COPPA’s got me thinking about social media manners

December 26, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment



With the Federal Trade Commission’s revision of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), we are again confronted by the challenges of how technological progress impacts our children. Whether it is the rusty merry-go-round of social media or tangled thickets of cell phone society, technological progress, for all its advantages, has created an uncertain and, at times, threatening play area for our kids.

Even adults have to vigilantly guard against the constant threat of internet scams and hoaxes. Granted most of them are harmless, but every time someone is taken in by a dubious Facebook re-post or e-mail chain letter, their cynicism is heightened and callouses hardened. Perhaps the real threat to our children is the loss of innocence that necessarily accompanies tech savvy.

Just as disconcerting as on-line threats, the social impact of the ubiquitous use of cell phones are altering the very fabric of our social relationships.People are tethered to their cell phones in a way that was unimaginable just a decade ago.At the midnight premier of The Hobbit, the crowded theater was filled with the cool glow of smart phone screens testifying to the arrival of an age of nearly constant connection to an infinite cloud of data and social networks. How does this affect our relationships with the people sitting next to us?

Certainly there are tremendous conveniences to this phenomenon and, for parents, the ability to be in nearly constant contact with their kids provides a significant measure of comfort and security; but it also changes how we relate to each other. The intrusion of text messaging into intimate gatherings has been pronounced and disruptive.

The simple truth is this: Cell phone technology and social media have dramatically altered the fabric of our social networks and we have yet to establish new ‘rules’ to help us navigate these changes. Perhaps a better way to think about this is as manners.Only informally have conventions of behavior emerged around electronic media.For the most part, it’s a frontier environment with people cautiously figuring out appropriate behavior on the fly.This is especially true for kids whose parents are typically as baffled and confused by these changes, if not more so, than they are.

Turntable FM: My Avatar Can Dance

December 18, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment

Music is very much a social experience: Live shows, dance parties and drum circles are all expressions of the inherent social quality of the musical experience. Yet, such social aspects of music rarely carry over to the virtual world. The exception is turntable.fm, which is entirely premised on shared listening and playing music for others (Play Music Together – as its tagline states). Turntable.fm, or TT, is unlikely to ever be more than a niche application, complementing other, more prominent on-line services. It is even designed to allow songs to be added to major music services like Spotify, Last.fm, i-tunes, Amazon, and Rdio.

For many, the enjoyment of music encompasses a desire to share it. Many on-line music services facilitate ways to share songs, but a real-time, virtual music sharing experience is completely different. Hearing a song my friend plays in response to one of my spins is far more satisfying than an intelligent radio algorithm.

Inaugurated in 2011, Turntable creates a virtual dance club in which DJs take turns ‘spinning discs’ from an extensive play list or uploaded tunes. In each room there are five turntables that listeners occupy – taking turns to spin tunes. Once they choose a room to enter, listeners can get up on the table and spin tunes, or simply stand on the dance floor and listen.

Each room has a chat space for real-time conversation, which allows the service to go well beyond music sharing to function as a genuine social media site. Rooms are created by participants who select the genre, set the rules, and appoint moderators to enforce them (DJs can be booted from the turntable or the room). Don’t worry, the rules are fairly simple with a variant of “Don’t be a Di*k’ as one of the most common.

This bottom-up organizing principle works pretty well. Represented by whimsical avatars, people gravitate to rooms and build interpersonal relationships based on musical tastes and interpersonal affinities. DJs ‘fan’ each other to more easily follow each other. One of my TT friends told me she met her ‘soul mate’ on there and they are pursuing a long distance relationship.

DJs accumulate points when people dance to your song. As you amass points, your choice of avatars expands. Sometimes DJs have a ‘party’ and play a special song when they are about to pass a milestone. Friends and fans gather to put them over the top – opening up additional avatars for them to choose from.

For Turntable, the social element is essential. The app doesn’t allow a DJ to spin alone – you need to share your music to hear it. While the virtual music listening space is unique and intriguing, I find turntable’s greatest value as a musical discovery service. Not only have I massively expanded the catalogue of songs and groups with which I am familiar, but I have found out about them from friends, not an algorithm.

