There is a time for spreading your praises of a candidate--and there is a time for quiet reflection. There is a time for loudly rejoicing in your candidate's victory--and there is a time for silently wishing the opposing candidate well as she/he prepares for struggles, both well-known and impossible to foresee.
Those of you who read this blog know my political beliefs. I am outspoken (to a fault) and there is very little that has me 'sitting on the fence.' While the night leading up to an election might be the ideal time to make one last push for one's chosen candidate, I only have one thing on my civic-minded brain, and that is my hope that you will be voting tomorrow.
Lazy. Ignorant. Apathetic.
Those are just a few of the many adjectives that enter my head when someone tells me that they do not vote--especially if they are able to do so. I cannot help but notice that these people usually seem proud while they're saying it. Taking pride in not voting absolutely mystifies me. It's like someone saying that they just got a great deal--only $38,000--for a Kia Rio. Being proud of refusing to vote is like driving forty miles out of ones way for gas--just to save a penny per gallon. Denying the responsibility to participate in democracy is like paying $250,000 for mobile home dating back to 1975--because it has a fantastic deck.
The United States is not like Australia or most of South America. Your citizenship in this country does not require you to vote for those who govern this land. Some might argue that compulsory voting is a good thing. But in my opinion, Americans--a vast majority who are very wealthy by the World's standards--should not feel coerced to vote: you should feel naturally compelled to do so.
Sure, no one is going to come to your door on Wednesday and haul you away to prison for not voting. But by not voting, you're doing the following:
--Spitting repeatedly on the Constitution of the United States.
--Pissing on those small, white monuments in Veterans Cemeteries.
--Enabling neighbors, co-workers, friends and family to find your opinions about as
relevant as those of a white-out pen.
I should probably mention that when you're not voting, you are symbolically looking into the faces of Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt and telling them that they wasted their lives. You're telling the African-American who had to pass a designed-to-fail poll test--that the exam was justifiable. You are giving the impression that you think that over one million soldiers died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But they didn't die due to a logistical, circumstantial error. They died because they were fighting for your rights--and voting is one of those rights.
So, if you're one of the unbelievably massive segments of the population who doesn't vote, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and don't brag about that. For as soon as you do, you're not looking cool and rebellious; you're simply putting a face on ignorance, arrogance and laziness.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Round One.
Romney won the first round, folks.
Do I enjoy saying that? Absolutely not. But I believe it to be true. This judgment is not rendered based on any of Mitt Romney's ideas, nor is it based on any of President Obama's. What was said tonight was unimportant, but the way in which those statements were presented dominated the evening. Thus, I won't be referring directly to any exact quotes from the debate. If you are like me, you became bored with Barack's nap-worthy figures and Mitt's failed attempts at humor. Still, I noticed enough to form judgment, even before the commentators started doing what they do best (or worst, depending on your point of view.)
The High Road was utilized by Obama--to a fault. I appreciated his calm, cool demeanor, especially against Mitt's early near-belligerent attack style. I never saw the President lose his cool once. Mitt was all over the map as far as mood goes. The President could have used Romney's "47%" gaffe and a number of other bumbles that have crippled the Republican's campaign. But he didn't. Unfortunately, that was a mistake.
Comfortable Incumbency means just what my friend and fellow debate-watcher, Beth, said in regards to Obama's performance. She said it reminded her of John Kerry catching George W. Bush off guard in their first debate. Bush had been on the job for four years, so he attempted to use the same "here, let me educate you" tactic that Obama seemed to court early on in tonight's debate. The President's attempt to initially 'educate' Mitt were like a professor's attempt to lecture amidst the creation of a giant paper wad--aimed in the professor's direction.
While at no point in the debate did the President have a deer-in-the-headlights look, Obama's 'professorial' tactic was no match for Romney's attack mode.
Concise speaking points were the only tie to be found in this debate. The President had some good ones, and so did Romney. Romney, I believe--had more of them. Again, Beth nailed it when she pointed out that the President has never been very at ease in this type of debate. Town hall debates are his style. Obama tiptoed too often into boring-statistic-mode, which made Romney glaze over, and gave Mitt enough time to mount a pointed, well-aimed rebuttal.
