I would totally tweet "Haha! Twitter's over capacity!" but that would be redundant and moot, since the tweet wouldn't be seen by anyone. Shucks.

Of Awesomeness! Actually, being awesome doesn't require a test, does it? Great- fail at awesomness. But really, this post is just a test to utilize the Postie plug-in for WordPress, so I can throw up posts from anywheres via email. You can do it, too. The email to send posts directly to my blog is: youthinkimthatstupid@seriously.com. Post away!

Wow. It’s been awhile since I’ve posted. Life kinda busy right now, and all those season finales on TV. Ha. I have a few topics mulling about, just need a few minutes to construct the post (then run away for a few weeks/months, what have you).

So here’s an issue I ran across while looking up something on Craigslist. Now, I am by no means someone who knows exactly what they want, but are just looking for a good deal, for the product I’m looking for. I kinda know what I’m looking for, but I’m not confined to a particular model and specific specifications.

So when I search for something, I want the general product type. Then I’ll sort through the “numerous” posts (maybe 100 results, or inexplicitly, a massive 133 results!) looking for what I want. Simple browsing. And then something catches my eye. And I take a gander at the listing and notice at the bottom a ridiculously placed effort for SEO. None of the “search terms” apply to the product at hand. In fact, if someone was looking for a specific product, the said listing would come up, which is exactly what the user didn’t want.

And it’s not just Craigslist. Ebay and numerous sites have SEO which really isn’t SEO- since that stands for Search Engine Optimization- more like Search Engine Inundation From The Depths of Hell. The abuse of the idiotic theory of SEO creates more wasted time, and annoys users (well, at least me). If I wanted that product that was related to the one I was looking for only by a sheer glimmer of name similarities, I would be looking for that. Rather than my original object of searching.

So instead of taking a quick peek, I’m now left frustrated and angry at people that think wasting time is funny.

I found, through a little unofficial challenge, a home of an Internet user, based only on pictures from his car’s dashboard.

Cue the Geico song…

I don’t think every company should be active Facebook or MySpace, or whatever current hot social media site is out there. Twitter is hit-and-miss, since sometimes it’s hard to find value.

I can see companies having a Facebook page, but I think it should be have a static, direct-to-here function to drive traffic to the main web portal. On the business resource side, I think it’s too much effort for a company to try to manage Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, in addition to all the other business goings on. Especially for small companies, and goes double for the current economic climate. Spend time getting customers, not entertaining people with nothing to do (gasp!!!! did I just say that?).

This isn’t a broad, everything-goes statement. Some companies will find some value, other won’t. But here’s why I am cautious- it’s the Internet. For the most part, anonymous and ambiguous, the Internet caters to the lowest common denominator. Just like in real life, you mostly see things that are negative, rather than positive.

Overall, Facebook is personal, meant for connecting with friends, etc. I believe that personal should be kept separate from work. Actually, this is impossible to do, but for the most part I don’t think everything you do needs to be online.  So a company can make a decision not to be active online, where it’s clients/fans/etc. are safe to be themselves without having conflicting incidents. Prevent embarrassing moments from happening by eliminating the forum for them.

What’s so great about vision? Maybe because it helps people head in the right direction? True vision creates a feeling that people can connect with, and aim towards without becoming overwhelmed. A vision that no one wants or can comprehend isn’t vision.

Management books and teachings all pretty much agree that to have a successful team/project, everyone needs buy-in. All involved need to agree with the vision on some level. Not everyone has to be gung-ho for it, but as long as people will accept it and agree with it, the vision can be a success.

Take JFK’s promise to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60′s. Audacious, visible, and ultimately obtainable. While it was before my time, I don’t presume to think everyone was for it. But I can probably guess that the propaganda machine made the majority buy into the vision, for those that were on the fence.

It’s magical to accomplish something that seems out of reach. Noble, in fact, to achieve the vision, especially when the proclaimer is unable to see the completion.

On the flip side, vision without buy-in is futile. Take for instance the current health care plan. Did everyone want it? Is it obtainable? Is it something that has never been done before? There’s no reason for people to get behind it. No cohesive purpose. Yes, it would be great if people could get affordable insurance. Should individuals not covered be penalized? No. Is this ground breaking? Hardly. But some people want cake and they want to eat it, too.

