Talkin’ ’bout My Generation

You see it from time to time, spread all over social media with reckless abandon.

Defying history, logic and reasoning, there is a growing chorus of complaints about “kids today,” and/or about how “life was better in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s” and even the 1980s.

Social media platforms such as Facebook are plastered by memes that suggest the world is going to hell in a handbasket. These memes and the people who share them point to a simpler time; a better time for children and all of us.

Photo from Pinterest web site

Is it accurate? Are kids today so much worse than the kids of the past? Was life really better in the 1960s?

To borrow from Billy Joel: The good ol’ days weren’t always so good, and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.

Nostalgia is nice, but it often distorts reality.

Complaints about “kids today” are usually generated by people over 50 years of age. The misgivings about today’s youth are often used as weapons in the war of generations, where there is a growing divide between aging “baby Boomers” and the nearly insufferable Millennials.

Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, so-named because of the population explosion that took place in the United States following the end of WW II.

Boomers today range in age from 60 to 78. This group was preceded by the so-called “Silent Generation,” people born between 1928 and 1945. It is commonly thought that this moniker derives from the notion that children “were to be seen and not heard.” This group represents folks between the ages of 79 to 96.

And yet the so-called “Greatest Generation,” is almost completely gone. The Greatest Generation moniker was created by NBC News journalist Tom Brokaw and his best-selling 1998 book of the same name.

These were the people who came of age during the Great Depression and the 1940s, Brokaw said, and many of them fought in World War II.” In his book, Brokaw described them as “a generation of towering achievement and modest demeanor, a legacy of their formative years when they were participants in and witness to sacrifices of the highest order.…This is the greatest generation any society has produced.

On the other end of the scale, we have “Generation Z,” kids born after 1997.

Admittedly, I am biased but it’s probably because I – like so many others – tend to dismiss today’s youth and instead rely on my knee-jerk reaction to “kids today.”

I often want to drive my head into a brick wall, when I read or hear members of Gen Z or their predecessors, Millennials, complain about their elders and about what a horrible world they have inherited.

They (Gen Z and Millennials) actually believe that they are so much more enlightened, tolerant and compassionate than previous generations of Americans who allegedly left behind a world of racism, gender conformity, homophobia and a ruined environment.

They tend to place a greater value on safety versus freedom. They have only known a world that is instantly connected by technology, and they tend to bristle at the word: sacrifice.

Sweet Child of Mine

Are these kids today right or wrong? Are the complaints about them, their music and their culture accurate? Or are these kids today not much different than the kids of the 1970s, the 1950s or even the 1920s?

In the 1950s, many parents were worried about boys in leather jackets with grease in their hair. There was a radical new genre of music exploding on radios. Rock ‘n’ Roll, which was generated by Black musicians, took rhythm and blues to an entirely new level.

Artists such as Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Billie Holiday and Ray Charles ignited the flames of rock music, inspiring so many others, from Elvis Presley to the Rolling Stones. On the Ed Sullivan show, Elvis Presley was shown only from the waist up while performing because his swinging hips were considered “too suggestive.”

But even before then, parents were worried about “lazy, insolent” children who were listening to the “devil’s music,” from artist such as Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw, Tommy Dorsey and Benny Goodman in the 1930s and ‘40s.

Swing music, the adults said, was encouraging sexual promiscuity as boys and girls danced suggestively and “Jitterbug” dancing reigned supreme.

In the 1960s, kids started growing their hair long; many became “anti-society” hippies and embraced a culture of “free love” and increased experimentation with illicit drugs. Today, those kids are getting ready to collect Social Security and buying time-shares in Boca Raton.

You get my point. There is one universal truth about children and their development: they absolutely love to piss-off their parents, crave attention and righteously believe that their generation is the “best.”

It is normal (and actually necessary) for kids to reject traditions; to protest and become aware of the world around them.

A simpler time?

Before you begin to wax nostalgic about how much better life was in the 1950s, the 1960s or the 1970s, consider this:

In the 1950s and 1960s, Black students couldn’t attend the same schools, colleges and universities as white kids. In the 1950s, kids were taught to hide under their desks as fears increased about a possible nuclear attack.

In the 1950s and 1960s, gay people were not allowed to be married or serve in the military. In the 1950s and 1960s, American kids were dying by the thousands in southeast Asia.

In the 1950s and 1960s, women generally earned much less than their male counterparts. When people proclaim that the ‘60s were a “more peaceful” time, I teeter on the edge of having a stroke.

In the 1960s, President Kennedy was assassinated; Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated; Black activist Malcom X was assassinated; Bobby Kennedy was assassinated and the ongoing war in Vietnam escalated.

