February 26, 2013


A woman walks into a furniture store with a parrot on her shoulder.

No. Seriously. That JUST happened. Not a living parrot, mind you. It was clipped to her shoulder, on a spring, and it was clearly pining for Fjords, but it was a parrot. The woman quite obviously wanted me to notice the parrot and SAY SOMETHING, but I just smiled and asked if she had any questions. She didn't buy anything, OF COURSE, and she left, apparently miffed, apparently miffed that I didn't take the stuffed parrot conversational bait.

Posted by Ryan at 04:10 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 19, 2013

I believe a HOLY CRAP is in order

Any time Instapundit links to you, it's an occasion. When he links to your book, it's reason to do backflips and break expensive things.

Posted by Ryan at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 11, 2013

And Now, An Overdue Fisk

The trouble with Facebook is the people

Prepare yourself for one of the more unintentionally ironic editorials in recent memory, starting with the lead sentence:

Forget about the privacy concerns, the onslaught of ads, the annoying design of your profile page.

Keep in mind that was written by a newspaper columnist. While this editorial is essentially a diatribe against Facebook, that lead sentence perfectly describes what's wrong with 95 percent of newspapers online.

If people are slowly turning away from Facebook, it's not because the company has overreached or gone over to the dark side.

It's because we've come to realize that people are boring.

People. Newspapers. Take your pick. People have been turning away from newspapers in droves, well before Facebook came onto the scene, but that inconvenient bit of inconvenience apparently escapes this Boston Globe columnist.

Surely you've noticed this yourself, as you've scrolled through updates about vacations and restaurant meals, plus notices about how many of your friends are currently playing Candy Crush Saga.

Try writing that a different way: Surely you've noticed this yourself, as you've paged through newspaper sections about vacations and restaurants, plus obituary notices and pointless games like crosswords and Sodoku.

A survey released last week by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 61 percent of Facebook users have taken a "Facebook vacation," for reasons that had little to do with how the company behaves. "Too busy" was the most common complaint, followed by "just wasn't interested" and "it was a waste of time."

Aside from being the same complaints most people unsubscribing or not subscribing to newspapers would voice, I have to wonder whether Pew actually surveyed 61 of Facebook users. Seems high. Like, suspiciously, ridiculously high. But, we're not treated to any methodology or sampling tactics here. We're supposed to take it on faith that 61 percent of Facebook users (worldwide, presumably) are just up and taking a break. Gosh, far be it for a newspaper to provide incomplete context. That's something you'd expect, I don't know. . . Facebook friends to do, or something.

"It's a reckoning moment," said Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew project. "People are making little mental calculations about how much time do I want to devote to this, what's the quality of the material I get from my friends?"

Nothing like skipping over important details like methodology or sampling, when you can just ask for a quick quote from a Pew director.

This is, in some ways, a significant milestone in our growing relationship with social media.

If you say so, Boston Globe columnist who is basically plucking crap from her butt.

Early complaints about Facebook centered on the fact that interactions were fake: hand-picked, overglossed, idealized personal statements that were bound to make your friends feel insecure, and vice versa.

See also: The Letters to the Editor section of most major newspapers. The irony meter is just whistling off the charts here.

But now that we're all familiar with the Facebook mask, the problem might be that our posts are too real, and that reality isn't worth our time.

Wait. So what is it? A mask? Or reality? You can't have it both ways.

Earnest efforts to promote unplugging, such as the annual Screen Free Week, are gaining traction, and Facebook's policies have done their part to diminish our trust. But it turns out that our own inanity is also a powerful force.

Where is the proof the annual "Screen Free Week" is gaining traction? Again, are we just supposed to take the writer's incomplete word on that? And, while I won't disagree that Facebook's policies are annoying and trust eroding, they're no more egregious than the omnipresent sign-in and sign-up screens that have become the norm for most online newspapers. You can't tell me they're using that sign up information for altruistic pursuits like kissing baby seals and giving polar bears tummy rubs.

