Don't Vote for the Dead Guy

If you are a movie fan, December is probably the best time of the year, bringing in rash of really good films that are trying to make the deadline for major awards consideration. Over the next couple of weeks, you can look forward to seeing no fewer than 7 movies in the theaters that will have Oscar aspirations--The Wrestler, Benjamin Button, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, and Synecdoch, New York. That's quite a lineup.

December also brings Golden Globe and SAG Award nominations and with those come the fanning of Oscar talk for the late Heath Ledger.

Ledger, in case you've been under a rock somewhere, died tragically of an accidental drug overdose just before the release of his last film, Batman--The Dark Knight in which he plays the mercurial role of The Joker. There was Oscar buzz for his performance before his death, and popular sentiment runs high for him to win the award posthumously.

Well, I hate to rain on the parade, but frankly, it's not an Oscar-worthy performance.

Don't get me wrong--I'm part of the crowd that thinks Ledger was a very talented, intense actor. And he chews up every scene that he's in as the Joker. He took on an iconic role played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson--one of the all-time greats--and he made it his own. He's more the star of the movie than the title character, and certainly more memorable. Symbolically, his is the character who embodies the theme of the film. It's an outstanding performance.

But not, in my opinion, Oscar-worthy.

Why, you might ask?

Well, as an actor, I would say that Ledger fails to bring the one vital element to EVERY character--the one element that is the raison d'etre of the profession, in my opinion.

Humanity. And along with it, a certain degree of likability.

Ledger, as the Joker, is mercurial. Flamboyant. Outrageous. Memorable. Evil. Intelligent and an excellent foible for the Batman. The one thing he is not, however...is likable. As a human. As an audience member, I felt absolutely no sympathy or empathy for the character, and thus, he was not likeable. I can appreciate how diabolical the character is, but he never won me over to see the world from his point of view, never brough me deeply enough inside where I could take a look at the horrible acts and find a justification for them

I couldn't identify with the character, and thus, had no sympathy for him. He was simply vengeful and evil.

I might be splitting hairs here, because he IS, after all, a cartoon character and thus, a two-dimensional character. But the job of an actor is to take a character who is two dimensional (after all, a character is only words on a page of a script) and create a three dimensional person.

Now, let me say too, that I didn't think that Daniel Day-Lewis deserved the Oscar last year for No Country for Old Men. My choice was Javier Bardem, for the same reason I just mentioned. Day-Lewis was pure evil and greed without any redeeming qualities, while Bardem, in his role as a killer, at least had an ethic that a 'normal' person could understand and somewhat agree with.

Twisted, yes, but it's the *empathy* with the character's intention and world view that draws me in.

And that's the role of an actor--to portray humanity in such a way that we understand more deeply about people for having watched the actor's performance. It's easy to play pure evil, badness or greed. It's FAR more difficult to play an evil character and to create some understanding and empathy for that character in spite of their evilness.

THAT is what an Oscar-worthy performance is about.

Of the films that I've seen this year and the actors who are nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category that Ledger is nominated in both Golden Globes and SAG Awards, my choices for Best Supporting Actor are (in order) Robert Downey Jr., Josh Brolin, Tom Cruise and Ralph Fiennes ahead of Ledger.

Fiennes, in particular, gives a master class in playing a character in The Duchess who by all accounts, is a bastard and someone you shouldn't like as an audience. Almost every single thing he does throughout the film is an unlikeable action, and yet, by the end of the film, his is forgiveable. Not *excuseable* for his actions, but forgiveable.

I don't find any such forgiveness for Ledger's Joker.

The hands down winner for best ACTING performance, deserves to go to Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. Not only does he do the *unimaginable* by playing an Australian actor playing an African-American actor in a film-within-a-film, he is believable in both roles, and shows a remarkable sensitivity in finding the right 'tone' to doing the role in blackface makeup that is both hilarious and spot-on.

He manages to tackle the most offensive racial stereotype possible and carry it off with skill, class and the right sense of humor. This is one of the most gifted actors around today taking on a role that could have been a total disaster on so many levels. It is simply an amazing acting performance, and more of a challenge than Ledger's Joker character. If Ledger fails with his role, people just say that Nicholson was a better Joker.

If Downey fails in HIS role, race riots break out all over the US. It's a riskier performance and he carries it of brillaintly.

