A Brief History of Social Networking.

Foreword

Unlike online Instant Messaging or Chat communities (such as AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, or ICQ), social networks (or "virtual communities") can be defined as groupings of people with similar intents, if not interests. Their purpose is relatively simple, to use the internet to allow people to interact with people they most likely would have little or no chance of coming into contact with otherwise, whether due to social cliches, geographical boundaries, or other obstacles. Consider it a veritable successor to or perhaps even "evolution" from having a "pen pal".

The approach of each individual website differs, depending on which type of person or "crowd" that website is trying to attract... And as with just about any type of business, there are often just as many if not more of that type of business that will fail, than succeed. Keeping that in mind, this is by no means intended to be a complete or encompassing report or listing as to every last social networking site ever to grace our beloved internet. That said, let us get to it.

Origins

One of the first notable websites to introduce online social networking would be HoTMaiL Personals, created sometime in 1995 (sometimes shortly following the induction of Hotmail, but before it's commercialization with Microsoft) which allowed users to link personals ads to their already existing Hotmail accounts. The popularity of the website lasted until approximately 2000, and since then the website has undergone several make-overs to the point that any sort of social networking is almost hidden within the mass of Hotmail, MSN and other Passport.net live links (and/or link rot).

An even more notable entry into the ring of social networking sites is the still-running Classmates.com, again, created sometime in 1995. While HoTMaiL Personals took an approach derived from the concept of personal ads (such as those in newspapers), Classmates.com focus of operation was to allow members to find, connect (or re-connect) with, and keep in touch with friends met throughout the various stages of their lives, via school - be it anywhere from Elementary to Graduate (extended to include places of employment and the various Armed Forces). This flexible form of exclusivity allowed for Classmates.com to attract a certain, albeit wide-based, type of user - something that would become more and more common in succeeding social networking sites.

Perhaps motivated by the success of the two aforementioned websites, HoTMaiL Personals and Classmates.com were quickly followed up an almost countless number of successors - from imitators (SixDegrees, Yahoo! Personals/Geocities) to abstract takes on the original form (Live/DeadJournal, Xanga) - which took turn to focus on literature, music, movies and their review(s/ing), as well as online journals (or "weblogging"/"blogs"). For the most part, all of the aforementioned sites have carried on in some form or another (with the exception of SixDegrees.com, which was sold to YouthStream Media Networks in 2000 for $120M USD) - but none would become a true social "meme" until the introduction of Friendster in 2002.

Friendster

Friendster targeted itself at the group which made it's precursors most popular - young adults from North America (most particularly the United States), Europe (most particularly England/United Kingdom) and Asia (most particularly Japan) aged about 18 to 29. Establishing a format that many succeeding sites would use as a template, each user created an online profile (or "identity") by filling out a questionnaire profile and uploading a user picture, then defining a gallery of friends - either by interacting with friends already using the site, seeking out people who use the site, or inviting friends to join. The service would then integrate these galleries, using the so-called "small world phenomenon" to allow people to always interact with a friend-of-a-friend(multiplied to whatever exponential value necessary), and not simply a random or unknown person (such as is often associated with spam eMails or Instant Messaging/Chat programs).

Friendster's approach, blending the successful aspects of its precurors and leaving out the less popular features, would set the standard for almost every subsequent social networking site that would be met with any sort of popularity. Friendster's focused targeting (aiming the site not only at the youth market, but targeting single youths) would also be heavily borrowed by following sites, most notably - MySpace.com.

MySpace.com

Currently the most popular website in the United States (accounting for approximately 4.7% of all website visits originating from the US)*, MySpace.com was born of the integration of "blogging" (as preceeded by LiveJournal or Xanga), user profiles (as preceeded by Friendster), grouping (mostly provided by the seperation of websites - i.e., Friendster for dating, SixDegrees.com for "underground" socializing, or even Ryze for business networking), and an internal eMail system (perhaps borrowing from the original concept of Hotmail Personals).