In the 1950s, we freely dumped toxic waste into rivers and streams. There was no Department of Environmental Protection.

But when – exactly – – did kids become so lazy and misguided?

Well, history is a brutal teacher.

Complaints about “kids today” can be traced to the Fourth Century, BC when Aristotle wrote: “[Children] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances. They think they know everything and are quite sure about it.”

Or how about this, first published in 1904 in the Psychology of Adolescence:

“Never has youth been exposed to such dangers of both perversion and arrest as in our own land and day. Increasing urban life with its temptations, pre-maturities, sedentary occupations, and passive stimuli just when an active life is most needed, early emancipation and a lessening sense for both duty and discipline…”

Or this from the Portsmouth Evening News in 1936:

“Probably there is no period in history in which young people have given such emphatic utterance to a tendency to reject that which is old and to wish for that which is new.”

In 1938, Leeds Mercury published this excerpt:

“Parents themselves were often the cause of many difficulties. They frequently failed in their obvious duty to teach self-control and discipline to their own children.”

There are many, many more historical examples of complaints regarding today’s young people from every generation since . . . well basically, forever.

In 1858, editors at the New York Times expressed concern about the invention of the telegraph.

“Superficial, sudden, un-sifted, too fast for the truth, must be all telegraphic intelligence. Does it not render the popular mind too fast for the truth? Ten days bring us the mails from Europe. What need is there for the scraps of news in ten minutes? How trivial and paltry is the telegraphic column?”

What would those guys have thought about the internet, Facebook or Tik-Tok?

Damn kids today. Technology is ruining everything!

Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

Jon Stewart – a comedian and talk show host who was once a darling of the far left and progressive Democrats – found himself in some hot water this week when he made his triumphant return to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central network.

Jon Stewart/Photo: Scott Kowalchy, CBS

Stewart previously hosted the late-night “Daily Show” from 1999 to 2015. The show is generally considered satire, but Stewart was well-known for leaning hard left when it came to discussing politics.

Beyond being a comedian, actor, director and producer, Stewart is also a very decent human being who has consistently used his celebrity status to advocate for veterans in need of health care; and for first-responders who are still suffering from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Reportedly, viewership of the Daily Show has been somewhat sluggish since Stewart left the network nearly 10 years ago to pursue other projects, namely a streaming show on Apple + TV, The Problem with Jon Stewart.

So how did this funny, sharp-witted philanthropist — who never hesitates to rail against Donald Trump and the Republican Party — piss off almost every member of the Democratic Party on his first night back on the Daily Show stage?

Well, basically, someone didn’t give him the memo before the cameras began rolling on Monday. Stewart, a predictable defender of Democrats, failed to toe the party line.

Stewart (gasp) had the temerity to publicly criticize President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for the 2024 presidential election.

Wait! What?

Here, hold my beer, and I’ll explain.

Stewart decided to not use his very big stage to blindly support the man who he likely will be voting for in November. Instead, Stewart’s monologue focused on what a crappy choice we all have to make in November, Republicans and Democrats.

According to Newsweek, thousands of progressive Democrats spilled their iced-mocha cappuccinos on their laps when Stewart “equally” mocked Biden and Trump for issues related to their age, questioning whether either one of them was fit to serve as our commander-in-chief.

Progressives generally preach all day long about tolerance and diversity, right up until the point when the don’t like the subject matter. Then?

Well then, they are not so tolerant or diverse.

Reportedly, reaction to Stewart’s monologue raised a chorus of voices all over social media. Thousands of viewers pledged to never watch the Daily Show again. Social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Instagram and Tik-Tok, reveal that viewers went ballistic with their comments about Stewart and their disdain for so-called balanced commentary.

Here’s one of the thousands of comments that can be found on social media, according to Newsweek:

“FASCIST!! We’re seriously going to 2016 both sides this s*** again?! WTF is wrong with you?! JFC!! #TheDailyShow is a fascist-enabling s*** show!!”

Fascist? Seriously? Where did this person go to school? Today, apparently, the only thing you need to do in order to be labeled as a “Fascist” is to tell jokes about presidential candidates.

Are history books not available online?

I guess now Stewart can join with Bill Maher – another successful white comedian in his 60s who relishes poking fun at people on both sides of our nation’s political divide.

Maher – who hosts his own show on HBO – is another card-carrying Democrat who drew the ire of his political friends by refusing to be politically correct on his television show, Real Time with Bill Maher.

Maher is hilarious when he goes after politicians, policy makers and pundits of all stripes on his show.

Apparently, it will still be safe for progressive Democrats to watch the Comedy Channel, Tuesday through Friday.

Stewart will be working just part-time, only hosting the Daily Show on Monday nights. Talk about ‘Must-See-TV”  I’ll be watching.

