The silver linings of an Abbott Government ... desperate thoughts in difficult times

Warning: may irritate some ALP voters I like on Twitter. Hopefully not, but possibly.

So it's come to this.

When the soothingly thoughtful and intelligent Waleed Aly becomes the focus of criticism from ALP apologists it's time to check the blinkers.

Remember the good old days of protesting bad government
policy without fear of giving the opposition a free kick?

Aly wrote what was, in my opinion, a fantastic piece (and to be fair, it seems there was far more praise than criticism) discussing the real problems Labor face - you know, those that actually underlie the bad polls and infighting. It wasn't the policy analysis we need, but it was a broad look at ALP policy and ideology and, despite the usually measured Bernard Keane attacking him, summarising it as "Waleed Aly joining Fairfax's new 'all leadership speculation, all the time' format," the 'L' word was only used once and to actually make a point of stating that the issues he was addressing were "not about incompetent leadership".

Yet the reaction from many people on Twitter was an elbow-jerk finger pointing at the Coalition, or to take up Aly's overarching theme of narrative, which some are now pushing as a dismissive running joke, to avoid what he was really talking about.

The defensiveness was cringeworthy as rusted on some rusted on ALP voters could not even for a minute take a moment to accept this may be a legitimate arguement and that perhaps there is something wrong with the party.

Apparently it's all about mainstream media hatred of Julia Gillard and the ALP. Reality check - The ALP stink. Just not quite as bad as the other lot. But that's no reason to defend them.

The progressive party we need, or the one we deserve?

They deserve to, and must, be called on it if they are going to be the progressive party we actually deserve. Or maybe they are the progressive party we deserve, but they are not the one we need right now - though I hate to compare my beloved Batman with them, they're more like Two-Face at the moment.

We need a major progressive party that treats asylum seekers with dignity, affords them basic human rights and doesn't use them as a political football. One that listens to Indigenous communities rather than continuing oppressive Howard-era policies that aren't working. One that keeps its commitment to stand up to the gaming industry and deliver real reform, like they did the tobacco industry. One that doesn't dance along to the conservative tune of 'surplus, surplus, surplus whatever it takes', because we know that's not a healthy or realistic attitude (and, jeebus, why not use reality against the Coalition??). One that treats all people equally, especially when it's what the majority of the people and that party want.

Yes, they have done some very good things in the past three years and performed quite well in some difficult circumstances, and no person or party or government is perfect, but there is so much to abhore about this lot right now, in their policy and how the conduct themselves. Even one of the Prime Minister's most memorable moments, that misogyny speech, came while the government cut welfare to single parents (many being women).

Warranted as some of it has been, much of the angry criticism of the mainstream media's trivial obsession with polls and leadership over policy seems to have itself become a trivial obsession with being the victim and taking a 'whatever it takes' approach to beating Tony Abbott rather than thinking broadly about policy.

Which leads me to my other moment of utter disillusionment with the media, politicians and punters who pretend to want to discuss issues over party politics. On Tuesday it was (minimally) reported that children in detention - in the care of our government - as young as nine years old have been self-harming.

A nine-year old overdosed on painkillers, saying he was "going crazy", a ten year old cut his forearms, a 17 year old tried to hang himself. And 23 other cases between August 2010 and November 2011.

This is outrageous and surely a perfect opportunity for a biased media to sink the boot in? Yet there was much silence from the mainstream media and party aligned tweeters alike. Perhaps because both sides are culpable and the media has played a major role in perpetrating disgraceful myths and perceptions. But it is the government that is ultimately responsible for their wellbeing. And all the while, some people who have been most vocally banging on about #Ashbygate and the media's silence and unfair treatment, themselves had nothing to say about children self-harming in detention. Didn't suit the politics.

In the end many calls of bias from all sides aren't calls for better quality journalism or neutrality, but demands for a their team to be given a "fairer run". Like using the free kick count in an AFL match to judge the quality of umpiring, it wholly dismisses the reality of events, and the actions, values and discipline of either side.

And now with bickering between the ALP and the Greens and everything turning to shit I begin to wonder ... is an ALP loss- even a little whalloping - perhaps what we need? I find myself starting to think of the benefits of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, perhaps out of sheer necessity. Maybe a term - just one if possible - of Prime Minister Abbott would actually be good for us in the long-run. Maybe?