MySpace has gradually gained more popularity than similar sites (such as Friendster, LiveJournal, or Classmates.com) to get the highest hit count of all English-language social networking websites. It has become an increasingly influential part of contemporary pop culture, especially in the Anglosphere. MySpace currently has just over 95 million members (although the number of "unique" members is almost impossible to determine) and gets about 500,000 new members each week.

... But MySpace was not always the social networking giant it stands as today, nor was it always poised to become such. Before the creation of the current social networking website, the MySpace.com domain name was registered in 1998 to an online storage and file sharing firm. Registration was free and users were able to obtain a small disk quota which would gradually increase if they referred new members to the site. Due to slow service and a lack of revenue, the original site shut down sometime in late 2001.

The current MySpace service was founded in July 2003 by current president Tom Anderson (the popular "first friend" of each profile created), current CEO Chris DeWolfe, and a small team of programmers. It was partially owned by Intermix Media, which was bought in July 2005 for $580 million by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (the parent company of Fox Broadcasting and other media enterprises).

Borrowing from the now-popular (or even "standard", as will be addressed later) Friendster format, each profile contains several "blurbs" including "About Me" and "Who I'd Like to Meet", as well as sections detailing the users' musical, cinematic, literary, and other tastes. A standard questionnaire is used to determine details such as marital status, physical appearance, and income. Taking the Friendster format a bit further, each profile also allows for the user to post "blog" entries, further allowing MySpace to be a more "all-encompassing" type of social site.

Although MySpace is more oriented toward the youth market, there are many people who are making careers out of promotion on MySpace. From bands, to celebrities, to exotic car dealers, many people have found MySpace to be an invaluable tool for advocating their goods and services. Like Friendster before it, MySpace has now spawned many imitators (and thus, competitors) - such as Facebook and TagWorld, but the most notable product of the popularity of MySpace has to be the Friendster patent approval.

Friendster Patent

On June 27th, 2006 - Friendster received a patent (US Patent no. 7.069.308) that covers online social networks, one the company had applied for long before its decline and recent recapitalization.

The patent is extremely general in its terms, covering the basic steps involved in joining a social network: entering a personal description and relationships to other users, mapping relationships and degrees of separation, and connecting to others through these friends. In such, seemingly covering the activities of many other social networking sites, especially those such as LinkedIn, that allow people to connect within a certain number of "degrees of seperation", which would leave the proverbial door open for MySpace's "Top Friends" to become a talking point of the patent's details.

In its simplest terms, the patent is referred to as a “system, method, and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks." And although the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. “Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,” said attorney Bill Heinze in representation of Friendster.

The patent is more of a moral victory for the now-struggling Friendster, as even though it still counts 9-to-10 million users, the company has been consistently losing momentum in the global networking market, mostly to MySpace.com. Many users and former users cite heavy "lag" or "loading" times, as well as a lack of the diversity offered by MySpace as reasons for their leaving the site.

This sort of situation treads the fine line between property and intellectual property, which warrants a full-length discussion of its own. Another situation provided by the awarding of the Friendster patent, is the possible monopolization of the social networking class of websites - further pushing the ongoing internet properties debate into the political forum.

Failed Sites

As stated before, for each popularized website, there are quite literally tens of thousands that fail just as miserably as those which succeed (only in opposing terms), and while chronicling the popular websites may be a task of its own - finding all the ones that either haven't or haven't yet made it through the glass ceiling is ten times the effort. Here is a short overview of some of those that haven't:

