Google + Furry name = I'm paranoid

I recently signed up for Google+. As with most social network sites, I was hesitant to join at first. I figured (a) I would begin using this service so much that I'd abandon other sites, or (b) I wouldn't do much with it since the features are available on other sites.

I originally registered as Jerzei Collie. I later learned that Google is allegedly suspending users who do not list their real names. I wanted to at least keep my furry name since not every fur who knows me knows my real name. I first changed the account name to John Ravetti, then later made it "John Ravetti AKA JCollie" (The system rejected "AKA JCollie719.")

I realize Google's strictness about names is to avoid impersonation, harassment, spamming, etc., but many people use nicknames or stage names. Shouldn't they also be allowed to identify themselves with the names by which others know them?

I don't know. Once again, I'm overreacting to something that's not a huge issue. If anything does happen, I've still got accounts at other sites.

Speaking of real life vs. furry, I printed some new contact cards in case new furries I meet want to keep in touch with me. These only have my furry name, e-mail, Twitter and FurAffinity information. I had ordered a professionally-printed set last year, but those contained personal information like my phone number and home address (things I may not want everyone to know.) I figure I can still give those to furries I closely know and trust.

MSNBC=Management's Skulls iN Butt Cracks

I just viewed former MSNBC Live host Cenk Uygur's video from The Young Turks explaining why he left MSNBC and the events which led up to it. Uygur cited ratings which showed MSNBC Live beat the Fox News show which aired against it. Uygur said network officials told him people in Washington, DC "didn't like his tone" when he criticized politicians.

NBC in general has a long track record of hiring people for being different, then ordering them to stop being different (Howard Stern, the casts of Saturday Night Live, Conan O'Brien and Keith Olbermann.) This trend increased when General Electric bought RCA (NBC's former parent company,) and again when Comcast bought 51% of NBC/Universal. The excuse usually given is "People outside of California and New York won't get it," as if they picture the other 48 states as one giant corn field.

With the U.S. economy in the condition it's in, and with politicians trying to hold services and funding hostage to secure a budget deal, it's the job of news commentators to speak out against anything that negatively affects their viewers, whether the management/advertisers/politicians like it or not. This is why I'm glad the Internet offers alternative viewpoints from all sides. Some of them don't have the viewer numbers of the big networks, but they also don't have a group of suits telling them what to say and think.

EDIT: About that last sentence: Whenever someone hates a show (particularly a political news/talk show,) the weakest excuse anyone can give is "They only have, like, 3 viewers"or "Their ratings are sinking." Quantity and quality are not always mutual. TV shows like Arrested Development got poor ratings, but most of the people who did watch it over its three-season run (including myself) enjoyed it. Internet streams, public access cable TV shows and community radio stations are doing what larger media companies hardly ever do anymore: giving a voice to people whose views are either not heard or are drowned out by the opposition. If I like a show or agree with a certain viewpoint, why should it matter how many or how few people share that view? I'd love to start my own stream, but I know I wouldn't have enough fresh material to fill even a half-hour per day.