From the heart of Montreal all the way to Oslo!

Today's subject is a bit of a toughie but one which all pet owners will empathize with: the loss of a beloved family pet. Oslo, our very own "office manager" and real life champion boxer had been a real trooper for many months this past summer, having fought to stay on at his post while at the same time giving his family some extra-precious fun times and good memories. Sadly, at the very end of the summer, he needed to be set free to go off and lie in warm sun during eternal summery days, where he can bark as loud as he wants and chase anything that moves.

One can rationalize the loss of an amazing dog (or other pet) all one wants, but they become such an integral part of a family's life that the loss is taken exactly as if another family member had passed on. Don't expect people who never had pets to truly get it, but if they do say "Come on, it was just an animal!" then you should feel free to tell them to zip it. 

One cannot expect a non-musician to understand the almost crazy love of a guitar player for his favorite old guitars. Even if they have 22 of them, and can afford to buy top-of-the-line instruments at any time, there is an affection for their fave old "friend" that simply cannot be questioned. Ditto a car lover's adoration of his old 1950's pick-up truck that he spent many years renovating and bringing back to full use, for example. But pets are living breathing creatures with personalities, voices, foibles and wide-ranging emotional pull that work their way into our homes and hearts in ways that are totally irresistible. 

If there is one thing that I do believe about having a pet, it is that one has to face, from day one, the inevitability that in all likelihood, we will outlive that animal. So from the second that we decide to bring one home, we have unofficially signed the agreement that one sad day we will have to do right by that animal, and face its tragic loss. It's part of the deal. 

But as to why we take it so badly when the time comes, I do have one hypothesis. Yes, of course, it's totally natural in any case to mourn the loss of a faithful old friend who brought as much sunshine into the home (as Oslo undoubtedly did), and there will be a huge hole in our lives that the pet used to occupy. But in some ways, I think that it also has something to do with the fact that not only are the pets our babies, but that they remain babies!

So, unlike children, who grow up and are increasingly able to look after themselves and head out on their own, our pets by and large remain our babies: they need feeding, washing, walking and poop-scooping for their entire lives. In many ways, in our eyes at least, they never grow up and we always have a baby to look after at home. This parental role is a very strong bond for us humans, and for as long as we are still running after them and cleaning up after them, we are the Mom or the Dad. 

I in no way want to compare the loss of a pet with that of human life, but what I am saying is that the loss of  a pet is emotionally very similar to a child being sick or injured, especially given our protective role over the "kids". In many ways, the dog or cat is just another one of the kids, who doesn't grow up and who will always need us just as we in turn need them. It's a very symbiotic relationship and the unspoken but demonstrable love of an animal for its human family is the huge reward with which we are blessed. 

In Oslo's case, he had a full life that was equally full of love with his family all around him, and against all the odds he even became a Canadian champion as part of his adventure! In recent times he had also joined in on the hunt for "Them evil hawgs" (American Hoggers, A&E) as can be seen in the picture above with his pal Jerry. Furthermore, he has become something of an internet celebrity and canine sensation via his presence on all of the Evergreen Umbrella social media sites, where he has stamped his paw on the brand itself. 

It was a dog's life, and he sure made the most of it. He is going to be missed terribly by the Ciurlis, but whenever they need to be reminded of him all they will have to do is pay a visit to any EU site, where he will be living on each and every day for as long as we do. He's a celebrity and he demands that spotlight! - EU

A day at the UN, or a morning on The View? It's a no-brainer!

Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's impassioned plea for a red line on Tehran's development of a nuclear weapon at the UN this week, it was presumably a given that the two candidates running for US President would act more or less true to type in response. 

Obama is not in favor of the increasing fervor with which Netanyahu demands that a red line be drawn on Iran, which when crossed over, would automatically result in military action. Obama still insists that a diplomatic solution can be found, even when dealing with what is seen by and large, by many, as a rogue nation.

Of course, increasingly, one feels like asking Barack: "Tell us what you really think", because when he is campaigning, he would say just about anything that would guarantee him four more years. He went from being stubbornly of the belief that marriage was a partnership between men and women only, to suddenly supportive of gay marriage, in a lightning bolt overnight fashion, for example. Well, it is an election year after all!

But he also stayed true to type by not only refusing to meet one-on-one with various leaders of key middle Eastern countries at the UN recently, but did so at least in part because he already had a hot appearance scheduled on daytime TV with the gals of The View. Typical. Not only the first POTUS to ever grace the daytime talk show circuit with the first lady, but now also the first POTUS in about 20 years to not make time to meet the other leaders at the UN general assembly, because of daytime TV. Incredible. 

What's world politics and talk of nuclear threats when compared to a chance to sit and be fawned over on The View by Babs et al., and the opportunity to be seen more as the Hollywood celebrity that he would secretly prefer to be?! I think it is truly shallow, and an embarrassment to the nation, but of course it is also a way to exude total arrogance at how certain he is that it will only have a positive effect (the power of the talk show culture) on his re-election chances.

Also true to type, Romney naturally seized on the opportunity to attack Obama as he has "deserted the friend" that is Israel and decided to use it as a campaign factor on why people should vote for him instead. He is scheduled to talk with Netanyahu today, which I sort of find to be a totally futile and meaningless exercise in that he is not the leader today and will in all likelihood still not be the leader by November, if you believe the various polls. So who cares what he thinks about an issue that he will never be in any position to act on, if he doesn't get his campaign back on track?

It's totally ironic in many ways. The guy who is the leader of the free world is too busy promoting himself on The View's sofa to talk about Iran, while the guy who could probably use that kind of TV land popularity is the one who wants to talk to the Israeli PM about it! It's either a brilliant example of the problems in both campaigns, or might eventually underline just whose campaign was sheer brilliance. 

I think both are flawed, quite frankly. Obama's is rife with self-satisfied smugness and the usual inappropriate celebrity-driven Hollywood glamour, while Romney doesn't seem to realize that he is in the fight of his life, in the eighth round. He's trailing, some cuts are beginning to surface, and unless he is now ready to throw off the gloves and get down to some serious jabbing and taking the fight to Team Obama, then it's already over. 

The first Presidential debate is next Wednesday and I vouchsafe that this first one is massively important and it may well have an impact that neither candidate will be able to shale off later. If Romney falters, even against an extremely average debater such as Obama, then it's a done deal. Conversely, if Romney can whack in some serious jabs, uppercuts and even a few below-the-belt hits out of range of the referee(s), then we might still have a competition by the next day.

Hmm, I wonder who's on the The View today? If it was Netanyahu, now that would be worth watching! As long as it's not Obama, I might even grab a coffee and be able to get through five minutes of it before yawning and turning to the Weather Channel! ;) - Kevin Mc

Extra brownie points for those who "bring home the bacon"!

We needed something to lighten the mood from yesterday's more serious tone, and we have it in the form of recent news regarding a crisis in the food industry. The globe is about to experience a major shortage in supply of an "essential" food group, and while I do make light of it myself there are people already having panic attacks over this predicted shortage!

I am of course referring to the upcoming world shortage of that most precious of foodstuffs: bacon! The British National Pig Association has stated that the growing and harvesting of corn and soy feed has been disastrously affected by a summer of drought that was experienced across much of the globe. This inevitably led to skyrocketing prices of hogfeed and as a result many herds have been thinned to cut costs, which will impact the marketplace in 2013.

The outcome will likely be a shortage of bacon and pork products generally, but with bacon seemingly causing the most concern for most people. Of course there are those who have said on camera that it will have no effect on their daily lives whatsoever, while many others state that they are in a panic, but will still buy bacon (but less of it) even if the price is higher. It probably depends on how much of an addict you are, I suppose!

The effect is likely to be more dramatic in Europe where experts predict that by the end of 2013, the price of bacon may very well double. The USDA predicts a more mild "crisis" in North America, where we may not even experience a true shortage, but where we will notice a probably modest price increase. But you know how it goes: all it takes is a concern over oil, and gas prices rise immediately; if the price of oil jumps, then gas prices can skyrocket. Ditto, bacon!

