Archive for the 'Society' Category



23
Nov

The O’Neil Grant Story

Anybody who was in Toronto in 1994 will remember the Just Desserts case. On April 5 of that year, three young Black men entered a cafe in the downtown area intending to carry out an armed robbery. In the process one of the patrons, a Greek-Canadian girl named Georgina Leimonis, was shot and killed.

The shooting generated outrage throughout the city. The indignation grew further when it was discovered that one of the suspects, “Tiger” O’Neil Grant, had earlier been ordered deported to his native Jamaica for committing a series of crimes, including assault with a weapon. While he was ultimately acquitted of all charges in connection with the Just Desserts incident, in 2002 he was sent back to the country in which he was born.

O’Neil Grant’s name surfaced once again at the beginning of this month. In the November 12 issue of the Toronto Star, Sandro Contenta reported that Grant had been shot dead in Kingston, Jamaica on October 29 2007. His murder has remained unsolved: some speculated that the shooting was ordered from Toronto, others that Grant, who was romantically involved with two women at the same time, was killed as part of a love triangle.

Contenta portrayed O’Neil Grant as a good boy who had taken a few wrong turns along the way. Though Contenta admitted that before the Just Desserts acquittal Grant had not been a model immigrant, he had since then shaped up, caring for his aged grandmother, finding a steady job, and, perhaps more importantly, not racking up any criminal record in Jamaica. Grant had always hoped to return to Canada, “the greatest country in the world” in his own words, and felt betrayed by the Canadian justice system that ultimately deported him. The Star article contained a photograph of Grant’s youngest child, a baby born five days after his death, as if to remind readers of those he left behind.

A much more inflammatory piece appeared in Toronto’s NOW Magazine by senior editor Enzo DiMatteo. Asking rhetorically “Should the pols who ran Just Desserts accused out of town bear some blame for O’Neil Grant’s fate?, DiMatteo depicted Grant as a scapegoat for the “anti-black immigration hysteria” fomented by the police and ruling class following the Just Desserts incident. In addition Grant was supposedly traumatized by his nearly six-year stay in the Don Jail while awaiting trial. DiMatteo cast particular blame on former Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi, who stated that Grant should have been deported long before the shooting.

On the other side of the spectrum, in an article in the Toronto Sun Joe Warmington scoffed at the portrayal of O’Neil Grant as a victim, either in life or in death. The real victim, according to Warmington, was Georgina Leimonis. Warmington spoke scathingly of efforts by friends and family to bring Grant’s body back to Canada for burial.

I have followed the Just Desserts case since its beginning (incidentally, at the time it occurred I was house-sitting for a friend just around the corner from the cafe), so I will make some comments on the three stories mentioned above. It is true that as in the Jane Creba murder eleven years later, White racists used Georgina Leimonis’ death to grind their own axes, although unlike Enzo DiMatteo I don’t believe they were spurred on by politicians or the police. For example, at a makeshift memorial for her at the site someone left a sign saying, “Kill your own. Leave us alone.” (Ironically, at the beginning of the last century some American White Supremacists opposed immigration by Greeks and other groups such as Jews and Syrians on the grounds that the United States should be for the”White man.”)

I have trouble with DiMatteo’s and Contenta’s picture of O’Neil Grant as a victim. If Grant really did turn his life around as Contenta claimed, he (Grant) should be given some credit. Yet even if Grant did not pull the trigger of the gun that caused Leimonis’ demise, surely he knew what his companions were doing when they set foot in the Just Desserts café and was aware that in any armed robbery the chances of someone getting killed or seriously injured are high. While he expressed bitterness over what he saw as a betrayal by the Canadian authorities, Grant never once appeared to express sympathy for Georgina Leimonis or her family. I might feel sorry for Grant over the fact he died violently at a young age, but not over his inability to return to Canada. Similarly questionable, in my view, was the notion perpetrated by DiMatteo and Contenta that Grant was shipped to a “strange country” (i.e. Jamaica). In fact Grant had spent most of his formative years there (he came to Canada at the age of twelve) and was familiar with the language and culture of that nation, which are basically the same as those of Anglophone Canada. It is not as if Grant had been deported to Japan, a country with a completely different culture which does not even use the same writing system as Canada and most other Western nations.

