Men Vs Women

Relationships:
First of all, a man does not call a relationship a relationship - he refers to it as "that time when me and Suzie was doing it on a semi-regular basis". When a relationship ends, a woman will cry and pour her heart out to her girlfriends, and she will write a poem titled "All Men Are Idiots". Then she will get on with her life. A man has a little more trouble letting go. Six months after the break-up, at 3:00 a.m. on a Saturday night, he will call and say, "I just wanted to let you know you ruined my life, and I'll never forgive you, and I hate you, and you're a total floozy. But I want you to know there's always a chance for us". This is known as the "I Hate You/I Love You" drunken phone call, that 99% of all men have made at least once. There are community colleges that offer courses to help men get over this need; alas, these classes rarely prove effective.

Maturity:
Women mature much faster than men. Most 17-year-old females can function as adults. Most 17-year-old males are still trading baseball cards and giving each other wedgies after gym class. This is why high school romances rarely work.
Hats:
Women look good in hats; men look like dinks.
Comedy:
Let's say a small group of men and women are in a room, watching television, and an episode of "The Three Stooges" comes on. Immediately, the men will get very excited; they will laugh uproariously, and even try to imitate the actions of Curly, man's favorite stooge. The women will roll their eyes and groan and wait it out.
Handwriting: 
To their credit, men do not decorate their penmanship. They just chicken-scratch. Women use scented, colored stationary and they dot their "i's" with circles and hearts. Women use ridiculously large loops in their "p's" and "g's". It is a royal pain to read a note from a woman. Even when she's dumping you, she'll put a smiley face at the end of the note.
Bathrooms: 
A man has at most six items in his bathroom - a toothbrush, toothpaste, shaving cream, razor, a bar of Dial soap, and a towel from the Holiday Inn. The average number of items in a typical woman's bathroom is 437. A man would not be able to identify most of these items.
Magazines: 
Men's magazines often feature pictures of naked ladies. Women's magazine also feature pictures of naked ladies. This is because the female body is a beautiful work of art, while the male body is hairy and lumpy and should not be seen by the light of day.
Groceries:
A woman makes a list of things she needs and then goes to the store and buys these things. A man waits till the only items left in his fridge are half a lemon and something turning green. Then he goes grocery shopping. He buys everything that looks good. By the time a man reaches the checkout counter, his cart is packed tighter that the Clampett's car on Beverly Hillbillies. Of course, this will not stop him from going to the 10-items-or-less lane.
Going out:
When a man says he is ready to go out, it means he is ready to go out. When a woman says she is ready to go out, it means she WILL be ready to go out, as soon as she finds her other earring, finishes putting on her makeup...
Shoes:
When preparing for work, a woman will put on a Mondi wool suit, and then slip into Reebok sneakers. She wil carry her dress shoes in a plastic bag from Saks. When a woman gets to work, she will put on her dress shoes. Five minutes later, she will kick them off because her feet are under her desk. A man will wear one pair of shoes for the entire day.
Leg warmers:
Leg warmers are sexy. A woman, even if she's walking the dog or doing the dishes, is allowed to wear leg warmers. She can wear them any time she wants. A man can only wear leg warmers if he is auditioning for the "Gimme the Ball" number in "A Chorus Line".
Cats: 
Women love cats. Men say they love cats, but when women aren't looking, men kick cats.
Mirrors: 
Men are vain; they will check themselves out in the mirror. Women are ridiculous; they will check out their reflections in any shiny surface--mirrors, spoons, store windows, toasters, Joe Garagiola's head.
Garages: 
Women use garages to park their cars and to store their lawnmowers. Men use garages for many things. They hang license plates in garages, and they watch TV in garages, and they build useless lopsided benches in garages.
Movies:
For women, their favorite movie scene is when Clark Gable kisses Vivien Leigh for the first time in "Gone With The Wind". For men, it's when Jimmy Cagney shoves a grapefruit in Mae Clark's face in "Public Enemy".
Jewelry: 
Women look nice when they wear jewelry. A man can get away with wearing one ring, and that's it. Any more than that, and he will look like a lounge singer named Vic.
Menopause:
When a woman reaches menopause, she goes through a variety of complicated emotional, psychological, and biological changes. The nature and degree of the changes varies with the individual. Menopause in a man provokes a uniform reaction--he buys aviator glasses, a snazzy French cap and leather driving gloves, and goes shopping for a Porsche.
