Take, for instance, my recent retweet about a Bertolli’s ad campaign.  @LowbrowKate tweeted the following.

Marissa Tomei is WAY to good for this: http://intotheheartofitaly.yahoo.com/

I couldn’t agree more.  I have been a fan of Tomei since My Cousin Vinny.  She’s way to good an actress to be shilling frozen Italian food in webisode format.  But look at the rest of the cast and you will see the star of the short lived MTV Sports – none other than Mr. Dan Cortese.  So I added some commentary on my retweet.

RT @lowbrowkate: Marissa Tomei is WAY to good for this: http://bit.ly/aFCSJF | Dan Cortese makes sense, though. He needs the work.

Well last night I got a reply from Mr. Cortese (which has since been removed).  Here’s the screen grab from Tweetdeck.

I couldn’t help but have some fun with Cortese.  My reply back?

@dancortese1 No offense, dude. You were great in Veronica’s Closet.

Where else but social media can a two-bit political hack and a D-list TV star interact so freely?

God bless the Internet.

(For the record, I had to Google Cortese to find something he was in other than MTV Sports. I don’t recall ever having seen Veronica’s Closet.  He has apparently done more stuff recently.  Frankly I am jealous that he got to travel through Italy with Marisa Tomei.  Back in the early 90s, many a guy I know would have traded a left testicle for that opportunity.  Way to go, Dan!)

Dungeons & Dragons was a tool of Satan. Heavy metal music was a tool of Satan. Alcohol was the Devil’s elixir. It seemed like just about everything you might enjoy doing was a tool of corruption placed on Earth by Satan.

You just don’t get that much anymore. I mean, in some pockets, I’m sure those charges are still leveled. They just don’t enter the mainstream consciousness the way they used to. Video games are allegedly bad, but not because they’re a tool of Lucifer, they’re bad for much more concrete reasons. People rage against video games because they claim they rot the minds of our youth or they lead to school shootings, or they’re a gateway drug to heroine. They are no longer simply written off as a tool of the dark arts.

In some ways, that makes me kind of sad. Satan is no longer the guilty party in any activity today’s youth engage in. I actually miss a world where every issue was discussed and debated in terms of Satan’s presence. Even if you partook of the devil’s playthings, there was a certain comfort in knowing it was all part of a great cosmic Yin & Yang. Now we have scientific studies of kids who go on to commit crimes and whether too many hours spent playing Sonic the Hedgehog was to blame. It has become all too sterile, and it’s just not the same.

On Sunday I’ll be speaking on a panel about gaming and advocacy. The purpose of the panel is two-fold.

First, we are looking to teach gamers how to advocate for or against policy issues that impact them. It seems not a week goes by that I don’t see an article about some misguided state legislator who has determined that video games are the root of all evil. They typically then go on to craft legislation that seriously impedes the rights of gamers. We hope gamers will begin to take these issues seriously and organize to become a significant political force.

The second purpose for the panel is to talk a bit about how political groups and causes are using games to convey policy messages. Following the Obama team’s use of paid advertising in an online racing game, the use of such tactics is getting pretty advanced. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing from my fellow panelists as well as the audience on that topic.

If I pick up nuggets of wisdom from the panel, I’ll be sure to pass them along via my blog as well as my Twitter feed. Follow me @MichaelTurk (if you aren’t already.)

Finally, it looks like 11 of my 20 readers have voted in the “How Would Gilligan’s Island Vote?” poll. If you haven’t, I hope you’ll weigh in. I’ll be posting the reply’s over the weekend.

• The Professor – This would normally be an easy lift. He’d likely be the typical liberal academic. Definitely a Democrat.
• The Skipper – Former Navy man, the guy everyone looks to for tough leadership. He’s definitely a Republican.
• The Millionaire and Lovey – They’re unabashedly rich, and have no qualms about it. They’re Republican.
• Ginger – Like the prof, she’s the typical Hollywood starlet. She may not actually be liberal, but that’s the trendy thing, so she goes along. That’s a Democrat.
• Mary Ann – A girl from the heartland with mid-western values. She probably digs God, Guns, Country, and country music. She’s a Republican.
• Gilligan – He’s kind of clueless and rarely gets anything right. He’s a Democrat.

