Academia's fetish, John Hopkins & Co. join "The War on Fracking."

Academia is a strange place. Whatever the The Right supports there will be a study or dissertation about it - not to support it, but to disprove the confidence of those that support it. Take for instance UPenn Religious Studies professor, Anthea Butler, who calls Ben Carson "coon of the year." Butler's UPenn profile reveals even more telling information about her research interests.

Professor Butler's forthcoming book, The Gospel According to Sarah: How Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are Galvanizing the Religious Right will be published by The New Press in 2014.

I also had a sociology professor whose interests included studying the "Christian Right." Granted, she was a lesbian, so it was to little wonder. Let's go back to UPenn. Sociology doctoral candidate Francis Prior. In his student biography he states the following -

His research interests include the sociology of crime and punishment, urban sociology, the sociology of race and ethnicity, and the sociology of social movements.  Currently, Francis is doing participant observation and interview research on service provision in prisoner reentry organizations and clients’ experience of release from incarceration.  For his master’s thesis, Francis did participant observation and interview research on organizers’ management of rank and file participants’ collective behavior in the Tea Party movement.  Before joining the sociology department, Francis received a BA in philosophy from Villanova University, with an emphasis on hermeneutic and critical approaches to historical and contemporary social and political thought.

I'll probably actually purchase his thesis in order to see what he writes about. I'm rather curious of his findings and his methodology since I feel he's approaching the Tea Party movement with post-modern lenses, painting the group as some extreme nutbags with highly questionable values. Too bad he didn't do an entire paper focusing solely on #BlackLivesMatter or Occupy Wall Streets (OWS). Oh no, that would be plain weird because such groups totally don't have questionable motives or backers. His personal website lists more information about his academic interests.

PUBLICATIONS

2014. “Quality Controlled: An Ethnographic Account of Tea Party Messaging and Action.” Sociological Forum 29(2).

UNDER REVIEW

"New American Populism: Tea Party and Occupy in Ethnographic and Rhetorical Comparison." with Shantee Rosado at Mobilization

ACADEMIC PRESENTATIONS

Panel at Eastern Sociological Society 2011: “The Tea Party Movement: Frames and Micromobilization”

But what about the semi-humans babies?

What's the tactic of leftists and liberals to slowly burrow their opponents into obscurity and to malign them? "Studies have shown ... "

This is all in the name of science, empirical evidence and "proof."

See here.

Expectant mothers have a lot to be concerned about, but those living near fracking sites have even more to fear, an expanding body of evidence shows. Most recently, a data review of more than 10,000 pregnancies has linked living in heavily fracked areas with a higher risk of premature births.

In the study, published Sept. 30 in the journal Epidemiology, scientists at Johns Hopkins University, Brown University and the University of California, Berkeley and San Francisco, analyzed data from the 10,496 pregnancies of 9,384 mothers in nearly 700 communities in Pennsylvania from 2009 to 2013. At the same time, they tracked shale gas drilling, fracturing and production in a 12.4-mile radius of each woman.

What they found was that mothers who had higher exposure to these operations and infrastructure -- in essence, those who had more drilling and fracking sites in the vicinity of their homes -- were 40 percent more likely to give birth to premature babies. They were also 30 percent more likely to have high-risk pregnancies, the researchers found.

"Any form of energy extraction that harms the well-being of infants and pregnant women has no place in society," Sandra Steingraber, a biologist with the organization Americans Against Fracking, who was not involved in the study, said in response to the new findings. "These data show that a ban on fracking is good prenatal care."

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of injecting millions of gallons of sand and chemical-laced water into gas-rich shale below the earth to allow gas to be released from the rock. Those liquids are then brought back to the surface of the earth. Previous studies have linked living near fracking sites to infertility, miscarriages and birth defects. Researchers have blamed the increased risk of exposure to toxic chemicals and even radioactive materials.

More than 15 million people in the U.S. were living within one mile of a fracking well, Al Jazeera reported in 2014, as the practice has increased significantly in the U.S. in recent years. Advocates say fracking helps communities by creating jobs, while critics argue it can be detrimental for human health and to the environment.

Of course, if respectable institutions like John Hopkins, Brown, Berkely and U of SanFran say so, then we must not question their findings and must follow their warnings.