The Telephone: 
Men see the telephone as a communications tool. They use the telephone to send short messages to other people. A woman can visit her girlfriend for two weeks, and upon returning home, she will call the same friend and they will talk for three hours.
Low Blows: 
Let's say a man and a woman are watching a boxing match on television. One of the fighters is felled by a low blow. The woman says "Oh, gee, that must hurt." The man doubles over and actually feels pain.
Directions: 
If a woman is out driving and she finds herself in unfamiliar surroundings, she will stop at a gas station and ask for directions. Men consider this to be a sign of weakness. Men will never stop and ask for directions. Men will drive in a circle for hours, all the while saying things like, "Looks like I've found a new way to get there", and, "I know I'm in the neighborhood. I recognize that White Hen store".
Admitting Mistakes: 
Women will sometimes admit making a mistake. The last man who admitted that he was wrong was Gen. George Custer.
Richard Gere:
Women like Richard Gere because he is sexy in a dangerous way. Men hate Richard Gere because he reminds them of that slick guy who works at the health club and dates only married women.
Offspring:
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and soccer games and romances and best friends and favorite foods and secret fears and hopes and dreams. A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.
Dressing up:
A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the garbage answer the phone, read a book, get the mail. A man will dress up for: weddings, funerals.
Nudity in Movies:
Every actress in the history of movies has had to do a nude scene. This is because every movie in the history of movies has been produced by a man. The only actor who has ever appeared nude in the movies is Richard Gere. This is another reason why men hate him.
David Letterman: 
Men think David Letterman is the funniest man on the face of the Earth. Women think he is a mean, semi-dorky guy who always has a bad haircut.
Cameras: 
Men take photography very seriously. They'll shell out $4,000 for state-of-the-art equipment, and build darkrooms, and take photography classes. Women purchase Kodak Instamatics. Of course, women always end up taking better pictures.
Politics: 
Men love to talk politics, but often they forget to do political things such as voting. Women are very happy that another generation of Kennedys is growing up and getting into politics, because they will be able to campaign for them and cry on election night.
Locker Rooms:
In the locker room, men talk about three things: money, football, and women. They exaggerate about money, they don't know football nearly as well as they think they do, and they fabricate stories about women. Women talk about one thing in the locker room--sex. And not in abstract terms, either. They are extremely graphic and technical, and THEY NEVER LIE.
Laundry:
Women do laundry every couple of days. A man will wear every article of clothing he owns, including his surgical pants that were hip about eight years ago, before he will do the laundry. When he is finally out of clothes, he will wear a dirty sweatshirt inside out, rent a U-Haul and take his mountain of clothes to the laundromat. Men always expect to meet beautiful women at the laundromat. This is a myth.
Weddings: 
When reminiscing about weddings, women talk about "the ceremony". Men talk about "the bachelor party".
Cheerleaders:
Female cheerleaders are cute, sexy, fresh, and all-American. Male cheerleaders are scary.
Socks: 
Men wear sensible socks. They wear standard white sweatsocks. Women wear strange socks. They are cut way below the ankles, have pictures of clouds on them, and have a big fuzzy ball on the back.
Toys:
Little girls love to play with toys. Then, when they reach the age of 11 or 12, they lose interest. Men never grow out of their obsession wih toys. As they older, their toys simply become more expensive and impractical. Examples of men's toys: little miniature TV's, car phones, complicated juicers and blenders, graphic equalizers, small robots that serve cocktails on command, video games, anything that blinks, beeps, and requires at least six "D" batteries to operate.
Plants:
A woman asks a man to water her plants while she is on vacation. The man waters the plants. The woman comes home five days later, to an apartment full of dead plants. No one knows why this happens.
Mustaches: 
Some men look good with mustaches. Those men are Tom Selleck and Burt Reynolds. There are no women who look good with mustaches.
Nicknames:
With the exception of female body-builders, who call each other names like "Ultimate Pecs" and "Big Turk", women eschew the use of nicknames. If Gloria, Suzanne, Deborah and Michelle get together for lunch, they will call each other Gloria, Suzanne, Deborah and Michelle. But if Mike, Dave, Rob and Jack go out for a brewsky, they will affectionately refer to each other as Bullet-Head, Godzilla, Peanut Brain and Useless.