43 Things
Adult FriendFinder
aSmallWorld
BlackPlanet.com
Babbello
The Black Stripe
Bebo
Bolt
Campusbug
Care2
Cyworld
Crostel
Connecct.ee
DowneLink
DoYouDo
Draugien.lv
Ecademy
eCrush
eSpin
Faceparty
Flickr
Frustuckstreff
Gaia Online
GayRomeo
Gayday
GolfBuzz
GreatestJournal
Grono.net
Hey! ASL?!
Hi5
Hyves
IMVU
Insider Pages
IRC-Galleria
iWiW
JDate
Joga Bonito
LinkedIn
LunarStorm
Miaplaza
MiGente.com
Mixi
MOBANGO
MSN Space
Multiply
Music Forte
MyGamma
MyNetSpot.org
myYearbook
Neurona
Nexopia
OkCupid
openBC
orkut
Passado
Piczo
ProfileHeaven
Rediff Connexions
Reunion.com
Ryze
Sconex
Spark Networks
Studybreakers
Sulekha
Tagged
TakingITGlobal
The Student Center
Thingbox
Tickle
Tribe
WAYN
Wireless World Forum
Xuqa
Yahoo! 360/Yahoo! Personals

... And while it can be argued that many of these sites are popular in a specific region or among a particular group of people - the overall popularity does not match that of the previously referenced sites.

Afterword/Commentary

... Glorifying MySpace, TagWorld, FaceBook, FaceParty - or any other "social networking" site for doing the same job as eMailing does, only with fancier interfaces and graphics - is like saying that not paying as much for water purification to the State, and in turn paying that money to say - Coca Cola or Pepsi, to buy water at a supermarket, is "better" or "Worse". Really, it's all the same.

* - Note that the site's traffic volume is based on incredibly intense usage by a more limited number of visitors. At least five English language sites have a higher "reach" measurement; that is, they are visited by more unique people each day.

The correction of any errors, whether in citation, punctuation, spelling or otherwise - as well as the addition of and new information, provided ample source information, is both appreciated and encouraged.

Divine Nonsense, the

You know, I'm pretty sure if my father could have been responsible for scripting November 4th, 2008, he would have not only had John McCain winning the Presidency - but also had every last person in the State of California vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.

Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.

Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.

It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.

The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.

I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.

The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.

Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?

I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?

This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.

"There appears to be an event happening..."

The working thesis for this particular entry is as follows: "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Derrick Comedy: Spelling Bee [NSFW]

Following that clip, and before any discussion takes place, it should first be stated that very rarely is racial humour of any fashion appreciated on a universal level, and that it is the responsibility of the joke-teller to point out the comical nature of the joke, and not the responsibility of those hearing the joke to stop, analyze and then determine whether to be offended or entertained.

That said, holding something up to the light is not the same as making light of it.

The language of hate has many different faces and dialects, and regardless of how easily any given individual can picture a perfect world - the reality within which we live is far from those dreams of utopia. Derogatory terms rarely have a shelf life, and to take on such a subject without first understanding both the history and modern application of such terms is just as, if not more ignorant than simply applying such words in everyday conversation. For as weak of an argument as it is, at least one can make a case of accidental ignorance - if they were raised around such words, and never were introduced to detestable history of their use as a blanket term for people who share only an ethnic background or similar skin tone.

Armed with that knowledge, even the casual use of such words as 'nigger' or 'faggot' can only be defined as direct and conscious ignorance of the fact that all people are born as equals, and that only in our actions can we then separate 'good' from 'bad'. And if the intent is to utilize such terms to get a laugh, then that person or group of people are guilty of satire in it's poorest and least effective form.

But if the joke simply 'must' be made, it should make light of things that even those within the race of focus can appreciate as either ludicrous stereotypes or otherwise harmless observations - and not simply make sweeping generalizations in and of itself.

There is often a sense of entitlement, especially among the black community, to their right to the casual usage of terms that they would never tolerate a non-member of their race to use even comically. It is referred to as 'taking the power away' from the terms, but in reality such actions only serve to grant more power to those who use it 'without permission'. Quite honestly, the level of idiocy exhibited from many musicians and entertainers who could otherwise be considered very capable thinkers is troubling - namely, those who speak out against racism only to cater to the many tenets that make up the stereotypes that they are unfairly held against.

