“9: Why do you listen to 1?
5: A group must have a leader.
9: But what if he’s wrong!
-5 looks down baffled with no answer-”

I was watching the animated movie “9″, which I quite enjoyed,  and those lines inspired me to write about a topic that has always interested me and at times even disturbed me. “Leadership”.

Let’s not get into the statement “A group must have a leader” because in my opinion that’s debatable, and I’m sure that any one of you out there who has the urge to constantly follow a (/any) leader, must have a million justifying reason but the fact remains that it’s a matter of personal preferences. However, I do agree that in certain situations, one person must lead in order to avoid chaos. My debate is on WHO would make a leader!

I live in the Middle East, occasionally in Lebanon (my home country), where the concept of leadership is often flubbed (☚ word of the day – flubbed: messed up, screwed up, destroyed, ruined, etc.). If you watch regional/international news (which I avoid with great passion), you must have heard of Lebanon and its many political dilemmas due to the many leaders and parties, each trying to take over and prove their alleged rightfulness. Now don’t take that as a statement that “we suck and you rock!”. I know every country has its problems, but I’m in no position to judge something I haven’t experienced firsthand (PREJUDICE IS BAD!).

Now let’s head to the source of the problem as to what makes a leader worthy of being a leader (before you think to yourself “oh this is going to be one of those boring theses”, it’s not! It’s going to be fun and you’ll get a treat at the end.).

According to the very general definitions you would find for “Leader” or “Leadership”, a leader is a person or thing (e.g.: an organization) that rules, guides, and inspires others. Well I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds pretty vague and subjective.

Let’s try to search for “Leadership attributes” for more accurate results:

Google search engine results: about 863,000 for leadership attributes. (0.36 seconds)

Good luck reading them all to know what would make a leader! Or you can just keep on reading and get an idea based on my perspective.

One result that I found a bit reliable is this right here:

The 11 critical attributes of leadership are listed below:

1. Unwavering Courage (in some cases, courage is inapplicable.)
2. Self-Control (you’d have to know the leader personally to be able to judge on this one)
3. A keen sense of justice (based on what law?!)
4. Definiteness of decision (what about the quality or rightness of the decision?!)
5. Definiteness of plans (What about commitment to execution?!)
6. The habit of doing more than paid for (Is there an extent to what he/she is being paid to do?!)
7. A pleasing personality (Even if it’s just an act?!)
8. Sympathy and understanding (Again, a close knowledge is necessary as so not to fall for stories)
9. Mastery of detail (one side-note: in Lebanon, we have ministers heading ministries totally irrelevant to their experience and background. Not much mastery of detail there! Like a car mechanic fixing a spaceship.)   
10. Willingness to assume full responsibility (So he/she is willing, but will he/she commit when $#!+ happens!?)
11. Cooperation (Is it really cooperation or an exclusive club of plotters?!)

Answer this in full honesty: Do you look into all of those attributes before committing yourself to a leader? (Yes? What? I can’t hear you!). It is surely hard to investigate and have certain proof of all those attributes, but don’t just simply follow a leader who looks impressive because he/she has many other followers. Don’t just blindly trust a leader and follow his actions with complete obedience without having an objective sense of reasoning. Leaders are human and thus bound to make mistakes at times even if they were supermen/superwomen (BTW Superman is dead, if you haven’t read so yet.)

Where am I going with this?

Be your own leader first. learn to have the above attributes and be the best you can be as a person. No one is better than you as a human (unless you are an evil villain), but some can outshine you with their actions. Thus, learn from their actions, imitate, modify and originate, but never just follow to be in the herd!

If you find yourself with an urge for a role model, investigate, question, and always reason. Don’t just trust what other followers are saying even if they were your best friends, or wife/husband, which brings me to my next point.

Have some guts and stand up for what is right. Don’t just stand up to what your leader thinks is right and don’t defend him/her when you know he/she is wrong. Just follow the leader’s singular actions, one at a time, rather than the leader himself/herself.

Conveniently and coincidently, I just came across this quote -watching the movie Zeitgeist, that was referred to me by a friend- that directly fits my point:

“They must find it difficult… those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority.

-          G. Massey, Egyptologist”

Now, this isn’t a conclusion, because I still want to hear from you as to who you consider as a leader/row model (in any industry, profession, age, dead or alive, etc.), and why or how he/she inspires you.

And don’t ask me whom I consider as a leader. That position is going to be vacant until I am proven wrong or I have better alternatives, because no matter what the case is, NEVER appoint a leader by default!

P.S.: As for the treat, I consider knowledge to be the biggest treat. If you don’t agree then you shouldn’t have been here on the first place =), but you’re still welcomed.

Here’s the weekly Zeigeist ( economic data summary ) for Novemeber 23,  from the Atlantic Magazine ……….

Pollster.com

Obama Average Job Approval  49.2%

Pollster.com

Obama Favorability  55.5%

Pollster.com

Right Direction / Wrong Track3  7.9% / 57.6%

Pollster.com

Congressional Approval  23.8%

Standard & Poor’s

S&P 5001,  108.43 (up 274 points since 1/20/09)

National Federation of Independent Businesses

Small Business Optimism Index  89.1 (up 0.3% from September)

ABC News/Washington Post

Consumer Comfort Index  45 points below zero

U.S. Department of Labor

Initial Weekly Jobless Claims  505,000 (down 80,000 since 1/20/09)

Bankrate.com

Interest on 30-Year Fixed Mortgage  5.03%

RealtyTrac

Newly foreclosed properties in October  332,292

U.S. Department of Labor

Unemployment  10.2%

U.S. Department of Labor

Consumer Price Index  +0.3 in October

Mortgage Bankers Association

Quarterly Delinquency  9.64%

National Association of Realtors

Sales of Existing Homes, Annual Rate (Monthly  )6.10 million in October (up 10.1% from September)

und in den Fußgängerzonen

Ich gehe gerne ins Kino – und Vampire sah ich dort schon oft. Nach Polanskis “Tanz der Vampire” mit der herrlichen Sharon Tate folgte “Dracula jagt Mini-Mädchen”. Herrlich die Szene, als Christopher Lee in ein eingefrorenes Mädchen beißen will.

