While Apple has yet to deny or confirm, a few owners of the new iPhone 3GS have complained about the device heating up, even to the point of warping the plastic and discoloring the white-backed phones. There have been problems with batteries in Apple devices before (Sony-made batteries, to be specific).

I currently own an iPod Touch (1st gen) with 16 GB on board, and even when the original turned into a brick following the original 2.0 software upgrade, Apple made good with a new device at no cost. But now there’s some suggestion that the 3GS may not be having a battery problem; 2nd gen owners of the iPod Touch have noticed a shortened battery life and hotter device since upgrading to the iPhone 3.0 software upgrade (that same one that iTunes keeps begging me to spend $10 on every time I sync up).

Recommendation: Sound an awful lot like a power management issue. I’d hold off on both for just a while if you have or want an iPhone.

“Thriller” will forever be one of my favorite songs, videos, and cultural phenomenons. From the subject matter itself to the ghoulish dance number which is still being imitated to this day, what other song can claim to have Vincent Price rapping?

On the man himself, heavy was the head that wore the crown, even upon the self-proclaimed “King of Pop.” Then I read things like this from people I know:

I think that it is a double standard to pay tribute to a man who (while reaching millions if not more by expressing himself through his art and music) still negatively impacted some individual children’s lives and their families – all who will forever live with the scars. I think paying tribute only glorifies a true villain.

To that I ask, when was MJ ever convicted of a crime? In a day and age where money is to be had merely for an implication, a grown man who genuinely wants to spend time with children in a caring manner is always going to be a target (Mr. Rogers? Capt. Kangaroo? Pee Wee Herman? Okay, well…) There’s even a story going around suggesting that, to his closest confidants who asked why he insisted upon having children close by even after the accusations, he answered “Children are the only ones who tell me the truth.”

Aside from all of that, it’s often less expensive to write a check for a crime that may never have happened than to give lawyers millions to prove the same thing to the court of public opinion, and settling behind closed doors is always assumed to mean the worst. Ask any male teacher in today’s public school system how many false accusations it takes before he’s out of a job and looking for a new career.

Only fifty years old, and the pop star who never grew up has departed for the real Neverland too soon.

I’d like to apologize for the title of this post, but I can’t. And it’s very likely you know what I’m talking about, that guttural-sounding “duh” speech tone and inflection popularized by every comedian or dramatic actor portraying a certified idiot or mentally handicapped individual trying to vocalize anything at all. It’s like imagining what listening to a Neanderthal that’s been dropped on his head must have sounded like, or maybe a cartoon donkey having a laugh at another character’s expense.

So as I sat down in a restaurant to scarf down a quick bite at lunch, I heard it: that “retard” sound. It was so ridiculous that my first thought was that it was some kid making fun of someone, so I turned to see if the little creep was any “gift from God” himself. Nope, no kid, just a couple of tall ladies in line at the counter (who were facing away from me) and the people running the kitchen.

On a whim, I watched the two ladies take their orders and seat themselves. The older woman was a bit plain (likely “mom”) while the second was more striking, the kind of “babe” who kisses the winner of the big surfing contest: tall, tan, tone, and long sun-bleached hair, someone who would look right at home laying out on the beach professionally (sue me, I live in Florida).

Harrumph. Quick look around again… nope, no stupid little kid hanging around with a donkey laugh. I couldn’t have imagined that.

I resumed my meal when I heard it again, and there was no mistake this time: it was the beach babe! Just as quickly, I also realized that she was either all or mostly deaf from the way she and “mom” were signing to one another. That retard sound was her doing her best to talk, and there was nothing else to indicate she was challenged in any other way.

Am I allowed to blame a culture who has trained its population through entertainment that people who make that sound ought to be laughed at? While it was my intention to secretly scorn the unseen kid for being intolerant, I know I was secretly just passing my own guilt off for also finding it amusing before I knew who’d I’d be laughing at.

Now, I’m not sure which bothers me more: my own assumption or that I’ve just experienced the setup for a romantic comedy starring Jim Carrey.

Back in the days of old AOL, it was all the rave to have a screenname (aka handle) that sounded like a known celebrity. At the time, no one really thought anyone was who they said they were (Superman, Prince, Madonna) until actual celebrities started staking out their names and demanding legitimacy. I’ve always preferred using mythological creatures and character names myself (you can get into some copyright issues there, too, if you name your WoW character “Richard Rahl”).

But with the popularity of Twitter, the game of celebrity impersonation has been taken to a whole new level. While some celebrities have “verified” themselves and others have professional “tweeters” keeping fans happy, others haven’t started playing or have no intention of doing so. This makes them prime targets for impersonation, and some clever impersonators have gotten away with quite a bit: Celebrity Roleplaying.

Smart followers know that if you want a real celebrity’s obscure Twitter feed, find it on a “certified” celebrity’s list. But if you can fool a real celebrity into giving you street credentials by leveraging a bit of private or even personal information, celebrity is yours… for as long as you can keep it up. Then the game is about followers, but the more you have, the closer each tweet is scrutinized until you finally slip up.

Such a clever fake celebrity was @jonahhill_jew, who recently gave it all up with confession on http://mynamewasjonah.blogspot.com. The sad truth is, he was fairly entertaining as “fake” Jonah Hill, but laments that the same comments made on his own “real” Twitter feed fell flat.

So, to paraphrase the “talented” Mr. Ripley, would your rather be a fake somebody than a real nobody?

I belong to a professional critics organization called the Online Film Critics Society (OFCS.org). The website where I post my film reviews is MovieCrypt.com, but as many of you know, I play a character there who takes credit for what I write and say. Sure, it’s a bit of a gimmick and certainly plays to my theatrical nature (blame my mom), but a recently proposed change to the OFCS bylaws for admission and membership felt a bit targeted, only because the language:

5. Write under their real names, or under reasonable, professionally established pen names (e.g., Mark Twain for Samuel Clemens). A member may write under an obviously fictional name, or “in character,” only if the member is also identified by his or her real name in a non-obscure place on the website(s) where the members’ reviews are published. Writers who obscure their identities in order to remain anonymous may not be members of the OFCS.

Here is how I responded:

I am also curious about the new amendment there, and so would like to “plead the fifth.”

On my site, I make no secret that I play a character, Grim D. Reaper, which is also the subject of videos and podcasts that I use to call attention to the site. Like any mascot, I do blur the line between myself and the character. It’s a gimmick, it’s advertising, and for my regular visitors, it’s expected (you should see the Halloween requests I get to show up in character).

However, on the OFCS, Rotten Tomatoes, and virtually anyplace my reviews are posted online, they are credited as by Kevin A. Ranson, while on my own site, I am listed as “Grim’s Ghostwriter.”

The current wording of “five” makes that interpretation a bit gray. Are you suggesting that someone who NEVER chooses to reveal themselves is not admitted or allowed, or that someone who merely obscures the fact?

I’m relatively sure Samuel Clemens nor Stephen King ever physically appeared or introduced themselves as Mark Twain or Richard Bachman. At the same time, I’d also like to point out that no one has ever proposed banning the San Diego Chicken for representing the Padres

Finally the question (too late!)…

Am I doing “my thing” correctly due to a good understanding of this idea and within the newly proposed guidelines, or do I need to further expose myself? (clothes will remain on in case anyone asks.)