John Hopkins Hospital said no to transgender surgery yet the medical world and the LGBT activists and libertines gleefully ignored such warnings, but I bet this fracking news - accurate or not - will be picked up and used as ammo to both shutdown fracking and play the Big Oil card, in hopes to drive more money into solar energy.

ODing in Chicago.

Chicago experiences heroin deaths.

Chicago overdoses from heroin sent almost 72 people to the hospital from Tuesday through Friday afternoon. Some of the heroin overdose patients wound up at Mount Sinai Hospital with needles still stuck in their arms.

The heroin used in the Chicago overdoses may have been laced with fentanyl, a painkiller. Cook County health and law enforcement officials are currently investigating at least one death linked to the rash of heroin overdoses, MSN reports.

“We suspect what is happening is the same thing that happened in 2006 when people were getting heroin that was cut with fentanyl, which is a very strong narcotic,” Mount Sinai emergency room director and nurse, Diane Hincks, said. “That’s what we think is happening.”
Hincks added that some of the overdose patients collapsed immediately after injecting themselves with the heroin. She also said that the hospital typically sees only two or three drug overdoses per day.
 

Where theses cases happen also reveals something about the culture of those neighborhoods.

By Friday afternoon, Chicago area emergency rooms had responded to 74 heroin overdoses in 72 hours. The number of overdoses from the drug was more than double the amount experienced in the city from the same time span last year, according to fire department representative Larry Langford.

Chicago police officials have stated that the heroin prompting the overdoses appears to have primarily been sold in two specific locations on the city’s West Side. A sample of the heroin sold in the North Lawndale neighborhood is being tested for fentanyl contamination.
 

If you're familiar with the city of Chicago, the South Side (SS) is infamous for its gang wars - that's where most of the bad coverage comes from when it comes to national attention for homocides. The West Side is sometime the forgotten sibling which has its share of gang violence and negative press, though not as bad as the SS. Add the latest deaths of the junkies to its CV.

This disturbing news of heroin cause related deaths isn't new to Chicago. It has happened before.

Heroin overdose deaths have increased throughout Chicago and the rest of the state since 2011, Illinois Department of Public Health statistics indicate. In 2014, 633 heroin overdose deaths occurred in Illinois, up from 583 in 2013. Last year in Cook County, 283 people died from overdosing on heroin.

State lawmakers have begun to focus on the mounting number of heroin overdoses in Illinois. Multiple measures have been proposed to address the heroin problem and overdose hospitalizations and deaths.

The significant heroin overdose incident in Chicago happened between 2005 and 2007. There were more than 1,000 drug deaths during that time. Dozens of people in the greater Chicago area died of overdoses, including the ingestion or injection of drugs laced with fentanyl.

But don't worry, people want to legalize drugs and ban handguns, saying the 2nd amendment is no longer needed in this advanced, enlightened society.

Shut up modernism.

It's very amusing hearing/reading people saying that the Catholic Church "takes things too far" (I was reading thoughts on tube ligation) and that it "sticks its nose" in personal lives. Of course, the people that said this definitely came across as over-reacting and admitted that they came under 'extreme' judgement with people who they shared thoughts about tube tying. Well, you did ask a Catholic who's practicing and if they're practicing the right way they should be orthodox on the matter. Apparently that's 'extreme.'

They're mad about this? And my standards.

It's always amusing on what angers the social "progressives." Take for instance the hashtag #NoHymenNoDiamond. What I've gathered that this slogan was created by a group of guys in the 'men's rights' movement. It has angered feminists and the like.

The hashtag stems from a facebook group, a relatively new group created in 2014, of the same name, and it's just gaining its infamous status in the past couple of days. And boy, are the progs annoyed. Raw Story, HuffPo, Metro etc. have written articles about it and the tweets show the irritation of this slogan turned hashtag.

Anthony DeMarco runs the podcast Ascending the Tower over at Social Matter, so hat tip to him for making me aware of this.

The tweets are the typical mockery and presumptions of people who hold sex like drinking a beer towards those who think sex is more than that, and that chastity is actually a legit stance towards the hedonistic and amoral view on sex. And again, typical of such people, they wear their hearts on their sleeve. Planned Parenthood supporter. A person stating they aren't straight by their twitter name. Some guy who looks like a douche from Ireland (my impressions of the men of Ireland aren't good -- either they come across as douches or they're just atheistic pansies, think Richard Dawkins fanboys). The last, @elctrafemme whose twitter name is "unsex me now" ... Well, her entire twitter masthead and bio should be posted.