Thus I feel it is quite likely that we will all feel the pain of the pork, in a manner reminiscent of the pain at the pump! It never seems to take much of an excuse to transfer costs onto the consumer when times are hard. What's the best thing to do? Well, for those bacon lovers and addicts who simply do not want to or cannot live without that juicy, tasty treat, it's time to make some extra space in the freezer! Who needs frozen veg or ice cream, when bacon is about to go black market?!

My local grocery store is offering 500g packs on special at an amazing $2.99 for the next week, so perhaps it's time to lay down some solid stocks?! Can we expect all of this to precipitate a new phenomenon that will become known as "the bacon wars", as shoppers fill their carts with kilograms of prime bacon, and then racing to the checkout with people chasing them, fighting over their haul?! Restaurants are surely going to try to stockpile hundreds of kilograms of the precious cargo.

"Is Loblaws now selling the new iPhone? What are those long lines for? Oh, it's the line for the new release of synthetic streaky bacon, they've been camping out for days to be first to get it!"

It sure is going to bring a whole new meaning to the bringing home of the bacon! ;) Kevin Mc

Sometimes even confession is rotten to the core

In a turn of events that is somewhat shocking even to a guy who grew up during those troubled times, a certain Delours Price has decided to readdress some aspects of Irish history that frankly might be better left buried than brought once more to the surface. 

This self-confessed and previously convicted killer was an IRA member during the troubles in Northern Ireland, and brazenly admits to her various crimes/killings, with not a hint of regret or new-found wisdom. Irrespective of what the political goals were back then, and in consideration of the current peace process in Northern Ireland, I find some of her responses today, in 2012, to be sickening. 

To barely blink an eye while frankly admitting to driving a suspected IRA informer and mother of ten children across the border to her death is already chilling enough. But when asked today if it "bothers her" that she personally drove Jean McConville  across the border and delivered her to presumable torture and certain death, she coldly replies "No, no, not at all."

It's a clear indication that the incarceration process can often have no rehabilitation benefit whatsoever, while also underlining the fact that this woman remains the sociopath she undoubtedly was when sent to prison in the first place. Her neighbors must love finding out more about her!

It might be one thing to look back on those times and stand behind the ideals over which the struggle took place, but to cold-bloodedly state that you have zero regrets over your role in the killing of a mother of ten children is disgusting. As she was not tried for her individual role in that particular murder, then she should face "conspiracy to commit murder" charges, at the very least. I can only imagine that the ten children of Jean McConville feel the same way.

Of course, the real goal here is to go after a bigger fish, Gerry Adams, the former "activist" turned peacemaker in Northern Ireland. I don't think that anyone truly doubts what Adams' role in the IRA was, even if he has always denied being a member, never mind the de facto commander-in-chief.  But if Price remains a steadfast IRA loyalist (no oxymoron intended!), then why betray her former "boss"?!

It's a move that would certainly have ended her current life, in the past. In fact she has now effectively classified herself in the despised category of IRA informant, and she evidently seems to believe that being shot and dumped into some cold, dark hole across the border is legitimate payment for that sin. So how come she has gone public now, when such punishment no longer (theoretically) exists?

I suppose it's okay to eliminate a mother of ten (along with the many other "disappeared") for a suspected case of snitching, but Price would not want to face anything close to that fate herself, for snitching on the supposed commander-in-chief of the paramilitary terrorist group on whose orders she killed people?! 

But some cheap publicity in 2012 can always draw the rats from their holes. There is nothing heroic about wantonly killing people, and then coming clean about it at a later time when you cannot be made to face the same end. At the same time, if she gets her way, and forces the retirement of Gerry Adams due to him facing criminal charges dating back to the troubles, this could destabilize an always fragile peace process, and things might boil over again. She would then be at increased risk, ironically.

One has to ask what the benefit would be to get Adams up on charges today in 2012, when he is a legitimate politician who has helped to broker peace in the province. It's a can of worms that I am sure not many want to reopen, because it might have tremendously disturbing consequences. Once again we come to that eternal question of what is the right thing to do versus what is the best thing to do?

It seems that Price herself wants that can reopened, for selfish purposes, at which point I think she may have to endure some sleepless nights due to her role in stirring it all up again, but this time as an IRA snitch. The fact that she wanted the records sealed at Boston College until after her death (along with the other participants) says it all: now that it's gone public, even if the sleepless nights have not yet begun, it might be better to start sleeping with one eye open, like back in the good old (i.e. bad old) days. - Kevin Mc

A sofa that truly does belong to the cat!

It seems that the South Koreans are not only talented in capturing our attention via cool aesthetics and design of chic technology and electronic products, because this new sofa will make any cat lover/owner smile immediately. We all know how much our sofas belong already to our cats (and dogs), and this new design captures that idea quite perfectly!

This new "cat tunnel sofa" was designed by a dog owner (!) called Seungi Mun from Seoul, where basically half of South Korea's 50 million inhabitants reside; South Korea is estimated to have almost 20 million homes with pets, many in an urban jungle centered around Seoul, with maximizing space being a key element in home furnishing and design. 

This truly fun sofa has a hollow tube into which a cat can enter from the floor and ascend up to the back of the sofa where a port allows it to pop out and nibble on its owner's ears, and then proceed on to an armrest lookout post from where it can dive down onto a hairy rat or a furry brother or sister. Surprise aerial attacks will be totally possible!

Without even having to see it, I know with 100% certainty that my cat, who already thinks that every comfy seat in my loft was bought just for him, would dive into this with wild abandon and would never look back. He would go nuts and I am sure that is quite typical of what all the other felines in the world would do: they would all see this as one huge new toy, hiding place and sleep pod combined!

Yes, it is not as aesthetically pleasing as a regular sofa given the clearly altered design, and those big holes, but given the passion with which people love their pets, I doubt that it will be an issue for many. Giving one's cat a separate place on the sofa in which to play and rest definitely integrates yet separates the two species utilizing this piece of furniture. The 22-year-old designer intends to market the product in 2013, he said recently. 

But if one is reading a good book or watching a movie, there might be a lot of noise going on behind one's head, as the cats lunge at each other in the darkness of the tube in a territorial cat fight! It's my experience also that as it is, part of the huge attraction of the sofa or favorite armchair or our bed for our cats, is that they are our spaces. 

They want to interact and communicate with us, even if that also includes moving in on our seat on the sofa to curl up and snore on, while we went out to make tea! So ultimately, this new design might mean handing over 100% of the sofa territory to the felines in the family, as they get to play on its inside, and sleep on your spot on its outside. As long as we still use the outside, they will always end up there with or without us!

But for those with the space to have a second large seating item in the main living area, this could be the ultimate in cat beds. Extending that, for those with both a dog and a cat, it might just be the source of hours of entertainment as the dog wonders where the cat is, and it pops out from a hole to wave a paw in its face. Ready to host the pet sofa wars, right in the comfort of your living room?!          Kevin Mc   

Two girls as phenomenal as their very singular situation

While channel-hopping recently, I stumbled upon a new show on TLC called "Abby and Brittany", which examines the unique life of the conjoined Hensel twins. I have to admit that at first I had trouble believing what I was seeing, having had no experience of such a phenomenon, and had never seen an image such as the one shown above.

Abby and Brittany are effectively dicephalic conjoined twins, and theirs is truly a sharing of one human body by two individuals. It's not quite as straightforward as that given that each twin has their own heart, lungs, stomach and spine, but other vital organs such as the liver are shared between the two. 

These two young women are now entering the adult world, having both obtained Master's degrees in Education, and the show in part details their search for jobs, and examines the whole issue of whether they should be paid two salaries, or can only expect to share one, as they do almost everything else.

I have not seen much of this show so therefore cannot comment at great length on it, but that's not the major point of today's blog. The thing that hit me over the head with a hammer was how astonishingly courageous, joyous and inspirational these two women are, and how they could often put the rest of us to shame. 