A good collection by Matt Groening

Heart Touching Quotes

“I would rather live my life with you as a friend
rather than live my life without you in it!”

“When your heart breaks, tears fall from you eyes.
Those tears are pieces of your heart chasing
after the one you love.”

“Even stronger than the precious sound your
lips make during your first kiss is the sound
your heart makes at the same moment.”

“The only consolation of saying goodbye to
someone you love is the glimmer of hope that
someday after that goodbye there will be another hello.”

“My heart broke the day I realized loving
you meant letting you go.”

“I’m not blind and stupid. I’m just in love.”

“Love is represented by a rose not only
because of it’s eternal beauty but also
because of it’s destructive thorns.”

“If I were an angel, I would be a fallen one
trying to fly on broken wings, with a broken heart.
That was when you found me and taught me to
fly again, because you loved me.”

“He is the love of my life, the man who
showed me what true passion is…
He ignited that dim flame in me and
turned it into a wild fire that will
never stop burning within me.”

Biggest Joke Of Year 2011

Gandhinagar: Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on February 17 launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saying his remark on Amit  Shah was the “biggest joke of 2011.”

“Prime Minister tried to associate Gujarat in his press conference to wash off the stains on himself. This is the joke of the year 2011. This is laughable,” he said.

In a veiled reference to Shah during his interaction with TV editors on February 16, Singh said, “The Opposition parties, particularly BJP has taken a hostile attitude and the reasons that have been    given frankly I cannot mention it in public... because you have taken some decision against a particular person, who was a Minister in Gujarat, you must reverse it. I don’t want to add further.”

“Instead of blaming any Minister from Gujarat or the state   government, the Prime Minister should give true facts about  his failures before the people of India,” the Gujarat Chief Minister said.

Tracker or Phone?? Which is the best suitable for car!!

           Every one of us know why do we Trackers and Phones. So, basically, we use trackers to Track some thing That is more precious. So consider, You have placed a tracker in your car and your car is burglared by someone. So what you do immediately? You search in your tracker where exactly is your car present and report it to your nearest Police Station. So we use Tracker to track. So, imagine a situation where the burglar identifies that there's a tracker in your car and if he is an expert in deactivating it. Then where the hell in this world are you going to track your car?? It's highly impossible to track your car without knowing where it is.

           Now coming to the Mobile Phones, we use them inorder to communicate with other people mostly. But there are people who use Mobile Phones more than for the purpose of tracking. Every one would wonder how possibly is that possible....??

           Yes, there is a way for that. Many of us consider that Tracker in the car is best suitable but after this explanation you would rather think to opt for Tracker directly.

           So getting into explanation, The cost of the tracker is really high. It would be around $500 and the cost of cheapest mobile phone would be around $50. There are many complaints about the tracker that it would not work properly in some of the situations. When compared to mobile phones the life time of a tracker is very less. So I will help you how to use the mobile phones as a Tracking device.

           Firstly, in order to use your mobile phone you need to do something for it so as to make it as a tracker. You need to have a mobile phone these two specifications.

1. Select a mobile phone which is very reliable, has a long battery backup, and is low of cost.

2. Select a SIM card  which has network all around your country or continent.

           Now in order to make it a tracker, insert the SIM( Which has a wide network) in your mobile phone(Which has long battery backup). Now place the phone in auto answer mode and keep it in complete silent mode. connect the charger of your phone to your car battery so that the phone will always be in charged mode. Now after doing all these settings you are almost done with the tracker. Now place the mobile phone in your car at a place where it isn't visible by any person, in simple HIDE THE PHONE IN YOUR CAR. Now this acts as a tracker.

           When your car is stolen, then rush to your nearest Police Station and give him your mobile number, of the phone which is present in  the car, they will call to your phone, as the phone will be in auto answer mode the call will be received almost immediately as it receives the call. Now there is a technology with which you can track the exact location if a network is connected for more than 3min. Now your car is tracked. You can know where exactly is your car.

           Well after reading this discussion what do you prefer??? A Tracker or A Phone????

Dare to Imagine

John Dear, S.J.

"I see no poverty in the world of tomorrow - no wars, no revolutions, no bloodshed. And in that world, there will be a faith in God greater and deeper than ever in the past." - Mohandas Gandhi

The story is told that in the early 1980s a small group gathered in their church basement in East Germany to ask a daring question: "What will Germany look like a thousand years from now when the Berlin Wall finally falls?"

There was no question of the Wall coming down soon. Such a prospect was unimaginable. Communism was here to stay. The grip of the Soviet empire was permanent. The suicidal competition between the two nuclear superpowers seemed preordained.

And yet, they asked the question. They allowed their imagination free reign. What would a world without the Wall look like? And what must we do now to hasten that great day a thousand years from now?

"Imagine all the people living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one." .... John Lennon

I believe that asking such a question, letting our imaginations challenge us and daring to dream of a new world unleashes a spirit of transformation that can actually change history.

According to the story, the small group felt energized as they discussed their dream. They decided to meet again a few weeks later. Soon word of the meetings spread and more people began to meet in church basements to dream of a world without the Wall. Over the next few years, a grassroots movement grew. Ordinary people on both sides of the Wall pursued the vision of unity and reconciliation. They met, organized, prayed and spoke out. Then, out of the blue, Mikhail Gorbachev announced his new policy of perestroika. The Polish Solidarity movement pushed the Soviets out and a new democracy was born. Events moved quickly. Communism collapsed and the Soviet Union imploded.

The God of peace is hard at work trying to disarm the world. But God needs our help. God needs every one of us to be part of God's global transformation for peace and justice. God needs our grassroots movements of nonviolent resistance to disarm the world.

The grassroots movement begun in East Berlin by a handful of faithful dreamers made all the difference. In November 1989, tens of thousands of people marched in East Berlin to demand the fall of the Wall. Every day, more people marched. Soon, hundreds of thousands were marching. Then all of a sudden, on November 9th, the Wall fell down. It took the world by surprise. Yet the Berlin Wall could not have come down peacefully without the grassroots visionaries who dreamed, imagined, met, discussed and organized over the years. Gorbachev needed a grassroots movement to make his vision bear fruit. In other words, the Wall fell because ordinary people imagined a world without the Wall. They held up the possibility of a world without the Wall and they acted as if such a world was possible and inevitable.

New Abolitionists

Their daring vision reminds me of the abolitionists who imagined a world without slavery. "Every human being is equal," they said. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of race. No human can be bought, owned or sold. Therefore, slavery must be abolished - now!" They were dismissed as unpatriotic revolutionaries, unrealistic idealists, and crazy lunatics. "Slavery has always existed," they were told. "This is the way things have always been and always will be. Some people are not human. Even St. Paul endorsed slavery! You cannot change the course of history."

"No," they said. "The time of slavery is over. A new world without slavery is coming." The great herald of the abolitionist movement, William Lloyd Garrison, set the tone for the movement when he published his newspaper, "The Liberator," in 1831 and declared to the world that the age of slavery is over. His front page editorial in the first issue stirred the nation. "I am in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard," he announced. With the help of hundreds of committed activists, Garrison wrote and spoke out day and night against slavery. He encouraged people to join the movement, smuggle slaves into Northern freedom, disrupt the culture of slavery and demand equality for all. These abolitionists were attacked, mobbed, threatened, jailed and even killed. They practiced steadfast nonviolent civil disobedience against the laws which legalized slavery. Their vision and determination paved the way for the abolition of slavery.

Like the abolitionists who envisioned a world without slavery, we are new abolitionists who envision a world without war, poverty, injustice and nuclear weapons. We give our lives to that vision, creating movements for disarmament and justice, trusting that one day, the vision will come true.

Reclaiming Our Imaginations

We have much to learn from these imaginative visionaries. Like them, we need to reclaim our imagination. We have to begin to dream again of new possibilities. We need to exercise our imaginations, and envision a new world, no matter how crazy others think we are. In a world of war and nuclear weapons, that means imagining a world without war or violence.

One of the casualties of our culture of war is the loss of our imagination. We can no longer imagine a world without war or nuclear weapons or violence or poverty. Few dream of a world of nonviolence. If we do, we are dismissed as naïve or idealistic. Yet without the imagination for peace, the vision of peace, we will never get out of the downward cycle of violence that is destroying us.

If we want to discover the blessings of peace, we have to renounce war and dedicate ourselves to a new world without war. Every human being has to join this global campaign for peace if we are to lead ourselves away from the precipice of global catastrophe. We need to rediscover our shared humanity and reclaim the higher principles of love, justice, compassion and equality. We need to demand food, clothing, housing, education, healthcare, and dignity for every child on the planet. We need to give our lives for a future of peace.

