Ah yes, I remember it well, - now that I've been reminded of it that is. The author of the attached article from the New Republic web site, tweeted me saying TV anchors shouldn't read tweets and as an example she quoted one I made during the 2011 health care debate that was read on C-span. She spoke unfavorably of my screen name as if it indicates that it carries no credibility and therefore should not be referenced.
First of all, who is collecting the data for her to be able to dig up this ancient tweet and reference it? NSA?
My tweet was obviously notable enough to be read on CSpan and now remembered two years later even if initially it was only by her. Being that I have no idea who she is and don't care enough to check her out, it isn't exactly a notch in my belt one way or the other. But what the hey, I'll take this opportunity to reciprocate and have a little fun at her expense as well.
Side note: Should I feel some how proud of the fact that one of the oldest liberal bird cage liners in the country, (since 1914), referenced me in a minor hit piece? Because after all we Conservatives love to irritate Liberals right? Hmmmm.... Nah. This authentic Safari Woman doesn't need it to feel good about myself.
After I read her article and lol-ed, I tweeted her back ... as shown in this screen shot.
Oh how I would love to throw her in the back of a jeep and show her just what I mean and then see what she thought of the name Safari Woman after that. And even though I am jabbing back with this article at the end of that day we would both have had fun. (Okay maybe I would have had more fun than her, but still, just sayin...) And I'm not looking to make an enemy here but rather to defend my name and the relevance of opinions made by those who care enough about the future of their country to spend time watching an important debate and expressing input to the public.
Excerpts from her article referencing my tweet: (Highlights: mine)
"CSPAN read tweets during the 2011 Affordable Care Act repeal vote that included: “With 21 new taxes in #obamacare it should be called the non affordable health care act.” But TV tweet-recitation has become increasingly prevalent over the past year or so, a rote attempt for shows to demonstrate their savviness at viewer engagement and wrangle the social-media hordes—to drive traffic from online to TV while giving the news the appearance of a democratic forum.
Part of what’s goofy about this ritual is that most Twitter handles do not ooze gravitas. (CNN read one tweet from “@Hobbit1206”; CSPAN’s came from “@safariwoman”; Howard Kurtz chose one from someone named “ShiShi.”) It's also a waste of airtime, an annoying bit of pseudo-populism that doesn’t exactly boost the quality of the conversation or the reporting."
So basically this woman is writing an article about something she finds annoying while capitalizing on the annoyance. Fair enough, I support capitalism, but there is a stench of hypocrisy here. I guess the use of such tweets and names in media reporting is only okay if she does it and not a waste of server space or an annoying bit of pseudo-populism in her articles.
Psuedo-Populism??? Gravitas??? lol lol lol --- Imagining the average Obama voting liberal reading those words and wondering what they mean is hilarious. They are the kind of words authors use when they must rely on tricking lesser wordsmiths into thinking they have something important to say while stroking their and their perceived intellectual peers' egos rather than relying on the strength of their ideas. But I digress.
By using a fancy liberal arts indoctrination word like "gravitas," to disqualify conservative tweets regardless of substance and by targeting the names she references as not oozing the same, she can easily dismiss them. This is the side effects of Alinsky 101, and most liberals have been trained to personalize attacks on ideas whether they know it or not. BTW -Who made her judge and jury except for herself? And why should we care about her judgement and determination of what is considered as adequate gravitas? Besides the fact that without them she would have no article, isn't judging anything by a name a bit shallow?
In the case of my tweet, the Affordable Care Act has proven itself to be "non affordable" in more ways than one. Besides the 21 additional taxes, it has already cost jobs by the hundreds of thousands, cut the hours of millions of workers, slowed the economy, unmotivated entrepreneurs, and driven the costs of insurance and health care up considerably. So shouldn't I instead be recognized for sharing an appropriate insight in less than 140 characters that has taken much of the nation two years to catch up with, rather than be poked at simply because this unknown author can't relate to my twitter moniker?
If a point is well made, valid, clever, thought provoking and/or expresses a popular opinion it can stand on its own regardless of who says it. If something has to come from a recognizably authoritative or well known source to be worthwhile, then this unknown author just wasted her time on this piece. Is it possible that we the people are not important enough to her to be taken seriously in the same way that the liberal politicians also don't give a damn about what the average person thinks? Maybe liberal article writers are only impressed by Hollyweird tweets, because after all what Lady Gaga, Beyonce' and Jay Z thinks would be worthy of their zombie like consideration no matter what it is even though their names do not exactly "ooze gravitas" either. Maybe all liberals take their "what's important" cues from the Obamas, who idolize Hollyweirdos to the tune of multimillions of tax payers' dollars while ignoring the pleas of the public to do the right things.
Because I plan to send this to the author, I'd like to mention a few things this Safari Woman has accomplished as is limited to what is known generally about the person behind the screen name. I don't even feel the need to include what I am better known for under my real name because I think that hands down, no matter who she is, my "gravitas" are bigger than hers.
About Safari Woman:
The name was earned after conducting rip roaring safaris for three years that included death defying drives over dangerous roads to a sacred site which I was given the care of because of my trustworthiness and dedication to preservation. During this time I worked with an Ex Senator who served under five presidents and I worked with an ex State Senator as well. I took people from all over the world on these tours including internationally famous people and hit many milestones for eco-tourism which I helped establish in my state. I attracted unique tourists such as the first Chinese tour to America by non dignitaries made up of factory workers who won a production contest. I'll stop there except to add that I later toured in multiple countries giving me a good understanding of the world and its peoples. That ought to count for something.
Besides the field work as Safari Woman, I've spent the past five years becoming a known conservative blogger and net worker accumulating thousands of followers over multiple websites. I also own multiple websites including this one that I am writing from here, TeamNetworks.Net that I created with the help of my daughter. (Not at all a bad accomplishment for a Safari Woman of any sort.) I don't think the author can wield the same status on the site she writes FOR, now can she? Yet she thinks she is qualified to condemn a reputable, research intensive, well funded entity like C-span for reading my tweet because she doesn't have the experience or insight to appreciate my screen name.
Not that any of this should matter for the sake of considering my tweets vs those of others. If words speak truth to light, what difference does it make about their source?
Maybe she is just jealous that they didn't read hers.
I almost feel bad that sending this out to my networks will bring attention to her unworthy criticism in this poorly written article, but what the heck, I'm game. I just want her and the liberal site she writes for to know that the increased hits on the page is not due to the quality of her writing and networking but for a good part it will be due to mine.
Hows that for "gravitas?" And btw, if she has a single atom in one molecule of her blood that is of a journalist rather than an article writer who fancies her own opinions, she might even figure out the other reasons that if my real name had been read instead of my twitter name, that there would be even more "gravitas" to chalk up.
Maybe it is a good time to update the old saying "You can't judge a book by its cover" to "You can't judge gravitas by a twitter name." But that would be common sense and we already know liberals posses little if any of THAT~
It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it!