Nach Bram Stoker´s Dracula 1991 (Francis Coppola) und dem “Interview mit einem Vampir”  1994 wurde es sehr ruhig um dieses Genre, mal abgesehen von “From Task till Dawn” 1994 und die Blade-Serie ab 1998.  Dracula mutierte zum Kinderfreund, war nur noch als “Vamperl” und “Der kleine Vampir” in den Kinderzimmern präsent.

Nun aber gibt es wieder Vampire auf allen Kanälen. Für mich begann der neue Vampirimus 2008 mit “I am Legend” – die vom Virus mutierten Menschen haben vampirähnliche Eigenschaften, ertragen ebenfalls keine UV-Strahlung.  Im Buchbereich begann mit Stephenie Meyers schon 2005 Twilight-Reihe (Biss zum …) . Wenn ich die Kritiken richtig verstanden habe, wollte Frau Meyers vor ungeschütztem Sex warnen. Ein HIVpositiver wird so in die Analogie mit Vampiren gesetzt??

Vor allem Frauen sind oft fasziniert von dieser anziehenden Mischung aus Eros und Thanatos. Der Vampir zieht an, ist attraktiv, erregt, steht für ungewöhnlichen Sex – aber natürlich steht er auch für Schmerz, Blut, Tod – aber möglicherweise auch für ewiges Leben und anhaltende Jugend.

Solange die Begegnung mit einem Vampir nur ein Gedankenspiel ist, kann frau bei offenem Fenster schlafen, legt vorbereitend die Kette mit dem Christus-Symbol ab und wartet auf Besuch. Der Prinz trägt schwarz. Er ist schweigsam, zielorientiert und ohne Rücksicht. Ein richtiger Mann?

Zunächst einmal möchte ich anmerken, dass auch für die Schweinegrippe gilt:

Entspannen, zurücklehnen, nicht so wichtig nehmen und nur ja nicht alles glauben was dazu ständig durch die Medien gewalzt wird.

Es ist statistisch erwiesen, dass die Schweinegrippe längst nicht so gefährlich ist, wie dies in der Vergangenheit andere Grippe- Formen bereits waren. So hat die Chinesische Grippe weltweit vergleichsweise viele Millionen Todesopfer mehr  gefordert, als dies bei der Schweinegrippe derzeit der Fall ist und wahrscheinlich auch längst nicht erreicht werden wird. Verglichen damit, ist die Schweinegrippe ein etwas stärkerer fiebriger Schnupfen, nichts weiter…

Der tatsächliche Unterschied dieser beiden “Heimsuchungen” liegt eher im medialen Bereich verwurzelt, von Anfang an wurde ein riesiger “Hype” darum veranstaltet, dies “sozusagen” in der Endphase und als Krönung des letzten Sommerlochs.

Zum besseren Verständnis gehe ich nachfolgend auf ein paar wichtige Kernfragen ein, denen sich in diesen Tagen viele Menschen zu stellen haben:

Ist die Schweinegrippe tatsächlich tödlich?

Unsinn! Nur Erkrankte, die durch eine andere, sehr den Körper belastende Krankheit ZUSÄTZLICH  an Schweinegrippe erkranken, können in der Folge dieser Duplizität in der Auswirkung daran versterben.

Sollte man sich impfen lassen?

Meine Ärztin sagt ein klares NEIN.  Wer dafür sorgt, dass sein Körper Vitamin- und Mineralreich versorgt ist, verfügt über ein ordentliches Immunsystem und wird gar nicht erst infiziert. Im übrigen hätte sich der Virus bereits so verändert, daß die Impfung kaum noch Wirkung hat. Das Gleiche gilt für das Mittel Tamiflu. Auch werden derzeit bundesweit keine Schweinegrippe-Tests durchgeführt und keine Erkrankungen mehr gemeldet, sondern nur noch die Todesfälle.

Wie kann ich mich und meine Familie schützen?

Wie oben bereits angemerkt, ist eine ausreichende Versorgung mit Vitaminen, Mineralien und Spurenelementen der von namhaften Medizienern und Wissenschaftlern beste und rundum empfohlene Schutz. Zusätzlich ist es sehr wichtig die hygiensichen Aspekte einer möglichen Ansteckung peinlich zu beachten.

Mein Tipp:

Lassen Sie in diesen Tagen beim allgemeinen Gruß die Hände dort wo diese sind. Händeschütteln, Grußkuss und andere Körperkontakte sollten vermieden werden, lieber etwas weniger “herzlich” als später krank!

Händewaschen, ständig, bei jeder erdenklichen Gelegenheit, der Einfachheit halber mit Flüssigseife, dann ist es ruckzuck erledigt.

Meiden Sie Menschenansammlungen, dort wo es unumgänglich ist, halten Sie etwas Abstand und halten Sie sich von hustenden Menschen fern.

Ganz wichtig, Prophylaxe:

Beginnen Sie nicht erst damit sich über die Schweinegrippe Gedanken zu machen, wenn es einen Arbeitskollegen oder ein Familienmitglied erwischt hat, dann ist es wahrscheinlich schon längst zu spät dazu.  Wie ich erfahren habe, beginnt die Phase der Ansteckung bereits 2 Tage vor Ausbruch der Krankheit.

Beginnen Sie sofort mit den notwendigen Änderungen ihres Lebensstils bezüglich dem Verhalten Ihrer Mitmenschen gegenüber UND dem Ausbau Ihres Immunsystems durch entsprechende Ergänzung der dazu notwendigen Substanzen, dies ist sehr viel leichter als man denkt.

Mein persönliches Rezept:

Stärken sie Ihr Immunsystem durch:

Vitamin C, so viel wie möglich

Vitaminkomplex

Mineralkomplex

Mega OPC

und nätürlich auch sämtliche Omega (3,6,9) -Öle, hierbei vorzugsweise Fischöle.