On other hand, I’m not completely in tune with Joe Warmingtonâ’s portrayal of Grant as if he were second in command to Satan himself. Grant was after all acquitted of any direct responsibility in Leimonis’ death. I also believe that if Grant’s family wants to bring his body back to Canada, they should be free to do so (how dangerous is a dead man?) as long as they pay for the expenses out of their own, as opposed to the taxpayers’, pocket.

With regard to Enzo DiMatteo’s question - should the politicians who sent Grant back to Jamaica be held morally and/or legally responsible for his death - my answer is a resounding no. As I’ve written in a previous essay, individuals found guilty of a crime committed in a country not their own (that is, of which they are not citizens) forfeit their right to reside there. Canada was right to deport him, and I’ll even agree with Sergio Marchi, of whom I was by the way no great fan, that Grant should have been thrown out much earlier. Not that it would have saved Leimonis’ life, but at the very least it would have spared us the expense of keeping Grant in prison and putting him on trial.

These are my observations on the story of O’Neil Grant. Please feel free to add your own.

22
Nov

Legislating the “Flame”

The high-profile suicide of Megan Meier has taken a sad political turn, as officials in her hometown attempt to transform grieving into governance -

City officials unanimously passed a measure Wednesday making online harassment a crime, days after learning that a 13-year-old girl killed herself last year after receiving cruel messages on the Internet.
The six-member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail. Mayor Pam Fogarty said the city had proposed the measure after learning about Megan Meier’s death.
“It is our hope that by supporting one of our own in Dardenne Prairie, we can do our part to ensure this type of harassing behavior never happens again, anywhere,” Fogarty said, adding, “after all, harassment is harassment regardless of the mechanism or tool.”
Several dozen people broke into applause after the measure was passed.

It’s time to inject some sanity into this hoopla. What happened to Megan was tragic but the “insults” she endured online were far from the worst abuse that floats around even on a standard political chat board.

More importantly, virtually no child doesn’t know what (s)he’s getting into when signing up for MySpace or other social networking services. With few exceptions, people join these sites to put their business in public view – typically referred to as “attention whoring” on chat boards. The copious clubbing pictures, artistic dedication, sad poetry, and vanity user groups are all a way of saying “look at me – embrace me!”. This interaction is no different from real world EXCEPT that it is easier to dupe someone via fake personas.

Should impersonation in itself be crime? It already is in some instances (particularly when dealing with business matters) but the enforcement of such a law wouldn’t have made any difference for Megan Meier. According to news sources, she hung herself moments after being rejected – still under the assumption that “Josh Evans” was a real person. The obvious question is “what’s stopping this from happening in real life?”. Back in the traditional FaceLife world, boys and girls both have long sought pleasure leading on “inferior” members of the opposite sex, with the singular goal of shooting them down as meanly and publicly as possible. Unfortunate victims of these public attacks suffer considerable short term embarrassment and perhaps some longer-term confidence issues, but the overwhelming majority do not commit suicide. The proportion of victims who kill themselves after enduring similar ribbing on an impersonal medium susceptible to impersonations is likely smaller.

Dardene Prairie officials freely admit that their feel-good law is not enforceable anywhere outside city borders. The 2000 US Census lists the town’s population as barely over 4,000 so internet users at large have little to fear … or do we? Nothing guarantees the passage of hysteria-induced legislature quite like a sympathetic-looking teenage girl whose life was ended pre-maturely by evil outside forces. Since news outlets tend to report these types of stories in clusters to create the impression of an epidemic (e.g. the string of “noose” incidents reported after the original Jena incident), several more net-inspired suicides will likely come to light. The resulting hysteria will of course sell more newspapers and could -more dangerously- result in more feel-good legislation on the city, state/province or national level.

But who’s going to decide what constitutes cruelty? How does one user know what another user can put up with? Is photo-shopping a picture cruel? How about catching someone in a lie and reporting it online? How will the law address issues of impersonation? One stolen password could jail the owner of a popular internet persona.

