Republicans, Wise Up!

Are Republicans just fucking crazy? It’s almost like they go out of their way to not make sense. Right now the hot debate is on whether birth control need be covered by health insurance. Now, I could see if their point was something like “as little should be covered as possible”… that would be a logical point that aligns with Republican philosophies. But that’s not the argument in this case. Instead, they’ve gone right to the big guns… that’s right… religion.

According to the current GOP candidates, this whole thing is about religious oppression. That’s right, OPPRESSION. They’re saying it almost as if the point of the mandate is to go out of our way to overthrow a religion. It’s the exact opposite. Denying people this service would be religious oppression. It’s like saying “my religion doesn’t allow this, so you can’t do it either”.

And just because your insurance covers birth control, doesn’t mean you have to take it. It’s as simple as not asking for it when you go to the doctor. Wow, that seems really hard. This law isn’t going to force pills down your throat, it just makes it easier for those who want it to get it.

Do you support coverage for AIDS? Herpes? Syphillis? Other STDs? You do? Good for you. Because that means you've been supporting FORNICATORS!!!  Last I checked that was against your religion too.  And those medications make your insurance costs skyrocket.  So why is it such a big deal to include one more inexpensive pill? Is being a hypocrite part of your religion too?

It’s funny, the same people who denounce insurance companies for offering birth control are the same people who demand that Viagra is covered. Well, I just hope every time you have old man sex it is for procreation. Sinner…

So you know what? Make it optional for insurance to cover birth control. After all, there won’t be any consequences. Like abortions. Yes, I’m sure there will be fewer abortions if women can’t just take a pill or a shot to prevent their pregnancy. Come on Republicans, pick one, birth control or abortion. You can’t get rid of them both.

Republicans, it’s time you start making sense. Really, a lot of people have lost respect for your party because of bullshit like this. Stop making things a religious agenda. We have religious freedom here in America, which means yours doesn’t get to make the rules. No religion does. So stop trying to force everyone else to live by it. If you spent more time coming up with logical explanations than faith-based proclamations, people might begin taking your politics seriously again…

jbx

Discrimi-Nation?

Well, I have to say, after reporting on the failures of higher education, my Alma (beta?) Mater is making me proud.  The hot topic this week is this whole discrimination debate at Vanderbilt.  To make the story short, the school put in writing the rule that any school-funded club must be open to anyone within the student body, and that leadership positions are open to all.  This includes religious and cultural clubs.  

Yes, Vanderbilt actually had to make this a rule.  You’d think this would be something that would be understood, especially at one of the most prestigious colleges in the nation.  But now, these clubs are in an uproar, calling it religious discrimination.

Discrimination?!?  How?  The school is saying that their clubs are open to all.  So if anything, this prevents discrimination.  Religious clubs are saying it interferes with their ability to practice their religion.  So how does this interfere?  If someone from outside your religion wants to know more about your culture, why exclude them?  Isn’t teaching others about your religion considered a good thing?  In fact, don’t many religions require it?  Preach the Gospel! Convert the heathens!  Now they argue that they should exclude people from discovering their religion and improving themselves through it… I mean, haven’t some religions gone so far as declaring war in order to convert people? 

One of my favorite things about Vanderbilt is the diverse mix of cultures of the student body.  We had students and faculty from all inhabited continents, with a number of clubs catering to each.  Any time there was a meeting, it was open to anyone and everyone interested in learning or participating.  White students showed up to lectures held by the Black Students Association.  Christians attended seminars comparing modern ethics to Jewish Talmudic law, just for the intrigue of history.  In fact, we had clubs for the specific purpose of matching us up with other students to learn about each others’ culture.  We stressed diversity in our classes and made sure our groups were ethnically diverse whenever possible.  The faculty encouraged us to travel abroad and attend career fairs aimed towards minorities.  Maybe things are different in the graduate program, but I never felt that there was an air of discrimination when it came to activities.   

Discrimination does not represent Vanderbilt, and these religious clubs crying ‘religious oppression’ should be ashamed of themselves.  Are they afraid that they’re going to be taken over?  They can kick people out if they are being disruptive.  Are they worried that ‘non-believers’ are going to work their way into their leadership?  No, because they still need to be voted in by the members.  If they’re worried about ceremonies being led by an outsider, the individuals need not vote them in.  Why automatically disqualify someone who is offering to help promote your beliefs?  Hopefully the members will pick the most qualified person, not base things on the line of creed or color.