Not since college has my musical repertoire expanded as rapidly as the past year on turntable. So if you are seeking a virtual dorm room to spin tunes with some friends, check out Turntable FM.

Finding Music In a Virtual World

December 18, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment



A bill in Congress proposing to change the way that digital royalty rates are set provides another benchmark in the rapidly evolving economics of the music industry. The recent bill is the latest skirmish in a decade long battle to establish ‘internet-age’ playing rules that are fair to the many entities comprising the music industry.

The specifics of these issues are esoteric and a range of competing interests are in the fray. The ‘traditional’ music industry remains the most powerful and positions itself, dubiously, as representing the artists’ interests against those of upstart tech companies (as popular streaming services are considered). Of course, radio, satellite and cable media are all at the table with their particular interests.

Even the artist themselves have a say in this fight (which is a sign of some progress), but it is not always clear which approach is in their best interests. For example, a service like Pandora can dramatically increase exposure for a band – so lower royalties with higher volume may result in a net increase in pay to musicians.

The economics of the music industry has been in flux since Napster revolutionized the business. Streaming services now provide options not formerly available with various layers of consumer control distinguishing it from traditional radio models. Should streaming services pay the same commissions as radio? What about less tangible benefits offered to musicians by services like Pandora?

There is no question that the music industry has matured and musicians are more sophisticated in their use of the internet and social media. There is no shortage of successful musicians who were ‘discovered’ singing into a webcam on a crude, self-posted YouTube video.

The growth in streaming options allows listeners to enjoy tunes without buying them. Terms like ‘intelligent radio’, ‘social media integration’, and ‘music discovery service’ now are used to describe the defining features of Internet music sites. No doubt Spotify and Pandora, or some variation of these applications, are here to stay. However, notwithstanding their sharing functions and social media integration, the social aspect of on-line listening remains relatively unexplored.



Read my review of Turntable FM in the Review Section to discover an exception to the rule.

Apple Unveils the i-Robot

Apple’s $100 million commitment to develop a US-based manufacturing capacity, announced by CEO Tim Cook, will likely entail the development of sophisticated automated processes, i.e. robots. This is exciting on many levels. Apple is the kind of company that may one day introduce a line of C-3PO’s and R2D2’s. In the nearer term, investments in robotic-based manufacturing may be the only way we can compete with low labor costs in other parts of the world.

Any fan of “How its Made” knows that the use of robotics in manufacturing is nothing new. Apple, however, may be able to bring this to another level. Critics might argue that a shift to more automated processes will do little to bring manufacturing jobs to our shores. But that is short-term thinking.

Apple can certainly afford to invest the capital needed to develop a robust, automated manufacturing capacity. Reducing the operating cost of a substantial labor force with a large capital investment in sophisticated, precision manufacturing technologies is our competitive advantage. While this certainly entails fewer assembly line workers, such is the inevitable consequence of an economy shifting to high-tech. Certainly, the advent of the back-hoe put a lot of ditch diggers out of jobs, but there is little complaint about that today.

A better analogy would be the advent of another sophisticated, high tech invention over a century ago – the automobile. The automotive sector now supports a massive, varied industry. It may be difficult for us to envision a generation of Luke Skywalkers tinkering with robots in their garage, but a lot can happen over a century.

Now the test will be to see if Apple is truly taking the kind of leadership role that should reasonably be expected of them. A collaborative public-private investment in building the kind of work force that will support and benefit from a robotic-based manufacturing economy is certainly needed. There are hopeful signs, such as the Robotics Club at my son’s middle school, but my sense is that such things have yet to become the norm. What is required is private sector investment to supplement public investment in our nation’s training/educational capacity to develop the skills needed in support of this promising sector.

Of course, there is no guarantee that Apple will not be the next Skynet. To cover your bases and prepare for a Terminator-like apocalypse, consider polishing up on how to survive a robot uprising. Either way, it’s recommended to prepare for the robot-based economy of the future and hope to God they never become self-aware.

