And For All That...

After all the writing I just did on the importance and prevalence of American media, the film that dominated the Oscars was made by a British director, written by a British playwright, and acted by a largely British (the one exception being an Australian) cast. Oh well.

That being said, if you haven't seen The King's Speech, you should. It truly was fantastic. Also, congratulations to all the winners from last night and to James Franco for further convincing us all that Pineapple Express was semi-biographical.

Who Could Forget This One?

Writing about the supposedly looming Chinese threat to America reminded me of this absolutely ridiculous commercial aired during the 2010 midterm elections. I'm not sure who saw it outside of California, but I laughed out loud every time it came on. I find it ridiculous not because I doubt the future importance of China or its inevitable rise to great power status, but because of its borderline racism in vilifying the Chinese professor.

Who says we have to be enemies? China can be a great power without taking over or destroying America.  This is the kind of propaganda that should be left OUT of American media if we hope to use it to shape global interests.

Survival of the Hit-est

The United States has enjoyed a considerable amount of time in the sun; the international system we live in was constructed around American interests for and by the US and its allies. As the US abandoned its century-plus of isolationism in the Great War, the old European empires fell away after World War II, and the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the 20^th century, the United States transitioned from a self-imposed loner in global politics to the defining player in them. For the past 60 years, both as the Western capitalist hegemon in the bipolarity of the Cold War and as the unipolar hegemon since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States wrote the world’s history as it created its own. However, several international relations theorists firmly believe that the last 20 years have been a fluke, and that the US will fall from graceful hegemony and unipolarity will give way to a new, un-American world order; chief among them is Immanuel Wallerstein, who has actually been arguing this theory since the 1980s. As Wallerstein said in 2002, the American declinists believe that,

“there is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs over the next decade. The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is waning but whether the United States can devise a way to descend gracefully, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself.”

Wallerstein is joined by Robert Pape, who wrote in Foreign Policy in January 2009 that

“America is in unprecedented decline. The self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq War, growing government debt, increasingly negative current account balances and other internal economic weaknesses have cost the United States real power in today's world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. If present trends continue, we will look back at the Bush administration years as the death knell for American hegemony.”

Clearly their viewpoint is rather bleak, and it would be nice to chalk it up to the impractical pessimism of lonely scholars confined to their studies. But there is a nerve-racking amount of data that seems to support their claims, especially when you look at American power in comparison to the growing strength of China. Whereas the US has dominated the world market since it emerged from the Great Depression and World War II, China is now, in the words of the UN Secretary-General, “the world’s fastest growing economy” while we lag in a recession that shows few signs of turning up. And who could forget the well-publicized Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests performed by the OECD in 2009? The tests, which compared subject skill levels in states with compulsory education, showed American 15-year-olds lagging in 25^th, 17^th, and 14^th places in math, science, and reading, respectively; students in Shanghai, who were counted as representative of the entire People’s Republic of China, garnered 1^st place in all three categories. And as we seem to slip behind economically and socially, our political influence in the international system shows signs of wavering as well; while the Washington consensus reigned supreme over our neighbor to the south from the 1980s to the early 21^st century, Mexico has been following suit with the other Latin American nations in tightening their relations with China. It is looking more and more like Gideon Rachman was correct when he wrote so poetically in Foreign Policy magazine that

“Americans can be forgiven if they greet talk of a new challenge from China as just another case of the boy who cried wolf. But a frequently overlooked fact about that fable is that the boy was eventually proved right. The wolf did arrive -- and China is the wolf.”

However, as with any theory, there is an equally vocal opposition to the declinists. This group, the American primacists, argues that the status quo is maintainable and that the US is no way being forced out of its hegemony. They all have their reasons; theorists Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth claim in their book World Out of Balance that the US is so powerful that it now operates outside any kind of traditional international system, while Josef Joffe credits the American provision of public goods and global band-wagoning for enduring unipolarity and default power status. Still others, led by Joseph Nye, argue that, even if traditional indicators of power are wavering, the US can maintain its world power status via soft power—“when one country gets other countries to want what it wants” through cultural and ideological allure.

