On Frank Ocean, and Why 'Gay' Shouldn't Even Matter Anymore

I know I wasn't the only near-sighted person to almost have a seizure trying to read this.

BBQ's aren't my really forte. You can invite me to a barbecue, though. I might go. But most likely I'll think about going, and either go hang out with my closest friends or bury myself in books and reruns of Chopped. It's not that I don't enjoy the prospect of grilling food with family, friends, and an assortment of complete strangers. It's that small talk gets boring. 'Where are you working?' 'How's your mom?' 'Are you going back to school?' 'How about those Yankees?' 'You see what Mitt Romney did last week?' 'What was Evelyn thinking on last week's episode?' There are always some topics that get breached constantly in loose small talk.

This Independence Day, among the hordes of hamburger-fancying twenty-somethings, the subject at hand was Frank Ocean's heartfelt message to accompany his upcoming album Channel Orange. There were toasts to Frank's liberation, to his prowess as an artist, and to the open-mindedness of Odd Future for accepting his status. Frank Ocean was the man of the hour everywhere without being anywhere.

For a loose interpreter wary of Frank's (in addition to OF as a whole) knack for picking archaic language and rosy prose over strict meaning, such as myself, I found everyone taking Frank's letter as a coming out with mixed feelings. Nowhere in the letter did the OF crooner say the word gay, bisexual, or anything related to sexual orientation. He just said he loved a man. I think in this day and age, no thanks to Anderson Cooper, everyone is jumping to find a revolutionary idol of sorts: someone who, for them, can represent everything positive about a marginalized group and serve of a bastion of the group's accomplishment within the greater majority. The letter gave hope and shouting rights to fighters of sexual liberty. That it happened on Independence Day only served to amplify the fact that a post-sexual society is on the horizon, but not here yet.

One of the things I ponder a lot is whether we're even really in a post-racial society. Yeah, my President is black and my Lambo is blue. But since the man's taken office, there's been more working against him than for him. Birthers, Tea Partiers, Mitt Romney, and Bible Belters will say that nothing about their hatred for Barry O has to do with race, but the undercurrent is too great to ignore. I think as long as the construct of race still exists in that it can be used as a basis for anything other than physical identification, we're not in a post-racial society. In the same way, as long as society keeps mentioning 'gay' or 'straight' or 'bisexual' or 'bath salt users' as a delineation, instead of a trait of the greater person, we're not past sexual preference as an issue.

It's like the old saying, 'It's not what they call you, it's what you answer to.' Frank Ocean's sexuality shouldn't even be an issue. If there wasn't a name for a sexual preference or any stigma attached to it, would it be an issue? In this day and age, where flashes in the pan are the norm, it suffices to say that there'll be another celebrity to come out of the closet and everyone will laud their bravery at barbecues and in between meetings and at happy hours. It will become the small talk of that week, and that person's status will be debated hotly because sexual preference still is a taboo topic. Not in a post-sexual society.

In this post-sexual society I imagine, your spouse will be your spouse, male or female. People won't shudder at two fathers, and there won't be a 'down low'. The words 'transgender' and 'transexual' won't mean anything anymore. Two women utilizing in vitro fertilization will be widely accepted. Post-sexual society will affect more than sexual preference, too. No one will give a damn about abortions, or womb rights, or being pro-life or pro-choice. Just like the M and F you cross out on forms, anything related to sex will become an afterthought. If we don't even mention it, it will cease to be important. It might even become one of those 'don't touch' topics like politics or religion that polite, civilized people scoff at in public (that's another post in and of itself) and hold strong opinions about behind closed doors. Who knows? The only sure thing is that Frank Ocean loved a man. Any person with a father, brother, uncle, cousin, mentor, or friend can say the same. I think that's the first step to sexuality not mattering: letting love be, regardless of who or what the target is. Lord knows we loved Frank Ocean's music before.

No Excuse Not to Wash Your Hands Now

Funny diagram, but it's so simple.. How did we not think of this before???