Re-post this if you Love Your Mother

November 30, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment



By now the copyright disclaimer hoax that went viral on Facebook has made its ways through most news feeds. The reaction provides an interesting glimpse into where we stand in our emerging relationship with social media. The hoax was triggered by Facebook’s posting that users could only comment, not vote, on the proposed changes to its privacy guidelines. Thousands of Facebook users re-posted a status update that claimed to legally protect their personal content from copyright infringement by Facebook.

The hoax went viral, clogging newsfeeds with pseudo-legalese claims to protect a user’s intellectual property. For the record, a status update cannot override the user agreement which all Facebook users have already agreed to and few have read.



The criticisms waged against those who propagated this hoax have ranged from the futility of such a disclaimer, comparable to placing a hex, to the delusion that anyone really cares about the intellectual property rights of one’s comments on the latest kitty video meme. The tone of these critiques has been harsh: Belittling those taken in by the hoax. Blogger Robert Scoble bluntly characterizes those who unwittingly disseminate the hoax as “idiots”, and then helpfully posts a link to Snopes.com. College humor.com produced a biting video, “Facebook Law for Idiots”. A slew of parody postings have made the rounds. One of my favorites: “In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that all the sh#t I post is mine, and if you copy it to make more use of it than I do, you’re an a##hole.” Guilty as charged. But I like its blunt honesty.

I find these responses amusing and admit to sympathy for the frustration they manifest. I have long bristled at the coercive internet hoax – originally thriving through e-mail – that implores recipients to promulgate some blather as someone’s “dying wish”. Those of us who have adopted a hardened cynicism as normative when engaging with social media have little patience for those who naively disseminate deceit.

But I think there is something more going on here. That so many re-posted this particular hoax reflects the unease that many still experience while learning how to “live” in the cyber world. The inexorable flow of our personal identity into the cyber sphere, quickened by Facebook, is a powerful wave. It’s understandable that some of us occasionally lose our footing.

The cyber world remains largely a jungle. We all seek a way through, carving out clearings where we can build structures and find security, predictability and comfort. For better or worse, Facebook has provided such a settlement. Through friends’ postings, Facebook offers a portal to the rest of the world. It helps us filter a vast web of information through a human-scale community of friends and acquaintances. It was one of my primary sources of news for the recent elections.

Facebook (at its best) offers a safe place for social discourse that I believe we desperately seek. So before we direct too much scorn at those who thought a status update might inoculate them from Facebook’s nefarious user agreements, we might remember that one does not need a user agreement to hang out in the town park. And isn’t that what Facebook has become – a new Commons? A place to create, nurture and build community?

Perhaps. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that – in our attempts to build community – we are simultaneously being commoditized. Our personal information feeds a metadata profile that customizes our advertisement content. This, I believe, is at the core of the knee-jerk reaction many had to this particular hoax. Their readiness to re-post the disclaimer arose from a vague awareness that we are Facebook’s product, not their customer. If we want to hang out on this village green, the only “rights” we have are what Facebook grants us.

I do understand the back lash directed at those who were duped. Time and again viral videos demonstrate our desire for authenticity in social media. Thus, those who promulgate deceits, even unwittingly, undermine the authenticity we seek. But the two people whose posts I saw in my newsfeed – a loving sibling, who has been a rock in hard times, and a dear friend, who is one of the most creative and intelligent people I know – are not deserving of College Humor’s derision. Let’s not forget that both the propagators of this hoax and those aggravated by them seek the same thing: A safe haven for building community through authentic social discourse on the web.

Here are some of our favorite disclaimer parodies:

” In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that no one gives a crap about the copyright attached to all of my personal details, illustrations,… By using strange words in silly languages, I notify all of my friends that I have no idea on what I’m doing. The aforementioned actions also apply to my colleagues, prospective employers, etc. Welcome to the internet. Have a cookie.”

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare my rash has stopped burning, and also, that my copyright is attached to all of my typo-riddled status updates about my banal life, my bathroom mirror Instagram self portraits, my declarations of love for my worm-addled pets, and any and all blurry photos of my unremarkable meals (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times. But first, please validate my existence by “liking” my uninformed political opinions and free-verse poetry…

By the present communique, I notify Facebook that I had no idea that this 100% free social media site’s entire business model is to aggressively pimp all the personal and private information I so blithely shovel into its gaping maw. I thought it was just free, like magic! Furthermore, I have no idea how copyright law actually works, and my relationship status isn’t really “complicated,” but making that lie public numbs the pain of loneliness.

