Josh Benner

Author: the Josh Benner Blog

  • Rant – why I did NOT vote

    Pet peeve of the day: self righteous voters. No I did not vote today, and I keep seeing these Facebook and Twitter status updates that seem to imply this feeling of superiority to which voters subscribe in the way in which they look down on me and all of the other non voters as if we’re bad people for not voting. There are a number of trite statements that many of these people like to make:

    “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” The reason why this is a bit distressing to me is that every time someone tells me this, I feel like they’re talking down to me as though I’ve never heard anyone else make that statement. Like they were the intellectual founder of the if you don’t vote, you can’t complain argument. My response is that I don’t spend time complaining about what the government does. Also, if I complain about what the government is doing, I feel like it would make more sense to then vote in reaction to that.

    I’m not particularly up in arms about anything that they’re doing right now, therefore I don’t really care who is in office.

    I think regardless of party, Washington is filled with a bunch of sleazy politicians who – though some of their actions are admirable and noble – are predominantly in politics to satisfy their own ends.

    I look at what has been accomplished over the last several years, and you had the republicans ousted from congress in 2006 because people did not like the way in which they were running the country (although I would argue, they were voting like democrats). Then in 2008, the democrats maintained control of the house and won back the presidency. Many people thought that everything would get better. It hasn’t. But for me, my life is no worse now than it was in 2004 (last time I voted), or 2006, or 2008.

    If the democrats maintain control of congress, I think the next two years will be very similar to the last two, but what if the republicans win? Does that mean everything will magically get better? No. Of course not. So then for whom do I vote?

    No one.

    I’m going to live my life. I don’t base my happiness on what is happening in Washington. Period. Regardless of which party is in power, a lot of the same things are ultimately going to be done. Aside from a few funding issues, I can think of very few ways in which it affects my daily life.

    I feel like if I am in a place where everything the government does in terms of money has a direct impact on me, then that is a symptom of a greater personal problem (total lack of self reliance). As long as my rights are not being abjectly violated, I don’t think that I’m ever going to really care about what happens in Washington.

    I’m not committed to a political party. I have my own philosophical ideas on how the state should function and neither party satisfies that view, and that is also a reason why I do not vote. I believe that people are endowed with a divine right to liberty. I define liberty as an individual’s intrinsic, conditional right to pursue his or her own ends so long as that they do not infringe upon the ends of another individual, or upon another individual’s intrinsic, conditional rights to life and or property.

    The right is intrinsic because it is something with which we are born. It is conditional because we live in a civil society, and if we choose to violate the rights of another individual, we have made that right insecure for the society as a whole, and in the process must relinquish that right for the preservation of the civil society (It’s a very Kantian notion if you’re wondering from whence this came).

    Now someone may be reading this, and say, “You sound like a republican. Why not vote for them?” Because I don’t believe that most of the candidates think this way and value an actual limited, libertarian government. From the things in which I value from the government, I see little difference between either party, and therefore I do not vote. To me, it does not matter.

    As someone who wants to live his own life, I feel like it would be a self contradiction to invest significant time into living my life glued to a cable news network to know what the government is doing. Most of the news I read is related to technology. I can’t remember the last time I read something political, and I believe I’m a happier person for it.

    I’m not pigeonholing to never revise my opinions. Nor am I saying that their will never be someone I do support and for whom I vote. But in this election, I didn’t think it was necessary.

    I realize that to some of you, this is possibly the most important election ever. So many major issues. Some people feel like the democrats must be stopped. But if the republicans win, I ultimately feel that the agenda which is pushed will be much the same. So was 2008. So was 2004. So was every other year.

    Some people take the mentality of “Vote, vote, vote, vote, vote. Just vote. Voting is great. I don’t care who you vote for just vote..” I think this is irresponsible and more reckless than not voting. People argue voting as a civic duty. But for all of the political ideologues and people easily swayed by shiny promotional stickers and misquotes in commercials, their uneducated votes are cancelling out people’s educated votes. For me to vote on things of which I have no awareness, and cancel out one person’s uneducated vote is wrong, and I feel it is a greater civic duty to honor the person who actually cares. Therefore, I didn’t vote.

