Corporate Suicide by Facebook

2 Replies

By Jason Menard

About a week ago I watched a ‘friend’ commit corporate suicide by Facebook. Was it intentional on her part? Likely not. But that’s the danger of being too honest on Facebook – it’s not a private network and words can live on long past their expiration date on the Internet.

This person, a relative of an old friend, announced that she had quit her job. Actually, as the story progressed it appeared less of a quitting and more of an implosion.

The full details of the story aren’t necessary, suffice to say that in an eight-hour period she effectively libelled her management team by accusing them of on-site drug use, admitted to frequent tardiness, and came across as argumentative, aggressive, and unwilling to accept responsibility for her actions.

Instead of telling her to calm down, her friends were just fanning the flames of passion. We’ve all had moments where we rage against whatever machine is bothering us at that time. And our friends are there to commiserate and, in large part, agree with us. We say what we need to say, we vent, and we calm down. The difference is that when we talk one on one, those comments disappear into the ether. When we do it on-line, they’re floating in cyberspace in perpetuity – just waiting for someone to Google them.

The odd thing is that in all the time that I have spent with this woman – which is admittedly not a lot – she never struck me as that way. She was polite, sweet, and seemed to have a good head on her shoulders.

That may still be the case – but that’s not what the Internet says.

I took the opportunity to speak to a human relations employee about whether or not they look at Facebook as part of their hiring practices. The answer, to paraphrase, was an emphatic “Hell yes!”

And it’s not just Facebook. It’s Google, Twitter, and any other Social Media venue you can think of.

It’s enough to give you pause the next time you go to tag yourself in a drunken party pic, isn’t it?

It’s a lesson that we’re trying to teach our 16-year-old son. He frequently posts messages to his friends filled with profanity. We keep warning him and he stops for a while – then the teenage brain fizzles out and the raw speech comes forth again.

He may learn on his own. He probably won’t. After all, how often do you find out why you didn’t get a job? You just know that you weren’t selected.

In today’s digital age, you are what the Internet says you are. My aforementioned friend may not be an uncoachable, challenge-all-authority, libellous problem child. But that’s not what Facebook says. And that’s not what a prospective employer will think.

Notice that I said prospective. Because if you keep posting those funny party pics, the rude dialogue with friends, and the off-the-cuff statements, chances are they’re not going to be lining up to become a future employer.

Facebook — A Friendly Whitewash of our Community?

1 Reply

By Jason Menard

So, are you my friend? Am I yours? Am I an acquaintance? A colleague? An enemy? An annoyance? An inspiration? We all know what the people around us mean to us, but unfortunately Facebook has forced us to paint everyone with the same brush — diminishing some, elevating others without merit, and cheapening the concept of “friend” through our own compliance.

Facebook is about community at heart – and it’s filling a void we may not have even known we had. As we continue down this technological path with all its rewards and potential, the tolls have been paid by increased isolation. How often do we send an e-mail instead of picking up the phone? At work, how frequently do six-hour e-mail back-and-forth conversations replace what would have been a five-minute face-to-face chat? Our interactions are largely through a screen – and the genius of Facebook is reconnecting us to our communities through the medium of choice.

Of course, just because we live in a community doesn’t mean we have to like ALL of our neighbours.

I have co-workers, both past and present, some of whom I consider friends, others who are acquaintances. There are schoolmates – again, some of whom I consider friends, others who were passing acquaintances (and, of course, there are those people who I thought I recognized, but ended up having no relationship with!) Sure, friend could work in some of these cases, but what about the rest?

I have had the honour of meeting a number of people over the years who, whether they know it or not, have had a profound and inspirational impact on me. Through their own talents and dedication, they push me to do better, to be better. “Friend” just doesn’t fit for those people on Facebook that I admire, the people who inspire me, the people who, whether they know it or not, have played key roles in me becoming the person I am today. Where’s the classification for that?

And what about those who have meant so much to me at various points of my life? Yes, it’s true, I’ve never been good at keeping in touch. But that fact doesn’t diminish what these people meant to me at the time. Again, they helped me become who I am today.

