Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday she would consider serving in the Senate if God gave her the opportunity and Alaskans wanted her to take the job. The state’s senior senator, Republican Ted Stevens, fell behind as the count resumed in his re-election bid.

We still don’t know the official results of the Alaska recount. If Republican Ted Stevens wins, he will likely be forced to resign since he’s a recently convicted felon. As a result, Sarah Palin could run for his vacated seat in a special election. While it looked like Stevens may have received enough votes to win, the Democrat moved ahead around the same time Palin announced that she might be interested in his seat if God and her state wanted her to choose that path. Think this might be God’s funny way of sending Palin a message?

It hasn’t been the greatest week for MSNBC. First, Morning Joe was forced to go to a seven-second delay because the host let a four-letter word slip. Oops.

Then, anchor David Shuster thought he discovered the source who leaked news about Sarah Palin now knowing the difference between a country and a continent.

“Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Shuster reported Monday.

Not so fast.

The New York Times reported yesterday that two filmmakers created Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character.

“The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air,” MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said. “We issued a correction on air within minutes of making the error.”

Then, this morning, MSNBC couldn’t figure out how to spell “below” — spelling it with an extral l. (See Peter Shankman’s photo for proof.)

Note to MSNBC: You want to be taken seriously as a grown-up media outlet? Start acting like one! (And, give Rachel Maddow as much air time as possible. She’s terrific!)

My super cool husband figured out how to optimize prTini for the iPhone. So, now all of you who — like me — use the iPhone for everything from checking Facebook, sports scores and the weather … to playing music and making lists can now also easily read this great blog on your all-in-one phone.

Want to check it out? Bookmark http://m.prtini.com

If you’ve read this blog, you know that my beliefs are pretty out-of-sync with the Catholic church’s views of the world. So, imagine the chuckle I had when I saw that an article mentioning ME was posted to a Catholic web site. (Click on that link to see the article. It’s a re-posting of a story by the Sentinel’s tech reporter about interesting names for Wifi networks. Mine is called Go Bucks! That’s funny in Florida.) 

Ahh, the irony. I guess even Catholics can appreciate humor in funny names for WiFi networks.

The chair of the Michigan Republican Party, Saul Anuzis, announced that he would seek the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee via Twitter. Another example of breaking news on Twitter.

Do you tweet? If not, visit www.twitter.com to sign up … and follow me. My user name is @prtini. Not sure about Twitter? Two articles this week about why it’s beneficial: One from the Wall Street Journal and another looking at the business benefits. (You know if the Journal is covering it, it’s about to go mainstream!)

UCC Ad Supporting Marriage Equality

On Friday, the United Church of Christ’s national office purchased full-page color ads in upcoming issues of the three largest LGBT newspapers in California in order to offer pastoral support to the LGBT community and others who were opposed to Proposition 8. No one agrees with their chuch 100% of the time, but, it’s moments like this that make me very proud to be a member of the UCC.

Earlier this week, I received a very interesting response to my post about Michelle Obama being a better role model than Sarah Palin:

I sometimes wonder that if she (Palin) wasn’t a republican and against abortion, wouldn’t the feminists love her?

I spent a lot of time this week thinking about that. What does it mean to be a feminist? To me feminists are people who fight for women to have the same rights and opportunities as men … who want women to be judged on their abilities … who want to end discrimination. Feminists aren’t just tree-hugging hippies. Republicans can be feminists (see: Sen. Susan Collins from Maine or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas). Men can be feminists, too.

So, if we agree that Republicans can be feminists, what stops the movement from embracing Palin? I’m not sure someone can be a feminist and oppose abortion — but that’s a totally separate argument. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s set aside the abortion issue. If Palin were pro-choice, would she be embraced by feminists? I don’t think so. Feminists wouldn’t rally around Palin because she was amenable to being used as a pawn. She was okay with her status as a women being used as a political ploy to attract the ultra-conservative female vote. Feminists don’t want their gender to oppress them; nor do feminists want their gender to unfairly advance them. Additionally, consider Palin’s stance on key issues: A feminist wouln’t run with a candidate who opposed the Violence Against Women Act or the Fair Pay Act (both of which McCain opposed).

Palin may have demonstrated the ability to balance a career and family; but that’s not the threshold for judging feminists. (As a side note, feminists also support a woman’s right to choose to be a stay-at-home mom … as long as the husband isn’t forcing her to stay home. It should be a choice — a decision made together.)

So, to answer the original question: There are many reasons — beyond her abortion stance and party affiliation — that keep feminists from embracing Palin.

It’s becoming harder and harder to find actual experts. You know, people who base their “facts” on the truth … people who really know what they’re talking about (not just those who talk a good game).

There are countless examples of political talking heads who claim to be exprts who maybe weren’t so right after all. (Just think of all the pundits who thought Sarah Palin would help John McCain on Election Day.) I imagine by now, everyone is a little tired of politics. So, let’s look at this issue from a different standpoint. There are two examples that come to mind.