If primacy and declinism are on the opposite ends of a spectrum, I sit just shy of the primacists; while I doubt the US is in danger of collapsing and causing chaos in the international system, I also cannot say with any certainty that the US will always be #1 with a bullet. I do believe that the United States will remain a great power, mostly because of our unmatched soft power in the international system. Even when other states disagree with us politically, our enduring “cultural attractiveness” ensures not just our survival but also our success. In fact, one of our main insurances against decline is the long-standing global appeal and mass consumption of American pop culture; as long as the US puts wildly successful movies, music, and television out into the world market, which it is doing at an increasing rate, its interests will be protected by pop-cultural allies in the international system.

Now, I see how this concept could sound trivial. International relations is such a complicated game of reputations, power plays, intelligence, and perceptions that box office receipts and top 40 hits should have no role in the field—but they do. When Joseph Nye first defined the concept of soft or co-optive power, he called it, “the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with their own. This power tends to arise from such resources as cultural and ideological attraction.” He elaborated, “If a culture [is] attractive, others will more willingly follow.”American culture is certainly one, of not the, most attractive culture in the world; I don’t mean to say that ours is vastly superior to any others, simply that it is more popular globally. And American culture is not just made up of what we might call ‘high’ and enduring culture—the classic literature of Twain and Fitzgerald, the paintings of Rockwell, and the like—but also the mass media that makes up pop zeitgeist. American superstars are one of our biggest exports, and they make up a big part of our national identity. The idea of Hollywood and ‘making it big’ are deeply ingrained in our national consciousness, so much so that from pre-school many of us want to be actresses and even into adulthood we can enroll in rock star camps for the weekend. It’s just another iteration of the American Dream, but one that has taken hold both at home and abroad. The attractiveness of our culture is driven by to popularity of our mass media—namely music, movies, and television—because it is so easily accessible from anywhere.The attractiveness of our culture is driven by to popularity of our mass media—namely music, movies, and television—because it is so easily accessible from anywhere. When people become invested the US for entertainment value, they become more tied to our cultural products and thus us as a nation.

Nye recognized the importance of pop culture tailor-made for mass consumption; he noted, “A country that stands astride popular channels of communication has more opportunities to get its messages across and to affect the preferences of others.” So popular media has a dual purpose: not only does it tie foreign countries to American cultural exports, but it also creates opportunities to spread ideologies. For instance, when you sympathize with a TV character and their personal plight, you start to identify with their beliefs and become invested in maintaining their way of life, even if its in a fictional universe; the global audience of Friends attached to their favorite New Yorkers, and likely feel somewhat connected to the continuance of their fabulous and supposedly-normal New York City lives. Knowing this, shows that depict supposedly typical American lifestyles have the opportunity to export American ideologies with varying levels of subtlety. This is a particularly helpful thing to understand when you realize that even countries that in no way line up ideologically with the US and are even sometimes painted as enemies consume our media; decades ago Nye used the fact that “Nicaraguan television broadcast American shows even while the government fought American-backed guerillas,” but the trend continues today as girls in Saudi Arabia download torrent files of Grey's Anatomy. Our pop culture, as defined by our overseas blockbusters, hit television shows, and international top 40 music, is both an important component of our national identity and the grease on the wheels of cooperation with other states that consume our media as voraciously as we do.