Popular culture and media may forever to serve as a scapegoat every time tragedy strikes a valued member of society and those who sat by idly seek to redirect their guilt. Most of these attacks will be narrowly-focused and forgettable but some, if not checked, could lead to serious attacks on our freedom of expression. The Megan Meier case was saddening, but exacting political revenge on the dog-eat-dog aspect of social networking will not prevent the next depressed teen from voluntarily leaving this earth.

07
Nov

The Folly of Africentric Schools … and Why they Should be Allowed Anyway

From the Toronto Star:

Admitting it is failing some students of colour, the Toronto public board could open a black-focused school as early as next fall.

Two community meetings are planned in the next week to discuss the idea of an “African-centred alternative school” from junior kindergarten to Grade 8 that would have more black teachers, black mentors, more focus on students’ heritage and more parent involvement.

“Whatever is being used in the system at this moment is failing a lot of students – and more specifically a lot of black students,” said Donna Harrow, a community worker who is behind the push for such a school, along with Etobicoke parent Angela Wilson.

Race-based schooling, despite its good intentions, is a dangerous way to combat academic failure for three main reasons -

Problem #1: Black-Focused Schools are Hypocritical

As some bloggers have already opined, it is sadly ironic that members from the racial group responsible for the biggest civil rights / integration push in North American history now campaign for racially-segregated schooling. Alas, that is not what I was alluding to – rather, Ontario just had an election that focused inordinately on the possibility of public funding for religious-based schools. Ontario Conservative leader John Tory staked his reputation on support for the initiative and Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty howled in protest. The voting public were equally dismayed with the idea and Tory was slaughtered at the polls (failing to even win a seat for himself). For the McGuinty government to consider race-based schooling barely a month later is a double standard beyond reproach – and a betrayal of the public confidence.

Problem #2: The Segregation Genie

If blacks are allowed to have their own schools, who’s to say that the Portuguese –another group said to be underperforming academically- won’t want their own as well? On the other end of the spectrum, why couldn’t the high-successful Chinese also apply for segregated schooling? Chinese culture is quite unique from the European experience, there are far more Chinese than blacks in Toronto and the Chinese could additionally claim that public schools aren’t teaching their high performing children quickly enough (or at least SOME of them could claim the latter).

An additional wrinkle – contrary to what fund-chasing activists publicly proclaim, there is no such thing as black culture. The “black” population of Toronto comprises of several ethnic groups from four continents. The primary groups are Jamaicans, Trinidadians, Somalis, Ethiopians and Nigerians. Jamaicans and Trinidadians have a somewhat similar culture due to their shared history of slavery and Euro-Centric indoctrination. The East Africans -Somalis and Ethiopians- and somewhat similar, owing much to Arabic influence and the fact that both states have been historically independent as they do to any notion of blackness. Nigerians belong to a third faction (West Africans) and have a different history altogether. Now, if these schools are being justified on cultural and historical relevance grounds, how the heck can you place these three factions of “blacks” together? Jamaicans are the most notorious of the black groups for crime and poor school performance – why would they care about Haile Selassie any more than they would about Winston Churchill? Will the East Africans continue to be isolated if there are no bilingual classes in Soomaali and Amharic? How finely will the school population have to be subdivided to eliminate all of these supposedly incapacitating barriers?

Problem #3: History Classes Cannot Override Social Deficiencies

The most dubious claim by proponents of an Africentric curriculum is that the inclusion of African history will increase interest and subsequently the achievements of black students. If that is the case, how come Asians are doing so well despite little instruction on the dynasties of Ancient China (which would still be of little use to a Vietnamese immigrant)? Better yet, why aren’t Jamaican children as a whole performing much better in Jamaica, where the history classes are heavily oriented towards local culture? The answer lies in both history and economics: except for the rich upper classes, Jamaican kids are doing extremely poorly in school and end up feeding a gang culture far worse than multicultural Canada. Jamaica’s murder rate has consistently been in the top 5 for the world, surpassing considerably poorer states like Zambia and political hot-spots like India (whose students tend to do quite well in Toronto).

