Anil Dash from SixApart is discussing the ways and reasons people use the web. He glossed over a point that I think is really the key idea of the web, and social media generally. While discussing the idea of collaborating with people around the world, he commented that the web connects us with people who share our passions about things that our friends and families may be sick of hearing about.

That is a critical point for people who aren’t connected, or people who aren’t actively using web 2.0 applications. In a study of people who are not online, Parks Associates found 44% of those not connected claimed “there’s nothing interesting online” as the reason they didn’t want an Internet connection.

That’s a funadmental problem you will have to overcome if you want people to adopt broadband. The easiest way I can think of to show someone the value is two part.

First, ask them what their interests are. What is the one thing you love, that you wish you could discuss with more people? What hobby is your wife sick of?

Second, take them online, and search for the active discussions of that topic. You’ll likely find hundreds or more.

And that’s the power of the web. It’s not just that conversations are no longer tethered. It’s a much larger idea that someone out there cares about the ideas that you care about, and no matter how odd or rare your interests may seem to your offline friends, you’ll find it’s not odd or rare at all online.

For years we decried the effect the Internet and media were having on people and the way it divorced them from their relationships. This was the fundamnetal concept of Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”.

Far from an isolating force, however, the Internet and social media have proven to be just the opposite. They have removed from human interaction the physical restrictions, and allowed people to gather together in unprecedented ways.

This was the thesis of a post called “Volunteering Alone” that I wrote for the Personal Democracy Forum in 2005. In response to Zephyr Teachout’s comentary on the need to reconnect people “offline”, I argued that the genius of Internet activism is the fact that it removes the physical presence requirement.

The Internet has the power to remove campaigns from activism in the same way eGovernment removes the government from transactions. It’s just the citizen and his browser. People choose to be active on their schedule. The campaign or party empowers activism, but allows me to be active on my terms.

In exactly the same way, the Internet removes the physical presence requirement from discussions of everything from gardening to politics to television programs. Your interests are shared interests regardless of whether they’re shared with people in your home, in your town or across the globe.

The opening keynote of the Blog World Expo is underway in Vegas. Richard Jalichandra of Technorati is walking the audience through highlights of their State of the Blogosphere survey work to be released starting Monday as a five part series.

If you’re interested in looking at the characteristics that separate the top tier bloggers from the lower tier it all comes down to hustle. That’s pretty mych true of any profession, but that hustle takes a different form for blogs.

The average top-tier blogger posts 10 or more times per day and utilize 5 or more web 2.0 apps.

Perhaps the most interesting facts for social marketers are the way bloggers interact with brands. 90% talk aout specific brands, and 80% talk about customer service experiences. That should be enough to make any company take blogs seriously. However, the more relevant stat is the fact that 61% of bloggers report they are influenced by other bloggers discussion of products, services, and customer experience.

In short, whether you are online talking about your company. product or brand or not, there is an active and vibrant discussion of it taking place. You need to decide whether or not you want to be part of it.

The Blog World Expo is bringing people together across the partisan divide. I have had some really interesting discussions with some people on the left. As a result, it seems I owe Matt Stoller an apology.

I had previously posted on Matt Stoller’s late spring run in with the business end of a fist, and didn’t have the story quite right. My earlier post was based on a report that Matt had an argument with someone that turned violent. While I still stand by the person who gave me the story, it seems there was a little more to it than meets the eye.

Matt has always claimed that the guy sucker punched him. When he made that claim here, I pointed out that I have been in a lot of fights, have never been hit or thrown a punch without knowing exactly why that happened, and was pretty sure Matt knew why he got hit.

Well it turns out that Matt did get hit out of the blue, but the story of why was still untold – but I was right, Matt knows why.

The story was the ex-boyfriend of Matt’s then girlfriend saw the two of them together, and punched Matt in the face. That appears to be true.

Sources, however, tell me there was a bit more going on. It seems Matt was banging the assailant’s girlfriend while she and he were engaged to be married. Mr. Fisticuffs was apparently a little upset that trust fund baby was nailing his fiance. When given the opportunity to exact a little payback on Stoller, he took it.

As I said at the time of the original post, “I suspect there is at least a fair probability that it was provoked.” Turns out I was right.

On a related note, conversation also turned to a psychoanalysis of the type of girl that would date Matt to begin with. There was heated debate over whether she must have serious daddy issues or simply massively low self-esteem.

Consensus was reached on one point, however. In trying to describe the awkward thought of Matt and his paramour being in union, everyone agreed it probably went something like this:

(As young lass is trying to pleasure Matt, she hears) No. Nobody does it that way. Anyone who does it like that must be stupid and not worth my time… It feels awkward… Like knowing that John McCain will die of cancer in office… By the way, did I mention that Republicans are all racist? They are…

One note of caution, Matt. Watch out for those teeth when your girl wakes up to your bullshit.