Silver linings of ... PM Abbott  (*shudder*)

I've only in the past week resigned myself to the fact the Coalition will likely win. And I'm not comfortable with it. But there are opportunities there, friends! We progressives could properly rally around a common enemy and do what we do best without feeling the need to defend a less-than-perfect government - protest! Yes there would be bad outcomes, but maybe it would offer an opportunity to refocus on drawing attention to our issues like our appalling human rights record of the last decade without holding back for fear of handing the opposition a free point (because they are so much better, right?!) and really, truly, deeply talk about issues again. Wasn't it more fun when we all hated Prime Minister Howard??

I desperately want the ALP to be better than what it is. I want to want to vote for them - well preference them, Adam Bandt will likely get my primary vote - not just put them down as the least bad option. My sense of Aly's piece was that he feels the same. I wasn't a kicking for the sake of it, it was an plea for better progressive representatives. I think he, like me, wants to be able to choose a party to govern that inspires, not the lesser evil. Not that I can speak on his behalf.

Frankly, the ALP deserve to be beaten in the election. They are not a party I want running my country. The problem we have, of course, is that the alternative is fundamentally evil. For the first time I understand people who don't wish to vote. "If you don't vote you can't complain about the elected government," they say. Well sure you can if you think both options suck. (This is not an argument against our system of compulsory attendance, which I love).

Waleed Aly hit many nails on their heads. I don't want to see Prime Minister Abbott; I could live with Prime Minister Turnbull if the party reflected his views rather than vice-versa, but that won't happen;but I don't particularly want to see this government limp on into another term the way it's going and with policies I can't accept. Perhaps we'll be better off in the long run if they cop a harsh lesson and come out a better party. I'm sure it will just lead to more infighting, recriminations, speculations, deals and revenge though.

If the Coalition win without control of the Senate hopefully Abbott's inane blood pledge to repeal the price on carbon will begin his unraveling  from day one. It's the kind of easy story the media love, the public don't hate it anymore and I can't see a Double Dissolution helping him in any way in such circumstances.

What we need is to get back to be able to talk about ideas and issues in a way that is not constrained by which party you support. It's just as important to hold the party you support to account publicly.

But if you treat this like sport - as many of us constantly criticise the media for doing - and merely fight the 'other team', if you're response to any criticism of your side of politics is "but what about them?!", you're missing the point and holding back the progressive cause.

Some ALP voters need to take a cold shower, focus less on crying out for critique of Tony Abbott - it will come - and realise that the ALP really do need to be much better as a party and progressives. And hey, that might just turn things around.

What's more harmful - Xanax or Channel 7's coverage of mental health?

I'm angry with you, Channel 7. Yesterday I ran my first half-marathon and was on a high. I wanted to write about it - the pain, the achievement, the music, the reasons for and against doing it again. But then I watched Sunday Night's alarmist story on the anti-anxiety drug Xanax. A drug I take.

I don't like being angry, so I'm furious that this trash tabloid journalism made me mad.

I knew as soon as I saw the promo it would rile me and I'd tweet frustratedly, but I couldn't ignore it. I guess Channel 7 will count that as a win.

The premise was, basically, Xanax is more addictive than Heroin, it destroys lives and should be banned. Oh, and traces of it were found in the blood of Heath Ledger, Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson when they died! (Well yes, among various other things, but let's not mention that)

It was an irresistable hook and seemed to shock a few people judging by responses on Twitter. Fear-based outrage sells almost as well as sex. The more - dare I say - irrational responses to the show's question of whether Xanax should be banned were comments like: "yep! aniety (sic) can be helped if people were allowed to relax and people showed care and concern more.", "Xanax is scary! Doctors should be held responsible for giving out a drug that is known to be more addictive that heroin", and my favourite "yes! We lost Michael Jackson from it".

Fortunately, just as many tweeters defended rational consideration of the issue, many of whom had actually dealt with anxiety. It was a pleasant irony for us to be the (at least relatively) rational ones.

The misleading emotional use of dead celebrities, was just the first giveaway of a rubbish story. At no point did it address the dangers of mixing drugs without medical advice, which happened in each of those cases. I suppose truthful (respectful?) representation of those tragic deaths, rather than insinuating one drug's responsibility, would lessen the emotional affect of mentioning them.

They also spoke of side-effects like blackouts in absolute terms as though they happen to everyone who takes it. I've never had a blackout in four years on a relatively high dosage. Maybe I'm on the placebo.