The Blindness of Violence

But if we want to envision such a world, we must recognize that we are blind, that we can no longer see clearly. We can no longer see our way to peace. We cannot see our way toward dismantling our arsenals, ceasing our bombings raids, supporting the world's poorer nations, ending hunger and poverty, and pursuing universal brother and sisterhood. Instead, we see only war and further wars. We can imagine all kinds of weapons of mass destruction and ever greater invasions and wars. We can dream up astonishing new weapons. We put our best minds, our time, our funds, and our energies into this vision of war. In the process, we blind ourselves to the vision of peace.

Violence blinds us. We think we see, but we have grown blind to our shared humanity. We do not see one another as human beings, much less brothers and sisters. Instead, we see non-humans, aliens, outsiders, competitors, objects of class, race or nationality. When that happens, we label people as enemies, and declare them as expendable.

If we want to see our way toward a new world without war, we need to recover our sight. We need to meet together in church basements and small grassroots communities to discuss the daring, provocative question, "What would a world without war look like?" As we ask the question, we can begin to imagine such a world. Then, we can discuss and enact ways to make that new world a reality.

In order to reclaim this vision, we need to teach each other that war is not inevitable, that war is not our future, that nuclear destruction need not be our destiny, that peace can come true for all people. We have to rekindle the desire for the vision of peace. Once we desire it, we will pray for it, work for it, and welcome it - and move our culture from blindness to vision, from numbness to imagination, from war to peace.

Since our blind leaders are driving us to the brink of destruction, we have to take the wheel, turn back, and lead one another away from the brink. We cannot expect vision from the warmakers or their media spokespeople. Only peacemakers can see the way forward toward a world of peace.

To be visionaries of peace we need to be contemplatives of nonviolence, people who imagine the God of peace, who let God disarm our hearts, who allow the God of peace to show us the way to peace. As visionaries and contemplatives of peace, we can then become a prophetic people who not only denounce imperial violence as ungodly, immoral, and evil, but announce God's way of nonviolence, justice and peace.

The Vision of Nonviolence

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s most famous speech outlined his dream of a new world of equality and justice. He upheld the vision of nonviolence. Five years later, on the night before he was killed, he spoke of being on the mountaintop and seeing the promised land. "For years, we have been talking about war and peace," he said. "But now, no longer can we just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence; it's nonviolence or nonexistence." With these last words, the great visionary pointed the way forward to make his dream a reality.

Nonviolence employs a vision of a disarmed, reconciled humanity, the reign of God in our midst, what King called "the beloved community," the truth that all life is sacred, that we are all equal sisters and brothers, all children of the God of peace, already reconciled, all one, already united. Once we accept this vision of the heart, we can never hurt or kill another human being, much less remain silent while our country wages war, maintains nuclear weapons, executes people or allows millions to starve to death.

Active nonviolence is much more than a tactic or a strategy; it is a way of life. We renounce violence and vow never to hurt anyone ever again. Nonviolence demands active love and truth that seeks justice and peace for the whole human race, resists systemic evil, and persistently reconciles with everyone. It insists that there is no cause however noble for which we support the killing of a single human being. Instead of killing others, we are willing to be killed in the struggle for justice and peace. Instead of inflicting violence on others, we accept and undergo suffering without even the desire to retaliate with further violence as we pursue justice and peace for all people.

Nonviolence is a life force, Gandhi said, that when harnessed becomes contagious and can disarm nations and change the world. It begins in our hearts, where we renounce the violence inside us, then moves outward with active, contagious truth and love toward our families, communities, nation and the world. As we practice it personally in the face of violence, we also join grassroots movements for justice and peace to organize nonviolence on the national and international level for the disarmament of the world. When nonviolence is put into action, it always works, as Gandhi demonstrated in India's revolution, as King and the civil rights movement showed, as the People Power movement showed in the Philippines, and as Archbishop Tutu and South Africa showed against apartheid.

Next August 6th marks the 60th anniversary of our atomic vaporization of 130,000 people in Hiroshima. My friends and I are trying to imagine a world where this horrific violence will never happen again. We are working through the global grassroots disarmament movements to make our voice heard and welcome such a world.