More academically-successful immigrants emigrating from places like India and Hong Kong tend to be wealthy and well-educated in their homelands. More recent Jamaican immigrants, by contrast, tend to be from the poorer classes who lived in shanty-towns embroiled in gang wars precipitated by the nation’s two political parties. Education in Jamaica is still largely a privilege of the wealthy.

This cultural disparity was exacerbated by the refocusing of Canada’s immigration point system away from academic traits and in favour of required employment experience, which took place during the late 1970’s. Entry to Canada became more difficult for Jamaican university graduates and much easier for housekeepers. Most Jamaicans –even wealthier ones- were not and are not able to “buy” their way into Canada like their Asian counterparts, causing freshly-educated Jamaicans to look elsewhere for migration. The revised immigration policy also favoured single workers over family units, which caused many Jamaican women to leave their children behind to get a job in Canada. Many applied to have their children emigrate later as direct family members once the rules became more family-friendly.

The social effects of this migration pattern should be obvious – a child that grew up with one or zero natural parents in an unstable environment with poor education would beseverely ill-equipped to handle the pressures of living in Canada. (S)he would have to live in an alien culture with a mildly-educated mother who was never around through the formative years and often still won’t be around due to long work hours, the lack of a father, and a culture of origin that placed little emphasis on academics. In short, many of these kids, by nurture, have no value for learning and become more economically isolated as manufacturing and other low-education jobs cease to exist in Canada’s service-oriented economy.

My question to the Africentric scholars – do you seriously think this social problem can be fixed by teaching more history lessons about Africa?

…

That said, I don’t officially oppose Africentric schools. Why? Because Ontario is already segregating schools, as stated in the article. One cannot seriously oppose Africentric schools without proceeding to oppose native-only schools and the entire Catholic school board. To attack one type of focused school system is at best myopic and at worst biased. Thus, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed - just mind the slippery slope.

29
Oct

The New Age Movement - A Christian Perspective

One evening in October, I went out with a friend and left my daughter in the care of a babysitter, a nice Hungarian woman in her early fifties. When I returned, the babysitter told me excitedly that the next day she was planning to attend the psychic fair. While she didn’t specifically invite me along with her, she obviously felt news about the event was worth spreading (I didn’t go, by the way).

Indeed, the Toronto annual psychic fair has been an attraction for some time now. This year’s features include demonstrations and seminars on astrology, palmistry, clairvoyance, numerology and healing crystals among other things. But one need not go to the psychic fair to witness Torontonians’ fascination with the paranormal. Almost every daily newspaper contains a horoscope section. Psychics set up shop in storefronts, promising to solve prospective clients’ life problems. Books like James Van Praagh’s Talking to Heaven, which describes how to get in contact with dead loved ones, and Shirley MacLaine’s Out on a Limb, in which the actress discusses her purported past lives, make the bestseller lists. It seems that all the city – and all the nation, for that matter – is in the thralls of the New Age movement.

My own reaction to such activities is one of scepticism and amusement. I mean who could not laugh at the image of Shirley MacLaine running around on a beach shouting out “I am God”? I tend to see things like tea leaves and tarot cards as silly but harmless. In time, however, some new questions have emerged in my mind. How should I as a practising Christian (Lutheran, to be more specific) approach the New Age movement? Is it the path to enlightenment or the road to hell?

The Christian community’s reaction to the New Age movement has been mixed. On one hand are those who consider it the work of the devil. Calgary Sun columnist Licia Corbella once objected to covering a psychic fair on religious grounds – though she ended up going, on her boss’ orders, and exposing a palm reader there as a fraud. At the other end of the spectrum are Christians who embrace psychic phenomena, not seeing any contradiction between them and their religious faith. Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was a devout Presbyterian but consulted with fortune tellers and claimed to communicate with the spirit of his dead dog. Sometimes entire denominations have incorporated New Age tenets into their theology. The Christian Spiritualist Church, for example, emphasizes contact with the deceased as one of its core beliefs.

