Thoughts from a Social Media Expert™
January 6th, 2009, by CraigAs I’m seeing more and more people take to things like blogs, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc., I’m also seeing a lot of self-proclaimed “social media experts.” When you check up on them, it looks like they’ve had a blog for all of 18 months and a Facebook and MySpace page, and not much else.
So, having had this blog for 6 1/2 years, I am now going to share with you, dear reader, the lessons I have learned in becoming a social media person of note.
BLOGS
- Post often.
- Don’t be too much of an asshole. A little bit is OK and to be expected.
- Link to other bloggers.
- Update your status daily — preferably multiple times, but at least once.
- Post photos — drinking photos are especially good
- Take every quiz that is offered to you
- Tweet often. Don’t let any little thing go un-tweeted.
- Non-sequiturs allowed
- Don’t be too much of an asshole.
- Follow everyone and kvetch if you don’t get followed back.
ALL
For all of these, you can follow the no-nonsense rule of proclaiming yourself to be an expert in that field, and demand that everyone follow the etiquette that you deem appropriate — regardless of what everyone else is doing.
There you go; a recipe for sure-fire success in today’s dog-eat-dog world of this thing we call “Web 2.0 (Beta).”
You can thank me later.
Private Catholic College Tries to Remain Catholic. Outrage Ensues.
January 6th, 2009, by CraigReally I only point out this story over at Left in Western PA to point out the irony of someone chastising a private college for a supposed First Amendment violation.
For review, the first five words of the First Amendment are: “Congress shall make no law”.
Can you find the relevant word in those five?
Carroll College is a private Catholic institution, and can impose whatever standards it pleases, even if they (gasp) promote the teachings of the Catholic Church.
They have the Constitution on the intarwebs now. Shouldn’t be too hard to brush up, don’t you think?
And So It Starts
January 6th, 2009, by JPFirst, I’ll thank Craig for letting me guest post on the venerable MTPolitics.
The 61st Montana Legislature hadn’t even convened before the hyperventilating started by some of the regulars over at Left in the West.
They want to make the Government force you to stay married. Even if–say–your spouse used your family’s entire life savings to fuel his/her gambling or drug addition and you don’t have any money left to feed your children–even if your spouse is cheating on you or even beating on you, you can’t get a divorce.
No, you still have to go through a government mandated counseling period and a cooling off period for a couple of years (whereby the spouse can still hit your kids, drain your bank-account, kill your pets, etc.)
Sounds horrible, right? I’d have to agree with poster Montana Cowgirl that this would be atrocious legislation worthy of fighting against. When I went to the supporting links for the two suspect pieces of legislation [here and here] I noticed they were still in bill draft (which means Cowgirl had no actual legislation on which to base her attack) - so I looked around to see what I could find about similar attempts elsewhere.
Wikipedia’s accuracy notwithstanding, when I looked into ‘covenant marriages’ I found a concise summary. I also found data on the three states that currently offer covenant marriages as well as one version of the ‘boilerplate’ legislation so we can see what proponents want in their dream bill.
The glaring omission in the breathless hyperbole in the aforementioned post and majority of subsequent comments is this. Covenant marriage is optional. Nobody is forced into this matrimonial bond. Even if a couple were to make this commitment, they could change their mind and get divorced elsewhere - and nowhere could I find evidence that the legislation prevented abused spouses from getting out of that tragic (and often deadly) situation.
Now, before you make the leap and assume I support legislation like this - I’ll make this perfectly clear. I am devout in my faith, but what that is and how I practice it is my business. If you want to know more about it, I’ll likely share - but I’m not going to wear it on my sleeve because I know there are numerous ways to have faith (or for some, not have faith). To each, their own I guess.
Marriage is what bwings us togever er, I mean, I consider marriage to be a religious construct. In the eyes of the government, I personally believe it should be a lawfully recognized civil union between two consenting adults and blind to the parallel religious overtones. As indicated by some of the proponents of covenant marriage, it is a deeply religious movement of the evangelical judeo-christians - and that’s fine. Believe whatever you want. Legislating it, however, lends legitimacy to claims of a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part. If I don’t believe the same way these proponents at The Covenant Marriage Movement, I’m free to do so - and it is a violation of my rights to force me otherwise.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and while I’m all for strong marriages - and those who choose to try to salvage a rocky one with some of the methods suggested by the covenant folks - more power to you. However, it would be wise to take a good strong look at the U.S. Constitution before one starts drafting legislation (ANY legislation, I might add). I can only hope that our current crop of legislators do exactly that.