This vision of peace means we have to disarm Los Alamos, the birthplace of the bomb, not far from where I live in New Mexico and transform New Mexico and the entire nation from a land of nuclear violence to a land of nonviolence. I hope and pray that all of us will pursue this vision of peace, and use this upcoming anniversary as a moment to call the nation once again to disarmament.

Shortly before he died, John Lennon was asked why he devoted so much of his time and energy to peace. "Isn't that a waste of time?" the reporter asked. Lennon answered that he believed that Leonardo de Vinci help make flying possible because he imagined it, discussed it, painted it and brought it into people's consciousness. "What a person projects can eventually happen," he said. "And therefore, I always want to project peace. I want to project it in song, word, and action. I want to put the possibility of peace into the public imagination. And I know, as certain as I am standing here, that someday peace will be."

If we dare imagine a new world without war and reclaim the possibility of peace, as John Lennon believed, we will raise human consciousness and help pave the way toward a new nonviolent world. Our mission, our duty, our vocation is to reclaim that vision of peace, and pursue the abolition of war, violence and nuclear weapons. All we have to do is open our eyes and take another step forward on the road to peace.

John Dear is a Jesuit priest and the author / editor of twenty books, including "Living Peace," "Disarming the Heart," "Jesus the Rebel," "Mohandas Gandhi," "The God of Peace," "Peace Behind Bars," and "The Questions of Jesus."

Twitter Vs Facebook

Twitter versus Facebook: Should you Choose One?

Twitter or Facebook? Or Both? In this post Steve Thornton (follow him at @stevethornton) explores the decision.

The phenomenon of social networking is still in its infancy and it remains to be seen exactly which network might become the 800-pound gorilla in the space. It is reminiscent of the dotcom 90s, when I worked in the search industry; dozens of venture-backed search firms battled for dominance and search appeared to become a commodity, with limited monetization potential, or so we all thought at the time.

There are now so many social networks vying for users that even the most elite “Digerati” have trouble keeping up with the ever-shifting landscape. And most are still struggling to find effective monetization strategies, casting doubt on their long term survival and pointing to massive consolidation at some point.


The Evolution of Social Networking Compared to Search

In the now-infamous dotcom era, Yahoo, Lycos, Excite and others evolved into portals in a desperate attempt to find ways to make money, since nobody had really found effective ways to monetize search. That was, until companies like Goto.com (which became Overture and was eventually bought by Yahoo) and Google invented the concept of paid search and contextual, pay-to-click advertising models. The rest is history and we all knew who won the war.

So it seems today that applications like Twitter and Facebook, while attracting new users at astounding rates have not fully defined their business models and the 800-pound gorilla has yet to emerge. It is still early in the game and, as with search in the mid 90s, the eventual winners in the social networking space may not even yet exist, but I would argue that Twitter and Facebook are emerging as potential contenders to dominate.

The differences between the two networks are substantial and in some ways a direct comparison between the two is actually difficult to make. Twitter is simple and feels like Google did in 1998, while Facebook offers a portal-like interface somewhat reminiscent of Yahoo.

Key Elements of Facebook and Twitter

Facebook appeals to people looking to reconnect with old friends and family members or find new friends online; the mashup of features like email, instant messaging, image and video sharing, etc. feels familiar, while Twitter is a bit harder to get your arms around at first.

Most people can very quickly grasp how to use Facebook to connect to friends and family, using it to share thoughts, images, etc. Like MySpace but more geared to adults than teens, Facebook is a social networking Portal; beckoning you not to leave but rather to stick around and communicate within the network.

Twitter on the other hand, encourages you grab ideals in byte-size chunks and use your updates as jumping off points to other places or just let others know what you’re up to at any given moment.

Why People Love Facebook

Facebook appeals to social animals and can be very addicting to people who have an insatiable appetite to stay connected with friends and make new acquaintances. In fact, some people report they rarely use email or IM tools anymore in their online social communications anymore, relying almost entirely on Facebook for email, chat, image and video sharing.

Facebook addicts prefer the social portal model versus having to log into AIM, Yahoo Messenger, Gmail, Hotmail, Flickr, YouTube, MySpace, etc. Instead, Facebook gives them a single alternative to all these applications, with one login and interface to manage their online social interaction needs. This largely explains the explosive growth Facebook continues to experience and why the company reportedly invested $200 million in data center upgrades last year to keep up with demand!