Some Christian authorities have adopted a different outlook towards the New Age movement. Anglican priest and journalist Tom Harpur, for instance, wrote a column in the Toronto Star in which he expressed doubts about most of the movement’s doctrines but stated that for some people it fulfilled a spiritual need that was not being met by traditional religion. A similar view was taken by Lutheran theologian Ted Peters in his book The Cosmic Self.

I agree with Harpur that some individuals may turn to the New Age movement because they feel alienated by traditional faiths. Why then, one might ask, do they reject mainstream religion? Perhaps they are tired of the focus on sin and guilt by some organized religions. For example, a friend of mine remembers a teacher at her parochial (not Lutheran, by the way) high school informing the class that they were selfish and “thought the world revolved around themselves.” Nor does the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders, like televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, help the cause of Christianity as a whole.

The other side of the coin is the accusation that the New Age movement offers its followers the benefits of traditional religion - inner peace, enlightenment - without the demands, such as self-sacrifice and humility. This charge has been made not only by Christian critics of the movement but by secular ones as well, like Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. I would add, however, that not all traditional religionists are humble or altruistic people and that many secular movements, such as the drug culture (which, like New Age, emerged in full force in the 1960s), also focus on the self to the exclusion of others.

Finally, how should a Christian approach the New Age movement? Obviously some New Age doctrines are incompatible with Christianity, such as Shirley MacLaine’s view that we ourselves are God. Similarly, the portrayal by some New Age proponents of Jesus as an “ascended Master” is surely at odds with his status as the Son of God. While things like astrology and clairvoyance don’t strike me as particularly nefarious, I might wonder why someone with a great faith in Jesus Christ would resort to them in an effort to, say, resolve personal problems. One means of countering any New Age influence is to ensure as a church that the true message of Christ and the gospel of hope reach all people.

03
Oct

Another Look at Abortion

Monday’s Globe & Mail carried a story about abortion. Apparently women in the Ottawa area who wish to terminate their pregnancies are waiting longer than usual – sometimes weeks – to do so due to staffing shortages at hospitals that perform the procedure. As was to be expected, pro-choicers and pro-lifers reacted differently to the news: the former with frustration at what they saw as women’s difficulty in exercising their reproductive rights and the latter with hope that the delays might cause some women to rethink their decision. One point on which members of both camps concurred, however: Canadians aren’t thinking much about abortion these days.

Indeed, abortion appears to have passed from the limelight. It is no longer the burning issue it was in the 1980s, for example, a decade that saw everything from the acquittal of Dr. Henry Morgentaler to the introduction of abortion on demand to attempts by men to stop their girlfriends from undergoing the operation. Politicians on both the left and right have largely steered clear of the subject. Media coverage has likewise dwindled, whereas in the 1980s it seemed not a day went by without a piece on abortion in one of the major Canadian dailies.

Nonetheless, through it all some trends have emerged. First, most Canadians support a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, at least in the first few months. This stance may be due in part to a general liberalization of societal mores, as witnessed in the greater acceptance of phenomena like homosexuality, premarital sex, and out-of-wedlock childbearing. It might also stem from Canadians’ reluctance to let the state into areas they feel it has no business being, such as the family. Of course such hesitancy can work against “progressive” as well as conservative goals. For instance, despite efforts by some child advocacy groups to ban corporal punishment, polls consistently show a majority of Canadians - including myself - oppose making the practice illegal on the grounds that the choice to spank their children or not should fall to the parents themselves.

It does not follow however that most people share the entire pro-choice agenda. According to a number of surveys, over 50% of respondents are against the use of public funds for abortions. There thus exists a large contingency of individuals – and again I count myself among them – who believe that while the procedure should be legal, the government has no obligation to pay for it (other than perhaps in the minority of cases where the pregnancy is caused by rape, threatens the mother’s life, or would result in the birth of a deformed child).

Speaking as a so-called average Canadian, I suspect that many people are tired of the extremist rhetoric from both the pro-life and pro-choice movements. In the former camp, inflammatory terms like “murder” and “baby killing” tend to alienate those who consider abortion the taking of a life of some sort but who don’t equate it to the strangling of a five-month-old infant. On the other side of the fence, I can’t help but get irritated by some pro-choice advocates who take umbrage at the suggestion that an abortion for a fourteen-year-old rape victim is less morally ambiguous that that for a thirty-year-old married woman who thinks children would impinge on her lifestyle (both real-life incidents).