“Zuviel” gibt es nicht! Ein Überangebot von Vitaminen und Mineralien scheidet der Körper unverbraucht aus, ein “Zuwenig” hingegen, kann in beschriebenem Sinne jedoch gefährlich werden! 

Unter dem Strich haben Sie damit eine mögliche Ansteckung durch ein intaktes Immunsystem recht gut im Griff und ausreichend vorgebeugt, ich spreche da aus eigener Erfahrung. Letzte Woche hat sich mein Sohn (12) in der Schule angesteckt, allein in seiner Klasse gab es 10 positive Fälle.

Natürlich ist die regelmässige Einnahme der oben genannten Produkte die unkomplizierteste Form seinen Körper fit für die Schweinegrippe zu halten, es müssen also nicht unbedingt jeden Tag zig Obstsalate oder Unmengen an Fisch und Gemüse verzehrt werden um solche Stoffe aufzunehmen, von den Kosten einmal ganz abgesehen, möchte ich die dabei zusätzlich zu konsumierenden Kalorien, auf diesem Wege auch ganz gern vermeiden. Selbst Kartoffeln z.B. haben einen sehr viel höheren Vitamin C- Gehalt als dies landläufig bekannt ist…

Insofern sind meine Frau, meine Tochter (20) und ich seit dieser Zeit dem Virus mit dem genannten Hintergrund sehr unmittelbar ausgesetzt, ohne, dass dieses bei uns etwas hätte ausrichten können. Mein Sohn sitzt abends mit uns vor dem Fernseher, in seine Decke gehüllt und hustend, dies bei ca. 39 Fieber.

Wäre unser Immunsystem geschwächt, wäre meine Familie längst in einem weiteren Kreise angesteckt.

Ansonsten gilt also, Kopf hoch, mit ein wenig Sensibilität für die wichtigsten Verhaltensregeln von Hygiene und ordentlicher Ernährung, ist die Schweinegrippe nicht wirklich gefährlich für einen halbwegs gesunden Menschen.

Quellen:

Bildquelle: http://www.grimminalbullizei.de/

Meine ersten Gedanken am 27.9. dieses Jahres um 18.01 Uhr waren nicht Enttäuschung oder Wut, sondern Unverständnis. Mir war es völlig schleierhaft, wie in einer Zeit, in der die “Welt nach sozialdemokratischen Antworten geradezu schreit” (Sigmar Gabriel), ein rechtsliberaler Wahlsieg zustande kommen kann.

Selbstverständlich hat die Stärke der anderen auch viel mit der Schwäche der SPD zu tun (und damit, dass die Kritiker der SPD oft genug auch ihre Vorbehalte gegen die Partei Die Linke haben und eher der Wahl fernbleiben, als den eigentlich logischen Sprung zu machen), aber allein das greift nicht weit genug und vernachlässigt jene gesellschaftlichen Entwicklungen, die mit einem starken “bürgerlichen” Lager einhergehen.

Das, was Sigmar Gabriel letzte Woche auf dem Parteitag über die Erfordernis einer Rückgewinnung der Deutungshoheit in der Gesellschaft gesagt hat, zeigt sich in vielen Äußerungen, nicht nur in Faz, Welt oder Zeit, sondern auch von Freunden und Kommilitonen: Elitedenken ist weiter verbreitet als gedacht und befürchtet.

Die Definition von Leistung (i.S.v. “Leistungsträger”, “leistungswillig” im Gegensatz zu “Leistungsempfänger” und “leistungsunfähig oder -unwillig”) liegt wieder voll in der Hand der konservativen Kräfte. Vielverdiener sind so automatisch Leistungsträger und zahlen ja viel zu viele Steuern und Arbeitslose sollen doch bitte ein wenig dankbarer ihre Leistungen entgegennehmen und würden ja ohnehin Arbeit finden, wenn sie sich drum bemühen würden.

Auch, dass man es geschafft hat, dem Begriff “links” die “Bürgerlichkeit” entgegenzusetzen, ist sicherlich ein Verdienst von jahrelanger harter Oppositionsarbeit. “Links” ist wieder negativ besetzt, meistens mit faul, rebellisch, neidisch und rechthaberisch, während das “Bürgerliche” durch Vermeidung des ebenfalls negativ besetzten Begriffes “rechts” für Fleiß, Anstand, Stil und kulturelle Interessiertheit steht.

Zu dieser Manipulation durch Sprache hat Erhard Eppler letzte Woche auf dem Parteitag sehr richtig gesagt:

Wir Deutschen leiden darunter, dass wir für die französischen Worte Citoyen – Staatsbürger, Souverän der Demokratie – und Bourgeois – Besitzbürger – leider nur ein einziges Wort haben, nämlich Bürger. Mit dieser Armut der deutschen Sprache wird nun seit 200 Jahren Schindluder getrieben. Lasst das einen alten Mann hinzufügen: In den 70er-Jahren habe ich geglaubt, es sei zu Ende mit diesem Schindluder. Jetzt fängt es wieder an. Das ist ja grotesk: Wenn bei uns einer zum Kommiss kommt – Wehrpflicht ableistet –, ist er doch ein Bürger in Uniform, ein Citoyen in Uniform. Völlig richtig! Aber wie ist es, wenn er die Uniform wieder auszieht? Ist er dann nur ein Bürger, wenn er zur CDU oder zur FDP geht?

Nicht nur die Gesellschaft selbst, auch die gesellschaftliche Haltung hat sich in den letzten 11 Jahren verändert. Ein Beispiel dafür ist, mit welcher Begeisterung Guttenbergs Berufung ins Kabinett im Februar aufgenommen wurde. Die Attribute “stilvoll, gut angezogen und adelig” reichen offenbar schon, um im Bewusstsein der Bevölkerung einen guten Minister auszumachen. Dass Guttenberg selbst in seinem politischen Handeln eine ganz und gar großbürgerliche Haltung an den Tag legt, fällt da nicht ins Gewicht und wird sogar noch unter “Ehrlichkeit” subsumiert.