If you think of the things that all of us moan about each day, or how we let ultimately insignificant little things get to us and ruin our day, and compare that with what these two women must go through all day, everyday, then you suddenly begin to feel really ungrateful.

Even walking down the street, anywhere, has to be a challenge for these two just in terms of the unwanted attention that their uniqueness attracts. Every time that they enter a bar or restaurant or store, heads turn to look at theirs. They are made a spectacle of, even if all they want is the luxury that we all take for granted in that we can simply sneak in and grab a seat in the corner and be left alone. 

This show is worth watching, particularly for anyone who doesn't like their hair, doesn't like their eyes, doesn't like their weight, doesn't like their height, doesn't like some body part, etcetc, and complains to friends and family about it all the time. 

Abby and Brittany are truly inspirational individuals who change my day because they bang me over the head with a frying pan (metaphorically speaking, of course!) and remind me that compared to them, I have it easy. Any challenges or daily issues that I have to deal with are generally miniscule alongside the huge daily challenges that these two seem to brush off both with ease as well as a big smile. 

Their story is important in that theirs is a totally unique and phenomenal situation and life. Further, I think that they most definitely are as phenomenal as their situation, and the two are likely to turn out to be one massive source of inspiration for millions. 

If this show on TLC also affords them some little luxuries in their rather complex lives, I hope that they have fun with that and it is only what that they deserve for the courage they present every day, not least now that they now will become subject to much greater media scrutiny. Bravo, girls! ;)  - Kevin Mc

Samsung vs Apple: a war of two worlds and a gift that keeps giving!

We have been discussing the whole Samsung vs. Apple affair for a while now, and more recently, following the huge fine levied against Samsung by a US court, we are returning to the more public face of their"war of two worlds" via some hugely entertaining media advertising. 

One cannot accuse the South Koreans of lacking a sense of humor, that's for sure! I love this ad, not least because it raises an interesting point that I have raised before and that reflects how far we have come in technological terms generally, today in 2012. That is that teenagers today have grown up around the iPhone if not for any other reason than the fact that their (formerly?) cool Mom or Dad has one! That is not necessarily a good thing, for most teenagers.

They kids of today were not in awe when the first iPhone ads appeared and the units began appearing in stores, primarily because they were too busy pushing toy trains around the back garden or dressing up their dolls. So they grew up around such items as an iPhone, and didn't automatically see it as a "O-M-G! Wow!" thing. Smartphones are just part of their lives like flatscreen TVs were for their  parents, or color TV was for their grandparents. It's totally normal.

Hence, the iPhone brand, per se, is not of any enormous significance to anyone between let's say, early teens to early twenties. If kids today have not evolved beyond the phenotype of kids since time immemorial, then it is probably true to argue that they might hate the idea of having the same phone as their Mom! Apple and iPhone are totally establishment old guard brands by now, and they do not truly (or totally) represent the demographic that dictates change. Not that "hope and change" kind of change, but trend changes! 

While there are millions of dyed-in-the-wool iPhone fanatics who were there since day one (myself included, I might add), there are also millions of latecomers to the party, who through sheer peer pressure or a need for image updating, finally gave in and bought themselves the phone that their kids wanted for Christmas. The previously ubiquitous Blackberry-4-Business models began to be exchanged for iPhones and suddenly Mom and Dad looked cool. 

Of course, it was primarily image over content because the "social media" aspects of the phones were beyond the 40+ gang's skill set: none of them were on Facebook, they didn't use LinkedIn, most had never heard of Twitter and all of them didn't know what an "app" was supposed to be. As for texting, they thought that was something that editors did, and when they did manage to fire one off, it was so rife with spelling errors and sloppy typing, it was more reminiscent of something an eight-year-old could put to shame.

That can seen even today among the 40+ set; what's the point of buying something as exotic as an iPhone just to make local calls? It is entirely the same as buying a top-of-the-line supercomputer at home on which to primarily send/receive email on, if you actually ever use email productively, at least! It's a huge waste of the technology's capacity, all in many cases, just to project something (usually false) about their tech and social media savviness.

Naturally, many caught up, but how irritating that just as they had suddenly began to feel truly "hip", things had progressed to the point where there was a new model almost twice in certain 12-month periods, rendering them "old school" so quickly? Further, as is hilariously portrayed in this ad, the new iPhone is today primarily made for the parents, while the kids have moved on to sexier, hipper, cheaper yet more functional brands/models such as the glamorous Samsung Galaxy S series. 

The war of words between the two worlds might only be just beginning, and I can't wait to see what's coming next. But for a little light relief and some real digs at how hip it is (i.e. isn't!) to be desperately waiting for the new iPhone 5 today, then I think this hits the target very nicely, and Apple can sit on their billion dollar award atop their even bigger pile of cash, and just grin and bear it!

When it comes to a mockingly serious sense of humor, the Koreans are leading the charge and slamming Apple, based on what clearly is a superior superphone: the Samsung Galaxy SIII. Let the old fuddy-duddies who used to cling to Blackberries as tightly as their wallets now cling to their apples, while the new breed eats away at the critical and financially expanding youth segment via the SII, the current SIII, and the March 2013 appearance of the new SIV. Samsung Galaxy SIV? Already?! Now that is something to get excited about!  - Kevin Mc

Six of one, or a half dozen of the other? The daily farce!

There's been so much anticipation, trash-talking and hype over the upcoming general election in the USA that  it has already become wearing and even sort of boring. Why? Well, principally because most of the time it has got little or nothing to do with the actual issues at hand; rather it is about negative ads and sniping at what the other candidate said or did in the last 24 hours. Yawn.

It is often more reminiscent of college sports locker room bitching, than exchange between so-called political intellectuals who would be (well, one already is) CEO of the free Western world. Obama said this about the killing of US citizens and employees at the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Romney responds with an attack. Romney said that "off camera" at someone's house, Obama responds with an attack. Repeat to fade. Yawn. 

These guys are getting off lightly, and being allowed to play the easy game, and I personally think it is a disgrace. If you talk to insiders in the Obama camp, this is precisely what they want, not least given the President's own reported penchant for locker room-style competitive bitching about any opponents, or heck, even the entire Republican party. It makes his life way easier to keep the game at this level. Why? Well, cheap shots cost less, especially in terms of having to get creative or intellectual about tackling the other side, and of course, cheap shot locker room jibes distract the population away from one's own abysmal record very nicely indeed! Yawn. 

It appeals to the partisan support on both sides to just carry on digging at the other, because, as we all know, the country is in deeper s**t (can be read as deepest debt ever incurred by a sitting President) than ever imagined, and it ain't gonna be solved in many years, so we may as well get all teenaged about it, and just exchange digs and insults. Fighting over it beats actually trying to do anything about it. Yawn. 

It is a sad indictment of the entire system that the sitting President, who sits alone atop a pile of steaming horses**t, is capable of almost an unconcerned arrogance over the upcoming election, due to a solid belief that while many do believe he is ineffective (at best) or useless (at worst), it doesn't matter: the competition is so weak that he will still be re-elected to four more years of celebrity status and equivalently luxurious lifestyle. Yawn.

"Jay-Z knows what my life is like!" said Obama on Tuesday at the 40/40 club fundraiser hosted by Jay and his better half, a certain Beyonce. There were about 100 people in attendance, all willing to shell out a cool $40,000 to get within spit distance of O: something I just don't understand at all. I might vouchsafe that each $40,000 would be better spent employing ONE person than handing it over to a guy who has raised of the order of a BILLION already, and who has added 6 TRILLION to the national debt! Huge yawn.

I am sure that O knows wayyyy more about the life, and lifestyle, of Jay-Bey, than he does of the lives of the millions of poor f**kers whose lives have been further ruined during the past four years under his governance. This is the major problem. A Hollywood-lovin' celebrity-huggin' talk show-hoggin' President; even more so than Ronald Reagan, who was a Hollywood actor. Yawn.