I have heard the theory that these clubs are just trying to exclude gay students, and under this rule they will not be able to.  Fuck these hatemongers if they are.  Regardless of whether this is their main agenda, if this rule is something that bothers the groups that much, they are more than welcome to leave the school.  And if you say that’s being discriminatory, it’s not, because we’re holding these clubs to the same ideals and regulations of the dozens of other clubs, including the 32 of 36 cultural-based clubs not protesting this matter.  We want to be associated with a culture of tolerance, not hatred. 

If these clubs want to be able to ban certain students, they should think about this…  How would they feel if, perhaps, the school newspaper and radio station clubs started excluding Republicans?  Yeah, don’t think they’d like that very much.  So why is it ok for them to discriminate?  

Are we forgetting that this is a private school, and all clubs are subject to the rules of the school?  The school is enforcing the rules of fairness and equality.  They are giving you the right to organize to practice your religion – as a school approved entity.  One that receives funding or uses facilities paid for by all students.  Isn’t that a good thing?  You just have to accept all interested students and let them run for position if they feel so inclined.  Vanderbilt doesn’t have to support any cultural clubs.  So take their generous offer and run with it.  Spread the words of your culture and let everybody grow from them.  Love thy neighbor.  And do onto others as you’d have done to you.

jbx

Why drug testing is bad, mmkay...

So I was going through my backlogs and found this article from my previous site "DoTheyDrugTest.net". The site has since gone down, but I wanted to salvage this passage because it is a very important issue, especially for those of us looking for jobs. Soon enough, local governments are going to try to drug test even those collecting welfare, a measure which would seem fair, if it wasn't for testing being unethical in the first place. This was written to appeal to both employers and employees, so don't mind the conservative tone. The following is my report:

Imagine this... you're a college senior who spent the last 16 years of life studying hard, getting good grades, and trying to be successful in your upcoming career. Like the vast majority of college students, you make time to enjoy the social aspects of college. You have the qualifications to get a job at your #1 company and get through several rounds of interviews. But in the end, you get rejected... Why? Because at a party a few weeks before, you smoked a joint with some friends.

This happens every day in our business world where companies have the right to test employees for drug use whenever they want.Often it is a condition of employment, but at times could be random, for no reason, and at a moment's notice.

We are not and in no way condoning on the job drug use. Your company is paying you for your time, and deserves your full unadulterated attention. But when the work day is done, your time should be yours and yours alone... Your company does not own you and should not be making decisions for you.

This creates an ethical grey area in workplace relations. The purpose of the site is to allow companies and employees alike the ability to announce whether an applicant should expect to be tested. We serve both as a caution to employees and as a way for companies to prevent unwanted applications from users who do not fit their culture. Until legislation prevents unwarranted testing, the best people can do is stay informed.

 

Some of the reasons why employment drug testing is unethical, and why this site exists:

• Just as your company has the legal right to drug test you, you have a right to know if they are going to invade your privacy. The 4^th Amendment of the Constitution protects against random and unprovoked search and seizure. However, this right does not extend into the workplace.
  
  
• Drug tests do not test for intoxication, rather past usage at an arbitrary time.  
  
  
• Should recreational users be kept out of jobs, only to have more time, unproductive time, on their hands to do more drugs?  
  
  
• These rules were set in place during an era of propaganda, before we had enough true information make judgments about how drugs affect one's health behavior when not under the influence.  
  
  
• Making responsible users second-class citizens. While companies push for open, diverse cultures, they isolate a major one. One that could potentially open additional markets. Usage is tolerated and accepted in some areas despite its illegality.  
  
  
• Laws are changing to make certain drugs legal. Drug tests, especially random tests, prevent prominent people from speaking up for reformation, thus keeping them taboo and illegal.
  
  
• Some drugs tested for are legal in certain areas. A vacation in Amsterdam where one does as the locals do could potentially cost you your job.
  
  
• These tests do not discriminate between recreational users and medicinal users. And yes, people CAN be denied hire, or even fired for taking medication under doctor's orders.
  
  
• Your medical history is not the business of your company. We have strict HIPPA laws that prevent any communication about one's medical history outside of the doctor-patient bond. Employment drug screening defies this law.  
  
  
• Drug tests can reveal other medical conditions (i.e. pregnancy) and legal medications for common disorders (i.e. depression), things that could secretly prevent an otherwise perfect candidate from getting hired
  
  
• Random tests can be a mask for terminating someone for alternate reasons. Don't like a co-worker (for example, say, the black one) who you know partakes once in a while outside of work? Make an accusation and watch them get fired for drugs instead!
  