We saw too much of the President's hair, which meant that he was too focused on his notes--and not enough on the challenger. Obama appeared (key word 'appeared') to look interested in Romney's statements but as the debate progressed, I kept envisioning a GOP super PAC airing an ad titled, "You should be ashamed, Mr. President", showing Romney chastising Obama while Obama seemingly hung his head. I wanted to say, "What the hell are you writing, anyway!?"
Obama's eye contact with the public was great. I was shocked the first time that he started looking at the camera--a tactic that Mitt (unless I missed it) never employed. I watched the President as he addressed 'me' and thought that he did an excellent job of knowing which talking points deserved a direct eye towards the nation under his care.
Mitt stayed on message in a direct way that made his key points seem unforgettable. The President, full of details, was eager to confront Mitt--but all too often got lost in delivering his point.
President Obama knows what he's up against. He's pretty good at assessing situations, so my guess is that he knew that going into the ring tonight. Who's to say: perhaps as the days go on, viewers will remember less of Romney's well-aimed attacks and more of the President's cool demeanor. But as of right now, victory belongs to the elephants.
My guess is that a large percentage of you will agree with my assessment. Recent 'statistics' back me up in my theory that 53% of you will probably love it. ;)
Do I enjoy saying that? Absolutely not. But I believe it to be true. This judgment is not rendered based on any of Mitt Romney's ideas, nor is it based on any of President Obama's. What was said tonight was unimportant, but the way in which those statements were presented dominated the evening. Thus, I won't be referring directly to any exact quotes from the debate. If you are like me, you became bored with Barack's nap-worthy figures and Mitt's failed attempts at humor. Still, I noticed enough to form judgment, even before the commentators started doing what they do best (or worst, depending on your point of view.)
The High Road was utilized by Obama--to a fault. I appreciated his calm, cool demeanor, especially against Mitt's early near-belligerent attack style. I never saw the President lose his cool once. Mitt was all over the map as far as mood goes. The President could have used Romney's "47%" gaffe and a number of other bumbles that have crippled the Republican's campaign. But he didn't. Unfortunately, that was a mistake.
Comfortable Incumbency means just what my friend and fellow debate-watcher, Beth, said in regards to Obama's performance. She said it reminded her of John Kerry catching George W. Bush off guard in their first debate. Bush had been on the job for four years, so he attempted to use the same "here, let me educate you" tactic that Obama seemed to court early on in tonight's debate. The President's attempt to initially 'educate' Mitt were like a professor's attempt to lecture amidst the creation of a giant paper wad--aimed in the professor's direction.
While at no point in the debate did the President have a deer-in-the-headlights look, Obama's 'professorial' tactic was no match for Romney's attack mode.
Concise speaking points were the only tie to be found in this debate. The President had some good ones, and so did Romney. Romney, I believe--had more of them. Again, Beth nailed it when she pointed out that the President has never been very at ease in this type of debate. Town hall debates are his style. Obama tiptoed too often into boring-statistic-mode, which made Romney glaze over, and gave Mitt enough time to mount a pointed, well-aimed rebuttal.
We saw too much of the President's hair, which meant that he was too focused on his notes--and not enough on the challenger. Obama appeared (key word 'appeared') to look interested in Romney's statements but as the debate progressed, I kept envisioning a GOP super PAC airing an ad titled, "You should be ashamed, Mr. President", showing Romney chastising Obama while Obama seemingly hung his head. I wanted to say, "What the hell are you writing, anyway!?"
Obama's eye contact with the public was great. I was shocked the first time that he started looking at the camera--a tactic that Mitt (unless I missed it) never employed. I watched the President as he addressed 'me' and thought that he did an excellent job of knowing which talking points deserved a direct eye towards the nation under his care.
Mitt stayed on message in a direct way that made his key points seem unforgettable. The President, full of details, was eager to confront Mitt--but all too often got lost in delivering his point.
President Obama knows what he's up against. He's pretty good at assessing situations, so my guess is that he knew that going into the ring tonight. Who's to say: perhaps as the days go on, viewers will remember less of Romney's well-aimed attacks and more of the President's cool demeanor. But as of right now, victory belongs to the elephants.
My guess is that a large percentage of you will agree with my assessment. Recent 'statistics' back me up in my theory that 53% of you will probably love it. ;)
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Crunch Time: The Mittiest of Victories
Mitt's conquest of the Presidency may look like this. As a reminder, the red color indicates that a state will cast its electoral votes for Romney; blue states indicate votes for Obama.