Not only was there no test of the premise (just run with it), there was no acknowledement of the many lives Xanax has undoubtedly saved from suicide, or helped get back on track from various levels of anxiety. Nope, not even considered. Has that actually happened ever? You wouldn't have thought so.

There's no doubt we need to monitor the use of medications. And I don't doubt the genuine suffering those interviewed have experienced. Some drugs are addictive and can have serious side-effects, which is why you need to take them responsibly under professional advice (and I'm not suggesting these people didn't).

But if you are going to call for a ban on a product that manages the suffereing of severe anxiety, you should at least explore some alternative treatments. The report didn't even look properly at why people are prescribed Xanax, other than bandying about the word anxiety.

How many people today will be fearful of the drug and consider stopping usage (a very dangerous course of action)? How many will resist advice from doctors to take it as a result of this unbalanced reporting, possibly preventing recovery? How many unqualified people will advise family or friends to stop taking this "horrendous drug", out of concern but based on ill-informed fear? That could be dangerous.

This was not a story for public interest or information, but a grab for ratings.This kind of sensationalist reporting just fuels hysteria or makes thinking people dismissive, it serves no real purpose. Which is sad, whether or not there is any validity in the concerns raised.

I am not here to defend Xanax. It's worked for me, but I had a period of trial-and-error with other anti-depressants first. I value how it helped me recover from a pretty dark period and start to manage severe anxiety, but feel like cognitive therapies and activities like yoga and running have been the things that really changed the way I think. So I'm hopeful of coming off it sooner than later. I never really liked the idea of a drug that affected my brain, though it hasn't stopped me consuming alcohol.

We should look at the role of medication in various areas. I personally tend to agree that we live in an age of over-prescription, but I'm not an expert, and many people need these drugs to live a normal life.

As a comsumer, I want the media and government to hold the pharmaceutical industry to account. Just as much as I want to see responsible reporting on mental health that doesn't induce irrational fear or reinforce stigma. I don't want to see reporting that prevents people getting the help they need.

Xanax is potent. It works fast. Am I addicted? Well I've never craved it (like I crave yoga after a few days) and I'd deal better going without it for a day than Facebook or Twitter, but if I miss a few doses I do experience physiological side-effects that are not fun, as well as an increase in anxiety. Is it more addictive than Heroin? I don't know, I've never had reason to take Heroin. I do know that when I come off Xanax, it will be very slowly and under the supervision of my GP and psychologist.

I'd rather see Channels 7 and 9 banned from covering mental health issues until they can drag themselves from reporting on extremes and cover them in a fair, considered way, than have Xanax banned. They've demonstrated that they either do not care or do not understand the serious and complex nature of mental illness.

Nobody will avoid depression or anxiety as a result of last night's shameful current affairs story. Hopefully not too many are thrown into mental chaos by it.

But well done Sunday Night, you have set us back some way. I hope you made some money from it.

The best advice is: be sensible. That goes for people taking Xanax as well as media talking about it.

Valuing the thinkers in politcal discussion

I liked this article by Mike Carlton.

I posted it on a friend's Facebook wall. A conservative-voting, but more-progressive-thinking-than-he'd-like-to-admit friend. One who has been (un)fairly critical of some of the 'scandals' surrounding the government in the last 18 months. I like to tell him he has a progressive inside waiting to burst out once he comes out of denial, which he doesn't appreciate it, but we agree on a lot of things when you get past the slimy surface of political discussion.

I liked the article because, while hardly policy-heavy, it looked beyond the surface (or headline) level judgements of the government, and noted that Julia Gillard's has actually been, at the very least a good economic manager - the media's primary measurement of government for at least the last 15 years, since reform went out of fashion. Also it has successfully implemented a good deal of legislation despite the hung parliament.

My friend dismissed it because Carlton isn't known to be balanced in his views. 'Come on!' I thought, 'that's it?? No criticism of the logic or arguements?' I just responded with a smiley face because, while we can have a strangely respectful political discussion, Facebook walls are dangerous ground for such discourse. Any nut can get involved and turn things sour, so I keep the politics to a minimum there, and save it for Twitter. I'll pursue him about it over a beer soon. I think he'll sheepishly concede a few points, so I should be mature about it in the spirit of appreciating open-mindedness.