However, for the argument to hold up, our culture must still be the undeniable favorite even as our traditional means of power rise and fall. If our political fades, should it not follow that our movies, music, and televisions would not longer be voted most popular? Fortunately for us, no. Despite the fact that no one wants to fight a war along side us, they still download American music on iTunes. There have been 28 artists and groups who released singles that sold more than 5 million copies in the last decade, and 21 of them were American born-and-bred performers; out of the seven who were not, five—Justin Bieber (Canada), Shakira (Colombia), Leona Lewis (UK), Rihanna (Barbados) and Avril Lavigne (Canada)—produced their singles through US record labels. The remaining two are Thelma Aoyama and Utada Hikaru, both Japanese pop performers. Even as the US lost political approval following the invasion of Iraq, American music held strong in the international market; in the summer of 2002 St. Louis rapper Nelly, Detroit rapper Eminem, and New York rappers Fat Joe and P. Diddy dominated the music charts, while in the summer 2009 New York singer-songwriter (and insane performance artist) Lady Gaga and the LA-based Black Eyed Peas had two hits a piece in the worldwide top 10. And the all-time highest selling global single is an American cultural standard; over 50 million people own the song "White Christmas" by Bing Crosby.


American television, while not necessarily dominating domestic programming in other countries, still has a popular presence overseas. Friends ran for all 10 of its seasons in the UK, regularly drawing in as many viewers as original British programming, and is still currently in syndication just like it is in the states. The lives of 6 New Yorkers at Central Perk also continues to run in non-western countries, including Australia, New Zealand, India and Pakistan. Desperate Housewives, despite losing some its popularity here, became part of the cultural consciousness in Australia and the United Kingdom—so much so that it was referenced by name in the British drama Skins. Other popular American programs, such as How I Met Your Mother, Castle, and ER, have also gained a following when broadcast overseas; in fact, the US shows Glee and Friends hold four of the top ten most-watched episodes on the British youth-oriented channel E4. And that doesn’t even take into account the influence American television has on foreign original programming; much of our domestic reality programming, including So You Think You Can Dance and The Amazing Race, have both their American originals and foreign iterations broadcast worldwide; Fox’s dance competition has been recreated in 16 countries including Israel and South Africa, while CBS’s global scavenger hunt has eight different adaptations ranging from Latin America to China.


But where continued American pop culture hegemony is most astonishing is in the film industry. When Nye wrote in the fall of 1990, the world was at the height of the Washington consensus period and, while US films only constituted 6-7% of all made internationally, they still got 50% of screen time; the dominance has continued into this century, even as the US is looked upon less favorably by foreign nations. For the week ending February 13, 2011, 41 out of 53 reporting countries had Hollywood movies like Tangled and No Strings Attached atop their box office charts. The American #1s were displaced in the remaining 12 only by films native to those countries in which they had the biggest receipts; no other country had any exported movies reach the highest grossing position. And the popularity of American movies is actually increasing to the point that Hollywood-distributed movies are significantly more overseas than they are stateside. Take, for instance, the Toy Story franchise: in 1999, Toy Story 2 made 49.3% of its $485 million internationally, and in 2010, Toy Story 3 made a whopping 61% of its $1.06 billion gross internationally. Considering Avatar, which made over $2 billion and 72.7% of its profit outside of the US, and The Dark Knight, which made $468.5 million at foreign box offices, it is clear that American cinema is still internationally popular, to say the very least.


These pop media exports are so salient overseas that it would be hard to argue that the United States will fall from great power status any time soon. As Nye implied, the exposure to American culture created by foreign consumption increases indentifiability with us as a nation and invests external populations in our success. If the US were to suffer some kind of powerful shock that thrust it out of hegemony or into instability, its unlikely that our films, music, and television would still be produced and exported at the break neck speed they are now; if the country is struggling to reorganize and figure out a new place in the international system, as other fallen great powers such as the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union had to, Hollywood and all its pop culture exports would likely fall by the wayside. As long as the United States survives, there will still be the sequels, spin-offs, and greatest hits albums that foreign populations are much more invested in than they ever were in our politics. 