Such behaviour is detestable, yes - but it does allow us to see that in this modern world, we have grown into a global society still filled with two types of people: hunters and gatherers.

In the past, hunters were directly responsible for the survival of not only themselves, but their families - all by spending their life out tracking, stalking and finally killing their prey. And that carcass would serve not just as food, but as tools, clothing and shelter to get that family through a winter that most cannot even begin to fathom - tucked into their warm safe beds, with thermostats just a few steps away to drive off any sneaking discomfort that manages to find its way through their insulated walls.

And while there have been significant developments since that time, particularly in the terms of medical science, architecture and the development of a monetary system - modern hunters still have an important tie to their predecessors. Their lives are dedicated to the search - often forging out on a path less chosen, in order to track and eventually come across their goal: to dominate something much larger than themselves, and use it to provide for those they hold dear.

Meanwhile, gatherers supplemented the time between kills by harvesting nuts, roots and berries from the wild. And while they didn't provide the impressive bulk and diverse functionality that the hunters did with their contributions, they oftentimes represented the only source of food that a family would have during periods of drought and especially trying hunting seasons.

The most important thing about early gatherers was that they worked in conjunction with the hunters to provide, and never saw their jobs as unimportant or not as prestigious as that of the hunters' - they had neither time nor need for such internal debate. Their only concern was that of keeping their family alive and on course, focused only on making it to the next round of provisions from their hunting partners.

And that is the point on which modern gatherers diverge from their historical forebears. Most modern gatherers can only be found following the trails blazed by their hunting counterparts, gathering only enough to support their own needs - and most often spending any time that remains attempting to bring down other gatherers, or defame the accomplishments of the hunters who allowed them to live with comfort in a world they often feel does not meet some mythic standard that is owed to them.

They use every possible means available to enrich only themselves, and curse anyone who questions their motives or methods. They stand as icons of bitterness, upset that they were not solely responsible for creating or developing the ideas and standards they have used to provide a life for themselves, and never truly appreciative of the fortunes they are afforded.

This is the world in which we live today, and this is the world that those of you with children will be leaving to them as inheritance, unless we can agree to take a stand against the benchmarks currently held in regard to such topics. Otherwise, the already bleak future we have as our forecast will only become more dismal and disjointed as time goes on - until we are left in a world of irrationality within which the ignorance of today will only be met by the blindness of tomorrow.

The Collapse of the English Language or; hw txts r fukin up shyt

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

(Actual) Technical Difficulties

Due to Blogger not apparently not agreeing with the content intended to be posted today, I submit this: Chuck Klosterman illustrating why he is more deserving of his own podcast (or show of any format) than Bill Simmons.

Technical Difficulties

I'm not exactly sure if this applies to all of human society, or if it is more restricted to the worlds I have been exposed to - specifically media [including but not limited to those involved television, newspapers, magazines, 'blogging '(for all fairness, this includes myself) and politics]. Really I can only speak about, for, and in concern to what I have come into contact with; I absolutely cannot understand

Organizations such as the Jewish Task Force, have claimed to have uncovered information that "proves" many discrediting thing about the class and/or integrity of Malcolm X - including, quote "The fact that Malcolm X was a convicted drug dealer who sold poison to his own people for profit is a matter of public record. As is the fact that Malcolm X was a pimp and a rapist who violently attacked both black and white women."* Now, I do not proclaim that Malcolm did no wrong within his lifetime - during his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, he was an active and outspoken racist against white people of all nations, merely for their skin colour - just as white were racist unto he, his race and others for the very same reason. Does that justify his beliefs or actions during that time? Of course not, and these are things that he came to realize himself, following a pilgrimage he made to Mecca (the Muslim holy city), and explains within the text of his autobiography;