One thing that I hate about being in public is using public restrooms. Obviously, for men the experience is a little less unsanitary than for women. Nonetheless, the nastiness and grime that I see in people's bathroom behavior is reason enough for me to think cholera and dysentery will rear their ugly heads again. No one washes their hands! And if they do, it's a small splash of water. In the most plain terms, that don't work! It seems like people need to be reminded left and right that keeping your hands clean is the easiest route to not spending two days cuddled up with some tissue and Benadryl (much like I was yesterday). I guess the good people over at Yanko Design felt the same way, because they've come up with a combination urinal with both a urinal and faucet built in. Not only does the 'Eco Urinal' create incentive to wash your hands (the sh*t is literally in front of you), it also saves water. The water you use to wash your hand gets siphoned down in to the urinal portion to wash away whatever excrement you put out. Somehow, I think this design can change the whole public bathroom game from a nasty, potentially disease-ridden affair, to something less nerve-wracking to germaphobes. Check out a rendering of the invention, and make sure you WASH YOUR HANDS!!

Dear Reverse Sexists

So, because I don't look, dress or act like this, I'm emasculated... -____-

via The Bulletin:

Despite what feminists might argue, real men don’t wear skinny jeans. Real men also don’t wear V-neck tees, or accessorized scarves, and they avoid purple and pink like the plague. The mere idea of a pedicure or waxing makes a real man nauseous. If a woman hangs out with this kind of girly-man routinely, it’s only because she wants to share his wardrobe and his non-fat caramel macchiato. A woman can’t imagine a man reloading his double barrel shotgun or chopping wood when he’s donned in Donna Karan and drinking an Appletini. Men were meant to wear rugged Wranglers, leather jackets and boots, like they belong in a James Dean movie and not an episode of “Will & Grace.”

When did men in America go from being masculine steak-eating, plaid shirt wearing, Old Spice smelling, cigar smoking cowboys who like football, hunting, and Clint Eastwood movies to skinny jean wearing, satchel carrying, pierced ear metrosexuals who like chick flicks, “The View,” and Bath & Bodyworks? The American man is an endangered species due in large part to the over-feminization of society. Not surprisingly, the arrow of blame points towards the feminists who have transformed our schools into gender neutral zones of indoctrination. Early on, boys’ innate masculinity is suppressed by banning competitive, rough games like dodge ball and tag on the playground, having co-ed teams, not keeping score in soccer games, and rewarding passive, demure behavior.

Boys learn to subdue their more spirited, intrepid behavior in elementary and middle school, their male instincts of competition and individualism quashed in the interest of what’s best for girls as they walk like lemmings over the edge of the radical feminist cliff by the time they reach high school. Because of the feminist movement, boys aren’t allowed to be boys - society has fenced them in, corralled their adventurous enthusiasm in the name of sexual equality. The end product is pantywaist pushovers who will cry during “Steel Magnolias” and urinate sitting down. This is bad news for America, who will eventually have to reap what the feminists have sown, which will be a paucity of male leaders, entrepreneurs, scientists and heroes.

DISCLAIMER: Please do NOT take this letter regarding the wild ruminations of some wacko beat writer as my disdain for women altogether. At the same time, realize that not all of this applies to any one person, group or gender. As a society, we don't really treat the opposite sex as equally as we should, on both sides of the picture. What ends up happening is that people have to assume roles within their sex in order to feel secure in their sex, which leads to many of the misconceptions and misunderstandings between males and females. This letter is about women who feel the need to tell a man to 'man up', forgetting that they don't even know what it feels like to be a man...

One of the things I see a lot of, especially during trending topic hailstorms, is people airing out their grievances against the opposite sex. People gripe about every possible relationship problem they could ever have, and make known their ideas about what their relationships entail. The one that bothers me the most though, is the argument that men should 'man up'. Man up? What does that even mean in a literal sense? Absolutely nothing. When women say it to men condescendingly, such as the writer above, I have to ask you, do men tell you to 'woman up'? Throughout history, the plight of feminism was to gain equal standing for women and loosen their traditional role in society. Today, though there are many pitfalls to this goal of equality, huge strides have been taken by women. That said, what happens when the roles of men are generalized by women? We can't really speak out on that, can we?

