Today's guest post is by frequent contributor, Dianna Zisman. We share nearly identical interests, philosophies and senses of humor, so I requested she attempt to find the source of the commonality. To try and find what it is that makes us "us", so we can find more of us, and go build a city together. The following is her thoughtful, humorous and insightful reply.

(guest post by Dianna Zisman)

In our day, video games featured an 8-bit plumber dodging fire-breathing plants while throwing turtle shells at  brown blobs. My voice is in the background of half my cassettes because I had to tape songs I loved off the radio...using more than one cassette player. Long phone calls meant chaining yourself to a wall and meandering around the kitchen for 20 minutes. The allure of 5th Grade computer lab was losing half of your possessions in an ill-conceived attempt to ford the river in Oregon Trail. Our GPS was Rand McNally.

Now? My iPod now has four times the hard drive space of my first computer. My Kindle has over 150 books. I probably sent more e-mail in the last month than handwritten letters in my entire life. I’m no longer startled when my GPS talks back to me (recalculate this, lady). And I’ve taken lessons on how to play the guitar, juggle, and perform surgery (at the same time!) from people I’ve never met, half the world away, on YouTube.

Anyone born between, say, 1977 and 1987 has the unique pleasure of knowing two completely different worlds (pre- and post-computer age) and appreciating both. Unlike those whippersnappers born in the early-to-mid 90s, we can send 20 texts a minute and work a rotary phone. And tell you why Tetris > Halo. At the same time, we don’t look at a ringing cell phone and ask “how do you stop this jukebox from playin’?!?” [actual quote from a friend’s grandma]. We get the most out of social networking because we’re young enough not to scoff at its perceived triviality, yet old enough to understand the best way to use it in combination with other media.

This shapes us beyond the tech, too. A lot of us avoid being stuck in the old v. new paradigm because we say “forget old, forget new...what’s the RIGHT way?” Hence the increasing popularity of a certain political philosophy with us young’uns. Obviously, not everyone in our generation shares the same mentality, but when we open the conversation with “what doesn’t work in our society, why, and what’s the best way to fix
it, grasshoppah?” we attract a lot of like-minded people.

Oh, and just as important: we share an appreciation for Arrested Development. In fact...yeah, forget everything I said above. It’s all about Arrested Development.

Remember when the Catholic church child abuse stories started to break, and we started thinking these were just random outliers. "Not my church." We had no idea how widespread this behavior and cover-up were.

So, why do we think Penn State is the end of the story here, or even the worst part of it?

Just because it's so inconceivably horrific?

Right now, sports talk radio is full of people debating how hard to come down on Penn State - whether or not to strip away the school's NCAA designation entirely - and the need to send a clear message to other schools.

But, what message does that actually send to schools who are currently sitting on their own cover-up? Who, like Penn State, thought there might be a better way to handle it. To stop the problem without the catastrophic PR consequences.


Now, you're telling me coming forward might mean the certain destruction of the entire University, and potential jail time for me as an accessory?

While coming clean on my own might be better than getting caught, I think I just have to cross my fingers and hope I can get away with the secret forever.

If our goal is for whistle blowers to find the courage to speak out against power, we need to be certain we don't incentivize staying silent.

Boy. What a tough day. Time to go home, lay down on the couch, and unwind with a nice tall glass of meth.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against drinking, aside from the liver damage and the family destruction.

I just wonder if there's something about the romantic nature and utilitarian ease of a glass of red wine that makes it is a more socially acceptable form of drug use. Similar to why painkillers are such a growing addiction. It's just a pill. Like my multivitamin.

Now, if imbibing a glass of red wine forced you to rubber cuff your arm heroin-junkie style - there's no way that's taking off.

If Amazon completely replaces local retail...which is looking more and more likely...what will our streets start to look like?

What if we begin to not only have a bunch of empty warehouse big-box stores (ex-Kmarts, Best Buys and Circuit City's), but a bunch of smaller empty buildings, too?

Because, in this seemingly inevitable future of instant online-to-real-life gratification, what does a town really need to have nearby?

Restaurants and fresh food grocers (aside from the non-perishables that can now be delivered same-day), and basic service locations, e.g. gas station, hair salon, dentist?

All other retail gone?

It's crazy to think about what a town will look in 10 years. And to think about what we're going to do with all those buildings...

