Rules for being a MAN

First off, let's not misinterpret what I mean by MAN. This is not a masculine/feminine thing. It's more about being someone people can count on. I know lots of women who would make better men than some of the guys I know. Maybe that's partly the point here.

Real men have very clear ideas about what's important, and what's right and wrong, and will stand up for those things.

Some of these things take time ( and maturity? ) to develop, so if you are under the age of 30, some of this won't even register.

* Real men cut their own grass. As silly as it sounds, unless you have acreage and some kind of physical restriction, you should be cutting your own grass. The exception to that is when one of your kids is tall enough to start the lawnmower themselves, then your job is to help them do it correctly. And yes, real men use gas powered lawnmowers, electric ones are for little old ladies. My mother-in-law used a gas one until she was almost 70.

*Real men drive trucks. Cars and mini vans are for women. If you are still driving around in   a sunfire or a civic with a big wing stuck on the back of it, first of all no one is impressed except you, and secondly you haven't matured into a man yet anyway, so you still have time. Besides, a car should only be something you drive when you can't ride your motorcycle.

*White wine is for two things, it is for women and for cooking. Pretty straight forward. 

* Real men don't walk around with their pants half-way, or more, down their ass. When did the whole " I don't know how to dress myself" fashion thing happen, I guess I missed the memo on that one. 

* Real men back into parking spots. Look around a mall parking lot next time you're out, count the men.
* Real men do not own any breed of dog with "itz" or "poo" in it. Dogs are not fashion accessories, but then it's also virtually impossible to carry around a 180lb Mastiff around in your european shoulder bag.

* Real men don't just "share" their feelings without having them extracted surgically first. Doesn't mean we don't have any, it just means they're ours and we want to keep them that way.

* When your wife asks what are you thinking about, and you reply "nothing", that's what you mean, nothing. Men have this empty space in our brains that's very quiet and no one else is allowed to go. Sometimes when you're discussing what colour curtains should go in the bedroom, we might just go there.

* Real men are not afraid to take charge when it's necessary. It's not about being the boss, it's about being a leader. But it's also important to know when to stand back and let things happen. You also lead by example. Is it a tough job, then show the world you can do it. 

* Real men are not loud and obnoxious, they don't need to spout off about how much or how big something is, it sounds more like you are insecure and trying to compensate somehow. Being quiet shows confidence. 

* Think back to the golden age of Hollywood, who were the real men in back then? John Wayne, Steve McQueen, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, Burt Lancaster. They would still be considered men by today's standards, so why have we stepped so far away from that now.

* A real man will stand up for what's right. He will help those that need it, even at the risk of his own safety. He is never a bully, but he is always strong, physically and emotionally. He is someone you can count on. If you need help, you ask him, and he helps. Even at his own expense.

* A real man knows the importance of his family. He helps them he keeps them safe, he's not afraid to make an ass of himself for the sole purpose of entertaining his kids. 

Be a MAN, the world needs more of us.

Has social media increased the quality of news and information, or decreased it?