Facebook is now what it always has been – MySpace with a paint job. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, because everyone else is doing it. If you do not publish a statement at least once, then you might actually have a life.

Urgent warning regarding your Facebook settings; FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO TAKE YOUR FURNITURE AND BELONGINGS. To avoid this, do the following. Go to SETTINGS, then scroll down to OPTIONS. There, you’ll find a ticked box saying “Come Round To My House And Take All My Furniture And Belongings”. Be SURE TO UNTICK THIS BOX and tell all your friends to do the same. I failed to, which is why I’m typing this in an empty flat, on a laptop, naked.

Weird Al Yankovich – ‘Stop Forwarding that crap to me’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCSA7kKNu2Y



Hit us up on the facebooks or comment below to tell us of your favorite parody

Building Our Digital Doppelganger with Big Data

Building Our Digital Doppelganger with Big Data

December 26, 2012 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment

It’s a temptation too hard to resist. Get 10% off your purchase when you sign up for a customer loyalty card. On the face of it, it is understandable that retailers use such tools to build customer loyalty. After all, we consumers are a notoriously fickle lot. Sign up for their card, swipe it with each purchase and sometimes get discounts or special coupons for future purchases. However, there is something else going on here, and its not just about building customer loyalty.

With each swipe of the card our personal ‘data’ feeds into the Big Data machine. The discounts that motivate our behavior is what we are ‘paid’ to surrender our personal, formerly private, information. Of course, there are a wide variety of mechanisms for capturing our personal data and no shortage of sophisticated tools, algorithms, and models to make use of it. Google and Facebook may be two of the largest information gatherers out there. And most of us willingly comply with the condition that their ‘free’ services are paid for with our digitized customer profile.

What happens to all this data? The precision with which this massive amount of data is interpreted and acted upon varies widely. No doubt many have seen it manifest in an advertisement on their Facebook page promoting a product they were just researching on-line. Some find this scary, but we have largely become inured to it.

The bottom line is this: in a consumer driven economy, we, the consumers, are the raw material that drives productivity. Economies have always thrived on the exploitation of low cost, abundant resources. Copper, coal and other minerals once drove a thriving industrial economy. Fertile soil and its fruits have long been necessary for sustained prosperity. Collecting, analyzing and making practical use of our consumer behavior have replaced the extraction of exploitable resources once mined from deep in the earth.

Today the rich veins of digitized personal information feed the engines of our consumer economy. Big Data algorithms energetically seek out resources to exploit. Who knew that Twinkie eaters prefer inexpensive chardonnay and folk music? With such information in place, targeted advertising and product placement can exploit the vast, untapped wealth of esoteric consumer behavior.

Some even argue that feeding our personal data into a massive data processing machine actually results in certain efficiencies that have the advantage of reducing the clutter in our lives. After all, wouldn’t we be better off if we only received advertisements for things we have an interest in? Certainly anything that can make us better ‘consumers’ benefits a consumer-based economy, and this why Big Data is here to stay.

The defining feature of the Information Age is the vast reserves of information that is now available to us. Big Data simply refers to the tools that help make use of all this information. In the slagheap of digital clutter surrounding us, big data tools are the shovels and backhoes we use to sift through and utilize it.

We choose to participate in the Information Age when we sell our personal data in return for discounts or trade it for the privilege of participating in social media communities. Allowing the machinery of Big Data to build our digital doppelganger is the price of participation in the Information Age.It may not feel like a choice. Its inevitability is inexorable and, in fits and starts, we sometimes resist. Perhaps we think that our personal data is worth more than the 10% discount we received in return. But there are few people holding out for more.

Are Apple’s investors appalled?

January 09, 2013 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment

The ethical investment movement’s impact on corporate social responsibility

As Apple attempts to clean up its image and establish itself as a responsible corporate citizen, the question of social responsibility for technology companies has entered an important phase. Socially responsible investing has grown from an obscured niche to an influential force in the last 30 years. Its role vis-a-vis the tech industry has been particularly instructive.