The Mormon Belt may be what narrowly pushes Colorado into the Romney tally. With the exception of its neighbor to the south, everything surrounding it will go red. While Nevada has a large LDS population as well, the Vegas metro area contains 70% of the state's population. Obama won Las Vegas with over 18% of the vote in 2008.
The Midwest will be a haven for Romney in this winning scenario. Recent polls have showed him ahead in Iowa. Neighboring Wisconsin is difficult to predict, although the choice of Paul Ryan for VP will score him some extra points in this usually-Democratic state. Romney looks poised for a fairly easy victory in Indiana, a state that the President barely won in '08.
The South's frustration with the President makes the climate good for a reenactment of 2004, when every single Southern state went Republican. Romney's biggest potential loss here? Virginia, which has the GOP nominee down in the polls. North Carolina, which just barely made it into the Obama tally in '08, will all but certainly go to Romney this year.
Florida is not part of the South. :) The Sunshine State has a big influx of Tea Partiers and seniors who have been made scared to death of 'Obamacare' and this plays well for Romney. Look for Florida to go Republican this time around. The President only carried it by less than 3% last time.
*Disagreements with this analysis? Please comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts--especially if you live in a state where you think that a different outcome will take place.*
Crunch Time: Barack My World--Again
An Obama Victory: OBAMA-297 vs. ROMNEY-241 (270 Electoral Votes Needed)
So, this is my prediction of the President's victory map. For those of you who aren't politically interested, a) why are you reading this? and b) the red color indicates a state which will cast its electoral votes for Romney. Blue indicates votes for Obama.
The Left Coast remains in the Obama camp, even if progressives weren't so sure for a time that the President was progressive enough.
Blue Western States include Colorado and New Mexico. Colorado's larger-than-average Mormon population is likely no match for its larger progressive community, including Denver and Boulder. Obama carried New Mexico by 15% in '08. I look for him to carry it by half as much this time around.
Great Lakes are mostly smooth sailing for the President in a winning scenario. An Obama victory in Michigan would be unsurprising. The GOP will probably stay home, as they didn't seem to be too crazy about Romney in his native state's primary. Wisconsin poses the biggest threat for Obama, with the overall state support of its controversial Republican governor and the fact that it's home to VP-nominee Paul Ryan. Watch the Badger State.
The Midwest includes a very narrow victory for the President in Ohio and a respectable but smaller-than-last-time win in his home state of Illinois. I think that the President stands a strong chance of losing Iowa. We'll see.
North Atlantic States will all go for the President. New Hampshire has been mentioned as a toss-up, as Romney has a home there and it is probably the most conservative of the New England States. Still, the President won it by nearly 10% in '08. His victory margin there this time will likely be closer to 3%.
*Disagreements with this analysis? Please comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts--especially if you live in a state where you think that a different outcome will take place.*
Monday, August 27, 2012
Crunch Time: An Introduction
With ten weeks until the U.S. presidential election, I think it's time for me to do what 'eventual nominee' Mitt Romney said regarding Senator Reid's claim that he hadn't paid income taxes for several years: "put up or shut up."
As my election analysis accuracy rate is just below a dismal 60%, I have limited credibility when it comes to predicting results. With very little to lose other than my dignity (who needs that, anyway?), I predicted that President Obama would be given his pink slip on November 6th. This prediction was made in September of last year, not out of a desire to see Obama defeated, but instead from my own need to avoid heartbreak when it actually happens.
(When Bush vs. Gore is your very first presidential election, you immediately learn to dismiss optimism in politics.)
Much has changed in the political landscape since September. The Republican scare tactics surrounding 'Obamacare' have run their course: Americans are anticipating the benefits from the program. Most everyone agrees that the economy is slowly (the term 'snail's pace' comes to mind) making progress. While the country isn't ready to give Obama credit for turning things around, most continue to recognize that he inherited the mess, a fact that Republicans just absolutely hate. The question: are these factors enough to forecast that the President will resume his job duties? The answer: no. But the odds are in his favor. Still, I am not changing my prediction. To do so and wind up with an Obama defeat may cause me significant heart damage, and I already have enough genetic reasons to be worried about that.
A lot could happen in the next two months, folks. There have been no debates yet, the RNC continues to rake up large amounts of dough and there's plenty of time for an "October surprise" from either side. So, instead of changing my overall forecast, I'll predict how the map will look either way on November 6th.