I also want to give props to Tom Cruise for his role in Tropic Thunder as well. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I'm not going to spoil it. Suffice it to say even though I knew he was in the movie, it wasn't until the very end that I figured out which part he played. I was mesmerized by the character he played, and had no idea it was Cruise for most of the movie. Great stuff.

So, there you have it--while Ledger is/was a very gifted actor, I'm hoping that he doesn't get the sympathy vote for a posthumous Oscar. Not because I don't think he deserves it...but because others deserve it more.

What do you think? Do you give it to the dead guy because he was 'close enough' and will never get another chance to win one? Or do you honor the living and give it to the best performance of the year?

Take it Off...Take it ALL Off (line)!

I participate in (too) many online discussions among social media types that focus on developing standards, best practices and ethics in the new social media world. These are all fascinating discussions among really smart, articulate people. Yet I often find myself shaking my head and thinking that we're missing something fundamental.

The social media tools that are now available to us--whether they be blogs, Facebook, Twitter, online communities, heck, even email is a social media tool--really only exist for one purpose, and one purpose only.

To take it offline.

That's right--we go online in order to promote OFFLINE behavior and any social media site or guru that doesn't recognize this is missing the boat. And opportunity.

During the last presidential campaign, MyBarackobama.com was hailed as innovative and the new standard bearer in how campaigns should be run in a new media world. The site had all of the trappings of a typical social networking site like friending, groups, blogs, discussion boards etc. But every aspect of the site was directed to one *specific* objective--to drive offline behavior.

Whether that behavior was to call people to get out the vote, or to hold fundraisers, or connect with other Obama supporters in your local area, every feature of the site was designed to get the member to DO something in the real world.

Online activity is really only useful if it is promoting an offline behavior. We use Facebook to keep in touch with friends that we know in the real world to add value to our next meeting. We don't have to spend as much time on "what have you been up to?" and can get to the meatier "that one experience you posted on FB sounded really awesome--tell me more about that!" We generally don't meet new people on FB tho, and if we do, it's because we want to meet offline or are participating in a common cause that has an offline component.

We join branded communities because we either purchase or are thinking about purchasing a company's products. We put our band up on MySpace in hopes that people listen and buy music, or maybe see a concert.

The best websites recognize this and make the connection to the desired offline behavior for the visitor and provide an easy UI flow that encourages the online activity and makes it easy to do the offline activity as well. If the site is only focused on the online activity UI, they are wasting money on their website.

Even the Twitterati recognize the need for offline behavior. While Twitter is an interesting way to keep updated on a wide variety of topics (depending on who is twittering), it suffers as a connecting tool if you don't really know who you are receiving twitters from.

And so, tweetups emerged, where folks could meet the person on the other end of the tweet.

As an information source, Twitter works well because you can receive information that will somehow be meaningful in your offline world--maybe give you resources that will help you be better at your job, let you know where the latest party is happening or heck, I know of one case where someone was seeking marrow donors via twitter.

My last blog post is a classic example of how social networking encourages offline behavior. This isn't to pat myself on the back or anything--just an example of 'what is this social networking stuff really good for?' I saw a need (Melody) and knew that I had resources to help available online--I could reach far more people more quickly with a blog post than I could by phoning all of my friends and asking for donations. Many people donated money, either by reaching into their wallet, or mailing me a check or sending money to a PayPal account. I used social media to raise some money to promote an offline action.

So as we discuss social media and it's best practices, let's all remember the most basic rule of all: the point of online activity is to motivate offline behavior. Social media is just a tool used to build something bigger--something that happens offline.

And now, I'd like to motivate all of you to go offline and go to the movies. Here are some very short movie reviews for your reading pleasure:

Slumdog Millionaire: A MUST SEE for anyone who likes action, romance, suspense, comedy, drama, good music and a heart-warming story all in one film. Deserves Oscar consideration.

Milk: A beautifully made biopic with outstanding performances all around, led by Sean Penn, and by the way, Josh Brolin is quietly one of the finest actors in the business today. A story of humanity, perseverance and hope, with a slight dash of politics. Somebody made a SERIOUS error in not releasing this film before the elections--Prop 8 (banning gay marriage) would not have passed in California if this movie had been in the theaters 2 weeks prior to the elections.

Quantum of Solace: An excellent entry in the genre, feels like one of the classic 60's Bond movies. Not as good as the Bourne series, but a very good Bond film.

Four Christmases: Surpisingly funny for the first half of the movie, degenerates in saccaharine, predictable Hollywood fare. Nothing special.

