Tweets and Feeds

I'm a Facebook creeper.

I am, the invention and unveiling of the "stalker feed" made my summer that more entertaining and I don't care who knows it, why? Because I know we all hated it at first and then we all stalked the crap out of eachother on a daily basis. It can't be denied, by anyone. To me, this is fine, friends "liking" friends' wall posts and status', being able to comment and say anything ones heart desires, is the definition of social networking. If someone is having a Facebook fight, i probably could put bits and pieces together and know the whole story, this to me is empowering and I feel like a champ knowing what's going down at my school. If someone doesn't have the math homework, you're able to see it even if they didn't direct the question to you, and probably help them out. This is why Facebook creeping is good, and Twitter (as i explain below) creeping is pointless.

I'm against Twitter as a "social networking" site.

I hate Twitter, I hate when the "common person" tweets. I tried it for a good 6 minutes and then deleted my account, why? because, you can't "socially network" if you're basically just telling people what you're doing. Most of the time, tweets by students and people my age are pointless, and no one really cares. Celebrities using Twitter? That's different, that's a way to reach the fans and keep them updated. Band's and well known Persona's? That's fine with me too, because obviously by the amount of followers these people/groups have, they matter enough to "tweet". Now, for this to be considered social networking? Nah, i don't see it that way at all, because in all honesty if some random person tweeted "just ate a sandwich" or "just got off the phone with mom" I wouldn't bother creeping that on Facebook, so why bother putting it out there for the world to see?

In my opinion, you tweet for one of two reasons.
1. You can, because you're a celebrity and people care enough to creep you, OR (you're common and...)
2. No one writes on your Facebook, and it would look bad if you updated your status every four seconds, and that was your entire page.

MJ Tributes

Over this past summer, better yet, these past few months, the world has lost many important and irreplaceable people in all sorts of industry. People like Farrah Fawcett, Ed Macmahon, Billy Mays (the man.), Ted Kennedy, Steve McNair and of course the legendary Michael Jackson.

My idea today refers to the last one mentioned, Mr. Jackson, and the amount of tributes and attention given to him. How long will this last? How long should it last? Respectively, he contributed many factors and important parts to not only the music but the entertainment world as a whole, and is known as the "King of Pop", for deserved reasons. but is this truly enough basis to have every single well known band, celebrity, child and even the unborn be affected and almost hypnotized with his tributes and his life in general? Band's like U2 performing tributes to the "legend" not only on their first night playing, but also their most recent performance last night in New Jersey, the first part is understandable, but is the second really necessary?

The tributes that really mean something, are the ones coming from a selection of people within the enterainment, better yet music buisness, such as the MTV Award's tribute to the King, which was of i think much better taste and much more effective than single band's or individuals performing bits and pieces, here and there. And i truly think that should be enough of the tributes for Michael Jackson, unleast until his birthday or anniversary of death or something along those lines.

And to Facebook (users), the poll to have a "Michael Jackson appreciation day" or whatever it was, nah.

A Response to Greenwald

In my opinion, torture against terrorists, should not be allowed at any cost, no matter the crime committed. Although this a very, set in stone, sort of view, what does it do besides satisfy our need for revenge and make us just as bad as those we punish? In Greenwald's blog, he relays the ideas of the Bush Administration, and how he feels they are complete opposite of the values stated in the War Crimes Act and other government statements seen in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Of course going through torture, some even unwarranted, will cause emotional and prolonged mental harm, chances are that said "terrorist" will already have his/her own mental issues causing them to take part in the act in the first place. Clearly, the Bush admin has been trying to prove the fact that they went against nationwide policies, but for the right reasons and that said methods were effective as seen here where Dick Cheney tries to get the CIA to release confidential files explaining how the interrogation tactics, although immoral, were effective.

Apparently, Greenwald and I have the same view on this. America today, no, the American Government today, is not only keeping secrets, but is going against the basic principles we so often take for granted. If the former VP and the CIA can't agree on what to release, that seems to be a problem, now doesn't it?