I mean, when is the last time you've seen a "men's support group", helping men feel more secure about themselves or less constricted by gender roles? I can't think of any time. The truth is, masculinity is one of the most rigid structures in society. There's no room for movement. If a man doesn't fit that traditional role of a 'man's man', chopping wood, playing football, eating steaks and breaking women's hearts, he gets labeled as a p*ssy or a b*tch or whatever derogatory term is the letter of the day. But that's not the point of this post. Women telling a man to 'man up' is sooooo much worse than a man doing it. After reading Ms. Givalry's post, I have to ask you emasculating women, have you ever been a man? Do you know what it physically (never mind emotionally) means to be a man? How can a woman try to put a stereotypical gender role on a man, when she's trying to break free of one?

See, I don't get the 'men can't show emotion' and 'men can't be interested in their appearance' arguments. First of all, show me any woman who would go out with a man who didn't look relatively put together? I'm not saying he has to be fresh out of a spread in GQ, but ladies, could you see yourself dating the spawn of Oscar the Grouch and the kid from the Peanuts with the cloud of dust around him? Second of all, why is the spectrum of emotions for men limited to anger, happiness and sexual desire? Can a ninja be sad or upset for once?? For a man to open himself up to you, and be willing to share his feelings beyond those rudimentary ones is a big step for most of our kind. Downplaying it as him not being 'man enough' is about as small-minded as it can get. It's as if you get all of your ideologies about men from watching 'The Expendables' (great movie, by the way). How can YOU as a woman toss ME as a man toss me your copy of 'The Man Laws' and expect me to take you seriously? In today's world gender roles should be able to bend both ways, not just in women's favor. It stands as a testament to feminism, in a universal sense, where no one is restricted to what society deems worthy of manly or womanly. I guess my point is this ladies: If you want to sit around and talk about how men should 'man up', then you can never be upset when a man questions your feminine charms. You'd be erasing all that false power you'd built up in your head under the guise of feminism, and probably not feeling too pretty afterwards. Support the men in your life as they are, not as you think they should be...

The Census: The Unwritten Rules of Texting

#shoutout to Mashable for the interviews in Union Square...

We all text. Don't deny it. Since the advent of the smartphone (ie: Blackberries, Palms, iPhones, etc.) a few years back, texting has become almost ubiquitous. My mother texts me now (can't get my pops into it) and I don't think it's weird. Hell, I'm texting someone right now as I write this post. People have become so used to texting that phone conversation has taken somewhat of a backburner to rapid-fire fingers and day-long texting conversations. With such a reliance on the relatively new technology (the first text was send in December 1992), it stands to ask what the normal etiquette for texting is. The fact of the matter is, that with every type of communication comes a set of do's and don'ts that informally govern that communication's use. For the traditional house phone, I know if you called my home after 9 (and weren't an immediate family member, or in grave danger) you would be getting an earful. When it comes to e-mail, you generally want to be professional with people you don't know and can loosen up with friends. Communication and its different modes bring up entirely new issues than just the inception of them. So, this week the census question is, what are your unwritten rules for text messaging? Are there certain things that can be done with texting and others that you wouldn't touch with a text? What would turn you off from texting someone? As with the Census, all you guys gotta do is comment below and let the discussion begin!!

Seat Savers

I'm not going to lie. I love my space, as do most people. One of the ways that manifests itself is in seating and seating arrangements. Whether taking the bus or train or sitting in a public facility, I usually don't like sitting in close proximity to people. A bunch of you probably feel the same way. There's an effective and funny way to hold your spot down while you go about your business, or detract potential seat mates from invading your personal bubble. The good people at Shockblast created Seat Savers with nothing more than high-grade rubber. As you can tell, the effect is pretty realistic... a bit underhanded, but realistic enough to serve its purpose. If not that, it's a pretty good prank. Check out some of the different Seat Savers...

Dear Tweeple

Last year, I posted 9 rules for Twitter that stated little, unwritten by-laws for my tweeps that would keep their Twitter experiences as sucka-free as possible. That list was, by no means exhaustive, or exclusive, as we've got 8 more guidelines that will keep your timeline out of the netherworld. They're based on general findings on Twitter and seeing some annoying people polluting my timeline with their balderdash and hullabaloo (love those two words). Follow these, and if so led, follow me @elektrik788. Here goes nothing...