Does that make me a fascist?

[Thanks to loyal reader Jeffrey Tippett for pointing out that there is no such thing as the “Democrat” Party. Such references should properly be listed as the “Democratic” Party . . . you know, the party of Democrats. The error has been corrected, We, here at Lessons In Mediocrity, rely on our readers to keep us on our toes.]

Things to do in Denver when you’re dead

As I previously stated on Facebook, there are four topics that I now avoid discussing on any social media platforms: Abortion, Climate Change, Guns and LGBTQ+ issues.

The way I see it, it has become virtually impossible to discuss or debate any of these issues without the conversation dissolving into an abyss of bruised egos, hurt feelings and misunderstanding. I am NOT an expert on any of these issues. My opinion carries no more weight than your opinion.

Although I have staked out my positions, I am more than happy to discuss or debate any of the following topics with you in an off-line setting, preferably while drinking some craft beers or delicious coffee. I am always willing to hear alternative viewpoints — always ready to consider new information and perspectives, and ready to change my mind or outlook. Enjoy.

ABORTION:

Personally, I am opposed to abortions in almost all cases except when the mother’s life is in danger. That said, I also believe that I do NOT have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Thus, I am somewhat reluctantly pro-choice on this issue.

That said, I think it’s hypocrisy that we have the technology to detect bacteria on Mars and declare it’s a sign of life; and then say that an embryo or especially a fetus is not a living organism. It begins growing and developing from the moment of conception. That’s just science.

CLIMATE CHANGE:

I’ve written this before, and my position has changed very little over the past few years. First, Climate Change is real. Very real. The evidence is all around us and it is impacting, and will continue to impact, human life.

What bugs me about this subject is mostly centered upon the alarmist attitude of otherwise very intelligent people; and the sheer hypocrisy of those who often chant the loudest and want to impact my choices.

I am a huge supporter of renewable energy, including wind, solar and hydro projects. But that does not mean that all renewable energy projects are good. Some projects have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment, but for the most part I like renewable energy because it requires zero assistance from any other nation. It is truly independent energy. In some cases, I also support nuclear power and natural gas projects. [Disclosure: I have worked as a paid consultant on several renewable energy projects in New England]

I believe in being a good steward of our natural resources. I try to minimize my energy consumption. But the alarmists want to make my choices for me, that and the ever-growing bureaucracy of government regulation chaps my ass.

Furthermore, this issue is too often mired in fear and rhetoric, often ignoring science.

This ecosystem (Earth) is 4.53 BILLION years old. Think about that for a minute. We’re making declarations and pushing the panic button while ignoring the simple fact that we have basically NO idea about climate trends BEFORE humans began roaming the planet approximately 500,000 years ago.

Translation? Humans have been on earth for less than .01 percent of the earth’s life. Furthermore, we know (because science tells us) that this ecosystem has undergone numerous, significant and sometimes cataclysmic changes, sometimes wiping out various species, often referred to as “natural selection.” We’ve had Ice Ages, continental and seismic shifts, not to mention eons of volcanic activity that created huge dust plumes and particulate distribution all over the globe.

Bottom line? Our climate has been changing for a very, very, very long time and it will continue to change with or without us. I mean, really. Do you think you can alter the Earth’s ecosystem by driving a Prius? Do you think humans are powerful enough to somehow control or stabilize an ecosystem that has been evolving for 4.53 billion years???

Again, I think we should all strive to be good stewards of our planet and commit ourselves to better public health outcomes while also reducing global conflict by using renewable power, but I also think it’s still okay to drive a pickup truck, use a clothes dryer, microwave oven or a flat-screen television.

GUNS

I consider myself to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I do not believe that the Second Amendment — nor the First Amendment — is absolute. As a classic example, you certainly have the right to free speech, but you cannot yell ‘fire!” in a crowded movie theater; nor can you publicly threaten to assassinate the president or another person. Your FIRST AMENDMENT rights are not absolute.

The framers, I believe, were all too familiar with a tyrannical government and wanted to ensure that ALL power would rest in the hands of the people, not the state. There is ample historical evidence that the framers were not too keen on having a standing army, but saw the necessity of a citizen militia that could be called upon in times of need.

Thus, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

A lot of people conveniently skip over the first part of that sentence and instead focus on the last part regarding the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Second Amendment is important to both our liberty and security as a nation, but it does not give my neighbor the right to own a rocket-propelled grenade launcher or an intercontinental ballistic missile.

We have, what I believe, some common-sense limits. Academics aside, however, this issue has become a flashpoint in American politics. It seems almost impossible to have a civilized conversation about this topic because of an increasing frequency in horrific mass shooting incidents, many of which involve school-aged children as the victims.