That’s what’s Facebook’s good for. It’s a way to reconnect with people from my past. Sure, in large part, I don’t care about one’s FarmVille or Mafia Wars updates, but I don’t spew the vitriol that some do against these games (in fact, I never understood why peopel get angry. Just turn off the notification. It’s easy). If these games make you happy, then go ahead. I’m sure my hobbies would probably annoy some of you too! And generally, I read with varying degrees of interest the day-to-day minutiae of people’s lives — some posts are captivating, others are forgotten as soon as their read. I’m sure my posts are met with the same degree of apathy by most. We post because we want to share our experiences, to connect. But we’re not just connecting to the present. Most importantly, our posts serve as tethers to our past. Today’s post may mean nothing in the grand scheme of things; yesterday’s memories do.

On the flip side, Facebook can bring out the worst in people. It feeds the needy, attention-starved, narcissistic desires of those who are perpetually stuck in a high school-esque drama of their own creation. It allows them to perpetuate a reality wherein they are the victims of an oppressive world, obviously created by whichever deity in which you believe to serve as a Hell on Earth.

From the plaintive, but out-of-context, “sighs” posted on wall, to the various permutations of “Oh, I can’t believe this happened to me,” or “Why do I bother,” these comments are designed nothing more than to elicit nothing more than the well-meaning, but enabling, responses from other “friends.” And then, of course, comes the cat-and-mouse teasing out of the whole story, which is followed by the initial intended result – the reaffirming platitudes.

Seriously, if I ever do that. Shoot me. Both on Facebook and in real life.

Spit it out, say what you want, and stop being coy. It’s pathetic. In addition, we only see one side of the story. Certain people use Facebook to spread gossip, start rumours, and distort the truth. I have one “friend” who is, well, how can I put this nicely… The Least Self-Aware Person Ever to Exist (I was going to say Hypocritical Douchebag, but I really don’t like the word douchebag.) She is constantly put upon. She is constantly distorting the truth – unfortunately effectively – both in real-life and on-line. And she loves to play the victim whilst, in reality, is actually the victimizer. She is a user to the nth degree, but is completely unaware of that fact. Well, let me change that. I would hope she’s completely unaware of it — otherwise, she’s an even worse person than I think. Unfortunately, we allowed ourselves to be used. Why? Pity, mainly. But eventually the capital raised by that is exhausted. Especially when it becomes apparent that the cause for the pitiful situation is rooted in selfishness. Alas, the ties that bind mean this person’s still in our lives.

But don’t we all have these people: the hypocrites, the desperate, the sullen (in her case the Bat-Shit Crazy?) Back during my Gazette days I had the pleasure of having lunch with Gwynne Dyer and we started talking about the Internet, which was still very much in its infancy. I mentioned that there seems to be way more wackos out there on the Internet. Mr. Dyer responded, ever so succinctly, but eloquently, “There aren’t more wackos out there. It’s just now they’ve got a forum to share their craziness.”

Is that what we have on Facebook? A forum for the crazy, the narcissistic, and the obtuse to rage against whichever machine is allegedly oppressing them? Is it a forum where old friends can strengthen the bonds that have frayed by time? Maybe it’s a way to engage in a form of voyeurism and exhibitionism? Likely, it’s a bit of all the above.

I know I’m no innocent. I’m likely guilty of some of the above. In my youth, I was an ass. I was sarcastic, biting, and very insensitive. I made jokes that I shouldn’t have. I spoke without truly considering the feelings of others. And for that, I’m sorry. If you knew me at 15, 20, 25, you only knew part of me – and, I hope, not the best part.

I’d like to think that life changes you. You grow, you mature, you become more understanding. You learn to appreciate people for who they are. You learn to appreciate who you are. In my early 20s, I thought I had it all figured out. In my 30s, I’ve learned that I didn’t know squat in my 20s. I recently had an on-line conversation with an old high school friend of mine (she fits into the paragraph about the writers I admire and make me want to be better…) and we both agreed that it takes until your 30s until we finally are comfortable with who we are. Of course, talk to me in 10 years, I may say, “Mid-to-late-30s Jay was a moron.”