  
• Marijuana, the most commonly used and least dangerous of intoxicants legal or illegal stays in your system the longest. Harsher drugs are out of one's system within 2-3 days. So these tests typically just uncover pot users, which should rationally be of no concern to a company. Alcohol is significantly worse for one's health than most drugs, and can cause obvious after effects at work even 24 hours after consumption. Yet almost no companies have a policy saying an employee can't drink on their free time.
  
  
• False positives can ruin a person. Food one eats, medicine one takes, and elemental exposure can all cause a clean sample to test positive.
  
  
• Signs of intoxication are obvious and effect performance. If one is not performing to standards, they shouldn't keep their job. But if performance is not affected, why test?

 

This stated, here are the benefits this site can bring to your business:

• Let people know you test, as a warning. Users will not apply for your jobs, saving the time and expense of interviewing and testing someone who will just fail your drug test
• It will encourage people who know they want to work for you to NOT partake
• If you don't test, be proud of it. Announce that you respect your employee's right to privacy when they are on their own time. You are opening yourself up to many qualified candidates another company casts aside for a non-work-related reason.
• Let your company give a reason for their testing. It wouldn't be fair to list reasons why drug testing is bad without giving the company a reason to voice their side. While we feel most testing is unwarranted, there may be instances where there are legitimate reasons why a company tests employees. Now you can explain why.

 

Once again, we do not condone the illegal use of drugs while on the job, but if you choose to partake, you have a right to stay safe. Enjoy the site, and best of luck on your job hunt!

jbx

Diary of the Unemployed: Part 2

You know when they say if you’re angry about something you should write a letter and never send it? This is one of those times. I would love to be able to go back to school, go to the administrators, and ask them one question… “Why did you set me up to fail?” Or maybe one more… “Why the fuck did you accept me in the first place?”… but common sense has gotten the better of me.

In his recent State of the Union Address, Obama talked about how further education is the keystone to a brighter future, and how important additional schooling is these days. I wish I could agree, because this hasn’t been the case with me. What little feedback I’ve heard from applications and interviews, when I don’t hear “completely not qualified” is “way too overqualified”. There has been no middle ground.

Alas, it would actually seem as if my additional grad schooling is making it harder for me to get a job in this economy. After working for eight years and holding a graduate degree, I have had no luck finding anything, even entry level jobs. Some companies have said “we will not even make you an offer because your experience warrants a higher salary than we can offer”. They could care less when I say I’d be willing to negotiate and accept a low salary. In this economy, companies are going for less educated workers that they can train, instead of experienced and educated workers that are perfect for the job.

The other feedback I get, when I’m not overqualified, is that I’m extremely underqualified. Not that I don’t have the necessary skills or abilities, but often that I lack corporate experience on my resume. As an entrepreneur, I worked years with myself as a manager. But for some reason, this seems to signal to companies that I would refuse to work in a group or under someone else. Yes, this is the feedback I get.

I don’t know how these trained and educated HR “experts” don’t realize that I always ALWAYS had to answer to someone. Yes, maybe I didn’t have a “boss”, but I always had clients. And things had to be done their way or I’d be “fired”. There was no unwillingness or inability on my part to work the standard corporate life, I just found greater success on the freelance, consultant basis. After trying it for a few years, it turned out to not be the lifestyle I wanted, so I put myself in a position to learn about corporate life to make myself more valuable to a company I could achieve more with.

So why is it I can’t find a job? I was one of the top students in both my undergrad and graduate classes (3.5 and 3.7 GPAs respectively). I ran a successful small business that allowed me to live a comfortable lifestyle in New York City. I applied for just about any internship or job I was qualified for, even those that were geographically undesirable. I attended info sessions for just about any company hiring within my skill set. I TAed for professors and held leadership positions in student clubs. I made lots of friends and connections with alumni. Do these sound like traits of someone who has been unemployed for a year and a half? And that doesn’t even count the months of school in which I was applying for jobs.

For one, it should have been a major warning sign that after my first year of grad school that I couldn’t find an internship. I had a lot of interviews but no success. Other students were getting these positions, and were being compensated well. I even started applying to unpaid internships, and got rejected from those. Something should have set off a flag when companies aren’t letting me even volunteer my time to help them. But the school just assured me that the economy was bad and things would turn around the next year.