I am as horrified and as sick as you are of seeing incidents like these happen. I too want something to change. Now. Right now. However, as hard as it may be, we have to put our emotions in check and work together and across the aisle to solve this problem.

What I find disheartening and a bit peculiar is that so many people focus primarily on the guns. Typically, these are people who don’t own firearms and don’t like firearms. On the other side of the debate, people (typically from the political right) say it’s not at all about the guns. They do a mighty good job of pontificating about mental health services (right up until it’s time to fund mental health services).

From my perspective, both sides of this debate are a little bit wrong and a little bit right. When we hear the news about another drunk-driving related death, we are outraged at the driver, not the vehicle he/she was driving.

Each day, roughly 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving car crashes, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Data from the NHSTA shows that from 2010 to 2019, more than 10,000 people died each year in drunk driving car accidents. How many more?

Too often, when it comes to a mass shooting incident we miss (or perhaps ignore) the larger, more pressing question: Why?

Why does someone (anyone) feel compelled to slaughter a large group of innocent eight-year-olds? Firearms, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns, have been around a long time. But this is a relatively new phenomena in American culture, beginning sometime around the late 1990s.

Why are we so violent? Why is our country so far ahead of all other industrialized nations when it comes to gun violence? I think we ignore the why because it’s much more convenient to focus on the guns.

Bottom line: I think we need serious gun reform legislation to include limits on high-capacity magazines, tighten loopholes on the easy availability of firearms and require mandatory safety training. Even Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most conservative Republican president in the last 100 years, wrote to Congress in the early 1990s, urging them to take meaningful action in limiting high-capacity firearms.

This is not rocket-science. We can achieve meaningful and substantial reforms without taking away your guns. I also believe that an unarmed citizenry is a dangerous thing. History underscores my belief on that matter. [Disclosure: I have a significant mental illness and subsequently choose not to own firearms].

LGBTQ+

First, the good news. It is becoming increasingly easier for people to feel comfortable in their own sexuality, but this topic is yet another flashpoint of vitriolic discussion on social media.

My take? I don’t really see any negative impacts to allowing two men or two women to enter into a state-supported marriage contract. Numerous studies have demonstrated undeniable statistical data that reveals married couples are far less likely to be involved in crime or drug abuse and are far less likely to need government assistance and typically have a more positive impact than their single peers on regional economies. It doesn’t matter if the couple is same-sex or a more traditional heterosexual couple.

Look I don’t understand all the uproar and the wringing of hands about these topics, including gender identity. I am a middle-aged, straight, white guy. I don’t want to publicly discuss what happens in my bedroom, and I don’t care much about what happens in your bedroom, as long as it involves consenting adults. It’s really none of my business.

Yup, I do think there is a part of this issue that has become somewhat trendy. And I don’t like the whole “you’re either for us or against us” mantra. I think there are a lot of gray areas out there, and as a civilized society I think we can work out the kinks. Look, we figured out how to put a man on the moon, I’m relatively comfortable in thinking that we can address same-sex restrooms or trans-gendered athletics. As long as we can all take a deep breath and set emotions aside.

My default position on all LGBTQ issues is basically just be kind, tolerant and accept others who may be different than you are. I don’t need to fly a rainbow flag in order to be decent and kind.

That said, much of the emotional uproar on this particular subject focuses on children. Here’s my take: I think it’s perfectly okay and probably pretty smart to teach children how to respect diversity that they will encounter throughout their lives. Beginning, perhaps, in the fifth-grade, I think it’s okay for students to read books that focus on sexuality and gender.

At about this age, many children begin to have questions about these subjects, and it’s not always easy to have those discussions with their own parents or family members.

I never chose to be straight. My gay friends and relatives never chose to be gay. Either you are or you are not. A textbook or movie isn’t going to change that.

However, I am opposed to having these discussions with children under the age of eight. Any parent or teacher out there will tell you that seven-year-olds will gladly eat paste. Six-year-olds still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy. Their brains are basically mush. They have little to no critical thinking skills.

If a six-year-old announces that he or she wants to marry their best friend, I would hope you don’t go ahead and book a function hall or send out wedding invitations to friends or relatives. For me, it should be the same if your seven-year-old announces that he/she wants to change gender.

You certainly can be supportive of that declaration without embarking on life-changing medical operations. You can address your child by his/her preferred pronouns. I think it’s okay if you allow a child (age 12 or above) to legally change their name. It can easily be changed again. You can be supportive and loving of your child but it does not require you to hit the operating room.

In Maine, I believe the age of consent is 16. Still a bit low, in my opinion. But if 16 is the age of consent, then it should also be the age of individual gender choice. I’m more comfortable with 18, or better yet 21, but we’re not talking about me or my kids.

At 16, your brain has not finished the formatting process that allows for critical thinking. Society says at 16 you are too young to vote. Too young to watch porn. Too young to enter into a legal contract and so on. You can love, support and nurture your children without introducing puberty blockers, hormone treatments or irreversible surgery.

But if you encounter an adult, or even your own child, who says they are gay, non-binary or trans-gendered why not treat them with anything other than respect or kindness?

Gay people and transgendered persons have been around since the beginning of human existence. Now, they are able to feel more comfortable and included in society. Even if your own religious beliefs claim that homosexuality is a sin, you can still choose to be kind. You can always be kind. That is a choice.

And that’s a wrap for the four dreaded topics of social media. Peace to you and yours.

A boy named Sue

I have a problem. Maybe you have the same problem.

The very first step for recovering alcoholics in the AA program is to admit that you are powerless over alcohol — that your life has become unmanageable.

Only by the grace of God, I am not an alcoholic, but I am an addict. And while not yet unmanageable, my addiction is interfering in the quality of my life . . .

What am I talking about? Cocaine? Opiates? Ben & Jerry’s ice cream? No, no and  . . . well, maybe.

I’m talking about social media. As soon as I wake up in the morning, I reach for my phone to see if anyone has commented on one of my posts; or commented on one of my responses on someone else’s post. Several times during the day, even while working, I find myself scrolling through Facebook updates.

I am a political junkie. I always have been for as long as I can remember. I blame my parents. They got me hooked on watching the news. One time, my father pulled me out of school so that I could see Jimmy Carter during a campaign stop in Biddeford.

They made me stay up late on school nights and watch “Roots,” a televised production of the Alex Hailey novel. We participated in the “Fresh Air” program, hosting minority, inner-city kids from New York during the summer.

I remember seeing George Wallace get shot on the news. I was glued to the television when Nixon announced his resignation. By the time I hit sixth-grade, I was writing essays about G. Gordon Liddy and Charles (Chuck) Colson. I dreamed about becoming the next Carl Bernstein.

My mother is and was always a progressive Democrat. When my parents divorced, she became relentless with Helen Reddy music. To this day, if I hear: “I am woman, hear me roar . . .” I begin to twitch and drool. Mom wore that album out on the old Zenith turntable.

Meanwhile, my Dad became a volunteer on Ted Kennedy’s failed presidential campaign in 1980. Before then, they were always talking at the dinner table about Vietnam and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and other boring stuff.

I was hooked. I became a political animal. It was once a badge of honor, but has since become a curse.

I can’t help myself. For some reason I cannot just scroll by political posts on Facebook, even the bat-shit crazy memes created by extremists on the polar ends of both political parties. I LOVE to argue. I piss off friends on the left and then I piss off friends on the right.

I am sarcastic and stubborn, a fly in the ointment, always challenging the so-called iron-clad pronouncements of the self-righteous, never quite realizing that I’m just being an asshole. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Somewhere along the line, even though I once worked for the Maine People’s Alliance, I started becoming a bit conservative in my political outlook. It makes my mother cry and my father roll in his grave.

As some of you may already know, I used to get paid to offer my opinions as the editor of a local newspaper. That led to hosting a live political talk show on public access television. Politics led to meeting my wife for the first time on Election Day 2001. She was running for a seat on the Old Orchard Beach School Board. I did not endorse her in my local endorsements. She was pissed. Really pissed, sending me e-mail after e-mail after e-mail because of a tiny mistake. She does the same shit today.

Anyway, so often I find myself engaged, actually consumed, in heated arguments on social media. My blood pressure spikes. I lose track of time. Before you know it, hours have passed.

That’s precious time that could have been allocated toward more meaningful and productive endeavors; like re-arranging my sock drawer or working on my collection of Canadian placemats.

Even while vacationing with my wife just a few kilometers south of Cancun, I was still arguing with people on Facebook. There I was, in paradise with the love of my life. Beautiful scenery, the green Caribbean and white sands, palm trees and I’m arguing about Donald Trump, Joe Biden and the cost of gasoline . . . WTF?

In all seriousness, it’s just silly. No one out there is trying to engage you and help you see their perspective. Instead, it seems they just want to scream about the other side being wrong. You really have to work at it in order to find consensus . . . and it’s damn rare.

I don’t care what your political outlook is, I can be friends with you . . . well, at least on Facebook. Look, we are ALL much more alike than we may want to admit.

We all love puppies and pictures of newborns.

We all have fears and concerns that we don’t share publicly.