1. Quit tweeting like or re-tweeting Rev Run. Seriously, it's annoying. I understand that people are thirsty for inspiration, but come on... Does any other reverend that you know walk around talking about haters or making up random acronyms for hood terminology? If you find one, please nominate him for a Nobel Prize. Until then, just don't hit 'Tweet'. Imagine Twitter to be a bunch of tables in a lunch room. No one wants to talk to the guy that's walking around, spewing out inspirational quotes. As a matter of fact, people would probably laugh at him. It's not that uplifting dialogue is a bad thing. It's that most people say this stuff but don't live it. I'd rather have my timeline filled with mindless chatter than a sea of wanna-be Rev Runs. Especially when most of the tweets are about as trite and cliche as a summer of Brett Favre announcements.

2. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a rule for the sexes. Gentlemen, stop trying to bag women off Twitter. It's a social networking site, not eHarmony.com. Seriously. Just because you dedicated a #FollowFriday to her, and tweet all of her favorite songs, does not mean she will recognize you in real life or even find you attractive. As a matter of fact, unless you've actually met this person in real life, it would behoove you to NOT act like you're pulling chicks through your 140 characters. And for the ladies, this one is simple: don't be a skeezah over the internets. A few twitpics here and a few suggestive tweets there, and every male follower you have will have the wrong idea about you. It's not that you should be bashful about your sexuality or love of it. It's just that some things are better left un-tweeted, your underwear shots and bathroom pics included.

3. Allow yourself some Twitter-free time people. As much as I love to tweet my little heart out, there are times when I won't be caught dead doing it. At some point you have to run out of poignant or hilarious stuff to say, or you're just not doing anything interesting enough to tweet about. That's when you take a little break. Turn off Twidroyd (or whatever phone app you have), close the browser and go do something that doesn't involve you head buried in your lap as you type away furiously. Not only will it clear your mental registry, you'll remember why you started tweeting in the first place. Newsflash: People can tell when you're constantly on Twitter. Try spending some time away from technology, people.

4. Quit it with the follower rush. By that I mean stop talking about how many followers you have, why you don't have followers, just to name a few topics. Your Twitter isn't a personal vanity mirror for you to see how many people find you funny, cute or insightful, though it may seem that way sometimes. I'm not saying that followers aren't important. To get a message out and to make sure that people on Twitter hear it, you need followers. But followers are gained through saying things that resonate with other people, not desperate pleas for attention or using a #teamfollowback hashtag every 20 minutes. Trust me, no one on #teamfollowback cares what you have to say anyway. You might as well save yourself the tweet...

5. If you're a musician, designer, DJ, or creator of any type of media, don't tweet people with your work unsolicited. Plain as that. And that goes for your fans, too. Don't hit me and 30 other bloggers and 1000 other people you follow with a link to your mixtape, especially if you have no relationship with these folks other than being on Twitter. Not only does it look like you're desperate, but it makes your work look weaker because you have to push it so hard. Good work stands out regardless of how you find it. There's no need to flood my timeline with singles and videos and promo that myself and 95% of the people you send it to won't listen to. You'd be better off just working on your music, designing, DJing than hitting people on Twitter. Chances are, half the people who said they listened, didn't anyway. Also, doing that defeats the purpose of social networking. The key word there is 'networking'. Which chapter of the 'Idiot's Guide to Social Networking' includes pushing your product in people's faces and hoping for a response? I thought so. Build relationships on Twitter, not contact lists...

6. Learn the Twitter protocol, as in @-ing someone, re-tweeting and DMing. Yeah, this is nitpicky. Yet, how many times has a tweet been completely indecipherable because there are 5 different users in it, each re-tweeting with a different format? You might as well not even re-tweet, if the next person who sees it wonders if you and your homeboys have Twitter-dyslexia. I know I'm not the only one who's genuinely irked by seeing sloppy mentions and re-tweets. That goes for @-ing people, too. If the dialogue takes up 4 or more tweets, and is more than public in nature, just DM the person. Or better yet, e-mail, text, IM, Wave, Facebook, or even call the person. Twitter is for short messages and terse conversation, not full-on catching up.