The ethical investing movement first came to prominence with the movement to divest from South Africa in the 1980’s. Musicians helped to bring the movement to end apartheid into popular awareness and mass support grew to pressure businesses to stop doing business in a country that treated blacks as second-class citizens. The tactic of “screening out” stock of companies actively engaged with South Africa gained momentum as large portfolios such as university endowments and pension funds caved to public pressure.

Massive divestment from companies doing business in South Africa precipitated historic changes and investors around the globe proved the timeless truism – ‘money talks’. Many still equate socially responsible investing with this tactic of screening distasteful investments out of one’s portfolio, but this is simply one method. Also, screening has grown more nuanced and today is as likely to be positive as negative, with investors just as likely to seek stocks reflecting positive values, such as clean energy and organic food, as they are to disqualify companies engaged in dubious activities, such as selling tobacco or exploiting workers overseas. This is one reason Apple wants to appear so proactive about conditions at its manufacturing facilities overseas.

Another method of socially responsible investment – shareholder activism - is premised on the notion that stockholders will have more influence on a company by retaining their investments and using their power as shareholders to positively influence a company’s behavior from within. It is ironic that the argument made against divestment from South Africa in the 1980’s was that companies were more likely to positively influence South African politics by continuing to do business there. History has proven that argument was specious at the time. Today, it has more merit. The debate between screening and shareholder activism is active today with Apple computer being exhibit A. Some of the largest social investment mutual funds – Domini Social Equity and Calvert Social Equity – hold Apple stock, while another of the largest ones, TIAA-CREF Social Choice Equity Fund, does not (as of 2nd quarter 2012).

Shareholder activism recognizes the nuances and complexities that go with socially responsible business concepts and the power that shareholders have to influence corporate behavior. The reasoning is that large shareholders are in a better position to influence corporate behavior by introducing shareholder resolutions and challenging management about its business practices.

As rapidly evolving consumer electronics result in landfills laden with toxic waste, technology companies no longer get a pass on environmental issues.

Shareholder activism has had an influence on Apple in making improvements in its overseas manufacturing processes. Apple and other technology companies have recently brought such issues into focus. During the 1990s, when socially responsible investing first arose as a substantial niche in the investment community, high tech companies were among the favorites of socially conscious investors and comprised large portions of socially responsible mutual funds. At that time, environmental issues were at the movement’s forefront and the emerging tech sector compared favorably to the eco-unfriendly behemoths of the aging industrial sector. Technology stocks soared in the late 1990s and the credibility of social investing thrived accordingly. But when the tech sector crashed in 2000, mutual funds laden with such investments took a beating.

In the decade since, socially responsible investing has gotten more sophisticated, as has the technology sector. As ‘green’ issues have become a prominent concern among consumers, workplace issues, fair trade, and the impact of globalization have become more important concerns to ethically motivated investors. There is no question that this trend has influenced the efforts by Apple to become proactive in such considerations.

In short, massive multi-national corporations are being held to account for their behavior as global citizens. Pressures from both consumers and investors have profoundly impacted this phenomenon. As rapidly evolving consumer electronics result in landfills laden with toxic waste, technology companies no longer get a pass on environmental issues.

In the tech sector, shareholder activism coupled with consumer awareness may have significant power to influence corporate behavior. This is due to the relative sophistication of the tech-minded consumer and their ease of access to social media. The power of social media to increase awareness and mobilize consumer, and by extension, investor behavior is a game-changer when it comes to corporate accountability. Apple’s reaction to bad press on working conditions in China proves that. It would be nice to think that large corporations would be conscientious global citizens based on ethical motivations alone, but history has demonstrated that this is rarely the case. Apple has taken meaningful steps recently and the role of socially responsible investing and consumer behavior will be essential to assure that it continues.

“Sad Cactus”

The lush foliage, floating candles, and dreamy music are mesmerizing. Despite this exquisite ambience for the show - my thoughts are absorbed with the 20’ tall ‘asparagus’ in the next room.

