Apparently, not I. The Washington Post says:

They're young. They're addicted to instant messaging and social networks. And they're more apt to dish about the drama at last night's party than the president's latest faux pas.

Well, I'm young, yeah. I am on zero social networks (I junked my friendster profile several months ago, and was never "addicted" to it). I use instant messaging sparingly (unless you count my company's proprietary IM software, which we really just use to make fun of people on conference calls). And I don't dish about last night's party.

I do agree with this, however:

"Bloggers in general don't intend to have a lot of impact," said Amanda Lenhart, who directed the survey. "The motivation comes from within; it tends to be very personal. They're not out to change the world."

Obviously, my blog is tremendously successful. But, I did not set out looking for that success. Yes, I might make some money from the movie rights (which I just sold to Miramax), but that was not my motivation; instead, it was to connect with you, Dear Reader. And I pledge, by the way, that the movie will not suck, and it will not star Tom Cruise (in fact, those are my only two "concerns" that they were able to contractually address. The "movie will not suck" thing they agreed with right off, but the Tom Cruise thing was a pain in the ass - apparently, they thought he would be a natural to play me, but I really don't want to dip down to that level, ya know? I am now thinking maybe Aquaman from Entourage).

So, maybe this is actually an apology to you, Dear Reader. I am not giving you the details of my wild online life (because it don't exist) and I am not going to tell you about last night's party (unless, of course, it's the Democratic party). I am sorry, but please keep reading, and see the movie.