But I know that 16 to 25-year-old Jay was a moron. Not intentionally, I just needed to grow.

Pain, and seeing someone you love suffer from it as well, wizen you quickly. And the natural passage of time helps too. You learn what’s important, what’s not, and you learn to leave the fake drama behind. There’s enough real drama out there – why manufacture more? And I’m happy to see that the majority of people who are my “friends” on Facebook have done the same. They’ve matured, they seem more accepting. They’ve left high school behind. Others are still stuck in some Gossip Girl/90210 world of their own creation (personally, I’d rather be stuck in some Charmed world of my own creation, but that’s again alluding to my continuing infatuation with Alyssa Milano. My apologies.)

A day doesn’t go by when I don’t read someone posting how it would be better to just walk away from Facebook. But that’s allowing the negative to overwhelm the positive. Yes, living your life entirely on Facebook would be bad. Restricting your interactions to an electronic medium isn’t healthy. But there is a valuable balance to be struck.

I guess it all comes down to the value you get out of Facebook. For me, it’s keeping in touch with friends who, in the not-too-distant past would have been lost forever. It’s learning from others’ experiences as they share them on their walls, etc. It’s about remembering the past (and, hopefully, learning from it). It’s about retaining a piece of who you were and understanding how it made you who you are. In the end, the good in Facebook outweighs the bad.

I just wish we didn’t have to paint everyone with the same “friend” brush.

Let’s Get Ready to Rumble

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

It’s almost time for the bell to ring, announcing the first round of this Parliamentary battle, and the only question that remains is whether the opposition will come out swinging or if they’re prepared to feel out the competition for a while and wait for the right time to deliver the knockout blow.

As the Conservatives and the opposition Liberals prepare to go toe-to-toe in the ring over issues like childcare and taxation it will be interesting to Canadians to see whether the Grits, still licking their wounds from the spanking they received in the recent federal election, are willing to throw down the gloves and get ugly in defense of their principles.

For the Liberals, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Allow such show-stoppers as the scrapping of the Liberal daycare plan in favour of the $100 per month per kid plan favoured by the Tories or the slashing of the GST and rollback of previous Liberal personal tax cuts, and the Liberals run the risk of being perceived as compromising their ideals. And for a party that’s reeling from the sponsorship scandal and a public that questions its integrity, this is one perception that must be shed.

Unfortunately for Canadians, the only way that can be done is for the Liberals to stand their ground, come hell or high water – or at least yet another election call.

Already, Opposition House Leader Ralph Goodale has started to hedge the Party’s bets, casting the burden of responsibility to its co-opposition members, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc. By stating that these two parties could conceivably prop up the Tories, even if the Liberal vote against these key measures, he’s effectively deflected the question of standing for one’s ideals two the smaller members of the opposition.

This will be a Parliament of perception and posturing. The NDP is on the verge of slipping from the image of being the King Maker to becoming the royal whore – hopping into bed with whomever’s in power to further their own agenda of power. If anything, the NDP should be philosophically more opposed to the Conservative agenda, especially when it comes to issues like social programs, yet they’ve been the most conciliatory speakers when it comes to consensus building in the House of Commons. The NDP runs the risk of alienating its very own traditional supporters and losing them to a newly emboldened Liberal Party – especially if Jack Layton supports a less-than-favourable Omnibus bill in order to maintain political continuity.

On the other side, Gilles Duceppe has to be a little worried about support in his own back yard. While talking the good talk about the idea of his party sweeping through la belle province, he has to be a little rocked by the fact that it was Stephen Harper who walked the walk and eroded his base of support by scoring huge gains in Quebec. Does he risk returning to the polls and testing his supporters’ patience for yet another election?

In the end, does this all embolden Stephen Harper even more? After a few missteps in the early part of his tenure, the ducks are all in a row for him to push through an aggressive first foray into this political battle. Does he gamble that the leaderless Liberals don’t have the stomach for jumping into a snap election? Does he hope that the question marks surrounding the other opposition parties mean that their preference will be to wait for a better time to act?

