Whither Twitter?

When asked, on air, whether he Tweeted, baseball announcer/humorist Bob Uecker responded, "No, thankfully, they have medication for that now." Good call.

I don't get the "phenomenon." Mini posts, limited to 140 characters? "Convenient?" Why the hell would I want to limit myself to 140 characters? What can I say, or read, in 140 characters? Further, couldn't I just do that on this blog? I could update this blog from a cell phone just as easily as I could tweet. And I could do it using full sentences.

Twitter is one of those phenomena created by people who don't understand it. Magazines put it on the cover because it sells like a supermodel or Michelle Obama. CNN uses it to stay "hip." Twitter is not hip. Twitter is what people who can't ever be hip use to try to stay hip.

Twitter is also used by people trying to brand themselves. Real people have nothing to say in 140 characters. Brands can say things like, "omg, shooting green screen all day.  It's the wierdest thing we do." (Ashton Kutcher, the OMG added but believable.)

Twitter is a great marketing tool*. You can get people to follow you on it and then pitch yourself to them several times a day, and some people will eat it right up. But you can't have any serious discourse on it. All you can do is make claims and  refute claims. It's like an Internet chat room with nothing but room for flame wars.

*The greatest Twitter irony is that it serves primarily as a marketing tool, but can't turn a profit for itself.

The fact is the media wants to be in on this social networking that's otherwise its undoing. So they report on the "new, hip" thing, press their own involvement, and start a trend. If I were an old guy who didn't know shit about social networking, but wanted to get involved for my business, I'd probably be drawn to Twitter. After all, it's been on the cover of all those magazines. And CNN talks about it constantly.

I just don't see the big deal. Twitter is like Facebook with only status updates enabled.

I also love the semantics. A single Twitter post is a Tweet. That's because saying, "I just Twittered," sounds dirty. Personally, I think the past tense should be Twat. As in, "I'm going up to to my room to get on my computer and Twat for the world to see."

Don't ask...

Lost in the shuffle of celebrity deaths this week is, you know, relevant news. At least something more relevant than anything Farrah Fawcett has done in the past, oh, say, thirty years.

Our armed forces is kicking out capable Americans. Decorated fighter pilots and Arabic translators and fighters and soldiers, under Don't Ask Don't Tell. This is nothing new. DADT has been on the books for sixteen years now. What is new is the length that we are going to for new recruits. It amazes me the kinds of people we let represent us to the world and the kinds of people we are kicking out.

For instance, this Salon piece argues that our military has become a training and recruiting ground for white supremacists. And it is reported that "moral waivers" are way up in military recruiting. A moral waiver is when the military lets someone in who otherwise would not qualify, such as an ex-felon. Does this mean that prison sex does not count as gay sex, or is somehow less offensive than gay sex?

Let's do a comparison of who is allowed to represent the USA overseas while wearing a military uniform.

Former KKK leader David Duke: acceptable

Congressman Barney Frank: unacceptable

Convicted felon: acceptable

Recently outed Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbacht: unacceptable

Hitler-worshipping Neo-Nazi who would ultimately like to overthrow the United States government: acceptable

John Amaechi: unacceptable

So where do we draw the line? Do we let child molesters in, but only if they target little girls and not little boys? Do we allow "rehabilitated" gays serve our country?

I view the ability to volunteer for military service as one of the liberties that makes this country great. The military is one of the ways for people to rise to power from nothing, both historically and in modern times. It is against the American spirit to deny this avenue to capable men and women.

For every gay person we accept in the military, there's one less moral waiver we have to use and one more person fighting so I don't have to.