7. I said this in the last post to you, Tweeps, but this is really irking me. People, 1f YuH tYp3 LyK3 DiSz, 1 WiLl uNf0110wH YuH... It's as simple as that. There's nothing cute or cool about misspelling words on purpose. Some terminology needs to be either abbreviated or adjusted for spatial reasons, and other terminology just doesn't lend itself to typing. Making exceptions for those is cool. However, turning your tweet into a mashup of Matrix code, hood ratchetness, and a Rosetta Stone lesson is about as cool as putting rims on a minivan. Not only do you look stupid, everyone riding in that van (retweeting; if anyone does it) looks retarded too. People wonder why literature and writing are going down the shitter. Just one look at Twitter, and we know why. Just because it's the internets, does not mean grammar, spelling, diction, and punctuation go out the window...

8. One of the best parts when I began was the trending topics. At any given point in the day there was a topic or hashtag worth tweeting about. The topics ranged from anything to sports, everyday life, music, or what have you. Now all of the topics are relationship ones, usually bashing the opposite sex. It's either that, or rehashed versions of older topics. It's not that I have a problem with new tweeps getting their try at the #TT's. It's that most of the heads 'going in' on these topics have been going in on them for months now. Give it a rest. We know you don't like hoes. We know you love sex. We know you're pro-Obama on everything and #cantstand a horde of things. Doesn't mean we have to hear about it every day, with a different hashtag attached to it...

9. Point blank, most celebrities have Twitter for one reason, and one reason alone: promotion. If you can't help them with that, aren't one of their personal friends, or don't have anything constructive to say to them, please stop tweeting them as if you were such. These people wouldn't recognize you in a police lineup or walking down the street. What makes you think that they care about your tweets more than the next user? Yeah, that's negative. Yeah, it's sad. But it's true. As a matter of fact, if you keep hitting them up and they don't respon, what does that say about you? Maybe you should focus on having something of worth to tweet about rather than sucking at the kneecaps of Ashton Kutcher and Diddy...

There you have it, tweeps. Another year, and another list of things that will get you unfollowed. Don't take some of these grievances personally, because we're all guilty of them at some point. It's just that some tweeps take them overboard, while others are only momentarily guilty. Take heed, so you don't get labeled 'that guy' on Twitter...

Dear Gay Marriage

My how times HAVEN'T changed...

via The New York Times:

A federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing a temporary victory to gay rights advocates in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court. Wednesday’s decision is just the latest chapter of what is expected to be a long legal battle over the ban — Proposition 8, which was passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote -- and proponents were already promising to appeal, confidently predicting that higher courts would be less accommodating to the other side than Vaughn R. Walker, the judge who issued the ruling.

Still, the very existence of federal-level ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in California, the nation’s most populous state, set off cheers from crowds assembled in front of the courthouse in San Francisco Wednesday afternoon. Evening rallies and celebrations were planned in dozens of cities across California and several across the nation.

In San Francisco, the plaintiffs’ case was argued by David Boies and Theodore Olson, ideological opposites who once famously sparred in the 2000 Supreme Court battle beween George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount and the presidency. The lawyers brought the case — Perry v. Schwarzenegger — in May 2009 on behalf of two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. For gay rights advocates, same-sex marriage has increasingly become a central issue in their battle for equality, seen as both an emotional indicator of legitimacy and as a practical way to lessen discrimination.

I've got a confession to make. You know those annoying 18-24 year olds you see in train stations and on street corners in trendy neighborhoods trying to get you to give them money for (insert cause here)? Well, I was one of those people. Albeit, it was only for two months as I raised some much needed funding, but I learned a great deal about patience and the importance of lobbying. That's neither here nor there. It's just to say that the movement to legalize you, gay marriage has been bubbling over for years now. Gay marriage, I'm not going to sit ehre and say that I'm completely for you. I believe that homosexuality is wrong religiously. Yet, as I so eloquently placed in my pitches to passers-by, there's no reason that the government should be able to tell people who they can't marry. None.