    If you take a picture, does that make you a photographer? Not really. So if you happen to post something about an event you witnessed, does that make you a reporter? Sorry, "citizen journalist"(sounds rather socialist, doesn't it? kind of like "citizen general".).Of course it doesn't.
  Lets say you read a post by an individual, do you take the entire post as being factual, or do you compare the story to what professional news sources say about it? If the story is even remotely important, you will check with more traditional sources like television and radio. And just because 100 or even 1000 people report something, it doesn't make it accurate, or even remotely true. Professional journalists reputations, and consequently their livelihood, depend entirely on the accuracy of their sources. Check, re-check, and check again. Making sure the information is accurate before it's published or goes to air. Are "citizen journalists" taking the same amount of care before reporting?
  The amount of false information is almost unmeasurable, it's so vast. How can that improve quality? Is there more news being reported daily now then before the advent of social media? Of course there is. Having more of something does not increase it's quality, in fact the opposite is usually true.
People feel that they must have their information now instead of waiting until later that day or the next. Perhaps by waiting that extra hour or day, we allowed the news to distill itself, filter out all the contaminants to the point where we end up with something a little more palatable, more truthful.
Professional journalists have access to sources that "citizen journalists"( sorry, I really don't care for that term, it implies a degree of professionalism, where there really isn't any ), simply do not. A journalist that has gone to school, and paid their dues in the trenches trying to get that big story, will also have access to confidential sources that non-professionals will not.
  I was always taught that you should think about what you say, before you say it. If news from social media was presented in much in the same way, then the quality of news likely would improve, but instead we end up with far too many posting, before thinking.
All media has an agenda, social media even more so. Their agenda appears to be to further the cause of social media, and therefore the inherent commercialism that goes with it, as opposed to simply presenting events. To create the impression that because it came through social media channels, somehow it's more important or relevant.
  Diluting information into little, tiny soundbites, not enough for a clear understanding, but just enough to make you think you are clearly informed. Compared to a newspaper for example , where a story can be broken down and explained clearly enough that you can actually make an informed opinion about a story.
  The latest weapon in the social media war, is drone journalism. Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's), to photograph events from high up. Inexpensive, easy to operate, and mostly risk free. They are not just used by governments either, individuals wishing to capture a particular angle (literally), can also acquire one. So not only is Big Brother watching, but little brother is too. Now you don't need to be anywhere near an event to report on it. You can interpret what's going on by a picture taken from several thousand feet up. Have we forgotten what reporting from the field used  to mean? Have you ever heard recordings of Edward R. Murrow reporting from London  during the height of the Blitz. You can actually hear not only the bombs going off around him, but the planes that just dropped them, flying overhead. Have you seen the video of Walter Cronkite reporting on the assassination Of President Kennedy? You could see the emotion it what he was saying. Can you get that with someone using their I-Phone to report a story? You can't tell if they are even being serious or not.The information was far more in-depth, and more importantly, personal.Can you get that with someone using their I-Phone to report a story? You can't tell if they are even being serious or not.They were speaking to you directly, instead of just posting something in the hopes that the most number of people possible will see, with no real concern about how well it has been understood.
  Is it better, no. Is there more, of course. Is more better? Not as far as I can see.
 
 

Is social media the greatest revolution in human history?

Well, not really, no.
  It should be, but we're not quite there yet. The tools and the technology are in place to make it happen, but we are not utilizing it for anything close to what it could, or should be.
  Technology is not advancing any faster now than it has in the past, certainly not since the industrial revolution. When you think back to the early days of aviation, it took less than 15 years for man to take powered flight from an idea, to operating commercial airlines for the public. Look how far we have advanced with on-line communication in the last 15 years.I don't see much difference.
  The current generation was for the most part raised "online". They don't know life any other way. In order for something to be revolutionary, you need to have some experience with how things were before hand, they do not.
The ability to communicate globally, has absolutely increased to levels never witnessed before, but what are we using that technology for? Looking up recipes, letting your friends know you just bought a pair of shoes, playing online games where you pretend to be someone else, watching videos of people making asses of themselves? Surely there are better uses for all this technology?
  We have in the recent past seen hints of the kind of good social media is capable of. When a large scale human tragedy strikes, it's often communicated through social media first which can help provide relief much quicker than more traditional channels of communication. But how many times have you seen someone taking videos or pictures of  some horrible car accident, and then posting them? How does that help anyone, especially the victims involved?Imagine how long in must have taken to stop and do an oil painting of a horrible horse & buggy accident, and having to wait for people to come to you to view your picture of the horrible tragedy. It's so much easier now.
  So now we have created an environment where advertising is so pervasive, that you cannot escape it anywhere. Every web page you visit has some kind of advertising on it. Everything you do or say on line is monitored and recorded for marketing purposes later. And people are willing to allow this, strictly so they can have the convenience of posting their status on Facebook! We should be far more concerned about the direction this is going than it appears we are. It looks like George Orwell was right, big brother is watching! 
  I'm not sure I'd call it a revolution, a monster perhaps. One that if we keep feeding the way we are, it will eventually turn and swallow us whole. I think we need to be a little more selective with what we feed it. We may yet see a revolution, but so far it hasn't happened. 

The revolution will not be televised................................
It'll be posted as someone's Facebook status.







"The revolution will not be televised" - Gil Scott Heron, 1970
" Big Brother is watching"                       - George Orwell, ( from the book , 1984 )