Got me thinking though - have we just become barrackers again? The old ways of voting along family lines crumbled long ago. Although I do remember an 18 year-old arriving at a polling booth with his father, where I was handing out How-To-Vote cards for the Greens (for a friend!). His Dad instructed him to avoid us and take one from the Liberals and Family First representatives. As he walked past behind his Dad I quietly offered him one. 'Nah, I better not,' he replied. And they say we live in a democracy!

Yet swingers are the rise my friends, cynical enough about politics not to pledge their ongoing support to anyone. But just as we got wise, the mainstream media got particularly dumb. We switch more, but based on what? Policy? Scaremongering? Scandals? The Prime Minister's wardrobe?

Whatever the reasons, lots of people still tend to make up their mind about something and then stick to it. That's not to say it won't change - clearly views do change - but it takes time. Admitting you were wrong is not seen as noble but weak, inconsistent and/or an indication of unreliability, which is utterly counter-intuitive.

Was the I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change experiment anything more than a waste of time, money and carbon emissions? Did anyone change their mind? Certainly not those involved in the show. And a massive 47% of voters in the online poll said they would never change their mind. Never. Regardless of what information comes to light. No scientist that takes themselves seriously would say that, and no human ever should. Those people may as well walk away from the debate, regardless of which side they are on, their closed-minded opinion has lost its legitimacy. I only hope many passionate Climate Change believers misguidedly voted 'No' they would never change their mind because they feared a 'Yes' result would look like a win for the skeptics. It's not. It's a (frighteningly marginal) win for reason. Anyway, chances are - and changes in the perception of Climate Change indicate - that many more than this number would actually change their mind, they just obviously don't like to admit it for fear of weakening their argument.

For the record, I believe in human-induced Climate Change, do not expect to change my mind and think environmental protection is crucial either way, but I voted 'Yes' (I would change my mind). I hope I would.

We chastise politicians who do as weakness or liars - even if you meant what you said (and the media will insist on a promise) but changed due to unforseen circumstances.

So back to Carlton and his fellow opinion piece writers, and the judgement of balance. By definition, no opinion writer is 'balanced'. They are writing their opinion. Some are more considered than others and address both sides of an issue, but all have their own values and beliefs and column inches are meant to be the space to test their ideas, and challenge the reader. Although some prefer to attract an audience by whipping up fear and frenzy.

My favourite column writers - and I would include Mike Carlton along with people like George Megalogenis and Ross Gittins - put their case intelligently and sensibly. I like Carlton because of the pinch of intelligent humour that probably riles the 'opposition'. Megalogenis is the most 'neutral', but I suspect conservatives view him as a leftie. I'd add David Marr to the list but then my apparent left-leaning view of the world becomes even starker and I can be dismissed as well!

But I'm exhausted by the old view of left and right. It's fucking outdated and childish, far too basic within a complex economic, social and environmental policy discourse. Politics is not sport where you pick your team and stick with it, your view of heroes, villians and umpiring decisions often defined by who your team is. My values define my vote, not the other way around.

And yes, I'm more likely to read articles by people who I respect, who, in turn, are likely to share my values - or have they helped shape them? I don't read Fairfax more than News Ltd press because I'm a progressive, I read it because it takes the news a little more seriously. Not enough, but more. I like MediaWatch because it exposes just how much of a mess the whole lot (commercial media) are. Again, my disappointment in the commercial media's general inability to maintain it's credibility probably shoves me into the leftie camp. So be it.

I'll read and respect columnists that take a serious view of politics, with an interest in the good of the community rather than bitter ranting, sensationalisation, old-school point-scoring or shallow reporting of polls and popularity. Michelle Grattan, for instance, seems to me to be neutral, but has little of substance to say.

I don't care who they vote for as long as they're rational, reasoned and encourage - rather than undermine - mature discussion. We should read articles of merit by people who share and challenge our values, question them equally and form a judgement. It's not easy though.

An informed electorate is the antithesis of party or ideological loyalty though. We all need to be able to think it all through and feel free to express a polite, engaging opinion without fear of being wrong. We're only human.

The making of a music snob

I always wanted to be part of a minority. Think it's tough being different, try being just like most of the people around you, not knowing who to identify with...

But good news! I found my niche. In the great tradition of minority identification, the revelation came via a slur in response to my dismissal of The Voice. But really it's been right under my upturned nose for a long time - I am a music snob.