Gay marriage, you are this generation's civil rights movement (along with health care reform and marijuana (for some), which is quite refreshing to say, honestly. You are this generation's (hopeful) victory that we will be able to look back on in 20 years and say that we supported rather than downplayed. While the ruling in California only overturned Proposition 8 in that state, and is likely to be appealed by those stick-up-the-ass conservatives, you're still something to fight for. You give a silent group a voice by allowing them the same unalienable rights that every other potential marriage should have. The United States is full of kooky double standards that no one wants to fess up to. Your banning is one of those double standards. How can we call ourselves the land of the free when some of our citizens can't marry freely, or the home of the brave when a good portion of our citizens are scared of you becoming legal? America talks a good talk, but until you have your fair day in court and come out a free institution, our country is failing on its promises and its Constitution. I guess this is kind of a preachy letter. At the same time, the opposition are still preaching, using religion and fear to influence political views against you. If they can stand in their (proverbial) pulpits, I can use my keyboard. I may not agree with you're concept spiritually, but politically you should be as legal as anything, gay marriage. Relish this victory, because the road won't get easier from here on out. I suppose the fight is half the beauty of victory, though. Keep fighting...

Dear Racial Ambiguity

In about 200 years (pending the End of Days, 2012 and any catastrophic world disasters), when we look back on the cultural and biological makeup of humanity, this will be considered the beginning of a society of homogeneous people. This letter is weird to write, for two reasons:

A) How easily skin pigmentation fragments us. No matter how much people want to say that they are color blind, the skin (and it's color) are the first thing that one sees. People take skin color to indicate much more than it should, even in today's 'post-racial society'. That a newborn child has more or less broken every rule we knew about genetics, and skin color, is a shock to most people nor an easy pill to swallow. The birth of this 'white' baby to these 'black' parents (note the quotation marks) is the beginning a new era in human genetics: that of racial ambiguity. Because of you, the entire notion of skin color will die in a matter of centuries. People won't be too happy about that either. For many, skin color is a delineating mark. With your advent, there is one less marker for people to judge with.

B) As a black person, proud of my heritage, it's exciting, yet disconcerting to think that race may die out. Where will the culture and folklore I've grown to know end up? Will they be celebrated as a part of your new hold on humanity, or will some cultures scatter like dust in the wind? Will some parts of your 'new race's' culture hold still, while other parts get discarded as useless or classless or outmoded? How can we be sure that in 200 years black or Hispanic or Asian culture won't die out or that one won't be held up over another?

Both A) and B) are legitimate concerns, but this birth signals a pivotal time in humanity. Racial ambiguity, you've long been a heralded black sheep in genetics. Your tendency to make people 'universally beautiful' is lauded, yet people chafe at the racial issues that come into play. I can only imagine the kind of internal strife that this child will experience in it's post-latent years. From taunts to questions to weird looks, that baby's blond hair may be as much a bane as it is a blessed surprise. Then again, in this post-racial society, where your presence is heralded, she may very well be a golden child. Who's really to know at this point? What we do know is that somehow two black parents, with two black children, birthed a child who would be considered traditionally white. Racial ambiguity, it stands to say that your shroud will still be appreciated in a post-racial society, though it still may not hide you from criticism. You're something that people fear but secretly lust after. That this child achieved it through natural birth is incredible. Hopefully by the time she's old enough to write, her racial identity will be solid and understood to her, but really won't even matter any more...

Facebook in Real Life

It's always funny to see technology transposed with the real life that it's supposed to enhance. In the case of Facebook, if we were to translate every poke, wall post, invitation or friend request into a real life situation, it would be.. awkward, to say the least. As a matter of fact, if Facebook was a real life, face to face thing, I don't think I'd have a Facebook. In face, Mark Zuckerberg would probably be just another geeky Harvard grad, because people would be too creeped out by all of the stuff popping up around them. If you don't see yourself wanting to say or do these things outside of the computer, then maybe you should cut back on the Facebook action. I know a friend request from a random person on the street, who happens to have mutual friends, would probably get ignored. Yet, online, it's fair game. I guess it's just something to think about, albeit in a humorous way. Check the video out...