Which it didn’t. And after a while, reassuring does nothing but make us angrier. A year passed and I was still looking for work. But this time it wasn’t like I had another year of school to look forward to. Nope, I was out on my own. No student loans to pay the rent. In fact, I had to start paying them back, on top of all my expenses. At least I had just enough saved up to support myself, but it really sucks just scraping by when most of your friends have signed six figure contracts. At this point, I’m done with all the self doubt and depression that comes with unemployment. I’ve done everything in my power to find a job. So that leaves me to question, why did my school let me get into this position??? I don’t like to point fingers, but at some point, I feel they need to take their share of the blame. No one told me, or gave me any such indication, that I might not have the right experience for an MBA job. If not having corporate experience is such a big deal to employers, why wasn’t it such a big deal for the school? Is it because I paid them a fuckton to take classes there? Were they struggling to fill seats? One student unemployed isn’t going to kill their rankings, so why not just let an unqualified applicant in? I’m sick of being the victim here, and I feel the school owes me an apology. A very expensive apology. I’m starting to wish they never accepted me in the first place.

jbx

Diary of The Unemployed

You know how a lot of people complain that their job interferes with their life? Some could only be so lucky. It seems today, with skyrocketing unemployment and no recovery in sight, that the opposite is worse. That’s right, not having a job is getting in the way of my life.

To some, not having a job and therefore having the free time to do whatever you want seems like the perfect life. How awesome is it to sit around the house playing Xbox, drinking beer for breakfast, napping whenever you feel. Pretty cool, right?

Well not for me…

Wouldn't have been as fun it it was his daily routine...

It’s hard to enjoy free time when all you have is free time. Weekends and holidays mean nothing when you do nothing the other five days of the week. Thing is, I would love to be at a stage of my life where I can comfortably sit down for hours at a time and play video games, knowing all’s right with the world. But not having a job is like a dark cloud looming over me at all times.

Case in point, I spent the last week helping some friends paint their house. Activity and socializing… all good, right? But the whole time, especially during the downtime, I’m just worried that I should be home, lurking around the job boards and stalking strangers on LinkedIn. So the whole time, I’m jumpy, anxious, and actually wanted to break off my social contacts to sit in my tiny bedroom in front of my computer for the rest of the night. Last I checked, the DSM-IV calls that depression…

Thing is, I want to have an active lifestyle. Opportunities can happen anywhere at any moment, but I really doubt they’re going to happen if I’m trapped in my apartment. I’m checking right now… no girlfriend sitting on the couch, no employer in my kitchen, no investors in my toilet… you get the picture.

I want to see the world and enjoy it. Forget the world, I want to get around town and enjoy that. I want to stay out, go to local events and restaurants and clubs and stuff. I want to be that guy who buys his friends a round without even thinking. I want to meet new, interesting people. I want to accomplish things. And I’d like to be this productive member of society without freaking out about how I’m going to pay rent next month.

Worse than the money is that my skills are going to waste. I worked my ass off through my childhood to get into both a top undergraduate and masters program. I’m not saying I’m the one who was going to cure cancer, but I have the brains and the ambition to launch the next cool technological innovation. So sitting around being non-productive is just killing me. When I look back at my life, I’m going to want to see that I did something with it. And right now, that’s just not happening.

Being unemployed actually has a compounding effect on staying unemployed. This is a fact. Jobs are flat out telling people that they will not be hired if they’ve been out of work for X months. So opportunities are lost right there. In the digital age, without access to the resources of company, it’s easy to fall behind in this progressive and competitive environment. Even if you find something to do by yourself, without the accountability of a job you’re less likely (or able) to push your limits. So how do you recover?

For one, I’ve been taking online classes in some current technologies, like Python scripting and Data Mining. Hopefully this can launder my timeline a bit and make it look like I’m not some lazy unemployed bum. The problem though, topics like these take a long time and a lot of commitment to master. I have no idea what is actually going to help me most in my career, so where do I focus? And how can I dedicate this time (programming languages can take months to learn) when I have the dark cloud of joblessness raining over me?

Hard to look ahead when futility is waiting over the horizon… But for now, it’s either apply to jobs while on self-imposed house arrest, or live a liberated life and chance ending up living in a cardboard box.

To be continued…
jbx

Idea for Google+

Hello Freedom Fans!

So a few weeks ago I reported on the difficulties a blogger such as myself has trying to express his opinions openly when job screeners may be lurking about. Or better yet, asking to see your Social Media profiles. And it is my sad duty to report that, despite getting a team of experts, nothing has been done to fix the problem that hiring decisions can be (and likely will be) made on what I have tweeted. Eh, with the economy tanking, England rioting, Verizon striking, GOPers ganging up in Iowa, and San Francisco trying to become a scene from "V for Vendetta", there have been crazier things to worry about.

Guy Fawkes wants to follow you. Accept? [Y/N]:

But I think I've come up with a solution. And Google, heads up, this one is for you. Consider it a freebie.