We all have parents, and some of us have children. Everyone I know would take a bullet to save their child or their parents.

We all love sunny days and the smell of fresh-cut grass, the gentle pelting of a late afternoon rain shower.

We have all made silly mistakes.

I am worried about the world and where we are heading, but I can’t afford to let that consume me. I find solace in music (and 200mg of Clozapine every night). I have posted this video clip before, but I think it needs to be repeated.

A friend turned me onto this band earlier this year. These four young Asian women are amazing, and this song, in particular, gives me hope for the future: the idea that everything is going to be okay.

Also, the drummer is 12. Not a typo. She is 12. Give it a listen and tell me that you don’t feel just a little bit better about the world. I need more music and fewer political conversations in my life. Cheers!

Shiny, happy people

The 19th Century French novelist Romain Rolland once opined that “we are reckless in our use of the lovely word, friend.”  Nowhere is that more true than on Facebook and other social media platforms.

As an example, as of today, I have 1,202 “friends” on Facebook. Really? Do I have more than a thousand people who would loan me $20, help me with a home repair project or drive me to and from a doctor’s appointment?

Probably not. Because when you look deeper into my life you will see that I am actually blessed with close to 20 real friends. These people do not judge me, but will also share their honest opinions if asked.

In a few weeks, one of my real friends will get out of bed at 6 a.m. in order to pick me up at my home, drive me to Sanford for an ECT treatment and wait roughly two hours before he can drive me home with zero compensation. Now, that is a friend.

What about all those other “friends” on social media? Well, for starters, they are better described as contacts in a very large and fluid Rolodex.

Sure, social media can be fun, interesting and sometimes informative, but it’s important to remember that, for the most part, you are looking through a carefully controlled lens as you scroll through the posts on your social media page. Few of us would go to the grocery store wearing only our underwear. (Some things are best left to the imagination.)

When you see a friend’s post on social media, more often than not you are seeing only what they want you to see: their happy family, pictures of their vacation or beloved pets, etc.  What you rarely, if ever, see, is someone posting that they will need to file bankruptcy or facing divorce because of infidelity.

Instead, you are seeing only the beautiful posts, which can lead to feelings of envy and inferiority, especially among young people.

Teenage Wasteland

According to studies by the Pew Research Center and the Mayo Clinic, teenagers’ use of social media “allows teens to create online identities, communicate with others and build social networks. These networks can provide teens with valuable support, especially helping those who experience exclusion or have disabilities or chronic illnesses.”

“But social media use can also negatively affect teens, according to the 2018 study. Social media can distract them, disrupt their sleep, and expose them to bullying, rumor spreading, unrealistic views of other people’s lives and peer pressure.”

The risks might be related to how much social media teens use. A 2019 study of more than 6,500 12- to 15-year-olds in the U.S. found that those who spent more than three hours a day using social media might be at heightened risk for mental health problems. Another 2019 study of more than 12,000 13- to 16-year-olds in England found that using social media more than three times a day predicted poor mental health and well-being in teens.

Other studies also have observed links between high levels of social media use and depression or anxiety symptoms.

As a strategic communications consultant, I can tell you that maintaining your own online reputation is very important. Nothing is ever truly “erased” on the Web. Businesses and political campaigns need to be fully aware and consent to everything they post in the digital town square.

Remember: it is often better to just scroll on by posts that seem like “click-bait,” otherwise choose your words and images carefully. Because, whether you like it, people will judge you by the words you use.

Originally published on the Saco Bay News website.

Outrageous Fortune

Noam Galai | Getty ImagesEvery time I start to feel a bit of optimism about the future, the reality hammer drops on my head.

Today, we learned that restaurants in southern Maine will not be able to re-open as originally scheduled  because of ongoing concerns about the Cov-19 epidemic.

The social media reaction to this news has been swift from both sides of the political aisle, Republicans blame Janet Mills and Democrats blame President Trump.

There are posts calling for an armed revolution to overthrow Maine Governor Janet Mills.  “. . .Open up anyways and bring your guns!!! ,” wrote one poster on Facebook.

In the Shakespearean play Hamlet, the young prince contemplates suicide, best referenced within this famous soliloquy: To Be or Not to Be.

Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.
People on the right are still referencing mask wearers as “sheep,” unable to discern the truth.
People on the left use terms like “mouth breather,” to describe conservatives.
There doesn’t seem that there is any middle ground.
And now the news released today by the governor: dine-in restaurants in southern Maine will need to remain closed until further notice, as opposed to a cautious opening date of June 1.
Think of all those businesses that purchased food and supplies as they geared up for June 1. Think about the employees called back to work. What does the future hold?
From my perspective, the future looks pretty grim, so I have designed my own plan for businesses that want to open on June 1:
  • Let the restaurant owners decide if they want to open or not.
  • Let customers decide on whether they want to frequent these establishments
  • Let the employees decide whether they want to work.
  • For people who have a weakened immune system (like my wife) stay at home.
  • For people who do not want go to public places, do not go there. You can order groceries and food online.
This my five-point plan. What do you think?