Okay, since I singled out that twitter person, er, twitterian, er, @elctrafemme I'll just show the fragile nature of @DboudreauDella, the "i am gay" twitter name who wrote #MasculinitySoFragile.

Well a boy has a penis. I'm rather positive that the person shown above does not actually have a penis. The part of me that is in doubt says that person is a he and looks like a girl. If so, no, "im the prettiest boy of them all" is just self-flattery that I disagree with.

Back to the #NoHymenNoDiamnonds. Its' reasonable to say that it's a double standard for women, those that have lost their virginity well before a man proposes to them and those that have numerous sexual partners, when compared to men who have slept with other women, whether it be in a relationship or a casual tryst. I would not be surprised if this uproar will be another page that the #WarOnWomen movement will reference. I don't think it's a "war"; it's a standard. Of course, for anyone that knows about a woman's body, the hymen can be broken even without sexual intercourse based on pure accident. I won't get into the details, though. But the hashtag isn't directed towards those in that small, rare group. It's directed at the large group of women who consciously choose to have sex before marriage. It's an ego blow to the women who have had sex that are part of the modern day feminist movement and those who share similar stances and beliefs.

Many can say to the facebook group and those that support the hashtag to "face reality," and deal with the sexual nature of women. True. And this is one way of dealing with it. This group, from my readings on their facebook wall, is a mix of men. Some men are frustrated that they couldn't get sex from the women of their choice when they bulked up; some men actually want to have sex within marriage only. The first group joins the second group - adopting the standards and ideals of the abstinence before marriage people - and in a very ironic way see the value of actually having sexual standards (not if the woman's body is to ones liking, but if she sees her sexual worth more than "I'll do it when I'm ready" aka most likely before marriage with a person that most likely won't be my spouse if I ever do get married.)

Should the facebook group lessen its harshness on those who admit that having sex before marriage was a mistake and/or that they regret it? I think they should, but, as a guy, I see no real issue with the group's message and goal. As I said before in another post, I think double standards are good in certain occasions. It, in a sorta mean way, says to the group that is being singled that they are looked at differently and that not everything is held to the same standard. Sometimes it's out of sheer bias, even hatred, and others because it's a psychological instinct. When the left points out hypocrisy by The Right I tend to think that it should help The Right be more prudent, if not push its limits to better thought processing and to live up to the goals the ideology sets forth (the left should probably never be let to live up to its goals because it'll just create misery, personal destruction and nihilism).

The hashtag is a standard more than anything once you move away from the MGTOW and the angry body buildings who can't get laid. In many ways it has exposed the idiocy of the progressives and the pure contempt that the modern world has for anything sacred and traditional. It has also exposed the foolishness of pick-up-artists that when they don't "get some" they cry and wonder to themselves "I've got the body, I got the car ... What about my taco?" They don't treat the opposite sex like human beings; they want sex and that's it, and for that they deserve their misery. This is the twist: modernism's attitude towards sex and pick-up-artists have collided. The end result a somewhat hilarious crash.

Now what are my exact thoughts on this, personally when I deal with abstinence, if not chastity, and how sex ties into marriage? This has always been my philosophy about this situation. If I ever do get to propose and the woman isn't a virgin, then she isn't a virgin. If we get to a point where I propose and I'm aware she isn't a virgin, then in my eyes, she's worth it. I deal with it the same way in the given situation when the woman I'm dating has already had plastic surgery - be it breasts, a rhinoplasty or whatever before we became something more than friends. I don't reject them because of that. I deal with it, accept it and carry on with the relationship because I don't see such things as a deal breaker. I will make it aware that I reject plastic surgery, though. Same with tattoos. As for politics, wow, I can see myself compromising on that as well. Now, when it comes to religion that's a much more serious issue. This me "meeting them where they are." I believe I am being very generous about what I accept in terms of faults and past actions.

Preferably I would like my future wife to be a practicing Catholic and not of the liberal bent. If I can't find one of that stripe then being a non-denominational Christina is fine. If I can't find that then a non-religious person holding similar morals & values may have to do - but they must be an exceptional person who doesn't treat Christianity, let alone Catholicism, with disrespect. The third option must be, again, exceptional - if not, then it's a no go. Here's why.

