Facebook-Related Post Of the Week

  

Social networking is huge business, not only in affluent nations, but developing ones as well. Everyday people often belong to not just one, but 3 or more sites like Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and the new Google+. And speaking of Google+, reviews are decidedly mixed, with some enjoying the group videochat features already available on Twitter app Tinychat and some finding the layout and user-friendliness to be a rehash of Google Wave, which was a monstrous fail.

  But what to do when you're insecure Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg? Well, the little Z has teamed up with Skype to tie-in Skype's videochat service with Facebook. According to advertisers, they love the concept because they believe it will keep people on FB for a longer period of time.  In the demo, Zuckerberg calls it 'awesome' approximately 42 times, but seems to miss the point.

  People go to Facebook because it's Facebook and Skype or amazing dinosaur Yahoo to have private, realtime conversations. Facebook may have boosted most of MySpace's games, but a video option will be a pain in the ass, and here's why:

  I am probably your average Facebook client- I log on a couple of times a day to make sure no family members are ailing, to see who's pregnant, and to make my Scrabble move. Once a year or so, I upload a few pictures of my cat and I post my blog updates on my wall via an app. While I do periodically use the typechat option, it's not a driving force in my social media life. Facebook is a small part of my existence and I'd like to keep it that way, despite what Zuckerberg's advergeeks want.

  So, say I'm checking out some awesome Woodstock footage that my dad has been rad enough to find on the webs and I'm rockin out to Hendrix during my 7.5 Facebook minutes of the day. All of a sudden, 25 people I haven't seen in 2 decades poke me with the Skype doohickey. I will obviously be unamused by the bell interfering with the perfect riff. I will remember the name and source of said video so I can find it elsewhere and get the hell off of Facebook as quickly as possible. I may even hop on my own preloaded Skype or Yahoo and bitch about it to one of my actual friends, put as much aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!! as possible into 140 characters on Twitter, post a rage comic on Reddit, or write a long and winding blog post about it.

  I can understand why Mark Zuckerberg would want an alliance with Skype pending their possible purchase by Microsoft. I am highly aware of how competitive the media marketplace is, but if the original Google Wave  is proof of anything, it's the fact that people don't like drastic fundamental changes to how their toys work. Myspace panicked because of Facebook and sunk their own ship because they couldn't grasp two concepts- 1) that there's allowed to be more than one fish in the sea and 2) trying to be everything to everyone causes the quality of what you were good at to deteriorate.

  Mark Zuckerberg is aware that North American Facebook membership has dropped, but he need not worry. 1 in 8 people who breathe Earth's air use Facebook. This includes all of the babies, blind and elderly, and people who reside in places without running water. 750 million people on our planet use Mark Zuckerberg's social network and it's worth billions and billions of dollars. The only excuse for attempting a tit-for-tat with Google Plus is ego.
  Facebook will only expire if Mark Zuckerberg chases users away, and the Skype invasion might be the one thing that scares me and a whole ton of adults off of the network, and grown-ups are the people who actually buy the products that are advertised.

  In our society, there is no longer a concept of too big to fail, but there might just be a possibility of becoming too big to stay.

  Stay tuned.

Law...What Law?

  Linda Harvey of Mission America is working hard to earn her zealot badge, interviewing members of religious groups and broadcasting rants on WRFD Christian radio. The primary targets of Ms. Harvey and her guests are gays, kids, and (even better) gay kids. In her big weekend interview, she was honored to host Gary Glenn, head of American Family Association Michigan. The interview with Mike Huckabee's good pal focused on the far right response to gay rights, and Mr. Glenn offered his solution to the gay menace- stop hiring gays:

Glenn: Herman Miller, which is a major employer and corporation in Holland [Michigan], a furniture company, supported this so-called gay rights ordinance on the claim that it allowed them to attract the best and brightest.

Harvey: Here we go, yeah we heard that before.

Glenn: What ridiculous folly to suggest that only those individuals who engage in homosexual behavior given all of its severe medical consequences constitute the best and the brightest. It’s not really bright to engage in behavior that puts you at dramatically higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse and AIDS and cancer and hepatitis, and according to various sources, premature death. So to suggest that engaging in that type of behavior defines someone as the best and brightest, which seems to be the line coming out of corporate America, is just ridiculous.

