Quick tour of the quick tour of Michael Jordan’s $28m house

Michael Jordan is selling his home – you know, the one with his number on the gate, his name on the indoor basketball court, and his symbol on the golf flags.

The home is a luxurious 7-acre property, replete with a stocked pond, PGA-grade golfing green, a weird grassy knoll surrounded by a moat and a cigar room with secret ducts to remove any scent of cigars.

The video itself is well worth a watch. This must be the peak of real estate video production. A drone to get aerial views, clips from history – as if you needed reminding of Jordan’s greatness – and interviews with the owner’s Chicago Bulls team-mates.

To celebrate the auction of this extravagant house, I have captured the best moments of the estate agent’s high-falutin video tour together with some words of wisdom from His Airness (parodies) on Twitter.

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/353285678567657474]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/383408336965611520]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/381909165884452864]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/352185217877950466]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/398292881124757504]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/377621144909934592]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/330352314080706564]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/327144299013734400]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/350403423881015296]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/339879113584164864]

[tweet https://twitter.com/__MICHAELJ0RDAN/status/398665087361499136]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/387394029802897410]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/385834932909535232]

[tweet https://twitter.com/itsMichaelJ/status/395339660815130624]

VIDEO: http://vimeo.com/77760571

STORY: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/11/nba-michael-jordan-house-video-auction/

Sent from Evernote

The best Twitter names – who has them?

I have often wondered who owns all the best Twitter usernames.

Sure, the founder has the name @Jack. He deserves it. But what about @Ian? @Jenny? And who is @Sally and what right does she have to it?

So I’ve found out who these people are. I’ve listed the results below. And then I have nominated who I think should have them.

Because fair’s fair.

This is @Jerry


He’s into the NSA and random issues in the news.

He is not this guy – @JerrySeinfeld – the guy we all think of when someone says Jerry.


Comedy Central ranked Jerry Seinfeld 12th out of 100 as the greatest comedians of all time after his Seinfeld series’ 9-year run. He deserves @Jerry.


This guy has it.


He tweets from Oslo, Norway, about tech stuff, random guff and English football, to all of 300 followers.

Not this guy.


Funny, really, because the planet’s best known Gareth – over on @GarethBale11 – was recently sold to a football team in Spain for €100 million. He has 2.5million followers.



Another web nerd sprouting idea about gadgets, X-Box and mobile apps. Seriously.

Not @GreatBritain


Meet @Sally


Sally was savvy enough to get that handle. But she’s not savvy enough to tweet more than 28 times nor make her account public. 12 followers. How about laying down, Sally, and handing it over to Sally Field? Sally Jessy Raphael? Olympian Sally Pearson or world class surfer Sally Fitzgibbons? It could even be a great parody account dedicated to Sally from When Harry met Sally. Whenever anyone tweets “I’ll have what she’s having”, @Sally could retweet them with “I’m having [insert regular meal option]”.



Appears to be a Russian account, cybersquatting. Account protected. So much potential. So disappointing.


It’s not.


2 tweets. No followers.


Another squatter, protecting Barack Obama from what exactly? From someone pretending to be the leader of the free world with only 7,000 followers and an egg for a face? Gimme a break.


Not Sydney.  Not from Sydney. Not even tweeting about Sydney. Not even in English.


This hipster doofus hasn’t had a random thought in more than a year.


Accurate. Zero tweets.


This is Stephanie Vacher. She is from San Fran and is, literally, Awesome.

What’s the opposite of awesome? Oh I know, getting the name @Awesome then tweeting like a standard, everyday person. PLEASE be awesome, even slightly in a Meryl Streep-pretending-not-to-be-awesome-but-somehow-still-awesome way?


I like to think this is just the editors at @TheOnion having a laugh. They pretend to be an account representing the onion vegetable, and spend their days redirecting misguided tweeps to the official @TheOnion account. This is impersonation done right.


This account appears to have been saved by the government of Australia. Clever people. Yet it has not been used by any PM in the era of twitter. This would make some sense if your personal cache was worth saving. But the current PM had little of that on twitter when he was installed as PM, and he persists with an acronym of pomp that few tweeps would even understand @TonyaAbbottMHR (Member House of Representatives)

Still, sticking with his own @username allows him to keep his nonsensical selfies in a place that does not sully the inimitable username @AustralianPM.

Anyone else i missed? Tell me in the comments and I will look them up and add them.

News media using Instagram

NBC News are often at the forefront of social media for broadcasters, and their 124k followers shows that they are giving Instagram enough time and effort.

Washington Post are getting creative, drawing in readers who love the app (and love the end of a cold American winter).

Only the Huffington Post – The Internet Newspaper, as they call themselves – aren’t doing as well at engaging the millions of photo-addicted mobile users.

41 photos for 14k followers, suggests they could do a lot better with more engagement.

Cinemas are for suckers… like me.

I ventured out to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, along with thousands of other Aussies this week.

The main reason I went was to be convinced, once again, that despite his oddness, shortness, and proboscis, Tom Cruise, is still fantastic in action films.

Seriously, Cruise gets the same look hanging from the world’s tallest building as does a two-year-old in a sandpit.

But, the cinema experience was slightly betrayed by yet another leap in cinema ticket prices. Prices had even risen since I last saw a film… last month.

$21 per ticket. Twenty-One Dollars.

I can accept Australia’s high taxes as we receive great services. Likewise, I can accept Sydney’s preposterous real estate prices because it’s the best city in the world and supply-demand means I’m going to pay more to live here.