Auch und gerade, dass Guttenbergs vermeintliche “Adeligkeit” ein besonderes Interesse des Boulevard weckt, zeigt: Status ist wieder in. Willkommen im 19. Jahrhundert. Dass der Adel seit 1918 abgeschafft ist und die damaligen Entscheidungsträger gnädiger als bspw. die Österreicher waren, die ihren vormaligen Blaublütern das Tragen ihrer Standesnamen verboten haben, und dass die Abschaffung der Unterdrückung durch den Adel im Stände- und Klassensystem einer der härtesten und blutigsten Kämpfe der letzten 300 Jahre war, wird überhaupt nicht wahrgenommen.

Wenn man von Status redet, so hat dies immer die Prinzipien von Machterhalt und Abgrenzung zur Folge. Tanja Dückers schreibt dazu in der Zeit zutreffend:

Die Frage, wie diese dichotome Welt von wohlhabenden, kunstsinnigen Leistungsträgern und tumben, niveaulosen Leistungsempfängern überhaupt entstehen konnte, stellen sich die Protagonisten des neuen Zeitgeistes nicht. Die neue Avantgarde ist für sie Ergebnis eines quasi nietzscheanischen Akts – geboren aus dem puren Willen zum Erfolg. Als sei der Umstand, ob man in Lohn und Brot steht, lediglich eine Frage von Wille und Leistung.

Dass in Deutschland die soziale Durchlässigkeit seit Jahren abnimmt, wird nicht nur ausversehen übersehen, sondern ist wohl gewollt. Statusveränderung ist schließlich Sozialismus. Oder so.

Bevor man konkrete Lösungen von Sachentscheidungen wie bei den Arbeitslosenhilfegesetzen, der Rente mit 67 etc. als DEN Weg aus der Krise der Sozialdemokratie sieht, sollte man sich klar darüber sein, dass die neue Regierung tatsächlich eine Regierung der Mitte ist. Natürlich nicht in dem Sinne, dass die neue Politik einen Ausgleich zwischen rechten und linken Positionen und den verschiedenen Schichten der Gesellschaft sucht, sondern dass rechtskonservative und neoliberale Positionen im Moment die Deutungshoheit in der Gesellschaft innehaben.

Der Weg zu einer neuerlich starken Sozialdemokratie kann also nicht auf Sachentscheidungen oder Glaubwürdigkeitsrückgewinn reduziert werden, sondern kann nur mit einer Umwälzung des wortwörtlich herrschenden Denkens einhergehen.

Due to various circumstances, it has been way too long without a blog post about the hackfest I was lucky enough to be able to attend, thanks to Seif and the super nice people at the GNOME Foundation who sponsored me. There were some super talented people there, and I got to see first hand the skills of these guys.

During the hackfest I wrote up the start of an overview of what Zeitgeist and related software will do for the user, from a non technical point of view. That document is still a work in progress, but I decided to post the first part.

So, how do I deal with information on my computer?
First, off, we’re narrowing down “information” to be “activities I’m doing at my computer”. Expanding on this, “activities” is not limited to “having produced document x”, but also:

• looking at web page y for 2 minutes
• writing something in a chat
• watching a movie, etc.

As it is right now, information is highly fragmented. Most applications keep their own logs, so you can browse your history. In e.g. a word processor, my history is usually limited to the last couple of documents. Furthermore, the history is not giving me a structured view of the time aspect of my work.

Information is also fragmented in the sense that traditional files are generally viewed as the primary items.

In an age that values sharing of information, many of the activities I do on my computer is not stored in traditional files, but rather scattered around the web. The history items in my web browser are just as important as a random file on my computer! So are my chat logs, my future and past tasks in my preferred task manager, my search history, etc.

All these things are important because of several aspects:

• They could have historical significance
• They could show me “how did I go from point A to point B?”
• They could provide other people with insight into my work flow
• They could show me exactly what I did when I last stopped working

In addition to this information being fragmented, it is also accessed in highly different ways, usually with a set of options for each application. In the end, it seems better to take notes, or rely on your memory to remember where you were, what you did, and how you did it.

Different approaches to categorising

When we sort our information in categories, we employ different ways, depending on the nature of the information. It basically comes down to structure, context and content

1) STRUCTURE

Most of our traditional pieces of information are sorted structurally. Most commonly, we decide on a structure by using our set of directories (commonly called “folders”). This approach has some pitfalls:

• When I start working, how do I know what kind of categories will be useful a week or a month from now? I generally don’t know for sure, so I put up a directory tree using broad categories, and then I have to carefully revise those directories while I work. With large numbers of files, this work gets increasingly difficult.
• Many files also belong in several categories. To solve this, what do I do? Do I make symbolic links to files, do I keep several copies of the files or do I move them around? If documents are often updated, it is important that I only deal with the latest version. Having several copies makes this a difficult task.
• What about all the information about web history, chat logs, multimedia player history, etc? Keeping a basic file tree will often exclude important information that is not a traditional file

The most common solution to problems with poor planning and execution of file trees is a desktop search engine, which is able to return files that fit your search query. The search engine can look only in the name of the file, or it can also look into the contents of the file (like in a text document) and metadata (like camera information belonging to an image file, or information about the artist in an audio file).

Tracker is an advanced search tool that provides much of this, and can assist the user in finding the location of the files s/he is looking for.

Basic file search and having directories is old news that most people that are used to computers use all the time.

2) CONTEXT

Information context is basically: In what situation did I use this information? To answer this I need to look at different aspects:

• How did I use it? (Which application did I use?)
• For how long did I use it?
• What did I use it together with (which files/items did I use together with this piece of information)

Context revolves around time, and around relationships to other pieces of information and to applications.

A question that structure in itself cannot answer is: “what did I do at the same time I was doing this?” Expanding on this, it also can’t answer something like: “What items of information do I usually use at the same time I’m using this piece?”

Zeitgeist is providing users with a way of viewing their work in a context, answering these types of questions, and interacting with the answers.