The continued popularity of our media culture can be used greatly to our advantage. We are, in the words of Nye, "astride popular channels of communication" that we should use to reinforce United States culture overseas. There is a fine line between subtlety and propaganda, but it would smart for Hollywood to underscore its products with American ideology. That is not to say that our all television shows need to look like The Andy Griffith Show or that Lady Gaga should produce a dance remix of "God Bless America,"; creativity and diversity are the reasons our media is so well-received worldwide, and we cannot lose that. Rather, as they often do already, producers could focus on themes like democracy, overcoming adversity, and tolerance--elements of the American experiment that are now our American dream. Everything does not need to be set in the heartland of the good ol' US of A to reinforce the belief in these concepts that prop up the United States; the Star Wars franchise, a new American classic, is set in a galaxy far far away but still manages to propagate the dangers of an evil dictator, intergalactic species tolerance, and pushing past disadvantages like losing an arm. And since the 70s we have seen our justice system glorified in Law & Order (whose format was sold and adapted to the UK, Russia, and France), our women heralded in "California Girls" by Katy Perry (winner of the MTV Europe Best Video Award) and our military prowess, well, glorified in Inglourious Basterds (which grossed $23.5 million in Germany alone). Even cultural products that seek to expose the dark side, like the Bourne trilogy or Syriana, show off the silver lining of the United States by showing there are still 'real' Americans fighting for the founding ideas that their country sometimes turns its back on. Those movies do not pit anyone against us or inspire anti-American sentiment; it's actually the opposite, because it shows we are willing to be self-critical and recognize their shortcomings. The decision-makers in our media, or at least those interested in the United States hegemony that guarantees their giant paycheck and limited taxes, should continue to produce work that ever-so-subtly highlights the wonders of American living and promotes US interests. 


This is not to say that pop cultural hegemony is all it takes to maintain great power status. To return to what I conceded earlier, international relations is a complicated game and no one factor can determine who holds the all the cards. It is just one element of soft power, which includes long-built political reputation and identifiable ideology, and traditional 'hard' power is still relevant. Military and economic forces play equally if not more important roles in writing history. However, pop culture is an important facilitator of international influence because it makes the dominating material power of the United States an easier pill for other countries to swallow. As long as American media creates the universal language of pop culture and maintains its global attractiveness, the US will have outlets for ensuring its success by tying others to its ideologies and investing others in the survival of its culture. As we shape global tastes, we can shape global interests. 

Scraping Up Ads by the Skins of Their Teeth

Pictured: The Biggest Threat to American Youth and Ad Sales.

There has been a lot of controversy in the last month over MTV’s Skins. The show, one of many in a long line of British television shows adapted for an American audience, very graphically depicts the hedonistic lifestyle of eight fictional high school students as they party with pills, struggle with mental illness, and sleep with each other—and, in one case, their teachers. Skins has garnered the unwanted attention of the Parents Television Council, who accuse MTV and its parent company Viacom of engaging in child pornography with its young actors. In a statement released to the press, the PTC said to Congress:

Furthermore, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to compel the Attorney General to mount an investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the production of ‘Skins’ has violated federal law meant to protect minors from exploitation.

Having the Parents Television Council on your back is dangerous in the world of television, but not because the viewing public really pays attention to their many protests of network impropriety; past outcries include a constant barrage against Gossip Girl and Family Guy, still highly successful shows despite the wagging fingers. Where the PTC can really hurt Skins, especially because it airs on a cable-only network, is with advertisers. Companies understand the threat of a backlash from angry, disposable-income-having parents, and they won’t buy ad time on a show that is being so publicly flagellated by the Parents Television Council; the groups has been attacking advertisers who run their spots during the show, criticisms bound to get back to consuming parents via action alerts (like this one) and media attention. The PTC is aware of the power it holds over spending parents, as illustrated in a menacing statement released by its President Tim Winters immediately following the first airing of Skins, in which he said: 

Every single advertiser who sponsored the premiere episode of ‘Skins’ is not only endorsing, but glorifying teen drug and alcohol abuse, not to mention a plethora of baseless sexual content. The following companies and brand names can rest assured that they will be hearing from PTC about their decision to sponsor the program: Schick Hydro, H&R Block, L’Oreal, Subway, Foot Locker, Orbit chewing gum and Extra chewing gum. We sincerely hope these advertisers will agree that the content in ‘Skins’ is harmful to their corporate image.

