rufus’s posterous

You write a blog post and post it. Someone comes onto your blog and has an alternative point of view. But, instead of engaging this commenter in a logical argument, you lash out at him, belittling his point of view and then using sarcastic remarks in subsequent comments. Is that smart?

This happened recently to me. (I won't mention the blog because that would result in more traffic.) When I first read the author's post, I thought it was insightful, but lacking in a couple of key areas. After reading the author's immature response to my observations, I now think the author is a bit immature, perhaps even an idiot. I won't be back to his blog -- not because I got my feeling hurt -- but because there is probably not much else I can learn from someone who does not have the skills to engage in an argument without resorting to ridicule and sarcasm.

Attacking a commenter might get you some momentary traffic, but is probably unwise in the long run. A blog works best when there are contributing points of view that are different from yours. If all you want is your friends and family agreeing with you, that is probably ok on a personal journal. But, I suspect many authors want their ideas challenged by the readers who find holes in their arguments.

Any dissenting opinions? If you agree with me, please don't post a comment. But, if you have an alternative point of view, please share it.

Originally published at: DogWalkBlog.com

There has been a rush with the social media consultant groups and evangelists about how to define this thing called "social media." Chris Brogan defined it as cafe-shaped conversation. And many people jumped on that metaphor. Sophie Macalister defines Tiwtter "as more like hanging out in the break room than actual productive work."

Hubspot got a bit lively when they published a video and blog post about not measuring ROI on social media. That got a lot of comments, many which attempted to define social media so it can be measured.

It seems like everyone is struggling to define this thing called Social Media and how it correctly fits into how business will be conducted. While social media may be better defined as the elephant in the room with five blind men, a perfect metaphor popped into my head this morning when I sent someone a link to MildFire and their response was, "How do you find this stuff?!?"

The real answer was I grabbed it off a Twitter stream as I was sitting and zoning between tasks. But, the answer I heard coming out of my mouth was: "It's like this huge asteroid belt that flies by my desk all day long.. something catches my eye and I reach and grab it. Sometimes it is a shiny rock, sometimes it is a nugget of gold."

So, the definitive metaphor -- at least for Twitter -- is it is an asteroid belt.

As for MildFire, I'm not sure yet if they are a nugget of gold or a shiny rock, so they go into the drawer until I have time to asses their value.

Originally published at: DogWalkBlog.com

I grew up Catholic. 

One of the things you learn very early on is this earthly life is a test of your faith for a reward of either heaven and eternal life or hell and eternal damnation. Life here is supposed to be hard, we are supposed to feel pain because these trials are what helps God determine what kind of person who are and what our reward should be. Yes, I know I am grossly over-simplifying this and I have a large contingent of theologian friends with whom I can argue all day long, so if you don't agree, please just take that on face value. It will help the analogy move along much quicker.

So you go to Church every Sunday, you help the poor, you don't commit mortal sins, you do all the things that make you a good Catholic and that in turn will make you a good person. Now, here is where faith wears thin. As you get older, temptations become stronger, specifically, wine, women and song. These things are really, really fun and they make the promise of heaven or hell -- while eternal -- not believable. 

If there is no heaven or hell, if this life is all there is, you sure will have wasted a whole lot of good fun. But, if there is a heaven and hell, and you succumbed to the sins of the flesh, you are in deep do-do.

Moving over to your secular life, as a good citizen, you do good things as well. You live within your means by not buying a house you can't afford, save money in a retirement plan, don't put a 58" plasma TV on a credit card at 28% interest, don't buy a cherry red Hummer which is really, really yummy looking.... oh, you're still there... forgive me reader, for I have sinned....

If you are living within your means (good Catholic) and all your neighbors who went out and got drunk on over-priced homes, televisions, cars and stocks get bailed out by the Federal Government (God) what was the point of you living within your means? What if you living within your means actually means that your house is now worth 70% of what it was, you have to spend down your savings because you lose your job and you have no TV to watch to wile away your days of unemployment? Does a great FICO score get you into heaven or is it a worthless ticket? 

Are the fiscally responsible who have not been living the high-life of comfort and excess going to now be forced to live with even less because of the sins of their neighbors? Doesn't God just punish the sinners? How is this fair?