Not that it's time to fear for Mark Zuckerberg's welfare. Facebook is used by a mind-boggling 67 percent of adult Americans online, including your mother, your father, your great-aunt Hilda, and your long-lost friend from high school with a political vendetta. The fact that we're now settling into a mature routine is actually a sign of how intertwined our lives are with our feeds -- and how much we feel an obligation to take part.

That whole paragraph completely flies in the face of everything that appeared before it, including the Pew number of "61 percent of Facebook users are taking a break." So, nearly 70 percent of people online use Facebook, but maybe, possibly, 61 percent of those are taking a break from Facebook--which, by the way, never explains what "a break" entails. I took a break from Facebook over the weekend, so does that lump me in with this 61 percent? It's like saying "60 percent of the time, Facebook users take a break every time."

As much as I grumble, after all, I still feel compelled to dip into the Facebook universe every few days, posting photos of depressingly minor life events -- Attention, world! My child went to the dentist! -- or scrolling down the news feed and "liking" 15 items in one sitting. I'm marking my presence, like a dog. If I lay off the site for a few days, I invariably miss six birthdays and feel like a jerk. If I stay away for longer, I worry I'll miss big news.

As much as you grumble, indeed. So, you hate Facebook, but you can't stay away, because you're a dog. Or something. As for missing "big news," you presumably work in a newsroom with an AP and Reuters feed. . . I think you'll catch the big news. Facebook won't miss you.

Every new medium eventually finds its purpose. Twitter works great as a news aggregator and wisecrack-sharing platform. Pinterest is a gallery for home-decor ideas. Facebook has become the accepted repository for information about births, deaths, and traumatic family events. It's also reasonably good for mobilizing social movements and conducting virtual yard sales.

This is simultaneously rich in irony and deeply perplexing. So, she doesn't care for Facebook much, but she thinks Twitter is GREAT?! She likes Pinterest, but seems oblivious how much cross-over there is between Pinterest and Facebook. Then there's just so much she leaves out about what Facebook is used for. I use it for. . . wait for it. . . a wisecrack-sharing platform, for example, and repository for self-deprecating humor and general silliness. On the professional side, we use Facebook to promote our store, thereby sidestepping the traditional avenue of. . . newspaper advertising. To have this columnist explain Facebook, you'd think it consists entirely of people telling the world about dead grandmas. It's almost like she doesn't know what she's even writing about.

For photos of kids and vacations? Well, there's this nifty thing called paper. A few weeks ago, we finally took down our display of holiday cards, those cheery family photos that Facebook should have rendered obsolete. They still feel more valuable than the average digital post, precisely because they're worth the cost of bulk printing and a stamp, and because they require the physical act of opening an envelope.

Or, here's a thought: do both. There's nothing stopping you from sending cards with cheery family photos AND posting those same photos to Facebook. In fact, I would estimate roughly 70 percent of photos we received in the mail I also saw on Facebook. The world can handle both without going into some sort of photo-absorbing meltdown.

Holiday cards are one of the last remaining things that we still instinctively send by mail, along with thank-you notes and the occasional party invitation. Right after the Pew Facebook study came out, the U.S. Postal Service announced that it was dropping Saturday delivery, prompting a flood of lamentations -- on social media, of course -- from people who may not have written a letter by hand in years. I, too, will miss the weekend mail, but it's hard to argue with reality. The other day, the sum total of my mail was an electric bill and a flier from Costco.

This woman doesn't seem to quite grasp when she's contradicting herself in glorious fashion, does she? She gets an electric bill and a Costco flier in the mail, but she read all about postal service lamentations -- on social media, of course. Good thing she has editors, I guess.

If someone sent you a snail-mail photo of his kids every day or every week, you'd think he suffered from a personality disorder. But holiday cards are an annual thrill, precisely because they come once a year. Looking for a new, Facebook 2.0 standard for how much we ought to share? It turns out we might have had it all along.