Harvey: You’re right. And higher rates of domestic violence and unstable relationships. I would not think of a homosexual person as a good employment risk, I just wouldn’t.

  Gary Glenn and Linda Harvey are not just recycling discredited talking points originally produced by SPLC-recognized hate groups such as Exodus and NARTH, but encouraging corporations to violate state and federal laws by discriminating against U.S. citizens. It's not a huge surprise, since the AFA is also a registered hate group, but seldom have 2 of these knuckleheads been so blatant as to suggest business owners break the law for Jesus, let alone on air.

  Only once every generation or so does the political climate become so toxic that religion becomes intertwined with it. It doesn't surprise me that Gary Glenn and his AFA buddies are the darlings of several Republican presidential candidates when we have folks like David Duke considering a run.

  We live in a scary world, people.

  Linda's hate parade continues for nearly one-half hour, and you can listen to it here if you dare.

One More Thing.....

 According to the prosecution, Casey Anthony was a partying single mum with no college degree, yet she is some evil genius who hatched up a batch of chloroform in her secret laboratory that went unnoticed in her parents' home during a several month plan to kill her child.

 The crouching loser, hidden Einstein was brilliant enough to do all of these things yet not bright enough to design a master plan for efficient body disposal, an alibi, or any back-up plan whatsoever.

  And you wonder why Casey Anthony was acquitted.

Final Thought About The Casey Anthony Case

  Unless you were on Mars for most of today, you know that Casey Anthony was found not guilty by a jury of her peers in Orlando, Florida. Now, there are a lot of us who were incensed at the supposed miscarriage of justice; the wrong verdict seemed to be made and there is a justice system hate parade going on today. But, love me or hate me for it, I'm not joining in.

  When Casey Anthony was first arrested, I was convinced she had to have killed her kid simply because she didn't react in the way that we think most parents should. Nancy Grace blasted Ms. Anthony and her weird parents, with Radar Online's party pictures to prove just how slutty this girl was. I had convicted Casey Anthony before she arrived for trial, much like many others. 

  However, as I looked into the media members who were calling Casey Anthony a murderess, I discovered some disturbing details hidden behind the sanctimonious rants. Media executioner in chief is Nancy Grace, someone who has been admonished for malicious prosecution and has her own pattern of self-serving lies. She didn't even tell viewers that most of the party photos of Casey Anthony were from 2006 before using them to macerate the image of a human being who was presumed innocent according to the Constitution. Nancy's brutal treatment of people has included an instance in which the mother of a missing child killed herself due to a character assassination carried out so Ms. Grace could further her own commercial success. Nancy Grace, her network, and many, many other media members had a stake in the guilt of Casey Anthony and their book deals that depended on their search for justice for a child and her killer.

  But once this got to trial, I knew something wasn't quite right. There was simply not only not enough evidence to prove that Caylee Anthony died in a nefarious fashion, but the prosecution couldn't even prove who dumped the body of the child. When you have a car that was used by 4 different people, there's doubt. When you cannot prove that someone was even murdered, there's doubt. The prosecution went to court with no case even for manslaughter and went for the big gun, and despite their cockiness, they failed miserably. If it had been Canada, Casey could have received a bunch of years for how ridiculous her lies were or for Committing an Indignity to a Dead Body, but as my housemate pointed out, they couldn't even convince a jury that Casey disposed of her kid. 

  As the trial went on, even my opinion of Casey Anthony changed. I went from feeling certain that a demonic woman killed her child in cold blood to coming to the conclusion that she is only guilty of being a lying, scuzzy jillbilly who either discarded or enabled someone to discard her child in what can only be seen as a reprehensible manner. Sure, she made peculiar Google searches, but so have I and I wouldn't hurt a flea. My ex would drop her kid off anywhere to go party, but I'm pretty sure there are no bodies on her hands. There are creepy people who shouldn't be parents, and Casey Anthony is certainly one of them, but there's a reason why she didn't take the limited-immunity deal, and we have to consider the possibility is because she didn't murder her daughter.

  Regardless of our opinions of Casey Anthony, she was found not guilty by a jury who saw far more of the case than any of us spectators did. And we have to trust that they made the correct decision according to a justice system that convicts over 95% of those accused. The snap judgments made by the litany of former litigators on the television need to be seen as ones made by media members, for if these folks were such fine, selfless, justice-pursuing attorneys, they would still be arguing cases instead of each other on prime time. 