Why People Love Twitter

The usefulness of Twitter is not readily as obvious to some people as Facebook; although it may be more addictive once you get the hang of Tweeting; you get more immediate responses and it seems to live somewhere between the worlds of email, instant messaging and blogging. Twitter encourages constant “linking out” to anywhere and, in that respect, is more analogous to a pure search engine; another way to find people and content all over the Net.

Twitter has quickly built brand awareness and a loyal following, especially among the technically adept; bloggers, online marketers, evangelists, basically anyone with something to promote seem to find Twitter extremely valuable.

When asked why they love Twitter, users say like “I can ask a question and get an instantaneous response”. They crave the ability to “tap into the collective consciousness” of others on the network, bouncing ideas off others with whom they would otherwise have no means of connecting. Twitter addicts claim it’s like the old fashioned water cooler, where people can gather to shoot the breeze on whatever topic is on their minds. Twitter is like a communications stream you dive into for an invigorating swim.

Different Communication Styles for Different Social Settings

Let’s say you go to a wedding or other social gathering where lots of people know each other. The style and tone of communication there will be more like using Facebook; you chat with old friends and acquaintances, mixing and mingling in an intimate manner. In this setting, people tend to feel more relaxed and “in their element”. Conversations are familiar and center on shared experiences and connections.

Now, when you go to a large party or social event where you don’t know most of the people in attendance, you will use a very different style of communication, more like Twitter; you want to meet people and somehow make yourself known, stand out from the crowd, make an impression, self promote and make new connections. Twitter is like getting the podium and not everyone feels comfortable or knows how to stand comfortably in the spotlight.

In fact, almost all of us, when first approaching Twitter, tend to use it to post useless updates like “Going to lunch”, thinking of it as a another tool to communicate with friends, when in fact, it is more like stepping on to a stage, where you are communicating with an audience and quickly find that you need to find a voice and say something useful and interesting or quickly lose the attention of your audience. People refer to Twitter as a mini or micro blogging platform.

So Which Social Network is the Best?

While zealots will immediately point to either Twitter or Facebook as being superior, the truth is that each has its advantages and disadvantages and will tend to appeal more to different types of people and for different reasons. Each can have great or little value to anyone; it really depends on what you are trying to accomplish in a given situation. Consider some of the pros and cons of each network:

Twitter Pros

Easy to navigate and update, link to and promote anything
Reach far beyond your inner circle of friends
One feed pools all users; anyone can follow anyone else unless blocked
Pure communication tool, rapid responsiveness
You don’t have to be logged in to get updates; you can just use an RSS reader
Very interactive, extensible messaging platform with open APIs
Many other applications being developed (Twitterific, Summize, Twhirl, etc.)
Potential SMS text messaging revenue from wireless networks (although Twitter states they are not currently getting any cut)
Potential future advertising and/or enterprise subscription-based revenue streams
With its “thin” overhead, Twitter is probably more scalable than Facebook, giving it a cost advantage
Twitter Cons

Limited functionality; find people, send brief messages, direct replies
Limited to 140 characters per update
Not all people find it immediately useful
Over-emphasis on follower counts
Easily abused for spam and increasing the noise level
Relatively smaller installed user base
As yet no readily apparent monetization strategy
Facebook Pros

Application mashup; find people, make connections, email, instant messaging, image/video sharing, etc.
Most people can quickly grasp the value of connecting with friends, family and established contacts; some people report they use Facebook instead of email and IM
More emphasis on deep connections with others vs. who has the most connections
“True Friends” feature increases your transparency to selected connections; almost like having private and public profiles
Huge, rapidly growing installed user base
Inherit stickiness, third party applications, “gift giving” and personal data collection make Facebook a powerful advertising platform
Facebook Cons

More difficult to navigate and update
Requires investment of time to realize sustained benefit
Opt in model requires a user to allow others to connect
Less immediate responses; unless you stay logged on continually
Overhead of mashup and “thick” applications could limit scalability, bloat cost structure
The Future of Social Networking

In the end, both Twitter and Facebook are simply communication tools; both will continue to evolve and morph as users find new ways to extract value and either network may or may become a long term winner in the rapidly evolving social networking space. Ultimately, the fact remains to be seen whether either application has a profitable, scalable and sustainable business model or whether the exit strategy is simply to be acquired.