The war of the words

I am 56 years-old. I am a white man. I live in the suburbs. I have two healthy sons and an amazing wife.

I have nothing to complain about. But still I have a knack for finding political fights on social media platforms.

I used to be a journalist, and then a columnist. I put food on my family’s table by sharing my opinions every week.

Please, however, make no mistake, I am today a little more than a second-rate pundit with a boatload of opinions, a keyboard and an internet connection. Sadly, a lot of other people I know are in the same boat.

When I was growing up, I was taught that voting, and politics were private things. That’s why we have curtains at the voting booth: to keep our choices private. Back then, however, we didn’t have an internet and access to so many people.

According to Facebook, I have more than 1,100 “friends.” Let’s get real. I can count the number of my friends on two hands,

“We are reckless in our use of the lovely word friend,” or so wrote French author Romain Rolland in 1913.

I am guilty of being a political monger, easily sucked into meaningless debates on Facebook and Twitter. But I also like to think I am a political centrist, and that it would be difficult to discern my political orientation based on my social media postings.

Maybe I am kidding myself. Maybe not.

I find it curious that so many people spend so much time engaged in political debates on social media outlets, some of which become quite heated as these amateur pundits duke it out on the world-wide web.

Both Democrats and Republicans (in almost equal measure) line up in their own turf and pontificate why their points are absolute truth. Are these people trying to recruit more members? Are they hoping to influence our nation’s political discourse?

Following my career in journalism, I accepted a job as a public relations professional. Yes, social media is a powerful communications tool in today’s world of political engagement, but every PR pro knows that it must be handled with precision.

Do you really think that name calling, badgering and screeching hardcore positions will “convert” someone from a different camp?

How much time do you spend on social media platforms, engaged in political debates?

Is it worth it?

Wag the dog

If I had any doubts about the increasingly dominating role of new media over traditional media, they were vanquished yesterday while watching ABC’s World News Tonight.

In the A-block of the evening news program (ranked second between NBC and CBS) Anchor David Muir told us a story about a tweet that Donald Trump sent earlier in the day to commemorate Cinco de Mayo.

Perhaps because Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee for the presidency and because his  tasteless Taco Bowl tweet had gone viral, ABC treated it as one of their top new stories.

ABC’s Taco Bowl Tweet story included reporting that Hillary Clinton’s team fired off a response tweet using Trump’s own words to discredit him. The story also mentioned that 81 percent of Hispanic Americans have an unfavorable view of Trump.

ABC was certainly not alone in covering the Taco Bowl incident. The social media gaffe was covered by every other network, including cable news giants CNN and FOX, not to mention the print media, including the Associated Press, USA Today and Reuters.

In each of these stories, something that transpired in the world of new media was being reported by the old media giants in a classic game of react and catch-up.

Trump tweeted his photo some five hours before ABC’s evening news broadcast. How many people had already seen the tweet?

I will not argue the newsworthy merits of Trump’s tweet, but it struck me that the once dominating news giants were again scrambling to keep up with their more nimble counterparts in the world of social media.

Whether it is a political campaign or your business reputation on the line, what you do and say on social media has significant consequences. That’s why I always tell my clients to be very careful and not post anything on social media that you don’t want to see on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper.

The tables have turned. The rules have changed. You are the media. Take your role seriously.


Randy Seaver is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He also has more than a decade of experience as a strategic communications consultant, helping a wide range of clients overcome challenges in the court of public opinion.  Learn More

Je suis navré

Over the last 24 hours, many of my Facebook friends changed their profile pictures with a backdrop of the French flag.

I did not.

I have no criticism for my friends who did this, I can only explain why I did not.

eifel

What happened in Paris last night was an outrage. Those were cowardly acts perpetrated by cowardly people. Of course, we should stand in solidarity with our fellow men, women and children in Paris. We want to show that we are united.  There is nothing wrong with that.

We are saddened. We are outraged. And yes, we are afraid that this form of terror will soon land again on own shores.

Paris was not the first attack coordinated by ISIS. The loose-knit terror organization has struck other nations, albeit not members of Western Civilization.

I did not change my Facebook profile when ISIS beheaded journalists. I did not change my Facebook profile when ISIS attacked a hotel in Tunisia. I did not change my Facebook profile when ISIS attacked a French Gas plant or when they attacked and killed people in Kobane or Hasakah in Syria; or in Libya or Egypt.