The Day the Earth Stood Still: Keanu Reeves displays an acting range from A to B in this remake of the sci-fi classic. It's almost worth the price of admission to look at Jennifer Connoley for 2 hours (good god, she's beautiful), but really, skip it and read the story instead. Completely misses the mark as a film.

I still have to go see Australia, Bolt, Twilight and Cadillac Records before the next wave of good movies comes out on Christmas.

Enjoy, and as always, please tell me what you're thinking!

What do Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Britney Spears and Christmas all have in common?

So what do Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Britney Spears and Christmas all have in common?

Well, besides the fact that they've all sold their soul in order to make money, they all happen to be three of the top ten searched words on the internet today, according to one search engine optimization website.

I know, I should have had a funnier punch line than that, but really, what can one say about Blagojevich and Spears that hasn't already been said? Britney seems to be on a path of redemption and Blagojevich will soon be somebody's wife in prison.

Both deserve what they have coming to them.

In theory, using those terms in my blog title and in context in the blog entry will get my blog ranked a little higher and generate a few more new readers. I don't know about that, but hey, I'm trying to learn about SEO, so it's worth a try.

The REAL topic of this entry is...the one that's left...CHRISTMAS! Or rather, an early Christmas present delivered by me but with the help of many generous blog readers.

Last week, I reported on a homeless woman living in her car who had come to see a "pay what you can" performance of a play I was in, and during the performance, someone broke into her car and stole all of her worldly possessions.

I STILL hear her voice in my head...her pitiful cries of "why did they take my stuff??".

I know I can't save the world and I'm not trying to--but I felt somehow responsible for this woman, who had come in from the cold for a little respite that our play represented, and wound up losing everything she had. I wrote about finding her after the show cold, crying and her life in tatters.

I put out an appeal for help to raise some money to replace some of her stuff (new clothes, blankets, etc), and WOW, DID YOU RESPOND!

We raised a total of $418.37 for her, which I rounded up to $420 and delivered tonight.

Her name is Melody, and she's been homeless for awhile.

She's staying with her brother for now, while she is trying to get into a homeless shelter full time. She doesn't work and collects a disability check for income. She's very nice and looks you in the eye when she talks with you. She's doing the best she can, just like the rest of us.

It's a pretty tough life when the thing you hope for the most is that a bed will become available for you in a homeless shelter.

It was fun to do something nice for her. When we met, I told her the story about me writing about her and that we had taken a collection for her. She was very touched that strangers would offer to help.

I gave her the money in an envelope, but didn't tell her how much was in there. We chatted for a few minutes, she thanked me several times, and she declined when I offered to buy her dinner. It WAS dinner time and truth is, I was hungry and wanted to get a little more of her story. I think she felt like she was already receiving too much charity and didn't want to impose, so I didn't push it. We hugged, I asked if I could take her picture so folks could know her--that she wouldn't be "some homeless woman", but just Melody, and we left.

The REALLY fun part happened about an hour later. I was sitting at home when my phone rang. I answered to "oh my god. Oh my GOD. THANK YOU!!"

She had thought maybe we had raised $100 or so. And yes, she was very, very grateful for that help. She never looked in the envelope I gave her until she got to her brother's place and when she did, she immediately called me, just as happy as could be.

$400 is a LOT of money to her. Getting that much money was like winning the lottery for her.

Enough for her, as she put it, to have a Christmas. She plans to take some of that money and give gifts to the people who have helped her, as well as replace her clothes and get her car fixed. (her locks are broken, which is why her car got broken into in the first place).

So...a little tragedy has turned into a positive, thanks to you, my friends. I'd give it a shout out by name, but I know that pretty much everyone who gave something did so because they are kind, caring people, not because they want any recognition. I think I've thanked everyone personally, and if I haven't, well, I suck. I'll go through my list and check it twice and take note of who's been nice.

Melody says...from the bottom of her heart..."Thank you, God Bless You, and Merry Christmas!"

And a big shout out to the internet, without which we wouldn't have been able to raise that much money so quickly to respond to a person in need.

Thank you, internet! Just for being here.

90/9/1 Rule--Tell Me What It's Good For.

In the social media circles, hot topics travel quickly, as you might expect. We are the fanners of the flame, after all.

Today's hot topic is the 90/9/1 rule. This principle suggests a benchmark for community participation--roughly speaking, an online community can expect to have 1% of its members be active content creators, 9% of the members will edit that content (comment, respond, vote in polls, rate, etc) and 90% are content consumers--they read but don't do anything else.