3) CONTENT

Content is both easy and hard. A human being has no problems in taking a brief glance at a piece of familiar information and make a fast decision that this belongs in this or that category.

For computer programs, this is not so easy. Computer programs aren’t good at deciding from the start what’s relevant and what’s irrelevant. On some pieces of information the topic is the giveaway, but in others it might be in the document structure. Getting more into detail, a computer will often have a hard time deciding what are the keywords that are worth looking for.

This is the reason that Google gives you hundreds or maybe thousands of results when you search the web. The search takes only a fraction of a second, but depending on how good the search query is, the average person will still have to manually sort out if this is the answer to the question that is being asked.

Searching the web involves a small amount of time having the computers search, and then a much larger amount of time is manual work, deciding between the search results.

Making a query on your computer asking: “List all items on my computer that relates to this?” is like doing hundreds of Google searches at once, all requiring some manual sorting afterwards.

Keeping track of content has partly been done by pre made file trees like I discussed in the structure part.

Since the content approach still cannot be solved by computer programs by themselves, there is need for some user interaction while work is being done.

Tracker is able to tag items in the search results. Many tags can be applied to the same item, giving them relevance in several categories.

Use cases

• Jeff is working on a project for his job. One day, Jeff needs to assist on another project for 2 weeks, so he needs to stop his current work immediately. After the two weeks have gone, how should he resume his work flow?
• Michaela gets tons of e-mail. She is trying to remember who sent her an e-mail for Christmas, so she can reply to them. How would she do this?
• George downloads a file on his computer, but not being very good with computers, he can’t find the file afterwards. How should he look for it?
• Judy is working on a project at work. At the same time she is planning a trip with a friend. The traditional files would likely be put in separate directories in her computers file tree, but what about the various browser tabs she has open. How does she differentiate which belongs to which category? The same applies to her various e-mails, chat logs, etc.
• Jill has finished her report on a project, and her boss asks her questions about how the project came about. What information led to this report, and what pieces of information lead to the conclusion?

Stay tuned for the rest!

Ein lesenswerter Beitrag in der Zeit von Tanja Dückers zur aktuellen Sozialdarwinismusdebatte und dem intellektuellen Magerquark, der da angerührt wird. Man beachte das wunderbar illustrative Foto mit Joop und Westerwelle.

video page updated
Bible Myth?
click here

The weekly Zeigeist for November 19…….

Pollster.com

Obama Average Job Approval   51.2%

Pollster.com

Obama Favorability  56.1%

Pollster.com

Right Direction / Wrong Track  37.1% / 57.9%

Pollster.com

Congressional Approval  23.0%

Standard & Poor’s

S&P 500  1,094.90 (up 260 points since 1/20/09)

National Federation of Independent Businesses

Small Business Optimism Index  89.1 (up 0.3% from September)

ABC News/Washington Post

Consumer Comfort Index  45 points below zero

U.S. Department of Labor

Initial Weekly Jobless Claims  505,000 (down 80,000 since 1/20/09)

Bankrate.com

Interest on 30-Year Fixed Mortgage  5.03%

RealtyTrac

Newly foreclosed properties in October  332,292

U.S. Department of Labor

Unemployment  10.2%

U.S. Department of Labor

Consumer Price Index  +0.3 in October

Mortgage Bankers Association

Quarterly Delinquency  9.64%

National Association of Realtors

Sales of Existing Homes, Annual Rate (Monthly)  5.57 million in September (up 9.4% from August)

I’m back after having spent 2 days in Berlin for…work. Wow, that was exciting! Kein leisure this time!

The Ritz-Carlton was hosting the Herald Tribune conference of the luxury industry in Berlin. This conference has been traditionally hosted in London, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo. But this year Suzy Menkes, the venerable fashion editor of Herald Tribune, picked Berlin because the flirt between luxury and technology is becoming something serious. And surely Milano, Paris or London felt a bit passé when it comes to technology.

It was kind of odd to talk luxury in Berlin, the anti-luxury town. Or the über-luxury town, if you think that a cleaner air, using the bike and nature at your doorstep are the real luxury now. But Suzy Menkes has antennas, and they are tuning in on new themes: technology, CSR. After all the New York Times offers one of the best online media experiences, we started to see during the US election campaign how its Lab was exploiting all the potential offered by multimedia and the mixture of graphic/text/photo/interactivity. Plus the US are pushing smart grids, greener technology: sign of the times. And Berlin is a good example of sticking to environmental commitments.

Technology + luxury is indeed an intriguing combination and the concentration of interesting speeches and conversations provided abundant food for thought. Not all contributions were equally interesting. Some speakers lost golden opportunities for sharing with the audience a deeper understanding of their approach to technology because they picked a standard, institutional presentation off the rack and delivered it without too much belief, thus lowering the momentum generated by lush video introductions. Or because they never answered to questions but just kept on pumping their message “we’re the best”. But they were just a couple of them. The majority of the speakers had prepared the material carefully, both conversation and multimedia content, has delivered the key messages with passion and answered in a candid way to Suzy Menkes’s questions.

My favorite speeches…

1. Christopher Bailey, Creative Director @ Burberry like a dj mixed effective visuals and music, lots of it, with pragmatic examples and clear messages. He’s really in tune with the times. He shared with the audience in a simple way many examples on how the company is approaching technology in an holistic way: be it environmental issues in the workplace, permanent videoconference facilities, wifi and skype, online activities, approach to social networks, and feedback from social networks. It’s not a matter on jumping on the bandwagon of the latest cool gadgetry. But of having a vision on how that brand could profit from technology, preparing a plan and rolling it out. Not being afraid of engaging into a dialogue, not sticking to the brand monologue bunker-mentality.