Presenting, for your interest and amusement, the next two blogs:
Crunch Time: Barack My World--Again
Crunch Time: The Mittiest of Victories
As my election analysis accuracy rate is just below a dismal 60%, I have limited credibility when it comes to predicting results. With very little to lose other than my dignity (who needs that, anyway?), I predicted that President Obama would be given his pink slip on November 6th. This prediction was made in September of last year, not out of a desire to see Obama defeated, but instead from my own need to avoid heartbreak when it actually happens.
(When Bush vs. Gore is your very first presidential election, you immediately learn to dismiss optimism in politics.)
Much has changed in the political landscape since September. The Republican scare tactics surrounding 'Obamacare' have run their course: Americans are anticipating the benefits from the program. Most everyone agrees that the economy is slowly (the term 'snail's pace' comes to mind) making progress. While the country isn't ready to give Obama credit for turning things around, most continue to recognize that he inherited the mess, a fact that Republicans just absolutely hate. The question: are these factors enough to forecast that the President will resume his job duties? The answer: no. But the odds are in his favor. Still, I am not changing my prediction. To do so and wind up with an Obama defeat may cause me significant heart damage, and I already have enough genetic reasons to be worried about that.
A lot could happen in the next two months, folks. There have been no debates yet, the RNC continues to rake up large amounts of dough and there's plenty of time for an "October surprise" from either side. So, instead of changing my overall forecast, I'll predict how the map will look either way on November 6th.
Presenting, for your interest and amusement, the next two blogs:
Crunch Time: Barack My World--Again
Crunch Time: The Mittiest of Victories
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
On a not-so-facetious note...
Earlier today, I made a facetious post on my Facebook page regarding Chick-fil-A's abhorrent policy--of promoting illiteracy and bad spelling. I was trying to lighten the public mood, as so many people seem to be up in arms about the recent controversy surrounding Chick-fil-A's support of anti-LGBT organizations.
Being a Gay guy, I guess I should be rallying hardcore against this company with its delicious waffle fries and a lemonade sweet enough to make one slap his own mother. Do I give Chick-fil-A my business? No. And I haven't for about fifteen months. That's my personal choice. Regardless, a part of me defends Chick-fil-A in this battle. And it is based on the same principle that causes me to defend Fred Phelps and his Wesboro Baptist Cult--err--Church:
Their freedom of speech.
Being a former "card-carrying member" of the American Civil Liberties Union (only 'former' because I got tired of being hounded by them for more money), I completely agree with their stance on this issue: cities like Chicago and Boston are wrong in their attempt to single out a company and, due to their belief system, attempt to deny them permission to operate their business where they choose.
While thousands of LGBT folks and myself appreciate that mayors and other civic leaders are speaking out on our behalf, I believe that this is an assault on free enterprise. These reactionary declarations against this one particular business amounts to skating on very thin Constitutional ice.
Chick-fil-A is not a public company, folks. It's not on the Stock Market Exchange, which means that it is free to do what a few select officers and shareholders want it to do. If the public doesn't like it, they don't have to patronize it. The Cathys have never made any attempt to mask Chick-fil-A as a business with opportunistic principles: if a fast-food business closes in observance of the Sabbath, I think that's a pretty good indicator that it is a Christian-owned and managed business. Truett and Dan Cathy make no apology for this--and frankly, I give them integrity points for sticking to their guns.
That doesn't mean that I agree with them. It is financially idiotic for a business to throw away the opportunity to earn more profit on any given day. It is also an absolutely moronic business decision for the head of a company to say anything other than "No comment" when asked about the company's stances on controversial issues. While Chick-fil-A is seeing its supporters out in full, bad publicity IS bad publicity. (Notice that you haven't heard a peep out of Wal-Mart on this issue.) If Chick-fil-A stuck to making waffle fries and sandwiches without rendering judgments on societal issues, they wouldn't be so knee-deep in chicken shit.
As American consumers, we have choices--in most cases, plenty of them. I don't begrudge anyone for eating at Chick-fil-A: it's their choice. The consumer has the right to be informed, though, and if a company or organization chooses to air its belief system, the public has the right to respond by continuing to frequent their place of business or go elsewhere. Wesboro Baptist Church probably isn't the best place for me to visit for my wedding needs: I know where I'm not wanted. Still, I'm not going to waltz in there and demand that Fred Phelps perform my ceremony. I would be infringing upon both him and his "church's" freedoms of speech and religion--and I would be wrong to do so.
