New Hampshire and work to help to stop the war. Now, as I watch Barack Obama, and see the the numbers of young people propelling his success, I know just how they feel — and what awaits them if they fail.

Then too, win or lose, things will be tough for Senator Clinton. Obama, seen not only as a change agent but also as someone who offers the hope and optimism of a JFK, has captured the imaginations not only of young people but also of many journalists, most notorious of whom is the conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. That means that anyone who wrests the nomination away from him will be perceived as the breaker of young hearts, standing in the way of idealism and the candidate who brought young people fully in to the system.*

That’s exactly what happened in 1968. The New Hampshire victory brought Robert Kennedy into the race – establishing, until his tragic death, a three-way battle – two dissidents against the juggernaut of the Democratic establishment. Then later, Hubert Humphrey , candidate of that establishment and for years, as Vice President, public and energetic supporter of Johnson’s war, won the nomination.

To all of us, he had stolen the nomination. Many (not me) were so bitter that they refused to vote for him. Remember, for most of us, as for many of Obama’s young supporters, this was our first presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton, should she prevail further down the line, will face the same broken-hearted campaigners. Once the anti-establishment, anti-war student and Watergate hearing staffer, in the eyes of these young people she’ll be cast as the villain.

For evidence of how long that bitterness lasts, take a look at this quote from the American Journalism Review, from the 1968 Chicago Convention, riot and Hum prey coronation recollections of veteran Washington Post columnist David Broder. It’s about me – but it’s also about any young American who takes a stand and loses .

He recalls coming into the hotel lobby from the park where demonstrations were underway and spotting a woman he had first met during the Eugene McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire. “Her name was Cindy Samuels,” Broder still remembers. “She was seated on a bench crying. She had been gassed. I went over and I put my arm around her and I said: ‘Cindy. What can I do for you?’ She looked up at me with tears on her face and said: ‘Change things.’

NOTE: As I searched for links for this post I found a David Corn piece saying much the same thing. I want to take note of it since the ideas came to me independently but I didn’t want it to seem that I drew from his.

EVERYONE LOVES JUNO – AND THEY’RE RIGHT

You’re probably sick of hype about Juno, a movie that deserves every ounce of praise heaped upon it now and in the future (and that will happen – and happen… and happen!) One of our sons called to insist that we go, then, in San Francisco, the other walked in to lunch and said "Forget Atonement, you have to go see Juno. It’s the best movie in so long!" Inertia, and the chaos of the holidays, plus that fact that everyone we were with over the holidays except Rick and me had seen it, intervened. Then, when we got home I ran into a sixteen year old friend with whom I share Harry Potter pleasures, and she urged us to go.

So last Saturday night I invited two friends of ours, close to 80 and major movie maniacs, to go with us. They came, although nobody but me wanted to see it. It was raining. The online ticket thingy didn’t work and we had to wait in line in the rain. THEN the line to get into the theater itself snaked all the way back past the concession stand. I was in big trouble. You of course can imagine the outcome: despite all the drama – everyone loved it. I can now tell you with some authority that be you sixteen or thirty or sixty or eighty, male or female, cynic, cerebral, romantic, adolescent, child psychiatrist, game designer, law professor or young parent, unless you have a heart of stone or no sense of humor, you will love this film!

There’s no reason to describe the story; it’s appeared everywhere. But here’s the trailer.

Let me add only that calling Juno a movie about a girl who gets pregnant is like calling Atonement a war movie. The characters and the script they inhabit*, the acting, the wonderful production decisions from opening credits to casting to sound track (so so great) to transitions, were spot-on. So stop reading this and go see it! And if you feel like it, let me know what you thought.

*written by Diablo Cody, who was a stripper/blogger who was recruited to write the film by someone who frequented her blog on the sex trade.

REDS, WARREN BEATTY, REVOLUTIONS AND HISTORY

Yesterday I promised to write regularly about that infamous year, 1968, from the perspective of the forty years that have passed. I was there for so much of it and have wanted to re-think it for some time but could never seem to face it in its entirety. Among other things, it’s the year I graduated from college. And worked in the McCarthy campaign. And was present at the Chicago "police riot" at the Democratic Convention. I’m going to do it – I promise.

But last night’s insomnia led to the two of us watching Reds, Warren Beatty’s remarkable film about John Reed, Louise Bryant, Greenwich Village radicals, Eugene O’Neill, Emma Goldman and left wing intellectual life before and during World War I.
At the end of what was, in the theaters, the first act, there’s a wonderful montage. John Reed (Warren Beatty) gives an impassioned speech, revolutionaries begin to sing the "Internationale" and the film cuts between scenes of political passions and those of the passions, both physical and intellectual, between Reed and Louise Bryant. To me, it’s the perfect metaphor for our lives in 1968 — shared political passions even with the most intense of lovers – inextricably combined with personal passions intensified by the sadness, rage and sense of mission brought on by events – in their case the attempt to build a "workers paradise" in Russia, on ours, the war in Vietnam. The YouTube clip of this beautiful five minutes won’t post outside YouTube – it’s been blocked, but you can see it here. In the meantime, watch the trailer and think about what it’s like when life, love and politics intersect with such precision.