You see, nothing of what I've admitted says anything about the woman's looks, her ethnicity, her education level, her career choice (porn stars are a no and actresses are to be looked at with great suspicion) or where she has or has not lived.. It has everything to do with moral standards and values. I am not looking for perfection, but effort and standards. If we share the same morals and values - which atheism cannot base itself on or say "morals is based on evolutionary psychology!" - then living together and raising children will be that much easier. I will absolutely not dedicate a part of my being to a person who cannot allow me to raise any of our future children in a Catholic household. Education wise, we either find a good Catholic school or we homeschool till high school. Non-religious privates are also an option. Opting for a public school is on the page, but that's the last resort. There are compromises, but spirituality is not a compromise for me. I've seen it with my own eyes that a house with no prayer or concept of religion is an empty household. It is spiritually vacant. A single parent household with prayer is stronger than a two-parent household. A two-parent (of opposite sex) household with prayer is the ideal. The Mormons, the Catholics (at least the old-style kind), the Baptists and Orthodox Jews are poof of this. Oddly enough, when it comes to abstinence, the Mormons outdo the Catholics in sexual restraint.

So yes, our attitudes towards sex is not only a character revealing scenario, but also it can heavily dictate how we raise our children and how they come to view sex. I know exactly what I'm getting with a women who have no issue with sex before marriage. And it's not a "veteran" in a sense of a war veteran or a seasoned professional athlete. But they think of themselves that way.

EDIT: The "sex positive" people are miffed over an LA billboard urging app users of grindr (for non-straight dating/hook-up) and tinder (it's straight counterpart) to get STD tests. The ad was footed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Oh the irony.

Religion, secularism & marriage

I've observed that many of my friends that majored in physics tend to quote Carl Sagan. I've also observed that many that I throughout high school, given their particular personality and physical makeup (a bit dorkish and tall and lanky) are non-believers.

Another thing that's worth noting is that my brother's group of friends whose only a few years older than I treat religion with a bit more respect than those who, say, are a year or two younger than me. It's not all a huge age difference, but the contrast is a little striking. From getting married in a courthouse (why anyone would do this is beyond me, well, besides them being non-religious and/or can't afford the church fees) to nature weddings (ceremonies outside that are nowhere near a church) or the marriage conducted by a non-religious officiate (I just recently learned a friend is an officiate - as I saw a picture of him presiding a marriage).

Now the first and third -- why even bother attending. It's really just a bunch of 20/30 somethings playing dress-up like Halloween, but instead of getting candy it's putting rings on each others ring finger and declaring "For life!" Instead of a ring pop, Joe and Jane, now holding jobs/careers that afford them to rent out the facilities exchange relatively expensive rings. Instead of dressing up in a werewolf costume the groom dresses in a tux and the Pink Power Ranger puts on heels and a white dress. There is no real meaning to it. If you can get a divorce in a snap (no-fault divorce) and hold up that state wedding license with smiles why the celebration? Maybe it's a failure of their upbringing. Maybe it's a failure of their lack of understanding of what marriage is as a whole, not what marriage is to the individuals getting married.

I was just at a ceremony that was held at a botanical garden and the officiate, as I learned later, is a homosexual. I knew something was "off" because during the officiates speech about the two people getting married, there was no mention of faith, God or anything transcendental besides love and commitment. The only things that were repeated was love and commitment; the speech sounded like an atheist omitting the "under God" when saying the Pledge of Alliance. Alongside the bride's brother reciting a poem about, you guessed, love. It was somewhat weird. And the entire ceremony lasted no more than 15 minutes.

There's something lacking in courthouse/secular/outdoor-weddings. These weddings really are just a proclamation of "We really, really like each other! We've decided on forever!" Okay, where's the priest? Where's the steeple? There are non. I'll skip the ceremony and show up to the reception. At least they have alcohol to make my brain accommodate the nothingness that pervades the room.

If non-religious ceremonies are this uneventful, completely void of being transcendental and bizarre between two people of the opposite sex, then I can only imagine what a ceremony would be like between two people of the same sex.

These are a few quotes that showed up on my friends facebook page. Two, I presume are atheists and the other agnostic at best.