  The State of Florida did not meet the burden of proof to convict Casey Anthony of anything other than being a bad liar and no amount of disbelief, sanctimony, or Vinnie Politano raging about the machine can alter that very basic fact. 

  If Casey Anthony fooled the world and did indeed do something felonious to end the life of her child, I wish her all of the torment that one's mind can provide. I'd hope her self-hatred consumes her until she loses her marbles and dies as a homeless societal outcast, hit by a car whilst shouting at her imaginary friends. However, if Casey Anthony didn't actually kill her kid, I cannot promote malice after she serves her sentences for her ridiculous string of lies. The problem is that nobody may ever know the bizarre circumstances that occurred before and after the death of a very small human being who died far too soon. 

  There are a multitude of reasons why trials are presided by judges and accused criminals found guilty or not by a diverse array of citizens in a courtroom. If this case had been adjudicated by members of the media, Casey Anthony would have been dragged through the ocean on a trawler's net or set ablaze in a public pyre. We should be thankful for the protections that guarantee fair trials because, without them, we'd see the kinds of atrocities that we admonish other nations for. 

  Today decisions were rendered, and whether you believe the verdicts were symbolically filet mignon or ground chuck, justice was served. 

  

Mommy Dearest

  The news coverage surrounding the alleged murder of Caylee Anthony by her mother has turned the trial into a media circus, with folks offering speculation on whether or not the mum is guilty of murder or plain stupidity. 
 However, while we were watching the O.J. of our generation go down, a very real mother got away with the calculated murder of her own child. 


Yvonne Freaney is a 50 year old woman who resides near Cardiff, Wales. By her own admission, she strangled her 11 year old son named Glen to death with a coat belt in an airport hotel room. The woman killed her son because he was autistic and she didn't want to be faced with a lifetime of caring for him alone after a breakup with her abusive husband. 


The mother of 4 admitted to the crime even upon her arrest, declaring that "He was laughing when I was strangling him. That is when I knew he was happy.I had to do it because now no-one can point fingers at him. He is in heaven now.". Mrs. Freaney had strangled her son but made a fleeting attempt at cutting her wrists prior to her arrest for murder. 


In this case, the justice actually took pity on the woman, beginning with the statement  "You have already been punished enough." prior to permitting the woman to walk out of the courthouse with a supervision order. You see, if your kid is disabled, his or her life is not worth as much as that of one who doesn't need to speak through a computer, like Glen Freaney did. Time and time again, parents have taken the lives of their handicapped offspring and either walked or given huge diminished responsibility reductions in their sentences.


  Am I the only person who sees something very wrong about the idea that some people's lives are more valuable than others? Why has Yvonne Freaney been "punished enough" simply by virtue of the fact she had to "deal" with a son who has challenges? Her son was described as a warm, happy kid who could walk, run, ride a bike, and communicate. Glen Freaney was loved and the person who swore to protect him from harm choked the life out of him over a period of several minutes until he was dead. This was no accident, mummy dearest had at least 5 minutes to reconsider her actions and save her son's life. As for the suicide attempt, it's laughable- if Yvonne Freaney wanted to actually die, she would have hanged herself and died in the same quiet violence, terror, and panic that her son experienced. 


  Glen Freaney was a human being who didn't deserve to die simply to make his mum's life easier. In a socially-blessed nation like the U.K., she would have a multitude of options at her disposal, ranging from supervised relief care to surrendering parental rights without prejudice. 


  I have several friends and relatives who have physical, psychological, or intellectual variations from the established norms, and it's pretty damn clear that if someone killed one of them, I'd be calling for the defendant's head. The concept of the lives of the disabled as less important smacks of eugenics movements of the past where human beings could be lobotomized, sterilized, and even killed because of things like epilepsy and feeblemindedness. The concept that Yvonne Freaney is less guilty of murder because her child wet the bed smacks of Nazism.


  The murders of the disabled are often deemed mercy killings, but I see zero compassion in crushing a scared 11 year old kid's throat until he died. Obviously, there's nothing that can bring back Glen Freaney or anyone else killed by a parent, but shouldn't our sense of justice apply equally? 