Martin Reed and Mike Rowland both challenge this principle from the perspective that accepting this principle is to accept less than the full potential of an online community. And of course, there are a whole lot of "amens" coming from both sides of the issue.

This is Sam's perspective of the issue. He doesn't really care. This pic isn't germaine at all. I just promised that my cats would appear in my blog and it's a reminder not to take any of these social media conversations TOO seriously. It's still more art than science.

My perspective on the topic...

90/9/1 is a guideline, not a rule. And a very, very valuable guideline.

Many community managers look at online community with a wide-eyed sense of higher purpose and idealism. Online communities are changing the way that corporations interact with their customers, they give power to the people, can lead to dramatic social change, and they connect people around shared passions. There is certainly a strong sense of evangelism shared among community managers everywhere. Our cause is just and holy.

Yes to all of that.

And...online communities/social networks are also a commodity. They are an investment. *Somebody* is paying for the bandwidth, the people, the designers, engineers, moderators, etc. for a reason. There is something they want in exchange. While doing a greater good and shifting a paradigm is fun and part of the objective, let's face it, it's still all about the Benjamins.

As a commodity, social networking/online community is largely funded by marketing departments. At least, that's my experience developing communities for major brands over the past 10 years. Some online communities might come out of customer support budgets, but by and large, I think we're seeing the spread of social networking online as a function of marketing dollars at work.

Marketing people like metrics. It's what they do. They want results for campaigns that are measurable against benchmarks. Doesn't matter if it's a short campaign like a tv ad running for 4 weeks or a long campaign like an online community. They want to hear those 3 beautiful little words that drive relationships all over the world.

Return. On. Investment.

Now, I'm not saying that's the *right* attitude to take. Just pointing out current reality. As an industry, social networks/online communities have a serious dearth of available metrics that make a case for *value* of an online community in a way that marketers like to hear. Yes, I know there are all kinds of metrics out there that can (and are) used to illustrate value. Some of them are voodoo....some are quite useful.

But marketing folks like to know "I spent x dollars on y campaign and that moved sales z % against an expectation of q industry benchmark. Therefore, my campaign was a success (or failure)."

We're getting there, but we don't deliver those types of results in the social media world yet. We're in the process of defining metrics that do show ROI, and we're in the process of redefining what community 'success' means in the marketing world.

But that's a long road to travel and in the meanwhile, the people paying the bills want to know what they are getting for their money.

The 90/9/1 rule is just a benchmark for marketers to understand.

Remember those old TV car commercials where they would spout off gas consumption efficiency, and they always ended with the legal disclaimer "actual mileage may vary"? It's like that.

Marketing people aren't the type of people who are going to hand you a check for $250K to develop an online community and not expect to see some *results* for that investment. And saying "I don't know what type of results to expect" isn't a very satisfying answer.

Neither is "we're going to connect people with your brand in a holistic way so you can be part of a conversation with your customer."

Sure. Sounds good. To what purpose?

Enter 90/9/1. This principle gives marketers a rough idea of what to expect, although actual mileage may vary. There are SO many variables at play--site design, prominence of links into the community, content integration, outside marketing, tone and culture of the community, etc.--but it's better to have *something* resembling a benchmark than not.

Online communities still need to contribute to the bottom line of a company. Having the online community is either adding revenue, saving expenses or improving brand awareness or there is isn't much reason to have it.

And those criteria are measurable in every other aspect of running a business, so why not for online communities, too?

The 90/9/1 rule gives a standard to compare to, but it's like any other rule of thumb. It's a good approximation, not a specific measurement.

Get 20 random people together and I'll bet that their thumbs will show a variance of at least 50% in size. And yet the rule of thumb says that the width of a thumb is roughly 1 inch and that's close enough. The standard lets you know roughly what 'normal' is, even with a variance.

In my experience managing both online and offline communities, the 90/9/1 rule is relatively accurate. Yes, there are exceptions both in terms of far exceeding and underachieving those ratios, but I've found it to be roughly true.

Previous statement disclaimer: I don't quibble over movements of 1-5% in community metrics. I look for larger trends and dramatic impact. For me, 5% is that margin of error or 'your mileage may vary' factor. I just don't consider changes that small to be statistically significant over time. Community behavior is just too volatile to worry about small swings in behavior until they become consistent.