By his own refusal to talk about what he has done wrong, and what he has not done at all, and what became of various promises (now demoted to the annals of pure political rhetoric) and what he intends to do next, it is in my opinion a de facto admission of the weakness of his first four years. He spent more time worrying about getting elected to the second four, than doing what he was elected to achieve in the first four. Is he as tired of hearing about "hope and change" as we all are? Yawn.

As for Romney, the supposed closeness in the polls is as much a reflection of the population's desperate need for some real "hope" and some significant "change", after a rather disastrous 2008-2012. It's kind of ironic that many have turned to the Republicans for the very thing promised to the nation by the leader of the Democrats, back in 2007. Maybe Mitt Romney knows what change actually means, unlike Obama?! Probably not. Yawn.

But as time passes, and the Obama campaign shifts effortlessly into higher gear, and Romney adds to his slip-ups, you can sense momentum shifting to the blue end of the spectrum, just as they knew it would. I might even dare to say that the Republican party itself is more or less resigned to it as well, and their real agenda is not to try to beat an incumbent President, but to go at it fresh in 2016 when Obama is forced to exit. If he manages to do as much in the second four as he did in the first, it's likely to be a shoe-in! Yawn.

The real big guns are in the wings, waiting, and some were given dry runs at the RNC in Tampa, Florida. Both Chris Christie (albeit in an extremely self-serving manner) and Condi Rice shone like bright stars for the Reps, and they have the record and intellect to be truly credible candidates. There are also some dark horses being kept out of the spotlight on the training grounds where they are being groomed and polished, if the need arises. This is especially relevant, given both Christie's and particularly Rice's vehement denials of any interest in the Presidency. Yawn.

So, all in all, I think 2016 is the new target of the Republicans, but if they can do it in 2012, that's fine too. In many ways, 2016 is more desirable because then that candidate might have an eight year run at it, as no one really believes that Mitt can win in both 2012 and 2016. So the option is four more years of Democrat rule in a crippling economy and national crisis, which could result in a landslide in 2016, and eight years of rule. Alongside the prospect of Mitt even winning in 2012, but then losing in 2016, it is not an unattractive option! Yawn.

The fact that Obama looks like remaining in power is however a damning testament to the state of the union in that an under-performing incumbent who was way more rhetoric than truly effective leader gets to have it all, again. He didn't turn anything around as yet, but fully demands and expects to be given four more in the big old white house. Even if he stated that if he hadn't turned it around in three years, then he would accept handing it over? Wimpish yawn.

No sitting President since WWII has ever been re-elected with bad (>7.2%) unemployment records that today are improvements over the Obama administration. It has been >8% (and that's just the official number, not the accurate one) for 42 months straight today: the longest in the history of the union. Quite where his cockiness and strut comes from, given that, should be of interest to the electorate. Sleepy yawn.

So he will probably slip in for another four, after which it is almost certain to swing once more back to the Republican side. Then again, knowing the level of political hubris that Obama is capable of, he might be the first President in history who demands that the law changes to allow him twelve years to get done what he promised to do in three or four! It would be a first to see this guy actually facing and admitting any of his failures, rather than always hunting for the best excuses. Yawn. 

I refuse to support his re-election in the absence of him making any clear statements as to what he is going to do next, what the plan is, how he is going to dig the nation out of the mess that it is in (irrespective of whose fault it is) and what will change between 2008-12 and 2012-16. I am not a sheep, and some cutesy talk show appearances by he and Michelle will not have me all starry-eyed and wowed-by-celebrity, when there are truly grave political issues that need to be put on the table, talked about and then addressed. As opposed to whitewashed over. Yawn. 

But among the great ironies of this fascinating election year, I do also feel that the world will be a safer place with the Dems in power and for that reason alone, his return will not be a bad thing. World safety/peace versus a return to domestic economical success? Now that's a tough one, and I think I need another dark roast before I can begin to get my thoughts together on that one! ;) - Kevin Mc

The Royal Family's bottom lines - sadly not a cover-up!

Sometimes you just gotta stop and wonder what kind of world are we living in, when yet another distracting little Royal scandal starts to simmer on the world stage, even taking priority on major network news shows while events of truly global concern boil over on a daily basis on that very stage. I am sure that I don't even have to elaborate further for everyone to know to what I refer, but I include the montage above in case there is any doubt!

Mere weeks after the debacle over Prince Harry being captured prancing around naked in Vegas like a frat boy on spring break, we now have the supposedly delightfully demure Kate Middleton being exposed to the public in a fashion that does not correlate with her new brand as a Royal Family bigwig. She and Wills were grabbing a few days off (as if the Royals actually ever have to do what commoners would refer to as "work") on Lord Linley's private estate in the South of France, when they were surreptitiously snapped sunbathing, chatting, applying sunscreen etcetc. The tragedy being of course, that our Kate went topless.

Bingo, and yet another Royal scandal erupts, which is most disappointing to HRH who has had a stellar diamond jubilee year, and who perhaps for the first time in decades began to feel that there was a new breed on the scene: the newly popular young Royals who were doing great things for modernizing a stuffy old Royal Family. Then again, if "modernizing" means the inclusion of titillating (excuse the pun!) scandals involving the Royals (in which nudity is emerging as a new theme) then it's sadly hardly progress; just the same old, same old and even more of the same.    

Yes, yes, I can hear the bleating from the peanut gallery about privacy invasion, the outrageous acts of the paparazzi, and those poor pursued Royals. Guess what, it goes with the territory! For the lavish lifestyle that comes with joining this esteemed private club there is a price; it's one which we are all familiar with by now, and should need no explaining to anyone. I am not saying that it is fun, nor fair, but for their luxurious jet-setting media darling public adoration-filled alternative to a real job, just like famous actors or rock stars they are the subject of intense media scrutiny.

With all of their money, power and resources, are you telling me that if Kate Middleton wants to sunbathe topless that they cannot find a place where she can do it? Can they not arrange a sufficient level of security around the site of their mini-holiday to ensure that some guy in a tree half a mile away cannot have clear views of their antics? Do they not think that the future Queen of England merits such extra measures?

Additionally, what's so bad about a few tan lines? You know that the world and his wife will pay dearly for any shot of your royal appendages, so why not do what the huge majority of your fellow "countrymen" (read women!) do out on a public beach: cover up! Save the topless play for inside the balcony, and cover up with a tiny bikini top when outside? Especially given the recent shenanigans with royal nudity scandals?!

I could care less about this nonsense, really. What bothers me is how yet another Royal "scandal" of almost no global significance to anyone becomes a more important "news" item than either Syria or the current wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the middle East. Hell, news on the teacher's strike in Chicago is more worthy of scrutiny than this new nonsense involving an over-indulged overpaid under-worked group of snobs known as the Royal Family. No one who has real world concerns, employment or health issues, or a real life wants to hear about yet another Royal fiasco. Save it for TMZ of ET - where it belongs!

Of course I am aware of the bigger issues regarding privacy, the paparazzi and one's rights. But what's new about that? This has been going on for-ever for famous people, and it's all in the game. The game where we all know the rules: stay clothed and the paps won't get much money for any shots of the hot-tub, but whip it all off and bend over on a sunny terrace and the potential fee skyrockets, so they will be filling the trees! 

Of course the Royals sued Closer, the French magazine that was the source of the photos, and given French privacy rules it is no surprise that the court found for the Royals: photos must be handed back, the photographer must be identified and a nominal fee paid. I am certain that a magazine such as Closer ran the photos having done a nice little financial analysis on publicity/sales versus any potential fines. It was a win-win. Furthermore, this is the digital age, so the photos are all over the place by now, and have already been expanded upon and published in both Italy and Ireland. In fact, they can still be found on the internet as of the writing of this piece.