Before the federal government begins mandating things the people don’t want, why not try to fix the government first? Trim the fat, so to say, and eliminate wasteful programs and offices. A government is to govern, serve and protect its citizens. Find out what the people want, and find a vision that fits that desire, making it easy and worthwhile to support the vision. Create a vision of high-speed rail and mass transit in every major city and metro area. Put a deadline to remove internal combustion engines from the roadways. Build solar energy farms to support a major city like Chicago or Charlotte. Of course, these example aren’t popular opinion, since most Americans would likely sell their children before getting rid of the family car. How about a vision where the federal tax was lowered to 10%? I think most everyone would be on board with that one.

Ok, so really more about taxes than death. Olympia, in it’s infinite wisdom (sarcasm, btw) is trying to raise taxes to cover a budget shortfall. Let’s take a different example that offers parallel arguments.

Take an average worker. Works between 40-50 hours a week, pretty standard for today’s world. After a while, he’s saved up some money, started a family, picked out a nice house. Content with his career, he expects that he’ll get a raise of 10-20% a year for the next few years, until he makes Vice President (when the money really gets rolling in). Expecting that financial future to happen, he goes out and buys two luxury automobiles. Very classy, very nice. He upgrades his basic cell phone to an iPhone and is totally hip with his kids’ friends now. He buys one for his wife, too.

Pretty soon he gets excited about Verizon FiOS, and upgrades to the full-tilt package. Since the family now has uber-speed Internet, he upgrades the family computers to iMacs and MacBook Pros. The kids need something to type on, right?

Now that his kids are on the Internet or TV, there isn’t much time for him to be with his family, so he hires a landscaper to do the yard work, freeing himself up for family time. They go out to concerts, movies, dinner, whatever is available. Clothes shopping is done monthly now, rather than seasonally and when there are sales. And they poo-bah the department stores and chains, going directly to Nordstrom, Brooks Brothers, David Lawrence.

A few months into this lifestyle, the bills start racking up. The average worker doesn’t see this as a problem, as it’s totally acceptable, and a fully understood tenet of employment that an employee can demand and receive a raise as he sees fit. So he walks in to his boss and demands for a 15% pay raise to cover his current expenditures, which his boss begrudgingly provides.

That totally works in the real world, right? I didn’t think so. It shouldn’t happen in our government, either.

Anyone catch the anti-gun folks vs. Starbucks recently? Here’s one article (of many, many articles. Google/Bing is your friend.): http://www.king5.com/news/No-guns-in-Starbucks-rally-86190562.html

My take is that Starbucks is correct when it says: “The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.” Starbucks is a company that values individuality, evidenced by the way people order coffee- their way. Have you seen the baristas there? Case in point.

Anti-gun supporters claim that the stores will be safer, customers won’t be in harm’s way of a violent gun incident. That is wholly untrue, because criminals don’t give a damn about store policies when they decide to rob at gunpoint, or walk in and shoot police officers. Store policies have little, if any, effect on violent crimes.

Gun supporters claim Starbucks is right, it doesn’t have a reason to ban guns if the US Constitution continues to allow citizens to have weapons. However, Starbucks is a company, and have the right to run the operation as it sees fit, within the laws. If it thinks that a no-gun policy would make its bottom line go up, then sure, it may create one.

The Second Amendment, as ratified by the States: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

A lot of debate rages on the interpretation of that statement, and many people read it differently, depending upon their own ideology. What many people fail to understand is the purpose behind the amendment, and what that amendment means. For that, my suggestion would be to take a history class or read a few Constitution-focused books. As I look at it, the right to bear arms was instrumental in providing the founding citizens of America a way to fight British rule. In essence, it gives power to the people to fight back against violent oppression from an overpowering government. It is a deathly ultimate check and balance- citizens and government.

Imagine if firearms were completely banned and there was a citizen uprising against taxes, or a war effort, or economic hardship. Citizens with rocks and sticks can’t argue with an M4 assault rifle. Banning firearms unevenly weighs the power on the government side, which will eventually lead to the government working against the people, rather than for it.

Is Starbucks right? I think so. I think that this debate should be left to the courts and lawmakers. It isn’t going to be won by picketing a store or threatening boycotts.

Random Stuff:

Statistic from CDC: 2006 Unintentional Deaths from Firearms: 642. 200 or so less than in 1998. Violent deaths from firearms in 2007 (16 states reporting): 7,942. Total violent deaths in 2007: 16,358.

DrugWarFacts.org (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30) show 2000 numbers of firearm incidences to be 29,000.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/penn-teller-on-gun-control.html (I haven’t watched it, but Penn J. is pretty objective.)

How many shakes is necessary, or what you do out of habit, for a packet of sugar/Sweet & Low/Equal/Splenda? I shake 5 times. Without thinking about it. Until just now.