  There are no second-class children, only substandard opinions of them.


  

Spy Vs. Spy : Letting Go Of God #10

  My older sister and my nephews came for a visit this weekend. It's pretty easy to get here because they live only an hour or so over the U.S. border. However, there's always something deliberately done by my sister to cause me to become angry or emotionally messed-with in one way or another, particularly since my recent discovery of these pesky things known as feelings.

  Aforementioned sibling has spent the last three-and-a-half decades being a bully to me, but I'm cool with that. I make as large an effort as possible not to dwell on past negativity. I usually ignore the fact that she expects me to wait on her as a servant because that's how it has always been, but something my 10 year old nephew told me absolutely broke my heart.

 Within 10 minutes of arrival, said nephew just spat it out " My mother says I can't hang out in your room because she says you're crazy.". That's all. Simple Simon said to the pie man.

  I went and took my dog for a walk and cried my eyes out. I sobbed unlike I have in my reasonably sane life. There were full-on tears; last night I attained acute awareness of the true meaning of heartbreak.

  After the sissy attack, I returned to my house with impenetrable asshole armour in full effect. Nothing halted my joy as my 2 little buddies chilled with me last night and for most of today. We enjoyed everything from Lethal Enforcers on Sega Genesis to jumping into the salty Pacific to existential conversations. All was good.

  We arrived home and we collaborated on a meal-making session. After supper, when the kids were out of the room, I asked my sister why she would tell her son such an awful thing. She responded first with denial, and then with an admission that she'd told one of the few people I would truly die for that dreadful thing, but it was my fault. She flailed around for an excuse and blurted out "well I didn't want you guys to hang out and forget us but you've been negative and ***5 minute session of blaming me for her needing to degrade me to a 5th grader***".

  My sister told a child to discriminate against another human being because she was afraid we'd have too much fun. She left whilst blaming me for my offense and I dropped it to make peace.

  Now here's a little secret about my little buddy. He's 10 and he's freakishly smart and no matter how much bullshit my sister decides to cram down his throat, he's going to be himself. And I also found out last night that Mr. J is atheist, much against his mum's wishes.

For the record, my nephew had no idea that I didn't believe in any of the many, many gods before he asked me last night. He had already determined it to himself that " if Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are bogus, how can someone expect me to believe in something else that's obviously imaginary?" (he said this to my sister verbatim) and was just tossing out a line. He asked me if I believed and I said no and he was one very relieved child as he explained how my mother (his grandmother) has told him we thought a lot alike. The nephew told about being forced to go to Easter Mass and how he thought it was weird and thought his mum was trying to hard to make him believe in nonsensical things. We chuckled last night, but tonight was interesting.

  This evening, my stepfather brought up all of this 'heaven' stuff and Jacob looked at him as if he had two heads. This young gent eloquently articulated his preference for science over imaginary friends. As he spoke regally about his logic and the way in which the universe actually operates, I quietly applauded.

  You see, even though this boy was taught so many blanket judgments, he has already figured out what he believes and why. My sister may believe in a god, but she has very little humanity, and no matter how many labels she tries to throw on me to make herself feel more important, the kid she clearly doesn't favour sees through it all and is an incredibly moral atheist. The boy who asks me every time he sees me "why is my mum so mean to you?" has an amazing awareness of the world around him and doesn't need to wait for greatness since he has already attained it and looks toward an unlimited future.

  I could focus on my sister's disregard for decency, but I'd rather tune into my nephew's wavelength. Admitting to who you are and standing on your ground are phenomenal actions. Choosing not to buy into hatred is heroic. I am proud to be very close to a 10 year old MAN who is indescribably incredible; a dude who loves to chill with me like no other.

  My best friend is a 10 year old kid who constantly proves that you don't need to believe in cloud zombies to be truly blessed.

The Song In My Head

  Today is Canada Day, so I figure we'll go Canadian again. Here's a 2001 classic from progressive rock band The Tea Party, who recently reunited after disbanding. The group has been called legendary my some and pretentious by others, but this track, on it's own, it's pretty awesome.

Random facts- Vocalist Jeff Martin has played 10 different instruments on previously released records. As for the name, it has nothing to do with Boston or politics, but is an homage to the hash sessions enjoyed by the beat poets of the 60's.

Enjoy!



Buy me on iTunes here