The majority of Canadians obviously don’t view abortion as just another medical procedure. But they appear to have come to the conclusion that criminalizing it would create more problems than it would solve. On the other hand, many of the pro-choice camp’s demands and its seeming unwillingness to address the moral dimension of the issue will probably leave the general population’s support for the movement lukewarm.

23
Sep

Does Canadian Taxation Discriminate Against Marriage?

Is the institution of marriage under attack in Canada? Social conservatives and various think-tanks believe so, and their fears about the state of the nuclear family are seemingly backed by recently published statistics:

  • The Vanier Institute recently reported that cohabitation has risen sharply over the past few decades. 57% of first unions during 1990-1995 were common law (unmarried cohabitation), compared with just 17% during 1970-1974.
  • Another study from the Vanier Institute notes that divorce rates have risen from 36 per 100,000 people in 1961 to 224 per 100,000 in 2003
  • Statistics Canada’s 2006 census reports that the proportion of single-parent families where the lone parent was never legally married has risen sharply, from 1.5% in 1951 to 29.5% in 2006.

Such statistics are often cast as purely social issues, and conservative voices have frequently cited Canada’s deviation from so-called traditional values as the cause of the aforementioned statistics. Detractors charge that those worried about the state of marriage –whom tend to be older and more religious- are simply unwilling to keep up with the times.

Outside of the explosive social issues, there are still many who maintain that the Canadian Government is waging an inadvertent economic war against married couples through its taxation policies. The belief is that Canadian tax policies favour single people and couples with no legal binding over married couples or common-law couples.

Listed below is a sample of some of the more common tax-saving measures, with an evaluation of whether they are more beneficial to married/common-law couples or two people living as “roommates”. Which spousal configuration can lead to the greatest tax savings?

Disclaimer

This is not professional advice and should not be used in lieu of professional advice. Sources are as follows:

  • Taxtips.ca - Canadian Tax and Financial Information
  • Revenue Canada Agency

Quoted figures are based on 2007 taxation regulations.


Personal Amount
Each person can claim $1,384 as a basic amount against the tax payable. The amount can be claimed for a spouse provided (s)he has a maximum net income of $8,929. No direct equivalent exists for roommates, even if one of the roommates is not working.
Advantage: Marriage / Common-Law

Eligible Dependent
“Roommates” can claim a parent or grandparent as a dependent, whether by blood or though marriage / common-law / adoption. Of course, the “dependent” must be either disabled or underage. The value of the claim is reduced when the dependent’s income reaches $5,702 and eliminated outright at $9,721. Married and common-law couples are prohibited from making spousal claims, while other dependents can be claimed only if the spouse was not in the house and not providing/receiving support from the claimant. Only one claim per household can be made, even if there are multiple dependents.
Advantage: Roommates

GST / HST Credit
Married and common-law couples are only permitted to submit one GST/HST application per household. To receive the credit, the submitter must include his/her spouse’s net income (even it if is zero) and SIN to receive the credit. If you separate from your spouse, you can receive a separate GST/HST credit, provided you are apart for at least 90 consecutive day. A couple living as roommates can each apply for the GST/HST Credit.
Advantage:
Roommates

School / Tuition / Schoolbooks
If you do not have enough income to use your own credits, you can either carry those credits forward to a future year or transfer them to your spouse. You cannot transfer credits to your spouse once they have been carried forward. School-related credits can be transferred to a parent, but unfortunately not a room-mate.
Advantage: Marriage / Common-Law

RRSP
RRSP’s are the most population tax shield and thus deserve mention. Anyone with an earned income can contribute to an RRSP, up to the age of 71. The approximate RRSP claim limit is 18% of the previous years income less pension adjustments, profit sharing plan adjustments and past service adjustments. Limitations may be increased by past service adjustment reversals and unused deductions carried forward. Spousal RRSP contributions can also be made, subject to the same limitations. Roommates obviously don’t have the advantage of making spousal contributions, but real bias may be in what constitutes earned income. Stay-at-home parents do not qualify to make RRSP contributions, which has caused some controversy.
Advantage: Marriage / Common-Law

Final Thoughts:
The largest taxation gap seems to be between couples where both members are working vs. couples with one stay-at-home parent. Housewives (or husbands) –with no recognized earned income- cannot contribute to RRSP’s or have contributions made, cannot immediately use school credits to their own advantage and cannot be credited as eligible dependents. Additonal, an all-round cut in tax rate and across-the-board income splitting would help all types of families … but that’s another topic.

