Special Days for Yahoo!

The people at Yahoo! must consider the following recent events to be of some importance because they developed and displayed specific art for their title to celebrate:

Chinese New Year 2009



Martin Luther King, Jr. Day



International Women's Day



St. Patrick's Day



Earth Hour



Easter



Earth Day



Notice anything?

Facebook Ads

When you go onto a site like Facebook, they always have advertisements on the screen. Below is a screen capture of two ads that ran simultaneously. I thought these ads were funny because they use (obviously) the same picture, but reflected. What do you think is going on here?

Interesting that one ad is for learning how to work in internet marketing and the other is for learning how to get money from the government (not working) to pay off debts and travel.

I get the feeling that most Facebook ads are scams, but every now and then they make me laugh.

I Annoy Myself Sometimes

Why do I talk to my dog like he's an infant??? He's over 50 in dog years, for crying out loud, and I use words like "potty" when I talk to him.

I annoy myself sometimes.

Why Mention Race?

This story is a sad one - a man shot and killed by a transit police officer on New Year's Day. Though it is terribly heartbreaking, I have a hard time believing that a police officer would shoot someone unprovoked. I say that because I'm just not sure why an unarmed man would ever need to be shot...unless he posed some sort of threat. At one point, I heard (or read) that he was shot in the back, although I don't know if this was the case. If so, then the officer has some problems because I'm not sure how an unarmed man facing away could pose a threat (unless the officer was trying to protect other people, not himself).

That being said, if I look at this news clip I am supposed to believe that the police officer is a violent racist. Was it necessary to refer to the victim as an "unarmed black man"? Why not just "unarmed man"? How will this police officer get a fair trial (which everyone deserves) if the news is inciting racial tensions?

Crocs Be Gone

PLEASE tell me this is the beginning of the end for Crocs.

I'm no fashion expert. Actually, I normally could care less (I'm a guy, it's in my genetic code to not care about things like fashion), but for some reason Crocs really irritate me.

Beware the Swordsman

One term that I wish the media would stop using is "gunman". For instance, a recent headline from the New York Times online read:

"Gunman Kills One at a Church in New Jersey"

My issue with the term is that it implies that the GUN incites the violence...as if without a gun this "gunman" would be a mere "man" and all would be well with the world.

I would prefer if the title were reworded to read:

Violent domestic quarrel ends with one dead at New Jersey church

I mean, is HOW the person was killed the most important element to this story? Someone died...while at church. My edited title points to that information, but also includes information on WHY this person was killed.

The media tries way too hard to connect guns to crime. Most likely, the killer from the story above would have found another weapon to use, had a gun not been available...like the person from the following headline off of the Los Angeles Times web site:

Scientology guard kills sword-wielding man

Two points...

1) Why didn't they call him a "swordsman"? This would have been consistent with how people with guns are labeled
..."Scientology guard kills swordsman".

2) Why isn't the gun credited for stopping the "swordsman"? ..."Scientology guard shoots, kills swordsman"

On Condition of Anonymity

I have read a few news items recently where the entire premise was based on information obtained from someone who has spoken on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

This seems to happen quite a bit and it makes me angry. If the person was not authorized to report to the media, doesn't it speak volumes about their integrity if they do so under a "condition of anonymity"?

Have we become a country of gossips, or is this a powerplay? Regardless, what does this trend say about our country when someone cannot trust people in their "inner circle"? It just baffles me that this could happen because I grew up instilled with the idea that a person's word and handshake should be rock solid.

I also wonder...how can the media rely on the accuracy of information received from someone who refuses to put their name to it?