This weekend, the American Advertising Federation is holding its midyear retreat — and, as has become common practice at these kinds of events, it’s being twittered. In fact, the Ad2 Orlando chapter is twittering. I follow them on Twiter, so I can keep up on what is being said at this event. It turns out that one of the speakers at the conference is the chief creative officer at WonderGroup — an advertising agency that specializes in the buying-decision relationship between moms and kids. The speaker is apparently a so-called social media expert (even though he only has 43 followers on Twitter. To give some perspective, I have 52 and I don’t try to claim to be an expert at this stuff. My husband, who owns a social media marketing company, and really knows how to do this, has more than 400 followers. Chris Brogan, a real social media guru, has almost 20,000 followers.) Update: The speaker wasn’t positioned as a social media expert. He focused on how social media is changing the game. Sorry for the confusion — hard to tell what’s going on 1000 miles away in just 140 characters.

Anyway, this speaker was saying things that just aren’t true many people believe aren’t true about social media (like that people want brands to be their friends. Huh??) But, all these conference attendees think he’s an expert — therefore believing every word that comes out of his mouth (even though it clearly doesn’t make sense). Who proclaimed him an expert? Update: As a speaker he is perceived as an authority, so people are inclined to believe what he says, even if he offered a disclaimer about his social media expertise. Again, not there … can’t say for sure.

The notion of social media marketing is new — and there really are very few experts. Peter Shankman is probably as close as they come. Other people may have had some good results, but they’re hardly experts. It’s too new of a concept to have thousads of experts. Even though PR isn’t new, the concept of everyone being an expert is similar. Everyone claims to be PR experts, but there aren’t that many people who do it really, really well. Just about anyone can get a clip, but it’s much harder to actually shape perception (the real point of PR, for those of you who still aren’t sure what it is that I actually do for a living!)

Another real-world example: The domestic violence support group that I co-facilitate is led by a minister. She’s a very, very religious person and incorporates faith into the group discussions. One day, we somehow got on the topic of homosexual relationships. And, without even thinking twice, she said it’s a terrible sin … an abomination of God. This woman is an authoritative figure for a group of very vulnerable women. They see her as an expert. Wouldn’t it make more sense to couch her beliefs by saying it’s a sin in her opinion? Some religions are opposed to gay marriage … but there are plenty of theologins who argue for gay rights. Who’s the expert there? So much of religion is based on interpretation of the Bible. But, as a very smart preacher said, it’s important to remember that the Bible is also a set of interpretations. For example, the four apostles wrote their interpretation of events and what Jesus said. What if they interpreted something wrong?

I guess the lesson is that we all need to be careful about who we deem to be experts. Especially with the information superhighway, anyone can set up a blog and seem like an authority on some topic. But, be warned. Don’t trust everything you hear or read. Do your research before determining who to believe and who to take with a grain of salt.

One of the most important things we’ve learned in this election is that women and African Americans have come a long way in their fight for equality. There’s still work to be done (as we saw in the treatment of Sen. Clinton and maybe even Gov. Palin, and certainly in some of the hatred spewed at President-elect Obama); however, it may be time to look for the next driving force of the civil rights movement.

After the disappointing votes “defining marriage” in Florida — and even California — it seems clear to me that the gay and lesbian community is being treated unfairly. People hide behind the Bible to claim that God views homosexuality as a sin. I once heard a minister say that gay marriage is an abonination of God.

Finding that hard to believe, I was compelled to do some research to more clearly understand where they were coming from and to justify what I already believed to be true.

I go to a Christian church — the United Church of Christ — and our church is about to go through the process of becoming an “open and affirming church.” That means that we  don’t discriminate — welcoming anyone, regardless of race, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, and so on into the life of our church and our ministry. It’s a foreign concept for many churches — particularly conservative denominations, like Catholics, Baptists, etc.

The UCC is very different than the churches that most people are used to going to. But, we believe that God is still speaking. God spoke to us through Jesus in the Bible, but it’s not like he stopped talking to us. Homosexuality and gender identity issues were so far off the radar screen during Biblical times — no one would have ever thought to “come out” as their true selves. As such, this isn’t an issue honestly dealt with in the Bible. So, how do we really know what God and/or Jesus would think about it?

Most Christians like to point to the absolute literal meaning of that that verse in leviticus about not laying with a man as you would lay with a woman. I find it hard to believe that we all of a sudden believe that we should take everything the Bible says to be literate. (Wouldn’t we also have to stone to death youth who don’t agree with their parents, and murder adulterers?) it’s important to remember the cultural context of the Bible. When it was written greatly influences what was written. Which is why my chuch believes that God continues to speak to us and to guide us in our daily lives.

Bottom line: Marriage and family is supposed to be a union based on love and faithfulness. In fact, recently in church, there were two women sitting in front of me with their son. They looked like a lovely family. And, the week before, in the pew across the aisle, there was another couple of women and their three adopted children. I think it’s great that these women have found love and are sharing that love with children. I bet God would be happy about that, too.

To paraphrase what I just heard on ESPN radio: Our generation just pulled off our “Jackie Robinson-esque” moment by electing Barack Obama president. No longer can so-called “adults” call us apathetic, unmotivated or self-centered. We’re anything but. We’re totally engaged in the process. We’re ready to bring about change.

In fact, preliminary studies indicate that the youth vote was out in force, with 22-24 million young Americans going to the polls — 2 million more than in 2004. And, by more than a 2-1 margin, we favored Barack Obama. A new generation of voters brought a new generation of leadership to the White House and to our country.

Nice job, Gen X-ers and Millennials! The key now is to stay involved and to continue to make our voices heard. Once every four years isn’t enough to enact real change.