Since the initial airing of the pilot, seven major brands—GM, H&R Block, Proactiv, Subway, Schick, Wrigley’s, and Taco Bell—have pulled their advertisements from the Skins scheduling block. 

Now, I understand that, as a brand, you’ll do anything you can to avoid the PTC breathing down your neck or denouncing you to its constituency. I personally have no problem with the show and am a devotee of the British original, so I was a bit surprised at the massive controversy the show created amongst parents and businesses; but, once I took into account the considerable influence of the Parents Television Council, as well as the controversy the show initially caused in the UK, I understand why brands would not buy ad space during Skins. However, I am still shocked that these companies waited until after the pilot aired, after they had secured the time initially, to pull their ads. As responsible advertisers, shouldn’t they have known seen what was coming?

It’s not as if they can argue that they had no idea what risqué content their ads would be running next to. For one, before the show even hit the US airwaves the PTC was crying foul, naming it “the most dangerous television show for children that we have ever seen” Secondly, there has to be some way they could have gotten their hands on a copy of the pilot episode to screen it for content unbecoming of family-friendly businesses; if the Parents Television Council had an advance copy, I’m sure Taco Bell could have gotten one, too. Also, the show is rated TV-MA. So there were three clear signals coming in before the pilot aired that, hey, maybe Skins isn’t the show for you to place ads in if you don’t want hard-partying teens buying your products or being associated with your brand.

But even if, for some strange and incomprehensible reason, the companies couldn’t get advance warning to remove their Five Dollar Foot-long and DoubleMint ads from Skins commercial breaks, they had one obvious resource to clue them in to the content of the show: four seasons of the British original. MTV’s incarnation of Skins doesn’t stray far from the E4 version; in fact, the US pilot was essentially a shot-for-shot, line-for-line remake of its UK counterpart. The only major changes I noticed were the adjustment of slang terms that would get lost in translation in the US. In fact, the experience was a little unsettling; I heard the lines that I had so often heard on the E4 version, expecting them to come out in a British accent. It also threw me off that all the curse words were bleeped out of the show, but other than that the shows were nearly identical. American Tony Stonem manipulated his best friends, cursed at teachers, called his girlfriend “Nips,” and bough marijuana in his introductory episode just as British Tony Stonem did in Bristol. If the companies had taken the time to simply look at the source material, they would have known exactly what they were about to slap their branding on.

My personal theory is that these companies fully knew what they were getting into, but agreed to run their advertisements during the show and being aware that there were two positive outcomes: (1) the show would be wildly popular and their advertisements would reach the disposable income demographics of teens and young adults, or (2) the show would be denounced by the PTC and, once they removed their advertisements, they would be celebrated as heroic bastions of responsible business practices. Well, number 2 is exactly what happened. In the past month, for every advertiser that has pulled out of Skins, the PTC has released a statement applauding their morality. So, unsurprisingly, the businesses made the financially foolproof decision to run their advertisements regardless of the show’s content and find the positive consequence either way; its not that they have a problem with the story lines of teen promiscuity and drug use, but rather that they want the publicity that comes from being in the PTC’s good graces.

Now, this could really screw over Skins; as they lose major advertisers, it’s hard to replace them with the parental watchdog ever-looming. But at the same time, the show gains a certain amount of cache, especially among the targeted teen demographic, for being so controversial; as someone who was very recently a teenager, if my parents tried hard to shield me from something I fought even harder to see it. It boils down to the clichéd concept that all press is good press, and this kind of press will certainly draw in a curious teen audience.