Chick-fil-A and other businesses like it are ultimately going to be on the wrong side of history regarding same-sex marriage. Chick-fil-A does not support LGBT Equality, but the United States does not regulate the microphones of the businesses within its borders.
Discrimination is (and should be) un-American. ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) should definitely be passed in order to prevent firing based on sexual orientation. But limiting a business' participation in capitalism by telling it where it cannot operate and basing that decision solely on its controversial views?
That's un-American, too.
Being a Gay guy, I guess I should be rallying hardcore against this company with its delicious waffle fries and a lemonade sweet enough to make one slap his own mother. Do I give Chick-fil-A my business? No. And I haven't for about fifteen months. That's my personal choice. Regardless, a part of me defends Chick-fil-A in this battle. And it is based on the same principle that causes me to defend Fred Phelps and his Wesboro Baptist Cult--err--Church:
Their freedom of speech.
Being a former "card-carrying member" of the American Civil Liberties Union (only 'former' because I got tired of being hounded by them for more money), I completely agree with their stance on this issue: cities like Chicago and Boston are wrong in their attempt to single out a company and, due to their belief system, attempt to deny them permission to operate their business where they choose.
While thousands of LGBT folks and myself appreciate that mayors and other civic leaders are speaking out on our behalf, I believe that this is an assault on free enterprise. These reactionary declarations against this one particular business amounts to skating on very thin Constitutional ice.
Chick-fil-A is not a public company, folks. It's not on the Stock Market Exchange, which means that it is free to do what a few select officers and shareholders want it to do. If the public doesn't like it, they don't have to patronize it. The Cathys have never made any attempt to mask Chick-fil-A as a business with opportunistic principles: if a fast-food business closes in observance of the Sabbath, I think that's a pretty good indicator that it is a Christian-owned and managed business. Truett and Dan Cathy make no apology for this--and frankly, I give them integrity points for sticking to their guns.
That doesn't mean that I agree with them. It is financially idiotic for a business to throw away the opportunity to earn more profit on any given day. It is also an absolutely moronic business decision for the head of a company to say anything other than "No comment" when asked about the company's stances on controversial issues. While Chick-fil-A is seeing its supporters out in full, bad publicity IS bad publicity. (Notice that you haven't heard a peep out of Wal-Mart on this issue.) If Chick-fil-A stuck to making waffle fries and sandwiches without rendering judgments on societal issues, they wouldn't be so knee-deep in chicken shit.
As American consumers, we have choices--in most cases, plenty of them. I don't begrudge anyone for eating at Chick-fil-A: it's their choice. The consumer has the right to be informed, though, and if a company or organization chooses to air its belief system, the public has the right to respond by continuing to frequent their place of business or go elsewhere. Wesboro Baptist Church probably isn't the best place for me to visit for my wedding needs: I know where I'm not wanted. Still, I'm not going to waltz in there and demand that Fred Phelps perform my ceremony. I would be infringing upon both him and his "church's" freedoms of speech and religion--and I would be wrong to do so.
Chick-fil-A and other businesses like it are ultimately going to be on the wrong side of history regarding same-sex marriage. Chick-fil-A does not support LGBT Equality, but the United States does not regulate the microphones of the businesses within its borders.
Discrimination is (and should be) un-American. ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) should definitely be passed in order to prevent firing based on sexual orientation. But limiting a business' participation in capitalism by telling it where it cannot operate and basing that decision solely on its controversial views?
That's un-American, too.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Gutsy, Ballsy and--NEW!--Unapologetical Me.
Three amazing stories. All non-fiction:
1) I had just arrived to a social obligation after having made a few alterations to my online settings. A keen observer challenged me in public in such a way that one would've thought boxing gloves were in order: "So, why can't I see your status updates anymore?!" I detected a slight chill (think winds of Antarctica.)
2) The grocery store is virtually empty at 9:30, which is why I love shopping at that hour. Still, it is the Gayborhood. I almost literally run into a buddy (a former "Facebook Friend") with my shopping cart, who proceeds to engage me in a nice, lengthy chat that has me wondering if my yogurt will still be any good once I leave the store. Suddenly, two other 'Unfriended' buddies turn into our aisle and nearly stop dead in their tracks. I greet them with the same enthusiasm as I always have and expect that the four of us, who all know each other, will spend some time chatting just below the canned yams. But as one of the guys starts to initiate conversation, the other anxiously pulls him away and says, "We've got to go!" and they disappear. I'm not sure where the fire was.
