You're getting married? No? You're engaged? Not exactly? Your boyfriend proposed and you're undecided? Oh, then after a week of negative marital comments, you finally rebuffed him? Quite the announcements to make on the internet. I may just be old-fashioned, probably too old-fashioned for a world where women publicly crush men, between updates expressing a desire to be a better person.

Ironically enough, many men wish death upon me - *50 Cent Spotify Radio* - by death, I mean men have suggested setting me up with this very woman. Little do they know, we already met and went on a single date; I'll confess that she is quite commendable as a person, even by my stringent standards.

Again, I'm probably old-fashioned, the notion of starting a family, with the right woman under the right conditions, appeals to me; on the other hand, it no longer surprises me to meet women who wouldn't want any parts of a husband or children. I'm sure there are many factors involved with any case that I will remain ignorant of; even in this instance where I fail to relate. From my perspective, what I do understand is it would be unreasonable of me to socially share such a personal situation, or gauge the response of uninvolved parties for such a personal decision.

An early editor of mine suggested that I call out the person in question, I'm under the impression that would imply I have a problem with her actions. This isn't a judgment, this is my commentary of an event that played out on my newsfeed, let’s not get extra and instigative for ratchet’s sake. For all intents and purposes, I’m happy for her, especially if she’s happy with her decision and its execution. I'm definitely old-fashioned, the words *hopeless* and *romantic* also come to mind. Best wishes to the new schools of romance.

While we're all consumers, it's my pleasure to work and network with the rarer sort of individual, namely producers. In light of legislative measures threatening an entrepreneur’'s barriers of entry, namely the “Stop Online Piracy Act” and “Protect Intellectual Privacy Act”, questions arise over the long-term viability of our independent workflow. While social commentary proves my political flavor turns off a significant audience, this highlights the plight of the have-nots: what do we have to protect?

As Facebook and Timeline tussle over trademarks, Yahoo charges Facebook with multiple patent infringement lawsuits; as it becomes easier to copy and paste success on micro- and macro-levels, then where do we draw the lines of economical self preservation? You've undeniably pirated some sort of media in some way, you vehemently opposed the SOPA and PIPA legislation, and you proposed or clung to flaws in each proposed Act with nary a suggestion in favor of their premise. What then when a local artist's imitable designs are found in Urban Outfitters' catalogs? Is that when the have-nots look for protection, when they have?

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck

America is where the word swagger was culturally too long to pronounce, and Americans marketed themselves with the word swag in self offense. Where the idea of a billion dollars, more than the net worth of a life by all insurance standards, is feasible because the billionaires of the world earned their money, like our parents cleaning houses, raising children, delivering packages, selling clothes, typing documents, nursing the sick; except smarter, with better connections, or simple birth rights of pompous extravagance that we can relate to through mass media - they eat food just like me! The concept of a single person amassing more material wealth than families earn over lifetimes, solely due to the contributed proliferation of our personal information, seems to resonate well.

For some perspective, let's use a fictional class of forty students, each student's parents miraculously make $250,000 EACH for some 50 years; I apologize in advance for having you think about this. 40 Students * 2 Parents * $250,000 Annual Income * 50 Years equals $1,000,000,000 combined earnings over the working lifetime of forty families; then consider Mark Zuckerberg sold $1,100,000,000 of Facebook stock ... to pay taxes.

More of our money is spent on protecting wealthy interests than education, and the gap widens by all accounts through effective policies of rhetoric. Ask any person about austerity measures, then compare their response to policies of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided; people may not be aware that schools, hospitals, and assistance besides food stamps and welfare constitute benefits and public services. The austerity with which wealthy public officials, otherwise known as all public officials, trample upon the majority is not the problem, the problem is the majority's austere response, like this is supposed to happen, because it is.

To simultaneously amuse myself with outgoing statistics, and draw the passive paranoid with search keywords, here are some conspiracy theories to dumb down the discussion ... Zeitgiest! Government Weather Control! Illuminati!