Life as a Status Update*

Myke is happy. Myke is horny. Myke eats dogfood. With the rise of the ubiquitous social networking website, Facebook, and the subsequent decline of the originator, MySpace, a new trend has emerged: Life as a status update. From the minute you sign up your Facebook account, you can beguile the world with your compelling personal narrative, your daily drama, and the general minutia of your life. Thus Facebook users were compelled to fill in the blank after “Myke is….” But in late 2007, users were freed from the tyranny of the "is," which has allowed us to expand our vocabulary of personal updates. No more Myke is angry, Myke is the shooter on the grassy knoll. All of a sudden, Myke can drink tea, Myke hates it when you rub his toes, Myke has never been to Burkina Faso. And so the sluice gates were opened.

For the active Facebook user, life has become a series of status updates. You wake up in the morning and immediately start composing your third-person narrative: Myke hates waking up this early. Myke prefers eggos to cereal. Myke should probably get some toilet bowl cleaner. Casual users will blend third- and first-person realities (Myke is losing my mind), which is somewhat confusing and hints at the presence of a third party. Who is this nefarious person who is losing your mind, and why did you lend it to him in the first place?

With the added flexibility of using your phone to access the ever-addictive Facebook, you can update your friends on the all-important activities of your day in real time, from nearly anywhere in the world. Myke is at a Pussycat Dolls show, Myke left his report at the office, and so on.

You can use these updates to facilitate all kinds of different functions. You can lie (Myke loves his job), you can come out of the political closet (Myke dreams of seeing Ralph Nader naked), you can subtly attack another user (Myke hates someone right now. A blonde guy who lives in Long Beach. Whose name rhymes with Donathan,) or you can experience that Albert Camus existential moment of laziness we all have with Myke is. You can write mini essays on the constant, pervasive nature of big brother (Myke was filmed in front of a live TV audience), or use the update as a stage for your innate wit (Myke has carbon footprint envy). You can insert yourself into classic song lyrics (Myke is the Walrus, coo coo kachoo), or you can hijack popular culture to express your feelings upon a subject: Mykie likes it!

Life is carried out online; relationships are formed and ended via the status update. Reactions can span from a quick laugh (lol), a brief comment (OMG! I didn’t know you liked Ralph Nader too!), a harsh response, to outright anger. Sadly, these updates have even aroused murder as in the case of the late Tracey Grinhaff, 42, of Sheffield England, who was murdered by her husband after publicly declaring her pending divorce via her status update.

Everything from the sacred to the profane, from the simplest detail of one’s life, to the profound revelations and attainment of enlightenment can be pared down into one- or two-sentence pronouncements. The bold, imaginative, uncaring, the humdrum—it can all be carried on the back of a well-composed status update. They define the parameters of our observation, and reveal where our interests lie. And judging from the frequency of our status updates (this, coming from a chronic updater,) there can be no doubt about our chief preoccupation: ourselves.

*Note: most status updates used in this post—particularly the one about Ralph Nader—are completely manufactured and are for demonstration purposes only.

Why Experience Doesn't (really) Matter

Here is a great article I recently stumbled upon which better illustrates a point I have been trying to make to my friend Tom. Namely, when it comes to politics, experience doesn't necessarily make a better president. Read on:

How good are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.

Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say.

Another article from the Daily Kos goes on:

There have been 55 presidential elections in US history. 28 times the person with most "experience" wins.
20 of 28 times was a reelection.

There have been 21 elections which resulted in a change of party in power. 14 of those elections were won by the candidate with the least experience.

Since 1900 there have been 10 elections resulting in a change of the party in power. In 9 of those elections the candidate with the least amount of experience won.

Examples:

2000 Bush vs. Gore most experienced lost

1992 Clinton vs. Bush most experienced lost

1980 Reagan vs. Carter most experienced lost

1976 Carter vs. Ford most experienced lost

1968 Nixon vs. Humphrey candidates were equal in experience.

1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon most experienced lost

1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson most experienced lost

1322 FDR vs Hoover most experienced lost

1920 Harding vs Cox most experienced lost

1912 Wilson vs Taft and Teddy Roosevelt more
experienced lost

Time Magazine had TWO excellent articles about Presidential experience:

"Does Experience Matter as a President"
http://www.time.com/...

"Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine.
[snip]
Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."

and a second one:
"The Science of Experience"
http://www.time.com/...

"...three decades of research into expert performance has shown that experience itself — the raw amount of time you spend pursuing any particular activity, from brain surgery to skiing — can actually hinder your ability to deliver reproducibly superior performance. "

"in the end, determining which of the presidential candidates pays more attention to your concerns requires not adding up their years of experience but a far more complex calculation: deciding what their experiences have led them to truly value."