Like I said, that was easy enough. Until, that is, I started talking to my friend Paul about the list. He’s a liberal, so he views the world through a skewed perspective, but he had some interesting thoughts.

For instance, the Professor, he argues, is a dedicated academic, but also has a heavy lean toward technology. That may indicate he is more Libertarian. Ginger, he suggests, strikes him more as a Patricia Heaton type. He thinks she would actually lean GOP. What about Mary Ann? She may be a farm girl, but she also comes across as a bleeding heart. Could she be a closet lefty? Could “means well, but usually gets it wrong” be applied equally to paint Gilligan as a Republican? While we agree on the Howell’s, could they actually be limousine liberals?

So I decided to change the focus of this post. Rather than declaring how the Island would vote, I’m asking. I’d love to get your thoughts. I’ll tabulate it all and report back on the consensus (if there is one) view.

If you’re interested, use Twitter Search to follow the discussion.

I have, for several months now, seen a string of posts and tweets from these same lefty friends that are either mocking or dismissive of the Conservatives nascent efforts on Twitter. Here’s one example courtesy of TechPresident’s own Micah Sifry.

It’s positively quaint to listen to Republicans murmur optimistically about their “dominance” on Twitter. #polc09, #tcot, #p2

The very first time I saw one, it reminded me immediately of comments I had seen and heard before. They were the openly dismissive comments directed by complacent and cocky Republicans at the Democrats efforts online.

I specifically remember more than a few people, myself included, who watched the rise of the online left with initial derision. As late as 2004 and 2005, I heard things like, “The Democrats and their blogs. How’s that working out for them? All that effort and how many wins has it resulted in?”

Beginning with Conrad Burns and George Allen, we began to quickly see the results of “those blogs”. It’s a lesson we failed to heed early on, and it contributed greatly to our demise.

What we failed to recognize was the infancy of an effort to use new technology to mobilize. It was an effort to build a new network and the infrastructure to disseminate a coherent message.

I have argued that the reason the Democrats never mastered talk radio was very simple – they never had to. In modern politics, the insurgent party will adapt to the most interactive (and the most real-time) technology available at the time. In 1992, having lost the White House, House and Senate, the GOP gravitated toward talk radio. Despite it being a broadcast medium, it was the most interactive medium available. It was adapted to facilitate the conversation about the direction of the party and the country.

The Democrats, rising out of the loss in 2000, had to coallesce around a platform. Talk radio, had the Internet not been available, would likely have become the staging area and the rise of the left on talk radio would have been a near certainty. But a funny thing happened on the march toward the AM dial.

With the Internet, blogs and Meetup became the new polis for the exiled Democrats.

Now you could argue that two data points is hardly enough to qualify my central thesis – the adaption of interactive forums by the out party. But keep in mind that Americans detachment from one another and from in-person communities really didn’t explode until about this same time. Prior to that, most people who were politically active simply turned to their party and its structures. It’s just the last 20 years that have split us from our parties and each other, so we can only look at the data available.

That brings us back to the present day and the Republicans.

Now that we are the out party, we are turning to the Internet to discuss, debate and strategize the party’s future. It is no longer, however, simple enough to label “The Internet” as a monolithic thing the way we did with the Democratic use of the medium. The Internet is no longer about websites as it was with blogs and Meetup. The Internet, as it exists today, is more a generic platform for advanced communication services – whether they are site based, text messages, cellular applications, or anything else.

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution).

For the Democrats that dismiss Republican testing of many and various models of activism on Twitter, you should watch very closely what’s going on, rather than simply mocking it. Complacency and satisfaction with your status quo is a slippery slope and it’s very easy to fall into the “yes, but what has it gotten them” mindset.