Not actually an asparagus – but a Century Plant – preparing to bloom. I reflect on Victoria Williams’ oddly inspiring song the “Century Tree” – named for its rare, once-in-a-lifetime blossom. After decades of low, prickly, growth, an asparagus-like spike unpredictably shoots up and blooms. The spectacular flourish grows so large and fast that the exhausted plant soon dies. This humble cactus – resembling a massive aloe – expends all its strength on a final, energetic burst of beauty. In her song, Victoria Williams celebrates a similar capacity in people to unexpectedly reveal surprising strength and beauty.

My ruminations turn to aesthetics while ensconced in the luxuriant beauty of South Bend’s Botanical Gardens, rapt with the hypnotic tunes of the band, ‘Sad Cactus’. For a small donation, this show provides an aesthetic experience rivaling any arena laser light concert. The verdant stage and ethereal sounds contrast with the wearied, time-worn building which shelters us. This aging structure quietly testifies to a trite though timeless wisdom: “True beauty lies within”.

The minimalist structure of the greenhouse obscures its role in providing this multi-sensuous, aesthetic experience. Broken windows and peeling paint underscore its humble function - to safeguard the botanical beauty it harbors. No doubt it has offered similar refuge, solace, and inspiration to its non-botanical patrons over the years. Alas, dutifully serving its humble purpose will not protect it from destruction.

The uncritical readiness to tear it down assaults the need all communities have for beauty and special spaces (and don’t believe that demolition is not the inevitable outcome of a ’seasonal closure’). With their highest expressions of purpose and meaning, civilizations have always created aesthetically pleasing public spaces to nurture their spirits. Why do we apply so little effort to sustain what we already have in place?

If we valued aesthetics, our public officials would not so casually acquiesce to the simplistic, short-sighted ‘remedies’ offered to address the financial issues, such as heating costs, that ostensibly threaten the operations of the Botanical Gardens. For example, have we explored creative solutions such as utilizing corn-burning furnaces which are increasingly improving their capacity as a clean and inexpensive source of heat? We could take pride in saving costs, while boasting a conservatory heated by local, renewable energy supplies. Surely we could identify creative methods to generate income? Such an alluring venue should hold strong appeal to local musicians and their fans. A “Winter Garden Walk/Art Fair” could offer visual artists an outlet while providing the rest of us with a distinctive diversion from our long winters. 

It is troubling that creative alternatives to closure have not been assiduously explored by local officials. But such neglect is not surprising given the diminished importance ascribed to aesthetics in the last half century – an historically aberrant trend. Throughout history, the value of aesthetics has been a central virtue - normative for most civilizations. 

The Greeks set the tone. Plato argued that aspiring to ideals of “the Beautiful” – along with Truth & Goodness - offers a means for rising to higher realms. He found these ideals reflected in the unity, proportion and harmony of our aesthetic experiences in the world. Socrates saw Beauty as coincident with the Good - utility being a necessary condition of both. Since‘gratification of one’s senses’ rated as a utilitarian function – the reality of ‘Beauty’ was subjective – based on one’s direct, sensuous experience. Aristotle, on the other hand, set Beauty above both the useful and the necessary. He sought – through ‘scientific’ analysis – a means to identify common and measurable principles inherent in aesthetics. For him, the Good must be dynamic while the Beautiful can be motionless - bestowing pleasure unaccompanied by lust or desire. And that was just the Greeks. 

Philosophy has long taken aesthetics seriously – finding in beauty a means of self-assurance and higher truth. Through the 19th century, an insistent attitude remained that one must turn to art to know what ‘the world really is‘. Some argued that the beautiful happens when the absolute makes itself known to the senses. Others denied the existence of an objective aesthetic - but allowed that true aesthetic value could be subjectively experienced in the contemplation of beauty, be it in art or nature. In other words, real beauty is determined between subject and object. Throughout the centuries – a common theme has been whether a higher truth/beauty was to be found in nature or art. There is comfort in knowing that my evening with ‘Sad Cactus’ would satisfy both camps.