However, even if MTV’s Skins can pick up a huge teen following, if it loses all its advertisers it cannot stay on the air. I really doubt the show will last past the first season, which is already in the can, so if you have been enjoying it I suggest you instead Netflix the original series. The first two seasons are so much better than the American remake, as is often the case, and you can catch early glimpses of Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) and the fantastic Nicholas Hoult (up next playing the Beast in X-Men: First Class). Plus, this way you can just avoid advertisements all together.

Fast Tracking the Bullet Train

Today in Philadelphia, Vice President Joe Biden announced the Obama administration's plan to spend $53 billion to develop the high-speed rail system across the US. Speaking to the benefits of the construction project, Biden said:

"There are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation -- one of which is infrastructure,"...There is a pressing need "to invest in a modern rail system that will help connect communities, reduce congestion and create quality, skilled manufacturing jobs that cannot be outsourced."

I, for one, am skeptical, but not because I disagree with Biden on the possible positive impact of a high-speed rail system. In a time where we as a nation are experiencing such out-of-control unemployment, there is no doubt that any project that could create work for people across the country in both the major cities and everything in between would give us a boost. And anything that can cut down our dependence on cars and clear out the traffic would be a welcome change to our national infrastructure--especially here in LA. The idea of "connecting communities" is a bit trite, like some kind of Rockwell-esque, patriotic rhetoric that tries to make the US seem like nation of white-picket suburbs, but how cool would it be to have a high-speed ground transportation option linking up both coasts? It could be something like what they have in Europe or Japan, facilitating not only the work commute but also domestic travel.

My skepticism comes in on whether or not we would actually USE the high-speed rail system to its full potential. There is so much possibility in this transportation system, but I'm not confident that, outside of New York City, we will ever give up the car commute. For us, the car is not just a vehicle to get us to and from but a status symbol; having a nice set of wheels is a way of showing the world all that you've accomplished and just how awesome you are. I know that Biden took the train to and from Washington, D.C. during his tenure as a Delaware Senator, but I highly doubt that many of his colleagues would have given up their Mercedes or BMWs to hop on public transportation to the Capitol. The American mentality is materialistic; whether that's good or bad--does it drive us to succeed or just make us greedy?--is not part of my assessment, but it's unlikely to change in time for the $53 billion that would be poured into this project to be worthwhile.

And what about existing state plans for high-speed rails? California passed Proposition 1A in 2008 to put $9.95 billion into constructing a track between San Francisco and LA/Anaheim, plus local rails for all the stops in between; this was all done to fund on the state level, the California High Speed Rail Authority, so how will this interplay with the new federal plan? New York state also received federal funding to their state-level high-speed train system. If Obama's plan passes through Congress unscathed, it will be interesting to see how the Washington course of action will cross and integrate with pre-existing individual state projects.

It would be great if we could have a high-speed train system, or even a bullet train, linking the US for tourists and commuters, but I'm honestly not sure that it would work in the US. The benefits are clear, but with our materialism now combined with an anti-spending Republican Congress, it's unlikely that it would be properly used or even see the light of day. But, humming along to "Wouldn't It Be Nice," I still hope that one day I'll be blogging on the bullet train from Disneyland to San Fran.

Mole People?

A video report posted on CNN earlier today featured reporter Eunice Yoon travelling to the underground homes that many have taken to in Beijing. The idea is that housing in China's capital has become so ridiculously expensive, or at least unaffordable to the general population, that people are being forced to move into old air raid shelters and other subaltern residences. It's horrible that the first thing I thought of when I saw this video was "Oh, look; China's version of the mole people!"; but honestly, can you blame me when the title of the report is China's Mouse Tribe?

After actually watching the report, that clearly isn't the case. When I was little, the mole people were a small subset of the population who chose to live in the sewers and had their own little communities there; they dressed in rags, never came out in the sunlight, and started to look and live like, well, moles--clearly more urban legend and cautionary tale than anything else. But this isn't the case with these people in Beijing. They live perfectly normal, above ground lives outside their homes and are not simply taking part in an alternative lifestyle; actually, they are forced to live this way because they have no alternatives. It's worth wondering if, in our current housing crisis with unemployment high and people unable to afford to keep their traditional housing, we will soon have our own mouse tribe in the US. Perhaps then the mole people will become reality.