Harper has to decide what the more prudent strategy will be. Does he enter the House of Commons in a consensus-building manner and hope to negotiate what he wants, or does he seize the opportunity to make dramatic changes and enact a substantial – and controversial – component of his party’s political platform, trusting that the time isn’t right for his opponents to make a move. It’s a bitter pill that he’ll be forcing the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc to swallow – Harper just has to judge whether they have the stomach for it.

In the world of boxing, the boxer always has the edge on the puncher – but in the Canadian political ring, Harper has to opportunity to be both. He can come out swinging, landing the heavy blows, and out-strategize his opponents right from the opening bell. But the only way that works is if the opposition isn’t willing to step up and go toe-to-toe with the Conservatives.

The opening bell is about to ring. This is sure to be one fight to watch.

2006© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

Tory Puts Faith in Wrong School Plan

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

When it comes to faith-based education, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory has the right idea – just the totally wrong way to implement it. To meet the needs of an increasingly multicultural Canada, we have to embrace the thought that less is more.

It’s time to bring religion back to schools – but not in the traditional way. To meet the needs of its students, the public school system should offer a mandatory faith component that exposes children to all the world’s belief systems. We can easily make do with what we have, we don’t need to add more – especially when through addition of schools we’re actually subtracting the exposure our children have to each other’s cultures.

Already we’re facing a funding crunch for our two existing school systems. Both public and Catholic school boards are forced with dealing with changing demographics, dwindling attendance, and outdated buildings. The addition of public funding for more faith-based institutions won’t help either financially or socially.

Tory’s argument is that by validating faith-based education through the auspices of public funding, we’ll be creating an environment where all religions are blessed by the approving scepter of government finance. And while that’s fine for us adults, how exactly does that filter down to the kids?

In essence, this plan would stop kids of different religions from interacting. Children will be placed in their own corners and prevented from mixing with others. And, more importantly, they’ll be prevented from learning.

The way to fix this problem isn’t with more public funding of faith-based education – it’s with less. And that starts with the elimination of the Catholic school board. By consolidating the resources currently duplicated across two school boards, our educational system would be able to better manage resources, combine efforts, and use existing facilities to cope with shifting demographics.

We live in a secular society that’s growing increasingly multicultural. To offer taxpayer-funded services for one religion and not the other isn’t right. However, that doesn’t mean you just eliminate the one religion. Rather, you create a system that embraces the teachings of religion – all religions.

Religion should have a place in schools – and this is coming from someone who doesn’t believe in any one religion. But despite my lack of belief, I fully understand and support the idea of exposing our children to all the world’s religions. Not only will this open their minds to new ideas and experiences, but it will help them understand the people around them.

A public school system with a faith component would have a greater impact on global acceptance of religion than Tory’s validating-by-separating agenda. When students learn why their friends mother wears a hijab, or why their friend can’t mix meat and dairy, that makes it seem less strange. Our religious and societal differences no longer become fodder for mockery, but they become aspects of intrigue and respect.

In addition, students will see that despite the various differences and belief structures found in religion, the underlying message of all is basically the same – and that’s about being good to each other and being the best person we can be. By experiencing a faith class where that message is reinforced by exposure to the world’s religion, our children will be able to grow up in a world where our religious differences don’t matter as much.

Unfortunately, ignorance breeds mistrust and fear. Unless one is exposed to a religion, some of the practices, clothing, and imagery can seem odd. And kids deal with things they don’t understand by shunning them. However, imagine the benefits of having one public school system, where children of all faiths come to learn together and share their personal experiences. Then there would be no need to fear the unknown, because we’d have a better understanding of each other.

Then, just maybe, those kids can teach their parents a thing or two about tolerance.

Of course, there will be those who want their children educated in an environment that’s solely focused on their own belief system – and that’s their right. It’s also their obligation to pay for that privilege. Again, we live in a secular society – our obligation to our children is to teach tolerance, not make equal educational services available to all.

It’s a new world with an ever-changing demographic. The days of the Protestant/Catholic school board split are long gone – today’s Canadian mosaic is richly woven with threads from many different races, cultures, and religions. What better way to foster understanding and respect for each other than by learning about the very things we hold dear – our beliefs and our culture.

