Today is the last chance I’m going to have to write a timely year in review post.

I started to. The title was “In sickness and death: How 2011 taught me to be strong.”

And then I decided not to finish the post. Which is better for us all, really.

Here’s to a better 2012.

I am often appalled by the quality of the leads written in most PR-derived press releases. The following leads were taken (and rewritten to protect the incompetent) from a recent perusal of PRNewswire.

1: The Commission for Learning Achievement Measurement (the Commission) made important advancements in 2011, introducing a new internet-based learning tool and an achievement network, firming up valuable partnerships and expanding its advocacy efforts.

Translation: We launched a website, another website (or maybe the same website), we did the same old shit with the same old partners, and wasted a ton of money on the CEO’s dumb idea that didn’t turn out to generate as many leads as we thought it would.

Suggested improvements: There are too many things going on in this release. Pick one, be clear about it, why it’s important, and then explain it to your audience without being a dick. If this is a year-end wrap up release, say so, and pick three concrete things your firm accomplished this year and explain them.

2: During this hectic time of year, many people are discovering themselves with yet another complication to deal with: a child struggling to learn in school. Teachers have been slow to report, and suddenly many parents realize that a student certainly needs some additional help with their learning projects and performance. And since our schools are doing the best with what they have, its up to the ready and willing parent to consider supplemental tutoring services such as Get Learn? to provide hope and help students and their families get back on track and raise up their grades while also constructing the educational prowess that paves the track for jogging toward a more successful tomorrow.

Translation: This time of year … blah blah bleak blah blah blah struggle, blah blah blah boring boring boring oops I stopped reading.

Suggested improvement: Delete the scene setting. The target audience already understands the troubles they’ve seen, the rest of us don’t care. Also, the irregular punctuation in your product’s name is a strike against your probable publication. “Get Learn” is just as effective as “Get Learn?” and doesn’t mess with reader’s heads or cause for strange sentence endings.

3. Big Holding Company, Inc., the nation’s leading provider of business support support services to the crystal mining industry in the United States, today announced the grand opening of its latest “Sing The Glorious Crystal” office. The office is located in Pueblo, CO and is the 7th in the state of Colorado.

Translation: The holding company is more important to the writer than the thing actually being announced.

Suggested improvement: If what matters is getting new patients to the new crystal singing office, I would highly encourage you to publish the new office’s information in front of the corporate identity / holding company’s brand’s mission statement pablum.

4. What can you get for just one dollar? Mickey’s Hotdog Palace will be celebrating its grand opening and will be serving one dollar Chicago-style hotdogs today, December 6th.

Translation: Nobody cares about our delicious hotdogs, what they care about is a bargain!

Suggested improvement: This is so close to being a good lead. Delete the nonsense about “What can you get for just one dollar?” because there are tons of things you can get for just one dollar. They have whole stores now that are centered on the concept. The invocation of the $1 bargain only leads me to think about cheap crap that nobody wants.

Where can you buy lunch for just $1? Where can I buy a delicious Chicago-style hot dog for just one dollar? I have no idea, but now I’m interested. What else can I get for just one dollar? A bunch of cheap crap from a store that smells of Chinese packing material and broken dreams, that’s what.

You should hire Gabe Wollenburg to fix your pathetic, miserable public relations campaign. He’s good at it and is surprisingly affordable.

Do you think Steven Colbert knows how much damage his program is causing America?

From: The Word: LetThem Buy Cake (S.9 : Ep. 34)

“Freedom isn’t free, so it’s logical that freedom of speech costs money. If you think about it, we wouldn’t have a budget problem if we’d been charging protestors all along. The government could have made a bundle off those hippies in Vietnam.”

I understand, and you, dear reader, understand, that Colbert is using the time-honored literary technique of satire.

But most people don’t. Really? Really. It’s called Confirmation Bias. Confirmation bias is a thing so real that it permeates this entire web site. It’s kind of what we do, as human beings.

History doesn’t record satire well. Sarcasm doesn’t cross language barriers cleanly. And Jonathan Swift never suggested the Irish really eat their babies. Or did he?

The point is that by producing hateful rhetoric, even though it’s well intended hateful rhetoric aimed to illustrate the logical end of the hateful rhetoric offered by the American political machine, is still hateful rhetoric.

If, like me, you believe that words have power, you will appreciate that hateful rhetoric with another aim is still hateful rhetoric. And if you don’t care about hokum like powerful words, then perhaps the sociologist in you will recognize that prolonged exposure to Colbert’s ratcheted-up level of hateful rhetoric only makes the real hateful rhetoric seem less hateful and easier to tolerate.

I recognize the potential for rampant hypocrisy in my desire for Colbert to stop doing his Colbert thing; I understand that hateful rhetoric is a freedom that my beloved freedom of speech protects.

But I do believe, dear friend, that the world would be better if Colbert retired the Colbert act, and delivered his otherwise reasonable message to the hate-spewing masses via a strait-forward method. Every day he goes on spewing hateful rhetoric, even ironically, is another day too many.

There is enough hateful rhetoric in the world. Lets deal with that at face-value. Fighting fire with fire only surrounds the rest of us in a fire fight.

The new Gmail design is just terrible. I hate to be one of those guys who complains about a free thing, but seriously, I found myself trying to get some work done last night and I found the new design getting in my way.

I’m not sure if this is just because it was the first time I’ve been in there really doing work, or if it was because it’s really that bad, but I have a couple reasons I think it’s the later as well as the former.

But lets get past the little things that bug us about the redesign. The new design is fantastic for reading email– especially long conversational chains of email from an archive. Go take a look at it. Seriously, I’ll wait for you while you bring up one of those epic threads from your archive and take a look.

See? It would almost seem that the Gmail redesign was made almost exclusively for this purpose. It’s like scrolling back through an old Facebook messages thread.

This is, however, where it breaks down, right? E-mail is not a fleeting, instant gratification-based, social process – that’s what messages, texts, tweets, comments and status updates are for. This is even more obvious when you consider at the usage patterns of real people (i.e. not you who is reading this post). Email is where people go to do– ugh –work.

The new Gmail feels like it’s trying to break – or at least shift – that paradigm. And this is where Google keeps ‘stumbling’ with the Gmail service. They keep trying to make email not be about work, but about everything.

But is it really the wrong move?

Back when I was a tech writer, one conversation I had really stuck with me. One of the firm’s most talented software engineers who was showing me a new feature he wanted documented for the CAD/CAM product we produced. It was a neat feature– one of those really clever little bits of polish that could, if explained and adopted the right way– could really speed up a persons workflow. (In CAM, it’s all about the workflow).

And as John finished stepping me through the code, I stopped him cold with a single question:

“Johnny,” I asked, “Tell me who would want to use this feature.”

His eyes went wide, and his jaw dropped. Then he cocked his head and raised his eyebrows in thought.

Turning back to me, he said, with complete sincerity, “Everybody.”

“No,” I stammered. Now it was my turn to be flummoxed. “No, I mean, who is the kind of person who would see how valuable this feature is… you know… in their day-to_day job.”

“The kind of person,” John shot back, “who wants to get more work done more quickly.”

That, I think, summarizes the problem with software, engineers, communication, the new Gmail design, and life in general. The fundamental roadblock to bettering ones workflow is that one has to be willing to accept that there might be a better way to flow one’s work than the way one is already doing it.

Google wants you to accept there is a better way to use your email. You don’t have to silo off parts of your life into and out of Gmail. Everything can just happen in your inbox. Everything.

Its what they tried to do with Buzz, it’s what they’re trying to do with G+, it’s what Facebook is already doing with regular people.

So are you ready to accept this? Or, has Facebook already won, and should G-mail stop trying to be Facebook and be something better? Or, might there be a better way that you could be living your life?

I don’t have the answers. I’m just a guy who thinks too much about the secret and subtle subtexts behind seemingly minor cosmetic changes to a service that I really, really like.

Evaluating the paradigm shift between the lines at Google’s flagship services requires that I also evaluate myself. When I look at beyond “is it pretty?” which is certainly a matter of taste and not function, I’m not sure that I do dislike the new Google, but I’m equally as uncertain about wanting the new Google to be my email platform of choice anymore.

The question really being asked here: Can I accept having an email inbox where work, life, social, and other stuff is all commingled?

The answer isn’t so easy. Fortunately, getting my mail out of Google isn’t so hard, but ultimately, if the answer is “No, I cannot accept what Google is trying to do” then rolling my own IMAP server somewhere is going to take a lot more work than I’m probably willing to put into email.

And so I probably won’t change. And neither will you.

This, friends, is the price you pay for being the product.

Here's a list of movies that are not about Time Travel, but have some element of time travel in them, and tell stories about something other than Time Travel.

1. Time Bandits.
   This movie is not about time-travel, really. It's about a parent's role in the fulfillment of their child's desires. And about parents with bad listening skills. This film still holds the high-water mark in my book for an otherwise acceptable film with an inexcusably terrible ending.
2. Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
   Not really _about_ time travel, so much as about personal accountability. The one thing that this film has going for it is that it has a rock solid understanding of the impact time travel has on cause and effect. Pay particular attention to Detective Logan's missing keys. They managed to screw this up something horrible in the otherwise superior sequel "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey."
3. 12 Monkeys.
   Its another Terry Gilliam. What I like about this one is that it doesn't presuppose that "Time Travelers" aren't just "crazy people." What if it's not you who am crazy, it is you who am mad?
4. Dude, where's my Butterfly Effect.
   This isn't about time travel at all. This is about regret and dispair. It's a dumb movie with a dumb hollywood ending that makes us all dumber that it was ever made.
5. Minority Report
   There is actually no time travel in this movie. This movie is about precognition, not time travel. And, come to think of it, it's actually about the media and about the danger of drawing conclusions from datasets. DOUBLE GABE FAIL!!

My review of "Treasure Yourslef," By Miranda Kerr.

According to The Great Wiki, Miranda Kerr (born 20 April 1983) is an Australian model best known as one of the Victoria's Secret Angels since mid-2007. Kerr began modeling in the fashion industry when she was 13. She is married to Legolas.

She is also an author. And, I will admit, this burns me up inside.

Having read much of "Treasure Yourself," this afternoon, I have to admit, I see the appeal of her brand, especially among the shy awkward girly set. It's a pink, cute package with a neat and clever look and feel. And it is pink. Kerr seems to genuinely try to present a positive, pro-girl message aimed at encouraging young ladies to love themselves and hone in on what makes them unique. And also, she's a Victoria's Secret Underwear model married to goddamn Will Turner. So, she's got that going for her, shy and awkward girl. What do you have? A sock monkey? A sock monkey's a good start. That's just as good. Really. A sock monkey. Try to love who you are, ok?

The words in the book are arranged competently, and overall, the writey parts are mercifully short. It's padded out with girly artwork and illustrations in the same way that an undergraduate student tweaks linespacing and font choices in order to make his last-minute term paper seem more substantial than it really is. Seriously, the plaintext file of this book is probably, like, 25 pages.

However. the writey bits of the book are just not very good, and if Kerr wants to be the 'good girl' of the superfashion world, she needs to try harder. The sections of "Treasure Yourself," about body image and nutrition are incomplete and made nearly laughable given the lack of scientific validity to Kerr's recommendations:

• "If you're having trouble sticking with your exercise plan, try running with friends!"
• "Yoga keeps me fit and healthy, inside and out."
• "I eat the right food for my body, drink lots of water and detox regularly."

Given the attention and criticism lobbed at the modeling industry, Kerr's approach to this topic is at best vapid, and at worst harmful. Seriously. if you're not thinking about Malibu Stacy you should be.

I'm not saying that Kerr is a bad person. And I genuinely believe she thinks she is doing good work. She maintains that she doesn't believe that girls should feel the need to hold themselves to the standard of beauty set by the modeling industry in general and by herself specifically. When accused of having an Eating Disorder in October of 2009, she told Grazia Magazine, “I really don’t want girls to think they have to look like me. I want them to nurture themselves and really be the best they can be." Of course, as she continues to participate in a image-obsessed industries like modeling and cosmetics, one has to question Kerr's commitment to that belief.

The last 100 pages or so of the 230 page book are short, fluffy quotations and affirmations tied loosely to the topics explored in the first half of the book. These quotes are culled from popular inspiration gurus like Louise Hay, Deepak Chopra, Steven Covey, and, of course, Kerr herself.

This is not a self-help book. This is not a memoir. This is a ugly and obvious piece of marketing for Kerr's brand of organic cosmetics-- the book is featured prominently on the Kora Organics website. The design of the book and is obviously -on brand- with the Kora line.

"Treasure Yourself" is just as predatory to little girls as Joe Camel was to teenagers. This book is about getting the brand hooks in to our young. HayHouse, the book's publisher, Kerr herself, and the five Astroturfers who gave the book positive reviews on Amazon.com should be ashamed of themselves.

Miranda Kerr's "Treasure Yourself" Final Rating: Do. Not. Want.

Weird Al's newest album, "Alpocolypse" is yet another one of those records that heralds a kind of "come back" for the storied musician.

I don't really understand this-- It's as if, because Yankovic is a novelty act, he's not allowed to have a significant musical staying power. As his medium is the musical tapestry of the cultural place it was born from, the continual reinvention of his musical playground is merely a manifestation of his work, not a symbol of some kind of reinvention.
It's not so much that Yankovic is making a come-back, it's that he's always been there. Like Oxygen. Oxygen is always there. You really only notice it when it's not. So goes Yankovic's career.

I, for one, am grateful to appreciate it for what it is at each step-- a musical slice of social commentary tied directly to the collective conscious.

This isn't just another Weird Al album; Alpocalypse is different. This is Yankovic's most revealing, introspective album; a delightfully real and sometimes raw look into Yankovic's world.

There is a seething self-awareness laying just under the surface of this album. Like the legendary (and, sadly, fictional) "Me Myself and I" album, this may be Yankovic at his most introspective. The songs are daftly anchored around the experiences of Yaknovic's celebrity. "Perform this Way" (a parody of "Born this Way" by Lady Gaga) is, sure, something of a pot-shot at Gaga's "over-the-top" celebrity du-jour. But, I've seen Yankovic's work on stage. He, too, has an "over-the-top" savior-faire that he brings to the stage.

The fact is, Yankovic has been climbing into a fat suit as part of his stage shows for longer than most of Gaga's fans have been alive. It would have been easy for Yankovic shift the perspective of "Born This Way" to be about "her" instead of "I," but he sings the parody proudly in the first person. The fact is, baby, Yankovic performs that way, too.

TMZ, the parody of Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me," is also overtly self-concerned with celebrity. It's not hard to imagine that Yankovic has certainly been dogged by paparazzi from time to time, has found himself thinking "Doesn't anyone think this is creepy?"

"Party in the CIA" features first-person songs about living a artificial life behind the mask of heartless CIA assassin. In the song's final lyrics, Yankovic manages to subtly blend in a few poignant jabs at the United States' torture policies.

"Ringtone" is all about the allure of cheap and easy short-term gains that ultimately fill the narrator with regret. "Another Tattoo" is about the challenge of carrying the baggage of adopting the evolving face of pop culture with you for the rest of your life. Who but Yankovic, a connoisseur of pop culture by trade, is so rightly positioned to comment on these themes?

Yankovic has poured the essence of himself into this album; bringing with it perspective only available to a man on the long side of a near 40-year career on the fringes of pop culture. It's a great album, not just on the scale of "novelty records," but as a piece of musical work comparable with the all-time greats.

I've been very interested in the slow, but inevitable build up of Google backlash. Anything that has ridden so long and so high on a wave of positive public opinion has to come crashing down eventually.

What's interesting, though, is that it hasn't really hung on the typical arguments. It's not a "privacy" thing. It's not a "evil" thing. It's not an "its-open-source-but-no-not-really" thing. The big arrow that will stick on google, that will probably lead to the inevitable betrayal of it's fans, is this "bubble" argument.

It's an old argument, but a good one. Google has become the de-facto gate-keeper to the information, and because it's the first (and often only) place people look for information, it's has a lot of power to shape the information that enters your consideration.

The search engine, DuckDuckGo.com has basically been pushing this argument as a way for it to gain the attention of the people, (And, I'm not unaware of their financial incentive to do so; a half-a-percent of world-wide search traffic is worth, what, like a quadillion-billion dollars?). That being said, GoDuckGo seems as though they really are trying to be a viable alternative to Google Search.

Lets get hypothetical.

I have a dog who needs some training. And I need help training him. WHat I need are some training aids for dogs. So I quite naturally put in the search terms: "DOG AIDS"

Interestingly, Yahoo Answers concern about Canine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome seems to rank highly on both engines, but it's Number One on Google. And not remotely what I was looking for.

Take a look at the suggested searches. Both sites nail the "training" component in their suggestions, but Google thinks maybe I wanted to know more about dog STDs in general, and DOG Herpes in particular. Or maybe I meant Cats. Maybe. Although, I'm pretty sure I've never misspelled the word "dog" C-A-T. Go Duck Go does a nice job of suggesting products I might think about buying, because really, information is just a conduit to shopping, in the end.

The point is this: All of these products and services have one thing in mind, at the end of the day: YOU ARE A DUMB SHEEP WHO CAN BE EASILY LEAD INTO BUYING SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE IS PAYING THEM TO LEAD YOU TO.

Yea. It's cynical. But that don't make it untrue. The silver lining around this cloud is that there is hope. Now that you're aware that your clicks are being commditized, you can fight it. Don't let your search engine do your thinking for you. You're smarter than that.

The internet is great and important, but your brain is greater and importanter. Don't stop using one just because you're using the other.

I shouldn't need to explain to most of you why this is a fail:

Even if you asked me to, I couldn't come up with a better way to cripple the readability of an online offering. It's got the trifecta electronic reading death:

1. Flash
2. Text that doesn't auto flow.
3. Slow as hell rendering.

Consider this evidence number 149,503 in the case against print media vs. user experience.

I currently have $1.00 on the PSN network. $4.00 in Wii Points, $0.19 in iTunes and $3.11 in my Amazon Content Partners account. (Ok, technically the $3.11 is Web414's.)

I understand why they sell you their pretend money in blocks that are not devisable by the cost of the products they sell. But I don't respect it.

Just one more painful indignity suffered by the consumer of the future. Don't get me wrong... I Love Living In the Future, but for all the progress we've made technologically... well, sometimes I question if it's for the right reasons.

The link I've made up there, though, is not the case in point.
You should check out that link up there. The one about "Living in the Future." With the funny case. That's a link to a popular video stream where anyone in the entire world can watch a family of eagles be born. My own observation put 130,000 people watching that stream at 4:00 CDT on Friday. 130,000 People.. It's pretty likely that's more people than live in your town. Put a hash in the "Future is amazing" column.