    Historically, the party in power struggles in midterm elections. In the last four years, America has gone from voting the republicans out to now potentially throwing the democrats out. In a few more years, we’ll be right back to where we started, which is another reason why I will not waste my life in vicariously living through what is happening on Capital Hill.

    Perhaps I’ll vote in the spring and laud myself and chide those who did not vote in the

    less significant springtime election. We’ll see…

    I’m Josh Benner, and I approve this commentary.

    JRB 11/2/10

  • BGSU Faculty Union: Commentary

    (Note: this was originally written as a letter to the editor for the BG News, the newspaper of Bowing Green State University)

    Faculty unionization is one of the most significant issues that Bowling Green State University has faced in the last several years. If the faculty vote in favor of a union, the relationship with faculty and the university will forever be changed.

    This is not meant as a philosophical diatribe lambasting the relevance of any union anywhere, and any time, however I do believe that it would be detrimental for BGSU.

    This is also not meant as an immature, illogical rant, intending to stereotype the professors for being necessarily greedy in supporting unionization. Indeed, I am sure that there are numerous wonderful professors – many of whom were instructors of mine as a student at BGSU -who support collective bargaining and who have/will vote favorably to unionize. With these faculty, I must respectfully disagree.

    According to the Chronicle on Higher Education, the union would include full time professors, instructors, and lecturers.

    I feel that this leads to one of the problems typically associated with unions, which is the extreme difficulty in relieving a union member of his or her duties for inefficient performance. Tenured professors are already nigh on impossible to fire, but for part time instructors and lecturers, the union would force the university to continue paying more inexperienced lecturers whose performance may not warrant them continuing to work in a teaching capacity. I can see no way in which this benefits the undergraduates. It will necessarily mean that there are unqualified instructors instructing.

    The teachers argue that many of our peer institutions in the state of Ohio do pay faculty at a higher salary than BGSU. I don’t think that this is something that should be ignored.

    I think an ideal situation would be one in which the university is able to work with faculty, and where faculty can be paid at a level competitive with other universities in Ohio, but where it is not a requisite that the faculty must unionize in order to achieve these ends. If other institutions pay more without unions, then why is a union necessary in order to get a raise? If other universities give raises without unions, then why can’t the faculty and university work together?

    Perhaps the university has not been as amiable to work with faculty as they ought to, but if the university and the faculty can work together in order to reach a positive outcome without a union being formed, I believe that this would ultimately be the best thing for the purposes of the university as a whole.

    I think a union that has the ability to go on strike does not benefit BGSU, and in such a case, a strike would effectively have the university by the throat. This would not be good for the university and it would certainly not be good for the undergraduates. If there is a union, a faculty strike is a very real threat. Not necessarily in any type of immediate future, but having this as a possibility at any time is not beneficial to the well being of the institution. The results would potentially include higher tuition, diminution in services, and lost class time.

    Ultimately, while an honest look does show that faculty raise legitimate concerns in their aspirations of forming a union, once their collective ends are met, the union will remain. Long term, I think history has shown that the consequences have the potential to be very negative for the institution.

    I would encourage the Undergraduate Student Government to take a more active role in educating undergraduates on the issues and on voicing opposition to the Union. USG has been very clear as to faculty having a right to work for the benefits of their constituants. I believe it is also the job for USG to advocate for your constituants who are the undergraduate student body and only the undergraduate student body, and a faculty union does not benefit you, the students.

    I say these things as a proud and concerned alumnus of Bowling Green State University. I feel that most of the indicators I’ve seen point to unionization likely happening. It concerns me about the future of BGSU. Hopefully, I’m wrong, and this unionization movement will ultimately Roll Along!

  • dlvr.it: sharing social networking content made easier

    dlvr.it is a new URL shortening website that is currently in Beta testing and that I think could become a real player in the world of URL shortening.

    There are already popular websites where you can shorten URL addresses, such as bit.ly and tinyurl.com. So what is unique about dlvr.it? You can take an RSS feed and post the link into your dlvr.it account.