It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter’s framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won’t happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will – when you find yourself out of power again – be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Until then, to my friends on the left, let me say two things. First, we’ll keep using Twitter, and you can keep cracking jokes. Second, as long as you do, we’ll see you on the other side, soon enough.

Update: Based on further conversation (via Twitter) about this post, I need to clarify a point. I’m not claiming the GOP is currently “dominant” on Twitter. That was Micah’s reference. I’m simply looking at the tendency for conservatives to adapt to Twitter faster and easier than they have other online venues.

The left’s attitude (represented by Micah’s comment) seems to me to be that the GOP is putting all its eggs in the Twitter basket without doing all the other things that the left did to be successful. My argument is that’s a false assumption. It requires that the GOP mimic the left to advance online. Just as the left bypassed the right’s use of talk radio and went straight on to a different model, I think the right may be able to skip directly past the duplication of the left’s infrastructure by simply making use of what are currently the most advanced communications and mobilization tools. I see evidence that many in the right are developing new models in an effort to do just that.

Those new models have not yet become “dominant”. My central premise is, however, is that many on the left and right seem to believe we must embrace the left’s status quo. I, on the other hand, believe our salvation will not come in duplicating their model, but in creating a new paradigm for our own activism.

The outpouring of support, thoughts and prayers for me and my family this week has been tremendous and has really helped me deal with the challenge of losing my dad and the additional tragic loss of my sister-in-law.

I hope to someday have time to go back and thank everyone individually for your kind words. In the meantime, I just hope you will know that the tweets, e-mails, comments, Facebook messages and calls were greatly appreciated. You all made a very difficult situation much easier.

At times like these its important to know that you’re not alone. I feel good knowing that I have so many good friends – even the ones I have never met.

Thanks.

About ten years ago, my brother called to tell me dad had been rushed to the hospital with pneumonia. He had a fever of 105 and they had to stop his heart to break the fever. We didn’t expect him to survive that, but we got another decade with him.

My dad is tough. It was actually the third time he had pneumonia.

My dad had always said that no male in his side of the family had ever lived to be 80. The women all live to be 100, but the men just don’t have the stuff.

Tonight, dad suffered a massive heart attack and was gone. The paramedics attempted to revive him, and kept him functioning until he got to the hospital, but then he was gone.

I had talked to him on Thursday. He sounded good. We discussed politics, stocks, the economy, and the kids. It was a good conversation cut short by the fact that I had to make dinner.

Whenever I feel uncertain about the world, and my place in it, I call my dad. He doesn’t always have the best advice, but he’s the one person I always turn to.

Now he’s gone.

There is so much I wish I could say to him now – so many conversations we didn’t have about a million life topics. I’ll never be able to get his opinions on those things.

We were always really close. When my parents got divorced, I was too young to understand what makes people split up. I have realized since then that my dad wasn’t the greatest husband to my mom. But to me, he was absolutely the best dad.

I’ll miss you.

So yesterday morning on my way past her office, I stopped to talk to a coworker. She mentions that she just signed up for Twitter. But, she explains, she hasn’t done much with it since she’s not exactly sure what the point of it is.

Twitter is Every Conversation Taking Place Anywhere in the World

In a nutshell, that’s it. If someone is talking about anything – from a good book they read to an interesting article in a magazine, from doing the dishes to the political situation in Darfur – that conversation is taking place on Twitter.

I like to refer to the Internet as the digital water cooler because I see it as a place to have any discussion. Unfortunately for actual water coolers, they are place and time limited. You can only have discussions with the people around them while they’re there. That puts restraints on the people available as well as the topics you might cover.

The Internet has none of that. You can consume and produce your part of the conversation at your convenience. You can read blogs, leave comments, form communities or anything else on your own terms. Twitter is the ultimate representation of that.

Twitter is Egalitarian

On Twitter, you can say whatever interests you, but you will be saying it to a very small audience because Twitter is an egalitarian society – everyone starts with zero followers.

While there is a class of people that are obsessed with the number of people who follow them, I think they miss the larger point. I think the much more relevant number on your stats is the number of people you are following.