Facebook and the Revolution

As the protests in Cairo turn violent and even Anderson Cooper is scared away, it's worth taking a step back and looking at how the protests started in the first place. In case you aren't entirely sure what is going on right now in Egypt, here's a CNN stream of the most important events of the past two weeks.

The Egyptian youth, born into Mubarak's rule and deeply unsatisfied with his 29 year reign, is the driving force behind this movement--something new for a demographic that traditionally isn't very active in national politics. As 28-year-old protester Ahmed Maher told the LA Times:

"There is a generational gap in Egypt," Maher said, watching waiters and the twentysomething men and women likely to join him in the protests. "The opposition is looking to preserve themselves and their parties. They've become too hesitant. But young activists are fired up, and they have no allegiances to anything but change."

Groups like April 6 and the Muslim Brotherhood are uniting their active members, many under 30, to mobilize in the streets calling for the end of Mubarak's regime. And its obvious that the Egyptian government knows the importance of what columnist Sawsan Al-Abtah called the "youthful spirit" of the protest movement; this explains why, in the first days of the protest, they shut down the Holy Trinity of youth communication: text messaging, Facebook, and Twitter.

As an addict of all three of those technologies, it seems so bizarre that they can be used for anything but socializing. My social networking experience has been one of bumper stickers, funny profile pictures, and complaining about the lack of a 'dislike' feature, and not one of activism. Facebook as a platform for political and social change is an entirely foreign concept. I can't imagine that, say, during the next Presidential election I'd join a Facebook group in support of my preferred candidate and use that as a way to be keyed into the political race; honestly, I'm sure that I would just leave the group after a while, annoyed with the constant event invitations and mass messages that inevitably flood my inbox with that kind of group. Yet the Egyptian youth has used Facebook in a way that transcends its original purpose, turning it in to something so much more than a Facemash of college students or, as proposed in The Social Network, a way to get back at an ex-girlfriend. It's a mobilization tool that can unite people across a country in support of a common cause as well as draw in the younger population out of user convenience and cool-factor. That's not to say that any of the protesters are on the streets of Cairo risking their lives because all their Facebook friends are, too. However, the popularity as well as the strategy of the movement certainly owes something to social networking. And this isn't the first time Facebook or Twitter has been a part of cries for revolution in the Middle East; let's not forget the green "Where is their vote?" profile picture that swept the social networking scene during the 2009 Iranian presidential elections.

So we've seen that Facebook can be so much more than just a way to stalk your friends and call it normal; will it ever really serve that purpose in the US? Can we use Facebook to get our generation excited and informed about politics, as has been done in Egypt? I don't mean to be a downer, but honestly I doubt it. Social networking fuels a fire when it's already there; the reason it has worked so well for the Cairo youth is that they already had a mission and a message but needed a way to link up and organize. Facebook can't cure political apathy, which is what we're dealing with here; when it's not election season, most of us would never go out and risk our lives or even our time for government reform, and I don't see a Facebook group changing that attitude. First we have to understand the importance of what happens in Washington to our day-to-day lives and have a desire to change it.

Then maybe we can start the Facebook group.

Christiane Amanpour in Action

I linked to several of her transcripts and videos in my previous post about Christiane Amanpour, but here in her final CNN sign off is just a sampling of the amazing work she did in her 27 years there; Amanpour's Greatest Hits, if you will. She wasn't afraid to ask uncomfortable questions of powerful people, respectfully and subtly--not with the tenacity and aggression of other public intellectuals like, say, Gore Vidal--pushing their buttons to try and get at the truth. I'm not sure if she can maintain this kind of hard-hitting standard at ABC, but since it hasn't even been a full year run of the show I think it's still too soon to judge what her future at This Week will be like.