The bottom line (excuse the pun, again!) is that yes, it is an issue worth discussion and worth perhaps introducing new laws to help control, but it should not be headline news nor divert any more attention away from global issues of much greater import back onto the already attention-gorged spoilt brat Royals. Perhaps a little more attention to their own "bottom lines" and covering them up might positively impact what the Queen's own bottom line must surely must be: no more bottom lines in public!!! ;) - Kevin Mc

It doesn't take genius to choose the smartest!

I commented recently [August 28, 2012] on the outcome of the first major trial in the US between the two giants of the smartphone, Apple and Samsung. Once synergistic bedfellows now turned bitter rivals, Apple recently won a massive payment of the order of $1B on claims that Samsung effectively copied design features that infringed various Apple patents. 

It's hardly surprising, in that Samsung make certain key components of the Apple iPhone and iPad, so with their own expansion into the smartphone segment, I don't think that anyone expected them to not incorporate their own hardware in their devices. But the fact that certain design elements are also in common (which includes the hilarious "rectangular shape" aspect) opened the door to claims of outright copying.

What's not clear to me is whether Samsung fully expected to run into this kind of trouble, but did some calculations and realized that fines would be heavily outweighed by profits, or, because they were already in bed with Apple, that such problems would be worked out quietly behind the scenes. For sure, today, it's a very public dispute.

Additionally, the demands by Apple not only to be reimbursed for patent infringements but to further have the sales of various Samsung devices banned outright both internationally as well as domestically have pushed the mercury significantly higher. It's going to be war between two giants, and this is made clear by the new advertisement depicted above, which is not likely to be totally tongue-in-cheek!

In a direct head-to-head specifications comparison, Samsung list those of their new Galaxy SIII alongside those of the newly released iPhone 5, and needless to say, Samsung is the better option. For those who own Apple PCs or laptops or iPads, there will always be a pull, if only in terms of design and brand alignment, for the iPhone. However, for cutting edge functionality in an uber-cool unit at a great price point, Samsung wins hands down. 

Samsung is superior in talk time, RAM and HD resolution, and the SIII comes with the new NFC technology which will permit users to make wireless payments in stores with their smartphone. The introduction of a new dock on this latest iPhone is not a popular decision even with some die-hard believers, and Samsung were quick to poke fun at it.  

Frankly, for you and I, the consumer, we don't need to be concerned about who infringes who, or who copies who. We care about getting amazing devices at the best price possible, and the competition between the two giants is only a good thing for us, today. If, as I suspect, rather than Samsung devices being banned, Apple begins to obtain a royalty on each Samsung device (in question) sold, then it will not be such a good thing, tomorrow. 

Once that would happen, almost certainly the weight will be transferred back onto the consumer via increased prices. One thing that Apple seems to hate is competitor brands selling similar (or better) products, at lower prices; one only needs to look at their alleged meddling in e-book price-fixing  to see that. If they will cross the line to raise the price of e-books, imagine how aggressive they can be over their beloved  iPhone?! 

But we are living for today, not tomorrow! So I say that while the Samsung Galaxy SIII is on the market as a smartphone with superior functionality and let's say more or less equivalent design features but at a considerably lower price? At the risk of sounding repetitive, well, I would say that "it doesn't take a genius"!!! - Kevin Mc

DNC 2012 - Did Obama's big guns hit the target?

In part two of this blog dealing with DNC 2012, we now move on to how, if at all, the big keynote speeches were able to assuage some of the issues that I raised in part one, and whether it is likely to be enough to sway the swing vote towards Barack Obama. We all know that he wants four more years in that lovely big white house, but has he earned it? For the man who loves to preach "accountability", this election is going to be won or lost on whether the American people do hold him accountable, or give him a pass. 

There's no better place to start than with the star of the show, once again: Bill Clinton. He never ceases to draw the crowds, drawing them in closer, and by his sheer persuasiveness and charisma he manages to get very close to the bull's eye, especially in the big "games". This ex-President is still a star, and when he wields that considerable star power in your face, it is hard to resist; just ask Monica Lewinsky! 

He's a charmer, even when he's spouting some heavy-hitting statistics, which he did during his speech, and he used them to favorably compare the record of the Dems alongside the Reps. He also referred to the other side's convenient desire to force people to ask themselves whether they are better off than four years ago, and if not, then the choice is obvious. 

"In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in!"

It's a valid point of course, but it wasn't them who pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2012, and achieve a whole bunch of other big ticket items in one term, and then appeared to change their mind once elected. One of the biggest accusations levied against Obama is that since day one, any major move that would be heavily unpopular politically (even if it was an election promise) and would affect his re-election, was not addressed. He is too addicted to being popular, and staying in power, than being one of the great leaders in history: those who have made the hard decisions knowing that it might be better for the country than for their own job security. 

Clinton praised Obama's personal characteristics (which most agree about), and promoted the party line that things are getting better, but we need more time. It's asking the electorate to be patient, to vote for him again,  and see if eight years will be enough. That's a big demand, in 2012. 

"Are we where we want to be? No. Is the President satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month.  The answer is YES."

We heard about the saving of GM and Chrysler, the Obamacare initiative and plans to cut the national debt before it becomes even more crippling, etc: staunch support from a man whose own wife lost her chance to be President due to Obama back in 2008. It was vintage Bill Clinton and he even pointed out that Obama had insisted that Hillary subsequently joined the administration, and used it as a measure of the man's character in that he offered a top job to a bitter rival.  

All in all it was a very powerful speech and rallying of the troops from a real political animal and power player, even if in his unique position he was also providing an argument for why his wife should keep her job, de facto, if Obama is re-elected. But he did what was needed for the party, and he reminded everyone what a true political star and president looks like, and it was evident that he had a ball doing it too! In many ways it felt more evangelical or educational in nature than mere politicking; a preacher or esteemed Harvard professor lecturing on the subject of America. Sheer star power coupled with a concise knowledge of actual facts carried the day. 

Next up, the first lady, Michelle Obama. Let's get one thing straight right away - I couldn't care less what designer was responsible for her dress as it is an irrelevance best left to those who care more about that than they do about politics. This was the DNC, not Fall Fashion Week! 

By and large it was what was expected. In response to Ann Romney's speech about love, she made it clear to everyone that she loves him, he loves her, and they both adore their kids. I don't know why this is somehow seen as so gracious or vote-grabbing, just because the person saying it is sort of a celebrity; the same could be said of most of the families in America, most of whom have struggles which the Obamas know little of today. In 2012, after one full term, aren't we a bit past the "Aww shucks, she's so cute, sayin' she loves ol' Barack!" schtick, rather than talking about what is wrong and how and how he is going to help correct it?

“And he believes that when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity…you do not slam it shut behind you…you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.”

Uh huh. It sounds great but I doubt that very many among the millions of unemployed and homeless feel the same way. Unless my memory does not serve me well, the people who got the biggest "reach back" were the big banks and financial institutions, whose corrupt cores of greed were at the heart of their self-induced meltdown. Mitt Romney's wife had numerous examples of how he does in fact reach back, yet in the Obama case it sounded just like even more rhetoric.

She came in for some criticism over the romanticizing of the "American Dream" (no shock really, as her husband loves to do the same) at the expense of what the history of the country actually is: it was not just a case of working hard and being a fundamentally good person, and you too could "live the dream". I don't think that Martin Luther King (among others) would happily see it thus simplified, particularly from the first black first lady in history. 

In a sense, given her own more than equivalent intellect (compared with her husband's), this speech almost began to feel toned down philosophically, historically and politically in order to either not outshine the President, and/or to fit into the phenotype of the "typical first lady" role. 

But she came, she played coy, she played cutesy, fluffed her words a few times for extra effect, shed a few tears, praised her husband and what he stands for, and expressed love for all in the family. This is par for the course for a first lady these days, and she didn't disappoint the party faithful, nor her adoring audience back in the White House. She did her job.