3) As I'm headed to play softball, I take note of some folks in the bleachers whom I haven't seen in months. I've heard that they're extremely bitter about having been deleted from my 'Friends' list after my 'divorce'. Deciding to make light of the situation, I laugh and say something like, "I'd better watch out" and one of the guys practically screams, "Don't talk to us! You're pathetic!"
All true, folks. All true. What did you think after reading those stories? One of your thoughts was probably something to the effect of, "Damn. Matt deletes a lot of people. I think he has a problem." Another thought was probably something like, "Wow. People take being deleted way too seriously." And if you thought those things, you're absolutely correct--on both counts.
I have wanted to write a blog about deleting "Facebook Friends" for sometime, but knew that the social ramifications for such a blog could be damaging. And then I got to that beautiful place in my mind where I just didn't give a damn. A powerful realization entered my head: your real friends will never care whether or not they hold a place on your "Facebook Friends" list. They don't have to wonder about the place they hold in your heart and mind. Most of them knew that long before Mark Zuckerberg invaded the World.
A bit of background info: the inner (and sometimes external) pain of the end of my two-year relationship prompted me to delete most reminders of the ex whom I still--five months later--miss, love and enjoy. Not only did I delete pictures--I deleted his friends from my "List" as well. I had spent a great deal of time with a few of them while Chuck and I were together. But in the end--as it was in the beginning--they were his friends. It's a fine line.
The months since our breakup have been rough. So far, my thirtieth year has not been kind. I have gone through some incredible personal hells and realities, the majority of which I have kept off of Facebook. Being tight-lipped really isn't my style, but here's a newsflash: we, as humans, are nosy and we gossip (notice I said, "we.") I'm not above it, but I try to limit it--especially when I don't know if it's true. I didn't want to broadcast a lot of my goings-on because, frankly, I knew that doing so might as well make it a feature article on page three of the New York Times. However, most of the "Facebook Friends" whom I have deleted are not horrible people. 85% of them would likely get a hug from me if we met on the street and I'd probably buy them hot chocolate. Three-fourths of that 85% would probably qualify for marshmallows with the hot chocolate. The other 15% have been deleted for more sinister or--at the least--irritating, petty reasons. Again--I am above nothing.
What makes the people whom I keep on my Facebook so special, you might ask? Well, that reason varies. Geographic proximity certainly doesn't matter: I estimate that 40% of my "Facebook Friends" don't even live within 500 miles of me. Some folks make status updates that are uplifting and make me smile. Some folks post naughty things that I find funny. Some folks know how to banter with me. Some "Facebook Friends" make my heart glad by the mere sight of their profile pic. Some I want to keep up with. Some I want to (or have had) sex with. Some were part of a wonderful time, place (or night, even!) in my life and I take comfort from that, if only virtually. All of them are exceptional people--but so are all of my friends who aren't my "Facebook Friends". I have come to peace with my "Facebook Friends" and "Unfriending" due to some very simple logic:
If you do not (or have not) taken a personal, one-on-one interest in my life outside of Facebook, your right to view what I post online is negligable. I prefer close friends offline; people of strong resolve who could take or leave their "Friend" designation on a social networking site. Revealing is the "Unfriended"--who reacts with venom. For, in such a moment, that person's true colors are shown--and their reaction has less to do with what kind of person you are. Their reaction is merely derived from the fact that you have eliminated their perceived, Information Age-granted right...to be nosy.
And therein lies my problem: I refuse to restrict my words, photos, check-ins and whatnots to a special list within a list. I have decided that keeping a low number of "Facebook Friends" remedies that problem. Regarding how people view Facebook, their "Friends" list and being "Unfriended", the answer is yes: it is taken too seriously.
Obviously. :)
1) I had just arrived to a social obligation after having made a few alterations to my online settings. A keen observer challenged me in public in such a way that one would've thought boxing gloves were in order: "So, why can't I see your status updates anymore?!" I detected a slight chill (think winds of Antarctica.)