Well it isn't and it makes one question the value of being a "good citizen." If I knew with absolute certainty that there is no God, no heaven and no hell, I would be having more fun in this earthly life. I would be sinning and I would care less about the other puppies on this planet. After all, this would be the only go-around I would get and to not grab all I can out of the deal would just be silly.

If I knew with absolute certainty that no matter how fiscally irresponsible I was that eventually the Federal Government would bail me out, that they would force my bank to give me a better interest rate and that I could get a new Hummer every year and a big screen TV for every room of my house, I would not care about excessive credit card debt or paying any part of the principle on my home loan. Saving for a rainy day would be just silly.

But, I am not a gambler and the odds of there actually being a God are a little higher than there not being a God. At any rate, the possibility of spending an eternity frying my tail off just doesn't sound all that much fun. Why risk it. And, being Catholic, I can always go to confession after sinning (don't tell God about the loophole.)

I believe that the lack of mental anxiety that comes with living within your means is worth it. Like the Vatican, I don't believe the government cares about me personally other than I behave myself and don't make too many waves. By keeping me in a house, family and self-inflicted poverty, they is accomplishing their goal. 

I will come out of this recession more intact than my drunken neighbors. I just hope the government can figure out a way to reward the responsible citizen while also making the sinners pay. 

But I know our government also believes there is a God and they are leaving the sorting of the sinners to him (or her.) That vote is just way, way too risky and there are no confessionals in Congress.

Kinda goofy and not quite made for dog faces, but here is the DogWalkBlog crew all getting into the holiday spirit!

Left to right in order of appearance: Charlie, Lady, Bongo, Rufus and Sallie.

Enjoy!

Last Saturday, Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities at Columbia University, wrote an article in the WSJ titled The Perils of 'Populist Chic', What the rise of Sarah Palin and populism means for the conservative intellectual tradition. It was well-thought out and objectively argued. In short, it explains why presidential candidates need to go bowling and drinking beer, why smart girls get teased in math class and why nobody like a know-it-all. Kinda.

Anyway, I tell you this so that you are intriqued enough to read the article and draw your own conclusions, but also to introduce Mr. Peter Noel Murray, Ph.D who wrote a letter to the editor, saying, among other things:

Prof. Lilla proves that highly educated minds can be small and prejudiced when he describes Gov. Sarah Palin as "ignorant" and "provincial." What this Columbia professor really means is that she isn't Ivy League educated and isn't from New York City.

Well, I'm just a mutt that grew up in the Frogtown area of St. Paul and graduated with a BA in English from the public university, the University of Minnesota and even I think Sarah Palin is ignorant and provincial. Moreover, I think she is rather stupid in that she does not show a capacity to learn as evidenced by her more recent interviews (still reading the keywords off the notecards!) Furthermore, she exhibits distain for others around her and appears incapable of empathy. 

But mostly, she is stupid. No, really she is.

The president should be really smart, almost geeky smart. The fact that we have a smart president-elect who is also a great orator and empath is a giant plus. Let's stop "mocking him" through sneers, jokes and sarcastic asides. After all, he did what Sarah Palin and John McCain could not.

Thanks to the really cool folks at Sticker Giant for the shout out on their blog!

The folks at Plain Joe saw a sticker I did for Guy Kawasaki at Alltop and wanted something similar. This design has four designs on one sheet, they are kiss-cut with a steel rule die so that each design can be peeled off individually.

Get your free stickers by joining our Facebook page.. and follow us on Twitter, of course!

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. So do hundreds of my neighbors and I know exactly who they are.

The WSJ gets delivered to my front door every morning by a carrier with the Dayton Daily News. About a year ago, I noticed that the mailing label in the upper right hand corner of my copy of the WSJ was not me. It was a neighbor who lived in another part of the subdivision or worked at another business. 

So, I started saving these labels. Sometimes I would get my own label, but most days, I would get someone else's. Eventually, I reasoned, I would probably get everyone who subscribed to the WSJ on my carrier's route. I think I am right.

Now, I have a mailing list of neighbors with whom I have something in common. When I want to refer to an article in the WSJ that I think might affect them, I can send out a cheap postcard, with a URL to my blog to the list and I know they will most likely have read the same article as me.  And, they will most likely go to my blog, read, comment and maybe pass it along.

They may wonder how I got their name, how I knew they also read the WSJ. Or, maybe not.

Or maybe, they have been getting my newspaper and tracking me the same way.