The attention to earmarks that has been paid in this campaign highlights the hypocritical nature of the American electorate. We decry “the other guy’s” earmarks. When our guy is bringing back the fat, we praise him. When the other guy is doing it, we vilify him. It’s one of the odd ironies of our political system.

The fact is, we judge our elected officials by what they do for their state. The jobs they bring home, the scientific research centers located in our towns, the military bases, the bridges, etc. When someone is good at attracting that investment in their home state, we call them effective. If they fail at bringing federal dollars back home, we call them ineffective.

We hire politician’s to do a job where the goal is to get stuff for their state. We give them the power – through the nation’s checkbook – to get that stuff. Then, we demand that they not do their job. It’s ridiculous.

If earmarks are evil, and we want to get rid of them, then we need to fundamentally change the role of the elected official. We cannot support a system where their election depends on their ability to deliver for the people, and then blame them for delivering.

Banning earmarks outright would take more political will than Congress has ever had. It’s like challenging them to put down their machine gun and walk willingly into a knife fight. They know they have the advantage over their would-be rivals. As long as they bring back the pork, they don’t have to find a real job.

Why would they want to give up such a powerful tool?

Up until today I had a lot of respect for Geoff Livingston. His book “Now is Gone” is an excellent read on new media that every executive should consume. However, his latest attempt to wade into political waters makes him look truly out of his element.

This week’s lipstick incident demonstrates The GOP has brought back the smear in earnest, a tactic reminiscent of the Bush campaigns from 2000 and 2004 (image by Mae Li). Personally, this kind of abusive use of communication powers — while effective — should be condemned.

This kind of manipulation should not be a surprise given these recent events:

• Obama is not experienced enough to be president, but Sarah Palin, 44, is OK at Vice President. End result, McCain gains 5 points and the early Fall season lead for president.
• ‚ÄúI have to make a strong case that we‚Äôre going to bring about that change,‚Äù McCain said‚Ķ McCain voted with the Republican Party 88% of the time during the past eight years.

Livingston goes on to discuss (without irony, it seems) the PRSA’s call for the campaigns to practice ethical behavior with regard to PR.

The use of innuendo, incomplete information, surrogate messaging and character attacks, whether in political discourse or other forms of commercial free speech, raises serious concerns for our organization and its 32,000 members, each of whom signs a pledge to the PRSA Code of Ethics. In fact, ethical practice is the most important obligation of PRSA membership, and we maintain that our obligations extend not only to those we represent, but also to the publics they serve.

The PRSA, it seems is also without a sense of irony.

Everyday, PR practitioners like Livingston go to work selling Americans millions of products we don’t need by carefully walking a thin line between what they call “ethical” and what the FTC calls “deceptive trade practices”.

Livingston fits right in. He quotes a favorite liberal factoid – McCain votes with Bush 88% of the time – but neglects to acknowledge that by the same measurement Obama has voted in lockstep with liberal leadership 97% of the time.

He uses his own distant relative as a tool to invoke Godwin’s Law in his own post, then claims to not be comparing McCain to Joseph Goebbels.

He hints at the nasty extremism of the GOP, yet fails to mention the nasty extremism of the far left – and specifically fails to mention that Obama is further to the left than a bicyclist on the autobahn. He also fails to note Obama’s free association with radicals like Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, a 60s radical who used bombings on American soil to protest bombings in Vietnam.

Livingston denounces the McCain campaign for suggesting that Obama’s “lipstick” comment was a blatant sexist remark, but apparently has no trouble with Obama “tak[ing] the fight to [John McCain]… on the big issues that matter to the American people.” Who knew that computer literacy in our president is of critical concern to voters?

Livingston decries the fact that “this country will vote with religious zeal rather than informed decision.” but doesn’t bother to speak out against the Democrats efforts to layout ballots in a certain order because they know the uneducated generally vote Democratic.

Is Geoff Livingston an effective PR practitioner? Frankly, I don’t know or care. Is he a hypocrite willing to use PRSA to try to score a political point? It appears so. Is that demonstrative of the ethics he claims to fight for? Absolutely not.

UPDATE: For a blogger, Geoff seems to have pretty thin skin. I tried to engage Livingston in some discussion of his post. I a) linked to the same FactCheck.org article mentioned above, and b) stated that given Obama’s history of voting with Bush 41% of the time, perhaps Geoff didn’t want 100% change, but only 59% change. Those comments drew this response.

Turk made an additional character judgment in this post about me. The Buzz Bin has a clear policy about personal attacks, and between the linked to post in the above comments and the now deleted comment, this line has been crossed. We will not be seeing additional comments from Turk.

This is the trouble with debating the left. Pointing out that their guy is full of crap is somehow a character assassination against them personally.

I would have thought that a guy who practices public relations would have a slightly higher tolerance for people disagreeing. I weep for his clients.