I think the real point in using this principle is that it gives some comfort to people managing communities that you can be successful with as little as 1% of your viewers contributing content. When you consider the emphasis place on BIG numbers by most marketing folks, you can truly see the value of the 90/9/1 rule--it keeps the expectations reasonable while trying to nail down the exact ROI of the site based on *actual* behavior.

Short version of the story--it's a good guideline, but don't freak out if your site doesn't measure up and you still feel like you're getting value out of your community. And if your metrics far surpass this rule and you feel your community is successful, pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

If you're not measuring up to the guideline and you don't feel like your community is being successful, then it's time to examine your site strategy and implementation more closely and make adjustments.

As always, your thoughts are welcomed.

--Mark

Giving More Than A Rat's Ass

According to http://www.mindlesscrap.com/origins/more-b.htm, the phrase, "I don't give a rat's ass" is of 20th century origin and came about because a rat's ass is small, and the rodent is annoying.

I don't totally buy that, and would to have to choose the phrase came about because, well, let's face it, a rat DOES have a pretty small butt. So if you're going to give a metaphorical comparison about how little you care about something, a rat's ass is very tiny indeed.

I've never measured one, but I'd have to guess that it is less than 2 mm wide, which is pretty small. (note: further web research indicates that a rat's anus is indeed 1-2 mm in diameter. isn't it amazing that there are people who get paid to study such things?)

Fascinating stuff, to be sure, but I mention it in context...here's something I DO give rat's ass about. Or to put it into a metaphorical context, I care a whales intestine about this. (fyi--intestines in humans are roughly 2 times the length of said human's height. In a whale, the intestines are typically 5-6 times the length of the whale. in other words, to care a whales intestines means to care a LOT).

Our show tonight was very special...it was a pay-what-you-can performance, which often draws a lot of homeless people to the theater, or unemployed folks who don't have any money to spend. These are always my favorite performances, because these are people who cannot afford to go the theater, but there is a deep-seated *need* inside them to come be part of the experience. It's a chance for folks without money to be entertained, connect and to escape for just a little while.

The cast was brilliant tonight. The audience was energetic, enthusiastic and had a great time, and in turn, we were at our best too. Easily our best performance as a cast, and even though we've had appreciative audiences so far, tonight was by far the best house we had. It was a real high to play tonight.

And then it all came crashing down. Hard.

After the show, I got caught by several audience members who were congratulatory and wanted to talk about the play and share how much fun they had. I'm normally on my way home within 15 minutes after curtain, but tonight, I was there for almost 45 minutes chatting with audience. When I finally did go outside though, my fun night came to a grinding halt.

A middle-aged woman in well-worn clothes was sitting on the cement sidewalk outside the theater in a light jacket on a very cold night, sobbing and wailing. She had the kind of weathered face that you could tell made her look a lot older than her actual age.

She sat on the ground repeating over and over..."why did they take my stuff? Why did they take my stuff? WHY DID THEY TAKE MY STUFF?"

I didn't know who this woman was. But she looked me right in the eye, bawling, and begged me to answer "why did they take my stuff?"

Talk about a downer. My heart took a hit like a rock flying up and putting a chip in a windshield.

Turns out, she was one of our audience tonight. A homeless woman. She lives in her car and at some point during the show, someone broke into her car and took a few shopping bags that were in there.

Those shopping bags contained all of her clothes...a thrift-store wardrobe to be sure, but all she had. Her official documents. Some makeup. A few trinkets that are worthless to most folks, but priceless to her.
A few pictures. A little jewelry box a dead friend had given her. A cell phone charger. Remnants of her life before she hit hard times and became homeless.

Nearly everything that was important to her was in those two bags.

The last vestiges of who she is. Her past. Her life. All she has left.

To a person who has nothing and is living out of her car, a $30 phone charger is vital. The phone is her lifeline, that charger is what keeps her able to function.

I can't get her cries out of my head.

"WHY DID THEY TAKE MY STUFF?"

I spent an hour or so looking thru dumpsters, in the yards around the theater, even checking out trash cans that line the streets waiting for morning pickup, hoping someone took the bags, rifled thru them, didn't see anything of value and then threw the bags in the nearest trash bin.

No luck.

One kind soul took her home so she had a place to stay. Tonight. Because her blankets were gone too, and it's cold outside--you can't sleep in a metal car in the cold without blankets. But her warm clothes were in the bags.

