- Facebook has officially hit the big time. No, it’s not because a movie was made about its creation, nor is it because the site has hit a certain benchmark for users or made a certain amount of money. The reason Facebook has truly, truly arrived is the creation of its very own psychological disorder, coined as “Facebook depression.” A new study by the American Academy of Pediatrics has proposed Facebook depression as a new disorder on the basis that youths who spend a lot of time on social media sites are at risk of "Facebook depression.” The study, published online for the first time Monday, theorizes that despite similarities to the symptoms and the resulting harmful behavior of traditional depression, “Facebook depression” is actually a new phenomenon. The new clinical report, “The Impact of Social Media Use on Children, Adolescents and Families,” lays out both the negative and positive effects of social media use on youth and families. It states the obvious - the number of preadolescents and adolescents using such sites as Facebook and MySpace has increased dramatically during the last five years - and cites statistics showing the share of visitors to Facebook under 18 years of age increased over the past year to 11.1 percent. Gwenn O’Keeffe, MD, FAAP, co-author of the clinical report, also points out an even more obvious phenomenon: that social media, rather than face-to-face interaction, is the primary way many youths interact. “A large part of this generation’s social and emotional development is occurring while on the Internet and on cell phones," she stated in the report. "Facebook is where all the teens are hanging out now. It's their corner store.” Wow…..you needed to waste time and research dollars figuring that out? Credit O’Keeffe and her fellow researchers for not only researching the negative aspects of social media usage, but also examining increased connection with friends and family, making new friends, community engagement, and enhancement of creativity to the regular use of Facebook and other social media sites. Those are balanced out by cyberbullying, social anxiety, severe isolation, and now what doctors are now calling Facebook depression. "Acceptance by and contact with peers is an important element of adolescent life. The intensity of the online world is thought to be a factor that may trigger depression in some adolescents," the report states. O’Keeffe pointed to basic Facebook features and data like the number of friends a person has on the site, status updates and photos of happy people as possible causes of Facebook depression. Of course, if kids weren’t depressed by seeing those reminders of how unpopular they are online, they would still be seeing them in real life, but never mind that. How are parents to cope with possible Facebook depression in their child? The AAP study doesn’t offer any concrete solutions, but the general idea seems to be the same measures that are used to detect and combat traditional depression. Thanks for nothing, American Academy of Pediatrics researchers and congrats to you, Facebook, for your big achievement………….
- Aren’t Californians supposed to be chill? Someone should alert Sacramento city councilwoman Angelique Ashby of that fact because she is far too uptight and far too close-minded for she and her city’s own good. Her uptightness reared its ugly head when a billboard advertising for medical marijuana evaluations went up on Highway 160, a main highway heading into downtown Sacramento. The billboard is an advertisement for 420 Relief, a business that owner Steve Macki insists is a legal operation exercising its right to free speech. "We have had some positive response and we look forward to issuing recommendations," Macki said. And yes, his business is in fact called 420 Relief, an homage to the time of day stoners say is the absolute best time to burn a fattie. The billboard has drawn the ire of Ashby, who wants to see it taken down. "I would prefer we have different advertisements there," said Ashby. Why? Because you’re too good for stoners, councilwoman? Could you look down your nose any more at a group that hasn’t done anything to harm you or your city - or anyone else for that matter? Stoners are mellow, laid back and unlikely to get off the couch to do anything that would disrupt the daily goings on of Sacramento. Why would you want to deny the First Amendment rights of a business that has the potential to carry your state’s economy going forward? Stoners, er, medical patients in need of medicinal hippie lettuce are always going to seek the chronic and if advertising can help grow that business, so be it. Macki has admitted that his business has increased since the sign went on display, so there is definitive proof for you right there. Also, it is worth mentioning that if city council members in major California cities are going to act like a bunch of uptight squares, the state is going to lose its reputation as one of the coolest, chillest states in this great nation……….
- Oprah Winfrey has become one of the richest, most influential and successful people in the media game by making good decisions. She wields a lot of power on account of her good choices, but that doesn’t mean she won't make a terrible decision from time to time. This is one of those times. According to the foul-mouthed, crass, classes blob known as Rosie O’Donnell, her new talk show will call Oprah Winfrey's OWN Network home this fall. "I just wanted to say hi, and I'm coming to Chicago," O'Donnell said in the video blog. "It's a huge thrill for me, and I'm beyond the beyond." We’re all beyond something, O’Fat, but I believe what the rest of us are beyond is belief and horror. Just look to O’Fat’s run of terror as a co-host on The View, when she openly clashed with every other co-host on the show and displayed her lack of class and intelligence at every turn. She said incredibly stupid and ill-informed things for no defensible reason, other than possibly trying to create controversy and keep herself on the air. She seemed to be on the verge of a full-on fistfight with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck every time the two of them were on the set together and her idiocy also prompted an all-time great rant from one of her targets, Donald Trump, as he absolutely eviscerated her and ran down a laundry list of her many negative attributes as if he were ordering lunch of the menu at his favorite high-end eatery. O’Fat then launched a magazine she named after herself and that too was an epic failure that lasted only a few months. Yes, she did win multiple Emmys in a row for her previous talk show, The Rosie O'Donnell Show, which ran from 1996-2002, but that was before the world really got to know what a crass, lowbrow slob she was and still is. What inspired Oprah to hand her air time on a her brand-new cable network, we’ll never know. Sure, Oprah needs to fill the 24 hours in every day and she can't do it all herself, but O’Fat? Needless to say, O’Fat was effusive in her gratitude and praise for Winfrey and OWN. "Thank you Oprah, and thank all of you who will be sticking around and helping us make a kick-ass show for the Oprah Winfrey Network," she said. Not only has Winfrey backed O’Fat by giving her a show, but her Chicago-based studio has already purchased 130 episodes of future talk show. Winfrey said in a statement: "I'm delighted to welcome Rosie to the studio I've called home for so many years. Speaking from experience, she will be working with the best team in television in one of the greatest cities in the world." Not that I’ve ever been a huge fan of Winfrey show, but the idea of a foul-mouthed, slovenly, classless train wreck of a comedienne desecrating that studio with her horrible brand of talk show hosting just doesn’t seem right………..