2. Natalie Massenet, CEO @ Net-à-porter answered in a candid way even tough questions such as “what is the % of merchandise sold online that is returned?”. It is about 25%, but the fact you can do it without fuss lowers the barrier to entry and encourages shopping. She approached the theme of discounts and outlets with grace but without hiding the truth. Very elegant, very impactful. Or, as Menkes said, Multinational, multilingual, multimedia…

3. Jochen Zeitz, CEO @ Puma delivered a very inspired and quite intimidating speech on the social responsibilities of companies, or rather, the responsibility tout court of companies and customers alike vis a’ vis the environment. He sounded a bit like a priest and sometimes a dash paternalistic, putting himself on a level above the audience. But apart from the form, the substance of the speech was there. My impression is that he is truly committed and is working with the objective to making a difference, starting with a different way to use packaging for instance. No cosmetic CSR, but a clear vision. He may sound idealistic, but ideals are not a bad thing to have and I trust the man is pragmatic too – after all he’s German, right? – and we will see the results down the road. The speech was carefully prepared, even if it was delivered like a sermon. Maybe the audience could have been spared the many references to Heidegger and Ralph Waldo Emerson, but very inspiring and deep nonetheless. The guy is honest and means what he says.

4. Jefferson Hack, Editorial Director, Dazed & Confused – during the coffee break Hack was rehearsing his presentation. I love to see this. It means the speaker is taking the audience seriously and has worked personally on his presentation, is involved and cares about the product and the customers he has in front of him. Hack started off with a powerful video (and sound, hey!) and carried on with an extremely lateral-thinking form of presentation, and clear ideas on smart media. Similarly as with music, we will consume media online and “buy the paper” in the same way as we “buy the CD” or the vinyl now: for its artwork, as a souvenir of the experienced we consumed somewhere else, online. At the end he showed he cared for the audience, signaling that a bunch of links had been prepared were available forthose who wished to further explore the matter of smart media. Competent and thorough, but at the same impactful and effective, without trying to please the audience or the moderator by means of cheap seduction. Rough edges.

I crossed later Hack at Grill Royal and couldn’t agree more with him on the theme of higher quality magazines. I buy far less magazines today than I used to 10 years ago. But those ones I buy, are of better quality and deliver something more than just the news or the odd fashion editorial. Think about Dummy, Monocle, Brand Eins. And Vogue Paris, which I still buy because of its clean graphic look, extraordinary art work and articles which are not shallow.

5. Ross Lovegrove, Designer, Lovegrove Studio – was able to deliver a presentation which bordered more on the philosophical divertissement than on the clear description of the role of technology in luxury. But he had won the siberian slot, the one around 3pm, and managed to keep the audience interested and entertained during the toughest moment of any conference: digestion. Was it because he mentioned that during his career as a cook he managed to add marijuana to any dish? or because he was very tanned and laid back? He loathes retrospective, he hates looking back and he only works on future/futuristic stuff. Still, objects become icons – and sell – also because they have the magic of aging well, epitomizing the Zeitgeist of their time. One should not despise the source of his cashflows, oder?

6. During the same module Adam Thorpe and Joe Hunter from Vexed dived deeper in the relationship between technology and the human body and discussed poignantly themes such as impact protection, moisture management, protection from pollution and visibility. We’re in smart materials territory, and the two bikers work on an array of projects also for other brands in order to develop materials with special properties and garments with ergonomic solutions to specific problems. I suggested to Adam to go and have a look to Otto Bock’s building across the road, an amazing buiding more fascinating than Prada’s Aoyama flagship in Tokyo…smart materials once more, with the difference that they deal with trauma recovery rather than avoiding trauma! Avant-après!

7. Alexander Reichert, Prada Transformer Project Architect, OMA together with Tomaso Galli from Prada. The Transformer is a fantastic giant toy and maybe you needed lateral risk-takers like the Pradas to make it a reality. Reichert’s project is a fantastic challenge which became real. On the one hand, I wonder about the financial implication and return of such a project. On the other hand, on paper it seems more interesting than Chanel’s cocoon-spaceship Art Container designed by Zaha Hadid, because it is truly innovative and capsizes, literally, the paradigm of building, making it truly…polyedric. Mongolian jurta, Eskimo boat, Indian Teepee, Scythian carriage, god knows how Reichert came up with the mega-toy. Reichert seemed quite shy (but very proud) in presenting his project, so some interesting slides got skipped because of his being maladroit. Tomaso’s communication skills were crucial in smoothing the creases. But as Reichert picked up a 3-d maquette of the Transformer things started to get better, he was more in control of the presentation and could share the 3-d idea behind it: a pyramid-shaped building morphing in a movie theater (rectangle), art exhibition (cross), special event (circle) and fashion event (octagon).….more tomorrow….

Photo: NYT – IHT

First, I have to establish that this discussion will focus on the aspect of the ideology of liberalism as it pertains to art.

To establish this discussion we must first agree that in the United States and countries that allow for artistic freedom, that liberalism and the population that aligns itself with the ideology of liberalism have at their discretion the power to choose what they consider to have artistic value, hence, what we determine to be meaningful or beautiful, and the power to choose what we consider to be ugly, or, what we do not consider to be meaningful or beautiful.   If there is one phrase that symbolizes the very essence of this perceived freedom of choice, it would have to be, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I would like to put forth the proposition that, not only are the perceived freedoms of liberalism false, but that in fact, the statement, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, makes the notion impossible to implement.

If we examine the statement, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we have to acknowledge and state as fact, that we are using the word beauty to identify aspects of our world and our reality that can be defined as 1 : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit.  (Merriam Webster) And so, if we are to establish and state as fact that we have a system of measurement where a person or thing can be defined as beautiful and therefore has an actual or implied higher aesthetic value, than we must inevitably conclude that this classification has at it’s polar opposite the concept of ugliness, which posses the lowest aesthetic value.

If you are going to state that there are things in this world that have beauty, then you are creating a standard for which, everything that does do not fall within the established definition of beauty, must be allocated to a lower level of consideration.

If we establish a system of measurement for artistic value where beauty is placed at the top and given the highest artistic value, then we must immediately conclude that at the bottom of this system of measurement of artistic value, is ugliness, which is assigned the lowest artistic value.