"You may be shocked by these words coming from me, but on this pilgrimage what I have seen and experienced, has forced me to re-arrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions... During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same bed (or on the same rug) - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white... We were truly all the same (brothers) - because their belief in one God had removed the 'white' from their minds, the 'white' from their behavior, and the 'white' from their attitudes."¹

... And considering the widespread distribution of Malcolm's autobiography, especially following the 1992 release of Spike Lee's Malcolm X - this isn't something that can completely be ignored. And assuredly it did not slip past the notice of the wizards at the JTF, considering that another claim they make is, "... When Malcolm X returned from Saudi Arabia preaching the true Islamic message that Muslim hatred must be based upon religion and not race, the Bolshevik news media claimed that he was no longer a racist because he now was willing to accept whites if they converted to Islam. (How generous of him.)"*

Before I venture off too much further into this, let's examine a few things. First, yes - Malcolm X was at one time a drug-using (and probably dealing) "numbers runner" in both Boston and New York, who associated himself with white women simply to offend the upper-class white men of that time. Yes, he got caught and spent some four years in prison - during which time he both embraced his "outsider" persona (the other inmates referred to him as "Satan", most particularly for his red hair), and later - converted to Islam, that is - the version of it offered by the Nation of Islam. He doesn't deny that he was taken in by a more-or-less totally fraudulent organization that basically served to promote the greater glory of its leader, Elijah Muhammad. Upon his being kicked out of the NOI, his mind wandered, leading him to study and try to find "true" Islam (highlighted by the aforementioned trip to Mecca). He began to understand that what he had believed in several periods of his life before then, was either not entirely truthful, not worthy of patterning one's life after, or otherwise misleading in its guise. Gilded as the Nation of Islam may have been, even Malcolm could acknowledge that their existence was a very necessary one - even if only in the "necessary evil" sort-of sense... And those of us with the benefit of hindsight, especially here after his death - can make all the accusations and criticisms that we would like about his path towards what many consider to be a social enlightenment - but rest assured, he saw that coming, too;

"You watch, I will be labeled as, at best - an 'irresponsible' black man. I have always felt about this accusation that the black 'leader' who white men consider to be 'responsible', is the black 'leader' who never gets any results. You only get action as a black man if you are regarded by the white man as 'irresponsible'. In fact, this much I had learned when I was just a little boy. And since I have been some kind of 'leader' of black men here in this racist society of America, I have been reassured each time the white man resisted me, or attacked me harder - because each time made me more certain that I was on the right path in the American black man's best interests. The racist white man's opposition automatically made me know that I did offer the black man something worthwhile."²

So what Malcolm was, is most assuredly not as important as what he became... Rest assured, I do not speak of the policies offered by those in the NOI that betrayed him. The policies that state "one hand washes the other" and "the good a man does in his life, far outweighs the bad" - both must be taken in equal consideration in order to accurately depict and understand that man, and the life he lead. But to fully understand the life of Malcolm X, one must do just that - and consider that while he did begin his adult life participating in socially unhealthy practices, and was - for a time, taken in, used and eventually discarded by an organization centered around specific men, instead of men as a whole... These are not the true identity of the man known as e-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz. Just as those who criticize him, Malcolm acted and spoke out based on the teachings and confidence of his faith... And to criticize him for such is not just hypocritical - but outright ludicrous... And what are these criticisms and accusations? Some of the most recent include such as the following;

"Malcolm X was involved in many homosexual relationships in high school. His schoolmate and close friend, Bob Bebee, recalls Malcolm X forcing another male high school student to perform Sodomite sexual acts. In other words, Malcolm X raped one of his fellow black male students. Malcolm X then bragged about the rape.

By the age of 20, Malcolm X was already a homosexual prostitute.

When he lived in Flint, Michigan, his roommate noticed that he would sneak down the hall every night to have sex and spend the night with a black homosexual transvestite named Willie Mae.