Barack Obama. I was really looking forward to this one, because senior Dem party talking heads have been saying for weeks, when pressed on what it is that he is proposing to do to ensure his second four years out-perform his first, the answer has been: "We will leave that to the President in his convention speech." What was promised was a speech lower on feeding frenzy rhetoric and richer in concrete details about how to "turn this thing around". That would be the same thing that he promised to turn around in 2008, but now it's the 2012 election linchpin. Deja vu. 

I am not going to dedicate much space to this speech, not least because we are getting kind of lengthy already, but particularly because I found the speech to be very disappointing, due to it being disappointingly lightweight. Bill Clinton had done a great job of ridiculing the Reps and their attacks, Michelle did a stellar first lady piece, and now we needed to hear the Campaigner-in-Chief hit the nation with precise details on what he intends to do now. 

For sure, he toned down the MLK-like preaching, and was careful not to get bogged down in that "hopey-changey thing" while renewing his vow to fight for the American people for four more years and restating his belief in them. 

“I have never been more hopeful about America,” Obama told the convention. “Not because I think I have all the answers. Not because I’m naive about the magnitude of our challenges. I’m hopeful because of you!"

He also stated that the landslide victory in 2008 was not a vote for him, but a vote for you, "the American people." It's a cute line, but one which can easily be turned on it's head, in that ultimately, for millions of those voters, it was way more a vote for his well-being than theirs, today. It also sounds wonderful to hear  generalities on helping the middle class rebuild, but not while simultaneously refusing to discuss recent unemployment numbers, plans for job creation, cutting of the deficit, home ownership, the price of gasoline, food or even health insurance. 

It was not a little ironic that on the Thursday morning following his speech it was reported that almost 370,000 workers dropped out of the labor force in August: a staggering blow to any claims that the nation is in recovery! I would rather see him face such numbers and get it out onto the table, rather than running/hiding like he has been doing for a year straight, due to it being an election year. He should tackle the problem head-on and deal with it face-to-face with those who elected him, as he is very prone to do when he has a success to report, such as killing Bin Laden. 

This brings me to a very interesting point, and one that I have not seen mentioned as yet. As much as I am not sure that he deserves a second term at all, at the same time, there is one major consideration that should facilitate more movement in 2013-2016: he will never be up for re-election. Will this convince him that it is time to be a chief executive commander-in-chief, rather than the eternal campaigner-in-chief?! If he is not burdened with the prospect of another term, will he actually focus more on dong what the country needs, rather doing what he needs so that the country re-elects him? It's an intriguing hypothesis!

The debates are coming next and it's going to be lively, so watch this space!   Kevin Mc

DNC 2012: Four more or no more?!

Last week we examined the Republican National Convention down in Tampa, Florida, so it is only appropriate that we now do the same for Democratic National Convention (DNC) that just wrapped up in Charlotte, North Carolina. We will be approaching it via two blogs, the first of which will be a setting of the scene in terms of where Obama is and has gotten America today, and the second of which will be a commentary on the most notable speeches or moments from DNC 2012. 

Without doubt, in comparison to the shenanigans of the 2008 DNC party, this was a more guarded or restrained affair, which also without doubt, was no accident in my opinion. There is nothing to be cocky about or celebrate for those in power for the last four years, so it was appropriate to tone down the party atmosphere, and get into some of the issues. The nation is hurting: millions of people have seen their jobs, homes and lives transported to the dumpster, even though they were great employees who showed up every day and worked hard to create a future for their families. 

It simply does not matter that Barack Obama might not have created that mess (and I am sick and tired of hearing Dems clinging to that weary old excuse, in 2012) because he was elected on his pledge of "hope and change" and his promise of digging them out of it. So drop the Bush excuse, and let's talk about what you have not managed to achieve since 2008, and face the nation with it like a real President. 

It is worth remembering, people, that this is the man who cockily told a primetime news show in 2009, that: 

"If we haven't turned this (the economy) around in three years, then clearly we (Obama administration) are talking about a one-term proposition."  

In 2009, he also pledged (in front of microphones and cameras) that he would cut the national debt in half by the end of his first term, presumptively implying that he would even have a second term. Let's see, the debt back at that time was some $10T I think, and today it appears to be of the order of $15T or more. Do the math, and see if you agree with me. Isn't 15 actually 10 plus another half, rather than 10 minus that half?! So not only has he not taken one cent off the debt; he is well on the way to solidly doubling it!

It does take some brass to make such bold sweeping rhetorical statements and then almost appear upset that  you are reminded of it later. It's the one thing that I do not like about Obama. He appears to feel that in his role of being a great rhetoritician, he can spout out what works great on the campaign trail or for a soundbite on some talk show, but then expects everyone to let it float off into the arena ether, and forget about it. He loves to talk about accountability, as long as that mirror is not pointed squarely back at him. 

It's also true of this President (and he is aware of it and uses it to his advantage) that because "he's such a nice guy", one almost feels nasty by bringing up various broken promises and demanding answers. Unlike almost anyone that I can think of, even people who are jobless and whose lives worsened under his "hope and change" are still sort of in awe of him, and feel that he deserves a break. This is quite rare given that he is a politician, a species that we know will lie to us repeatedly, if it guarantees election! So people seem willing to overlook Gitmo still being open, his very slow addressing of gay rights (either domestic or in the military), his outrageous spending, and even the fact that they have no jobs or even no homes anymore. 

He has spent the country into debt of a nature that it is now a sad fact that China owns more of the US debt than do American households! At some point, China is going to exert its grip and cause some hurt in the old US of A, but of course, Obama won't be around to feel it in all likelihood. He will either be off on his retirement island surrounded by secret service agents, or even more likely, like the rest of us, he will be long gone, and it is his kids and grandkids who are going to pay the price. 

This philosophy of spending one's way into eased economic pressure is a dead-end and a death trap, for future generations. As much as the Republicans are accused of helping the rich get richer and not caring about the typical worker, how much better is it to apparently encourage less the gathering of massive fortunes that also create jobs, but then spending like a trillionaire in the hope that it will get you re-elected? It's called living beyond your means, and that greed for a better quality of life at any price is what started this economic nuclear winter in the first place. 

But still one must rejoice! Osama Bin Laden is dead: go ask him if he's feeling better off than he was four years ago. As much as it's a cute one-liner, especially when coupled with the car industry rescue ("Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!"), the ending of a terrorist life is but a distraction from bigger problems in the daily lives of millions of Americans. It's an achievement, but not one that is putting any food onto dinner tables at night, or creating any new jobs for anyone. If it was seen as a sure-fire result that would sweep Dems back into power in a new wave of patriotism reminiscent of 2008, that was a miscalculation as evidenced by the neck-and-neck state of the polls. 

Things have to be pretty bad when the elimination of the world's most prominent anti-American terrorist is already old news, and people are prone to being cynical, saying, "Well, at least he had a job, money, and a big house in Pakistan, which is more than we can say!" 

Living the dream and spending beyond our means are not meant to be one and the same thing. One is about enjoying the comforts that hard-earned money from working brings, and the other is exactly the same as credit card and mortgage abuse. You (or in this case, someone else) are always going to pay in the end! But spending today and knowing you are leaving it for the kids to pay back is even worse! - Kevin Mc

Is it the Twittersphere or the Twit-o-sphere?!

Following on from my last blog on the beast that is social media, which was primarily focused on the subject of  Facebook profiles, we now move on to a more "celebrity"-driven medium: Twitter.

Twitter is a great example of societal extremes. Twitter was ostensibly a service for famous people, and for the public who follow them. Someone famous has millions of followers who people want to keep up with, so they get to see every public message of 140 characters that the famous person farts out, including their fave brands and coffee shops and whatever, and the sheep can appear to be cool by either claiming that they love Starbucks too or following/promoting that brand to their friends. "She's so cool, she drinks the same bean as Jay-Z!" Uh-huh. 