- Politics 1, Love 0. That’s the current tally on the scoreboard in Guatemala, where the country’s first lady has decided to end her eight-year marriage in order to succeed her husband as president. Because Guatemala's constitution prohibits members of a president's extended family from running for the presidency, Sandra Torres de Colom could not follow husband and current President Alvaro Colom in office. Rather than honor her wedding vows and run for office in the next election, Sandra Torres de Colom has elected to commence divorce proceedings, which began Monday, and if both parties agree, the divorce could be final in about a month. President Colom cannot run for re-election, so someone has to step up to lead and Torres announced March 8 that she will be the presidential candidate of the governing National Unity for Hope party in the September election. The cynic could argue that the divorce is a total sham designed to circumvent the Guatemalan constitution, which was written in 1985 when a right-wing military was in power and sought to restrict access to the presidency. How great would it be if Torres were elected in September, took office and announced that she and Colom were going to re-marry? Also, how will Guatemalans react to what could definitely be seen as a de facto continuation of a regime that has been beset by allegations of corruption in a country famous for them? A WikiLeaks diplomatic cable characterized Torres as the "most able" member of the government and also the "most abrasive." Right now, Torres is trailing in every single presidential poll and she is already facing pointed criticism from opponents and constitutionalists who have denounced the divorce for political purposes as "immoral." It will be difficult for Torres to preach the importance of family and moral values when she sacrificed her marriage just to run for president, but everyone has their choices to make…………
- The Sacramento Kings and the city of Sacramento do not appear to be headed toward a positive resolution of their long-running battle over the NBA team’s future in California’s capital city. Kings owners Joe and Gavin Maloof have hinted for months at the possibility of moving the team if they cannot secure a new arena to replace the club’s outdated current home, the Arco Arena. That speculation has firmed up in recent weeks as the Maloofs filed paperwork with the NBA to extend its normal deadline of March 1 for any team wishing to relocate prior to the next season. While filing that paperwork, the Maloofs were busy researching a move to Anaheim, where the city-owned Honda Center would be a perfect landing place for the Kings. Despite openly looking into the move, neither of the Maloofs had ripped the city of Sacramento publicly for failing to secure financing for a new arena - until Monday. Joe Maloof made his first public comment Monday about the franchise's possible relocation to Anaheim, cracking on a letter sent between the cities' governments. He was asked about a letter written by Sacramento Assistant City Manager John Dangberg to officials in Anaheim claiming that a move could cause "irreparable harm to the City of Sacramento" if the Kings default on a $73 million loan from the city. In the letter, Dangberg also called Anaheim's negotiations with the Kings "bad public policy at a minimum," and requested contractual assurance the Kings will pay their debt before they get more bonds from Anaheim. "That letter is completely wrong, and it was uncalled for -- below the belt -- and it's a shame it had to come out of his office," Maloof fumed. "We tried to be classy and not get in arguments in the media, but I [have to] make this comment. We will continue on with our business and do what is best for the viability of the franchise -- what's best for the franchise and what's best for the league." He seemed particularly irate about Anaheim’s request in the letter for Anaheim not to authorize $75 million in bonds to aid the move. Whether or not the letter impacts the Anaheim city council’s decision will be seen Tuesday night when the council meets to vote on a financial plan to entice an NBA team to move there. "It's not for the mayor or anybody to interfere with our business," Maloof stated. "That's what I think they're doing, and it's not right. We would appreciate that they not interfere with our business." That vote will determine how the Maloofs proceed prior to the April 18 deadline the NBA has set to start the process of moving. A move would also require a vote among the league's other owners, who are unlikely to object. The Bonds Dangberg alluded to were issued in July 1997, when the city loaned the team money two years prior to the Maloofs purchasing the franchise. The Kings will owe Sacramento roughly $77 million if they leave this summer, which Anaheim’s authorizing $75 million in bonds would offset. If only Sacramento had fought as hard to get a new arena as they are in making it difficult for the Kings to move to Anaheim, perhaps the situation would not have devolved to this point……….
No comments:
Post a Comment