As we learned in the search space, consolidation will eventually prevail. Unless they can find a way to turn all those eyeballs into profits, social networks will lose relevance. It does seem obvious that the venture capitalists are betting they will not only continue to enjoy tremendous growth but will also successfully monetize all that traffic.

But, will either Twitter or Facebook become the next Google or will they fade into the rear view mirror of technological and social evolution? What do you think?

Is America secular?

Is America secular?

Is America a secular state? If you are going to answer with “Yes”, reconsider it. If you question the extent to which America is secular you would find out that it is very insecure to call the United States a “secular state”.

The question popped in my head when I heard one of the audience at last week’s Oprah saying “We are a religious nation”… He demanded all religious books, specially the Bible, be taught in public schools so the students would know more about the religions of the world. Then, some of the audience, one is a public school headmaster, rejected the whole idea as it is going to cost the schools more money, and goes against the “secular” principles of America.

To what extent is America a secular country??
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, ‘Secularization’ is noun from the verb ‘Secularize’ which means:

To draw away from religious orientation; make worldly.

And if you look up the meaning of the word ‘Secularism’ in an encyclopedia you would find out that:

Secularism is generally the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings. It may also be a synonym for “secularist movement”. In the extreme, it is an ideology that holds that religion has no place in public life. (Free Online Dictionary by Farlex)

And with little research into the definition of “Separation of Church and State”, the following is found:

In the United States, the “Separation of Church and State” is generally discussed as political and legal principle derived from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the “separation of church and state.”

Looking at the definition, and the later facts, it would leave no doubt that the United States constitution is simply based on the soul and true meaning of secularism… right?

No, in fact IT IS NOT.
I am not the one saying so, this is not an Egyptian young man’s claim… It is what the US House Judiciary Committee Report concluded in 1853 as the basis of its decision to deny a request to separate Christianity from the ongoings of the government. Here I quote it to you:

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect…. There can be no substitute for Christianity … that was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Then in 1892, the United States Supreme Court stated that:

Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind . . . it is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

That is to say, in real life, the United States Supreme Court and US House Judiciary Committee have ruled out the establishment clause in the United States constitution and applied what they thought was right. But, what if the greatest presidents of the United States, who applied constitution themselves, are stating the same opinion as the US Supreme Court and the US House Judiciary Committee?? Read what James Madison (who took part in drafting the US Constitution) says:

We have staked the future of government not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the ten commandments of God.

Then comes George Washington:

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible…. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency … We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

Then John Adams comes to state that the US Constitution is for religious people!!! Read:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectful members of society.

And John Jay’s advice for the US citizens:

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty of as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for its rulers.

Things will be even more interesting if you continue to read Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin or Andrew Jackson say about Christianity being the “rock on which our Republic rests”. Check The Forerunner.

Can you see the contradiction at hand here?? The authors of the United States Constitution and, later, the presidents who apply this constitution are just stating the complete opposite of what they have authored. Then we move from words to reality.

Since 1957, each and every US banknote or coin bears the following statement: “In God we Trust”… Isn’t this one a religious symbol that printed on the country’s currency which is one of the US symbols? How secular is that?

Adding the statement: “Under one God” to the Pledge of Allegiance… How worldly and unreligious is that?

Using a Bible, or Quran in one case, for new congressmen to be sworn in; how secular and irreligiously oriented is that?
Blocking laws for homosexuality and abortion on religious basis since the Neo-cons are religious people and they are in power. To what extent is that secular of the United States?

Allowing schools and institutions to be built on religious basis (catholic schools… etc.), isn’t this an unconstitutional act in light of the establishment act in the US Constitution?

To make myself clear here, I am not attacking the United States for being unsecular. On the contrary, I am against secularism at some great points. What I am saying here is that if America itself cannot separate politics and state from religion, why are you calling other countries to apply what you failed to apply.

I never stop reading remarks about the Muslim Brotherhood in US newspapers that they want to apply Sharia law. No one stops attacking Iran over mingling religion with politics…. The list is too long to mention….

The bottom line is, why are you attacking people for building their constitution on the basis of their national religion when you do the same yourselves? Why attack the Egyptian Constitutions second item that says: “Sharia Law is the conrner stone of legislation” when it is practically applied to the core, at the same time you put Christianity as the corner stone of your state?

How legitimate it is of America to make such demands when the American house has so much cleaning and tidying up to be done?

I’d really like to add anything, but I can’t figure out what.