Two of Malcolm X's friends from Michigan met him at the YMCA in New York, where he bragged to them that he made his money servicing "queers."

One of Malcolm X's closest friends, Malcolm Jarvis, remembers Malcolm X boasting that he made a lot of money having sex with William Paul Lennon, a wealthy white homosexual from Boston. Lennon hired Malcolm X to be his butler.

... The indisputable and shocking facts about Malcolm X's notorious homosexual past - including homosexual rape - are covered up by the Bolshevik news media just as the truth about Louis Farrakhan's homosexual activities in the 1960s are covered up."*

So, the JTF have a bit of a 'beef' to chew with Malcolm, and more particularly the Nation of Islam, perhaps even more so with its current leader, Louis Farrakhan - who probably had Malcolm murdered... And how do they go about picking their fight? In the time-tested manner that only a peaceful, understanding group such as the Jewish Task Force of America and say, any given sixth grader in America could devise - by all-but-screaming, "OMG-D UR A FAGOT AND U SUK." Who are their cited sources for these allegations? Along with other nameless friends, they cite Bob Bebee, a "schoolmate and close friend" that is (or at least was) so close to Malcolm, that he is completely left out of Malcolm's own autobiography, and whose name reveals absolutely no hits in relation to Malcolm at any point during his or Malcolm's life, when searched upon in that context. They also cite the 1960s media that also did not take particular liking to Malcolm, his actions, or his previous organization, the NOI... And how do they punctuate their message of "truth"?

"In your heart, you know we're right. And in your guts, you know they're nuts.

Every generous check or money order (which can be anonymous) made out to "JTF" (which is political and not tax-deductible) or to "VJA" (which is fully tax-deductible and non-political) makes a huge difference. You can also send cash donations if you wish.
Do not depend on others to do your part! G-d only blesses those who do their own part!"*

By stating that if you don't pay them some money, you're going straight to hell. Damn, I knew there was a catch somewhere.

... But such allegations as these are not exclusively cast upon Malcolm X, nor are they always motivated by race - although, for the most part, they do seem to only find their way unto those dealing with race relations (particularly in or around the 1960s). Take, for example - Robert Kennedy. Almost always lost in the magnitude of either his brother John's Presidency, or his brother Teddy's amazing alcoholism tenure in the Senate, Robert Kennedy was a necessary tool throughout the duration of John's political career - before his Presidency, and even after his death... And this is where most of the publicity of Robert Kennedy is given light. Why, you may ask? Because of the obvious emotional strain that was put on him during such an ordeal? Because of the heir-apparent nature that it imposed upon him, as the "next Kennedy in line"?

Of course not, the bulk of reporters focused on the fact that Kennedy bonded with JFK's late wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, during their respective mourning... Most particularly on the fact that he vacationed with her and her family, and might have had a relationship that extended beyond mere kinship... But that's only because there's absolutely no evidence, premise, or otherwise to prove it. None of the parties involved seemed too worried about their relationship; Jackie or her eventual husband Aristotle Onassis, nor Bobby or his wife Ethel... And I will add this as a personal note; Robert and his wife Ethel had eleven children. Eleven, and this was in the late-fifties-to-sixties - so it isn't as though contraceptives hadn't been invented - he was probably just too devout in his Catholicism to use them... So, if an affair had occurred between Robert and any of the women he had been linked to, considering these facts - we would probably have at least an abortion scandal to note, if not a now fully-grown child... But, like Malcolm X - he was quick to both acknowledge and dismiss the allegations thrown on him;

"Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semitism of the intellectuals."

That takes some courage of its own, when people state that you're sleeping with your brother's widow - to simply cast them aside, dismissing the allegations for what they more than likely are anyway, when it is so much easier (not to mention more appealing) to retaliate, whether through comments or otherwise.