Your doctor's time is likely more valuable than your own.

In fact, their skills as a specialist likely outweigh the value of any of their patients.

Therefore, having to wait at your doctor's office makes sense.

You tell the patient to come at 9, but you don't plan on seeing them until 9:15. This gives them an acceptable cushion in case they're late, without making them too angry, and ensures the doctor's time is always being maximized.

What I don't understand is a perpetual hour-long wait. I don't understand the economics there, and yet I experience this all the time. And now, with a recent mass addition of healthcare participants to the game, things might get crazy-town.

Solve either problem.

If you had your exact same house. Exact same possessions. But positioned squarely in Bangalore - overlooking the slums, would this constant perspective forever remove any notion of feeling sorry for yourself?

Perhaps it's not our circumstance that determines our joy?

For better or for worse, Facebook now gives us exclusive access into the highs and lows of our friends and acquaintances.

And I have noticed a peculiar pattern of comments which inevitably arises every time someone makes their small or large tragedy public.

We try and cheer them up.

A cat dies. A bad medical diagnosis. A job loss. We desperately try to fix the situation with a petty turn of phrase.

"Think of all the good times you had with Mittens!"

"Everything's going to turn out ok! I just know it!"

"When one door closes, another one opens!"

Why can't we just let people mourn? Why can't we, just for a moment, allow people to sit in the reality of their suck? Why can't we join them?


When your friends go public with their grief, they aren't looking for your advice. They're looking for your empathy.

So don't try and fix the situation. Because you can't.


Simply say, "I am so terribly sorry."

Some quick obligatory observations from today's SCOTUS ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld President Obama's healthcare law, including the individual mandate which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

1) Our news organizations are pretty terrible. I'm the first to preach about the benefits of being first-to-market. For instance, Coke is beating Pepsi today primarily because they got there first. Unfortunately, news organizations understand this reality. And today, we saw too many examples of the desire to be first, above....any sort of accuracy whatsoever.

2) For conservatives who see no real, practical difference between an Obama and a Romney candidacy, this court ruling may end up creating a Romney enthusiasm that didn't exist before, these particular conservative's only hope for a full repeal of the healthcare bill.

3) I'm still not sure how we expect this to actually lower our health care costs in a game changing way, without either incentivizing people to healthy living or penalizing individuals for preventable healthcare costs caused by lifestyle choices. We can make fun of Bloomberg's banning soft drinks 16 oz. and up, but IF (and that's a big "if") we are going to collectively pay for everyone's healthcare, this is the only thing that makes any sort of economic sense, liberty be damned.

Everyone's Facebook experience starts out pretty great.

You immediately "friend" the people closest to you. And now you have this news feed of your favorite people, sharing with you in real-time, news about your very favorite people.

But by definition, as your # of Facebook friends increases, the quality of your news feed goes down.

Because you stray further and further from your inner circle each time you add someone. From closest friends to college friends. High school friends. Church friends. Extended family. That guy I met that one time that I think is friends with Jeff somehow?

If you add a new Facebook friend today, it's probably because you either just met the person, or you were never that close to begin with.

Now there is a small chance this new friend will enter your inner circle over time, but the odds are greater that the quality of your news feed just went down a little.

"But, what if they're really interesting and funny, Eric?"

They absolutely could be. But we also might disagree on what "interesting" and "funny" are. After all, the reason your closest friends are your closest friends is because you probably happen to think, act and live fairly similarly. You share interests. You share humor. You share worldviews. You share the same preference for what Facebook should be.

For me, I just want to be entertained. I want you to make me laugh. I want you to make me think. I want you to show me cool things I haven't seen. That's why I'm on Facebook.

And if your Facebook posts don't do those things, I'm going to hide you.

But, we can still be friends.

Would you feel more uncomfortable sitting on a plane next to a woman reading 50 Shades of Grey or a man leafing through a Playboy?

Because I'm taken aback when I hear a woman talk about how she's reading (or has read) 50 Shades of Grey, and is seemingly unembarrassed to do so.  (Note: for those unaware, this is a romance/erotica book that has uniquely achieved mainstream status, and New York Times bestselling success, despite what I am told is fairly uninspired writing.)

I guess I don't understand the difference between visual and textual pornography.

They are both created to do the same thing - each targeted to a different gender, based on biological differences.

...but the Playboy seems worse, right?