I like what Google+ has done with its security settings, in that they made it extremely easy for you to monitor exactly who sees your posts. So say something 'risky' and you are able to let only your trusted friends see it. Your boss can still follow you, but its easy to keep him from seeing that rant about how much you hate your job. So it is possible to have both an open and a private life on Big G.

However, if there's one thing missing from their security, it's the ability to go completely anonymous. At least without creating an all-new screen name. But still, in this case:

1. a) it won't be synced with your existing Google App portfolio,
2. b) your friends need to follow you on both accounts,
3. c) you'll have to post on both your personal and anonymous account things you plan to share with both audiences,
4. d) recruiters won't know you have a massive follower list on your anonymous account

What I suggest is to add an 'anonymous' circle along with our other permission groups. We can set up a side account for our anon identity. A handle (nickname) for the name, and maybe the ability to write a separate bio. When posting, you can choose 'anonymous' as one of the circles, and anyone you have following you in this circle will see it. But they will only see that it's from your handle. So this way you can tweet whatever you want, and no one will know its you.

This method also allows you to advertise yourself and your profile without giving out your real info. I want random people to be able to find my posts, as they do on Twitter. But in the G+ environment, I don't want to have to give out my personal info. Nor do I want it searchable on Google under my real name. So search for my real name, find my 'open-to-all' profile. Search for the blog name or handle, find my anonymous page.

One central broadcasting location, two different channels for viewing. One G-rated and one R. Only you don't know they're related.

As a clean social media presence becomes a near requirement of employment, we need more ways to protect ourselves. But to censor ourselves is both immoral and un-American. Google has a great track record for giving users product features they both want and need. So ball is in your court, Google... can you do this for us?

jbx

Profit Sharing is Caring! and The Trickle-Up Effect

If you've been paying attention to the news lately, it's no doubt that we're in a serious mess. Our lowered credit rating makes us a laughing stock on the international market, and people are only going to further tighten their wallets. Unemployment is still high, estimated to be in the high teens assuming you count the unreported millions who do not or can not collect government benefits. Gas is upwards of $4 a gallon, and companies are consistently laying people off while collecting record profits. So what are we as a nation to do?

The more I consider the economy, the more I realize we are powerless to end the shareholder-minded profit maximization ideals that companies subscribe to. At least without some revolution that would involve some sort of devastating teardown of our country. But this mentality isn't necessarily a horrible thing for the economy. Ideally we want big, rich companies… they are indeed what keeps an economy strong.

We just need to invoke some sort of profit sharing mandate.

That’s right, enforced profit sharing. As in a set percentage of what a company makes need be distributed fairly through the workforce that allowed the company to make said profit. While some economists theorize we need to place caps on salaries or the size of companies, this allows and encourages businesses to grow. There’s no fear of increased regulations or per-worker costs that make hiring unattractive to big companies. The only cost is a function of the gains that everyone works for. Since this is an after-profit bonus, companies can still boast to their shareholders that they increased profits for the year, which hopefully won’t devastate a logically minded stock market. And this cost all goes into building a stronger work environment.

Most companies these days tend not to reward employees for additional effort. Maybe it’ll lead to a promotion down the line, but there’s no direct compensation for immediate effort that leads to an immediate gain in profits. Does the grill chef at McDonalds get more money if the store is packed that night? Probably not. Does the cashier at WalMart make extra money if the line is out the door her whole shift? Doubt it. The customer service rep during a company recall? You get the point. Add in the ability for companies to make salaried workers round-the-clock employees for no extra pay, and you see the mess we’re in. To quote the immortal words of Peter Gibbons, “It’s a problem of motivation. Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation?”


Fire bad, Profit Sharing good. Staplers better!

Profit sharing is a direct investment in your workers. Well compensated workers tend to be happier workers, right? Show them their added effort, that extra money the company made from their labor, is worth something. If Initech had profit sharing, Peter would have seen a few dimes from working his ass off. And trying to lay off people won’t be a ‘fix’ for this issue, since a mandatory percentage is enforced whether the company has a thousand employees or a million. So workers taking on the burden of a downsized department would actually see an increase in the money they make.

We’ve been reading reports about runaway executive compensation for years. Million dollar bonuses for people on the upper levels in return for corporate success. Why do we stop there? Is it fair that only certain people get rewarded? I mean, in football, even the practice squad gets a ring if their team wins the Superbowl. Obviously these companies have the money to distribute to their staff, executive or not. Now this is their chance to reward the rest of the staff for that same hard work.