The term is thrown around endearingly among my own kind. But used against me just because of my stubborn refusal to be herded in the one direction of the masses by the latest commercial karaoke contest, it hurt.

I can see the entertainment value of the show, but I have no interest in its existance whatsoever and would happily avoid it altogether if it weren't being talked about by goddamn everyone. And so I rant.

Surely after ten or more years of reality television scouring the country for the next best voices, we've either drained the talent pool or proven that a lot of people can sing or even play guitar, but few can write a song.
Would Thom Yorke make it onto one of these shows with his lazy eye? Or John Darnielle with his odd voice? Elliott Smith with his gloomy tone? Tim Rogers with his ruggedness and inability to keep his shirt on ... OK, he'd probably do well. Or Paul Kelly? Would Paul Kelly - one of Australia's greatest songwriter's, with his shy, plain looks and everyday voice - make it on any of these shows by singing a few bars of a song, his or someone elses? Record execs have been trying and failing to find talent this way for decades. It's precisely why we have an Indie music scene.

I don't care if you watch it, I really don't. But please, please don't take it too seriously. Because if you're in it for the music, instead of sitting on the couch watching the idiot box, you could be sharing a beer with real people in a local bar, checking out a genuine band playing their own music with no rules and no competition to constrain them. Artists plying their trade on the slow road for the love of it, playing to share a moment with other music lovers, not chasing 15 minutes of fame by making an immediate superficial impression on has-been popstars judges. The Voice's angle is that it's 'blind' judging - presumably removing the superficial visual nature of pre-incarnations. But remember two things: contestants that make it onto the stage have still been carefully chosen in pre-production auditions; and Australian Idol gave us Casey Donovan as a winner - a shy, young, overweight Indigenous girl, refreshingly far from the popstar mould. These shows are as much about manipulating a narrative as looks. They realise we're at least smarter than that. But they don't foster careers. Casey Donovan was a victim of the very supericiality her achievement was supposedly rebuffing.

My problem is: I. Love. Music. As far as art goes, it's the one that speaks to me the most directly, the most powerfully. It can express the whole range of emotions, and capture moments and feelings in a way words can't. It's emotional lifeblood. And I can't watch these shows without wanting to yell at them: for missing the point; for for stripping the music of it's meaning and injecting an ungodly dose of glitz to make it entertain as large an audience as possible; for playing on the genuine premise that there is a lot of undiscovered music talent out there, and then refusing to really look for it; for being so arteficial and contrived; for exploiting naive talent. Emotions and contestants are manipulated. Winners are exploited and often end up worse off.

Don't even start me on Young Talent Time.

I'm not criticising anyone who watches it, really. Did I say I don't care? I'll probably get sucked into Big Brother again when it comes back this year, so what? We can't be intellectual all the time. It just saddens me that a music talent show can draw such an audience and ignore so much genuine artistic, creative talent. Amidst all the flash-in-the-pan popstars - and a couple of persistent B-grade performers who now stoop to tweeting for cash - the only genuine artistic talent I know of to come out of these shows in Australia is Lisa Mitchell, finishing sixth as a 16-year-old in Australian Idol in 2006.

But exploring real talent wouldn't be so popular I guess. The deeper you go with art the more it branches out - we're all moved by and relate to different tones and tunes. It's the beauty of being human, we're all different. So you have to keep it shallow to reach the largest possible audience.

So when friends talk about this music, I just want to tell them how good we have it here in Melbourne - one of the best and easiest places on Earth to explore your taste through countless live music venues, fantastic public radio stations, independent music stores and glorious festivals. These are the places and events supporting and unearthing new music talent, not dramatic TV shows. And I want to share this great thing we have with them, so they can find more good music and share it with me!

I shouldn't care. It should be enough to enjoy it on my own and with the friends who share my passion. But when something bowls you over - whether it's a song, an album, a movie, a book, a poem - it's natural to want to share it, especially in the Facebook age. Maybe we some of us feel the need to share too much and come across like snobs when others - especially those swimming in the mainstream - don't see the beauty of our pristine little tributary. Maybe it betrays a lack of self-belief that I want others' to recognise the value of the music I like?
So I am a snob. Or maybe I'm just seeking validation; a lonely guy who should care less about what other people think. There are enough like me to feel part of a community.