But Twits is entirely public in most cases, and has got nothing at all to do with privacy. Additionally, at least initially, Twitter was better suited to the typical rock star or supermodel on the go, as it was more eminently mobile, not least given that it was the equivalent of phone texting as mobile update. So your favorite celebrity who was always in this country or that one could fire off 140 characters to tell the world how cool they were (in 95% of cases), and you, the public, could drool but be in with the in crowd. 

The actual mechanics of Twitter are best suited to the celebrity as well. If I am famous, and I follow only 10 other celebrity friends, but I have 3.9M followers, it's perfect. My Twitter feed contains comments only from my friends, but what I type goes out to millions onto their feeds. In other words, I have things of considerable significance to say to my followers but unless I follow people back then I don't have to wade through pages of posts to find one from my real friends. In other words, on Twitter it is much more fun to be followed by 5M, than it is to follow even 1,000.  

This theoretically should limit how many individuals a person may follow, because the posts pile up.  If you do a quick scan you will see that many people follow up to 1,000 (or more) "friends' on Twitter. If each of those people posts even twice per day, and you take a few days off, then your own Twitter feed could have as many as 6,000 posts of 140 characters waiting for you. It's totally ridiculous, unless of course, it's got nothing to do with reading, whatsoever!

Once again, the inevitable happened. "Well, I wanna be a star too! I know I can't be like Gaga or the Biebs, but if they can have fans in the tens of millions, maybe I should have a few thousand, even if like them, I have little to say of any real significance to people, but what does that matter? It's about me following a few thousand, and most of them hopefully following me back, and then I am my very own mini-star with my own mini-audience to boot!  Ahem.

The clearest example of this phenomenon is what I call the "equivalence syndrome". "Wow, I now have 1,000 followers on my Twitter account, woo-hoo!" But a closer look usually reveals, "Yeah, but you are following 1083 at the same time, lol!" "Shut up, you are jealous!"

So, those who are judged to truly have nothing of any great significance to say in 140 characters, as opposed to those who are totally fascinating (due to being rich and famous), are forced to compromise. "If I follow you, you must follow me back! Or else!". The threat quite clearly being, of course, that if you don't follow me back, I will unfollow you again inside 48 hours. It is amazingly childish and simultaneously sad and almost pathetic in grown adults. 

We at EU see it all the time, and in fact I now use it as an acid test for a quality follower or someone just "churning", as it is known. Out of the blue, due to something you wrote on your blog, or Facebook page, or website, several (or many) new followers appear on your Twitter account. Usually, most do have something in common with your own interests or business, while others may be totally off the wall. In either case, all you have to do is wait 24-48 hours, and guess what? If you have not followed them back, they are usually gone. "I followed you, therefore you should follow me back!" is writ large all over their account, and given that they don't seem to want your content, after all,  but just a co-follow, then it's goodbye and good riddance as far as I am concerned! 

What is the supposed fascination with building up even a few thousand "followers" in such a fashion, and the only real currency achieved is their "follow"; you are not interested in their content and neither are they in yours! But you end up with a respectable 1,900 followers, albeit alongside your 2,100 follows. To any vaguely sharp eye, it screams "content (if it can even be called that on occasion) of very little real interest to anyone." But the person gets to feel like a (very) minor celebrity due to the number of their disinterested "following". Even if it is a facade, a charade, if not an outright fake. 

The downside to all of this is that people then sort of lie to themselves that they are being watched, so they begin tweeting like a rock star, name-dropping and location-dropping and "here's-what-I-had-for-breakfast-at-Holt Renfrew's-cafe-this-morning" type of posts. It is cringe-inducing enough already, but when you look to see how their friends respond, or what any of their 2,000 "fans" say in return, you invariably see black space. So they truly are talking to themselves, 99% of the time. I refer to this as #Twanking, which I am not going to elaborate further on, other than to say that it derives from a British term for, ahem, "pleasuring oneself"! 

One of the more recent developments (but not progress!) of this phenomenon is that Twitter is today chock-a-block full of millions of users telling the world that they just checked into this restaurant or that bar, as if anyone remotely cares. You only have to look and see how many replies it gets to see that no one bothers to even read it. This checking-in is such nonsense and trying to become the Mayor of this bistro and displace another is one of the most ridiculous things that  I have ever seen (for anyone over 30), and is the surest sign of a real celebrity wannabe, getting it wrong. Any real celebrity rarely if ever announces that they just walked into the steakhouse on the corner of Gillingham and Elm, unless they want to be mobbed when there, and trust me, most don't. 

The celebrity wannabe should think about that for a second. As much as Twitter is public, and celebrity life is very much in the public eye, how come those attention-loving real celebrities are not the ones "checking-in" to cool, fancy bars/eateries on Twitter, yet the celebrity wannabes do?  It's totally ironic, in that anyone whose location is of interest to the twitterverse generally hides it, while the total nobody celebrity wannabe insists on posting their precise GPS-determined location to everyone but nobody at the same time? So they must want to be found, right?!

However, in one hilarious example that I saw, among quite a few, one of these "types" actually aggressively admonished a guy as a stalker because he suggested he would show up at the bar beside her, to offer her a drink. She got herself all irradiated, because he had read her public announcement of checking-in and sitting at the corner of the bar in some location, and he wanted to join in. Why would you announce precisely which bar you are sitting in, alone, on a public site, other than to have people see it, read it, and act on it by coming on down?! 

"Ah, okay, I didn't think of that, I see, you wanna act and live like a minor celebrity, but you don't want people, friends or followers, like me, to actually read your check-in status and show up at a public place that you announced to us that you were present at? Well, maybe you should get over yourself and realize the stupidity of your behavior and drop the twanking then?! There's a price to pay for being a cool person, out in the public eye; go ask any real celebrity!"

Although this behavior is most definitely indicative of a Twitter nobody/celebrity wannabe, even the true stars have been known to indulge in such careless antics on occasion. In a very recent example, we read about an individual with a massive following of some 25M, who similarly announced to the world (and in this case, she does have an audience!) that she was leaving St. Pancras station in London, headed to Paris. 

What a shock (not) that she got mobbed upon arrival in gay Paris, and then proceeded to get nasty about it in reaction, via some expletive-filled (and some say racist) posts on Twitter. Silly little girl, and one who should know better. Unless of course, it was all about that craving and need for evermore attention, and simply represents a person who knows exactly how to use various media to create a stir! But it was her mistake, and her reaction to it did not exactly associate her with very much class, at all. Anyone who even crossed the street to see her, even if they follow her on Twitter, quite clearly wasted their time.

I was going to leave it at that, until by way of footnote, I just stumbled upon perhaps the single most ridiculously hilarious example of the nobody/celebrity wannabe type discussed above. I thought that I must be dreaming until I looked further into it, and realized that others were also doing it. Yep, the same type that announces their every entry into a cool restaurant or cafe or bar, whilst embarrassing themselves enough already, are also prone to creating a second Twitter account, for, no, it's not a joke.....their dog. 

A f***ing dog, with a Twitter account?! Are y'all kidding me?! A dog who follows other pets on Twitter, and who is followed back by other dogs and pets?! A dog who posts comments about doggy life on Twitter?! I thought I had I seen it all, but no. I think that pets should be banned from Twitter, period. It is so puerile and infantile to be beyond discussion, and it is the kind of thing one only associates with the too rich/too famous celebrity, who have got just too much time and money on their hands. The kind of people who have such "a great life" that they need to get a life, if you catch my drift!

I am beginning to believe that Twitter should be banned for those (who are neither a celebrity nor a business person) over 30, as a way of preventing them from totally embarrassing themselves when grown. All of this checking-in at cool places, wanting to become the Mayor of Joe's Greasy Spoon that seats twenty, Instagramming oneself in the hairdresser's chair, and creating a Twitter account for a canine, is the surest sign of delusions of grandeur, smartphone addiction, and the need to go back and buy a real life in one of those fancy hotels or stores!   Kevin Mc

Social media gone full circle, forcing the individual to return to private life

Something that occurred to me recently was not only the incredible impact that social media have had on people's lives, but additionally, how they have purposefully invaded the privacy of the individual and further, that they have even affected one's ability to appear to be an individual, anymore. 