Sometimes less is more. We don’t need more publicly funded religious-based schools – we just need to reallocate the resources we have now in a way that makes sense for today’s children.

2007© Menard Communications – Jason Menard All Rights Reserved

No Need for Hank to Go Groupie

Leave a reply

By Jason Menard

Now that Barry Bonds is but two dingers away from tying Hank Aaron’s career home run total, the pressure is mounting for Hammerin’ Hank to start following BALCO Barry around like a wayward Dead Head.

My question is why? Aaron is 73 years old and the way that Barry’s been hitting home runs lately, the record could be broken as soon as tonight or a month down the line. Is it fair to ask Aaron to turn into the world’s biggest groupie, following Barry’s oversized cranium from city to city on this less-than-magical mystery tour?

And for what reason? So Aaron can come out to a raucous applause, one that will probably overshadow the applause Barry receives for breaking the all-time home run mark of 755. After all, Aaron has long displayed grace, elegance, and dignity – three characteristics that aren’t exactly dripping off of Bonds.

Aaron chased down Babe Ruth and did so in the face of very real threats against his life. For a misguided few, the idea of a black man surpassing the Caucasian Babe Ruth was too much. Fortunately, as most racists are also cowards, Aaron was able to safely pass the all-time mark on Apr. 8, 1974 with his 715 th career home run.

Bonds has disgraced those who actually have experienced real racism by insinuating some of his negative perception is based upon the fact that he’s black. It’s not his skin colour that’s the problem – it’s his attitude, lack of respect for others, and general surliness that makes people hate him.

Aaron also received the support of Ruth’s widow, who stated that her husband would have enthusiastically endorsed Aaron’s campaign to break his own record. Those accolades aren’t exactly pouring in for Barry. Most people would be quite content to see him hang up his cleats shy of the record.

A short while ago I defended Barry because I think he’s good for the game in terms of attracting attention. As well, when he feels like opening up, he’s a good quote who doesn’t constrain himself with the standard baseball clichés. That said, do I think Aaron should be following him around to be in the park when Barry finally breaks his record? Only if that’s something he wants to do.

I don’t get the need to trot out former greats to celebrate someone breaking their record. If Aaron genuinely wanted to be there for Barry to congratulate him, then fine. But if he’s only going to show up because he feels he has to for HIS image, then there’s something wrong.

For 37 years, Aaron’s been the Home Run King. For many people, he will continue to be the only one worthy of the crown – a modern day slugging King Richard to Barry’s usurping John. And for some he may become akin to the Tibetan spiritual leader in exile – a veritable Dalai Hank, a king without a kingdom. In no way should Aaron’s reputation be tarnished by not being amongst the first to shake Barry’s hand once he makes that historic rounding of the bases.

For me it’s neither here nor there. Barry did hit those home runs. If he was juiced, he was not alone. And he’s the only one that’s even come close to Aaron’s record, so I give a solid measure of credit to his accomplishment. But would I feel bad if Hank decided to pass on the tour of the National League to wait for his pinnacle achievement between the white lines to be broken? Not at all.

I know I’d be bitter. After all, for years you’ve had the name Home Run King attached to your name and now the crown has been passed. Would I want to celebrate that? And sure, there’s an argument for showing grace and class, but Hank can do that by placing a phone call after that rerun of Matlock finishes. There’s no reason he has to wander around the country, waiting for an opportunity to clap.

As Bill Walton’s shown us, there are few things as sad as an aging groupie. In fact, the only thing worse may be one who’s obligated to attend because anything less would be an unfair denigration of his character.

Finally, by having Aaron attend in spite of his obvious preferences, it cheapens this and future moments like it – potentially when Barry has to swallow his pride and sit in the stands as Alex Rodriguez laps him on the homer track in just a handful of years.

The best of these types of moments come when they’re rooted in honest respect and appreciation. Those are the moments when fans and athletes alike stand up in pride. Faking it – like Major League Baseball’s going to do with Barry’s home run choice – represents a swing and a miss of an epic proportion.