The value of aesthetics in architecture is clearly evident in older public buildings. Our forebears took pride in the form and quality of these buildings. They were designed to uplift the spirit and built to last. Entrusting these legacies to us, their quality and beauty assured that – as stewards – we would provide the care needed to pass these legacies forward – connecting communities in time as well as space. To measure such cost-benefits on an annual budget cycle would be ludicrous. 

At first glance, the ragged, scarred botanical gardens may not appear to measure up to the aesthetics of other public buildings. But the particular virtue of this tired, simple building may be more oblique. For here, thousands of miles from its native desert, we can witness the beautiful swan song of the Century Tree. Surely this kind of beauty – augmented by the mystery and finality of its bloom - offers an aesthetic worthy of the ancient philosophers’ ruminations.

No one knows what spurs the Century Plant to abruptly blossom - but I suspect a cause for the one flowering in the next room. I believe it chose this time, in this place, to lodge a lonely but brilliant counterpoint. As this ‘sad cactus’ bursts forth, it makes one last plea - or perhaps a defiant wail - that beauty has value and will endure. I can only hope that we detect its muted cry over the bulldozer clamoring at its door.

Virtues of a Virtual Valentine

The Virtues of a Virtual Valentine

February 14, 2013 / by David J. Hurley / 0 Comment

Wouldn’t we all love to have a virtual girlfriend?


Here in South Bend, IN the death of Manti Te’o’s girlfriend was front-page news. She must have been a special person to have hooked a catch like Manti Te’o – a mythic star in the making. Notwithstanding the national buzz around the Te’o girlfriend hoax, those in the South Bend/Notre Dame community understand the story is amplified by the larger than life persona that Manti Te’o himself embodies.


This exceptional player is, by all accounts, an exceptional person. Supremely devoted to his family and faith, he was a paragon of Notre Dame’s idealized student-athlete. In his four years in South Bend, there were no taints in his rise to a star athlete and leader on and off the field. He certainly had to rank high as any young gal’s idealized love interest.


So unblemished was Te’o’s track record that in many respects he did not seem ‘real’. It’s no wonder there were no ‘real’ girls good enough for him. Evidently, on a University campus filled with young, intelligent, and largely unattached women from around the world, Manti could find none worthy of his affections. Who could possibly be worthy of this young man with a larger than life persona? It is no wonder he had to go to the virtual world to find someone on par with his myth-in-the-making persona.



In Jungian psychology, the persona is a mask or façade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment that does not necessarily represent an individual’s true personality. While a persona may distinguish one’s public personality from a more private self, it is a mistake to think of the persona as a false identity. We all adopt various personas in our different roles. The ‘persona’ we present at work may be different from the one we present at home. There is nothing wrong with this.


It is no great scandal if someone’s Facebook persona differs slightly from the one they present in other contexts. But where do we draw the line between what is ‘real’ and what is a virtual construct? There are different degrees to which we adopt an on-line identity. Indeed, the phenomenon of the nom de Facebook , in which one adopts a totally fictitious name, is growing. But this is done largely to preserve a degree of anonymity while utilizing the networking resources of social media.


Fabricating a comprehensive identity from scratch, however, takes this game to a completely different level. And having a full-on, all-but-physically-intimate relationship with such a ‘person’ over an extended period of time is worrisome indeed. I am not just partaking in the relish many take in attacking those victimized by on-line scams: Their gullibility is an affront to the sophisticates of the new information age. I am concerned with the siren-like attraction that virtual reality has over the grime and blemishes of the real world. Wouldn’t we all like a virtual girlfriend? One constructed to fit our needs to perfection?So what to make of Manti Te’o’s pathetic long-term relationship with a specter? When word of the hoax first came out, his fans in the South Bend/Notre Dame community held their breaths. The suspicion was that he was in on the hoax. Reports he spent time with Lennay implied complicity in the scam. Subsequent revelations showed he was not the source for these claims. Rather it became apparent that he was just a naïve, young man taken in by a crass but elaborate hoax personally directed at him.

As we speculate on how this embarrassment might taint his nascent celebrity, it is more likely that it will enhance it. After all, we now know that he is not some scripted, public persona, but a real man, seeking his bearings in our increasingly virtual public landscape.