Throughout our society as a whole and within individual subcultures, there is embedded within the artistic environment a standard which uses a system of evaluation and measurement as it pertains to what we accept as valuable and what we do not.  As a basic component of this reality we label, accept, enforce and even regulate what we consider to be beautiful.  These decisions ultimately establish an implied, intrinsic truth as it pertains to a particular discipline, giving a particular piece or even an entire movement a label that identifies that piece or movement as one that retains the highest value in reference to it’s artistic aesthetic.

Classical dance, music, and art, all have works that stand out and are the very definition of what the world has agreed to label as the most meaningful or beautiful example for each respective discipline.

Contemporary dance, music and art, as well, all have works that stand out and are the very definition of what the world has agreed to label as the most meaningful or beautiful example for each respective discipline.

The statement, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not only abandons any system for measuring the level of quality of a particular piece of art,  it deems any system of measurement to be irrelevant and ultimately ignores the fundamental reality within every genre of artistic expression, that there is a value system that arranges any and all works within that genre on a scale from beauty to ugliness.

If we agree that as part of our decision to accept or deny the validity of a particular piece of art, that we are inevitably accepting or denying it’s value as well. Then we are using a system of measurement which assigns values to things we consider beautiful and to things we do not.  This is the exact system of measurement used by classical art and is in direct contradiction to the ideology of liberalism, which at it’s very foundation lies the banner of artistic freedom, which allows the artist ultimate discretion outside any established rules or system that would dictate or influence how or what they create.

The difference between liberal and classical art forms is that in the world of classical art there is an agreed upon standardized unit of measurement referred to as aesthetics, against  which, all art is held, to measure it’s validity and beauty.  In the contemporary art world there can be no system of measurement because there is no agreed upon standard of aesthetic beauty.  The individual or subculture determine for themselves what will be assigned the label of validity and beauty.  In doing this they are dislocating themselves from the world of reality where standards have already been established, discarding any real or implied standard of measurement or value by maintaining that, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

We must conclude that unless you use the standard of aesthetics to judge what you accept or deny has value, and therefore beauty, you are simply denying reality and are therefore delusional.  In addition, as soon as you make a value judgment on a particular piece of art that falls outside of what you consider to have value you are ultimately refusing to allow artistic expression, which is the very definition of fascism, which is in direction contradiction to liberalism.  The world of liberalism insists on deciding for itself what is beautiful while simultaneously rejecting any standard for which to judge what will retain this label.

The world of liberalism states that each individual shall enjoy ultimate artistic freedom, but within this implied environment of freedom there remains a system of measurement where the individual or group assigns value to a particular piece, therefore eliminating implied artistic freedom and holding the piece up to the new established from of measurement within that subculture.

The very existence of a system which creates an evaluative standard of beauty within a system that demands to decide for itself what is beautiful, while rejecting anything that does not fall into this created definition, precludes and eliminates any and all artistic freedoms and is an exercise in fascism and the ultimate example of ideological hypocrisy and is therefore, invalid.

Liebe Leser, nehmen Sie sich zwei Stunden Zeit und schauen Sie sich in einer Mußestunde dieses hochinformative Video an.

Sollten Sie sich nicht mit schwerwiegenden Wahrheiten auseinandersetzen wollen, dann übersehen Sie diesen Eintrag einfach und klicken Sie den Film NICHT an.

Allen Anderen sei es vergönnt, sich zu informieren, wie unser weltweites Geldsystem eigenltich funktioniert. Zumindest wundert man sich übert nichts mehr danach …. Ändern werden wir es nicht können, aber unsere persönlichen Schlüsse ziehen.

Zeitgeist Addendum

Hier noch der original Link zu Google – Video -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1352552668588051041#

Twitter is apparently the front runner for Time’s person of the year.

And “unfriend” is the Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year.

*sigh*

Nimm dir Zeit zum Lachen,
es ist die Musik der Seele…
Nimm dir Zeit, freundlich zu sein,
es ist der Weg zum Glück…
(aus Island)

I heart synchronicity and zeitgeist. A lot.

Example: Two weeks ago I had zero interest in  guys who do Michael Jackson dance routines. Less than zero interest. In fact, watching something like that had a good chance of annoying me.

But add a little synchronicity into the mix and I’m all over it.

Remember that busguy post? Check this out.

Completely unrelated to busguy, someone posts a killer video called “Josh’s Commute to Work” which just happens to be about a  guy who dances his ass off to a Michael Jackson jam on his way to work in Chicago.

It’s nothing short of amazing (especially when you find out this video was shot and edited in under 24hrs.)

(via Zadi)

Schematischer Aufbau eines (un-)sinnigen Gedankens

Schematischer Ausbau eines (un-)sinnigen Gedankens

Schematischer Aufbau eines (un-)sinnigen Gedankens

Schematischer Ausbau eines (un-)sinnigen Gedankens

.. teorías conspiratorias, al parecer, porque todavía no lo he visto (dicen que es interesante)

If you haven’t already, you should check out this post by T. aka Ricky Raw, in which he skewers the recent “poverty porn” flick Precious. This passage struck me in particular:

I watched it in a predominately black theatre, and many of the scenes the audience was laughing or cheering at were disturbingly inappropriate, and much of that seemed deliberate based on how over-the-top the subject matter was presented.

Has anyone else noticed this trend of people laughing or cheering at movie scenes that are supposed to make the viewer feel uncomfortable? Two years ago, I saw Black Snake Moan, a film in the same exploitative vein as Precious, only focused on poor rural whites as opposed to poor blacks. During one pivotal scene in which the main character, played by Christina Ricci, physically assaults her mother with a shovel, some asshole two rows behind me was hollering hysterically through the whole thing. It was just one jerkoff, though, so I forgot about it at the time.