I was a newspaper editor when the 9-11 attacks on the United States took place. Shortly after those attacks, my publisher and I had a lengthy conversation about whether to place an American flag symbol on the top of the front page. Another local paper had made that move, but we decided not to. It was a difficult decision, but I think we both realized that we were dealing with raw emotion, rather than sound logic.

For example, how long would the flag symbol appear on the front page? Would it be like a Christmas tree, which should be taken down after six weeks? Were we suddenly becoming patriotic because we were attacked? Why didn’t we have the flag on the front page on September 10, 2001?

To us, it seemed like being exploitative in the days following a horrific attack on our nation.

As could have been predicted, that other newspaper stopped with printing the flag on their front page long before the end of the year.

Social media is different, however. I see nothing wrong with wanting to show solidarity. I see nothing wrong with wanting to affirm our common connection to the human experience, including its shock, grief and outrage.

I just fear that we are dealing with something so much larger than what we can comprehend; a force of evil that we cannot imagine.

Some say the United States is unable or unwilling to face this latest form of human terror. Some say we are complacent, self-absorbed and don’t have the will to fight any enemy like ISIS. Some even criticize western leaders like President Obama for being “weak” on terrorism.

To those people, I say you are wrong. The same things were said about America and her president on December 6, 1941. We proved the world wrong, if only reluctantly and waiting until we were attacked.

People have criticized Generation X, yet Armed Forces recruiting stations were filled in the days after Sept. 11, 2001.

America has what it takes to confront ISIS, but this will need to be much more than a social media campaign of altered Facebook profile pictures. This will need to be a worldwide effort, and it will require both resources and tremendous sacrifice.

I am not a foreign policy expert, and more than likely, neither are you. I do not know how to bring the world together on this issue, but I do know that it will require much more than symbolic gestures.

We stand with Paris. But we must also stand with Berlin, Tunisia, Prague, Beirut and people of every stripe across the globe, not just the ones who look like us.

Pretty Persuasion

boehner-resignDo you argue about politics on social media? Do you find yourself getting angry and often one step away from “unfriending” someone or blocking them?

And what happens when you argue about politics with someone right in front of you? Are you able to keep calm or do you feel your blood begin to boil?

I have an interesting mix of Facebook “friends,” and follow an eclectic mix of folks on Twitter.

Most of these people are relatively outspoken about their political views, and many of them are political junkies just like me. Hence, we are connected via social media.  My social media contacts are pretty much equally divided between the two dominant political parties, but most of them could be described as political moderates.

Lately, however, I am seeing an increasing number of my friends becoming more extremist, whether they sit on the left or right side of the political aisle. I’m not a big fan of the word “extremist,” I prefer to describe these particular friends as passionate.

Passion, however, does not equal reason or even common sense. You can be passionate about something, but if you’re leading with your heart or your gut instead of your brain, you are bound to cross paths with someone who has a polar opposite point of view.

Witnessing those interactions is like watching a train wreck. Nothing good comes from it.

Passionate folks often decry the role of moderates. They say we lack convictions, courage and principles. I would counter that passionate people rarely pause to use their brains when trying to make a political point.

So there, I just lost the art of political persuasion.

Define winning

We live in a culture of winners and losers. We love to root for our teams, and politics has always been a blood-sport.

We have cliches such as “elections have consequences,” a modern adaptation of “to the victor go the spoils.”

But what is the point of winning a political argument? If you win, does it really help your candidate or cause?

What is more important: your PRIDE or your GREED?

Pride is defined as your way of doing things, your personal view of yourself and tactics. Greed is defined as your goals, the object of your desire.

So, first ask yourself: am I arguing to beat someone or am I arguing to help them better see my point?

Instead of bashing a candidate or cause, why not vest your energy into making a more compelling argument for your candidate or cause?

Why are you arguing? To thump your chest, to make a point or maybe to win someone over?

Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner abruptly announced he would be leaving his post at the end of October. That announcement drew cheers from many of my friends on both sides of the aisle.

I don’t think Republicans understand fully how much Boehner helped his party. He was a fundraising machine and held together one of the most challenging caucuses in recent memory.

I also don’t think many of my friends on the left appreciate Boehner’s dedication to his country, his willingness to compromise and the leadership he offered in the House.

If it is to be all out war between the two political parties, then the casualties will be counted in losses for our nation.

So let’s all take a stab at better approach to arguing. Let’s persuade instead of attack.

Persuasion is much more difficult, but it is far more rewarding.

And it will likely help keep your blood pressure in check.

For a complete style guide about how to really win a political argument, check this link from New York Magazine.