Reds – Reds

Posted Apr 30, 2002

Warren Beatty’s award winning epic mixes drama and interviews with major social radicals of the period. "Reds" tells the story of the love affair between activists Louise Bryant and John Reed. Set against the backdrop of the tumultuous start of the twentieth century, the two journalists’ on-again off-again romance is punctuated by the outbreak of WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution. Louise’s assignment in France at the outbreak of the war puts an end to their affair. John Reed’s subsequent trip to Russia

1968 WAS FORTY YEARS AGO — SO MANY STORIES — AND A PROMISE

That’s me in 1968. As everybody knows, it was a remarkable, scary, thrilling, transforming year to alive and young; even more, to be part of the struggle to end the war in Vietnam and, generally, change the world. The outcomes are known, and the journey endlessly chronicled, but I think I’m going to spend this year – right here – as anniversaries pass, writing about what I felt and meant to be, what I hoped for, what I remember. Just as we did in Nablopomo, I’m announcing it here… just to be sure I do it….

Happy New Year.

CITY LIGHTS BOOKS, SAN FRANCISCO AND MY LOVELY SONS

When I was in high school this was one of the places I dreamed of coming: San Francisco’s City Lights Bookstore. Far from my home in Pittsburgh, arty, intellectual and free. Ironic then that all these years later I’m here, usually, to visit sons ten years older than I was when I set my sights on Greenwich Village or Bloomsbury. . . or San Francisco.

One lives here; the other’s girlfriend lives here so he pretty much commutes here from Seattle. It’s a perfect place to meet and spend the holidays. We came out for Thanksgiving and are here again, this time since Christmas day.

It’s been lovely, if a bit stressful: a new girlfriend for our younger one – we had dinner with her – and the pressure that comes from wanting infrequent visits to go well. At best we see one another every couple of months; both boys wish we lived closer which makes me feel good but it’s tough that we don’t — and have not much prospect of ever moving this direction.

Now it’s our last day and the usual burgeoning lump in the throat has appeared. Both boys have been genuinely happy to be with us and have ditched their calendars to spend the week with us. I’m very grateful for their attention – they think I’m nuts and say of course they want to be with us. For some reason this astonishes me. We do have fun – jabbering about everything from Benazir Bhutto to series television. Lots of laughter and the additional delight of seeing the boys and Josh’s friend Amy laughing and enjoying one another’s company. But as the time comes to leave, board the plane and fly back to our DC lives, a determined sadness permeates even the happiest of moments. I once interviewed Naomi Foner, mother to Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal and the woman who wrote Running on Empty, a film about children leaving home in a particularly profound and complete way. "Parenthood is the only job" she told me, "where you measure success by how well you say goodbye."

Manifestly, we’ve done that well. Our boys are strong, self-sufficient, productive men who are friends to one another and love their parents. They know we’re here but know too that they can take care of themselves. In that way, we’d be defined as successful. But. But. No matter how proud I am, how grateful for their strength and wisdom, humor and goodness, I miss them.

They are the treasures of my days and will always be, and the physical distance that prevents an easy Sunday afternoon movie or Chinese dinner and makes every visit an event is always a painful reality.

I’ll deal with it and so will they. It’s the way things are – and it’s certainly better to want them more than we see them than to have them sigh with relief when we leave for the airport. And whether we’re there or not, their lives are rich and often joyful. And so, I tell myself, at least when I’m missing them, I know they’ve become the men I would have wished them to be – for their sakes, not ours. And that’s a lot. It doesn’t put them here next to me — but it does send with me a quiet peace amid the sadness. That’s really all I can – or should – travel with. The rest — working toward and achieving what they want from their lives and moving forward in the world — belongs, as it should, to them.

Happy New Year.

CALIFORNIA DREAMIN’ – SAN FRANCISCO SCENES YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED

We’re here to visit our remarkable,wonderful sons and having a lovely time – hence the virtual radio silence here. Some things though, you need to share – even during a family vacation.

First of all, you always know when you come to San Francisco that you’ll see things that might elude you elsewhere, but this one is spectacular even for the capital of Blue State America. This little guy is wearing a shirt that says "Don’t pat me, I’m working." He’s apparently an assistance animal but we were damned if we could figure out what he was assisting in doing… besides wheeling through Chinatown making friends.

Lucky Revolution Vegan Chinese Restaurant (outside of which the Monkey rolled past us.) Great combination fried rice and hotpot eggplant, too

This is the site of Dave Eggars‘ tutorial project 826 Valencia, now expanding to other cities. Author of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, founder of McSweeney’s publishing and The Believer magazine, he’s built a place to effectively teach writing and communication to underserved kids. It’s embarrassing to wander in, thinking oneself fairly cool for knowing to come here — and to discover — a gift shop! Clearly Eggars and his crew have built something very attractive — and become a tourist attraction.

One block from 826 Valencia and across the street, this blast from the past — windows jammed with anti-war and other political messages. This is not, of course, limited to San Francisco, especially these days, but it just seems so at home here.

Yesterday my husband announced that he had a surprise for me – and dragged me out of the hotel for breakfast. Next thing I knew, we were aboard a cable car for the first time since somewhere around 1971, right after we got married and came to Stanford for him to finish school. It was a great ride on a rainy morning.

We passed this – the top of Lombard Street, San Francisco’s zig-zaggiest.

And ended up here – at the famous Buena Vista Cafe. Famous as the place that invented Irish Coffee, across the street from the end of the cable car line and just above Fishermen’s Wharf, it’s a true landmark a place we used to love. It was so great to return and sit by the window watching this city’s every-changing tourist scene. On this corner, it could still have been 1971 when we first came here. There’s something lovely about a return like this especially when it’s a gift. My sweet husband triumphant once again… 36 years after our first visit!

More pix soon. Goodnight for now.