How to properly enjoy music

I've given some thought to the type of music enthusiast I am, and I've decided there are two ways people enjoy music. There's the wallpaper method of music enjoyment, which consists of constantly keeping music on in the background. This is the music aficionado of the iPod generation, and you know him well. He's the guy in your office who brags about his music collection in terms of gigabytes, rather than number of CDs or, dare I say it, tapes (we'll get to vinyl later). His 80+ gig music "collection" would take months of consecutive listening to complete, and exists to set any mood he wants. This type of enthusiast can rattle off a string of obscure artists, but is unlikely to recognize trivial things like song titles, lyrics, etc....

The other side of the spectrum, in Myke's musical classification system, involves the food analogy. The 'food' user differs from the wallpaper user in terms of scope. While a wallpaper user might have thousands of songs on a computer, the food user may have a more modest collection of albums in the hundreds, or even less. This user usually prefers her musical food in CD or vinyl form, where she will put on an album, close her eyes, and enjoy the music like a meal, picking apart sections, and enjoying each selection, the appetizer, the entree, the dessert... This person usually regards herself as a purist.

So which are you? The above types are the on the extremes of the spectrum. At the extremes, these are music snobs. The former, a mavin of style and blender magazine, snubbing anyone who is not aware of the latest 'it' band from rural Idaho, the latter a purist who cannot see beyond the purity of vinyl, who spurns the idea of portable music.

As for me, I'm a hybrid of the two, as are most people. I love my iPod and the freedom it provides me. I'm also an amateur audiophile, listening for subtle nuances in the music, reveling in the mixes of George Martin, or more contemporary mixers like Rick Rubin. I tend to be slightly xenophobic about music, preferring to discover music on my own, rather than letting others thrust it upon me. Thus I slowly discover new music, collecting songs and artists like shells on the beach, and slowly bringing them into my collection. I don't think this is the 'proper' way to experience music, it's just how I do it.

When it comes to politics, let's try to be honest with ourselves

So the teams are set. Come Thursday, the GOP will officially pit McCain/Palin against the Obama/Biden ticket. The ugly games favoured by Karl Rove/Lee Atwater from the 70s onward (dumpster diving, mud slinging, etc...) will be in full swing over the next several months. It's not my favourite form of political discourse, but I realize McCain has a strategy to play and, with the Republican brand in the toilet, he's got to play it.

I'm both nervous and excited, but I have one exhortation to both sides of the ideological divide: be honest with one another. As of last week, I have no doubt that the Wikipedia page for Sarah Palin has gotten more hits than it ever has. Some are already pretending that they have known and loved her for years; others have started the dirt-digging, and are claiming they have loathed her for years. I'll be honest: up until last week, the life of an Alaskan Governor was of very little interest to me, though her name was loosely bandied about as the black horse contender for VP (there's always at least one black horse, isn't there?)

Upon discovering that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, I think Obama showed the colour of his character when he declared that family was off limits. All but the most cynical Republicans cheered that one. So I say again, give praise when praise is due, and be honest with yourself and with others.

If you don't like Obama's name and you're voting against him because of it, be honest. If you're voting for him because he's black, be honest. While I think your reasoning is wrong, it's valid and it's all yours. Just don't lie to yourself by digging up all kinds of dirt on one candidate or the other, so you can join right in on the mud slinging.

I think the majority of us vote along ideological lines. While I still respect John McCain's character for a number of reasons, I disagree with most of his positions, and that is one reason why I am against his presidential aspirations. Conversely, I agree with many (though not all) of Obama's principles, and that is why I would pull the lever for Barack in November. Theoretically. If I could vote (sigh.)

Here's more honesty. I think the last eight years have been a travesty of leadership. If Bush's weakness was limited to his famous malaproprisms (which, frankly, make Yogi Berra look like Winston Churchill), I would be fine. I'd collect the annual Bush-isms calendar, and laugh along with everyone else. But it doesn't take much digging to show all the failure of the past eight years (I'd be happy to list some things if anyone is interested). Even staunch conservatives at least agree he's spending too much, if nothing else.

Nevertheless, here are some intellectually dishonest positions that I feel that should be avoided:

-Obama is the messiah
-The Bush administration did a great job
-Obama wants to tax the nation to its knees
-McCain will stay in Iraq for 100 years (given the current situation, this is not likely to happen, as much as I feel McCain is a little too trigger-happy for my taste).
-Republicans are the only ones who truly respect and appreciate veterans
-Sarah Palin's youngest child is her grandchild
-McCain is too old to be in office (dude can do more pushups than I can!)
-Obama is an idiot
-McCain is an idiot
-All Democrats don't care about family values (there may be some who don't)
-All Republicans don't care about civil liberties (there may be some who don't)

Here's another one. If you feel the following is true:

-Obama doesn't have enough experience to lead the country...

Then you would be lying to yourself to say this:

-...but Sarah Palin does.