Dear George 'the germaphobe' Bush

Wow, George. Just... WOW. Just when I thought we'd seen the last of your idiotic trademark social faux pas', you give all of the racist germaphobes something to cheer for. Now that you've finally gotten the f*ck out of the Oval Office ended your tenure as President, I suppose it was a good look to do a bit of political maneuvering under the guise of goodwill and charity. No harm in that, whatsoever. You accompanied everyone's other favorite black President, Bill Clinton, to Haiti for some photo ops and to make sure you weren't the only politician (yes, you are and will always be a politician) who didn't show your face in the earthquake-rattled country. That said, it was a valiant effort, until the little bigoted devil on your shoulder reared its ugly head. Part of being a politician is shaking hands. In fact, I'd say most politicians have shaken more hands than they've read books or written speeches. So the practice naturally would be extended, no matter what country you're in. George, in the act of shaking hands, there are a few things you shouldn't do:

1) Cough or sneeze before you extend your hand.
2) Refuse to shake a hand.
3) Make any remark or action in disgust or aberration of the handshake.

That's a pretty simple list, George. As a matter of fact, you should probably know these already, considering that you were the President. I mean, for God's sake, how do you ascend to that office without knowing handshake etiquette? That seems like a given. And in all honesty, doing it in Haiti was just a bad move. If it isn't some wacko reverend claiming that they're evil, it's rampant poverty or an earthquake plaguing the people of Haiti. The least you can do is shake their hands without looking like you just ingested a bile and dirt sandwich. They've been through a hell of a lot more than you, and probably should be the ones wiping their hands. They sure as hell don't have as much blood on their hands as you do, Georgie boy...

Office X-Mas Party Gone Terribly Wrong

Everyone has THAT friend (or co-worker in this case). You know. The one who can't hold their liquor and suddenly becomes the love child of Rush Limbaugh and Kurt Cobain; inebriated and outspoken. This video is like a public service announcement to those people, as well as the friends who let them dip a little too far into the deep end of the liquor pool. This holidays, don't let a few too many drinks on Christmas Eve turn into a CRAPPY New Year. Be safe, friends...

Dear Facebook

Wow, oh great book of faces. It's been almost 5 years since I was a lowly high school student getting invited onto the greatest social network ever, by a college student. In those 5 years, I've seen you grow from Myspace's college-educated brother to an opiate for the masses only comparable to heroin. Obviously, since I've moved on to Twitter, you've taken somewhat of a backburner. However, stalking on your network (everyone does it; I'm not afraid to admit it) is still a highlight of my day. That brings me to my point.

When you unraveled your new privacy settings, I thought to myself: So? Since Facebook started, it's been no secret that privacy was going to be of utmost concern. No on wants those drunken pictures from the weekend, or that message/wall post that they weren't supposed to send to end up a laughingstock. It's good that you guys finally decided to simplify and make your privacy settings better. That said, why was it ever NOT a priority? I suppose at the growth stage you're at, it's all about tightening up the ship. But that's not even my point.

When it comes to privacy, the responsibility should lie with the user first and above all. Facebook, you're a company first; a business, not a social network. You're resolve is to make money through social networking, no matter how nasty the results. If as a Facebook user you know you took some less than flattering pictures this weekend, then UNTAG THEM! If you don't want everyone seeing your profile, limit that thing! If you don't like pokes, disable them! The problem with you, Facebook, is that you've made put of our dirty laundry into nice blue boxes, so that people forget that it's the internet, and NOTHING is safe. Yet and still, people continue to lose their jobs, friends and dignity off of internet stupidity. It's like the person who buys an untrained rotweiller and then is surprised when it bites someone's hand off. Facebook, you've tightened your end of the bargain in terms of privacy. Now it's time for the users to do their part...

Your Year-End Letter

Not that I'm misanthropic (I'm a social introvert, according to AKZionz), but I know I'm not the only one on this planet who balks at some of the random social gestures we extend during the holidays. This song is all about those little niceties that everyone accepts, but no one remembers. I'm all for catching up with old friends, but getting a Christmas form letter or one of those family photos from random acquaintances seems pointless to me. Why waste your ink and money, and my reading time over something you could have told me over the phone??