2) The grocery store is virtually empty at 9:30, which is why I love shopping at that hour. Still, it is the Gayborhood. I almost literally run into a buddy (a former "Facebook Friend") with my shopping cart, who proceeds to engage me in a nice, lengthy chat that has me wondering if my yogurt will still be any good once I leave the store. Suddenly, two other 'Unfriended' buddies turn into our aisle and nearly stop dead in their tracks. I greet them with the same enthusiasm as I always have and expect that the four of us, who all know each other, will spend some time chatting just below the canned yams. But as one of the guys starts to initiate conversation, the other anxiously pulls him away and says, "We've got to go!" and they disappear. I'm not sure where the fire was.
3) As I'm headed to play softball, I take note of some folks in the bleachers whom I haven't seen in months. I've heard that they're extremely bitter about having been deleted from my 'Friends' list after my 'divorce'. Deciding to make light of the situation, I laugh and say something like, "I'd better watch out" and one of the guys practically screams, "Don't talk to us! You're pathetic!"
All true, folks. All true. What did you think after reading those stories? One of your thoughts was probably something to the effect of, "Damn. Matt deletes a lot of people. I think he has a problem." Another thought was probably something like, "Wow. People take being deleted way too seriously." And if you thought those things, you're absolutely correct--on both counts.
I have wanted to write a blog about deleting "Facebook Friends" for sometime, but knew that the social ramifications for such a blog could be damaging. And then I got to that beautiful place in my mind where I just didn't give a damn. A powerful realization entered my head: your real friends will never care whether or not they hold a place on your "Facebook Friends" list. They don't have to wonder about the place they hold in your heart and mind. Most of them knew that long before Mark Zuckerberg invaded the World.
A bit of background info: the inner (and sometimes external) pain of the end of my two-year relationship prompted me to delete most reminders of the ex whom I still--five months later--miss, love and enjoy. Not only did I delete pictures--I deleted his friends from my "List" as well. I had spent a great deal of time with a few of them while Chuck and I were together. But in the end--as it was in the beginning--they were his friends. It's a fine line.
The months since our breakup have been rough. So far, my thirtieth year has not been kind. I have gone through some incredible personal hells and realities, the majority of which I have kept off of Facebook. Being tight-lipped really isn't my style, but here's a newsflash: we, as humans, are nosy and we gossip (notice I said, "we.") I'm not above it, but I try to limit it--especially when I don't know if it's true. I didn't want to broadcast a lot of my goings-on because, frankly, I knew that doing so might as well make it a feature article on page three of the New York Times. However, most of the "Facebook Friends" whom I have deleted are not horrible people. 85% of them would likely get a hug from me if we met on the street and I'd probably buy them hot chocolate. Three-fourths of that 85% would probably qualify for marshmallows with the hot chocolate. The other 15% have been deleted for more sinister or--at the least--irritating, petty reasons. Again--I am above nothing.
What makes the people whom I keep on my Facebook so special, you might ask? Well, that reason varies. Geographic proximity certainly doesn't matter: I estimate that 40% of my "Facebook Friends" don't even live within 500 miles of me. Some folks make status updates that are uplifting and make me smile. Some folks post naughty things that I find funny. Some folks know how to banter with me. Some "Facebook Friends" make my heart glad by the mere sight of their profile pic. Some I want to keep up with. Some I want to (or have had) sex with. Some were part of a wonderful time, place (or night, even!) in my life and I take comfort from that, if only virtually. All of them are exceptional people--but so are all of my friends who aren't my "Facebook Friends". I have come to peace with my "Facebook Friends" and "Unfriending" due to some very simple logic:
If you do not (or have not) taken a personal, one-on-one interest in my life outside of Facebook, your right to view what I post online is negligable. I prefer close friends offline; people of strong resolve who could take or leave their "Friend" designation on a social networking site. Revealing is the "Unfriended"--who reacts with venom. For, in such a moment, that person's true colors are shown--and their reaction has less to do with what kind of person you are. Their reaction is merely derived from the fact that you have eliminated their perceived, Information Age-granted right...to be nosy.
And therein lies my problem: I refuse to restrict my words, photos, check-ins and whatnots to a special list within a list. I have decided that keeping a low number of "Facebook Friends" remedies that problem. Regarding how people view Facebook, their "Friends" list and being "Unfriended", the answer is yes: it is taken too seriously.
Obviously. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)