Statute of Frogs

I’ve been found again.  A friend came up behind me on the train yesterday and said “Are you the frog blogger?”  I’ve always known that there were enough clues floating around here that anyone who actually knows me can probably figure it out.  And this isn’t the first time it’s happened.  I’ve considered just posting under my real name, but I’d rather not have this page turn up as a top Google hit.  So I just plug along in my semi-anonymous state and every few months, another friend pops out of the woodwork.

I’m pretty fond of “the frog blogger,” though.

From the Washington D.C. Craigslist, posted a few days ago:¹

I am looking for a partner to travel back in time with me. This is NOT A JOKE. I have done this before. Your gender is not important, but you must have your own weapons. Contact me immediately.

I’d love to know both what motivates someone to post this and what kind of responses it brings.  I’m also curious how far back in time he/she is planning to go (are we talking last week? Romans? dinosaurs?) and what kind of weapons might be required.  And it would be really cool if this had a posting date from some time next week.

1. No, I don’t have any reason to be browsing Craigslist for Washington.  A friend (who also has no reason to be browsing, but never mind) brought this to my attention. [↩]

Apparently, owners arranging marriage ceremonies for their pets is the hot, new thing.  As bizarre as I find that, one should never underestimate the ability of owners to anthropomorphize their pets.  One sentence in the article, however, greatly disturbs me.  “Scott’s clients include pet owners who want to mate their pets and don’t want ‘illegitimate relations’ in their home.”  It’s one thing to treat one’s pets like children.  But there are important differences.  We don’t, in general, lock children in crates for the day while we go to work.  And it would be very odd to talk about mating our children.  Given the inherent differences, can there really be people who believe it would be immoral or inappropriate to mate their animals without first blessing the union with a religious ceremony?  Or is it just that they want to make sure the puppies have clear inheritance rights from both parents?

This is so not for me. I’m pretty iffy about the heights thing in general. But eating a meal with my feet dangling 165 feet above the street. Nope! Not gonna happen.

As someone who likes to use footnotes,¹ I’m very pleased to have found a plugin that makes spiffy looking footnotes in WordPress. It’s the little things.

1. Though not nearly to the same degree as David Foster Wallace [↩]

I read with interest this article in this morning’s New York Times because I have a Googlegänger of my very own.¹  I’ve been tracking him silently for the past ten years or so. The first online reference I found was a picture of his fourth grade play.²  Now he’s in college here in my city. The other day, he found me on Facebook. It’s very disconcerting to see someone else’s status updates with my name on them. I do feel a strange connection to him. But that doesn’t stop me from reading the update and thinking “I am not…Oh, right…not me.”

1. Actually, I have at least two, including another lawyer (or at least law school graduate). In my latest investigation, it appears that one or two more might have turned up. My first name has gotten much more popular in recent years, so it’s not surprising that our number is growing. [↩]
2. Somewhat spookily, he was playing a role that I had played at a similar age. [↩]

There are so many excellent things about this story, it’s hard to know where to begin. First, there are the basic aspects of the ad itself: his reference to himself as “The Thug’s Lawyer” and the toll-free phone number 1-888-88NOTME. Next, there’s the advice at the bottom, which, although it purports not to be legal advice, is definitely sound. But best of all is his website. It would appear that vindicating the rights of accused criminals is just a fallback in case his reggae career doesn’t work out.

Having Google Ads on the blog doesn’t actually produce any revenue, but it sometimes takes one to interesting places. Particularly when Google’s algorithm choose to focus on the blog’s frogginess rather than its legalness. Just now, there was an ad for “Frogman Art,” which was an intriguing title, so I clicked it. It took me to the site of “Frogman Tim Cotterill” whose first paragraph reads:

Tim Cotterill, the FROGMAN known for his frog collectables, has an uncontrollable passion for frogs. And only frogs. He loves everything about those bulgy-eyed beauties — their faces, their webbed feet, their springy legs and their antic nature. He incorporates every possible expression, contour, and subtlety of these amphibians into his green-enameled bronzes.

Actually, his bronzes are pretty neat.

This is depressing. According to a new survey, one in four Americans didn’t read a book last year and the average American read only four books. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. When I was a software consultant, most of my colleagues weren’t readers. But nearly all of them read at least occasionally.

One of the ways in which my new career is a better fit is that I’m more likely to be surrounded by people who read. But I find it hard to imagine how people who don’t read spend their time. And I shouldn’t be too dismissive. Maybe those people who don’t read books read several newspapers every day or something. But I’m dubious.

UPDATE: A less depressing (and pleasingly snarky) view of the survey is here.

I was back at the law school last night for the first time since graduation. It felt surprisingly weird to be back. It was nice to see the people I know who are still there, but I felt very much out of place walking through the building. It’s only been about 10 months since graduation, but I guess things have changed more than I realized.

You’ll be glad to hear that it is, in fact, impossible to nail Jell-o to a wall.  Next, we need someone to try herding cats.

 Hat Tip:  Boing Boing.

It looks like at least some parts of London are worse.  A former janitor’s storeroom in Chelsea can be yours for for a little over $330,000.  Admitedly it will cost you almost $60,000 to make it habitable.  Still, for around $400,000 you can have a home (if you’re willing to sleep standing up).

Hat Tip:  Concurring Opinions

I’ll admit that I didn’t know about this until after I got dressed this morning, but apparently there’s a good reason for me to be wearing a red tie today.  I find it a little disturbing, however, that the American Heart Association’s website for this event is easy to misread as “Gored for Women” rather than “Go Red for Women.”  People should really think about these things.

According to Boing Boing, after two years, Google has modified its algorithm and defused the Google bomb that made George W. Bush the first result in a search for “miserable failure.”  It’s true that Bush no longer comes up first.  But the top 9 results all talk about the fact that he used to.  A small victory at best.

OK, actually the proud day was last Friday, but I just noticed.  Statute of Frogs is enormously pleased to have warranted a mention on How Appealing.  Apparently Howard Bashman really does read absolutely everything.