Who is another example? Abraham Lincoln, many people seem to enjoy telling a story that proclaims that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation either did not set any of the American slaves free, or only set free those enslaved in the then-Confederate States of America as a political "power-play". Let's take a look at the document itself:

"Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

Let's see, "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State; the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" Wow, that was simple. Every state, part of a state - every person who was or is enslaved within it... Seriously, are there people losing sleep over this or something?

* - Taken verbatim from the JTF.org website.
¹ - Taken from Autobiography of Malcolm X; ch. 17, "Mecca", pg. 347.
² - Taken from Autobiography of Malcolm X: ch. 19, "1965', pg. 389.

How It Went Down: 12.05.08 - 19.05.08

If ever one were to try and make a case for the entire world being locked in crisis, right now would be an optimal time to try. As though the natural disaster in Myanmar, and the absolutely atrocious circumstances being faced by those attempting to deliver aid to the still-suffering population weren't enough - a few other situations were thrust into public view:

First, an earthquake measured at 7.9 Mw hit the Chinese province of Sichuan . As of today, 20 May 2008 - over 30,00 are confirmed dead. Add that into the current toll in Myanmar (over 80,000) - and that is over a hundred thousand people who have been killed in a period of just over two weeks. And none of that includes those injured, left homeless or otherwise affected by these tragic situations.

Also, bin Laden has apparently released a new speech aimed towards Westerners - in which he mocks the attempts to find peace between Palestine and Israel. Perhaps finally sparked by this, George Bush has suddenly become a politician.

Add to that the fact that all of this has ocurred during the month of May - the most optimistic name of any month - that is, when taken in the context of, "May the world soon find itself in brighter times." There is little doubt that is a prayer being echoed the world over.

And while there was more going on in the world, that's all from us for today.

Identifying Poverty

Poverty is defined as,

1.) the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

2.) deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.

3.) scantiness; insufficiency.

Regardless of where one lives in this world, they are never too far separated from people living in situations of poverty. A great deal is made about this by people in very prominent positions, but the question remains - what can truly be done to assist those currently living in situations of impoverishment? And how can we prevent any more from meeting such a fate?

The first question one must ask when approaching such a task is how is poverty defined? The current accepted definition within the European Union is a person being below 60% of the median net disposable income - the median being the midpoint of the range of incomes. Under this definition, no fewer than thirteen million people in the United Kingdom alone are living in poverty. That works out to one-in-four people, including one-in-three children.

For those skeptical of the numbers thus far here are a few more - it is thought that over 10.5 million people live in financial insecurity in Britain, unable to save, or to insure their homes adequately. In addition to that, a 2000 survey by revealed that 6.5 million adults have to go without essential items of clothing, such as warm coats, simply because they do not have the money to buy them.

Across the ocean in the United States, one of the main indicators of the volume of population living in poverty is that of food stamps. Since the beginning of the fiscal year (October 2007), it is estimated that some twenty-eight million people in the US are using government-issued food stamps to purchase essentials such as groceries - the highest level since the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

Add into that the widening income differentials faced by third-world countries, where some live on means of less than £1 a day - and new questions are raised. Whose situation is more pressing - that of an impoverished man who lives on the streets of London, or someone who does without in the plains of Africa?

A primary issue that accompanies any discussion of poverty is the unjust accusations and assignments of blame made by those who examine these statistics. There are direct links to employment - especially quality of employment, and poverty.

Perhaps employers ought to take a share of the blame and some responsibility for the poverty? Tackling inequality and low pay, making work more accessible and resisting the temptation to increase the volume of insecure, vulnerable work – these are some of the interventions employers can use to make a difference.

For those living above the poverty line, which more than likely includes most who are reading this column - you can make a difference, as well. Whether through monetary donations, volunteer work or simply taking note of which politicians are more active in the areas of poverty. If nothing else, you will help prevent more of the population from slipping into poverty than already have - perhaps including yourself.

For more information, view the 2007 Human Development Report [PDF] and Millenium Development Goals Report [PDF], both issued by the United Nations Development Programme - as well as the World Bank's criteria for identifying urban poverty.