I think it's time to renew my Triple R subscription.

A rant against FPDAs (Facebook public displays of affection)

Of all the social media indulgences (and I'm guilty of many) FPDAs - Facebook public displays of affection - have to be the worst; the main offender. Just ahead of unneccessarily creating acronyms.

You know, public display of affection - couples attached at the hip and lip in a social setting - but words on Facebook. Bringing anti-social behaviour to social media is a serious crime.

I may be a jaded cynic whose last proper relationship sank just before everyone jumped on board Facebook, but I'm as familiar with infatuation as I am with the sweet gratification of online attention. The addiction of connection and interaction is a great distraction from real life with its seemingly endless potential for instant gratification. It's also relatively empty most of the time. I hope once they go public they start charging to use certain elements - rather than making a dollar out of the entrenched, it will make it easier to step away.

Facebook is mostly, and probably at best, a performance stage. Its worst is the passive cries for attention and assurance. You eventually reach a point where you're so sick reading self-indulgent vague, melancholic, reassurance or concern seeking posts that you resolve to shift them to Twitter. I now try to keep my Facebook posts light-hearted, funny or sensibly activist. If a post that doesn't get at least a couple of likes and/or comments I'll regret saying it. I'm an anxiety-ridden amatuer writer, of course I still seek validation.

Everything posted on Facebook is doesn't for a wide audience - it's a one-to-many medium. Even personal messages on a friend's wall are simultaneously a broadcast to everyone else who passes by. Would you say these things to one person at a party with a microphone? If not, probably don't post it on Facebook. If you really want to shout or whisper it into a crowded street where few will care, tweet it. Otherwise have a personal conversation. And/or get a journal.

So then there are the couples. I always thought people in relationships generally used Facebook less, at least less than they would if they were single, and have some good evidence to that end. Myself included. But now it seems couples are more and more bringing their personal, intimate relationships into the public electronic domain. Sorry, that's a misuse of the word 'intimate'

It isn't a one-on-one medium unless you direct message. If there's relevance to others or its funny or ridiculing one party, completely fine. But I do not want messages about how much they love or miss each other or how many days until their wedding filling up my feed and getting in the way of things I might actually be interested in - music videos, interesting discussions and drunken photos.

FPDAs are like an infatuated couple at school passing notes in a classroom and having everyone it passes by open it (and maybe like or comment). It's just not as (eek) romantic. Aside from the personal touch (oh for a letter in the mail!) text messages or phone calls are far more effective. Cost money though right? Well use email or private message. The more you dilute a personal conversation in the ocean of the crowd the less meaningful it is to the other person.

If I read a single Valentine's Day to that effect I will defriend the perpetrators immediately. There is a certain romance about shouting your love from the rooftop; and people may applaud and celebrate with you initially, but if you don't get back down to earth soon enough they'll turn and start to throw shit at you.

I just don't think Facebook is designed, or works best as a medium for, personal communication - whether with a partner or friend (other than private messaging). Because, I'm sorry - people just don't care. And having people care is half the fun (read 'point') right?

Public statements through art are different because of their (sometimes) beauty, subtlety and personal reading.

I'm not a wowser. After being single for most of the past five years I miss the affection like Schapelle Corby misses cuddles, and you better believe when the right girl comes along I'll want my friends to share my happiness. But I won't put it in their face, in public or online.

I'm not opposed at all to displays of affection in public, but rather displays of public affection - those where the mind is focused beyond the person you're engaging. Unless, of course, they are directed at me

Affection for a crowd is an act, it just seems phoney. There is substance in subtlety, moreso in intimacy. Inctimacy being that close, personal, deep connection between two people - where outside attention is irrelevant because everyone else disappears.

Of course, it's not just couples. Some people have just lost the art of personal communication. For fuck's sake, I'm sure we've all been at a table of friends where a number of those present are online on their iPhone, or whatever one's cool now, giving in to the addiction of wider but less meaningful discourse.

The Facebook birthday wall is a farce. I've given up posting on people's walls on their birthday. If they're a friend we'll catch up or I'll send a personal message. If we're close enough for that we probably shouldn't be Facebook friends anyway. The only exceptions are where it includes a dedicated YouTube music video, which I may wish to see, or if it is my birthday. I like others to see how many people care about me.

And plenty do, don't you worry. Which is why it hurts so much when no one 'likes' my witty posts.