Being a newlywed, I haven’t been able to experience all the nuances of taxation while married. If you have any experiences of your own to share, feel free to leave a comment below.


Other Viewpoints:

07
Sep

The Dark Side: Why People ACTUALLY use Facebook

Facebook

If someone asked “What is Facebook” would you respond –

  • “A social utility that connects you with the people around you”
  • “A human networking site like Myspace, but without the OVERT creep factor”
  • A good way to covertly waste my time at work while appearing from afar to be busy” (at least until your network administrator smartens up and blocks the site, along with YouTube)

In the short run, any of those answers might be correct, but eventually your Facebook odyssey will either end due to boredom or twist into a far more sinister exercise. After the initial excitement of “finding old friends” has worn off (and you realize that close friends generally aren’t rediscovered by chance online after several years), Facebook surfing will regress to planning poorly-disguised attempts at reunions, trolling for photos and determining who NOT to be friendly with.

Trolling for Photos

Ugly  Nothing makes one feel better than when (s)he looks much worse than (s)he did during high school
Beautiful  Did that ugly duckling from back in the day suddenly turn into a swan? Yeah, of course you were only kidding about all that stuff you said to her before… You were kids and kids are mean. It’s all in the past now. Nudge, nudge, wink.
Illicit  Looking at people you couldn’t look at in real life without catching dirty looks. This is as old as the internet (actually much older!) and … we’ll just stop there. Stop thinking about it.

Event Planning (aka Reunion Attempts)

The Internet has given us good and free versions of software to perform mundane social tasks that would otherwise be ignored. Want to write to your mum in overseas? Use Hotmail or Gmail. Want to tell the world your all-important thoughts on life? Blogger will take care of that. Advertise your ground-breaking music? Mp3.com fits the bill. But what about planning events? Some might say Evite works, but it really doesn’t integrate with your “social life” per se. Facebook, on the other hand, allows you to create events and track acceptances WHILE doubling as a psedo-instant messenger, picture gallery (for events gone by) and spam-free email. Plus, the rejections remind you just how wise it is to plan social events based on nostalgia. Want proof? Look at the number of people who say yes to your event, never turn up, and never explain why. They were never going to come in the first place, but who doesn’t get caught up in the weepy prospect of long-lost reunions?

Negative Friend Selection

Some people think that Facebook should only be used to make contact with people they know well or people they know would be happy to make their acquaintance online. Thankfully, those delusional souls are a tiny minority. The majority of people on Facebook make as many friend requests as possible, as though accumulating large numbers of online friends were some measure of social desirability. Hence, most of us have “friends” that we haven’t seen in years, can’t be arsed to contact otherwise, and possibly wouldn’t greet on the street unless eye contact was completely unavoidable.

Still, there those people who refuse your offer for friendship and they are particularly special. Why? Because someone who can’t be bothered to do something so passive as add you to a glorified online rolodex definitely isn’t worth faking pleasantries with in real life. Keep walking. If you see this person a few times a month, you need to work on not remember that you do. If you see this person every day, you can be sure that you hold all the appeal of Reverend Phelps at a Barbara Streisand concert.

A few people use face book to spam others. That’s very bad in itself. It’s better to seek some reputable web hosting services to do a deeper SEO on your website. Nearly all web hosting companies do support their customers for a better earning from their online business. You can have hire hosting from the best image hosting site if your business has to do with pictures and videos. Reading an online webhosting review helps a lot in this regard. You can look for a cheap domain web hosting to maintain your budget.




Further Research




Categories


Archives