It happened again when I saw Watchmen, where a good third of the audience was driven to hysterics and cheering during the scene in which the Comedian attempts to rape the Silk Spectre. The film was already making me nauseous (the only movie that had ever done that to me), and watching the audience cheering on rape, violence, and brutality almost made me walk out out of sheer anger and disgust. I frankly wanted to take every single one of those faux-macho, hairy-palmed comic book geekazoids out in the backyard and beat the shit out of them, given them the beating their fathers should have given them. I managed to sit through the rest of Watchmen without starting any fights, but the dark, nihilistic gestalt of the film combined with the sick audience reaction put me in a deep depression. I spent the rest of that night in a dejected mood, drinking bourbon and watching Nostalgia Critic videos.

Has anyone else seen this phenomenon and been similarly repulsed?

There used to be a time when I never thought I could have learned anything from a Catholic.

Perhaps due to the fact that the sample of “Christianity” I had witnessed in my hometown Catholic church drove me into atheism by the age of 10.

But then (quite a few years after having discovered the real Jesus), I came across the writings of the Franciscan Richard Rohr, and found out that God seems to have made exceptions to every rule, and that you can even learn something from a Catholic.

Likewise, I was not expecting any mind-blowing experiences to come out of the atheist camp since my latest experiences with countless comments of the defenders of disbelief on our Youtube channels, or having read what some of their supposedly brightest lights like Richard Dawkins or the Zeitgeist people have to say.

But then again, you never know when God knocks on your door with a surprise, ready to push over all your carefully construed clichés and mental drawers we keep our fellow humans in.

I have found an atheist who is probably a better Christian than I.

And very much unlike most of his fellow unbelievers, he comes forward as a defender of those from the other side or camp of the opposition and writes a book called, “An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It.”

If I ever would have had and lost anything like it, I would have said “Bruce Sheiman has restored my faith in humanity.” But since I have long ago decided to place my trust in Someone more trustworthy than my own kind, at least I can say, Bruce, thanks for making my day! – And for reminding me of how a real Christian is supposed to act, seeing the good in the folks on the “other side” and coming forward to put in a good word for them, which is probably a closer version of “loving your enemies” than what the majority of Christendom is coming up with nowadays.

In his book, Bruce Sheiman reminds his readers that while Christianity may not have a snow-white record (as we’re constantly being reminded by those who would love to blast Christianity to hell for its crusades and other crimes of history both past and present), there are nonetheless a lot of decent Christian (or otherwise religious) folks who are doing a lot of good to make this world a better place (and if you ever tried your hand at it, you may know just how tough that attempt can be, especially in the light of the fact that most folks will never give you the credit for it, no matter what you do – just because you’re a believer).

Regardless of those culprits and fakes who have abused religion as a cloak for their less than noble purposes (including in very recent history, such as the previous US administration – without saying the present is any better), as a sum, the impact of (true) religion on the world was a good one, even if many folks may not realize it.

“Historians cannot identify any other cultural force as robust as religion that could have carried civilization along.”

Mostly, though, he points out something that strikes me as purely divine genius, namely that in our drive to discover what he terms “lowercase truth”–facts and knowledge–we have sacrificed “uppercase truth”–meaning and purpose.

In other words, figuring out all the scientific little details about how the universe works may be all fine and good, but not really replace our need for a higher purpose in life than your usual “survival of the fittest” scheme that’s slowly turning our carefully analyzed and dissected planet into living hell for more and more people each day.

He observes that our minds are called to something more than a relative truth…and if moral imperatives do not depend on God then they are not absolute and remain relative. – In other words, we’re not really good at kidding ourselves into accepting any counterfeit, fake “goodness” or standard we’re supposed to live by or strive for. The human souls is desperate to find, and unready to settle for anything less than the Real Thing in the long run.

Pointing out some of the moral advantages of those Christians and believers who actually did get the point of what their religion’s founder had intended, including their quality to respect humans as created in the image of God instead of just another hoard of highly mutated two-legged mammals who must constantly prove to each other who is the strongest, he contends that the world is actually not any worse off because of religion.

One might argue in favor of atheists as civilized and courteous as Mr. Sheiman, that in the light of Jesus’ recommendation to judge a tree by its fruits, the criteria by which He would truly consider a person to be following in His footsteps and worthy of His commendation, regardless of which camp they may profess to belong to (since we live in a world of pretenders, after all), and one way to find out who truly is a “Christian” or a “good person,” we would simply have to look at the way they treat their fellowmen.

And in this aspect, Bruce Sheiman has proven himself worthy of a higher commendation than I would be able to presently grant the majority of my fellow believers, and awakens in me the desire that there were more folks like him around, regardless of whether they share my belief or not.

Atheists who don’t persecute me for my faith make for a truly refreshing change, including from those fellow-believers who persecute me for the differences between my belief system and theirs.

Folks capable of seeing the good in people, even in those from the opposing camp, and even capable of defending them before the world, in my opinion are a greater sample of the kind of love Christ intended for us to live and practice than the attempt to press every- or anyone into our same molds.

I’ve said before that maybe Gandhi, being a Hindu, proved himself a better Christian by His actions than probably most Christians during his life-time. Perhaps Mr. Sheiman, being an atheist (though allegedly considering himself an “aspiring theist”), by his gesture, is putting forth a better Christian example than many of those who claim that label for themselves.

We’ve all heard the line “With friends like that, who needs enemies?” Well, with “enemies” like him, we would all soon have a lot more friends.

I have certainly learned something from him, and have been reminded of the fact that the One I look up to as my personal Guide and Master also stood out by bridging the gap between enemy camps (such as Jews and Romans), and it makes me long for that quality that His early followers stood out for, which ultimately enabled them to conquer the Roman empire with meekness and love.

I’m only afraid that Bruce might encounter the same type of rejection from the hardliners of his own camp that Jesus had to face from the religious hardliners of His day for showing sympathy to the Romans and preaching “Love your enemies.”

Perhaps the statement “Blessed are they who are being persecuted for righteousness’ sake” can also apply to atheists. The truth is the truth, no matter who preaches it. And in this case, the truth award of the day goes to Bruce…

Related articles:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/09/an_atheist_defends_the_value_of_religion.html

http://www.zenit.org/article-27550?l=english