How It Went Down: 04.05.08 - 11.05.08

Naturally, the primary focus of the last week was on the deadly tropical cyclone that struck Burma (or alternately, the Union of Myanmar) - and the obstacles that those attempting to deliver aid have had to overcome.

We at Bafflegate certainly pray for the best for all those affected by this disaster, and have made a small donation towards the support efforts, and hope that those who are able to will do the same. However you must convince yourself, whether through focus on the idea every bit helps or that one good deed all but purchases another - remember that even the tiniest of donations will eventually reach the hands of someone who is in desperate need.

There was more going on in the world, but little else that was as important as this.

How It Went Down: 27.04.08 - 03.05.08

It was a week that saw everything from the invention of chocolate wine, to George W. Bush offering an additional 8.2% of what his country owes in total public debt to the UN's World Food Programme, to Hillary Clinton winning the Pennsylvania Primary by as slim a margin as one could imagine (although some would say this is a pattern, at least) - to sudden but promising developments in the China-Tibet situation.

In wartime news, the United States launched a missile attack on Somalia, primarily in an attempt to take out one man - Hassan Turki.

And while Holocaust Remembrance Day is an all-but universally accepted gesture - sadly, there are some who use it to promote their own agendas.

There was more going on in the world, but that's all from us for today.

Keeping History Alive

Tradition is important. To a degree tradition is what keeps us human, as most of our lives are dictated by patterns - and tradition is not just a big part of that, it is its very definition:

"A continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices."

Whether they be noble or wicked - conspicuous or inconsequential, traditions are what help define our lives, our societies and our world. That said, some traditions are not meant to last - and one could argue that others even deserve to be snuffed out as quickly as possible. But regardless of one's opinions towards specific traditions or the idea of tradition itself, we all have our own traditions - for which many of us would fight to protect and preserve for future generations.

And it is within this mindset that we can begin to understand the divide between 'traditional' journalists and bloggers.

Once, there was a question posed of CNN and its then-radical format, "Is a 24-hour news cycle really necessary?" And we can see the answer to that in the development of channels like MSNBC/CNBC, the SportsCenter formatting of all the various ESPN channels, C-SPAN or even the hundreds of specialty channels ranging from programmes about history to surgery coverage.

And it is in those 'Breaking News' updates to which we grew so accustomed, along with the sudden and massive popularity of the World Wide Web that both the demand for and the ability to deliver instant news came about.

So what is the problem with this version of presenting news? Perhaps those who work for newspaper and television outlets are intimidated by the fact that the Internet serves as a level playing ground, on which they are forced to compete against the common man. Or that those who oppose blogs see them as a poor substitution from a tradition that they believe needed no fixing.

The common argument is that blogs are a cesspit of ignorance, ridicule and poor grammar. And that those who contribute to them, whether through columns or comments - are of the lowest quality of person, whether in opinion or personality. Some even still view blogs as nothing more than personal diary entries made public. And while it is true that a blog is a journal - it is not necessarily a diary.

The same comparison can be used towards newspapers - that they are nothing more than a daily record of occurrences, experiences, or observations. Besides, many prominent and respected journalists have blogs that they use to provide extra insight on the news stories they cover. Does that detract from their professionalism or integrity, or does it simply provide a more thorough and personal look into the lives of those whom the public trust to present them their news?

... And what 'traditional' standards are we fighting so hard to preserve? The ones that drive journalists to this?

There is a tradition much more valuable than any of that, the tradition of innovation - without which, we would never even be able to have this discussion, due to our lack of Internet and/or computers.

Much like the parallel rise of reality television and programmes that depict true-life situations, there is only so long that one can present realism without then being pestered to provide reality. And while we here at Bafflegate don't support the position, we do understand it. Because as so many generations and technological advances have proven - news is a tradition, its format is not.