Well, except you can post multiple photos on Facebook at once, in something called an "Album," whereas if you attempted to send an album via snail mail, someone might just think you suffered from a personality disorder. Plus, sending an entire album via snail mail to everybody you know would probably require a loan. Each year. At Christmas.

Posted by Ryan at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 08, 2013

Weather or Not

Remember that snowstorm that went through back in 2001? No, not that one. The OTHER one. No, the OTHER OTHER one. You don’t remember?

If only snowstorms had a name. . .

Well, now they do!

The “Weather Channel”--which has apparently recognized naming hurricanes isn’t enough any more--has decided snowstorms also require their own nomenclature. Seriously, the latest snowstorm to hit the Northeast actually has a name, according to the Weather Channel. You know what it's called? Go on. Guess!!


Yeah, I know, I can’t believe it either.

I suppose I can’t blame the Weather Channel for trying. I mean, there are only so many ways to make weather seem interesting, after all. But COME ON. Hurricanes, at least, are somewhat rare, so naming them makes at least a little bit of sense. Naming snowstorms, on the other hand, is like naming dandruff occurrences.

But, who am I to quibble? I should embrace this new weather-naming phenomenon. If snowstorms are to be named, let’s name ALL weather.

It’s said, for example, “April showers bring May flowers.” So, let’s call every shower “April.” Come spring, we can all sprint into the house and complain about being drenched by April.

“Sorry I’m late for dinner, dear, but I couldn’t see anything because April was all over my face.”

Also, we should do away with sunny and cloudy days, in general. Such mundane days require names. Sunny days are heretofore to be known as “Tony,” while cloudy days are to be referred to as “Samantha.”

We can say a day is partly Tony or partly Samantha, or either day hasn’t entirely yet come out of the closet. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Foggy days should be known as “Greg.” Misty days should be called, er. . . “Misty.”

“The day started out Greg, then turned Misty.”

Tornadoes are a whole other thing entirely. Tornadoes are like hurricanes but, because they happen mostly in the Midwest, nobody really cares. If they only had NAMES.

A tornado ripping through Missouri, for example, is entirely forgettable. But name it RALPH, and people would be talking about it for years.

“Jefferson City got totally Ralphed on,” people would say.

You didn’t know Jefferson City was the capital of Missouri, did you?

A clear blue sky should be known as “Johnny,” while a thunderstorm should be called “Bobby.” A light summer rain should be “Jimmy.” Heat lightning should be “Tommy.” And flooding should be called “Dutch.”

If all those weather events happen during the same day, it should be called a “Cobra Kai.”

Or, we could just go back to calling weather what it is, and tell the Weather Channel to stop trying so hard.

Nemo. . .

Posted by Ryan at 04:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 06, 2013

Back in the Saddle

OK, the reason posting has been light is because I've been writing this

Posted by Ryan at 11:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 05, 2013

Stop. Just. Stop.

It suddenly hit me.

NPR doesn't think that fast. They edit.

Posted by Ryan at 10:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 02, 2013

At Least It's Not Eating Its Own Poop, I guess.


I apologize for the crappy quality of this screen grab. This is a toy that ALWAYS annoys me during every trip to the toy store, owing primarily to the host of unanswered questions it engenders. WHY does this gorilla have a bionic arm AND leg? I mean, it's wielding a Samurai sword, for crying out loud, so you'd think it's at least somewhat proficient enough with a blade to not lose BOTH limbs. Is it the Anakin Skywalker of the simian world? And that's after allowing for the suspension of disbelief of a gorilla holding a Samurai sword in the first place. And WHY is this gorilla using the skull of one of his fallen brethren as a cod piece? And WHY is this gorilla wearing a ratty old tennis shoe? And WHY is that tennis shoe so obviously the wrong size to fit this gorilla?

Posted by Ryan at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 01, 2013


The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup.

"Folgers" was the neighbor's cat, which I trapped and blended into a fine slurry before adding coffee beans and a whisper of cinnamon.

Posted by Ryan at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit my website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.