I’ll withhold judgment on these particular bills until the drafts are actually written (unlike some others ahem). I would encourage others to do the same and to avoid creating bogeymen. Attack the basis of the legislation, not some hyperbolic worse-than-worst-case scenario. Especially if it’s optional.
Just one man’s opinion.
Note: the opinion expressed in this post does not necessarily reflect the views of the owner of this blog, but I’ll bet I’m not too far afield. If I am, he’ll let me know in the comments. Thanks for the guest mic, Craig.
Coincidence? I Think Not.
January 5th, 2009, by CraigSo, yesterday in Helena it was a balmy 13 degrees (Fahrenheit) at our house.
Today, it rose into the 40’s.
Today was also the first day that the legislature convened.
I find it hard to believe that the two are unrelated.
Life, Liberty and Property Now Officially in Danger
January 5th, 2009, by CraigThe Legislature opens its biannual session today.
With the House and Senate very equally divided, I’m rooting for the side of gridlock in which very little gets done.
Some GOP legislators have entered the blogging fray at Rotunda Report. I’m hopeful that it will be a true blog with lots of feedback and give and take.
$1.84 per Gallon
November 24th, 2008, by CraigSo now that gas is down to $1.84/gallon here, I got to wondering when the people who blamed oil companies for the high oil prices this summer were going to thank the oil companies for getting those prices back down.
Something I Heard the Other Day
November 18th, 2008, by Craig…and thought it worth passing along.
At some point in your life, you will have to come to the conclusion that the common denominator in all your failures is you.
I thought it might have come from Despair, but I couldn’t find it in the list of demotivators.
Stupid Things That Bounce Around In My Head
November 18th, 2008, by CraigSome of you would argue that that phrase entails every thought I’ve ever had, but I can go you one better.
I was thinking tonight: Is it more energy-efficient to boil water that came from the hot tap, or just use the cold tap and heat ‘er up.
See, I’m thinking that the hot tap is less efficient, especially if your pipes are poorly insulated. By the time you have a good flow of hot water, you’ve wasted the stuff that has already cooled off, and that volume has to be re-heated.
If you just hit the cold spigot, you are only heating that specific amount of water, so the net energy spent is less.
Just thought I’d share.
Query Answered
November 17th, 2008, by CraigA few posts back, I asked my sinestra pals to defend the Orwellian “Employee Free Choice Act.”
The only commenter was my good friend, Chad, who said that he couldn’t defend it.
Matt Singer, bless his soul, steps up to the plate and says, it’s good for the economy.
The mind boggles.
Look at the industries who typically have their hands out for bailouts. (Before the banks.) That would be the auto makers and the airline industry.
And why do they always have their hands out?
I dunno. legacy costs for one?
Not only that, but let’s carry this logic a step further. Let’s have all elections done the same way. After all, what good is the secret ballot.
If you needed any more proof that today’s progressive movement is crypto-fascist, look no further.
Educated, Informed and Involved
November 17th, 2008, by CraigThis phrase got drilled into my head during my junior and senior years when we had Mr. Cleverley for history and government. He preached that those three elements were key to a successful Republic.
On which count do these folks fail? (Hint: There may be more than one.)
A Nation Divided (or United)?
November 15th, 2008, by Craig
And Now, A Musical Interlude
November 14th, 2008, by CraigAbout Marriage
November 14th, 2008, by CraigOver at The Last Best Place, Mike has put up a doozy of an essay, entitled, “About Marriage.
Agree or disagree, it’s a thought-provoking essay, and well worth your time to read.
Big Sky Search
November 14th, 2008, by CraigFor a project that should reach across party lines, I invite you to take a look at Big Sky Search.
This is a project of the Montana Policy Institute, and is geared toward creating a system to allow citizens to examine state expenditures online.
Transparency is a Good Thing™. On that, I think we can all agree.