"time will pass, nothing will last" 

"God is an alien" (when listing his religious views) 

"The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." - Carl Sagan (this was one of three quotes on a three tier wedding cake)

EDIT: I just learned that one of college acquaintances, she and her boyfriend, just went to the courthouse and signed the marriage license. This was on facebook. The two dressed in casual clothes - like they were running errands - and the caption read something like this, "Well consider this my proclamation. I'm off the market! We've decided to not have a ceremony and felt it was time to finally time to sign a piece of paper." Finally time to sign a piece of paper. Why even offer a congrats in that? (Granted there were many by in-laws, immediate family members and close friends.) Why "make it official" with that line of thought? 

In contrast, another college acquaintance of mine was married at, I think, in a Catholic church. The pictures of the groomsmen and women were really lovely. The pictures of the family and the married couple in front of the alter were more lovely. I am not sure if it means anything, but if she felt the need to list "Catholic" under religious views on facebook then I suppose that there is some sort of spiritual fire in her. I am not sure about  her husband. At least their effort to respect the institution of marriage is more hopeful than the story just above.

I can tell the age gap in American conservatisim.

American conservatism, at least the circles I dipped into, is not young. I know this because of the stories people tell about their experiences with the Catholic Church - mostly negative about mean nuns and priests, and the psychological abuse they've been through, supposedly scarring them for life and leaving the faith. These stories aren't really new since I've heard them before. Here's a sample:

•  a nun humiliating a child because her skirt was too short
•  priest reading the amount of donation at the pulpit by each parishioner
• a nun not letting a girl go to the washroom so she ended up peeing herself in class
• a nun not letting kids go the washroom so they soiled themselves
• a nun making child write "I will not eat meat on Fridays" 100 times in front of the class
• a nun badgering kids if their Sunday donations weren't present in the collection basket (parents had one and kids had one)

I don't doubt these are false. The women, 60+ years old, in my church choir seem to talk about their memories in a more fonder tone, but expressed the "Oh boy, if you didn't sit up straight you were given 'the eye'! of strictness. What's strange is that the eldest choir member, Eleanor, speaks well of the the nuns that taught her. She did give an impression that they were strict, but they were strict for a reason. One story she told me was that during a church even the girls were suppose to wear white shoes - she didn't have any in her size, until a nun found out about her situation and gave her a pair, all clean and shined.

I suppose the horror stories listed are the "worst of the worst" and it's one of those situations where the loudest voice is usually the most bitter. It's unfortunate that such things happened, but, as someone nowhere near the age of 50 I'll keep quiet when the complainers come forth. The strictness that was found pre-Vatican II seems to be all but gone, yet those women who have taken vows and whose organization is more worldly has seen their numbers drop, yet those who have stuck with their habits and traditions have seem their numbers grow. It's immensely ironic, really.

My experience weren't with nuns, but with sisters - Adrian Dominican Sisters to be exact. There were only two present when I was in grade school. I cannot recall the other, but I do distinctly remember Sister Karen. She wasn't mean nor was she nice, at least to me that is. I remember that I was suppose read a few paragraphs during reading class - I proceeded to read and apparently I read too far. She made me re-read the paragraphs again, but again I read too far. I will never forget it: the parts I was reading weren't really paragraphs, per se, since all I was reading was dialogue. That was confusing to me. I thought to myself that I wasn't reading paragraphs! It didn't occur to me to make her aware of that fact. Obviously it got me a little upset; Sister Karen was very upset at me. Eventually she told me where to stop. Thanks, Sis.

Unlike the conservatives that I interact with, those that have left the faith due to perceived extortion and other somewhat petty reasons (to me), I have not. What came to a surprise to me, as an ex-liberal where religion and tradition are not thought of with an approving eye, was the level of anti-Catholicsm in conservative circles But it was a different type of contempt than liberals.. Again, most of the contempt come from people who were about 10 years of age in the 1970s. They were feeling the strictness of pre-Vatican II. Some are non-practicing while others have moved to other sects such as Lutheranism. They say "feel at home" but mention no philosophy behind it. Like liberals, it's all about 'the feels.' Most dissenters were sharing their horrible experiences with  nuns/priests, so it's not their findings of the Church's teaching faulty or innately weak, but because the flock that was entrusted to spread the Gospel and guide the layman were put in teaching duties where they were not a good fit. A conservative sad that the Roman Catholic Church should be renamed the "Cafeteria Catholic Church." Though I do see the reasoning behind it, the Church itself - as of today - has not wavered in its stances. It is the flock that is cafeteria, not the doctrines. Another brought up that Pope Benedict wore designers slip-ons and said that it was hypocritical of the Church to ask for donations when the institution was "very rich." Apparently he did not know donations - a good percent - are geared towards the parish's physical upkeep.

Honestly, it's a bit tiring and irritating to hear the anti-Catholicism amongst conservatives when the RCc is brought up. I say this: Either you have issues with set of particular priests and nuns, who are probably all dead, or you're just a fool upset that the Church isn't falling in line politically on the conservative end.

The Church is hated by the modern liberals for being archaic, oppressive and bigoted. It's also not held in high esteem by the modern right on grounds that are also political (e.g. immigration, economics) but also personal. I think both sides are wrong. The left sees the RCC as an enemy to their ideology. The right has more personal baggage. Both seem to lack any understanding of the RCC, but on different levels. The right turns into a liberal when dealing withe RCC and the left turns into, well, they don't turn into anything because they'r the left.

This goes to prove that the Church isn't necessarily left or right. It's not straight down the middle, either. It's the Roman Catholic Church. Either get on its page and speed or get out of the way. If you leave, leave because you find the philosophy wanting or leave because you differ too much for another belief. Leaving because a nun/priest was mean is petty.

Social media and "connecting."

I suppose it depends on the industry you work in on how social media plays into your "connecting" consumption.

Let me make comments on the platforms that are mostly used, as of today.

Facebook
Okay, I can absolutely see the purpose of this. I remember when it first came out in 2004 - my brother was the first "class" to integrate this type of media into his life and I still remember how clean the layout was. White. Easy to navigate once you became familiar with the interface. The lack of adverts adding to the the overall cleanliness. There were immensely less "lines" and categories to share your personal information. Back then (that felt weird typing that) users had to have a college email account in order gain access to the site. If you were in high school you were SOL and myspace was your stomping ground.

I do use this. My goal with facebook is to keep in touch with friends, old and new, family members and even professional contacts. It's been an indispensable tool to communicate with when setting up get-togethers or reunions.

A downside of this platform is the feed. Dear Allah. When it started it tolerable, now it's a foghorn of "updates." I suppose the upside to the feed is that, when anyone posts something political (say, something about same-sex "marriage," immigration, reproductive "rights" etc.) there are discussions revealing the thoughts of friends about the given issue. This can be depressing since you learn that many of your friends are political idiots. They're "good" people, but they're political idiots. I remember one online conversation between a high school friend and a grade school friend (they never met) when I posted an article about handwriting & education. At the time both of these people were earning a degree in education, so it was no surprise that they commented. One disagreed with the other and so-on and so-on. At the end, one came across as a the typical union "progressive" teacher while the other, who held more conservative views, held his ground and didn't let emotions take over.

Another downside is, as I noted above, the interface has become cluttered. Since the expansion and popularity of the site has become worldwide, every time you comment on another site needing an account you have the option to either log-in your facebook or create a profile specifically for that site. Now, if you log-in on your facebook that site asks if it can take information from your facebook in order to track your user habits. In many ways this ties into social demographics. The site you want to comment on wants to track down the sex, age and geographic area their visitors/commenters come from. This is understandable. But, in the end, I don't see the true point of it nor do I see the benefits besides more infographs about info I really do not care about. In the end, it's an invasion of privacy. If you do not allow the site to gain access to your facebook info then you can't use it to comment. In this way, everyone is "connected." I find this chilling and an insidious byproduct of the obsession of social media.

This is more of an annoyance, but I find the masthead that's located on every profile to be utterly sophomoric. What is the purpose of this? There's the avatar - the original profile picture - then there's this huge, obnoxious masthead filled with whatever picture the user decides to put up. If you don't have a masthead then the area on which the masthead is located is just an ugly grey. You either deal with that grey or put up a picture like covering a hole in the wall with a poster.

Now, I don't have the interest to scroll down my feed to learn what's happening in the lives of my facebook "friends" - if I need to send a message or update my profile my cursor and eyes will immediately find the tabs that allow me to do such things,and my eyes consciously ignore (read: my eyes do not even skim the feed) whatever comes up as updates. I have my profile setup where notifications like engagements are sent to my mobile and that's it. If I choose to offer my congratulations or "like" the update, I will do so. At least I know that so-and-so are engaged. 

Twitter
In terms of news, I say this: national/international break-out stories are just that - break-out stories. The feeling or rush one gets from immediately knowing a story (that hasn't been fully developed), especially on issues many of us do not have a clue about like foreign affairs, is fleeting. A supervisor once said to me regarding the immediacy of twitter feed, "The person who knows about a certain story will not be anymore knowledgeable than they person who doesn't know about it when it breaks out, and follows it - like those who do follow a given issue - through the following weeks, months and years." Sooner or later, if the WOM is strong enough, you'll hear about a given story.

I have a twitter account which is under an alias. I barely retweet or tweet anyone or anything. It's usually just stuff about politics.

The line of work I do twitter isn't necessary unless you're updating for PR reasons, and that's usually an assigned job.

Instagram
Unless you're a photographer or the Most Interesting Man in the World a good majority of what you post will be just like every other idiotic millennial and celebrity.The "community" that has been expressed by a number of others on instragram is false community. It isn't real. Your feels do not make such a community real.

I can see if you have a soft spot for a celebrity and you follow them, but why even, at that?

Twitter & instagram are practically cousins. Instead of 140 characters there's a picture. Twitter is really facebook's feed gone solo and instagram is the photo section of facebook. Neither do I care to view unless under special circumstances.

Pinterest
I have no clue how pinterest caught on. Instead of going into bookmarks you just log-in into your pinterest account. Convenient, but overall the convenience makes it uninteresting.

Google +
I never used it; the fact that I'm scared that something might show up on it that I don't want too makes me even more cautious on what I write & post. I don't know anyone in my social circles that uses it in a serious fashion.

LinkedIn
The most legit, and in my eyes respectable, professional networking site. If you have a personal site and link your linkedin profile to it, then I don't see how you'll lose in the networking game. 

Conclusion
If you're marketing something (like yourself if you're a politician or if you belong to a *sorority), say a movie, an event, or if you're business trying to reach out to the public then I can see the strong point of creating an account on twitter & instagram. It's brand identity and effective communication. But as individuals, excluding the politican? Yea, you and your life aren't as interesting as you think. Celebrities are as uninteresting and lack creativity (even if they're in the creative field) as the wannabe filmmaker.

A healthy percent of my friends and family members do not use instagram or twitter -- both on a personal level and a professional level. Then again many live in the Midwest, working in industries that have not put social media in its everyday fabric. There is no pressure to join either platform. Working teachers in elementary school truly don't have a use for twitter. They also don't see the need to broadcast their politics in such a way. Even for those who work in industries that do, say my cousin who works in tech in Palo Alto, he doesn't have one. His brother does, but he barely tweets and when he does it's something random. The only people that I know who tweet is a person in government/non-profit and another who was getting his doctorate in education.

No employer worth its salt, unless it's National Geographic, or if you're applying as a photographer,  will give two shits if you have an instagram or twitter  (save that you don't post anything un-PC). There are employers who view their potential hire before making an offer if their facebook is "clean." If they suspect anything that might look bad upon the company in your profile (e.g. questionable pictures) then that can decrease your chances of being hired. The gift of common sense says, "No, dear. Don't put that up. Untag yourself from that picture. Don't do stupid crap during the weekend."

How to eliminate your "internet trail"? Post under an alias. Choose not to have a twitter account or instagram, and if you do choose just post stuff related to your field of work.

Truly, I don't have the motivation and urge to be on my mobile tweeting or taking pictures to constantly share on instagram. You'd think that at least 50% of those on these platforms are making serious money from posting pictures and tweeting. That sunset and whatever pathetic #YOLO pic will be the same as the other account whose owner lives in Brazil.

I'll stick to blogging, my tumblr (beats instagram & twitter) and facebook. In fact, a personal website seems like a more creative outlet than both twitter/instagram combined. Then again many who use twitter don't know how to build a website from the ground up. The irony. Technically savvy yet almost useless when it comes down to it.

*Sororities (almost every chapter in every state) are turning to tumblr as a gallery alternative. It's a marvelous decision.