    So?

    You can then have your dlvr.it account synced with social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin. Any time the RSS feed(s) you paste into your dlvr.it account are updated, it will automatically update any social media site which you have synced to dlvr.it.

    So if you have a personal blog and you are using dlvr.it, any time you update your blog, it will automatically create a shortened URL and post an update. What’s more, like bit.ly, dlvr.it keeps track of stats like visitor traffic from the links you post.

    It also does not need to be your own website. You can paste any RSS link into dlvr.it.

    An advantage I see of dlvr.it over bit.ly is that the updates are automatic. With bit.ly, if you want to be able to shorten a link, you have to go to the site and manually post a link to get a shortened version. With dlvr.it, you don’t have to login or even think about it. Dlvr.it does the work for you.

    I think dlvr.it is far more useful for Twitter than for a stie like Facebook. While Facebook is certainly a popular way to share content, there is not the same necessity to shorten links. Twitter is also much more conducive to multiple updates per day. For a Twitter profile, I think dlvr.it, and the idea of automatic URL shortening witll change the way people go about sharing content.

    If you share content online, I think dlvr.it is worth at least trying, looking at the traffic your links are generating, and then evaluating if it is worth it to continue using the servie (which is free).

    URL shortening 101

    What’s all of this talk about URL shortening?

    If you are unfamiliar, sometimes URL’s (Uniform Resource Locators, aka the destination of the page you are going to) can get really long. For instance the link to this YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqxFNZgSHQ&feature=related is 58 characters. And URL’s can get significantly longer.

    If you’re trying to send a long link in an email, it can be tough to keep the link together, and long URL addresses can be difficult to work with on Twitter because of the 140 character limit per tweet. So you use a website that shortens the URL, and change http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqxFNZgSHQ&feature=related to http://bit.ly/dcUwbB.

    A word of advice

    If using dlvr.it, you should be mindful of how many RSS updates are made to the RSS feed. If it’s a blog that updates a few times a week, it’s not a problem. If it’s an active RSS feed that updates several times a day, you could add dozens of tweets per week to your Twitter profile.

    Certainly the point of this is posting content, but it is important to keep in mind how much you are posting.

  • MySpace: the AOL of Social Networking

    MySpace isn’t dead. But the social networking website that has been to Facebook what Apollo Creed was to Ivan Drago in “Rocky IV” may want to start looking into hospice care.

    Last spring, Owen Van Natta was named the CEO of MySpace. During the summer, Van Natta brought Katie Geminder over to the MySpace team. Geminder headed the RemakingMySpace project, an aggressive attempt to recreate and rebrand MySpace from the ground up.

    Almost a year worth of work to pull up on the free falling plane, and MySpace is back to square one with the termination of Van Natta on February 10, and Geminder leaving the company at the end of last week. TechCrunch.com reports that new co-president Jason Hirrschorn hated RemakingMySpace from the beginning, and was quick to scratch the project once in power. There have also been numerous other senior employee departures this month.

    MySpace has done whatever it can to erase any memory of the RemakingMySpace project having ever existed.

    Would RemakingMySpace have worked? I don’t know, but with a second total regime change in less than a year, it has been a year wasted. Social networking is very much a “now” competition, and Facebook vs. MySpace has gone from the heated war of coke vs. pepsi to the internal combustion engine vs. the horse and buggy.

    How many times can they completely retool the executive hierarchy of the company and have botched layout retooling projects and still remain relevant? There are more and more social networking websites being created and MySpace is out of site and out of mind. While it doesn’t seem like that long ago that MySpace was the king of all things social networking, the mighty have fallen.

    Is MySpace invincible? Was AOL? It is not exactly the same as the two serve different purposes, but a decade ago, America Online was a leading internet service provider. In many ways, AOL was synonymous with the internet. But where are they now?

    AOL’s popularity peaked between late 2001 and early 2003. Since that time, subscribers have been dropping from over 26 million users to barely five million, and they keep falling.