Initially, there was not too much concern over privacy in social media use, even if people were slow to realize that basically anyone with a computer and internet access could dig into your Facebook profile, and see photos not only of your family and friends, but also as was the case for many members, peruse their entire social life and circle, all from the comfort of the spying eye's own home. The photos can still be blown up, easily copied, and even messed with as the end user sees fit. Quite why anyone would want, say, photos of themselves on sandy beaches in tiny bikinis on holiday, being readily available to their teachers, bosses, co-workers, bartenders and effectively anyone who remembers their name, is beyond me. 

Facebook never did have much concern for member privacy, but under pressure it introduced new features to allow the member to decide how public or private certain aspects of their online identity were, and as worry spread over privacy issues due to the media highlighting it, one saw a more cautious approach to publishing one's entire lifestyle to the world. At the same time, many still felt that it was not a major problem until the inevitable happened: some bright spark realized that social media were the ideal marketing tool for business.  

The effect of this was not felt immediately, as the business world struggled to use social media productively, while trying to find anyone over 35 who had any idea how to use it at all. Eventually they managed to catch up somewhat, at which point the effect of the business world joining Facebook became significantly more noticeable if not downright pervasive. Once people started getting fired from their jobs for compromising photos, or comments such as "I hate my f***ing boss!" on their profiles, people began to realize that the party was over.

When courts began to reinforce the new status quo by upholding various cases of unjust dismissal, the message was hammered home more clearly: it does matter what you post on your "personal" Facebook page, and even if you go totally private, employers still want to see it. Yes, they have absolutely no legal right to see it, but do you want the job or not?! When it comes to jobs, employers are always in the driving seat and you telling them that they have no legal basis for demanding to see it just helps them move on to a candidate with a lovely pastel-colored flower-filled timeline profile, and it's all over. 

With the introduction of Twitter (by default, an intentionally public gossip service) and LinkedIn (specifically for job seekers/employers), social media as quality control analysis of the individual expanded in scope. It became totally the norm for employers to not only go digging surreptitiously (initially) into your online profiles, but later on, employers began to ask for your online profile addresses and usernames as part and parcel of the interview process. 

Saying no is not an option, which is frankly, outrageous, and while they claim that if you are not willing to share then you must have something to hide, I say that it is none of your goddamn (for want of a better word) business, period. One ridiculous current trend is the need for certain types to insert at the tail end of their Twitter profile: "Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of my employer". They have to do this because they want their employer's brand associated with their profile, as part of making them look "cool"; perhaps even feeling like a pseudo-minor celebrity of their very own. "I have got a lot to say, of great significance, and I have a huge audience of 'followers' (the same number that I follow, rather sadly) who read my every word, but I need to make it clear to y'all that I am not speaking for the brand, blah blah". Yawn. 

It's cool to say that they are a tech geek at Apple, or a director at Facebook, or a programmer at Google, so they put it in, but follow with a disclaimer. Then they feel free to dive in and often use expletive-filled comments and replies to friends, and make strange sociopolitical commentaries on the side. It's a case of wanting to have it all. They want their famous employer's brand on their profile to up their status in life, but then want to make it clear that their voice has got nothing to do with that employer: so what does that mean? It means that they should have nothing to do with each other, outside the office, that's what it is saying! Hell, it might even be saying very clearly that they are a fake at work, and in fact do not fit with their employer's brand, at all. 

But the very fact that they associate themselves with the brand means that the profile is not exclusively theirs, and will be up for scrutiny. A disclaimer changes nothing. Do you think that an employer would not change their opinion of that charming blonde girl from the design team, upon seeing that she has a wild Twitter profile full of radical politics and language that is more commonly heard on a construction site? Of course they would look at her differently, and human resources would be alerted to it. 

As always, employers have the upper hand, especially if you want (to keep) that job. The Catch 22 of making your online life private to all but close friends/family (which is the totally normal thing to do) is that it raises a red flag in the human resources department. "What are you trying to hide?" The other Catch 22 is that if you do perform a quick spring cleaning and get rid of those drunken college trip pics, and the one with the football team eating sushi off your almost-naked body, then you have joined the club. Once you go public, with an employer, then you are public, period. Squeaky clean is the new norm, Stepford Wives is the new deep. 

This might not be such a serious issue for someone who lives a fairly quiet life and generally has nothing to hide, although someone in your circle could still post something wild onto your profile which your employer may get to see before you do, if you are busy. Or, if you are prone to compete in wet T-shirt contests in your local Hawaiian bar on Friday nights, then it's not enough to make sure that you don't post any pics of it online. Why? Well, because someone else might. There's always some sneak who loves to catch people in compromising positions on their cell phone camera, with no one aware of the recording of it. Just ask Michael Phelps or Prince Harry (among many others), for example!

So where do we stand today? In many ways, it has returned us to where we were before: where our private lives were private, and our public face (which now includes our online identity) at work/outside was public. In other words, social media have become so pervasive and even career-threatening that for many they now represent only the public face of  our real lives. The public face and the reality are now formally separated once more. 

This is highly ironic in that many used to use social media to show off their private lives in public, but they now are forced to massage and sanitize that life, to make it suitable for public viewing. All because employers became sneaks and demanded to see a Facebook profile as if it was their right: it is not. But guess what? Telling a potential employer that you don't have a Facebook profile because you think it is worthless, as a way of avoiding the invasion of privacy, will only get you classified as "old" or "a potential sociopath" and you also won't get the job!

So now Facebook becomes a place to present some kind of fake sterilized version of ourselves, doing our best to strip away any individualistic traits, so that we appear to be the standard issue well-balanced production line humanoid model that employers theoretically believe in? Even though, if they believe that candidate employees have any higher form of intelligence whatsoever, then they know that they are looking at a clean cloned profile, or a purposely bland standard (i.e. mind-numbingly boring) identity?

Whither the individual? Whither one's right to stand out, fiercely and proudly, and be as exuberant as one wants to be and is, on a social media website? It has got nothing to do with the workplace, and as long as one is doing a great job in the office, and does not go out of one's way to put down the boss/company online, it has nothing to do with the office. It has almost come to the point of people needing one fake public face, for employers, and also a real but private online identity with a different name or nickname, that only one's true blues are aware of! Once you know that your employer is watching you on Facebook, it is no longer either private or free: you pay a price on a weekly basis for being there, whether you realize it or not, and whether you like it or not. 

There is way too much sharing in this brave new world of social media. Those that hide or are mysterious have become outsiders, and are peered at suspiciously by the rest of the herd. But let me ask you something! When you were in a class at college, or in an office at work, who was/is more intriguing and interesting - the guy/girl who insists on telling you their entire life story over a 30 minute lunch, or the one who is friendly but a little more mysterious and aloof, and who only shares themselves in detail with a select few? There is value in dignity and privacy!

Social media are no different in my opinion, and I can't think of anything more boring that having to sit through dinner with a woman, who is telling me all about her life, and the reason that it is quite so boring is that I read/saw it all two weeks ago! I would much prefer that her Facebook profile was more or less totally private, and she used Twitter primarily for business purposes. Who wants to be one of the sheep, following all the trends and never tweaking them individually; just doing what everyone else does, and thus fitting in quite nicely to some neat little boxes that an employer or society prefers? Who wants to date a sheep?!

To each their own, but being one of the sheep is such an undesirable state of affairs that it is simply quite tragic, I am afraid. Oh, woe is me! We need to celebrate the individual, and individuality; it's a characteristic that is admirable but one that does not need to live in eternal self-promotion and does have a total right to privacy. This individual can be experienced in real time and as a living person, only, because he is much too busy and way too happy living a life to spend even an evening trying to present some scrapbook version of that life on some social media website! Well, okay, you might get to have a little glimpse of this individual on his blog sometimes, as well!  ;)  - Kevin Mc