Now I have to predict that there are some wingers out there who are going to squawk their favorite buzzword… Communism. How dare I try to mention the idea that we tell a company what to do with their money in this country?!? And I’d like to point out that the communist argument just doesn’t hold up. This system still encourages companies to grow. Free markets and all. No tax increases. All the money stays in the company family. One of famed Republican Ronald Reagan’s legacies is the “trickle-down effect” in which we’d develop a system in which those that make the most money pass it through our economy by hiring and buying things from those economically below them… so on and so on down to where the higher populated lower classes have opportunities that leaves them financially stable (ie not struggling to put food on the table) and able to themselves contribute to the economy, creating a cycle that keeps our economy going. And ideally this is a good, reasonable plan.

Except it has never been enforced. Nowadays, the upper class is notorious for hoarding their money, leaving it in banks and big corporate investments. They cut down on the number of people they hire, lest their profits and stock price take a hit. And those who are not as financially stable are forced to follow suit. And none of this is necessarily for amoral reasons, but for security, as the future holds no certainty. We as struggling citizens are forced to cut back on extraneous expenses, ie going out to dinner, or buying that new car, or even going to school to better ourselves.

And this just compounds the problems we are seeing. Now the once-profitable restauranteur can’t afford a new car, and now the car dealer can’t afford to send his kids to a good school, and the kid can’t get a job because he didn’t go to a good school. Didn’t we say the trickle-down effect was a good thing?

What will help jumpstart our economy is a “trickle-up effect”. It’s proven that lower classes spend a higher percent of their income. So if the lower classes had a few extra bucks to spend, they could potentially buy that dinner once a week, and the restaurant owner seeing a rise in business can buy that new car. And the car dealer can send his kids to a good school. We need to encourage domestic spending, and keeping money out of the hands of the masses isn’t the way to do it.

No handouts, no rewarding people for not working, no deterrent to hiring. Just making sure credit is given where credit is due. It may be the only good ‘credit’ we see for a while in this country. And things just might come out ok in the end…

jbx

How to be a stud at Social Media and keep a low profile?

These days, employers are more interested in what you've done than what you know. So, as a 'career Marketer', it's fairly critical that I keep up an active Social Media presence. Which means, like them or not, I need to be on just about every new social media site that pops up. I'm sure you're aware of our accompanying Twitter feed (@TNOReality), and possibly a fun little PHP site that can warn those with certain vices about certain tests for employment. (http://www.DoTheyDrugTest.net) I'm also on digg, delicio.us, myspace, quora, linkedin, and facebook. And gotta say, I only really use the last two. (Quora is pretty cool tho). Now with Google Plus coming to life, I gotta wonder how far its gonna go.

The main advantage I've found with Google+ is going to be privacy control. A bit too early to test, since I really only have friends in 2 circles, So not much to block off yet. And I don't see Mom and Dad joining any time soon, especially that they only just discovered Facebook are barely use that. But this makes me wonder if this is finally a network in which I can keep an uncensored profile, yet keep potential employers and easily offended family members from seeing the fun stuff.

Yes, these days you gotta censor yourself lest you get denied employment, or even fired. Don't want to lose a job just because I have a differing opinion from the boss on a political issue, or because I might drop an f-bomb to accent my writing, or even because I'm seen holding a beer at a friend's bbq. Just keeping a casual or comedic tone on your site can incendentally imply to an employer you won't take your job seriously.

So in response, I have measures on each of my accounts to make sure things are only seen by those who need to see them. I keep LinkedIn 100% professional. All serious business on there, since anyone, preferably employers, can see my profile. Facebook is the exact opposite. I am very selective of who gets on there. Friends and family only, and some of the things I post I just hope my parents don't read. I don't allow even work friends on there, since who knows what can be revealed of me through them. (this is something I hope changes) But it's complete, unfiltered me. Of course I do the typical "update" posts like "At the Rush concert with Geddy Lee and it is AWESOME!!!"... I'm not on my soapbox all the time... but the rest is political, contraversial, funny... or as I prefer to think of it.. Interesting.

Take out the interesting stuff, and you'll see a lackluster, or at least poorly maintained, site. How effective can I look with scattered chatty blurbs every few days? Case in point, I do actually keep an open, moderated version of @TNOReality on Twitter that I can show employers. But since most of my schtick (and the account my phone is tied in to) is based around my social activities or political humor, the private account goes ignored for days some times. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentaly.

So this leaves me with a site that doesn't exactly scream "social media expert". What they say expert, they want someone who eats, drinks, and lives social media. So no job for me. If I show them the full version, well I risk turning off a potential paycheck. I doubt any corporate employer would hire me if I showed off "DoTheyDrugTest.net" to them, despite showing flawless coding (and shameless plugging!).

