Now, to be completely honest, it’s all my fault. I chose to be listed in the phone book and I choose to vote every time I have the opportunity. I’m a super-voter and, in primary election season, I am like an eight point buck in crosshairs.  

But know this, each and all of you who have authority over these kinds of decisions.  I am voting ONLY for candidates who don’t bother me with phone calls virtually every day.  I am NOT voting, specifically, for ANY candidate who doesn’t get this. This, for me is a bona fide deal killer. I don’t care what you’re running for and I don’t care if I otherwise love you and all you stand for. Bother me like this, and I’m going the other way. That’s a two vote swing; the one you lose and the one the other candidate gets.  

I already get your unsolicited direct mail and e-blasts. I already see and hear your paid ads, thanks to the media.  I see your yard signs and your billboards. I don’t need or want you to call me. And not to put too fine a point on it, I really don’t want your volunteers to call and treat me like they know me or care about me by being cheerful and friendly. It gets them and you precisely NOTHING.  

“Hi, there. This is “Perky Person” and I’m a volunteer with (insert name of candidate who is not getting my vote here). Is this Mr. Brewer?” 

“No. This is the gate attendant at the eighth circle of hell and you now get to officially abandon all hope. Congratulations!” 

These calls are more than simply annoying.  hey interrupt my rest and recharge time after working all day and they often distract me from some other activity in which I have chosen to engage.  

Seriously, I’ve never thought unsolicited telephone calls were a wise marketing choice.  Nobody enjoys being tele-marketed. Nobody. You’ll never convince me that these calls actually drive people to vote FOR someone, but I’m pretty darn sure I’m not the only person who will affirmatively vote AGAINST someone who consciously chooses to purposely and continually annoy me. 

So, once again, PLEASE STOP!

As I continued to research this “holiday” online, I learned that many cities around the world proclaimed today as Social Media Day. According to numerous blogs and web sites, the city council in Victoria, British Columbia’s capital, was the first form of government to declare June 30 as Social Media Day. 

Many social media users feel as though the new media has changed their lives completely. That may be an understatement considering that at least 93 countries are participating with 622 meetups and thousands of people attending on this Social Media Day. According to the Mashable map most of the activity is taking place throughout North America and Europe. 

As I continued my research, I found a blog by Jay Dolan titled “What’s the point of Social Media Day?” which I found quite interesting. He has proposed another “holiday” appropriately called “Anti-Social Media Day” aimed toward avoiding social media for a whole day instead of celebrating it even more. Did I just say “avoiding social media for a whole day?” Yes, I did. (Breathe) 

As a way to celebrate Anti-Social Media Day, Dolan recommends actually calling someone on the phone to have a conversation or to write a letter with pen and paper. Sounds like the good ‘ol days to me. However, can’t we all just maintain a healthy balance between social media and traditional avenues of communication? 

I’d love to know if anyone attended a Social Media Day meetup today and how it went. Let us know if you made a quality connection which you wouldn’t have otherwise.

Happy Social Media Day in whatever way you wish to celebrate!

These days, I read the Orlando Sentinel’s printed newspaper and the online versions of both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I listen loyally to National Public Radio’s news and talk programming. I want to know what’s going on in the world, and television news has become, well, an oxymoron.   

So, from which of these otherwise reliable and well known media outlets do I learn about the enormous schism that exists between the administration and it’s military apparatus regarding the war in Afghanistan? Why, from Rolling Stone, of course! 

I may be making light of this pathetic performance by our so called mainstream media, but really, Rolling Stone?  When did Rolling Stone become a bastion of investigative journalism? Why did Rolling Stone’s writer get the story that these other perennially Pulitzer-worthy chronicles of our times simply missed?   

Actually, a cursory review of the past few years reveals that much of the most in depth, non-pop culture journalistic output has come from places like Vanity Fair, the New Yorker and, yes, Rolling Stone. I refer readers to the archives of these excellent periodicals for evidence that in the new world order that is our media landscape, it’s not the historically dependable and reliable sources we should necessarily count on to provide the role of the so called fourth estate. It’s these others. 

And, all I have to say about that is God Bless rock ‘n roll!

He’d done everything right up until that moment. He’d agreed to the President’s demand that a $20 billion fund be set up outside the management of BP to help those most deeply and immediately in need following the BP-caused devastation in the Gulf of Mexico. He apologized, which in American culture means, he took responsibility and set his company up for more litigation than any coal mine disaster or errant gas pedal might ever produce. But then he said, “We care about the small people.” 

I think he meant to say, “We care about the people affected who operate and work in the thousands of small and family businesses along the Gulf Coast.” But he called them “small people,” and most of them are probably not small, or, for sure, don’t wish to be thought of as small, or little, or any other descriptive that portrays them as anything less than normal, typical, average people. 

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not attempting to wash away any of BP’s responsibility in this awful matter, but we really need to focus on the substance of things and not get all caught up in a misspoken phrase by a man who clearly isn’t fluent in the nuances of the English language. I think he’s doing the right things, but he’s communicating his extremely important messages in the wrong way.   

If we’re to use the experience of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska twenty-one years ago as any point of reference, we’re going to be living with the effects of the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf for decades. Getting the situations of the people affected repaired, cleaning up the mess, making sure it never happens again and addressing all of the primary, secondary and even tertiary costs involved is difficult enough for the best and the brightest among us. 

We really don’t need to be focusing on a couple of unfortunate words at the expense of the substantive issues involved in the BP affair.