She was in her nicest clothes to go to the theater tonight. Not her warm clothes. Her nicest...her fanciest...because she was going to the theater.

I feel responsible. She was in the theater tonight to see ME. To get some respite, some laughs, to find a bit of refuge from her harsh life. Instead, her life has become even worse.

She came to what she thought was a haven. An escape. A safe place.

If her car wasn't in this place at this time...and she wasn't away from it when she normally would have been inside...

...she wouldn't have lost everything that is important to her.

You really have to hear what that sounds like coming from another person if you haven't. The rawness. It's primal. To have little...and then to have your soul ripped out and be left with NOTHING.

It's haunting.

WHY DID THEY TAKE MY STUFF?

So I'm starting a collection at the theater and among my friends. I can't get her jewelry box back, but we live in a land of wealth, and while I can't make her whole again, a couple hundred dollars will allow her to get some new clothes, blankets, replace the makeup, get her a charger and maybe restore some faith in her, that while maybe *some* humans are so crass as to steal from someone who has nothing...

...there are also people who care enough to reach out and help someone in a real time of need. Even if that person is a total stranger.

If you care to donate, contact me (Mark Williams) at my email address on Pay Pal--two2_tango@yahoo.com. Send money. I'll collect money in my account for her.

Heck you can email me at: mwilliams@liveworld.com, with the subject line DONATION, and tell me that you want to donate a certain amount, and we'll figure out how to actually get the money from you and into her hands. I'll make sure she gets some help immediately, though.

I'm starting the fund with $100, and hope to raise another $200 or so by Saturday night when we close. Hey, more would be better--it's not like this woman has spare cash sitting around.

We live in a valley of wealth here. Please, if you care to donate maybe a latte's worth of cash...or lunch money for a day...or the price of a night at the movies...$5, $10 or $20 would go a long way to making a person in pain feel just a little bit better.

Please, give a rat's ass.

Ten Reasons Why You Should Subscribe To This Blog

With the myriad of blogs spewing so much content into the blogosphere like Bejing smog, why on earth would you want to read (and subscribe) to this one? Especially since topics covered will range from social networking, theater, arts, pop culture, politics and sometimes, nothing in particular?

1. I'm wearing a tin foil hat in my profile picture. How can you NOT want to listen to what a guy in a tin foil hat is thinking?

2. You won't get bored. If you don't like the topic one day, chances are I'll talk about something completely different the next day.

3. Continuity. Somehow, all of those random topics tie into each other to create a larger picture. Like a mosaic.

4. I have 2 cats, Sam and Cleo, who do strange things. Everyone likes to hear funny cat stories, don't they?

5. Perspective. Folks tell me that I have a way of connecting the big picture to little details or little details to the big picture. That I view things 'differently'. I think they are complimenting me when they say that.

6. I'm...uh...shall we say... 'provocative'. I'll say things out loud (and in print) that most people only think but never say. I laugh at funerals and flirt with the bride at weddings. And I always tell the emperor when he's not wearing any clothes. If the emperor is a woman, I keep my mouth shut. Why would I want her to put clothes on?

7. Even though it's not very humble of me to say it, I'm smart. Or at least I think I am...that's something for you to decide, really. This blog will offer up lessons learned and enlightenment for your free use.

8. I'm not very humble, but I don't really give a rat's ass about celebrity, unlike many other 'gurus' who set themselves up as experts so they can sell books or boost their bill rate as a consultant. And if I ever write a book, it will be fiction, so I'm not looking to enhance my status in my industry--just give a little straight talk in a world where folks speak in platitudes and marketing-speak.

9. Actually, I don't know what "I don't give a rat's ass" really means. Why would anyone equate desire with a rat's ass? This an example of the kind of stuff that will keep me awake at night and lure to me to research on the internet and share with you. So eventually, you'll learn fun things like, "what is the origin of the phrase 'I don't give a rat's ass'?" (tangent: did I punctuate the end of that sentence correctly? damn...another thing to go research) This will make you a very good living room Jeopardy player.

10. Experience. Man, I've been around the block, and have seen and done some **** in my life. I figure I've already made lot of stupid mistakes and also done some really good things, so someone should get the benefit of that experience. Sharing means caring, right? If I care enough to write, the least you can do is care enough to subscribe and read.

11. It's free. You know what they say...the best things in life are free. Like this blog.

Yeah, that's eleven items. I have a problem with rules and following directions. Even my own. Just subscribe and leave comments, would ya?

Peace out,
Mark