Real life example: Anything and everything about Bonnaroo was declined from my "PG" account. A few because it wasn't worth changing accounts for one scattered tweet, but mostly because I don't need some employer to make some assumption about me given the festival's obvious correlation with drug use...

So what to do... Dull & Unimpressive or Active & Agitating? I've tried a middle ground and toned down things, sometimes it worked, and sometimes it made my writing reek of Bipolar disorder. I like being vocal about my opinions, and don't feel the need to change that just because its on a website instead of phone or in person. My quest is to uncover the uncensored truth, and if some people aren't offended I'm not doing my job. But as we reveal ourselves in a virtually "all or nothing" manner, the pressure is increased, and pushed into our private lives, to write bland, socially conforming and comforting material, just in case the wrong people see it.

Hopefully with Google+ they'll get permissions down to the individual posts over who sees what, and won't let anyone not in a circle see your profile. And maybe throw in a way to make your full "useage stats" known, just to show lurking employers how influential you really are... And hopefully get enough users where it will be a viable social media platform!

The Maxxie Awards!

Wait, no, that's a terrible name for an award show... I'm taking my microphone and going home...

Welcome to the first annual Maxxie Awards... The Netheredge of Reality's answer to The Oscars. Except more awesome! We'll go through the categories and give you my pick... and some interesting commentary. There will be punches, there will be jabs... security might be called to keep me from hitting on Amy Adams... but dammit, we're gonna have a good time!

I'll also give ya my bet for the real Oscar... I'm usually pretty on... probably should go to Vegas right now...

So here we go:

The Golden Maxxie Award

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)
For the first time in several movies and years, Christian Bale reminds us that yes, he can indeed act. As a washed-up crackhead boxer, Bale steals the show from the rest of the cast. He gets to the depths of human frailty and delusion in his comeback-kid character while maintaining a sense of true loyalty to his rising-star brother. It was very much like his performance in The Machinist, a must see if you haven't yet.

Honorable Mention: Andrew Garfield (The Social Network)

This was my pick before seeing "The Fighter". Garfield plays a convincing portrayal of a man rising to the peak of success just to get screwed over by his best friend. As the 'foil' to Mark Zuckerberg, his Eduardo Saverin demands respect and sympathy, and is held in it's own light against MZ's other 'victims'

Who will win: Christian Bale

He's just that good.

Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

Probably the only supporting actress to 'Wow' me this year was The Fighter's Melissa Leo. As the acerbic, overbearing mother and manager of Marky Mark's boxer, you almost want to reach into the screen and strangle her. Anyone who can inspire that much anger definitely warrants the award.

Honorable Mention: Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass)

Who can forget Hit-Girl, the foul-mouthed killing machine super heroine... who is only a little girl. It may be a gimmicky role, but she is great in her role as a brainwashed-from-birth trained assasin, and gets most of the laughs and attention in the movie. Or maybe it's just that anyone looks like an Oscar-winning actor next to Nicholas Cage...

Who will win: Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit)

Ok, the biggest Oscar mystery this year is... HOW THE HELL DID SHE GET NOMINATED IN THIS CATEGORY!?!?! Really... she is the obvious main character of the movie and has nearly 100% screen time. Did her press agent pull some tight strings... and if so, why wasn't she hired by Annette Benning to get her into THIS category? Does Hollywood not take young, first time actresses seriously? Somehow Tatum O'Neal also got nominated in the supporting category for her leading Oscar performance. Or does the Academy just love the Coen Brothers to a fault? Either way, Steinfeld gives an amazing peformance which nearly rivals Natalie Portman in the lead category, and will win the Oscar. I just can't put her in this category for my award.

Best Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island)

The first big Oscar screw-over goes to Leo in his twist-and-turns role in Scorcese's thriller as a man tormented by family tragedy and his ongoing quest to find a missing mental patient. DiCaprio keeps you engaged in the role, not knowing what he's going to do next. It's been one of his best roles to date, and should have been honored.

Who will win: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)

Another great performance this year. And a tamer movie which will invite more votes. It's a sweet role and you sympathize and cheer for his character, even though you know it ends well. Firth overcomes adversity in this role, which is absolute Oscar bait. And the British charm and history of past nominations doesn't hurt... And you don't want to insult the Queen Mum's father...

Honorable Mention: Vincent Cassell (Black Swan)

Cassell's dance instructor keeps you guessing in his role. Is he supporting her? Is he driving her insane? Is he just some pervert who likes Jewish girls in tights? A very convincing role, which I'm surprised didn't get a nod for lead or supporting.

Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

The first nominee I would have put money on to win right after seeing the movie. Talk about someone losing herself in a role. She fits perfectly in to Aronofsky's scheme of characters falling apart under their own obsession, and this time he goes even deeper. Physical performances like this require significant dedication, and lesbian scenes... well, they get attention. Portman sucks you in to her character, making you forget it's an actress and not a documentary about a crazed ballerina.

She'll win the Oscar, and with Steinfeld in the wrong category, she has no competition for the award...

Best Editing: 127 Hours

Did I ever tell you I was a professional film editor? Probably not. But I know a thing or two about editing, so I'm gonna give the award to 127 Hours. How do you keep a movie where the main character doesn't move for 90 minutes exciting? Editing! It's a very fast paced movie despite the complete lack of movement. Most of the scenes take place within hallucinations and flashbacks and the pace and jumpiness of these scenes keep us focused and really help us get inside James Franco's head. And the famed 'arm' scene... well, lets just say the editing keeps us cringing, but makes the right cuts just before we lose our lunches...

Honorable Mention: The Social Network

I almost regret picking 127 Hours, as these two movies are two of the best examples of editing I have seen in a long time. The editing in TSN.. interleaving shots between frat parties and LAN parties... the pacing along Reznor's musical score.. the subtle cutaways that emphasize Zuckerberg's inattentive narcissism... pure genius... This one will take home the Oscar.

Best Screenplay: The Social Network

I'm not a huge Aaron Sorkin fan, but he does write some witty dialogue. Sometimes it works, sometimes its annoying. This time around, it's perfect. And who better to tap into geek culture... It's a very dialogue-intense movie, and the movie thrives on lines like "I'm bigger, stronger, and there's two of me" and "You think people aren't going to get you cause you're a nerd... but actually, it's because you're an asshole". The scripting is very consistent through the film with no dull points.

It will win the Adapted Screenplay Award. The King's Speech will likely take home the Original Screenplay award, but something in me wants to see Inception take it away. I like Nolan's mysterious stories, but the movie was too weird for too many to get him the votes this time. And remember, he's already lost to the token 'old-folks' movie, with Gosford Park beating out the classic noir, Memento.

Best Director: David Fincher (The Social Network)

So many elements came together for this movie that you can't not give it to Fincher. The pacing and conviction of the film make TSN the great movie it is. There is so much subltly to the film that it wouldn't have been a fraction as great if it was without. Notice the subtext... scenes like where the regular college kids are doing college things: drinking, sex, drugs, parties and the like... then see it cut between that and a group of nerds huddled around their computer for social interaction. Scenes like that make movies genius, and Fincher deserves the award.

He'll win the Oscar.

Honorable Mention: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)

A directing job that would win any year if it wasn't for Fincher. Anyone who can make a movie that draws you in like this proves his worth as a director. I mean, it's a movie about ballet that GUYS were lining up to see. He did something right. The last fifteen minutes of the film are so captivating you forget you're in the theater. Aronofsky is due for an Oscar one day (especially after missing a nom for Requiem for a Dream) but he just got edged out this year.

Best Picture: The Social Network

There were indeed a lot of good movies this year, but The Social Network was the one that blew me away. It's a story we're all familiar with, but don't have all the history or the details behind it. Fincher and Sorkin kept a nerdy computer story interesting without 360* action scenes or galactic thermonuclear war.

Of course, i'm sure you could say "of course a social media geek is going to pick that one"... and you're probably not wrong. But 500 million friends can't be wrong...

Honorable Mentions: Black Swan and 127 Hours

Well, you've read what I've said about Black Swan. Awesome movie. If you can tolerate "downward spiral" type movies, it's a must see. As for 127 Hours, it's a gripping survival drama that glues you to the screen. I don't cringe that much in most horror movies. I'd call it a mix between "Castaway" and "Saw" and I loved both those films...

Lightning Round for the other films... why they wont win:

Toy Story 3: Animated

Kids are all Right: Lesbians

Inception: Weird

The Fighter: Marky Mark

True Grit: Why do they hang the Coen Bros so high?

Winter's Bone: Redneck True Grit

Who will win: The King's Speech

In the end, The King's Speech will edge out The Social Network for the big prize. Why? It's simply a generational thing. Oscar voters prefer the more traditional movies, which Social Network was not. In addition, I'd expect some apathy field for the older voters towards a movie about trendy Facebook. The King's Speech was a cute, fun, positive feel good movie with a great underdog story and a historical backdrop... pure Oscar bait.

Thanks for watching, see you at the movies... or in the blogs!