Mark Levin, a conservative radio host, has offered President Obama’s super pac $50,000 in exchange for an hour of the president’s time in a debate on Levin’s radio show.
Disclaimer: The only reason this article caught my attention is because I went to school with Mark Levin’s children. I argue with his son, heated arguments mind you, about politics via Facebook quite frequently.
Apparently Levin does this sort of thing a lot. After the horrendous shooting of rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona last year, Levin offered MSNBC Chris Matthews $100,000 to be his debate opponent after Matthews made remarks about conservative radio hosts like Levin.
McMillan responds to this video in a way that more people should have:
“Condemning these two girls seems redundant at this point (the video and the vicious ignorance it displays speak for themselves), and although I’m African-American, I’m not compelled to expend too much energy criticizing their racist remarks. However, as an online content creator, a former YouTube employee during its formative years, and a social media professional and enthusiast, I am compelled to use this incident as a springboard for having a serious discussion about the role of ethics in social media.” -David McMillan
Right on, Dave. These girls don’t need our scrutiny, their lives are over. So, what now?
Now we try to educate future boneheads about social media. These are McMillan’s 5 key points of ethics in social media:
In social media, there is no difference between public and private.
Anything you post online can be seen around the world if it is sought out to be seen. Remember that. When in doubt, ask yourself, “do I want billions of people to see this?”
Just because you can post something doesn’t mean you should.
Yes. Technically, we have the right to say anything (pesky First Amendment.) But there are consequences to our actions. Be prepared for them.
Your online and offline selves might not be identical, but they’re joined at the hip.
McMillan uses the example of a 3rd grade teacher by day, erotic fiction blogger by night. If found out, would the school fire you even though you keep your blog life extremely separated from your school life? You betcha. The two lives are separate, but both are you.
Will what I post cause harm to others?
People feel a sense of security of obscurity in an online world. It can feel like the perfect platform for the ever-popular cyberbullying. Don’t. It’s not cool.
Finally, call it the Social Media Golden Rule: post about others as you would have them post about you.
This doesn’t mean be the Miss America of Facebook. You can share your honest opinions and ideas without a sugar coating — just be ready for others to share their opinions, too.
These are of course just a few brief examples of ways to avoid making (the bad kind of) waves on the Internet. There seems to be a lot of common sense involved, no?
Andy McDonald, comedy writer and blogger for Huffington Post, has compiled a list of The 10 Most Annoying Facebook Status Updates and I think that he should receive a medal for this outstanding contribution to society. This is McDonald’s list along with my thoughts on each subject:
The “Food I Just Made/Ate Photo” Update
If you made the food yourself, all right, maybe. If you’re just taking pictures of food you’ve ordered in a restaurant — don’t. It never looks as delicious to your audience as it does to you because you’re hungry and we’re not.
The “A Friend is Someone Who…” Update
Oh thank god I read your status! I missed the friendship month in kindergarten.
The “Gym” Update
I’m glad you claim to be in shape when the rest of the country is not. Kudos. Even if you are a gym rat and are there on a daily basis, why would you think we want to be subjected to your repetitious status updates?
The “Tanning” Update
I don’t get it. You’ll die. I feel like knowing that you’re going tanning is like me becoming an accessory to murder.
The “Bet You Won’t Repost This!” Update
You’re right. I’m included in the 97 percent of people who won’t repost that. Moving on.
The “Vegas” Update
You were in Vegas for a week 5 months ago and you’ve been posting about it on Facebook for the past year. Do the math.
The “Why Can’t I Find a Nice Guy?” Update
Because you’ve trapped them in the friendzone, dummy.
The “Will Someone Bring Me (Food Item) to Work?” Update
No, I won’t. I won’t ever. Be productive.
The “Something Something With My Besties!” Update
McDonald says that you best be sure there’s a mutual agreement among besties involved at risk of hurting the feelings of other potential besties. Social media etiquette, ladies.
The “Facebook Game Request” Update
If I receive more than 2 Facebook game invites from you, you will be unfriended. Friends don’t try to get friends to play Farmville or Mafia Wars on Facebook.
Okay, I’m lying. I think. Unless God actually does follow me on Twitter.
I’m sure by now, we’ve all heard about Whitney Houston‘s untimely demise over the weekend.
Let me start out by saying, I am not a terrible person. A life ending is a sad thing. I know this. Whitney Houston was a great talent and she will be missed by the millions of fans she left behind. I’m not really going to go into the fact that Ms. Houston was a bit before my time and I didn’t have much of an emotional connection to the singer because that makes me look bad. But she was, and I didn’t.
Now, I will show you why I feel responsible for the death of a legendary musician 3 time zones away:
I sent this tweet Friday night, about 18 hours before Houston’s reported time of death. It was supposed to be a joke. I know, I’m not funny. I also know that God has better things to do than check Twitter (he could procrastinate on social media like the rest of us) so I’m not feeling an overwhelming sense of bone-crunching, gut-wrenching guilt about this coincidence.
But I am going to tweet about winning the lottery next week. Y’know, just in case.
Rick Santorum, Republican presidential candidate, voiced his concerns about the Pentagon’s decision to make more military roles available to women, including positions on the front line.
Maybe he was still reeling from his recent tri-state primary victory, or maybe he just didn’t think any feminists were paying attention to this particular press conference. But when asked by John King of CNN, if, as president, he would support “perhaps opening the door to a broader role for women in combat,” Santorum responded:
“I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way and they’re a great addition — and they have been for a long time — to the armed services of our country.”
If only he had stopped there.
“But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that’s probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.”
Santorum has been clear about his traditional military dreams since the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” last year. He believes that openly gay soldiers would wreak havoc on their straight comrades in such “close quarters.” Plus, straight boys wouldn’t volunteer to serve anymore if the chance of meeting a homosexual was involved.
The presence of gay soldiers could have an “adverse effect on retention and recruitment.”
Personally, I believe in civil rights. Treating everyone equally. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to limit women’s military roles because of the assumption that chivalry is programmed into male DNA. If someone, anyone, wants to fight for their country, he or she should be able to. I know I sure as hell don’t want to, so more power to ’em.
