“If you want to see what I mean by arbitrariness of categories, check the situation of polarized politics.  The next time a Marian visits earth, try to explain to him why who those favor allowing the elimination of a fetus in the mother’s womb also oppose capital punishment.  Or try to explain to him why those who accept abortion are supposed to be favorable to high taxation but against a strong military.  Why do those who prefer sexual freedom need to be against individual economic liberty?”

The best way to prove the arbitrary character of these of these categories, and the contagion effect they produce, is to remember how frequently these clusters reverse in history.  Today’s alliance between Christian fundamentalists and the Israeli lobby would certainly seem puzzling to a nineteenth century intellectual—Christians used to be anti-Semites and Moslems were the protectors of the Jews, whom they preferred to Christians.  Libertarians used to be left-wing.  What is interesting to me as a probabilist is that some random event makes one group that initially supports an issue ally itself with another group that supports another issue, thus causing the two items to fuse and unify…until the surprise of the separation. “

from The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

“Whenever you hear a snotty (and frustrated) European middlebrow presenting his stereotypes about Americans, he will often describe them as “uncultured,” “unintellectual,” and “poor in math” because, unlike his peers, Americans are not into equation drills and the constructions middlebrows call “high culture” – like knowledge of Goethe’s inspirational (and central) trip to Italy, or familiarity with the Delft school of painting.  Yet the person making these statements is likely to be addicted to his iPod, wear blue jeans, and use Microsoft Word to jot down his “cultural” statements on his PC, with some Google searches here and there interrupting his composition.  Well, it so happens that America is currently far, far more creative than these nations of museumgoers and equation solvers.  It is also far more tolerant of bottom-up tinkering and undirected trial and error. And globalization has allowed the United States to specialize in the creative aspect of things, the production of concepts and ideas, that is, the scalable part of the products, and, increasingly, by exporting jobs, separate the less scalable components and assign them to those happy to be paid by the hour.  There is more money in designing a shoe than in actually making it: Nike, Dell, and Boeing can get paid for just thinking, organizing, and leveraging their know-how and ideas while subcontracted factories in developing countries do the grunt work and engineers in cultured and mathematical states do the noncreative technical grind.  The American economy has leveraged itself heavily on the idea generation, which explains why losing manufacturing jobs can be coupled with a rising standard of living.”

from The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

“I have been part of five institutions- the Catholic Church, The university of Redlands, the United States Navy, The University of Chicago, and Harvard University. If I were required to rank them to the extent to which free and uninhibited discussion was possible within them, I am very much afraid that the Harvard of 1972 would not rank near the top.  In the last two or three years, the list of subjects that cannot be publicly discussed there in a free and open forum has grown steadily, and now includes the war in Vietnam, public policy towards urban ghettos, the relationship between intelligence and heredity, and the role of American corporations in certain overseas regimes.”

James Q. Wilson, political scientist

Carrie O’Connell writes in American Thinker “I am not supposed to exist” read the entire article here.

A 26 year pro life Catholic woman, Carrie writes how her profile is totally absent from the collection of media stereotypes either in the news or in the entertainment sector, which  has become more difficult to distinguish.  She basically described herself as intelligent, educated, thoughtful and conservative- yet young and female.

The reason her article struck me is that it explained why one side is so surprised at the election outcomes.  When a voter profile that did not exist, or is deemed to be an extreme minority, sweeps an election, the other side is stunned.  They then dream up conspiracy theories and elitist stereotypes to explain the totally illogical outcome. They write involved analysis such “What’s the Matter with Kansas” to explain why Americans vote conservative even when it is against their best interests to do so (in the writer’s judgment).

This becomes even more true as the left and right isolates themselves further in their own media bubble, shutting out reasonable voices from the other side.   Without some cross pollination from the different camps there is no middle.

Whether you agree with Ms. O’Connell’s opinion is less relevant than the fact that many do not realize that her opinion exists, at least not in her demographic sector.

Some excerpts from her article:

“If I based my identity on how I see women my age represented on television and in the movies, my only conclusion is that I am not supposed to exist.”

“I don’t have cable television or an iPhone and I do not feel entitled to either. I do not feel that the government should have to provide me with necessities while I refuse to give up luxuries.”

“If I was voting on popularity and glamour, I would phone American Idol, not visit the ballot box.”

“Educated, well-read women who are pro-life are never written into character plots. I am told time and time again that art imitates life. When will they stop thinning the paint?”

Facebook has added a whole new dimension to social networking, in fact reinventing it. Like any new media certain protocols develop; like learning not to capitalize all the letters in an e-mail message for fear of appearing loud or angry.

There are those who engage continuously through their iPhone or Blackberries and seem interested in sharing what seems to be the most trivial activities of their day. There are those that share links to entertaining videos or interesting articles.

There are those that engage through questions and lists about yourself.

I find that it is a fascinating place to add some depth to otherwise casual relationships, to rekindle old relations, and to get to know authors and readers with similar interests.

I follow my daughter and some of her friends but I am cautious to avoid ‘conversations’ with them less I appear to be intruding on her social network. I am cautious of appearing predatory towards women that I do not know and avoid ‘friending’ strangers unless we share at least 12 common friends.

While I share articles that I find offers some insight I try to avoid blatantly political and partisan attacks since I pride my ‘friend’ pool on its political diversity.

Facebook clearly is used by many to promote business interests and that is largely why I got involved. Combining business and social networks can have some real potential as long as it does not get overwhelmingly and blatantly commercial. People do like to do business with people they know and like.

To me Facebook is like a living Rolodex where you can get constantly updated information on your ‘friends’ and contacts. The new media has developed so fast that its uses are just being discovered, and every user gets to set his or her own rules.