But why, when the prices of DVDs are still tumbling (thanks eBay) and my options to watch films are always increasing (downloads, file-sharing, smart-TVs, Netflix, RedRoom, T-Box streaming) does the cost of seeing a movie continue to rise?

Cinemas have had me annoyed ever since I had to confront the manager at Hoyts in Sydney CBD after I spent an entire Batman film sitting in the floor in the aisle. I was not alone in the aisle. The film was so over-booked there was ten or more of us who slummed it just to see a new release blockbuster.

And that’s not the only madness going on at one of Australia’s biggest movie franchises.

Cinema customers wanting to see a film at Hoyts these days must jump through several hoops that did not used to exist.

1. Plan your night early, allowing time to use the glitzy hoyts.com.au website.
2. First-timers must sign up to the Hoyts Rewards Program, which does offer one free introductory ticket.
3. Pay $21 per ticket for any friends you mistakenly thought to invite.
4. Pay a $1 booking fee per ticket.
5. Print tickets to scan at self-serve cinema.
6. Sell soul to devil to partially replenish your bank account.

Although that is only six points, there are several things wrong with this.

Being an avid user of the internet, I can’t help but use a web-based analogy.

If you had to install a Flash plug-in every time you used a particular website, would you return to that website often?

Or, if you like shopping, imagine you had to call Myer to warn them you were coming, prior to any trip. Absurd.

I certainly recieved a good movie on a big screen with loud sound, but, as the cinemas try to deter illegal downloading of films, what more are the cinemas offering me at this grand event?

They’ve replaced the staff selling tickets with vending machines. The toxic choc-tops are still a ludicrous $5. The chips cost so much I had smuggle in my own Cheezels to save $3. Why do I still put myself through this for two scenes that would still look pretty good on my own 42″ TV, assuming I sit really close?

The screen has been given a special name like Vortex or Mammoth-Vision or something.

This cynical strategy is to hide the fact that as prices have increased, screen sizes have reduced. More films can the be shown more often to more people.

In the industry, it’s probably called “Sucker-Churn”.

(It may also explain why the price of my ticket was $3 more than lat week but the website was unclear.)

Be warned: If your cinema screen is not called Senstadium, Mega-Visiontacular, or some such, be sure it’s barely bigger than your wall at home. And at home, you can put your feet up, make your own popcorn and tell people to keep quiet without risking a fight.

Plus, no one has to sit on the floor.

Instagram tributes socialise our sentiment via Apple Stores

Instagram iPhone app shares photos and groups photos with others by location.

This makes it a fabulous social and fully open pictorial message board when events of any kind occur.

The tributes of an actual apple, a weird Steve figurine and a co-ordinated, colourful wall of post-it notes at Hong Kong Apple Store also shows how stylishly memorials can be.

If Instagram had been popular during the Christchurch earthquake or Queensland floods, for example, searching for photos by location could have been invaluable for sharing of realtime updates locally and globally.

The Steve Jobs memorials at Apple Stores worldwide show the sentiment shared worldwide is a more powerful force for showing people’s sameness across borders and cultures, our shared humanity… as long as it is searchable and easily viewed.


A sure sign of dodgy church marketing.

Look at this poster – I knew it was bad the first second I saw it, yet for a second I could not pinpoint just what was so absurd about it…

Now, it seems pretty obvious.

This sign was up for months after it was even relevant. If, indeed, it ever was.

Remember when Osama was captured? President Obama was careful not to be seen to be engaging in triumphalism, to be capitalising on the event.

He didn’t want to exploit it.

Well I guess there was a meeting at this Petersham church to consider how they could tap into the public debate… And in another church, that might have been where the idea stopped.

Does a church with a billboard have to join every debate? If it’s a typical matter of international diplomacy, there’s usually not much to hang a witty slogan on.

Kevin Rudd signs trade deal with pacific islands – Will God save Tonga’s currency or your soul? See, it just doesn’t work.

Church street signs, – or, Wayside Chapels as they have been called for reasons I have never understood, Curbside maybe… – have clearly become something of a proud statement that a church has its finger on the pulse.

They are also a chance to show some delicacy, wit or even some hope. The kind of hope this sign offers drivers passing by (which is thousands daily, by the way) lies somewhere between guilt and emotional manipulation.

This sign in particular fails for trying to exploit an issue that has little to teach the unchurched masses that can be explained in five words.

The topic involves the death of a man widely felt to be a mass-murderer, a terrorist with little value for the human life and possibly a cult leader calling other vulnerable types to become suicide bombers. Bin Laden’s crimes are well documented, his evil is nearly synonymous with his name or image.

This church, in Sydney’s inner west, thought it ok to compare his life with that of yours or mine.

We’ve all sinned, and in some bible verses, it implies God considers all sins ‘equal’, so let’s draw a straight line between his salvation and that of the average Sydneysider.

Errr… NO.

I reckon the average driver passing this sign has seen this sign and thought – “Bloody hell, that compares me to Osama. Stinking church.”

If you were to have a weighty theological debate, you could get into the nitty gritty of sins, our accountability and judgment.

But a sign is one-way communication. In the social age, the medium is itself judgmental. People need a ‘reply path’. But a billboard says I have something to say, sit there and listen. Poor form for a church, I would have thought. A sign needs at least a prominent website link, a facebook page, a bold phone number…

It’s better if the sign isn’t incendiary, offensive or ambiguous, but failing that, churches with billboards should have a social media team ready to go and respond to questions that should arise for people.

I should not have to come into your church to reply to your slogan.

That would be a trick to get me in the door – and we’re well past those days, right?

%d bloggers like this: