Don't Name Your Kid That!

I'm very happy for the folks in Egypt that their revolution was successful in getting their dictator to step down. Congratulations! Go out and celebrate, Egyptians! But don't get all carried away and start naming your newborn children wacky names after social networking sites may have played a pivotal role in all of the revolutionizing, OK? Dude that named his daughter Facebook, I'm talking to you.

That's right. According to the Daily Mail, some Egyptian man named his new daughter Facebook. Her full name is Facebook Jamal Ibrahim. Yeah, that's pretty. Um, but seriously now. Facebook? That's not a name! That's a thing! And even if it was going to be a person's name (and it is not), it certainly wouldn't be a little girl's name. That's an asinine boy's name if I've ever heard of one.

But apparently the thinking of the little girl's father was not along the same lines as my own thinking. Shocking, I know. See, "He is said to have called her Facebook because he was so happy with the role played by the site in organising protests in Tahrir Square and other cities throughout Egypt." OK, then. Couldn't he have commemorated the events by naming her Tahrir? That's kind of a cool name, actually. I wouldn't mind being named Tahrir and then being able to tell people about why I was named that. I would absolutely mind being named Facebook and then having everyone look at me funny when they first heard my name. Hey, wait a minute! Why is the father the only one who I am hearing about being the one to name her? Wasn't there a woman attached to the uterus that this child popped out of? Doesn't she have a say in any of this? What's that? Oh. Right. They're not quite like that. Dictator or not. Bummer. Sorry, little Facebook.

But I guess it could have been worse. She could have ended up being Facebook Twitter Yahoo! News Ibrahim.

Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

Lil World Record

For about a week, the delicious cookie which brings black and white together, the beloved Oreo, has been promoting a stunt on their Facebook page. See, Oreo wants to set a world record for the most Facebook likes in 24 hours. That's a noble gesture. Not as noble perhaps as, say, making those Oreos dipped in white chocolate available all year long, but noble in its own special way.

The world record attempt was supposed to start yesterday. And it got off to a rousing start! After just six hours, they had 61,595 Likes. That's something. I don't know what exactly, but definitely something. But wait! There's more! Every story needs an antagonist and this tale of liking Oreos is no exception. It's a rather unexpected antagonist, however. Enter Lil Wayne.

That's right. Lil Wayne. Now, this Wayne fellow, just how lil is he? I mean, are we talking like could fit in the palm of my hand or just fairly short statured? Whichever it is, he appears to be some sort of a gangster thug criminal convicted felon rapper. He apparently also goes by Weezy, which I thought was reserved strictly for George Jefferson's wife, but perhaps I was mistaken. I don't recall Small Wayne being married to George Jefferson, nor do I recall Mr. Jefferson swinging that way. He had Lionel, didn't he? Wow, I certainly do digress at times. Where was I? Oh, right! Diminuitive Wayne.

Tiny Wayne decided that setting a world record and having to do absolutely nothing to get said world record sounded like a good idea. Thus, he posted the following on his Facebook page: "everyone, please "Like" this post. I'm trying to break the Guinness World Record for most "Likes" on a post in 24 hours. Let's get it!!!" And what do you think happened? That's right. Plenty of people who favor Miniature Wayne and thought that it would actually mean something to him if they individually "Liked" his post. And thus, the "Liking" began. To the tune of about 20-80 folks per every few seconds. And while it's great to see folks banding together for a common cause, couldn't it have been something not quite as ridiculous as liking a man whose first name is Lil?

After almost an hour, Pocket-Sized Wayne had approximately 305,366 "Likes". (As of the publication of this post, it's just over 450,000 "Likes".) He didn't even promote his little stunt. Oreo was all over their idea for at least a week. And not only did Micro Wayne get that many likes in an hour, over 10,000 dimwits felt the need to comment as well. What were they commenting on? Not much, that's for sure. Let's see...we have "this has got to be a record", "good luck with record", "Lets make it hapoen for Weezy" (I don't know what 'hapoen' means. Maybe it's rapper talk.), "will do anything for wezzy f baby fo s" (I wonder if that "anything" that she will do would include not spelling his name "wezzy"?), and my favorite "iit's good to comment alot, then Lill Wayne maybe see's it, and sends you a privet messege, that woudnt be wrong, or would it ;D".

Yes, wouldn't that be a red-letter day if he maybe see's it. And a privet messege? Wow! What would I do? (For those who really can't surmise the answer, I'd kill myself if I got anything privet from Teensy Wayne.) Reading a lot of the comments really drained me of my WTL (Will To Live). We're so doomed. And so is any chance of Oreo setting the world record for the most "Likes" in a 24-hour period.

Where Is The Logic?

There seems to be some ridiculous rumor going around about Facebook. No, no, it's not the usual crap about how they're going to change their page layout or anything like that. No, it's completely idiotic and I cannot believe that it has gained ANY traction at all, let alone enough traction to make it the top search over yonder at Google Trends yesterday. (That's right. The top search. A Congresswoman gets gunned down, a bunch of other people get shot, a bunch of other people get killed, and all people want to search for is G-D Facebook. We're so doomed.) So what is it that had people all a-flutter over the Innerwebs yesterday? Someone started a rumor that Facebook was permanently shutting down on July 15, 2011. Wait. What?

That's right. There is a rumor going around that Facebook, the multi-gazillion person social networking platform which is poised to make a gazillion dollars more than the gazillion that it has already made, is going to permanently shut down. And I don't know if I can editorialize on this insanity any better than the fine, fine folks over there at Urlesque did when they went with the headline: "Facebook Is Not Shutting Down on March 15. That's Stupid and You Should Feel Stupid." Very stupid.

The instant panic that seems to sweep the Internets (that's right; all of them) whenever something is mentioned about Facebook is disconcerting to me. But what's really disconcerting to me is that so many people couldn't simply noodle through the many reasons why Facebook would not be shutting down...ever. People really couldn't figure out that it was a hoax or a rumor on their own? They had to double check online with The Google? Wow. With those sort of problem solving skills, I'm surprised that they could even figure out how to use The Google. This is what you people care about? We're so scroomed.

It's Not Her Fault

While people are still running around trying to "figure out" what caused the loser who went on a shooting rampage in Arizona to go on said rampage, I'm going to mention something to you that I really didn't think would ever come up in the conversation. I mean really. In fact, when I heard this particular aspect voiced, I was actually stunned. I was actually surprised at how dense some people actually are. Me. Surprised. At the stupidity of people! I know! It seems unimaginable! But yet, it happened.

It's pretty simple and I'm just going to put it out there the way that I read it. Over at ABC News, it actually says "Facebook executive Randi Zuckerberg bluntly asked, "Is Sarah Palin to blame?"

::: blink :::

::: blink :::

::: blink :::

::: blink :::

Um, what now? Sarah Palin? To blame? For shooting? She didn't shoot anyone! How is this Sarah Palin's fault? This Randi Zuckerberg needs a helmet. One of those industrial strength ones that I was talking about yesterday. Sarah Palin? Are you dry shaving me?! For cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you?!

I don't know what this whole Sarah Palin phenomenon is, but it needs to be studied by someone more capable than me. (Yes, I know. It's a tall order to fill. Moving on!) Let me say this in very simple terms. Sarah Palin is not responsible for the shootings in Arizona. Sarah Palin is not responsible for a lot of things. I am tired of hearing about Sarah Palin. I don't understand why she is either so beloved or so hated by so many. I really don't understand why she won't go away! She was barely a governor for half a term and an unsuccessful Vice Presidential candidate. Why does that give her so much attention after the fact?! Please. Let her go away. Fine, if her kid wants to dance in some TV dancing contest, that's one thing. But please let her go away.

Wow. If you hear about this sort of violent act taking place and your first thought is that it is somehow Sarah Palin's fault, there is something wrong with your thinking. There's also probably something wrong with you, but that's a whole different story. Also, if you are the sort of person that thinks that Sarah Palin is to blame for things like this (or for anything, really) please, for the love of God, please do not vote. Ever. (And don't "Rock the Vote", either. That was a bad idea from the get go.) Please just go about your daily business. You can even go about your daily business and continue to blame Sarah Palin for everything. That's fine. But for the love of God, please do not vote. Ever. And make sure you get a snug fitting helmet. You're going to need it.

Do Not Buy That On The Internet

Sometimes I read things and I just think to myself "Who are you people?" Then I immediately retract that thought because I really don't think that I want to know in most cases. That's what happened when I stumbled across this headline over at The Vancouver Sun: "Don't buy breast milk on the Web, doctors warn". Good Lord. What now?

Seriously? Is this a warning that needs to be out there? You don't already know that you shouldn't be buying some random fluid from some stranger on the Internet and feeding it to your baby? Really? What part of that is the toughest for you to noodle through? I'm guessing all of it is a pretty novel concept to certain folks, as the sub-headline reads: "Lack of medical information about donors can result in problems, Health Canada says". Huh. In what way?

Of course it can result in problems! What is wrong with you people?! Who can't figure that out?! Who is buying breast milk over the Internet and feeding it (presumably and kind of hopefully) to their infant? Well, apparently the kind of people who joined a "...breast milk sharing program launched by a Montreal woman on social networking website Facebook". Why does Facebook have to be involved with everything?! I'm sick of hearing about Facebook, for cryin' out loud!

Look, do I really have to delve very far into this entire concept before I can just get to the common sense part of it that would tell any normal person that buying breast milk over the Internet is a BAD idea? According to the statement (that is clearly for people who are not going to read it, comprehend it, nor care what it says) that was released along with the whole "Don't buy breast milk over the Internet" shpiel, "There is a potential risk that the milk may be contaminated with viruses such as HIV or bacteria, which can cause food poisoning".

Really? Are you the sort of person who is going to do something so reckless that it potentially puts your child at risk for contracting HIV? Or any other sort of disease? Really? Powdered or pre-made formula is sooooo terrible in your mind that it is a better option to risk your child contracting HIV than to feed them milk not directly from a breast? You should not have children. At the very least, you certainly shouldn't be allowed the feed the children that you do have.

I'm sure that this sounds harsh and judgmental. Good. It's supposed to. Remember, a word to the wise isn't necessary; it's the stupid ones who need advice. And here's the advice: Don't buy breast milk over the Internet to feed to your baby. If you're wondering if it could possibly be so simple, trust me. It is. Just don't do it and you'll be fine. And, probably to your surprise, your baby will be fine too. Lots of people weren't breast fed and they turned out just fine.

The Facebook Is Flawless

Do you know who Karl Lagerfeld is? Me neither. Well, I didn't until I read this little piece over at something called Styleite. That's where I learned that Mr. Lagerfeld is some sort of German fashion designer. It's also where I learned that he doesn't know squat about technology. I'm not saying that the guy needs to know about technology. After all, he designs fashion. Does he need to know about technology? I'm not saying that he does, but he might want to be aware of what certain aspects of technology are. You know. Just in case he's asked about it or something. At least then he won't sound like he's on the brink of dementia. (By the way, Mr. Lagerfeld is pictured below. Is he from the future?)

He gave an interview to The Luxury Channel. (In other news, there's a Luxury Channel.) He was "... asked to describe technology he finds "amazing". He gave a rather long and extremely odd response. He answered, "Facebook is a flawless object. It’s for me like a Brancusi. As I told you, I got one as a gift in gold — in white gold. And the BlackBerry too, and the iPod. I have all those from a gift, I wouldn’t buy it. But somebody gave me all those things in white gold. They are beautiful objects on the table — they are stunning. I don’t use them because I don’t have to use them." Wait a minute. What now?

That statement begs more questions than it answers. He finds Facebook to be "a flawless object"? Um, dude, I'm not so sure that I'd classify Facebook as an object. Maybe you're thinking of something else. In fact, I'm going to have to assume that you're thinking of something else, as I don't know how you would receive a Facebook in white gold. (By the way, in case you were wondering, Brancusi is an artist. Thus, "a Brancusi" would be one of his works. Yeah, I'm definitely thinking that this guy is confused.)

Next up, the BlackBerry and the iPod. I guess I didn't realize that you could get either one of those in white gold, but I guess that it doesn't surprise me. Anyone can make a case out of anything these days. The folks over at Engadget have some pictures of a BlackBerry 8700 encased in 18k white gold. Behold!

Yeah, I don't know if I'd consider that "stunning" the way that Mr. Lagerfeld does. It's a bit garish for my tastes. Maybe they've improved since the 8700, though. AllTechnoBlog reports on a white gold iPod 4G. It's definitely more slick than the BlackBerry, but it still seems like a mugging waiting to happen. Behold!

But I digress. Back to his statement. Sooooo...he doesn't actually use these things? They just sit around looking all pretty and sparkly to him? Look, if he's not going to actually USE stuff, I don't know that he should be asked his opinion on it. If someone wants to know about the aesthetic properties of a certain piece of technology, then I think he would be the perfect person to consult about that. But the guy thinks that Facebook is a tangible object. On top of that, he thinks it's flawless. Clearly, he's never used Facebook. And I'm guessing that, until someone explains it to him in a little more detail, he never will.