It would say more to me that you follow 10,000 than it does that you are followed by 10,000. Twitter is a pull technology. I have to actively choose to pay attention to you. I believe the important number is the count of people you choose to listen to, not the number you can talk to.

Frankly, I don’t follow a lot of the “high value” Twitterers. I don’t buy that they have more to say.

As an example, look at this list of the 10 most influential tweeters in DC.

@PJRodriguez and I were discussing the list over lunch yesterday. He pointed out that @barackobama and @algore are almost completely without merit on this list. Why? Barack’s Twitter account has had nothing to say since the day before the Inauguration. Gore rarely tweets at all, and when he does, has little of consequence to say.

The Politico’s argument for including them is ridiculous – “that spigot could be a powerful communication tool should he choose to turn it back on.” By that standard, people not actually on Twitter could be counted as influential because of the unrealized potential of their influence. If Jesus returned to earth and started tweeting, he’d surely be #1, so why isn’t he on their list?

But What Does This Have to Do With Listening?

To me, listening is more important for three simple reasons:

• I listen to people who listen to others – I could honestly care less about David Gregory, and much of that is because David Gregory could clearly care less about hearing from me. He has 72,000 followers, but only follows 84 people. Are you really telling me that out of 6 million people on Twitter, only 84 of them have something interesting to say? It’s elitist and bullshit.
• I find that most people are interesting at least part of the time – I follow as many people as I can, and keep Tweetdeck running on a separate monitor. I scan it frequently throughout the day. I do so because I am constantly finding items of interest and engaging in interesting (to me at least) discussions with people about randowm topics. I would probably spend more time on the public timeline, but it’s a bit too overwhelming.
• The information I get from “low value” Tweeters is generally more interesting than what “high value” tweeters offer – Many “low value” tweeters talk about things they find interesting. Many “high value” tweeters talk about themselves.

Are You Saying There is a “Right” or “Wrong” Way to Use Twitter?

Absolutely not. That would be like telling people there is a right or wrong way to be interesting, or to be friends, or to think. Use of Twitter is as individual as the users. I hate seeing comments like this one:

For normal humans, though, there is really no need to follow more than a few hundred people.

That’s douchebag-speak for “I don’t follow more than a few hundred people, so if you do, you must be defective.” It’s the same braindead logic that inspired this article.

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. ‚ÄúTwittering stems from a lack of identity. It‚Äôs a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity…

[A]grees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. “Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.”

That’s such a boneheaded thing to say. Do you apply the same logic to talking to friends? Do I only have friends and talk to them to stave off my own insecurity? If that’s the case, what does that say about these pseudo-intellectuals and their cocktail party circuit? Are they just circle-jerking each other to feel better about themselves?

Ok. The answer to that is probably, “YES!”, but you see my point.

What Twitter Is To Me

I made earlier mention of the digital water cooler and the fact that it is time and place limited. What exactly do I mean by that?

In the real world, I could pop into the office next door and talk to a co-worker about my hobbies and my interests. Or I could talk to my neighbors and the other parents at my kids’ school.

But there is a good chance that my interests won’t be their interests. There is a good possibility that their interests will bore me to tears.

By using Google Alerts or Twitter Search, I can find people talking about things that interest me. Bands that I like, hunting tips, movies, politics… whatever. When I want to talk about these things, I can join a conversation with others who share my interests.

That conversation could be with someone a half a world away, who I may never meet, but I will find fascinating anyway. And for the duration of that exchange, they may be the most fascinating person I know.

That, to me, is the power of Twitter. It is the ability to make deep, and yes likely brief, connections between people on meaningful topics. It serves to remind us that we’re not alone, and we all have something interesting to contribute to the human conversation.

One of the people at FedEx took great offense to the remark (which didn’t actually even mention Memphis) and shot a letter up the food chain to everyone he could think of in both companies. That missive resulted in embarrassment for Mr. Andrews, and his employer. Mr. Andrews, and his company at-large, apologized for the offense, and moved on.

But I haven’t.

I haven’t because I received a similar note recently complaining about something I had said via Twitter and making an artificial connection between my personal thoughts shared here and on Twitter, and my employer. That note has been churning in my head and when combined with the Ketchum incident makes me ask the question that became the title of this post.

My situation draws striking comparisons to the Ketchum incident. A comment was made not about the client, but about something completely unrelated. The comment had nothing to do with business, but was simply an expression of personal distaste. Yet the personal offense was not directed so much at my comments, but rather was used to conflate my personal opinion with business concerns – a bogus correlation.

In the FedEx/Ketchum case, it is apparent to me that the FedEx employee who wrote the memo had much deeper issues with Mr. Andrews. The end of his note summed up those issues nicely.

[m]any of my peers and I question the expense of paying Ketchum to produce the video open for today’s event; work that could have been achieved by internal, award-winning professionals with decades of experience in television production.

Additionally Mr. Andrews, with all due respect, to continue the context of your post; true confession: many of my peers and I don’t see much relevance between your presentation this morning and the work we do in Employee Communications.

It is apparent to me that the employee probably had no issues with Mr. Andrews comment at all, but had issues with he and his co-workers being minimized in favor of the large consulting firm. I get that, and I relate on many levels.

If this were about pride in his city, the FedEx employee could have simply e-mailed, or sent a DM to Mr. Andrews challenging his impression of Memphis and made the points he made elsewhere in his note.

I will admit the area around our airport is a bit of an eyesore, not without crime, prostitution, commercial decay, and a few potholes. But there is a major political, community, religious, and business effort underway, that includes FedEx, to transform that area. We’re hopeful that over time, our city will have a better “face” to present to visitors.

Instead, out of 350 words in his note, he spends just 59 directly addressing the comment, and 101 addressing his issues with the outside consultant’s services.

The note I received was rather similar in balance, though it spent far more time trying to justify a specious connection between comments on my personal accounts and my business function and less time on the heart of the issue – I had disparaged the sender’s friend.

In both cases, however, the sender played the role of bully. They felt they could intimidate by taking individual opinions and making it about the business. It’s the tactic of small-minded and weak-willed people to hide behind such things.

Yet all the words I have seen spilled about the Ketchum incident make that point that you must censor yourself to avoid embarrassment to your employer. You must never express a thought that you find some random city unsightly or depressing because that might offend.

Well, I call bullshit.

I think we must instead ridicule and call out the senders of such e-mails. I think we must cry out, at the top of our lungs, “YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NEVER BE OFFENDED!”

If my contract as a consultant offends you, register such complaints with your corporate management. If they continue to crap on you, then quit and find a job where your talents are recognized. Better yet, go into business for yourself and become the source of some other drone’s misery.

Let’s assume the toolbag at FedEx really does love Memphis, though. If you love your city, and I don’t, then demonstrate your commitment by challenging me publicly, don’t hide behind some corporate e-mail thread and claim nobility you sanctimonious little shit.

If I say your friend is a moron, and you disagree, then feel free to challenge me on that. Feel free to defend your friend on his merits rather than hiding behind some weak attempt to tie my opinions to my job.

Instead, however, too many people have chosen to play these stupid games. They acquiesce to the ridiculous notion that just because I accept a paycheck I must never say or do anything in my personal life that could be interpreted in any way as as somehow harming the corporation.

I disagree.

My paycheck earns my hard work, but it does not earn my every thought. I will have thoughts and beliefs on issues that have nothing to do with my job.

If that means I find a city unattractive and say so via my personal Twitter account, it is not the position of my employer. Hell, I’ve been through Memphis on a number of occasions. IT IS A SHITHOLE! Andrews was right. It may be where music was born, but it’s where pretty goes to die. The guy at FedEx needs to face that.

Finally, let me state clearly that I am an individual first, and a corporate employee second. I will not become the Borg just so some jackass in accounting can feel better about his miserable little life.

(The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the views of my employer. If you think they do, you’re a douche and you need to get a life.)