To Twitter or not to Twitter

Recently, Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times (To Tweet or not to Tweet) about her disdain for Twitter. She went and interviewed the peeps that created the site where, in 140 characters or less, one can convey what one is doing to friends and other followers. In the piece, she called Twitter a "toy for bored celebrities and high-school girls."

Maybe she's just jealous she's didn't come up with the simple yet powerful concept. Maybe because she's just a twit?

Maybe Ms. Dowd is just too old school to understand the usefulness of Twitter, its simple and to-the-point functionality. It allows one to be succinct, direct, to the point. Superfluousness is not allowed (the word 'superfluousness' would take up most of the 140 characters alone!). It causes one to become a better writer, to force one to think and be creative.

Maybe she should get a Twitter account.

But she won't. Why? Because she thinks Twitter is for people to share their experiences of eating burgers or to post highlights of funerals and whatnot.

Nevermind that organizations such as NPR, CNN, NBC, ABC and a host of others utilize the technology of 140 characters per tweet. Maybe she doesn't get that people are in more and more of a hurry and don't have time to read her diarhea of the wordprocessor and would much better get the gist in a sentence. If she used Twitter to convey her opinion of Twitter, it would probably read something like this:

MDowd I think Twitter sux. I wouldn't be caught dead using it. Back to my long-winded columns. #twittersux

That was only 101 characters. Well under the 140 character limit and certainly right to the point of her op-ed piece. And a lot more entertaining, too.

You go, Maureen. While Twitter gets bigger and bigger and that remnance of a tree you call a newspaper becomes thinner and thinner, you'll soon be typing a paragraph on a bar napkin hoping someone picks it up off the floor to have a peek.

(This was in response to a question in my ethics class)

There are proverbial lines drawn that seem to limit one from doing what one wants because of the profession one may have. From actors to religious zealots, we see that there are limitations to what can be done personally based on what is done professionally and I think this is wrong. Why should one inhibit one's self because of a job? As long as it is legal, one should be able to do whatever one wants. Period. Should a person who works at the Coca Cola factory not drink Pepsi? Saying that this doesn't compare to, say, a person who teaches young people at university may be valid, but you should get the point. I have the right, the freedom and the ability to do with my life as I choose. I never chose to be a role model and I don't want people to expect me to be one. This philosophy teacher [who wants to have his bachelor party at a strip club] should be able to go to the strip club for his bachelor party because it does not affect his ability to teach young people Philosophy. I would have a problem with him if he taught moral or ethical standards that would send a message saying that these activities are wrong and then practiced them. Bringing up Mark Spitzer as an example isn't really valid. He fought against prostitution yet saw prostitutes for his personal pleasure. This is hypocrisy and affects his credibility. That affects his job. Who would take seriously a prosecutor going after prostitution rings when he himself uses those same services? Same goes for any other profession where one may profess one thing and do another (does anyone remember Jimmy Swaggart asking his god to forgive him for going to a strip club? He's still preaching from what I understand). If this philosophy teacher looked at the females in his class as he does the strippers in the club, that's his own business. Tell me no one here ever lusted after a man or woman, younger or older, in their life. We're human. We do these things regardless if we went to a strip club or not. And if you say you've never looked at someone in a desirable way, you're either lying or not human.

Regarding feminism: I vehemently hate feminism and feminist rhetoric. Before you judge, I am not a sexist, a misogynist or a "woman hater." I think women are perfectly capable of doing anything they wish to do. If you don't believe they are capable, look at women in history; from the likes of Sojourner Truth (Isabella Baumfree, a BLACK woman I might add. A "double-whammy," if you will), Susan B. Anthony to today with Hillary Clinton, Meg Whitman (former CEO of eBay) and (I say with irony) Gloria Alred. These women have shown that hard work and persistence will get one somewhere, regardless of one's sex. If you say women have a glass ceiling, I will laugh in your face. Society has taught us our roles in the world as men and women and now we are going through the backlash of those roles. But one cannot argue against the notion that SOME of these roles are simply how we are wired as men and women and one cannot go against that. It's that simple. Trying to equal the playing field between men and women is impossible. That's my opinion. Anyway, I don't think women are descriminated against and I think the feminists have done more harm than good in recent years. What really sets me off is the Feminist card being drawn and using words like 'commodification' (Marxism anyone?). Let me add that these women chose to be dancers. They're not being exploited, commodified, used or abused. Their choice. Their "free will." I'm sure this professor probably teaches young men as well. Does that mean it's okay to commodify them? And if he doesn't treat women as individuals, who's problem is that? His? No. It's theirs. If he were to treat women with prejudice, they can either deal with it or leave. Or, if there are policies against it, he can be reprimanded. Either way, he has no moral obligation to treat either men OR women with any type of respect. He is there to teach them philosophy. That is his job. If he doesn't do it, fire him. Also, it is not his responsibility to set a moral standard. And he does not represent the school off campus (unless he is at a function for the university). I do not represent the company I work for when I'm at home. Do you represent yours? Or is there some difference because he has to deal with younger people, as if they don't have minds of their own to think with? Feminism had its place. Now, it's simply a detriment.