    On August 9, 2006, MySpace reaches 100 million accounts. At that time, Facebook had roughly 10 million accounts. It is difficult to know exactly how many profiles are on MySpace, but default friend Tom has over 274 million friends (so there are at least that many). You may be inclined to argue, “Wow, that’s a lot of profiles.” I agree that a lot of people have MySpace profiles. It’s just that people don’t use MySpace profiles.

    Facebook is enjoying over 260 billion page views per month. That is 11 times higher than MySpace as the graph from pingdom.com shows.

    The reason why I compare MySpace to AOL is that they both went from the industry standard to relics. Other service providers came along and left AOL in the dust. It became an inferior product. Innovation, which has been the hallmark of sites like Facebook and Google has passed MySpace by. With Facebook building up such a significant worldwide lead, the ultimate feature of both sites is too similar and Facebook has already won. There is potential in other networking sites which provide different function. Twitter with microblogging and Linkedin with being a professional site.

    But what is it that separates Facebook from MySpace? The fact that you can choose some fonts? If anything, the differences in layouts and fonts has done more harm than good as compared to the clean appearance of Facebook. The fact that it is easy to listen to music on MySpace? That isn’t a new feature, and at this point, what has that really done for the site anyway? It is a haven for webpages of bands that nobody listens to.

    And besides, music playing sites like pandora and rhapsody are just as good.

    Last month, I decided to create my own MySpace page. I had one for a few months in college, but decided to deactivate it since I never logged in. I requested several dozen friends of mine as MySpace friends. To this point, SIX of them have accepted my friend requests. Is this there way of telling me that they don’t like me? No. They haven’t accepted my friend request because they have not logged in. Some of these people have not logged onto MySpace in over two years.

    On paper, MySpace may always appear to be one of the social networking leaders, but for practical purposes, they have already been passed by, and are fading into obscurity.

    Like the Romans, and Europe’s domination in Olympic ice dancing, empires never last forever. The posts on MySpace are going out into the unnotice, internet abyss. You can’t spell empty space without “myspace.”

  • You can spell ’empty space’ without MySpace

    Last week in the London Telegraph, I saw this headline:

    “MySpace: is this the beginning of the end?
    The news that MySpace is set to sack a majority of its international workforce, outside of its headquarters in the US, should set alarm bells ringing.”

    Beginning of the end?

    I love you Telegraph, but for MySpace, that was a long time ago. When was the beginning of the end? That’s tough to answer because the former king of social networking has had so many amazing failures over the past three years.

    When Facebook said that anyone could be on Facebook, and there was a mass exodus: that was a pretty big nail in the coffin too.

    I wrote about MySpace last February. At the time, they had execs dropping like all of those birds that have been dropping dead out of the sky this month. They had spent most of 2009 working on a project called Remaking MySpace which was an attempt at totally rebranding the company. It failed and ended with several high ranking execs leaving (including CEO Owen Van Natta).

    Let’s not forget this past fall when Facebook and MySpace decided to work in collaboration. It was announced in November that they were adding Facebook Connect to MySpace. The announcement was made by MySpace CEO Mike Jones along with Facebook VP of Partnerships and Platform Marketing, Dan Rose.

    VP of Partnerships and Platform Marketing? But where was Zuck?

    Or number 2 in command? Or number 3? Or 4 or 5?

    That would be like the president of another country visiting the White House and being welcomed to America by the White House family dog.

    The fact that the CEO of MySpace and only a VP from Facebook made the announcement did not go unnoticed. It was an irony that if ever there needed to be closure to who had won the social networking war, there it was.

    Later this week, MySpace is set to announce they are firing roughly half of their entire staff. Most of those firings coming from international employees.

    To show how hard they’ve fallen, in 2006, Mashable founder Pete Cashmore wrote citing Jordan Rohan from the National Bank of Canada who predicted MySpace would be worth $10-20 billion in three years (2009).

    jrb

    questions, or comments? tweet @bennernotes

    The article saying how much MySpace would potentially be worth:

    http://mashable.com/2006/09/27/myspace-worth-20-billion/